"... Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans, but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps. Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent shape public perception." ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no one really wanted. ..."
"... When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. ..."
"... Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of war." ..."
"... The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam. ..."
"... Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. ..."
The war on Iraq won't be remembered for how it was waged so much as for how it was sold. It
was a propaganda war, a war of perception management, where loaded phrases, such as "weapons of
mass destruction" and "rogue state" were hurled like precision weapons at the target audience:
us.
To understand the Iraq war you don't need to consult generals, but the spin doctors and PR
flacks who stage-managed the countdown to war from the murky corridors of Washington where
politics, corporate spin and psy-ops spooks cohabit.
Consider the picaresque journey of Tony Blair's plagiarized dossier on Iraq, from a grad
student's website to a cut-and-paste job in the prime minister's bombastic speech to the House
of Commons. Blair, stubborn and verbose, paid a price for his grandiose puffery. Bush, who
looted whole passages from Blair's speech for his own clumsy presentations, has skated freely
through the tempest. Why?
Unlike Blair, the Bush team never wanted to present a legal case for war. They had no
interest in making any of their allegations about Iraq hold up to a standard of proof. The real
effort was aimed at amping up the mood for war by using the psychology of fear.
Facts were never important to the Bush team. They were disposable nuggets that could be
discarded at will and replaced by whatever new rationale that played favorably with their polls
and focus groups. The war was about weapons of mass destruction one week, al-Qaeda the next.
When neither allegation could be substantiated on the ground, the fall back position became the
mass graves (many from the Iran/Iraq war where the U.S.A. backed Iraq) proving that Saddam was
an evil thug who deserved to be toppled. The motto of the Bush PR machine was: Move on. Don't
explain. Say anything to conceal the perfidy behind the real motives for war. Never look back.
Accuse the questioners of harboring unpatriotic sensibilities. Eventually, even the cagey
Wolfowitz admitted that the official case for war was made mainly to make the invasion
palatable, not to justify it.
The Bush claque of neocon hawks viewed the Iraq war as a product and, just like a new pair
of Nikes, it required a roll-out campaign to soften up the consumers. The same techniques (and
often the same PR gurus) that have been used to hawk cigarettes, SUVs and nuclear waste dumps
were deployed to retail the Iraq war. To peddle the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell
and company recruited public relations gurus into top-level jobs at the Pentagon and the State
Department. These spinmeisters soon had more say over how the rationale for war on Iraq should
be presented than intelligence agencies and career diplomats. If the intelligence didn't fit
the script, it was shaded, retooled or junked.
Take Charlotte Beers whom Powell picked as undersecretary of state in the post-9/11 world.
Beers wasn't a diplomat. She wasn't even a politician. She was a grand diva of spin, known on
the business and gossip pages as "the queen of Madison Avenue." On the strength of two
advertising campaigns, one for Uncle Ben's Rice and another for Head and Shoulder's dandruff
shampoo, Beers rocketed to the top of the heap in the PR world, heading two giant PR houses:
Ogilvy and Mathers as well as J. Walter Thompson.
At the State Department Beers, who had met Powell in 1995 when they both served on the board
of Gulf Airstream, worked at, in Powell's words, "the branding of U.S. foreign policy." She
extracted more than $500 million from Congress for her Brand America campaign, which largely
focused on beaming U.S. propaganda into the Muslim world, much of it directed at teens.
"Public diplomacy is a vital new arm in what will combat terrorism over time," said Beers.
"All of a sudden we are in this position of redefining who America is, not only for ourselves,
but for the outside world." Note the rapt attention Beers pays to the manipulation of
perception, as opposed, say, to alterations of U.S. policy.
Old-fashioned diplomacy involves direct communication between representatives of nations, a
conversational give and take, often fraught with deception (see April Glaspie), but an exchange
nonetheless. Public diplomacy, as defined by Beers, is something else entirely. It's a one-way
street, a unilateral broadcast of American propaganda directly to the public, domestic and
international, a kind of informational carpet-bombing.
The themes of her campaigns were as simplistic and flimsy as a Bush press conference. The
American incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were all about bringing the balm of "freedom" to
oppressed peoples. Hence, the title of the U.S. war: Operation Iraqi Freedom, where cruise
missiles were depicted as instruments of liberation. Bush himself distilled the Beers equation
to its bizarre essence: "This war is about peace."
Beers quietly resigned her post a few weeks before the first volley of tomahawk missiles
battered Baghdad. From her point of view, the war itself was already won, the fireworks of
shock and awe were all after play.
Over at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld drafted Victoria "Torie" Clarke as his director of
public affairs. Clarke knew the ropes inside the Beltway. Before becoming Rumsfeld's
mouthpiece, she had commanded one of the world's great parlors for powerbrokers: Hill and
Knowlton's D.C. office.
Almost immediately upon taking up her new gig, Clarke convened regular meetings with a
select group of Washington's top private PR specialists and lobbyists to develop a marketing
plan for the Pentagon's forthcoming terror wars. The group was filled with heavy-hitters and
was strikingly bipartisan in composition. She called it the Rumsfeld Group and it included PR
executive Sheila Tate, columnist Rich Lowry, and Republican political consultant Rich
Galen.
The brain trust also boasted top Democratic fixer Tommy Boggs, brother of NPR's Cokie
Roberts and son of the late Congressman Hale Boggs of Louisiana. At the very time Boggs was
conferring with top Pentagon brass on how to frame the war on terror, he was also working
feverishly for the royal family of Saudi Arabia. In 2002 alone, the Saudis paid his Qorvis PR
firm $20.2 million to protect its interests in Washington. In the wake of hostile press
coverage following the exposure of Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers, the royal family needed
all the well-placed help it could buy. They seem to have gotten their money's worth. Boggs'
felicitous influence-peddling may help to explain why the references to Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda were dropped from the recent congressional report on the investigation into
intelligence failures and 9/11.
According to the trade publication PR Week, the Rumsfeld Group sent "messaging advice" to
the Pentagon. The group told Clarke and Rumsfeld that in order to get the American public to
buy into the war on terrorism, they needed to suggest a link to nation states, not just
nebulous groups such as al-Qaeda. In other words, there needed to be a fixed target for the
military campaigns, some distant place to drop cruise missiles and cluster bombs. They
suggested the notion (already embedded in Rumsfeld's mind) of playing up the notion of
so-called rogue states as the real masters of terrorism. Thus was born the Axis of Evil, which,
of course, wasn't an "axis" at all, since two of the states, Iran and Iraq, hated each other,
and neither had anything at all to do with the third, North Korea.
Tens of millions in federal money were poured into private public relations and media firms
working to craft and broadcast the Bush dictat that Saddam had to be taken out before the Iraqi
dictator blew up the world by dropping chemical and nuclear bombs from long-range drones. Many
of these PR executives and image consultants were old friends of the high priests in the Bush
inner sanctum. Indeed, they were veterans, like Cheney and Powell, of the previous war against
Iraq, another engagement that was more spin than combat .
At the top of the list was John Rendon, head of the D.C. firm, the Rendon Group. Rendon is
one of Washington's heaviest hitters, a Beltway fixer who never let political affiliation stand
in the way of an assignment. Rendon served as a media consultant for Michael Dukakis and Jimmy
Carter, as well as Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Whenever the Pentagon wanted to go to war, he
offered his services at a price. During Desert Storm, Rendon pulled in $100,000 a month from
the Kuwaiti royal family. He followed this up with a $23 million contract from the CIA to
produce anti-Saddam propaganda in the region.
As part of this CIA project, Rendon created and named the Iraqi National Congress and tapped
his friend Ahmed Chalabi, the shady financier, to head the organization.
Shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon handed the Rendon Group another big assignment: public
relations for the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. Rendon was also deeply involved in the planning
and public relations for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, though both Rendon and the Pentagon
refuse to disclose the details of the group's work there.
But it's not hard to detect the manipulative hand of Rendon behind many of the Iraq war's
signature events, including the toppling of the Saddam statue (by U.S. troops and Chalabi
associates) and videotape of jubilant Iraqis waving American flags as the Third Infantry rolled
by them. Rendon had pulled off the same stunt in the first Gulf War, handing out American flags
to Kuwaitis and herding the media to the orchestrated demonstration. "Where do you think they
got those American flags?" clucked Rendon in 1991. "That was my assignment."
The Rendon Group may also have had played a role in pushing the phony intelligence that has
now come back to haunt the Bush administration. In December of 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported
that the inner circle of the Bush White House preferred the intelligence coming from Chalabi
and his associates to that being proffered by analysts at the CIA.
So Rendon and his circle represented a new kind of off-the-shelf PSYOPs , the privatization
of official propaganda. "I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician," said
Rendon. "I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or
corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception
manager."
What exactly, is perception management? The Pentagon defines it this way: "actions to convey
and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their
emotions, motives and objective reasoning." In other words, lying about the intentions of the
U.S. government. In a rare display of public frankness, the Pentagon actually let slip its plan
(developed by Rendon) to establish a high-level den inside the Department Defense for
perception management. They called it the Office of Strategic Influence and among its many
missions was to plant false stories in the press.
Nothing stirs the corporate media into outbursts of pious outrage like an official
government memo bragging about how the media are manipulated for political objectives. So the
New York Times and Washington Post threw indignant fits about the Office of Strategic
Influence; the Pentagon shut down the operation, and the press gloated with satisfaction on its
victory. Yet, Rumsfeld told the Pentagon press corps that while he was killing the office, the
same devious work would continue. "You can have the corpse," said Rumsfeld. "You can have the
name. But I'm going to keep doing every single thing that needs to be done. And I have."
At a diplomatic level, despite the hired guns and the planted stories, this image war was
lost. It failed to convince even America's most fervent allies and dependent client states that
Iraq posed much of a threat. It failed to win the blessing of the U.N. and even NATO, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Washington. At the end of the day, the vaunted coalition of the willing
consisted of Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, and a cohort of former Soviet bloc nations. Even
so, the citizens of the nations that cast their lot with the U.S.A. overwhelmingly opposed the
war.
Domestically, it was a different story. A population traumatized by terror threats and
shattered economy became easy prey for the saturation bombing of the Bush message that Iraq was
a terrorist state linked to al-Qaeda that was only minutes away from launching attacks on
America with weapons of mass destruction.
Americans were the victims of an elaborate con job, pelted with a daily barrage of
threat inflation, distortions, deceptions and lies, not about tactics or strategy or war plans,
but about justifications for war. The lies were aimed not at confusing Saddam's regime, but the
American people. By the start of the war, 66 per cent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was
behind 9/11 and 79 per cent thought he was close to having a nuclear weapon.
Of course, the closest Saddam came to possessing a nuke was a rusting gas centrifuge buried
for 13 years in the garden of Mahdi Obeidi, a retired Iraqi scientist. Iraq didn't have any
functional chemical or biological weapons. In fact, it didn't even possess any SCUD missiles,
despite erroneous reports fed by Pentagon PR flacks alleging that it had fired SCUDs into
Kuwait.
This charade wouldn't have worked without a gullible or a complicit press corps.
Victoria Clarke, who developed the Pentagon plan for embedded reports, put it succinctly a few
weeks before the war began: "Media coverage of any future operation will to a large extent
shape public perception."
During the Vietnam War, TV images of maimed GIs and napalmed villages suburbanized
opposition to the war and helped hasten the U.S. withdrawal. The Bush gang meant to turn the
Vietnam phenomenon on its head by using TV as a force to propel the U.S.A. into a war that no
one really wanted.
What the Pentagon sought was a new kind of living room war, where instead of photos of
mangled soldiers and dead Iraqi kids, they could control the images Americans viewed and to a
large extent the content of the stories. By embedding reporters inside selected divisions,
Clarke believed the Pentagon could count on the reporters to build relationships with the
troops and to feel dependent on them for their own safety. It worked, naturally. One reporter
for a national network trembled on camera that the U.S. Army functioned as "our protectors."
The late David Bloom of NBC confessed on the air that he was willing to do "anything and
everything they can ask of us."
When the Pentagon needed a heroic story, the press obliged. Jessica Lynch became the
war's first instant celebrity. Here was a neo-gothic tale of a steely young woman wounded in a
fierce battle, captured and tortured by ruthless enemies, and dramatically saved from certain
death by a team of selfless rescuers, knights in camo and night-vision goggles. Of course,
nearly every detail of her heroic adventure proved to be as fictive and maudlin as any
made-for-TV-movie. But the ordeal of Private Lynch, which dominated the news for more than a
week, served its purpose: to distract attention from a stalled campaign that was beginning to
look at lot riskier than the American public had been hoodwinked into believing.
The Lynch story was fed to the eager press by a Pentagon operation called Combat Camera, the
Army network of photographers, videographers and editors that sends 800 photos and 25 video
clips a day to the media. The editors at Combat Camera carefully culled the footage to present
the Pentagon's montage of the war, eliding such unsettling images as collateral damage, cluster
bombs, dead children and U.S. soldiers, napalm strikes and disgruntled troops.
"A lot of our imagery will have a big impact on world opinion," predicted Lt. Jane Larogue,
director of Combat Camera in Iraq. She was right. But as the hot war turned into an even hotter
occupation, the Pentagon, despite airy rhetoric from occupation supremo Paul Bremer about
installing democratic institutions such as a free press, moved to tighten its monopoly on the
flow images out of Iraq. First, it tried to shut down Al Jazeera, the Arab news channel. Then
the Pentagon intimated that it would like to see all foreign TV news crews banished from
Baghdad.
Few newspapers fanned the hysteria about the threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction as sedulously as did the Washington Post. In the months leading up to the war, the
Post's pro-war op-eds outnumbered the anti-war columns by a 3-to-1 margin.
Back in 1988, the Post felt much differently about Saddam and his weapons of mass
destruction. When reports trickled out about the gassing of Iranian troops, the Washington
Post's editorial page shrugged off the massacres, calling the mass poisonings "a quirk of
war."
The Bush team displayed a similar amnesia. When Iraq used chemical weapons in grisly
attacks on Iran, the U.S. government not only didn't object, it encouraged Saddam.
Anything to punish Iran was the message coming from the White House. Donald Rumsfeld himself
was sent as President Ronald Reagan's personal envoy to Baghdad. Rumsfeld conveyed the bold
message than an Iraq defeat would be viewed as a "strategic setback for the United States."
This sleazy alliance was sealed with a handshake caught on videotape. When CNN reporter Jamie
McIntyre replayed the footage for Rumsfeld in the spring of 2003, the secretary of defense
snapped, "Where'd you get that? Iraqi television?"
The current crop of Iraq hawks also saw Saddam much differently then. Take the writer Laura
Mylroie, sometime colleague of the New York Times' Judy Miller, who persists in peddling the
ludicrous conspiracy that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
How times have changed! In 1987, Mylroie felt downright cuddly toward Saddam. She wrote an
article for the New Republic titled "Back Iraq: Time for a U.S. Tilt in the Mideast," arguing
that the U.S. should publicly embrace Saddam's secular regime as a bulwark against the Islamic
fundamentalists in Iran. The co-author of this mesmerizing weave of wonkery was none other than
Daniel Pipes, perhaps the nation's most bellicose Islamophobe. "The American weapons that Iraq
could make good use of include remotely scatterable and anti-personnel mines and
counterartillery radar," wrote Mylroie and Pipes. "The United States might also consider
upgrading intelligence it is supplying Baghdad."
In the rollout for the war, Mylroie seemed to be everywhere hawking the invasion of Iraq.
She would often appear on two or three different networks in the same day. How did the reporter
manage this feat? She had help in the form of Eleana Benador, the media placement guru who runs
Benador Associates. Born in Peru, Benador parlayed her skills as a linguist into a lucrative
career as media relations whiz for the Washington foreign policy elite. She also oversees the
Middle East Forum, a fanatically pro-Zionist white paper mill. Her clients include some of the
nation's most fervid hawks, including Michael Ledeen, Charles Krauthammer, Al Haig, Max Boot,
Daniel Pipes, Richard Perle, and Judy Miller. During the Iraq war, Benador's assignment was to
embed this squadron of pro-war zealots into the national media, on talk shows, and op-ed
pages.
Benador not only got them the gigs, she also crafted the theme and made sure they all stayed
on message. "There are some things, you just have to state them in a different way, in a
slightly different way," said Benador. "If not, people get scared." Scared of intentions of
their own government.
It could have been different. All of the holes in the Bush administration's gossamer case
for war were right there for the mainstream press to expose. Instead, the U.S. press, just like
the oil companies, sought to commercialize the Iraq war and profit from the invasions. They
didn't want to deal with uncomfortable facts or present voices of dissent.
Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC's firing of liberal talk
show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a
running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired
generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network's executives
blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue's show attracted
more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike
on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the
memo said, offered "a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in
presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's
motives."
The memo warned that Donahue's show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, "a home
for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every
opportunity." So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot
and hoisted the battle flag.
It's war that sells.
There's a helluva caveat, of course. Once you buy it, the merchants of war accept no
returns.
On January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote an opinion piece for
Foreign Policy titled "It's Time to Bomb North Korea."
Luttwak's thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there that may
very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this country cannot be trusted to
responsibly handle such a stockpile. The responsibility to protect the world from a rogue
nation cannot be argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future of
humanity.
However, there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom with its nuclear
weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant states left, right, and center. This country
must be stopped dead in its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.
In August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets, not
military targets, completely obliterating between 135,000 and
300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to this event, this country
killed even more civilians in the infamous
firebombing of Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders of
napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan's most densely populated areas.
Recently, historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the atomic bombs
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to end World War II. This has also been
confirmed by those who actually took part in it. As the Nation
explained:
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public
address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that 'the atomic bomb played
no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan ' Adm. William
"Bull" Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that 'the first
atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . It was a mistake to ever drop it . [the
scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
A few months' prior, this rogue country's
invasion of the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of Okinawa's
population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this country's military presence ever
since. The most recent ongoing protest
has lasted well over 5,000 days in a row.
This nation's bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II. Barely half a decade
later, this country bombed North Korea into complete oblivion, destroying over 8,700 factories,
5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes, and
eventually killing off as much as 20 percent of the country's population. As the Asia
Pacific Journal has noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they eventually
ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation systems, instead:
By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every
significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the
spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the
North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to
the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating
whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans."
This was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future North Korean
state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia and Indo-China, too. As Rolling Stone's
Matt Taibbi
has explained :
We [this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic herbicide on Vietnam
from the air, just to make the shooting easier without all those trees, an insane plan to win
'hearts and minds' that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease
– including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids with misshapen
heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on cots, our real American legacy, well out of
view, of course.
This mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million people,
according to the Washington Post. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed
during the entire
conflict in World War II . While this was going on, this same country was also
secretly bombing Laos and Cambodia, too, where there are over 80 million
unexploded bombs still killing people to this day.
This country also decided to bomb Yugoslavia ,
Panama
, and
Grenada before invading Iraq in the early 1990s. Having successfully bombed Iraqi
infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq's entire civilian population with brutal
sanctions. At the time, the U.N.
estimated that approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result, including
500,000 to 600,000 children . Some years later, a prominent medical journal attempted
to absolve the cause of this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite
the fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton's secretary of state,
Madeleine Albright, intimated that to this rogue government, the
deaths of half a million children were "worth it" as the "price" Iraq needed to pay. In other
words, whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this bloodthirsty nation,
which barely blinked while carrying out this murderous policy.
This almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the entire region
into chaos . At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
released a study
concluding that the death toll from this violent nation's 2003 invasion of Iraq had led to over
one million deaths and that at least one-third of them were caused directly by the invading
force.
Not to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq (even
though the militants plaguing Afghanistan were
originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It then
went on to bomb Yemen, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the
Philippines .
Libya famously
had one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had state-assisted healthcare,
education, transport, and affordable housing. It is now a lawless war-zone
rife with extremism where slaves are openly traded like commodities
amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the 2011 invasion.
In 2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the monumental death and
destruction to a new a level by removing
the restrictions on delivering airstrikes, which resulted in thousands upon
thousands of civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this country
dropped
over 20,650 bombs , a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.
Despite these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child's play to this nation.
The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and more powerful states, which this country
has already unleashed a containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops all
across the border
with Russia even though it promised in the early 1990s it
would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of
containing Russia's close ally, China, all the while threatening China's borders with talks
of direct strikes on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).
This country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay to embrace this rampantly violent
militarism but who openly calls other
countries "shitholes" – the very same term that aptly describes the way this country
has treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president also reportedly once
asked three times in a meeting
, "If we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" and shortly after proposed a policy to
remove the constraints protecting the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear
weaponry.
If we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must be stopped. It
cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of the rest of the planet and the safety and
security of the rest of us. This country
openly talks about using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to
use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while threatening to expand the use of
these weapons to other countries.
Seriously, if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world feels while
watching one country violently take on the rest of the planet single-handedly, leaving nothing
but destruction in its wake and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to
come.
There is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very things North Korea
is being accused of doing.
Take as much time as you need for that to resonate.
On January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote an opinion piece for
Foreign Policy titled "It's Time to Bomb North Korea."
Luttwak's thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there that may
very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this country cannot be trusted to
responsibly handle such a stockpile. The responsibility to protect the world from a rogue
nation cannot be argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future of
humanity.
However, there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom with its nuclear
weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant states left, right, and center. This country
must be stopped dead in its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.
In August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets, not
military targets, completely obliterating between 135,000 and
300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to this event, this country
killed even more civilians in the infamous
firebombing of Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders of
napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan's most densely populated areas.
Recently, historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the atomic bombs
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to end World War II. This has also been
confirmed by those who actually took part in it. As the Nation
explained:
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public
address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that 'the atomic bomb played
no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan ' Adm. William
"Bull" Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that 'the first
atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . It was a mistake to ever drop it . [the
scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
A few months' prior, this rogue country's
invasion of the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of Okinawa's
population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this country's military presence ever
since. The most recent ongoing protest
has lasted well over 5,000 days in a row.
This nation's bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II. Barely half a decade
later, this country bombed North Korea into complete oblivion, destroying over 8,700 factories,
5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes, and
eventually killing off as much as 20 percent of the country's population. As the Asia
Pacific Journal has noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they eventually
ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation systems, instead:
By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every
significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the
spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the
North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to
the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating
whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans."
This was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future North Korean
state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia and Indo-China, too. As Rolling Stone's
Matt Taibbi
has explained :
We [this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic herbicide on Vietnam
from the air, just to make the shooting easier without all those trees, an insane plan to win
'hearts and minds' that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease
– including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids with misshapen
heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on cots, our real American legacy, well out of
view, of course.
This mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million people,
according to the Washington Post. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed
during the entire
conflict in World War II . While this was going on, this same country was also
secretly bombing Laos and Cambodia, too, where there are over 80 million
unexploded bombs still killing people to this day.
This country also decided to bomb Yugoslavia ,
Panama
, and
Grenada before invading Iraq in the early 1990s. Having successfully bombed Iraqi
infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq's entire civilian population with brutal
sanctions. At the time, the U.N.
estimated that approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result, including
500,000 to 600,000 children . Some years later, a prominent medical journal attempted
to absolve the cause of this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite
the fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton's secretary of state,
Madeleine Albright, intimated that to this rogue government, the
deaths of half a million children were "worth it" as the "price" Iraq needed to pay. In other
words, whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this bloodthirsty nation,
which barely blinked while carrying out this murderous policy.
This almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the entire region
into chaos . At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
released a study
concluding that the death toll from this violent nation's 2003 invasion of Iraq had led to over
one million deaths and that at least one-third of them were caused directly by the invading
force.
Not to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq (even
though the militants plaguing Afghanistan were
originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It then
went on to bomb Yemen, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the
Philippines .
Libya famously
had one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had state-assisted healthcare,
education, transport, and affordable housing. It is now a lawless war-zone
rife with extremism where slaves are openly traded like commodities
amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the 2011 invasion.
In 2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the monumental death and
destruction to a new a level by removing
the restrictions on delivering airstrikes, which resulted in thousands upon
thousands of civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this country
dropped
over 20,650 bombs , a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.
Despite these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child's play to this nation.
The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and more powerful states, which this country
has already unleashed a containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops all
across the border
with Russia even though it promised in the early 1990s it
would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of
containing Russia's close ally, China, all the while threatening China's borders with talks
of direct strikes on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).
This country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay to embrace this rampantly violent
militarism but who openly calls other
countries "shitholes" – the very same term that aptly describes the way this country
has treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president also reportedly once
asked three times in a meeting
, "If we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" and shortly after proposed a policy to
remove the constraints protecting the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear
weaponry.
If we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must be stopped. It
cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of the rest of the planet and the safety and
security of the rest of us. This country
openly talks about using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to
use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while threatening to expand the use of
these weapons to other countries.
Seriously, if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world feels while
watching one country violently take on the rest of the planet single-handedly, leaving nothing
but destruction in its wake and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to
come.
There is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very things North Korea
is being accused of doing.
Take as much time as you need for that to resonate.
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
"... Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex. ..."
Everything about this CIA agent's history lesson sounds fake. The blood sucking military
runs the White House. ISIS or ISIL or whatever the CIA calls itself today poses no
threat.
Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be
promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low
figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex.
In any case this was a positive step by Trump. Which was done after several disastrous,
typical neocon style actions.
Notable quotes:
"... Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of ..."
"... "Trump being Trump?" Seriously? He's proven through his actions and his appointments that he's a full-blown neocon ..."
"... If nothing else, appointing Bolton as national security advisor speaks volumes. Personnel is policy, as they say. ..."
"... Nothing to wonder at, war is the most lucrative racket going, for those who profit mightily from supplying weapons. It's become so important to an otherwise shrunken manufacturing base, that downsizing would affect employment, and there's nowhere domestic to absorb the overseas demobilized. ..."
"... Bolton is a national disgrace. This vile piece of trash is desperate to get the USA into a disastrous war with Iran. The quicker Bolton is removed the better. Any stooge who supported the Iraq invasion should be precluded from consideration. ..."
"... "Before we credit Trump with stumbling on something sensible for once, it might be wise to remember that we're still talking about -- Trump. Who now says that American troops still in Iraq can still raid into Syria as necessary, and by the way, they'll be staying in Iraq. So already it's shaping up as not so much a withdrawal as a reshuffling. After a minor adjustment to the game board, play can continue as necessary, such as whenever Bolton or Fox media whispers into the casino bankrupt's ear. Always always always a swindle, with Trump. It's an iron law." ..."
"... You do know that Trump wants to increase the military budget. Yet you maintain that he wanted to pull us out of foreign wars. Curious. Where would all that extra money go? ..."
"... Only an incompetent imbecile with no experience in leadership or government could be so dim-witted as to appoint people who would willfully defy and disregard his agenda. Surely our country would never put give such an incompetent so much authority. Oh wait sorry, never mind. ..."
"... I took his decision of withdrawal from Syria and seemingly from Afghanistan is his survival strategy for 2020 presidential election to appeal to war weariness American voters because Mr. Cohen's plea deal and the revelation of Trump signature on the license agreement for Moscow Trump Tower project would kill his 2020 chance. It is a good strategy but over the last two days his approval rating has not been improved." ..."
"... Those of us who want to see Bolton gone should first ask why he was chosen in the first place. Clearly Trump had to appease Adelson in order to make that appointment because he depends on his campaign donations. ..."
"... To those who say Trump has no foreign policy vision, you are wrong. His vision is simple, dismantle parts of the Empire, become a little more isolationist, and focus on 'America First'. Trump is not very intelligent, but he has the right instincts. He is up against the War Party, the most influential power center in the US, and that is not easy. Obama is more intelligent than Trump, but the results were very bad add one more destroyed country, Libya to his credit, and almost another, Syria (although thankfully the Russians stopped that). ..."
After Syria, Trump Should Clean Out His National Security BureaucracyThey're
undermining his positions and pursuing their own agendas. John Bolton should be the first to
go.
President Donald Trump has at last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs and ordered
the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. Right on cue, official Washington had a collective
mental breakdown. Neocons committed to war, progressives targeting Trump, and centrists
determined to dominate the world unleashed an orgy of shrieking and caterwauling. The
horrifying collective scream, a la artist Edvard Munch, continued for days.
Trump's decision should have surprised no one. As a candidate, he shocked the Republican
Party establishment by criticizing George W. Bush's disastrous decision to invade Iraq and
urging a quick exit from Afghanistan. As president, he inflamed the bipartisan War Party's
fears by denouncing America's costly alliances with wealthy industrialized states. And to
almost everyone's consternation, he said he wanted U.S. personnel out of Syria. Once the
Islamic State was defeated, he explained, Americans should come home.
How shocking. How naïve. How outrageous.
The president's own appointees, the "adult" foreign policy advisors he surrounded himself
with, disagreed with him on almost all of this -- not just micromanaging the Middle East, but
subsidizing Europeans in NATO, underwriting South Korea, and negotiating with North Korea. His
aides played him at every turn, adding allies, sending more men and materiel to defend foreign
states, and expanding commitments in the Middle East.
Last spring, the president talked of leaving Syria "very soon." But the American military
stayed. Indeed, three months ago, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced an entirely
new mission: "We're not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders
and that includes Iranian proxies and militias."
That was chutzpah on a breathtaking scale. It meant effectively that the U.S. was entitled
to invade and dismember nations, back aggressive wars begun by others, and scatter bases and
deployments around the world. Since Damascus and Tehran have no reason to stop cooperating --
indeed, America's presence makes outside support even more important for the Assad regime --
Bolton was effectively planning a permanent presence, one that could bring American forces into
contact with Russian, Syrian, and Turkish forces, as well as Iranians. As the Assad government
consolidates its victory in the civil war, it inevitably will push into Kurdish territories in
the north. That would have forced the small American garrison there to either yield ground or
become a formal combatant in another Middle Eastern civil war.
The latter could have turned into a major confrontation. Damascus is backed by Russia and
might be supported by Ankara, which would prefer to see the border controlled by Syrian than
Kurdish forces. Moreover, the Kurds, under threat from Turkey, are not likely to divert forces
to contain Iranians moving with the permission of the Damascus government. Better to cut a deal
with Assad that minimizes the Turks than be Washington's catspaw.
The Pentagon initially appeared reluctant to accept this new objective. At the time,
Brigadier General Scott Benedict told the House Armed Services Committee: "In Syria, our role
is to defeat ISIS. That's it." However, the State Department envoy on Syria, Jim Jeffrey, began
adding Iran to his sales pitch. So did Brian Hook, State's representative handling the
undeclared diplomatic war on Iran, who said the goal was "to remove all forces under Iranian
control from Syria."
Apparently this direct insubordination came to a head in a phone call between President
Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "Why are you still there?" the latter asked
Trump, who turned to Bolton. The national security advisor was on the call, but could offer no
satisfactory explanation.
Perhaps at that moment, the president realized that only a direct order could enforce his
policy. Otherwise his staffers would continue to pursue their militaristic ends. That
determination apparently triggered the long-expected resignation of Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis, who deserves respect but was a charter member of the hawkish cabal around the
president. He dissented from them only on ending the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Still in place is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who so far has proven to be a bit more
malleable though still hostile to the president's agenda. He is an inveterate hawk, including
toward Tehran, which he insists must surrender to both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as part of any
negotiation. He's adopted the anti-Iran agenda in Syria as his own. His department offered no
new approach to Russia over Ukraine, instead steadily increasing sanctions, without effect, on
Moscow. At least Pompeo attempted to pursue discussions with North Korea, though he was
certainly reluctant about it.
Most dangerous is Bolton. He publicly advocated war with both Iran and North Korea before
his appointment, and his strategy in Syria risked conflict with several nations. He's
demonstrated that he has no compunctions about defying the president, crafting policies that
contradict the latter's directives. Indeed, Bolton is well-positioned to undermine even obvious
successes, such as the peaceful opening with North Korea.
Supporting appointments to State and the National Security Council have been equally
problematic. Candidate Trump criticized the bipartisan War Party, thereby appealing to
heartland patriots who wonder why their relatives, friends, and neighbors have been dying in
endless wars that have begotten nothing but more wars. Yet President Trump has surrounded
himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower warriors. With virtually no aides
around him who believe in his policies or were even willing to implement them, he looked like a
George Bush/Barack Obama retread. The only certainty, beyond his stream of dramatic tweets,
appeared to be that Americans would continue dying in wars throughout his presidency.
However, Trump took charge when he insisted on holding the summit with North Korea's Kim
Jong-un. Now U.S. forces are set to come home from Syria, and it appears that he may reduce or
even eliminate the garrison in Afghanistan, where Americans have been fighting for more than 17
years. Perhaps he also will reconsider U.S. support for the Saudis and Emiratis in Yemen.
Trump should use Secretary Mattis's departure as an opportunity to refashion his national
security team. Who is to succeed Mattis at the Pentagon? Deputy Secretary Patrick Shanahan
appears to have the inside track. But former Navy secretary and senator Jim Webb deserves
consideration. Or perhaps it's time for a second round for former senator Chuck Hagel, who
opposed the Gulf war and backed dialog with Iran. Defense needs someone willing to challenge
the Pentagon's thinking and practices. Best would be a civilian who won't be captured by the
bureaucracy, one who understands that he or she faces a tough fight against advocates of
perpetual war.
Next to go should be Bolton. There are many potential replacements who believe in a more
restrained role for America. One who has been mentioned as a potential national security
advisor in the past is retired Army colonel and respected security analyst Douglas
Macgregor.
Equally important, though somewhat less urgent, is finding a new secretary of state.
Although Pompeo has not so ostentatiously undermined his boss, he appears to oppose every
effort by the president to end a war, drop a security commitment, or ease a conflict. Pompeo's
enthusiasm for negotiation with Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin is clearly lagging. While the
secretary might not engage in open sabotage, his determination to take a confrontational
approach everywhere except when explicitly ordered to do otherwise badly undermines Trump's
policies.
Who to appoint? Perhaps Tennessee's John Duncan, the last Republican congressman who opposed
the Iraq war and who retired this year after decades of patriotic service. There are a handful
of active legislators who could serve with distinction as well, though their departures would
be a significant loss on Capitol Hill: Senator Rand Paul and Representatives Justin Amash and
Walter Jones, for instance.
Once the top officials have been replaced, the process should continue downwards. Those
appointed don't need to be thoroughgoing Trumpists, of whom there are few. Rather, the
president needs people generally supportive of his vision of a less embattled and entangled
America: subordinates, not insubordinates. Then he will be less likely to find himself in
embarrassing positions where his appointees create their own aggressive policies contrary to
his expressed desires.
Trump has finally insisted on being Trump, but Syria must only be the start. He needs to
fill his administration with allies, not adversaries. Only then will his "America First" policy
actually put America first.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
After two years in office, I am utterly flabbergasted that there are still people out
there who take seriously the notion that Trump wants to extricate us from our wars around the
globe and refrain from starting new ones. Virtually every foreign policy decision he has made
has been contrary to that.
Finally, for once, he decides to pull out of Syria (a mere few weeks after he announced we
would stay there indefinitely) and somehow this one, as yet unimplemented decision represents
"Trump being Trump?" Seriously? He's proven through his actions and his appointments that
he's a full-blown neocon . Maybe I'll rescind the "full-blown" part of that judgment if
he actually does withdraw from Syria. But it would still be a pretty tiny exception to his
thoroughly neocon actions up to this point.
If nothing else, appointing Bolton as national security advisor speaks volumes.
Personnel is policy, as they say. And you'd have have spent the last two decades in a
coma living on another planet not to know that Bolton is the biggest warmonger around. He
makes most of the neocons look like pacifists by comparison. Even the people who think Trump
a complete idiot can't really imagine that Trump didn't know what he was getting when he
hired Bolton.
Let's get real here. It'll be great if he withdraws from Syria. It'd be even better if he
replaces his national security team along the lines suggested in this article. But don't hold
your breath. It would go against nearly everything he has done since taking office.
It's time to come to grips with the non-existence of the tooth fairy.
"heartland patriots who wonder why their relatives, friends, and neighbors have been
dying in endless wars that have begotten nothing but more wars."
Nothing to wonder at, war is the most lucrative racket going, for those who profit
mightily from supplying weapons. It's become so important to an otherwise shrunken
manufacturing base, that downsizing would affect employment, and there's nowhere domestic to
absorb the overseas demobilized.
The downside of this, therefore, is it may only be redirection and consolidation, to be able
to concentrate forces on Iran instead. The budget's not getting any smaller, so there's got to
be compensatory warmaking somewhere.
Bolton is a national disgrace. This vile piece of trash is desperate to get the USA into
a disastrous war with Iran. The quicker Bolton is removed the better. Any stooge who supported
the Iraq invasion should be precluded from consideration.
"Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory
tower warriors."
In fairness to Trump, there just was nobody else. He had nobody lined up to be an
administration that believed what he did. Republicans were all hawks. Democrats wouldn't think
of helping, and were also all hawks anyway.
Trump's first effort to break out of that with second or third-line people went bust with
the likes of Gen. Flynn, and he was left with going back to the very people he'd defeated.
At this point in time I don't think Trump will be able to win a second term, such is the
chaos he's brought about to his Presidency. So that leaves to question which of the men you
have suggested to help lead Trump to a less warlike America would choose to serve? Perhaps
first, we need an "Adult" as POTUS and maybe then, we can get "men of wisdom" who can help
America get out of it's "Military Misadventures" in the Middle East.
There is no problem replacing someone who should never have been tapped in the first place.
John Bolton. Never too soon to right a wrong. Get rid of neocon Bolton and his types now. Not
later. He marches to another drummer not to USA interests. I doubt Trump can even beat Kamila
Harris (darling of the illiberal left) in 2020 if he keeps Bolton and Co. around.
I wouldn't get overly excited about this. Trump has habitually initiated all levels of chaos
throughout his incompetent administration. This is nothing new but more of the same. If anyone
believes Trump actually found his brain, they are smoking something
What a joke. Trump has no "foreign policy vision," just a series of boisterous, bellicose
talking points that to his isolationist base and his own desire to be the strongman.
"Before we credit Trump with stumbling on something sensible for once, it might be
wise to remember that we're still talking about -- Trump. Who now says that American troops
still in Iraq can still raid into Syria as necessary, and by the way, they'll be staying in
Iraq. So already it's shaping up as not so much a withdrawal as a reshuffling. After a minor
adjustment to the game board, play can continue as necessary, such as whenever Bolton or Fox
media whispers into the casino bankrupt's ear. Always always always a swindle, with Trump.
It's an iron law."
However, just 6 days ago sglover said on another thread ("Washington Melts Down Over Trump's
Syria Withdrawal" -- Dec 21, 3:26 pm):
"I despise Trump, but if he's managed to stumble on doing something sensible, and actually
does it (never a certainty with the casino swindler) -- great! There's no sane reason for us
to muck about in Syria. However it comes about, we should welcome a withdrawal there. If the
move gives Trump some of the approval that he plainly craves, maybe he'll repeat the
performance and end our purposeless wallow in Afghanistan. It doesn't say anything good about
the nominal opposition party, the Dems, that half or more of them -- and apparently *all* of
their dinosaur 'leadership' -- can't stifle the kneejerking and let him do it. Of course many
of them are "troubled" because their Israeli & Saudi owners, er, 'donors' expect it. But
some of them seem to have developed a sudden deep attachment to 'our mission in Syria' for no
better reason than, Trump is for it, therefore I must shout against it. And then, of course,
there's the Russia hysteria. Oh yeah, what a huge win for Moscow if it scores the 'prize' of
occupying Syria! If that's Putin's idea of a big score, how exactly does it harm any American
to let him have it? I wonder if the Democratic Party will ever be capable of doing anything
other than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?"
The problem with they article begins with it's first sentence "President Donald Trump has at
last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs " I can't find any core foreign policy
beliefs. What I have seen is a mosh-mosh of sound bites that resound well with his audiences at
rallies, and various people attempt to link those together and fill in the white space between
with what they WANT his foreign policy beliefs to be. But to go so far as to say he has any
consistent beliefs that combine to form a foreign policy is going way too far.
Replace Bolton with Mike Flynn after all charges are dropped against him. Then have Robert
Mueller et al. arrested to be tried and put to death for High Treason. Then liberate Britain,
Bomb the Vatican, and put a naval blockade on China.
You do know that Trump wants to increase the military budget. Yet you maintain that he
wanted to pull us out of foreign wars. Curious. Where would all that extra money go? I'd
look for it at the top of Trump Tower. Certainly not in the pockets of ordinary citizens.
Hmm This article makes it seem like there's these renegades who have somehow held onto power
and are charting America's course on their own. But doesn't the President hand pick the members
of his cabinet? Wasn't every single one of them given their authority *by Donald Trump*?
Only an incompetent imbecile with no experience in leadership or government could be so
dim-witted as to appoint people who would willfully defy and disregard his agenda. Surely our
country would never put give such an incompetent so much authority. Oh wait sorry, never
mind.
We have a "peaceful opening" with North Korea? How many months ago did Mr. Bandow last read
about the NoKos counter-proposal to unconditional nuclear disarmament? And what about all the
Trump saber-rattling that preceded this so-called opening? If Trump was "played" by his own
advisers on Afghanistan, he was equally duped by the mirage offered by Kim.
Trump had no lofty notions underpinning this decision. He did it in an impetuous, chaotic
manner in which he obtained nothing in return from Russia or Turkey or Iran to address our
broader strategic interest in the region, such as ending the war in Yemen. Like everything he
does, it reeks of corruption and no doubt will be added to Muellers investigation.
Contrary to Bandows libertarian take, it is an expression of Trumps imperial presidency. The
Syrian involvement has strong bipartisan support even if lacking a resolution in support (and
the Libertarian Sen. Paul never got anywhere with a resolution against.) Leaving Syria was the
correct long term strategic decision.
I'm sure 99% of democrats in Congress supported the action. Only trump, with his
narcissistic incompetence could take an action that his opponents would overwhelmingly support
if done in a credible manner and turn it into controversy. Trump looks like the servant of
Russians and Turks in his conduct. Jan 2021 can't come soon enough.
I find it interesting that so many people (the author apparently included) are still so slow
to understand that Trump can't afford to get rid of people, because he literally can't find new
cabinet members.
He started with mostly C-listers, and most of them are gone. He is on to hiring TV hosts,
bloggers, professional political grifters, his family, or just being stuck with straight-up
vacant posts.
Only the worst sorts would voluntarily work for such an angry, undisciplined, chaotic boss
in the smoking shambles of an organization like this administration.
You just go ahead and ask Chuck Hagel if he would join this train wreck.
I blogged on December 22 when I read a similar article like this;
"Every time I read such article as this about Mr. Trump's decisions of any sort, I always
wonder if the authors believe that he has solid political philosophy or consolidated policy
agenda.
I took his decision of withdrawal from Syria and seemingly from Afghanistan is his
survival strategy for 2020 presidential election to appeal to war weariness American voters
because Mr. Cohen's plea deal and the revelation of Trump signature on the license agreement
for Moscow Trump Tower project would kill his 2020 chance. It is a good strategy but over the
last two days his approval rating has not been improved."
Mr. Trump seems to have delivered a speech in Iraq saying that the withdrawal from Syria
would not give any adverse effect on Israel security because the US government gives more than
$45 billion every year according to a local newspaper of Middle East.
This is another tactic to appeal to AIPAC to make sure his own security for 2020 candidacy,
isn't it?
First 2000 troops is not much more than a reinforced battalion the USMC shuffles that many
warriors and more around the Mediterranean every six months. I think the issue with Trump is,
as it's always been, his gut seat of his pants way of handling virtually everything he does.
There's no control or consideration apparent in any action other than to pitch chum at his
largely illiterate followers.
In this case he's handed a huge victory to Putin (my my what a surprise that is) and
essentially screwed the Kurds. If nothing else those 2000 troops were at least keeping a cap on
things to some small degree. That's out the door now and I can't help but think that ISIS (aka
the enemy here) will have a vote on what happens next.
Those of us who want to see Bolton gone should first ask why he was chosen in the first
place. Clearly Trump had to appease Adelson in order to make that appointment because he
depends on his campaign donations. What makes anyone think that the situation has changed
in such a way as to permit Trump more autonomy in his choice of his cabinet?
To those who say Trump has no foreign policy vision, you are wrong. His vision is
simple, dismantle parts of the Empire, become a little more isolationist, and focus on 'America
First'. Trump is not very intelligent, but he has the right instincts. He is up against the War
Party, the most influential power center in the US, and that is not easy. Obama is more
intelligent than Trump, but the results were very bad add one more destroyed country, Libya to
his credit, and almost another, Syria (although thankfully the Russians stopped that).
What is mysterious is the following from the article:
'Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower
warriors. With virtually no aides around him who believe in his policies or were even willing
to implement them, he looked like a George Bush/Barack Obama retread.'
Why he does this, I don't know.
Pulling out of Syria will be a good thing for everyone. The reason is largely nonsense, as
it was Russia/Syria that destroyed Isis (we did manage to destroy another city, Raqqa), but I
don't care, and neither will the American Public, who understand nothing of Syria.
The Kurds will make an arrangement for limited autonomy with Damascus (already happening as
they just asked for protection from Turkey in Manbij). Turkey will not invade Syria as long as
they feel Damascus can control the border. Syria, Russia, and maybe even the Kurds will wipe
out the last of Isis and those militants in Idlib that would rather die than give up the fight
(the fanatics), will be killed.
Then, the reconstruction of Syria can begin in earnest, and it is to be hoped that the
Chinese will get off their butt and provide some assistance.
Israel is probably unhappy, which pleases me no end, and I hope this is an indication that
there is some limit to the number of people we are willing to murder on their behalf.
@ NEexpert.Integrity is a quality severely lacking in many politicians in the US.Not being
American , but watching closely, if Senator hagel is such a man , it would do American politics
much good ,not only for the US but the US standing in the world .Gods speed in chnaging the
likes of Bolton and Pompeo to begin with.
@ Kurt Gayle -- I don't think you'll find any contradiction between my two remarks.
All I'm saying is that in all the ways that really matter the sudden "withdrawal" from Syria
is already shaping up to be a typical Trump bait-and-switch. Sure, troops won't be bivouacing
in Syria. Instead, they'll be stationed next door in Iraq, so they can continue to muck around
in Syria. And Trump emphasized that as far as he's concerned we'll be staying in Iraq.
(Of course, that "strategic doctrine" is only valid until his next Fox media wallow in front
of the idiot box. I.e., maybe until tomorrow afternoon)
Chickenhawk (bird)
- Wikipedia "In the United States, chickenhawk or chicken hawk is an unofficial designation for three species
of North Americanhawks in the family
Accipitridae :
Cooper's hawk , also
called a quail hawk, the sharp-shinned hawk , and the red-tailed hawk . The term
"chicken hawk", however, is inaccurate. Although Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks may attack
other birds, chickens do not
make up a significant part of their diets; red-tailed hawks have varied diets, but may
opportunistically hunt free-range poultry . "
Notable quotes:
"... In defense of the chickenhawk -- the actual bird ..."
"... So while I certainly despise the useless eaters that agitate for war while having not the slightest idea what combat of any kind is about, I always cringe at the degradation of the word 'chickenhawk' a mighty little predator whose good name should not be sullied in association with such human detritus ..."
The first time I saw one in action, it was quite a revelation I looked out the kitchen
window to see what looked like a blue jay perching on some kind of largish rock that he was
pecking at of course that made no sense at all and upon closer examination it turned out to
be a tiny raptor, not even a foot long from beak to tail, standing on a much larger dead
chicken and ripping flesh off of it I ran out back toward the chicken yard and the mighty
little slayer flew off the poor hen had a good part of her back flesh removed
Pretty amazing that such a tiny bird could take a chicken easily ten times its weight --
the sharp shinned hawk weighs just 200-400 grams
So while I certainly despise the useless eaters that agitate for war while having not
the slightest idea what combat of any kind is about, I always cringe at the degradation of
the word 'chickenhawk' a mighty little predator whose good name should not be sullied in
association with such human detritus
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot
is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed
how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive
dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.
As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually
disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration.
First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second,
enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent
residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban.
Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally,
the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and
Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.
Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.
Am wondering in which prosperous U.S. Zionist "career" field has John Yoo landed?
He is a distinguished professor at Berkley Law, UC. Here's his bio:
Professor Yoo is the Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and director of the Korea Law
Center, the California Constitution Center, and the Law School's Program in Public Law and
Policy. His most recent books are Striking Power: How Cyber, Robots, and Space Weapons
Change the Rules for War (Encounter 2017) (with Jeremy Rabkin) and Point of Attack:
Preventive War, International Law, and Global Welfare (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Professor Yoo is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a visiting
fellow at the Hoover Institution
From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of
Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving
foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers.
Notice how they gloss over his diabolical activities as deputy AG for the Bush II
Adminstration "where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the
separation of powers."
And, oh, yeah, he cobbled together legal statements that gave the Bush Admin carte blanche
to engage in "enhanced interrogation techniques," more commonly known as "torture." He was
about to be in big dodo for his crimes. but just like the 5 dancing Israelis were rescued by
Chertoff, a guy named David Margolis managed to get Yoo off the hook:
The Office of Professional Responsibilty (OPR) report concluded that Yoo had "committed
'intentional professional misconduct' when he advised the CIA it could proceed with
waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques against Al Qaeda suspects,"
although the recommendation that he be referred to his state bar association for possible
disciplinary proceedings was overruled by David Margolis, another senior Justice department
lawyer.
"... Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else. ..."
Maybe I am overestimating the intelligence of MIC profiteers, but my impression is that those thieves know that their loot
is only useful as long as they are alive. There is a lot of silly hostile talk against Russia and China, but have you noticed
how the US military always makes sure that there are no direct confrontations with countries that can turn the US into radioactive
dust? The profiteers want huge Pentagon budget to steal from, but not the war where they lose along with everyone else.
As to the wall, it is one of the silliest projects ever suggested. Maybe that's why it was so easy to sell it to the intellectually
disadvantaged electorate. There are two things that can stop illegal immigration.
First, go for the employers, enact a law that fines them to the tune of $50,000 or more per every illegal they employ. Second,
enact the law that anyone caught residing in the US illegally has no right to enter the US legally, to obtain asylum, permanent
residency, or citizenship for life, and include a provision that marriage to a US citizen does not nullify this ban.
Then enforce both laws. After that illegals would run out of the country, and greedy employers won't hire any more. Naturally,
the wall, even if built, won't change anything: as long as there are employers trying to save on salaries, immigration fees, and
Social Security tax, and people willing to live and work illegally risking nothing, no wall would stem the flow.
Unfortunately, no side is even thinking about real measures, both are just posturing.
"... "Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much" ..."
"... Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses. ..."
"... Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time." ..."
Then-Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-KS, speaking at a rally in 2013. He faces a senate grilling for
his secretary of state nomination today.
Mark Taylor/Creative Commons Nahal Toosi reports
on an upcoming Pompeo speech planned for his visit to Egypt next month:
Pompeo's speech will likely focus heavily on Iran, as have many of his past public
remarks. The chief U.S. diplomat is likely to try to rally Arab capitals to stand with the
United States and thwart Iran's use of proxy forces, support for terrorism and other
activities in the region.
The Trump administration has made a regular habit of denouncing Iran in speeches by top
officials, and the administration's Iran policy has no more international support today than it
did a year ago. It's not clear what purpose another high-profile Iran-bashing session serves.
The administration's talking points are tediously familiar by now, and Pompeo's brusque and
overbearing manner is the opposite of persuasive.
Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't
required to do very much, and every attempt to get these clients to do more has so far produced
no results. The administration's ill-conceived, so-called Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA)
has stalled, thanks to the broader anti-Saudi backlash in Washington and the lack of interest
on the part of many of its would-be members. The administration's Iran policy of regime change
in all but name isn't working as planned and isn't going to work, and there is not much else
for Pompeo to talk about that reflects well on the administration. He and the president have
gone out of their way to thwart Congressional opposition to the war on Yemen, and they have
bent over backwards to make excuses for Saudi crimes.
Pompeo won't admit it in his speech, but the current U.S. role in the region is a
destabilizing one that involves aiding and abetting war crimes and helping to cause mass
starvation.
"Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they
aren't required to do very much"
Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses.
Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep
Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just
don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us
to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid
request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time."
Look at the Russian bots here? Do they actually think they can change anyone's opinions
about their backwater country run by an egotistical authoritarian?
Says the one person making troll comments. "Russia bots" is the liberals new word for
anyone that disagree with them. They need this little labels because they have no facts on
their side. Only hatred for dissenters.
Look at the Russian bots here? Do they actually think they can change anyone's opinions
about their backwater country run by an egotistical authoritarian?
the West seeks no friends , but rather vassals are welcome.
Scores of worldwide diplomats have their backstage sayings : " it's better to be US' foe than ally
because if you are their foe, they'll try to buy you ;
but if you are their ally , they will sell you.".
The recent veneration of George H.W. Bush has been wonderfully uplifting, especially as it
recalled his cautious use of persuasion and honest argument.
Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's former speechwriter, beautifully described Bush's funeral in
the Wall Street Journal as reminding us of our dignity and "re-summoning our mystique."
The event, Noonan said, harkened back to when America was respected and admired, generous and
"expected to do good." President Bush, she noted, had presided over the collapse of the Soviet
Union diplomatically and without humiliating Russia's leaders or its people. He also declined
to occupy a Muslim country after defeating Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Bush was indeed a very
decent man. In fact, he was a
great statesman, as TAC 's editor Jim Antle has noted on these pages.
Yet almost none of the news reported on what was the darkest chapter of his legacy: the
First Gulf War. I was a co-founder at the time of a small and vastly outgunned opposition group
of conservatives and (mainly) libertarians, the Committee to Avert a Mid-East Holocaust
. Today, with at least a million Arabs, Afghans, and Americans dead from the unending chaos the
United States unleashed in the Muslim world, the name seems very appropriate.
Our group included truly great conservatives: Henry Regnery, almost the only publisher of
conservative books, who helped keep liberty alive during the dark days of the 1940s and '50s,
along with the always brave Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran. Regnery and Buchanan were the main
contributors to our group. But we were a virtual who's who of the incipient libertarian
movement: Ron Paul, the once and future Texas congressman who would eventually gain a wider
following as a presidential candidate; Lew Rockwell, his former congressional staffer; the
economist Murray Rothbard; Bill Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute; Sheldon Richman,
longtime editor at FEE ; Justin Raimondo, who
would go on to be a co-founder at Antiwar.com ; and Burt Blumert, who helped fund much of Rothbard and
Raimondo's work.
Our chair and guide was
Phil Nicolaides , former deputy director at Voice of America during the Reagan era. The
executive committee included myself, Richman, Sobran, and chess champion Phil Collier. Fran
Griffin, a strong Catholic and founding member of Young Americans for Freedom, did tremendous
work for almost no pay handling our mail-outs and administration with her company Griffin
Communications.
In those days, communication consisted of direct mail, while most of the media just accepted
pro-war government handouts. If only we'd the internet! We did get some news coverage but of
course we were no match for Kuwaiti money and evangelical supporters of Israel. Still, the
Senate vote in favor of the war was only 52-47, despite the overwhelming propaganda in favor of
it as described below.
The war led to a major break between
libertarians and conservatives , especially as the giant Heritage Foundation became a
champion of war from that moment on. Even today, Heritage has backed continued U.S. support for
the Saudi bombing of Yemen.
Much about the Gulf War and especially its lies and subsequent brutality were not reported.
Bush himself may not have known all that took place in the military campaign. After all, Dick
Cheney, whom we know now to be a liar, was his secretary of defense. But the deeds need to be
remembered and indeed researched.
Particularly odious was the calculated destruction of Iraq's sanitation, irrigation, and
electrical grid, with the intent of causing
mass civilian disease and starvation, as specified in a Defense
Intelligence Agency report. It would have been interesting to find out who ordered this
policy. Reconstruction supplies were then blockaded over the following nine years, including
during the Clinton presidency. The consequent half million deaths of children were deemed
acceptable by Clinton's former secretary of state Madeleine Albright in this famous 60 Minutes
interview with Leslie Stahl. Osama bin Laden later listed civilian suffering in Iraq as one
of the three reasons for his subsequent terrorist attack on America.
Public support for the war was in part ginned up by the infamous "incubator babies" lie and
claims that aerial photographs showed 200,000 Iraqi soldiers waiting along the border to invade
Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the reason given to Americans for sending troops was to protect the
Saudis.
The Christian Science Monitor and LA Times reported later
how it was untrue and that such photographs never existed. Photos of the border showed no
troops congregated there. The Defense Department claimed the photos were secret and never
released them even after the war.
Such
misinformation is critical if you're trying to get America into a war. Remember the British propaganda
that got us into the First World War? A repeated story was that German soldiers were eating
Belgian babies. In the second Iraq war, it was lies that Saddam had aided bin Laden and was
developing nuclear "weapons of mass destruction."
Kuwait's ruling family spent billions of dollars and paid for top public relations in
Washington. I remember particularly the yearly CPAC meeting when the Kuwaitis paid for a dozen
tables to be filled with students to cheer for war. Saddam was sending cash bequests to the
families of Palestinian terrorists whom Israel had killed, so pro-Israel forces in Washington
also supported the war, though they were less important to the lobbying effort than Kuwait.
Nevertheless, the United States initially hesitated to go to war. There was the meeting of
the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, with Saddam Hussein during which she told him that
inter-Arab quarrels were
not the concern of the United States government . A top State Department official told
Congress the same thing. The ambassador strangely disappeared from the news after the war
started.
Then there was President Bush's rather casual attitude about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Only
after he met with British Prime Minister Thatcher and faced the vast pro-war publicity campaign
did he change his mind. Thatcher was very alarmed because Kuwait's vast deposits in British
banks were important for their solvency. She feared Iraq might continue threatening other Gulf
states and their bank deposits. She insisted and begged America to save Kuwait. Bush than
organized a United Nations Security Council vote to condemn Iraq and a coalition that included
many Arab nations. He did it with full international legality (unlike his son's subsequent war)
and above all he got our allies to pay for the war. There was massive support in America for
the operation.
Bush's national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, later opposed the younger Bush's attack
on and subsequent occupation of Iraq in 2003. He understood well the limits of power and the
importance of having allies -- something the next President Bush cared little about.
Actually, George H. W. Bush only looks good next to the Current Occupant (of the Oval
Office).
I, too, can remember his Presidency, and even his candidacy, when he authorized the use of
those Willie Horton ads. (Which contributed both to the rise of the alt-right and the BLM
movements.)
I recall his first candidacy,k when he was opposed to "voodoo economics" before he was all
for it.
One need not lay out any secret cabal when he was in office as indicative of his
character. It was on full display long before. And it had nothing to do with a "kinder,
gentler America", only with the pursuit of power at any cost to integrity or honor.
Look there are valid reasons to challenger the first gulf war. It was strictly a debate
between Iraq and Kuwait. Historical issues and the matter of supplemental dollars for what
Iraq believed was a defense against the Iranian revolution.
But unlike the last invasion the First Gulf effort was largely supported even by Gulf
States. Stop dreaming up libertarian fantasies about Sen rand Paul. Libertarian anti-war
effort. As for PM thatcher's fears – the Iraqi invasion did not budge the price of oil.
This was a dispute between two neighbors and nothing more.
But it was the international effort that made the case. And it was not just Israel. It was
limited to one goal,pushing Iraqi troops back into Iraq proper.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The valid critiques on Pres. Bush, Sr. are those in the above comments about economics and
"Willie Horton."
The case against iraq in the second effort was very clear.
Iraq had invaded no one
Had nothing to do with 9/11
No evidence the wmd in any viable state
No evidence that the weapons inspectors were not accomplishing their mission.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
I didn't hear a peep from the likes of your clique about challenging the war in
Afghanistan. That was an effort that would have demonstrated some serious unnecessary
anti-war thinking. Some intellectual work in examining the issues and the consequence. The
internet was alive and well during the Afghanistan advance --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
There is a difference between being anti-war and being opposed to unnecessary military
efforts. Libertarians trying to hide in the minutia of being anti-war as they savage their
fellow citizens with their immigration no borders nonsense, selling marijuana -- a tax boon
no where in sight in Colorado, Ca., or anywhere else, now want to unleash their carelessness
on heroin, cocaine, and hashish.
Bush talked about Dukakis's prison furloughs, and his campaign did produce and ad about them,
but the famous Willie Horton ad was produced by an independent PAC. It was done on Bush's
behalf, and Lee Atwater was all in favor of making Horton an issue, but so far as is known,
Bush didn't authorize or approve the well-known ad himself.
_________
I wonder if it would have been possible for antiwar conservatives (and conservatives
critical of trade and immigration policy) to mainstream their concerns. As it was, many
tended to become trapped in paleocon land, arguing forever that they were further to the
right than the others, and embracing some embarrassing ideas and historical icons.
You may recall John O'Sullivan's law – any organization that isn't explicitly
expressly right-wing will become left-wing over time. But the corollary seems to be that
critical or unorthodox movements on the right tend to get boxed into being "more conservative
than thou" and losing access to the centrist mainstream.
Whatever the current orthodoxy is appropriates the conservative label, and dissenters
either move to left or the far right.
Conservatives and liberals both have a great diversity of opinion, but it seems like
politics today are so polarized and binary that it's impossible for those of divergent
opinions to be on the same side or at more or less the same place on the political
spectrum.
One side is always going to be accused of being sell-outs to the enemy or of being on the
lunatic fringe.
I'm inclined to make a distinction between the "jus ad bellum" and the "jus in bello" aspects
of the Gulf War. I think I can say that I lean heavily anti-war in general, but I do think
the Gulf War was justified. Even if it's true that America and others wouldn't have
intervened in a case where the countries involved were small and unimportant, I don't think
the answer would be to also refuse to intervene in the case at hand. There's a great value in
upholding the principle that countries can't forcibly annex land from each other. Also, it's
hard to believe that Saddam Hussein would have settled down and minded his own business. It's
more likely that the lack of pushback from his Kuwait invasion would have encouraged further
adventurism.
None of that is to defend the way the war was actually conducted. It's just to suggest
that the preferable alternative would have been to wage the war more ethically rather than
not to wage it at all.
ElitCommInc appears to have a requisite necessity to interject "Sen rand Paul" into articles
that don't even mention him. C'est la vie.
As regards Afghanistan, I confess to having not a clue what is meant by " some serious
unnecessary anti-war thinking" but as I remember those days, while there was general support
for getting Bin Laden there were voices in the libertarian/paleoconservative movement that
argued for a special forces operation, a quit hit and not a full out occupation force.
Marijuana legalization has nothing to do with the article though I suppose those awful
libertarians also "savage" their fellow citizens with the sale of adult beverages as well.
C'est la vie.
I reluctantly got on board with the first Gulf War and about all that can be said that's
positive is that Bush Sr. at least endorsed a limited objective i.e. get Iraq out of Kuwait.
Not so that brain-dead son of his who was taking his orders from his VP.
The Great War Christmas Truce: 'They Were
Positively Human'For a brief moment in 1914, the guns went silent and the men risked
court martial to play soccer, smoke and sing---with the other side. By Hunter DeRensis
•
December 21, 2018
Wikimedia Commons/public domain A 19th-century peace activist once asked, "Is it possible
that any Christian, of whatever sect, who believes the New Testament to be anything better than
a fable, can doubt for a moment that the time will come when all the kingdoms of the earth
shall be at peace?"
Jesus Christ, as both a religious and historical figure, has been chronicled as the "Prince
of Peace." He was the man (or son of God) who instructed his followers to turn the other cheek.
This philosophy of love, forgiveness, and the rejection of violence is difficult to mesh with a
modern age that has fought two world wars. Reaching even farther back, it's hard to reconcile
Christ's message with the violence inflicted by Christians against both non-Christians and
other members of the faith.
But one moment, found in the bloody, secularized 20th century, stands out: the Christmas
Truce of 1914.
World War I had begun in August, engulfing most of Europe. On the western front, a German
invasion of France by way of Belgium had stalled just 50 miles outside of Paris. Fighting
quickly devolved into trench warfare, with German and British-French lines divided by a
no-man's land of barbed wire, shell holes, and death. Soldiers lived and died in trenches of
mud and dirt, infested with fleas and other vermin and often flooded with water that was knee
deep. Winter added frost and bitter cold. The war that people on both sides said would be done
by Christmas showed no sign of ending. By December, after barely five months of combat,
casualties on all sides numbered over two million.
Yet that Christmas Eve, an unexpected sound could be heard above the din of gunfire:
soldiers on the German side singing Stille Nacht , the original German-language
Silent Night . Small fir trees, makeshift replacements for the grand Christmas trees
back home, had been placed. The constant fighting might have had the effect of increasing
religious reflection. During the opening months of the war in 1914, churches in Germany were
fuller than they had ever been, even in working-class areas infamous for secular and
anti-clerical politics.
After much hesitation, soldiers on the British side began to poke their heads out of the
trenches. The Germans did not fire. The Brits responded by applauding and singing their own
English version of the carol. The two sides then met together in no man's land. Frederick James
Davies, a private in the 2nd Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers,
described his experiences in a letter home to his mother: "They [the Germans] were only
fifty yards away from us in the trenches. They came out and we went to meet them. We shook
hands with them . They also gave us cigars but they didn't have much food. I think they are
hard up for it. They were fed up with the war." They exchanged "cigs, jam and corn beef" and
Davies added that he had "a good chat with the Germans on Xmas day."
Writer Henry Williamson, then a private in the London Rifle Brigade,
wrote cheerfully home to his mother that he was smoking German tobacco he had exchanged
with a live soldier. He recounted, "Yesterday the British & Germans met & shook hands
in the Ground between the trenches, & exchanged souvenirs, & shook hands." He describes
his military counterparts: "Many are gentle looking men in goatee beards & spectacles, and
some are very big and arrogant looking." In other words, they looked positively human.
Williamson even showed empathy for their similar motivations: "The Germans put 'For Fatherland
& Freedom' on the cross. They obviously think their cause is a just one."
In his own account, Captain A.D. Chater of the 2nd Battalion Gordon Highlanders
wrote : "This extraordinary truce has been quite impromptu. There was no previous
arrangement and of course it had been decided that there was not to be any cessation of
hostilities."
This outbreak of peace was entirely spontaneous, started by privates on the front lines as
their officers threatened them with court-martial. Soldiers laughed, talked, sang, exchanged
gifts, and helped to bury their dead. A few games of soccer were even played.
They had been killing each other for months, indoctrinated for most of their lives to view
the "other" as evil, inhuman. But here they were, ordinary men who missed their homes and
families, who had only the vaguest idea of why they were there, why they were dying and
killing. Karl Muhlegg of the 17th Bavarian Regiment wrote home, "Never was I as keenly aware of
the insanity of war."
The truce continued until the end of Christmas. In some spots it continued for days. But
slowly men returned to their sides and fighting resumed. Europe would not see another Christmas
in peacetime until 1918, after 10,000,000 men had been killed. When the war ended, the French
military academy Saint-Cyr listed all its graduates who had fallen. For one year, it contains
just one brief but chilling entry: "The Class of 1914." In comparison, only 81 British soldiers
died on Christmas Day 1914 in all of Europe.
What is striking is the difference between the propaganda put forward by the governments on
the home front and the spontaneous actions that Christmas. Besides Pope Benedict XV, who urged
a temporary ceasefire so war cannons would not be booming across Europe on the night the angels
were meant to announce Christ's birth, what the soldiers did was opposed by governments on both
sides.
There's a case to be made that the truce had nothing to do with Christianity. Periodic and
unplanned truces occur in war regularly. Fighting ceases while the two sides take time to bury
their dead. And trade and fraternization do occur. One might ask, does the common soldier need
a higher reason to stop killing or be killed? But this rejoinder is far too simplistic. It's
estimated that roughly 100,000 soldiers participated in the Christmas Truce of 1914 to some
degree. This is far too large a number to be written off as a casual occurrence. This event was
unplanned, uncoordinated, and not sanctioned by the officer core. Yet it happened. And it just
happened to take place on the most celebrated day in the Christian calendar, the observance of
the birth of Christ, the "Prince of Peace." If both sides were not united under Christendom,
joined together in mutual belief, it is a definite that the truce would not have occurred.
In November 1914, three months into the war, Pope Benedict XV grieved, "Who would imagine,
as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock,
all of the same nature, all members of the same human society? Who would recognize brothers,
whose Father is in Heaven?" Perhaps on Christmas, with morals engraved on their innermost
hearts, the soldiers realized the truth of this statement.
As an event in the history of war, the Christmas Truce of 1914 is barely a footnote; it had
no major effects on the fighting or outcome of World War I. But in the history of peace, the
truce is a powerful story. This moment, this flash of love, bookended on both sides by
destruction and hate, was a triumph of humanity. It's the closest thing we'll see to a miracle
in this fallen world.
Frederick Niven, a minor Scottish poet, ended his poem "A Carol from Flanders" with a
sentiment that should be prayed for year-round:
O ye who read this truthful rime
From Flanders, kneel and say:
God Speed the time when every day
Shall be as Christmas Day
Hunter DeRensis is a regular contributor to. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .
"Leaders" don't care about the ordinary soldier–and it doesn't matter which countries
are fighting. "God Save The King (or Queen)" "Deutschland Ueber Alles" "Allons enfant de la
Patrie" "Make The World Safe For Democracy". Blah, blah, blah.
Could you imagine the singing of "Happy Holidays" igniting such an overwhelming burst of
love? Do the owners of our mainstream media outlets pay announcers a bonus for everytime they
squeeze "holiday" into their scripts? I am not taking a holiday and I find it offensive to
discount the happiest day of my religious belief system discounted such. BTW – The
officers had to force the troops back into the killing fields at gunpoint. Had the Christmas
Peace of 1914 held – just imagine? The secularization of Christmas is not a joining
phenomenon it is a divisive act. Those who launched this war on Christmas have had great
victories here. It is being stalled overseas in both supposedly Christian and non-Christian
countries. If we get into a really nasty war – just see how quickly these warmongers
will give us back Christam (temporarily).
"War made the State and the State makes War."
These poor men had barely more influence on policy than livestock do in managing a cattle
ranch.
It's ridiculous to say Christians fought Christians etc.
These wars were made by States which had amassed the power – through ideology and
technology – to control multitudes of helpless, defenceless people.
History can be summed up as: Man v State; Law v Power; Civilisation v Barbarism.
In the twentieth century, we saw the triumph of State Power over Law, Civilisation and
Humanity.
(The State surpassed disease as mankind's greatest affliction.)
The German invasion didn't stall by itself before Paris. The French fought like lions at the
First battle of the Marne (the British troops' contribution was numerically quite reduced at
that time) and prevailed over the Germans. Sadly with not enough of a decision on the war
that then went on Why is it always so difficult for American magazines (and newspapers) to
mention the French ? It always gives the silent impression French were hapless bystanders to
a war on their own soil.
Russiagate, what a nonsensical concept. Constantly shifting narrative. (1) OMG, they hacked
voting machines! (2) OMG, they hacked DNC servers! (3) OMG, someone talked to a Russian!
The trouble with CIA democrats is not that they are stupid, but that that are evil.
Hillary proved to be really destructive witch during her Obama stunt as the Secretary of State. Destroyed Libya and Ukraine,
which is no small feat.
Notable quotes:
"... The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided. ..."
"... She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League. ..."
The Grauniad just quoted a tweet from a predictably OUTRAGED @HillaryClinton:
Actions have consequences, and whether we're in Syria or not, the people who want to
harm us are there & at war. Isolationism is weakness. Empowering ISIS is dangerous.
Playing into Russia & Iran's hands is foolish. This President is putting our national
security at grave risk.
This from the woman who almost singlehandedly (i.e. along with David Cameron and Sarkovy)
destroyed Libya and allowed -- if not encouraged -- the flow of US weapons to go into the
hands of ISIS allies in the US-Saudi-Israeli obsession with toppling Assad regardless of the
consequences. As Justin Raimondo wrote in
Antiwar.com in 2015:
The policy of the Obama administration, and particularly Hillary Clinton's State
Department, was – and still is – regime change in Syria. This overrode all
other considerations. We armed, trained, and "vetted" the Syrian rebels, even as we looked
the other way while the Saudis and the Gulf sheikdoms funded groups like al-Nusra and
al-Qaeda affiliates who wouldn't pass muster. And our "moderates" quickly passed into the
ranks of the outfront terrorists, complete with the weapons we'd provided.
This crazy policy was an extension of our regime change operation in Libya, a.k.a.
"Hillary's War," where the US – "leading from behind" – and a coalition of our
Western allies and the Gulf protectorates overthrew Muammar Qaddafi. There, too, we
empowered radical Islamists with links to al-Qaeda affiliates – and then used them to
ship weapons to their Syrian brothers, as another document uncovered by Judicial Watch
shows.
After HRC's multiple foreign policy fiascos she is the last person who should be
commenting on this matter.
a different chris, December 21, 2018 at 11:50 am
> the people who want to harm us are there & at war
Sounds like then they are too busy to harm us? She is truly an idiot. Thanks again, Ivy League.
"... In the wake of the summit, the neoliberal Resistance, like some multi-headed mythical creature in the throes of acute amphetamine psychosis, started spastically jabbering about "treason" and "traitors," and more or less demanding that Trump be tried, and taken out and shot on the White House lawn. ..."
As my regular readers will probably recall, according to my personal, pseudo-Chinese zodiac,
2017 was " The Year of
the Headless Liberal Chicken ." This year, having given it considerable thought, and having
consulted the I Ching, and assorted other oracles, I'm designating 2018 "The Year of Putin-Nazi
Paranoia."
... ... ...
Back in America, millions of liberals and other Russia-and-Trump-obsessives were awaiting the
Putin-Nazi Apocalypse , which despite the predictions of Resistance pundits had still, by
the Summer, failed to materialize. The corporate media were speculating that Putin's latest
"secret scheme" was for Trump to destroy the Atlantic alliance by arriving late for the G7
meeting. Or maybe Putin's secret scheme was to order Trump to sadistically lock up a bunch of
migrants in metal cages,
exactly as Obama had done before him but these were special Nazi cages! And Trump was
separating mothers and children, which, as General Michael Hayden reminded
us , was more or less exactly the same as Auschwitz!
Paul Krugman had apparently lost it , and was running around the offices of The New York
Times shrieking that "America as we know it is finished!"
Soros had been smuggled back into Europe to single-handedly thwart the Putin-Nazi plot to
"dominate the West," which he planned to do by canceling the Brexit (which Putin had obviously
orchestrated) and overthrowing the elected government of Italy (which, according to Soros, was
a Putin-Nazi front).
As if that wasn't paranoia-inducing enough, suddenly, Trump flew off to Helisnki to
personally meet with the Devil Himself. The neoliberal establishment went totally apeshit. A
columnist for The New York Times predicted that Trump, Putin, Le Pen, the AfD, and other such
Nazis were secretly forming something called "the Alliance of Authoritarian and Reactionary
States," and intended to disband the European Union, and NATO, and impose international martial
law and start ethnically cleansing the West of migrants. That, or Trump and Putin were simply
using the summit as cover to attend some Nazi-equestrian homosexual orgy, which The Times took
pains to illustrate by creating a little animated film depicting Trump and Putin as lovers. In
any event, Jonathan Chait was certain that Trump had been a "Russian intelligence asset" since
at least as early as 1987, and was going to Helsinki to "meet his handler."
In the wake of the summit, the neoliberal Resistance, like some multi-headed mythical
creature in the throes of acute amphetamine psychosis, started spastically jabbering about
"treason" and "traitors," and more or less demanding that Trump be tried, and taken out and
shot on the White House lawn. A frenzy of neo-McCarthyism followed. Liberals started
accusing people of being "traitorous agents of Trump and Moscow," and openly calling for a CIA
coup, because we were "facing a national security emergency!" A devastating Russian
cyber-attack was due to begin at any moment. National Intelligence Director Dan Coats
personally assured the Associated Press that the little "Imminent Russia Attack" lights he had
on his desk were "blinking red."
... ... ...
So here's wishing my Russia-and-Trump-obsessed readers a merry, teeth-clenching,
anus-puckering Christmas and a somewhat mentally-healthier New Year! Me, I'm looking forward to
discovering how batshit crazy things can get I have a feeling we ain't seen nothing yet.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine &
Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.
In his recent article "Averting
World Conflict with China" Ron Unz has come up with an intriguing suggestion for the Chinese
government to turn the tables on the December 1 st arrest of Meng Wanzhou in Canada.
Canada detained Mrs. Meng, CFO of the world's largest telecoms equipment manufacturer Huawei,
at the request of the United States so she could be extradited to New York to face charges that
she and her company had violated U.S. sanctions on Iran. The sanctions in question had been
imposed unilaterally by Washington and it is widely believed that the Trump Administration is
sending a signal that when the ban on purchasing oil from Iran comes into full effect in May
there will be no excuses accepted from any country that is unwilling to comply with the U.S.
government's demands. Washington will exercise universal jurisdiction over those who violate
its sanctions, meaning that foreign officials and heads of corporations that continue to deal
with Iran can be arrested when traveling internationally and will be extradited to be tried in
American courts.
There is, of course, a considerable downside to arresting a top executive of a leading
foreign corporation from a country that is a major U.S. trading partner and which also, inter
alia, holds a considerable portion of the U.S. national debt. Ron Unz has correctly noted the "
extraordinary gravity of this international incident and its potential for altering the course
of world history." One might add that Washington's demands that other nations adhere to its
sanctions on third countries opens up a Pandora's box whereby no traveling executives will be
considered safe from legal consequences when they do not adhere to policies being promoted by
the United States. Unz cites Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs as
describing it as "almost a U.S. declaration of war on China's business community." If
seizing and extraditing businessmen becomes the new normal those countries most affected will
inevitably retaliate in kind. China has already detained two traveling Canadians to pressure
Ottawa to release Mrs. Meng. Beijing is also contemplating some immediate retaliatory steps
against Washington to include American companies operating in China if she is extradited to the
U.S.
Ron Unz has suggested that Beijing might just want to execute a quid pro quo by pulling the
licenses of Sheldon Adelson's casinos operating in Macau, China and shutting them down, thereby
eliminating a major source of his revenue. Why go after an Israeli-American casino operator
rather than taking steps directly against the U.S. government? The answer is simple. Pressuring
Washington is complicated as there are many players involved and unlikely to produce any
positive results while Adelson
is the prime mover on much of the Trump foreign policy, though one hesitates to refer to it
as a policy at all.
Adelson is the world's leading diaspora Israel-firster and he has the ear of the president
of the United States, who reportedly speaks and meets with him regularly. And Adelson uses his
considerable financial resources to back up his words of wisdom. He is the fifteenth wealthiest man in America
with a reported fortune of $33 billion. He is the number one contributor to the GOP having
given $81 million in the last cycle. Admittedly that is chump change to him, but it is more
than enough to buy the money hungry and easily corruptible Republicans.
In a certain sense, Adelson has obtained control of the foreign policy of the political
party that now controls both the White House and the Senate, and his mission in life is to
advance Israeli interests. Among those interests is the continuous punishment of Iran, which
does not threaten the United States in any way, through employment of increasingly savage
sanctions and threats of violence, which brings us around to the arrest of Meng and the
complicity of Adelson in that process. Adelson's wholly owned talking head National Security
Adviser John Bolton reportedly had prior knowledge of the Canadian plans and may have actually
been complicit in their formulation. Adelson has also been the major force behind moving the
U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, has also convinced the Administration to stop its criticism of the
illegal Israeli settlements on Arab land and has been instrumental in cutting off all
humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. He prefers tough love when dealing with the Iranians,
advocating dropping
a nuclear bomb on Iran as a warning to the Mullahs of what more might be coming if they don't
comply with all the American and Israeli demands.
Like the term "conspiracy theory "whataboutism" is a nasty and dirty propaganda trick. Truth can be understood only in historical
context.
Notable quotes:
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: ..."
"... "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's
reuse of the Merkel "quote."
This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be defeated. Successful propaganda both depends
upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate
needs of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection between the documented but forgotten
past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do.
What b points out is something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly rare and
its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes b's analysis uniquely indispensable.
Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined
as follows:
"Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has
asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect
our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"
Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past,
present, or future asserted truth.
This is a typical neocon speech. Could be delivered by Hillary Clinton (if we removed some
Tea Party frosting). Attacked both Russia and China. Such a freashly minted US diplomat ;-)
The fact that he is mentioned Skripal poisoning suggests that his IQ is overrated... Or many
be that's his CIA past...
Trump want to pursue "might makes right" policy but times changed and it remains to be seen
how successful he will be.
Could you imagine if someone stood up and called out all the US crimes... 3 million
prisoners, war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan ect. Poverty disproportionate to the
wealth of the nation. On and on
It doesn't get any clearer than this. A group of people, with no conscience and therefore
no shame, no empathy, no emotion, no love, hold the reins of power on planet earth. They do
not distinguish between Afghani, Iraqi, European, African or American. We are all fodder for
their demented psychopathic agenda. It's time to wake up, because it's coming to your
doorstep.
"... The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S. ..."
calls on
the Trump administration not to kill the INF Treaty:
Losing patience with Russia's refusal to address legitimate concerns over its violation of
the treaty is understandable, but the way Pompeo framed the problem says a great deal about
how poorly the Trump administration is managing this sensitive issue. Pompeo told NATO, "the
burden falls on Russia to make the necessary changes. Only they can save this treaty." Having
built a rare instance of NATO unity, which for the first time has unanimously stated that it
believes Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, U.S. President Donald Trump's team seems
more intent on using it as an opportunity to berate Russia than to save a valuable treaty
that benefits European and global security. While Russia is to blame for its own violations,
the United States will suffer just as much as Russia does if the treaty fails, and even more
so if the collapse produces more discord than unity within the NATO alliance. By going the
extra mile to save the treaty, instead of issuing ultimatums, the Trump administration might
even pull out a win for once. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
The INF Treaty is very much worth saving, and quitting it over a Russian violation is as
short-sighted and self-defeating as can be. If the U.S. withdraws, there will be no chance of
negotiating a replacement. Not only will the U.S. be held as the one most responsible for
killing the treaty, but by ending it the Trump administration will be opening the door to an
arms race that no one should want.
The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government
has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the
U.S.
Quitting the INF Treaty unfortunately fits the administration's pattern of reneging on and
abandoning agreements without giving any thought to the consequences of withdrawal. It makes no
sense to give up on a treaty that has proven its worth to the U.S. and our European allies for
more than thirty years.
The Trump administration has made the absolute minimum effort to resolve the dispute with
Russia before quitting the treaty, and that makes it clear that they are just looking for an
excuse to abandon it. If the U.S. gave up so easily on every agreement whenever there was a
violation, it would not keep any of its agreements for very long. The bigger problem is that
the administration's determination to leave the treaty is driven more by Bolton's ideological
hostility to all arms control agreements than it is by any concern about any violations. The
administration is seizing on Russian violations to withdraw from this treaty, but it also has
no desire to keep New START alive, either. Letting New START die would be even more dangerous,
but the administration isn't interested in extending a treaty that Russia has complied with for
almost eight years.
Melania slap of Bolton face might be a good sobering measure. But neocons can't probably recover from their
addition
Notable quotes:
"... Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them. ..."
"... Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. ..."
"... In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania. ..."
"... One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership. ..."
"... From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East. ..."
America has always fancied itself as a "melting pot" of ethnicities and religions that form
a perfect union. The Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," is even found on the
Great Seal of the United States.
However, as seen in a recent blow-up between First Lady Melania Trump and now-former Deputy
National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel, old feuds from beyond the borders of the United States
can result in major rifts at the highest echelons of the US government.
On November 13, Ms. Trump's communications director, Stephanie Grisham, fired off a tweet
that read: "it is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer
deserves the honor of serving in this White House." The White House announced Ricardel's
departure the next day, November 14.
Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who
brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she
served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over
seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to
accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC
News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently,
Ricardel was one of them.
The bitter feud between Melania Trump and Mira Ricardel likely has its roots in their
backgrounds in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel was born Mira P. Radielović, the daughter
of Peter Radielovich, a native of Breza, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel
speaks fluent Croatian and was a member of the Croatian Catholic Church. Melania Trump was born
Melanija Knavs [pronounced Knaus] in Novo Mesto in Slovenia, also in the former Yugoslavia.
Villagers in the village of Sevnica, where Ms. Trump was raised, claim she and her Communist
Party parents were officially atheists. Ms. Trump later converted to Roman Catholicism. She and
her son by Mr. Trump, Barron Trump, speak fluent Slovenian. The Yugoslav Civil War, which began
in earnest in 1991, pitted the nation's ethnic groups against one another. There are ample
reasons, political, ethnic, and religious, for bad blood between the Slovenian-born First Lady
and a first-generation Croatian-American. The "battle royale" between Ms. Trump and Ricardel is
but one example of a constant problem in the United States when individuals with foreign ties
bring age-old inter-ethnic and inter-religious squabbles to governance.
Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued
for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft
of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would
represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat.
Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage
evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser.
Albright's bias against Serbia saw her influence US policy in casting a blind eye toward the
terrorism carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army and its terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. That
policy resulted in Washington backing an independent Kosovo, a state beholden to organized
criminal syndicates protected by one of the largest US military bases in Europe, Camp
Bondsteel.
Ties by US foreign policy officials to their countries of origin continued to plagued
administrations after Carter. For example, Kateryna Chumachenko served in the Reagan White
House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine" Chumachenko.
She also worked in the White House Public Liaison Office, where she conducted outreach to
various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the Friends
of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and later George W. Bush pro-consul in Iraq,
Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department.
Chumachenko was married to Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" President Viktor Yushchenko, and,
thusly, became the First Lady of Ukraine. Khalilzad became the Bush 43 ambassador to the UN,
where he often was at loggerheads with Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Muslim states. As was the
case with Albright and her anti-Serb underpinnings, it was difficult to ascertain whose agenda
Khalilzad was serving.
After being fired from the White House, there were reports that Ricardel was offered the
post of ambassador to Estonia. That Baltic country was no stranger to hauling foreign baggage
into the US government. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a bow-tie wearing
former Estonian language broadcaster for the Central Intelligence Agency-funded Radio Free
Europe ; long time resident of Leonia, New Jersey; could have just as easily ended up in a
senior State Department position rather than President of Estonia. Such is the nature of
divided loyalties among senior US government officials of both major political parties.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US
Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US
government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of
Lithuania.
One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to
support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help
lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership.
From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of
Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World
War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi
German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military
forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an
avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East.
Natalie Jaresko served in positions with the State Department, the Departments of Commerce,
Treasury, the US Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). In
2014, she became the Finance Minister for Ukraine. Earlier, she served as a financial adviser
to Yushchenko. The United States is not the only "melting pot" in North America that suffers
from officials burdened by ethnic dual loyalties. Halyna Chomiak, the Ukrainian-born
émigré mother of Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, weighs heavily on
Freeland's ability to advance Canada's interests over those of the nation of her mother's
birth.
Trump's entire White House Middle East police team is composed of individuals who place
Israel's interests ahead of the United States. Trump takes his Middle East advice from
principally his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a contributor to and member of the board of the
"Friends of the IDF," an American non-profit that raises funds for the Israeli armed forces.
Kushner was named by Trump as a "special envoy" to the Middle East, while Jason Greenblatt, a
former attorney with the Trump Organization, was named as special envoy in charge of the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the two positions appear to overlap, Kushner and
Greenblatt, both Orthodox Jews who have little time for Palestinians, are on the same page when
it comes to advancing the West Bank land grabbing policies of the Binyamin Netanyahu government
in Israel. Trump thoroughly Zionized his administration's Middle East policy with the
appointment of another Israel supporter, David M. Friedman, as US ambassador to Israel.
Friedman had been a bankruptcy lawyer with the Trump Organization's primary law firm, Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman.
Trump has nominated as US ambassador to South Africa, handbag designer Lana Marks, who was
born in South Africa. Marks, who is known only to Trump from her membership in his Mar-a-Lago,
Florida "billionaires club," left South Africa in 1975, when the country was under the
apartheid regime. Marks claims to speak Afrikaans, the language preferred by the apartheid
regime, and Xhosa, the ethnic language of the late President Nelson Mandela. Because Marks
embellished her professional tennis career by claiming, without proof, participation in the
French Open and Wimbledon in the 1970s, her mastery of Xhosa can be taken with a grain of salt.
So, too, can her ability to deal with the current African National Congress government led by
President Cyril Ramaphosa, who had just been released from prison when Marks left the country
in 1975. The claims and politics of Marks and every official and would-be US official who
failed to shed their biases from their native and ancestral homelands, can all be taken with a
metric ton of salt.
Melting pots are fine, so long as they truly blend together. However, that is not the
situation in the United States as high government officials have difficulty in consigning the
bigotry inherent in family folklore and beliefs to the family scrapbooks.
"... The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way. ..."
"... The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan. ..."
"... But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership. ..."
The US will lead a new liberal world order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared.
Organizations and treaties not fitting this picture must be scrapped or reformed, so that
non-compliers could not use them against America. The vision of the bold new and prosperous
(for the US and its supporters) world was delivered by Pompeo in a keynote
speech to the German Marshall Fund on Tuesday.
The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is
failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme –
sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer
an alternative way.
China, as well as Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other nations on the US grudge list got
their share of bashing in the speech, but its focus was more on international institutions,
which Pompeo claimed to be incompatible with his grand vision.
The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the
Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the
International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit
should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually
is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans
accountable for crimes in Afghanistan.
The Paris Agreement on climate change was bad for America, so it left. NAFTA was bad for
America, so it forced a renegotiation. The nuclear deal with Iran didn't make Tehran
complacent, so it had to go.
But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam?
SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians
from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership.
Watch Murad Gazdiev's report about Pompeo's "new liberal order" to find out
more.
Trump lost control of foreign policy, when he appointed Pompeo. US voters might elect Hillary with the same effect on foreign policy
as Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel. ..."
"... Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package. Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF. ..."
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable
Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and
the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar
as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global
energy dominance.
Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package.
Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as
US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money
is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in
reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North.
Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it
to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF.
Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks
replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has
called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime
change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump
may withdraw from on 12 May, is "a disaster". Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with "cosmetic changes" as advocated by European
states, according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.
... ... ...
The new line-up in Washington is being described as "a war cabinet" and it may turn out to
be just that. But looking at ignorant, arrogant men like Bolton and Pompeo, it is difficult to
avoid the feeling that it will all end in disaster.
"What do you mean by claiming Hersh "cozys up" to MIC ppl? And what would be a specific
example of a story he broke after doing that?"
Our Men in Iran?
"We did train them here, and washed them through the Energy Department because the
D.O.E. owns all this land in southern Nevada," a former senior American intelligence
official told me. ... In a separate interview, a retired four-star general, who has advised
the Bush and Obama Administrations on national-security issues, said that he had been
privately briefed in 2005 about the training of Iranians associated with the M.E.K. in
Nevada
His conversations with Lieutenant Calley are apparently what allowed him to break the My
Lai massacre story as well, even though members of the military had already spoken out about
it, and there had been already been charges brought. It just revealed the story to the
general public, which prompted a fuller investigation and courts martial. I'm sure there are
others.
So, obviously Hersh's "cozying up" (surely not the right term for it, though) is in the
interests of raising public awareness of nefarious deeds, and is not scared of painting these
organizations in a bad light, whereas Mazzetti's goal here seems to be to maintain his
privileged access by providing favors - totally different motivations. It's rather easy to
contrast the two, which "smartypants54" has even stated here.
Whatever the case, it's true that elements of the NYT have been mouthpieces more or less
for government and corporate power for a long time. While I agree with Glenn about the faux
cynicism perpetuating this kind of activity - "don't be naive, this is done all the time" - I
can understand that it exists.
Such cynicism on the part of the public, rather than being an acknowledgment of
acceptance and approval of such practices, can also be seen as part of a more radical
critique of the corporate media in general, and the NYT particularly, in that such
organizations - not that I totally agree with this - , by their very nature, can't be
reformed and can never be totally effective checks on power because of the way they're
structured, and who they answer to.
That's definitely not a reason to stop pointing it out, though.
"... The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense ..."
"... The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. ..."
The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on
Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense like this:
Secretary Pompeo
* @SecPompeo
Iran's regime has no interest in easing Yemeni suffering; the
mullahs don't even care for ordinary Iranians. Saudi Arabia has
invested billions to relieve suffering in #Yemen. Iran has
invested zero.
C10.8K 11:02 AM-Nov 28, 2018 в
The truth is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have used their donations as another weapon of
war while doing everything in their power to worsen the humanitarian crisis that their policies
created. Saudi "aid" efforts have been denounced by humanitarian organizations as a "war
tactic," and the Saudi government has used its donations to buy
good publicity from aid agencies and silence criticism. The "investments" that the Saudi
coalition governments have made are little more than poorly-concealed bribes to relieve
international pressure, and these same governments have used their donations as leverage to
blackmail the U.N. in the past.
The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be
suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's
intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. The governments responsible for
causing the displacement of millions of people and creating famine conditions potentially
affecting up to 14 million do not merit praise for throwing a little money at the catastrophe
they have unleashed. Iran's interest in assisting suffering Yemenis or lack thereof is truly
beside the point when it is the Saudi coalition backed by the U.S. that has caused so much of
that suffering. War criminals do not get credit when they throw some cash at the wreckage of
the country they have destroyed, and Pompeo's attempt to give Saudi Arabia credit for
"relieving" suffering in Yemen is as perverse and disgusting as it gets.
Pompeo's statements about saudi support is absolutely astonishing in a very bad way.
Does he actually believe such nonsense? Is he being fed these gross distortions of reality
by his Iran working group led by Hook?
At some point,these lies go beyond the absurd, they go beyond propaganda, they become for
the world to see a war monger's mantra and justification for an attack on Iran.
Pompeo and bolton have gained world wide recognition as being mindless war mongers with
much power but to continue with absurd twisting of facts on the ground really does this
country a huge disservice-meanwhile the population in yemen starve.
Where is the justice, where is the humanity amongst these lies?
"... With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued the ongoing wars and added new ones -- Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan. ..."
"... The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of Obama's presidency the US was engaged in seven wars. ..."
"... The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is polarized and the elites are divided. ..."
Over the past three decades, the US government has engaged in over a dozen wars, none of
which have evoked popular celebrations either before, during or after. Nor did the government
succeed in securing popular support in its efforts to confront the economic crises of 2008
– 2009.
This paper will begin by discussing the major wars of our time, namely the two US invasions
of Iraq . We will proceed to analyze the nature of the popular response and the political
consequences.
In the second section we will discuss the economic crises of 2008 -2009, the government
bailout and popular response. We will conclude by focusing on the potential powerful changes
inherent in mass popular movements.
The Iraq War and the US Public
In the run-up to the two US wars against Iraq, (1990 – 01 and 2003 – 2011) there
was no mass war fever, nor did the public celebrate the outcome. On the contrary both wars were
preceded by massive protests in the US and among EU allies. The first Iraqi invasion was
opposed by the vast-majority of the US public despite a major mass media and regime propaganda
campaign backed by President George H. W. Bush. Subsequently, President Clinton launched a
bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 with virtually no public support or
approval.
March 20, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the second major war against Iraq despite
massive protests in all major US cities. The war was officially concluded by President Obama in
December 2011. President Obama's declaration of a successful conclusion failed to elicit
popular agreement.
Several questions arise:
Why mass opposition at the start of the Iraq wars and why did they fail to continue?
Why did the public refuse to celebrate President Obama's ending of the war in 2011?
Why did mass protests of the Iraq wars fail to produce durable political vehicles to
secure the peace?
The Anti-Iraq War Syndrome
The massive popular movements which actively opposed the Iraq wars had their roots in
several historical sources. The success of the movements that ended the Viet Nam war, the ideas
that mass activity could resist and win was solidly embedded in large segments of the
progressive public. Moreover, they strongly held the idea that the mass media and Congress
could not be trusted; this reinforced the idea that mass direct action was essential to reverse
Presidential and Pentagon war policies.
The second factor encouraging US mass protest was the fact that the US was internationally
isolated. Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush wars faced hostile regime and mass
opposition in Europe, the Middle East and in the UN General Assembly. US activists felt that
they were part of a global movement which could succeed.
Thirdly the advent of Democratic President Clinton did not reverse the mass anti-war
movements.The terror bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was destructive and Clinton's war against
Serbia kept the movements alive and active To the extent that Clinton avoided large scale
long-term wars, he avoided provoking mass movements from re-emerging during the latter part of
the 1990's.
The last big wave of mass anti-war protest occurred from 2003 to 2008. Mass anti-war protest
to war exploded soon after the World Trade Center bombings of 9/11. White House exploited the
events to proclaim a global 'war on terror', yet the mass popular movements interpreted the
same events as a call to oppose new wars in the Middle East.
Anti-war leaders drew activists of the entire decade, envisioning a 'build-up' which could
prevent the Bush regime from launching a series of wars without end. Moreover, the
vast-majority of the public was not convinced by officials' claims that Iraq, weakened and
encircled, was stocking 'weapons of mass destruction' to attack the US.
Large scale popular protests challenged the mass media, the so called respectable press and
ignored the Israeli lobby and other Pentagon warlords demanding an invasion of Iraq. The
vast-majority of American, did not believe they were threatened by Saddam Hussain they felt a
greater threat from the White House's resort to severe repressive legislation like the Patriot
Act. Washington's rapid military defeat of Iraqi forces and its occupation of the Iraqi state
led to a decline in the size and scope of the anti-war movement but not to its potential mass
base.
Two events led to the demise of the anti-war movements. The anti-war leaders turned from
independent direct action to electoral politics and secondly, they embraced and channeled their
followers to support Democratic presidential candidate Obama. In large part the movement
leaders and activists believed that direct action had failed to prevent or end the previous two
Iraq wars. Secondly, Obama made a direct demagogic appeal to the peace movement – he
promised to end wars and pursue social justice at home.
With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama political
machine .Those who were not co-opted were quickly disillusioned on all counts. Obama continued
the ongoing wars and added new ones -- Libya, Honduras, Syria. The US occupation in Iraq led to
new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US trained vassal armies up to the gates
of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla of warships and warplanes to the South
China Sea and dispatched added troops to Afghanistan.
The mass popular movements of the previous two decades were totally disillusioned, betrayed
and disoriented. While most opposed Obama's 'new' and 'old wars' they struggled to find new
outlets for their anti-war beliefs. Lacking alternative anti-war movements, they were
vulnerable to the war propaganda of the media and the new demagogue of the right. Donald Trump
attracted many who opposed the war monger Hilary Clinton.
The Bank Bailout: Mass Protest
Denied
In 2008, at the end of his presidency, President George W. Bush signed off on a massive
federal bailout of the biggest Wall Street banks who faced bankruptcy from their wild
speculative profiteering.
In 2009 President Obama endorsed the bailout and urged rapid Congressional approval.
Congress complied to a $700-billion- dollar handout ,which according to Forbes (July 14, 2015)
rose to $7.77 trillion. Overnight hundreds of thousands of American demanded Congress rescind
the vote. Under immense popular protest, Congress capitulated. However President Obama and the
Democratic Party leadership insisted: the bill was slightly modified and approved. The 'popular
will' was denied. The protests were neutralized and dissipated. The bailout of the banks
proceeded, while several million households watched while their homes were foreclosed ,despite
some local protests. Among the anti-bank movement, radical proposals flourished, ranging from
calls to nationalize them, to demands to let the big banks go bankrupt and provide federal
financing for co-operatives and community banks.
Clearly the vast-majority of the American people were aware and acted to resist
corporate-collusion to plunder taxpayers.
Conclusion: What is to be Done?
Mass popular mobilizations are a reality in the United States. The problem is that they have
not been sustained and the reasons are clear : they lacked political organization which would
go beyond protests and reject lesser evil policies.
The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by the
two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second year of
Obama's presidency the US was engaged in seven wars.
By the second year of Trump's Presidency the US was threatening nuclear wars against Russia,
Iran and other 'enemies' of the empire. While public opinion was decidedly opposed, the
'opinion' barely rippled in the mid-term elections.
Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us but
they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the Democratic
Party . Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and economic
transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the
national.
The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries around the
world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic economy is
polarized and the elites are divided.
Mobilizations, as in France today, are self-organized through the internet; the mass media
are discredited. The time of liberal and rightwing demagogues is passing; the bombast of Trump
arouses the same disgust as ended the Obama regime.
Optimal conditions for a new comprehensive movement that goes beyond piecemeal reforms is on
the agenda. The question is whether it is now or in future years or decades?
Mass protest, which must ignore the mass media, depends on organizers. No organizers--no
protest. Since organizers are mostly working for somebodies agenda, those agendas apparently
don't want mass protest against war. They only want to push multi-genderism and minority
resistance, these days.
" Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us
but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the
Democratic Party . Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political and
economic transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local to the
national. "
.gov gives not one damn what the people think and they willl do what pleases their
masters. We are allowed to "vote" once in a while to maintain the illusion that they
care.
Very few Americans are anti-war. They are just fine with endless war and the killing of
millions of people with brown skin for any reason the government gives. Even the so-called
anti-war protesters of the Sixties are now pro war. Back then there was a draft, and they
were at risk of dying in the war. Turns they were only against themselves dying, not somebody
else's child. The volunteer army is staffed by the unfortunates of American society who have
very few options except the military. Uneducated rural whites and inner city black youths are
today's military. Poor white trash and ghetto blacks. Who cares if they die? That's the
attitude of the Sixties anti-war crowd. Hypocrites.
A universal draft, male and female, would stop all the wars in a day.
True, I also believe many Americans turn their heads toward these endless/unneeded wars
because the "enemies" mortar fire is not landing in our own backyard.
But White people know if they pray, buy groceries, buy clothes for kids, keep their
appearance up... then losing jobs & middle class is only an obstacle if you don't work
harder... Fascism is about responsibility, looking and acting like the winner class. White
people will enlist in military, police, fire department... will work harder... will work 2-4
jobs... will blame themselves for everything.
No warning or reason given for closures,Customers, employees and communities are outraged
after Papa Gino's Pizza abruptly closed dozens of locations across New England overnight.
Now that congress serves only as a mechanism for creating and maintaining skimming
operations and rigging all markets, it is imperative that citizens get no information. Since
organized crime also owns the major media outlets, that is an easy task. With no information
in the mainstream there is no anti war and no anti bank.
Gone, like the people who wanted a real 9/11 investigation. Yahoos out there still think
that if it was an inside job someone would have spoke out by now . Lol
They are all their, they are just silenced in corporate main stream media whilst corporate
main stream media absolutely 'SCREAMS' about identity politics, not an accident. Identity
politics is the deep state and shadow government plan to silence the masses about fiscal and
foreign policy.
For example, even though I am centre left, I was there in the beginning of the alt right,
it was not white supremacy for the first few weeks it was Libertarian vs corporate
Republican, then the deep state and shadow government stepped in and using corporate main
stream media, re-branded alt-right as white supremacy, is was really fast.
Most people don't even know alt-right started out as very much Libertarian taking on the
corporate state and that is what triggered that attack and a stream of fake right wingers
(deep state agents) screaming they were the alt-right together with corporate main stream
media, to ensure Libertarian where silenced.
Look at it now, how much do you here from Libertarians, practically nothing, every time
they try, they are targeted as alt-right which they were as in the alternate to corporate
Republicans much the same as the Corporate Democrats. From my perspective the real left and
the Libertarians had much more in common, than the corporate Republicans and the corporate
Democrats (both attacking the libertarians and the greens to silence them).
They are all there fighting, just totally silenced in corporate main stream media, you
have to go to https://www.rt.com/ to find
them.
Bankers control the CFR, the CFR controls the media and most gov positions and most of the
deepstate 3 letter agencies.. Everything said is tracked by the NSA and everywhere you go is
tracked by your phone and cars. Ever wonder how they take over a grass root movement so fast?
Think about it.
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every
Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether
he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass
arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city,
people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the
downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing
left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people
with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly
have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's
thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom
enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and
simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
The United States is now too big for popular protest. How can I, living in California,
have common cause with someone living in New York? We live on opposite sides of this
continent and have wildly different climates. Our heavy hitters are in Technology while New
York has Banking and Wall St.
Our elected officials are unable to get crap done in the same manner we're unable to get a
good protest underway. We can withdraw somewhat or go off grid where possible but that's
about it.
African American lack of support for the Iraq war:
According to several polls taken right before the war, only a minority of African-Americans
supported the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. Most notably, a poll by the
Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies had found that only 19 percent of
African-Americans supported it.
That is a striking statistic, especially considering that more than 70 percent of white
Americans were in favor of the military invasion, according to some polls.
Also note that 90% of white males were for that illegal war of aggression.
the left is so obsessed with getting trump, they can do nothing else. they are so *******
stoopid, that they wont even try to develop someone to beat trump. they put 100% of their
energy in hating trump. they are blinded by hatred.
the end is nigh and there's nothing to be done about it.... 10 years and thats it....
beyond that and event horizon... black hole... no one knows. ai terminator coming soon...
thats all i can see.
Most thinking people are not wanting to be part of a movement that will be co-opted for
someone else's political gain. I would rather prepare myself and family for the inevitable
collapse of the economy and perhaps more that awaits us. That's enough to keep me busy. I
can't change the whole world but I can prepare to help my family friends and neighbors.
In answer to the the question posed by the headerof this article, they have either been
exiled from 'respectable' media or are stuck yelling "Trump! Trump! Trump! Russia! Russia!
Russia" like a poorly programmed NPC caught in an infinite loop.
The hidden hand behind the puppet show has done a hell of a job massaging the masses, and
turning their minds into mush.
"Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us
but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the
Democratic Party ."
Exactly! If there are any anti-war people out there they sure as hell are not with the
Democratic Party. Those leftist lunatics are the most destructive political group on this
planet. Their thinking is 'divide & conquer', incite racial tensions, spew hatred,
promoting that killing babies before they are born, or even on the day they are born is
awesome. One has to wonder if people that evil even have souls.
As for anti-bankers... is this author off his rocker? He's not fooling anyone by trying to
present the theory that if there are any consciencous objectors out there they would be
supporters of the Democratic party. That thought is outright laughable. Even worse, to try to
create this new narrative by writing this type of article is absolutely despicable.
Fortunately, not the least bit convincing. People know better.
" Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still with us
but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the
Democratic Party "
OK, so..... it's the Democrat Party, not the Democratic Party. Not like anyone gives a
**** what words mean any more, but.... whatever. Use the right ******* words or..... *******
don't. Not like any of this **** matters any more at this level.
And not all of us are ******* Democrats. Neither party is really anti-war or anti-bank
now, so the red/blue thing has little relevance to those subjects. We all argue about much
more important issues now like transgender bathrooms and whether Kanye West is a racist for
supporting Trump or not.
Politics has become a black hole collapsing on us. Black hole don't give a ****. Look at
that black hole. It just ate a star and became bigger. It don't care.
Sorry but I do not see Trump as "threatening nuclear war".
Surely some of the Deep Staters did. But it's hard to see Trump as in control. His
presidency has been great for exposing how things really work. That's worth a lot. If only
the idiots would pay attention. But they won't. They're too busy placing great importance on
the trifling and little or none on the critically important.
Excuse me I have to run now and get the latest iPhone.
Saving neoliberalism in the USA requires demonizing Russia. A funny thing is that Russia is a
neoliberal country since 1991, which was economically raped in 1991-2000 by some western
countries (with the help of some Harvard Business school economists, IMF and intelligence
agencies.) So now they are suffering for the second time for their overthrow of Bolshevism and
the switch to neoliberalism (which now looks like a misguided move, judging from economic
consequences for the majority of Russian population) ;-)
The Trumpenleft (or "Sputnik Left," as it is also called by professional
anti-Putin-Nazi intelligence analysts ) is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It is a
gang of nefarious Putin-Nazi infiltrators posing as respectable leftists in order to
disseminate Trumpian ideology and Putin-Nazi propaganda among an assortment of online leftist
magazines that hardly anyone ever actually reads. The aim of these insidious Trumpenleft
infiltrators is to sow confusion, chaos, and discord among actual, real, authentic leftists who
are going about the serious business of calling Donald Trump a fascist on the Internet
twenty-five times a day, verbally abusing Julian
Assange , occasionally pulling down oppressive statues, and sharing videos of racist idiots
acting like racist idiots in public.
... ... ...
This is the type of gobbledegook the Trumpenleft use to try to dupe real leftists into
putting down their phones for a minute and actually thinking through political issues!
Fortunately, no one is falling for it. As any bona fide leftist knows, there is no "mass
migration problem." The whole thing is simply a racist hoax concocted by Putin, Alex Jones, and
other Trumpian disinformationists. The only thing real leftists need to know about immigration
is that immigrants are good, and Trump, and walls, and borders are bad! All that other fancy
gibberish about global capitalism, Milton Friedman, labor markets, and national sovereignty is
nothing but fascist propaganda (which needs to be censored, or at least deplatformed, or
demonetized, or otherwise suppressed).
But Angela Nagle is just one example. The Trumpenleft is legion, and growing. Its membership
includes a handful of prominent (and rather less prominent) fake leftist figures: Glenn
Greenwald, who many among the "Resistance" would like to see renditioned and
indefinitely detained in some offshore Trumpenleft gulag somewhere; Matt Taibbi, who just
published
a treasonous article challenging the right of the US government to prosecute publishers as
"enemy agents" for publishing material they don't want published; Julian Assange, who is one
such publisher, and who the US has scheduled for public crucifixion just as
soon as they can get their hands on him; Aaron Maté of the Real News Network, a
notorious Trump-Russia " collusion denialist "; Caitlin Johnstone , an Australian blogger and poet who
the Red-Brown Putin-Nazi hunters at CounterPunch have become totally obsessed with;
Diana Johnstone , who they also don't like; and (full disclosure)
your humble narrator .
Now, normally, the opinions of some political journalists and rather marginal political
writers wouldn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but there's a war on, so
there's no room for neutrality. As I mentioned in my latest essay , over the
course of the next two years, the global capitalist ruling classes need to make an example of
Trump, and Assange, and anyone else who has had the gall to fuck with their global empire. Part
of how they are going to do this is to further polarize the already extremely polarized
ideological spectrum until everyone is forced onto one or the other side of a pro- or
anti-Trump equation, or a pro- or anti-populist equation or a pro- or anti-fascist
equation.
As you probably noticed, The Guardian has just launched a special six-week
"investigative series" exploring the whole " new populism " phenomenon
(which began with a lot of scary photos of Steve Bannon next to the word "populism"). We are
going to be hearing a lot about "populism" over the course of the next two years. We are going
to be hearing how "populism" is actually not that different from fascism, or at the very least
is inherently racist, and anti-Semitic, and xenophobic, and how, basically, anyone who
criticizes neoliberal elites or the corporate media is Russia-loving, pro-Trump Nazi.
Greenwald Goes Ballistic On Politico "Theory" Guardian's Assange-Manafort Story Was
Planted By Russians
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/28/2018 - 20:25 105 SHARES
After The Guardian attempted to shovel what appears to be a wholly fabricated story down our
throats that Trump campaign manager met with Julian Assange at the London Embassy - Politico
allowed an ex-CIA agent to use their platform to come up with a ham-handed cover story ever;
Russia tricked The Guardian into publishing the Manafort-Assange propaganda.
To that end, The Intercept 's Glenn Greenwald (formerly of The Guardian ) ripped Politico an
entirely new oriface in a six-part Twitter dress down.
Greenwald also penned a
harsh rebuke to the Guardian 's "problematic" reporting in a Tuesday article titled: "It Is
Possible Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange. If True, There Should Be Ample Video and Other
Evidence Showing This."
In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of
viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly
sketchy aspects to the story.
It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself
"secretly" visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It's possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim
Jong Un joined them.
And if any of that happened, then there will be mountains of documentary proof in the form
of videos, photographs, and other evidence proving it . Thus far, no such evidence has been
published by the Guardian. Why would anyone choose to believe that this is true rather than
doing what any rational person, by definition, would do: wait to see the dispositive evidence
before forming a judgment?
The only reason to assume this is true without seeing such evidence is because enough
people want it to be true. The Guardian knows this. They knew that publishing this story
would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets
would hyperventilate over it , and that they'd reap the rewards regardless of whether the
story turned out to be true or false. It may be true. But only the evidence, which has yet to
be seen, will demonstrate that one way or the other. -
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
In short, The Guardian tried to proffer a load of easily disprovable claims - which if not
true, are pure propaganda. Once it began to blow up in their face, Politico let an
ex-CIA operative try to save face by suggesting Russia did it . Insanity at its finest.
Ever since Alan Rusbridger. left the Guardian as Chief Editor and made room for Assange
and Snowden etc., it seems that they have been infiltrated by the CIA and Luke H. gets
attention for his stories and Russia-hatred. The ENglish have been conditioned to hate Russia
and the Guardian will do anything to discredit Russia with whatever silly stories. Now they
are begging for money to survive: well, NO, because you went along with fake news to get some
money: corrupt, unlike Alan Rusbridger, Assange, Manning and Snowden.
Doesnt matter, 1/2 of our population is convinced, that our governmemt would never do to
the USA. what they do to other countries for the past 60 years.
Yep, the Russian Collusion / interference is so weak. Look at this story, it's breaking
and will be huge. Epstine's dirty details released, Muller looks pretty bad.
Masha and the Bear is produced by a studio in Moscow
A programme about a mischievous girl and a bear watched by millions of British children
is accused of being a "soft propaganda" tool for the Kremlin (Mark Bridge writes). The
English-language Masha and the Bear has more than 4.18 million subscribers on YouTube and, in
various languages, the animated series has gained 40 billion views across 13
channels.
Children enjoy watching the feisty little girl and her gentle giant protector. However,
critics in Russia's neighbouring states have claimed the series, from a Moscow studio, is
part of the country's propaganda machine. Professor Anthony Glees, of the University of
Buckingham, an intelligence expert, said: "Masha is feisty, even rather nasty, but also
plucky. She punches above her slight weight. It's not far-fetched to to say that she's acting
like Putin".
As for the bear, the author recalled the position of the teacher of Tallinn University
Priit Khybemyagi, who stated that this character is intended to "change the image of Russia
in the minds of children from negative to positive." Khybemyagi considered this to be a
threat to n national security .
At the same time, the Lithuanian critics were confused by the USSR border guard cap
Masha wears in an episode where she is chasing a hare out of the bear's garden. They decided
that in this way Russia was demonstrating "the defence of its border".
From the most prestigious of British "quality" newspapers.
For your delight and delectation, Episode 58 of Masha and the Bear:
To Durruti, Ilyana Rozumova wrote: "I am certain that you do not know this. Medusa's
"hair" signifies the bad ideas coming out from women head. Did you notice how many women in
US are engaging in politics?
.
US is doomed!!!!"
Broken Scranton greetings, I.R.
Taking off from your having mentioned "Medusa," & (with no pun), I do not know if you
domicile in ZUSA, but linked below is a unique scene from Arnon Milchan's 1978 film, "The
Medusa Touch."
The movie turns "bad hair day" when a Boeing 747 crashes into the Pan Am Building in NYC!
Uh, where did Arnon Milchan get such precognitive inspiration?
@ChuckOrloski
Not surprising to anyone who understands that stealing ,especially from 'others' is a first
choice career of Jews/Israelis.
I have always suspected that the 9 billion of stolen Iraq funds were stolen by the Jews who
were embedded in the US occupation administration and sent to Israel. Israel was so broke in
2001 they asked the Us for economic aid then suddenly in 2004 by some miracle they were
rolling in surplus money again.
Investigations reveal a pattern of Israeli officials stone-walling efforts to stop the
perpetrators of massive financial swindles in various countries, from Europe to the US to the
Philippines While some Israeli reporters work to expose the scams, a new one is already
underway
By Alison Weir
[MORE]
French and Israeli media report that a group largely made up of Israelis scammed 3,000 French
citizens out of approximately $20 million. Most of the stolen money is in Israel, but Israeli
authorities are reportedly failing to cooperate with France in prosecuting the scammers and
retrieving the money.
This is the latest of numerous examples of Israeli officials stone-walling international
efforts against the perpetrators of massive financial swindles around the world, according to
Israeli investigative journalists and others. These scams have brought estimated billions
into the Israeli economy, propping up a regime widely condemned for human rights abuses and
ethnic cleansing against indigenous Palestinians. Together, the stories paint a picture of a
government that seems to be turning a blind eye to -- and even protecting -- scammers.
A Finance Magnates analysis reports that one of the swindles alone has brought in over a
billion dollars and employs 5,000 people. And a new scam, described below, may help what is
predicted to be "the next major driver of the Israeli economy."
A former IRS expert on international crime notes that "fraudulent industries are often
major economic drivers, and that can translate into political clout."
Some Israeli journalists have been working to expose the situation in Israeli newspapers,
publishing exposés like "As Israel turns blind eye to vast binary options fraud,
French investigators step in" and "Are French Jewish criminals using Israel as a
get-out-of-jail card?" (Short answer: yes.)
Victimizing French business owners & churches
The victims of the recent scam against French citizens included churches and the owners of
small businesses -- delicatessens, car repair shops, hair salons, plumbers, etc. Some lost
their life savings and describe being threatened and intimidated by the scammers.
by Justin
Raimondo Posted on November 15,
2018 November 14, 2018 We don't really hear all that much about Melania Trump in the
media except occasional digs at her immigration status and a few daring photos. That's
because the FLOTUS is one of the few unreservedly good things about this administration, and
of course the media doesn't want to go there. Her grace, her reserve, her remarkable calm at
the epicenter of a tumultuous White House, and, strikingly, her sense of style (and I don't
just mean her clothes) puts her on a different plane from the Washington circus that
surrounds her.
She had managed to keep her distance from the cutthroat politics of the Beltway, that is,
until her
collision with Mira Ricardel, National Security Advisor John Bolton's top aide and
enforcer. Ricardel apparently disparaged the First Lady to other members of the White House
staff, and tried to withhold resources from her on her recent trip to Africa. Whatever
personal interactions of an unpleasant nature may have passed between these women, it's hard
to imagine what provoked the office of the FLOTUS to issue the following statement :
"It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she no longer deserves the
honor of serving in this White House."
Ricardel is described by those who know her as abrasive, a bureaucratic in-fighter, and
one "who doesn't suffer fools lightly." Having mistaken the First Lady for a fool, Ms.
Ricardel is the one who will suffer – along with Bolton, who has protected her since
her appointment from a chorus of critics, but who cannot stand against Melania.
So Team Bolton is on the outs, which means the America Firsters within the administration
who oppose our foreign policy of globalism and perpetual war are on the rise. Which leads us
to contemplate the meaning of this incident. The War Party's ranks are not filled with Mr.
Nice Guys. They are nearly all of them pushy self-serving aggressive SOBs, with about as much
personal charm as a rattlesnake.
I'm reminded of an essay by the
conservative philosopher Claes Ryn, professor of politics at Catholic University, in which he
describes the obnoxious behavior of the children of our political class in a local
MacDonald's just inside one of the Beltway's more prestigious neighborhoods:
"Deference to grown-ups seems unknown. I used to take offense, but the children have
only taken their cue from their parents, who took their cue from their parents. The adults,
for their part, talk in loud, penetrating voices, some on cell phones, as if no other
conversations mattered. The scene exudes self-absorption and lack of self-discipline.
"Yes, this picture has everything to do with U.S. foreign policy. This is the emerging
American ruling class, which is made up increasingly of persons used to having the world
cater to them. If others challenge their will, they throw a temper tantrum. Call this the
imperialistic personality – if 'spoilt brat' sounds too crude."
The Imperialistic Personality, indeed! It seems Ms. Ricardel had one too many temper
tantrums so that even in the permissive atmosphere of Washington, D.C., it was too much.
There are a lot of imperialistic personalities in that particular location, it seems, for one
reason or another. But things are different in Donald Trump's Washington, and even if we have
to take down the Ricardels one by one, just think of the numbers we can rack up in the next
six years.
A NOTE TO MY READERS : My apologies for the short column: I have some medical
issues to take care off this week and I'm a bit pressed for time.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
by John Quiggin on November 11, 2018 It's 100 years since
the Armistice that brought an end to fighting on the Western Front of the Great War. Ten
million soldiers or more were dead, and even more gravely wounded, along with millions of
civilians. Most of the empires that had begun the war were destroyed, and even the victors had
suffered crippling losses. Far from being a "war to end war", the Great War was the starting
point for many more, as well as bloody and destructive revolutions. These wars continue even
today, in the Middle East, carved up in secret treaties between the victors.
For much of the century since then, it seemed that we had learned at least something from
this tragedy, and the disasters that followed it. Commemoration of the war focused on the loss
and sacrifice of those who served, and were accompanied by a desire that the peace they sought
might finally be achieved.
But now that everyone who served in that war has passed away, along with most of those who
remember its consequences, the tone has shifted to one of glorification and jingoism.
In part, this reflects the fact that, for rich countries, war no longer has any real impact
on most people. As in the 19th century, we have small professional armies fighting in faraway
countries and suffering relatively few casualties. Tens of thousands of people may die in these
conflicts, but the victims of war impinge on our consciousness only when they seek shelter as
refugees, to be turned away or locked up.
In the past, I've concluded message like this with the tag "Lest we Forget". Sadly, it seems
as if everything important has already been forgotten.
novakant 11.11.18 at 11:11 am (no link)
There's an interesting review in this week's TLS (paywall) by Richard J. Evans of
Jörn Leonhard: Pandora's Box – A History of the First World War
I think it varies per place, even within countries. In my English village this morning, about
a quarter of the population gathered in front of the war memorial, closing the only road.
They stood there, quietly. A couple of older people spent twenty minutes reading out the
names of all the poor souls who had left the village for war and never returned. Then there
was two minutes silence, the vicar called for personal peace for all those affected by war,
and then demanded that all those who could work for peace do so. A grim soberness marked the
whole thing
I had nearly not gone, expecting it to be too jingoistic, but it was nothing of the sort. I
am sure across the many communities remembering the Armistice across the world, many will be
doing the same.
This is my way of responding to Armistice Day.
Bob Dylan, Masters of War" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCnYmrADSns
"You that fasten all the trigger
For the others to fire
And you sit back and watch
While the death toll gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud"
Phil Ochs, "I Declare the War Is Over https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOs9xYUjY4I
"One-legged veterans will greet the dawn
And they're whistling marches as they mow the lawn
And the gargoyles only sit and grieve
The gypsy fortune teller told me that we'd been deceived
You only are what you believe"
Big Ed McCurdy, "Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5hxqNdqKo
"Last night I had the strangest dream
I ever dreamed before
I dreamed the world had all agreed
To put an end to war"
Just a personal question on jq. I left Australia 30 years ago. I can remember no jingoism on
armistice Day. On Australia Day and Anzac Day perhaps, but never on remembrance Day. Had that
really changed?
Regarding Leonhard, it is always a cause for concern when a reviewer calls a historian
"judicious."
The most important thing to remember about the Great War is that it wasn't caused by
malign ideologies, or nefarious leveling schemes, or crazed utopian economic cranks. It was
simply an inevitable breakdown of the normal operation of the capitalist world system.
Remember that when the ever growing infestation of libertarians, respected by their peers,
trot out their mythology.
Speaking of "lest we forget," how many people and how many commemorations have managed to
forget that the armistice came about as a direct consequence of the socialist uprising in
Germany, sparked in large part by a mass mutiny among German sailors in Kiel? Two days before
the formal armistice declaration, workers led by the left wing of the SPD stormed the
Reichstag, an ad hoc governing coalition led by the right wing of the SPD negotiated the
abdication of the Kaiser, and both the left and right wings of the SPD simultaneously issued
separate proclamations of a socialist German republic (by which they meant two very different
things, of course, a divergence that was notoriously written out over the following few years
in the blood of revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg).
In short, you can toss Armistice Day into the category as things like weekend, the 8 hour
work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets, and so on: if you celebrate it, don't
forget to thank revolutionary socialism for making it possible.
I'm with John on this one. I'll wear the poppy in recognition of the sacrifice, but will
avoid the local cenotaph ceremony. I find the current temper of Remembrance Day services
distasteful and the "our freedoms" trope abhorrent.
Reason @5 It's mostly Anzac Day, but the 100th anniversary has made Remembrance Day a bigger
deal than usual. And we just had a breathless announcement that "veterans" (I still haven't
got used to this Americanism) would be given boarding priority on Virgin airlines.
To be fair, our PM, who is generally hopeless on this and other issues, gave quite a good
speech on the day, which ran under the headline "War is always a failure of our humanity"
the loss of life and the lasting injuries that follow the fighting remain to show the
futility of allowing war to arise as an answer to our conflicting ideas. humanity has failed
as the dominant species. the fault lies in the hopes of too many to emulate the past society
of material greed as a goal. reaching our limits of destroying the clean air and poisoning
the seas with chemical and plastic waste as though the planet could absorb an endless spew
will cause humanity's end. honoring the dead is the least we may do to salute those that went
before us.
steven t johnson@6: WWI was "simply an inevitable breakdown of the normal operation of the
capitalist world system".
Remind me how many other "inevitable breakdowns of the normal operation" happened before,
or after 1914.
Remind me how far the authorities in Serbia, Russia (or indeed Austria-Hungary or Germany)
believed themselves to be operating in the interests of, or governed by, the capitalist world
system.
Come to that, for the next catastrophe in 1939, do the same for the authorities in Russia,
Poland and Germany.
And explain why there have been no such inevitable breakdowns since.
John Quiggin@10 "To be fair, our PM, who is generally hopeless on this and other issues, gave
quite a good speech on the day, which ran under the headline 'War is always a failure of our
humanity'" It seems to me to be quite unfair to blame WWI on us and our depraved human
nature. As Norman Angell notoriously demonstrated "us" do not get any benefit from war. Cui
bono? Nationalists want to go back to a world where sovereign nations struggle for their
place in the sun. Some, like Trump and Putin, want to go it alone. Others like the lords of
the EU want a consortium. What all share is a system of capitalist competition which will,
like all complex, crisis-ridden systems, eventually break down. Whining about human nature
seems to me detestable.
stephen@12 agrees with majority here, and elsewhere, of course. Nonetheless the confidence
the Spanish-American war, the Boer war, the Russian-Turkish war, the Sino-Japanese war, the
Russian-Japanese war and either of the Balkan wars would of course not, ever, possibly, have
spread like the third Balkan war, er, WWI would be touching were it not so disingenuous. Even
if one insists only conflicts between the great powers, the possibility that the Crimean war,
the war with Magenta and Solferino, the Schleswig-Holstein war, the Franco-Prussian war
(proper,) could not possibly have spread out of control is equally disingenous. Remember
54-40 or fight, the Aroostook war? The monotonously repetitive crises like Fashoda and the
first and second Moroccan crises and the brouhaha over the annexation of Bosnia clearly shows
crisis is normal operation. stephen's insistence this is all irrelevant is convenience, not
argument.
As to the absurd notion that a capitalist world system, in which states are the protectors
of the property of the nation's ruling class, somehow means the chieftains are pursuing the
general interests of world capitalism is delirious twaddle. It is the reformist who pretends
globalism means trade and peace.
I am well aware that everyone agrees with stephen on this point, but it is still
wrong.
Tens of thousands of people may die in these conflicts
Try 2 million in Korea.
One million in Vietnam.
500,000 in Iraq.
And who knows how many in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Serbia, Somalia and all our
various proxy wars in Yemen, Latin America and Africa plus all of the civilians massacred by
our client-state dictators in Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Congo, Egypt, the
Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guatemala and others I'm likely forgetting.
America is the biggest purveyor of death, destruction and human misery on the globe, but
it sounds like we've "forgotten" that as well.
Plenty of horrible things have happened in various American and other war zones since the
Western Front. Plenty of busted-up vets in every city. The problem can't be that we
forgot .
but isn't the capitalist system an emergent effect based on properties of human nature:
individualism, acquisitiveness, aggression. Surely a change of human nature would lead to a
change of economics at least; hopefully in a progressive direction but not necessarily
so.
A while back, a native American on Twitter commented that her people had already
experienced an apocalypse. This led to the following reflection on my part:
The history of modern Western Europe can be viewed as a series of apocalypses. War after
war after war, only at peace after nearly destroying itself. And that is the history of the
modern world.
>In short, you can toss Armistice Day into the category as things like weekend, the 8
hour work day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets, and so on: if you celebrate it,
don't forget to thank revolutionary socialism for making it possible.
Do and the 100 million people revolutionary socialists would murder in the 80 or so years
following armistice day, what do they owe the revolutionary socialists?
@13
>What all share is a system of capitalist competition which will, like all complex,
crisis-ridden systems, eventually break down. Whining about human nature seems to me
detestable.
Ah yes, we all remember how non-violent those non-capitalist systems were, with the gulags
and mass killing and terror famines.
In an Old Holborn 'baccy tin somewhere in the house is my grandad's WW1 medal. He served in
the London Labour Battalions. Gassed.
He worked twice between his return and his too early death. Both jobs being very
temporary. His family lived in poverty in the East End; the "Panel" was used at times:
charity from the worthies. My dad was crippled with diseases of poverty. He was a communist
(until the 50s).
He signed up with his mates in '39. His best mate Jimmy Biscoe killed in a bomber operation
in the early 40s.
I got my dad's medals this year, twenty years after his death. He only told me a bit of
his experiences when he was dying. He loved my mum, music and kindness.
My dear, gruff dad-in-law lost his left leg at Monte Cassino. Every few years he'd get a
new "fitting", which was a great strain for him. He loved his family, his garden, rowing; we
talked a little about his experiences one quiet afternoon at the RSA. He too died too
early.
My Mum's favourite brother was a boy sailor. He went through the River Plate among other
actions. He spent time in psychiatric hospital after the war for his 'war trauma'. He too
died early.
The padre at my daughter's funeral had been a padre at Arnhem. A quiet, deeply
compassionate man who took his own life some three years later.
My best friend at school, dead in his twenties, doing his "duty".
Not a hero among them: ordinary, flawed, loved and loving human beings.
And the people left behind ? Lives filled with quiet, unresolved sadness and loss; getting by
with grit and quiet courage.
I used to go to Dawn Service. Then it got to be political Theatre. I get f .g angry with
all the brouhaha, preening and cavorting. None of this helps or helped any of those people
mentioned above.
Half a billion for the AWM? And cutting the funding of food banks? Moral bloody Bankruptcy
writ large.
You know I could possibly be sympathetic with all of you if it wasn't the case that
utopian ideology didn't have more victims than all the nationalisms put together. A plague on
all your houses.
Birdie@17 is telling us human nature generated capitalism a hundred thousand years ago? Or is
telling us that human nature is only free in a capitalist system? I think neither.
Raven Onthill@18 seems to think it is incumbent on the lesser peoples to surrender without
a fight, and accept the status quo as God-given. That Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empires
could be liquidated peacefully, like a common bankruptcy. That is not how it works in a
capitalist system of sovereign states defending the property of their respective ruling
classes, against other states. The rise of Germany and the US against the relative decline of
the British empire meant the balance of forces must change. The new balance could only be
found by war.
The relative decline of the US means the current balance of forces must change. That's why
the US government has explicitly declared Russia and China to be revisionist powers. The US
state will no more go quietly than the British empire, which would not reach a peaceful
accommodation with Germany then any more than it can reach a real accommodation with "Europe"
today.
ironoutofcavalry@19 spells out the shared premises of liberal democrats and fascists, the
determination that famines and wars under capitalism are acts of God, while everything that
happens under socialism is always deliberate. Even if you somehow pretend the depopulation of
the Americas and the mass deaths of the Middle Passage somehow had nothing to do with
capitalism, there were plenty of holocausts in later days. See Mike Davis' Late Victorian
Holocausts. (Davis contention that famines relatively soon after the revolution are the same
as the great Bengal famine or the Irish famine is social-democratic piety, the sort of thing
that gives it a bad name.) Idiot theorists of "totalitarianism" are invited to comment upon
the Triple War in South America.
ironoutofcavalry, the Black Book of Communism is a contemptible far-right propaganda rag
whose death tally was denounced by several of its own co-authors due to the main author's
obsession with reaching the nice round 100 million mark by any means necessary, with "victims
of communism" including such figures as hypothetical deaths due to lack of population growth
during famine periods, Soviet civilian deaths resulting from the economic dislocations of the
Nazi invasion, and even Nazi soldiers killed on the battlefields of the Eastern Front. By
standards much more rigorous and defensible than those used in the Black Book of Communism,
the basic functioning of global capitalist material inequality kills tens of millions of
people per decade -- which is before you even begin trying to tally the casualties of
capitalist conflicts like the two world wars, let alone any of the other massively
destructive imperial interventions around the world before and since, which people like
stephen seem to have trained themselves not to regard as catastrophic in the same way as
WWI/WWII as long as the victims are mostly poor brown people in the Third World. Hell, even
at this very moment the US is providing direct political and military support for a campaign
of intentional starvation by its Saudi proxy state against millions of people in northern
Yemen, a "terror famine" at least as deliberate and premeditated as anything Stalin or Mao
ever dreamed of.
If you must insist on spreading uninformed reactionary bromides, at least take it to a
less serious discussion space where it belongs, and regardless, don't forget to thank a
socialist if you enjoy not being sent to die in a muddy trench.
Stephen, here's a reasonable
summary of how the dynamics of capitalist economic development led inexorably to WWI and
WWII, and are leading to a future global conflict that may be much less distant than we'd
like to imagine. Now before you click the link, note the following passage quoted in the
linked article, by a political commentator writing in 1887 about the prospect of:
a world war, moreover of an extent the violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten
million soldiers will be at each other's throats and in the process they will strip Europe
barer than a swarm of locusts. The depredations of the Thirty Years' War compressed into
three to four years and extended over the entire continent; famine, disease, the universal
lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and the people, in the wake of acute misery
irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of' trade, industry and credit, ending
in universal bankruptcy collapse of the old states and their conventional political wisdom
to the point where crowns will roll into the gutters by the dozen, and no one will be
around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of foreseeing how it will all end and
who will emerge as victor from the battle. That is the prospect for the moment when the
development of mutual one-upmanship in armaments reaches us, climax and finally brings
forth its inevitable fruits. This is the pass, my worthy princes and statesmen, to which
you in your wisdom have brought our ancient Europe.
Now based on what you can guess of my political orientation strictly from what I've
posted here, try to guess which 19th century European political figure might have written
that passage. No, your first guess is wrong, he died in 1883, but close, now guess again.
Yes, your second guess is correct .
I've seen "X is bad" statements receive the "Oh yeah? Well Stalin was worse !" non
sequitur in response for many values of X. But this thread is the first time I've seen it
happen for X = WWI.
WLGR@7: if you think that revolutionary socialism made possible "weekend, the 8 hour work
day, the 40 hour work week, social safety nets" how do you explain that all these things
happened in states that did not have to endure the catastrophic misfortunes of revolutionary
socialism?
steven t johnson@14
This is the first time that I have ever been told that everyone [on CT? in the wider
universe?] agrees with me, but if that is so I do not see it as a reason for supposing I am
wrong. Rational arguments dissenting from my opinions are of course always welcome.
stj's argument that, because conflicts pre-1914 did not result in world wars, therefore
WWI was inevitable, has only to be made explicit to collapse.
I am particularly interested by stj's argument that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78,
between two absolutist non-capitalist monarchies, was in some way the result of international
capitalism. If he will reconsider that opinion, he might like to recalibrate his denunciation
of other wars as capitalist. I would recommend the works of an intelligent Marxist, Perry
Anderson, who explains why pre-Revolutionary Russia and Wilhelmine Germany had many
capitalists, they were not actually capitalist states.
As for his denunciation of capitalism in which "states are the protectors of the property
of the nation's ruling class": there is of course some truth there, but in which system is
that not true? In capitalism, unlike some other systems – revolutionary socialism, to
start with – whose property has been protected?
Birdie@17: "isn't the capitalist system an emergent effect based on properties of human
nature: individualism, acquisitiveness, aggression?" Human nature indeed; try explaining to
Ashurbanipal of Assyria, Alexander, Genghiz Khan why these properties did not apply to their
very n0n-capitalist selves.
Stephen, are you under the impression that western Europe and the US never had a
revolutionary socialist tradition? If so, I don't really know what to tell you other than to
read even the most passing history of Western mass politics and labor struggles, the upshot
of which is that yes of course it was Western ruling classes' fear of working-class
revolutionary agitation that led to the implementation of every single one of those things,
up to and including the German ruling class in early November 1918 deciding to hand over
power to the moderate reformist wing of the SPD, whose first major policy decision as soon as
they'd settled into their desks was to pursue an armistice with the Entente. I can understand
maybe a few token Birchers or Randroids poking their heads out here and there, but has the
anti-intellectual right-wing fever swamp of our current era really risen high enough that
such mild observations are somehow surprising or controversial even in a forum like this one?
'I used to go to Dawn Service. Then it got to be political Theatre. I get f .g angry with
all the brouhaha, preening and cavorting. None of this helps or helped any of those people
mentioned above."
After Trump's election, I chose to abstain for a while from the drenching but never quenching
fire hose of information of the web, and for a while worked through the stacks of books I had
long left unread.
One I avoided for quite a while, not remembering its provenance was "Human Smoke", by
Nicholson Baker. It could not have been a gift; no one in the family still living is familiar
with this author.
It's an assemblage of quotes from various authors from the beginning of the twentieth
century up until the operation of the crematoria which furnishes the title, and its general
tendency is pacifism, disarmament, the efforts made both before and after the Great War to
prevent such catastrophes, and the inhumanity of the conduct of the war. From the outset, the
policy of our side was to starve the other into submission through naval blockades, and to a
considerable extent it was successful.
In the second round, our side was the first to start bombing civilians, and we got better
at it the longer the war went on, though it's far from clear that this was a useful
strategy.
Baker's book is not, could hardly be, a convincing argument for pacifism, given the
drumbeat of fascist pronouncements, threats, denunciations, bragging and swaggering. The
first world war was so pointless that it's hard to understand how it happened, why it
couldn't have been avoided, why it couldn't have been stopped sooner. The second was
different.
It is worth remembering that the First World War was called, by those who opposed it after
the fact, the "War to End War". An organisation was set up to ensure that there would be no
more wars, and an international agreement renouncing war was signed.
The organisation was being set up while the war was actually going on, if you count the
Western blockade and invasion of Russia, and the Greek invasion of Turkey, as part of the
war.
Nevertheless, within less than twenty years you had the Italian invasion of Ethiopia
(arguably an after-effect of Italy's failure to get what it wanted out of the First World
War) and soon after that, the Japanese invasion of southern China (inarguably, ditto).
It is possible for people to argue that since there has not been a similar war since 1945,
"humanity" has "learned its lesson". In reality, however, the reason why there has been no
similar war has been that the principal protagonists have nuclear weapons and no means of
defense against them. If anybody comes up with a genuinely reliable defense against ballistic
and cruise missiles, I'd give the world less than ten more years of peace.
Incidentally, I'd give the world less than ten more years of peace at the moment, but
that's because of the preponderance of doltish psychopaths in governments. It's interesting,
however, that a doltish psychopath like Macron is nevertheless capable of realising that
France is vulnerable to the intermediate-range nuclear missiles which the U.S. is currently
unleashing on the world, and therefore is trying to, er, have a conference about banning the
use of naughty weapons and about promoting world peace.
Stephen has won the gallery with the claim that repeated crises failing to result in systemic
failure of the world diplomatic system (that is, causing world war,) on a an easily
predictable schedule shows obviously it is entirely possible for us to go back to a world of
sovereign nations like before the US hegemony and have endless crises with nary a collapse.
It's like the capitalist economy that way. "We" are now so wise that we can avoid the follies
of our predecessors, who are obviously stupid, which is proven by their being dead, dead,
dead.
I am sure Stephen has also won hearts and minds with the claim Russian conquests
against Turkey meant the extension of the Russian empire rather than the creation of the
states of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria. But perhaps people think those new
countries came complete with serfdom; extensive church lands and widespread monasticism;
aristocratic estates and caste privileges; relative absence of cities, etc. That is, the new
states were non-capitalist because absolutist monarchy isn't capitalist.
(I'm not familiar with Perry Anderson because leftist and foreign means it will not be
easily available in the US outside elite libraries. But if Perry Anderson thinks absolutism
and mercantilism were not part of the transition to capitalism, I believe he is gravely
mistaken. Defining "capitalism" as the most refined bourgeois democracy in the imperial
metropole is popular, because it is so usefully apologetic, yet it is still nonsense.)
Last and least, reason@21 utters the preposterous claim "utopian ideologies" have killed
more people than anything else. (The comment seems to include ironoutof cavalry, but I'm sure
ironoutofcavalry, like Stephen and reason, are resolutely complacent about social evils,
because, anti-utopian.) Personally I think business as usual, not utopian ideology, had
everything to do with the great Bengal famine circa 1770 (not the WWII one.) Etc. etc. etc.
in a litany that would sicken the soul, were it not fortified by the conviction it is utopian
ideology that is the spirit of evil.
"Sadly, it seems as if everything important has already been forgotten".
But Von Clownstick just remembered it was "them Germans" – and sadly not one comment
here was about Macron reminding US that "everything important" is how to deal with
"Nationalism"?
– and about:
"But now that everyone who served in that war has passed away, along with most of those who
remember its consequences, the tone has shifted to one of glorification and jingoism".
Didn't the French and the Germans mention that it is now 70 years that these "Archenemies"
at peace? – and I think to this "Armistice Day" the first time even the Germans were
invited? – but how true there was a "shifted tone" by the German Baron Von Clownstick
–
(who somehow still pretends he is "American"?)
Britain tried to negotiate an end to the naval arms race with Germany at least twice
before 1914. Germany was not interested. After 1905 Russia was also keen to avoid conflict.
The proponents of this policy lost credibility due to German sabre-rattling and insouciant
reversals by Vienna.
– and for everybody who might have missed it – let me explain what was going on
at this "Armistice Day".
Baron von Clownstick was very, VERY unhappy -(not only because he was afraid to ruin his
hair) BUT also – BE-cause as he always says "we built the best Arms" – "the most
beautiful weaponry" – and when he always told them Germans and them French and all
these other Nato members to pay more for Nato he was hoping for more Sales of US Arms BUT
then this Macron dude -(and now also Merkel) suddenly were talking about "Europeans
protecting themselves" -(and NOT buying more US weapons) and that made Von Clownstick very,
VERY sad – as his funny tweets about the US not wanting to protect Europe anymore
– if Europe wasn't "pony up" came to let's call it – to "fruition" – or a
classical "protect me from what I want" – and THAT's what happened on this –
"Armistice Day" –
(besides the danger for Von Clownsticks hair)
Just wading in a bit to say that "Revolutionary Socialism" is one of those labels that
obfuscates more than it reveals. Lenin, Debs, and Luxembourg were all contemporaries who
believed in Socialism and revolution, but they didn't all believe in the same "Revolutionary
Socialism." Just look at the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks for proof that even seemingly
small distinctions in what it means to be "revolutionary" have huge implications.
People seem to have settled on using "Revolutionary" as a code word to mean "violent,
dangerous, and radical," or "serious, committed, and effective," depending on their politics,
while "Democratic" is treated as being the opposite (for good or ill), but it's a false
dichotomy. Pacifists can be radical, democrats can be thuggish, and democracy can be
revolutionary or counterrevolutionary, and "effectiveness" is subjective. Given that even
with conventional definitions, it's not always easy to see which of the two camps a
particular Socialist falls under (and many of them changed factions), it's probably best to
clarify what type of revolution you're talking about up front.
er, Peter T, Britain wanted to end the naval arms race with Germany because it was ahead and
in complete control of European seas. It was Britain which had introduced the Dreadnought
battleship and the battlecruiser. It's rather like the American calls to restrict the number
of nuclear weapons and discourage countries which don't have them from acquiring them.
I won't say that German sabre-rattling wasn't a factor in promoting European crisis.
However, it's hard not to see the Russian military buildup in Europe between 1905 and 1914 as
anything other than preparation for war (however inept it turned out to be in practice), and
of course the Russians were heavily involved (diplomatically) in the Balkan wars. It
certainly wasn't the Austrians who orchestrated the murder of their heir to the throne, and
if Britain were to grow grumpy at Syria murdering Prince Charles I would hardly call that
"insouciant".
Wars are a strategy for male reproduction. Invade. Kill the competing men. Impregnate the
women. Enslave and trade women as reproductive property. Repeat. It's what men have done for
centuries.
Eg. Iceland
. ""This supports the model, put forward by some historians, that the majority of females
in the Icelandic founding population had Gaelic ancestry, whereas the majority of males had
Scandinavian ancestry,"
Britain had roughly 70% of the world's merchant fleet, a world-wide empire tied together
by maritime communications and was critically dependent on sea-borne trade. This was not new
– it had been the situation since 1815. Germany set out to build a fleet specifically
designed to challenge Britain's control of its home waters (heavy on battleships, short
range). Britain responded by building the dreadnoughts, then by coming to an arrangement with
France so as to free up forces from the Med, all the while seeking a naval truce. One can
argue that Germany had every right to seek to diminish British naval dominance, but it was
surely both a foolish and an aggressive policy, given that it posed a threat no British
government could not respond to (the invasion of Belgium and German plans to annex the
Belgian coast were similar, in that they would place the High Seas Fleet across Britain's
major trade artery. In 1914 London was the greatest port in the world).
The Viennese insouciance I had in mind was in regard to the Bosnian annexation in 1909.
The details are in Dominic Lieven's Towards the Flame, but it was a typical bit of
Austro-Hungarian over-clever dickishness. It added a layer of distrust that was not helpful
in 1914.
What worried Germany the most was Russian railway-building, which threatened to make their
military planning more difficult. They saw 1914 as a narrow and shrinking window (much as
many of the same people saw war in 1939 as a last military opportunity). Indeed, they had
mooted war against Russia in 1906 and again in 1909.
It's overlooked that Europe had an established mechanism for resolving diplomatic crises
– either an international congress or a meeting of the affected powers (as at Vienna
1813, Berlin 1878, London 1912..). The Powers had imposed settlements in the Balkans on
several previous occasions, and could have done so this time. Britain and France proposed a
congress; Berlin refused.
While they all look similar to us, Germany really was much more militarist and much more
inclined to seek salvation from their dilemmas in war than the other powers. While all the
elites were in a febrile state, Germany's were in something close to a collective nervous
breakdown, isolated, truculent and fearful.
I am a big fan of Hobson's book "Imperialism, a study", written in 1902, that I believe
explain tendencies, that evidently were present in 1902 and before, that later exploded and
caused WW1 and WW2.
The general theory of the book is that capitalist countries face underconsumption problems
at home, due to the exceedigly low wage share (Hobson though is not a marxist so he doesn't
believes that this is the normal situation in capitalism).
This underconsumption forces capitalist countries to expand in the colonies, and ultimately
also to create an military/financial/industrial complex that becomes the valve through which
excess savings (due to underconsumption due to excessively low wages) can be reinvested.
I'll leave out a discussion if Hobson's economic theories make sense (I think they do) or
wether they are the same of marxist theories (I think they are the same expressed from
another point of view and with a more moderate approach), but I want to point out the chapter
about "the scientific defence of imperialism" (pp.162 onwards in the link), because it
clearly speaks of the "scientific racism" theories that are nowadays associated with fascism
and nazism.
Here a cite from p.163:
Admitting that the efficiency of a nation or a race requires a suspension of intestine
warfare, at any rate l' =trance, the crude struggle on the larger plane must, they urge, be
maintained. It serves, indeed, two related purposes. A constant struggle with other races
or nations is demanded for the maintenance and progress of a race or nation ; abate the
necessity of the struggle and the vigour of the race flags and perishes. Thus it is to the
real interest of a vigorous race to be " kept up to a high pitch of external efficiency by
contest, chiefly by way of war with inferior races, and with equal races by the struggle
for trade routes and for the sources of raw material and of food supply." " This," adds
Professor Karl Pearson," is the natural history view of mankind, and I do not think you can
in its main features subvert it." Others, taking the wider cosmic standpoint, insist that
the progress of humanity itself requires the main-tenance of a selective and destructive
struggle between races which embody different power and capacities, different types of
civilisation.
From this I think it's obvious how Italian fascism and German nazism were mostly an
extremisation of theories that were already present before WW1 (and Japanese militarism and
probably many other militarism that we prefer to forget today).
In fact Mussolini justified the entry of Italy into WW2 with the idea of a natural struggle
between nations/races/cultures.
Now the main question is: was Hobson correct to say that these theories were just covers
for economic interests, that in turn were caused by underconsumption?
Or to say the same thing from a more marxist standpoint, is it true that WW1 was caused by
various capitalist countries were forced by the capitalist need for continuous
growth/expansion to continually expand their colonial empires, and in the end they had to
clash one with the other?
I think it is true.
This doesn't mean that all war in history were caused by capitalism, before capitalism ever
existed. Hower this gives an answer to some of your questions, and specifically:
1) Why didn't the normal conditions of capitalist production give rise to a world war
before?
Because various capitalist powers hadn't already conquered most of the world, so they didn't
have to go directly at each other's throat before WW1.
2) Why didn't the normal conditions of capitalist production give rise to a world war
after WW2?
Because
(2.a) after WW2 the capitalist system in developed countries had a much higer wage share due
to government intervention and anyway excess savings were repurposed through Keynesian
policies and inflation, thus much less underconsuption,
and
(2.b) because after WW2 for some decades there was only one main capitalist pole, that was
the USA, that was the main proponent of this kind of keynesian policies, either because it
was wiser, or because of the menace of socialism, or for whatever the reason.
WLGR@29: You ask whether I am "under the impression that western Europe and the US never had
a revolutionary socialist tradition?" Well, definitely not, and I cannot see that I have
written anything that could lead you to form an honest opinion that I am, or even might be.
Nor can I see any basis for your belief that, disagreeing with you, I must be wholly ignorant
of Western mass politics. I would advise you to have less faith in your own powers of
telepathy.
To refresh your memory: I wrote that various good thing happened in states that did not
have to endure the catastrophic misfortunes of revolutionary socialism. And I cannot see how
you can dispute either that states which were historically ruled by revolutionary socialists
suffered catastrophes; or that many European and other states, though never ruled by
revolutionary socialists and so avoiding their catastrophes, acquired these good things.
Pre-emptive disclaimer: I am not of course claiming that all catastrophes have been due to
revolutionary socialism.
stj@33: with regard to Russo/Turkish history, I think you are rather confused. You seem to
think I claimed that "Russian conquests against Turkey meant the extension of the Russian
empire rather than the creation of the states of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria." I
didn't: I merely pointed out that the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-8 was not in any intelligible
sense a conflict between two capitalist states. But if you want to widen the discussion to
cover Russian conquests against Turkey, I must point out that (1) several such conquests did
in fact involve extension of the Russian empire: take a quick look at the history of Ukraine
and Crimea (2) the creation of Montenegro was a result of Austrian and Venetian victories,
not Russian (3) Russia never conquered any part of Serbia from the Turks, though Russian
support for autonomously rebellious Serbs was significant (4) a complicating factor in the
formation of Romania was the Russian invasion of the principalities of Wallachia and
Moldavia, followed by an attempt to incorporate them into the Russian empire: many Romanians
preferred Ottoman rule (5) Bulgaria, you're right for once, that was a direct and
uncomplicated result of Russian conquest followed by creation of a new state. Which I never
said it wasn't.
I really do think it would be a good idea for you to read Perry Anderson's thoughtful and
erudite works before dismissing them; they may be more accessible than you think. I don't
know if your socialist principles would allow you to use the capitalist outfit Amazon
yourself, but if so Anderson's Lineages of the Absolutist state is available at $29.95 plus
postage. I would also recommend on a rather different topic Passages from Antiquity to
Feudalism, same price: second-hand copies of either are a little cheaper.
Wasn't World War I the result of Germany pursuing conquest?
World War 1 was equally the result of Britain 'pursuing conquest', i.e. its decades-long
ambition to expand its empire into the Near and Far Easts. Josh Marshall is, I'm afraid, an
unreconstructed Anglophile who also believes silly claims that the British went back to
'peace' (whatever that may be for a militarised empire) after WWI.
MFB @ 39
Correct. From contemporary accounts, we know that those members of the public who were
paying attention at the time could see the various empires building up to war for years
beforehand.
Marxist explanations work better for some events than for others; I don't think they work
particularly well for WW 1, though they aren't completely irrelevant.
I don't keep up with the historiography (e.g., the probably endless debate btw the Fischer
school and its critics/opponents), but one can distinguish btw contingent and deeper causes.
The latter were both 'ideational' (e.g., hypernationalism; views of war in general; 'cult of
the offensive'; influence of Social Darwinist and racialist perspectives on intl relations;
relative weakness of the peace mvts and their msg; dominant styles of diplomacy; etc.) and
'material' (e.g., problems faced by the multinational empires, esp. Austria-Hungary; rigidity
of mobilization plans; economic and political pressures on ruling elites; etc.), though the
distinction between ideational and material is somewhat artificial.
I'm not sure which among all the historical works is most worth reading (J.C.G. Rohl was
mentioned by someone in a past thread on this topic, and there were a lot of books published
around 2014 on the centenary of the war's start); but istm James Joll's work, among others,
has held up pretty well. Political scientists/ IR people have also continued to publish on
this. (The last journal article I'm aware of is Keir Lieber's in Intl Security several yrs
ago [and the replies], though I'm sure there have been others since. And even though it's
old, S. Van Evera's piece from the '80s, "Why Cooperation Failed in 1914," is still worth
reading, for the copious footnotes to the then-extant historical work in English (and English
translation), among other things.)
MFB: "It was Britain which had introduced the Dreadnought battleship and the battlecruiser."
Hmm, wasn't the Dreadnought class a direct response to the Tirpitz Memorandum (1896) and
the subsequent German Navy Bill of 1898, the purpose of which was to build a battleship fleet
with which to confront the Royal Navy?
As regards the historical arguments about war guilt, there was a strong pro-war faction in
nearly every European country, and even in Australia (on this last point, and the links to
the British pro-war faction, see Douglas Newton's Hell Bent ). The pro-war faction
prevailed nearly everywhere. Arguing about which pro-war faction was most responsible for
bringing about the war they all wanted seems pointless to me.
Moreover, once the war started, no-one wanted in power anywhere to bring it to an end on
any terms other than victory, annexations and reparations.
Looking specifically at the British government, since it seems to have the most defenders,
they first refused an offer of alliance from Turkey and then (when Turkey entered on the
German side instead) made a secret deal with France to carve up the Ottoman empire. As
mentioned in the OP, we are still dealing with the consequences today. That's not to excuse
the pro-war factions that dominated the governments of Germany, France, Russia,
Austria-Hungary, Italy etc.
If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
With the newly reimposed US sanctions against
Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton
is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will "
squeeze
Iran until the pips squeak ."
Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying
that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined
to see it keep getting worse.
Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would
ultimately fail. He said the
Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to
European acceptance of the US demands.
Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be
imposing new sanctions
on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging
Iran.
Sort of like how Bolton and his merry band of neocons seized upon Ahmad Chalabi and his merry
men as some sort of Authentic Voice of Resistance to teh Evil Saddam. Does anyone else
remember that?
Bolton et al. know better. As long as this gets them the regime change that they and their
owners in Jerusalem and Riyadh demand, they do not care.
You can always tell just how deep our understanding is of a country by the opposition we
choose to support.
As @Sid Finster pointed out, the fraudulent Chalabi was a good bellwether of our true
understanding of Iraq, and the MEK shows just how equally deep we understand Iran.
Can't say if Bolton is just a nut; but Giuliani, et. al are probably just being paid; like
any other prostitute. IF the $$ stop; they will then say "who knew?" .
AS with Trump; S.A. would have no problem paying enough for them to perform any act demanded.
So Obama sees a "Responsibility to Protect" MEK war criminals and the business interests of
Dean, Bolton, Guiliani et.al, but is perfectly happy to let the Saudis "cross the blood red
line" for years to save himself some headaches on JCOPA – an "agreement" that was not
worth the paper it was written on without Congress actually binding itself by ratification.
But his minions did consider designating the Houthi "terrorists".
The intended Clinton-Obama "transition" had all the marks of a protection racket, all
governance transient and passing and resting on the edifice of unconstitutionally expansive
claims of executive power.
@rayray, thank you for the kind words, but my position is more accurately stated as follows:
I suspect that in 2003, Bolton knew and knew full well that Chalabi was an opportunist at
best. A fraudster, a monster, a sociopath, delusional, to put it more bluntly. That his
support in Iraq was nil, and that Chalabi would be rejected immediately and rightfully, as an
American puppet. Bolton may even have known that Chalabi was in the pay of Iran.
Like the MEK now, as long Bolton gets the war he so craves, he doesn't care about any of
that.
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
A long fight by lawmakers like Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) is set to go mainstream, and an
antiwar push on Yemen soon after the midterms could show how.
WASHINGTON ― As Democrats plan for a potential future in which they have control of
the U.S. House, lawmakers, candidates and outside groups close to the party are quietly
preparing a new push against the overlooked war in Afghanistan. The last time the party
controlled the lower chamber of Congress, the U.S. had close to 50,000 troops in Afghanistan.
Today that number is 15,000 -- but it's been eight years, and there's still no clarity about
when the longest war in American history will actually come to an end. President Donald Trump 's stated
policy is that the U.S. presence has no time limit. So Democrats are considering long-discussed
proposals to torpedo the war's entire legal justification -- the sweeping post-9/11
congressional authorization that has been used to support U.S. military action well beyond
Afghan borders -- and tie funding for the campaign to clearly outlined strategic goals and
troop reductions. There's also talk of using new oversight powers to hold top officials,
military commanders, defense contractors and foreign partners accountable for accusations of
human rights violations, corruption and political posturing at the cost of human lives. And
while party leaders are loath to commit to a particular course, they feel certain this is an
issue their colleagues and their political base see as a priority. A dramatic but now largely
forgotten vote in June 2017 underscored why this is a natural fight for Democrats. House
Appropriations Committee lawmakers from both parties voted for the first time for a measure
long pushed by war critic Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) that would repeal the authorization. GOP
leadership quashed the effort, but it clearly signaled that, after years of worrying about
being seen as too dovish, Democrats have reached a moment when even the other party and its
voters can seriously consider serious antiwar action. "We've come a long way from just one vote
in opposition [when the authorization came up in 2001] to a widespread recognition among
members of Congress that this was an overly-broad authorization that set the stage for
perpetual war," Lee wrote in an email to HuffPost. She sees Democratic unity on the issue
today: "There's a lot of common ground across the caucus around holding this debate and
vote."
by Chris Bertram on October 31, 2018 Candice Delmas, A
Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press, 2018).
Political obligation has always been a somewhat unsatisfactory topic in political
philosophy, as has, relatedly, civil disobedience. The "standard view" of civil disobedience,
to be found in Rawls, presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious
violations of the basic liberties yet occur and conceives of civil disobedience as a deliberate
act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character, which aims to communicate a sense of grave
wrong to our fellow citizens. To demonstrate their fidelity to law, civil disobedients are
willing to accept the consequences of their actions and to take their punishment. When Rawls
first wrote about civil disobedience, in 1964, parts of the US were openly and flagrantly
engaged in the violent subordination of their black population, so it was quite a stretch for
him to think of that society as "nearly just". But perhaps its injustice impinged less
obviously on a white professor at an elite university in Massachusetts than it did on poor
blacks in the deep South.
The problems with the standard account hardly stop there. Civil disobedience thus conceived
is awfully narrow. In truth, the range of actions which amount to resistance to the state and
to unjust societies is extremely broad, running from ordinary political opposition, through
civil disobedience to disobedience that is rather uncivil, through sabotage, hacktivism,
leaking, whistle-blowing, carrying out Samaritan assistance in defiance of laws that prohibit
it, striking, occupation, violent resistance, violent revolution, and, ultimately, terrorism.
For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where we are nowhere close to a "nearly
just" society, we need a better theory, one which tells us whether Black Lives Matter activists
are justified or whether antifa can punch Richard Spencer. Moreover, we need a theory that
tells us not only what we may do but also what we are obliged to do: when is standing by in the
face of injustice simply not morally permissible.
Step forward Candice Delmas with her superb and challenging book The Duty to Resist:
When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil (Oxford University Press). Delmas points out the
manifold shortcomings of the standard account and how it is often derived from taking the
particular tactics of the civil rights movement and turning pragmatic choices into moral
principles. Lots of acts of resistance against unjust societies, in order to be effective, far
from being communicative, need to be covert. Non-violence may be an effective strategy, but
sometimes those resisting state injustice have a right to defend themselves. [click
to continue ]
Hidari 10.31.18 at 3:41 pm (no link)
Strangely enough, the link I was looking at immediately before I clicked on the OP, was this:
It would be interesting to see a philosopher's view on whether or not civil disobedience
was necessary, and to what extent, to prevent actions that will lead to the end of our
species.
Ebenezer Scrooge 10.31.18 at 4:52 pm (no link)
Two points:
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius Streicher
for nothing but speech acts.
I have no idea who Candice Delmas is, but "Delmas" is a French name. The French have a very
different attitude toward civil disobedience than we do.
Moz of Yarramulla 10.31.18 at 11:23 pm (no link)
civil disobedience as a deliberate act of public lawbreaking, nonviolent in character,
which aims to communicate a sense of grave wrong to our fellow citizens.
I think that's a pretty narrow view of civil disobedience even if you just count the
actions of the protesters. Often NVDA is aimed at or merely accepts that a violent response
is inevitable. The resistance at Parihaka, for example, was in no doubt that the response
would be military and probably lethal. And Animal Liberation are often classified as
terrorists by the US and UK governments while murderers against abortion are not.
Which is to say that the definition of "nonviolent" is itself an area of conflict, with
some taking the Buddhist extremist position that any harm or even inconvenience to any living
thing makes an action violent, and others saying that anything short of genocide can be
nonviolent (and then there are the "intention is all" clowns). Likewise terrorism, most
obviously of late the Afghani mujahideen when they transitioned from being revolutionaries to
terrorists when the invader changed.
In Australia we have the actual government taking the view that any action taken by a
worker or protester that inconveniences a company is a criminal act and the criminal must
both compensate the company (including consequential damages) as well as facing jail time.
tasmania and
NSW and of course the anti-union
laws . The penalties suggest they're considered crimes of violence, as does the
rhetoric.
Moz of Yarramulla 11.01.18 at 12:13 am (no link)
Jeff@11
one should never legitimize any means toward social change that you would not object to
seeing used by your mortal enemies.
Are you using an unusual definition of "mortal enemy" here? Viz, other than "enemy that
wants to kill you"? Even US law has theoretical prohibitions on expressing that
intention.
It's especially odd since we're right now in the middle of a great deal of bad-faith use
of protest techniques by mortal enemies. "free speech" used to protect Nazi rallies,
"academic freedom" to defend anti-science activists, "non-violent protest" used to describe
violent attacks, "freedom of religion" used to excuse terrorism, the list goes on.
In Australia we have a 'proud boys' leader coming to Australia who has somehow managed to
pass the character test imposed by our government. He's the leader of a gang that requires an
arrest for violence as a condition of membership and regularly says his goal is to incite
others to commit murder. It seems odd that our immigration minister has found those things to
be
not disqualifying while deporting someone for merely
associating with a vaguely similar gang , but we live in weird times.
As far as the Nazi-punching goes, it is important to remember that we hung Julius
Streicher for nothing but speech acts.
I do remember that*, but it's not clear to me why you think it's important to remember it
in this context. If somebody who had fatally punched a Nazi speaker were prosecuted for
murder, I doubt that 'he was a Nazi speaker' would be accepted as a defence on the basis of
the Streicher precedent.
*Strictly speaking, I don't remember it as something that 'we' did: I wasn't born at the
time, and it's not clear to me who you mean by 'we'. (Streicher himself probably would have
said that it was the Jews, or possibly the Jews and the Bolsheviks, who were hanging him, but
I don't suppose that would be your view.) However, I'm aware of the events you're referring
to, which is the real point.
Rawls presupposes that we live in a nearly just society in which some serious violations
of the basic liberties yet occur For the non-ideal world in which we actually live and where
we are nowhere close to a "nearly just" society, we need a better theory
People need to stop spreading this misinterpretation about Rawls on civil disobedience, which
I've seen several places in the past few years. Rawls focuses on the case of a nearly just
society not because he thinks it's the only case in which you can engage in civil
disobedience but because he thinks it's the only case in which there are difficulties with
justifying it. He states this very clearly in A Theory of Justice : in cases where the
society is not nearly just, there are no difficulties in justifying civil disobedience or
even sometimes armed resistance. His natural duty account is not put forward as a general
theory of civil disobedience but to argue that civil disobedience can admit of justification
even in the case in which it is hardest to justify.
I'm not a fan of Rawls myself, but I don't know how he could possibly have been more clear
on this, since he makes all these points explicitly.
LFC 11.02.18 at 12:45 am (no link)
J-D @18
The Nuremberg tribunal was set up and staffed by the U.S., Britain, USSR, and France; so
whether Ebenezer's "we" was intended to refer to the four countries collectively or just to
the U.S., it's clear who hanged Streicher et al., and the tone of your comment on this point
is rather odd.
anon 11.02.18 at 4:23 pm (no link)
Resisting by protesting is OK.
However, here in the USA, actual legislation creating laws is done by our elected
representatives.
So if you're an Amaerican and really want Social Change and aren't just posturing or
'virtue signaling' make sure you vote in the upcoming election.
I'm afraid too many will think that their individual vote won't 'matter' or the polls show
it isn't needed or some other excuse to justify not voting. Please do not be that person.
Don Berinati 11.02.18 at 5:06 pm (no link)
Recently re-reading '1968' by Kurlansky and he repeatedly made this point about protests
– that to be effective they had to get on television (major networks, not like our
youtube, I think, so it would be seen by the masses in order to sway them) and to do that the
acts had to be outlandish because they were competing for network time. This increasingly led
to violent acts, which almost always worked in getting on the news, but flew in the face of
King's and others peaceful methods.
So, maybe punching out a Nazi is the way to change people's minds or at least get them to
think about stuff.
State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert was offered the position of United States
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Fox News chief White House correspondent John Roberts shared the emerging report on Twitter,
writing: "Senior Administration Official tells Fox News that @statedeptspox Heather Nauert
has been offered the job of UN Ambassador."
Nauert, a former Fox News journalist, will replace current U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley,
who abruptly announced in early October that she will exit the administration at the end of
the year.
//Trump really is a clown – appointing yet another person, who will just read
prepared scripts. //
"... Another reason to hate the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon ..."
Another reason to hate the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary
Ann Glendon .
Pompeo the Cockroach .as it .(Mike Pompeo is an it, as is that other well known BLATARIA .Hillary Clinton) .is known to the
residents of Satan's filthy stinking reeking toilet bowl waaaaaaaaay down in putrid HELL!!!!!!!
Don't mind the split infinitive they are really quite alright .only a girly boy grammar NAZI!!! would shriek about it ..
"... Department of Justice and FBI officials in the Obama administration in October of 2016 only presented to the court the evidence that made the government's case to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate ..."
"... The FBI referred to Papadopoulos in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application - however what has been released to the public is so heavily redacted that it's unclear why he is mentioned. ..."
"... As The Hill 's John Solomon notes, based on Congressional testimony by former FBI General Counsel James Baker - the DOJ / FBI redactions aren't hiding national security issues - only embarrassment . ..."
"... President Trump issued an order to declassify the documents on September 17, but then walked it back - announcing that the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two foreign allies asked him to keep them classified. ..."
"... "My opinion is that declassifying them would not expose any national security information, would not expose any sources and methods," said Ratcliffe. "It would expose certain folks at the Obama Justice Department and FBI and their actions taken to conceal material facts from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." ..."
After hinting for months that the FBI was not forthcoming with federal surveillance court
judges when they made their case to spy on the Trump campaign, Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe (R)
said on Sunday that the agency is holding evidence which "directly refutes" its premise for
launching the probe, reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe provided Sunday the clearest picture to date of what the FBI
allegedly withheld from the surveillance court.
Ratcliffe suggested that the FBI failed to include evidence regarding former Trump
campaign adviser George Papadopoulos , in an interview with Fox News.
Ratcliffe noted that the FBI opened its investigation on July 31, 2016, after receiving
information from the Australian government about a conversation that Papadopoulos had on May
10, 2016, with Alexander Downer , the
top Australian diplomat to the U.K. - Daily Caller
While Australia's Alexander Downer claimed that Papadopoulos revealed Russia had "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton, Ratcliffe - who sits on the House Judiciary Committee - suggested on Sunday
that the FBI and DOJ possess information which directly contradicts that account.
"Hypothetically, if the Department of Justice and the FBI have another piece of evidence
that directly refutes that, that directly contradicts that, what you would expect is for the
Department of Justice to present both sides of the coin to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court to evaluate the weight and sufficiency of that evidence," Ratcliffe said,
adding: "Instead, what happened here was Department of Justice and FBI officials in the Obama
administration in October of 2016 only presented to the court the evidence that made the
government's case to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate."
The FBI referred to Papadopoulos in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant
application - however what has been released to the public is so heavily redacted that it's
unclear why he is mentioned.
As The Hill 's John Solomon notes, based on Congressional testimony by former FBI General
Counsel James Baker - the DOJ / FBI redactions aren't hiding national security issues -
only embarrassment .
Other GOP lawmakers have suggested that evidence exists which would exonerate Papadopoulos -
who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Maltese professor (and
self-professed member of the Clinton Foundation), Joseph Mifsud.
Ratcliffe suggested that declassifying DOJ / FBI documents related to the matter "would
corroborate" his claims about Papadopoulos.
Republicans have pressed President Trump to declassify the documents, which include 21
pages from a June 2016 FISA application against Page. House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Devin Nunes has said
that the FBI failed to provide "exculpatory evidence" in the FISA applications. He has also
said that Americans will be "shocked" by the information behind the FISA redactions. -
Daily Caller
President Trump issued an order to declassify the documents on September 17, but then walked
it back - announcing that the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two
foreign allies asked him to keep them classified.
"My opinion is that declassifying them would not expose any national security information,
would not expose any sources and methods," said Ratcliffe. "It would expose certain folks at
the Obama Justice Department and FBI and their actions taken to conceal material facts from the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir
Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's
head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows
in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy,"
Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.
"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has
already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"
About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but
fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through
the MSM.
A couple of reflections:
Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be
widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.
For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a
delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his
native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one
follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.) He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip: https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/
While soon-to-be
ex-UN ambassador Nikki Haley might be the talk of the town at the moment -- from chatter she
should run
in 2020 against Donald Trump to replacing Mike
Pence on the GOP ticket all the way to
running against Pence in 2024 -- her many
faults are being glossed over. That's a big problem for someone being floated as the next
leader of the free world -- as recent history has
taught us all too tragically.
Thankfully, reality always has a way of casting doubt on such picture-perfect narratives
before they are ever fully formed. Case in point, buried in a recent
article from Harper's Magazine was the fact that Haley tried out her own amateur
hour version of what can only be described as nuclear poker: telling China's ambassador to the
UN that Trump might invade North Korea.
I had to read the article over and over to make sure I didn't miss something. But alas it
was real -- and terrifying. Such a threat, if relayed to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un,
combined with several other U.S. actions at the time -- and one that almost occurred that we
know of thanks to Bob Woodward's recent book -- could have set in motion a preemptive strike by
Pyongyang that almost certainly would have involved the use of nuclear weapons. And that means
millions of people would have died.
Now ask yourself: is this person really ready to be president? Is this what passes as the
stuff of presidential timber?
Here are the details. Journalist Max Blumenthal recorded Haley's remarks -- her last major
address before she handed in her resignation -- as the only journalist present at a late
September event at the Council for National Policy. In a Q&A session that Blumenthal
described as "an extended series of candid, and at times disturbing, recollections of Trump's
campaign of maximum pressure against North Korea," Haley broke down her opposition to the
president's tough talk at the UN. But the real money shot from Blumenthal's
piece is here:
It was September 2, 2017, and North Korea had just embarked on its sixth nuclear test
launch. Haley's mission was to ram a resolution through the UN Security Council to sanction
the isolated state. This meant that she had to secure abstentions from Russia and China, the
two permanent members that maintained relations with Pyongyang. It was a tall task, but as
she boasted to the rapt audience at the CNP, she had a few tricks up her sleeve.
"I said to the Russians, 'Either you're with North Korea, or you're with the United States
of America,'" Haley recalled. She said she went to the Chinese ambassador and raised the
prospect of an American military invasion of North Korea. "My boss is kind of unpredictable,
and I don't know what he'll do," she said she warned her Chinese counterpart.
Sadly, besides some mentions on social media and a
fewarticles
, her threat received very little mainstream media coverage. Maybe that's a blessing in
disguise. But one can easily construct a scenario where Haley's comment sets off a chain of
events that starts a Second Korean War. For example, we don't know what the Chinese ambassador
did after Haley made the threat, but most likely he promptly reported it back to Beijing. What
the Chinese government did with that information is vital. Did they warn the North Koreans? Did
they react in some other way?
We will never really know. However, if Pyongyang was tipped off by Beijing, seeing three
U.S. Navy aircraft carriers
drilling with South Korean and Japanese warships in November of last year surely must have
terrified them. Such a concentration of firepower would have been a prerequisite for any type
of invasion or attack. In fact, could these have been the reasons the north decided to test
another ICBM in November?
Again, we will never know. However, Trump's very real proposal, as reported in Bob
Woodward's book Fear , of "sending a tweet declaring that he was ordering all U.S.
military dependents -- thousands of the family members of 28,500 troops -- out of South Korea"
definitely would have provoked a response from the Kim regime.
While Woodward does not give specific dates as to when this nearly occurred -- the full text
before this section suggests an early 2018 timeframe -- he still reveals that we did dodge a
potential war. Just two paragraphs down, Woodward notes that on December 4, 2018, "[M]cMaster
had received a warning at the White House. Ri Su-yong, the vice chairman of the [North Korean]
Politburo, had told intermediaries 'that the North would take the evacuation of U.S. civilians
as a sign of imminent attack.'"
If you put it all together -- not to mention the now famous call to give Kim a "
bloody nose " in early January 2018 -- it is easy to see how close to war we came from
roughly September 2017 to early January of this year. If events had occurred just a little
differently -- if North Korea had perceived things in a direr way thanks to a Chinese warning
of a possible invasion, if Trump had acted on his impulses a little further -- our world would
be a very different place. Pyongyang, thinking an invasion was coming, might have decided that
its only chance to survive was to use its vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction before
they were destroyed. That would have meant launching atomic weapons at military bases and
potential ports of entry for U.S. forces in South Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii -- or even
attacking the American homeland itself with nuclear weapons. From simulations I have run over
the years, I can tell you that millions of people
would have died in such an event.
Thankfully, history broke a little different and it never happened -- and thank God for
that. But let's not heap praise on public figures who think they can bluff their way through
the great game of global politics. That's not what great presidents are made of.
Harry J. Kazianis(@Grecianformula) serves as director of
Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by President Richard Nixon.
The views expressed in this piece are his own.
"Satire has lost all meaning: The former director of the CIA (which has for decades
trained and armed far-right terrorist death squads), who is now US secretary of state, called
Iran "the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world" while he was meeting with regime
officials in Saudi Arabia, an extremist Wahhabi absolute monarchy that supported ISIS and
al-Qaeda."
Bolton pushes for the US to break out of the 1987 INF Treaty. Not surprising considering
that all those ABM components they are deploying around Russia are dual use and violate the
INF. The INF is also a joke (showing us what a comprador Gorby was) since it allows the US to
deploy unlimited range nuclear missiles in its Naval assets. So Russia cannot have any land
based intermediate range nukes, but the US can park its ships in EU harbours and deploy
unlimited amounts of the "banned" class of missiles.
I say let the US break the INF. The INF helps the USA and its NATzO minions more than it
helps Russia.
There may be several motivations for Bolton
– an attempt to force Russia into a ruinously expensive arms race;
– to create a regional Cold War to reverse the nascent rapprochement between Western
Europe and Russia;
– an attempt to limit war to the European/Russian region as much as possible if a war
against Russia is needed by the US.
Bolton is an idiot carrying out a moron's strategy. What could go wrong?
Bolton is a certified retard if he thinks he will bankrupt Russia with an arms race.
1) I find the theory that the USSR couldn't afford the 1970-80s arms race and went
bankrupt to be of zero credibility. The USSR was a command economy and various estimates of
how much it allegedly spent on the economy to be ridiculous western attempts to impose their
capitalist accounting on a command economy.
The USSR collapsed due to internal political rot and not some "budget deficit" which was
meaningless in command economics and never exiting in reality anyway. The only valid metrics
of deficits in command economies if there are labour shortages in various industries.
The USSR had more than enough engineers, researchers, workers and material resources to
keep up with the arms race.
This is why command economics is vastly superior to capitalist profiteering. Capitalism
only triumphs because humans are genetically deficient to live optimally under a command
economy since they need all sorts of superfluous incentives and feel-good junk.
2) Nuclear weapons are the cheapest option out of all military costs. Tanks, ships and
armed troops are much more expensive. In the current rocket era, these expensive options are
outdated and much less potent. Russia can neutralize any US move by deploying appropriately
designed missiles and warheads.
"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement," Trump said Saturday after a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada. "We're
going to terminate the agreement."
Can't find the episode but I believe Homer Simpson had the briefcase that US Presidents use
to control the US nuclear forces. It had three buttons:
– First Strike
– Retaliation Strike
– "Accidental" Launch
"... Karlin points out, as did Zhirinovsky the other day in the state Duma, that if carried out, then this illegal revocation of the Synodal letter of 1686, which granted the Patriarch of Moscow the right to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev, could only lead to the autocephaly of those seven eparchies that were under Kiev church jurisdiction before 1686, namely those of Kiev, Chernigov, Lutsk, Lvov, Przemysl, Polotsk, and Mogilev, all situated in what is now west and central Ukraine, parts of Poland and Belorussia. ..."
Comparing the power relationship of the Roman Pope at the time of the 1054 Great Schism
between the Western and Eastern (Orthodox) churches with the power relationship that exists
now between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch of the Russian Eastern Orthodox
Church in Moscow, Karlin writes:
As quasi-monarch of the European core, who could command European kings to crawl to him
on their knees in penance, the Pope [in 1054] could afford to forget the "pares" part
of "primus inter pares". In contrast, Bartholomew I – His Most Divine All-Holiness the
Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, not to mention reserve
officer in the Turkish Army – is ensconced in an infidel country and presides over a
local flock of a few hundred ageing Greeks This is something that Bartholomew I has patently
ignored with his disastrous decision to enter communion with Ukrainian schismatics.
Karlin points out, as did Zhirinovsky the other day in the state Duma, that if carried
out, then this illegal revocation of the Synodal letter of 1686, which granted the Patriarch
of Moscow the right to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev, could only lead to the autocephaly of
those seven eparchies that were under Kiev church jurisdiction before 1686, namely those of
Kiev, Chernigov, Lutsk, Lvov, Przemysl, Polotsk, and Mogilev, all situated in what is now
west and central Ukraine, parts of Poland and Belorussia.
Kiev church jurisdiction would then not apply to Kharkov, which in 1685 was within the
Russian Empire, as was the then Novorossiya.
Karlin ponts out that if the Constantinople revocation goes through, then the Patriarch of
Constantinople would have just as many rights over the bulk of what is now eastern Ukraine as
he has over the Eastern Orthodox Church in Vladivostok – namely none!
Bartholomew I – not in his Turkish army officer uniform!
Valtsman greets Bartholomew
Bartholomew with his pal Joe in Istanbul
The shit hit the Orthodox fan when Bartholomew bestowed upon kiddie-fondler Biden the
highest award bestowed by the Greek Orthodox Church, the Athenagoras Human Rights Award.
Biden is a pro-abortionist, pro-sterilization and "gay" rights campaigner. He also
professes to be a Roman Catholic.
re. the above linked RI Karlin article, I think Anatoly must have had an attack of the typos,
as often happens to me, when writing this paragraph:
It would be an exceedingly sad and ignominious end to see the lingering remnant of a
glorious empire do give in to blackmail and foreign pressure. We can only hope that God will
not punish them as severely as for the Council of Florence ,
which, I daresay, should have read as follows:
It would be an exceedingly sad and ignominious end to see the lingering remnant of a
glorious empire give in to blackmail and foreign pressure. We can only hope that God will not
punish them as severely as did the Council of Florence.
The "glorious empire" that he refers to is Byzantium.
As regards the Council of Florence, which took place when Europe was under severe threat
from the Ottoman Empire, Byzantium and its capital Constantinople, the "City of Caesar" (aka
Царьград [Tsar'grad] in Russian -- "City of
Caesar"), then being the remnant of the Eastern Roman empire and situated at the immediate
receiving end of said threat, and when reunification of the Eastern and Western churches was
mooted so as to help face the Ottoman onslaught :
The Council had meanwhile successfully negotiated reunification with several Eastern
Churches, reaching agreements on such matters as the Western insertion of the phrase
"Filioque" to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed ["and of the son": the Nicene Creed, in
using this term, implied that the "Holy Ghost" came from the "Father (and the Son)", which,
of course, is anathema to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, because they are all the same,
three-in-one, aren't they, and which phrasing immediately led to the Great Schism:
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem:
qui ex Patre ⟨Filioque⟩ procedit
Qui cum Patre, et Filio simul adoratur, et cum glorificatur.
I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceedeth from the Father ⟨and the Son⟩.
Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.
ME, ] the definition and number of the sacraments, and the doctrine of
Purgatory.
Another key issue was papal primacy, which involved the universal and supreme
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church, including the national Churches of
the East (Serbian, Greek, Moldo-Wallachian, Bulgarian, Russian, Georgian, Armenian etc.) and
nonreligious matters such as the promise of military assistance against the Ottomans.
The final decree of union was a signed document called the Laetentur Caeli, "Let the
Heavens Rejoice".
Some bishops, perhaps feeling political pressure from the Byzantine Emperor, accepted
the decrees of the Council and reluctantly signed. Others did so by sincere conviction, such
as Isidore of Kiev, who subsequently suffered greatly for it. Only one Eastern Bishop, Mark
of Ephesus, refused to accept the union and became the leader of opposition back in
Byzantium.
The Russians, upon learning of the union, angrily rejected it and ousted any prelate
who was even remotely sympathetic to it, declaring the Russian Orthodox Church as
autocephalus (i.e., as having its "own head").
Despite the religious union, Western military assistance to Byzantium was ultimately
insufficient, and the fall of Constantinople occurred in May 1453 -- Wiki .
Non of this arsing around about the gods and their pecking order in Asgard, of course,
where Woden is the boss and Thor came from Mrs. Woden (Frige in Old English) after old Woden
had humped her. There were other godly Woden offspring as well, and other lesser gods.
Karlin's article about the autocephaly is admittedly good. But every time I link to RI I feel
like I have to take a shower afterwards. What a piece of work it is (along with Unz),
cesspools of Jew-hating and Red-baiting. Not to mention the usual claque of holocaust-deniers
and neo-Nazis.
I feel the same way. I am trying my best to avoid it but I regularly have a snoop to see if
there is anything worthwile there and I think Karlin's piece on the wheelings and dealings as
regards the Constantinople patriarch are interesting.
But who's the overall winner? The west, overwhelmingly Christian and rubbing its hands in
enjoyment of the writhing and quarreling among the Orthodoxy, and the deepening of the rift
between Russia and Ukraine.
Many doubt that the West is Christian, much less overwhelmingly. But, yes, whatever they are,
they may well be rubbing their hands in glee for the moment.
No friends is better than bad friends. Let Ukrstan wallow in pig shit. Given the history of
the last 1000 years, it will reach total dissolution at one point.
But the Ukraine has always had religious dissent between east and west, Uniate and Eastern
Orthodox, ever since that time when the seeds of Ukrainian nationalism were planted by the
Roman Catholic Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 19th century, when Austria was scared shitless
of Russian imperial expansion westwards into the vacuum then being created by the collapse of
the Ottoman Empire, into teritories that k.u.k Austria deemed to be its own patch.
The situation was not helped in any way post-WWII by the UkSSR having "Polish" Ukrainians
(Galitsians, mostly) tagged onto what Svidomites believe to be that territory that is the
direct descendant of "Kievan" Rus'.
And in the 17th/18th centuries, when what is now that part of the Ukraine situated mostly
west of the Dnepr was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Eastern Orthodox Church
was given a hard time by the Catholic authorities and serious attempts were made to persuade
Orthodox Christians to "Latinize".
"Uniate" Yukies are raised to hate the Moskali Orthodox Church and its faithful. I know:
I've met such "Uniates", even sat at the same table with them when on holiday in the former
UkSSR. They suck-holed up to me because they thought I was a typically English wanker that
supports them. The same happens to me regularly here with Rubberduckians (some of my
son's pals are such) and Kreakly .
I know a Ukrainian woman doctor from Odessa, an ethnic Russian who is ROC, who tells me
that when she, as a child, was visiting Lvov with her mother, they were walking around a an
RC cathedral in that city, when they were asked by irate Lvov worshippers to leave the church
after they had been overheard speaking in Russian to each other. That happened in the
1970s.
In the early days of the present Ukrainian civil war, it was very noticible (to me, at
least) how Uniate murderers engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Ukraine during their
so-called anti-terrorist operations, had dangling from their tunic pockets Uniate rosary
beads.
Baptists are everywhere. Met some in Romania during a family visit many years ago. They are
the tip of the spear in spreading Western values. Most Orthodox Romanians have a good laugh
at these shiny people high on Jesus.
Same here, though I know one Russian Baptist who is a decent bloke -- reformed sinner,
boozer, womanizer etc. Get's his fix now on Jesus -- but he's OK.
Way back when McDonald's were not long arrived at Pushkin Square, some of my English class
used to attend English language discussion clubs that had begun to spring up in Moscow
cafés as the expat community here began to grow. However, after a short while, some of
my former class told me they had stopped attending these clubs because of friendly, beaming
US citizens there who were constantly approaching them , wishing to inform them of the "Good
News" of jesus dying for their sins in order that their souls be saved.
A sort-of friend, US born but with a strong western Ukrainian heritage, told me that he
hopes that Christianity will spread to Russia. We stopped talking about such matter but we
both know what we think of each other. Actually, that friendship has essentially ended as he
was simply insincere on just about everything.
Western Ukraine is only useful to the west as an exporter of nationalistic and religious
hate: nobody really wants it, to absorb such a loose cannon into its own society and state.
Even the Poles don't want it – who in their right mind would want to take on a big
bunch of underemployed working-age men who have accustomed themselves to a lawless state,
compelled only by its own politically-unacceptable beliefs, with no gun control? I can't
imagine what could go wrong there.
The west likes to keep West Ukraine a simmering hotbed of violence and rage, because it
helps to keep the rest of rump Ukraine committed to an anti-Russian course. As is usual when
NATO embarks upon a course of meddling and tweaking, it gives no thought whatsoever to the
potential unintended consequences of liberating fascist nationalist sentiment and allowing it
to form doctrine and formulate policy. Note to NATO – these people now have the bit in
their teeth, and cannot be expected to go back to being simple farmers and postal clerks and
switchboard operators. They like walking around carrying automatic weapons and playing war
all day long. For them, the war will never end until either Russia capitulates to them
– another way of saying never – or they are wiped out. NATO opened the Ukrainian
Pandora's box, and let out all the ugliness and evil, and the first thing it did was to gang
up on Hope, hidden in the bottom, and strangle the life out of it. There will not be any
putting the Nazis back in their box.
Which is precisely why Russia should just dump what's left of Ukraine to its fate. Pull
out all investment, send the guest workers home, seal the borders and conduct scrupulous
immigration checks to prevent Ukrainians from entering Russia. Move those borders up to the
current limits of Novorossiya – not colonizing it with Russians, it should keep the
same inhabitants, but using it as a buffer state to keep the non-ethnic-Russian Ukrainians
out. No trade with Ukraine, let NATO subsidize it. It would collapse in nothing flat. Make
sure Russia has no further responsibility for it. It's sad that the NATO experiment was so
successful at turning Slavs against one another, but in the end it will have its punishment
as it is forced to accept the lunatics as its own.
Reminds me of a Russian joke.
An old man comes to a doctor and says:
- Doctor, I am only 65, but can't have sex any more. My neighbor is 80, and he tells stories
about having sex with young women. Can you help me?
- I don't see your problem: you can tell stories, too.
'When she was offered the UN role, Haley reportedly recalled, "I told [Trump], 'Honestly, I
don't even know what the UN does,' " to which the crowd "erupted with sympathetic
laughter and applause," Blumenthal writes.
Baturally after saying she doesn't know what UN does Nikki got the job
After eight years of the Obama regime expanding the Bush regime's wars from around two to
around seven (with very little opposition from the so-called antiwar movement ), the Women 's
March on the Pentagon is rebuilding a movement from practically scratch.
We are struggling to not get trapped in the antiwar old ways which never have been truly
successful. If the anti-Vietnam war movement, its tactics, and energy were so awesome, then why
is the US currently mired so deeply in at least seven wars for Empire with 1000 bases in over
130 countries around the world and continued support for the apartheid, colonial, illegal state
of Israel?
We are planning to march on the Pentagon. The Pentagon is not a typical target because many
activists are afraid of offending the military despite recognizing that the US military is the
largest terrorist organization in the world. We are also having a rally on the 21st of October
and are committed to "Occupying" the Pentagon until Veteran's Day, November 11th.
We are also reimagining new ways to state what the Women 's March on the Pentagon is
doing.
Yes, we are against the US Empire's perpetual and devastating wars but being "anti" war was
never enough. Being "pro" peace is also deficient because peace is just not an absence of war
-- it is also the presence of social justice and social safety nets.
WMOP is putting the PRO back in PROtest but before we are PRO-peace, we feel we need to be
each of the following. The list that follows is not exhaustive, but it is a good start.
PRO-woman: Every single woman on this planet, regardless of race, religion, sexual
orientation, economic status or national origin, is entitled to the same quality of life as
wealthy, white women in the USA -- including being free from military occupation (and all the
horrors that brings, including rape and the murder of children) and other oppression.
PRO-equality: Every human is entitled to every good thing, including the right to PRO-test
wrong things.
PRO-planet: The Pentagon's War Machine is responsible for a hugely disproportionate amount
of pollution, waste, environmental degradation and use of fossil fuels. The Pentagon seriously
needs to be reduced to a size where it can be drowned in a bucket before we can save human life
from extinction on our only planet, our Mother Earth.
PRO-education: Education is a human right and the trillions of dollars spent on active wars
and empire maintenance robs our communities and schools from money needed to give our children
a high-quality and free education from Pre to University. In all levels, our children should
feel safe to attend school without the horrors of mass-shootings and police state
oppression.
PRO-gun control: As long as guns, ammunition, bombs and other weapons of murder are taken
from the Pentagon and police forces first. Our mothers and grandmothers in occupied lands,
inner cities, and other economically disadvantaged areas should not have to worry themselves
sick when their young ones leave the home that they will be executed by a killer cop or
drone-bombed by the USA. Our sisters in other countries should not have to bury their children,
or flee their homes in fear for their lives, because of the US Empire.
PRO-health care: Women bear the burden of ill children and are likely the ones to miss work
when a child is ill. Health care must be free and high-quality, but it must also serve families
and communities with healthy food, water, air and opportunities for care for ill children (or
elderly relatives) when the woman needs or wants to go to work. Health care must be
comprehensive and include dental, mental, chiropractic and any other holistic
treatment/prevention that is needed/wanted. Prescriptions must be free and no woman/family
should have to choose between life-saving medication and/or food.
PRO-labor at a living wage and PRO-basic guaranteed income
PRO-housing/food: In a nation as wealthy as the US, not one person should exist without
shelter or healthy and abundant food. Housing and food are human rights, not privileges. Most
homeless people work hard, but cannot afford a place to live. 19% of the United States of
American children (14 million) go to bed hungry every night in the land of plenty and plenty of
waste. These statistics are shameful and abominable but can be changed after the
commodification and privatization of everything for profit over people ends.
PRO-redistribution of resources: Ending the Pentagon, the billions of dollars of waste and
more than a trillion dollar budget would go a long way to address the horrendous human rights'
abuses and fundamental economic crises 2/3 of the people in the US face.
Once there is justice, environmental sustainability, economic equality and celebration of
diversity, combined with the end of the US Military Empire, THEN, and only then, will we live
in relative peace in our communities and families.
If one woman is living under military occupation, colonial rule, or otherwise oppressed,
none of us are free!
During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the
Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou, revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned
from her position as US ambassador to the United Nations, is planning to run for president in
2024.
As Kiriakou said:
I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he
told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of
South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to
endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.
And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted
McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South
Carolina.'
Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley
wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.
So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy
experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to
be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about
foreign policy.
So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's
gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And
then, she's gonna run for president in 2024. During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha
Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou,
revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned from her position as US ambassador to the
United Nations, is planning to run for president in 2024.
As Kiriakou said:
I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he
told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of
South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to
endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.
And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted
McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South
Carolina.'
Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley
wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.
So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy
experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to
be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about
foreign policy.
So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's
gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And
then, she's gonna run for president in 2024.
Pompeo puts on his Global Cop Gorilla suit again making absolute demands as a condition for
even continuing negotiations.
However the big question is how much North and South Korea move ahead in spite of the
ham-fisted United States. Then the revealed scenario will be much more stark. I.e., it's not
what the Korea's want that matters, it's what the Gorilla wants.
The play then will be driven by China and Russia. They don't want North Korea with nuclear
weapons either because it's bad for business. As they work with the Korea's toward a
settlement, the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in
which it alone does not define the outcome.
P.S. like with the Russia led Minsk agreement and the Astana talks in which the U.S. has
been shut out, the U.S. cares little about attaining the fundamental peace objectives in
Korea, only that it calls the tune in every regard.
the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in which it
alone does not define the outcome?
Note that this lack of total control by the U.S. in Korea and other venues may eventually
induce a pathologically dangerous response on several fronts when the Washington Nomenklatura
becomes fully aware of its asymmetric weaknesses. I.e., When a War Machine hammer is all you
got, everything else is a nail.
"... Describing Nikki Haley as a "moderate Republican" is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a moderate meat eater". Besides John Bolton there is nobody within the depraved Trump administration who's been a more reliable advocate for war, oppression and American/Israeli supremacism, no more virulent a proponent of the empire's photogenic version of fascism than she. ..."
"... But because she only advocates establishment-sanctioned mass murders (and perhaps partly because she wears the magical "Woman of Color" tiara), Haley can be painted as a sane, sensible adult-in-the-room by empire lackeys who are paid to normalize the brutality of the ruling class. ..."
"... Haley will be departing with a disgusting 75 percent approval rating with Republicans and 55 percent approval with Democrats, because God is dead and everything is stupid. ..."
Empire Loyalists Grieve Resignation of Moderate Psychopath Nikki Haley
"Describing Nikki Haley as a 'moderate Republican' is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as 'a moderate meat eater'"
Caitlin Johnstone
Thu, Oct
11, 2018
|
820 words
3,560
164
World War Three proponent and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has
announced her resignation
today, to the dismay of establishment bootlickers everywhere.
"Nikki Haley, ambassador to the United Nations, has resigned, leaving the administration with one less moderate
Republican voice,"
tweeted
the New York Times, without defining what specifically is "moderate" about relentlessly pushing for
war and starvation sanctions at every opportunity and adamantly defending the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian
protesters with sniper fire.
"Too bad Nikki Haley has resigned,"
tweeted
law professor turned deranged Russia conspiracy theorist Laurence Tribe. "She was one of the last
members of Trumplandia with even a smidgen of decency."
"Thank you @nikkihaley for your remarkable service. We look forward to welcoming you back to public service as
President of the United States,"
tweeted
Mark Dubowitz, Chief Executive of the neoconservative think tank/
covert
Israeli
war
psyop firm
Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
"Thank you @nikkihaley for your service in the @UN and unwavering support for Israel and the truth,"
tweeted
the fucking IDF. "The soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces salute you!"
I'm not going to go over every single fawning, sycophantic tweet, but if you ever ingest poison and can't
afford to go to the hospital because of America's disastrous healthcare system, you can always try going to
Haley's Twitter page
and looking at all the empire loyalists she's been retweeting who've been falling all over themselves to paint her
as something other than the bloodthirsty psychopath that she is. If that doesn't empty your stomach contents all
over your screen, you are made of stronger stuff than I.
Describing Nikki Haley as a "moderate Republican" is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a moderate meat eater".
Besides John Bolton there is nobody within the depraved Trump administration who's been a more reliable advocate
for war, oppression and American/Israeli supremacism, no more virulent a proponent of the empire's photogenic
version of fascism than she.
Whether it's been blocking any
condemnation
of or
UN investigation
into the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian protesters via sniper fire,
calling for a coalition against Syria
and its allies to prevent them from fighting western-backed terrorist
factions, outright
lying about Iran
to advance this administration's regime change agenda in that nation, her
attempts to blame Iran
for Saudi Arabia's butchery of Yemeni civilians with the help of the US and UK, her
calls for
sanctions against Russia
even beyond those this administration has been willing to implement, her
warmongering against North Korea
, and many, many examples from a list far too long to get into here, Haley has
made death and destruction her life's mission every day of her gore-spattered tenure.
But because she only advocates establishment-sanctioned mass murders (and perhaps partly because she wears the
magical "Woman of Color" tiara), Haley can be painted as a sane, sensible adult-in-the-room by empire lackeys who
are paid to normalize the brutality of the ruling class. While you still see Steve Bannon routinely decried as a
monster despite his being absent from the Trump administration for over a year, far more dangerous and far more
powerful ghouls are treated with respect and reverence because they know what to say in polite company and never
smoked cigars with Milo Yiannopoulos. All it takes to be regarded as a decent person by establishment punditry is
the willingness to avoid offending people; do that and you can murder as many children with explosives and
butterfly bullets as your withered heart desires.
Haley will be departing with a disgusting 75 percent
approval rating
with Republicans and 55 percent approval with Democrats, because God is dead and everything is
stupid. It is unknown who will replace her once she vacates her position (I've got my money on Reaper drone in a
desk chair), but it's a safe bet that it will be someone who espouses the same neoconservative imperialist foreign
policy that this administration has been elevating since the beginning. Whoever it is should be watched closely,
as should the bipartisan beltway propagandists whose job it is to humanize them.
UPDATE: Had to include
this gem
from the New York Times editorial board:
"... They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most Iranians like America. I could never understand that. ..."
Samantha Power was terrible too. Hard to say which is worse. They share the same
discourse. No difference between democrats and Republicans. Both defend the Empire by
resorting to invasions, conspiracies, and murder.
Think Power had slightly more between her ears... but the same warmongering
attitudes.
What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them
become warhawks? Think Power, Haley, Rice (both of them), Clinton, Albrighton, Thatcher,
et al?
And them the feminists tell us that the world would be a more just and peaceful place if
there were more of them in office!
"What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them
become warhawks?"
They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan,
Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how
civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most
Iranians like America. I could never understand that.
Because women in power want to imitate men's behavior. Don't want to differentiate
themselves. Bad news for bad feminism. U.S. feminists adore people like Albright or H
Clinton. They are not credible.
US and its 100,000 Intelligence community working for "Monaco" makes as much sense as
Hitler worked for Luxembourgh.
With 22 new Capitol Hill size buildings in Washington DC for CIA since 2001, they could
house whole Israeli state administration alone
Harry Kazianis reviews
Nikki Haley's record as ambassador to the U.N. and finds it very lacking:
That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a
terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the
experience and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is
not enough to be credible on the world's stage.
Kazianis is right that Haley was ill-prepared for the job, and I would add that she made a
habit of making false claims ,
unreasonable demands, and
unnecessary threats . Whether she was
threatening military action over missile tests, telling lies about the
nuclear deal with Iran , or warning
that the U.S. would be "taking names" of the states that didn't fall in line, Haley proved
herself to be a poor diplomat and an ineffective representative of the United States. Her time
at the U.N. was marked by unwarranted, cruel actions to punish
the Palestinian civilian population, a disgraceful
defense of the massacre of protesters in Gaza, and a misguided decision to
withdraw from the Human Rights Council. While the world's worst humanitarian crisis
intensified in Yemen with U.S. support for the Saudi coalition, Haley was too busy trying to
distract everyone's attention by shouting about Iran.
Haley didn't have a good grasp of substance, and instead relied on talking points to a
fault. Kazianis quotes a Republican consultant's view of the ambassador:
"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at
parroting whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for
anyone who has ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the
land of talking points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was
apparent there was nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."
It is a sign of how little many of her fellow hawks care about substantive knowledge that
several of them greeted news of her resignation with dismay. Max Boot described her resignation as a
"sad moment," and Bill Kristol began fantasizing about a primary challenge
to Trump that will never happen. When these are the people touting Haley's record, it is a safe
bet that the U.S. will be better off being represented by someone else at the U.N.
Following Reagan and Trump, the only reason we don't see actual actors hired for
candidacies and campaigns is because the best Judas Goat for any election rodeo is one that
believes its own BS.
Let's face it. Trump did not have an army of qualified people to fill government and
administration posts. He had to fill positions from the Neocon pool of bureaucrats. Nikki
Haley is a mind-numbed robot, drunk on Neocon Kool-Aid and Premillenial Dispensationalism.
Really sad that Trump picked her for the UN slot. Even sadder is he will replace her with
someone just as bad, but more clever at disguising a rotten foreign policy.
Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon slammed UN ambassador Nikki Haley's decision on
Tuesday to announce her resignation, calling it "suspect" and "horrific," and that it
overshadowed positive news that Trump and the Republicans need to build support going into
midterms, according to
Bloomberg .
The timing was exquisite from a bad point of view ," Bannon told Bloomberg
News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait on Wednesday at the Bloomberg Invest London forum. "
Everything she said yesterday and everything she said about stepping down could have been done
on the evening of November 6. The timing could not have been worse. "
Haley's announcement, according to Bannon, took White House officials by surprise - and
distracted attention from Brett Kavanaugh's first day as a justice on the Supreme Court, along
with headlines over the lowest US unemployment rate in five decades. Haley's decision
undermines Trump's message to Republican voters, said Bannon.
In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said Haley told him six months ago she wanted a break
after spending two years in the post. She'll continue in her role until year-end. Haley said
Tuesday that she was ready for a break after two terms as South Carolina's governor and two
years at the United Nations. -
Bloomberg
Bannon also says that he took Haley at her word that she has no political aspirations -
particularly when it comes to running against Trump in 2020. She says that she looks forward to
campaigning for Trump in two years. That said, Bannon calls Haley "ambitious" and "very
talented," though he said so using a backhanded compliment.
"I think she is incredibly politically ambitious," Bannon added. " Ambitious as Lucifer but
that is probably...I am probably taking Milton out of context."
Trump defended the timing of Haley's departure on Wednesday, saying "there's no good time"
for her to have announced her resignation - and that if she'd waited until after midterms, it
would have raised questions as to whether her motive was based on the results.
Bannon is unhinged. Nikki Haley was horrible in her position! If Bannon payed attention to
voter base of Trump, he'd see Haley was a thorn in the side of the Trump administration.
One of the best appointments Trump has made, is Mike Pompeo. I thought he'd be some crazed
warmonger, but has turned out to be quite the opposite.
He's got this kind of easy going swagger and confidence about him. He's chubby, and his
every day guy, sort of approach, is affable.
Yes sir... her rhetoric is pure deep state war mongering of the most evil kind. She was
told to stir up as much hatred and fear at the UN as possible and try to get the opposition
to do something stupid in response to her remarks. That's not Trump talk for damned sure...
that's deep state talk.
He makes a GREAT point that occurred to me immediately. If you are resigning effective at
the end of the year and everything is awesome, just time to move on.... why the hell are you
publicly announcing it 3 weeks before a VERY contentious midterm election and only a day or
so after a brutal SCOTUS nomination conclusion? Why? Why now? Very curious and a unforced
error.
Or those who hate him – and they are legion – wanted her out, because if Trump
wanted her out her replacement would already have been announced. I saw on one of those
'sponsored content' trash teaser clickbait headlines that it was going to be Ivanka, but not
even Trump would do that. Although you never know – it's not as if Haley brought any
wealth of foreign-policy knowledge to the table, and she was mostly there to be a partisan
spoiler of initiatives the USA did not want to pass. I suppose anyone could do that.
Pat,
" why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning. "
Dunno, but what about the possibility that she herself didn't knew she was to "retire"
until this morning? That she didn' quit but just quietly (which would be very un-Trumpish)
got the boot?
As for firing people, Trump made a TV show out of that, though usually he prefers to "use
megaphones over whispering".
That'd be the sort of retirement that's more frankly called " get the eff out and shut
the eff up on your way out, and don't forget to say thank you! ".
All it needed for that to happen is the orange king having a "fart sit crosswise". As for
Harper's good riddance, indeed.
IMO, at least she knew she is a goner since last week, I also think she agreed to leave on a
non-embarrassing way, meaning not to be fired in mob boss' favorite way as in Apprentice.
Like Colonel suggest
neocons and her Israeli backers like to preserve her for a later day, she is a useful idiot.
IMO, Trump, like the mob boss he think he is, and acts like, believes she was cause of his
embarrassing performance/program at UN, again like mob bosses Don Trump doesn't give a second
chance to anyone.
Trump is a master of political timing. Perhaps for whatever reason he wanted to move on from
the Kavanaugh hubbub to something else--like Haley resigning. It has dominated the news cycle
moreso than if it had been leaked by a staffer. Just my guess.
My latest information is that Haley's neocon and Zionist sponsors and handlers kept her
busy rhetorically pushing Trump toward what they wanted as foreign policy positions but
which he did not want. Somehow he figured that out, and fired her immediately after
finishing up the Kavanaugh affair. The woman herself is a fairly good looking walking
mass of ambition and dumb as a post. Her sponsors will now stuff her pockets with money
and hope they can keep her alive politically until she can be useful again.
Would I be wrong in asking if NH knew she was going to be fired when she went into that
meeting? Could the reception of Trumps UN speech been the proximate cause, assuming NH
saw it in advance and "approved" it (assuming she had been asked for input)? What does
the UN speech say about the worldview of NH's backers (if anything)?
as washington and americas world influence wanes the UN becomes less useful to the point
of being an obstruction for washintons machinations.
back in the day when washington could herd all the liliputians at the general assembly
the UN provided great cover and legitimacy for the USA. since the mask has slipped
revealing to all but the most obtuse amongst us, washingtons lack of moral legitimacy and
soft power, our influence among the GA members is on a downward trajectory.
ergo it no longer really matters who is our UN ambassador because washington simply
bypasses what it doesn't like that goes on at the UN since it can no longer control the
outcome.
we just had captain kangaroo resign we might as well call up Mcdonalds and see if
ronald would like the gig.
for a rapidly declining empire such as ours it makes no damn difference who is
installed at the UN. one cipher is the same as any other so lets at least err on the side
of entertainment for all of us in flyover land.
Of course she can follow the time-tested formula of top politicians and government
officials - make money lobbying after writing the obligatory book with a huge
advance.
I agree with Harper's take...she was 'eased' out...I have to say that no member of this
administration is more repugnant than this harpy...why Trump ever appointed her is a
mystery...as for her future prospects, I doubt she will go far...I think her 15 minutes
are up...
Speculating that this April incident didn't help Haley back than claiming 'I don't get
confused' regarding additional sanctions on Russia by prematurely announcing the
sanctions according to Larry Kudlow. Kind of a terse comment by her and possibly not
appreciated by the Trump team.
https://www.theguardian.com...
Does Nikki think that she can pull an Emmanuel Macron stunt ?
or is it the fact that her family is in a financial hole and she knows that she can
make more $$$$$ in the private sector , trying to mimic Lt Gen Flynn making hundred
thousands at FOX or another network.
Thank god she's gone!!! I liked Haley just fine as the governor of SC. At first I
thought, given her ethnic background, that she might do well her UN role once she learned
the ropes.
But then I heard her first few shrill neocon-style anti-Russia speeches at the UN
shortly after her appointment. I thought this quite odd given Trump's repeated campaign
statements about having better relations with Russia, so I figured the Borg assimilated
her and was using her as an inside tool to obstruct Trump's FP desires.
This got me thinking about which Borgians might be advising/mentoring her. It sure
wasn't any of the realists at Kissinger Associates. So which Borg think tank might it be?
Maybe Kimberley Kagan took her under her wing or someone else at PNAC
Harper, do you know who any of Haley's mentors are?
One other recent intriguing item was Trump's invitation to Rosenstein to accompany on
his flight to that police chiefs speech the other day. That seemed very important... and
symbolic. It was clearly a dominance technique. Wonder what they talked about on Air
Force One. Not going to be able to get away with any secret recordings there.
Trump has had to deal with some pretty shady characters during the course of his
career. I pondered whether Trump might be trying to "turn" Rosenstein to get at the roots
of the coup.
Do any of you have any better info on the Trump-Rosenstein meeting?
Thanks god and congratulations to our planet, that Niki bites the dust, the very
embarrassing day that the egomaniac Trump chaired the UNSC I knew she will be a goner.
People around trump should know, that he wouldn't take it lightly being embarrassed in
front of whole world and will blame it on who ever organized such an event. I remember he
end up leaving that UNSC meeting early with his head down, thinking how and when he will
be embarrassing her in front of the whole world.
Pat,
" why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning. "
Dunno, but what about the possibility that she herself didn't knew she was to "retire"
until this morning? That she didn' quit but just quietly (which would be very
un-Trumpish) got the boot?
As for firing people, Trump made a TV show out of that, though usually he prefers to
"use megaphones over whispering".
That'd be the sort of retirement that's more frankly called " get the eff out and
shut the eff up on your way out, and don't forget to say thank you! ".
All it needed for that to happen is the orange king having a "fart sit crosswise". As
for Harper's good riddance, indeed.
IMO, at least she knew she is a goner since last week, I also think she agreed to leave
on a non-embarrassing way, meaning not to be fired in mob boss' favorite way as in
Apprentice. Like Colonel suggest
neocons and her Israeli backers like to preserve her for a later day, she is a useful
idiot. IMO, Trump, like the mob boss he think he is, and acts like, believes she was
cause of his embarrassing performance/program at UN, again like mob bosses Don Trump
doesn't give a second chance to anyone.
Trump is a master of political timing. Perhaps for whatever reason he wanted to move on
from the Kavanaugh hubbub to something else--like Haley resigning. It has dominated the
news cycle moreso than if it had been leaked by a staffer. Just my guess.
Nikki Haley's resignation as President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations yesterday came
as quite a surprise. Haley seemed pleased to play her imagined role as the world's procurator,
as she used her UN perch to incessantly threaten and condemn all the global enemies of her
fellow neoconservatives. She came to the job with no foreign policy experience and she will be
leaving exactly as she arrived.
If Haley's departure came as a surprise, so too did her appointment in the first place.
During the primaries, she was famously in the "
anyone but Donald Trump " camp of neocons, saying that Trump was "everything a governor
doesn't want in a president."
Trump soon returned the compliment,
Tweeting that, "The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!"
Nevertheless, like many neocons who had been critical of Trump, she found herself rewarded
with a top position in the Administration. From her position she had consistently gotten ahead
of her boss, the President, in policy pronouncements and at almost every turn she appeared to
be pushing a Haley foreign policy rather than a Trump foreign policy.
For example, just as President Trump was returning from his historic summit meeting in
Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where the US President spoke very
optimistically about a new approach to US/Russian relations, Nikki Haley gave an interview in
which she said, "we don't trust Russia, we don't trust Putin; we never will...they're never
going to be our friend...that's a fact."
Last September she acted as if she, rather than Trump, were the commander-in-chief, Tweeting
of North Korea, "we cut 90% of trade and 30% of oil. I have no problem kicking it to Gen.
Mattis because I think he has plenty of options." The idea that she, and not her boss, would
"kick it" to Defense Secretary Mattis was preposterous, but contradicting and countermanding
Trump's disappointingly rare bobs toward diplomacy and disengagement over bluster and bombs was
a chief characteristic of Haley's reign as UN chief finger-wagger.
President Trump had been extremely critical of Syria's Assad, particularly after he fell for
two false-flag rebel gas attacks blamed on Assad, but he had been careful not to explicitly set
US policy as "Assad must go," as had his predecessor. Nevertheless Nikki Haley again got out
ahead of official US policy with her own policy,
stating in September 2017 that, "we're not going to be satisfied until we see a solid and
stable Syria, and that is not with Assad in place."
Nikki Haley had long been associated with neocon warhawk John Bolton and had also benefited
from the largesse of GOP moneybags Sheldon Adelson, the Israel-obsessed casino magnate who
bankrolled Haley's PAC to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars in 2016 alone. Haley was
Adelson's kind of governor: While South Carolina's executive, she signed the nation's first law
making it a criminal offense to support a boycott of Israel.
How did the mainstream media handle the surprise resignation of such an extreme warhawk?
Someone one might consider on the far fringe of US political life? The New York Times mourned
the departure of Ambassador Haley,
Tweeting that it would be "leaving the administration with one less moderate Republican
voice."
"Moderate" voice?
For such a pro-war extremist to be considered "moderate" by the newspaper of record may
strike some as odd, but as Glenn Greenwald so accurately
explained :
The reason NYT calls her "moderate" is because she affirms all of the standard pro-war,
pro-imperial orthodoxies that are bipartisan consensus in Washington. That's why @ BillKristol reveres her. She was a Tea Party candidate, but "moderate" means:
loves US wars & hegemony.
That's it in a nutshell. Because in Washington being extreme pro-interventionist
and pro-war is the orthodoxy. The facade that there are real differences between the Republican
and Democrat party is carefully crafted by the mainstream media to cover the fact that we do
live in a one-party state. Pro-war, pro-intervention, pro-bombing, pro-overthrow, pro-meddling
- these are moderate positions. For Washington and the mainstream media, the extremists are the
ones who wish to abide by the admonitions of our Founding Fathers that we go not abroad in
search of monsters to destroy.
Well, it seems there are plenty of monsters closer to home.
So good riddance to Nikki Haley...but don't hold your breath that it means the end of Nikki
Haley-ism, which is the foundation of US foreign policy. Clearly we have much work left to
do.
Your tax deductible
contributions to the Ron Paul Institute allow us to provide you with real
analysis of breaking issues. Our continued ability to provide a counter-balance
to the mainstream media's false narrative depends on your
financial support . We thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Oh, boo hoo hoo!!! Muh FREEDOM!!! Things like that never happen in a free country. I wonder
what the American reaction would be if China sent all their HP laptops back?
The new story pointing to an Ethernet hack is clearly intended to act as support for
the original story but since the details are so different, and given that the entire report
is single-sourced, it has had the opposite effect among security experts who have started to
doubt the credibility of the original story.
In addition, online sleuths have started digging into the reporters themselves and
identifying previous errors in their reporting of security issues
Immediately after she resigned, Twitter lit up with theories and opinions about the reason,
with many suggesting Haley could be the Trump administration official behind a highly critical
anonymous
op-ed published by the New York Times last month.
"... "It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to see, that I just started yelling at everybody " ..."
"... We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess with the US. ..."
"... As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those who voted against us. ..."
"... We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be our friend. That's just a fact. ..."
"... "They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their place is." ..."
"... "weapon of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it." ..."
"... When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is warfare. ..."
"... We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until [President Nicolas] Maduro is gone! ..."
"... If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them. ..."
"... Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just another instrument of international politics. ..."
"... "Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," ..."
"... We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the South China Sea. ..."
Israel seems to be most upset by Haley's resignation from her UN job, since the envoy for
Washington often ended up championing Israeli interests at the world body. Statements like this
one perfectly explain Tel Aviv's grief:
"It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a
kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to
see, that I just started yelling at everybody "
We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess
with the US.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
"I would like to thank Ambassador @nikkihaley , who led the
uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at the UN, and on behalf of the truth and justice
of our country. Best of luck!" pic.twitter.com/Lr6IvkM5U9
The US envoy was also never shy to pressure the UN member states into voting the way
Washington saw fit. The most notable example of such extortion was the vote on recognition of
Jerusalem as Israel's capital last December.
As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this
vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I
report back on those who voted against us.
The threats did not work, however, as the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly rejected
Washington's unilateral recognition of the disputed city as Israeli capital.
Russia is
'never going to be our friend'
When it came to relations with Moscow, the top US diplomat just wasn't very diplomatic on
many occasions, instead choosing to amplify Russophobic rhetoric put forth by Trump's
opposition.
We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be
our friend. That's just a fact.
"They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they
do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their
place is."
Haley was fully on board with accusations that Moscow meddled in the 2016 US election,
calling them aggression on Russia's part. Election meddling, she said, is Russia's "weapon
of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it."
When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is
warfare.
'Fight until they're gone'
The ambassador showed no sign of awareness that her comments about interference sounded
ironic and hypocritical when placed next to some others she made – regarding places like
Venezuela or Syria.
Last month, Haley joined Venezuelan protesters outside the UN headquarters in New York,
shouting into the megaphone:
We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until
[President Nicolas] Maduro is gone!
The US envoy even showed hints of psychic powers, as she tried to downplay Russia's warnings
that Western-backed terrorists were preparing a false flag chemical attack in Syria in order to
set up Damascus. Gazing straight into the future, she appeared to point her finger at President
Bashar Assad's government.
If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use
them.
In July, the US stunned the international community by withdrawing from the UN Human Rights
Council, and the American ambassador had some strong words to back the move.
Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the
UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just
another instrument of international politics.
"Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships
of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," Haley fumed.
Freedom
fighters of Binomo
When dealing with other states, the US envoy tried her best to uphold an image of an expert
on international affairs including on those nation that... well, didn't even exist.
In a scandalous YouTube recording made by two Russian pranksters, posing as a high-ranked
Polish official, Haley was asked to comment on the aspirations of the nation of Binomo in the
South China Sea.
We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I
think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the
South China Sea.
She also said that Russia "absolutely" meddled in the country's election as well
– a truly extraordinary achievement, given that Binomo was entirely made up.
Her
biggest problem as UN ambassador was simple: she was totally out of her depth. "She was
picked for UN Ambassador for one reason," explained a senior GOP political consultant to me,
reacting to the news that Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, had just resigned
from the Trump administration. "She was supposed to present a feminine, or supposedly softer
version of Trump's America First message. Instead she became the administration's national
security sledgehammer."
"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at parroting
whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for anyone who has
ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the land of talking
points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was apparent there was
nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."
Perhaps I can come up with a better description of Nikki Haley. She was Donald Trump's very
own "Baghdad Bob," the propaganda chief under Saddam Hussein who appeared on TV during the 2003
Iraq invasion and said anything the regime wanted, no matter how inflammatory or wrong. While
Haley was never forced to claim anything so preposterous as that Saddam's Republican Guard was
winning a war against a superpower, her ability to trump even Trump in crazy talk was a rare
talent -- and not a welcome one.
That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a
terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the experience
and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is not enough to
be credible on the world's stage. It would be like asking me to become a plumber: sure, I could
figure it out at some point, but I would leave behind quite a few clogged toilets and busted
faucets along the way.
Haley left behind some busted faucets, that's for sure. If she did make any sort of major
impression, it was thanks to her tough talk on North Korea and Iran. But it was her
hard-hitting rhetoric leveled at the Kim regime that stuck out the most. In an almost comical
attempt to parrot the words of President Trump, who in early September
said at the UN that America "has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend
itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea," Haley stated
in November that "if war comes, make no mistake, the North Korean regime will be utterly
destroyed."
That's just for starters. There were also the clear missteps, when we could see her lack of
expertise and preparation at work. In a primetime interview with Fox News nighttime anchor
Martha MacCallum, Haley was asked about the 2018 Olympics and whether U.S. athletes would
participate. North Korea experts knew this was the question that would have to be asked,
and were keen to see what Haley would have to say.
She blew it, big time. The interview, conducted in January, at a time when some thought a
war with the Kim regime was still very possible, drove headlines the world over, as Haley said
she would not commit to U.S. citizens participating, stating, "there's an open question."
MacCallum pounced on Twitter, and rightly so, writing that "Amb. Nikki
Haley not certain we should send our athletes to the Olympics. Will depend on NK
situation."
Now, to be fair to Haley,
the remarks were more qualified than the press made them out to be. Still, they were
confusing to say the least, and show that she was not ready for what was an obvious question.
In fact, Haley seemed to stumble, adding, "I have not heard anything about that" and "I do know
in the talks that we have -- whether it's Jerusalem or North Korea -- it's about, how do we
protect the U.S. citizens in the area?"
What? As another Republican put it to me just a day later: "She had no idea what the hell
she was talking about."
Haley even scared some very senior diplomats, who wondered exactly what the administration
was planning if Washington would not send its citizens or athletes to the Olympics. "Is America
getting ready to attack North Korea? Is that where this is headed?" asked a senior diplomat
here in Washington minutes after the interview was over.
I could go on, but I think you get my point. President Trump can do far better than
Haley.
Harry J. Kazianis ( @grecianformula ) is director of defense studies at
the Center for the National Interest and executive editor of its publishing arm The National
Interest. Previously, he led the foreign policy communications efforts of the Heritage
Foundation, and served as editor-in-chief of The Diplomat and as a fellow at CSIS:PACNET. The
views expressed are his own.
"... The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model. ..."
"... Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so much mediocrity? ..."
"... BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice ..."
"... How did this woman move herself from the dignified, elected position of Governor to trump underling and Israeli bull horn? The things we do for greed! ..."
"... Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump. ..."
"... She leaves Turtle Bay with no achievements and the sound of jeering delegate laughter at the General Assembly still ringing in her ears. ..."
NBC
News
reports that Nikki Haley will be resigning from her position as ambassador to the United
Nations:
In an unexpected development, President Donald Trump's U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, plans
to resign, NBC News has confirmed.
Haley informed her staff that she plans to resign. The news, first reported by Axios,
comes ahead of an announcement she plans to make with President Donald Trump at the White
House Tuesday morning.
Haley's tenure as U.N. ambassador was fairly brief and not very successful. The Security
Council did approve additional North Korea sanctions during her time there. Otherwise, she was
known
mostly for ineffectively
promoting the administration's Iran
obsession , picking
fights with most other states over Israel, and calling attention to how isolated the U.S.
has become following the withdrawal from the JCPOA. Her last big effort at the U.N. was the
Security Council session last month that was originally supposed to focus on criticizing Iran.
The administration changed the subject of the meeting to nonproliferation, but that still
allowed all of the other members to tout their support for the nuclear deal and criticize U.S.
withdrawal from the agreement. If that was meant to be Haley's crowning achievement before she
left, it didn't work out very well.
Trump's decision to appoint Haley to this position struck me as odd
from the beginning. Haley had no diplomatic or foreign policy experience, and beyond the usual
knee-jerk "pro-Israel" reactions she did not have any record of talking or thinking about
foreign policy. It is taken for granted that she took the job to build up her credentials on
foreign policy, but her stint as ambassador has been so short that I'm not sure that it will do
her very much good in future political campaigns. When she was appointed, I said that "this may
prove to be a rather fruitless detour for the next few years." Haley's resignation after less
than two years in the job suggests that she concluded that there was no point in sticking
around any longer.
The speculation I've seen, that after the election Trump fires Sessions, appoints Graham, and
Haley gets appointed to Graham's Senate seat, makes a ton of sense. She'll be back, and
she'll run for President someday, guaranteed.
One theory I've heard is that Nikki Haley was thought to be the top contender for a potential
primary challenge to Trump in 2020 (if things didn't go well for the Trump administration).
As you previously noted, she was a vocal critic of Donald Trump in the primaries (the
President doesn't easily forgive or forget criticism). So she was dumped into the UN as a way
to keep her from going rogue. The President doesn't like to see figures in his administration
outshining him, so as she began to make a name for herself as being exceptionally tough on
Iran, Trump kicked the legs out from under that policy directive and sent her to haplessly
defend "non-proliferation".
End result? Two years have passed and Nikki Haley has no real accomplishment to show for
it (Sad!), while at the same time by virtue of working within the Trump Administration, she's
been effectively silenced for two years in her once-vocal criticism. Trump: 1, Haley 0.
The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model.
Of course when that Nitwit Hack transitions to the "private sector" she will be invited to
sit on various BoD's to be a potted plant at Board meetings. And she will also live large
from the remuneration for just showing up. And don't forget the honorary degrees Nikki will
be awarded. It's like the Tin Man getting an honorary "Th.D", (Doctor of Thinkology) from the
Wizard of Oz.
Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so
much mediocrity?
BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former
Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD
meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice
Yeah, agreed with all of the above. Although it's unclear to me that anyone associated with
the Trump administration will walk away with a leg up to seek higher office.
By virtue of most folks disinterest in foreign policy or the UN Haley may have the
advantage over the others in the Trump administration. Getting out early is smart.
As for her lack of competence and knee-jerk Israel supporting bent this may not hurt her
in the long run either with a GOP that has proven itself to be on a path of less and less
competence, less and less integrity, and (one can only hope) less and less relevance.
Well said. She is more the ambassador for Isreal than for America. One can only hope that
Trump realizes this and appoints a diplomat with skills and an even keel. Hope he does not
have Jared Kushner in mind?
There are stories that she accepted gifts she wasn't supposed to accept (no, not curtains). I
think she resigned to head those off, as well as to be available for other positions that
might open up (Senator? President?).
Whatever, it's just the latest in an unprecedented amount of people leaving this
administration. If Trump only hires the best people, why do those smart people keep leaving
him?
1. Yes, she has the Trump stench on her. But by resigning now she has two years to try to
wash it off.
2. To a certain segment of the GOP base, being completely ineffectual at the UN will be
seen as a feature, not a bug.
3. She has one huge advantage over some other potential rivals (Flake, for example) in
that by not being in the Senate this past week she played no part in the Kavanaugh fiasco.
Since she never had to vote on it, she can still try to play it both ways.
Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's
stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on
the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump.
Instead, she'll be bankrolled by some rich Zionist creeps, a la Rubio, and turn up again
in 2020 or 2024 offering to keep us bogged down in Middle East wars another four years.
Tony Vodvarka says:
October 1, 2018 at 2:01 pm GMT LBJ, running for a seat in the Texas state legislature, told
his campaign manager to spread the charge that his opponent had sex with pigs. Shocked, the
manager replied, "He doesn't do that! "I know, I know" said Johnson, "but make him deny
it."
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical"
mistake by exploiting the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes
that don't bow to its whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
... ... ...
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian
bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar
settlements into other currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the backing of
Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have been readily embraced by China
and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises
in Vladivostok last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to counter
US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimise dependence on
the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to
be done and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
If there is one thing that still unites Americans across the ever more intellectually
suffocating and bitterly polarized political spectrum our imaginations have been crammed into
like rush hour commuters on the Tokyo Metro, it's our undying love of identity politics.
Who doesn't love identity politics? Liberals love identity politics. Conservatives love
identity politics. Political parties love identity politics. Corporations love identity
politics. Advertisers, anarchists, white supremacists, Wall Street bankers, Hollywood
producers, Twitter celebrities, the media, academia everybody loves identity politics.
Why do we love identity politics? We love them for many different reasons.
The ruling classes love identity politics because they keep the working classes focused on
race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and so on, and not on the fact that they
(i.e., the working classes) are, essentially, glorified indentured servants, who will spend the
majority of their sentient existences laboring to benefit a ruling elite that would gladly
butcher their entire families and sell their livers to hepatitic Saudi princes if they could
get away with it. Dividing the working classes up into sub-groups according to race, ethnicity,
and so on, and then pitting these sub-groups against each other, is extremely important to the
ruling classes, who are, let's remember, a tiny minority of intelligent but physically
vulnerable parasites controlling the lives of the vast majority of human beings on the planet
Earth, primarily by keeping them ignorant and confused.
The political parties love identity politics because they allow them to conceal the fact
that they are bought and paid for by these ruling classes, which, in our day and age, means
corporations and a handful of obscenely wealthy oligarchs who would gut you and your kids like
trout and sell your organs to the highest bidder if they thought they could possibly get away
with it. The political parties employ identity politics to maintain the simulation of
democracy that prevents Americans (many of whom are armed) from coming together, forming a
mob, dismantling this simulation of democracy, and then attempting to establish an actual
democracy, of
The corporate media, academia, Hollywood, and the other components of the culture industry
are similarly invested in keeping the vast majority of people ignorant and confused. The folks
who populate this culture industry, in addition to predicating their sense of self
Oh, and racists, hardcore white supremacists, anti-Semites, and other far-Right wing nuts my
God, do they love identity politics! Identity politics are their entire worldview (or
Weltanschauung, for you Nazi fetishists). Virtually every social, political, economic, and
ontological phenomenon can be explained by reducing it to race, ethnicity, religion, or some
other simplistic criterion, according to these "alt-Right" geniuses. And to render everything
even more simplistic, each and every one of their simplistic theories can be subsumed into a
meta-simplistic theory, which amounts to (did you guess it?) a conspiracy of Jews.
According to this meta-theory, this conspiracy of Jews (which is headquartered in Israel,
but maintains offices in Los Angeles and New York, from which it controls the corporate media,
Hollywood, and the entire financial sector) is responsible for well, anything they can think
of. September 11 attacks? Conspiracy of Jews. Financial crisis? Jews, naturally. Black on Black
crime? Jews again! Immigration? Globalization? Gun control laws? Abortion? Drugs? Media bias?
Who else could be behind it all but Jews?!
"... Like with a fantasy novel, the reader gets all the thrills of an epic battle while being certain that the evil empires will never triumph. An attractive form of propaganda, to be certain. ..."
IMO the US Government's propaganda is structured to along the lines of a fantasy novel. The propaganda is designed to convince
the public of two inherently contradictory ideas:
1) that the country is surrounded on vast sides by vast hostile empires that threaten everything we hold dear and
2) despite these dire threats, the country cannot really be harmed because of "our freedoms."
Like with a fantasy novel, the reader gets all the thrills of an epic battle while being certain that the evil empires
will never triumph. An attractive form of propaganda, to be certain.
IMO the US Government's propaganda is structured to along the lines of a fantasy novel.
Posted by: Timothy Hagios | Oct 5, 2018 8:52:41 AM | 1
Whatever is alleged by the US, UK, Netherlands, France et al, if you point in the opposite direction it will probably do. They
falsely accuse others of whatever they in fact do themselves.
Enrico Malatesta | Oct 5, 2018 10:28:08 AM | 7
@Timothy Hagios | Oct 5, 2018 8:52:41 AM | 1
Think I've read it - "Orange Storm Rising" by Clancy Bear
An element of the Skripal poisoning saga in Britain (the Novichok) was lifted from the TV
series "Strikeback" screening in the country in November 2017 and February 2018. I have seen
something on the Internet (but can't find the link) that said the subplot with the abandoned
perfume bottle that contained poison was also taken from a TV show.
Prepare to be unsurprised then when the people who write propaganda for The Powers That
Should Not Be turn out to be the same people who write scripts for Hollywood films and TV
shows. A lot of these people also write novels or teach creative writing courses.
We really do seem to be living in a society where mythology and fantasy are becoming more
prominent than facts and analysis in decision-making.
Oh God. Oh God. Is there no surcease? I know, silly question. Squalling protesters: Half of
the country seems fifteen years younger than its chronological age. Staged ire. Sordid passion
of the herd. Hysteria. Irrationality. Weird accusations. Savage feminists. As per custom, it is
all about how horrible men are.
One of the sillier sillinesses of feminists regarding us men, of whom they seem to know
little, is that we hate women, scorn them, want to abuse and hurt them and, most especially,
gang-rape them. See, men view rape casually. It's just something to do in a moment of boredom.
Like scratching, or wondering where we left our keys. It's because of our misogyny. The
Sisterhood seems to love misogyny, pray for misogyny, invent misogyny because without it life
would be bleak and devoid of meaning.
What is wrong with these baffled ditz-rabbits? Men hate women? By and large, our mothers
have been women. Yes, check it out. Also our wives and girlfriends, grandmothers,
granddaughters, daughters and–this will astonish the more ardent among
feminists–even many of our friends. And, often, our collies.
As for regarding rape causally: If some dirtball raped anywoman close to me, I would favor
subjecting him to a sex change with a propane torch, knee-capping him as a mobility-reduction
measure, giving him a beating of the sort popular with dentists who want Porsches, and putting
him in Leavenworth for thirty years. Sensitive readers will suggest that I am a psycho for
proposing such effective and extremely meritorious measures. Admittedly they run counter to the
trade winds of American jurisprudence. But a great many men will quietly say, "Right on,
Fred."
But: Rape is a crime. The standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As well as I
can see, the Kavanaugh charges do not even meet the civil standard of preponderance of the
evidence, since there seems to be little evidence to preponder. The accuser doesn't remember
when it was, or where it was, or just who was there, and those she thinks were there don't
remember the party.
Since I am actually in a mood for noting things, I will note that any girl in my high school
class–King George High, class of 1964–could accuse me of raping her at a party, and
do it with similar evidence: none. Equally with Kavanaugh, I would have no way to defend
myself. How could I prove what I hadn't done at a party nobody remembered after 55 years? This
would be no defense against the presumption of guilt. Girls I dated would report that I had no
such inclinations. Surviving teachers would remember–well, perhaps imperfect behavior,
but nothing lubricious. This would prove nothing.
However, this first accusation against Kavanaugh has the virtue that it could have
happened, since there is no proof that it didn't happen. The same could be said of course of
the charge that I raped whoever some girl might say that I had. Ah, but now we come to the
gang-rape business. We have:
"Swetnick, who attended High School in Gaithersburg, Maryland, swore under oath that she
attended at least 10 parties where she says she witnessed Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and
others "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in
a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys." She added that she has a "firm
recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their
'turn' with a girl inside the room,"
First, "cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented." This displays a common theme
among feminists, painting girls as helpless, easily manipulated victims, having no will of
their own. Is this not truly insulting to girls? "He didn't tell me beer had alcohol in it and
I didn't know boys were interested in sex, I thought it was just us girls ."
But, just as the problem with the first story is no witness, the problem with the gang rape
is too many witnesses. "At least ten parties ." Since it is unlikely that a girl would come
back to be gang-raped a second time, this implies at least ten victims. While it is true that a
rape victim often will not come forward because of embarrassment, it is curious that not one of
the violated multitude said anything, even though everyone at the party would have seen the
line-up. None of the other girls at the party said anything either, even though this was a
frequent occurrence. Is it not odd that the author of this story, seeing long lines of boys
engaging in rape, at party after party after party, saw no particular reason for reporting it?
That the many other girls witnessing this also said nothing? This is a song sounding mightily
of fabrication. Which must be obvious to senators who, though morally challenged, are not
stupid.
"... How come the guys in the Southern and mid-Atlantic colonies didn't feel the need to accuse raucous women of being witches in order to get them back to their senses? ..."
"... I can imagine Southern or mid-Atlantic colonial men would tell the misbehaving women to knock off the nonsense or they might tell the women to stop bothering them while they're drinking ale. ..."
With more to come this is just the beginning (similar to the actual Salem witch
accounts, which grew over time)
How come the guys in the Southern and mid-Atlantic colonies didn't feel the need to accuse
raucous women of being witches in order to get them back to their senses?
Hackett Fischer readers might say the colonists and settlers came from different parts of
England and different parts of England treated women differently.
I can imagine Southern or mid-Atlantic colonial men would tell the misbehaving women to
knock off the nonsense or they might tell the women to stop bothering them while they're
drinking ale.
You don't go overboard and accuse women of being witches just because the uproarious
broads are getting on your nerves.
Hillary Clinton is too evil to be a witch, she is a demon sent from Hell to destroy us,
men and women alike.
The Ragin' Cajun, I believe, coined the phrase "Nuts and Sluts" to succinctly describe the
tactic used by the elites I call The Davos Crowd to smear and destroy someone they've
targeted.
Brett Kavanaugh is the latest victim of this technique. But, there have been dozens of
victims I can list from Gary Hart in the 1980's to former IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn to
Donald Trump.
"Nuts and Sluts" is easy to understand. Simply accuse the person you want to destroy of
being either crazy (the definition of which shifts with whatever is the political trigger issue
of the day) or a sexual deviant.
This technique works because it triggers most people's Disgust Circuit, a term created by
Mark Schaller as part of what he calls the Behavioral Immune System and popularized by
Johnathan Haidt.
The disgust circuit is easy to understand.
It is the limit at which behavior in others triggers our gut-level outrage and we recoil
with disgust.
The reason "Nuts and Sluts" works so well on conservative candidates and voters is because,
on average, conservatives have a much stronger disgust circuit than liberals and/or
libertarians.
This is why it always seems to be that anyone who threatens the global order or the
political system always turns out to have some horrible sexual deviance in their closet.
It's why the only thing any of us remember about the infamous Trump Dossier is the image of
Trump standing on a bed in a Moscow hotel room urinating on a hooker.
The technique is used to drive a wedge between Republican voters and lawmakers and make it
easy for them to go along with whatever stupidity is brought forth by the press and the
Democrats.
And don't think for a second that, more often than not, GOP leadership isn't in cahoots with
the DNC on these take-downs. Because they are.
But, here's the problem. As liberals and cultural Marxists break down the societal order, as
they win skirmish after skirmish in the Culture War, and desensitize us to normalize ever more
deviant behavior, the circumstances of a "Nuts and Sluts" accusation have to rise
accordingly.
It's behavioral heroin. And the more tolerance we build up to it the more likely people are
to see right through the lie.
It's why Gary Hart simply had to be accused of having an affair in the 1980's to scuttle his
presidential aspirations but today Trump has to piss on a hooker.
And it's why it was mild sexual harassment and a pubic hair on a Coke can for Clarence
Thomas, but today, for Brett Kavanaugh, it has to be a gang-rape straight out of an 80's frat
party in a Brett Eaton Ellis book -- whose books, by the way, are meant to be warnings not
blueprints.
Trump has weathered both the Nuts side of the technique and the Sluts side. And as he has
done so The Resistance has become more and more outraged that it's not working like it used
to.
This is why they have to pay people to be outraged by Kavanaugh's nomination. They can't
muster up a critical mass of outrage while Trump is winning on many fronts. Like it or not, the
economy has improved. It's still not good, but it's better and sentiment is higher.
So they have to pay people to protest Kavanaugh. And when that didn't work, then the fear of
his ascending to the Supreme Court and jeopardizing Roe v. Wade became acute, it doesn't
surprise me to see them pull out Christine Blasie Ford's story to guide them through to the
mid-term elections.
And that was a bridge too far for a lot of people.
The one who finally had enough of 'Nuts and Sluts' was, of all people, Lindsey Graham . Graham is one of
the most vile and venal people in D.C. He is a war-mongering neoconservative-enabling
praetorian of Imperial Washington's status quo.
But even he has a disgust circuit and Brett Kavanaugh's spirited defense of himself, shaming
Diane Feinstein in the process, was enough for Graham to finally redeem himself for one brief
moment.
When Lindsey Graham is the best defense we have against becoming a country ruled by men
rather than laws, our society hangs by a thread.
It was important for Graham to do this. It was a wake-up call to the 'moderate' GOP senators
wavering on Kavanaugh. Graham may be bucking for Senate Majority Leader or Attorney General,
but whatever. For four minutes his disgust was palpable.
The two men finally did what the 'Right' in this country have been screaming for for
years.
Fight back. Stop being reasonable. Stop playing it safe. Trump cannot do this by
himself.
Fight for what this country was supposed to stand for.
Because as Graham said, this is all about regaining power and they don't care what damage
they do to get it back.
The disgust circuit can kick in a number of different ways. And Thursday it kicked in to
finally call out what was actually happening on Capitol Hill. This was The Swamp in all its
glory.
And believe me millions were outraged by what they saw.
It will destroy what is left of the Democratic Party. I told you back in June that
Kanye West and Donald Trump had won the Battle of the Bulge in the Culture War. Graham and
Kavanuagh's honest and brutal outrage at the unfairness of this process was snuffing out of
that counter-attack.
The mid-terms will be a Red Tide with the bodies washing up on the shore the leadership of
the DNC and the carpet-baggers standing behind them with billions in money to buy fake
opposition.
The truth is easy to support. Lies cost money. The more outrageous the lie the more
expensive it gets to maintain it.
Because the majority of this country just became thoroughly disgusted with the Democrats.
And they will have no one to blame but themselves.
"... The U.S. should help Kim pull his country back from seven decades of confrontation. Kim's apparent reasonableness may turn out to be fake, but it is in Washington's interest to create positive incentives for the North. If President Donald Trump can do it right -- imagine a White House signing ceremony for a peace treaty with Kim, China's Xi Jinping, and South Korea's Moon Jae-in -- a Nobel Peace Prize might just be within reach. ..."
"... The other half of the ban is almost entirely symbolic, intended mainly to demonstrate that the Muslim "travel ban" is, well, not a Muslim travel ban. Other than DPRK officials, the only North Koreans likely to hop on a plane to America are defectors. And they should be welcomed. ..."
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo extended the prohibition another year on September 1, for no obvious reason other than the fact he could do so. It was an extraordinarily foolish step, given Kim's evident desire to improve trust. If the president believes that the supreme leader is prepared to disarm, he should listen to Kim's conditions and encourage expanded private ties. ..."
"... But Pyongyang does not just kidnap Americans. The 17 detained over the last couple decades all "did something," as the head of a U.S. NGO told me while I was visiting the North last year. That is, every one of them fell afoul of DPRK rules, several by evangelizing. Of course, what they did should not be crimes, but in that the North is not alone. Show up in, say, Pakistan and tell people what you think of the prophet Mohammed: the result might be deadly. ..."
"... And Washington should not stop there. Political relations should be made formal. It is time for diplomatic recognition. This step should be treated as communication rather than reward. Imagine the Cold War, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, without any reliable channels between the two governments. Or what if the U.S. and the People's Republic of China had been in contact as allied forces neared the Yalu in late 1950? Washington and Beijing might have found a modus vivendi to avoid war. ..."
Let Americans Visit North Korea NowKim has expressed his desire for contact with
Americans. The Trump administration should give it to him.
North Korea is changing. That doesn't mean Kim Jong-un is mimicking Mikhail Gorbachev or even
Deng Xiaoping, at least not yet. But it does increasingly appear that Kim intends to chart a
more moderate course for his nation -- that is, make it less threatening, though not more
democratic.
The U.S. should help Kim pull his country back from seven decades of confrontation. Kim's
apparent reasonableness may turn out to be fake, but it is in Washington's interest to create
positive incentives for the North. If President Donald Trump can do it right -- imagine a White
House signing ceremony for a peace treaty with Kim, China's Xi Jinping, and South Korea's Moon
Jae-in -- a Nobel Peace Prize might just be within reach.
Of course, good policy is critical. The supreme leader is a ruthless survivor who appears to
have eliminated all serious domestic rivals. He is unlikely to turn over his nuclear weapons up
front, sacrificing his leverage in the hope that Washington, where the president's national
security advisor has counseled war, will join him in a Kumbaya songfest. And even if he does
make other worthwhile concessions that reduce the risk of conflict in Northeast Asia, he may
want to keep a few of his nukes.
But more diplomacy is necessary. Kim has expressed his desire for contact with Americans.
The Trump administration should give it to him, starting with a repeal of the ban on travel to
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Even before the Kim-Trump summit, the supreme leader was quoted by South Koreans as saying:
"If we meet often and build trust with the United States, and if an end to the war and
nonaggression are promised, why would we live in difficulty with nuclear weapons?" Moreover,
the short summit communique was structured to reflect this perspective: the two governments
would first "establish new U.S.-DPRK relations" reflecting a mutual desire "for peace and
prosperity." Next they would "build a lasting and stable peace regime." Then they would work
towards denuclearization, however defined.
Which makes sense. Assume that Kim is serious about improved ties with the U.S. and
improving his standing worldwide. Further assume that he is open to the idea of at least
curbing or even eliminating his nuclear ambitions. Then he has to trust that Washington won't
follow its policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and pursue regime change. The case of
Libya is particularly chastening. At the time of its civil war, the DPRK blamed the old fool
Moammar Gaddafi for giving up his missiles and nukes, which allowed him to be driven from power
the moment the U.S. and Europe had an opportunity.
If anything could generate both shared interest and trust, it would be creating a
relationship characterized not just by official meetings, but even more human contacts. If
Americans and other foreigners are visiting the North, investing in and trading with North
Korean entities, staging cultural and sporting events, and more, U.S. bombers are less likely
to pay a hostile visit to Pyongyang. The starting point for such an approach should be to
eliminate the dual travel ban imposed on the DPRK.
Right now, North Koreans cannot come to America and Americans cannot go to North Korea. The
latter matters most, having ended a tourist trade involving around 1,000 U.S. visitors
annually, and hindering everyone else from aid workers to journalists seeking to go to the
North. Exemptions for visiting the North are available, but representatives of NGOs with whom
I've spoken indicate that the approval process remains both bureaucratic and uncertain.
The other half of the ban is almost entirely symbolic, intended mainly to demonstrate that
the Muslim "travel ban" is, well, not a Muslim travel ban. Other than DPRK officials,
the only North Koreans likely to hop on a plane to America are defectors. And they should be
welcomed.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo extended the prohibition another year on September 1, for no
obvious reason other than the fact he could do so. It was an extraordinarily foolish step,
given Kim's evident desire to improve trust. If the president believes that the supreme leader
is prepared to disarm, he should listen to Kim's conditions and encourage expanded private
ties.
Moreover, every American who visits the North helps pry open another door or window into the
Hermit Kingdom. Indeed, that nickname no longer really applies to the DPRK. The country is more
open, elites are enjoying greater prosperity, market incentives are present throughout the
economy, threats of war have disappeared from the regime's lexicon, Kim has dramatically
stepped out onto the international stage, and America no longer is the domestic demon du
jour.
The excuse for last year's prohibition was the horrific plight of Virginia college student
Otto Warmbier, who was in a comatose state when he was returned from North Korean custody -- he
was taken off life support and died shortly after -- and conveniently forgotten this year when
Trump shifted strategies. Warmbier did not deserve whatever happened to him, but the best
evidence, attested to by his doctors and the coroner who examined his body, was that he was not
beaten. In fact, it was in the North's interest to keep him alive. (There is still no official
explanation for his brain damage, however.)
But Pyongyang does not just kidnap Americans. The 17 detained over the last couple decades
all "did something," as the head of a U.S. NGO told me while I was visiting the North last
year. That is, every one of them fell afoul of DPRK rules, several by evangelizing. Of course,
what they did should not be crimes, but in that the North is not alone. Show up in, say,
Pakistan and tell people what you think of the prophet Mohammed: the result might be
deadly.
Anyway, given the North's strong push for respectability, no repeat is likely. Even more
important than visitors are aid workers, journalists, businessmen and women, and others who can
demonstrate the benefits of international contact. With Kim apparently interested in a more
respectable foreign role, the Trump administration should enlist other Americans to set forth a
vision of a well-connected and well-rewarded DPRK. Maybe Kim is not serious, but the U.S.
should proceed on the assumption that he is. The cost of doing so is small while the benefits
of success would be great.
And Washington should not stop there. Political relations should be made formal. It is time
for diplomatic recognition. This step should be treated as communication rather than reward.
Imagine the Cold War, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, without any reliable channels between
the two governments. Or what if the U.S. and the People's Republic of China had been in contact
as allied forces neared the Yalu in late 1950? Washington and Beijing might have found a modus
vivendi to avoid war.
Washington could start small, with an offer of consular relations. The administration could
insist that ensuing discussions be wide-ranging, including not only denuclearization but human
rights. Such ties would also provide a channel for dealing with errant American tourists. In
this way providing Pyongyang with something it values would enable the U.S. to push forward on
topics uncomfortable for the Kim regime. Positive movement would justify fully normal ties.
There is very little downside to treating the North like most other nations.
Establishing these kinds of relationships would lead naturally to the next step in the
U.S.-DPRK summit statement: creating a peace regime. Most obvious would be a peace treaty to
end what remains a formal state of war. One criticism is that such a pact would benefit the
North, yet all parties should desire an end to hostilities. If Pyongyang is not serious, that
will be obvious in its behavior. The fact that Washington and Moscow are formally at peace has
not stopped the U.S. from conducting a quasi-containment/Cold War strategy against Russia.
The second complaint is that the South might respond to a peace treaty by evicting U.S.
troops and ending the alliance. Yet Washington's defense commitment and troop deployment are
means to an end, not ends themselves. The Republic of Korea enjoys overwhelming advantages
compared to the DPRK and is capable of defending itself. America should take the lead in
shifting defense responsibility to South Koreans. A peace treaty would help formalize such a
step.
No one knows how the president's North Korean gambit will turn out. But he deserves credit
for upending conventional wisdom and making peace at least seem possible. Much needs to be
done. However, a good start would be for the administration to encourage contacts between
peoples as well as governments. There is no guarantee of success. But having moved this far,
the president should push the bilateral relationship to the next level.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire.
"... Earlier today, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo spoke to the hard-line, misleadingly-named pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and delivered their usual attacks on and threats against Iran. ..."
"... An agreement that eliminates any pretext for preventive war, imposes no costs on America, and succeeds through cooperation with multiple governments is anathema to someone like Bolton, because it is proof that diplomacy works and can achieve things that coercive and punitive policies never could. ..."
"... UANI audience members react this way to bad economic news from Iran because they desire the destabilization and overthrow of the government. The fact that the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor headlined their event this week confirms for us that this is the administration's goal as well. ..."
Earlier today, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo spoke to the hard-line, misleadingly-named pressure group, United Against
Nuclear Iran (UANI), and delivered their usual attacks on and threats against Iran. One line from Bolton's speech
stood
out for being as delusional as it was representative of the Iran hawk worldview:
The Iran Deal was the worst diplomatic debacle in American history [bold mine-DL]. It did
nothing to address the regime's destabilizing activities or its ballistic missile development and proliferation.
Worst of all, the deal failed in its fundamental objective: permanently denying Iran all paths to a nuclear bomb.
Bolton loathes diplomacy. That is the key thing to understand about him, and it helps explain almost everything he
has done in his career. He regards any successful diplomatic agreement as something of a debacle because it involves
striking a compromise with another government, usually an adversary or rival, and because it means that the other side
wasn't forced to give in to our every demand. When he denounces the JCPOA as "the worst diplomatic debacle in American
history," he is simply expressing the intensity of his hatred for the government with which the agreement was made. His
previous and ongoing support for the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) shouldn't be forgotten when we try to make sense of this
fanatical rhetoric.
If Bolton considers something to be the "worst diplomatic debacle" of our entire history, that
tells us that the agreement required very little of the U.S., that it reinforced habits of multilateral cooperation,
and that it successfully resolved an outstanding dispute that Bolton wished to resolve through regime change and war.
An agreement that eliminates any pretext for preventive war, imposes no costs on America, and succeeds through
cooperation with multiple governments is anathema to someone like Bolton, because it is proof that diplomacy works and
can achieve things that coercive and punitive policies never could.
The venue for Bolton and Pompeo's speeches was no accident. It was an audience of
hard-liners that detest Iran being addressed by like-minded speakers. UANI intensely
opposed the nuclear deal and recited the usual false claims about it. Their vehement
hostility to the most important and successful nonproliferation agreement of its kind is a
testament to how little they care about actually restricting Iran's nuclear program. Like other
Iran hawks, UANI is simply against Iran, and therefore they hate anything that might relieve
international pressure on Iran. The group celebrates Trump administration sanctions and its
members laugh about the deteriorating economic conditions inside Iran:
UANI audience members react this way to bad economic news from Iran because they desire the
destabilization and overthrow of the government. The fact that the Secretary of State and
National Security Advisor headlined their event this week confirms for us that this is the
administration's goal as well.
Well, more evidence that the three stooges still drink Bibi's kool-aid. Perhaps AIPAC has
promised to arrange for the Pompeo-Haley GOP Ticket to succeed Trump, with Bolton as Sec of
State and Defence all-in-one.
"It is past time for Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to pull the plug on
American engagement in Syria and terminate the seemingly endless cycle of wars in the Middle
East."
Orange Clown's a liar whose presidential campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud
from the beginning. Our presidential poseur obviously had no intention of following through
on most of his pre-election intimations and campaign promises.
Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to
get rid of affirmative action.
If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in
some kind of detention center, close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re
write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive and legislative branches.
Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the
monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky treated the Russian counterrevolution.
I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the
damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.
The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the
private sector unions, lower wages for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80
hours a week for 40 hours wages.
I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who
created and enforce it.
In Paris, a great piece of street furniture called pissoir had been invented in 19
th century, and it made city life easy. Men could pop in and pee for free and
without bother. But the feminists objected to it, and the spirit of capitalism supported them.
A free facility is already a beginning of hated socialism. Rapidly, the number of street
urinals went down from 1200 to one. Instead, pay booths suitable for men and women came into
existence. These structures demand money, take time and are complicated to use. The feminists
were happy, money-charging descendants of Vespasian (the Emperor who said 'money doesn't smell'
and introduced a toilet tax) were very happy, but men weren't so happy to pay for something
they always had for free. So the men preferred to pee outside. And Paris stunk to high
heaven.
Squeezed between malodorous streets and feminist fury, the Paris Town Hall created a new
sort of urinal: open-air one, zero privacy, just pee and go away. Not much of a luxury, nothing
for women to be envious about. And they weren't envious, – just furious. They assaulted
the hated symbols of male patriarchy with concrete, pouring it down the drain, and quickly
blocked them and made them unusable. I suppose the owners of pay-as-you-pee supported them, and
probably even supplied them with concrete at slashed rate, but it is just my wild guess.
Anyway, now Paris stinks again, and the feminists may use this reason to hate men.
And now this toilet war had been carried out to the outer space. There was a strange recent
incident on the International Space Station (ISS). The pressure in the station had dropped.
In the search of a possible leak, a small (2 mm) hole had been discovered in a wall of the
Russian Soyuz spacecraft docked to the station. The hole was located near the toilet and
covered by decorative fabric.
The US astronauts demanded that their mission be aborted and they return to earth; the
Russian cosmonauts just glued the hole with a bit of epoxy and the flight went on.
It was promptly established that it was not a result of a meteorite strike; the hole had
been drilled. Dmitry Rogozin, head of Roscosm said that it was probably done by a homesick
astronaut. This version was considered just too bizarre. It was dismissed by all and sundry as
a new proof of Russian goofiness. The preferred version said that the hole was drilled by a
Russian worker on the ground, immediately before take-off, as you would expect from inept
Russians.
ORDER IT NOW
However, it is possible that Rogozin was right. I have heard from people in Korolyev
(Russian Houston) a very unusual if unverified story that fits perfectly with the rest of
American toilet gender disorder. The setup is as follows. The ISS has an American, a Russian
and a common compartments, separated but interconnected. (The Russian segment is the docked
spacecraft). There are four astronauts in the Western sector, and two cosmonauts in the Russian
sector. Among the Westerners, there is one lady.
Though the astronauts are carefully checked, still in the space things could run into
uncharted territory. The story from Korolyev says the lady objected to their toilet
arrangements as demeaning for her as a woman, and tried to readjust the equipment to fit her
requirements. The men did their own readjustment and complained about the feminist. In a short
while, the delicate toilet in the Western sector had been broken beyond repair, for nothing is
simple in the space, not even going to loo.
And the big grown men, ex-Navy and ex-Air Force captains and commanders, had been reduced to
use diapers on the daily basis. It is not only unpleasant to use: the ISS has no storage for
such a mass of used and stinking diapers. The Western sector began to stink like Paris streets
or worse.
By that time, the astronauts became mightily upset by the lady's extravagant behaviour, and
they complained: "Houston, we have a problem! Please take her home!" Houston, or NASA, had two
objections to granting their wish. One, diversity and female equality had to be maintained at
all costs. The second objection was money.
Now only the Russians have the means to take astronauts to the station and back home. Though
the US had landed a man on the Moon many years ago, they still have no working shuttle to fly
men to ISS. The inept Russians still have their spacecraft, though their best shuttle The
Buran and their best space station Mir had been dumped during the pro-Western
stage of Russia's political orientation at American insistence. The Americans have to pay a
hefty sum to the Russians for each flight, and evacuation of the virago would punch a hole in
NASA budget, bigger and more painful than the hole in the ISS hulk. That's why Houston replied
breezily: "This is your problem, guys! Try to get along with her!"
The Russian toilet and shower worked fine, and the Americans at first tried to use it. But
after a quarrel (and alas, people forced to live in close quarters are likely to quarrel), the
Russians objected and barred the Western astronauts from their Soyuz. The lady's mental health
deteriorated, and stench and floating excrement made her miserable and vicious; and eventually
her companions decided to implement a smart plan. When the two Russians went out to space for
scheduled work, the Americans made their way to the Russian module (there are no locks in the
ICC) and drilled a hole, sealing it with a sealant and covering with decorative fabric.
It was a creative and working idea. The sealant held on for a while and didn't burst
immediately. The pressure in the station is quite low, only one atmosphere, so the hole didn't
present a mortal danger for the team. If and when the leak were found, it would be possible to
insist on emergency evacuation of the crew, thus getting rid of the troublesome virago and
extricating themselves from the stinky hell while blaming the goofy Russians for the failure.
And the best part of it: the hole is in the section of the Soyuz capsule that is jettisoned
during its return to Earth, thus eliminating all evidence of the foul game.
But the plan didn't work out. The Russians closed the hole with a better epoxy sealant and
refused evacuation. Keep shitting in your diapers, gentlemen! The Western commander jerked into
the Russian module, shouting "I, as a commander, will decide what to do about it", and he tore
off the sealant. The Russians told him: "You are the station commander, but on board the Soyuz
you're just a guest", and they bodily kicked him out and re-sealed the hole.
The cosmonauts reported to Korolyev (the Russian flight control centre), and Korolyev asked
Houston to show them video records from the American module to check who went with the drill to
the Russian module. The Russian sanitary block (and that is where the hole was drilled) isn't
monitored for privacy reasons. Houston refused outright.
The situation on the ISS remains tense; the Russians apparently used force to evict the
Americans who tried to drill more holes. The Americans are unhappy as they have to spend all
their nights and days with the troublesome woman, and their toilet still does not work. Now
they hope that the US will soon be able to send a new all-American commercial private shuttle
to remove them, for NASA is adamant in their refusal to pay Russians for the evacuation, and
the Russians do not want to do this job for free. The latest reports
speak of "whodunit in space" and of Russian cosmonauts planning more examination of the outer
walls.
Thus the feminist-induced gender disorder of the West had almost caused disaster, – if
you believe this story.
Trumpenstein delivers magnificently for his constituency. Cheap fiat money for the jooie
banking usurers and wall street scammers. Continued destruction of the ME making the
bloodthirsty izzies and domestic jooies deliriously happy.
And for the MAGA white trash deplorables .a miniscule tax cut so they can afford a new
blue tarp to cover the trailer roof leak and maybe a new mumu for the 250 lb wife.
"... As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to our Colonial Overlord, Israel. ..."
There is an ongoing coup against not only Trump, but the entire nation, as this video by
"Project Veritas" proves. This State Department subversive claims to be a Democratic
Socialist, which are just Antifa terrorists in suits. Antifa was too radical for SANE
Americans so they re-branded their putrid form of Communism to call it DSA. They're traitors
& saboteurs and should be treated as such .
As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her
rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the
right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so
look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to
our Colonial Overlord, Israel.
Many Americans labor under the delusion that we're an independent democratic republic,
with a USG that honors the cherished Constitution and serves We the People. But that is a
fiction, created by a motley assortment of gangsters, think tanks, the MSM and their mighty
Wurlitzer organ, Hollywood.
The USA is under Israeli occupation, with our American neoCON & Zionist Jew Overseers
still cracking that whip on our backs, but a digital one, not leather. The NWO Plantation
owner is Israel, aided and abetted by the money power of those Rothschild central banks, like
the FED, which is the biggest counterfeiting outfit on the planet. The only way to fix this sordid mess would be a repeat of what happened back in 1776. Either
that, or resign ourselves–and offspring–to a life of misery, poverty, endless
wars and terror .
Haaretz via Antiwar.com:
Israel's defense chief calls for probe into identity of top official embroiled in Manafort
case
Special counsel Robert Mueller's office tells Haaretz that it cannot reveal more details
regarding individuals who were not accused in the case
Noa Landau, Amir Tibon | Sep. 17, 2018 | 2:45 AM
The document alleges that a senior Israeli government official conspired with Manafort
in 2012 to defame then-Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko by accusing her of
maintaining ties with anti-Semitic groups. Manafort said that, as a result, American Jews
would pressure the Obama administration not to support Yulia Tymoshenko, whose opponent was a
client of Manafort's, the indictment says .
It will not be any new information for regular readers here of course but it is well
edited and produced and good for sharing with friends who have not yet questioned too much
the narrative on Syria.
To incompetently attempt to murder their targets by spraying the deadliest nerve agent in
existence onto the doorknobs of their suburban homes and then stroll around getting filmed by
every CCTV camera in Britain.
As far as I know, the British tabloids haven't yet published surveillance photos of Corbyn
welcoming the Skripal assassins at Gatwick with a wreath, or a bottle of Stoli (and wearing
his
Russian-stooge hat , of course), but I won't be terribly shocked when they do.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
In the late 1980's, an old friend of mine based in Moscow was calling her husband in the USA
late one night. She said it was a "typical dumb husband/wife call," mostly about a broken
garage door.
Around midnight, a gruff voice broke into the call. "This is your KGB listener. This is the
most boring, stupid call I've ever listened to. Shut up and go to bed!"
Ah, those innocent Cold War days. Today, Big Brother listens to your calls, reads your
email, and follows your internet searches on silent cat's feet.
China's Taoists warned, "you become what you hate." They are right: the September 2001
attacks on the US, as John Le Carré wrote, producing a period of temporary psychosis.
America was knocked back to the ugly days of Sen. McCarthy's Red Scare of the 1950's. The big
difference was that today the bogeymen of "terrorists" have replaced menacing Marxists. And
today, terrorists were everywhere.
Nimrata Randhawa alias Niki Haley says she has intelligence that Putin and Assad were seen in
wal mart with a shopping cart full of Clorox bleach which indicates a chemical attack for
sure. she also said when the US bombed Syria because of the last chemical attack Putins
passport was found in the rubble
"... We Americans are totally subject to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows. ..."
"... Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon? ..."
"... Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his money's worth. https://www.investopedia.co... ..."
"... Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. ..."
"... it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study: http://www.psr.org/assets/p... . ..."
"... Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny. https://ejmagnier.com/2018/... ..."
"... We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador" to the "others." ..."
"... In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine? ..."
"... Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter. ..."
"... Trump is more savagely and ignorantly aggressive. ..."
"... Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation. ..."
"In her statement during the UN Security Council briefing, Haley said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its "enablers,"
Russia and Iran have a playbook for the war in Syria. First, they surround a civilian area. Next, they make the "preposterous claim
that everyone in the area is a terrorist," thus making all civilians targets. That is followed by a "starve and surrender" campaign,
during which Syrian security forces keep attacking until the people no longer have food, clean water, or shelter. "It's a playbook
of death. The Assad regime has spent the last seven years refining it with Russia and Iran's help."
According to her it has happened many times before, in July 2018 it happened in Dara'a and the southwest of Syria, where Syrian
forces "trapped and besieged civilians." In February 2018, it was Ghouta. In 2017 it was Aleppo, and prior to that places like Madaya
and Hama.
According to her, Assad's government has left the country in ruins. "The atrocities committed by Assad will be a permanent stain
on history and a black mark for this Council -- which was blocked over and over by Russia from taking action to help," Nikki Haley
said." SF
------------
Well, strictly speaking, her parents were immigrants, not she. She was born in Bamberg, South Carolina, a little town in the Piedmont
that is majority Black. Her parents were professional people at Amritsar in the Punjab. Haley is the surname of her husband. Nikki
is a nickname by which she has long been known. As governor, she was in favor of flying the Confederate flag on the Statehouse grounds
before the Charleston massacre of Black Christians at a Bible study session. They were killed by an unstable white teen aged misfit
whom they had invited to join their worship. After that Nikki discovered that the Confederate flag was a bad and disruptive symbol.
It was a popular position across the country and Nikki became an instant "hit," the flavor of the month so to speak.
I suppose that she was supposed to be an interesting and decorative figure as UN ambassador. She is quite pretty and the South
Carolina accent adds to the effect.
The positions she has taken at the UN with regard to the ME are similar to those expressed by her boss, President Trump. They
are largely reflections of images projected by the popular and mass media operating as Zionist propaganda machines. I don't believe
that the State Department's INR analytic bureau believes the crapola that she spouts with such hysteric fervor. I don't believe that
my former friend David Satterfield believes the crapola. So, where does she get ideas like the ones quoted above? IMO she is trying
to out-Trump Trump. DJT is a remarkably ignorant man concerning the geo-politics of just about everything in the ME. He appears to
have once seen the film, "Exodus" and to have decided on the basis of Paul Newman's performance as Begin that the situation was and
is quite simple - Israel good! Everyone else bad! Nikki's depth of knowledge appears to be just about the same.
She also appears to me to be in receipt of a stream of opinion from various Zionist and anti-Muslim groups probably related to
the anti-Muslim ravings of Maronite and other Christian ME extremists.
These groups cannot seem to understand that alliances shift as does policy. They don't seem to understand that Israel's policy
in Syria is no longer regime change. They never seem to have understood that the Syrian government is the protector of the religious
minorities against Sunni jihadi fanatics.
They don't seem to understand that the Syrian government has no choice but to recover Idlib Province, a piece of Syria's heartland.
pl
Haley's "playbook" is used by the US but not by Russia & Iran as she claims, with all civilians being targeted. Instead, Russia
& Iran have taken warfare to a higher and better level, allowing the armed factions to surrender their arms and get on a bus or
be killed, and many of them took the bus to preserve their lives until the final offensive. A third option, which many of them
took, was to join the SAA and fight against their former comrades. All of this statecraft was revolutionary, and was not at all
as Haley described, including the crocodile tears over Syrian lives which has never been honest especially considering the level
of support Assad has within Syria.
I agree it is revolutionary, at least in modern times in the western world. I wonder if it will set a "trend": a more humane way
to wage war. I am sure it will be studied in war colleges.
One observation I had while thinking about the Ambassador Haley quote you provided (which I think supports the point you
were making in your post):
When the US was in a somewhat similar situation during the occupation of Iraq, where Sunni militants were in open rebellion
and controlling towns like Fallujah, our response wasn't wildly different to the Syrian government's response. The US gov't at
the time typically labeled any armed resistance "terrorists", and while they might acknowledge that there were civilians in those
territories in addition to terrorists, they were just "human shields" and "regrettable collateral damage". Did the US try a little
harder, and have a bit better of technology, training, etc, and do a little bit better of trying to limit damage to civilians
when crushing those uprisings? Yes. But we're mostly talking modest quantitative differences in response, not fundamentally morally
superior qualitative differences. I bet you if you took pictures of towns like Fallujah, Sadr City, etc, after US counter-insurgency
operations, and mixed them in with pictures of trashed Syrian towns that had just been liberated from rebel groups, and showed
them to Nikki Haley, or frankly any neocon, they'd have a hard time telling the difference.
As I was reading this topic Raqqa and Fallujah came to mind. In the case of Fallujah I don't recall if the civilians were given
an opportunity to evacuate. They were not in ISIS controlled Raqqa. In any event Haley's blather at the UN is for the consumption
of the rubes.
as far as i recall in the battle for fallujah, only women and children were permitted to leave during the siege.and during the
siege of Mosul they were dropping leaflets telling people not to try and leave.
And giving civilians a chance to evacuate doesn't help as much as one would think if the insurgents/rebels really do want to use
them as human shields.
Speaking to young marines in the aftermath of the second assault on Fallujah I learned that although women and children were allowed
to pass the checkpoints but men of fighting age (also known as the father, brother or husband who was driving the families out
of the city) were sent back into the city.
In talking with people here in the U.S. about Syria there is the total lack of understanding of Assad's Alawite government. There
are a couple million Christians in Syria and it is Assad's government that protects them from the Saudi sponsored Sunni headchoppers
who would like to eliminate Christians, Jews, and Shia from the Middle East. Perhaps, the Alawites being an offshoot of Shia makes
them sensitive to minority religions. However, mentioning Assad evokes strong negative reaction among U.S. Christians, similar
to Trumps "lets kill them all". On my one visit to Damascus, traveling on my U.S. Passport rather than my Israeli one, The Christians
I met were uniformly positive about Assad and the need for Assad to control the ENTIRE country.
Thank you for providing your direct experience of the views of Christian Syrians you met there.
Unfortunately none of those views ever make it to either to our print or broadcast media. We Americans are totally subject
to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic
and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows.
Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can
easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon?
Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions
in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his
money's worth.
https://www.investopedia.co...
There's a disturbing piece up today at WaPo by Karen De Young asserting the USA is doubling down in Syria. From the piece, emphasis
by ex-PFC Chuck:
"We've started using new language," [James] Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons.
Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate "an attack. Period." "Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless
escalation" he said. "You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refugee flows or attack innocent civilians,"
and "the consequences of that are that we will shift our positions and use all of our tools to make it clear that we'll have
to find ways to achieve our goals that are less reliant on the goodwill of the Russians."
Jeffrey is said to be Pompeo's point person on Syria. Do any of you with ears closer to the ground than those of us in flyover
land know anything about this change of tune?
.Iraq PM urged to quit as key ally deserts him over unrest.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi faced calls to resign yesterday as his alliance with a populist cleric who won May elections
crumbled over deadly unrest shaking the country's south. The two leading groups in parliament called on Abadi to step down, after
lawmakers held an emergency meeting on the public anger boiling over in the southern city of Basra.,...
The Conquest Alliance of pro-Iranian former paramilitary fighters was "on the same wavelength" as Sadr's Marching Towards Reform
list and they would work together to form a new government, Assadi said. Abadi, whose grouping came third in the May polls, defended
his record in parliament, describig the unrest as "political sabotage" and saying the crisis over public services was being exploited
for political ends.
http://news.kuwaittimes.net...
Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. According to J. D Cunningham, author
of 'History of the Sikhs (Appendix XX)' included among the injunctions ordained by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth guru, 'a Khalsa
(true Sikh) proves himself if he mounts a warhorse; is always waging war; kills a Khan (Muslim) and slays the Turks (Muslims).'
Aside from this, it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after
what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone
since 2001
under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants
under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality
Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study:
http://www.psr.org/assets/p... .
Your good professor sounds like a great piece of work. "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950" Perhaps we should have
stopped all that foreign aid in the '50s.
The under five mortality figures from Afghanistan (1 in 5) are a problem that preceded our involvement by many years. However,
the failure of the international community to make any significant progress over the last 17 years would be a legitimate criticism.
Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is
spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny.
https://ejmagnier.com/2018/...
We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics
like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as
a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador"
to the "others."
Thank you, Sir. It makes perfect sense with the End if History and all those beliefs.
In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history
and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of
his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine?
You may be interested in a recent article in Unz by SST's own 'smoothieX12' in response to Paul Craig Roberts asking how long
Russia should continue to turn the other cheek:
http://www.unz.com/article/...
Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever
getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime
ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter.
A new PM was at the top of H.Clinton's to-do list as Secretary of State. My favorite Assad replacement candidate was Ghassan
Hitto from Murphy Texas, but he only lasted a couple months.
here
I don't trust converts except for the adjustment from Protestant to Catholic or vice versa. I suppose shifts from one madhab to
another, or between Buddhist schools are also ok.
Sad that in a moment of crisis,so many of the rising political stars of both parties are so hollow to the point of dangerousness.
Has anything really changed much with our policies in the ME in the past 50+ years? Haven't we been deeply influenced/controlled
by Israeli interests in this period, maybe even beyond if the attacks on USS Liberty are taken into account? Is the Trump administration
just following in the traditions of Reagan, Bush Père et fils, Clinton and Obama, or is there a qualitative difference?
Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any
chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this
post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation.
Maybe this is all just "positioning" and "messaging" but maybe not. With Bibi, Nikki, Bolton and Pompeo as THE advisors, does
anyone have a clue what Trump decides, when, not if, the jihadi White Helmets stage their chemical event in Idlib?
"... "The role of the President of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel." -- Ann Lewis, speaking for Hillary Clinton, at the meeting for Jewish Leadership sponsored by the United Jewish Communities on March 18, 2008 ( Jewess Ann Lewis, is sister to Homo Congressman Barney Frank). ..."
"... "The US shouldn't give high clearances to Jews, because when asked to help, we're willing to do anything for the love of our country, Israel." -- Jew Spy Jonathan Pollard during interrogation by the FBI. Make note that Pollard was born in the US and his spying put America in serious nuclear risk back in the 1980's. ..."
"... "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own ." -- Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in an essay reprinted (from the Israeli paper Ha'aretz) in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times. ..."
@jilles dykstra Two remarks,
Sharon's famous statement 'we control America', and the fact that any, or nearly all Chiefs of Staff in the White House were jews.
"The role of the President of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel."
-- Ann Lewis, speaking for Hillary Clinton, at the meeting for Jewish Leadership sponsored by the United Jewish Communities on
March 18, 2008 ( Jewess Ann Lewis, is sister to Homo Congressman Barney Frank).
"[Shimon] Peres warned [Ariel] Sharon Wednesday that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the
Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and 'turn the US against us.' At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned
toward Peres, saying 'every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something
very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.'"
-- Kol Yisrael (Israel Radio), 3 October, 2001 (IAP)
"My opinion of Christian Zionists? They're scum. But don't tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now
"
"I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right direction."
-- Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. Bibi just happened to be in New York City on 9/11 and London during the
7/7 subway bombings.
"The US shouldn't give high clearances to Jews, because when asked to help, we're willing to do anything for the love of
our country, Israel." -- Jew Spy Jonathan Pollard during interrogation by the FBI. Make note that Pollard was born in the US and
his spying put America in serious nuclear risk back in the 1980's.
"The U.S. has no longer a government of goyim [Gentiles], but an administration in which the Jews are full partners in the
decision making at all levels. Perhaps the aspects of the Jewish religious law connected with the term 'government of goyim' should
be re-examined, since it is an outdated term in the U.S." -- The major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, "The Jews Who Run Clinton's
Court" on September 2, 1994.
"We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate,
and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own ." -- Ari Shavit, an Israeli
columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in an essay reprinted
(from the Israeli paper Ha'aretz) in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times.
"The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-White or non-European. And
they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.
We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about a half century. That climate has not yet
been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes constitutional constraints
against bigotry more practical than ever." -- Earl Raab, executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy
(offshoot of the ADL), Jewish Bulletin, Feb. 19, 1993
"We Jews have spoiled the blood of all the races of Europe. Taken as a whole, everything is Jewdified. Our ideas animate everything.
Our spirit reigns over the world. We are the Lords." -- Dr. Kurt Munzer, "The Way to Zion."
"The Roosevelt Administration has selected more Jews to fill influential positions than any previous administration." -- Brooklyn
Jewish Examiner, October 20, 1933.
"The Revolution won't happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will
gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities
as we move towards universal egalitarianism." -- Max Horkheimer, Marxist Jew of the Frankfurt School
"The Jewish Question is being discussed by statesmen in a way more acute and compelling than ever before in the history of
the world. They can do whatever they want, but the nations of the earth well never be able to get away from this question. The
Jewish serpent will show its hydra's heads everywhere, blocking the way to a relaxation of international tensions. We Jews will
not allow peace in the world, however hard statesmen and peace advocates try to bring it about." -- London Jewish Chronicle, March
3, 1939
Under the heading of "A brief History of the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: "Strictly speaking
it is incorrect to call an Ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." -- 1980 Jewish Almanac,
p. 3 (the writer is obliquely referring to the true history of the Eastern European Ashkenazim, or Khazars).
"The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair and will rest in our hands. This revolution will
tighten the Jewish domination over all other people." -- Le Peuple Juif, February 8, 1919.
"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism (Communism) itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in the fact that
the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." -- The Jewish Chronicle, April 4, 1919.
"The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal
is to create a NEW ORDER IN THE WORLD. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because
of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, became a reality
all over the world." -- The American Hebrew Magazine – September 10, 1920. Sometimes misquoted to say "New World Order."
"Jewish history has been tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighboring nations who have suffered them. Our major
vice of old as of today is parasitism. We are a people of vultures living on the labor and good fortune of the rest of the world."
-- Samuel Roth, "Jews Must Live," page 18.
"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting." -- Nahum Goldmann "The Jewish
Paradox" 1978
Real, Factual, Honest, TRUTH'S Straight from the Mouth's & Pen's of .wait for it! .JEWS!
And, yet Still, the stupid, delusional, Naysayers, Jew Defenders, and all who remain in Deep Denial of such factual Truths
Will continue to be and act as such. They simply cannot ever admit they have been so totally wrong, all those year's now, eh.
What does their Judaic Zionist Talmud, Holiest of Holy Book's teach Jews, such as Trumps SIL Kushner? ..This for one example
..Religious teaching and belief of Talmudic Jewry.
"To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim
knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly." -- The Talmud: Libbre David 37
Rubin revealed that Ryan was in almost daily contact with Shai Masot, an Israeli embassy staffer in London, caught on camera
plotting to "take down" MPs perceived as hostile to Israel. Masot is also filmed discussing with leading figures in Conservative
Friends of Israel, including Maria Strizzolo, a senior aide to Education Minister Robert Halfon and a former political director
of CFI, about whether Strizzoli could help "take down" Foreign Office deputy, Sir Alan Duncan. The affair now looks like a
practice run for the operation mounted against Corbyn.
No doubt about that. Are these people in prison yet?
Looks like Zionists and Jews serve as scapegoats for neocons and neoliberalism induced problems ;-)
We probably should also talk about financial capital fifth column, which intersects with Zionist fifth column and is more powerful.
I do not think that without the power of financial fifth column Zionist fifth column would achieve such a prominence.
But in any case a better organized minority often dominates often disorganized majority: this is the essence of the iron law of
oligarchy.
We also can view Israel as yet another US state as the destiny of Israel is so closely lined to the the USA.
Too many people mix Zionists and neocons ("Full Spectrum Dominance" religious cult). As well as Zionists and neoliberals.
Notable quotes:
"... Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List ( ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
"... Two remarks, Sharon's famous statement 'we control America', and the fact that any, or nearly all Chiefs of Staff in the White House were zionists. ..."
Referring to Israel during an interview in August 1983, U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas
Moorer said "I've never seen a President
-- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is
going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these
people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
Moorer was speaking generally but he had something specific in mind, namely the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the American intelligence
ship, U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 173 more. The ship was operating in international waters and was
displaying a huge stars and stripes but Israeli warplanes, which had identified the vessel as American, even strafed the life rafts
to kill those who were fleeing the sinking ship. It was the bloodiest attack on a U.S. Naval vessel ever outside of wartime and the
crew deservedly received the most medals every awarded to a single ship based on one action. Yes, it is one hell of a story of courage
under fire, but don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to make a movie out of it.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken vessel,
saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel. Then came the cover-up from inside
the U.S. government. A hastily convened and summarily executed board of inquiry headed by Admiral John McCain, father of the senator,
deliberately interviewed only a handful of crewmen before determining that it was all an accident. The sailors who had survived the
attack as well as crewmen from Navy ships that arrived eventually to provide assistance were held incommunicado in Malta before being
threatened and sworn to secrecy. Since that time, repeated attempts to convene another genuine inquiry have been rebuffed by congress,
the White House and the Pentagon. Recently deceased Senator John McCain was particularly active in rejecting overtures from the Liberty
survivors.
The Liberty story demonstrates how Israel's ability to make the United States government act against its own interests has been
around for a long time. Grant Smith of IRMEP, cites how Israeli spying carried out by AIPAC in Washington back in the mid-1980s resulted
in a
lopsided trade agreement that currently benefits Israel by more than $10 billion per year on the top of direct grants from the
U.S. Treasury and billions in tax exempt "charitable" donations by American Jews.
If Admiral Moorer were still alive, I would have to tell him that the situation vis-à-vis Israeli power is much worse now than
it was in 1983. He would be very interested in reading a
remarkable bit of research recently completed by Smith demonstrating exactly how Israel and its friends work from inside the
system to corrupt our political process and make the American government work in support of Jewish state interests. He describes
in some detail how the Israel Lobby has been able to manipulate the law enforcement community to protect and promote Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu's agenda.
A key component in the Israeli penetration of the U. S. government has been President George W. Bush's 2004 signing off on the
creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the Treasury. The group's website
proclaims that it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system against illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist
facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators, money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats,"
but it has from its founding been really all about safeguarding Israel's perceived interests. Grant Smith notes however, how "the
secretive office has a special blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States
into illegal Israeli settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons
complex."
The first head of the office was Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who operated secretly within the Treasury itself while
also coordinating regularly both with the Israeli government as well as with pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC, WINEP and the Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Levey also traveled regularly to Israel on the taxpayer's dime, as did his three successors
in office.
Levey left OTFI in 2011 and was replaced by David Cohen.
It was reported then and subsequently
that counterterrorism position at OTFI were all filled by individuals who were both Jewish and Zionist. Cohen continued the Levey
tradition of resisting any transparency regarding what the office was up to. Smith reports how, on September 12, 2012, he
refused to answer reporter questions "about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and whether sanctioning Iran, a signatory
to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, over its internationally-inspected civilian nuclear program was an example
of endemic double standards at OTFI."
Cohen was in turn succeeded in 2015 by Adam Szubin who was then replaced in 2017 by Sigal Pearl Mandelker,
a former
and possibly current Israeli citizen . All of the heads of OTFI have therefore been Jewish and Zionist. All work closely with
the Israeli government, all travel to Israel frequently on "official business" and they all are in close liaison with the Jewish
groups most often described as part of the Israel Lobby. And the result has been that many of the victims of OTFI have been generally
enemies of Israel, as defined by Israel and America's Jewish lobbyists. OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons
List (SDN), which includes sanctions and enforcement options , features many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and
companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise
as weapons traffickers and money launderers . And once placed on the SDN there is no transparent way to be removed, even
if the entry was clearly in error.
Here in the United States, action by OTFI has meant that Islamic charities have been shut down and individuals exercising their
right to free speech through criticism of the Jewish state have been imprisoned. If the Israel Anti-Boycott Act succeeds in making
its way through congress the OTFI model will presumably become the law of the land when it comes to curtailing free speech whenever
Israel is involved.
The OTFI story is outrageous, but it is far from unique. There is a history of American Jews closely attached to Israel being
promoted by powerful and cash rich domestic lobbies to act on behalf of the Jewish state. To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are
vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can reasonably
argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.
Neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish, infiltrated the Pentagon under the Reagan Administration and they and their heirs in
government and media (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol) were major players in the catastrophic
war with Iraq, which, one of the architects of that war, Philip Zelikow,
described in 2004
as being all about Israel. The same people are now in the forefront of urging war with Iran.
American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of Orthodox Jews working for presidential son-in-law
Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman, is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic
or foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a supporter of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and a harsh critic
of other Jews who in any way disagree with the Israeli government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would
be illegal if OTFI were doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the Palestinians in speeches in
Israel. He endlessly and ignorantly repeats Israeli government talking points and has
tried to change the wording of State Department communications, seeking to delete the word "occupied" when describing Israel's
control of the West Bank. His humanity does not extend beyond his Jewishness, defending the Israeli shooting thousands of unarmed
Gazan protesters and the bombing of schools, hospitals and cultural centers. How he represents the United States and its citizens
who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery.
Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone,
who is described by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy." Once upon a time, in an apparently
more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as posing "an existential danger both to the Republican Party and to the
U.S." and even accused him of pandering to Jewish audiences. Apparently when opportunity knocked he changed his mind about his new
boss. Pre-government in 2014, Lightstone founded and headed Silent City, a Jewish advocacy group supported by extreme right-wing
money that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement and also worked to combat the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
He is reportedly still connected financially with anti BDS groups, which might be construed as a conflict of interest. As the Senior
Adviser to Friedman he is paid in excess of $200,000 plus free housing, additional cash benefits to include a 25% cost of living
allowance and a 10% hardship differential, medical insurance and eligibility for a pension.
So, what's in it all for Joe and Jill American Citizens? Not much. And for Israel? Anything, it wants, apparently. Sink a U.S.
warship? Okay. Tap the U.S. Treasury? Sure, just wait a minute and we'll draft some legislation that will give you even more money.
Create a treasury department agency run exclusively by Jews that operates secretly to punish critics of the Jewish state? No brainer.
Meanwhile a bunch of dudes at the Pentagon are dreaming of new wars for Israel and the White House sends an ignorant ambassador and
top aide overseas to represent the interests of the foreign government in the country where they are posted. Which just happens to
be Israel. Will it ever end?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O.
Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected].
Since these groups are tax-free entities, gathering in at least 26 billion a year-not including money to synagogues–that's
close to 30 billion a year Americans have to make up for out of their wallets on April 15 of each year.
26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered
The Forward's investigation has uncovered a tax-exempt Jewish communal apparatus that operates on the scale of a Fortune
500 company and focuses the largest share of its donor dollars on Israel.
This analysis doesn't include synagogues and other groups that avoid revealing their financial information by claiming
a religious exemption.
The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has been run by either American or Israeli Jews since its inception. Similar
to the US Treasury, where five out of the last eight Treasury heads were American Jews. One of the GOYIM appointed, Hank Paulson,
was installed to put an American face on the 2008 MBS generated economic crash, which enriched Wall Street before AND after, but
devastated Main Street.
After Israel realized it could attack the USS Liberty and not only not be held accountable, but the USG would help them protect
their lies, that gave them the incentive to start planning their biggest attack on the USA to date: the 9/11 False Flag. And like
the Liberty incident, the USG is protecting Israel by helping with the lies that keep the Big Lie alive, that Bin Laden and his
posse were the attackers, so Israel could use it's MSM buddies to generate an army of lies about Iraq; Libya, Syria and Iran,
three of which we've already destroyed with Iran in the cross-hairs of unhinged psychos like Bolton and Nutty Nikki.
Drain the Swamp? Hell, Trump and his minions like Shadow President Kushner come from the murkiest depths of that Swamp.
Bottom line? Either we WTFU and realize that our nation has been taken over by Israel, which is using our military might, wealth
and blood to do their dirty work in the ME, invading and busting up nations Israel wants destroyed, or we resign ourselves and
condemn our offspring to a lifetime of poverty, misery, tyranny and endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel.
I wonder at the reference for the claim that LBJ stated his preference that the LIBERTY sink rather than embarass Israel. I am
mindful of LBJ's apparent indifference to the violent deaths of thousands of US servicemen in another part of the world at that
time.
An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media [are] in our
hands'. His words were picked up by Joseph Sobran:
'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected
sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in April. "We killed them out of a certain
naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in
our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "'
Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank
discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism
and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and
his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.'
The bastards have the whole system wired. Their tenures at the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) provided
a springboard to critical posititions within the architecture of 'the system'.
From Wikipedia:
In January 2012, Levey joined HSBC as the bank's Chief Legal Officer.
(trivia : In 2014 HSBC closed North London Central Mosque's account and some Muslim clients' and groups' accounts. Several
sources report that HSBC closed them because they donated their money to Palestine during the recent conflict)
and
In 2015 Cohen was appointed Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency . At the time of his appointment, some
speculated that Cohen's selection was due to the Obama administration's reluctance in picking someone with ties to past incidences
of CIA torture and extraordinary rendition. The post of deputy director has traditionally been filled by military officers or
intelligence community veterans.
(note the whitewashing of Cohen's appointment. No mention of the jewish/zionist angle.)
@rafael martorell thank you
for your articles but is time for you to explain how and why we get to such ridiculous,caricaturesque level of control,that cant
be explain even if the case we are inferiors to them. Everything is for sale in the USA, including our foreign policy and the
lives of our soldiers.
British immigrants are required to RENOUNCE UK Citizenship, to become US Citizens.
This is entirely proper.
Mexicans & Jews retain dual citizenship, without any problem. This is so wrong. Jews routinely serve in IDF & Mossad, but seldom
in the US Military. This is a GLARING form of disloyalty. Such 'citizenship' should be revoked, and the holders deported. IMHPO.
I suspect that Jews & Mexicans on SCOTUS, are at the bottom of this.
Will it ever end? Mr. Giraldi asks (rhetorically). Trump got something right when he said that Media was the enemy, but he didn't
say who owned Media. "Masters of Discourse" Israel Shamir calls Jews who control what we see and hear. Since Media lies to us
24/7, and since Congress is scared to death of AIPAC's power and money (Netanyahu's 29 standing ovations before that group of
pathetic whores), nothing will change until Media changes ownership and Congress is subjected to campaign finance reform. No more
"campaign contributions" (bribes).
It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad
thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.
When LBJ ordered the recall of the fighters that were flying to the rescue of the Liberty, he said that he didn't want to embarrass
his ally. This was at a time when the sailors on the Liberty had not yet identified the nationality of the attackers. People in
the White House knew it was Israel before the sailors on the Liberty knew. Think about the implications of that.
Any time a political system can be hijacked by a foreign power and forced to do the bidding of that foreign power that political
system has to be replaced.
The American political system based on republican and constitutional government has collapsed, largely because the Jewish people
have made a total, complete and utter mockery out of that system. The so-called American "democracy" is a code word for plutocracy.
Wherever you have a "democracy" what you have in practice is a plutocracy.
The Jews love plutocracies because with their money they can literally buy politicians. Furthermore, the non-Jewish populations
cannot defend themselves from the Jewish power in these so-called "democracies".
It will take the proverbial man on the white horse to remedy this situation, i.e., a Caesar, Napoleon, Mussolini or Hitler.
If any of you reading this think that this collapsed political system can be resurrected, well then you are living in la-la land.
OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (SDN), which includes sanctions and enforcement options ,
features many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to Israel
and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons traffickers and money launderers .
OTFI SDN features names only, of those individuals/businesses/organisations which are engaged in illegal activities against
the United States and her interests.
Your well-known bias clouds your vision.
Went through the list cursorily and looked for names I knew to be criminally engaged and thus under U.S. surveillance and sanctions.
Names with a Jewish ethnicity, that is. Lo behold, they are indeed there:
Mikhail Abramov
Valerii Abramov
Nicolai Shusanshvili a.k.a Moshe Israel
Arkadevic Rotenberg
Roman Rotenberg
I am sure there are more.
Don't suppose any clarification, let alone a retraction, of your demonstrated hatred of Jews and the resulting bias would be
forthcoming
Let me explain to you stupid goyim why the Jews dominate you.
Take 2 groups of people of roughly equal ability –
Group A – divides its time between making money and quality of life activities. Has aesthetic and moral limits on what its
willing to do to make money.
Group B – devotes 98 percent if it's time to making money. No aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make
money.
Group B will swiftly dominate and concentrate all wealth in its hands, even if it is no more talented than group A, and vastly
outnumbered by group A, and will reshape society to fit its agenda of money uber alles.
That's all there is to it. There is no mystery.
Now there are literally only 2 ways, and only 2 ways, to fight this –
1) Group A must learn to devote 98 percent of its time to making money and have no moral or aesthetic limits.
2) Group A must practice collective action to preserve its leisured way of life and exclude group B from too much power.
This is why individualism was the greatest gift to people who care only about money.
There is no use complaining about Jews. They are what they are. Money to Jews are "God points" – the more you have the closer
you are to God. Puritans had the same idea later.
The problem transcends Jews.
Lets say 80 percent of Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives to money, but only 20 percent of gentiles are. Even in a country
with no Jews, that 20 percent of gentiles will dominate and shape the county to fit its joyless agenda and oppress everyone else.
That's why in England the powerful classes acted as horrifically as Jews with things like the Land Enclosures and the rape
of the monasteries and the like.
People who care only for money will always dominate people who have other interests in life – it is a law of nature, easy to
understand, not at all mysterious. Unless the majority who care less for money are willing to band together to put a check
on the joyless minority.
When individualism was accepted, the dominance if the joyless minority was assured.
@Johnny Rottenborough An Israeli
journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media [are] in our hands'. His
words were picked up by Joseph Sobran:
'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected
sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians in April. "We killed them out of a certain
naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in
our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own "'
Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about America. Frank
discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism
and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist who calls attention to his own government's -- and
his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.' What ever happened to Rick Sanchez? LOL!!!
On September 30, 2010, Sanchez was interviewed on Sirius XM's radio show Stand Up With Pete Dominick. Sanchez's interview
occurred on the final day of his show in the 8 p.m. time slot, and he was reportedly angry about being replaced by CNN's new
Parker Spitzer talk show[11][12] as well as the occasional jokes made at his expense on The Daily Show:
It's not just the Right that does this. 'Cause I've known a lot of, you know, elite Northeast establishment liberals
that may not use this as a business model, but deep down when they look at a guy like me, they see a guy automatically who
belongs in the second tier and not the top tier . I had a guy who works here at CNN who's a top brass come to me one day and
say, 'You know what, I don't want you anchoring anymore. I really don't see you as an anchor. I see you more as a reporter.
I see you more as a John Quiñones .' Did he not realize that he was telling me, 'When I see you, I think of Hispanic reporters'?
'Cause in his mind, I can't be an anchor. An anchor's what you give the high-profile White guys, you know? So he knocks me
down to that and compares me to that, and it happens all the time. I think to a certain extent Jon Stewart and Colbert are
the same way. I think Jon Stewart's a bigot.[11]
After Dominick questioned him, Sanchez retracted the term, "bigot," and referred to Stewart as "prejudicial" and "uninformed,"[13]
but he defended feeling discriminated, saying, "He's upset that someone of my ilk is almost at his level" and that Stewart
is "not just a comedian. He can make and break careers."[14] When queried on the issue of whether Stewart likewise belonged
to a minority group on account of his Jewish faith, Sanchez responded: Yeah, very powerless people. [laughs] He's such a minority. I mean, you know, please. What -- are you kidding? I'm telling
you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart.
And to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority?[11][12]
A day after his remarks,[15] CNN announced that Sanchez was no longer employed with the company.[11] Despite his firing, upon leaving CNN, Sanchez said, "I want to go on record to say that I have nothing but the highest
regard for CNN and for my six wonderful years with them. I appreciate every opportunity that they have given me, and it has
been a wonderful experience working for them."[20]
Apology for comments In the days after the incident, Sanchez apologized several times. In an appearance on Good Morning America, Sanchez
told George Stephanopoulos, "I said some things I shouldn't have said. They were wrong. Not only were they wrong, they were
offensive." He added, "I apologize and it was wrong for me to be so careless and so inartful. But it happened and I can't take
it back and, you know what, now I have to stand up and be responsible."[21] Sanchez also called and personally apologized to Stewart. He released a statement expressing regret for his "inartful"
comments, adding "I am very much opposed to hate and intolerance, in any form, and I have frequently spoken out against prejudice."[20][22]
On October 20, 2010, Jon Stewart told Larry King that Sanchez should not have been fired for what Sanchez said in the radio
interview; Stewart called the firing "absolute insanity",[23] and stating that he was not "personally hurt".[24]
In a letter to Abraham Foxman -- the head of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) -- Sanchez apologized once again, writing, "[T]here
are no words strong enough for me to express my regret and sorrow over what I said. It was offensive, and I deeply, sincerely
and unequivocally apologize for the hurt that I have caused. I tell my children that when they make a mistake, they should
take responsibility, atone and work to repair whatever they have done. I cannot undo the offense or controversy I caused; all
I can do is to try and learn from this experience and strive to become a better person."
Following a meeting with Foxman, Foxman said Sanchez can now "put the matter to rest", adding that he hoped Sanchez can now
move on with his life and work.
After his groveling (appology tour) to Big Joo Sanchez was able to resuscitate his journalistic career to some extent
but at a much lower level.
Beware the POWER of the CABAL
Trumps comments that 'he would meet with the Iranians', even though his Treasury Department is destroying their country, is, I
believe, a dog whistle to American Nationalists like me, that he is not completely controlled by the evil Cabal. I certainly hope
so but we shall see.
That comment that Trump 'would meet with the Iranians' must have gotten the Cabal's underwear all in knots but some like Alan
'Douche-a-witz' still stayed on the Trump support team vs. the Deep State. Interestink times. (Grin)
@NoseytheDuke Good thinking
Philip Giraldi, it really is time for a movie to be made about the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty and the wilful killing
of so many US sailors. It should be done without any Hollywood backing and distribution along the lines of Mel Gibson's Passion
of the Christ. (Hey Mel, do you read The Unz Review? You should).
It could easily be crowdfunded if necessary, with survivors of the incident serving as consultants. There are loads of 60s
era military surplus items available on the cheap, including aircraft and I would imagine a massive response to a call for actors
and extras. It certainly would help kick open the door to awareness of where the real threat to America lies. Its not just about
the jews, its about the american elites too. The commoners, the fatties, the crackers, the trailer thrash, the single mums, the
idiots awaiting the second coming will be the last to know what is now becoming common knowledge the world over.
I'm no genius or economist but reading online, I understood it well. The common minimum wage burger slinger will support the empire,
the jews and the dollar when he understands what uncle sam is doing and so will you if you happen to be american.
@AaronB Let me explain to you
stupid goyim why the Jews dominate you.
Take 2 groups of people of roughly equal ability -
Group A - divides its time between making money and quality of life activities. Has aesthetic and moral limits on what its
willing to do to make money.
Group B - devotes 98 percent if it's time to making money. No aesthetic and moral limits on what its willing to do to make
money.
Group B will swiftly dominate and concentrate all wealth in its hands, even if it is no more talented than group A, and vastly
outnumbered by group A, and will reshape society to fit its agenda of money uber alles.
That's all there is to it. There is no mystery.
Now there are literally only 2 ways, and only 2 ways, to fight this -
1) Group A must learn to devote 98 percent of its time to making money and have no moral or aesthetic limits.
2) Group A must practice collective action to preserve its leisured way of life and exclude group B from too much power.
This is why individualism was the greatest gift to people who care only about money.
There is no use complaining about Jews. They are what they are. Money to Jews are "God points" - the more you have the closer
you are to God. Puritans had the same idea later.
The problem transcends Jews.
Lets say 80 percent of Jews are willing to sacrifice their lives to money, but only 20 percent of gentiles are. Even in a country
with no Jews, that 20 percent of gentiles will dominate and shape the county to fit its joyless agenda and oppress everyone else.
That's why in England the powerful classes acted as horrifically as Jews with things like the Land Enclosures and the rape
of the monasteries and the like.
People who care only for money will always dominate people who have other interests in life - it is a law of nature, easy to
understand, not at all mysterious. Unless the majority who care less for money are willing to band together to put a check
on the joyless minority.
When individualism was accepted, the dominance if the joyless minority was assured. Spot on.
Put it another way: people who are dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous will always win over people who are honest,
trusting and law abiding, and make them look like fools, i.e. the impure at heart will always win over the pure at heart.
This doesn't just apply to Jews, it applies to basically all non-WASPs. That's why groups like Indians and Chinese are also
doing well in the US, they are almost equally as dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous as the Jews, the only difference
is, the Chinese are not nearly as power hungry as the Jews or the Indians.
The only truly honest people in the world are Germans and Scandinavians. That's why they did not colonize the 3rd world or
engaged in the slave trade like the rest of Europe. The British aristocracy has been too deeply infiltrated by Jews for too long,
they've long lost their sense of honor and honesty. America became a Jew run country since LBJ came to power, it's basically Israel
x 100. It is no longer a benevolent superpower, not since the CIA was formed. It is now the military wing of Israel, Inc.
@ChuckOrloski Hi RVBlake,
... Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D. AIPAC-approved/RI) now opines upon how the Zionist Chief Justice Roberts' Supreme Court was
prejudiced against N.W.O.'s "constructed" & subsequent approval of downsized worker "Unions."
(zzZigh)
... Selah, a remake of the ole cowboy song, "Home, home on The Homeland range..., where, selah, the cloud-cover is sunny all day!"
Thanks, RVBlake. Censored Al-Jazeera documentary shows how the Israel lobby spies and blackmail US citizens on US soil in violation
of the law.
Information about the censored documentary was posted by Geokat62 on the precedent P. Giraldi's article: French journalist
Alain Gresh was given a private screening and wrote a headline article in "Le Monde Diplomatique".
The Israel lobby deploys a web of systematic, anonymous and secure spying techniques on US citizens who oppose Zionist policies,
such as BDS activists. It gathers personal and confidential information on these individuals, then puts this information on line
to ruin their lives.
It also digs up any political activity or comments that could be twisted and misinterpreted, and blackmails employers with anti-Semitism
accusations, should they not sack the targeted individuals.
This is just institutionalised blackmail on US soil, for the benefit of a foreign power, in total impunity.
Full article in English version:
Put it another way: people who are dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous will always win over people who are honest,
trusting and law abiding, and make them look like fools, i.e. the impure at heart will always win over the pure at heart.
This doesn't just apply to Jews, it applies to basically all non-WASPs. That's why groups like Indians and Chinese are also
doing well in the US, they are almost equally as dishonest, corrupt, ruthless and unscrupulous as the Jews, the only difference
is, the Chinese are not nearly as power hungry as the Jews or the Indians.
The only truly honest people in the world are Germans and Scandinavians. That's why they did not colonize the 3rd world or
engaged in the slave trade like the rest of Europe. The British aristocracy has been too deeply infiltrated by Jews for too long,
they've long lost their sense of honor and honesty. America became a Jew run country since LBJ came to power, it's basically Israel
x 100. It is no longer a benevolent superpower, not since the CIA was formed. It is now the military wing of Israel, Inc. There
are no innocent groups. Different groups are innocent at different times.
@AaronB But the monarchs and
the nobility themselves turn rapacious - Henry 8 couldn't control his greed and raped the monasteries. Later, British nobility
stole everyone's land and impoverished and starved millions out of greed.
Plus, the nobility themselves employed Jews as ruthless tax farmers and moneylenders! The Jews were the proxies of the nobility
so the anger of the people would be deflected.
Examples across the world are legion.
People who care only about money always win against relaxed people who enjoy life - it's utterly un-mysterious and easily understandable.
There is no political system that can corrall greed. Religion controls it for a time then becomes a vehicle for greed and oppression.
It's a cycle. Greed rises, rises, then makes everything go to shit and collapse, then there is breathing room and life becomes
relatively enjoyable again (a period that greedy people generally call the Dark Ages, or the Middle Ages). "It's a cycle. Greed
rises, rises, then makes everything go to shit and collapse, then there is breathing room and life becomes relatively enjoyable
again (a period that greedy people generally call the Dark Ages, or the Middle Ages)."
You are too pessimistic. For the majority of the time humans have existed there was no such problem: a big man had to give
a party and spend his wealth. These are problems of later times. It took humans 8000 years to get rid of slavery. Earlier there
was no slavery as there was no work where to put slaves, today slaves are not needed as there are machines, but for a long time
they were needed. There will be a time when collecting wealth by doing anything will be impossible, but this time will have to
wait until development can be stopped. There are theoretical systems where these problems do not appear. No finance, no investment,
no interest, no accumulation of money, only maintaining technical infra. It is not yet, but how long lasted the dominance of agriculture,
and it is no more. But I think the problem is different, it is not some people thinking only of money. I think it is old capital
and acting as a group against all others. Genetic admixture would break the group and old capital can be destroyed. Has been done
before.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken
vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel.
In addition to the above mentioned transgression, he signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, he promoted federal
funding for education, he promoted the war on poverty, he promoted gun control and many other Great Society horse shit programs.
LBJ was an evil, corrupt son of a bitch. He killed over 58,000 Americans in the god damn useless Vietnam 'war'.
To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do
with the Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires
named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.
This situation can be directly blamed on Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the stricken vessel,
saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel.
In addition to the above mentioned transgression, he signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, he promoted federal funding
for education, he promoted the war on poverty, he promoted gun control and many other Great Society horse shit programs.
LBJ was an evil, corrupt son of a bitch. He killed over 58,000 Americans in the god damn useless Vietnam 'war'.
To be sure, Jews who are Zionists are vastly overrepresented in all government agencies that have anything at all to do with
the Middle East and one can reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires
named Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban.
This situation can be directly blamed on Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Will it ever end?
Not through electoral means.
Will it ever end?
Not through electoral means.
A key problem of our Western so-called democracies is that they are "representative." This might have been conducive to getting
stuff done in the age of horse and carriage, but nowadays it is no longer necessary; it is perfectly possible to let the people
vote on the latest raise for the Pentagon, if they bring a motion. In Switzerland this is done routinely; for example, a while
ago the people threw out the government's decision to buy the F-35 for the Swiss air force.
A purely representative democracy is designed to withhold power from the public and hand it over to the rich and their
lobbies. Direct democracy would be a powerful weapon against corruption – no lobby can bribe the whole of the population. Of course,
it does not immediately solve problems like control of mass media etc.; but nevertheless it is plain that Switzerland, the world's
most democratic country, is also prosperous, well-governed, with sound finances and without brain-dead foreign policy adventures.
Direct democracy has to potential to provide greatly improved governance, and it is a cause people on the left and the right
can all agree on.
I keep wishing that Mr. Giraldi would write a series of articles (book) about the COSTS (specially economic/human) of USA blind
support for Israli Zio establishment. Often times the world praises Israeli making the "dessert bloom" well any nation could do
so if that nation enjoyed secure perpetual markets, subsidies (US agricultural Dept) in the US. and Europe, which Palestinians
are often denied. Under ZIO banking threats ,Global Airlines must stop in Israeli Airport eventhought it adds heavy economic burdens
to their rolls$$. While Israel pushes America to enforce Trade/Arms/Finance sanctions and embargos against other nations it seem
that Israel is readily available to trade, sell weapons, and finance that very nations that AIPAC black listed!!! in fact US embargoes
are an economic boom for Israeli Defense Military industries. While Tel Aviv emerges a major technological powerhouse (Talpiot)
at the expense of American Tech Industries that usually powerless to stop Israeli theft, fraud, spying and outright robberies
of corporate/Pentagon/Secret tech many US cities plunge into chaos, Bankruptcy, industrial, manufacturing dilapidation such as
Detroit, Chicago, Flynn, etc. Perhaps it would help Americans understand the consequences of uncritical support for Israel once
they realize that their Children are paying for trillions in debt enslavement, worthless currency, shrinking middle class, expanding
poverty, decaying: infrastructure, schools, medical services, education etc. and of course the endless dying and bleeding of many
young Americans in endless wars that do NOT benefit their country at all only Israel profits from them. Couple with the political
costs for USA alienation, and hatred for America, and the constant of terrorist attacks targeting major urban cities in the Western
World, spreading death and destruction all over the world which may bring a global confrontation between Muslims/Christians countries
that only Israel can benefit. It remains to consider how long can USA sustain economically/politically/culturally such support
for Jewish-Zio-Israeli interests while ignoring its own internal/external well being (population/geographic) and national cohesiveness.
Now however, when through the malice of fate a large part of these Jews whom we fought against are alive, I must concede that
fate must have wanted it so. I always claimed that we were fighting against a foe who through thousands of years of learning
and development had become superior to us.
I no longer remember exactly when, but it was even before Rome itself had been founded that the Jews could already write.
It is very depressing for me to think of that people writing laws over 6,000 years of written history. But it tells me that
they must be a people of the first magnitude, for lawgivers have always been great.
- http://archive.is/wl8On#selection-785.5-789.335
Life Magazine, November 28, 1960 – Carroll Baker
Table of Contents
Eichmann's story
World War, 1939-1945 (War criminals), Holocaust, Jewish (1939-1945) [p.] 20
" think of that people writing laws over 6,000 years of written history."
Wow, thanks for that history lesson. Always thought that the Code of Hammurabi was one of the first times laws were put into
written form, that the Law of Moses came later?
The Code of Hammurabi was one of the only sets of laws in the ancient Near East and also one of the first forms of law
. The code of laws was arranged in orderly groups, so that all who read the laws would know what was required of them.[10]
Earlier collections of laws include the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (c. 2050 BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BC) and the
codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BC), while later ones include the Hittite laws, the Assyrian laws, and Mosaic Law.
@Eighthman It is terrifying
but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's a very sad thing to say but
Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.
Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.
Israel will abandon the US like a used condom WHEN the US fails economically.
I fixed that for you. It will be by design too but the military power will be exploited first.
Yes, it's a disgraceful situation that the US government (Pentagon, Treasury, Congress, etc) has been co-opted Israel-firsters.
Indeed, these pro-Israel Zionists are morally and ethically bankrupt and have no qualms with taking over and dictating US foreign
policy for Israel's gain.
And while articles like this certainly have merit, the 'blame game' can only go so far before it becomes sore loser whining.
Don't like the situation as it stands? Then do something about it besides whingeing.
There is a need for reflection: how did this sad state of affairs come to pass? Why didn't government and military leadership
stop this silent Jewish-Zionist-Israeli coup from happening? In a way, it is the fault of gentile, or goy Americans for not being
able to recognize and to have stopped it dead in its tracks.
The Jews in general are much more closely knit than goys are. This is why they beat you: they work as a very loyal, tight-knit
team; whereas gentiles, WASPS etc are largely atomized. This is the goy's main failing: it's 'everybody's on his/her own'; there
is no community, no teamwork, no 'we're in this together' organization that the Jews have.
Even on the family level, Jewish families are much more close-knit. They look out for each other, help each other get jobs,
very good networking. Whites just don't do this, so many dysfunctional, fucked up families, broken families .families that only
see each other at Christmas–and beyond that 'don't bother me!'. Hard to face, but quite true. Goys are atomized. This is why they
lost.
Or look at how a synagogue works compared to a roman catholic church. In a synagogue, they are talking about what is really
happening now, who needs a job, who is starting a new business and go and be a customer there; or a special event everybody must
go to, etc. It is alive, a thriving central hub for the local Jewish community that has real relevance. On the other hand a roman
catholic church is a bore! Some old fart reading passages from the bible .people in the pews nodding off .nobody really gives
a shit. The only thing on their mind is when this raging bore of a church service will end so they can leave–and pronto! You know
it's true. That's why numbers of attendees to churches in USA are in a tailspin.
So my main point is this: the Jews beat you because they are so much better organized and integrated. Because of this they
hijacked the government for their own gain.
Geo, once again I am glad to observe that you are amongst the precious few on UR perfectly capable of being objective whilst
engaging in debate.
Appreciate the compliment, Sam.
But, speaking of objectivity:
Moreover, I shall be happier still, when he takes the trouble to distinguish between the vast majority of innocent Jewish citizens
of America and "America's Jews are Driving America's ".
would this modest revision satisfy your thirst for objectivity:
"America's Organized Jews (who are generally supported by the Jewish Community, at large) are Driving America's Wars."
If it does, consider it implied, as the latter wouldn't do as snappy title, would it? "America's Leaders are Driving America's
Wars"
By all means, name all the leaders: top, middle and lower in the article. By all means, observe that a significant group of
middle leadership were Jewish. But don't paint the rest of American Jewry with the same brush. They have nothing to do with it.
As you know I've looked into the financial contributions coming to the lobbies. The contributions from about the top 0.1% account
for 99.99% of the total. And that is no distortion of facts. Why would you hold the ordinary Jewish dentist or professor responsible
for the actions of an Adelson anymore than you would the actions of the ordinary gentile professor or engineer for the actions
of a Koch or Walton?
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash , The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; LibertyStickers.com ; TheBumperSticker.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott . ..."
Danny Sjursen is interviewed on his service in the Terror Wars, how he became antiwar, and
how he wants his service and the service of others to be honored.
Hanne Nabintu Herland, founder of The Scandinavian Herland Report: It is such an
honour to be with you, Sir, Dr Paul Craig Roberts. You are the chairman of the Institute for
Political Economy in the US, a former Wall Street editor and an author of many books. In Europe
we love you, because you have a perspective that many do not have as you speak in broad manners
about the important issues of foreign policy and the state of the American culture today.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: The are several terrible things that have happened to the
United States. The worst thing that have happened in my lifetime was the collapse of the Soviet
Union. This was absolutely the worst thing. Not only for the United States, but for the entire
world, because it removed the only constraint on American unilateralism. As long as the Soviet
Union was there, there was a limit to Washington and its ability to bully and dominate.
It could do it in South America, excluding Cuba, it could do it in Western Europe and of
course it had firm control of Japan. Yet, most of the world was immune to this kind of bullying
because the Soviet Union was there as an alternative. It could check American unilateralism.
Both sides pretty much knew where the line was.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the constraint on American unilateralism disappeared. It
was down to nothing to constrain Washingtons power and its hegemony. This happened right at the
time when a new ideology in the United States was rising up: The ideology of the
neo-conservatives.
Now, the neo-conservatives' ideology is that America is a indispensable country. It is the
exceptional country. Now what does it mean when you say that? If the United States is
indispensable then it means everyone else are dispensable.
If the United States is exceptional, then everyone else are unexceptional. It's a claim to
hegemony over mankind. Its like stating that we, the Americans, are God's chosen people, not
the Jews. This is the neo-conservative ideology and it has dominated American foreign policy
since Bill Clinton's regime.
These people came into the government first during the Reagan years. I know them and they
caused a mess. Reagan fired them and prosecuted them. When George Herbert Walker Bush (the
first Bush) succeeded President Reagan, he pardoned them. They didn't have much influence in
his government, but at the beginning of Bill Clinton's regime their influence increased.
This is where the attacks on Serbia came from, with the sanctions of Iraq that killed 500
000 Iraqi children, that Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, stated that it was
worth it. Can you imagine saying that after killing 500 000 children? It shows how hard the
ideology is. It's a merciless ideology! Nothing counts but Washington's hegemony.
It's really not even American hegemony, it's just Washington's hegemony. Of course with
George W.W Bush, the neo-conservatives completely ran the government. The real president was
Dick Cheney, the vice-president and a hard lined neo-conservative. The Secretary of Defence,
the State Department, the Pentagon was full of them. They completely dominated the National
Security Council. This is where 9/11 came from. This is where the war on Afghanistan and Iraq
came from.
Hanne Nabintu Herland: – And we all remember so
well the American four-star general Wesley Clark, who stated, and wrote a book about it later
as well, and also spoke in a number of TV-interviews on a later note how he was shocked post
9/11 when he found out that there were plans in the Pentagon of destroying nation after
nation.
He speaks about how he felt that there was a neo-conservative foreign policy coup in the
United States at the time. We know, of course, in retrospect that this has brought the West
into such a havoc. Maybe America is one of the most hated nations in the world today because of
this. I live in the Middle-East and I see people just wonder, you know, why hundreds of
thousands must die due to these interests. They ask; is democracy going to be bombed on us?
Paul Craig Roberts: – Yeah, well I think Wesley Clark was shocked but it showed
that he was unaware of the neo-conservative ideology because they had all been in the
government for some time while he was commander of American forces in Europe. He was a
NATO-commander, as I remember. He was unaware of this ideology even though Paul Wolfowitz,
former Pentagon official, said it out.
He stated that the principle goal of American foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any
other power, especially Russia, that could serve as a constraint on American unilateralism. You
can find this online, he actually said this. It's an official Pentagon document that he wrote
stating this.
Now, others in the government thought that this was a bit too obvious so the toned it down a
little bit, but they didn't change the meaning. So this is what I meant when I said that the
worst thing that happened was the collapse of the Soviet Union. It removed the constraint, it
lead the neo-conservatives to make these kind of claims and it has ever since dominated our
foreign policy.
Of course, the neo-conservatives are a very close ally with Israel. In fact, most of them
are Zionists. Some of them are duo-citizens and in my opinion, this is why the American
unilateralism began in the Middle-East. Because its been directed at the countries that supply
Hezbollah, the militia in Lebanon, that twice defeated the Israeli army from occupying southern
Lebanon. Israel wants the water recourses in southern Lebanon and tried to take control over it
twice and was twice fought back. So who supplies Hezbollah? Iraq, Syria and Iran.
This is why we have so much pressure in the United States from Israel to continue the war on
Assad and to start a war with Iran. Because if Iran and Assad are not supplying Hezbollah, then
there is nothing to stop Israel from expanding in southern Lebanon. It is obvious if you just
look at the media. So much of the attack on Iran is Israeli inspired and it's the Israelis that
wants to use the American forces to put Iran in the same chaos that Iraq is in, which they
hoped Syria would be in if it hadn't been for Russia intervening.
So this is another aspect because it shows an alliance between the ruling ideology in the
United States. The neo-conservative ideology and the identity politics-ideology. Both of these
are destructive in their own ways. But when you get a dose with both of them, you're really in
trouble.
So that is a situation that is difficult for the president because the Israeli lobbyist are
very powerful, there has been numerous books written about it, there have been numerous
congressmen and senators who have said "we lost because we opposed something Israel wanted". In
fact, if Israel wants something, it usually gets voted unanimously. It is very rare that even
two members of the entire Congress will oppose something in Israel's favour.
So they are a powerful entity. The Wall Street crowd and the big banks are a powerful
entity. The security complex is probably the most powerful because it has the intelligence
agencies who can control explanations, who can fabricate cases and events, who can claim things
happened that didn't because under the guise of national security, they don't have to tell you
or go in to detail. They just say it. "We can't show you now because it will compromise
national security". They can get away with this.
So, when you have a country like that and it doesn't have an independent media, then the
question is; who is in control? Well, whoever controls the explanations. They are easy to
control due to the reasons I just said. The media is organized in six hands and they are not
run by journalists.
Hanne Nabintu Herland: – Thank you very much.
We are so honoured to have spoken with you.
Paul Craig Roberts: – Well, thank you very much for including me in your
wonderful programmes.
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Personally, I'm rooting for the Democrats to take control of the House in the midterms,
purely for the sake of entertainment.
After calling this ass clown a Russian spy and Literal Hitler for the last two years,
they're going have to at least pretend to impeach him, or else stage a series of
internationally-televised neo-McCarthyite congressional hearings to root out the diabolical
networks of Putin-Nazis that have infested America, and Britannia, and the rest of the
West.
That's the main thing, after all. Yes, the corporatist ruling classes need to make an
example of Trump to dissuade any future billionaire ass clowns from running for high office
without their permission, but even more so, they need to put down the "populist" opposition to
the spread of global capitalism and the gradual
phase-out of national sovereignty that began with Brexit and continued with Trump, so they
can transform the smoldering remains of the Earth into one big happy neoliberal market run by
supranational corporations and the "democratic governments" they have bought and paid for
which
Damn, I think I may have gone and opened a rather enormous can of leftist worms right at the
end of this essay by mentioning the "national sovereignty" thing. So, leftists, please ignore
the previous paragraph. National sovereignty is the same as nationalism. Nationalism is very,
very bad. Internationalism is good. Internationalist socialism is what we all want. Okay,
admittedly, the forces of internationalist socialism appear to be well, somewhat marginal at
the moment (or possibly virtually non-existent), but that's not a problem, because the global
capitalists will be happy to internationalize everything for us, and to do away with all those
nasty nationalists, and that national government-subsidized healthcare and university education
and all that stuff.
So let's forget that I mentioned national sovereignty, because that's all Putinist Trumpism,
and so on. There's absolutely no reason at all for leftists to discuss that subject, or to view
it in any kind of larger historical or geopolitical context or anything. Once the global
corporate empire finishes their Privatization of Everything, I'm sure they will be open to
considering socialism. They'll probably even let us vote on it. By then,
they will have cleansed the Internet of all the discord-sowing Putin-Nazis so there won't
be any danger of being "influenced" to vote the wrong way or anything.
In the meantime, don't forget to do your part in the War on Trump, Putin, Assad, Corbyn, and
whoever else the corporate media tell us we're at war against. Forget about global capitalism.
Keep obsessing about Donald Trump. And if you get tired of obsessing about Donald Trump, you
can always
call Corbyn an anti-Semite , or
accuse Glenn Greenwald of working for Putin , or, if you've got some free time and want to
get creative, compile a Directory
of International Assadists , or some other paranoid pseudo-blacklist. Every little
contribution counts!
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides
to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get
extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of
aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it. Oh, and also, they would have
a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge in the White House to attack
Russia's ally in the Middle East. So, probably, no attack on Iran.
..Robert Mueller, who is doggedly investigating allegations that the President of the
United States is a devious Russian intelligence asset personally planted in the Oval Office
by Vladimir Putin, the Russian mob, and a conspiracy of crackerjack "cyber-influencers,"
who brainwashed millions of American voters into betraying Hillary Clinton, and the nation,
with a bunch of emails and some Facebook posts, and who are even now waging "a chaos
campaign to undermine faith in American democracy."
If only there was an Agent 99 to bring some levity and balance to Robert Mueller's Maxwell
Smart personna then everything would be complete.
John Bolton is, I believe, the scariest character in Trump's administration. How did Trump
pick him? It makes no sense, but this whole mess literally makes none. There has got to be a
way to get him out of there. Sheldon Adelson's money is the connection between Trump, Haley,
Bolton. Bolton wants war with Iran, has been intent on it since Bush 2 administration. He is
quite dangerous, and has connections to Netanyahu and even Meir Dagan of Mossad. I can't copy
this link to Gareth Porter's article but maybe Joe or someone can, it's cited below. Everyone
should read it. The facts in the article are quite alarming about Bolton. With all the
political drama going on from the Mueller probe, there are possibilities of dreadful
consequences, and I think Bolton could bring disaster. He may be the origin as well as the
mouthpiece of this latest provocative threat about Assad using chemicals. Here is the
article:
"The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War with Iran", by Gareth Porter, in The
American Conservative, March 22, 2018.
Oh, wait; sorry – that's the United States. Yes, in another manifestation of his
incredibly cunning cunningness, Trump has rolled out a new master-plan to bring Russia to its
knees: withdraw the United States of America from all international organizations that will not
take orders from POTUS. That will show those borscht-eating bastards! Next up in the crosshairs
the WTO.
Once the spy agencies become the controlling element a government degenerates into a
regime or imperium depending upon its level of power.
The rule of law is sidelined and a cynical form of dictatorship develops.
Britain, the US and all anglophone countries are exhibiting the results of this sort of
evolution.
It is more dangerous now than when the historical odious tyrannies ran riot during the
'30s and '40s of last century because technology has advanced to the point that their
continuance is a threat to our survival as a species.
"... During the C21st the Conservative Party has become reliant on Jewish money. Even more than her predecessor Cameron, May is a "value free zone", as the commentator Richard North categorised her. She does whatever the donors want. Not that the Labour Party in power would be any better. It is just as riddled with Israel-supporting "moderates". ..."
CRITICIZE ISRAEL AND GO TO JAIL? IS THAT HOW LOW ZIONISTS HAVE SUNK?
Thanks for the interesting article, Sir.
As I read it, I felt sick in the abdomen, at how low the Zionists have sunk, demanding
that those who criticize Israel go to jail.
If there is evil in this world, this is it. These are the dark ages. These people are
primitive and seem to resist civilization.
No civilized human being should put up with this sort of evil.
The Brits need to wake up and actually repeal laws that make certain speech criminal
offences that are already on the books (except for incitements to violence and porn).
The need to vote for Labor and keep Corbyn, or vote for BNP, and tell the Zionists that
they are evil to make these demands.
Israel is not a democracy for a much simpler reason than that the author offers.
It denies the vote to the gentile inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank; that is to say,
to about a quarter of its subjects.
Since the Jewish parties in the Knesset boycott the few Arab representatives that are
there, Israel effectively denies political representation to the gentiles within its
'pre-1967′ boundaries as well -- that is to say, to another sixth or so of its total
subject population.
Obviously, Israel is not a democracy in any sense of the word. 25% of its subjects are
without even theoretical representation, and another 17% lack it in any practical sense. It's
as if the US denied the vote to all inner-city residents except white 'settlers,' refused to
work with Congressmen who weren't Protestants. It would be absurd to regard it as a
democracy.
There are some democracies in the Middle East. Israel isn't one of them.
and Norm Finkelstein brilliantly demolishes the notion that there's any anti-semitism to
speak of in Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party, or Britain in general.
Corbyn is shell shocked and cannot comprehend what is required for him to counter this
blatant attempt at his ouster. An individual that could help him tremendously as an advisor
is Miko Peled, an Israeli citizen, living in the U.S. I mention Peled, because he is a
"lefty" just like Corbyn.
Giraldi writes that, "there exists an 'Israel Lobby' in many countries, all dedicated to
advancing the agendas promoted by successive Israeli governments no matter what the actual
interests of the host country might be."
ADL, a branch of the B'nai B'rith global enterprise, confirms they are subversive agents
that work against their host nation. Straight from their mouth
The center of the Axis of Evil is Zionist Israel. No other country, not even the planet's
"sole superpower" wields so much power and control over other "sovereign" nations as does
Zionist Israel. Regime change? Zionist, apartheid Israel has perfected that art and science
-- and without firing a shot. Why do it when others will cheerfully fight your battles for
you? Evil is as evil does. Still obsessed with Russophobia? Distractions aplenty for the
stupefied.
These efforts to criminalize criticism of Israel seem to be the necessary precursors to
major military moves in the Middle East to create 'the greater Israel.'
Probably in coordination with the ongoing efforts to neutralize and destroy all
independent players such as Iran and Russia.
There used to be a "supermarket" chain in Montreal called Steinberg, owned by Steinberg,
"Canadian" Jews. They sold the business to another supermarket label, Métro-Richelieu
or something, owned by a would-be-venture capitalist/economics professor, Michel Gauthier or
something. It was a laughing transaction even in the news. But during the due diligence for
the sale it surfaced that Steinberg had unusual deals with his suppliers, meat, dairy or
whatever. If you wanted to sell your products to Steinberg, Steinberg made you sign an
agreement to buy Israeli bonds. Talk about tied-selling under the Canada Competition Act!
Talk about Stephen Harper financing!
During the C21st the Conservative Party has become reliant on Jewish money. Even more than
her predecessor Cameron, May is a "value free zone", as the commentator Richard North
categorised her. She does whatever the donors want. Not that the Labour Party in power would
be any better. It is just as riddled with Israel-supporting "moderates".
In the near future, the Labour Party will break down into 2 or more groups. The "moderates"
and more radical groups who will be chasing the Muslim vote.
On top of that, a second Scottish Independence Referendum may not be too many years away. I
suspect it will be successful this time.
The dissolution of the British state seems likely over the coming years. The question is how
much damage May and her Conservatives In Name Only will do in the interim.
How ironic that a brave and principled man (Jeremy Corbyn) is being hounded out of office
and defamed from all sides while a dishonest neocon toady like such as John McCain is
lionized by both wings of Washington's duopoly (as well as our MSM) as a 'hero' and a
'maverick'.
Could this really be happening?
Oh it's happening alright.
McCain dutifully pimped for every US war against any Israeli foes since GHW Bush. McCain
expressed no regrets for the destruction of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, the dismemberment
of Palestine, or the destabilization of Syria. McCain never apologized for all the needless
death and suffering caused by spineless servants such as himself. He also openly advocated
for a US war on Iran, just as Israel wanted.
If the Zions didn't control our entire mass media this level of venality would not occur.
But they do and it does.
Indoctrination. Brainwashing. Repetition. Conformity. Taboo. Shame. Blacklisting.
Political corruption.
Do you deny making anti-Semitic remarks? What will your friends and family say?
The falsification of history is an ongoing and daily occurrence.
The manipulation of the masses: it works!
Who are you going to believe?–your own fallible judgement?–or the expert
analysis of our entire political class–including Harvard-educated scholars and
journalists?
C'mon. Get a clue. Think right. Stop talking that way.
It is Israel again up to its old tricks being the real entity that interferes in foreign
elections:
Corbyn is viewed by Israel as effectively the "figurehead of the delegitimisation
network".
"They hope that by taking action against him, they can decapitate what they see as the
most powerful figure in this network," he told Middle East Eye. "By making an example of
him, they can sow division, spread fear and suppress speech on Israel."
Certainly, Israel's fingerprints look to be present in the current claims of an
anti-Semitism crisis supposedly revolving around Corbyn.
Active interference by the Israeli government in British politics was highlighted last
year in a four-part undercover documentary produced by the Qatari channel Al Jazeera. It
secretly filmed the activities of an operative in Israel's embassy in London named Shai
Masot.
The Al Jazeera investigation provoked numerous complaints that it breached broadcasting
rules relating to anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing and invasions of privacy. However,
Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, cleared the programme of all charges.
In fact, I think all of this has more to do with Brexit than with Israel. The Brexiteers
are in total panic. If they put the exit package to a referendum, they'll lose. If they call
an election on it, Corbyn will probably win and he opposes Brexit. Even a parliamentary vote
could be lost inasmuch as the Tories don't have a majority and the Brexiteers are a minority
within the party.
Thus, Corbyn has to be discredited at all costs. Whether accusations of
anti-Semitism will discredit him is quite another matter. In Europe generally, people are
indifferent to Israel. They don't care what happens to it one way or the other.
Nobody who is
likely to vote Labour cares a hoot about Israel and are not going to change their vote
because of the accusations. If anything, people will perceive the campaign against Corbyn as
Jewish bullying and rally to him.
I was surprised to learn that the population of Israel is only 8.8 million. So small!
Contrast that with Iran's 82 million .Egypt's 100 million Iraq's 40 million or Turkey's 82
million. How such a relatively tiny country makes so much noise and disruption for the rest
of the world is something to ponder. If you ever google one of those 'most hated countries in
the world' polls Israel or USA invariably top the list.
Gilad Atzmon, the self-described ex-Israeli and ex-Jew, writes reams about the Jewish
assault on Corbyn. In this
recent piece , he quotes from Douglas Reed's The Controversy of Zion :
The Conservative Party membership numbers are no longer published but they could be as low
as fifty thousand going on revenue from membership fees.
All this smearing has so far had no impact at all, in fact it is leading some to question
what is the agenda here. There is a nice article on the Israeli smear campaign in the Middle
East Eye.
Many believe that the easily observable dominance of the friends of Israel over some
aspects of government policy is a phenomenon unique to the United States, where committed
Jews and Christian Zionists are able to control both politicians and the media message
relating to what is going on in the Middle East.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Although I am no longer much of a Christian myself, I have always bristled every time I
hear some left-wing (usually Jewish) anti-Zionist blame American Christians for Washington's
mid-east policies, while describing the influence of the Jewish lobby as being 'exaggerated'.
The obvious counterargument is: if American Christians have so much power over the federal
government that they can virtually dictate mid-east policy, how come they can't ban abortion
or gay marriage? How come they can't–forgive the metaphor–resurrect prayer in
school?
Indeed, the mere fact that the US now has an entire branch of Christianity
devoted to Rapture-Zionism gives you a clue as to who rules whom in this country. Think about
it, people: we now have 'Christian' churches who are actually willing to put the interests
and well-being of another religion ahead of their own! And their otherwise patriotic
followers are being conned into putting the interests of another country ahead of their own.
Absolutely astounding! In modern America at least, not only have the Christians lost control
of their government; they've even lost control of Christianity!
Moreover, what about all those other western countries, such as Britain, France and
Germany, which really lack anything like American-style Rapture-Christians, yet are still
completely in thrall to Israel? L'affaire Corbyn is, if nothing else, proof that we are not
the only ones being jacked around by the Zionists.
Don't get me wrong: I really wish American Christians would wake the f*ck up and see that
they're being used, being made to look pathetic by the Zionists. But the allegation that
those Christians are actually running the show in the West is completely fatuous. In fact,
it's just a left-wing 'anti-Zionist' gate-keeper story. Don't believe it!
Failure to confront Israel's crimes against humanity combined with an inability to
resist its demands regarding how issues like anti-Semitism and hate speech are defined has
done terrible damage to free speech in Western Europe and, most notably, in the Anglophone
world.
We are all Palestinians now!
I really hope this serves as a wake-up call to all of the pro-Zionist alt-righters out
there. The Zionists can never truly be our friends. After all, once they are able to
ban anti-Zionist talk for being anti-Semitic, how much longer will be it before they are able
to just go ahead and ban all anti-Semitic speech? Then where will you be? You won't
even be allowed to criticize George Soros anymore!
Corbyn is indeed a man of the left who has consistently opposed racism, extreme
nationalism, colonialism and military interventionism.
Well, I'm not a hundred-percent sure about the "nationalism" part. While "extreme" may
well be in the eye of the beholder, it's also true that the IRA and most of the Palestinian
groups do self-describe as 'nationalist', and Corbyn has always been OK with them (as am I).
The only nationalism his seems to have a real problem with is English nationalism.
The traditionally liberal Guardian has in fact been in the forefront of Jewish criticism
of Corbyn, led by its senior editor Jonathan Freedland
They should just go ahead and relaunch The Guardian as The Shomer .
As Norman Finkelstein once observed, Jews "never forgive and never forget." Corbyn ought
to keep that in mind. All his bobbing and weaving will availeth nothing.
Why should there be panic by the Brexiteers ?
Britain's export to the remaining EU is far less than from the remaining EU to GB.
Especially France and Germany have huge exports to GB.
As a Brexiteer already long ago mentioned 'they need us more than we them'.
If Merkel and Macron would survive a hard Brexit, I wonder.
Under estimated is the why of Brexit, they want their country back, as one voter said 'they
even interfere with vacuum cleaners'.
I stopped reading the Guardian full stop 4-5 years ago, back when they launched their
"Russia is evildoer!!" shrill campaign of propaganda–also about the time the Ukraine
civil war got into gear. Never looked back, the Guardian is a steaming pile of
US/NATO/Atlantic Council bullshit. I'll never understand why so many fixate on it, such as
the Off-guardian.org bloggers who've devoted an entire blog for years on end to criticising
Guardian journos, 'comment is free', comment mods, etc. All fine and good, but why?
With so
many other better news sources is there a need? No, there isn't. Just move on. The Guardian
is not a relevant news outlet. I mean, why keep going there to read pro-Israeli/pro-US
government articles which make you angry? Doesn't make any sense.
we keep accepting these arguments like Giraldis' here and functioning intellectually at
this paused rate which is insufficient to the needs of the day and time.
it is immediate the reality in which we live, in all its demands on us and we must respond
at the same speed. the enemy moves at the rate of speed of life and succeeds in slowing us
down with these arguments in the media
Corbyn is bloody well wrong. he has gone out of his way to compromise with the Zionists
and every time they want more. we we knew that, that they would not compromise did we not .we
knew it. we know the game. they know they game. they have the power and they never
compromise..never! they know to give ground is to lose.
and it is in fact to lose..and the same for the people. that is why it is zero sum. the
economic/political game is no place to compromise.
in principle the people have all the power..and we do. where are the leaders who bring the
people into awareness of their total power, set up and lead them into that power in the
process of fixing society?
why must the leader of those who have all the power be at the feet of a minority who is
bleeding the life out of the society?
Corbyn behaves as if he has no power..as if he is not fixing to assume in behalf of the
people the greatest social power there is..the power of the people. so he is apologetic and
compromising of the peoples power, on and in dealing with the peoples issues
the people's power and social interest have been usurped and compromised by a minority
power and their pets in the peoples power structure..and in the media too. that is why we are
dealing with a prevaricator in Giraldi and not a radicalized person who brings us up to
speed..the speed required to fix society
the peoples power has been betrayed by treasonous citizens who have lied to the people and
usurped the peoples power. that is the truth, the immediate truth and requires an immediate
and direct response..no compromise will work. this article here by Giraldi is not an
immediate response but a kind of time-wasting prevarication. Corbyn and his politics are also
prevarication
MoscowBob ( you're never going back to London to live ), the above official Parliamentary
Research Briefing makes alarming reading if you are a Conservative supporter. As of April
2018, Conservative membership is put at 124,000, narrowly ahead of the SNP at 118,000.
Conservative membership collapsed from 1 million in 1990 ( see page 7 ) to less than 500,000
5 years later ( John Major ). Apart from a brief period, it has been declining steadily since
the year 2000, especially from 2009 ( David Cameron).
It is no longer a mass membership political party, it is Conservative In Name Only and at the
beck and call of any (((big donors ))).
This situation cannot continue much longer. Its hold on political power will be ended shortly
unless there is a turnaround, which seems unlikely.
Jonathan Cook has also recently written a very good article on the current Israeli
engineered onslaught against Jeremy Corbyn, making much the same argument as Dr. Giraldi.
"... There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel, going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters. ..."
"... Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve." ..."
"... Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the neo-liberal trickle-down baloney. ..."
SA is cursed with neo-liberal trickle-down baloney stifling radical economicchangeKevin Humphrey, The New Age, Johannesburg, 1 December 2016
South Africa's massive inequalities are abundantly obvious to even the most casual observer. When the ANC won the elections in
1994, it came armed with a left-wing pedigree second to none, having fought a protracted liberation war in alliance with progressive
forces which drew in organised labour and civic groupings.
At the dawn of democracy the tight knit tripartite alliance also carried in its wake a patchwork of disparate groupings who, while
clearly supportive of efforts to rid the country of apartheid, could best be described as liberal. It was these groupings that first
began the clamour of opposition to all left-wing, radical or revolutionary ideas that has by now become the constant backdrop to
all conversations about the state of our country, the economy, the education system, the health services, everything. Thus was the
new South Africa introduced to its own version of a curse that had befallen all countries that gained independence from oppressors,
neo-colonialism.
By the time South Africa was liberated, neo-colonialism, which as always sought to buy off the libera-tors with the political
kingdom while keep-ing control of the economic kingdom, had perfected itself into what has become an era where neo-liberalism reigns
supreme. But what exactly is neo-liberalism? George Monbiot says: "Neo-liberalism sees competi-tion as the defining characteristic
of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process
that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that 'the market' delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning."
Never improving
There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and
is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel,
going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters.
Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and
regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade
unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is
recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a
more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve."
Nelson Mandela
South Africa's sad slide into neo-liberalism was given impetus at Davos in 1992 where Nelson Mandela had this to say to the assembled
super rich: "We visualise a mixed economy, in which the private sector would play a central and critical role to ensure the creation
of wealth and jobs. Future economic policy will also have to address such questions as security of investments and the right to repatriate
earnings, realistic exchange rates, the rate of inflation and the fiscus."
Further insight into this pivotal moment was provided by Anthony Sampson, Mandela's official biographer who wrote: "It was not
until February 1992, when Mandela went to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he finally turned against nationalisation.
He was lionised by the world's bankers and industrialists at lunches and dinners."
This is not to cast any aspersions on Mandela, he had to make these decisions at the time to protect our democratic transition.
But these utterances should have been accom-panied by a behind the scenes interrogation of all the ANC's thoughts on how to proceed
in terms of the economy delivering socialist orientated solutions without falling into the minefield of neo-liberal traps that lay
in wait for our emerging country.
Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen
to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the
table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the
neo-liberal trickle-down baloney.
Now no one dares to express any type of radical approach to our economic woes unless it is some loony populist. Debate around
these important issues is largely missing and the level of commentary on all important national questions is shockingly shallow.
Anti-labour, anti-socialist, anti-poor, anti-black The status quo as set by the largely white-owned media revolves
around key neo-liberal slogans mas-querading as commentary that is anti-labour, anti-socialist and anti-poor, which sadly translates
within our own context as anti-black and therefore repugnantly racist.
We live in a country where the black, over-whelmingly poor majority of our citizens have voted for a much revered liberation movement
that is constantly under attack from within and without by people who do not have their best interests at heart and are brilliant
at manipulating outcomes to suit themselves on a global scale.
Kevin Humphrey is associate executive editor of The New Age
That's more or less what George Carlin insinuated: "The middle class does all the work,
pays all the taxes while the wealthy class takes all the money and pays none of the taxes and
the poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class .keep asking for all those
jobs".
"... Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil war. ..."
"... Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats. ..."
"... These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited Federal funds at their fingertips. ..."
Ron Unz has linked to WSWS.org several times in the past as WSWS was targeted by the Deep
State/Google etc. cabal to make it disappear into the "memory hole."
The only activism I've seen from progressives in the past two years has nothing to do
with economic concerns; their energy is entirely focused on race, gender, and sexuality.
The cultural-Marxist troika.
Just one of many good point you make. The only thing I'd add is in relation to:
Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict, civil
war.
As Reg mentions: conflict among the masses is very much the plan. Divide et
impera.
And my stupid [neo]liberal friends still think the democrats are going to save them, and then
on to super – duper – special stupid, they think their vote for a democrat is
going to have an impact. On to ludicrous stupid – it's all the republicans fault.
Identity politics at its finest.
Unfixable, and circling the drain.
The Alarmist, June 8, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT • 100 Words
"Center-right" and "business oriented?"
Try Oligarch-centric.
There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, from the fall of
Constantinople: Sultan Mehmed II rounded up the surviving oligarchs of
the Empire and asked them why they had withheld their riches and
resources from supporting the Empire's final defense against his
conquest, to which the oligarchs replied that they were saving their
riches for his most excellent majesty. He had them brutally executed.
Jake, June 8, 2018 at 11:13 am GMT
Anybody who trusts the Democrats to save us from the evil
machinations of the Neocons is as hopelessly stupid as anyone who trusts
the Neocons to save us from the evil machinations of the Democrats.
At the upper levels there is no difference between the Demonrats and the
Republicons as all are controlled by the Zionists and congress would by
more accurately called the lower house of the Knesset..
prusmc, June 8, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT • 100 Words
@anon
These new Democrats will never vote for less spending. There
previous career was based on having abundant and in some cases unlimited
Federal funds at their fingertips.
It is a mistake to think they will be any different than Maxine
Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jerold Nadler or Luis Guitirez. Senator Joe
Manchin of West Virginia is about a unconventional as we can expect the
new congressional majority members to be.
jacques sheete, June 8, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMT
@Anon
The ultra rich use the poor to attack the middle so they can
distract everyone else from uniting
That, in fact, is the practical aim of government in general.
Parties, schmarties it's all one huge extortion racket.
"... "I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate. ..."
"... Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances. ..."
"... Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency. ..."
"... American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris." ..."
"... This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. ..."
"... It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today. ..."
FOR ONE OF THE world's major powers to interfere systematically in the presidential
politics of another country is an act of brazen aggression. Yet it happened.
Sitting in a distant capital, political leaders set out to assure that their
favored candidate won an election against rivals who scared them. They succeeded.
Voters were maneuvered into electing a president who served the interest of
the intervening power. This was a well-coordinated, government-sponsored project
to subvert the will of voters in another country -- a supremely successful piece
of political vandalism on a global scale.
The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin,
whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a
savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits.
President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served
by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin
was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton
bonded with him. He was our "Manchurian Candidate."
"I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again,"
Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and
I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for
the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect."
Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts."
With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown
behind a Russian presidential candidate.
Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a
world-class statesman . He defended Yeltsin's scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya,
comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together.
As for Yeltsin's bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187
lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had "bent over backwards" to avoid it.
He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia's borders, and never
uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia's formerly state-owned economy by
kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.
Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International
Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used
some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared
into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear:
Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it,
Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner.
Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his
rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.
Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin's
campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on "sophisticated
methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization." They organized
focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters' fears
of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were
gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants
shouted in triumph: "It worked! The whole strategy worked. They're scared to
death!"
Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The
count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits,
but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce
the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact,
it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate
in the Russian presidency.
American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret.
On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a
country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin
and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the
right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland
but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won,
Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined,
"Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin
Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris."
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in
the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened
his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen
capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically.
Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country
and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known
intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that
shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the
United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years
ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
"... Trump's authorization for the establishment of a "US Space Force" as an additional military branch was one of the more egregious trashing of a longstanding international treaty. ..."
"... In June 2018, America's Israeli-style harassment was also meted out to former Spanish Foreign Minister and NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. He was denied a US visa waiver because he had visited Iran in 2013 to attend President Hassan Rouhani's inauguration. ..."
On December 6, 2017, Trump announced official US recognition of Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel. In 1980, a UN Security Council abstention permitted
the adoption of Resolution 478. The measure supplemented the earlier Resolutions
252, 267, 271, 298, and 465, which required that all UN member states, including
the United States, are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal Israeli
occupation of East Jerusalem. The passage of Resolution 478 resulted in nations
that had moved their embassies to Jerusalem, including Costa Rica and El Salvador,
moving them back to Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, or Herzliya. Trump's action reversed
that action, with Guatemala, Paraguay, and Honduras moving their embassies back
to Jerusalem.
On May 8, 2018, Trump renounced the US signature on the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran, the nuclear agreement with Iran. Even though
the pact was signed by the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Germany, the
European Union and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, Trump, taking
his cues from the Israeli war hawk, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, decided,
once again, to make the United States an outlier. Trump effectively gave the
back of his hand to the international community to placate Netanyahu. Moreover,
Trump threatened "secondary sanctions" against foreign nations and firms that
continued to engage in commerce with Iran after a November 4, 2018 deadline.
Trump's authorization for the establishment of a "US Space Force" as
an additional military branch was one of the more egregious trashing of a longstanding
international treaty. The 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities
of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and
Other Celestial Bodies, known simply as the "Outer Space Treaty," established
the basis for international space law. The original signatories were the United
States, Soviet Union, and United Kingdom. Since 1967, 107 nations have fully
ratified the treaty, which bans the placement of weapons of mass destruction
in Earth orbit and the establishment of military bases, installations, and fortifications
on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
Trump's creation of a military Space Force to supplant the civilian National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in US space operations and his call
for space to be a "new warfighting domain" effectively violate US treaty obligations.
The US Air Force's X-37B robotic space planes, smaller versions of NASA's
discontinued space shuttle orbiter, are believed to have carried out top secret
military-oriented missions since 2010. Trump's creation of a Space Force represents
a public admission of America's desire to militarize space, even as the Air
Force remains mum on the actual purpose of the X-37B program.
The basis in international law for the Outer Space Treaty was the Antarctic
Treaty of 1959. The Antarctic Treaty bans military activity of the continent.
Only scientific research in Antarctica is permitted under the Antarctic Treaty
System. However, Trump's disregard for the entire international treaty system
has placed the Antarctic Treaty in as much jeopardy as the Outer Space Treaty.
The suspected presence of rare earth minerals and gas hydrates under melting
Antarctic ice shelves has Trump's cronies in the mining and fossil fuel industries
anxious to undermine the Antarctica Treaty and open the continent to commercial
exploitation.
Considering the schoolmarmish haughtiness of Trump's ambassador to the UN,
former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, someone who had no foreign policy
experience before taking over at the US Mission to the UN, the 1947 US-UN treaty,
titled the "Agreement Between the United Nations and the United States of America
Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations," may also be violated. The
imposition of draconian visa bans and other sanctions and travel restrictions
on government officials of Iran, Turkey, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, Nicaragua,
Cuba, China, Chad, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Yemen, Myanmar, Laos, Syria,
Somalia, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Eritrea places in jeopardy US law that requires
the facilitation of travel for delegations of UN member states and official
observers to and from the UN headquarters in New York.
Trump's total disregard for international laws and treaties may eventually
see leaders and diplomats of foreign nations detained or arrested when they
arrive in New York to attend UN sessions. Such harassment began in earnest just
a few weeks after Trump was inaugurated as president. In February 2017, former
Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik was caught up in Trump's visa
ban against visitors from Muslim nations. Bondevik was detained at Dulles International
Airport outside of Washington and subjected to questioning about an Iranian
visa in his diplomatic passport.
In June 2018, America's Israeli-style harassment was also meted out to
former Spanish Foreign Minister and NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. He
was denied a US visa waiver because he had visited Iran in 2013 to attend President
Hassan Rouhani's inauguration. Solana told Spanish television, "It's a
bit of a mean decision... I don't think it's good because some people have to
visit these complicated countries to keep negotiations alive." Trump's renunciation
of the US signature on the Iran nuclear deal showed the world what Trump and
his neo-conservative advisers think about peace "negotiations." Although the
general purpose visa waiver ban was instituted by Barack Obama, the Trump administration
has been violating the spirit and intent of the US-UN Treaty by applying it
to those, like Bondevik and Solana, possessing diplomatic passports.
Trump has made no secret of his disdain for foreign government officials
and the countries they represent. During a briefing on the Indian sub-continent,
Trump reportedly delighted in referring to Nepal as "nipple" and Bhutan as "button."
According to the "tell-all" book by former White House adviser Omarosa Manigault
Newman, Trump, after viewing a video of his pushing aside Montenegro Prime Minister
Duško Marković at the 2017 NATO summit, called him a "whiny punk bitch." Trump
referred to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as "meek and mild" over a
rift on US-Canadian trade policy.
One of Trump's first phone calls as president with a foreign leader resulted
in Trump complaining that his discussions with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm
Turnbull were "most unpleasant." Before warming to North Korean leader Kim Jong
UN, Trump referred to him as "little rocket man." During remarks at the UN in
September 2017, Trump referred to Namibia as "Nambia." Later, he called African
countries and Haiti "shithole" countries.
Cities that have served as hosts for international summits and meetings have
also earned Trump's scorn. He called Brussels a "hell hole," London a magnet
for Muslim terrorist immigrants, and Paris not being Paris any longer because
of Muslim immigrants.
Trump, ever the America Firster – a phrase invented by pro-Hitler politicians
in the 1930s – has decimated international law on issues ranging from the environment
and outer space to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and international guarantees
for the right of the Palestinians. Trump's tearing up of international treaties
signed by his predecessors with the chiefs of various Native American tribes
warrants it own article. Mr. Trump's damage to international relations represents
a historical watershed event and it will take decades to recover from the current
"dark ages" of American diplomacy.
"... The Montana connection was unexpectedly brought to mind during the exhibition because of a passing curatorial note about Hollywood's involvement in the war effort: "Some in US Congress believed film propaganda to be a threat to democracy. In 1941, Senator Burton K. Wheeler wrote to Paramount News that 'the motion picture industry is carrying on a violent propaganda campaign intending to incite the American people [to war] '" ..."
"... Military actions are kept just small enough to stay within the limits of a volunteer force, so conscription need not be justified in the public eye. Social pressures and secular pieties now drive recycling and self-rationing in the service of climate change and veganism. In short, governments today don't perceive a need to mobilize broad public support before waging war. They just do it. ..."
"... runs through October 7 at the de Young Museum in San Francisco. ..."
A certain amount of dehumanizing of the enemy is a natural part of any war effort, but
Allied propaganda against the Germans in World War I is particularly striking in its crudity
and ferocity, especially since one would have a hard time finding Americans today capable of
explaining, even in the broadest of terms, exactly what our country was doing in that war. One
of the more visually arresting World War I posters in the exhibition portrays a slumbering,
rosy-cheeked, and classically-garbed female personification of America. "Wake Up, America!" the
poster admonishes. "Civilization Calls Every Man, Woman, and Child!" No arguing with that.
Against such a backdrop some stories from that time come into focus. One involves Hermann
Bausch, a Montana farmer who was dragged from his home and nearly lynched in 1918 when
neighbors surrounded his house and demanded that he buy Liberty Bonds to prove his loyalty to
the United States. He survived the day but only because he ended up in the state penitentiary
for sedition.
The Montana connection was unexpectedly brought to mind during the exhibition
because of a passing curatorial note about Hollywood's involvement in the war effort: "Some in
US Congress believed film propaganda to be a threat to democracy. In 1941, Senator Burton K.
Wheeler wrote to Paramount News that 'the motion picture industry is carrying on a violent
propaganda campaign intending to incite the American people [to war] '"
Although not identified as such, Wheeler was a Montanan who first became famous as a U.S.
attorney in Butte who refused to indict anyone under the national Sedition Act during World War
I. He later became a four-term U.S. senator and steadfast opponent of American involvement in
World War II until Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. But it's noteworthy that Montana produced
strong antiwar leaders such as Wheeler and Jeanette Rankin (the only member of Congress to vote
against entering both world wars) while also being a hotbed of patriotic war fervor. Such
skepticism about foreign conflicts, mixed with patriotic support for the troops, is
characteristic even today of much of Middle America.
At such an exhibition, one expects to see some links with contemporary America, in which the
drums of war are always within earshot. But there are substantial differences. With limitless
federal borrowing, the government no longer needs to hawk Liberty Bonds to finance foreign
adventurism.
Military actions are kept just small enough to stay within the limits of a
volunteer force, so conscription need not be justified in the public eye. Social pressures and
secular pieties now drive recycling and self-rationing in the service of climate change and
veganism. In short, governments today don't perceive a need to mobilize broad public support
before waging war. They just do it.
Tillerson. What a high HYPOCRISY. The US has murdered more than 10 million people in the
last 13 years and you say Assad is a war criminal for defending his own country?
I believe Mr. Giraldi should choose his language more carefully. Perhaps instead of referring
to "Jews," he should narrow this to "Jewish Likud supporters" or Jewish supremacists, or
something similar
Notable quotes:
"... Jewish power ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
I am often asked why I have this "thing" about Israel, with friends suggesting that I would
be much more respected as a pundit if I were to instead concentrate on national security and
political corruption. The problem with that formulation is that the so-called "special
relationship" with Israel is itself the result of terrible national security and foreign policy
choices that is sustained by pervasive political and media corruption, so any honest attempt to
examine the one inevitably leads to the other. Most talking heads in the media avoid that
dilemma by choosing to completely ignore the dark side of Israel.
Israel – not Russia – is the one foreign country that can interfere with
impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from criticism. It
is also the single most significant threat to genuine national security as it and its powerful
domestic lobby have been major advocates for the continuation of America's interventionist
warfare state. The decision to go to war on false pretenses against Iraq, largely promoted by a
cabal of prominent American Jews in the Pentagon and in the media, killed 4,424 Americans as
well as hundreds of thousands Iraqis and will wind up costing the American taxpayer $7 trillion
dollars when all the bills are paid. That same group of mostly Jewish neocons more-or-less is
now agitating to go to war with Iran using a game plan for escalation
prepared by Israel which will, if anything, prove even more catastrophic.
And I can go on from there. According to the FBI, Israel runs the most
aggressive spying operations against the U.S. among ostensibly "friendly" nations,
frequently stealing our military technology for resale by its own arms merchants. Its notable
successes in espionage have included the most devastating spy in U.S. history Jonathan Pollard,
while it has also penetrated American communications systems and illegally obtained both the
fuel and the triggers for its own secret nuclear weapons arsenal.
Israel cares little for American sovereignty. It's prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu have both
boasted how they control the United States. In 2001, Israel was running a massive secret spying
operation directed against Arabs in the U.S. Many in the intelligence and law enforcement
communities suspect that it had considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did
not share it with Washington. There was the spectacle of the "dancing Shlomos," Israeli
"movers" from a company in New Jersey who apparently had advanced knowledge of the terrorist
attack and danced and celebrated as they watched the Twin Towers go down.
Jewish
power , both in terms of money and of access to people and mechanisms that really
matter, is what allows Israel to act with impunity, making the United States both poorer and
more insecure. A well-funded massive lobbying effort involving hundreds of groups and thousands
of individuals in the U.S. has worked to the detriment of actual American interests, in part by
creating a permanent annual gift of billions of dollars to Israel for no other reason but that
it is Israel and can get anything it wants from a servile Congress and White House without any
objection from a controlled media.
Israel has also obtained carte blanche political protection from the U.S. in fora
like the United Nations, which is damaging to America's reputation and its actual interests.
This protection now extends to the basing of U.S. troops in Israel to serve as a tripwire,
guaranteeing that Washington will become involved if Israel is ever attacked or even if Israel
itself starts a war. The current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley is little more than a
shill for Israel while America's Ambassador in Israel David Friedman is an open supporter of
Israel's illegal settlements, which the U.S. opposes, who spends much of his time defending
Israeli war crimes .
And here on the home front Israel is doing damage that might be viewed as even more grave in
Senator Ben Cardin's
attempt to destroy First Amendment rights by making any criticism of Israel illegal. The
non-violent Israel Boycott movement (BDS) has already been sanctioned in many states, the
result of intensive and successful lobbying by the Israeli government and its powerful
friends.
So if there is a real enemy of the United States in terms of the actual damage being
inflicted by a foreign power, it is Israel. In the recent Russiagate investigations it was revealed
that it was Israel, not Russia, that sought favors from Michael Flynn and the incoming
Trump Administration yet Special Counsel Robert Mueller has evidently not chosen to go down
that road with his investigations, which should surprise no one.
Noam Chomsky, iconic progressive intellectual, has finally come around on the issue of
Israel and what it means. He has always argued somewhat incoherently that Israeli misbehavior
has been due to its role as a tool of American imperialism and capitalism. At age 89, he has
finally figured out that it is actually all about what a parasitic Israel wants without any
regard for its American host,
observing on "Democracy Now" that
..take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did the Russians
interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean, in most of
the world, that's almost a joke. First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference
in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance
as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli
intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done I mean,
even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress,
without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to
try to undermine the president's policies – what happened with Obama and Netanyahu in
2015 .
Politicians are terrified of crossing the Jewish lobby by saying anything negative about
Israel, which means that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu always gets a pass from the American
government, even when he starves civilians and bombs hospitals and schools. Netanyahu uses
snipers to shoot dead scores of unarmed demonstrators and the snipers themselves joke about
their kills without a peep from Washington, which styles itself the "leader of the free
world."
Just recently, Israel has declared itself a Jewish State with all that implies. To be sure,
Israeli Christians and Muslims were already subject to a battery of laws and regulations that
empowered Jews at their expense but now it is the guiding principle that Israel will be run for
the benefit of Jews and Jews alone. And it still likes to call itself a "democracy."
A recent television program illustrates just how far the subjugation of America's elected
leaders by Israel has gone. British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is featured
on a new show called "Who is America?" in which he uses disguises and aliases to engage
politicians and other luminaries in unscripted interviews that reveal just how ignorant or
mendacious they actually are. Several recent episodes remind one of a February 2013 Saturday Night
Live skit on the impending confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. A Senator
asks Hagel. "It is vital to Israel's security for you to go on national television and perform
oral sex on a donkey Would you do THAT for Israel?" A "yes" answer was, of course, expected
from Hagel. The skit was never aired after objections from the usual suspects.
Baron Cohen, who confronted several GOP notables in the guise of Colonel Erran Morad, an
Israeli security specialist, provided a number of clues that his interview was a sham but none
of the victims were smart enough to pick up on them. Cohen, wearing an Israeli military uniform
and calling himself a colonel, clearly displayed sergeant's stripes. Hinting that he might
actually be a Mossad agent, Cohen also sported a T-shirt on which the Hebrew text was printed
backwards and he claimed that the Israeli spy agency's motto was "if you want to win, show some
skin."
Cohen set up Dick Cheney by complimenting him on being the "the king of terrorist killers"
before commenting that "my neighbor in Tel Aviv is in jail for murder, or, as we call it,
enhanced tickling." Morad went on to tell Cheney that he once waterboarded his wife to check
for infidelity and then convinced the former Vice President to sign a "waterboarding kit" that
"already had" the signatures of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and Demi Lovato.
Another more
spectacular sketch included a Georgia state senator Jason Spencer who was convinced to
shout out the n-word as part of an alleged video being made to fight terrorism. After Cohen
told Spencer that it was necessary to incite fear in homophobic jihadists, Spencer dropped his
pants and underwear, before backing up with his exposed rear end while shouting "USA!" and
"America!" Spencer also spoke with a phony Asian accent while simulating using a selfie-stick
to secretly insert a camera phone inside a Muslim woman's burqa.
In another series of encounters, Cohen as Morad managed to convince current and
ex-Republican members of Congress -- to include former Senate majority leader Trent Lott -- to
endorse a
fictional Israeli program to arm grade school children for self-defense.
Cohen's footage
included a former Illinois congressman and talk radio host named Joe Walsh
saying : "The intensive three-week 'Kinderguardian' course introduces specially selected
children from 12 to 4 years old to pistols, rifles, semiautomatics and a rudimentary knowledge
of mortars. In less than a month -- less than a month -- a first-grader can become a first
grenade-er."
Both controversial Alabama judge Roy Moore and Walsh were fooled into meeting Cohen to
attend a non-existent pro-Israel conference
to accept an award for "significant contributions to the state of Israel." Representative
Dana Rohrabacher, meanwhile, also was interviewed and he commented that, "Maybe having young
people trained and understand how to defend themselves and their school might actually make us
safer here." And Congressman Joe Wilson observed that "A 3-year-old cannot defend itself from
an assault rifle by throwing a 'Hello Kitty' pencil case at it."
Cohen's performance is instructive. A man shows up in Israeli uniform, claims to be a
terrorism expert or even a Mossad agent, and he gains access to powerful Americans who are
willing to do anything he says. How Cohen did it says a lot about the reflexive and completely
uncritical support for Israel that many American politicians -- particularly Republicans -- now
embrace. This, in a nutshell, is the damage that Israel and its Lobby have done to the United
States. Israel is always right for many policymakers and even palpably phony Jews like Colonel
Morad are instantly perceived as smarter than the rest of us so we'd better do what they say.
That kind of thinking has brought us Iraq, Libya, Syria and the possibility of something far
worse with Iran.
Israel routinely interferes in American politics and corrupts our institutions without any
cost to itself and that is why I write and speak frequently regarding the danger to our
Republic that it poses. It is past time to change the essentially phony narrative. Israel is
nothing but trouble. It has the right to defend itself and protect its interests but that
should not involve the United States. One can only hope that eventually a majority of my fellow
American citizens will also figure things out. It might take a while, but the ruthless way
Israel openly operates with no concern for anyone but itself provides a measure of optimism
that that day is surely coming.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected].
. The decision to go to war on false pretenses against Iraq, largely promoted by a cabal
of prominent American Jews in the Pentagon and in the media, killed 4,424 Americans as well
as hundreds of thousands Iraqis and will wind up costing the American taxpayer $7 trillion
dollars when all the bills are paid. That same group of mostly Jewish neocons more-or-less
is now agitating to go to war with Iran using a game plan for escalation prepared by Israel
which will, if anything, prove even more catastrophic.
Oh right, who can forget the cabal of Jews controlling the US government and military at
the time of the Iraq invasion, such as President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, CIA director George Tenet, National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice Every.Single.Time, am I right, folks?
Oh wait, they aren't Jewish? Well, I blame the Jews away. Just look at uh Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Woflowitz and
journalist Bill Kristol. That sounds like an extremely powerful cabal easily capable of
commanding such trivial figures as the President, CIA director, Secretary of State, et
cetera, to do their bidding.
Besides, just look at how much the Iraq War benefited Israel. You see, Israel wants to
pursue a strategy of destabilizing the region, so it cleverly pulled off a false flag attack
on 9/11; I'm not quite sure why Mossad didn't frame one of Israel's actual enemies, like the
Palestinians or Iranians, or even Saddam for that matter, as the perpetrators of the attacks,
but I'm sure it's all part of the plan.
Anyway, Israel got the United States to invade Iraq, which destabilized the region and
created chaos, predictably leading to a massive increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and
likely enabling more Iranian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, which benefited Israel
because uh chaos and destabilization.
And if you doubt that neocons totally control the US government, just look at how we're at
war with Iran! Well we're not technically at war yet, a decade after neoconservatives
began promoting the war .and President Obama did somehow manage to sign a nuclear deal with
Iran that infuriated his neocon and Israeli puppetmasters but I'm sure that President Trump,
famously beloved by Jews and neocons everywhere, will soon go to war with Iran.
' I'm not entirely sure why you keep hanging on to this tired and false narrative that
US politicians are some sort of stooges and puppets of Israel '
Maybe because they are stooges and puppets? In extreme cases, they even boast of it. When
Romney was running for president, he promised he would check with Israel on any action we
took in the Middle East. When Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was promoting civil war
in Syria, she explained that this was necessary because Israel wished it.
It goes on, and on. If someone is considering a run for Congress, he gets a nice little
packet from AIPAC. Among other things, he's asked to write an essay expressing his feelings
about Israel.
If the essay isn't satisfactory, AIPAC backs his opponent.
Not surprisingly, when Netanyahu -- the premier of a tiny state on the other side of the
planet -- spoke to Congress he was interrupted with standing ovations seventeen times. The
display put me in mind of the sort of frenzied adulation Communist delegates used to display
towards Stalin.
and the motives, of course, would be similar, even if actual death isn't in prospect. For
most in Congress, displease Israel, and your political career just ended.
"Many in the intelligence and law enforcement communities suspect that it (Israel) had
considerable prior intelligence regarding the 9/11 plot but did not share it with
Washington."
It's certainly difficult to explain how else Mossad came to be filming the attack.
I think it needs to be emphasized that it's not merely a matter of practical politics.
Israel is evil -- she brings misery to millions, actual happiness to almost no one, and
engages in behavior with no defensible moral foundation at all. She has attacked every
single one of her neighbors, compulsively seeks out further conflict to paper over the
shortcomings in her own national identity, and treats her Palestinian subjects with a
morality about like that of a nasty little boy pulling the wings off a fly.
Arguably, others are as bad. However, unlike the others, Israel could not have come into
being without our support, and could not continue to exist today without our continued moral,
economic, diplomatic, and military support. If we pulled the plug, Israel would cease to
exist as a Jewish supremacist state within -- at most -- a decade.
We are, in fact, responsible for Israel, and hence responsible for Israel's crimes. Other
people's teenaged sons may well be out there stealing cars and raping girls. This happens to
be our son doing it. We're responsible.
We pursue many policies I regard as futile, short-sighted, deluded, or self-destructive.
My personal list would include 'come one come all' immigration, global warming denial,
maintaining a massive military establishment, condoning 'Black Lives Matter,' and probably
some other things.
No doubt the reader has his own list. However, that's not the point. The point is that
essentially, these policies are merely stupid rather than actually evil. It's not evil
to think we should just let whoever wants come into the US. It's dumb -- but it isn't
evil. In fact, I'll willingly credit people who vote for 'sanctuary cities' et al with the
most laudable sentiments. I merely question their intelligence.
Israel is different. Israel is evil, and hence our support for it is as well. It is the
most fundamentally wrong act we are engaged in.
There is a moral dimension to life. There is a distinction between striving to do good --
however unsuccessfully -- and willingly participating in evil.
"A well-funded massive lobbying effort involving hundreds of groups and thousands of
individuals in the U.S. has worked to the detriment of actual American interests, in part
by creating a permanent annual gift of billions of dollars to Israel for no other reason
but that it is Israel and can get anything it wants from a servile Congress and White House
without any objection from a controlled media."
Kind of begs the question, why are we giving any aid to a first-world country with a GDP
growth rate in the 3% to 4% rate for years (even while we were stuck below 2%) and an
unemployment rate below 4%?
The Israeli economy is in better shape than the US economy; they should be giving us
aid.
"Baron Cohen, who confronted several GOP notables in the guise of Colonel Erran Morad,
an Israeli security specialist, provided a number of clues that his interview was a sham
but none of the victims were smart enough to pick up on them."
Yes, it is truly amazing what our "Best & Brightest" will do to stay on-side.
Following Mr. Giraldi's earlier post regarding the gubernatorial run of Israeli puppet Ron
DeSantis and the Big Sugar connections of Adam Putnam, it would seem a Floridian's least
worst choice is Bob White.
Israel is nothing but trouble. It has the right to defend itself
1st part: Absolutely, indubitably correct.
2nd part: ¿Qué? Why do people say/write this? Under what corrupt
arrangement does an oh, so obvious outlaw have any such right?
Consider: A gang of out-of-towners turns up at a block of flats, breaks the doors down and
occupies the building, killing some erstwhile owner/occupiers and ejecting most of the rest
on the way in, thereafter whooping it up big, and ignoring [obviously too feeble] orders to
RoR+R*3 [= Right of Return + Revest, Reparations and Reconciliation.] Since when can such
outlaws dictate anything, thumb their noses at the Law?
Property, especially here land, is alienable – but this does not mean
' subject to seizure by aliens .'
Kindly consider: "A fair exchange is no robbery." A fair exchange means willing
seller, interested buyer, and a freely and fairly agreed price. No such thing exists
vis-à-vis the forcible colonisation of Palestine. Some proof may be seen
here [my
bolding]:
By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled from their lands and
villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20,500
km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandatory Palestine
Land laws were passed to legalize changes to land ownership.[5]
5. Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land
and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 37.
Especially in reference to the illegitimate entity which terms itself Israel, wiki is not
reliable, being, like the US Congress, Israeli-occupied territory. So it is noteworthy that
they write "in control of" as opposed to 'own.' They can't ever own it due to not having
purchased it, and Palestinians may not surrender it, due to the UDHR which specifies
*inalienable* rights:
Article 3.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 17.
• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with
others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Also, see the Washington Consensus:
10.Legal security for property rights.
Further, there is UNSC242: inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, plus
only just law may earn respect, and/or be respected. A law dispossessing erstwhile legal
owner/occupiers is an utter travesty.
Me; comment: Its illegitimacy is all so howlingly obvious!
Fazit: Apart from the ~6% of 'pre-Herzl Palestine' which 'invading by stealth' alien,
mostly European Jews managed to purchase, the illegitimate entity does not own nor can they
ever own the land/property they squat upon, which still belongs to the erstwhile
owner/occupiers, specifically the 'native' pre-Nakba Palestinians [now including heirs &
successors]. Then, the illegitimate entity does not declare borders for two reasons 1) any
such declaration would be [probably successfully] challenged and 2) the illegitimate entity
expresses the desire to expand to 'from the Nile to the Euphrates.' Q: Just how ghastly is
that? A: Could hardly be worse.
Closing the loop: How can land-thieves have any 'right to defend' such improperly
alienated land/property? It doesn't compute! rgds
Thank you, Mr. Giraldi, for another forceful rebuke of Zionist criminality and US
culpability.
The supremacist kosher state is a cancer on America. Just survey the wreckage. Count the
bodies. Who benefits from this?
The Zionist project is a plague on humanity. It entertains no compromise. It will stop at
virtually nothing. Examine the blood-soaked damage from Soviet Russia to Germany to Palestine
and beyond. It moves Washington around via remote control.
The situation has become very grave. Speech deemed 'anti-Semitic' is rapidly being
criminalized worldwide.
Right wing political expression (that Jews don't like) on Twitter, Facebook and the web is
being de-platformed for speech infractions that involve 'hate'. But it's only 'hate' of a
certain stripe.
After all, hatred is ubiquitous in America. It cuts in every direction. So why is the
focus so intense on just one spectrum of hatred?
Might it have something to do with the political preferences of those in power?
Oh maybe.
Principles be damned. Whose ox is being gored?
With that in mind, consider this: who might actually be the biggest hater of
all?–and killer? (Hint: it's certainly not the powerless Alt-right 'deplorables'.)
Might it instead be the world's foremost victims?
After all, incendiary speech–even 'hate speech'–does not kill. It takes bombs,
drones, tanks and missiles to accomplish that.
So where's the uproar over routine sorties which needlessly dispense death and
destruction?
It's gone missing.
Incredibly, it is rough speech and acute political criticism–not failed, horrific
wars–that are being criminalized. Pro-Zionist 'wars of choice' still get a pass in our
corporate board rooms, TV studios, news rooms, and in most of Official Washington.
This entrenched distortion allows neocons and their underlings to jawbone and plot their
next preemptive war. The Big Squeeze is on. Beware Russia, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and
Iran. Zionism is an 'unshakable' Washington value. So get ready.
How distant wars advance the interests of average Americans remains a mystery.
Despite this puzzle, America's MSM offers little resistance and no straightforward
criticism of Zio-Washington's ceaseless war efforts on behalf of a certain 'democratic ally'.
In similar fashion, the Fourth Estate has also been compromised.
It's worth remembering that, according to the UN Charter, a state-sponsored 'First Strike'
against another sovereign state is the most serious war crime. This elementary moral precept
however matters not–at least not when Israel is pulling the strings. Quiet, children.
Listen. Obey.
What we have here is a pattern of vast serial criminality.
Zio-Washington has become Israel's war vessel. We regular folk are just along for the
ride.
So don't forget to cheer for the good guys!
Incredibly, US-enabled, Israeli ruthlessness has gotten even worse under 'America First'
Trump. After all, Trump needlessly tore up Obama's hard-fought peace deal with Iran.
Why would Trump make such a move? (As a candidate, he was far less hawkish).
Our weakened and despised President needs desperately to please America's foremost lobby.
Trump cannot govern without their support. This peculiar situation however requires
additional blood-letting on behalf of the Zionist state. Foreign wars that benefit Israel are
the unwritten price that the goyim leadership in America must pay. Sorry folks!
(Are you listening, Tehran?)
Jewish power corrupts. Overwhelming Jewish power corrupts in overwhelming fashion.
It's certainly difficult to explain how else Mossad came to be filming the attack
Err 'do + document?' It's certainly difficult to explain how 19 reputed Muslim/Arab
hijackers could have 'control demolished' WTC7; ~2.5secs at *exactly* free-fall speed, WTCs
1&2 at almost free-fall speed [plus the outwards-ejected massive steel sections], and all
mainly 'all the way down' into their own 'footprints' = all three control demolished [all for
one; one for all]. Camel-f ** ckers just ain't that clever, eh? The observed fact that the US
rogue-regime made no 'counteractions' vis-à-vis the so-called 'attack on
America' made all 'responsibles' accessories; before [covert agencies], during [order-givers]
and after ['led' by the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs [latter = publicly financed
broadcasters]; all vile traitors.] Ho, hum; just another US/Z travesty. rgds
I read these kinds of articles with mixed reactions.
On the one hand, I believe Mr. Giraldi should choose his language more carefully. Perhaps
instead of referring to "Jews," he should narrow this to "Jewish Likud supporters" or
something similar.
The Jewish community as a whole is moderate, reasonable, and not especially devoted to
war. It is a subset of the community–which, alas, happens to be well-funded and
dedicated–that promotes war 24/7.
I believe Mr. Giraldi would appear more credible if he made this crucial distinction.
On the other hand, someone will always comment that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. are
more powerful than Wolfowitz and Feith. I believe this line of attack ignores crucial
facts.
1. It is these less powerful underlings that package the information that their superiors
use when determining policy. One need only recall the Office of Special Plans, headed by
Feith, that cherry-picked intelligence to make the case for war. Also, Wolfowitz served as
Bush II's foreign policy tutor when he was a candidate.
2. It has been credibly reported, I believe by Dana Milbanks in the Washington Post, that
Jewish donors provide 50% of individual donations to the Democratic party and 35% of
donations made to the Republicans. This kind of money gives those hawkish elements of the
Jewish community considerable power. In a system in which the vote is split almost equally
between both parties, these funds are crucial to electoral success.
So, yes, the Israel lobby is extraordinarily powerful. But no, it does not represent all
American Jews.
Jessica – I never say "all Jews" or even "most Jews" but to ignore that the
dominance of Israel is a Jewish problem is to turn one's back on reality. It is Jewish
oligarchs and organizations that push the Israeli agenda, that fund it, and that sustain it
in the media and on capitol hill. I know there are a lot of liberal Jews and even some not so
liberal ones that abhor what Israel is doing but are afraid to say anything lest they be
called "self hating." They have to get off the fence and declare that the USA is their home
and that Netanyahu's insistence that Israel is the Jewish homeland is a self-serving fraud.
Until that happens, Israel will dominate America's foreign policy discussion, to our damage.
Israel is a foreign country and should be treated by Washington like any other foreign
country, i.e. based on US national interests.
"special relationship" with Israel is itself the result of terrible national security and
foreign policy" while I agree that the statement is true, if does not begin to explain the
depth of Zionist control of the American Empire, nor does it look to the origin of that
control.
1. Israel is the network @ Colin wright, @ anonymous in reply to Ben_C as well as
2. The well researched book entitled "The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy by John J.
Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguised Service professor of Political Science and
the co director of the progarm on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago)
and Stephen M. Walt (the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor international Affairs at the John
f. Kennedy School of government at Harvard University and past academic dean of the Kennedy
School which discusses the Impact of US Foreign Policy as it relates to America's nation
interest.
4. Article VI of the US Constitution readmitted back into Independent America the entire
banking and corporate leaches which caused the American revolution, explained in some detail
on this website just a few days ago. @ Anon[317] • Disclaimer says: August 12, 2018 at
12:31 pm GMT • 1,100 Words wherein the so called landed estates and landed Gentry were
mostly British Banking and Trading and Slaving Corporations (many Jewish owners) doing
business in America. Their wealth was derived from their land ownership and corporations
licensed to do business in America by foreign governments. The British Aristocratic land
grants mostly made to privately owned British banking, trading and slaving corporations or
wealthy British and French Aristocrats allowed foreign nations to deed title to American
land. These baron-landed owners, the so-called Gentry, were the very centers of the British
a-human rights authority and vicious corporate and political powerhouses that controlled the
American Colonies of Britain. It was the landed gentry that brought the American colonist to
revolt against British rule. BUT just 12 years after the 1776 Declaration of Independence,
the banker and Aristocrat favorable US constitution was imposed by a process called
ratification? ( a third party regime change process that appears in the US Constitution as
Article VII?). This ratification process was used to impose the very same British mostly
Wealthy Crowd to not only keep their land granted lands, their personal wealth earned by
inhumanity to mankind, and their educated Aristocratic global life styles in America. So the
US constitution itself allowed to be installed: a government that only gave the British Baron
Aristocrats voting control of America's destiny but it also terminated the Democracy
(Articles of Confederation) that so much American blood had been spilt to bring about. These
were the some of the forefathers forefathers to global Zionism, a part of the powerhouse
support team of the Jewish banking and corporate global network, many of whom became team
members in the formalized conspiracy to take control of the oil in the world and to weaponize
immigration in order to take the oil from the Arabs. In 1896 (Switzerland , first Zionist
Congress) the Jewish controlled organizations weaponized immigration and aimed it at the
Ottoman Arab oil. Trace a failed coup attempt against the Ottoman, the Balfour Agreement,
WWI, British and French control over once Ottoman Palestine, the Palin Commission, a network
established military base that became Israel, immediate International recognition by the
Jewish controlled nations of the world) and so on. .
I trust you might now be " entirely sure why .. the narrative that US Politicians {must be
] .. [elected, salaried] stooges and puppets of Israel " few outsiders are allowed to take a
position among the 527 who control the law making powers and war making powers that the USA
uses to force Americans into their wars.
It seems that a large proportion of the members of the US Congress are Israeli citizens.
It is unconstitutional for a member of the Australian Parliament to be a dual citizen.
This is taken to such an extent that if it's found that an MP born in New Zealand moved to
Australia as a baby, that person's election becomes null and void, unless he or she was
conscious of the situation and verifiably renounced NZ citizenship prior to the election.
That is so even in this mad case of Australians and New Zealanders having the same head of
state, the English monarch.
Why on earth can't America bring in a similar law, making it impossible for Israeli
citizens to vote in its Congress, to even be there?
Americans see the Russians as greatness deniers. Their European lackeys are their
greatness-acknowledgers -- even when it's detrimental to their own survival.
If the world was a theater, Americans see themselves as the only performers -- the role of
the rest of the world is to applaud their performance.
Russia is not a part of the audience, it's not even a heckler. It's a performer, it has
always been, and a very talented one too. To try to demote them to the role of spectators, or
to try to usher them out of the concert hall can be suicidal, they have enough musical
instruments to put on a remarkable concert -- even if afterwards no one is left to
applaud.
"... Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books on international affairs, including ..."
"... Judith Miller was a pawn of Dick Cheney, so it is improper to indict all of the press for a war Bush was going to launch no matter what ..."
"... Well, you could say the same about the alleged Russian meddling in 2016 election. I haven't seen a single evidence, but most of the American public believes that narrative. I think TAC believes it too. ..."
"... How about those chemical attacks in Syria? Staged events. But the media keeps turning them time and again. I don't watch them and don't read them either, but they do have tremendous influence over the society. ..."
"... This is a pot calling a kettle black to deflect blame. If the US under Trump goes to war with Iran, China or Russia it's entirely his fault. He appointed Mike Pompeo. He appointed John Bolton. He appointed Nicky Haily. ..."
"... He wants to enlist Russia to fight the other two and possibly North Korea as well; enlist Russia to achieve the US's goals, not any Russian goal. This ambition is a pipe dream as Russia and the others correctly view the US as a much bigger threat than each other and will band together. If they turn on each other at all it'd only be after the US is defeated and subdued. ..."
"... The mainstream US media (CNN, FOX, Washington Post, NYT, WSJ, etc) is as intertwined with the government as the Chinese media is to theirs. Whatever narrative the powerful in government and their big business associates want to spin, the media will dutifully comply. The "press" is essentially a de facto government agency, and one cannot separate the government push for war from the medias. ..."
"... So, because the press were uncritical in pushing the lies and deceptions, the treason if you will, of the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq War, the press should be less critical of the lies and deceptions spread by the Trump administration. A bit like Fox News, perhaps. Uncritical of the Iraq War back when, uncritical of Trump today. ..."
"... There was more to the War on Iraq than Judith Miller. The entire national MSM abdicated its duty to ask questions of those in power. Instead, the NYT, the WaPo and others became dutiful stenographers of the Bush Administration, the Pentagon, and the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... For truly power is to sociopaths what cocaine is to addicts. ..."
"... Let the case of Yemen take the measure of these men and women. Trump is doing absolutely nothing to end Obama's War, and makes it worse at every turn. The press is doing everything it can to aid and abet him. Today's media might not start wars, the same media do absolutely nothing to end them. ..."
"... To Joe F: It's a bit hard in 900-word op-ed to cover more than a few examples. Others include the one-sided, pro-intervention coverage of the Balkan turmoil in the 1990s, the lobbying for intervention in Libya, and the distorted, pro-intervention coverage of the Syrian civil war. And your implication that I was justifying a Trump crackdown on the media is just bizarre. ..."
"... "The sometimes shrill hostility of the mainstream media towards Russia is pushing the United States toward an increasingly hardline policy that now borders on a second cold war. " ..."
"... Yes, the Press Helps Start Wars ..."
"... The Spanish / American war was a creation of the government in charge manipulating the press in order to justify the war the politicians so desperately wanted ..."
"... "Yes, the Press Helps Start Wars" Old news. Newspapers have been doing this despicable practice since Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press. ..."
"... Media lies and distortions (mainstream, right-wing, left-wing, less so on one or both wings some of the time) enabled (or continue to enable) all of the following American imperialist adventures and/or interventions, be they military, financial, political or otherwise: ..."
"... Vietnam, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Iraq again, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela and Nicaragua again. ..."
"... Hell, if much of the mainstream media -- including the liberal "humanitarian" interventionists at MSDNC- had their way, the US would have committed actual military acts of war against Russia and North Korea, as opposed to the economic and political ones we've engaged in. ..."
Two cases stand out: the Spanish-American War and the Iraq War. Historians have long recognized that jingoistic "yellow journalism,"
epitomized by the newspaper chains owned by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, played a significant role in the former
conflict. Months before the outbreak of the war, one of Hearst's reporters wished to return home from Cuba because there was no sign
of a worsening crisis. Hearst instructed him to stay, adding , "you
furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."
Hearst's boast was hyperbolic, but the Hearst and Pulitzer papers did repeatedly hype the Spanish "threat" and beat the drums
for war against Madrid. They featured stories that not only focused on but exaggerated the uglier features of Madrid's treatment
of its colonial subjects in Cuba. Those outlets also
exploited
the mysterious explosion that destroyed the U.S. battleship Maine in Havana's harbor. To this day, the identity of the culprit
is uncertain, but the yellow press exhibited no doubts whatever. According to their accounts, it was an outrageous attack on America
by the villainous Spanish regime.
Such journalistic pressure was not the only factor that impelled William McKinley's administration to push for a declaration of
war against Spain or for Congress to approve that declaration. A rising generation of American imperialists wanted to emulate the
European great powers and build a colonial empire. That underlying motive became evident when the first U.S. attack following the
declaration of war came not in Cuba, but in the Philippines, Spain's colony on the other side of the Pacific.
Nevertheless, it would be naïve to assume that the jingoist press did not play a significant role in causing the war against Spain.
Indeed, the corrupt role of yellow journalism in creating public support for that conflict is not a particularly controversial proposition
among historians.
The role of an irresponsible press in shaping a pro-war narrative was even more evident in the prelude to the 2003 U.S. military
intervention in Iraq. New York Times reporter Judith Miller and other prominent mainstream journalists were especially culpable
in publicizing
erroneous information about Saddam Hussein's government regarding two emotionally charged issues. They uncritically circulated
"evidence" from Iraqi defectors and George W. Bush's administration that Iraq was in league with al-Qaeda and may well have had a
role in the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks. And they pushed the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was actively
working on developing a nuclear arsenal.
Again, it would be too much to place all or even most of the blame for the disastrous Iraq war on gullible or ultra-hawkish journalists.
The Bush administration seemed determined to oust Saddam, and it might have attempted to do so even without strong public support.
But most of the media was staunchly pro-war, and that bias
greatly skewed the narrative
presented to the public. When highly respected journalistic institutions like TheNew York Times circulated story
after story highlighting the alleged security threat that Saddam posed, and those stories were then featured in other publications
and on TV, it was hardly surprising that much of the public believed the narrative. The tendency of mainstream media outlets to ignore
or marginalize war critics amplified their pro-war bias.
As is so often the case with Trump's arguments, his accusation that the press can cause wars is an exaggeration, but one that
contains an important kernel of truth. Irresponsible media coverage has undoubtedly strengthened public sentiment for ill-advised
wars in the past, and it could do so again in the future. The sometimes shrill hostility of the mainstream media towards Russia is
pushing the United States toward an increasingly hardline policy that now borders on a second cold war. The original Cold War nearly
escalated to a hot one on several occasions. The press needs to be doubly cautious about pushing policies that would send America
down a similar perilous path. Trump is wrong to brand the press as an enemy of the people, but it is still a powerful institution
that has not always used its great influence responsibly regarding matters of war and peace.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books
on international affairs, including The Captive Press: Foreign Policy Crises and the First Amendment .
An elitist corporate media has ends that are not often in sync with the interests of the mass of Americans and thus is a tool
for manufacturing faux public opinion. It is now legal to propagandize the American public, a recent development. With media ownership
concentration unprecedented, and government in the pocket of giant corporate interests, public opinion becomes an exercise of
monopoly lying.
The Spanish/American War and Judith Miller are the foundation for tour argument that the press starts wars? Good grief, how weak
is this? There are no Americans alive who were around for the Spanish American War and Judith Miller was a pawn of Dick Cheney,
so it is improper to indict all of the press for a war Bush was going to launch no matter what . How about the rest of the
conflagrations of the 20th Century or perhaps that would diminish your paper thin premise. I really enjoy TAC, but enough with
publishing these lazy and weak pieces. Lame to blame the press for what politicians of all stripes have wreaked upon us. Geez,
this wasn't even a quarter effort to make a point. You can actually make a point that the press contributed to our War of Independence,
but I guess that would glorify your boogeyman
Lame. Judith Miller and a war fought before any living American was born? What about all of the other unnecessary wars we have
tangled in? Bush et al were going to war with or without one lane shill in Miller, but what about press role in stopping Viet
Nam or Korea? Not to mention the role played in our War for Independence? Oh, that would shred your paper thin premise. TAC slacking
in allowing such lazy and self serving analysis. TAC should exercise better editorial judgement as some (like this post) are so
weak Facebook might delete. Step it up TAC, you are too good for this lazy bunk
Well, you could say the same about the alleged Russian meddling in 2016 election. I haven't seen a single evidence, but most
of the American public believes that narrative. I think TAC believes it too.
How about those chemical attacks in Syria? Staged events. But the media keeps turning them time and again. I don't watch
them and don't read them either, but they do have tremendous influence over the society.
The sad thing is that this or the next president will send troops to war here or there in the world and Americans will stay
indifferent.
This is a pot calling a kettle black to deflect blame. If the US under Trump goes to war with Iran, China or Russia it's entirely
his fault. He appointed Mike Pompeo. He appointed John Bolton. He appointed Nicky Haily.
Of the 3 potential adversaries listed above, there are 2 (Iran, China) where Trump is actively looking for a fight. He deliberately
breached an accord with Iran that was keeping the peace. The only country on which there's a disagreement about whether to pick
a fight with is Russia. But what is behind this disagreement? It's not that Trump is looking for a mutually-respectful peace with
Russia. He wants to enlist Russia to fight the other two and possibly North Korea as well; enlist Russia to achieve the US's
goals, not any Russian goal. This ambition is a pipe dream as Russia and the others correctly view the US as a much bigger threat
than each other and will band together. If they turn on each other at all it'd only be after the US is defeated and subdued.
I just watched Daniel Hoffman (ex-CIA operative) spout the most vile, one sided, pro-Saudi, anti-Iran propaganda, rationalizing
their latest war crime in Yemen on the Shannon Bream show. This demonstrates what is wrong with the MSM today.
They take information uncritically from the CIA, Pentagon, and govt bureaucrats to get the narrative which favors conflict.
List:
1. The bombing of Syria (the only time they gave Trump positive press coverage).
2. The destruction of Libya (they fell for the R2P lie)
3. The genocidal starvation campaign against Yemen (most transparent cover up ever, the 70's press corp would see through it)
4. They assisting Iraq 2 but this time in Iran.
The mainstream US media (CNN, FOX, Washington Post, NYT, WSJ, etc) is as intertwined with the government as the Chinese media
is to theirs. Whatever narrative the powerful in government and their big business associates want to spin, the media will dutifully
comply. The "press" is essentially a de facto government agency, and one cannot separate the government push for war from the
medias.
As was mentioned here, the lunacy that making internet memes is now considered an act of war is the doing of the mainstream
media and they are certainly responsible if a real war breaks out.
Around 1917 a remarkably unanimous push for war infused ALL media. Not just newspapers but technical journals and academic
publications. Teachers and radio experimenters had to read pro-war and pro-Wilson propaganda in EVERY article. All curricula had
to be anti-German, all circuits had to be anti-German.
Same today. All techy websites infuse BOMB RUSSIA into their info on software and hardware developments. Everything must work
together to BOMB RUSSIA.
It is worth noting that America's imperialist adventures in the Philippines resulted in a second war soon after, with between
200,000 and a million (or more) civilian casualties.
talk about 'yellow journalism'. in the 2042 years of the republic, you offer 2 examples? and it is worth noting, the latter (Iraq
2003) was simply the media reporting the cherry-picked intelligence and/or WH-directed narrative(s). while it's agreed the media
was something of a co-conspirator in 2003 (think the current "collusion" debate with Russia being the US and the Trump campaign
being the US media -- the former had a 'mission' and it leveraged its relationship with the latter.). to paraphrase the late George
Carlin, never believe ANYTHING the government or the media tells you. in a plutocracy, the government and the media share (some)
common interests -- not all interests, but some. no sir, the media does not start wars in truth or hyperbole. media, at times,
serves the marketing/business development needs of the MIC, and by proxy the government (usually the Executive Branch). when is
TAC going to show some "tough love" and stop the co-dependent/enabler stuff?
So, because the press were uncritical in pushing the lies and deceptions, the treason if you will, of the Bush administration
in the run-up to the Iraq War, the press should be less critical of the lies and deceptions spread by the Trump administration.
A bit like Fox News, perhaps. Uncritical of the Iraq War back when, uncritical of Trump today.
Truth is, Trump plays the press like a fiddle. He creates outrage saying something stupid, they publish, he walks back or doubles
down or pushes something completely unrelated, and before someone can figure what's going on, we're two days later and the next
controversy arrives. And if the press do manage to back Trump into a corner, it's unfair because they're misrepresenting his constantly
shifting positions.
What the American press should do is, instead of blowing things up (metaphorically, obvs), simply list every day the policies
of the Trump administration in terse, dry manner, and completely ignore any tweet sent by Trump, his cabinet, his family members,
and any of his supporters at any level. Deny Trump the attention he seeks, and before you know it he'll drop his pants in front
of a group of veterans just to make front page again.
Still, enemies of the people. When that phrase came in full swing, the lucky ones were shot, the unlucky ones sent to labour
camps in frozen wastes. Trump will never have the guts. Nor will he ever use his great influence in a responsible manner.
There was more to the War on Iraq than Judith Miller. The entire national MSM abdicated its duty to ask questions of those
in power. Instead, the NYT, the WaPo and others became dutiful stenographers of the Bush Administration, the Pentagon, and the
intelligence agencies.
Others correctly point out WWI and the Spanish American War. I could add Vietnam, when too few journalists questioned the dominant
narrative until we were stuck in.
However, rather than call for censorship, the correct answer is to ask *why* the executive, the Pentagon, and the various alphabet
agencies have this outsized influence, and what can be done to curtail it.
For truly power is to sociopaths what cocaine is to addicts.
@Mark_be: what you say is sensible, but only for an MSM that is not ratings and profits-driven.
The latest serving of the "let Putin win in Ukraine" propaganda line. Mr Carpenter's objection to the media he criticizes is that
they peddle a different propaganda line to the one he would like them to peddle.
Joe F " You can actually make a point that the press contributed to our War of Independence, but I guess that would glorify your
boogeyman"
************
I think it did too, but I don't think that in any way glorified the press.
Let the case of Yemen take the measure of these men and women. Trump is doing absolutely nothing to end Obama's War, and makes
it worse at every turn. The press is doing everything it can to aid and abet him. Today's media might not start wars, the same
media do absolutely nothing to end them.
"I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust.
They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!"
One can't really argue with any of this. Of course, this statement is silent on the warmongering of Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump,
as well as Congress past and present, but Trump is doing a great service to the American People, not least by serving as a bad
example. Few if any other politicians would be willing and able to trigger another overdue national debate.
The report referenced by the author has a hilariously revealing typo in its first sentence. Yes, recalling the US press coverage
of the push for illegal aggressive war against Iraq, and decades of Iraq/Syria/Iran coverage, it would indeed appear that our
intrepid for-profit press and the purveyors of rent-a-speech published opinion are "casing the joint" for future opportunities
of profitable military intervention.
To Joe F: It's a bit hard in 900-word op-ed to cover more than a few examples. Others include the one-sided, pro-intervention
coverage of the Balkan turmoil in the 1990s, the lobbying for intervention in Libya, and the distorted, pro-intervention coverage
of the Syrian civil war. And your implication that I was justifying a Trump crackdown on the media is just bizarre.
Similarly bizarre is Mark's interpretation that I was suggesting that because of the media's past sins, they should go easy
on Trump's abuses. No reasonable reading of the article could reach that conclusion.
"The sometimes shrill hostility of the mainstream media towards Russia is pushing the United States toward an increasingly
hardline policy that now borders on a second cold war. "
Many in the media, not all, give credence to the unanimous assessment of our intelligence agencies, the intelligence agencies
of our allies, and the evidence provided by their own eyes and ears. Others in the media are pushing another line, and with no
evidence whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Draw your own conclusions as to what they are up to.
The headline reads: Yes, the Press Helps Start Wars . I would argue that the word "helps" is doing most of the work in
that sentence. The real question is, who exactly are they "helping"? I think that in most, if not all, cases it starts with a
political party or faction that is advocating for war, and those elements of the press who support them use their voice to help.
So the same can be said about any political issue at all "Yes the press helps [fill in the blank with any issue]". Conservative
press helps push conservative issues, liberal press helps push liberal issues. And yes, when war drums are being beaten, it becomes
very easy for the warmongering voices to drown out the voices of reason. But that is not the fault of the press, it is the fault
of a population that is all too willing to let itself be led into war fever. The press would not be willing to take that position
if they were not so confident that it would be met with approval by their readers and advertisers.
1) The Spanish / American war was a creation of the government in charge manipulating the press in order to justify the war
the politicians so desperately wanted
2) If the author had taken the time to do the research or remember the facts as they were .. The NYTimes as well as the Washington
Post etc -- et al all reported how Cheney had manipulated the Intelligence Agencies with threats unless they lied to both the
public as well as GWB about Iraq having WMD .. which every intelligence agency knew they did not .
Given the time and space one could go on for an encyclopedias worth of pages pointing out the irrefutable fact as in F-A-C-T
that in each and every case throughout US history it has been the politicians that have started the wars .. with more often than
not the media ( as well as in many cases the military ) standing in opposition to the government and politicians which they the
press more often than not paid a heavy price for until they were willing to comply with the destructive wished of the politicians
The irony of Trump's comments about the press helping start wars is that he is intentionally facilitating that very thing every
time Fox "News" parrots his childish, jingoistic rhetoric about Iran, North Korea, etc.
Fox "News" is certainly trying to start wars, I'll give Mr. Carpenter that. And thank you for pointing out that there is only
a kernel of truth in Trump's comments. Does one kernel justify an entire article? Why not write about his barrels of lies?
I suppose the article has value as a history lesson-100-year-old history. After all, if the USA hadn't entered WWI, we may
not have had WWII. But the press didn't start WWI.
"Yes, the Press Helps Start Wars" Old news. Newspapers have been doing this despicable practice since Gutenberg invented the
movable-type printing press.
"I suppose the article has value as a history lesson-100-year-old history. After all, if the USA hadn't entered WWI, we may
not have had WWII. But the press didn't start WWI."
*************
The press operated in a similar way back then too. It didn't start WWI but it surely enabled it.
Media lies and distortions (mainstream, right-wing, left-wing, less so on one or both wings some of the time) enabled (or
continue to enable) all of the following American imperialist adventures and/or interventions, be they military, financial, political
or otherwise:
Vietnam, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Iraq again, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela
and Nicaragua again.
I don't remember U.S. press coverage of Allende's Chile, but I imagine it was of a piece with today's coverage of Venezuela,
Brazil, Ecuador and Nicaragua, all the while ignoring the far greater corruption and brutality of America's regional allies/clients/lapdogs.
Hell, if much of the mainstream media -- including the liberal "humanitarian" interventionists at MSDNC- had their way, the
US would have committed actual military acts of war against Russia and North Korea, as opposed to the economic and political ones
we've engaged in.
Let us not forget the enthusiastic reporting on the "Gulf of Tonkin attack." As for those sneering at this because only two examples
are offered, consider reading that part where the author said he was going to offer -- wait for it -- TWO EXAMPLES.
As for that "kernel of truth," those in media sources not being paid to spew anti-Trump propaganda 24/7/365 have pointed out,
to no avail, that he often says things that are true. Unfortunately, he (or whoever is writing his stuff on Twitter) presents
the kernel buried in a pile of nonsense. Which gives the corporate media free rein to focus entirely on the nonsense to ensure
the kernel of truth gets killed at birth.
And no, I do NOT support Mr. Trump nor did I vote for him. He's the poster child for the corporate oligarchy currently . running
the US government, and the sooner he and all his ilk are removed the better. That includes corporate Democrats.
The substance of this piece is obviously correct, but you get the predictable caterwauling from silly commenters because you had
to frame it as a defense of something Trump said. That just confused the issue for people who can't hold more than one thought
in their heads at a time. Trump is a war criminal himself, so he should get no credit for saying something right once in a while.
He only does so for his own self interest. But it is ironic to see so called liberals react by taking the opposite side just because
Trump said something right.
Trump is spot on. Pretty much every single war since WWI was egged on by the media. War sells news! Enemy of the people is right.
I hate mainstream media.
CNN, MSDNC, Fox and all those 24hr news channels are the worst. They actively promote wars and chaos the world over. CNN is
losing the ratings war. I'm sure they'd love another real war to ratchet up the ratings, that's why they're promoting war with
Iran.
Excellent article. I agree with the author except that I would blame the press a little more.
One instance I can think of when a large part of the press advocated against going to war was at the start of the Civil War.
Lincoln shut down a few papers and I think even jailed some newspapermen.
In the end it is up to each of us as individuals to decide what to believe. Certainly a large swath of the media today is advocating
an aggressive stance toward a number of countries based on what I believe is false information.
Regarding an earlier comment about believing our intelligence agencies: Should we have believe them when they say (including
the Israeli Mossad)Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program or should we believe Netanyahu when he claims they say Iran can
have nuclear weapons within months. (In truth, I haven't really talked to Netanyahu or the Mossad directly. I only know what I
read in the papers.)
"Yes, the Press Helps Start Wars" -- this goes back at least to the American Revolution. "The vicious border warfare of the Revolution
produced atrocities on both sides, but Americans placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Indians and their British backers.
. . . Crawford's torture and execution joined a host of reports, real or imagined, that appeared in American newspapers, fueled
American propaganda, and made killing Indians a patriotic duty. Indians saw what was happening. The Americans charged them with
many acts of cruelty that they never committed and publicized them in 'their false Papers' as 'a pretence to hurt & murder us,'
they told the British; 'if we had the means of publishing to the World the many Acts of Treachery & Cruelty committed by them
on our Women & Children, it would appear that the title of Savages would with much greater justice be applied to them than to
us.'. . . When Washington received news of the preliminary terms of peace, he sent three Oneidas in the spring of 1783 with a
message to Brigadier General Allan Maclean, the British commander at Fort Niagara, asking him to prevent the Indians from committing
acts of cruelty 'disagreeable to them and to inhabitants of the United States.' Maclean wrote back in anger asking Washington
why, if he really wanted to prevent 'disagreeable consequences,' he had condoned attacks on Indians from Fort Pitt, and why did
he allow newspapers to print lies that were a disgrace to any nation and served only to inflame tempers?" (Colin G. Calloway,
"The Indian World of George Washington" (Oxford University Press, 2018) pp. 279, 281 (footnotes omitted).)
POTUS tweeted: "The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it's TRUE. I am providing
a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause
War! They are very dangerous & sick!"
Ted's follow-up article "Yes, Reporters Do Get Sick."
"They uncritically circulated 'evidence' from Iraqi defectors and George W. Bush's administration "
That is your sole example of the past 100 years? That "the press helps start wars" by being uncritical of evidence provided
by the government? This is an intellectually dishonest argument.
Of course the press needs to be held to account in providing accurate and vetted material. But your argument in no way reflects
the definitive tone of the headline.
Laughing. Because I think most people understood what the president meant by his coment. He was not talking about the policy initiative
for war. Butas the article states, the press is overwhelmingly partners with ot agitators for conflict.
And they are second to government at every level to admit when they get it wrong. Of course the press agitates for conflict.
There's no btter examples in modern times than those of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. I would contend that the east coast papers
since 9/11 have been leaders in agitating for regime change and military intervention.
But the notion that the press is somehow new to advocating "american conflict" might wanty to consider the following acites:
I have not read Carrol Sue Humphrey's book on the subject, The American Revolution and the Press. But reviews and summaries
make it clear that as agitators -- the press may have been ,ore influential then than they are today.
"... But this part of the story was the most revelatory: "'Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East." ..."
"... This is significant, not because Trump couldn't have arrived at the same position without Paul's counsel, but because it's easy to imagine him embracing regime change, what with virtually every major foreign policy advisor in his cabinet supporting something close to war with Iran. "Personnel is policy" is more than a cliché. ..."
"... "So let's understand that the people pushing for regime change in Iran are seeking to destabilize and harm the country " writes TAC ..."
"... Most importantly, on arguably the most crucial potential foreign policy decision the president can make -- one that could potentially start another disastrous U.S. Middle Eastern war -- it appears to be Rand Paul who is literally keeping the peace. ..."
President Trump has been known to be hawkish on Iran. Politicoobserved
Wednesday: "Trump has drawn praise from the right-wing establishment for hammering the mullahs
in Tehran, junking the Iran nuclear deal and responding to the regime's saber rattling with
aggressive rhetoric of his own ." There are also powerful factions in Congress
and Washington with
inroads to the president that have been
itching for regime change for years. "The policy of the United States should be regime
change in Iran," says
Senator Tom Cotton, once rumored to be
Trump's pick to head the CIA.
Politicorevealed
Wednesday some interesting aspects of the relationship between Senator Rand Paul and the
president, particularly on foreign policy: "While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the
[Trump] aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul: 'He actually at gut level has the same
instincts as Rand Paul '."
On Iran, Politico notes, "Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change even
though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support
it, aligning with Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact
with the White House."
But this part of the story was the most revelatory: "'Rand Paul has persuaded the
president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this person said, because adopting that
position would instigate another war in the Middle East."
This is significant, not because Trump couldn't have arrived at the same position
without Paul's counsel, but because it's easy to imagine him embracing regime change, what with
virtually every major foreign policy advisor in his cabinet supporting something close to war
with Iran. "Personnel is policy" is more than a cliché.
Paul and Trump apparently like making fun of some White House staffers, as Politico
also reported: "the Kentucky senator and the commander-in-chief have bonded over a shared
delight in thumbing their noses at experts the president likes to deride as 'foreign policy
eggheads,' including those who work in his own administration."
Eggheads indeed. For every foreign policy "expert" in Washington who now admits that regime
change in Iraq was a mistake (and a whole slew of them
won't even cop to that), you will find the same people making the case for regime change in
other countries, including
Iran , explaining how this time, somehow, America's toppling of a despot will turn out
differently.
"So let's understand that the people pushing for regime change in Iran are seeking to
destabilize and harm the country " writesTAC 's Daniel Larison. "Just as many of the same people did when they agitated for
regime change in Iraq and again in Syria, they don't care about the devastation and chaos that
the people in the country would have to endure if the policy 'works.'"
These are the same Washington foreign policy consensus standard bearers who would
likely be shaping U.S. foreign policy unfettered if 2011 Libya
"liberator" Hillary Clinton had become president -- or any other Republican
not named Trump or Paul.
When it comes to who President Trump can turn to for a more sober and realist
view of foreign policy, one who actually takes into account past U.S. mistakes abroad and
tries to learn from them, at the moment it appears to be Paul against the Washington foreign
policy world.
President Trump hired regime change advocates as advisors presumably because he wanted their
advice, yet there's evidence to suggest that at least on Iran, certain hawks' wings
might have been clipped .
Most importantly, on arguably the most crucial potential foreign policy decision the
president can make -- one that could potentially start another disastrous U.S. Middle Eastern
war -- it appears to be Rand Paul who is literally keeping the peace.
Rand's father, Ron Paul is the greatest President America never had, and unlike Trump he told
Americans what they needed to hear rather than what they wanted to hear.
The problem is that we don't consider Rand a neocon because we are comparing him to the
warmongers and lunatics in the White House. Whereas comapred to his father, Rand is a neocon
who time and time again has flip flopped on his morals and principals whereas his father
never did.
And Rand is not the reason the US doesn't want war with Iran. Iran is the reason the US
doesn't want war.
Iran simply has to flood A-stan with small arms, their respective ammo, and logistical
equipment, and 15,000 US soldiers will 'Saigoned'
Combine the above with the distaste of European countries to NOT have refugees flood their
borders and Turkey's increasing hatred for the US, and you have a perfect storm of
potentially deadly but wholly justified anti-Americanism
"... Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened (Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work? ..."
Let me stipulate at the outset that the phrase, "Max Boot," should be consider
as a new synonym in the Oxford English Dictionary for the word inane moron or
imbecile are other plausible possibilities.
Not since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy have we witnessed such a bizarre,
vicious level of red-baiting and smearing. Max Boot, have you no decency?
You will understand the context of my introductory observations after you
view the following video. Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened
(Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a
country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work?
First rule of diplomacy– respect the culture and traditions of your
your [sic] host country, aka as [sic] the place where you were
born.
In Seagal's case, the "host" country to which the "academic" McFaul refers is not "also
known as the place where you were born", where "you" is Seagal, to whom McFaul is proffering
unsolicited advice.
The place where Seagal was born is the USA: Seagal's host country in this instance is
Russia.
If Seagal had truly wished to respect the culture and traditions of his host country, he
should have made his statement of acceptance of the post in Russian:
Я глубоко
потрясен и
польщен
назначением
специальным
представителем
российского
Министерства
иностранных
дел по
гуманитарным
связям с США.
Надеюсь, что мы
сможем достичь
мира, гармонии
и
положительных
результатов в
мире. Я очень
серьезно
отношусь к этой
чести.
However, as far as I am aware, Mr. Seagal does not speak Russian, but McFaul does, albeit
он несет полную
хуйню!
Oh, yeah, uh huh, McFaul speaks Russian. In fact, he is some kind of jive-talkin' Russian
homie, telling his audience that he looked forward to seeing them in 'Yoburg', which is the
culture-respectful term for "Yekaterinburg'. That's what got him dubbed "McFuck'. if I recall
correctly.
"... In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to NATO and are also building fences with Russia. ..."
"All Russian security documents explicitly single out the challenges that the policies of Western states supposedly create
for Russian security (with particularly harsh words in the Security strategy). Grievances connected to what Russia sees as 'systemic
problems in the Euro-Atlantic region' (Foreign policy concept), the enlargement of NATO, the location of its military infrastructure
close to Russian borders, its 'offensive capabilities' and the trend towards the Alliance acquiring 'global functions', the 'symptoms'
of the U.S. efforts to retain absolute military supremacy (the global antimissile system, Global Strike capabilities, militarization
of space) "
Are Russian forces in Canada and Mexico conducting joint exercises against the US? No. Are Russian forces in Ireland conducting
joint exercises against Britain? No. Is there an obvious Russian presence in Scotland promoting independence from the UK? No. But
Britain and the US are mounted on Russia's borders and conducting joint exercises with its neighbors.
In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to
NATO and are also building fences with Russia.
But what do Russia's neighbours, like the Estonians, rank as their national security priorities? A
survey suggests that for Estonians, the biggest threat to global security is the Islamic State, followed by the refugee crisis
in Europe and the war in Syria. Russia came fourth on the list, even after the Ukraine crisis. According to
Gallup , a majority
52% of Estonians consider NATO a protective force, but 43% see it as either a threat (17%) or neither (26%). Estonians are behind
Kosovars, Albanians, Poles and Lithuanians in their opinions of NATO.
"... His crude realism is underestimated by a contemptuous media, dismissive of everything he does. They portray him as an ill-informed crackpot who makes up his policy on the spur of the moment, but this is often much saner than it looks: despite all his jingoism, he has yet to start a war; his belligerent threats towards countries such as North Korea and Iran appear to be designed primarily as negotiating positions in pursuit of a deal; he respects power and will talk to those who possess it, such as Vladimir Putin , enraging other parts of the US government that are trying to isolate Russia as a pariah state. ..."
British commentators – the BBC is particularly prone to this – tend to adopt a
patronising and derisive approach to Trump's demagoguery about "making America great again".
But he can get away with the most bizarre antics because the US is a political, economic and
military superpower regardless of Trump, even if it does not have the primacy it had after the
Second World War or, once again, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Its status is
not changed by Trump's words and actions, though these are usually more carefully calculated
and rooted in the real world than his critics give him credit for.
His crude realism is underestimated by a contemptuous media, dismissive of everything he
does. They portray him as an ill-informed crackpot who makes up his policy on the spur of the
moment, but this is often much saner than it looks: despite all his jingoism, he has yet to
start a war; his belligerent threats towards countries such as North Korea and Iran appear to
be designed primarily as negotiating positions in pursuit of a deal; he respects power and
will talk to those who possess it, such as Vladimir Putin , enraging other parts of the US
government that are trying to isolate Russia as a pariah state.
The pro-Brexit vote in the referendum in 2016 is said by Trump to have given vital extra
momentum to the populist-nationalist surge that elected him president later that year. But the
danger of looking at everything through an isolationist and nationalist lens is far greater in
Britain than it is in the US simply because it leads to the British systematically overplaying
their hand. The price of doing so is illustrated by every stumbling step Britain takes out of
the EU, contradicting the Brexiteer mantra that Britain has political and economic potential
that will make it better off outside the EU.
It's worth pointing out that described abstractly, Zionism and Nazism are ideologically very
similar. Both are essentially exaggerations of Nineteenth century European racial
nationalism, both posit a more or less imaginary history to justify their territorial claims,
both ignore the rights of all others in favor of their chosen group, both openly worship
violence, and both are contemptuous of both legal and moral constraints. Israel has committed
crimes proportionately as horrific as any Nazi Germany committed up to the outbreak of total
war in 1941, and I'm all too confident that if total war did come to the Middle East, Israel
would take advantage of the opportunity to engage in some very genocidal treatment of her
Palestinian subjects.
The primary differences are really that while Nazism was defeated over seventy years ago,
Israel is still very much in being, and that while we here in the US opposed Nazism, we
support Israel.
On August 6, 1945; The US dropped an atomic bomb (Little Boy) on Hiroshima destroying much
of the city and instantly killing 80,000 of its citizens. 60,000 more would die later
On August 6, 1945; The Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb ever used in military combat
on Hiroshima. A second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki August 9, 1945.
On August 6, 2018; On the 73rd anniversary of dropping of the first atomic bomb, the
residents of Hiroshima will pause to remember the 80,000 residents and the destruction which
changed the course of history. Church bells will ring at 8:15 AM, the moment the bomb was
dropped from the Enola Gay.
Later on August 6, 2018 and in the evening, Toro Nagashi Lanterns will be floated down the
Motoyasu river and past The Atomic Dome (Prefuctural Industrial Promotion Hall). First held in
1946, the Toro Nagashi (literally, "flowing lanterns") ceremony was first held in Tokyo.
Participants Float glowing paper lanterns down a river to commemorate the souls of the
dead.
Today, Hiroshima is a prosperous manufacturing city.
The Skripals' misadventure (contretemps, dust up, theater, bit of bother) is absurd but
did the U.K. government embrace it with alacrity and a vengeance or what?
The only thing
missing was narration by Edgar R. Murrow. Not to mention the Skripals.
The very absurdity of it calls into question anything that preceded it with the same story
line, viz., "Russians are animals."
What anyone needs to be wary of is the people who push this and other "narratives":
"Animal Assad," "religion of peace," "multiculturalism," "propositional nation,"
"comprehensive immigration law reform," "living Constitution," "equality," "hate speech,"
"Iranchiefsponsorofterror," "regime change," "treason," "collusion," "McCarthyism,"
"humanitarian intervention," "global/climate freeze/warming/change/disruption,"
"anti-Semitism," "Judeo-Christian," "target civilians/hospitals," and such like.
"Anti-semitism" is merely the enforcement wing of Zionism.
Anywhere Zionists uses injustice,
pointing that out becomes anti-Semitic.
The Zionists, unlike the dullard goyim, understand the power of the moral force, despite the
fact they work fully against it's dictates.
"... There is no mystery at all. Any USA politician who critises Israel knows that the end of his career is near. An opponent is financed. As I heard a USA female politician say about Jews 'we do not like them, w're afraid of them'. ..."
"... Don't forget the assassination of JFK by the CIA and their instigators. JFK and his brother Robert, at that time Attorney General, the American Zionist Committee (AZC), the predecessor organization of AIPAC, to register as a foreign agent because the AZC funneled $5 million (more than $35 million in today's dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations. ..."
"... Rep. Louie Gohmert recently said that, in reference to Hillary Clinton, the FBI had discovered a "foreign entity that was not Russia was getting every single one of her 30,000 emails" and further, "They did nothing". Question is: what foreign country would get a pass from the FBI for that type of behavior? ..."
" The real mystery, if there is one, is why no American politician has either the guts or the
integrity or perhaps the necessary intelligence to substitute Tel Aviv for Moscow and to call
Israel out like we are currently calling out Russia for actions that pale in comparison to
what Netanyahu has been up to. "
There is no mystery at all.
Any USA politician who critises Israel knows that the end of his career is near.
An opponent is financed.
As I heard a USA female politician say about Jews 'we do not like them, w're afraid of
them'.
Maybe the suspicious deaths of German politicians who criticized Israel, Möllemann,
or Barschel, he would not allow Mossad to train Iranian fighter pilots in N Germany, also are
factor.
Möllemann's parachute did not open, the safety mechanism was not there, it seems,
Barschel went to Geneva to commit suicide.
Then we have the murders of Palme and Anna Lyndh. Anna Lyndh was to be next Swedish prime
minister, she wanted an EU economic boycott of Israel.
Then there is the murder of the Dutch diplomat Ferdinand Smit, in 2000, in N Mali, he
spoke Arabic fluently, Perez had sent him to Arafat. Possibly the talks were not what Perez
had expected, on top of that, his ph d thesis certainly was not liked.
Ferdinand Smit, 'The battle for South Lebanon, The radicalization of Lebanon's Shi'ites,
1982-1985', Amsterdam, 2000
Phil Geraldi's analogy should finally open at least the eyes of the last American dreamer of
the so-called special relationship between the US and its Zionist master. It's not a mystery
or a lack of guts like Phil Geraldi speculates, but 95 percent of the US Congress is in the
pocket of the Zionist Lobby, and 99 percent of the US press is in the hands of "Israel
Firster." The well-being of the Zionist regime is on the front burner not only for the
political but also for the media class. The American people count least. When anybody meddled
in the "sacrosanct" American election, which is the most corrupted election system in the
world, then the Zionist regime with its fifth column, the Zionist Israel Lobby in the US.
They are to blame and not Russia.
Don't forget the assassination of JFK by the CIA and their instigators. JFK and his
brother Robert, at that time Attorney General, the American Zionist Committee (AZC), the
predecessor organization of AIPAC, to register as a foreign agent because the AZC funneled $5
million (more than $35 million in today's dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying
operations.
JFK strongly objected to Israel's secret nuclear program. After Lyndon B. Johnson
succeeded JFK, everything the assassination was concerned, was glossed over. Johnson also
obstructed the solving of Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty.
Bobby Kennedy, who resigned in 1964 as Attorney General under Johnson, could only
elucidate the assassination of his brother as President of the United States. In 1968, Bobby
Kennedy was the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. On June
5, 1968, Kennedy was deadly wounded by his alleged assassin Sirhan Sirhan, who happened to be
a Palestinian. For the American public and its political and media class, these are all real
hazards.
Giraldi is entirely right that the Zionist regime wants to fight Iran on US behalf such as
George W. did with Iraq. Although President Trump is at least rhetorically the most
subservient US President to Israel, so, he seems not as trigger happy and politically stupid
as George W. At least on his campaign trail he wanted the US out of the needless wars his
predecessors started and continued. But now Trump is not only surrounded by a bunch of
Zionists but also encompassed by the most hawkish adviser the US establishment has to offer,
John Bolton. He wishes Iran to hell like Netanyahu.
The Zionist regime is the most significant liability the US has. This regime is fed by
yearly over 3.8 billion, plus the extras in weaponry and other goodies they need to oppress
the Palestinian people or against aggression from outside that they deliberately provoke. The
largest interferers in US elections are Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, and the rest of the
Zionist Israel lobby who make the candidates for US Congress look like obedient doggies.
How much longer will the American People still accept this farce?
Superb article as usual on Jewish dominance of American Foreign policy MSM, I wonder just how
many Americans realised their role in so many of the nation's problems ? After all all MSM
propaganda sorry I mean news is declining and at least as far as I am aware fewer people than
ever listen or watch it. Certainly it appears that people are waking up to the lies and
hypocrisy at last.
Rep. Louie Gohmert recently said that, in reference to Hillary Clinton, the FBI had
discovered a "foreign entity that was not Russia was getting every single one of her 30,000
emails" and further, "They did nothing". Question is: what foreign country would get a pass
from the FBI for that type of behavior?
IMO Mikey Pompeo suffers from Smart Guy Syndrome. My wife calls it Great Man Syndrome. In both of these a delusion of centrality
sets in based on a belief in one's own superiority. This rots the mind. Mikey has always been the smartest kid in the room. You
know his resumé. And, pilgrims, he has a smiley face welded onto his real sharkey face. These attributes have carried him far
but he has a weakness or two. He really does think he is a being above the ken of mortal men AND he is a hyper-nationialist neocon
ideologue through and through and in many ways immune to appeals to reason. He surely think thatTrump is a dolt. Look at the picture.
He has contradicted the president several times. This is a very dangerous thing to do. Trump is a reality based self-centered
hustler who is used to dealing with supercilious p---ks who want to manipulate him.
Now Mikey has John-John Bolton as ally and playmate. Bolton is, IMO, more than a little crazy. Bolton loves his place in an
NSC made over into extensions of his neocon craziness. He thinks that he has the Iranians right where he wants them. He believes
that we could fight a maritime campaign in the Gulf with next to no losses and that if necessary we can bomb the Iranian people
into unleashing their economic deprivation wrath against the mullahs.
Pompeo agrees with him. He is trying to keep the president buttered up while pursuing his shared goals with Bolton both cleverly
and surreptitiously. Well, folks, Trump is a master of the art of BS detection. Those who try to fool him are taking a great risk.
Off to one side in this drama, stand the inbred caste of generals and admirals. Trump professes to admire them, but Mattis,
Dunford and CENTCOM are steadily losing real power in the contest for the president's attention. IMO there will be a unifying
deal between Damascus and the YPG Kurds and Trump knows all about progress toward that goal. Do the generals want that? No. They
have their own desired foreign policy. They want to make the casualties of the last 15 years meaningful through victory somewhere,
anywhere would do. They also want revenge against Iran for men lost in Iraq. They listen to the Israelis far too much.
IMO Trump has a private line of communication to Russia. This is perfectly legal and probably is conducted over CIA communications
links or through the ambassador in Moscow, Jon Huntsman or both.
Pompeo may or may not know what is being said in those channels. pl
if Trump is such a reality-based hustler who knows how to deal with supercilious p--cks" like Pompeo and Bolton, why the heck
does he keep bringing those p--cks on board and then waste so much time and energy on dealing with them? Are there no prospective
officials around who are not of that stripe? Or is it that Trump is unable to detect them and/or unwilling for some reason
to bring them in and put them to work?
I'm reminded of a point made throughout Vol. 1 of Michael Broers' brilliant new biography of Napoleon -- that Napoleon,
who despised the talk-talk-talk of parliaments and liked best to work with and through committees, had a near-infallible gift
for detecting the best and the brightest, whether or not they had impressive credentials or even if they had opposed or still
opposed some of his policies. In these committees, which dealt with both political and military matters, all were expected
to speak freely, while Napoleon listened like a hawk. For him the key test, aside from the committee members' intelligence
and energy, was whether they were men of honor -- by which he meant that when agreements had been reached after all had had
their fair say and Napoleon had put his stamp on them, they would abide by what had been thoroughly vetted and agreed to. An
autocrat, for sure, and yet...
He hired people recommended to him by their cronies like Rosenstein, Wray, Pruitt, Coates. There have been many
mistakes.like
that. He could not appoint the kind of people he had eaten well-done steaks with in NY while hustling them in a deal. He also
relies too much on his gut reaction to people he meets.
Yes but, if he is that susceptible to dubious advice, isn't that something of a flashing-red-light character flaw -- just as
Napoleon deserves blame for taking the advice of the treacherous Josephine on several disastrous occasions (i.e. the decision
to invade Haiti)?
No, he is not. We all lament The Boltens and Pompeos. However, where is he to find "good people"? The American political class
is reflectively myopic and partisan. Find some more Jon Huntsman types (where? IDK) who can serve American interests without
all the Sturm und Drang of today's hyperbolic, puerile political warfare.
I would wager that Trump sees both of them as dangerous but useful idiots that willingly play their role in his "good-cop,
bad cop" negotiating tactics. They will be gone with the next tacking.
I was pleasantly surprised at Bolton's behavior in Russia and in his comment that getting rid of Assad was no longer the goal
of the US. To be sure, time will tell, but it's clear that at this point Trump is driving foreign policy and is far more self-confident
than he was in 2017.
Whatever Pompeo says doesn't matter- if he tries to throw up walls to a summit, Trump will tell him to go to hell. It's
a core principle of Trump's that meeting is not a "concession." He knows that "legitimacy" is an utterly meaningless concept,
not something that can be granted or withdrawn by the US president. If Iran offers Trump a meeting, he'll meet. No questions
asked.
"Well, folks, Trump is a master of the art of BS detection. Those who try to fool him are taking a great risk."
I completely agree with you Col. I hear people call Trump a moron or a genius, I think that what makes him so vexing is that
he is both at the same time. He is probably very good at making certain nobody gets the better of him, especially his subordinates.
Except for the belief on Trump´s masterliness on anything, I never would had thought I will be agreeing with you all the way
till the last line....of this concrete post....What I most agree with you in is in Pompeo´s overestimating his own capabilities...and
I conclude also along with you that is a very dangerous situation...But, if you see it so clear, and we all too, could you
provide a convincing explanation on why Trump, being such a master on personal management and business administration, elected
Pompeo and Bolton for office in the first place?
Thanks in advance, in case you answer my question and do not find something outrageous enough for your sensibility in my
comment so as to delete it.
"... The idea behind offset agreements is simple: When a country buys weapons from a firm overseas, it pumps a large amount of money out of its economy, instead of investing in its own defense industry or in other domestic projects. So to make large weapons deals more attractive, arms companies offer programs to "offset" that effect. As part of a weapons package, they often sign an agreement to invest in the country's economy, either in defense or civilian sectors. ..."
"... According to an email from Clarke, the UAE accepted unpaid offset obligations as cash payments to a large financial firm called Tawazun Holding. Tawazun sent the $20 million to a UAE think tank called the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research . ECSSR then began sending that money to the Middle East Institute, a prestigious D.C. think tank that has a history of promoting arms sales to Gulf dictatorships. ... ..."
"... So essentially, in a roundabout way, the UAE took money from international firms that was meant for economic development and funneled it to a supportive think tank in the United States. ..."
The United Arab Emirates created a "slush fund" using money meant for domestic economic development
projects and funneled it to a high-profile think tank in the United States, emails obtained by The
Intercept show.
Last week, The Intercept
reported that the UAE gave a $20 million grant to the Middle East Institute, flooding a well-regarded
D.C. think tank with a monetary grant larger than its
annual budget
. According to an email from Richard Clarke, MEI's chairman of the board, the UAE got the money from
offset investments -- development investments by international companies that are made as part of
trade agreements.
The idea behind offset agreements is simple: When a country buys weapons from a firm overseas,
it pumps a large amount of money out of its economy, instead of investing in its own defense industry
or in other domestic projects. So to make large weapons deals more attractive, arms companies offer
programs to "offset" that effect. As part of a weapons package, they often sign an agreement to invest
in the country's economy, either in defense or civilian sectors.
Offsets provide a way to sell weapons at inflated prices, when companies offer juicier offset
packages. Critics say the lack of transparency in how offset investments are carried out leaves a
window open for a form of legalized corruption. The emails lift a veil on what has long been an obscure
element of the arms trade.
According to an
email from Clarke, the UAE accepted unpaid offset obligations as cash payments to a large financial
firm called Tawazun Holding. Tawazun sent the $20 million to a UAE think tank called the
Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research . ECSSR then began sending that money to the
Middle East Institute, a prestigious D.C. think tank that has a history of
promoting arms sales to Gulf dictatorships. ...
So essentially, in a roundabout way, the UAE took money from international firms that was meant
for economic development and funneled it to a supportive think tank in the United States.
Great insight! I'm adding that to my Favorite Quotes archive.
As I pondered more deeply on your insight, I tried to imagine how the courtship proceeded. IMO, it was Clinton who presided
over the engagement of the neocons to the humanitarian bombers (R2P'ers). Then under Bush the relationship initially strengthened
due to 9/11 until the Iraq war became such an obvious mess that there was a brief cooling of ardor due to a still significant
antiwar contingent in the Dem party. Under Obama the antiwar Dems began to suffer something like "Stockholm syndrome" as few were
willing to protest against the black president of their SJW fantasies. This set the final stage for the neocons and R2P'ers to
commit to each other in "marriage" who then "adopted" the SJW's as their useful idiots.
"Yes, the Aspen Institute is the CIA and the CIA is the Aspen Institute"
Notable quotes:
"... CIA manages transnational organized crime to top up their budget for unauthorized clandestine operations, like killing JFK. CIA protects its criminal protégés with their chartered impunity. ..."
"... RFK knew how it works. RFK junior explained the reason for RFK's focus on organized-crime until CIA whacked him. That's why his book was made to sink without a ripple. ..."
"... Evenfurthermore, CIA is the government and the government is CIA. Decades ago Fletcher Prouty showed that CIA's deepest-cover illegal moles are embedded in our own government. Every agency with repressive capacity is infiltrated with focal points, who report to CIA handlers without the other agency's knowledge. ..."
"... Of course Israel is trying to infiltrate it -- they understand the levers of power. ..."
"... Assange has got some mighty stinkers in his insurance file. All we can do is hope they're enough to destabilize the CIA Reich that has ruled America since 1949. ..."
Yes, the Aspen Institute is the CIA and the CIA is the Aspen Institute. Or, to be more precise, the CIA is the armed wing of Washington's
permanently governing technocratic party, in the same way the KGB was the armed wing of the Soviet Communist Party.
Poor Julian Assange is likely going to be in their hands not too long from now. The citizen of one Five Eyes country will be arrested
by another and then sent off to the imperial metropole, to be kicked around like a political football. The rest of us Anglosphericals
are expected to cheer or remain silent. Either is acceptable.
Yup. Furthermore, CIA is organized crime and organized crime is CIA. CIA recruits and runs agents in favored criminal syndicates
in every illicit trade: drugs, child sexual trafficking, arms, fraud, bustouts, extortion, money laundering. Their purpose is
not to interdict the trade but to control it.
CIA manages transnational organized crime to top up their budget for unauthorized clandestine operations, like killing
JFK. CIA protects its criminal protégés with their chartered impunity.
They call off law enforcement with the magic words national security or 'sources and methods.' If the plan gets exposed, CIA's
criminal cutouts insulate the agency from exposure.
RFK knew how it works. RFK junior explained the reason for RFK's focus on organized-crime until CIA whacked him. That's
why his book was made to sink without a ripple.
Evenfurthermore, CIA is the government and the government is CIA. Decades ago Fletcher Prouty showed that CIA's deepest-cover
illegal moles are embedded in our own government. Every agency with repressive capacity is infiltrated with focal points, who
report to CIA handlers without the other agency's knowledge.
Of course Israel is trying to infiltrate it -- they understand the levers of power.
Assange has got some mighty stinkers in his insurance file. All we can do is hope they're enough to destabilize the CIA
Reich that has ruled America since 1949.
"... "Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) ..."
"... On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence community ." ..."
"... Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke, in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs." ..."
"... That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions." ..."
"... The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor, exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow, exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government. ..."
"Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much
work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) So I thought I'd throw together some usage examples of
the term to see if I could find more significant readings than my own reaction, and then draw out some implications from that reading.
But first, let's look at how often that term is used, and where. We turn to
Google Trends
:
Some caveats: Google doesn't have enough data to track "our intelligence community," or so it says, so the search is for "intelligence
community" only.
Further, the search is for 2008 to the present, again because Google, or so it says, doesn't have enough data for
shorter time frames.[1] However, I think the chart shows that interest in the intelligence community is not general in time or space:
It spikes when there's gaslighting with reader interest in particular stories, and spikes along the Acela Corridor, in
Washington and New York. (We might also speculate,
based on HuffPost/YouGov
voter data , that interest in the today's stories about the intelligence is limited not only in space, and time, but in scope:
Primarily among liberal Democrats.[2]) With that, let's turn to our usage examples.
I used Google to find them, and of course Google
search is crapified and all but useless -- for example, it insists on returning examples of "intelligence community" along with "our
intelligence community" in normal search, even with when the search string is quoted -- but it is what it is; readers are invited
to supply their own examples.
On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller
was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence
community ."
No. Mueller provided no evidence and the case is unlikely to go to trial; the capability consists in the naming, not in the proof.
Verdict: Credulity .
The
intelligence community
determined
that the Kremlin intended to "denigrate" and "harm" Clinton, and "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic
process" while helping Trump.
And the same claim, July 10, 2018, Washington Post:
The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to boost Trump's candidacy
No. If you click through, you'll find that this is the "17 agencies"/"high confidence" report, whose agencies and analysts were
hand-picked by Clapper; that's just not the "intelligence community" as a whole[3]; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was not
involved in the analysis, for example. (I don't see how it's normal that such an important topic not to be the subject of a Presidental
Finding, but perhaps people were in a rush.) Verdict; Misinformation .
FLAKE: We know the intelligence is right. We stand behind our intelligence community . We need to say
that in the Senate. Yes, it's symbolic, and symbolism is important.
And a similar formulation, July 22, 2018, Senator Marco Rubio (R),
CBS News
:
We need to move forward from that with good public policy and part of that is, I think, standing with our intelligence
community .
Posturing aside, to my sensibilities, it's pretty disturbing when "support the troops" bleeds over into "support the spies," and
when supporting the conclusions of an institution bleeds over into supporting the institution itself, as such. (The whole of the
Federalist Papers argues against the latter view:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.") Verdict: Authoritarian followership .
WE UNIFY OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TOWARD A STRONGER, SAFER NATION
No. The DNI mistakes the hope for the fact; were the intelligence community in fact
unified
, Clapper would not have hand-picked agencies for his report, and a Presidential Finding would have been made. (And given the
source, "our" is doing even more work there than it usual does; it reminds of liberal Democrats talking about "our Democracy." Whose,
exactly?) Verdict: Wishful thinking .
Example 5, July 16, 2018, John Sipher (interview),
PBS
:
I do think the intelligence community is quite resilient. They put their head down and they do their work, but they
take this very seriously. And they see the president as their primary customer and they will do almost anything to get the president
the information that he needs to do his job.
No. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-- "Who will guard the guards themselves?" -- was formulated by the Roman poet
Juvenal (d. 138AD) in the late first or early second century,
[checks calculator], about 1880 years ago. It's absurd to assume that "the intelligence" community has always served its "primary
customer" -- see the Bay of Pigs invastion at "
groupthink " -- or that they will
in the future, especially considering the enormous stakes involved today. Verdict: Historical ignorance .
Today I voted for H.R. 6237, the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. This
important legislation funds our Intelligence community and provides them the resources they need to effectively defend
our nation "This legislation makes sure that the dedicated men and women who serve our nation in the Intelligence Community [caps
in the original] are fully equipped to fulfill their mission."
No. While Sipher urges (
as does Clapper
) that the intelligence community is in the business of serving customers, Comstock, through her language ("dedicated
men and women who serve our nation") identifies it with the military. That's pretty disturbing when you realize that the intelligence
community has a domestic component (and when you think back to Obama's 17-city crackdown on Occupy, or Obama's militarized response
to #BlackLivesMatter). Verdict: Militarization
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, head of the U.S. intelligence community , reaffirmed his conclusion
that Russia had indeed tried to sway the election in a statement published after Trump's remarks.
No. The U.S. has 17 intelligence agencies; the DNI is in no sense their head.
From the DNI site :
The core mission of the ODNI is to lead the IC in intelligence integration, forging a community that delivers the most insightful
intelligence possible. That means effectively operating as one team: synchronizing collection, analysis and counterintelligence
so that they are fused. This integration is the key to ensuring national policymakers receive timely and accurate analysis from
the IC to make educated decisions.
If you boil that bureucratic porridge down -- the Russian word for porridge is
kasha , in case kompromat has
worn thin for you -- you'll see that the 17 intelligence agencies do not have a reporting relationship to the DNI. Hence, the DNI
is not their head. QED. Verdict: Authoritarian followership
[BRENNAN:] What Mr. Trump did (Monday) was to betray the women and men of the FBI, the CIA and NSA and others and betray the
American public. That's why I use the term, this was nothing short of treason, because it is a betrayal of the nation. He's giving
aid and comfort to the enemy.
(Leaving aside Brennan's broad definition of enemy -- apparently a sovereign state with interests different from our own, as opposed
to a nation against whom Congress has declared war -- note that Brennan treats the agencies as individual entities, not as "unified,"
presumably betraying DNI Coats). More:
BRENNAN:] I still shake my head trying to understand what was discussed during the two-hour one-on-one, what was discussed
between the two sides in their bilateral meeting. We only saw what Mr. Trump said during the press conference. I can't even imagine
what he said behind closed doors. I can't imagine what he said to Mr. Putin directly. I am very concerned about what type of impact
it might have on our intelligence community and on this country."
No. Note well: What (
torture
advocate ) Brennan says contradicts the other two models expressed in this aggregation. If the President is the customer, it's
not Brennan's concern what that customer does (any more than it's Best Buy's concern what I buy in Starbucks after I pick up my flat-screen
TV). And if the intelligence community is a branch of the military, it's not their concern what their Commander-in-Chief does; he'll
tell them what they need to know.) Seriously, why does the Praetorian Guard need to know what the emperor is doing. Now, one could
argue that Brennan's ambition is counteracting Trump's ambition; well and good, but then one needs to think through the consequences.
And if Brennan, et al., really believe that Trump committed treason, then they -- as the good patriots they presumably are -- need
to indicate a path to removing him. If that path does not include full disclosure of the evidence for whatever charges are to be
made, then the country will have to deal with the consequences -- which I'd speculate won't be pretty -- of
a change in the Constitutional order where the "intelligence community" can remove a President from office based on its own internal
consensus . Praetorian
Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he
described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke,
in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable
for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the
late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."
One week later, on February 5th, Secretary of State Colin Powell, with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet sitting
behind his right shoulder, used charts and photographs to elaborate on the Administration's WMD case. "These are not assertions,"
Powell said, "these are facts corroborated by many sources." Among Powell's claims were:
That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads
containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons
and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure
signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."
Powell has subsequently said that he spent days personally assessing the intelligence. He included only information he felt
was fully supported by the analysis. Hence, no mention of enriched uranium from Africa, no claim that al Qaeda was involved in
9-11.
The effect was powerful. Veteran columnist for the Washington Post, Mary McGrory, known for liberal views and Kennedy connections,
wrote an op-ed the following day entitled "I Am Persuaded". Members of Congress, like me, believed the intelligence case. We voted
for the resolution on Iraq to urge U.N. action and to authorize military force only if diplomacy failed. We felt confident we
had made the wise choice.
But as the evidence pours in the Intelligence Committee's review of the pre-war intelligence; David Kay's interim report on
the failure to find WMD in Iraq; an impressive study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board's critique; thoughtful commentaries like that of Ken Pollack in this month's Atlantic Monthly; and
investigative reporting including a lengthy front page story by Barton Gellman of the Washington Post on January 7,
we are finding out that Powell and other policymakers were wrong, British intelligence was wrong, and those of us who
believed the intelligence were wrong . Indeed, I doubt there would be discussions of David Kay's possible departure if the
Iraq Survey Group were on the verge of uncovering large stockpiles of weapons or an advanced nuclear weapons program.
But if 9/11 was a failure to connect the dots, it appears that the Intelligence Community, in the case of Iraq's WMD,
connected the dots to the wrong conclusions . If our intelligence products had been better, I believe many policymakers,
including me, would have had a far clearer picture of the sketchiness of our sources on Iraq's WMD programs, and our lack of certainty
about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.
Let me add that policymakers -- including members of Congress -- have a duty to ask tough questions, to probe the information
being presented to them. We also have a duty to portray that information publicly as accurately as we can.
The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked
by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor,
exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional
leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow,
exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community
says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes
are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward
a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government.
Why are we doing that? Well, if you look at the verdicts after each of the quotes I've found, taking the quotes as a proxy for
elite opinion, one reason might be that the portion of our elites involved in the Russia narrative -- who, let us remember, are limited
in space and scope -- are:
Credulous Misinformed Prone to authoritarian followership Historically ignorant Militarized Praetorian
If power is lying in the street, beware of who picks it up. Matters might not improve.
NOTES .
[1] The hit count (100 for the spike in January 2017) is oddly low; sadly, although 100 looks like a blue link, we cannot click
through to check the data. However, even if the aggregates are low, I think we can assume that both the shape of the trend line and
its geographic distribution are directionally correct, because the spikes occur at reasonable places for them to occur. Sidebar:
Note the horrid user interface design, which uses inordinate amounts of screen space to no purpose, disrespecting the time-pressed
professional user.
[2] We might even go so far as to speculate that -- given these limitations in space -- that while "our" asserts Democrat leadership
as a National party, Democrats are in fact a State party. Removing the hyphen from "nation-state" is a neat way
of encapsulating our current legitimacy crisis.
[3] "Intelligence community," like "deep state," connotes unity among institutions that are in fact riven by faction.
ADDENDUM: Scott Horton
I didn't add this material to the post proper, because I only had screen shots, and I wasn't able to find the post in time using
Google, or Facebook's lousy search. So after ten minutes of plowing through Facebook's infinite scroll, here is the embed* from Scott
Horton that I sought:
And a screen shot personally taken by me:
Note the lead: "European intelligence analysts ," so reminiscent of Bush's "British intelligence has learned " (the
sixteen words ). What they "learned," of course,
was the faked evidence on Niger yellowcake. Go through my list of "verdicts," starting with "credulous," and see what does
not
apply to Horton.
Horton is a Contributing Editor to Harper's Magazine,
has a law practice in New York, and is affiliate with Columbia Law School and the Open Society Institute.
The key point, for me, is this: "Liberal Democrats do not view anyone outside of places like Orange and Lexington County (whom
they go all-out to court) as people fit to make their own choices." It's important to watch for outright denial of agency,
to others, not merely lack of agency. That's true for Horton, it was true for Clinton's "deplorables" comment, and it was true for
Obama's "bitter"/"cling to" Kinseley gaffe.
It would be nice if Senator Sanders didn't signal boost this stuff. Here's another usage example of "intelligence community":
Or, to put this another way, Sanders needs to get his supporters' backs, and fast, with messaging that doesn't take a "duck and
cover" approach by repeating the catchphrases of the current onslaught, but contextualizes and decontaminates it. I didn't say that
would be easy
NOTE * I like the picture the Time chose very much; apparently, the evul left is young, female, swarthy, and/or black.
No suburban Republicans here! The "AbolishICE" t-shirt -- and not, say, #MedicareForAll -- is also a nice touch.
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp
creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees,
on July 12.
In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely
expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."
But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.
Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that
makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.
As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community
Philip Haney's IC
any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired
if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the
authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others.
Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.
Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.
A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers
in the "Intelligence Community"?
As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your
own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr.
Strzok.
Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True
to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan
has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.
The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National
Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful
performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility
of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism
about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.
As one wag
noted
, not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives
and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."
Pray tell, since when does the Deep State --
FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The
president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.
That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's
initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into
quite a few recreational, hobby wars.
And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and
bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to
hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help
shape FBI counterterrorism training.
The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad
media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign
ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."
Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire
stipulated
that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did
we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60
transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,"
wrote
the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from
the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds
to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."
While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question
their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."
Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp
creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees,
on July 12.
In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely
expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."
But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.
Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that
makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.
As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community
Philip Haney's IC
any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired
if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the
authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others.
Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.
Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.
A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers
in the "Intelligence Community"?
As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your
own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr.
Strzok.
Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True
to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan
has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.
The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National
Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful
performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility
of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism
about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.
As one wag
noted
, not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives
and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."
Pray tell, since when does the Deep State --
FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The
president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.
That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's
initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into
quite a few recreational, hobby wars.
And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and
bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to
hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help
shape FBI counterterrorism training.
The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad
media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign
ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."
Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire
stipulated
that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did
we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60
transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,"
wrote
the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from
the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds
to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."
While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question
their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."
Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.
So Iran has no offensive air force or any Nukes but the Israelis with their air superiority and nukes are making Iran - enemy
#1. How very - American - of them.
So Iran has no offensive air force or any Nukes but the Israelis with their air superiority and nukes are making Iran - enemy
#1. How very - American - of them.
This is a war propaganda. Plain and simple. Looks like MIC like cancel is destroying this
country like it destroyed the USSR.
Notable quotes:
"... They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil War. We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again. Ever. ..."
"... From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing sanctions, to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in Syria, to a provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian "government," etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far antagonizing Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military response. ..."
"... If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3 probably would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with Russia? ..."
"... Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither one is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and silly. ..."
The reception of the Trump- Putin meeting is breathtaking. I have in my 61 years never
witnessed such a hate and slander in the MSM. I have after this begun to actually dismiss
that Americans are sensible people! They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil
War. We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again.
Ever.
The US has become a lunatic asylum with nuclear weapons, never mind Kim Jong Un, look a
squirrel! But the US is a threat to humanity, included it's protegé Israel, the new
Apartheid state.
"Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?"
Wait; what?
From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing
sanctions, to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in
Syria, to a provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian
"government," etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far
antagonizing Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military
response.
If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3
probably would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with
Russia?
Note to PCR: It is Vladimir Putin who wants peace, not presidential poseur Orange Clown.
If Orange Clown has had some kind of spiritual epiphany/change of heart, he's going to have
to show good faith by taking some kind of unambiguous action; posturing won't suffice.
There is a lot of truth in what you say, but it does not account for the fight we are
currently witnessing. Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither
one is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting
viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and
silly.
It appears that he is trying to save the US from financial collapse. Hence, he is a traitor
to MIC, particularly to the obscenely greedy Pentagon contractors. The US presidents and
Congress always pandered to MIC first and foremost. He broke (or at least tried to break) the
pattern.
You mean, s/he/it is a self-parody? The US MSM, State Department, Congress, and
Administration all became self-parodies lately. It would have been funny if it weren't so
sad.
Those measures and the resulting uncertainty are prompting some European countries to go
their own way on major industry projects, including the development of a next-generation
fighter jet, potentially leaving U.S. firms behind.
"I think it is forcing Europe together in ways that have unanticipated consequences for the
U.S. defense industry," said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners.
The aerospace and defense industry is a huge driver of U.S. jobs and economic growth. In
2017 alone, it generated $865 billion, supporting 2.4 million high-paying American jobs. The
industry produced a positive trade balance of $86 billion in 2017, the largest of any U.S.
industry, which reduced the country's trade deficit by 10 percent.
It is also an important component of U.S. foreign policy. Arms sales are key to
strengthening security partnerships and improving military cooperation with allies.
"Partners who procure American weaponry are more capable of fighting alongside us and
ultimately more capable of protecting themselves with fewer American boots on the ground,"
Peter Navarro, the White House director of trade policy, said during an April press
conference.
So it came as no surprise when the Trump administration announced the decision to send a
large delegation to help sell U.S. products at Farnborough, including top officials such as
Navarro. The administration also used the opportunity to roll out the Conventional Arms
Transfer (CAT) Policy, also known as the "Buy America" plan, an initiative to improve U.S. arms
transfer processes and increase the competitiveness of U.S.-made products.
But the U.S. government showing at Farnborough was disappointing from the start of the
weeklong exhibition Monday. Navarro pulled out at the last minute, as did Ellen Lord, the
Pentagon's top weapons buyer; Heidi Grant, the U.S. Air Force's head of international affairs;
and other U.S. government officials. At the show itself, only five U.S. military aircraft
appeared on static display in the Defense Department corral that normally showcases products
built for the armed services by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other U.S. defense giants.
Another theory is that Trump is just like every other spokesmodel for the US part of the
AZ Empire.
He in a SAG actor, with decades of experience in professional entertainment though, so he
knows how to play to his audience. They love the sh*t out of him, even as he sticks it to
them harder and harder.
"... Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do. ..."
"... I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know ..."
"... What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him. ..."
"... It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it. ..."
"... No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion. ..."
Mike Pompeo gave an interview to Sky News Arabia
this week in which he made some remarkable statements:
Well, Iran needs to get out of Syria. They have no business there. There's no reason for
them to be there. There's been Iranian influence there for a long time. Iranian forces,
Iranian militias must leave the country.
If Iran has no business in Syria, the U.S. certainly doesn't have any business keeping
troops there. Leave aside the absurdity of the statement that the ally of a government has no
business supporting that government in a war, and just consider the breathtaking hypocrisy of
this statement coming from a U.S. official.
The U.S. is engaged in hostilities in at least a
half dozen countries around the world and attacks other governments at will. Our government has
been actively supporting the Saudi-led attack on Yemen for more than three years, and we have
had U.S. force operating illegally in Syrian territory and airspace for almost four. It is the
height of arrogance and folly to issue this ultimatum. The U.S. has no right or authority to
make such a demand, and the administration should be focused instead on withdrawing our forces
from wars that we have no business fighting or supporting.
What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God
Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him.
It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that
Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which
there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must
assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about
it.
No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this
blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and
fixated on some other stupid notion.
'Senator McConnell' always conjures the image and mannerisms of Colonel Sanders (ala
Kentucky Fried Chicken). White planter suit, broad-brimmed hat, weak-chin goatee and
unconvincing sales pitch.
Then again, beardless Mitch looks more like Toby Turtle, and what
he delivers is rarely worth a bucket of greasy chicken.
"... IS THE LEASH NOW OFF THE 'OTHER CIA?' https://southfront.org/is-the-leash-now-off-the-other-cia/ ..."
"... Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to carry out "targeted assassinations." ..."
Under Donald Trump, who is on record favoring CIA kidnapping and torture programs, the CIA has been given a green light to
carry out "targeted assassinations."
Although most of these targeted kills have been carried out by drone attacks in Yemen, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Somalia, where civilian deaths from "collateral damage" are estimated to be well over three hundred, recent events
point to the CIA's return to the "bad old days," when it engaged in a global program of assassinating political leaders.
ParadiseNow Giraldi always says
what needs to be said. Excellent article.
Speaking of the news that evaporates--"The story was covered in Israel and Europe but insofar as I could determine did not appear
in any detail in the U.S. mainstream media"--and of the stories that disappear an hour or so after they are posted...
I've never come across anyone in the US who had seen or heard of the story that popped up on my monitor one day while working
in a newsroom in Los Angeles, a headline piece by the BBC stating that the California legislature in Sacramento had just passed a
resolution apologizing to Mel Gibson for the treatment he was subjected to after his drunken comments were illegally relayed to the
press. The article also reported that legislation was passed increasing fines and jail penalties in California for anyone who illegally
gave or sold arrest information to the media.
The story had some serious bearing on our immediate market as numerous celebrities' private medical information etc were being
illegally gathered and sold to news outlets. I brought it to the attention of my (Jewish) chief editor who read the article, thanked
me for the heads up, then completely ignored it.
Shortly after the piece just evaporated from the BBC site, and to this day I can find no trace of it in their archives.
On the subject of Jews celebrating the death of others, I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes' to celebrate
the death of the American student they brutally crushed to death with a tractor in occupied Palestine.
I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes'
Here's my take as a (non-Jewish) American.
My sympathies are with the Palestinians with regards to trying somehow to estabilsh sustainable territorial boundaries. IMHO
Israel is clearly stealing land by building settlements in the West Bank. But given the ad-hoc nature of the current borders and
the intent of the various parties, , God/Allah knows how this can be reasonably adjudicated.
I am ambivalent with regards to the plight of those in Gaza, Egypt is certainly in a position to help. The southern border
is after all under their control.
Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part)
seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation.
Both parties seem to regard the other as filth, undeserving of human compassion. How we move forward from here is beyond my
ability to guess.
Arab neighbors seem to view refugees as pawns to be kept in squalor for their own political aims.
It seems like (and this is my own reading from afar) Hamas uses the "right of return" as an issue to turn gullible Palestinian
youth into canon fodder. It's been 75 years and Israel is stronger than ever. Time to wake up and smell the coffee
There is so damn much much fault on both sides .
Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish
I'd thought the joke up .
" Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part)
seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation. "
What do you suggest the inmates of the Gaza concentration camp can do to get attention to their plight ?
The only way seems to be to provoke Israel into some retaliatory action.
Netanyahu is as stupid as Hitler, who let himself be provoked by Poland.
And indeed, both sides see the other as dirt.
Jabotinski in 1923 saw it well 'just force will make Palestinians give up their lands'. But he did not foresee that they never
really would give up.
What he also did not foresee that the ethnic cleansing would cause a growth of the number of Palestinians. As far as I can
see Israel has no long time strategy for dealing with the Palestinian problem.
Trying to convince the great majority of the world's countries in the UN Assembly that they're all wrong, and Israel right,
lunacy.
As a side note all "nation IQ" arguments are scientifically fake/ Izreal and South africa of the past share the same problem
and Izreal might eventually come to the same utcome.
Notable quotes:
"... The single greatest feat of Israel and its overseas missions has not been material success, or the military conquest of millions of unarmed Palestinians, it has been ideological – the widespread acceptance in the US of a doctrine that claims 'Jews are a superior people'. ..."
"... Israel's dominant role in formulating US Middle East policy is largely a product of its success at recruiting, socializing and motivating overseas Jews to act as an organized force to intervene in US politics and push Israel's agenda. ..."
"... What motivates American Jews, who have been raised and educated in the US to serve Israel? After all, these are individuals who have prospered, achieved high status and occupy the highest positions of prestige and responsibility. ..."
"... What turns comfortable, prosperous American Jews into vindictive bullies, willing and able to blackmail, threaten and punish any dissident voices among their Gentile and Jewish compatriots who have dared to criticize Israel? ..."
"... Thirdly, Supremacists compile a very selective list of virtuous Jews, while omitting areas of life and activity where Jews have disproportionately played a negative and destructive role. ..."
"... After all is it Jewish 'genius' that makes Israel a leading exporter of arms, high tech intrusive spy systems and sends military and paramilitary advisers and torturers to work with death squad regimes in Africa and Latin America? ..."
"... In other words, these Nobel recipients, who Supremacists cite as 'examples of Jewish Supremacy', have sown terror and injustice on countless captive peoples and nations – giving the Nobel Peace Prize a dubious distinction. ..."
"... Among the greatest billion dollar swindlers in recent US history, we d find a disproportionate percentage of American Jews – curiously not mentioned by the Supremacists in their usual litany: Bernard Madoff pillaged over $50 billion from his clients, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and Marc Rich are well-known names adding the distinction of 'Jewish genius' to a list of financial mega-felons. ..."
"... The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression was largely due to the financial policies of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. The trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street by Ben Shalom Bernacke and Stanley Fischer, while Janet Yellen ignored the plight of millions of Americans who lost their homes because of mortgage foreclosures. In sum, Jewish Supremacists should proudly take credit for the American Jews who have been disproportionately responsible for the largest economic and foreign policy failures of the contemporary period – including the horrific suffering these have entailed! ..."
"... Back in the more normal world of crime, Russian-Jewish mobsters dominate or share supremacy with the Italian Mafia in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami and scores of cities in between. They display their unique genius at extortion and murder – knowing they can always find safe haven in the 'Promised Land'! ..."
"... Donations from financial billionaires, all 'geniuses', have financed the war crimes of the Israeli state and made possible the expansion of violent Jewish settlers throughout occupied Palestine – spreading misery and displacement for millions. ..."
The single greatest feat of Israel and its overseas missions has not been material
success, or the military conquest of millions of unarmed Palestinians, it has been ideological
– the widespread acceptance in the US of a doctrine that claims 'Jews are a superior
people'.
Apart from small extremist rightwing sects who exhibit visceral anti-Semitism and denigrate
everything Jewish, there are very few academics and politicians willing to question this
supremacist doctrine. On the contrary, there is an incurable tendency to advance oneself by
accepting and embellishing on it.
For example, in August 2015, US Vice-President Joseph Biden attributed 'special genius' to
Jews, slavish flattery that embarrassed even New York's liberal Jewish intellectuals.
Israel's dominant role in formulating US Middle East policy is largely a product of its
success at recruiting, socializing and motivating overseas Jews to act as an organized force to
intervene in US politics and push Israel's agenda.
What motivates American Jews, who have been raised and educated in the US to serve Israel?
After all, these are individuals who have prospered, achieved high status and occupy the
highest positions of prestige and responsibility. Why would they parrot the policies of Israel
and follow the dictates of Israeli leaders (a foreign regime), serving its violent colonial,
racist agenda?
What binds a majority of highly educated and privileged Jews to the most rabidly rightwing
Israeli regime in history – a relationship they actually celebrate?
What turns comfortable, prosperous American Jews into vindictive bullies, willing and able
to blackmail, threaten and punish any dissident voices among their Gentile and Jewish
compatriots who have dared to criticize Israel?
What prevents many intelligent, liberal and progressive Jews from openly questioning
Israel's agenda, and especially confronting the role of Zionist zealots who serve as Tel Aviv's
fifth column against the interest of the United States?
There are numerous historical and personal factors that can and should be taken into account
to understand this phenomenon.
In this essay I am going to focus on one – the ideology that 'Jews are a superior
people'. The notion that Jews, either through some genetic, biologic, cultural, historical,
familial and/or upbringing, have special qualities allowing them to achieve at a uniquely
higher level than the 'inferior' non-Jews.
We will proceed by sketching the main outline of the Jewish supremacist ideology and then
advance our critique.
We will conclude by evaluating the negative consequences of this ideology and propose a
democratic alternative.
Jewish Supremacism
Exponents of Jewish Supremacism (JS) frequently cite the prestigious awards, worldly
successes and high honors, which, they emphasize, have been disproportionately achieved by
Jews.
The argument goes: While Jews represent less than 0.2% of the world population, they have
produced 24% of the US Nobel prize winners; over 30% of Ivy League professors and students; and
the majority of major US film, stage and TV producers.
They cite the 'disproportionate number' of scientists, leading doctors, lawyers and
billionaires.
They cite past geniuses like, Einstein, Freud and Marx .
They point to the founders of the world's great monotheistic religions – Moses and
Abraham.
They lay claim to a unique learning tradition embedded in centuries of Talmudic
scholarship.
Jewish supremacists never miss a chance to cite the 'Jewish background' of any highly
accomplished contemporary public figures in the entertainment, publication, financial fields or
any other sectors of life in the US.
Disproportionately great accomplishments by a disproportionate minority has become the
mantra for heralding a self-styled 'meritocratic elite' . and for justifying its
disproportionate wealth, power and privileges – and influence
Challenging the Myths of Jewish Supremacists
There are serious problems regarding the claims of the Jewish Supremacists.
For centuries Jewish 'wisdom' was confined to textual exegesis of religious dogma –
texts full of superstition and social control, as well as blind intolerance, and which produced
neither reasoned arguments nor contributed to scientific and human advancement.
Jewish scholarship of note occurred among thinkers like Spinoza who revolted against the
Jewish ghetto gatekeepers and rejected Jewish dogma.
Notable scientists emerged in the context of working and studying with non-Jews in
non-Jewish institutions – the universities and centers of learning in the West. The
majority of world-renowned Jewish scholars integrated and contributed to predominantly
non-Jewish (Moslem and Christian) and secular institutions of higher learning.
Historically, highly talented individuals of Jewish origin succeeded by renouncing the
constraints of everyday Jewish life, rabbinical overseers and Jewish institutions. Most
contemporary prestigious scientists, including the frequently cited Nobel Prize winners, have
little or nothing to do with Judaism! And their contributions have everything to do with the
highly secular, integrated culture in which they prospered intellectually – despite
expressions of crude anti-Semitism in the larger society.
Secondly , Jewish Supremacists persist in claiming 'racial credit' for the achievements of
individuals who have publically renounced, denounced and distanced themselves from Judaism and
have dismissed any notion of Israel as their spiritual homeland. Their universal prestige has
prevented them from being labeled, apostate or 'self-hating'. Albert Einstein, often cited by
the Supremacists as the supreme example of 'Jewish genius', denounced Israel's war crimes and
showed disdain for any tribal identity. In their era, Marx and Trotsky, like the vast majority
of emancipated European Jews, given the chance, became engaged in universalistic organizations,
attacking the entire notion that Jews were a 'special people' chosen by divine authority (or by
the latter-day Zionists).
Thirdly, Supremacists compile a very selective list of virtuous Jews, while omitting areas
of life and activity where Jews have disproportionately played a negative and destructive
role.
After all is it Jewish 'genius' that makes Israel a leading exporter of arms, high tech
intrusive spy systems and sends military and paramilitary advisers and torturers to work with
death squad regimes in Africa and Latin America?
Among the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize are three Israeli Prime Ministers who waged wars
of ethnic cleansing against millions of Palestinians and expanded racist 'Jews only'
settlements throughout the occupied Palestinian territories. These include Menachem Begin
(notorious career bomber and terrorist), Yitzhak Rabin (a militarist who was assassinated by an
even more racist Jewish terrorist) and Shimon Peres. Among Jewish American Nobel 'Peaceniks' is
Henry Kissinger who oversaw the brutal and illegal US war in Indo-China causing 4 million
Vietnamese deaths;who wrote the 'template for regime change' by overthrowing the democratically
elected government of Chilean President Allende and condemned Chile to decades of police state
terror; and who supported Indonesia's destruction of East Timor!
In other words, these Nobel recipients, who Supremacists cite as 'examples of Jewish
Supremacy', have sown terror and injustice on countless captive peoples and nations –
giving the Nobel Peace Prize a dubious distinction.
Among the greatest billion dollar swindlers in recent US history, we d find a
disproportionate percentage of American Jews – curiously not mentioned by the
Supremacists in their usual litany: Bernard Madoff pillaged over $50 billion from his clients,
Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and Marc Rich are well-known names adding the distinction of
'Jewish genius' to a list of financial mega-felons.
Among the less respectable notables whose material successes have been tarnished by personal
weaknesses – we have the billionaire and pedophile pimp, Jeffry Epstein; IMF President,
rapist and debaucher Dominic Strauss Kahn, entrepreneur and 'nudist' Dov Charney, New York
Governor and 'repeat customer' Elliot Spitzer, Congressman and exhibitionist Anthony Weiner and
the fun-loving sports impresario who brought down FIFA, the piratical Chuck Blazer. Curiously,
none of these extraordinarily successful notables have been cited as examples of Jewish
Supremacy.
As we contemplate the millions of war refugees driven from the Near East and North Africa,
we should credit the role of US neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideologues and policymakers
–a disproportionate percentage of whom are Jews. Millions of Chilean workers suffered as
Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys 'advised' Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet on dismantling
the welfare state (even if it required the murder of trade unionists!). Ayn Rand (Alyssa
Rosenbaum) and her fanatical free market epigones have savaged all progressive social
legislation and turned the most retrograde forms of selfishness into a religion of
'superiority'!
The disastrous US war against Iraq was largely organized, promoted and justified by a
disproportionate percentage of US Jews (Zionists), including leading policymakers in the Bush
and Obama administration – Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Dennis Ross,
Martin Indyk, David Frum, Shulsky, Levey, Cohen, Rahm Emanuel etc They continue to push for war
against Iran and should be seen as the 'godfathers' of the tragedies of Iraq, Syria and Libya
where millions have fled.
The biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression was largely due to the financial
policies of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan. The trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street
by Ben Shalom Bernacke and Stanley Fischer, while Janet Yellen ignored the plight of millions
of Americans who lost their homes because of mortgage foreclosures. In sum, Jewish Supremacists
should proudly take credit for the American Jews who have been disproportionately responsible
for the largest economic and foreign policy failures of the contemporary period –
including the horrific suffering these have entailed!
Back in the more normal world of crime, Russian-Jewish mobsters dominate or share supremacy
with the Italian Mafia in New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Miami and scores of cities in
between. They display their unique genius at extortion and murder – knowing they can
always find safe haven in the 'Promised Land'!
On the cultural front, the finest Jewish writers, artists, musicians, scientists have
emerged outside of Israel. A few may have immigrated to the Jewish state, but many other
intellectuals and artists of note have chosen to leave Israel, repelled by the racist,
intolerant and repressive apartheid state and society promoted by Jewish Supremacists.
Conclusion
The record provides no historical basis for the claims of Jewish Supremacists:
What has been cited as the disproportionate 'Jewish genius' turns out to be a two-edged
sword – demonstrating the best and the worst.
Claiming a monopoly on high academic achievement must be expanded to owning up to the Jewish
authors of the worst financial and foreign policy disasters – they too are 'high
achievers'.
Donations from financial billionaires, all 'geniuses', have financed the war crimes of the
Israeli state and made possible the expansion of violent Jewish settlers throughout occupied
Palestine – spreading misery and displacement for millions.
In fairness, the most notorious Jewish swindler in contemporary America was even-handed:
'Bernie' Madoff swindled Jews and Goys, Hollywood moguls and New York philanthropists –
he wasn't picky about who he fleeced.
The latest fashion among Jewish Supremacist 'geneticists' is to extoll the discovery of
uniquely special 'genes' predisposing Jews to experience the 'holocaust' and even inherit the
experience of suffering from long dead ancestors. Such 'scientists' should be careful. As Jazz
artist and essayist, Gilad Altzmon wryly notes, 'They will put the anti-Semites out of
business'.
Ultimately, Jews, who have assimilated into the greater society or not, who inter-marry and
who do not, are all products of the social system in which they live and (like everyone else)
they are the makers of the roles they decide to play within it.
In the past, a uniquely disproportional percentage of Jews chose to fight for universal
humanist values – rejecting the notion of a chosen people.
Today a disproportionate percentage of educated Jews have chosen to embrace an
'ethno-religious' Supremacist dogma, which binds them to an apartheid, militarist state and
ideology ready to drag the world into a global war.
Never forget! Racialist supremacist doctrines led Germany down the blind ally of
totalitarianism and world war, in which scores of millions perished.
Jews, especially young Jews, are increasingly repelled by Israel's crimes against humanity.
The next step for them (and for us) is to criticize, demystify and stand up to the toxic
supremacist ideology linking the powerful domestic Zionist power configuration and its
political clones with Israel.
The root problem is not genetic, it is collective political dementia: a demented ideology
that claims a chosen elite can forever dominate and exploit the majority of American people.
The time will come when the accumulated disasters will force the Americans people to push back,
unmasking the elite and rejecting its supremacist doctrines. Let us hope that they will act
with passion guided by reason.
The simple answer to the questions posed in the beginning is that everything comes down to
one's beliefs.
If you believe yourself to be superior and combine that with a hard-work ethic, you will
create that which you took as a natural given. The belief system of Judaism evolved from one
that was primarily concerned with pleasing God and working towards the afterlife to one
primarily concerned with creating heaven on earth and working towards the material life. Such
doctrines are at the heart of any materialistic ideology. It is a materialistic ideology that
over-indulges in matters of material wealth, accomplishment, and worldly success. But such an
ideology was certainly not the way of Abraham or Moses (or Jesus or Muhammad –
saaws).
So it must be said (and it must be a lesson for every other group, nation, or tribe on
earth): the mixing of race/tribe with religion is wrong. Judaism has largely become (I know
that there are reform movements that differ with such orthodoxy) a religious and ethnic
identity to the point where both become one and the same. A good comment was made above about
the distinction (or lack thereof) between a Jewish atheist and a Jewish rabbi.
I don't think it too out of the ordinary to understand how and why the doctrine of Jewish
supremacism found a cozy home in the United States. The US has had its own doctrine of
exceptionalism for a very long time (just ask the Native Americans). Migration away from the
familiarity of one's extended family and indigenous people by the early colonialists, along
with a framework of post-enlightenment secularism led many Americans to become ignorant of
their own religion. Success, the spoils of war, and material abundance added to all that of
course. And so, most American Christians (which last time I checked, still form the majority
of the US) forgot the criticism of the Jews that Jesus (as) and the Bible taught! Instead,
they began to pick and choose what is convenient to follow as far as their faith goes. It is
far more convenient to fall into praise and worship of those who have a monopoly with regards
to power and authority (especially through mass media), rather than follow in the footsteps
of great religious leaders who constantly challenged those in power.
What is described in the above article does indeed resemble other supremacist and racist
ideologies. From Arab Baathism to German Nazism; the Aryan Nations to the Black Panthers;
American Exceptionalism to European Manifest Destiny these are all alike in that they emanate
from the very darkness of our souls. The first racist/supremacist was iblis (lucifer) i.e.
satan (the leader of the devils). He felt he and those made of the same substance as him were
superior to us (human beings). But it is God who creates all living things and all types of
substances without discrimination or prejudice. The cosmetic differences then are a test for
us to see who will do good, and who will fall into evil (by way of our own free-will).
In the Farewell Sermon, Prophet Muhammad (saaws) said: " All mankind is from Adam and Eve;
an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an
Arab, and a White has no superiority over a Black nor does a Black have any superiority over
a White; except through piety and good deeds "
Whenever I am reminded of the disproportionate number of Jews who receive Nobel Prizes, I
always like to point out that if there were Nobel prizes for networking, Jews would get 100%
of them.
Lame! The article doesn't even try to explain how such a small percentage of the world's
population manages to produce such a large percentage of the world's most productive
scientists and intellectuals. If our hypothesis is that certain ethnic Jewish populations
have, on average, higher native IQs than other peoples, then the fact that many of those
scientists and intellectuals have renounced their Judaism becomes entirely irrelevant.
Further, if we are talking about intellectual superiority, rather than moral superiority,
then it is to be expected that Jews would also excel at villainy. As far as I can see, this
column offers no argument and introduces no evidence that is inconsistent with the hypothesis
of Jewish intellectual superiority. (And no, I am not Jewish).
Jewish is an ethnicity. Zionist is an ideology. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists
are Jews. It is Zionist ideology and not Jewish ethnicity that is making trouble in the
world. The idea of the supremacy of ethnic Jews is as silly as the idea of the supremacy of
Texans. Apartheid and expansionism are policies of Zionists and rightfully should be
condemned and resisted.
This sort of tossed-off-the-top-of-the-head stuff (none of it new or refreshed with original
thinking or research) is rather a waste of time. No doubt the natural tribalism and group
purpose that one can find in lots of ethnic and other groups is or seems to outsiders
particularly formidable when found in a group that has an average IQ almost a sd above other
whites', strives mightily and has a 3000 year history, for most of it literate, attached to a
particular homeland. But I have found without the sort of well researched references I would
expect from the author more supremacist chatter amongst young Chinese blog commenters than
from anyone else.
There are obvious elements of truth that one glimpse in this piece but the author does
remarkably little to support his argument beyond assertion.
JUDAISTS MENTALLY DERANGED TO THINK THEY ARE GOD'S CHOSEN; MOST SUCCESS BY CORRUPT MEANS.
Thanks for the excellent article, Sir. Peter the Great does a great job again! You are
right on everything but I would like to add a couple of points.
1. Believing your ethnic group is "chosen" is a delusion, which is a symptom of mental
illness:
God (if there is one), who created all people, would never label one group over the other,
a priori. And if God did so, he would come and tell the others to respect his favorite group
over themselves. God never came and told me or others I know that "Jews" are His "Chosen" and
we are not. Never, never once in my life. Others' religious books never record any such
commandment from God. For a group to engage in shameless self-adulation and then falsely
ascribe it to God is repugnant and an evil fraud in the name of God.
Secondly, this assertion of being "Chosen" is based on the Torah (Old Testament,
Deuteronomy 7:6). The fact that the OT is fiction is obvious from Book 1, Page 1. See: "The
Forgery of the Old Testament" by Joseph McCabe. The earth is not 6000 years old, etc. Higher
criticism showed that the OT was weaved together from four source documents. The scribes, who
imagined a mass murderer Moses (who was so black, the African Pharaoh assumed he was his
grandson for decades) as their prophet were themselves probably mentally deranged African
criminals.
2. More than ½ of Jewish success is due to corrupt and criminal means. Under the
delusion they are Go's Chosen, Judaists lose morals became crooks and criminals at a much
higher rate. Judaists bribe and blackmail politicians in USA and EU to get Israel favorite
treatment and destroy the goyim through alienism and flood it with 3rd world aliens. The
bribed politicians pay them back millions or even billions in grants and contracts and other
favors, such as FCC licenses, protection from criminal prosecution, etc. For example, Jewish
billionaire George Soros (Schwartz) made money in insider trading. Most Judaists succeed due
to nepotism as they hire each other in top positions, to monopolize and control and to goyim
out. Eg. Elena Kagan who never tried a case was suddenly appointed to the Supreme Court.
They also control the Nobel Committee, given the fact that many Judaists who got nobel
prizes got them for no great discovery or invention! See details here:
In summary, Judaism is a mentally deranged criminal cult and the Judaists are a modern
criminal gang that controls all 3 branches of our govt., media and academia and is using its
criminally obtained power to bolster their mythical homeland, Israel, and keeping it pure,
while destroying white goyim thru 3rd world immigration and liberalism in order to rule them
using the divide and conquer strategy.
It is completely obvious to anyone who has had even a slight acquaintance with Ashkenazi Jews
that they average high intelligence. This impression is not only supported by the
psychometric data showing an average Ashkenazi IQ of 112 but also by the astounding record of
extraordinarily high levels of achievement in intellectually demanding fields.
The other day I quickly wrote down a list of about 30 or so of the most prominent chess
players since the latter part of the nineteenth century that I had heard of and then
researched how many of them were Ashkenazi Jews. It turned out that 49% of them were
Ashkenazi Jews. Looking at the percentage of Nobel Prize winners, Fields Medalists etc. that
are Ashkenazi Jews produces similar astonishing results.
Someone who can believe that the extraordinary level of Ashkenazi intellectual achievement
has nothing to do with genetics can believe anything. The denial of a genetic involvement in
high Ashkenazi intellectual achievement illustrates the remarkable power of ideology to cause
people to pretend to believe the most preposterous nonsense.
The intelligence of non-Ashkenazi Jews while nowhere near Ashkenazi levels is still
probably above the world average except for the Falasha. The IQ of the Mizrahi Jews I believe
is somewhere in the low 90′s which while well below average IQ's in most of Europe is
substantially above the average IQ of most Arab populations.
It should be noted that the genetics of Ashkenazi Jews is substantially different from the
genetics of non-Ashkenazi Jews. Ashkenazi Jews are genetically about 60% European (nearly all
Mediterranean European) and 40% Middle Eastern.
No doubt Jews are much more ethnocentric than Europeans in general. However in regard to
ethnocentrism Jews may well be nearer the world average than say Northwest Europeans who
appear unusually low in ethnocentrism.
Of the various unsavory Jews mentioned in this article it is clear that they are all of
high intelligence.
It is perfectly true that Jewish intellectual achievements have little connection with the
Talmud or other aspects of traditional Jewish culture. But that fact itself shows the
weakness of cultural explanations of Jewish achievement. Chess for example was absent from
traditional Jewish culture but when Ashkenazi Jews began to take up the game in the latter
part of the nineteenth century it took only for a few decades for them to become highly
dominant in international competition despite the fact that the game came from gentile
culture.
The intellectual superiority of Ashkenazi Jews is obvious. Hopefully a study of Jewish
genetics will lead to substantial advances in the understanding of human intelligence.
If you think the "Jews" are so intelligent, then how come they read the Torah (OT 1-5) and
not realize that it is a forgery, a piece of fiction and that Abraham and Moses could not
have existed?
The Torah (OT 1-5) is a "forgery" (See: McCabe) and "spurious" (–Thomas Paine). That
is obvious from book 1, page 1. The Earth is not 6000 years old. The universe is not standing
on a "firmament." Cultures (unknown to the scribes) flourished much before. Written records
and archeological evidence using carbon dating show man's presence tens of thousands of years
ago, probably over a 100,000 years ago. A million people cannot live in a vast desert
(without water or food) in a hostile nation for 40 years -- and leave no trace.
Moshe (an Egyptian, therefore African and Negro) never existed. His story is copied from
the older African myth of Mises. Exile and Exodus never happened. For eg., as stated in
"Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho" (by Prof. Ze'ev Herzog of the Dept. of Archaeology, Tel
Aviv University):
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel:
the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in
a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel ."
Moshe could not have parted the Red Sea, not only because it violates the laws of physics,
and there was no Moses, but because there was no Red Sea to cross, since Egypt and Israel
have a common land border!
So Judaists who believes that this mythical black mass murderer Moshe is their "prophet",
and are children of a pimp called Abraham, are they mentally retarded or mentally ill?
What turns comfortable, prosperous American Jews into vindictive bullies, willing and
able to blackmail, threaten and punish any dissident voices among their Gentile and Jewish
compatriots who have dared to criticize Israel?
Thank goodness Max Blumenthal didn't take that route. He could've easily, but change is in
the air.
"More than ½ of Jewish success is due to corrupt and criminal means. Under the
delusion they are Go's Chosen, Judaists lose morals became crooks and criminals at a much
higher rate. Judaists bribe and blackmail politicians in USA and EU to get Israel favorite
treatment and destroy the goyim through alienism and flood it with 3rd world aliens."
There is a peculiar trait among Semitic peoples to treat members of other ethnic or
religious groups with a different set of ethics. Gentiles are slow to understand this, as
their Christian universalism forbids them to engage in such activities.
It's not a question of liking Jews or being "anti-Semitic". Quite aside from sentimental
considerations along these lines it is perfectly obvious that Ashkenazi Jews have an
exceptionally high average IQ. Saying this is just to recognize objective reality.
Ashkenazi Jews are no doubt more ethnocentric than most other white Americans or Northwest
Europeans but in this regard it may be the latter who are more exceptional in having a low
degree of ethnocentrism.
Northwest Europeans have often been described as having a "guilt" culture as opposed to a
"shame" culture which is more common in the rest of the world outside Europe. I wonder to
what extent traditional Jewish culture is best described as a "guilt" vs. "shame"
culture.
Ashkenazi Jews are very different genetically from non-Ashkenazi Jews. Most US Jews are
Ashkenazi so statements about Jews in the US are generally about Ashkenazi Jews. Such
statements often do not apply much to Oriental Jews.
There is a definitive correlation between corruption/criminality and worldly success. At
an individual level, those whose morals are weak tend to be more willing to take risks or do
the kinds of work that others would not dare touch or find reprehensibly. Yet, the end result
would be greater worldly accomplishment and success. This does not apply to everyone, but it
is an undeniable reality. At the macro-level, empires don't become empires without having bad
laundry (so to speak). Might makes right as the saying goes. America as a superpower today
would not be in the position it is in without the shedding of so much blood and without so
many transgressions and criminal actions. So my point here is that sometimes, success and
accomplishment correlates with corruption and transgression. Also, compare and contrast
Jewish success and accomplishment in Germany prior to World War 1 and after World War 2.
After the horror of those events, I think many Jewish communities may have altered their
relationship with non-Jews and as a result, believe that they have the right to lie, fool,
and transgress against gentile nations that are going to be hostile towards them no matter
what.
The real accomplishment is one's place in the Hereafter. That was the message that the
Jews used to carry to the nations of the earth. Now, it is the Muslims that carry that
message.
Jim – your perspective here is wrong. It is culture and environment and the type of
beliefs and mentality a person, family, or community have. A set of variable factors some of
which can be controlled and some of which cannot, that result in what we then observe. This
is an age-old debate within the field of genetics nurture vs. nature. But what you are
describing above is nurture the mentality one has or the mentality one is raised by.
Similar arguments can be put forth regarding the rise and fall of whole nations. Some
nations and cultures start off with better resources that allow them to conquer others and
thus, "achieve" more. Think of the military advantages Europe had over Asia and Africa that
allowed for the centuries of colonialism. Prior to that, the geography and natural resources
of Europe gave it many advantages over those lands and peoples that they eventually
conquered. On top of that, Europe developed a manifest destiny mindset (among other
ideologies) which justified its actions. For some, it may have been humanitarian and for
others in Europe, it may have been destructive. Either way, the end result of what they did
was on account of environmental and cultural factors that fall into the realm of "nurture"
rather than "nature". Nature here being a reference to genetics and race and so forth as
opposed to environmental advantages like better food, water, and shelter.
Again, real success and accomplishment is for the Hereafter. The Jews were once entrusted
to lead mankind with this message but they lost it, and so the Muslims (including members of
every Jewish tribe – even the Ashkenazis that revert to Islam) now carry it forth.
What marks a Jew is not his native inelegance but his aggression. The Jew culture is
intellectually aggressive. Human culture is about the use of words – the capacity to
use words separates us from our fellow species. Jews are masters at aggressively manipulating
words.
The Jew culture teaches its children to be intellectually aggressive – it teaches
its children to be argumentative and intellectually combative – it teaches its children
to aggressively win through the use of words at all costs short of jail. In essence they win
by fooling people, by misleading them with words.
In Western culture it is said "that the truth will set you free" – that truth is the
highest value – truth settles disputes, truth rules -- whereas in Jew culture it is
said that "misleading words will gain you money and power."
There is another most important element in Jew culture – it is that they do this
word manipulation together as a tribe. That they dishonestly act together as one. Zionism
exemplifies Jew culture.
The "fact" that Jews are claimed to have an average IQ that is ten points higher than other
whites is rather spurious. "Other whites"includes people like inbred West Virginia Coal
miners, less intelligent southern and eastern Europeans as well as all those somewhat dim
witted white Evangelicals.
If one were to claim that Jews have IQs that are ten points higher than the average
Episcopalian or Presbyterian, that would be an entirely different matter altogether. I have
heard that there is some actively censored data hanging around out there that claims that the
difference between Jews and white gentiles virtually disappears when Jews are pitted against
either active or passive members of these two most prosperous and highest status of the
larger Protestant sects. The same drastic narrowing of test scores would probably happen if
Jews were measured against the less numerous, but just as well off, Congregationalists or
Quakers.
Jews are high function at both ends of the cognitive spectrum: subjective and objective.
One form of cognition primarily manipulates people, often considering them just objects,
while the other is generally focused on manipulating things with much less interest in
people.
Mentalism and Mechanism, the twin modes of human cognition
I have heard that there is some actively censored data hanging around out there that
claims that the difference between Jews and white gentiles virtually disappears when Jews
are pitted against either active or passive members of these two most prosperous and
highest status of the larger Protestant sects.
I would not doubt this at all. In fact there are groups globally that equal or exceed the
average IQ levels of Ashkenazi Jews. For example Indian Brahmins measure around 110-115, as
do North Europeans. One expects in fact, that with reductions in pathogenic loads, improved
nutrition etc. global IQ levels to converge over time. In the end, what matter most for
achievement are grit and efficiency.
The article is patent horse shit. Israeli neocons wouldn't behave nearly so aggressively
without the much larger and more powerful American Christian Zionist population that has
Israel's back.
This is a very confused piece because it doesn't clearly define the meaning of Jewish
Supremacism.
I would argue there is such a thing called Jewish Supremacism -- though Jews will never
call it that and most people are afraid to call it that -- , and we should approach it like
white supremacism or supremacism of any kind. It is what allows Jews to act as if they're
beyond the law or the norms of humanity.
The problem is that the part and parcel of Jewish Supremacism is that we cannot call it
'Jewish Supremacism'. And this is the difference between Jewish Supremacism and White
Supremacism. During the heyday of White Supremacism, whites were saying they are indeed the
best. In contrast, Jewish Supremacists pretend to be egalitarians at war with all kinds of
supremacism, especially the white, Muslim, Russian, and Chinese kind. Indeed, paradoxically,
one of the hallmarks of Jewish Supremacism is we must never ever notice that Jews are
supremacist. It's kind of like the phenomenon of Jewish power/influence. Jews have so much of
it(and proud of it), but we better not notice it. If you do notice, as Rick Sanchez did, you
get in big trouble. Jews have the supremacist power over us all but use that power to insist
that they are all about egalitarianism and that anyone who says otherwise is an evil
'antisemite' who needs to be destroyed. Jews have great power, wealth, and influence but
still act like Holocaust survivors who just walked out of the Nazi Death Camps. It is because
Jewish Supremacism is so well-hidden and masked that it is so dangerous.
Nazis were scum but at least they were honest scum. They said WE ARE THE BEST, SO KISS OUR
ASS WHILE WE KICK YOUR BUTT. In contrast, Jews kick our butt and make us kiss their ass but
also force us to believe that they are healing our souls with their commitment to
egalitarianism and universal conscience. Jewish Supremacism is a silent/invisible
supremacism. That is why it's dangerous. We are made to behave in accordance to the
conviction that Jews are indeed better than us and more deserving than us BUT also made to
see Jews as an eternally helpless people who wouldn't survive unless we took special care of
them. But this passive-aggressive form of superiority is found in Christianity itself. The
mythic Jesus claimed to be the Son of God but also lived and died as the most helpless man.
We are supposed to worship His supreme power but also weep for His most helpless self that
suffered oh so very much like in Gibson's PASSION where Romans whup Him real good.
Anyway, Petras confuses the issue because he's not clear on the meaning of superiority. He
mentions a bunch of bad Jews who did loathsome things. But genius/brilliance/wit/smarts can
be in the service of bad stuff as well as good stuff.
So, the fact that many Jews were involved in financial crimes doesn't disprove the notion
that Jews are superior in certain areas. Indeed, a smart crook is more likely to rob with a
briefcase than with a gun. He may be morally inferior but still has proven his intellectual
superiority. I find the Jordan Belfort character of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET loathsome, but we
have to admit a dummy couldn't have done what he did. So, even though he was a crook, his
example did demonstrate Jewish superiority in brain power. And this goes for other Wall
Street Jewish crooks. Their wickedness doesn't disprove Jewish superiority in the brainy
fields.
It's like blacks are physically stronger and superior in athletics. Blacks can use this
advantage for good things or bad things. A strong black fireman might run out of the building
with 3 children. But a nasty black criminal might use his strength to invade a home, beat up
a white boy, rape his wife, and act like a gorilla. He would have done wrong, but his use of
force would still have demonstrated the physical advantage of the Negro over whites.
Any talent or skill can be used for good or bad. That so many Jews are brainy crooks and so
many blacks are brutish crooks means that Jews have the advantage in mental power and blacks
have the advantage in muscle power.
Of course, being superior in mind doesn't mean one is good in morality. So many smart
people have been lying, manipulative, lowdown vermin. And there have been plenty of Jewish
sons-of-bitches. But to the extent that such Jewish crooks could outwit and out-think others
is proof of Jewish superiority in brain power.
"Historically, highly talented individuals of Jewish origin succeeded by renouncing the
constraints of everyday Jewish life, rabbinical overseers and Jewish institutions. Most
contemporary prestigious scientists, including the frequently cited Nobel Prize winners, have
little or nothing to do with Judaism! And their contributions have everything to do with the
highly secular, integrated culture in which they prospered intellectually – despite
expressions of crude anti-Semitism in the larger society."
But why did secularized Jews achieve more than other people who were also secularized(from
Christianity, Islam, or whatever) at the same time? I agree that the great modern
achievements of Jews in the modern era had to do with Emancipation and secularization, but
non-Jews had the same opportunities as the Jews did, in some cases more as they faced less
overt discrimination and even were favored by affirmative action in places in Hungary.
If secularization does such wonders for any people, why did Jews disproportionally
outperform other groups? In both Hungary and Germany, the small Jewish minority gained
tremendous power and influence even though Hungarians and Germans had the same access to
secularization and modernity. Of course, there were notable non-Jewish artists, scientists,
writers, and etc. in every field, and Jews hardly originated many of these disciplines. But
the fact that Jews did better in them means that Jews might have a genetic advantage when it
comes to intelligence.
It's like this. For most of black existence, they ran around chucking spears at hippos and
beating the bongo drum and hollering ugabuga. Blacks gained athletic domination in the West
when they took up sports like basketball, football, boxing, and etc. So, are we to assume
that blackness has no special advantage in sports? Should we say black success in sports owes
only to black participation in western sports? But non-blacks also participated in western
sports like boxing, track, basketball, and etc. So, why didn't they do as well as blacks?
So, doesn't it make sense to say that, even prior to black participation in sports, something
about the evolution of blackness in the Dark Continent made blacks more better at sports? It
wasn't the sports that made blacks so good. They were so good at sports because their
evolution had made them strong and fast long before they dribbled the first basketball or put
on the first boxing gloves.
Same thing could be true of Jews. While one could argue that Judaism did hold Jews back
from participating in secular sciences, its emphasis on memory, argument, discussion,
contemplation, meditation of profound questions as mind-puzzles, and etc. might have helped
Jews to select the smarter Jews and favor them for breeding with the daughters of smart
Jewish businessmen. Gregory Harpender came up with such theory. Something can be useless in
practical terms but still be useful in identifying the smart and favoring him for
breeding.
Take chess or some kind of mind-game. It has no value in finding the cure for cancer, sending
a man to the moon, splitting the atom, and etc. But a game of chess involves tremendous
skills of reason, logic, memory, foresight, and such. So, if a culture were to use chess to
identify members who are better at it and then favored such kids for having more kids, then
the culture will grow smarter. And who can deny that Judaism was intellectually vigorous even
if, from the perspective of modern society, useless in technological terms. You can't learn
engineering or medicine by reading the Torah and Talmud. But you can learn to use your mind
and probe into profound questions of life and meaning, and through such debate, the culture
of intelligence can be fostered, and the identified brainiacs can be matched to have babies
with the daughters of smart businessmen, and over time, the Tribe grows more intelligent.
"Among Jewish American Nobel 'Peaceniks' is Henry Kissinger who oversaw the brutal and
illegal US war in Indo-China causing 4 million Vietnamese deaths;who wrote the 'template for
regime change' by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chilean President
Allende and condemned Chile to decades of police state terror; and who supported Indonesia's
destruction of East Timor!"
Kissinger is a shady character, but it came with the territory of dealing in foreign
policy, always a gangster enterprise for all nations. I mean the great Bismarck played dirty
too.
4 million dead in Vietnam War? Wasn't it 2 million? Also, what was Kissinger supposed to
do? South Vietnam was an ally being threatened by the communist north during the Cold War. It
was difficult for US to hold the trust of its allies by letting Vietnam fall to communism. It
was a dirty war where every side fought nasty and hard and did terrible things.
As for Chile, wasn't Pinochet still better than the commie Allende who would have
destroyed the economy? Pinochet did revive the economy. He even graciously stepped aside and
restored democracy. So what if he killed a bunch of commies? Commies love violence and
wherever they took power, used even more ruthless violence against dissidents.
As for what happened in East Timor, Indonesia was an ally of the US, and during the Cold War,
US tolerated its sons of bitches and the USSR tolerated its sons of bitches.
Kissinger was a Cold Warrior and strategist. It is wrong to see his actions through overly
moralistic eyes. If indeed Kissinger should be condemned for working with tyrants, how come
there is no complaint about Kissinger's working behind the scenes to bring about Nixon-Mao
meeting? Mao killed millions of Chiners and then ruined Chinese culture by setting Red Guards
amok to smash things. But the very people who bitch about Kissinger's support of Pinochet --
who killed a few 1000s -- see no problem with Kissinger helping Nixon come to an
understanding with Mao the mass killer of tens of millions. I don't blame Kissinger for the
Mao-Nixon affair. He was a global strategist, and he knew he had to play with the cards dealt
to him.
At any rate, he was far preferable to Neocon lunatics. Kissinger understood foreign policy
as a dirty affair and did what he had to do. He was a realist and pragmatist.
And such a policy is better for the US than the Neocon one that aggressively triggers
unnecessary wars for Jewish interest.
Whether one agrees with Kissinger's decisions or not, he was acting in terms of 'necessary
wars and conflicts' that simply couldn't be avoided. During the Cold War when US allies were
under attack from global communists, US really had no choice but to stick up for the
anti-communists.
As for Israel, the problem is Zionists keep thinking beyond their borders and get US
involved in the mess. Supremacism or no supremacism, the problem of Israel-Palestine is due
to the clash of nationalisms. It's like Yugoslavia after the end of communism. The problem
wasn't supremacism. Serbs didn't think they were racially superior to Croatians didn't think
they were racially superior to Bosnian Muslims didn't think they were racially superior to
Serbians who didn't think they were racially superior to Kosovo Albanians. But each people
had their own vision of national identity and territory. There was serious disagreement about
borders, and that caused the problem.
Now, it is true that Israel does have racial supremacists who say 'Goyim should serve us
like cattle', but even if not a single Jew thought that way in Israel-Palestine, the problem
there would be almost identical. Israel was founded by imperialism. Also, Jews didn't finish
the job. Had they expelled all Palestinians from what were to become Israel, they would have
done better for themselves(thought not for Palestinians, of course). It is proof that
diversity is problematic, especially if it involves people who've come to be historically at
odds with one another.
Even if Jews were to drop every vestige of supremacism in Israel/Palestine, the problem
will not go away since Palestinians have a different vision of Palestine.
It's like South Africa. The end of Apartheid didn't end the problem of race. If anything,
things have gotten worse because blacks have a different vision of what South Africa should
be, with or without Apartheid.
The preponderance of power behind the maniacal behaviors seen in Bibi Netanyahu is not
Jewish, it's the American Christian Right.
I guess the following members of the Israel Lobby – American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Anti-Defamation League, the
American Jewish Congress, the Zionist Organization of America, the Israel Policy Forum, the
American Jewish Committee, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Americans for a
Safe Israel, American Friends of Likud, Mercaz-USA, Hadassah, and the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations – can just close up shop and go
home.
"Judaism is not a religion, nor is it a racial category. Judaism is a group survival
strategy."
But how is it a survival strategy? It cannot be understood apart from its concept of
religion and race. Judaism has been a successful survival strategy because it fused
spirituality with biology. Spirituality alone tends to be too abstract and solipsistic.
Buddhism cannot help any tribal group to survive. And now we see Christianity failing as
well.
As for pure tribalism, it is too petty, tooth-and-claw, gansterist, and/or animalist. Humans
want something more from life than acting like pack animals. They want the vision of their
own community to be something more than 'us versus them, F you!'
Judaism combined a concept of the universe under the power of the one and only God with
the biology of a 'special people'. Jews pulled out their puds and said they have a special
link to the Lord of All that was, is, and will be. In some ways, it was the ultimate
chutzpah. Imagine someone yanking out his penis and saying it is blessed by God. So, what
came out of the Jewish balls gained spiritual meaning. And this ballsian view of things was
furthermore merged with the idea that a Jewish womb/vagina was special for creating authentic
Jewish kids. So, Jewish guys were made to feel special for having special balls/puds that
created special Jewish kids, and Jewish girls were made to feel special for having special
vaginas that pushed out special Jewish kids. So, religion and race were combined. So, the
'survival strategy' aspect of Jewishness cannot be disassociated from the concepts of race
and religion.
"The Jewish group survival strategy has changed over the centuries, based on
circumstances. The 20th and 21th century Jewish group survival strategy is class supremacy.
Early 20th century saw the rise of Jewish bolshevism in the form of proletarian class
supremacy."
But was proletarianism a form of 'class supremacy' or class equality? Proles represented
most people: the working folks. And communism said the economy belongs to all those who work
than to the small elites who own the industries. Communists attacked capitalism as a form of
class supremacism where the ruling bourgeoisie had most of everything.
To some extent, communism reflects Jewish thinking. The notable thing about much of Jewish
culture–though not all–is the extent to which the emphasis is placed on 'ordinary
people' than on 'great men'.
Most histories are histories of great gods, kings, heroes, and etc.
In contrast, many of the most important figures in Judaism are not 'great men' types. They
are ordinary people like you and me. And even a great figure like Moses abandoned his
privileges as a member of the Egyptian elite to become one of the Jews and to lead the Jews
to their promised land. Not as hero or prince or king but merely as a man with a special
calling from God.
This aspect of Judaism may have been good as a survival strategy since it made every Jew,
however lowly, feel special and invested in preserving the Jewish tradition that informed him
of his special place in the universe. One didn't have to be a king, prince, or whatever to
matter. One could be a humble shepherd and still be the favored of God and have meaning in
life. So, even when Jewish political leaders crumbled and fell, the Jewish people continued
to feel special and blessed, even in exile.
But among cultures where all the glory was concentrated among the kings and elites, when they
fell, the entire culture fell and vanished with the demise of the elites since the people
merely counted as obedient sheep who carried out orders.
Another thing about Jewish communists. It's hard to say to what extent they were working
as communists or as Jews. Also, even if they sincerely acted as communists on the conscious
level, who knows what was really driving them in their subconscious?
Many Third World communists were actually driven by nationalism and adopted communism as the
best instrument for liberation. Even if they did believe in communism, their nationalism
actually meant more, and in time, the communist elements grew weaker while the sense of
nationalism remained.
It could be that many Jews were driven to communism as a reaction to anti-Jewishness and
also to Jewish capitalism(since it seemed to benefit only a handful of Jews while so many
went poor and hungry, especially in a place like Russia).
At any rate, I'd wager that most Jewish communists were not consciously using communism as a
Survival Strategy for Jews. Subconsciously, it could have been part of what they were doing,
but we can't be sure. Subconsciously, it's possible that even Jews who rejected Jewishness
were feeling sort of Jewish and different from others. A kind of implicit Jewishness that
finally resurfaced with the ebbing of the ideological dogma of communism. Mere creeds don't
last long. Ideas come and go. What tends to last is identity, historical sense, and territory
if they are preserved.
People generally want to believe in the righteousness of their cause and don't wanna
believe that they adopted some cause out of reasons of vendetta or self-interest.
For example, a lot of anti-Israel rhetoric on the Alt Right is filled with moral outrage,
but in most cases, it has nothing to do with genuine sympathy for Palestinians. It is a
survival strategy for white people that seeks to expose and undermine Jewish power wherever
it can be found because it is seen as the main enemy of the white race.
If Jews didn't cause such trouble for Jews, who in the Alt Right would give a crap about
what is being done to Palestinians?
Turks don't rule the West, so Alt Right doesn't care about all the Turkish violence against
the Kurdish population.
Dear Sonic,please don't create a straw man argument here . This is not about islam's
golden past or the present s ary possibility of the demise of Christianity . It is about the
future of a pluralistic secular egalitarian society free from the the vile machinations of
the Zionism.
Don't generate this kind of discussion. It is nothing but diversion and irrelevant.
If you are a Muslim,you should learn from the 5 th column Zionist . It has destroyed
Protestant religion. Zionism is inserting itself in the frightened psyche of corrupt Saudi .
It can destroy Islam also.
Already in India ,Zionism has started portraying itself as a the ancient monolithic cousin of
the polytheist Hindusim This is the starting point of the Zionist- both are ancient,both gave
birth to other religions and both " don't force conversion" and have high IQ.and surrounded
by most fanatic,fundamentalist and anti modern people. Hindu counterpart in return has added
that no Jews were ever persecuted in India! What a match ! Just some 80 yrs ago Hindu
fanatics RSS was praising Naxi and Hitler and demonizing Jews ,calling themselves Aryan
around the same time when Zionist were cavorting with Hitler,Mussolini abd some other dark
forces.
Jim, there are no non-jewish Ashkenazi and it is accepted genetics that Ashkenazi are part
European. Thus the correct labelling is Ashkenazi European as opposed to other Jewish
European, or European. It is through labelling that various myths are proliferated. Using the
term Ashkenazi European rather than Ashkenazi Jewish immediately brings to social
consciousness where Ashkenazi derive from and how perhaps they inherited such high IQ.
Anyway, Petras confuses the issue because he's not clear on the meaning of superiority.
He mentions a bunch of bad Jews who did loathsome things. But genius/brilliance/wit/smarts
can be in the service of bad stuff as well as good stuff.
So, the fact that many Jews were involved in financial crimes doesn't disprove the notion
that Jews are superior in certain areas.
Just a couple thoughts. Success for Jews has come within larger Christian, high-trust
societies. Being around a lot of Jews in my life, both successful and not successful, I have
come to believe that their number one asset for accomplishment is their high energy,
indefatigable nature. They're neurotic and inquisitive and spend a lot of time reading and
mulling over things. This starts at a young age. And without the neurotic inquisitiveness,
which is a product of high energy, they wouldn't test high on IQ tests and go on to become
top chess players and disproportionate in the Ivy League, Nobel Prizes, etc. IQ is developed,
but it requires someone have a high energy, inquisitive nature or a tiger parent pushing them
in study.
I think Cochran is probably right that high Ashkenazi intelligence is the result of
selection in Europe for high IQ resulting from occupational specialization. Cochran has also
stated that Ashkenazi Jews in Europe have always been an almost exclusively urban population.
All over the world urban populations have higher IQ's than surrounding rural populations. So
in urban environments there is more selection pressure for higher IQ's.
So Jews in European history lived in an urban environment with generally high selection
for intelligence and in addition occupational specialization created additional selection for
high intelligence. An additional factor may have been that lower IQ Jews may have been more
likely to assimilate into the general gentile population. Surviving as a Jew in the midst of
a frequently hostile gentile population may have required high intelligence.
Most likely the alleles underlying high Ashkenazi intelligence are not unique to this
population but have higher frequency there because of past selective forces. Under modern
conditions selection for high intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews has probably lessened.
I honestly don't know how many Christian Zionists there are in the U.S. But it's a ton and
they have a voice in D.C. According to polls, a majority of American Jews side with Obama
over Bibi on the Iran deal. These are examples of Zionists who are not Jews and Jews who are
not Zionists. Zionism is a dangerous ideology. Judaism is an ancient religion. They overlap
but they are not at all the same thing.
I have heard that there is some actively censored data hanging around out there that
claims that the difference between Jews and white gentiles virtually disappears when Jews
are pitted against either active or passive members of these two most prosperous and
highest status of the larger Protestant sects.
Yes, there's nothing special about high IQ Jews. They just have high IQs. Other groups,
like the British upper-middle class also have high IQs that's what happens when you have a
degree of group inbreeding and strong selective pressures for intelligence.
Don't know where my earlier comment went..but briefly:
Why hasn't all this ability produced a significant art of any kind?
Think of Islamic architecture – like the Alhambra (Spain) or the Taj Mahal
(India.)
Think of Christian architecture – medieval gothic (Germany, France, Britain) or
Roman Catholic (St Peters, Sistine chapel, numerous basilicas, churches..)
Art – Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Rubens ..,so many Christian artists..
The Islamic prohibition on reproducing human images did not prevent them from producing
exquisite miniatures and distinctive geometric mathematically-perfect designs, often used to
decorate everything from walls to rugs..to metal,.Syria and Morocco being especially
well-known.
Music..classical European is heavily represented by German (Beethoven, Bach) and other
European continental composers, all from the Christian tradition opera
Asia – look al the Buddhist and Confucius traditions in China, Korea and Japan and
the distinctive architecture and art of those regions and cultures
Don't forget the Indian temples of the Hindus and the ornate stone carvings and painting
that covers every surface..
In short, this perception of supremacy – for those Jews vthat have it – smacks
a good deal more of civilizational insecurity than any real hubris.
I expect the confident ones don't need such contrived (and WASPy-biased) notions of group
'positive affirmation.'
You forgot to mention how the Zio-goons treat them.
I've met plenty of Muslim Israeli citizens. They live great lives. If anything,
they are privileged by not being forcibly conscripted like the Jewish Israelis. A position the
American rich youth were in during the Vietnam draft.
As for how Middle Eastern countries treated their Jews absent Ottoman suzerainity, consider
that every Israeli I met under the age of 35 had at least one grandparent from a majority
Muslim country. Yet there aren't any Jews in almost any of them now. Why?
Here, let me help you it's a bit dated but shows that the Zion-nut behavior is nothing
new.
Between 30 and 54 Palestinians are believed to have died in the gun attack by Baruch
Goldstein in Hebron
Goldstein had lived in Israel for 11 years and was a doctor in the Jewish settlement of
Kiryat Arba, just outside Hebron.
As the settlement's main emergency doctor he was involved in treating victims of
Arab-Israeli violence.
It is reported that his hatred became so intense that eventually he refused to treat
Palestinians.
Goldstein had been a member of the Jewish Defence League, a violent organisation
established by Rabbi Meir Kahane.
South Africa was another state where settlers were trying to displace native population...
what happened with South Africa after apartheid was dismantled is a story that might be repeated
in Israel at some point of time.
@Tyrion 2 It is not
"whataboutery" to point out that Israel is less "an Apartheid state" than practically every
Asian and African country. Not if part of the definition of "Apartheid" is that is an 'especial
evil'.
Since the model for apartheid is South Africa's segregating large parts of its population by
pushing people of common race or ethnicity into Bantustans and restricting their rights in
the rest off South Africa it is easy to see why Israel's treatment of Palestinians is
compared to Apartheid BUT where in Asia or Africa is there anything comparable?
Great, we are making progress here. So good to see you finally submit that Israel is an
apartheid state although less so than African and Asian countries. Good show at least we now
can classify it where it really belongs and drop any pretense of a first rate western style
democracy. Thank you thank you thank you for finally coming clean on this.
I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a
place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven
sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of
inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs
Better to be a minority in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country. The two
settlers guilty of arson are disgusting zealots. But their type is exponentially more common in
Iraq, Syria, Iran and so on.
The criticism of Israel in Western media is disproportionately extremely high given
the much higher rates of this type of thing in the majority of the rest of the world.
As for sniping the leaders of a huge mob trying to invade your country/storm your borders,
doesn't that seem like the most humane way to deal with it? What does Giraldi suggest
they do?
I suppose Western anti-Semites see Western countries going down because they are unable to
deal with this type of thing and get jealous and want to drag Israel down with them. I prefer
that America follow the example of Matteo Salvini. Giraldi prefers 'abolish borders' Cortez.
Indeed, he'd like her to "go a lot farther".
"Better to be a minority in Israel than any other Middle Eastern country."
Nonsense!! Classic hasbara, i.e., "whataboutery."
Reality:
Setting aside Israel's well docmented gross violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention i.e.,
"Collective Punishment" regarding its imprisonment of two million Palestinians in the Gaza
Strip and its repeated mass slaughters of them by land, sea and air, e.g., 2,500, including
over 500 children, in Operation Protective Edge.
Israel is and always has been a racist ethnocracy, i.e., a political structure in which
the state apparatus is appropriated by a dominant ethnic group to further its interests,
power and resources. In short, apartheid.
To wit:
Hendrik Verwoerd, then prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa's
apartheid policies, 1961: "Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." (Rand Daily
Mail, November 23, 1961)
Jacobus Johannes Fouché, South African Minister of Defence during the apartheid
era, compared the two states and said that Israel also practiced apartheid. (Gideon Shimoni
(1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp.
310–336. ISBN 0195701798.
"Former Foreign Ministry director-general invokes South Africa comparisons. 'Joint
Israel-West Bank' reality is an apartheid state"
EXCERPT: "Similarities between the 'original apartheid' as it was practiced in South Africa
and the situation in ISRAEL [my emphasis] and the West Bank today 'scream to the heavens,'
added [Alon] Liel, who was Israel's ambassador in Pretoria from 1992 to 1994. There can be
little doubt that the suffering of Palestinians is not less intense than that of blacks
during apartheid-era South Africa, he asserted." (Times of Israel, February 21, 2013)
Video: Israeli TV Host Implores Israelis: Wake Up and Smell the Apartheid
In its 2015 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the occupied
Palestinian territories, published in 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and
Labor acknowledges the "institutional and societal discrimination against Arab citizens of
Israel."
Ronnie Kasrils, a key player in the struggle against the former South African apartheid
regime, minister for intelligence and a devout Jew: "The Palestinian minority in Israel has
for decades been denied basic equality in health, education, housing and land possession,
solely because it is not Jewish. The fact that this minority is allowed to vote hardly
redresses the rampant injustice in all other basic human rights. They are excluded from the
very definition of the 'Jewish state', and have virtually no influence on the laws, or
political, social and economic policies. Hence, their similarity to the black South Africans
[under apartheid]." (The Guardian, 25 May 2005)
Shlomo Gazit, retired IDF Major General: "[Israel's] legal system that enforces the law in
a discriminatory way on the basis of national identity, is actually maintaining an apartheid
regime." (Haaretz, July 19, 2011)
Israel also differentiates between citizenship and nationality, i.e., "Israeli"
nationality does not exist, only Jews and non-Jews, and each citizen carries an appropriate
identity card. While the implications of this absurdity for discrimination and racism against
non-Jews are obvious, it has been upheld by Israel's Supreme Court.
The effect of its blatantly racist "Citizenship Law" and more than fifty other
restrictions Arab citizens have to endure is well expressed by writer and Knesset member,
Ahmed Tibi: " dutifully defining the state as 'Jewish and democratic,' ignores the fact that
in practice 'democratic' refers to Jews, and the Arabs are nothing more than citizens without
citizenship." (Ma'ariv, 1.6.2005)
For the record: Eminent Jewish Israeli journalist, Bradley Burston, aptly sums up the
horrors Israel inflicts on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and occupied East
Jerusalem:
"Occupation is Slavery"
EXCERPT:
"In the name of occupation, generation after generation of Palestinians have been treated as
property. They can be moved at will, shackled at will, tortured at will, have their families
separated at will. They can be denied the right to vote, to own property, to meet or speak to
family and friends. They can be hounded or even shot dead by their masters, who claim their
position by biblical right, and also use them to build and work on the plantations the
toilers cannot themselves ever hope to own. The masters dehumanize them, call them by the
names of beasts." (Haaretz, Feb. 26/13)
It is about the Jews. But it's not just historical prejudices that affected the ancestors of
the Neocons. Amends could and have been made and life can go on. But Russia keeps messing
around by supporting every opponent of Israel. North Korea, Iran, Syria, one thing that ties
Russia's axis together is anti-Israelism.
And for all its faults, Congress is a solid supporter of Israel, as is Trump. Trump's
support of Israel and strong ties to Judaism (if he isn't Jewish he might as well be) were
obvious to those who were looking, but right after the campaign the "Russian collusion"
hysteria was strong and some people may not have understood it. (The Russian collusion thing
is hilarious because the antisemitic Hillary / Obama folks were the colluders.)
So people were surprised when Trump "reluctantly" agreed with Congress' sanctions.
Actually I am sure he was very happy to do so, and to some extent hit back for Russia's
efforts to elect his opponent among other things.
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body politic is,
this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it wouldn't have
been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a massive
corruption in the highest echelons of power.
Agree entirely -- a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional
and not) is a direct result of liberalism as a whole.
The crisis is systemic and Jews are only one, however important, part of that. In the end,
Bolton is a practicing Lutheran but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this
in purely psychiatric terms -- he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have
suspicion about what some of those are. Just an example.
The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the
positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)
Notable quotes:
"... When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum. ..."
"... Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA ..."
"... He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring Europe, as Fred Reed explained ..."
"... Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and should be said in reply to Peter's comments. ..."
"... Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to those killed by US and Israeli military actions. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or
the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin,
calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the
German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally
left the Fox News network in March 2018 )
When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters
provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters
immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was
a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum.
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall
an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition
problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.
He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a
monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I
once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring
Europe, as Fred Reed explained:
Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to
task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his
encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda
against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English
language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy
establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's
challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and
should be said in reply to Peter's comments.
Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In
one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down
of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS.
You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed
ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with
roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.
Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the
years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to
those killed by US and Israeli military actions.
Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills
journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country
does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early
1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who
attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.
Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out
hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for
the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These
individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the
overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.
During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be
colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received
significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem
less legit than the American revolutionaries.
Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of
Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in
Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of
the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to
Russia.
Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more
anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin
views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters
isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11.
The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties
(even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has
appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.
Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the
Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true.
However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many
Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively
more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians
questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.
No, it doesn't and, in fact, American military record of imperial adventures in second
half of XX-early XXI century, once one discounts this turkey shoot of incompetent Iraq
military in the Gulf Wars, is rather dismal. Including in the times when the US actually did
have wherewithal to fight (relatively) big wars.
Today the United States is a bankrupt state with over-stretched military and grossly
overrated technological and operational capabilities.
Empire needs military power -- NOBODY in the US top political echelons today, with some
very-very few exceptions (fingers on one hand will be enough to count them), understands the
nature of military power nor knows how to use it.
In other words -- they are incompetent. This competence, or lack thereof, is also the part
of the capability.
"... The Joy of Freedom: An Economist's Odyssey ..."
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash ; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; LibertyStickers.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott . ..."
David Henderson joins the show to talk about the consequences of war for the American
economy and the world political order. Henderson explains that many of the intrusive powers the
state has today are the result of major crises, during which the state seizes some new power,
and then after the crisis gives up much of that power again -- but not all of it. Over time
these powers accumulate into the government we have today. The nascent income tax, for
instance, was raised all the way to 77% for top earners during World War I, and then
'generously' lowered closer to modern levels after the war ended. Railroads were nationalized
around the same time, and then privatized afterward but with much more regulation. Henderson
identifies three crises that had the most impact in this area: World War I, the Great
Depression, and World War II. War in particular has dire consequences for government power, as
demonstrated by the rise of Hitler's fascism in Europe and numerous socialist regimes in the
East, all as a direct result of the aftermath of World War I. He advocates a return to defense,
rather than offense, which would not only save American taxpayers billions each year, but would
also avoid the blowback with which we've become all too familiar.
David R. Henderson is a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and former
professor of Economics at the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the Naval
Postgraduate School. He is the author of The Joy of Freedom: An Economist's Odyssey . Read his work at DavidRHenderson.com and
AntiWar.com .
US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option...
I know, and should probably have made it clearer that when faced with that
decision, the US will have to go home. The top levels of the USM pyramid know well the limits
of the box they've gotten themselves into. They've built the wrong force structure for the
world as it is and will be.
Madeleine Albright's famous question to Gen. Powell 'What's the point of having this
superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' can now be re-worded to
ask "What's the point of having this enormous military edifice and expenditure if it isn't
superb, or even effective?" The answer is that there is no point. Much of it can be
jettisoned without affecting the US' real strategic situation, and almost all of it if
its mandate were to be shrunk to defence of its homeland and close allies.
The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely to
have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home". I can't even imagine
how they're gonna do this in an organized way, but it's in everybody's interest that it happens
as smoothly as possible. That those two seem to have built a professional rapport and even
understanding is heartening.
The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely
to have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home"
Most likely, at least Dunford, unlike most of US establishment is professional. Look up
Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:
"... At the next level is the global benefactors(Profiteers): expensive war equipment makers, oil well production gear makers, robot makers, transport organizations, phantom for hire mercenary armies labor agencies, Democrat and Republican candidates managers to be placed on the "vote for 5 election" ballots, inventors of the fake, producers of "the fake" into propaganda, distributors of the propaganda designed fake news to masses in the public, and access managers who gate, for massive fees, lobbyist into see and deal with politicians, media giants, and power wielding bureaucrats. ..."
"... without globalism there is no neocon-ism, ..."
"... They will write laws, or get nations to sanction, start wars, regime change, terrorize, whatever to advance and to protect their exclusive right to competition free profit making); you might call it ownership of all of the factors of production by whatever means is necessary. ..."
Who cannot name the few corporations and their owners and directors that strongly support the neocon ideology on the Internet?
Which does the intelligence gathering (spying), which processes the data(data mining), which produces and sells OS(limits user
security), which makes sleuthing back doors for browsers and application software, which make the devices that negotiate the bits
between hardware (CPU) and software (OS), you know one bit for you the user and a duplicate bit of your bit for deep state intelligence
units.
At the next level is the global benefactors(Profiteers): expensive war equipment makers, oil well production gear makers,
robot makers, transport organizations, phantom for hire mercenary armies labor agencies, Democrat and Republican candidates managers
to be placed on the "vote for 5 election" ballots, inventors of the fake, producers of "the fake" into propaganda, distributors
of the propaganda designed fake news to masses in the public, and access managers who gate, for massive fees, lobbyist into see
and deal with politicians, media giants, and power wielding bureaucrats.
As I looked through this list I realized that if the public were to deny its elected government authority to support its neocon
capitalist, the entire economy would be forced to switch from Global to Domestic.. showering all kinds of benefits on the governed
sheep. No wonder the government is so insistent: without globalism there is no neocon-ism, without neocon-ism open
competition would flourish, the restrictions on human progress in copyrights and patents would disappear and prices would move
from controlled levels to competitive levels.
But I do not think the neocons are "ideologues"; unless lawless disregard for humanity in search of profit, is an ideology.
I am not even sure they are tightly organized, they are not colonist, they are monopolist (meaning any profit potential (tangible
or intangible) will soon belong to them or be within their control.
They will write laws, or get nations to sanction, start wars, regime change, terrorize, whatever to advance and to protect
their exclusive right to competition free profit making); you might call it ownership of all of the factors of production by whatever
means is necessary.
I look at them as capitalist, who have co-opted many different governments, who have forgone their humanity, who independently
profiteer, interactively, and for a multitude of different reasons, to produce a common collective set of extremely effective
outcomes
EuroMaydan was a plot to cut Ukraine from Russia and as such it was very successful. Probably
one on the most important geopolitical victories of Obama administration. Victoria Nuland was the
architect of this geopolitical victory.
As for Ukrainian people, in view of globalists they does not matter much. Moreover concerting
Ukraine into debt slave was probably a part of the plan. cinical but effective and well executed
plan.
Notable quotes:
"... Not the first time either they used Nazis as their lackeys. Aside from the several Nazi helpers after the war, that they pardoned because they promised to help the USA instead, they also used them for what they do best in Gladio. ..."
The tacit support given by the centre-left to the installation of the regime in Kiev
should give them cause for concern.
Politics in the Ukraine can only be understood by reference to its history and ethnic and
cultural make-up -- a make-up criss-crossed by lasting and entrenched ethnic, cultural and
political differences. The country has long been split into the northern and western Ukraine,
where Ukrainian is the official and everyday lingua franca, and the more industrialised
regions of the east and south where a mixture of Russian speaking Ukrainians and ethnic
Russians reside. Additionally, there has long been Hungarian and Romanian settlement in the
west of the country, and a particularly important Polish presence, whose unofficial capital,
Lviv, was once the Polish city of Lwow. The Russian Orthodox Church is the predominant form
of Christianity in the East, whilst in the west the Christian tradition tends towards Roman
Catholicism.
Politically the Eastern and Southern Oblasts (Regions) which includes the cities and
centres of heavy industry, Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhe, Nikolayev, Kherson,
Simferopol and Odessa, have tended to tilt towards Russia whilst the western regions have had
a more western orientation. This has traditionally been reflected in the electoral division
of the country. There is no party which can be considered 'national' in this respect, except
ironically, the old Communist party, which of course is now banned. The major regional
parties have been the Fatherland party of Yulia Tymoshenko (since renamed) and the former
head of government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk as well as the ultra-nationalists predominantly in the
west of the country, and the deposed Victor Yanukovich's Party of the Regions in the East
(now defunct) along with its junior partner in the coalition, the Ukrainian Communist
Party.
However, what is new since the coup in February 2014 there has been the emergence from the
shadows of ultra-nationalist (fascist) parties and movements, with both parliamentary and
extra-parliamentary (i.e.,military) wings. In the main 'Svoboda' or Freedom Party, and the
paramilitaries of 'Right Sector' (Fuhrer: Dimitry Yarosh) who spearheaded the coup in Kiev;
these have been joined or changed their names to inter alia the Radical Party, and Patriots
of the Ukraine; this in addition to the punitive right-wing militias, such as the Azov
Regiment responsible for numerous atrocities in the Don Bas.
Suffice it to say, however, that these political movements and parties did not emerge from
nowhere.
This far-right tradition has been historically very strong in the western Ukraine. The
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was first established in 1929 and brought
together, war veterans, student fraternities, far-right groups and various other disoriented
socially and political flotsam and jetsam under its banner. The OUN took its ideological
position from the writings of one, Dymtro Dontsov, who, like Mussolini had been a socialist,
and who was instrumental in creating an indigenous Ukrainian fascism based upon the usual
mish-mash of writings and theories including Friedrich Nietzsche, Georges Sorel, and Charles
Maurras. Dontsov also translated the works of Hitler and Mussolini into Ukrainian.
The OUN was committed to ethnic purity, and relied on violence, assassination and
terrorism, not least against other Ukrainians, to achieve its goal of a totalitarian and
homogeneous nation-state. Assorted enemies and impediments to this goal were Communists,
Russians, Poles, and of course -- Jews. Strongly oriented toward the Axis powers OUN founder
Evhen Konovalets (1891-1938) stated that his movement was ''waging war against mixed
marriages'', with Poles, Russians and Jews, the latter which he described as ''foes of our
national rebirth''. Indeed, rabid anti-Semitism has been a leitmotif in the history of
Ukrainian fascism, which we will return to below.
Konovelts himself was assassinated by a KGB hit-man in 1938 after which the movement split
into two wings: (OUN-m) under Andrii Melnyk and, more importantly for our purposes (OUN-b)
under Stepan Bandera. Both wings committed to a new fascist Europe. Upon the German invasion
in June 1941, the OUN-b attempted to establish a Ukrainian satellite state loyal to Nazi
Germany. Stepan Lenkavs'kyi the then chief propagandist of the OUN-b 'government' advocated
the physical destruction of Ukrainian Jewry. OUN-b's 'Prime Minister' Yaroslav Stets'ko, and
deputy to Bandera supported, ''the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing
German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the
like.''
During the early days of the rapid German advance into the Soviet Union there were some
140 pogroms in the western Ukraine claiming the lives of between 13000-35000 people
(Untermensch, in fascist terminology). In 1943-1944 OUN-b and its armed wing the Ukrainian
Insurgent Army (Ukrainska povstanska armia -- UPA) carried out large scale ethnic cleansing
resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands; this was a particularly gruesome affair in
Volhynia where some 90000 Poles and thousands of Jews were murdered. The campaign of the UPA
continued well into the 1950s until it was virtually wiped out by the Soviet forces.
It should be said that during this early period Bandera himself had been incarcerated by
the German authorities up until his release in 1944, since unlike Bandera they were not
enamoured of an independent Ukrainian state but wanted total control. Bandera was only
released at this late date since the German high command was endeavouring to build up a
pro-German Ukrainian quisling military force to hold up the remorseless advance of the Red
Army. Also pursuant to this it is also worth noting that during this period the 14th Galizian
Waffen SS Division, a military Ukrainian collaborationist formation established by Heinrich
Himmler, was formed to fight the Soviet forces, and yet another being the Nachtingal brigade;
(1) this unit was integrated into the 14th Galizian in due course. It is also interesting to
note, that every year, and up to 2014 commemoration ceremony including veterans of this unit
takes place with a march through Lviv in an evening torchlight parade -- genuine Nazi
pastiche. The flag of this unit is not dissimilar to the Peugeot logo, the standing lion, and
can be seen at ultra-nationalist rallies as well as football matches involving Lviv Karparti
FC. There are also numerous statues of Bandera across Ukraine, and since the 2014 coup even
street names bearing the same name. Significantly the UPA have now received political
rehabilitation from the Kiev Junta, with Bandera declared a hero of the Ukraine and the UPA
rebranded as 'freedom fighters.' One particularly splendid statue of Bandera stands proudly
in Lviv and is usually adorned with flowers.
Other novel attractions the capital of Banderestan include 'Jewish themed restaurants' one
such is Kryivka (Hideout or Lurking Hole) where guests have a choice of dishes and whose
dinning walls are decorated with larger than life portraits of Bandera, the toilet with
Russian and Jewish anecdotes. At another Jewish themed restaurant guests are offered black
hats of the sort worn by Hasidim. The menu lists no prices for the dishes; instead, one is
required to haggle over highly inflated prices ''in the Jewish fashion''. Yes, it's all good
clean fun in Lviv. Anti-Semitism also sells. Out of 19 book vendors on the streets of central
Lviv, 16 were openly selling anti-Semitic literature. About 70% of the anti-Semitic
publications in Ukraine are being published by and educational institution called MUAP (The
Inter-Regional Academy of Personnel Management). MAUP is a large, well-connected and
increasingly powerful organization funded from outside anti-Semite sources, and also
connected to White Supremacist groups in the USA and to the David Duke, former Grand Wizard
of the Ku Klux Klan.
(It is one of the ironies of history that if the Zionists in AIPAC and the Washington
neo-con think tanks, and the Labour Party Friends of Israel, were so concerned about
anti-Semitism, they might try looking for it in Lviv. They wouldn't have to search very
far.)
Present day neo-Nazi groupings in Ukraine -- Svoboda (Freedom) party and Right Sector -- have
been the direct descendants from the prior ideological cesspool. Heading Svoboda is Oleh
Tyahnybok. Although these are separate organizations Tyahnybok's deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn
is the main link between Svoboda's official wing and neo-Nazi militias like Right Sector. The
Social-Nationalist party as it was formerly known chose as its logo an amended version of the
Wolfsangel, a symbol used by many SS divisions on the Eastern front during the war who in
2004 a celebration of the OUN-UPA, stated in 2004, that ''they fought against the Muscovite,
Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.'' And further that
''Ukraine was ruled by a Muscovite-Jewish mafia.'' Tyahnybok came under pressure from the
then President, Yuschenko, to retract his inflammatory statements, which he did, but he then
retracted the retraction!
Given the fact that Svoboda was, apart from its stamping grounds in the west, making
little national electoral headway, it was essential to clean up its image and deny its Nazi
past. But this was always going to be difficult since the members of such groups cannot help
the unscripted outbursts and faux pas which they tend to make and which reveals their true
colours. For example, following the conviction and sentencing of John Demjanjuk to five years
in jail for his role as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at the Sobibor death
camp, Tyahnybok travelled to Germany and met up with Demjanjuk's lawyer, presenting the death
camp guard as a hero, a victim of persecution ''who is fighting for truth''.
And so it goes on. We can therefore infer that this organization is inveterate fascist.
More disturbing Svoboda has links with the so-called Alliance of National European Movements,
which includes: Nationaldemokraterna of Sweden, Front Nationale of France, Fiamma Tricolore
in Italy, the Hungarian Jobbik and the Belgian National Front. More importantly Svoboda held
several ministerial portfolios in the Kiev administration, and Right Sector swaggers around
Kiev streets with impunity, and/or are being drafted into a National Guard to deal with the
separatist movements in the east, or to beat down anyone who doesn't conform to their Ayran
racial and political ideals.
One would have thought that this mutating revolution in the Ukraine would have drawn
attention of the centre-left to the fact that fascism had gained a vital beachhead in Europe,
and that the danger signals should be flashing. But not a bit of it; a perusal of the
Guardian newspaper quickly reveals that their chief concern has been with a non-existent
'Russian threat'. One of their reporters -- or old friend, Luke Harding -described Right
Sector as an ''eccentric group of people with unpleasant right-wing views.'' Priceless! This
must rank as the political understatement of the century. In fact, the Guardian was simply
reiterating the US-imposed neo-conservative foreign policy. But naturally, this is par for
the course.
(1) The Nachtingal brigade, which was later incorporated into the SS Galizien, took part
in a three-day massacre of the Jewish population of Lvov (now Lviv) from 30 June 1941. Roman
Shukhevych was the commander of the Nachtingal and later, in 1943, became commander of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the "Banderivtsy", or UPA/UIA[5] ), armed henchmen of the fascist
Stepan Bandera, who after the war pretended that they had fought both Nazis and Communists.
Members of the division are also accused of having murdered some 800 residents of the Polish
village of Huta Pieniacka and 44 civilians in the village of Ch?aniów.
Another successful US Coup to be ticked off the list by the American Govt, such as what
happened in Ukraine! And US support of Nazi's to achieve this, no problem as we created ISIS
& ISIL & we arm Terrorists to the teeth to fight Assad in Syria! It never ceases to
amaze me how America has the absolute, bare faced cheek & hypocrisy to accuse other
Countries such as Russia of election meddling! It's the pot calling the kettle black
scenario! For decades America has meddled in other Nations affairs either by supporting
Tyrants & Dictators or committing illegal Wars & coups to overthrow democratically
elected Govts & their Leaders! Anyone who offers resistance to US tyranny such as Cuba,
Iran, Venezuela etc are sanctioned with soft power means to overthrow them in order to force
compliance with US demands or face economic ruin! Or hard power is used such as Military
intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya! Only Russia & China stand in the way to
stop this illegal behaviour & are spearheading the way to a multipolar world & Trump
is accelerating America's decline & isolation which will be a great thing for every Peace
loving person on Earth who are sick to death of US interference & Warmongering in other
Nations affairs! Make America mind it's own business again & stop waging war, should be
Trump's motto!
mrtmbrnmn , July 6, 2018 at 12:19 am
Kudos to Daniel Lazare for continuing the truth-telling about the US-engineered (not-so
neo) Nazi coup in Ukraine. The great Robert Perry never ceased to write that truth.
Every time I see the phrase "Putin invaded Crimea" (or something similar) in the MSM amen
corner reporting on Ukraine or Putin, it is the "tell" that lies and propaganda are being
spewed.
MBeaver , July 6, 2018 at 5:01 am
Not the first time either they used Nazis as their lackeys. Aside from the several
Nazi helpers after the war, that they pardoned because they promised to help the USA instead,
they also used them for what they do best in Gladio. I wouldnt be surprised if even the
NSU is a new version of Gladio in Germany. Evidence points to that direction for sure.
michael , July 6, 2018 at 12:48 am
Not sure how this article could be written without the role of Victoria Nuland and the US
State Department discussed. Without America propping up these NAZIs, Ukraine could not have
been destabilized, and divided between an uncaring EU and a historic protector in Russia.
David G , July 5, 2018 at 10:12 pm
Cohen got another piece on the topic published by the Atlantic Council. The droll headline
reads:
"Ukraine's Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence (And No, RT Didn't Write This
Headline)"
So at least they're a little self-conscious about the about-face.
Demetri Politis , July 5, 2018 at 9:07 pm
The Maidan affair was planned, organized and financed by the USA. This was not the first
time we tried to have regime change in Ukraine. In 2004 we organized "the orange revolution",
but it did not succeed. So this time we came better prepared. We brought in armed thugs. We
used Sloboda and Right Sector, brought the paid scum to Hotel Ukraina and ordered them to
shoot police and "demonstrators" to set the putch in motion to oust the elected president of
Ukraine. These are proven facts. there are intercepted phone conversations that confirm them.
The Foreing ministers of germany, France and Poland met with President Yanukovich and signed
an agreement. He was going to form a new government and have early elections in December. But
the USA did not like that. So Ms NUland, the Assistant Secretary for European Affairs called
and told our Ambassador in Kiev "fuck the EU. We want Yatseniuk to be the Prime minister". So
the putch was set in motion to make sure this time we will get what we wanted. Another phone
call was intercepted. The EU Minister of Foreign Affairs called the Foreign Minister of
Estonia who had just come back from a visit to Ukraine and asked him what learned. "I was
told, he said, that all the shooting that killed civilians and policemen came fro the hotel
Ukraina, which was occupied by Sloboda and Righe Sector", "I know", she replied. But as far
as the US press and media, nothing reported. Really shameful.
People at the time of the bombshell leaked phone conversation -- between Estonia's Urmas
Paet and the E.U.'s Catherine Ashton, (mistakenly and big time) believed the false flag coup
blaming Yanukovich for the "Maidan Massacre" was totally blown out of the water. People in
the West believed the propaganda Yanukovich massacred his own people, then Paet reveals it
was "the opposition" responsible for the killings of both Ukraine police and civilians --
certainly THE story at that point in the unfolding development of the Ukraine turmoil -- ,
yet astonishingly not a single Western corporate media reported on the phone call.
Also astonishing was the (non)response during the call of Ms. Ashton after hearing Paet's
facts. She un-energetically responded as if Paet had just told her he had a "wonderful
breakfast this morning" instead of the whole Western narrative on Ukraine is dead wrong,
something on the lines of "Oh, I didn't know that ", leaving it at that and without showing
any (what would be expected) surprise, or curiosity by asking for much more detailed
information. Ms. Ashton by her bizarre, completely unaffected response to what was absolutely
shocking information at the time leads one to think she knew the truth about Maidan and the
coup well before she took the call from Paet.
It was most certainly a profound lesson learned in the ability of the media and
politicians to bury the largest, most important sets of facts imaginable -- intentionally and
maliciously with respect to the people's right to know the fullest historical truth.
Unfortunately, that capacity for "burying facts" has continued up until today, making
Consortium News and other genuine truth-focused media platforms all the more necessary for
exposing the lies.
Peace.
Brad Owen , July 6, 2018 at 3:51 am
The EU is just as complicit as the US; this is a Trans-Atlantic Empire cobbled together
Post-WWII from newly acquired ( non-existent before WWII) American military might and the
ruling classes from the former British, French, and Dutch Empires, and German and Italian
ruling classes, shorn of overt fascism, now to be used for consolidating their power in
cooperation rather than competition ( which only lead to nasty world wars), centered in a EU,
commanding an American military as its Legions, to bring as much of the World (their former
colonies) into their Global Empire as possible. The smart Ukrainians looked East, toward
Russia and China and New Silk Road Policies of development. The less smart Ukrainians looked
West to become an undeveloped, breadbasket Province of the Trans-Atlantic Empire of global
dimensions. That is what launched the Regime change; to keep the Ukraine looking West, not
East (where the future of the World is now being narrated Trump knows this too, and is
looking East toward development, via resolving Korean crisis, meetings with Xi and with Putin
on July 16th).
Can the whereabouts of Stepan Bandera be ascertained during the period 1924-1944, when his
organization was involved in the massacres in Volhynia that are cited? I have read he was in
German detention during that period as the Nazi's feared he was actually backing an
independent Ukraine free of German control. Re: Wikipedia, the author of these killings is
not Bandera, but one Mikola Lebed. Do the demonstrators march around with pictures of
Lebed?
ToivoS , July 5, 2018 at 10:55 pm
Wrong, Bandera was in german custody for about 12 months. He freely worked with the Nazis
otherwise. The SS Galizian division consisted of 12,000 Ukrainians who saw him as their
leader. Lebed was also a follower. Wikipedia for this story is not a good place to find out
about the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators.
Sleak , July 5, 2018 at 8:28 pm
Look at the picture of the party's leader It might seem that he is emulating nazi's
greeting or that he might merely pointing at somebody who is addressed to him with a question
Speaking of neo nazis Yes its a dangerous precedent to revive those "traditions" but unlike
red Khmers Commies or other affiliated organizations they didn't put to sleep millions of
people and even though they are claiming something so far it's only a war with monuments not
people See the difference Mr Cohen And btw passive aggressiveness is much more dangerous that
stupid stunts
Joe Lauria , July 5, 2018 at 9:48 pm
>> so far it's only a war with monuments not people <<
" In the earlier stages of the civil war, for instance, the rightwing extremists burned
more than 40 people alive in a labor union building in Odessa, a horrific incident downplayed
by Western media."
Cassandra Dean , July 5, 2018 at 8:17 pm
It wasn't Right Sector it was Yatseniuk who ascribed World War II as the Soviet Union's
invasion of Germany and Ukraine, and who criticized his own removal from office by comparing
electoral politics to the Fuehrer Principle.
It was Dutch/American-owned TV channel Hromadske that broadcast a discussion of how many
people in the south-east were "surplus to requirements" and would have to be killed.
F. G. Sanford , July 5, 2018 at 6:43 pm
I'll keep this brief, because I already got blue in the face back in 2014 trying to point
out many, if not more of the things covered in this article. Y'all need, first of all, to
knock off that "neo" stuff. These people are not "neo" anything. They are bona fide
originals. The leadership operating in Ukraine today exhibits an unbroken heritage of loyalty
to and association with the OUN-B, Stepan Bandera, Yaroslav Stetsko and the Einsatzgruppen
"death squads" of WWII.
Some of them, in their nineties now, still dress up in their Wehrmacht uniforms and
participate in the rallies and torchlight parades. Poroshenko is no "innocent bystander",
either.
Between Pravy Sektor, Svoboda, the Social Nationalist Party and Andrey Parubiy, what we're
talking about here is re-activation of the old guard, not a new movement.
Now that they are openly conducting pogroms against Roma people and others, that should be
fairly obvious. "Toria" Nuland and her neocon cronies put a Nazi regime in control of a
country right on Russia's border. You gotta be nuttier than a family size jar of Skippy to
pull off a stunt like that.
'The U.S.-backed "Euromaidan" uprising not only drove out former president Viktor
Yanukovych in February 2014, who had won an OSCE-certified election, but tore the country in
two, precisely because ultra-rightists like C14 were in the lead But if one had to choose the
looniest story of all, one that best reflects the abject toadyism of the reporting classes,
it would have to be "Why Jews and Ukrainians Have Become Unlikely Allies," a 1,400-word
article that ran on the Post-owned Foreign Policy website in May 2014.'
Here's the thing though: however weird it may sound, there actually DOES seem to exist
some sort of tacit alliance between (some, not all) Jews and Ukrainian Nazis. Even if their
ultimate goals are completely at odds -- the Nazis hate the EU, but the Jews mostly want to
join it -- they nearly always seem to work together against Russia. It has even been
maintained that the Azov Battalion (one of the all-volunteer Neo-Nazi militias fighting
against the Donbass rebels) was entirely financed for a time by Jewish oligarch Ihor
Kholomoisky, at least until he did something to piss Poroshenko off and got sacked from his
post as governor of Dniepropetrovsk. And in the beginning, Jews who tried to point out that
Neo-Nazi groups were involved in overthrowing Yanukovych, like Dr. Stephen Cohen, were
roundly denounced a 'Russia apologists' just for stating facts.
But now that Washington's whole Ukraine project has gone south, I guess the Nazis, having
outlived their usefulness, are, as usual, to be the fall-guys and take all the blame.
Anna , July 5, 2018 at 2:39 pm
yeh, the Kaganat of Nuland has many veils.
The most stunning aspect of the banderite putsch in Kiev was the dead silence of
nazi-hunters from Wiesenthal Center, the always oh-so-sensitive ADL, the main 52 (fifty-two!)
American Jewish organizations, and the overall docility and compliance of the "righteous"
Israel with the banderite-neo-Nazi ideology by Kagans-selected power structures in
Ukraine.
Mr. Kolomojsky, a financier of neo-nazi battalion Azov, is still an Israeli citizen.
Mrs. Nuland-Kagan, the main machinator of the regime change in Kiev, has not been
ostracized by the Jewish Community at large.
The deeply amoral and bloodthirsty Carl Gerschman from NED, who has been the main cheerleader
for the putsch and for the installing the banderite-friendly government in Kiev, has not been
ostracized by the Jewish Community at large either. What a stench!
https://medium.com/@gmochannel/us-staged-a-coup-in-ukraine-brief-history-and-facts-898c6d0007d6
He reminds me of the professor character played by Walter Malthau in the movie Fail
Safe , which came out in the same year as another Cold War themed movie Dr.
Strangelove
Kind of like a broken clock, Pipes wasn't always wrong as noted in detail here:
Pipes and Soviet history are two incompatible entities. They do not relate to each-other
in anyway. Pipes' body of work, among many other things, is in the foundation of an American
decline today.
Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew
Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right."
Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington
Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and
Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons &
Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges
"the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects
in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:
10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is
based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to
problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and
mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law
only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive
rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established
facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal
democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with
practical programs grounded in fact and reason.
Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their
status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a
permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that
globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.
The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)
ah, so it was Dubya all along!
what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a
tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!
So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of
((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind
the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !
sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American
middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!
The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless
suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going
down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class
Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a
transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and
catastrophic expense of America and the American people.
I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to
Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As
Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?
Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that
printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the
ZUSA?
Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to
benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing
so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their
marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians
to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?
They are not. Lobbing for MIC does not require to be Jewish, although many Jews are talented
propagandists. Neocons and Zionists are more closely related, with Zionists being a subset of
Neocons
The "deep state" has always existed everywhere, and always will. It's a feature, not a
bug, depending on whether its interests coincide with the people's, or not. For example, many
of the Romanovs were installed via "deep state" palace coups.
But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews"
instead?
From the article:
>Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI) leaders include former John McCain foreign policy
advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former
chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations.
Every. Single. Time.
Oh, and about those Brits, I found it really interesting to know that all of the Royal
Family's men are circumcised, and it's not done medically as in the USA, it's done by a
Rabbi.
_at_ Quartermaster
>done in Ukraine
That was done by the USA. One of the primary architects of it was Victoria Nuland. She's
Jewish, in case you were wondering.
But can we stop using the word "neocon" and simply start using the word "jews"
instead?
no, because the worst neocons are Gentiles
And I say worst, because at least the Jews are doing what they consider to be 'best for
the Jews', as they foment war, and loot the US treasury of billions of dollars every year to
benefit their tribe.
Whereas the Gentile neocons are serving the Jewish supremacists at the direct of their own
tribe and nation.
Scum like Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, George Will, the entire membership of the GOP in
good standing with 'conservative Inc., Paul Ryan deserves a mention of his own, John McCain
and Lindsey, and all the rest of the rotten neocon Gentiles, who're far, far worse human
beings than Max Boot or William Kristol.
this is perhaps the most contemptible man alive. (even possibly edging out McCain!)
listen how at 1:38 -- 1:42 he advocates taking out all of Syria's defenses, which would of
course lead to the utter destabilization and ultimate carving up of Syria.
what this POS doesn't mention is that he, (and Dick Cheney and other Gentile scum)
are on the strategic board of Genie Energy, which is poised to make trillions of dollars
pumping oil out of Syria's Golan Heights. Which today is universally considered Syrian
territory. But if Assad falls, then that all changes in a heartbeat.
also look at him at 51 seconds in, drooling over the planned destruction of Lebanon by the
ZUS.
here he admits that he's an investor in 'energy and national security matters'
can you imagine a rich man advocating for the slaughter of untold innocents, including
American service men and women, in order to illegally and immorally steal a nations territory
so that he could profit by it with a few shekels more?
There aren't words..
He also was part of John McCain's presidential campaign.
The Jewish neocons are babes in the woods when it comes to the raw, treasonous evil of men
like Woolsey.
All of the verbage to tell us what we already know? That the alliance between the soft
neoliberal, the media and the neocons is all about the Jewish supremacist agenda.
That is to use the might of the US against those who oppose the plan for Greater Israel to
dominate the world thru endless wars and financial manipulation.
To destroy the entire Middle East to steal land, to control the political process in ALL
the countries on Earth particularly the West.
Look at the fake media ownership, the journalists, the "comics" , the sports owners,
academia. All jewish controlled and financed.
Putin is in the way. He's lucky to be alive still.
Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. that's why
Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains in propaganda and Hollywood movies.
To me it is all quite simple. FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and
a smaller Britain. Stalin had other ideas.
Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government,
in my view. Deep State still tries to impose this world government.
Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons
are back'.
Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.
The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingness to realise that it could no longer
maintain the empire. This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standards became too
expensive, the one fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.
Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half. What a half war
accomplishes we see in Syria. Alas, seldom in history did reason rule. If it will in the
present USA, I doubt it.
The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have
turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control
and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their
psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world,
but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of
this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader
they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and
dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.
Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting
individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.
"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."
And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it
existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of
the Federal Reserve.
There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the
former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool
right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then
virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.
The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver
Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made
precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white
Christian cultures and identities.
That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever
they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of
Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and
World War 2.
What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major
voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original
junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.
But the original alliance is the same.
You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon
problem without also solving the WASP problem.
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since
1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR
agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the
Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.
Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in
point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in
the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists
have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and
historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia
in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist
communists.
The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel
and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person
knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.
From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the
name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the
whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they
accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25
years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't
do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence"
budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's
their incompetence.
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading.
Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true
believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US
elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to
be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse
"righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and
bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right"
and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot
and resent being thwarted from stealing even more.
Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to be exposed as a king with no clothes by various
countries switching the trade to their own currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the
US dollar and US government debt. The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years,
with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents
going down the drain, like all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about
inevitable course of history.
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best.
Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as
Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater
Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria
Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in
the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading
lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those
"black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any
protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep
don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
some perhaps, but the middle class is dying (literally in the case of middle aged white
men), and the working class is languishing.
It's true the 1% are gorging on a frenzy of corruption and graft, and a no doubt there are
a few who prosper by serving that class, but the Main Streets of America are not, in any way,
profiting off the exploitation of Africa or S. America or anywhere else. Indeed, it is them
that are being exploited.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world
in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and
spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey
no argument there!
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India.
India and China (and Ethiopia and Somalia and Mexico and Brazil and so many other places)
are not poor due to the oppression of Americans. Sure, Goldman Sachs and a thousand other
vultures and thieves have done a lot of damage, but no more that the leadership of those
respective lands.
Has India ever heard of birth control, (for God's sake!) Or Indonesia or a hundred other
places, like Haiti, that overbreed their finite resources and limited space until their
countries are reduced to shitholes.
If a coal miner in West Virginia is doing a little better than an Untouchable in India,
then trust me when I tell you I'm not going to blame the miner (or janitor or mechanic) in
America for the poverty in the corrupt and stupid third world.
As far as the suffering that the ZUSA has actually caused, and is causing in places like
Syria and Yemen, none of that is being done on behalf of the American people, but rather the
typical American is taxed to support these wars and atrocities on behalf of Israel or Saudi
Arabia, respectively.
The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
recently I was ranting on the terrible folly of this very thing.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
Yes, they're just as selfish and greedy, but they aren't as filled with genocidal
hatred.
It's because of Zionist Jews that Americans were dragged into both world wars.
It's because of Zionist Jews (and assorted corrupt Gentiles) that Israel (with help from
the CIA and ((media)), did 9/11, in order to plunge this century into horrors writ large like
the last Zio-century.
That there are legions of corrupt and soulless Gentiles willing and eager to jump on that
gravy train, is a shame and a sin, but it doesn't excuse the people who are the motivation
behind the wars.
The Kochs (and Chamber of Commerce and other Gentile scum) want massive immigration out of
pure, raw, insatiable greed.
Whereas the Jewish supremacist Zionists want it out of genocidal tribal hatreds.
The typical American middle and working class are ground into the dirt between these two
pillars of Satanic iniquity.
I agree with much of what you're saying, and it's true about the elites in general. But
the ZUSA is completely controlled by Zionist Jews, and I think that's pretty obvious.
This man knew that 9/11 was going to happen, if he wasn't part of the planning. And yet
look at how they abase themselves
It's not just the media. The late night talk show hosts are doing their bit too, as I
heard last night on a Jimmy Kimmel rerun (of a recent show). Can't remember the context as I
was doing the dishes, but did hear him say the usual "Russian illegally annexed Crimea"
standard phrase, immediately followed by "and then invaded Ukraine". The latter just casually
tossed off as a given. People hear these memes constantly repeated and, regardless of their
veracity (suspect to say the least) it becomes part of their worldview.
Who is behind the political preaching of hosts like Jimmy Kimmel ? Inquiring minds want to
know !
Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 2:43 pm
You know what irina, seeing these late night talk shows go all crazy over Putin makes me
think of the Zio-Media executives, and where their allegiance to power resides. Joe
irina -- I quite agree. The same is true of the former Daily Show crew members who now
have their own shows. Several have shown themselves to be quite the little imperialist war
mongers when it comes to gleefully repeating the CIA sponsored Syrian regime change and
Russiagate propaganda. Samantha Bee & John Oliver kept triggering my gag reflex with
their propaganda lines until I found a simple but effective solution and stopped watching
them altogether. We have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in the U.S. One can
chose to either get one's "pro-war regime change propaganda" delivered with barely concealed
racism and misogyny from Fox News, or instead opt for hearing the same nonsense delivered
with pretentious blather and catchy jazz interludes at PBS. American democracy is all about
having "choices."
Jeff Harrison , July 5, 2018 at 7:57 pm
I quite agree. I knew the minute that they started calling RT a propaganda outlet that, in
fact, the USG was running a full scale propaganda operation. I don't know if I simply wasn't
paying enough attention or if they have, in fact ramped the operation up, but I can hardly
read any MSM outlet's output without calling bullshit on it.
irina , July 6, 2018 at 2:55 am
Jimmy Kimmel actually used to be funny and there is a really good clip (somewhere on
youtube no doubt) of him reading a 'doctored' Dr. Seuss
book to The Donald (a live guest) during his primary candidacy.
But since The Donald's election Kimmel has opened almost every show with 'ten minutes
hate' segment on The Donald. I still watch (or at least listen) occasionally because I want
to know what is being fed to The Public.
You are absolutely right though, "we have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in
the US". The average person maybe has 30 minutes to devote to the news, between getting home
and having dinner; they watch some sort of news show and think they are 'informed'. But it
actually takes MANY hours and a knowledge of alternative websites to even begin to piece
together an approximation of what might, in reality, be going on.
The Russians used to say that, at least they knew they were being propagandized.
Unfortunately, probably due to 'American Exceptionalism', most Americans think the MSM is
bringing them 'the truth'. But nothing could be further from The Truth.
"... "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power." ..."
"... Wolfowitz's document was leaked before release, and its bald-faced call for Imperial conquest caused enough of a noise that it was hastily rewritten before its official release a month later. ..."
The personal viciousness of the Neocons' attacks on Putin and Russia may have something to do
with ancient memories (however false they may be), but the geopolitical & geo-economic
challenges that the US & West faces compels even good old-fashioned Anglo-Imperialists to
say nasty things about Russia.
Since Putin came to power, Russia has been working the Plan. Its strategic objectives are
to rejuvenate and consolidate the "Russian World" in Mackinder's Heartland, and from there to
leverage its enormous geographical size & natural resource base to become the
central power on the Eurasian continent. It's unique position culturally and geographically
allows it to aspire to being the Grand Arbiter of Eurasian affairs, the only nation able to
link the two ends of the continent geographically, economically and culturally.
When Wolfowitz wrote his now infamous words
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that
posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new
regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from
dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to
generate global power."
he was channelling Mackinder who said
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.
Wolfowitz's document was leaked before release, and its bald-faced call for Imperial
conquest caused enough of a noise that it was hastily rewritten before its official release a
month later.
The manner of the Wolfowitz Doctrine's emergence was a harbinger of the sort of half-assed
attempt at empire the US embarked on. When it comes to Empire building, one is well advised
to either Go Big, or Go Home. In the event, stretching its half-baked, incoherent doctrines
to the breaking point, a series of inevitable fiascos followed and what we're seeing now is
the last desperate attempts to keep its satraps onside by bamboozling their publics and
making it difficult for clear sighted politicians to lead their countries away from the
increasingly loud sucking sound coming out of Washington. As even that tactic is now failing,
the US will soon face another Go Big, or Go Home moment.
Exactly. "Elites" are doing it. They own Hollywood, too. Republicans like Trump, Ryan,
Graham aren't groveling before organized Int'l Jewry when they take orders from
"billionaires," not at all. It's Chamber of Commerce nerds they secretly answer to, you see,
not Int'l Jewry's Wall Street and Fed, whose business is tricking a profit from honest
American labor wherever it's found, while (apparently for laughs) calling this extortion the
efficient allocation of scarce financial resources. It's all so farcically obvious at this
point yet Conservatism Inc is telling us it's all MAGA magic. Have to love this new face of
Conservatism Inc, too -- a fruitcake whose sexuality derives from an obsession with male
defecation to the extent his kind ingest feces and genital excreta and call it luv.
Nonetheless, the CUFIs will be sending their sons to die and lose their limbs to turn the ME
into one big Tel Aviv and in the process leave poor Moloch seeming like Mickey Mouse in
comparison.
the US will soon face another Go Big, or Go Home moment.
US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option,
unless one wants to start a global war. But I in general agree with your thesis.
Yes, Stalin was not Jewish, but what would you say was the Jewish role (if any) with the
Bolshevik revolution (and the Holodomor and the rest of the horrors visited upon Russia and
beyond, -as described by Solzhenitsyn- by Jewish finance, intrigue, treachery and genocidal
villainy)?
Look first at the list of first Sovnarkom, for starters. Jewish finance and interests were
important but only, again, as part of the puzzle. I do not consider Solzhenitsyn a good
writer, even less a competent Russia historian, not to mention him being a complete amateur
in any affairs pertaining defining military and political factors which led to two Russian
Revolutions (in fact, three, once 1905 is considered). So, I am not interested in discussing
the work of falsifiers.
If the ECB, (an extension of Rothschild's Fed) were in the hands of Gentiles, do you
think Europe would be committing ethnic suicide?
The ongoing White Goyim Genocide project is proof positive that the Tribe is holding the
reigns. Our own gentile "elites" are getting played into this suicide just like everyone
else. Only the lies differ. They don't know that their seat of "power" is at the kiddie table
and that it has an expiration date.
Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews
and noble Russian Orthodox Christians.
obviously
In fact, it is infinitely more complex.
I've delved a bit into it. Read some books and such. But my education is always
incomplete, and I'm an eternal student.
But if you want to view it as one unstoppable Jewish juggernaut against Christ-loving
Russians, who am I to suggest to you otherwise.
naw, that's not how I see it.
The reason I bring up Jews is because I see them as often times bad actors that are
causing dire problems right now, today, in this world. And menacing things I value, like
peace, when peace is practicable.
When you talk about the infinite complexity of Russia's history, so too is that history
tied to her neighbors, and Ukraine's history as well. (I suspect you know where I'm going
with this ; )
So what some very clever and sinister people might do, is use that history and certain
fault lines in the Russian and Ukrainian narratives, to foist strife and death and misery and
war. You see?
Now you may say that Poroshenko is not a Jew, and as far as I know, that's right, (or not,
I don't really know or care), but what I do know, and do care about, is the way neocon Jews
(and goyim stooges) in my country have cynically used those historic fault lines to foment
strife and war.
The way I see contemporary Russian history is one that following the collapse of the SU,
Russia was looted during Yeltin's drunken reign by Rothschild agents known as the "Russian"
oligarchs, (a few of which seem to have been actual ethnic Russians), and from there how
Putin heroically wrested the destiny of Russia from these bad actors.
Then it was on to a bright future, except then Putin grew alarmed by what he saw happening
to Libya, to be followed by Syria and what was it Gen. Clark said.., seven other
countries?
So he put the kibosh in Syria's destabilization, and by doing so, earned the wrath of the
Zionists.
Whereupon neocon Jews like Nuland installed Jews like Yatz in a coup that here in the ZUS
they called "democracy".
The reason ((they)) did that, was to stick a pointed stick into the Russian bear, for
defying ((their)) agenda in the greater Levant.
That's why they blamed Putin for MH17.
That's (probably) why they lowered the price of oil, to harm Putin (and Venezuela and
others)
That's why our media are 24/7, 365 screeching that PUTIN IS HITLER!!!
Because, as far as I can tell, it is Putin that is the only resistance to whatever Bibi
wants.
Because what I can tell you, is that Russia or no Russia, Bibi gets what ever he wants
from "our" fecal government, always.
And so because of this dire paradigm, I do sometimes mention that it is Jewish
supremacists that are foisting these wars. And causing great strife between Russia and the
rest of the world.
I don't fulminate about Jewish supremacists because they stole my twinkle, no.
I talk about Zionist intrigue because that is exactly why the world is demanding that
Putin return Crimea. And pay for the deaths on MH17, and why thousands have died in Donbas,
etc..
These things didn't happen in a vacuum. There are actors involved, and geopolitics, and
Machiavellian intrigues and machinations that should be exposed IMHO.
If the ECB, (an extension of Rothschild's Fed) were in the hands of Gentiles, do you
think Europe would be committing ethnic suicide?
Western Liberalism doesn't have Jewish roots, unless one wants to associate capitalism
with Jews only, which is not the case. This liberalism is flesh and blood of the
Enlightenment and Europe's current problems have roots in this liberalism, together with the
post-WW II cultural shock. It is also rooted in the United States emerging from this war
unscathed. So, no it is not just the tribe, it is the whole clockwork of Western Civilization
and its leader, the United States, which drives it into the gutter. Jews here are just for
the ride and chutzpa–US and Jews were created for each-other. "Rothschild's Fed" in
this case but one of many institutions which was created to enrich a rather substantial (to
put it mildly) American strata of radically not-Jewish waspies who are now trying to find any
justification (and excuses) for them screwing their own country into the increasingly grim
future. Per tribe, ask yourself a question WHO owns this site and who allows, including very
many openly mental people, to freely and openly express their opinions? Is Ron Unz, who is a
real cultural American asset (even though I do not always agree with him) a tribe or not?
Guess who is the most vocal and courageous fighter against anti-Russian madness in US?
Professor Stephen Cohen, is he a tribe?
Here is a great British historian for ya:
"This swift decline in British vigor at home and the failure to exploit the empire were
not owing to some inevitable senescent process of history .That cause was a political
doctrine .The doctrine was liberalism, which criticized and finally demolished the
traditional conception of the nation-state as a collective organism, a community, and
asserted instead the primacy of individual. According to liberal thinking a nation was no
more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws .It was Adam
Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to
exercise a long-live and baneful effect on British power .Adam Smith attacked the traditional
"mercantilist" belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting "
"The Collapse Of British Power", Correlli Barnett. William Morrow & Company, Inc. New
York, 1972. Page 91.
Now ask yourself a question–IS the United States a nation-state?
The liberalism of the Enlightenment meant that we should all use our rationality to
question the dogmas (and the leaders) of the day, and put them to the test of reason.
That's why it's also known as the Age of Reason.
You obviously intent on ignoring economics of the issue and transition from one mode of
production to another. It was this thing which predetermined all others. I do have 1929
(IIRC) version of Paine's Age of Reason.
US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option
I know, and should probably have made it clearer that when faced with that decision, the
US will have to go home. The top levels of the USM pyramid know well the limits of the box
they've gotten themselves into. They've built the wrong force structure for the world as it
is and will be.
Madeleine Albright's famous question to Gen. Powell 'What's the point of having this
superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' can now be re-worded to
ask "What's the point of having this enormous military edifice and expenditure if it isn't
superb, or even effective?" The answer is that there is no point. Much of it can be
jettisoned without affecting the US' real strategic situation, and almost all of it if
its mandate were to be shrunk to defence of its homeland and close allies.
The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely to
have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home". I can't even imagine
how they're gonna do this in an organized way, but it's in everybody's interest that it
happens as smoothly as possible. That those two seem to have built a professional rapport and
even understanding is heartening.
The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely
to have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home"
Most likely, at least Dunford, unlike most of US establishment is professional. Look up
Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:
Frankly, I always read Rostislav Ischenko with interest. After all, he worked for the
Ukrainian government, including Ukrainian Foreign Affairs ministry, until 2014, when it
became abundantly clear that project "Ukraine" is an abject failure. He has a lot of inside
knowledge, although he sometimes predicts as imminent things that happen a year or two after
his predictions. But in most things he tends to be right.
jumping the shark ...revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received .. For all your research can you not see a false flag, i.e. manufactured event for public
consumption
confused see Operation Gladio
Sergey Krueger is wrong about questioning of gender roles. That comes from the necessity to
to have an identity wedge during neoliberal period of the USA society.
Well, you put it yourself. Liberalism as is it was during the Enlightenment was
questioning all dogmas and everything that is considered normal here we have a double aged
sword. When and what you stop questioning and reasoning about logic of certain things.
Logically they started with kings and after all things were questioned they came now to
roles of males and females, sex, gender and god forbids where this can takes us.
There are certain things that cannot be questioned for society to have a back bone. A
moral and cultural one. Otherwise things turn the way they are now. There is nothing sacred
and everything can be questioned and reasoned about.
I think that the potential threat of what happens if there is a hot war are more extensive
than just having the Strait of Hormuz being closed. If you look at that map you can see that
Saudi Arabia is just across the Strait. And as luck would have it, Saudi Arabia's oil fields
are mostly in the east which means that they are within close missile range of Iran. Nice oil
fields you have there Saudi Arabia. Shame if something happened to it. The United Arab
Emirates are also within missile range as well. If both countries think that Patriot
batteries will protect them then they must have been disillusioned to find that those
Patriots couldn't even defend against wonky Houthi missiles.
Then there is the fact that Iran shares a border with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Remember how
the CIA shipped all those anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and ManPads to the Syrian
Jihadists via countries like Saudi Arabia? Be a real shame if captured stock got passed on to
the Taliban via all those borders and started targeted US/Coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Just these two possibilities show how Iran has a whole range of options to use if it came to
a military confrontation. And it should be remembered. If a US/Coalition could not
successfully occupy Iraq with a population of 37 million, then how can Iran with a population
of 80 million be occupied?
Another factor is that even if a US/Coalition managed to somehow suppress all those missiles
the Iranians are using to guard those Straits, you would never be sure that you got them all.
Who really want to risk their oil tankers going down those Straits and wanting to risk that
bottleneck beig turned into a flaming sea? The trouble there is no way that there would be a
quick campaign possible with everybody home by Christmas. This has the potential of still
being fought during the 2020 US elections and I do not think that the US establishment wants
to risk that one. What they do want is to strangle Iran economically and turn the place into
one of grinding poverty but if pushed too far may go the Sampson option.
Local kids could also be trained to fire rockets across the water. The straits are not
straight and cut into Iran, so there's a good vantage point for Iran.
> probably already is.
>> China is still officially stating that it will not end its Iranian oil imports and
operations.
China's investment of billions into the deep port of Gwadar should not be discounted.
While China has ceded the ocean surface to the US navy, the wei qi way is to surround and not
engage directly. By now the Gulf of Oman should be a sensory organ for information critical
to Iran, and passive systems are much harder to detect & destroy.
We're now three years out from Qiao Liang saying China "thinks that Washington will not
fight Beijing for the next ten years". China doesn't want the fight (and I mean high
explosives, not 'fighting for') yet, but they've been preparing. And let us not forget the
rooster tails on the American fleet fleeing the Persian Gulf in October 2015 when Russia
launched cruise missiles at Syria. That was three months after the 'One Belt, One Road'
speech.
While the Saud's are working out their family disputes they cannot afford to have the
petrodollar disabled. But the US is materially capable of weathering energy disruptions
better than the EU, which would become even more dependent on Russia. Long term, the
petrodollar is gone and climate migrations are coming, so the when of Fortess America could
depend on relative and not absolute 'cui bono, ciu malo'.
tldr: the fight is inevitable, there's more than two in the ring, and there's no
referee.
I doubt if it is mined at this time, but mines would be a logical way to quickly shut the
Strait down. A couple of small fast ships dropping mines at night could shut it down very
quickly. They could drop mines along the far shore which would force ships towards the Iran
side where they would be vulnerable to shore-based anti-ship missiles.
BTW, the standing NATO minesweeping group is three ships (two Lithuanian and one British).
Historically minesweeping is one of the roles carried out by other countries that the US is
currently working hard to alienate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_NATO_Mine_Countermeasures_Group_1
Mine sweeping ships generally are not heavily armored to avoid magnetic and acoustic
signatures that can trigger mines. So they can struggle in contested waters and would be very
vulnerable to anti-ship missiles.
"Rouhani, considered by European politicians to be a reformist, appears to be showing a
hardline streak that is nearer the strategy of the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah
Khamenei. "
Everybody becomes a hardliner when faced with an existential threat, which Trump's threats
are now creating for Iran.
There's no need to sink any oil tankers to stop all oil shipping. Those tankers don't sail
without full insurance for the cargo, and no maritime insurer will back shipping through the
Strait of Hormuz while the Iranians are on the warpath. Hence, no oil tanker.
That is why a few mines would be very effective. All oil shipping would cease immediately.
Because mines can be redeployed very easily, including by air or fishing boats, insurers
would probably not be assuaged by naval assurances that mines have been swept.
In the 1980's when the Iranians mined the Straits the tankers still moved. What was the
insurance deal then? Did it the US pick it up for that part of the trip?
"If a US/Coalition could not successfully occupy Iraq with a population of 37 million,
then how can Iran with a population of 80 million be occupied?"
Iran is also mostly Persian. Yes, there are Arabs, Armenians, Baluchis, etc., but the vast
majority are Persian and are proud to be Persian. Unlike Iraq, where you have a country with
3 groups you can play off each other.
I visited Iran over 5 years ago and was able to speak to some regular Iranians (English is
not uncommon amongst men and women). They will fight to the last man, woman, and child if
anyone came into their country. And that's what the secular ones who hate their government
say.
Every town has lamppost flags showing the pictures of all the young men who died in the
Iran-Iraq War. It was humbling to see the generational devastation wrought on that country.
Even the youth view that war as a world war, since people from over 25 countries were found
to be fighting on the Iraq side ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
– Remember the Soviet Union was ALSO on Iraq's side!). They faced destruction and
survived. They view themselves as an ancient, sophisticated people as well as the greatest
survivors in the world (all with good reason as they are an amazing people with a rubbish
government).
I do not see this ending well if the US thinks they can put the Iranians into a corner and
get compliance. It is an amazingly ahistorical understanding of the geopolitics of Iran.
These are the people we should be allying with not Saudi Arabia. But this is the same group
who think blundering into Iraq or Syria was a good idea, so I really can't be surprised.
Just to add that the people living above the main Saudi oil fields, Eastern Province, are
mainly Shiites. Shiites are also to be found in the south along the ill defined border with
Yemen. Both communities are disaffected and have been for decades, although the BBC, which
advertises its "unparalled global expertise" (sic) between news bulletins and other
programmes, reckons the Arab Spring caused the restiveness in Saudi Arabia.
This said, the Saudis and their Pakistani poodles can foment (Sunni) Arab and Baluch
disorder in Khuzestan and Sistan / Iranian Baluchistan.
I always wonder to myself when, on the BBC News Channel, they pan across the alleged
newsroom in New Broadcasting House and you see all those desks -- rows upon rows of them --
where people are sat, or, occasionally, get up and have a wander around, what the heck are
they doing there? It can't be producing news reports because you see the same half a dozen
so-called news "stories" stripped endlessly across the schedule throughout the day.
Every so often we get "business" news, which is someone from a spread betting company
piffling on about some rot or other then "a look at the markets", not, unfortunately, a view
of Covenant Garden or something, that would be more interesting, but rather some mysterious
figures from world indices and forex rates splayed across the screen like some inscrutable
hieroglyphs.
Then a bit of sport, with a dash of added jingoism.
Finally, some rally round the flag update on "the forces" with some top brass on the poop
deck of an aircraft carrier looking for an F35 ("F35 coming real soon"). Maybe Sophie
Rayworth in a tank.
Or alternatively it's Jenny Hill from Berlin with something about sausages and Merkel with
stock footage of people drinking beer from unfeasibly large glasses wraps it all up apart
from a sky diving granny then the weather.
It could be worse. We all could work in one of these places. It would not matter how great
a story you found, it would all have to get through the editors who report directly to their
owners like with the Murdoch press. The stuff you talk about is just the stuff that gets the
editorial nod i.e. pure pap.
Some of the stuff that I have seen on Australian TV, however, is nothing less than out and
out propaganda. I watch some of this stuff and I compare it with what I read on this site or
what a commentator chips in with and I wonder what these newsreaders actually are thinking as
they read some of these stories. Probably their steady pay packets.
I wish to god I knew. I have seen this creeping in the past decade or more. I suspect that
a lot of bad practices are imported from overseas. There are international conferences for
conservative political parties so you would have American Republicans, British Conservatives,
Australian Coalition, etc. all mixing together and swapping idea and techniques. They even
work together when there is an election in their country.
Just the other day I heard one Coalition member describe another as a "patriot" which you
NEVER hear in Oz. Kinda like a Republican describing another Republican as a good Communist.
You just never hear it. We even have an ex-Prime Minister that sounds like he could be a good
buddy to Mark Rubio running around trying to blow up his own party (currently in power)
saying that we should build as many coal power stations as possible because climate change is
not real.
Historically our governments have been ruled by pragmatism and past US governments have
labelled us as "socialist" due to adopting such things as single-payer health. The past few
years I am noting more and more ideologues going into politics who want to drag the country
into their way of thinking whether it is to pick fights with China (our major trade partner)
or send the Australian military to the ends of the earth as if they were Mercenaries-r-us.
The times they are a changing.
It all reminds me of C S Lewis' description of H -- as a giant bureaucracy. "The Screwtape
Letters" were written at the end of WW-2 and still come across as 'fresh.'
Supposedly the KSA funded development of the Pakistani bomb. There probably is some
agreement to hand some over (if it hasn't already been done) for "existential threats" This
could turn very bad very fast.
Iran has lots of options. Their Navy wouldn't last very long in a hot war but they have
lots of asymetric options. They have reverse engineered Russian torpedoes and these could be
launched from land or from mini-subs in shallow waters (where they are far harder to detect),
making life very difficult for opponents, let alone tankers. They can strike the UAE and much
of Saudi Arabia using a wide variety of ballistic missiles. To prevent this, the US would
have to strike Iranian territory, and this would cause a massive escalation. In almost any
scenario, the Straits would be shut down for many months, and this would be catastrophic for
the world economy. Asia would come off worse as they are most dependent on LNG and oil from
that region.
As you say, the great 'unsaid' is the Taliban. If Iran decided it was in their interest to
supply them with a few dozen trained operators with a few thousand anti-tank missiles and
manpads, then its goodbye Kabul.
The Iranians hate the Taliban and Al Quaeda and ISIS a lot more than we do since we are on
Saudi Arabia's side. They also seem to follow their principles. Don't forget our allies and
proxies in Syria are the headcutters and madmen ..all Sunnis ..although our government does
not want to admit it. They would be a lot smarter to trigger a Shiite uprising in Saudi
Arabia and shut the country down. The Shiites in Saudi are downtrodden and abused.
To escalate a carrier sinking to nuclear war is, I believe a lose/lose proposition. Let
say the Iranians sunk a carrier and the US Nuked Tehran.
The Iranians would not be in a forgiving mood at that point, and it would do little to
remove the somewhat irritated Iranians along the northern side of the Persian Gulf. The
irritated Iranians would initiate incidents over the impact of irradiated Iranians.
The US could nuke the Iranian Coast along the Persian Gulf, but, the gulf is not wide, and
the result would be poor prospects for the US allies on the South side of the Gulf. In
addition one does not know if nuking Shea would provoke a Sunni backlash against "the
infidels, the Christian US."
One could argue that Christians and Nukes cannot be mentioned in the same sentence.
The Prologue of Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil" outlines a potential scenario of a
Shiite attack on the eastern Saudi oil fields. The sub-title is The Doomsday Scenario.
The book is about the US-Saudi relationship by a retired CIA officer. A very good read and
part of trying to understand this entire mess.
Exactly right. Logic dictates that if Iran is attacked, Iranian missiles will soon
thereafter attempt to destroy all of the oil producing capacity selling to Europe, Japan and
the US within range of its missiles. This means ships, oil fields, pipeline, ect. Oil prices
would skyrocket, plunging the US, Japan and Europe into a deep economic downturn.
Why people ignore the outcome you provided is beyond me. If I were Iran, I'd do the same
if Israel attacked too.
Your guess is that nobody will attack the Iranians after they attack the shipping to close
the straits?
In the 1987 Iran attacked about 91 ships in the Gulf. The oil still flowed. On April 18,
1988 the US attacked and severely damaged a number of Iranian ships and bases. After that
things started winding down. Then on July 3, 1988 the US shot down that Iranian airliner.
Then things really quieted down.
What are the differences now? Iran: ballistic missiles and subs?
There's Lt. General Riper, who played the Iranian side in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war
games, "killing" 20,000 Navy personnel and "sinking" 16 American warships
on the first day, so he knows better than to even start such a bottlenecked battle.
There's always General Farnsworth, the great grandson of Colonel Armstrong Custer.
Farnsworth has worked for two decades in the Purchasing & Planning wing of the Pentagon
-- three levels below daylight -- but his confidence in an immediate American victory Over
There is indubitable.
In similar vein, MI5's Eliza Manningham Buller is a descendant of Redvers Buller, British
commander in the second Boer War, but much more of a realist and moderate.
Redvers Buller? Seriously? I have read a lot about his role in the Zulu War of 1879.
Intriguing character being hard-fighting and hard-drinking and yet refused to wear his 1860
China medal on the grounds that it was an unnecessary war. And a descendant of his is head of
MI5?
Here's a little character sketch of Redvers Buller, from " On the Psychology of
Military Incompetence ", by Norman Dixon:
The leading character was the commander-in-chief, General Sir Redvers Buller. According
to a contemporary description there could be no finer choice for our South African
adventure: 'There is no stronger commander in the British Army than this remote, almost
grimly resolute, completely independent, utterly fearless, steadfast and vigorous man.
Big-boned, square-jawed, strong-minded, strong-headed Smartness sagacity administrative
capacity He was born to be a soldier of the very best English type, needless to say the
best type of all.
Unfortunately this assessment was at variance with the facts in all but two particulars.
Firstly, he was indeed big. Secondly, though sadly lacking in moral courage, he was
undoubtedly brave when it came to physical danger. In this respect, as in many others, he
was not unlike Raglan of the Crimean War, and indeed some other commanders of subsequent
years.
Of Sir 'Reverse' Buller, as he came to be known by his troops, Rayne Kruger writes: 'At the
risk of marring [the] contemporary description it should be mentioned that his big bones
were particularly well covered, especially in the region of the stomach, and that his
square jaw was not especially apparent above a double chin. He had entered the army with no
disadvantage, his mother being a Howard and niece of the Duke of Norfolk, and he was very
wealthy, which was fortunate in view of his preference for a diet of ample good food and
champagne.
Such examples of the Peter Principle, wherein people are raised to their own level of
inefficiency, was never better illustrated than in the case of Sir Redvers Buller, who has
been described as 'a superb major, a mediocre colonel and an abysmal general'. In this
case, high-level military incompetence must be laid at the door of heroic leadership, for
this was the quality which eventually put him where he could do the most damage to his own
side.
The US response will be that this unprovoked aggression is an act of war, etc. This
ignores our own unprovoked act of aggression, the embargo.
In case any has forgotten, those dastardly Imperialist Japanese launched an "unprovoked"
attack on Pearl Harbor because the US put Japan under an embargo.
Embargoes themselves are not acts of war, but blockades are. But this is all technical
blather. The US is attempting to strangle Iran. Iran will attempt to strangle the Gulf Arabs
and the US. If Iran starts firing missiles or blockading the straits, the US will attack
Iran. Iran will in turn launch attacks on the Gulf states. This could drive oil over $200,
perhaps higher.
If Iran were clever, they would institute some sort of quarantine or inspection in their
territorial waters. Indeed, they should claim jurisdiction over the entire strait in the
interest of international security (they could certainly find some US document somewhere and
just change the names). Then they could stop every ship going in and out and spend a week or
so inspecting each one for contraband, disease, etc. This would not be an act of war but
would certainly provoke the US into striking first anyway.
Iran has already extended its territorial waters to 12 miles, as did Oman. Given that the
strait is 29 miles at the narrowest, and that to deal with the amount of shipping, pretty
much all of it passes through either Omani or Iranian territorial waters. Technically,
Iran/Oman has right to stop any non "innocent" (read unarmed) shipping trough it territorial
waters. Not sure what is Omani relationship with the US/Saudis at the moment, wasn't paying
much attention to the Gulf.
Once the US decides to strike first, we're going to be on our own. The Saudis will be
completely useless as they always were, understandably not wanting to be cannon fodder for US
interests. And with most of Europe and Asia relying on gulf oil, our 'coalition of the
willing' is going to be a bit shy of members.
But $200 a barrel and the US a solid producer? Seems to be some win-win money to be made for
both Raytheon and Exxon-Mobil.
No Saudi just like no rich American will give his life for his country .in the military.
Life is just too good for them .why fight in the desert when you can cool it at a cafe in
Munich ..why are all the Syrian men of fighting age in Munich and Hamburg? They don't want to
fight for their country.
Considering the restraint Iran has shown regarding Israeli attacks in Syria, it's safe to
assume they want to avoid war at all cost. Don't expect any acts of aggression from them.
Talk of closing the strait is trying to see if there is any spark of independence left in
Europe's political elite. Unfortunately the Europeans only care about money – what they
get personally from the US to run their countries and what their corporations get from doing
business with America. There just isn't enough business between Iran and Europe to offset
that. Now the more unreasonable Washington becomes the more uncomfortable its allies become,
however they will still hold their noses and answer the call to duty. I'm afraid Iran's
courting Europe will produce little to help them. Luckily China and Russia, even Turkey and
India, are far more important.
The nice thing for Iran's hardliners – assuming the MSM narrative that they are
nasty terrorists always looking to cause trouble – is that they don't need to take
aggressive action to start a war. They've got America/Israel and that's the cause of every
war in the 21st century. That pairing will decide if and when there is to be a war. Russia
and China might have the ability to provoke caution but Iran doesn't.
Do not expect any actions from the Iranians to provoke a war. It's a war they cannot win
and they know it. it's also a war they can't lose but the price they could pay by surviving
might be really horrific. I'm not sure they'd close the strait even in a shooting war because
that would risk further escalation. The moment America starts bombing Iran the law of
diminishing return kicks in. The US will be looking for any excuse to go nuclear. Therefore I
doubt Iranian resistance will be more than defensive. Hopefully Russia is providing them with
air defences to be able to shoot down some US planes. Just lay low and ride out the storm.
That's been the philosophy of US/Israeli opponents in the Middle East this decade. It's why
the Russians take so much crap and keep turning the other cheek. They understand that either
they lose such a war or, if they are winning they risk the US going nuclear. Iran can't win a
war with America. Iran, however, can inflict unacceptable casualties but then they run the
same risk of Washington going nuclear in retaliation. In Asian capitals you have rational
players who understand that a nuclear war must be avoided if possible. Thus they avoid any
aggressive actions which they fear could lead to such a war. The problem humanity has is that
we're not sure if there are any rational players in Washington or Tel Aviv.
"The problem humanity has is that we're not sure if there are any rational players in
Washington or Tel Aviv."
+1
Given our belief in being an "exceptional nation" hasn't this been humanity's problem since
the end of WW2?
Will the sanctions pull Iran enough to such an escalation? Would other countries (apart
from Turkey) thing that this is troubling enough to risk US sanctions and disobey? There has
been an escalation in language between the UE and US regarding Iran sanctions but it is still
too soon to know what will be the EU position. We migth know after tomorrow's meeting in
Vienna. I don't know what could happen but be sure the US is running out of "natural allies"
by stepping up too much it's support for Saudi Arab. Trump is inaugurating a new era and it
doesn't look pretty.
The Army might be in trouble but the Marine Corps WILL BE IN A HURT LOCKER FROM HELL if
its ever called on to face Russian forces if they follow thru with published planning.
It is as clear as day that President Trump is obsessed with regime change in Iran. What is
not made clear is how much his gambit is damaging to Americans and American interests.
Without cause or justification, Mr. Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of
Action (JCPOA), striking a hard blow to America's European allies – and its own
credibility. Moreover, he threatened European countries with secondary sanctions should they
continue to trade with Iran.
To top it all, in his latest move, he has called for all Iranian oil exports to be cut off
by November. Or in practical terms, he is imposing an economic blockade on Iran. This is a
similar scenario that was played out by the British in 1951 against Iran and Dr. Mossadegh
– who was later overthrown in the 1953 British-US coup. But today, the IR of Iran is not
the Iran of 1953, and the brunt of American demands and actions will not be borne by Iran
alone.
Demanding that no country purchase oil from Iran is in fact an economic blockade. It is an
illegitimate use of power to force a sovereign nation to surrender. It must be made clear
however, that it is not just Iran that is the target here. The Trump administration's demands
arean offensiveexercise of extraterritorial authority with no regard for sovereign equality
between states. All states involved in trade with Iran will either have to cower to his demands
or be punished.
But there is more than state sovereignty and indignation that is involved. These actions
will have a dire effect on the economy of allies, and they will hit Americans in the wallet
– hard. If Mr. Trump is giving a November deadline, he hopes to postpone the impact this
will have on the November elections. He wants total rule over America before totally
bankrupting it.
To fully appreciate how Mr. Trump intends to make 'America great again' where his policy
regarding Iranian oil is concerned, one must take a look at some numbers and empirical
evidence.
The oil strikes leading up to the toppling of Iran's Shah were felt around the world. During
the 1978-79 revolution, Iranian oil production dropped 3.8 million barrels per day for 3
months. Although outside production increased by 1.8 million barrels to make up for the loss,
the net loss to the world was 150 million barrels of oil. However, the compounding results of
the production loss were significant around the globe.
Many Americans may recall the lines at the fuel pumps, but that was just what met the eyes.
The increase in oil prices impacted farming, production, transportation of goods and services,
and so on. At that time, China, currently the second biggest oil consumer behind America, was a
net exporter of oil. The loss to U.S. economy was estimated at many billions of dollars in 1979
and 1980 (Deese and Nye 308-309) [i]
.
More recent studies show that Iranian oil has a major impact on the U.S. economy even though
America does not import a single barrel of oil from Iran. In 2008, economists Dean DeRosa and
Gary Hufbauer presented a paper in which they claimed that if the United States lifted
sanctions on Iran, the world price of oil could fall by 10 percent which would translate into
an annual savings of $38-76 billion for the United States [ii] .
But sanctions alone were not responsible for oil price hikes in 2008 and beyond. In July
2008, oil had reached a peak of $142.05/bbl (see chart HERE ). This price hike
came on the heels of some important events. In May, President Bush sent a ' warning message' to Iran on
the same day that additional aircraft carriers with guided-missile destroyers were sent to the
Persian Gulf.
In June of the same year, the New York
Times reported that: "Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that
American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities."
In July, then presidential candidate Barak Obama asked for
tougher sanctions to be imposed on Iran.
It was not until September 2008 when President
Bush declined to help Israel attack Iran that oil prices started to relax. They hit a low
of just over $53 /bbl in December 2008.
Oil prices continued to rise again under Obama's sanctions and reached well past the $100
mark. The prices climbed down once again during the JCPOA negotiations reaching an all time low
of $30.24/bbl in January 2016 – after the signing of the JCPOA.
Today, oil prices stands at $74.30/bbl. A fact not lost on any American who has filled up
his/her gas tank lately– and paid for groceries. The deadline for Iran oil cut off is yet
months away, but the impact has started.
Given that other countries may step in to compensate for some of the Iranian oil
loss, other factors which effect prices must be considered – the most important of which
is the security of the Strait of Hormuz. As mentioned previously, the British oil blockade
scenario of 1951 will have far different consequences in 2018 should America impose an economic
blockade or oil embargo.
In the 1950's, Iran did not have the military might to retaliate to the oil embargo and the
naval blockade was aimed at crushing the economy in order to bring about regime change. This
economic blockade, should it be allowed to happen, would crush the economy of much of the
world.
As it stands, 35% of seaborne oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz 85% of which goes to
Asian markets. As the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has stated: "The blockage of
the Strait of Hormuz, even temporarily, could lead to substantial increases in total energy
costs."Today, Iran not only has the military might to block the Strait of Hormuz in
retaliation, but it also has the legal right.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that vessels
can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage.
Under UNCLOS framework of international law, a coastal state can block ships from entering its
territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms "peace, good order or security" of said
state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed "innocent" [iii] .
Saudi Arabia and the UAE export oil through Iran's territorial waters. Should they help America
choke Iran's economy, their passage is not deemed 'innocent'.
Even if Iran simply chooses to merely delay the passage of tankers by exercising its right
to inspect every hostile oil tanker that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, such inspections
and subsequent delays would contribute to higher oil prices.
No doubt, the Iranian navy is no match for the formidable US navy. However, the shallow,
narrow waters of Hormuz do not allow for the maneuvering of US battleships. The very presence
of warships can lead to incidents. At its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz is 21 miles
wide – hardly wide enough for a naval battle to take place and allow the passage of oil
tankers at the same time. In recent years (2012), the USS Porter, a US navy destroyer,
collided with an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. The collision left a big whole in the
navy destroyer.
American officials and oil companies have attempted to assuage the concern of over oil
shortages by stating that America is one of the top oil producers. Some fact checking is in
order.
According to EIA's latest available data, America's total exports in 2018
(thousands of barrels/month) was 7,730 bblin April. The same governmental body stated that
total imports for the same month was 310,295. According to the EIA: "In 2017, the United States
producedabout 15.4 million barrels of petroleum per day (MMb/d), and it consumed about 19.9
MMb/d. Imports from other countries help to supply demand for petroleum." (Click HERE for
explanation of imports and exports).
These facts do not stop the spread of such news. As recently as June 4, 2018, Offshore Technology announced America is marching toward being the biggest oil
producer. Important factors to bear in mind are that 1. America is the largest oil consumer and
continues to have a deficit, and 2. Shale oil production is up thanks to higher oil prices.
While environmentalists objected to shale oil production, oil companies halted the
extraction of oil when prices dropped. Anything above $50/bbl makes shale oil production
feasible – which also makes it more expensive of the consumer. Although Mr. Trump and his
administration have no regard for the environment, many states and countries have banned shale
oil production (see LINK for list as of December
2017).
So the American people (and much of the rest of the world) is left with a stark choice.
Either cave in to Mr. Trump's demands, accept loss of business, pay much higher oil prices at
the pump and for consumer goods, prepare for a potential war, and sacrifice the environment
– especially water, and mortgage the future of the earth more than we already have, or,
don't heed Trump's demands – even if means a short term loss.
Either way, messing with Iran's oil exports is not an alternative that the world can afford.
It may well be that Mr. Trumpis beholden to Mr. Netanyahu. He may well feel comfortable enough
to subject the American people – and their allies to financial hardship; but the question
is will Americans and the rest of the world sacrifice themselves at the Trump-Netanyahu
altar?
* Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on
U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.
Yes neoliberalism is deeply predatory. Still is survives as a social system for let's say 40 years (1987-2017) and probably will
survive another 20-30 years. And what is coming might be worse. If Trump signify turn to "national neoliberalism" the next
step from it might some kind of neofascism.
Notable quotes:
"... But financialization didn't just have a direct cost -- no value being created, just men in shiny suits betting pebbles on who'd blink first. It also had an opportunity cost. As finance grew to be a larger and larger share of the economy, so the wind got sucked out of the sails of the "real economy", as American economists put it, which simply means people doing the work that actually does create value -- teachers, nurses, engineers, artisans, bakers, small-town factories, and so on. Think about it simply: the more money that was burned up in speculating, the less that was available for making things of genuine value. So the incomes of all these people -- those in the "real economy" -- began to stagnate. New schools and hospitals and energy grids and so on weren't built -- all the money was going towards speculating on the backs the old ones, sometimes, often, on their failures. A black hole was growing at the heart of the economy -- but according to pundits, it was the sun itself. Everything was upside down. The bets were indeed about to all go south at once -- only no one knew understood how or why yet. ..."
"... The third force in the rise of predatory capitalism was the implosion of the institution formerly known as the job. Now, just before peak financialization, beginning in the 1990s, many jobs were "offshored." That's a polite way to say that the speculators above discovered that companies were more profitable when they evaded as much of human civilization as possible. Find a country with no labour laws, no protections, no standards, no rule of law at all, in fact -- and send jobs there. That way, you wouldn't have to pay for pensions, healthcare, childcare, insurance, and so on. Cost savings! Efficiency! Synergies, even -- you could make everything in that one sweatshop. ..."
"... We're used to thinking that offshoring "took" jobs in rich countries. But the truth is subtler -- and more ruinous. They blew apart the idea of a job as we used to know it. As jobs went to countries without good governance, decent labour laws, a boomerang effect happened. ..."
"... Managers began stripping away benefits of every kind, from childcare, to vacations, to healthcare. Until, at last, in a final triumph, the "at-will job" and the "zero-hours contract" were created -- social contracts that were only "jobs" in name, but offered less than no stability, security, mobility, or opportunity. People who didn't have benefits could now be fired on a whim -- and so now they bore all the risk. But the risk of what, precisely? ..."
"... Remember those speculators? Taking huge risks, betting billions with each other, on exactly nothing of real value? Risk had come full circle. Now it was the average person in the real economy who bore all the risks of these bets going bad. If the bets with south, who'd take the hit? All those people with zero benefits, no protection, no safety ..."
"... So in had to step governments. They bailed out the banks -- but didn't "restructure" them, which is to say, fire their managers, wash out their shareholders, and sell off the bad loans and bets. They just threw money at them ..."
"... What does a bankrupt have to do? Liquidate. So governments began to slash investment in social systems of all kinds. Healthcare systems, pension systems, insurance systems, media and energy systems. This was the fourth step in the birth of predatory capitalism: austerity. ..."
"... The only thing keeping the real economy going at this point was investment by the government -- after all, the speculators were speculating, not investing for the long run. It was governments that were effectively keeping economies afloat, by providing a floor for income, by anchoring economies with a vast pool of stable, safe, real, secure jobs, and investing dollars back in societies short of them. And yet, at the precise moment that governments needed to create more of precisely that, they did just the opposite. ..."
"... It's the once prosperous but now imploded middle which turns on the classes, ethnicities, groups, below it. The people who expected and felt entitled to lives of safety and security and stability -- who anticipated being at the top of a tidy little hierarchy, the boss of this or that, the chieftain of that or this, but now find themselves adrift and unmoored in a collapsing society, powerless. ..."
"... Predatory capitalism imploding into strange, new forms of old diseases of the body politic ..."
How did we get here? To a world where the forces of intolerance and indecency are on the rise, and those of decency, wisdom, and
civilization are waning? Is something like a new Dark Age falling?
I think it has everything to do with predatory capitalism, and so I want to tell you a story. Of how it came to be born, in four
steps, which span three decades.
During the 2000s, the economy of the rich world underwent something like a phase transition. It became "financialized", as the
jargon goes -- which simply means that finance came to make up a greater and greater share of the economy. Hedge funds and investment
banks and shady financial vehicles of all kinds went from a modest portion of the economy, to making up a huge chunk of it -- around
half, in some countries.
Now, what was "financialization" for? What were all these bankers, hedge fund managers, investors, and so on, doing? The answer
is: nothing. Nothing of value, anyways. They were simply placing bets with each other. Bets on bets on bets, meta-bets. Economists,
who have something like an inferiority complex, envious of swashbuckling bankers, bought their marketing pitch hog, line, and sinker:
"we're going to reduce risk! Everyone will benefit!" But no such thing was happening -- and anyone could see it. Risk was being
massively amplified, in fact, because every time a speculator made a billion dollar bet with another, they were both betting with
the same pool of money, essentially. Whose money? It wasn't theirs -- it was everyone's. Pensions, savings, bank accounts, earnings,
retirement funds. All that being bet on bets on bets on bets which amounted to nothing. But what if all the bets went south at once?
First, I want you to really understand that what was happening was a zero-sum game, where one had to lose for another to win.
Imagine there are three of us, in a little stone age tribe, with a hundred pebbles each. We spend all day every day finding new ways
to lend pebbles to each other, to bet them on who'll blink first, or even bets on those bets, and so on. In our little economy, does
anyone ever end up better off? Does anyone, for example, discover antibiotics, or even invent the wheel? Nope. We're just fools,
who'll never accomplish, learn, or create anything, sitting around playing a zero-sum game, in which no real value is ever created.
The pebbles never become anything more valuable, like, for example, books, symphonies, knowledge, or medicine. All that is exactly
what was happening during the phase of financialization.
But financialization didn't just have a direct cost -- no value being created, just men in shiny suits betting pebbles on who'd
blink first. It also had an opportunity cost. As finance grew to be a larger and larger share of the economy, so the wind got sucked
out of the sails of the "real economy", as American economists put it, which simply means people doing the work that actually does
create value -- teachers, nurses, engineers, artisans, bakers, small-town factories, and so on. Think about it simply: the more
money that was burned up in speculating, the less that was available for making things of genuine value. So the incomes of all these
people -- those in the "real economy" -- began to stagnate. New schools and hospitals and energy grids and so on weren't built
-- all the money was going towards speculating on the backs the old ones, sometimes, often, on their failures. A black hole was
growing at the heart of the economy -- but according to pundits, it was the sun itself. Everything was upside down. The bets were
indeed about to all go south at once -- only no one knew understood how or why yet.
How was the real economy to survive, then? Another hidden effect of financialization was super-concentration -- the second force
in the rise of predatory capitalism. Mom-and-pop capitalism is a healthy and beautiful thing, an economy of a million little shops,
bakeries, artisans -- but it takes only a modest attachment to a profit motive. But thanks to the rise of massive, global speculation,
only aggressive quarterly profit-maximization was allowed. CEO earnings were hitched to share prices, and your share price only went
up if your earnings did, relentlessly, illogicaly, crazily, every single quarter, instead of stabilizing at a happy, gentle amount
-- and so the only way left, in the end, to achieve it, was to build titanic monopolies, which could squeeze people for every dime.
Once the economy had Macy's, JC Penney, K-Mart, Toys-R-Us and Sears. Now it has Walmart. The story was repeated across every single
industry. Amazon, Google, Apple. A new age of monopoly arose.
But monopolies had an effect, too. The third force in the rise of predatory capitalism was the implosion of the institution formerly
known as the job. Now, just before peak financialization, beginning in the 1990s, many jobs were "offshored." That's a polite way
to say that the speculators above discovered that companies were more profitable when they evaded as much of human civilization as
possible. Find a country with no labour laws, no protections, no standards, no rule of law at all, in fact -- and send jobs there.
That way, you wouldn't have to pay for pensions, healthcare, childcare, insurance, and so on. Cost savings! Efficiency! Synergies,
even -- you could make everything in that one sweatshop.
We're used to thinking that offshoring "took" jobs in rich countries. But the truth is subtler -- and more ruinous. They blew
apart the idea of a job as we used to know it. As jobs went to countries without good governance, decent labour laws, a boomerang
effect happened. The machine discovered that it could do in rich countries what it had done in poor ones -- and so it began stripping
away everything that made a job "a job." Because the economy was increasingly composed of monopolies, giant companies, banks, and
investors had the power to do so with impunity. Speculators began raiding pension funds. Managers began stripping away benefits of
every kind, from childcare, to vacations, to healthcare. Until, at last, in a final triumph, the "at-will job" and the "zero-hours
contract" were created -- social contracts that were only "jobs" in name, but offered less than no stability, security, mobility,
or opportunity. People who didn't have benefits could now be fired on a whim -- and so now they bore all the risk. But the risk
of what, precisely?
Remember those speculators? Taking huge risks, betting billions with each other, on exactly nothing of real value? Risk had come
full circle. Now it was the average person in the real economy who bore all the risks of these bets going bad. If the bets with south,
who'd take the hit? All those people with zero benefits, no protection, no safety, all those people for whom "a job" now meant something
more like "a temporary soul-crushing way to avoid destitution." They're the ones who'd be fired, instantly, lose what little savings
they had, have their already dwindling incomes slashed, be ruined.
And then the bets went bad. As bets tend to do, when you make too many of them, on foolish things. What had the speculators been
betting with each other on? As it turns out, largely on property prices. But people without the stable jobs that had kept such a
huge property bubble going didn't have growing incomes anymore. Property prices couldn't keep rising. Bang! The financial system
fell like a row of dominoes. It turned out that everyone had bet property prices would go on rising -- and on the other side of
that bet was everyone else. All of them had been betting on the same thing -- "we all bet prices will keep rising forever!" The
losses were so vast, and so widespread, that the whole global financial system buckled. The banks didn't have the money to pay each
other for these foolish bets -- how could they have? Each one had bet the whole house on the same thing, and they all would have
gone bankrupt to each other. LOL -- do you see the fatal stupidity of it all yet?
So in had to step governments. They bailed out the banks -- but didn't "restructure" them, which is to say, fire their managers,
wash out their shareholders, and sell off the bad loans and bets. They just threw money at them -- and took those bad bets onto
the nation's books, instead. It was the most foolish decision since the Great Depression. Why?
Well, now governments had trillions in -- pow! -- sudden debt. What were they to do? How would they pay it off? Now, you might
think that Presidents are very intelligent people, but unfortunately, they are just politicians. And so instead of doing what they
should have done -- printing money, simply cancelling each others' debts to each other, which were for fictional speculation anyways
-- they decided that they were "broke". Bankrupt, even -- even though a country can't go bankrupt, anymore than you could if you
could print your own currency at home, and spend it everywhere.
What does a bankrupt have to do? Liquidate. So governments began to slash investment in social systems of all kinds. Healthcare
systems, pension systems, insurance systems, media and energy systems. This was the fourth step in the birth of predatory capitalism:
austerity.
But people's incomes were already dwindling, thanks to the first three steps -- as jobs not just disappeared in quantity, but
also imploded in quality, as monopolies grew in power, and as pointless, destructive, zero-sum speculation sucked the life out of
the real economy. The only thing keeping the real economy going at this point was investment by the government -- after all, the
speculators were speculating, not investing for the long run. It was governments that were effectively keeping economies afloat,
by providing a floor for income, by anchoring economies with a vast pool of stable, safe, real, secure jobs, and investing dollars
back in societies short of them. And yet, at the precise moment that governments needed to create more of precisely that, they did
just the opposite.
Snap! Economies broke like twigs. The people formerly known as the middle class had been caught in between the pincers of these
four forces -- financialization, monopoly, the implosion of the job, and austerity. Together, they shattered what was left of rich
economies -- to the point that today, incomes are stagnant across the rich world, even in much vaunted Scandinavia, while living
standards are falling in many rich countries, like the US and UK.
What do people do as hardship begins to bite -- especially those who expected comfortable, easy lives? They become reactionary,
lashing out violently. They seek safety in the arms of demagogues. That doesn't mean, as American pundits naively think, that "poor
people become authoritarians!" Quite the opposite.
It's the once prosperous but now imploded middle which turns on the classes, ethnicities, groups, below it. The people who expected
and felt entitled to lives of safety and security and stability -- who anticipated being at the top of a tidy little hierarchy,
the boss of this or that, the chieftain of that or this, but now find themselves adrift and unmoored in a collapsing society, powerless.
That gap between expectation and reality is what ruinous. They retain a desperate need to be atop a hierarchy, to be above someone,
the entitled imploded middles -- and what has happened in history, time and again, is that they turn to those who promise them
just that superiority, by turning on those below them. Even if, especially if, it is in the extreme, irrational, yet perfectly logical
form of supremacy and dominion over the weak, the despised, and the impure.
And that is what all today's reactionary, extremist movements --
which I call the Faction --
really are. Predatory capitalism imploding into strange, new forms of old diseases of the body politic -- ultrauthoritarianism,
theosupremacism, kleptofascism, neofeudalism, biodominionism, hatriarchy, technotalitarianism, novel and lethal forms of ruin for
a new dark age.
And so here we are, you and I. On the cusp of that age. A time where the shadows in human hearts shine as black and blinding as
midnight. And once again, it is the folly and hubris of wise men that led us here.
"Five signers were captured by the
British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary
army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary
War.
These men signed, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation
owners. All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty
could be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British navy. He sold his home
and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags." "What really happened?"
------------
I had a lot of ancestors in that war, some Continentals, some militia. One man in Boston raised his own regiment of militia at
his own expense. He commanded it throughout the war. A lot of these soldiers were old broke down grunts by the end, They made new
lives for themselves. I revere their memory. pl
"All were men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could
be death if they were captured."
They were men of character. They were willing to lose everything for their convictions and beliefs. These are men to be revered.
Thank you Col. Lang for remembering them.
IMO, as a people we no longer have this character. We have allowed big & bigger government over the decades who have usurped
our sovereignty and essential liberty through mass surveillance, civil forfeiture, state secrets doctrine as the cornerstone of
deceit, and now the weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence for domestic political purposes.
These were indeed hard and principled men. I offer the example of one of the founding fathers of my hometown. Gideon Hotchkiss
was a new light Puritan receiving a commission as an ensign in a Waterbury militia company in November 1756. He was at Saratoga
in August 1757 when he wrote home about "the melancholy news of our upper fort" referring to the loss of Fort William Henry and
the ensuing massacre. In July 1758 he took part in the battle of Fort Carillon as a lieutenant. He served another year as a captain
in 1760 along with two of his sons.
Leading up to the War of Independence, he served on the local committee of inspection. He sent two sons and a grandson to serve
in the war and organized a troop of light horse cavalry to respond to British incursions such as the raids on Woodbridge and Danbury.
After the fall harvests were completed, his company of veterans served through the winter months when they were most needed.
Once while working in his fields, he heard the sound of battle to the south. He mounted his horse and, along with a servant
boy, rode to meet the British at Westville, north of New Haven. His servant was struck by a cannon ball. Gideon placed the boy's
body in a concealed place, sent his horse back to his farm and joined the battle. This was the British raid on New Haven in July
1779. He was sixty-three years old at the time.
After the War, he was appointed deacon of the church of Columbia Parish, now Prospect. One of his many sons became a Methodist
minister. This Puritan deacon first disowned his son, but he soon forgave and embraced him. One of Gideon's descendants moved
to the Shenandoah Valley. He was Jedediah Hotchkiss, cartographer and staff officer to General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson.
Speaking of the signers, only three lived to see America's 50th Anniversary. Thomas Jefferson was unable to attend a reunion organized
by the mayor of Washington, and this article provides the full text of his letter of RSVP.
"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal
of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and
to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded
exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. these are grounds of hope for others."
End Quote
It also cites this list of Jefferson quotes on the right to bear arms:
Aides
struggle to talk Trump out of launching invasion
In August of 2017, President Trump
surprised many by openly talking about the idea of launching a military attack on
Venezuela. The public talk of this didn't last long, and it has been all but forgotten. But
not forgotten by President Trump.
This shocked members of his cabinet, including former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. They were both opposed to the idea, but it's less
clear if their successors, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, would have a problem with this sort
of unprovoked US attack.
A highly critical view on Trump. Many aspects of Trump foreign policy are captured correctly:
an objective evaluation is the evaluation of a person we do not like ;-)
Trump changed US neoliberalism from "classic" variant to what can be called "National
neoliberalism", which denies neoliberal globalization. And that's a huge change.
When John Feller mentions that "The allies that Trump has cultivated -- Poland, Hungary,
Russia, North Korea, the Philippines -- don't advance any particular national security interests.
They reflect only the personal preferences of Trump himself." he certainly sniffed something
strong. Russia is probably the only country capable to make the USA uninhabitable. And neocon's
Russophobia while lining their pockets is threat to the USA as nation and as a country. After the
war with Russia both might be gone ( as well as Russia, as the USA still enjoys technical
superiority).
Notable quotes:
"... In this week's Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg canvassed administration officials for their one-sentence characterization of this Trump Doctrine. Goldberg narrowed it down to the pugnacious phrase: "We're America, Bitch." ..."
"... When he calls other leaders "weak," Trump is resorting to the old playground epithet: they are "pussies." And, as he put it so indelicately in the Access Hollywood tape, he feels perfectly free to grab them by the pussies. The president is using the power invested in his office to take what he wants. ..."
"... Rape, it has often been said, is not about sex: it's about power. ..."
"... To Trump's followers, "We're America, Bitch" could be understood as a middle finger directed at a cold and unfair world, one that no longer respects American power and privilege. ..."
"... To much of the world, however, and certainly to most practitioners of foreign and national-security policy, "We're America, Bitch" would be understood as self-isolating, and self-sabotaging. ..."
"... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands. ..."
ada and the successful summit in Singapore, it's hard to know what to call U.S. foreign
policy these days.
It's not just unilateralism, where Washington acts alone and allies be damned. Nor is it
merely unipolarism, in which the United States targets all hegemonic challengers in an effort
to preserve its position as the world's dominant military and economic power.
Let's coin a new term: unileaderism .
According to unileaderism, only the U.S. president makes foreign policy decisions of any
import. Those decisions do not betray any strategic thinking. They may well be contradictory.
And they often leave other members of the administration -- not to mention Congress and the
American people -- totally baffled.
Unileaderism, at least as it's embodied by Donald Trump, is a philosophy bound up entirely
in the personal quirks of the president himself. Instead of strategy, there are only tactics:
wheedling, bluffing, threatening. It's like playing tennis against someone with John McEnroe's
legendary temper and will to win, but few if any of his actual skills.
Neither unilateralism nor unipolarism can explain the spectacle of the last week, when Trump
blasted U.S. allies at the G7 meeting in Canada and then blasted off for Singapore to negotiate
with the leader of the longest standing adversary of the United States. Only unileaderism can
capture this surreal reversal of traditional U.S. foreign policy norms.
The summit with Kim Jong Un was Trump at his most theatrical. He flattered the North Korean
tyrant and signed a declaration of little substance. He showed off his limousine. He played Kim
a White House-produced video crafted
to appeal to the North Korea leader's vanity and nationalism (for instance, by juxtaposing
images from North Korea with those from around the world, by barely mentioning South Korea, and
by ignoring China and Japan altogether).
Don't get me wrong: I'm thrilled that Trump sat down with Kim and initiated a détente
between the two countries. Trump's
pledge to stop war games with South Korea is a major step forward. As for the declaration,
it was a good thing, not a bad thing, that it didn't go into details. North Korea doesn't want
to denuclearize immediately, and Trump doesn't really understand the particulars of the process
anyway. Anything more detailed would have been a conversation stopper.
But the mutual respect that the two leaders expressed was all about unileaderism: their
preference to rule without any regard for democracy or human rights. The format of their
30-minute colloquy was telling: just the two leaders with their translators and no advisors. It
was a throwback to the diplomacy of yesteryear, when royals met to determine the boundaries of
their respective kingdoms.
The contretemps in Quebec was far more disturbing. Trump refused to sign the G7 declaration,
continued to pursue tariffs against major U.S. trading partners, and insulted Canadian leader
Justin Trudeau to boot. It was an extraordinary display of presidential pique.
Trump's tantrum about Trudeau divided his administration into those who leapt into the
fracas to slap the Canadian prime minister and those who shifted into high gear to repair the
fraying U.S. relationship with its northern neighbor. U.S. Trade Representative Robert
Lighthizer continued to work with his Canadian counterparts to negotiate a new NAFTA. But White
House trade advisor Peter Navarro sided with Trump by saying that "there's a special place in
hell" for Trudeau -- the kind of epithet once reserved for the mortal enemies of the United
States.
It was like something out of
Canadian Bacon , the satirical 1995 film about a president hoping to boost his dismal
popularity by promoting a war against the Canucks. Has America been suddenly plunged into
wag-the-beaver territory?
Meanwhile, Trump's proposal to bring Russia back into the G7
caught many of his colleagues off guard, including the National Security Council. Methinks
the NSC doth protest too much. This is the same president who congratulated Russian President
Vladimir Putin on his recent electoral win even though his aides
had written "DON'T CONGRATULATE" in all-caps on his briefing notes. This president delights
in ignoring even is closest "advisors."
Trump's invite to Russia is no surprise. The president wants his buddies at the G7. Angela
Merkel is not his buddy. Vladimir Putin is. Trump treats world affairs like it's an elementary
school club.
Unileaderism may well be the logical endpoint for a country that has used unilateralism to
preserve its unipolarism. And Trump is certainly the product of a particular tendency within
the U.S. political culture that rejects [neo]liberalism and multilateralism.
But it goes beyond that. In its rejection of strategy in favor of tactics, Trumpism is a
repudiation of geopolitics altogether. Trumpism isn't a new kind of opening in the chess game
of international relations. The president, out of rage and stupidity and arrogance, has simply
picked up the board with all of its pieces and flung the whole thing against the wall. He's
playing a different game altogether.
The Trump Doctrine
Ordinarily when pundits come up with a doctrine to define an administration's approach to
the world, they put a label on a collective stance -- even though the label inevitably goes by
the president's name.
In the case of the Trump doctrine, however, the philosophy points more to the president's
gut instincts rather than an approach hammered out by a group of "Vulcans" (in the case of
George W. Bush) or a set of [neo]liberal internationalists (Barack Obama). The Trump doctrine
boils down to Trump. And the word "doctrine" is something of an overstatement.
In this week's Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg
canvassed administration officials for their one-sentence characterization of this Trump
Doctrine. Goldberg narrowed it down to the pugnacious phrase: "We're America, Bitch."
The phrase reveals the Trump approach for what it is: sexual harassment.
When he calls other leaders "weak," Trump is resorting to the old playground epithet:
they are "pussies." And, as he put it so indelicately in the Access Hollywood tape, he feels
perfectly free to grab them by the pussies. The president is using the power invested in his
office to take what he wants.
Rape, it has often been said, is not about sex: it's about power. Having divided
the international community into female (Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau) and
male (Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un), Trump is now buddying up with his locker-room
pals and boasting of how's taken advantage of the "weaker sex."
Goldberg writes:
To Trump's followers, "We're America, Bitch" could be understood as a middle finger
directed at a cold and unfair world, one that no longer respects American power and
privilege.To much of the world, however, and certainly to most practitioners of
foreign and national-security policy, "We're America, Bitch" would be understood as
self-isolating, and self-sabotaging.
Sexual harassment, thanks to the #MeToo movement, has become self-sabotaging. Has the G7
just had their #MeToo moment? Perhaps America's top allies are finished with appeasing Trump
and saying "yes" when they really mean "no." I look forward to the photo op with Merkel and
Macron both wearing their pink pussyhats in solidarity with Trump protesters worldwide.
The End of Geopolitics?
The G7 represents the [neo]liberal international order: an attempt by the world's top
economies to manage disputes and develop a common commitment to certain principles like free
trade. The grouping is an acknowledgment that global capitalism can't survive by the "invisible
hand" alone and needs the guidance of many hands.
The G7 has been spectacularly ineffective in addressing the major issues of the time: global
poverty and inequality, climate change, pandemics. It doesn't represent robust multilateralism.
It leaves out obvious players like China and India. It makes no effort to represent voices of
the powerless.
Still, the G7 has been a very modest check on both U.S. unilateralism and unipolarism. And
now it's emerging as a counterbalance to Trump's unileaderism. The president's combative trade
policies and indiscriminate use of personal invective are uniting much of the world against the
United States. The approval rating of the United States, across 134 countries, dropped in two
years from 48 percent to 30 percent, according to
a 2018 Gallup poll .
On the other hand, the American public's satisfaction with U.S. standing in the world
reached a
13-year high in 2018, a worrisome sign for those of us pushing for progressive foreign
policy alternatives. Trump's unileaderism strikes a chord with a segment of the American
public. It's not just the Russians who crave an "iron fist" leader.
Trump's tactics run afoul of the basic laws of geopolitics: identifying long-term goals,
developing corresponding strategies, and cultivating key allies to achieve those goals. The
allies that Trump has cultivated -- Poland, Hungary, Russia, North Korea, the Philippines --
don't advance any particular national security interests. They reflect only the personal
preferences of Trump himself.
According to a progressive take on foreign policy, the United States should relinquish its
unipolar status as part of a transition to a peaceful multilateral order. Trump's unileaderism
won't, in the end, preserve this unipolar status. It will ultimately destroy the international
community and the very possibility of geopolitics. As the United States sinks further into
aggressive resentment, the world will splinter into hundreds of "Make [My Country] Great Again"
warring factions.
Bush Times Ten
Beginning with the Reagan administration, the concept of a "unitary executive" has gathered
force in both constitutional law and presidential practice. According to this theory, the
president controls the entire executive branch. So, for instance, George W. Bush expanded
presidential power through his use of signing statements that reinterpreted legislative
decisions.
Trump has taken this concept to a whole new level with his meddling in the Russiagate
investigations and his willingness to pardon everyone indicted in the matter, even himself.
Here's a president who can't seem to wait to get rid of his chief of staff because he
no longer wants to have anyone managing him. Trump can't be bothered with briefings because
he prefers to make decisions based on some cocktail of his own hormonal urges and what he
gleans, often mistakenly, from Fox News.
Unileaderism raises the doctrine of the unitary executive to the power of 10. It's bad
enough that a deeply insecure man-boy has latched on to this doctrine. Much worse will happen
when a canny adult adopts the same approach. Trumpism without Trump would finalize America's
descent into the maelstrom.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian
novel Splinterlands.
A highly critical view on Trump. Many aspects of Trump foreign policy are captured correctly:
an objective evaluation is the evaluation of a person we do not like ;-)
Trump changed US neoliberalism from "classic" variant to what can be called "National
neoliberalism", which denies neoliberal globalization. And that's a huge change.
When John Feller mentions that "The allies that Trump has cultivated -- Poland, Hungary,
Russia, North Korea, the Philippines -- don't advance any particular national security interests.
They reflect only the personal preferences of Trump himself." he certainly sniffed something
strong. Russia is probably the only country capable to make the USA uninhabitable. And neocon's
Russophobia while lining their pockets is threat to the USA as nation and as a country. After the
war with Russia both might be gone ( as well as Russia, as the USA still enjoys technical
superiority).
Notable quotes:
"... In this week's Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg canvassed administration officials for their one-sentence characterization of this Trump Doctrine. Goldberg narrowed it down to the pugnacious phrase: "We're America, Bitch." ..."
"... When he calls other leaders "weak," Trump is resorting to the old playground epithet: they are "pussies." And, as he put it so indelicately in the Access Hollywood tape, he feels perfectly free to grab them by the pussies. The president is using the power invested in his office to take what he wants. ..."
"... Rape, it has often been said, is not about sex: it's about power. ..."
"... To Trump's followers, "We're America, Bitch" could be understood as a middle finger directed at a cold and unfair world, one that no longer respects American power and privilege. ..."
"... To much of the world, however, and certainly to most practitioners of foreign and national-security policy, "We're America, Bitch" would be understood as self-isolating, and self-sabotaging. ..."
"... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands. ..."
ada and the successful summit in Singapore, it's hard to know what to call U.S. foreign
policy these days.
It's not just unilateralism, where Washington acts alone and allies be damned. Nor is it
merely unipolarism, in which the United States targets all hegemonic challengers in an effort
to preserve its position as the world's dominant military and economic power.
Let's coin a new term: unileaderism .
According to unileaderism, only the U.S. president makes foreign policy decisions of any
import. Those decisions do not betray any strategic thinking. They may well be contradictory.
And they often leave other members of the administration -- not to mention Congress and the
American people -- totally baffled.
Unileaderism, at least as it's embodied by Donald Trump, is a philosophy bound up entirely
in the personal quirks of the president himself. Instead of strategy, there are only tactics:
wheedling, bluffing, threatening. It's like playing tennis against someone with John McEnroe's
legendary temper and will to win, but few if any of his actual skills.
Neither unilateralism nor unipolarism can explain the spectacle of the last week, when Trump
blasted U.S. allies at the G7 meeting in Canada and then blasted off for Singapore to negotiate
with the leader of the longest standing adversary of the United States. Only unileaderism can
capture this surreal reversal of traditional U.S. foreign policy norms.
The summit with Kim Jong Un was Trump at his most theatrical. He flattered the North Korean
tyrant and signed a declaration of little substance. He showed off his limousine. He played Kim
a White House-produced video crafted
to appeal to the North Korea leader's vanity and nationalism (for instance, by juxtaposing
images from North Korea with those from around the world, by barely mentioning South Korea, and
by ignoring China and Japan altogether).
Don't get me wrong: I'm thrilled that Trump sat down with Kim and initiated a détente
between the two countries. Trump's
pledge to stop war games with South Korea is a major step forward. As for the declaration,
it was a good thing, not a bad thing, that it didn't go into details. North Korea doesn't want
to denuclearize immediately, and Trump doesn't really understand the particulars of the process
anyway. Anything more detailed would have been a conversation stopper.
But the mutual respect that the two leaders expressed was all about unileaderism: their
preference to rule without any regard for democracy or human rights. The format of their
30-minute colloquy was telling: just the two leaders with their translators and no advisors. It
was a throwback to the diplomacy of yesteryear, when royals met to determine the boundaries of
their respective kingdoms.
The contretemps in Quebec was far more disturbing. Trump refused to sign the G7 declaration,
continued to pursue tariffs against major U.S. trading partners, and insulted Canadian leader
Justin Trudeau to boot. It was an extraordinary display of presidential pique.
Trump's tantrum about Trudeau divided his administration into those who leapt into the
fracas to slap the Canadian prime minister and those who shifted into high gear to repair the
fraying U.S. relationship with its northern neighbor. U.S. Trade Representative Robert
Lighthizer continued to work with his Canadian counterparts to negotiate a new NAFTA. But White
House trade advisor Peter Navarro sided with Trump by saying that "there's a special place in
hell" for Trudeau -- the kind of epithet once reserved for the mortal enemies of the United
States.
It was like something out of
Canadian Bacon , the satirical 1995 film about a president hoping to boost his dismal
popularity by promoting a war against the Canucks. Has America been suddenly plunged into
wag-the-beaver territory?
Meanwhile, Trump's proposal to bring Russia back into the G7
caught many of his colleagues off guard, including the National Security Council. Methinks
the NSC doth protest too much. This is the same president who congratulated Russian President
Vladimir Putin on his recent electoral win even though his aides
had written "DON'T CONGRATULATE" in all-caps on his briefing notes. This president delights
in ignoring even is closest "advisors."
Trump's invite to Russia is no surprise. The president wants his buddies at the G7. Angela
Merkel is not his buddy. Vladimir Putin is. Trump treats world affairs like it's an elementary
school club.
Unileaderism may well be the logical endpoint for a country that has used unilateralism to
preserve its unipolarism. And Trump is certainly the product of a particular tendency within
the U.S. political culture that rejects [neo]liberalism and multilateralism.
But it goes beyond that. In its rejection of strategy in favor of tactics, Trumpism is a
repudiation of geopolitics altogether. Trumpism isn't a new kind of opening in the chess game
of international relations. The president, out of rage and stupidity and arrogance, has simply
picked up the board with all of its pieces and flung the whole thing against the wall. He's
playing a different game altogether.
The Trump Doctrine
Ordinarily when pundits come up with a doctrine to define an administration's approach to
the world, they put a label on a collective stance -- even though the label inevitably goes by
the president's name.
In the case of the Trump doctrine, however, the philosophy points more to the president's
gut instincts rather than an approach hammered out by a group of "Vulcans" (in the case of
George W. Bush) or a set of [neo]liberal internationalists (Barack Obama). The Trump doctrine
boils down to Trump. And the word "doctrine" is something of an overstatement.
In this week's Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg
canvassed administration officials for their one-sentence characterization of this Trump
Doctrine. Goldberg narrowed it down to the pugnacious phrase: "We're America, Bitch."
The phrase reveals the Trump approach for what it is: sexual harassment.
When he calls other leaders "weak," Trump is resorting to the old playground epithet:
they are "pussies." And, as he put it so indelicately in the Access Hollywood tape, he feels
perfectly free to grab them by the pussies. The president is using the power invested in his
office to take what he wants.
Rape, it has often been said, is not about sex: it's about power. Having divided
the international community into female (Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau) and
male (Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un), Trump is now buddying up with his locker-room
pals and boasting of how's taken advantage of the "weaker sex."
Goldberg writes:
To Trump's followers, "We're America, Bitch" could be understood as a middle finger
directed at a cold and unfair world, one that no longer respects American power and
privilege.To much of the world, however, and certainly to most practitioners of
foreign and national-security policy, "We're America, Bitch" would be understood as
self-isolating, and self-sabotaging.
Sexual harassment, thanks to the #MeToo movement, has become self-sabotaging. Has the G7
just had their #MeToo moment? Perhaps America's top allies are finished with appeasing Trump
and saying "yes" when they really mean "no." I look forward to the photo op with Merkel and
Macron both wearing their pink pussyhats in solidarity with Trump protesters worldwide.
The End of Geopolitics?
The G7 represents the [neo]liberal international order: an attempt by the world's top
economies to manage disputes and develop a common commitment to certain principles like free
trade. The grouping is an acknowledgment that global capitalism can't survive by the "invisible
hand" alone and needs the guidance of many hands.
The G7 has been spectacularly ineffective in addressing the major issues of the time: global
poverty and inequality, climate change, pandemics. It doesn't represent robust multilateralism.
It leaves out obvious players like China and India. It makes no effort to represent voices of
the powerless.
Still, the G7 has been a very modest check on both U.S. unilateralism and unipolarism. And
now it's emerging as a counterbalance to Trump's unileaderism. The president's combative trade
policies and indiscriminate use of personal invective are uniting much of the world against the
United States. The approval rating of the United States, across 134 countries, dropped in two
years from 48 percent to 30 percent, according to
a 2018 Gallup poll .
On the other hand, the American public's satisfaction with U.S. standing in the world
reached a
13-year high in 2018, a worrisome sign for those of us pushing for progressive foreign
policy alternatives. Trump's unileaderism strikes a chord with a segment of the American
public. It's not just the Russians who crave an "iron fist" leader.
Trump's tactics run afoul of the basic laws of geopolitics: identifying long-term goals,
developing corresponding strategies, and cultivating key allies to achieve those goals. The
allies that Trump has cultivated -- Poland, Hungary, Russia, North Korea, the Philippines --
don't advance any particular national security interests. They reflect only the personal
preferences of Trump himself.
According to a progressive take on foreign policy, the United States should relinquish its
unipolar status as part of a transition to a peaceful multilateral order. Trump's unileaderism
won't, in the end, preserve this unipolar status. It will ultimately destroy the international
community and the very possibility of geopolitics. As the United States sinks further into
aggressive resentment, the world will splinter into hundreds of "Make [My Country] Great Again"
warring factions.
Bush Times Ten
Beginning with the Reagan administration, the concept of a "unitary executive" has gathered
force in both constitutional law and presidential practice. According to this theory, the
president controls the entire executive branch. So, for instance, George W. Bush expanded
presidential power through his use of signing statements that reinterpreted legislative
decisions.
Trump has taken this concept to a whole new level with his meddling in the Russiagate
investigations and his willingness to pardon everyone indicted in the matter, even himself.
Here's a president who can't seem to wait to get rid of his chief of staff because he
no longer wants to have anyone managing him. Trump can't be bothered with briefings because
he prefers to make decisions based on some cocktail of his own hormonal urges and what he
gleans, often mistakenly, from Fox News.
Unileaderism raises the doctrine of the unitary executive to the power of 10. It's bad
enough that a deeply insecure man-boy has latched on to this doctrine. Much worse will happen
when a canny adult adopts the same approach. Trumpism without Trump would finalize America's
descent into the maelstrom.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian
novel Splinterlands.
"... The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to us." ..."
"... I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was: ..."
"... To steal the nationalized oil ..."
"... To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver. ..."
"... To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF. ..."
"... I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there. Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped. ..."
Hello There! I'm curious to know if any readers have comments about a recent Sy Hersh
interview. In response to a question about Russian interference in the last US presidential
election Hersh replied:
"I have been reporting something, I've been watching something since 2011 in Libya, when we
had a secretary of state that later ran for president, and I will tell you: Some stories take
a long time. And I don't know quite how to package it. I don't know how much to say about it.
I assure you that there's no known intelligence that Russia impacted, cut into the DNC,
Podesta e-mails. That did not happen. I can say that.
I can also say Russia learned other things about what was going on in Libya with us and
instead of blowing -- [. . . lots cut out here before returning to the topic . . . ]
The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the
American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the
government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy
about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in
America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and
financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to
us."
I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid
Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was:
To steal the nationalized oil
To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver.
To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete
with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF.
I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling
Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there.
Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find
even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped.
If I come up with more after listening, I'll post again.
The problem is that there is no clear alternative to neoliberalism. Russian foreign policy is
clearly anti-neoliberal. So in a way, Russia represent another example of National neoliberalism
along with Trump "national neoliberalism".
Notable quotes:
"... I believe most of the confusing and seemingly contradictory actions of Putin can be explained if we assume Putin himself as a neo-liberal. It appears he genuinely believes that he can both retain Russian sovereignty and integrate with the west on a neo-liberal framework. My view is that his reluctance with purging Kremlin's 5th column operators come from his belief that their differences are not reconcilable and that a grand bargain with the western elites is possible where they would consider Russia's elites as equal partners. ..."
Following the re-appointment of Medvedev and his more or less reshuffled government, the
public opinion in Russia and abroad was split on whether this was a good sign of continuity and
unity amongst the Russian leadership or whether this was a confirmation that there was a 5
th column inside the Kremlin working against President Putin and trying to impose
neo-liberal and pro-western policies on the Russian people. Today I want to take a quick look
at what is taking place inside Russia because I believe that the Russian foreign policy is
still predominantly controlled by what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" and that to detect
the activities of the "Atlantic Integrationist" types we need to look at what is taking place
inside Russia.
The Russian 5 th column and its typical operations
First, I want to begin by sharing with you a short video translated by the Saker Community
of one of the most astute Russian analysts, Ruslan Ostashko, who wonders how it is that a
rabidly pro-western and vociferously anti-Putin radio station named "Ekho Moskvy" manages not
only to elude normal Russian legislation, but even gets money from the gaz giant Gazprom, which
is majority owned by the Russian state. Ekho Moskvy is also so pro-Israeli that it has earned
the nickname "Ekho Matsy" (Ekho Moskvy means "Echo of Moscow" whereas "Ekho Matsy" means "Echo
of the Matzo"). Needless to say, that radio has the unwavering and total support of the US
Embassy. It would not be an exaggeration to say Ekho Moskvy serves as in incubator for
russophobic journalists and that most the liberal pro-western reporters in the Russian media
have been, at one time or another, associated with this propaganda outfit. In spite of this or,
more accurately, because of this, Ekho Moskvy has been bankrupt for quite a while already, and
yet – it continues to exist. Just listen to Ostashko's explanations ( and make sure to
press the 'cc' button to see the English language captions):
Interesting, no? The state giant Gazprom is doing all it can to keep Ekho Moskvy afloat and
above the law. In fact, Gazprom has been financing Ekho Moskvy for years! According to the
hyper-politically-correct Wikipedia , "As of
2005 Echo of Moscow was majority owned by Gazprom Media which holds 66% of its shares".
If Gazprom is majority owned by the Russian state, and Ekho Moskvy is majority owned by
Gazprom, then does that not mean that Ekho Moskvy is basically financed by the Kremlin? The
reality is even worse, as Ostashko point out, Ekho Moskvy is the most visible case, but there
are are quite a few pro-western media outlets in Russia which are financed, directly and
indirectly, by the Russian state.
So let me ask you a simple question: do you really think that Ostashko is better informed
than the Russian authorities, including Putin himself?
Of course not! So what is going on here?
Before attempting to answer this question, let's look at another interesting news item from
Russia, the recent article " Pension reform as a fifth column tool to overthrow Putin "
(original title "About a fair pension system") by Mikhail Khazin translated by Ollie Richardson
and Angelina Siard from the Stalker Zone blog (and cross-posted here
and here ).
Please read the full article as it sheds a very interesting light on what the Medvedev
government has been up to since it was reappointed. What I want to quote here are Mikhail
Khazin's conclusions: (emphasis added)
In other words, all of this reform is frank poppycock, a political joke aimed at
destroying relations between the People (society) and the Authorities. The specific aim of
this is to overthrow Putin, as our liberals are commanded to do by their senior partners from
the "Western" global project . And it is precisely like this that we should treat this
reform. It has no relation to economic reforms – neither good, nor bad. It not an
economic reform, but a political plot! And it is from here that we have to proceed.
Having explained what is really going on, Khazin then goes on the openly state how such an
operation is even possible:
Now concerning the media. It should be understood that at the end of the 90's-beginning of
the 2000's practically all non-liberal media died. Completely. And of course, practically all
non-liberal journalists definitely died (only a few dozen mastodons from the times of
socialism remain). And the youth that grew from the faculty of journalism are in general
totally liberal. They were a little bit suppressed in the middle of the 2000's, but after
Medvedev's arrival to the president's post they again blossomed. But then the attack of the
State on everything that doesn't reflect "the policies of the party and the government"
began.
And then it so happened that now there are many "patriotic" publications in Russia that
employ mainly liberal journalists. An enchanting sight. These journalists (in full
accordance with the ideas of Lenin that they didn't read) see their main task as supporting
"theirs" – i.e., liberal-financiers, Nemtsov, Navalny and, so on, and to sully the
"bloody KayGeeBee"! And it is this that they are involved in, meaning that, propagandising as
much as possible the policies of the government, they optimally irritate the population by
using Putin personally. There is just a need every time to act out some disgusting story (how
an elderly man died on the way to the polyclinic or hospital, how children were taken away
from a large family, how an official or a priest hit a pregnant woman and/or juvenile
children with their chic car), to explain that this isn't just the result of the policies of
the liberal power, but the concrete fault of the President, who put on their posts the very
ministers and law enforcement officers who encourage all of this.
Amazing, no? This is an attempt to overthrow Putin and it is covered-up by the (pseudo)
patriotic press. What about Putin himself? Why does he not take action? Khazin even explains
that:
Of course, the President is guilty, first of all, because he understands that if he starts
to cleanse this "Augean stable", then he will be obliged to shed blood , because
they won't voluntarily give back their privileges . But the most important thing, and
this is the essence: the liberal Russian elite today set for itself the political task of
removing Putin. Why it decided to do this is an interesting question: if Putin himself and
a liberal are flesh from flesh, then this task is stupid and senseless. Not to mention
suicidal. But if he isn't a liberal (it is probably correct to say not a political liberal)
then, of course, this activity makes sense . But at the same time, for purely propaganda
reasons – because people hate liberals, there is a need to hang the label of political
liberal on him.
Now let's connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled)
faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow Putin by
making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes "liberal"
economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly forcing him into
liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (
he declared himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005 ) and the so-called
"patriotic media" is covering it all up. And Putin cannot change this without shedding
blood.
"it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it
always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian
foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of
those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get
stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and
patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came
from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from
patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking
on a different dimension. For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party
loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the
political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely
scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one
run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin's personal ratings will begin to go
down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real
opposition"
Those who vehemently denied that there as a real 5 th column problem inside the
Kremlin are going to have a painful wake-up call when they realize that thanks to the actions
of these "liberals" a patriotic opposition is gradually emerging, not so much against Putin
himself as against the policies of the Medvedev government. Why not against Putin?
Because most Russian instinctively feel what is going on and understand not only the
anti-Putin dynamics at work, but also how and why this situation was created. Furthermore,
unlike most westerners, most Russians remember what took place in the crucial and formative
1990s.
The historical roots of the problem (very rough summary)
It all began in the late 1980s when the Soviet elites realized that they were losing control
of the situation and that something had to be done. To really summarize what they did, I would
say that these elites first broke up the country into 15 individual fiefdoms each run by
gang/clan composed of these Soviet elites, then they mercilessly grabbed everything of any
value, became overnight billionaires and concealed their money in the West. Being fabulously
rich in a completely ruined country gave them fantastic political power and influence to
further exploit and rob the country of all its resources. Russia herself (and the other 14
ex-Soviet republics) suffered an unspeakable nightmare comparable to a major war and by the
1990s Russia almost broke-up into many more even smaller pieces (Chechnia, Tatarstan, etc.). By
then, Russia was subserviently executing all the economic policies recommended by a myriad of
US 'advisors' (hundreds of them with offices inside the offices of many key ministries and
various state agencies, just like today in the Ukraine), she adopted a Constitution drafted by
pro-US elements and all the key positions in the state were occupied by what I can only call
western agents. At the very top, President Eltisn was mostly drunk while the country was run by
7 bankers the so-called "oligarchs" (6 of which were Jews): the " Semibankirshchina ".
This is the time when the Russian security services successfully tricked these oligarchs
into believing that Putin, who has a law degree and who had worked for the (very liberal) Mayor
of Saint Petersburg (Anatolii Sobchack) was just a petty bureaucrat who would restore a
semblance of order while not presenting any real threat to the oligarchs. The ploy worked, but
the business elites demanded that "their" guy, Medvedev, be put in charge of the government so
as to preserve their interests. What they overlooked was two things: Putin was a truly
brilliant officer of the very elite First Chief Directorate (Foreign Intelligence) of the KGB
and a real patriot. Furthermore, the Constitution which was passed to support the Eltsin regime
could now be used by Putin. But more than anything else, they never predicted that a little guy
in an ill-fitting suit would transform himself into one of the most popular leaders on the
planet. As I have written many times, while the initial power base of Putin was in the security
services and the armed forces and while his legal authority stems from the Constitution, is
real power comes from the immense support he has from the Russian people who, for the first
time in very long time felt that the man at the top truly represented their interests.
Putin then did what Donald Trump could have done as soon as he entered the White House: he
cleaned house. He began by immediately tackling the oligarchs, he put an end to the
Semibankirshchina , and he stopped the massive export of money and resources out of
Russia. The then proceeded to rebuilt the "vertical of power" (the Kremlin's control over the
country) and began rebuilding all of Russia from the foundations (regions) up. But while Putin
was tremendously successful, he simply could not fight on all the fronts and the same time and
win.
Truth be told, he did eventually win most of the battles which he chose to fight, but some
battles he simply could not wage not because of a lack of courage or will on his part, but
because the objective reality is that Putin inherited and extremely bad system fully controlled
by some extremely dangerous foes . Remember the words of Khazin above: " if he starts to
cleanse this "Augean stable", then he will be obliged to shed blood, because they won't
voluntarily give back their privileges". So, in a typically Putin fashion, he made a number
of deals.
For example, those oligarchs who agreed to stop meddling in Russian politics and who would,
from now on, pay taxes and generally abide by the law were not be jailed or expropriated: those
who got the message were allowed to continue to work as normal businessmen (Oleg Deripaska) and
those who did not were either jailed or exiled (Khodorkovski, Berezovski). But if we look just
below the level of these well-known and notorious oligarchs, what we find as a much deeper
"swamp" (to use the US expression): an entire class of people who made their fortunes in the
1990s, who are now extremely influential and control most of the key positions in the economy,
finance and business and who absolutely hate and fear Putin. They even have their agents inside
the armed forces and security services because their weapon of choice is, of course, corruption
and influence. And, of course, they have people representing their interests inside the Russian
government: pretty much the entire "economic block" of the Medvedev government.
Is it really any surprise at all that these people also have their paid representatives
inside the Russian media, including the so-called "pro-Russian" or "patriotic" media? (I have
been warning about
this since at least 2015)
Just like in the West, in Russia the media depends first and foremost on money and big
financial interests are very good at using the media to promote their agenda, deny or obfuscate
some topics while pushing others. This is why you often see the Russian media backing
WTO/WB/IMF/etc policies to the hilt while never criticizing Israel or, God forbid, rabidly
pro-Israeli propagandists on mainstream TV (guys like Vladimir Soloviev, Evgenii Satanovsky,
Iakov Kedmi, Avigdor Eskin and many others). This is the same media which will gladly criticize
Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder why the Russian main TV stations are spewing pro-Israeli
propaganda on a daily basis.
And, of course, they will all mantrically repeat the same chant: "there is no 5
th column in Russia!! None!! Never!!"
This is no different than the paid for corporate media in the US which denies the existence
of a "deep state" or the US "Israel Lobby".
And yet, many (most?) people in the US and Russia realize at an almost gut-level that they
are being lied to and that, in reality, a hostile power is ruling over them.
Putin's options and possible outcomes
Sadly, in the US, Trump proved to be a disaster who totally caved in to the Neocons and
their demands. In Russia, the situation is far more complex. So far, Putin has very skillfully
avoided associating himself with the Atlantic Integrationists. Furthermore, the biggest crises
of the past decade or so were all associated with foreign policy issues and those are still
controlled by the Eurasian Sovereignists. Finally, while the Russian government clearly
committed some mistakes or promoted some unpopular policies (such has healthcare reform for
example), they also had their undeniable successes. As for Putin, he continued to consolidate
his power and he gradually removed some of the most notorious individuals from their positions.
In theory, Putin could probably have most top Atlantic Integrationists arrested on corruption
charges, but short of engaging in a massive and bloody purge, he cannot get rid of an entire
social class which is not only large but powerful.
Some of my contacts in Russia expected a purge of Atlantic Integrationists right after the
election, the logic here was "enough is enough" and that once Putin got a strong mandate from
the people, he would finally kick Medvedev and his gang out of the Kremlin and replace them
with popular patriots. That obviously did not happen. But if this pension reform program
continues to further trigger protests or if a major war blows up in the Middle-East or in the
Ukraine, then the pro-western forces inside the Kremlin will come under great pressure to
further yield control of the country to Eurasian Sovereignists.
Putin is an exceedingly patient man and, at least so far, he won most, if not all, of his
battles. I don't believe that anybody can predict for sure how things will play out, but what
is certain is that trying to understand Russia without being aware of the internal conflicts
and the interests groups fighting for power is futile. In her 1000 year long history, internal
enemies have always been far more dangerous for Russia than external ones. This is unlikely to
change in the future.
Since "The Saker" does not approve difference of opinion or dissent on his own site i will
post my response here.
This is yet another episode of "doom & gloom" articles of his in a series that started
almost a year ago. If you have read one, you have read them all. Since then a quite 180
degree different and depression-ridden "The Saker" or whatever is hiding under that name has
produced articles to the effect that "Putin has surrendered", "the end is nigh" or "it's all
over". Hi's sudden embrace of "Paul Craig Roberts" views of all things Russian further
confirms that.
The content aren't necessarily wrong and incorrect but the message is very far from what
the author initially conveyed. The impression is now that things definitely doesn't bode well
for Russia and there's nothing Russians or anyone can do about it, move on. "The Saker" is
now using the encouraging confidence he built up with his "community",that has grown
significantly over the years, to tear it apart it seems.
President Putin has himself categorically stated that "there is no such thing as any "5th
column". When asked about the presence of Kudrin and a few like him, VP said, "it's useful to
hear different points of view, but to suggest they are some sort of 5th column is
nonsense"
I think I would trust his word – he has never been known to lie and he has no reason to
do so.
He gave his reasons for retaining Medvedev plus a few others – good solid rational
reasons. No-body in Russia is doubting them.
Can it be forgotten by this writer, that Medvedev is an appointed position – by the
President. Putin can remove him in an instant any time he likes: he holds the strings, and is
under thrall to no-one.
As for the article the writer refers to in "The Saker", the provenance of the authors shows
how much value to put on it.
The writer – not mentioned here – is one Vadim Potapenko who gives details of
himself as living in Cyprus, and working as a Development Manager – Slotegrator :
Gambling & Casinos.!!
What a young man working in the ethically questionable world of casinos knows about pension
reform and retirement age needs I dont know. He does deal in risk analysis of simplistic
systems I guess, but an expert in the complexities of Government policy he can't be.
The second author is Mikhail Khazin – a man who claims to an economist and publicist,
and states that "Putin is following the ideas of Andropov. They didn t' work then and they
dont now: Putin by his very personality has polarised views in Russia, because some love him
and some hate him"
This about a President with an 80% approval rating, a 77% voter return rate, and who is so
far from any USSR person it's unbelievable. The mans' complete inability to understand the
first thing about Putin, who he is, what he believes in, and the route he is following shows
he is the last person whose views should be even listened to.
This brings me to the finale – more and more it seems "The Saker" wants people to
believe that there are dark forces at work in the Kremlin, that Putin is either too weak and
stupid to deal with them or even worse, is working in with them. In other words, he effects
to support the Russian President but calls him a weakling or a traitor!!
Better to read work by qualified people and investigate Russia for yourself – dont be
led into thinking Russia would be a cakewalk for anyone thinking of invading and making war
on her, because she has a weak and divided leadership. She doesn't have – and waging
war on Russia would have only one end, and it's not pretty.
I believe most of the confusing and seemingly contradictory actions of Putin can be
explained if we assume Putin himself as a neo-liberal. It appears he genuinely believes that
he can both retain Russian sovereignty and integrate with the west on a neo-liberal
framework. My view is that his reluctance with purging Kremlin's 5th column operators come
from his belief that their differences are not reconcilable and that a grand bargain with the
western elites is possible where they would consider Russia's elites as equal partners.
I think this is not a sustainable position, even if western elites were willing to play
ball with Putin and Russia's elites. Because in a neo-liberal world nations cannot retain
their sovereignty and that an international cabal of ultra-rich treat the peoples of the
world as properties of their own. The best that could have happened would be that Russian
elites would be partying with their western fellow billionaires on the corpses of the poor
nations of the world. That part, I am convinced, is not acceptable for Putin (i.e. giving up
sovereignty in return for a seat on the dinner table but I have serious doubts about
anti-imperialism part)
Fortunately for Russia, the same cabal still cannot get over the fact that they lost the
opportunity to rape Russia ad infinitum and still looking for holes in the Russian resolve.
This will force Russia to take a clear anti-imperialist stand sooner or later, and on a war
footing will have to purge all of the (would be) collaborators.
On a second note, it is indeed possible that Putin might have decided to postpone the
decision for the purge after the world cup but I will not believe before I see Medvedev and
Nabiullina be fired.
The Kremlin is financing the craziest knee-jerk Russophobes to discredit liberalism. The
two exist in a comfy symbiotic relationship. What is so difficult about that?
Now let's connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled)
faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow
Putin by making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes
"liberal" economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly
forcing him into liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (he declared
himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005) and the so-called "patriotic media"
is covering it all up.
The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting a
flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.
If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for?
At least, that's would I'd be asking – if I was the sort to rail against neoliberal
fifth columns.
Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that
is a good thing .
Even if this was the case, surely he must be aware that 92% of Russians oppose this
so-called "reform".
Where on Earth do people support raising the pension age? Thankfully, many
countries (including Russia) have safeguards against demotic idiocy.
As a direct result from these plans, the Communist Party of Russia is launching a
referendum against this project while the "Just Russia" Party is now collecting signatures
to dismiss the entire government.
The business elites are not in a position to demand anything. Medvedev is there as a
whipping boy to protect Putin's ratings. He is very good at that, and that, too, is a good
thing.
This is the same media which will gladly criticize Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder
why the Russian main TV stations are spewing pro-Israeli propaganda on a daily basis.
The author's anti-Israel crusade is not Russia's. That Russia is not to Iran, Palestine,
or Hezbollah what the US is to Israel (a slavish sponsor) is also a good thing.
The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting
a flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.
If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for?
Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that
is a good thing .
Even if Bershidsky gets it, however in the field which doesn't require any serious skills,
except for good accounting. Now, you don't want me to refer to Russia's actual industries,
especially hi-tech, which are nationalized, do you? Does the title Rostec ring a bell? What
is remarkable, founding of Rostec somehow coincided with Putin's Munich Speech–both
events are hardly any evidence of neoliberalism. Is Putin a liberal? Yes, but to a degree and
political mostly–his progression from liberal economic model to a mixed model since
2014 is visible to people with even rudimentary knowledge of Russia. This is not to mention
that Russia, quoting even Wiki:
Russia has an upper-middle income mixed economy with state ownership in strategic areas
of the economy.
Some private bank is not a "strategic" area, nor is "liberalization" of land sales,
resources and real hi-tech sector, however, together with agriculture, are. Since the start
of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or
ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. In fact, whole industries. Putin
recently himself clearly stated that, especially pointing out a bonanza Russian State got
from 2008 collapse and from sanctions. These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to
mention that Russia, rightly so, is considered one of the most protectionist nations in the
world. This is if to discount all this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the
obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead, together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and
stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings. And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control
over Novatek (it is a bad joke).
At the very top, President Eltisn was mostly drunk while the country was run by 7
bankers the so-called "oligarchs" ( 6 of which were Jews ): the
"Semibankirshchina".
I think Putin today is in a similar situation as Stalin was in the late 1940s regarding
Jewish political activism and assertiveness, etc.
Despite Stalin's willingness to support Israel early on, various historians suppose that
antisemitism in the late 1940s and early 1950s was motivated by Stalin's possible
perception of Jews as a potential "fifth column" in light of a pro-Western Israel in
the Middle East.
[...] I think increasing the Jewish (and general) death toll in World War II and decreasing
the "official" Jewish population of the Soviet Union served two purposes for
Stalin.
Firstly, for propaganda purposes against the Germans higher death tolls were useful,
and secondly lower "official" numbers of Jews in the Soviet Union were likely intended to
discourage and prevent Jewish empowerment and organizing
[...]
Jeffrey Veidlinger writes that "By October 1948, it was obvious that Mikhoels was by no
means the sole advocate of Zionism among Soviet Jews. The revival of Jewish cultural
expression during the war had fostered a general sense of boldness among the Jewish
masses.
This is slightly off-topic, but I just commented on this subject matter in another
comments thread, which has to do with the fact that many more persons of Jewish origin live
in Russia and the former Soviet states than is commonly known or reported:
Here the original in Russian: http://tavrio.ru/index.php/politics/nazpol/42-skolko-evreev-pf
Archived link: http://archive.is/EDYeZ
[...] And I believe that today, after a great aliyah, the number of halachic Jews in the
countries of the former USSR is about four million. And six million more are those who know
about their Jewish origin.
[...]
Half of the top 25 billionaires in Russia, I believe, come from a Jewish background. I know
strong Jewish ethnic and religious networking, nepotism, etc. exists, but to achieve such a
high billionaire density even the Jewish population has to be at least 2% of the Russian
population (about 3 million at least out of the 150 million Russian population) like it is
the case in the U.S. (about 6 million Jews out of a 300 million U.S. population).
Not just 400,000 (which would be 0.3% of the Russian population) or even lower
estimates, like some sources claim. Wikipedia for example puts the number of Jews in
Russia, at the moment, at a laughable: 179,500
[...]
, which would be about o.15% of the Russian population, but Jews are half of the top 25
billionaires in Russia?
Something does not quite compute here, to put it mildly
Putin might know how many Jews really died in the Holocaust and in World War II,
and this is his way of telegraphing it and signalling to the Jewish Russian community that
they should not get too uppity and bold?
'Holocaust on ice' dance by wife of Putin official causes uproar
Putin has ensured that foreign interests have been prevented from taking over vital
Russian industries such as Oil,Gas, Minerals, Banking and Defence. At best, foreign companies
can only get limited concessions under conditions that suit the Russian State, eg BP.
Putin isn't a Neoliberal, he's a pragmatist. This is a very good thing.
But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's
kleptocratic chums are concerned.
Exactly, nor do you have any qualifications nor skills to write about Russia since, and I
quote Margo Simonyan describing your kind.
Maybe you will finally understand that you do not believe us not because we lie, but
because you know horseradish (dick) about surrounding world, because you are badly
educated, do not read much and when do, do not read what is needed, you visit all the wrong
places and communicate with the same small bunch of prejudiced and/or mental people, who
only reinforce your condescending ignorance.
The picture is mixed. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has been given real teeth since its
humiliation by the Customs Service under Medvedev. It goes beyond antimonopoly. For example,
it reviews incoming foreign investment in the 42 strategic industries. This was originally a
protectionist committee. It gave Pepsico a hard time for buying Wimm-Bill-Dann, clearly a
military asset. These days its approach to foreigners is "how can I help you? Do you want
money?" It is frequently chaired by Putin.
Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to take
Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom? Their behaviour
is outrageous. Certainly not the kind of corporate governance required for a competitive
market. e.g. Gazprom Bank has a Rotenberg son in charge of loans. Gazprom lent another
Rotenberg son the money to build Aviapark. No Rotenberg capital at risk during the whole
process. Now a $1 Bn asset. Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of court
or make some high level examples?
I judge a wo/man not on his/her words, but his/her deeds. Suffice to say, the difference
between Russia in 2000 and Russia today, speaks volumes all by itself and is fully self
explanatory as well.
One day the world will realize how close we've come to WW III in the period between
2015/2020. An extended version of the Cuban missile crisis, if you will, but this time with
only one statesman participating in this conundrum, the president of the Russian Federation,
H.E. Mr. V.V. Putin.
Much blood has been shed in Syria, including Russian, so it would be unfair to single out
one particular country, but I know if it hand't been for Russia stepping up to the plate in
2015, the political landscape [in the M.E. and beyond] would be littered with the corpses of
liberty, freedom and unity and the dust wouldn't settle down for decades to come.
The Russian military went in, turned the tide and most of the temporary influx is
retreating back to the motherland as we speak. That's how a 'job' is done properly.
Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of court or make some high
level examples?
Read by letters: F-S-B (Operational Technical Departments–Operativno-Technicheskie
Otdely). And then there is always G(R)U. Sure, those boys such as Ulyukaev or Kudrin who saw
so "much" in their lives are real "contenders". I am sure Naryshkin knows what color of stool
Siluanov is having every day. The same goes for Kudrin. But he is a smart boy–he knows
the routine. You obviously missed the revelation of the actual Putin's position in
KGB/SVR–it was all over Russia's TV. Other than that–I agree, it is a "target
rich" environment and yes, Kudrin is perfect for this job.
Hi Daniel – so good to see you again, I was wondering recently where you might
be.
I agree with you – the "proof of the pudding" says it all. One has only to look at
the last 18 years, at where Russia and Russians were back then, and look at her now, all
under Putins' direction and overall management. You do that, then read this sort of stuff and
wonder just what is going on in some people's minds. It makes less than no sense –
which means one has to start looking at premises one would not like to think about.
As for expecting some publicist who thinks Putin is a follower of Andropov as a person worth
printing and quoting – words fail me.
Good to hear from you Daniel – take care mi amigo.
"Since "The Saker" does not approve difference of opinion or dissent on his own site i
will post my response here."
Exactly what brought me here to comment, not on The Saker's own site.
Because I am being critical of the articles' thesis, and because I have criticised the
provenance of the two writers of the article on pension reform, I knew it would not be
published on his site.
I even had a comment I made, refusing to accept a pathetic reference for supposedly "proving"
that V.V. promised to never raise the retirement age, redacted. There's an unfortunate aspect
to the Saker site that puts one off making useful critical comment – the "mods" can
redact your work – or even ditch the entire piece – and leave a vague comment
insulting to your own probity, leaving it looking as though you are some foul mouthed abuser,
yet because you wont be published you can't defend yourself.
I do have to commend "Unz" for it's freedom of expression.
Oh – I agree with your take on the article too – so much of Saker has become a
doom laden cry that denigrates and decries Putin – which seems very odd.
Some more background information on how the Soviet internal passport registration system
worked, for anyone interested:
In the Soviet Union, when someone with parents of two nationalities received identity
papers at age 16, he could pick which nationality to list. A child of a Jewish father and
non-Jewish mother could put down "Jew [ or not ]." The religious principle of
matrilineal descent was irrelevant.
[...]
Persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union started with a policy Joseph Stalin initiated in
1937. Every Soviet citizen was required to carry an internal passport and under
"nationality," Jews were required to list "Jewish." Beckerman says this policy actually may
have been a tough decision for Stalin.
"On the one hand, he followed this Leninist principle [that] all Soviet citizens should
just melt into one general populace that doesn't have any distinctions for nationality," he
says. " But on the other hand, he wanted to control this population and Jews always had
kind of a strange place in the Russian society psyche, so he wanted to know who the Jews
were. "
Following the firsthand account of discrimination experienced by Jews in the Soviet
Union due to having their "nationality" registered as Jewish in their internal passports. I
believe this lends credence to the assumption that most (half-)Jews with just one Jewish
parent likely opted to be identified/registered by the nationality of their non-Jewish
parent, and further strengthens my hypothesis that Holocaust and Jewish World War II
casualties might have been significantly lower than what is generally accepted by
mainstream and anti-revisionist Holocaust and World War II historians and researchers
National identity in USSR was important. Well, it is always important and yes, there was
latent antisemitism (or whatever it is called) in some spheres of Soviet life. Not as big,
though, as Jewish dissidents love to present to those who are ready to listen.
Not as big, though, as Jewish dissidents love to present to those who are ready to
listen.
Hahahaha I agree
Do you happen to know if Andrey Illarionov comes from a Jewish background? I know he is a
dissident now, but I'm not sure whether he is ethnically Jewish or not.
Auschwitz joke angers Jewish groups
Andrei Illarionov, an economic adviser to the president, made the comparison during a
visit to St Petersburg. He has recommended that Russia should not sign the protocol.
[...]
"Then we realised Gosplan was much more humane and we ought to call the Kyoto Protocol an
international gulag. In the Gulag, though, you got the same ration daily and it didn't get
smaller day by day. In the end, we had to call the Kyoto Protocol an international
Auschwitz."
I missed the revelation. I tend to focus on business rather than politics. Expert is the
only journal I try to read regularly. (I am not fluent but I can usually manage if I
focus).
Soros's newspaper still appears in Russia.
A few days after MH17 the front page text something like 'Sorry, Netherlands', in Dutch.
Just imagine a few days after Sept 11 a USA newspaper with headlines, something like 'sorry,
we had to kill a few thousand Americans in order te get an excuse for wars against
Afghanistan and Iraq' ?
After what happened in the groves at jisr al shughour russia stepped up and did what was
right.in that time in the syrian war they stood the moral high ground.the rest is
history.bear in mind that 100 km away live over million russians and that does not include
cyprus.most support likud.
Well spoken. Analysts like the Saker would have us believe that what is happening in Russia
is not really happening but something else is happening – something hidden, something
powerful, all-pervasive, eating away at Putin's power base and destroying him behind the
scenes – like the john Birch Society – A communist under every bed! From what I
can see, and I do not believe I am alone by any means, is that if there are dark forces at
work in the Kremlin and elsewhere in the media for example, they are profoundly weak and
ineffective in Russia at this point. And whilst they might exist, there is little outward
evidence of their workings except the odd Navalny incident, or the constant drippings from
Western oriented media like the Moscow Times. If you want to see the effects of a REAL,
persistent, powerful, pervasive 5th column, you need look any further than the USA with its
Zionist lobby and MIC influence on politics and policy. Or the EU with its incredibly
powerful bureaucracy and its link to Soros and his ilk. Those are real 5th columns, and by
comparison, Russia has little to worry about.
I have followed the Saker for years now, and I too have seen this gradual transformation
from top notch analyst to conspiracy theorist. His website has become almost cult-like. He
has a few 'moderators' who operate anonymously behind the scenes to filter out unflattering
content – not just the crazy insults and freaks that websites like his attract, but
honest content that seeks to criticise, sometimes sharply, his views. If you read the comment
section, it reads like a religious cult at times, most comments prefaced by the seemingly
obligatory preface like "Great analysis, Saker!" "Well said, Saker!" And always there are the
comments both on the part of the Saker and his 'community' that praises that community for
being 'special', unlike the rubbish of other sites, insightful, and more knowledgeable than
others – heaping praise on themselves at the expense of other site with comments to the
effect of "We should be proud that we are not like other sites.".
I fear the Saker has over time fallen prey to the old devil's trick of taking oneself too
seriously. Someone who is constant the object of unquestioned praise can easily fall into
that trap.
Good to see that freedom of thought and freedom of expression is thriving in Russia. They
have fortunately a long way to go in MSM herd-think before they achieve our oppressive
anti-human intellectual conformity.
I agree in that presenting Mr. Putin and Russia as weak seems to encourage military
action, or a coup, against it, just "NOW", when the US is trying ( or simply, pretending ) an
intend of approach ..This has nothing to do with suppossed "depressive" mood of The Saker
himself ..this is a plan .
Thus I agree with you both in the general tone and confussing meddley of articles at
Saker´s site, and as well with your impression on the last "generation" of mods ( to my
view part of the real staff of this project, The Saker ) who, not only were put in charge of
getting rid ( by using the most dirty tricks ) from the genuine former regular
commenters/moderators who had a very personal view on what a good moderation and avoiding of
harsh censure was, but also have displayed a shameful dictatorial censure and editing which
not only amputates genuine and legitimate oppinions but also, as you notice, try, at the same
time, to discredit you as commenter for the rest, by implying you were being rude and
offensive and moreover denying the right to make things clear by allowing you a response to
such a clear outrage, according with most probably direct guidelines from the people who lead
The Saker from behind .
This tactic, of obliterating your comment and answering you by implying that you were
being offensive, ( and even denigrating ) towards somebody ( mainly the author/ owner of the
site and/or his relatives, coleagues and friends ), is common with other sites, like Pat
Lang´s SST. This is why I think these two sites are "closely" related .being their
paterns so similar also both have military ( more concretely counterintelligence ) background
.have a harsh anti-communist stance . and have a team of attack dogs who try to get you
giving up on posting when what you say is of no convenience for them ( or their editorial
line ) .Then, they use the alibi on your comment not being "intelligent", but then you have
there the ubiquitous one-liner sycophant who says nothing all over these two places
permanently .who are never summoned .
But, Isabella, what you so confidently say about Mr. Andropov´s policies, intrigates
me, since I wonder what idea you have on what the ideas, strategies, tactics and future plans
of Mr. Andropov could be to state that VVP is not following them ..I think it is impossible
for you, or even for Mr. Khazin, to know what the plans of Mr. Andropov would be, since he
was, at different times in the USSR, at the helms of secret security agency and foreign
policy, whose main directives were for sure secret, and not at the hand/knowledge of anybody
but a few under/of his "umbrella"/confidence call them "siloviki" or whatever you want .
Thus, in spite of that VVP moves seem to confirm he is a liberal playing the same play
than the capitalist West, we do not know nothing for sure, since, if this would be obvious
for all us, somebody would not be doing its work rightly, as certain senior strategist told
me at Fort Russ .
The worst side of this secrecy, obviously needed for strategic purposes, is that common
people, as happens to me, could start feeling dissapointed with VVP and discouraged of
continuing supporting him .thus some signs from time to time would be neccessary for the
people to continue trusting .
Zionists are Satanists and undermine governments everywhere that they get a foothold and they
already created a holocaust in Russia with the 1917 overthrow of the czar and the resulting
murder of some 60 million Russians and are now trying to undermine the Russian government
again, this is no surprise as this is what Zionists do ie they are killers and wreckers of
governments and are trying to do the same here in America.
One thing noticeable regarding people who comment Putin's policies from abroad, not from
within Russia: much projection of own prejudices and a lot of wishful thinking.
One thing noticeable regarding Putin's policies: no prejudice, no wishful thinking, just
Russian self-consciousness and pragmatism.
Order is restored. Russia's military might is restored. The economy and the living standard
have improved. Russia masters her destiny. So far, what he does works. What else?
The article is written by Saker without any doubt for it has his imprimatur of length for
readers like me, matzo ball radio says it all. Finally, it seems that Jews and Russians have
a sado masochistic arrangements; one can't do without the other. Qui bono?
There seems to be unanimity on this site condemning the Saker, and those commenting on his
blog. But what if he is simply correct in his suspicions about a fifth column in Russia? Is
that really so strange? Do you really think the Atlantacists and their ilk are nonexistent? I
notice no real proof of the inaccuracy of the Saker's contentions, but a lot of ad hominem
critique of his "mood". Maybe he is dead wrong in all his ideas about Putin's Russia –
but where's the proof?? The commenters here seem in danger of falling into the same baseless
contentions trap they accuse the Saker of.
said:
"Putin might know how many Jews really died in the Holocaust "
Please preset proof that any Jews died in 'the holocau$t' as alleged.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the 'holocaust'
storyline is the message.
The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
To think about "Atlanticists" as some kind of coherent group is to submit to Saker's
paranoia. Such paranoia is normal in nationalism. Shades of the John Birch society. If you
look for evidence of conspiracy X you will always find it.
Very well written synopsis of the current situation, and how Russia came to be in this place
at this time. I appreciate the recap of the history from Yeltsin moving forward.
The "atlanticists" are a rampant fifth column throughout Europe. Germany is particularly
badly infested and in need of a thorough cleaning out. Russians will be better off if they
can keep them mostly out of their country.
Die Zeit Die Anstalt Netzwerke Think Tank Josef Joffe
Given Russian life expectancy, Russian pension age was too low. Naturally, raising it
temporarily lowered Putin's popularity, but taking that hit is the essence of
forward-thinking leadership.
You Israeli-First traitors love citing Ezekiel 38 and Isaiah 17 to justify your wicked
warmongering, but in your malice you have been blinded to the fact that Isaiah 17 describes
not only the destruction of Damascus but also the destruction of a wicked faction in Israel:
the Baal-worshipping Zionists whom you think are beyond God's reach.
These are the people who murdered millions and millions under Yeltsin. By "privatizing" and
other wonderful "conservative" "capitalist" policies. Getting rid of Communism by killing all
the people who benefit by it. Brilliant.
So I guess that makes these "5th columnists" good, right? By your lights, anyway.
I'm still puzzled as to why Illarionov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Illarionov
made that Kyoto Protocol-Auschwitz comparison, and I am still not sure if he is ethnically
Jewish or not. I found some new indicators that point to him having Jewish roots, though.
Either he made the comment in sincerity and not as a joke, or someone (Putin?) told him to
say it that way for propaganda purposes. Maybe being asked/forced to make that comparison
also contributed to him quitting his job some months later?
In a 2005 interview after his resignation from his economic advisory post, he says the
following, which could indicate that the Kyoto Protocol-Auschwitz comparison was not of his
own making, but a talking point given to him by the Kremlin public relations and propaganda
department:
This (gas) war was the last drop in my decision to resign. I was offered to take part
in it as a propagandist who would explain why the price hike and everything else that is
being done in our bilateral relations are liberal economic policies. However, the
factors that led to this decision have nothing in common with liberal economic
policies.
Having outlined all of the problems with the country, he announced who was responsible
– the Jews. "[Yegor] Gaidar [in charge of privatisation under Yeltsin] – he
is a Jew. What good has come in the last 17 years?" He continued, "We are international
communists. Our fight is not with the Chechens or the Georgians. It is with the Jews!"
[...]
The Jewish community in Moscow were equally concerned about Medvedev's ethnicity. One
local Jewish leader was quoted as saying, "I pray it isn't true, because it would only make
trouble, for him and for us".
During his presidency, Vladimir Putin built his popularity on the traditional
ground of national pride and defence of Russia from ill-willed foreigners, but, to his
credit, he has a record of speaking out against antisemitism. His comments that he was
"ashamed" of antisemitism in Russia when he visited Auschwitz in 2005 were seen as
groundbreaking here.
Putin seems to send mixed messages on and to the Jewish community. One to please his
domestic audience of voters who, understandably, are overwhelmingly counter-semitic, because
they blame predominately-Jewish economists and bankers and their radical and failed economic
policies for the many millions of premature deaths during the 1990s economic crisis in
Russia.
An extra 2.5-3 million Russian adults died in middle age in the period 1992-2001
than would have been expected based on 1991 mortality.
And one philo-semitic or semitic-sympathique message to his predominately-Jewish
billionaire/oligarch financial backers to assure them and clam them down that they are safe
with him, unless they turn on him or try to undermine his authority.
Here a video of Illarionov talking about the Russian economy. By the way, he considers
himself to be a libertarian, which could be another indicator that he is Jewish, since
libertarianism is very popular with Jews https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-rejects-anti-semitism/
Economics in Russia – Andrei Illarionov | Rhodes 2016
The important question: does the truth matter? Most people want the answer they want, not
the truth and should be forced to truthfully answer why. One day that will happen.
With all due respect, I think that seeing Russian politics as eternal fight between Eurasian
Sovereignists (used to be called Slavyanophiles under tsars) and Atlantic Integrationists
(used to be called Westerners in tsarist times) is naïve, maybe even childish. Not to
mention that this does not explain why China is where it is now, and many other obvious
things.
I'd propose an alternative theory. Russian and Chinese elites include people who are OK
being second- or even third-rate in the world elites, and those who want to be first-rate.
The latter are patriotic, because you cannot be first-rate unless you have a strong truly
sovereign country behind you. Apparently, Putin, Xi, and many Russian and Chinese oligarchs
supporting them, want to be seen as first-rate, equals among equals, in contrast to pathetic
nonentities like Ukrainian "president" Poroshenko, most Ukrainian oligarchs, Polish elites,
or elites of vaudeville Baltic statelets.
Thing is, if your country is a poodle of the US, you are second-rate at best (e.g., EU
elites), but when your country is a poodle of the EU, you are no better than third-rate. So,
the whole intrigue in Russian and Chinese politics is essentially the struggle between
ambitious members of the elites (they call themselves patriots, thereby wooing the support of
the populace), and weaker-spirited members, who would rather be third-rate than fight for a
better position (pro-US, or generally pro-Western forces). So far proud patriots are winning
in both Russia and China, but lower grade pro-Western forces won't concede and keep fighting.
As far as pension reform in Russia goes, robbing the public to enrich the elites is in the
interests of both factions. However, I won't be surprised if the patriotic faction blames it
all on pro-Western forces, which Russian and Chinese people do sincerely despise.
That's what Ukies hope for. They were always wrong (Mazepa serving Sweden, some scum
serving Austro-Hungarian Empire, some scum serving Hitler, "holier-than-thou" communists
serving USSR, etc.). They are wrong again. But it's inhumane to say this: you don't want to
shatter pipe dreams of people who have nothing else, and never will.
Lots of people pretended to be persecuted just to get freebees in the US and elsewhere.
Antisemitsm was by ~90% the myth created by these people. One example I know first-hand: in
my year at the school of Biology in the best and most privileged Moscow State University
about 20-25% of students were Jewish or half-Jewish, whereas Jews constituted 2-3% of the
USSR population.
A note for those who know stats: this was a representative sampling: ~ 250 people
graduated from MSU School of Biology in my year, and the picture was pretty much the same in
subsequent years.
The following source claims his mother is Jewish, but I don't know how reliable he is:
As a sidenote, Medvedev's visit is all the more interesting given that he is a Jew, the
son of a Jewish mother and the first Jew to become President of Russia, much less enter the
Kremlin in any capacity besides the following: doctor, scientist, military hero,
foreigner.
I've personally confirmed Medvedev's Jewish identity with former Muscovites, who say
that Medvedev's mother regularly attended the main synagogue in Moscow. The subject has
not been broached much in Russian media, as Medvedev is Putin's man, and, well, Russian
journalists know what's good for them, or they have an accident – there is freedom of
choice in Russia. I wonder if anyone's bothered to tell the Arabs.
You will notice that the comments section at that site is infested with leftist dinosaurs.
Maybe they have a certain influence on the analyses.
Ozymandias
You are spot on. I, too, have noticed a change toward the negative on The Saker's part. A
bit befuddling. Seems that Russia and Putin have been doing well on numerous fronts, in spite
of Western attempts to the contrary. Difficulties may often exist, but I just don't see 5th
column doom and gloom.
Putin is perhaps the most rational, level headed, intelligent leader whom I've seen in my
lifetime. Wish we had his equivalent in the USA.
"... Since the start of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. ..."
"... These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to mention that Russia, rightly so, is considered one of the most protectionist nations in the world. This is if to discount all this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead, together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings. And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control over Novatek (it is a bad joke). ..."
"... Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to take Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom? ..."
The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting a
flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.
If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for? ...
Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that
is a good thing .
Even if Bershidsky gets it, however in the field which doesn't require any serious skills,
except for good accounting. Now, you don't want me to refer to Russia's actual industries,
especially hi-tech, which are nationalized, do you? Does the title Rostec ring a bell? What
is remarkable, founding of Rostec somehow coincided with Putin's Munich Speech--both events
are hardly any evidence of neoliberalism. Is Putin a liberal? Yes, but to a degree and
political mostly--his progression from liberal economic model to a mixed model since 2014 is
visible to people with even rudimentary knowledge of Russia. This is not to mention that
Russia, quoting even Wiki:
Russia has an upper-middle income mixed economy with state ownership in strategic areas of
the economy.
Some private bank is not a "strategic" area, nor is "liberalization" of land
sales, resources and real hi-tech sector, however, together with agriculture, are. Since
the start of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or
ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. In fact, whole industries.
Putin recently himself clearly stated that, especially pointing out a bonanza Russian State
got from 2008 collapse and from sanctions.
These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to mention that Russia, rightly so, is
considered one of the most protectionist nations in the world. This is if to discount all
this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead,
together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings.
And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control over Novatek (it is a bad joke).
The picture is mixed. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has been given real teeth since its
humiliation by the Customs Service under Medvedev. It goes beyond antimonopoly. For example,
it reviews incoming foreign investment in the 42 strategic industries. This was originally a
protectionist committee. It gave Pepsico a hard time for buying Wimm-Bill-Dann, clearly a
military asset. These days its approach to foreigners is "How can I help you? Do you want
money?" It is frequently chaired by Putin.
Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to
take Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom?
Their behaviour is outrageous. Certainly not the kind of corporate governance required for
a competitive market. e.g. Gazprom Bank has a Rotenberg son in charge of loans. Gazprom lent
another Rotenberg son the money to build Aviapark. No Rotenberg capital at risk during the
whole process. Now a $1 Bn asset. Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of
court or make some high level examples?
Rostek, run by Chemezov, whose main qualification is being buddies with Putin in 1980s
East Germany, famous for passing off an
unsuccessful and outdated Taiwanese manufactured and American designed device as an example
of "Russian innovation" [at pilfering government money].
But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's
kleptocratic chums are concerned. Fortunately, overall domestic economic policy (with said
exceptions) is neoliberal, which rules out a Venezuelan scenario in Russia. That is a good
thing.
But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's
kleptocratic chums are concerned.
Exactly, nor do you have any qualifications nor skills to write about Russia since, and I
quote Margo Simonyan describing your kind.
Maybe you will finally understand that you do not believe us not because we lie, but
because you know horseradish (dick) about surrounding world, because you are badly
educated, do not read much and when do, do not read what is needed, you visit all the wrong
places and communicate with the same small bunch of prejudiced and/or mental people, who
only reinforce your condescending ignorance.
Looks like Brennan abused his power as a head of CIA and should be held accountable for that.
Notable quotes:
"... Did the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election? ..."
"... it is not that ..."
"... even that is misleading ..."
"... the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it ..."
"... The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography and communications security. ..."
"... Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published. ..."
"... Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication. ..."
"... "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries." ..."
"... DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying ..."
"... Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries. ..."
Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence
Posted on by JackDid the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election?
Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the planned meeting of
Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to "Russian interference" as a fact and asks whether
the matter will be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the election
are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S. "intelligence community" proved Russian
interference. In fact, the U.S. "intelligence community" has not done so. The intelligence
community as a whole has not been tasked to make a judgment and some key members of that
community did not participate in the report that is routinely cited as "proof" of "Russian
interference."
I spent the 35 years of my government service with a "top secret" clearance. When I reached
the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant to the President for National
Security, I also had clearances for "codeword" material. At that time, intelligence reports to
the president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through me for comment. I
developed at that time a "feel" for the strengths and weaknesses of the various American
intelligence agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6. 2017 report of three
intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
This report is labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment," but in fact it is not
that . A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the
relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions.
Individual agencies did not hesitate to "take a footnote" or explain their position if they
disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the
"intelligence community" if any relevant agency was omitted.
The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI,
and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of
relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of
analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process
generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told
the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by "two dozen or so analysts --
hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies." If you can hand-pick the
analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what
Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their
careers by not delivering?
What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper
followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam
Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to
inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.
The DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council whose officers can call any
intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessments. It was created by
Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection
revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which is curious since its
duty is "to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities."
During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports
from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included
unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might
have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express
an opinion regarding the substance of reports.
What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of INR or DIA! The
exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its mandate deals primarily with military
forces, except that the report attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian
military intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S. intelligence organ
most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this attribution? The report doesn't say.
The omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political activity could not
have been that of the U.S. intelligence community without its participation. After all, when it
comes to assessments of foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State
Department's intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable and competent. In my day, it
reported accurately on Gorbachev's reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev
had the same aims as his predecessors.
This is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible journalists and
politicians should have asked is "Why is INR not represented? Does it have a different opinion?
If so, what is that opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is
"classified information." But why should it be classified? If some agency heads come to a
conclusion and choose (or are directed) to announce it publicly, doesn't the public deserve to
know that one of the key agencies has a different opinion?
The second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI: did all their
analysts agree with these conclusions or were they divided in their conclusions? What was the
reason behind hand-picking analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting
analysts already in place and already responsible for following the issues involved?
As I was recently informed by a senior official, the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express
it . So the January report was not one of the "intelligence community," but rather of
three intelligence agencies, two of which have no responsibility or necessarily any competence
to judge foreign intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of NSA is to
intercept the communications of others and to protect ours. It is not staffed to assess the
content of what is intercepted; that task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA
(if it is military) or the State Department's INR (if it is political).
The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views
of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The
heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military
officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except
in the fields of cryptography and communications security.
One striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion of the January
report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and NSA heads is that questions were never
posed regarding the position of the State Department's INR, or whether the analysts in the
agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.
Let's put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report itself. On the first
page of text, the following statement leapt to my attention:
We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of
the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the
intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political
processes or US public opinion.
Now, how can one judge whether activity "interfered" with an election without assessing its
impact? After all, if the activity had no impact on the outcome of the election, it could not
be properly termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented journalists and
politicians from citing the report as proof that "Russia interfered" in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election.
As for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and description of
"capabilities" but largely devoid of any evidence to substantiate its assertions. This is
"explained" by claiming that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed without
revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with "high confidence" or occasionally,
"moderate confidence." Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is
irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The use of the term "high
confidence" is what most normal people would call "our best guess." "Moderate confidence" means
"some of our analysts think this might be true."
Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of
the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and
conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or
foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with
NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published.
Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and
have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally
downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion
that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication.
The report's assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to Wikileaks are dubious, but
its final statement in this regard is important: "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not
contain any evident forgeries." In other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So,
Russians are accused of "degrading our democracy" by revealing that the DNC was trying to fix
the nomination of a particular candidate rather than allowing the primaries and state caucuses
to run their course. I had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic
values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade democracy have a rather bizarre
-- to put it mildly–concept of democracy.
Most people, hearing that it is a "fact" that "Russia" interfered in our election must think
that Russian government agents hacked into vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a
particular candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most painful
sanctions. But this is the one thing that the "intelligence" report of January 6, 2017, states
did not happen. Here is what it said: " DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses
that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote
tallying ."
This is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess the impact of
foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not consulted regarding other aspects of the
study? Or -- was it in fact consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious
question any responsible journalist or competent politician should have asked.
Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically
motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the
pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block
any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with
common dangers is vital to both countries.
This is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian relations have
become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the crick don't rise, I'll be musing about
other aspects soon.
Thanks to Ray McGovern and Bill Binney for their research assistance.
Jack F. Matlock, Jr.
Booneville, Tennessee
June 29, 2018
I judge a wo/man not on his/her words, but his/her deeds. Suffice to say, the difference
between Russia in 2000 and Russia today, speaks volumes all by itself and is fully self
explanatory as well.
One day the world will realize how close we've come to WW III in the period between
2015/2020. An extended version of the Cuban missile crisis, if you will, but this time with
only one statesman participating in this conundrum, the president of the Russian Federation,
H.E. Mr. V.V. Putin.
Much blood has been shed in Syria, including Russian, so it would be unfair to single out
one particular country, but I know if it hand't been for Russia stepping up to the plate in
2015, the political landscape [in the M.E. and beyond] would be littered with the corpses of
liberty, freedom and unity and the dust wouldn't settle down for decades to come.
The Russian military went in, turned the tide and most of the temporary influx is
retreating back to the motherland as we speak. That's how a 'job' is done properly.
National identity in USSR was important. Well, it is always important and yes, there was
latent antisemitism (or whatever it is called) in some spheres of Soviet life. Not as big,
though, as Jewish dissidents love to present to those who are ready to listen.
Lots of people pretended to be persecuted just to get freebees in the US and elsewhere.
Antisemitsm was by ~90% the myth created by these people. One example I know first-hand: in
my year at the school of Biology in the best and most privileged Moscow State University
about 20-25% of students were Jewish or half-Jewish, whereas Jews constituted 2-3% of the
USSR population.
I encourage you to give the Escobar article a second reading. I just did to make sure I knew what it was saying. I think karlof1
is making the right points from it.
The collaboration between Saudia Arabia and Russia is a very small part of the article, and no one disputes that this collaboration
is occurring. Russia may even be part of OPEC soon, if it chooses. The relationship works against the US but it's not specifically
made for this reason. Read Adam Garrie's take on this to see that the moves into OPEC by Russia in recent years are clearly from
its own interest as a hugely major supplier, and that Saudi Arabia needs Russia:
The New Russia-Saudi Partnership Has Riyadh's US Ally Over a Barrel
I just skimmed it a third time and I don't see Escobar saying anywhere that the Saudi-Russia relationship is to kill US shale.
He does say that both Russia and Iran are interested in countering it. I think the point here is that all serious oil producers
with profitable reserves take alarm at the US shale oil because it's hard to say that it's a real commodity with an inbuilt profitability.
It's a short-term entry into the market that can serve to disrupt the market temporarily, but it has no staying power. I suspect
most nations would prefer it simply not intrude.
No one actually has to act against US shale - it's something of a pretender in the real oil world anyway, and this has long
been commented upon. Escobar's point that the US shale is largely a myth is not a new concept. At best the reserve will deplete
within 15 years, and that's at best - along the way it will destroy the US potable water table. And its intrinsic value is far
from clear, since the entire industry is dubiously financed using relatively free Federal Reserve money. As Escobar points out,
many call $100 per barrel the profit threshold for shale - that's a ludicrously high bar for profitability in the oil world.
Much of Escobar's article was about the relationship between Russia and Iran, and it served also as a very good primer in world
oil and petro-currency numbers. I found it pretty sound.
"... You don't need to give use Northstream 2. We will build it ourselves. ..."
"... Nordstream II only blocking party is Denmark, and they can and will bypass it at some price, if need be. ..."
"... Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark can say goodbye to its share of transit fees. ..."
"... A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work together against US attacks. ..."
"... Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump. Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are limited and evaporating. ..."
"... The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast. ..."
Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its
construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the
pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark
can say goodbye to its share of transit fees.
Also Crimea is non-negotiable for Russia. It is Russian territory irrespective of what
happens.
A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back
on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra
cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work
together against US attacks.
Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump.
Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are
limited and evaporating.
Incidentally it is very easy and probably wise to promise the US, in June, not to buy oil in
November. It costs nothing and fits into bazaar bargaining strategies.
The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on
arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast.
"... The Iranians will lose marketspace, sure, but the inevitable increase of the price of oil will somewhat soften the blow. And anything over $100 per barrel, along with a stronger dollar, is proven to be detrimental to energy importing countries. It will be painful to keep the economy rolling. ..."
Oil will continue to flow from Iran, there simply isn't a significant supply stemming from
the Saudi-Russia alliance or US shale to fill the gap.
The Iranians will lose marketspace,
sure, but the inevitable increase of the price of oil will somewhat soften the blow. And
anything over $100 per barrel, along with a stronger dollar, is proven to be detrimental to
energy importing countries. It will be painful to keep the economy rolling.
And when there's less appetite for oil; the price of oil crashes resulting in another big
financial crash (due to bad dept) followed by another round of austerity measures which
spells political turmoil in a number of countries. And the landscape gradually changes.
So Trump asked the Saudis to pump 2 million more barrels per day to offset Iranian exports?
Daffy!. Saudis do not have a spare barrel, let alone 2 million. Ask Simmons. Oh wait, he
has been offed:
LONDON(Reuters) - The leader of Saudi Arabia has assured U.S. President Donald Trump that
the Kingdom can raise oil production if needed and the country has 2 million barrels per
day of spare capacity that could be deployed to help cool down oil prices to compensate for
falling output in Venezuela and Iran.
In a tweet on Saturday, Trump said Saudi Arabia had agreed to increase output by up to
this amount, although a subsequent statement from the White House rowed back on this
assertion.
Either way, the kingdom, OPEC's biggest member, can barely raise output by 1 million bpd
to 11 million bpd and even that would be difficult, according to industry analysts who
forecast a further oil price rally due to a lack of new supply.
Below are comments from some leading OPEC analysts:
[ED: one of several cited below]
"The Saudis do not have 2 million bpd of spare capacity as it would imply production of 12
million bpd. They can likely produce a maximum of 11 million and even that will be running
their system at stress levels," said Ross.
He added that with a potential output fall of up to 1.5 million bpd in Iran and
further outages in Venezuela and Libya, the world could be short of 2 million bpd of oil
output without an increase in Saudi output by the end of the year."
Pepe declares US shale to be a myth, but then says KSA and Russia have teamed up to fight. Us
production figures also left out. Disappointing piece from Pepe, especially this glaring
contradiction where KSA and Russia has to team up to fight what he calls a myth.
Pepe's referring to the assumed longevity of shale which is proven to be a gross lie. I can
provide documentation about that but it will have to wait until I have more time to work.
karlof1
Ok so according to Pepe Russia and KSA are joining forces to fight this gross lie.
either shale is a real and major threat, or Russia and KSA are not joining forces. That is
the glaring contradiction in Pepes piece. the other option is that both Russia and KSA both
of which have some knowledge of oil are mistaken about US shale.
Already have Syria? Not really. Heard of the SDF occupying the North-Eastern third of
Syria. If Trump & Putin can't come to an agreement on Iran what's the bet Trump decides
to pump money, weapons and US troops into North-Eastern Syria to fully support the Kurds?
NordStream II? Sure, it will be built, but Trump can sanction Germany and German industry
- ie automakers - heavily if he so wishes. He might do. He can blame NordStream II. He's
certainly been talking about it.
There are certainly ways and means Trump can create huge trouble for Germany/Russia in
regards to NordStream II even if it is built.
Crimea? Yeah, Russia has it but it is also used as the bludgeon to impose sanctions on
Russia. Perhaps recognising Crimea as part of Russia and dropping all sanctions on Russia
will be offered to Putin in return for Russia staying out of any conflict regarding Iran in
2019.
I'd hardly say Trump has nothing to bargain.
Besides, why would Putin select Medvedev as Prime Minister again despite Medvedev being
obviously a Euro-Atlanticist?
I'd also add - who do you think Russia fears in the future decades.
Is it a decaying Europe/EU who nevertheless can buy lots of Russian goods including oil
& gas obviously?
Or do Russia fear a rising China that always has one eye on the Russian Far East as a
possible place for expansion to take care of their oil & gas & mineral needs?
I suspect - and you can look to the history of Russia/China relations for this - that
Russia retains a more existential fear of China than anyone else.
Russia always clearly seeks to balance Europe/EU/US/Atlantic against China and others.
Where does Iran fit in all this? If Iran is taken out who benefits? Doesn't Iran being
taken out strengthen Russia's hand vis-a-vis China in terms of oil & gas? I'd say it
does. Certainly. Without Iranian oil & gas China becomes more dependent on who?
RUSSIA!
So I bet Russian thought would tend to say to China. Look, we are not going to put
ourselves on the line to defend Iran. But hey, if you want to do that we'll support you doing
so, afterall, Iran is of a more of a vital strategic interest to you than us.
We defended Syria, we can't defend anyone and you can't expect us to defend everyone. If
you want a country to retain its independence you have to step up to the plate every now and
then rather than just relying on the Russian military.
And look - we defended Syria - what did you do in Syria's defence?
Just to finish this comment.
In case you haven't noticed the US has put a date of November 4 on stopping the
export/import of Iranian oil. Which is? It is 2 days before the November 6 Mid-Terms...
It's a clear set-up for 2019.
My prediction.
There will be military action against Iran in the first half of 2019.
I suspect March-April-May being the most likely.
At that time you also have Brexit, European Elections (dominated by populists), Ukrainian
Presidential Elections, South African Elections, Indian Elections... It's a big few
months.
My advice? Buy oil & gas in the second half of this year - it's value is likely to
skyrocket in 2019.
What will Iran's response be? I'd say if you are in any of Saudi Gulf Coast, UAE (Dubai
& Abu Dhabi), Kuwait or Bahrain - get out before New Year's!!!
Re: Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 1, 2018 11:14:41 PM | 27
I'm not judging one way or another on what Putin will necessarily do, but clearly Trump's
gambit is to wean Iran off Russian support.
Will it work? Who knows. But Iran clearly has less strategic importance to Russia than
Syria.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think Russia prefers Iranian-Qatari oil & gas
pipelines through Iraq-Syria-Turkey to Europe or would Russia prefer Saudi-UAE-Qatari oil
& gas pipelines to Europe??
Any effort to understand US foreign policy from actual US interests is a futile exercise in
frustration. US foreign policy is driven by two things:
1. The interests of international financiers (heavily Jewish)
2. The Israeli government.
At consideration for actual US interests is secondary if such things considered at all.
That should be obvious enough to everyone by now.
The one thing that Russia and/or China could do that would do more to avoid another major
power war, is to loudly, clearly and publicly inform the Israelis (the people as well as the
government) that any attack upon Russia, China, or their forces by the US or NATO will be
treated as a direct attack upon Russia/China by the state of Israel and the Jewish people and
these will be utterly destroyed in the first salvo of the Russian/Chinese response.
The second thing that could/should be done, is for Russia to implement a covert campaign
of targeted assassinations of Jewish figures who are actively engaged in efforts to undermine
Russian interests. This would include people like Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, key players in
international finance, etc. No Jew anywhere in the world should feel that they are beyond the
reach of Russian retaliation. This is precisely how the Israelis conduct their foreign policy
and Russians should not shirk from engaging fire with fire.
@Julian
I think you underestimate the long term benefit of a stable and prosperous Iran in the
greater Eurasian gambit (Infrastructure Node, stability for the region) vs the short term
gains Russia may achieve from a destroyed and fractured Iran that is in disarray. Russia
doesn't just export energy after all. Exploding oil prices will end up hurting consumer
nations, which in turn affects the global economy and by extension oil producers, there is
always a delayed feedback loop.
Just because someone competes with you in the energy realm doesn't automatically mean you
want that actor weak or destroyed. If that was the case, then why does Russia maintain good
relationships with Azerbaijan, a direct competitor to Russian Gas? Similarly Central Asian
countries are competitors in the gas market for China, yet Russia would never allow these to
be subverted by radical Islamists without acting.
And it goes on today. Just over a year ago, Wikileaks source Seth Rich was assassinated. Fox
News and lefty Jimmy Dore reported this, until the Deep State put the screws on and they both
retracted with bogus stories to "correct" their errors. No one talks about this anymore.
"... Although Trump touted the study as a way to "rebuild" the U.S. military when he ordered it in May 2017, economic motives were clearly a crucial factor. Navarro typically cited the importance of a "healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base," identifying weapons spending as a key element in achieving such goals. ..."
Other than shouting about building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, one of Donald Trump's
most frequently proclaimed promises on the 2016 campaign trail was the launching of a
half-trillion-dollar plan to repair America's crumbling infrastructure (employing large
numbers of workers in the process). Eighteen months into his administration, no credible
proposal for anything near that scale has been made. To the extent that the Trump
administration has a plan at all for public investment, it involves pumping up Pentagon
spending, not investing in roads, bridges, transportation, better Internet access, or other
pressing needs of the civilian economy.
Not that President Trump hasn't talked about investing in infrastructure. Last February,
he even proposed a scheme that, he claimed, would boost the country's infrastructure with
$1.5 trillion in spending over the next decade. With a typical dose of hyperbole, he
described it as "the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in American
history."
Analysts from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania -- Trump's alma mater
-- beg to differ. They
note that the plan actually involves only $200 billion in direct federal investment, less
than one-seventh of the total promised. According to Wharton's experts, much of the extra
spending, supposedly leveraged from the private sector as well as state and local
governments, will never materialize. In addition, were such a plan launched, it would, they
suggest, fall short of its goal by a cool trillion dollars. In the end, the spending levels
Trump is proposing would have "little to no impact" on the nation's gross domestic product.
To add insult to injury, the president has
exerted next to no effort to get even this anemic proposal through Congress, where it's
now dead
in the water .
There is, however, one area of federal investment on which Trump and the Congress have
worked overtime with remarkable unanimity to increase spending: the Pentagon, which is slated
to receive more than
$6 trillion over the next decade. This year alone increases will bring total spending on
the Pentagon and related agencies (like the Department of Energy where work on nuclear
warheads takes place) to $716
billion . That $6-trillion, 10-year figure represents more than 30 times as much direct
spending as the president's $200 billion infrastructure plan.
In reality, Pentagon spending is the Trump administration's substitute for a true
infrastructure program and it's guaranteed to deliver public investments, but neglect just about every area
of greatest civilian need from roads to water treatment facilities.
The Pentagon's Covert Industrial Policy
One reason the Trump administration has chosen to pump money into the Pentagon is that
it's the path of least political resistance in Washington. A combination of fear, ideology,
and influence peddling radically skews "debate" there in favor of military outlays above all
else. Fear -- whether of terrorism, Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea -- provides one
pillar of support for the habitual overfunding of the Pentagon and the rest of the national
security state (which in these years has had a combined
trillion-dollar annual budget). In addition, it's generally accepted in Washington that
being tagged "soft on defense" is the equivalent of political suicide, particularly for
Democrats. Add to that the millions of dollars spent by the
weapons industry on lobbying and campaign contributions, its routine practice of hiring
former Pentagon and military officials, and the way it strategically places defense-related
jobs in key states and districts, and it's easy to see how the president and Congress might
turn to arms spending as the basis for a covert industrial policy.
The Trump plan builds on the Pentagon's already prominent role in the economy. By now,
it's the largest
landowner in the country, the
biggest institutional consumer of fossil fuels, the most
significant source of funds for advanced government research and development, and a
major investor in the manufacturing sector. As it happens, though, expanding the
Pentagon's economic role is the least
efficient way to boost jobs, innovation, and economic growth.
Unfortunately, there is no organized lobby or accepted bipartisan rationale for domestic
funding that can come close to matching the levers of influence that the Pentagon and the
arms industry have at their command. This only increases the difficulty Congress has when it
comes to investing in infrastructure, clean energy, education, or other direct paths toward
increasing employment and economic growth.
Former congressman Barney Frank once labeled the
penchant for using the Pentagon as the government's main economic tool "weaponized
Keynesianism" after economist John Maynard Keynes's theory that government spending
should pick up the slack in investment when private-sector spending is insufficient to
support full employment. Currently, of course, the official unemployment rate is low by
historical standards. However,
key localities and constituencies , including the industrial Midwest, rural areas, and
urban ones with significant numbers of black and Hispanic workers, have largely been left
behind. In addition, millions of "discouraged workers" who want a job
but have given up actively looking for one aren't even counted in the official unemployment
figures, wage growth has
been stagnant for years, and the inequality gap between the 1% and
the rest of America is already in Gilded Age
territory.
Such economic distress was crucial to Donald Trump's rise to power. In campaign 2016, of
course, he endlessly denounced unfair trade agreements, immigrants, and corporate flight as
key factors in the plight of what became a significant part of his political base: downwardly
mobile and displaced industrial workers (or those who feared that this might be their future
fate).
The Trump Difference
Although insufficient, increases in defense manufacturing and construction can help areas
where employment in civilian manufacturing has been lagging. Even as it's expanded, however,
defense spending has come to play an ever-smaller role in the U.S. economy, falling
from 8%-10% of the gross domestic product in the 1950s and 1960s to under 4% today. Still, it
remains crucial to the economic base in defense-dependent
locales like southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington state. Such places, in turn,
play an outsized political role in Washington because their congressional representatives
tend to cluster on the armed services, defense appropriations, and other key committees, and
because of their significance on the electoral map.
A long-awaited Trump administration "defense industrial base" study should be considered a
tip-off that the president and his key officials see Pentagon spending as the way to
economincally prime the pump. Note, as a start, that the study was overseen not by a defense
official but by the president's economics and trade czar, Peter Navarro, whose formal title
is White House director of trade and industrial policy. A main aim of the study is to find a
way to bolster smaller defense firms that subcontract to giants like Boeing, Raytheon, and
Lockheed Martin.
Although Trump touted the study as a way to "rebuild" the U.S. military when he ordered it
in May 2017, economic motives were clearly a crucial factor. Navarro typically
cited the importance of a "healthy, growing economy and a resilient industrial base,"
identifying weapons spending as a key element in achieving such goals. The CEO of the
Aerospace Industries Association, one of the defense lobby's most powerful trade groups,
underscored Navarro's point when, in July 2017, he insisted that "our industry's
contributions to U.S. national security and economic well-being can't be taken for granted."
(He failed to explain how an industry that absorbs more than
$300 billion per year in Pentagon contracts could ever be "taken for granted.")
Trump's defense-industrial-base policy tracks closely with proposals put forward by Daniel
Goure of the military-contractor-funded Lexington Institute in a December 2016
article titled "How Trump Can Invest in Infrastructure and Make America Great Again."
Goure's main point: that Trump should make military investments -- like building naval
shipyards and ammunition plants -- part and parcel of his infrastructure plan. In doing so,
he caught the essence of the arms industry's case regarding the salutary effects of defense
spending on the economy:
"Every major military activity, whether production of a new weapons system, sustainment of
an existing one or support for the troops, is imbedded in a web of economic activities and
supports an array of businesses. These include not only major defense contractors such as
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, but a host of middle-tier and even
mom-and-pop businesses. Money spent at the top ripples through the economy. Most of it is
spent not on unique defense items, but on products and services that have commercial markets
too."
What Goure's analysis neglects, however, is not just that every government investment
stimulates multiple sectors of the economy, but that virtually any other kind would have a
greater ripple
effect on employment and economic growth than military spending does. Underwritten by the
defense industry, his analysis is yet another example of how the arms lobby has distorted
economic policy and debate in this country.
These days, it seems as if there's nothing the military won't get involved in. Take
another recent set of "security" expenditures in what has already
become a billion-dollar-plus business: building and maintaining detention centers for
children, mainly unaccompanied minors from Central America, caught up in the Trump
administration's brutal security crackdown on the U.S.-Mexico border. One company, Southwest
Key, has already
received a $955 million government contract to work on such facilities. Among the other
beneficiaries is the major defense contractor General
Dynamics , normally known for making tanks, ballistic-missile-firing submarines, and the
like, not ordinarily ideal qualifications for taking care of children.
Last but not least, President Trump has worked overtime to tout his promotion of U.S. arms
sales as a jobs program. In a May 2018 meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at
the White House (with reporters in attendance), he typically
brandished a map that laid out just where U.S. jobs from Saudi arms sales would be
located. Not coincidentally, many of them would be in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Ohio, and Florida that had provided him with his margin of victory in the 2016 elections.
Trump had already crowed
about such Saudi deals as a source of "jobs, jobs, jobs" during his May 2017 visit to Riyadh,
that country's capital. And he claimed
on one occasion -- against all evidence -- that his deals with the Saudi regime for arms and
other equipment could create "millions of jobs."
The Trump administration's decision to blatantly put jobs and economic benefits for U.S.
corporations above human rights considerations and strategic concerns is likely to have
disastrous consequences. Its continued
sales of bombs and other weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, for
example, allows them to go on prosecuting a
brutal war in Yemen that has already killed thousands of civilians and put millions more
at risk of death from famine and disease. In addition to being morally reprehensible, such an
approach could turn untold numbers of Yemenis and others across the Middle East into U.S.
enemies -- a high price to pay for a few thousand jobs in the arms sector.
Pentagon Spending Versus a Real Infrastructure Plan
While the Trump administration's Pentagon spending will infuse new money into the economy,
it's certainly a misguided way to spur economic growth. As University of Massachusetts
economist Heidi Garrett-Peltier has demonstrated ,
when it comes to creating jobs, military spending lags far behind investment in civilian
infrastructure, clean energy, health care, or education. Nonetheless, the administration is
moving full speed ahead with its military-driven planning.
In addition, Trump's approach will prove hopeless when it comes to addressing the
fast-multiplying problems of the country's ailing infrastructure. The
$683 billion extra that the administration proposes putting into Pentagon spending over
the next 10 years pales in comparison to the trillions of dollars the American Society of
Civil Engineers claims are needed to modernize U.S. infrastructure. Nor will all of that
Pentagon increase even be directed toward construction or manufacturing activities (not to
speak of basic infrastructural needs like roads and bridges). A significant chunk of it will,
for instance, be dedicated to paying the salaries of the military's massive cadre of civilian and
military personnel or health care and other benefits.
In their study, the civil engineers suggest that failing to engage in a major
infrastructure program could cost the economy $4 trillion and 2.5 million jobs by 2025,
something no Pentagon pump-priming could begin to offset. In other words, using the Pentagon
as America's main conduit for public investment will prove a woeful approach when it comes to
the health of the larger society.
One era in which government spending did directly stimulate increased growth,
infrastructural development, and the creation of well-paying jobs was the 1950s, a period for
which Donald Trump is visibly
nostalgic . For him, those years were evidently the last in which America was truly
"great." Many things were deeply wrong with the country in the fifties -- from rampant
racism, sexism, and the denial of basic human rights to McCarthyite witch hunts -- but on the
economic front the government did indeed play a positive role.
In those years, public investment went far beyond Pentagon spending, which President
Dwight Eisenhower (of " military-industrial
complex " fame) actually tried to rein in. It was civilian investments -- from the
G.I. Bill to increased
incentives for housing construction to the building of an interstate highway system --
that contributed in crucial ways to the economic boom of that era. Whatever its failures and
drawbacks, including the ways in which African-Americans and other minorities were grossly
under-represented when it came to
sharing the benefits, the Eisenhower investment strategy did boost the overall economy in a
fashion the Trump plan never will.
The notion that the Pentagon can play a primary role in boosting employment to any
significant degree is largely a myth that serves the needs of the military-industrial
complex, not American workers or Donald Trump's base. Until the political gridlock in
Washington that prevents large-scale new civilian investments of just about any sort is
broken, however, the Pentagon will continue to seem like the only game in town. And we will
all pay a price for those skewed priorities, in both blood and treasure.
After spending 17 years at Goldman Sachs, Trump's new Treasure Secretary, Steven Mnuchin ran
OneWest Bank in CA. Guess who he worked for? George frigging Soros.
So, Trump is partners with infamous globalist atheist George Soros, Orthodox Jews, Islamic
Extremists, Goldman Sachs and GHW Bush's Carlyle Group.
And one more morsel to ponder. The CEO of CNN (portrayed as rabidly anti-Trump) is one of a
long list of Globalist Zionists who have been Trump supporters for decades.
integer @35. Not a fan of George Soros? Ready to peak into the rabbit hole?
Donald Trump has been business partners with George Soros in at least $6 Billion in
properties for more than a decade before his candidacy. They were even codefendants in a RICO
suit (organized crime, as in the Jewish Mafia).
After spending 17 years at Goldman Sachs, Trump's new Treasure Secretary, Steven Mnuchin ran
OneWest Bank in CA. Guess who he worked for? George frigging Soros.
So, Trump is partners with infamous globalist atheist George Soros, Orthodox Jews, Islamic
Extremists, Goldman Sachs and GHW Bush's Carlyle Group.
And one more morsel to ponder. The CEO of CNN (portrayed as rabidly anti-Trump) is one of a
long list of Globalist Zionists who have been Trump supporters for decades.
With Mueller Trump is on a very short leash indeed, so I doubt that he has great freedom of maneuver.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal of the Cold War. ..."
"... John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is! ..."
"... People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed. ..."
"... Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être , and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc. ..."
"... Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be different this time. ..."
"... My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun & other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced. ..."
"... A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to spike the upcoming Putin summit. ..."
On a gestalt basis it seems to me from all the bits and pieces of information and rumor that DJT is attempting "The Deal of the
Century!" (an episode or two of his soon to be award winning series on the subject of "The Greatest President.")
Russian cooperation in this is clearly needed. Trump is blessedly lacking in ideological fervor. His Deplorable base is also a
bit short on ideology being focused on wages, prices, taxes and other everyday living issues. Their patriotism expresses itself in
devotion to the flag and the anthem and a willingness to serve in the armed forces, something increasingly absent in the "resistance."
Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal
with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal
of the Cold War.
John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting
with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging
the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out
rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is!
Trumps is IMO trying for a grand ME bargain to be achieved with Russian help:
Peace in Syria in the context of abandonment of regime change. Trump the pragmatist recognizes that the R+6 forces have won
the civil war and, therefore he wishes to accept the sunk costs of previous American ineptitude in Syria and to walk away. US Embassy
Amman has signaled to the FSA rebels in SW Syria that they should not expect the US to defend them. This is a traditional American
stab in the back for guerrilla allies but the warning indicates to me that some group in the US Government (probably the CIA) has
enough conscience to want to give warning. As soon as that warning was issued the rate of surrenders to the SAA rose.
The US has thus made it clear that the SAA and Russian forces in Syria have a free hand in the SW and it seems that Israeli
air and missile attacks are unlikely against the SW offensive. This has been insured through a Russian mandate that Hizbullah and
IRGC dominated Shia militias stay out of the fight in Deraa and Quneitra Provinces.
The Egyptians have been talking to Hamas about their willingness to enter into a hudna (religiously sanctioned truce) with
Israel. Hamas has frequently offered this before. Such truces are renewable and are often for 10 years. Kushner's team thinks it
has attained Natanyahhu's support for this. The deal would supposedly include; a Gaza-Egyptian industrial zone in the area of Raffa,
an airport, a seaport. In return Hamas would be expected to police the truce from their side of the border. People on SST who have
deep access in Israel doubt the sincerity of apparent Israeli assent, but there is little doubt I think that DJT considers this part
of the Grand Bargain he is attempting to forge.
Nowhere in any of this is anything concerning Iran and I assume that regime change remains the policy. Nor is there anything about
Saudi Arabia and the UAE's mercenary manned war in Yemen. Ah, well, pilgrims, everything in its time. pl
People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made
noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked
twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed.
Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être
, and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on
Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc.
No, I mean the Army is especially invested in Europe and has been. I attended C&GSC at the peak of Vietnam and in exercises they
were still mostly concerned with the Fulda Gap, division trains, etc. Big Army. Similar to how Army is going now, back to their
roots so to speak. Even when they claimed they were short of funds, they found a way to send forces to Europe based on the claims
that after Crimea, Russia was (and is) a threat to. . .the U.S.?
Peace with Russia would be a severe blow to Army especially
with the shift to Indo-Pacific which involves Navy and Marines, and Army not much. I know Army was greatly involved with island
operations in WWII, but China is not Japan regarding imperialism, IMO, and anyhow island invasions are not popular in Army.
So I look for a beefed up "Russia threat" campaign to counter Trump, and insider Bolton to be a big part of it.
Good analysis of the political implications of having Bolton establishing a summit as it worked with Pompeo. Always keep your
friends close and your enemies closer good way to clean up the nest of venomous asps.
Gen Sisi must have made an offer too good to resist. We know the House of Saud will finance it. Are they going to political legitimatize
Hamas, turn Gaza in a statelet ? Perhaps Hamas sees, or is being threaten with the money spigot being turned off ? The only way
to get money will be their share of offshore Natural Gas ? All for Hamas perhaps ? Nothing buys peace faster then lining a whole
lot of pockets. With more money and Airports and a Shipping port, opens dangerous doors. Is Israel ready for that ? How will that
be monitored ? So many damn questions. This may prove more problematic then the status quo, in the long run. Something does have
to be done, the conditions in Gaza are unacceptable.
Excellent analysis. In related news, a week or so ago semi-official Russian Vzglyad made a first media shot across the bow for
Iran in which it stressed that the manner of Iran's "presence" in Syria is a complicating factor.
Russia doesn't want to "dislodge" Iran from Syria but she needs Iran out of the border area with Israel. This is the key to a
new arrangement, including, in the long run, Iran's security.
Is there a new ABM Treaty in the works? Another SALT? Another Peace of Yalta?
First two are important but are not clear and present danger for Russia for a number of reasons. Militarization of space is
more important now. The last point, however, is extremely important because either there will be some kind of new geopolitical
arrangement or we will see probability of a global military conflict grow exponentially.
Iranians do not need to be at the border area. All they need is to deploy their true and tested method of arming Syria with tens
of thousands of precision rockets aimed at Haifa and Tel-Aviv. It worked for North Koreans.
No global peace is in the works.
Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars.
Let us hope it be different this time.
Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there
was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be
different this time.
It must be different, plus I disagree with historic parallel--two entirely different paradigms both in warfare, geopolitical
balance and media.
Well I certainly wish The Greatest President luck. Who knows, I'm done underestimating the guy.
My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements
in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun &
other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced.
The point of maximum danger appears to be at hand, given your characterization of the Daraa op as "betting the farm". Today's
grant of new powers to the OPCW to apportion blame (designed to side-step the Russian veto at the UNSC) now means this body can
effectively determine casus belli . Let us pray the OPCW will not have reason to exercise its new powers in Syria.
A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to
spike the upcoming Putin summit.
On topic #2. If the SAA isn't feeling it's oats by now, forcing them fight a major battle that culminates a campaign by themselves
would seem to be the ideal way to exorcise any remaining self doubts and engender a lasting esprit de corps. Stupid is what stupid
does... Once these guys finish up in the SW and head east enforce it'll be show time.
"... The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new Gilded Age , reminiscent of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century. ..."
"... Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts. ..."
"... However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and the moneys that go into the expanding national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else from infrastructure investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending increased by 50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%. ..."
Credit-Card Wars
Today's War-Financing Strategies Will Only Increase Inequality
By Stephanie
Savell
In the name of the fight against terrorism, the United States is currently waging "
credit-card wars " in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Never before has this
country relied so heavily on deficit spending to pay for its conflicts. The consequences are
expected to be ruinous for the long-term fiscal health of the U.S., but they go far beyond the
economic. Massive levels of war-related debt will have lasting repercussions of all sorts. One
potentially devastating effect, a
new study finds, will be more societal inequality.
In other words, the staggering costs of the longest war in American history -- almost 17
years running, since the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 -- are being deferred to the
future. In the process, the government is contributing to this country's skyrocketing income
inequality.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent
$5.6 trillion on its war on terror, according to the Costs of War Project, which I co-direct, at Brown
University's Watson Institute for
International and Public Affairs . This is a far higher number than the Pentagon's
$1.5 trillion estimate,
which only counts expenses for what are known as "overseas contingency operations," or OCO --
that is, a pot of supplemental money, outside the regular annual budget, dedicated to funding
wartime operations. The $5.6 trillion figure, on the other hand, includes not just what the
U.S. has spent on overseas military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria, but
also portions of Homeland Security spending related to counterterrorism on American soil, and
future obligations to care for wounded or traumatized post-9/11 military veterans. The
financial burden of the post-9/11 wars across the Greater Middle East -- and still
spreading , through Africa and other regions -- is far larger than most Americans
recognize.
During prior wars, the U.S. adjusted its budget accordingly by, among other options, raising
taxes to pay for its conflicts. Not so since 2001, when President George W. Bush launched the
"Global War on Terror." Instead, the country has accumulated a staggering amount of debt. Even
if Washington stopped spending on its wars tomorrow, it will still, thanks to those conflicts,
owe more than
$8 trillion in interest alone by the 2050s.
Putting the Gilded Age to Shame
It's hard to fathom what that enormous level of debt will do to our economy and society. A
new Costs of War study by political scientist and historian Rosella Capella Zielinski
offers initial clues about its impact here. She takes a look at how the U.S. has paid for its
conflicts from the War of 1812 through the two World Wars and Vietnam to the present war on
terror. While a range of taxes, bond sales, and other mechanisms were used to raise funds to
fight such conflicts, no financial strategy has relied so exclusively on borrowing -- until
this century. Her study also explores how each type of war financing has affected inequality
levels in this country in the aftermath of those conflicts.
The implications for today are almost painfully straightforward: the current combination
of deficit spending and tax cuts spells disaster for any hopes of shrinking America's striking
inequality gap . Instead, credit-card war spending is already fueling the dramatic levels
of wealth inequality that have led some observers to suggest that we are living in a new
Gilded Age , reminiscent
of the enormous divide between the opulent lifestyles of the elite and the grinding poverty of
the majority of Americans in the late nineteenth century.
Capella Zielinski carefully breaks down what effects the methods used to pay for various
wars have had on subsequent levels of social inequality. During the Civil War, for example, the
government relied primarily on loans from private donors. After that war was over, the American
people had to pay those loans back with interest, which proved a bonanza for financial elites,
primarily in the North. Those wealthy lenders became wealthier still and everyone else, whose
taxes reimbursed them, poorer.
In contrast, during World War I, the government launched a war-bond campaign that targeted
low-income people. War savings stamps were offered for as little as 25 cents and war savings
certificates in denominations starting at $25. Anyone who could make a small down payment could
buy a war bond for $50 and cover the rest of what was owed in installments. In this way, the
war effort promoted savings and, in its wake, a striking number of low-income Americans were
repaid with interest, decreasing the inequality levels of that era.
Taxation strategies have varied quite significantly in various war periods as well. During
World War II, for instance, the government raised tax rates five times between 1940 and 1944,
levying progressively steeper ones on higher income brackets (up to 65% on incomes over $1
million). As a result, though government debt was substantial in the aftermath of a global
struggle fought on many fronts, the impact on low-income Americans could have been far worse.
In contrast, the Vietnam War era began with a tax cut and, in the aftermath of that disastrous
conflict, the U.S. had to deal with unprecedented levels of inflation. Low-income households
bore the brunt of those higher costs, leading to greater inequality.
Today's wars are paid for almost entirely through loans -- 60% from wealthy individuals
and governmental agencies like the Federal Reserve, 40% from foreign lenders. Meanwhile, in
October 2001, when Washington launched the war on terror, the government also initiated a set
of tax cuts, a trend that has only continued. The war-financing strategies that President
George W. Bush began have flowed on without significant alteration under Presidents Obama and
Trump. (Obama did raise a few taxes, but didn't fundamentally
alter the swing towards tax cuts.) President Trump's extreme tax "reform" package, which
passed Congress in December 2017 -- a gift-wrapped dream
for the 1% -- only enlarged those cuts.
In other words, in this century, Washington has combined the domestic borrowing patterns of
the Civil War with the tax cuts of the Vietnam era. That means one predictable thing: a rise in
inequality in a country in which the income inequality gap is already heading
for record territory.
Just to add to the future burden of it all, this is the first time government wartime
borrowing has relied so heavily on foreign debt. Though there is no way of knowing how this
will affect inequality here in the long run, one thing is already obvious: it will transfer
wealth outside the country.
Economist
Linda Bilmes has
argued that there's another new factor involved in Washington's budgeting of today's wars.
In every other major American conflict, after an initial period, war expenditures were
incorporated into the regular defense budget. Since 2001, however, the war on terror has been
funded mainly by supplemental appropriations (those Overseas
Contingency Operations funds), subject to very little oversight. Think of the OCO as a
slush fund
that insures one thing: the true impact of this era's war funding won't hit until far later
since such appropriations are exempt from spending caps and don't have to be
offset elsewhere in the budget.
According to Bilmes, "This process is less transparent, less accountable, and has rendered
the cost of the wars far less visible." As a measure of the invisible impact of war funding in
Washington and elsewhere, she
calculates that, while the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense discussed war
financing in 79% of its hearings during the Vietnam era, since 9/11, there have been similar
mentions at only 17% of such hearings. For its part, the Senate Finance Committee has discussed
war-funding strategy in a thoroughgoing way only once in almost 17 years.
Hidden Tradeoffs and Deferred Costs
The effect of this century's unprecedented budgetary measures is that, for the most part,
the American people don't feel the financial weight of the wars their government is waging --
or rather, they feel it, but don't recognize it for what it is. This corresponds remarkably
well with the wars themselves, fought by a non-draft
military in distant lands and largely
ignored in this country (at least since the vast public demonstrations against the coming
invasion of Iraq ended in the spring of 2003). The
blowback from those wars, the way they are coming home, has also been ignored, financially
and otherwise.
However little the public may realize it, Americans are already feeling the costs of
their post-9/11 wars. Those have, after all, massively increased the Pentagon's base budget and
the moneys that go into the expanding
national security budget , while reducing the amount of money left over for so much else
from infrastructure
investment to science. In the decade following September 11, 2001, military spending
increased by
50% , while spending on every other government program increased only 13.5%.
How exactly does this trade-off work? The National
Priorities Project explains it well. Every year the federal government negotiates levels of
discretionary spending (as distinct from mandatory spending, which largely consists of Social
Security and Medicare). In 2001, there were fewer
discretionary funds allocated to defense than to non-defense programs, but the ensuing war on
terror dramatically inflated military spending relative to other parts of the budget. In 2017,
military and national security spending accounted for 53% of discretionary spending. The 2018
congressionally approved omnibus spending package allocates $700 billion for the military and
$591 billion for non-military purposes, leaving that proportion about the same. (Keep in mind,
that those totals don't even include all the money flowing into that Overseas Contingency
Operations fund). President Trump's proposals for future spending, if accepted by Congress,
would ensure that, by 2023, the proportion of military spending would soar to
65% .
In other words, the rise in war-related military expenditures entails losses for other areas
of federal funding. Pick your issue: crumbling bridges, racial justice, housing, healthcare,
education, climate change -- and it's all being affected by how much this country spends on
war.
Nonetheless, thanks to its credit-card version of war financing, the government has
effectively deferred most of the financial costs of its unending conflicts to the future. This,
in turn, contributes to how
detached most Americans tend to feel from the very fact that their country is now eternally
at war. Political scientist and policy analyst Sarah Kreps argues that Americans become
invested in how a war is being conducted only when they're asked to pay for it. In her
examination of the history of the financing of American wars, she
writes , "The visibility and intrusiveness of taxes are exactly what make individuals
scrutinize the service for which the resources are being used." If there were war taxes today,
their unpopularity would undoubtedly lead Americans to question the costs and consequences of
their country's wars in ways now missing from today's public conversation.
Pressing for a real war budget, though, is not only a mechanism to alert Americans to the
effects (on them) of the wars their government is fighting. It is also a potential lever
through which citizens could affect the country's foreign policy and pressure elected
officials to bring those wars to an end. Some civic groups and activists from across the
political spectrum have indeed been pushing to reduce the Pentagon budget, bloated by war,
corruption , and
fear-mongering . They are, however, up against both the power of an ascendant
military-industrial complex and wars that have been organized, in their funding and in so many
other ways, not to be noticed.
Those who care about this country's economic future would be remiss not to include today's
war financing strategy among the country's most urgent fiscal challenges. Anyone interested in
improving American democracy and the well-being of its people should begin by connecting the
budgetary dots. The more money this country spends on military activities, the more public
coffers will be depleted by war-related interest payments and the less public funding there
will be for anything else. In short, it's time for Americans worried about living in a country
whose inequality gap could soon surpass that of the Gilded Age to begin paying real attention
to our " credit-card
wars ."
2018-06-26 (Rudaw) When US sanctions were placed on Iran in 2012, the four Asian countries
were given a waiver, requiring them to reduce their business with Iran by 20 percent each six
months rather than halt trade immediately.
The Asian oil buyers are less likely to receive a similar waiver from the Trump
administration Iran may need to resort to a bartering system to continue selling its oil.
Under the 2012 US sanctions, India imported $10.5 billion worth of goods, mainly crude oil,
and exported commodities worth $2.4 billion.
The barter system will be inefficient, as Iran's oil sales are greater than the value of
what it imports from these countries. It also cannot use the currencies of these countries
for international business transactions. http://www.rudaw.net/english/business/250620181
2018-06-26 (Bloomberg) U.S. presses allies to cut Iran oil imports to *zero* by November
* U.S. isn't granting waivers on Iranian oil imports ban
(State Department Official)
"The global economy looks like the Titanic right now. The iceberg is the incoming oil price
spike and the complacent investment community won't even know what hits them. "
-Baby Domer
So, an important question for this board is, could we have reached peak oil production this
year? The Permian will increase substantially into 2020. However, that will be partially
offset by the Venezuelan drop. Add in other declines, and the drop could easily offset any US
production. At some point, OPEC will see that extra production will never meet demand, and
not just waste what they have.
It depends totally on political scenarios, not technical and not financial.
There's still a lot of growth potential to offset the declines:
– Permian
– Other US shales to a degree
– Kanada with it's vast heavy oil ressources
– Venezuela
– Russia
– Iraq
– Iran
– SA (nobody knows), at least they can call to their spare capacity
– Kuwait
– UAE
-Brasil
That's 10 locations, some are politically knocked out ( Ven, Iran partly) from growth.
The more important thing for world economy is: How long can they support the consumption
growth, additional to the decline of all other countries.
I think peak oil is somewhat more melodramatic: When Ghawar finally dries up, we have
reached peak oil. It will dry fast, due to all these horizontal tapping keeping the oil
flowing until the last feed of oil column. And replacing these 5 mb/d will require an
additional fully developed Permian – something not in sight at the moment.
Libya's Tripoli-based NOC Says Exports from Benghazi-based NOC in the east are "illegal"
2018-05-26 BENGHAZI, Libya/TUNIS (Reuters) – Eastern Libyan commander Khalifa
Haftar's forces have handed control of oil ports to a National Oil Corporation (NOC) based in
the east, a spokesman said on Monday, a move the internationally recognized NOC in Tripoli
dismissed as illegal.
If implemented, the transfer of control would create uncertainty for buyers of Libyan oil who
normally go through NOC Tripoli.
In comments later confirmed to Reuters, Ahmed Mismari, spokesman of Haftar's Libya National
Army (LNA), said on television that no tanker would be allowed to dock at eastern ports
without permission from an NOC entity based in the main eastern city, Benghazi.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-oil/east-libyan-forces-say-oil-ports-handed-to-eastern-based-noc-idUSKBN1JL2DQ
Tripoli-based NOC https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgkrEMeXUAADLGS.jpg
Some kind of summary with some details from Libya (from comments section in HFIR article
above – Game Over – Oil Prices Are Going Higher).
Nigeria and Libya are also becoming disruption hotspots. Three of Nigeria's main crude
streams (Forcados, Bonny Light and Qua Iboe) are either halted or severely disrupted, but
violence in Libya grabbed the recent headlines. Militias led by Ibrahim al Jathran, former
head of the local Petroleum Facilities Guard, attacked and briefly seized the 0.35 mb/d Es
Sider and 0.22 mb/d Ras Lanuf terminals from Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army (LNA).
Although the LNA are back in control, Libyan oil output has collapsed from 0.95 mb/d to
around 0.55-0.60 mb/d because of the fighting and NOC has declared force majeure at the two
ports (along with apparently unrelated technical issues undermining production at AGOCO-run
fields in the east).
After around 10 days of fighting, the extent of the damage at the two terminals remains
unclear. There is currently no information about the status of Es Sider, which exported
around 0.30 mb/d in the previous three months. The destruction of two storage tanks at Ras
Lanuf, which was exporting around 0.10 mb/d before the clashes, has reduced storage capacity
from 0.95 mb to 0.55 mb. Seven tanks at the terminal had already been damaged in previous
clashes and the destruction of another two leaves only four tanks capable of operating. Once
the fighting is over (and there is a considerable risk of further clashes over the next few
weeks), it will take several days to evaluate the status of Es Sider and Ras Lanuf. This
would be followed by emergency repairs, which could take a week or two, with export capacity
recovering only gradually. Consequently, we expect output to remain at 0.55-0.60 mb/d until
early/mid-July, even as NOC studies options to bypass Ras Lanuf and possibly divert exports
to the Zueitina terminals.
In conclusion: Libya is good for no more than 0.8 Mb/d, but likely less than that in
2018.
The debate seems to be around what effect the risk of secondary sanctions from US
government for international companies will have. Some argue that the US allies and their
companies will not pick a fight over this with the US right now. In either case, it certainly
is not good for the Iranian economy which contracted after the last round of sanctions and
boomed when they were lifted afterwards. Also the Iranians want western equipment and
competence to develop their oil and gas fields (some of their oilfields are somewhat
complicated to develop), and it is not certain Lukoil and russian service companies can be a
good enough replacement.
There are some hurdles with switching customers for large oil volumes. Tanker freight and
insurance services now done by western companies afraid of sanctions will have to be replaced
or the obstacles overcome somehow. But I agree with you that China, while also having a
futures market trading in yuan, will look to Iran when shortage arrives. However the
perception of shortage has still not arrived in oil markets today. Some reduction of export
from Iran is likely both initially and for some time further. Hard to say how much, some
argue that it takes 6-12 months to see the full effects of US sanctions. And once sanctions
now are in place, even if it was untimely given the supply situation in the oil market, it
will not be practical and too confusing as a political move to see them lifted soon (less
than 1 year).
" Putin has invaded Ukraine, stealing the Crimea, and attempting to gain a land bridge by
backing a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment."
Of course Russia has strategic interests in the Ukraine and the the Crimea is virtually
100% Russian speaking. The Russians remember WW2 and the 20 million Russian dead inflicted
upon them by western Europeans.
If Putin's behavior in the near abroad makes him a "thug," what can we say about Bush,
Obama and Trump?
I find it interesting how while the neocons demonize Putin and are trying to start WW3,
Netanyahu and Putin seem to get along fine. This suggests that the neocons really have
something else in mind besides towing the Israeli line. Namely, keeping the American public
in a state of confusion and acquiescence and ensuring the endless flow of weapons to their
favorite ethnostate.
Putin is just another thug that has imperial desires and is willing to steal his people
blind to realize them.
Other than reliable sources like John Brennan, James Clapper, the New York Times
and the Washington Post , I presume you have evidence to share of this
Putin has invaded Ukraine,
and this.
stealing the Crimea
Two referenda are "stealing"?
a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment.
Well, the dead people in Donbas, and their families, would probably disagree it was fake,
particularly since the victim of the US coup d'etat (with its mercenaries) and rightful
President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, was from Donbas. As for the allegations of Russian
troops and equipment, I return to my request for evidence.
Russian troops shot down MH-17. deal with it.
Yup, and Assad gassed his own people, so did Saddam, six kajillion were gassed in a 2 car
garage located next to crematoria at Auschwitz using explosive bug spray, and the Easter
Bunny leaves chocolate eggs at my house every year.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle,
N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also
Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia
should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to
Germany.
What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive.
The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show...
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold:
- more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
You seem to be obsessed with neocons, jews etc. Russia is arch-nemesis of the West long
before them. Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons
or Knight Templars.
Since Western Capitalism arose, Russia stands as anti-system to the West. As a model of
decent society that is possible without usury, exploitation, violence, enslaving and
pillaging other nations – i.e. outside imperialism-colonialism model. Powers that
control the West live in constant fear since with mighty Russia their time is always limited,
and their power is finite.
"Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons or
Knight Templars."
They were.
Of course, the Freemasons also penetrated Russia under Peter the Great and were necessary
to all revolutionary activity in the Russian Empire from at least the 1820s.
"... In 2015, suicides accounted for over 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S., while homicides made up around 36 percent of that year's total. Guns are consistently the most common method by which people take their own lives. ..."
"... When veterans return home from chaotic war zones, resuming normal civilian life can present major difficulties. The stresses of wartime create a long-term, sustained "fight-or-flight" response, not only producing physical symptoms such as sweating, shaking or a racing heart rate, but inflicting a mental and moral toll as well. ..."
"... "Over the course of the year I was there, the units I was embedded with lost three men, and all of them were lost to suicide, not to enemy action," Van Buren said. "This left an extraordinary impression on me, and triggered in me some of the things that I write about." ..."
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
At War With Ourselves: The Domestic Consequences of Foreign Policies June 25, 2018 •
72 Comments
There is a direct connection between gun violence and suicide rates in the United States and America's aggressive foreign policy,
argues Will Porter.
How America's Gun Violence Epidemic May Have Roots in Overseas War Zones
By Will Porter Special to Consortium News
In recent months a string of school shootings in the United States has rekindled the debate
over gun violence, its causes and what can be done to stop it. But amid endless talk of school shootings and AR-15s, a large piece
of the puzzle has been left conspicuously absent from the debate.
Contrary to the notion that mass murderers are at the heart of America's gun violence problem, data from recent years reveals
that the majority of gun deaths are self-inflicted.
In 2015, suicides accounted for
over 60 percent of gun deaths
in the U.S., while homicides made up around 36 percent of that year's total. Guns are consistently the
most common method by which people take their own
lives.
While the causes of America's suicide-driven gun epidemic are complex and myriad, it's clear that one group contributes to the
statistics above all others: military veterans.
Beyond the Physical
According to a
2016 study conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs, on average some 20 veterans commit suicide every single day, making
them among the most prone to take their own lives compared to people working in other professions. Though they comprise under 9 percent
of the American population, veterans
accounted for 18 percent of suicides in the U.S. in 2014.
When veterans return home from chaotic war zones, resuming normal civilian life can present major difficulties. The stresses of
wartime create a long-term, sustained "fight-or-flight" response, not only producing physical symptoms such as sweating, shaking
or a racing heart rate, but inflicting a mental and moral toll as well.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) accounts for some of the physiological effects of trauma, the "fight-or-flight" response,
but the distinct mental, moral and spiritual anguish experienced by many veterans and other victims of trauma has been termed "
moral injury ."
A better understanding of that concept and the self-harm it motivates could go a long way toward explaining, and ultimately solving,
America's suicide epidemic.
"Moral injury looks beyond the physical and asks who we are as people," Peter Van Buren, a former State Department Foreign Service
officer, said in an interview. "It says that we know right from wrong, and that when we violate right and wrong, we injure ourselves.
We leave a scar on ourselves, the same as if we poked ourselves with a knife."
While not a veteran himself, during his tenure with the Foreign Service Van Buren served for one year alongside American soldiers
at a forward operating base in Iraq. His experiences there would stick with him for life.
"Over the course of the year I was there, the units I was embedded with lost three men, and all of them were lost to suicide,
not to enemy action," Van Buren said. "This left an extraordinary impression on me, and triggered in me some of the things that I
write about."
Van Buren: A profound sense of guilt.
After retiring from the Foreign Service, Van Buren began research for his novel "
Hooper's War ," a fictional account set in WWII Japan. The book centers on American
veteran, Nate Hooper, and explores the psychological costs paid by those who survive a war. Van Buren said if he set the book in
the past, he thought he could better explore the subject matter without the baggage of current-day politics.
In his research, Van Buren interviewed Japanese civilians who were children at the time of the conflict and found surprising parallels
with the soldiers he served with in Iraq. Post-war guilt, he found, does not only afflict the combatants who fight and carry out
grisly acts of violence, but civilians caught in the crossfire as well.
For many, merely living through a conflict when others did not is cause for significant distress, a condition known as "survivor's
guilt."
"In talking with them I heard so many echoes of what I'd heard from the soldiers in Iraq, and so many echoes of what I felt myself,
this profound sense of guilt," Van Buren said.
'We Killed Them'
Whether it was something a soldier did, saw or failed to prevent, feelings of guilt can leave a permanent mark on veterans after
they come home.
Brian Ellison, a combat veteran who served under the National Guard in Iraq in 2004, said he's still troubled by his wartime experiences.
Stationed at a small, under protected maintenance garage in the town of ad-Diwaniyah in a southeastern province of Iraq, Ellison
said his unit was attacked on a daily basis.
"From the day we got there, we would get attacked every night like clockwork -- mortars, RPGs," Ellison said. "We had no protection;
we had no weapons systems on the base."
On one night in April of 2004, after a successful mission to obtain ammunition for the base's few heavy weapons, Ellison's unit
was ready to hit back.
"So we got some rounds for the Mark 19 [a belt-fed automatic grenade launcher] and we basically used it as field artillery, shot
it up in the air and lobbed it in," Ellison said. "Finally on the last night we were able to get them to stop shooting, but that
was because we killed 5 of them. At the time this was something I was proud of. We were like 'We got them, we got our revenge.'"
U.S. military poster. (Health.mil)
"In retrospect, it's like here's this foreign army, and we're in their neighborhood," Ellison said. "They're defending their neighborhood,
but they're the bad guys and we're the good guys, and we killed them. I think about stuff like that a lot."
Despite his guilt, Ellison said he was able to sort through the negative feelings by speaking openly and honestly about his experiences
and actions. Some veterans have a harder time, however, including one of Ellison's closest friends.
"He ended up going overseas like five times," Ellison said. "Now he's retired and he can't even deal with people. He can't
deal with people, it's sad. He was this funny guy, everybody's friend, easy to get along with, now he's a recluse. It's really weird
to see somebody like that. He had three young kids and a happy personality, now he's broken."
In addition to the problems created in their personal relationships, the morally injured also often turn to self-destructive habits
to cope with their despair.
"In the process of trying to shut this sound off in your head -- this voice of conscience -- many people turn to drugs and alcohol
as a way of shutting that voice up, at least temporarily," Van Buren said. "You hope at some point it shuts up permanently . . .
Unfortunately, I think that many people do look for the permanent silence of suicide as a way of escaping these feelings."
A Hero's Welcome?
By now most are familiar with the practice of celebrating veterans as heroes upon their return from war, but few realize what
psychological consequences such apparently benevolent gestures can have.
"I think the healthiest thing a vet can do is to come to terms with reality," Ellison said. "It's so easy to get swept up -- when
we came home off the plane, there was a crowd of people cheering for us. I just remember feeling dirty. I felt like 'I don't want
you to cheer for us,' but at the same time it's comforting. It's a weird dynamic. Like, I could just put this horror out of my mind
and pretend we were heroes."
"But the terrible part is that, behind that there's reality," Ellison said. "Behind that, we know what we were doing; we know
that we weren't fighting for freedom. So when somebody clings onto this 'we were heroes' thing, I think that's bad for them. They
have to be struggling with it internally. I really believe that's one of the biggest things that contributes to people committing
suicide. They're not able to talk about it, not able to bring it to the forefront and come to terms with it."
Unclear Solution
According to the 2016 VA study, 70 percent of veterans who commit suicide are not regular users of VA services.
The Department of Veteran Affairs was set up in 1930 to handle medical care, benefits and burials for veterans, but some 87 years
later, the department is plagued by scandal and mismanagement. Long wait times,
common to
many government-managed
healthcare systems, discourage veterans from seeking the department's assistance, especially those with urgent psychiatric needs.
An independent review was carried out in 2014 by the VA's Inspector General, Richard Griffin, which
found that at one Arizona VA facility, 1,700 veterans were on wait lists, waiting an average of 115 days before getting an initial
appointment.
"People don't generally seek medical help because the [VA] system is so inefficient and ineffective; everyone feels like it's
a waste of time," said a retired senior non-commissioned officer in the Special Operations Forces (SOF) who wished to remain anonymous.
"The system is so bad, even within the SOF world where I work, that I avoid going at all costs," the retired officer said. "I
try to get my guys to civilian hospitals so that they can get quality healthcare instead of military healthcare."
Beyond institutions, however, both Ellison and Van Buren agreed that speaking openly about their experiences has been a major
step on their road back to normalcy. Open dialogue, then, is not only one way for veterans and other victims of trauma to heal, it
may ultimately be the key to solving America's epidemic of gun violence.
The factors contributing to mass murders, school shootings and private crime are, no doubt, important to study, but so long as
suicide is left out of the public discourse on guns, genuine solutions may always be just out of reach.
Will Porter is a journalist who specializes in U.S. foreign policy and Middle East affairs. He writes for the Libertarian
Institute and tweets at @WKPancap.
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
A more constructive new on neocons is as well-paid MIC lobbyists. The fact that many Jews
are talented lobbyists can explain the concentration of this particular nationality far better,
although initially neocons really were mostly turn coat Trotskyites.
The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world
superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership
by force if necessary.
Sounds very similar to another nation that rules over the USA and uses our military for
their private merc army, Israel, who claims they have a divine right to Palestine and can
kill as many Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians as they want.
After all, their G-d declared them to be his pet project and you don't want to go against
G-d, do you?
Not all Jews are neocons, but damn near every neocon is a Jew.
Irving Krystol, the "Godfather of Neoconservatism," is just one example. If you search
YouTube you can find a Brian Lamb Booknotes episode where he interviews Krystol about this
book, "Neoconservatism; an Autobiography."
He admits in this interview, as well as in the book, that he and most of the early neocons
were former Trotskyites.
The first generation of neocons -- Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, Gertrude
Himmelfarb, etc. Maybe Norman Podhoretz, but he was always more of a 'main chance' guy.
The rallying cry of world revolution has filtered down after a fashion to their heirs.
It's still all war all the time. And at the end of the day, when the wars have subdued the
planet, who will be chosen to grasp the reins of world government? One guess.
It was and is Jewish and Zionist at its core, without any question.
Wilton was a highly respected journalist whose claims seem to be reflexted in statements
by various, and equally maligned/suppressed writers of the time.
It's not quite a secret. The fact is just hidden by the neocons and their enablers. They
used to trumpet it, though.
There's a quite robust body of evidence, including the principals themselves celebrating
their communism, that shows the founders of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol, et al were
communists.
Moreover, they were communists of the international revolution variety–the flavor
known as Trotskyism.
Here's Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, in an article for the NY Times,
titled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist:"
"I was graduated from City College in the spring of 1940, and the honor I most prized was
the fact that I was a member in good standing of the Young People's Socialist League (Fourth
International). This organization was commonly, and correctly, designated as Trotskyist (not
"Trotskyite," which was a term used only by the official Communists, or "Stalinists" as we
called them, of the day)"
Here's a chart, helpfully prepared by the Washington Post, tracing the genealogy of
neocons:
On the one hand, it has lately become common to hide the Judaism of various figures; 'I
wonder if he's Jewish' can turn into quite a hunt.
On the other hand, some parties seem to label all and sundry as 'Jews.'
Speaking for myself, I wish I just didn't care. Certainly as of twenty years ago, I could
have honestly said I didn't. However, Israel and the fact of our support for her, and the
fact that most Jews ultimately support Israel to one degree or another, make the question
relevant.
Jewish sympathy for Communism causes and is caused by Jewish antipathy to nationalism on the
part of gentiles. Many articles written during the Cold War attest to the Jewish fear that
the demise of Communism would unleash anti-Semitism. For example a piece in the Washington
Post by Joseph Kraft of the ADA on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
advised non-intervention on the grounds that Communism wasn't so bad: it kept a lid on
ancient ethnic hatreds. I have heard this line from many apologists for eastern European
Communism.
The anti-nationalist agenda dovetails with the liberal views of Jews on social issues,
since the EU and NATO have become enforcers of political correctness, while the politically
incorrect traditional attitudes of Slavic countries would likely be defended by nationalist
parties. Many Jews would like to see ethnic Russians and their Orthodox church again
subjugated or at least marginalized with a fellow Jew like Garry Kasparov in charge, and they
aren't too keen on Catholicism either.
It's unfortunate that the role of ethnic animosity in the panic over detente cannot be
mentioned in polite society. It is the only factor that explains the datum of near-universal
Jewish antipathy to Russia beginning after the collapse of Communism. I hope this taboo is
successfully challenged going forward, since, as a Christian, I am grateful for Russia as the
only Christian power left in the world.
"... The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains. ..."
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails. ..."
"... If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. ..."
"... In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its key findings with supporting data. ..."
"... Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers? (Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out. ..."
Did Sen. Warner and Comey 'Collude' on Russia-gate? June 27, 2018 •
68 Comments
The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey
ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the
DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains.
By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News
An explosive
report by investigative journalist John Solomon on the opinion page of Monday's edition of
The Hill sheds a bright light on how Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and then-FBI Director
James Comey collaborated to prevent WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange from discussing "technical
evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]" in the controversial leak of Democratic
Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.
A deal that was being discussed last year between Assange and U.S. government officials
would have given Assange "limited immunity" to allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in
London, where he has been exiled for six years. In exchange, Assange would agree to limit
through redactions "some classified CIA information he might release in the future," according
to Solomon, who cited "interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate
investigators." Solomon even provided a
copy of the draft immunity deal with Assange.
But Comey's intervention to stop the negotiations with Assange ultimately ruined the deal,
Solomon says, quoting "multiple sources." With the prospective agreement thrown into serious
doubt, Assange "unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare
capabilities for a long time to come." These were the Vault 7 releases, which led then CIA
Director Mike Pompeo to call WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service."
Solomon's report provides reasons why Official Washington has now put so much pressure on
Ecuador to keep Assange incommunicado in its embassy in London.
Assange: Came close to a deal with the U.S. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter
Erichsen)
The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it
came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did
not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as
saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not
WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails.
If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a
cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk,
rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC
leak.
The greater risk to Warner and Comey apparently would have been if Assange provided evidence
that Russia played no role in the 2016 leaks of DNC documents.
Missteps and Stand Down
In mid-February 2017, in a remarkable display of naiveté, Adam Waldman, Assange's pro
bono attorney who acted as the intermediary in the talks, asked Warner if the Senate
Intelligence Committee staff would like any contact with Assange to ask about Russia or other
issues. Waldman was apparently oblivious to Sen. Warner's stoking of Russia-gate.
Warner contacted Comey and, invoking his name, instructed Waldman to "stand down and end the
discussions with Assange," Waldman told Solomon. The "stand down" instruction "did happen,"
according to another of Solomon's sources with good access to Warner. However, Waldman's
counterpart attorney David Laufman , an accomplished federal prosecutor picked by the
Justice Departent to work the government side of the CIA-Assange fledgling deal, told Waldman,
"That's B.S. You're not standing down, and neither am I."
But the damage had been done. When word of the original stand-down order reached WikiLeaks,
trust evaporated, putting an end to two months of what Waldman called "constructive, principled
discussions that included the Department of Justice."
The two sides had come within inches of sealing the deal. Writing to Laufman on March 28,
2017, Waldman gave him Assange's offer to discuss "risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA
documents in WikiLeaks' possession or control, such as the redaction of Agency personnel in
hostile jurisdictions," in return for "an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement."
On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that
point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA
files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into
computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving
so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the
"Marble" tool had been employed in 2016.
Misfeasance or Malfeasance
Comey: Ordered an end to talks with Assange.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes among our members two former
Technical Directors of the National Security Agency, has repeatedly called
attention to its conclusion that the DNC emails were leaked -- not "hacked" by Russia or
anyone else (and, later, our suspicion that someone may have been playing Marbles, so to
speak).
In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI
Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the
so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its
key
findings with supporting data.
Two month later , VIPS published the results of
follow-up experiments conducted to test the conclusions reached in July.
Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers
in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers?
(Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than
an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out.
Asked on January 10, 2017 by Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr (R-NC) whether
direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation,
Comey replied
: "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server
that's involved, so it's the best evidence."
At that point, Burr and Warner let Comey down easy. Hence, it should come as no surprise
that, according to one of John Solomon's sources, Sen. Warner (who is co-chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee) kept Sen. Burr apprised of his intervention into the negotiation with
Assange, leading to its collapse.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and then a CIA
analyst for a total of 30 years and prepared and briefed, one-on-one, the President's Daily
Brief from 1981 to 1985.
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Putin said that Russia has been blocked from participating in the ongoing international
investigation into the 2014 downing of flight MH17, which Russia has been recently blamed
for. Russian experts "have been denied access to the investigation," said Putin, while
Russia's arguments are "not taken into consideration" because nobody "is interested in
hearing us out."
Truly sensational new document leak confirms Kiev's direct responsibility for shooting
down the Malesian Airlines flight MH17 in Donbass on July 17, 2014. Ukrainian top secret
official documents show us that the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) was ordered to hide
all evidence from the Ukrainian responsibility and especially everything which could prove
Ukrainian air forces involvement in executed secret state terrorism operation.
The documents are leaked by Ukrainian official to the Sovershenno Sekretno newspaper.
Russian and English translations from the orginal articles are available with copies of the
leaked documents, which show written orders given by Ukrainian top officials concerning
concealing of the operation, shooting down the flight MH17 .
This article first published on July 30, 2014 contradicts the substance of the recently
released Dutch Safety Board Report. We are bringing it to the attention of our readers in
view of the soon to be released BBC TV documentary, which suggests that the MH17 was shot
down by a Ukrainian jet fighter.
Although the Dutch report concluded that the Russian-made BUK surface-to-air missile
with a 9N314M warhead brought down the Boeing 777, it did not mention which side was
responsible for firing the missile (International Business Times, March 8, 2016
The evidence amply confirms that Malaysian Airlines MH17 was not brought down by a
surface to air missile. It was brought down by military aircraft .
Joint Investigation Team Includes, Excludes Surprising Members
With the Dutch leading the investigation, the logic being that the flight originated from
the Netherlands and the majority of the passengers were Dutch, it has formed a Joint
Investigation Team (JIT). At the onset of its creation it seemed obvious that Malaysia would
too be included, considering it lost the second largest number of citizens to the disaster
and the plane itself was registered in Malaysia. Instead, JIT would end up comprised of
Belgium, Ukraine, and Australia, specifically excluding Malaysia.
Joint Investigation Team Includes, Excludes Surprising Members
With the Dutch leading the investigation, the logic being that the flight originated
from the Netherlands and the majority of the passengers were Dutch, it has formed a Joint
Investigation Team (JIT). At the onset of its creation it seemed obvious that Malaysia
would too be included, considering it lost the second largest number of citizens to the
disaster and the plane itself was registered in Malaysia. Instead, JIT would end up
comprised of Belgium, Ukraine , and Australia, specifically excluding Malaysia.
Malaysia was both surprised and has protested its exclusion from JIT , and has
repeatedly expressed a desire to be included directly in the investigation.
I will never understand why Russia was foolish enough to turn the plane's black box over
(with no strings attached) to Dutch authorities. You would think they would have, at the
minimum maintained physical possession, while allowing one or more neutral parties to examine
and publish it's contents.
I think it's important to point out that Putin is rather philo-semitic. As evident by his
friendship with Roman Abramovich, Putin is ok with Jewish oligarchs, as long as they play by
his rules ( http://www.unz.com/isteve/israel-admits-a-refugee
). Also, despite being allies with Syria and Iran, Putin has always been on relatively good
terms with Israel and its leaders, especially Avigdor Lieberman.
Ironically, Mark Weber, whose work Mr. Giraldi links to, could be arrested in Putin's
Russia. Thus, the idea that Putin is hostile to Jewish interests is absurd.
First, Putin is a pragmatist and nationalist ..Russia is his only favoritism.
Second, due to Jewish narcissism they think the law was all about them. It wasn't. It
doesn't mention the holocaust. It says :
'Denial of Nazi crimes and "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of
the USSR during the years of World War Two"
This was Putin's "Polish Lite' law ..i.e ..divorcing Russia from any crimes during WWII
and throwing all blame on the Nazis for any war crimes . 'like' killing Jews. Its his
'balancing act' after also condemning anti-Islam attitudes .
Putin is nipping in the bud any and all ethnic attitudes that could cause the same
domestic and political 'unrest' that is now rampant in Europe and the US.
Which is why he also did this: .no 'ethnic ' or 'foreign' agents are going to get a
foothold in Russia .
Russia Deports Israeli Rabbi, Second Deportation of Chabad Rabbi in 2017
For the second time this year, Russian authorities have ordered out of the country a foreign
Chabad rabbi who had lived there for years.
"This week, a Moscow district court ordered Yosef Khersonsky, an Israeli who heads one of
the capital's communities, to leave the Russian Federation in connection with his "setting up
without permission a for-profit foreign entity," the RIA Novosti news agency reported. The
court did not specify the nature of the entity.
In its ruling against Ari Edelkopf, the Krasnodar Court of Appeals accepted the determination
of a Sochi tribunal that Edelkopf, who had been working as Chabad's emissary to the city, was
a threat to national security
Approximately half of the 70 rabbis working for the Chabad-affiliated Federation of Jewish
Communities of Russia are foreign. At least eight of them have been denied permission to work
in Russia over the past decade, Gorin told JTA in March
Under legislation from 2012 that imposed major limitations on the work of groups with foreign
funding, a Jewish charitable group from Ryazan, near Moscow, was flagged in 2015 by the
Justice Ministry as a "foreign agent" over its funding from the American Jewish Joint
Distribution Committee and its reproduction in a newsletter of political op-eds that appeared
in the L'chaim Jewish weekly
Last year, a court in Sverdlovsk convicted a teacher, Semen Tykman, of inciting hatred among
students at his Chabad school against Germans and propagating the idea of Jewish superiority.
Authorities raided his school and another one in 2015, confiscating textbooks, which some
Russian Jews suggested was to create a semblance of equivalence with Russia's crackdown on
radical Islam.
says: June 5, 2018 at
8:29 pm GMT 800 Words The fates of Christianity and Communism are both strange and
ironic.
Christianity was the New Faith of heretical Jews who turned against Jewish Tradition. It was
led by radical Jews at odds with Traditional Jews. But even though spread overwhelmingly by
Jews, it became the Faith of non-Jews who came to oppress Jews.
Communism was the New Ideology of radical Jews who reviled Jewish Community and Culture.
Karl Marx loathed Jewishness and its association with greed, exploitation, and capitalism. And
he inspired a generation of radical Jews who were committed to universal justice based on
'scientific' and 'materialist' reading of history. Early communism was dominated by radical
Jews as early Christianity was dominated by heretical Jews.
But as with Christianity, Communism eventually came to be owned by non-Jews who turned
anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. Why did this problem arise? Because even as many Jews turned
toward universalism and against their own tribalism, many Jews remained tribal or made common
cause with forces at war with radical universalism. Suppose ALL JEWS around the world had
embraced universal socialism when Soviet Union was coming into its own. Soviet Union would
likely not have turned against Jews. But, in fact, even as many Jews did become full-fledged
communists and univeralists, many Jews remained either Jewish or allied with International
Capitalists that waged war on Communism.
And over time, there were signs of second thoughts or dual loyalty among Communist Jews. Were
they communist first or Jewish first? Or did they try to be both at the same time? But can one
be Jewish-tribalist and communist all at once? (Can one be Jewish and Christian at once?)
Likewise, there would have been no Christian 'antisemitism' IF All Jews had converted to
Christianity and gave up on tribalism. But even as a good number of Jews did adopt the New
Faith, the bulk of the Jewish community kept with Tribalism. So, even though Christianity was
founded by Jews, it turned into an anti-Jewish religion. Too many Jews were seen as resistant
and even hostile to the Universal Faith.
Furthermore, there is something intrinsic to Jewish personality and temperament that
ultimately recoils from universalism. Even as secularists, Jews tend to feel 'special' and
'unique', indeed superior over dimwit goyim. This egotism among Jews makes them both
universalist and anti-universalist. It makes them universalist ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Because they
are so smart, wise, and prophetic, their superior ideas must be good and right for all of
mankind. They want to play the role of Moses laying down the Laws for all peoples. But once the
goy masses adopt the New Law as universal truth, Jews begin to grow bored with established
universalism that now seems mediocre and humdrum. It was exciting when they conceived of it and
presented it to humanity as The Shining Truth. But once that Truth becomes official dogma to
every idiot on the street, Jews grow bored and react against univeralism that has lost its
luster.
This contradiction is seen in Judaism itself. It says there is only one God, the only true God;
Jews know better than pagans who believe in silly stupid idols. And yet, Jews want to keep this
God for themselves through the special Covenant. Thus, Jewish God is universal in conception
but tribal in contract(to Jews).
Of late, Jews came up with a new faith that might be called Homomania. Will it also go the
way of Christianity and Communism? Will it turn against Jews and/or will Jews grow tired of
it?
And yet, Homomania may remain as a weapon of Jews because, unlike Christianity and Communism,
it favors elite-minoritism. It is essentially a special alliance between homo minority elites
and Jewish minority elites. So, even as majority of dimwit goyim become enamored of Homomania,
it can never belong to them in the way the Christianity or Communism could. No matter how many
goyim worship Homomania, the object of worship won't be universal brotherhood of man but elite
tooter-hood of fancy neo-aristo fruits(financed by Jews). Also, unlike Christianity and
Communism that eventually came to favor mediocrity -- Jesus favored the meek, and Marx &
Lenin stood for common workers -- , the very nature of Homomania is celebration of elitism,
vanity, egotism, narcissism, privilege, new fashions & fads, and fancy-pants stuff that
homos love so much. As Jews are rich and homos are whoopsy-vain, they make natural allies in
the Current Year.
'Neoconservatism' also isn't likely to fall into the hands of non-Jews. Unlike the spiritual
populism of Christianity and economic populism of Communism, Neoconservatism was devised to be
esoteric-elitist-hegemonic based on carefully crafted coordination among media, academia,
think-tanks, Intelligence services, Deep State, and Israel. So, even though Neo-conservatism
pays lip-service to Humanitarianism and Spreading Democracy, its real agenda and operations are
a very exclusive affair. Leo Strauss came up with a way to Talk the Walk and Walk the Talk.
OK, book report time. I have just finished reading Bad Blood , by John Carreyrou of the Wall Street
Journal. Good read, fascinating story. It is the saga of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of
Theranos, the miraculous blood-testing company of Silicon Valley. Holmes, formerly said to be
worth $4.5 billion, ended up under criminal indictment for fraud as of 2015. I suppose many
have heard vaguely of Theranos, as I had, but the actual story is astonishing.
Holmes, 19, drops out of Stanford to start a medical-instrumentation company. She is very
smart, very driven, very self-confident, very glib, very cold-blooded, very manipulative, very
willing to take risks, very pretty, and very ruthless. Everything about her is very. If the
foregoing resembles the clinical description of a psychopath, there is a reason.
She also knows almost nothing of the sciences, and nothing at all of electronic or
mechanical engineering, or of medical instrumentation. That is, she has no qualifications in
the field. She is just very–that word again–smart and pretty and talks a swell
show. And yet ye gods and little catfishes, what she managed to do.
Her goal was to invent a medical blood-analyzer that could do a large number of tests on a
single drop of blood from a pricked finger. It was a bright idea. If it had worked, it would
have been a (very) big deal. This of course is also true of anti-gravity space shps and
perpetual motion machines. Making it work required nothing beyond difficult mechanical
engineering, electronic engineering, programming, microfluidics, and a few things that were
impossible. She knew none of these fields.
But holy smack-and-kerpow, Batman, could she talk. Soon she had investment money pouring in.
On her board she got–yes–Henry everlovin' Kissinger and James Mattis (uh-huh, that
one,) and former Secretaries of State and Defense and just about every heavy hitter except Pope
Francis. More money rained down. I mean with people like that vouching for her, Hank the Kiss
and Mad Dog Mattis, it had to be legit–right? She even managed to cozy up to the Clintons
and Obama.
Meanwhile the wretched blood gizmo wouldn't, didn't, and couldn't as it turned out, work. It
was a metal box with inside it a glue-gun robot arm out of Jersey–I am not inventing
this–that made grinding noises and could do only a few tests with wildly unreliable
results. You might think of it as Uncle Clunk. Just the thing you want your life to depend on.
And lives do depend on good lab results.("OK, lady, Uncle Clunk says you got brain cancer. We
have to remove your brain.") Heh. Oops.
So Holmes, who could talk the bark off a tree, faked it. To be fair, she probably thought it
would work or hoped it might and turned to chicanery only when it didn't. Anyway, many of her
deceptions were clearly fraudulent–well, clearly if you knew about them. For example,
most of her results were obtained using commercial analyzers from outfits like Siemens instead
of Uncle Clunk. Financial projections were wildly dishonest. Many employees quit over ethhical
concerns–but they were bound by sharp-fanged nondisclosure agreements they had to sign to
be hired. It was nonsense. Nothing worked. But nobody knew.
Thing was, across America there was a terrific will to believe. Her story was just too good
to pass up. People wanted a female Steve Jobs, a girl to join the boys in a startup world of
wunderkind guys like Gates and Jobs and Wozniak and Zuckerberg and all. There just weren't any
girls. Sure, a few, sort of, a little bit, like Marissa Mayer at Google, but Page and Bryn were
the real starters-up. Holmes was beautiful, smart, so very appealing and just a dynamite
entrepreneur. She had this astonishingly successful company.
Which didn't have a product.
Note that most of the dazzling university dropouts who became billionaires are in software,
not biological sciences. The few in hardware brilliantly put together readily comprehended
pieces, like CPUs and memory chips. There is a reason for this. Programming takes a lot of
brains and little knowledge. Medicine takes reasonable intelligence and lots of knowledge.
Molecular biology takes a lot of brains and a lot of knowledge. A (very) bright kid can learn
Python or C-plus-plus in a couple of months in mommy's basement and actually be a programmer.
It doesn't work with complicated multidisciplinary computerized micro-fluidized gadgets
involving robotic glue-arms. At least, it didn't work.
I wonder why nobody thought of this. When asked for evidence, she ducked, dodged, lied, said
the check was in the mail, and any day now.
The non-disclosure agreements saved her, for a while. All employees had to sign them. Her
lawyer, who was also on her board, was the scary super lawyer David Boies. If you were a
midlevel lab worker, and knew that reagents were out of date, that bad results were being
hidden, that Uncle Clunk didn't work–and said so, a savage law firm with unlimited funds
and, as events proved, not a lot of ethics, would litigate you into sleeping in alleys.
Consequently much was known, but little was said.
Meanwhile–this is crazier than Aunt Sadie, that we kept in the attic–she got
freaking Safeway and Walgreens to bite on putting Theranos booths in their stores so customers
could get quick finger-prick analyses for very little money. Both companies bought into this,
and actually built the booths at considerable expense, without insisting on seeing proof of her
claims. I wonder what she was thinking. The scam obviously was going to collapse at some point.
And did.
A better question might be what her board members and the chain-store executives were
thinking. They were bosses of huge corporations and presumably astute. How did she get away
with it? I will guess. Most of those gulled were old men, or nearly so. Note that old men,
powerful men, rich men, and famous men, are nevertheless men. Holmes was a honey, slender, very
pretty, well-groomed, appealing, smart, and maybe the daughter or girlfriend or mistress that
her prey would have liked.
Andrea Dworkin. Finally, a cure for self-abuse. Would the old guys on Elizabeth's board have
been as smitten by Andrea?
As the Wall Street Journal closed in, and Theranos got wind of it, things became
ethically interesting. Holmes of course knew that Theranos was endangering lives, and had
already established a lack of morality. Some of the board came to suspect and quietly bailed.
The employees were intimidated, though several talked to the Journal anonymously.
But superlawyer David Boies and his associate Heather King among others at the firm knew.
They tried every legal means, or maybe I mean lawyerly means, to block publication of the
story. When federal regulatory agencies issued a long, detailed investigative report making it
absolutely clear that Theranos did not even come close to legality, and was therefore
endangering lives–Boies and King tried to suppress that too. Their success was not great
as the Journal put the whole gorgeous taco online, but they tried. It is a curious fact,
but a fact, that lawyers are often accessories to crime.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle,
N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolsjewism in order to prevent that German, suppose also
Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should
be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.
What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17
show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant
reminders.
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold:
more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
Precisely. US could eventually (20-30 years from now) turn into a country similar to many
Latin American countries: rich in resources, demographically messy and ungovernable, weak
infrastructure, but above all remote and quasi-provincial.
The 'Atlanticist' project is meant to forestall the provincial Latin American future.
Washington does have some tools: dollar domination, military force, Hollywood, technology.
But none of those are necessarily sustainable without also actively messing up
Euro-Russia-China economic convergence. It might require a war to delay the inevitable slow
descend into a backwater across the Atlantic.
From the Bloomberg article: "The U.S. plans to speak with the governments of Turkey, India
and China, all of which import Iranian oil, about finding other supplies."
Iranian condensate will most likely replace US condensate to China as much as possible.
China is the key to if/when this harsh "embargo" of Iran will ease. They have the strength to
stand up against the US and then others will follow suit (e.g. India). A barter system (goods
vs. goods trade) or payment in yuan could probably be a good enough way to avoid american
banking sanctions. But if China wants to stand up against US at this point is uncertain. If
this strangling of Iran is highly successful, it is hard to see the rewards. A high oil price
that will be the tipping point for the global economy in the wrong direction or indirectly
(hopefully not directly – who needs another war now?) overthrow the Iranian government
and thus the creation of new political problems in the country; a repeat of the Iraq
experience almost. I almost forgot that there is the nuclear issue there as well, maybe that
is also a driver
"We have a lot of diplomatic muscle memory for urging, cajoling, negotiating with our
partners to reduce their investments to zero," the official added.
(This official infers that EU countries will soon capitulate to US demands, but does he
believe that, say, India will agree to this? The CNN reporters don't ask.)
The Communist diaspora in Europe and America was also largely Jewish, including the cabal
of founders of neoconservativism in New York City. The United States Communist Party was from
the start predominantly Jewish. It was in the 1930s headed by Jew Earl Browder, grandfather
of the current snake oil salesman Bill Browder, who has been sanctimoniously proclaiming his
desire to punish Vladimir Putin for various alleged high crimes.
Earl Browder was not, so far as I know, born a Jew. While living in the Soviet Union he
married a Russian Jewess named Raisa Berkman. One of their sons, Felix, married another Jewess,
Eva Tislowitz, and Bill Browder was their son. He is matrilineally Jewish.
Apart from this minor quibble, the description of Bill Browder's career seems quite
accurate.
The entire Lajat area has been cleared almost cutting in half the eastern territory occupied
by terrorists.
The SAA is now advancing in two main areas:
1. The SAA is surrounding Daara city from the north. The southern half of Daara city is held
by terrorists. Once surrounded, the terrorists in the eastern part of the south of Syria will
be cut off.
2. The SAA is now clearing out Al Hrak and will be moving down south clearing out the
remaining terrorists in the eastern Daara countryside.
The goal is to secure the Nasib border crossing. Once secured, the flow of terrorists and
weapons into Syria will be a major step closer to being stopped.
I assume that once the SAA surrounds Daara city, that the terrorists in the south of the
city will just be contained while the massive SAA forces ready to start phase 2 of the
anti-terror campaign.
Once they are ready the SAA will move on to clearing out the western Daara countryside all
the way to both the Jordan and Palestine borders with Syria.
Activity by the US regime trying to play the same tired old UN and other 'humanitarian'
organization games. The SAA is making such rapid advance that it will most likely be moot.
Still waiting for the US regime's next fake chemical attack.
Today I was pleasantly surprised to find a short piece on Syria in Swedish MSM that looked
like perfectly honest reporting. It depicted the Homs "rebels" in a very bad light, and
though they didn't spell it out, it was an unequivocally pro-government piece.
Makes me think the efforts of the empire have shifted somewhere else. So where aren't we
looking?
"Immigration" has become the dominant issue dividing Europe and the US, yet the most important matter which is driving millions
to emigrate is overlooked is wars.
In this paper we will discuss the reasons behind the massification of immigration, focusing on several issues, namely (1) imperial
wars (2) multi-national corporate expansion (3) the decline of the anti-war movements in the US and Western Europe (4) the weakness
of the trade union and solidarity movements.
We will proceed by identifying the major countries affected by US and EU wars leading to massive immigration, and then turn to
the western powers forcing refugees to 'follow' the flows of profits.
Imperial Wars and Mass Immigration
The US invasions and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq uprooted several million people, destroying their lives, families, livelihood,
housing and communities and undermining there security.
As a result, most victims faced the choice of resistance or flight. Millions chose to flee to the West since the NATO countries
would not bomb their residence in the US or Europe.
Others who fled to neighboring countries in the Middle East or Latin America were persecuted, or resided in countries too poor
to offer them employment or opportunities for a livelihood.
Some Afghans fled to Pakistan or the Middle East but discovered that these regions were also subject to armed attacks from the
West.
Iraqis were devastated by the western sanctions, invasion and occupation and fled to Europe and to a lesser degree the US , the
Gulf states and Iran.
Libya prior to the US-EU invasion was a 'receiver' country accepting and employing millions of Africans, providing them with citizenship
and a decent livelihood. After the US-EU air and sea attack and arming and financing of terrorist gangs, hundreds of thousands of
Sub-Sahara immigrants were forced to flee to Europe. Most crossed the Mediterranean Sea to the west via Italy, Spain, and headed
toward the affluent European countries which had savaged their lives in Libya.
The US-EU financed and armed client terrorist armies which assault the Syrian government and forced millions of Syrians to flee
across the border to Lebanon,Turkey and beyond to Europe, causing the so-called 'immigration crises' and the rise of rightwing anti-immigrant
parties. This led to divisions within the established social democratic and conservative parties,as sectors of the working class
turned anti-immigrant.
Europe is reaping the consequences of its alliance with US militarized imperialism whereby the US uproots millions of people and
the EU spends billions of euros to cover the cost of immigrants fleeing the western wars.
Most of the immigrants' welfare payments fall far short of the losses incurred in their homeland. Their jobs homes, schools, and
civic associations in the EU and US are far less valuable and accommodating then what they possessed in their original communities.
Economic Imperialism and Immigration: Latin America
US wars, military intervention and economic exploitation has forced millions of Latin Americans to immigrate to the US.. Nicaragua,
El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras engaged in popular struggle for socio-economic justice and political democracy between 1960 –
2000. On the verge of victory over the landed oligarchs and multinational corporations, Washington blocked popular insurgents by
spending billions of dollars, arming, training, advising the military and paramilitary forces. Land reform was aborted; trade unionists
were forced into exile and thousands of peasants fled the marauding terror campaigns.
The US-backed oligarchic regimes forced millions of displaced and uprooted pr unemployed and landless workers to flee to the US.
US supported coups and dictators resulted in 50,000 in Nicaragua, 80,000 in El Salvador and 200,000 in Guatemala. President Obama
and Hillary Clinton supported a military coup in Honduras which overthrew Liberal President Zelaya -- which led to the killing and
wounding of thousands of peasant activists and human rights workers, and the return of death squads, resulting in a new wave of immigrants
to the US.
The US promoted free trade agreement (NAFTA) drove hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers into bankruptcy and into low wage
maquiladoras; others were recruited by drug cartels; but the largest group was forced to immigrate across the Rio Grande. The US
'Plan Colombia' launched by President Clinton established seven US military bases in Colombia and provided 1 billion dollars in military
aid between 2001 – 2010. Plan Colombia doubled the size of the military.
The US backed President Alvaro Uribe, resulting in the assassination of over 200,000 peasants, trade union activists and human
rights workers by Uribe directed narco-death squad.Over two million farmers fled the countryside and immigrated to the cities or
across the border.
US business secured hundreds of thousands of Latin American low wages, agricultural and factory workers almost all without health
insurance or benefits – though they paid taxes.
Immigration doubled profits, undermined collective bargains and lowered US wages. Unscrupulous US 'entrepreneurs' recruited immigrants
into drugs, prostitution, the arms trade and money laundering.
Politicians exploited the immigration issue for political gain – blaming the immigrants for the decline of working class living
standards distracting attention from the real source : wars, invasions, death squads and economic pillage.
Conclusion
Having destroyed the lives of working people overseas and overthrown progressive leaders like Libyan President Gadhafi and Honduran
President Zelaya, millions were forced to become immigrants.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, Mexico witnessed the flight of millions of immigrants -- all victims of US and EU wars. Washington
and Brussels blamed the victims and accused the immigrants of illegality and criminal conduct.
The West debates expulsion, arrest and jail instead of reparations for crimes against humanity and violations of international
law.
To restrain immigration the first step is to end imperial wars, withdraw troops,and to cease financing paramilitary and client
terrorists.
ORDER IT NOW
Secondly, the West should establish a long term multi-billion-dollar fund for reconstruction and recovery of the economies, markets
and infrastructure they bombed The demise of the peace movement allowed the US and EU to launch and prolong serial wars which led
to massive immigration – the so-called refugee crises and the flight to Europe. There is a direct connection between the conversion
of the liberal and social democrats to war -parties and the forced flight of immigrants to the EU.
The decline of the trade unions and worse, their loss of militancy has led to the loss of solidarity with people living in the
midst of imperial wars. Many workers in the imperialist countries have directed their ire to those 'below' – the immigrants – rather
than to the imperialists who directed the wars which created the immigration problem. Immigration, war , the demise of the peace
and workers movements, and left parties has led to the rise of the militarists, and neo-liberals who have taken power throughout
the West. Their anti-immigrant politics, however, has provoked new contradictions within regimes,between business elites and among
popular movements in the EU and the US. The elite and popular struggles can go in at least two directions – toward fascism or radical
social democracy.
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
This is only a surmise I guess but Globalists are plum tired of American middle
class population, and their main purpose in the world is over, and the horses of manufacturing
and technology ''have got out of the barn'' and successfully transplanted to... greener
pastures so that, it's time to make fallow and put the stops to the further
exploitation of North American resources that are too much used up by the damned American
population on their gaddamed consumer needs, and time to put that back in store for a future
where there won't be so many hungry overfed mouths to worry about, so that is the possible
purpose to isolate and crush America at this time.
An induced torpor of complacency will make it seem impossible until the last moment, then
it's too late. (''Have you noticed the exsorbitance high cost of... Latties lately?.puffpuff...
// Hey! they ain't nuthin' on da shelves in da supermarket!!'')
Mean while there's time for the development of Russia and China to have their time in the
sun , for a while, then they get the axe later, and so it goes.
Well, I didn't want to say it but, part of the plan will be a pretty big reduction in pops
which isn't all bad... depends on how the cookie crumbles, (who's ox gets gored.) (Good for
biosphere mainly.)
But if your "In the Club'' and a member in standing which is a only a few you get a ticket
to ride.
The creeps are running America down every way, bread and circuses for a while then Austerity
for real.
Globalists are plum tired of American middle class population, and their main purpose in
the world is over
Bull's eye. That is an under-appreciated dynamic driving everything from economic policies
to the hatred of Trump and populists in general. The narcissistic Western elites cannot stand
their own people. One sees it in the culture, academia, economic policies, and the insane
attempt to dilute native population and replace them with new migrants. (It is amusing that
sophisticated Westerners often boringly allude to the evil 'commies' who 'wanted to elect new
people', and of course never did, but they are unwilling to see it happening at home.)
The purpose for creating the Western middle class after WWII was to prevent a revolution.
That is no longer a threat, so why coddle the deplorables?
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the
USA into an economic backwater
This is only a surmise I guess but Globalists are plum tired of American middle class
population, and their main purpose in the world is over, and the horses of manufacturing and
technology "have got out of the barn" and successfully transplanted to greener
pastures so that, it's time to make fallow and put the stops to the further
exploitation of North American resources that are too much used up by the damned American
population on their gaddamed consumer needs, and time to put that back in store for a future
where there won't be so many hungry overfed mouths to worry about, so that is the possible
purpose to isolate and crush America at this time.
An induced torpor of complacency will make it seem impossible until the last moment, then
it's too late. ("Have you noticed the exsorbitance high cost of Latties lately?.puffpuff //
Hey! they ain't nuthin' on da shelves in da supermarket!!")
Mean while there's time for the development of Russia and China to have their time in
the sun , for a while, then they get the axe later, and so it goes.
Well, I didn't want to say it but, part of the plan will be a pretty big reduction in pops
which isn't all bad depends on how the cookie crumbles, (who's ox gets gored.) (Good for
biosphere mainly.)
But if your "In the Club" and a member in standing which is a only a few you get a ticket
to ride.
The creeps are running America down every way, bread and circuses for a while then
Austerity for real.
"... Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality! ..."
Numerous sources give very high figures for Jews and these have tended to be memory-holed
and maligned as you know what.
Consequently sources which report a low number of jews (do you know of any?) from the period
are at least as suspect, and ones from a later period and embraced by Jewish scholars more
so.
And one must remember that apart from the many name changes by Jews in the Old Bolshevik era
(lots of name changes amongst Israel's 'founders' too) they made substantial effort to hide
their jewishness, as have later sources.
One might consider the attempted Bokshevik coup in Germany a year after the Russian one.
Even wikipedia has to report that this 'Spartacus uprising' was led almost wholly by Jews.
What would they have done had they won? Might the conflation of anti-nationalist communist
violence and Jewish Supremacy have been what led in part to Hitler and his racial nationalists?
There was also a coup in Hungary led by Bela Kun. I agree with you that the threat of Communism
played a role in the rise of militant nationalism and its anti-Semitic aspect. The role of Jews
in the leadership of every Communist uprising is crisply documented by Winston Churchill in his
1920 article http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
Paul Johnson in Modern Times claims that Jews did not make up a large percentage of party
members but that is less impressive than their domination of the top ranks. Germany in the 20s
and 30s had an abundance of motives to support a strong nationalist leader since the terms of
the Versailles Treaty were unjust and unendurable, and the solution seemed to involve at least
the willingness to use force to remove the burden. The democratic parties were insufficiently
decisive and would likely have succumbed to Communist agitation or at best preserved a very
unpleasant status quo. The weakness of Communism is that it reduces everything to economics and
the material dimension. It demands the right to dictate without addressing the spiritual
dimension of life. Hitler, by contrast, appealed to national pride and national unity, in
addition to the national need to escape from poverty.
Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to
justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to
preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is
less expensive than ending inequality!
responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational
Zionist, among them, being many NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism) , but
party slithering is a another name for divide and conquer.
Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one);
virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the
outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people
must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a
Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how
good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.
them me Total vote for against my idea
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 ME 7 Me 6 I lose
divide by party D R D R D R ME 7 Me+3 3 I win
As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the
two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated
with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the
political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote
to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the
drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the
outcome.
This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote
on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution
intended to establish.
The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been
attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize
him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is
nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.
I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyse current events into a set of fair play
rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is
not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these
readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented
propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone
can learn, understand and adopt.
Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and
schemes of the capitalist neocon led west. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a
republican,it keeps the pharaoh options open.
"... Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external aggressor. ..."
"... Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians ..."
"... Greed. Russia has natural resources and wishes to export them to competing markets, undercutting our Ruling Class's cut. ..."
"... Russia is traditionally white and nominally Christian, socially conservative. Leftists beat up on Russia as a proxy for beating up on traditional white Americans. ..."
"... With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country with those of the US as an Empire. ..."
"... as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela ..."
"... The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational, more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach. ..."
1. Keep the fracturing United States together by focusing on an external
aggressor.
2. Keep the Europeans in line by making them afraid of the Russians .
3. This: "There are a huge number of cuckservatives who still think it is 1980. It isn't
just neocons, but just about any cold-war cuckservative" -- geezer boomers who are having an
end-of-life crisis.
4. Greed. Russia has natural resources and wishes to export them to competing markets,
undercutting our Ruling Class's cut.
5. Russia is traditionally white and nominally Christian, socially conservative.
Leftists beat up on Russia as a proxy for beating up on traditional white Americans. Back
when Russia started their anti-gay thing, American leftists went nuts on them. Of course, Saudi
Arabia is much worse but we didn't hear anything about them because they aren't white and being
critical in such a case would be waycist.
With all due respect, current Russia-bashing in the US is not an issue of Jews vs
non-Jews. It's more about the direct contradictions of the interests of the US as a country
with those of the US as an Empire.
It is in the best interests of the US as a country to maintain good working relationship
with Russia, China, and others, both to achieve economic prosperity and to solve complex
international problems.
However, as an Empire, the US does not tolerate anyone refusing to toe the line, be it
Russia, China, Iran, Syria, or even Venezuela .
The fact that the US Empire is in decline makes its policy less and less rational,
more and more hysterical. That's how all dominant Empires ended: not so much by being
destroyed by opponents, but because of suicidal overreach.
I once found a real great Web page with a great graph, kind of a family tree of the
various western Trot. groups at the time.
It was bizarre, but did not include the neocons, I suppose that was reasonable because it
was only of claimed affilliates to the nonsenical 'Fourth Internatiaoal'.
Also not comprehensive, did not include the minor parties and groupuscules in Japan and
Europe of the boomer gen. , nor the earlier Viet Trots. nor Sri Lanka, the only place they
ever obtained political power except as agents in the shadows.
Of course, they have enormous power in the shadows in the state media in many places, EU,
cabinets in many European nations, etc.
Even without that, the chart and attached notes are bizarre enough.
The 'ite' 'ist' distinction among Trots is not just as you describe, they use it among
themselves, too, at least in English, as one was explaining to me. Understood the words, not
understanding the content at all.
Avoid Trots, their parties (as in social events) are miserable, and their households are
like those of the worst cult religionists.
I make one exception, the HQ of the Kakumaru (Core Circle) is a few hundrd metres from my
house, they are all old people now, they used to have their newspaper for sale until
recently. no more. I would buy it at times.
Have some sympathy, but my opinion is that most such groups were used at the time by the
national police and by the CIA to oppose people with more serious ideas, and the support for
such groups at the time by CIA etc. in the U.S.A and in Europe is making serious cultural and
sometimes violent (I see photos of Antlfa morons, etc., direct descendants) blowback.
I thought that perhaps I had tuned into John Oliver or to Saturday Night Live in error, but
no doubt about it, there was an unmistakable President Donald Trump speaking before an audience
at the National Space Council. He was saying that on his own presidential authority "I'm hereby
directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to
establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces. We are going to have the Air
Force, and we are going to have the Space Force, separate but equal."
Before signing Space Policy Directive 3 mandating the change and abruptly departing, Trump
went on to explain that "My administration is reclaiming America's heritage as the world's
greatest space-faring nation. The essence of the American character is to explore new horizons
and to tame new frontiers. But our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national
identity, but a matter of national security. It is not enough to merely have an American
presence in space. We must have American dominance in space."
The Air Force, which already has a Space Command, will no doubt object to the new
arrangement, preferring instead to roll the expanded responsibilities and money into its
already existing framework. Secretary of Defense James Mattis is also reported to be against
the expansion, explaining in a speech last year that "The creation of an independent Space
Corps, with the corresponding institutional growth and budget implications, does not address
our nation's fiscal problems in a responsive manner."
And Donald Trump will have to get over a couple of bureaucratic hurdles to get his nifty new
interstellar command up and running. First of all, it will require an Act of Congress to create
a new branch of the military. That might not be difficult to do as the expansion is being
packaged as "national security," which Republicans will support reflexively and Democrats will
also get behind not wanting to appear weak before the elections in November. And both parties
will also be willing to line up to benefit from the political contributions coming from defense
contractors as well as the creation of new military support facilities providing jobs in
congressional districts.
And then there is the money, alluded to by Mattis. Start-up funding a new, coequal military
branch would mean a huge increase in the defense budget. As long as the dollar remains the
world's reserve currency and the treasury can print money without any real backing it is
possible to ride the wave, but there are currently significant challenges to the dollars
survival in that role. If its supremacy ends, there goes the economy taking the unrestrained
government spending with it and sinking the Space Command together with much, much more.
Major defense contractors, all of whom were present to hear Trump's speech, were immediately
seen to be drooling over the prospect of a new cash cow. And at the Pentagon champagne corks
were popping at the thought of a couple of hundred new flag officer positions that will have to
be invented and filled as well as the full complement of civilians to staff the bureaucracy.
And think of the uniforms that will have to be distinct from those used by the other branches
of the service, maybe copying those formerly in vogue on the Starship Enterprise or as seen in
the movie Starship Troopers.
The reality is that the United States does indeed have a major national security interest in
protecting its network of satellites in orbit as well as related infrastructure, but there is
still quite a lot in the Trump remarks that is disturbing. Trump is basically saying two
things. The first is that he will be weaponizing outer space and the second is that he is doing
so because he intends for the United States to become dominant in that domain. It is a complete
ass-backwards approach to the problem of potential development of threats coming from beyond
the atmosphere. Instead of arming outer space, Washington should be working with other
countries that have capabilities in that region to demilitarize exploration and both commercial
and government exploitation. Everyone has an interest in not allowing outer space to become the
next site for an arms race, though admittedly working with other countries does not appear to
be something that the Trump Administration enters into lightly. Or at all.
And Trump should also abandon his insistence that the United States develop "dominance" in
space. The use of such language is a red flag that will make any agreement with countries like
Russia and China impossible to achieve. It virtually guarantees that there will be a
competition among a number of nations to develop and deploy killer satellites employing lasers
and other advanced electronic jamming technologies to protect their own outer space
infrastructure.
Trump appears to have internalized a viewpoint that sees the United States as surrounded by
threats but able to emerge victorious by being hyper-aggressive on all fronts. It is a posture
that might unnerve opponents and bring some success in the short term but which ultimately will
create a genuine threat as the rest of the world lines up against Washington. That day might be
coming if one goes by the reaction to recent U.S. votes in the United Nations and Trump's
behavior at G-7 are anything to go by.
No one in his right mind would allow Trump to dominate outer space based on Washington's
track record of irresponsible leadership since 9/11. It has wrecked the Middle East, South Asia
and North Africa, killing possibly as many as 4 million Muslims in so doing. It has bullied
allies into joining its projects in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria while also
disparaging foreign governments and entering into trade wars. It has bankrupted itself in all
but name, systematically dismantled the rights of its own citizens, and has become a rogue
nation by virtually every measure.
And when you have firmly established the principle that might makes right and all the
universe is at the disposal of Washington, what comes next? Antarctica and the arctic region
are by some accounts rich in natural resources. Will we Americans be seeing an Antarctic
Command with a mandate to dominate the polar regions to enhance national security? Stay
tuned.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
[email protected].
"... That people honestly think the Kenyan actually controlled the Pentagon & CIA is disturbing. Although of course he was a very willful participant in the CIA's Middle East color revolution known as the Arab Spring, he was merely a happy-to-oblige puppet in regards to the greater project underfoot. ..."
Rhodes has been described as being so trusted and close to Obama
that
he was
"in the room" for almost every foreign policy decision of significance
that Obama made
during his eight years in office. While the Intercept interview is worth listening to in full, it's the segment on
Syria that caught our attention.
Rhodes with Obama
Did you intervene too much in Syria?
Because the CIA spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding
and arming anti-Assad rebels
,
a lot of those arms, as you know, ended up in the hands of
jihadist groups, some even in the hands of ISIS.
Your critics would say you exacerbated that proxy war in Syria; you prolonged the conflict in Syria;
you
ended up bolstering jihadists.
Rhodes initially rambles about his book and "second guessing" Syria policy in avoidance of the question. But Hasan
pulls him back with the following: "
Oh, come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms."
The two spar over Hasan's charge of "bolstering jihadists" in the following
key
section of the interview
, at the end of which Rhodes reluctantly answers
"yeah..."
-- but
while trying to pass ultimate blame onto US allies Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (similar to what Vice President
Biden did
in
a 2014 speech
):
MH:
Oh, come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms.
You know, the U.S. was
heavily involved in that war with the Saudis and the Qataris and the Turks.
BR:
Well, I was going to say:
Turkey, Qatar, Saudi.
MH:
You were in there as well.
BR:
Yeah, but, the fact of the matter is
that once it kind of devolved into kind of a
sectarian-based civil war with different sides fighting for their perceived survival, I think we, the ability
to bring that type of situation to close, and part of what I wrestled with in the book is the limits of our
ability to pull a lever and make killing like that stop once it's underway.
To our knowledge this is
the only time a major media organization has directly asked
a high
ranking foreign policy adviser from the Obama administration to own up to the years long
White
House support to jihadists in Syria
.
Though the interview was published Friday, its significance went without notice or comment in the mainstream
media over the weekend (perhaps predictably). Instead, what did circulate was a Newsweek article mocking
"conspiracy theories" surrounding the rapid rise of ISIS,
including
the following
:
President Donald Trump has done little to dispel the myth of direct American support for ISIS since he took
office. On the campaign trail in 2016,
Trump
claimed
-- without providing any evidence -- that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
co-founded the group and that ISIS "honors" the former president.
Meanwhile, mainstream media has been content to float the falsehood that President Obama's legacy is that he
"stayed
out" of Syria
, instead merely approving some negligible level of aid to so-called "moderate" rebels who were
fighting both Assad and (supposedly) the Islamic State.
Rhodes has himself in prior interviews attempted
to portray Obama as wisely staying
"on
the sidelines" in Syria
.
But as we've
pointed
out
many times over the years, this narrative ignores and seeks to whitewash
possibly the largest CIA
covert program in history
, started by Obama, which armed and funded a jihadist insurgency bent of
overthrowing Assad to the tune of
$1 billion
a year
(one-fifteenth of the CIA's publicly known
budget
according
to leaked Edward Snowden documents
revealed
by the Washington Post
).
Syria experts, as well as
a
New York Times report
which largely passed without notice, verified the below footage from 2013
showing
then US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford working closely with a "rebel" leader who exercised operational command
over known ISIS terrorists
(Ambassador Ford has since
acknowledged
the relationship to McClatchy News
):
This latest
Ben Rhodes non-denial-cum-sheepish-affirmation on the Obama White House's arming jihadists
in Syria
follows previous bombshell reporting by Mehdi Hasan from 2015.
As host of Al Jazeera's Head to Head, Hasan asked the former head of Pentagon intelligence under Obama, General
Michael Flynn,
who
is to blame for the rise of ISIS
? (the August 2015 interview was significantly prior to Flynn joining Trump's
campaign).
Hasan presented Flynn with the
2012
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) declassified memo
revealing Washington support to al-Qaeda and ISIS
terrorists in Syria in order to counter both Assad and Iran. Flynn affirmed Hasan's charge that it was
"a willful
decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood...".
It will be interesting to see years from now which "narrative" concerning Obama's legacy in the Syrian conflict
future historians choose to emphasize.
Obama the president who "stayed out" and "on the sidelines" in Syria? Or Obama the president whose decisions
fueled
the rise of the most brutal terrorist organization the world has ever seen?
* * *
Below is the relevant excerpt covering Syria from the 26-minute Intercept interview
with
Obama deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes [bold emphasis ours].
Mehdi Hasan:
My guest today was at President Obama's side every step of the way over the
course of those two terms in office. Ben Rhodes joined the Obama election campaign in 2007 as a foreign-policy
speechwriter, when he was just 29, and rose to become a deputy national-security adviser at the White House,
who was so intellectually and ideologically close to his boss that he was often described as having a mind-meld
with Obama.
Ben, who currently works at the Obama Foundation, has written a new book, "The World as It Is: A Memoir of
the Obama White House." And earlier this week I interviewed him about Obama's rather contentious foreign policy
record
MH:
But Ben, here's what I don't get, if you're saying this about Afghanistan and prolonged
conflict, all of which I don't disagree with what you're saying.
How do you, then, explain Syria?
Because
you've been criticized a lot. I've been listening to your interviews on the book tour; you talk about in the
book about how you were criticized for not doing enough on Syria. I remember being an event in D.C. a couple
years ago where Syrian opposition members were berating you for not doing enough at an event, and you often
were the public face who came out and defended Obama.
I want to come to the other direction and say:
Did you intervene too much in Syria? Because the CIA spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding and arming
anti-Assad rebels
,
a lot of those arms, as you know, ended up in the hands of jihadist groups,
some even in the hands of ISIS.
Your critics would say you exacerbated that proxy war in Syria; you
prolonged the conflict in Syria;
you ended up bolstering jihadists.
Ben Rhodes:
Well, what I try to do in the book is, you know, essentially raise -- all the
second guessing on Syria tends to be not what you expressed, Mehdi, but the notion that we should've taken
military action.
MH:
Yes.
BR:
What I do in the book is I try to look back at 2011 and 2012, was there a diplomatic
window that we missed or that we, in some ways, escalated its closure by pivoting to the call for Assad to go
-- which obviously I believe should happen, I believe Assad has been a terrible leader for Syria and has
brutalized his people -- but, you know, was there a diplomatic initiative that could have been taken to try to
avert or at least minimize the extent of the civil war. Because, you know, what ended up happening essentially
there is, you know, we were probably too optimistic that, you know, after Mubarak went and Ben Ali and
eventually Saleh and Gaddafi, that you would have a situation where Assad would go. And, you know, not
factoring in enough the assistance he was going to get from Russia and Iran, combined with his own nihilism,
and how that could lead him to survive. So I do look back at that potentially missed diplomatic opportunity.
On the support of the opposition, you know, I don't know that I would give us that much agency. There are a lot
of people putting arms into Syria, funding all sorts of --
MH
:
Oh, come on, but you were coordinating a lot of their arms.
You know,
the
U.S. was heavily involved in that war
with the Saudis and the Qataris and the Turks.
BR:
Well, I was going to say:
Turkey, Qatar, Saudi.
MH:
You were in there as well.
BR:
Yeah, but, the fact of the matter is that once it kind of devolved into kind of a
sectarian-based civil war with different sides fighting for their perceived survival, I think we, the ability
to bring that type of situation to close, and part of what I wrestled with in the book is the limits of our
ability to pull a lever and make killing like that stop once it's underway.
So that's why I still look to that initial opening window. I also describe, there was a slight absurdity in
the fact that we were debating options to provide military support to the opposition at the same time that we
were deciding to designate al-Nusra, a big chunk of that opposition, as a terrorist organization.
So
there was kind of a schizophrenia that's inherent in a lot of U.S. foreign policy that came to a head in Syria.
MH:
That's a very good word, especially to describe Syria policy
That people honestly think the Kenyan actually controlled the Pentagon & CIA is disturbing.
Although of course he was a very willful participant in the CIA's Middle East color revolution
known as the Arab Spring, he was merely a happy-to-oblige puppet in regards to the greater project
underfoot.
Either way, when the dust settles, the "blame" lies at the feet of the CIA & the
Leftists, Neocons & otherwise globalists & NWO operators who have taken over the U.S. intelligence
community.
I think it's long overdue, re-thinking the very existence of the CIA, it's derivation from the OSS,
directly from the worst war in world history, having to perform to a "war standard" I hope we never
face again, and being morphed into a "civilian agency, with the exact purpose of seeing
opportunities to change the facts on the ground of the moment, to keep "things" from happening as
foreseen.
During war, it is common to try to stop something from "coming to fruition", using
stealth, assassination, and many otherwise criminal acts, justified by war. To even consider taking
an organization developed in war-time, and doing the utmost, against the most antithetical enemy we
ever faced, and believe we can use it as a "relatively benign form" as a civilian agency simply
ignores human nature, at least in the announcing, and justification, while anyone with an ounce of
sense knows those operatives will operate no differently, no greater feeling of law over them, and
those trained by such, and doing the same without ever having the very real urgency war gives such
action, have no firm foundation for any principle that can allow their action, and without such,
nothing by personal moral values will contain the acts and actions of the persons, and ultimately,
"the agency" in its overall actions.
The facts of the past two decades, completely revealed, demonstrate the principle beyond
question, and demonstrate the abject need to end the CIA, now, immediately, before another person
dies for "the convenience of someone in State", and no other.
If we will fight war, let it be open, honest, I didn't shrink back when I was two decades a
Marine, but I have no use for the criminal use of war by bullies, as was done and continues. Edward
Snowden was a Great American Hero, and anyone in America who dissents, is among the supporters of
an illegal government, with no connection to international law, or any formal established principle
of The Republic. We are occupied by a fascist government, and we need to put it out.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
GySgt, USMC, ret
Vanceboro, NC, USA
Obama became a criminal when he failed to have BushCo arrested once he was inaugurated for
their many very major crimes, and it went downhill for him from thereon.
Once again, Alastair
Crooke provides a thought provoking article: "The Beginning of the End of the Bilderberg
Era," which isn't actually about Bilderbergers per se, but about Trump's attempts to sustain
what remains of the Unipolar Moment. Europe proves to be the major actor in the drama:
"And it is here that the paradigm shifts in Europe come into play. It is not, I repeat not
because Europe can be expected to show leadership or to 'do' much, but rather because the
apophatic discourse of 'saying the unsayable' is spreading to Europe."
And then there's Iran, which is again being spasmed by its uptight portion of the populous
that has no more patience with sanctions--fortunately, it's a rather small fraction. The
Tehran Times article I linked @11 shows just how important Iran is within OPEC and the
larger world.
And then there's Turkey with a new boss that's the same as the old boss but without as much
power as he just wielded
as Pepe Escobar explores post-election . Yet again, Europe's the mirror:
"For the EU's political leaders, the only accepted narrative is blanket, hysterical
condemnation of "illiberal democracies" distorted by personal rule, xenophobia and suppression
of free speech. And that also applies to the strongmen in Hungary, Austria, Serbia, Slovakia
and the Czech Republic.
"These EU leaders and the institutions that support them – political parties,
academia, mainstream media – simply can't understand how and why their bubble does not
reflect what voters really think and feel.
"Instead, we have irrelevant intellectuals mourning the erosion of the lofty Western mission
civilisatrice (civilizing mission), investing in a philosophical maelstrom of historical and
even biblical references to catalog their angst."
If the claims in the 1990s tell-all bestsellers of Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky can
be credited, Israel even considered the assassination of President George H.W. Bush in 1992
for his threats to cut off financial aid to Israel during a conflict over West Bank
settlement policies, and I have been informed that the Bush Administration took those
reports seriously at the time.
I did not know of Ostrovsky's claim but I was very aware of George H.W. Bush conflict with
Yitzhak Shamir which most likely costed him the second term. The conflict obviously was very
deemphasized by the MSM. Iirc Patrick Buchanan wrote about it. Bush decided to say NO to
Israel and put conditions on providing further funding for immigrants form Russia to Israel.
He did it having exceptionally high (90%) approval ratings in the wake of the Desert Storm.
So timing was good. But after Congress going against him and AIPAC busing supporters of
Israel to DC Bush caved in sometime in Sept. 1991. Buchanan believed that if Bush brought the
issue to 'American people' he could have won this conflict but Bush decided to keep Americans
in the dark which is a norm when it come to Israel issues. Bush only complained about being
all alone in the White House during some press conference but most American did not get the
idea what he was compliant about. The Lobby however did not forgive Bush and did not trust
him getting the second term in the office. It must have been decided he had to go. An anti
Bush campaign was continued by Safire and Friedman in weekly columns in the NYT and negative
mostly exaggerated and bogus articles about weak economy were published. The 'It's the
economy, stupid' was bogus made up meme. Clinton was parachuted from Arkansas and Ross Perot
was encouraged to run and then dis-encouraged when he suspended his campaign and then again
encouraged to re-enter the race. He played exactly the same role as Teddy Roosevelt in 1912
election that stopped the incumbent Taft from getting the 2nd term. This gave presidency to
Wilson who brought Federal Reserve and federal tax the the following year and the entrance
into the WWI few years later. Was assassination considered as the plan B in case Bush was
reelected? Do people from The Lobby talk about killing American presidents among themselves?
Yes, they do – even publicly:
ATLANTA JEWISH NEWSPAPER CALLS FOR OBAMA ASSASSINATION. (Jan 22, 2012)
Could Obama be trusted with the 2nd term? Netnayahu's Israel was as not very happy with
him and Obama in the very beginning was talking very tough about Israel (University of
Cairo). W/o his 2nd term there would be no treaty with Iran and there would be a veto of
anti-Israel UN resolution.
It seems like George H.W. Bush must have resigned himself to not being reelected. What
message was he sending by checking the watch during a debate? Was the message: Do not
worry I am just going through the motions. Do not need to kill me.
The question is how come the neocons decided to trust GW Bush? Richard Perle went to
Austin TX and announced that Bush ignorance of the world affairs was an advantage: an empty
vessel that they can fill. Did he also mean that it will be easy to control him like sending
him against Iraq to avenge his father?
GW Bush got coached and tutored by Prince Bandar in 1997:
He lands in Austin, and is surprised when Governor Bush boards the plane before Bandar
can disembark. Bush comes straight to the point: he is considering a run for the
presidency, and though he already knows what his domestic agenda will be, says, "I don't
have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy."
Finally, Bush says, "There are people who are your enemies in this country who also
think my dad is your enemy." Bandar knows Bush is speaking of US supporters of Israel, and
wants to know how he should handle the Israeli-Jewish lobby as well as the neoconservatives
who loathe both the Saudis and the elder Bush. Bandar replies: "Can I give you one advice?
If you tell me that [you want to be president], I want to tell you one thing. To hell with
Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn't, who likes Bandar or who doesn't.
Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a
difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I
can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make
sure they help you." Bandar's message is clear: if Bush needs the neoconservatives to help
him win the presidency, then he should do what it takes to get them on his side. "Never
mind if you really want to be honest," Bandar continues. "This is not a confession booth.
In the big boys' game, it's cutthroat, it's bloody and it's not pleasant."
Yes it is strange that the elder George Bush, who had exorcised the 'ghost of Vietnam',
through his rout of Saddam's forces in Kuwait and earned a 90% approval rating, went on to
lose to Clinton supposedly on account of the economy. The idiot Ross Perot, a capitalist
weaned on the government teat had of course a role. But I thought that the elder Bush was a
shoo-in. Then came Clinton, selling off the Americans' industrial birthright for a song to
the Chinese and the kabuki theatre of the Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process'. In James
Baker, one had the least sympathetic of Secretary of States to Israel in a long time
I recall the image making by the press when GB became inconvenient, although a veteran
pilot in WW2, he was painted as a proverbial wimp.
I recall the image making by the press when GB became inconvenient, although a veteran
pilot in WW2, he was painted as a proverbial wimp.
Why the neocons called him a wimp?
In 1990 George H.W. Bush was very reluctant to go against Saddam Hussain. He seemed to
really believe in the so called "peace dividends", base closings and scaling military down.
And then Saddam Hussain with possible approval April Glaspie fucked it all up for him and us.
It was Margaret Thatcher that twisted his arms to go against Saddam Hussein. Then when in the
Dessert Storm he did not let escalate the plan and stopped the troops form going all the way
into Iraq. The neocons did not like him.
Why we can call him a wimp?
In 1991 he decided to confront Israel but then backed off instead of escalating and
letting the American people know that he needed their support against The Lobby and the sold
out Congress.
An excellent even headed analysis of events and major hypothesis about the assassination.
Remarkable conclusion: " So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely
fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from
the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have
lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of 'Our American Pravda.' "
Notable quotes:
"... As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial , his strategy generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt, but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her role had been strictly peripheral. ..."
"... Hunt's explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007 Rolling Stone article and also heavily analyzed in Talbot's books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely ignored by the media. ..."
"... Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups, had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and afterward. ..."
"... While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set matters into motion had different motives. ..."
"... A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy's shifting stance on Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened? ..."
"... While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a brother who had served as Eisenhower's secretary of state. He had just published The Craft of Intelligence , which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media, and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything -- including his family's reputation in the history books -- to organize the murder of America's duly-elected president ..."
"... On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential assassination. ..."
"... Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they surely had no means of orchestrated the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would there have been any willingness by America's political leadership to protect mafia leaders from investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act. ..."
"... As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader's immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary. ..."
"... Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional landslide following JFK's martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide. ..."
"... An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass, and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book publishing industry. ..."
"... if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of "outrageous conspiracy theory" would have ensured that his book sank without a trace. ..."
"... If the plot succeeded and Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive acquiesce. ..."
"... Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson's foreknowledge, or that he was not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up. ..."
"... A very useful corrective to the "See No Evil" approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ , published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he had strong reasons to do so. ..."
"... Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson's career is that he was born dirt-poor, held low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the wealthiest president in modern American history , having accumulated a personal fortune of over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate benefactors having been laundered through his wife's business. This odd anomaly is so little remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I mentioned it to him a decade ago. ..."
"... The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel's founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same year. ..."
"... So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of "Our American Pravda." ..."
A strong dam may hold back an immense quantity of water, but once it breaks the resulting
flood may sweep aside everything in its path. I had spent nearly my entire life never doubting
that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy nor that a
different lone gunman took the life of his younger brother Robert a few years later. Once
I came to
accept that these were merely fairy tales widely disbelieved by many of the same political
elites who publicly maintained them, I began considering other aspects of this important
history, the most obvious being who was behind the conspiracy and what were their motives.
On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of
nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm
conclusion. At best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high
likelihoods let alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our
exploration of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious
speculation.
From such a considerable distance in time, a bird's-eye view may be a reasonable starting
point, allowing us to focus on the few elements of the apparent conspiracy that seem reasonably
well established. The most basic of these is the background of the individuals who appear to
have been associated with the assassination, and the recent books by David Talbot and James W.
Douglass effectively summarize much of the evidence accumulated over the decades by an army of
diligent assassination researchers. Most of the apparent conspirators seem to have had strong
ties to organized crime, the CIA, or various anti-Castro activist groups, with considerable
overlap across these categories. Oswald himself certainly fit this same profile although he was
very likely the mere "patsy" that he claimed to be, as did Jack Ruby, the man who quickly
silenced him and whose ties to the criminal underworld were long and extensive.
ORDER IT NOW
An unusual chain of events provided some of the strongest evidence of CIA involvement.
Victor Marchetti, a career CIA officer, had risen to become Special Assistant to the Deputy
Director, a position of some importance, before resigning in 1969 over policy differences.
Although he fought a long battle with government censors over his book, The CIA and the Cult
of Intelligence , he retained close ties with many former agency colleagues.
During the 1970s, the revelations of the Senate Church Committee and the House Select
Committee on Assassinations had subjected the CIA to a great deal of negative public scrutiny,
and there were growing suspicions of possible CIA links to JFK's assassination. In 1978
longtime CIA Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton and a colleague provided Marchetti with
an explosive leak, stating that the agency might be planning to admit a connection to the
assassination, which had involved three shooters, but place the blame upon E. Howard Hunt, a
former CIA officer who had become notorious during Watergate, and scapegoat him as a rogue
agent, along with a few other equally tarnished colleagues. Marchetti published the resulting
story in The Spotlight , a weekly national tabloid newspaper operated by Liberty Lobby,
a rightwing populist organization based in DC. Although almost totally shunned by the
mainstream media, The Spotlight was then at the peak of its influence, having almost
400,000 subscribers, as large a readership as the combined total of The New Republic ,
The Nation , and National Review .
Marchetti's article suggested that Hunt had actually been in Dallas during the
assassination, resulting in a libel lawsuit with potential damages large enough to bankrupt the
publication. Longtime JFK assassination researcher Mark Lane became aware of the situation and
volunteered his services to Liberty Lobby, hoping to use the legal proceedings, including the
discovery process and subpoena power, as a means of securing additional evidence on the
assassination, and after various court rulings and appeals, the case finally came to trial in
1985.
ORDER IT NOW
As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial , his strategy
generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt,
but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in
the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her
role had been strictly peripheral. And although Hunt continued for decades to totally deny
any connection with the assassination, near the end of his life he made a series of video-taped
interviews in which he admitted that he had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination and
named several of the other conspirators, while also maintaining that his own role had been
merely peripheral. Hunt's explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007
Rolling Stonearticle
and also heavily analyzed in Talbot's books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely
ignored by the media.
Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups,
had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate
Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards
President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and
afterward. Therefore, there is a natural tendency to regard such animosity as the central
factor behind the assassination, a perspective generally followed by Talbot, Douglass, and
numerous other writers. They conclude that Kennedy died at the hands of harder-line
anti-Communists, outraged over his perceived weakness regarding Cuba, Russia, and Vietnam,
sentiments that were certainly widespread within right-wing political circles at the height of
the Cold War.
While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from
certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events
were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set
matters into motion had different motives. So long as all the conspirators were agreed on
Kennedy's elimination, there was no need for an absolute uniformity of motive. Indeed, men who
had long been involved in organized crime or clandestine intelligence operations were surely
experienced in operational secrecy, and many of them may not have expected to know the
identities, let alone the precise motives, of the men at the very top of the remarkable
operation they were undertaking.
We must also sharply distinguish between the involvement of particular individuals and the
involvement of an organization as an organization. For example, CIA Director John McCone was a
Kennedy loyalist who had been appointed to clean house a couple of years before the
assassination, and he surely was innocent of his patron's death. On the other hand, the very
considerable evidence that numerous individual CIA intelligence officers and operatives
participated in the action has naturally raised suspicions that some among their
highest-ranking superiors were involved as well, perhaps even as the principal organizers of
the conspiracy.
These reasonable speculations may have been magnified by elements of personal bias. Many of
the prominent authors who have investigated the JFK assassination in recent years have been
staunch liberals, and may have allowed their ideology to cloud their judgment. They often seek
to locate the organizers of Kennedy's elimination among those rightwing figures whom they most
dislike, even when the case is far from entirely plausible.
But consider the supposed motives of hard-line anti-Communists near the top of the national
security hierarchy who supposedly may have organized Kennedy's elimination because he backed
away from a full military solution in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis incidents. Were
they really so absolutely sure that a President Johnson would be such an enormous improvement
as to risk their lives and public standing to organize a full conspiracy to assassinate an
American president?
A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy's shifting stance on
Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his
margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks
might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him
with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the
militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so
desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened?
ORDER IT NOW
Based on extremely circumstantial evidence, Talbot's 2015 book The Devil's Chessboard
, something of a sequel to Brothers , suggests that former longtime CIA Director Allan
Dulles may have been the likely mastermind, with his motive being a mixture of his extreme Cold
Warrior views and his personal anger at his 1961 dismissal from his position.
While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a
seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a
brother who had served as Eisenhower's secretary of state. He had just published The Craft
of Intelligence , which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media,
and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything -- including
his family's reputation in the history books -- to organize the murder of America's
duly-elected president , an unprecedented act utterly different in nature than trying to
unseat a Guatemalan leader on behalf of supposed American national interests? Surely, using his
extensive media and intelligence contacts to leak embarrassing disclosures about JFK's
notorious sexual escapades during the forthcoming presidential campaign would have been be a
much safer means of attempting to achieve an equivalent result. And the same is true for J.
Edgar Hoover and many of the other powerful Washington figures who hated Kennedy for similar
reasons.
On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness
of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And
once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been
extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a
role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But
such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential
assassination.
Just as with the hard-line national security establishment, many organized crime leaders had
grown outraged over the actions of the Kennedy Administration. During the late 1950s, Robert
Kennedy had intensely targeted the mob for prosecution as chief counsel to the Senate Labor
Rackets Committee. But during the 1960 election, family patriarch Joseph Kennedy used his own
longstanding mafia connections to enlist their support for his older son's presidential
campaign, and by all accounts the votes stolen by the corrupt mob-dominated political machines
in Chicago and elsewhere helped put JFK in the White House, along with Robert Kennedy as his
Attorney General. Frank Sinatra, an enthusiastic Kennedy supporter, had also helped facilitate
this arrangement by using his influence with skeptical mob leaders.
However, instead of repaying such crucial election support with political favors, Attorney
General Robert Kennedy, perhaps ignorant of any bargain, soon unleashed an all-out war against
organized crime, far more serious than anything previously mounted at the federal level, and
the crime bosses regarded this as a back-stabbing betrayal by the new administration. Once
Joseph Kennedy was felled by an incapacitating stroke in late 1961, they also lost any hope
that he would use his influence to enforce the deals he had struck the previous year. FBI
wiretaps reveal that mafia leader Sam Giancana decided to have Sinatra killed for his role in
this failed bargain, only sparing the singer's life when he considered how much he personally
loved the voice of one of the most famous Italian-Americans of the 20th century.
These organized crime leaders and some of their close associates such as Teamster boss Jimmy
Hoffa certainly developed a bitter hatred toward the Kennedys, and this has naturally led some
authors to point to the mafia as the likely organizers of the assassination, but I find this
quite unlikely. For many decades, American crime bosses had had a complex and varied
relationship with political figures, who might sometimes be their allies and at other times
their persecutors, and surely there must have been many betrayals over the years. However, I am
not aware of a single case in which any even moderately prominent political figure on the
national stage was ever targeted for assassination, and it seems quite unlikely that the sole
exception would be a popular president, whom they would have likely regarded as being
completely out of their league. On the other hand, if individuals who ranked high in Kennedy's
own DC political sphere set in motion a plot to eliminate him, they might have found it easy to
enlist the enthusiastic cooperation of various mafia leaders.
Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the
conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in
their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely
possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized
crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they
surely had no means of orchestrated the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would
there have been any willingness by America's political leadership to protect mafia leaders from
investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act.
If a husband or wife is found murdered, with no obvious suspect or motive at hand, the
normal response of the police is to carefully investigate the surviving spouse, and quite often
this suspicion proves correct. Similarly, if you read in your newspapers that in some obscure
Third World country two bitterly hostile leaders, both having unpronounceable names, had been
sharing supreme political power until one was suddenly struck down in a mysterious
assassination by unknown conspirators, your thoughts would certainly move in an obvious
direction. Most Americans in the early 1960s did not perceive their own country's politics in
such a light, but perhaps they were mistaken. As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden
world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion
directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader's immediate successor and
the most obvious beneficiary.
The two Talbot books and the one by Douglass, totaling some 1500 pages, devote merely a few
paragraphs to any suspicions of Johnson's involvement. Talbot's first book reports that
immediately after the assassination, the vice president had expressed a frantic concern to his
personal aides that a military coup might be in progress or a world war breaking out, and
suggests that these few casual words demonstrate his obvious innocence, although a more cynical
observer might wonder if those remarks had been uttered for exactly that reason. Talbot's
second book actually quotes an apparent low-level conspirator as claiming that Johnson had
personally signed off on the plot and admits that Hunt believed the same thing, but treats such
unsubstantiated accusations with considerable skepticism, before adding a single sentence
acknowledging that Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice.
Douglass and Peter Dale Scott, author of the influential 1993 book Deep Politics and the
Death of JFK , apparently seem never to have even entertained the possibility.
Ideological considerations are probably an important reason for such remarkable reticence.
Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the
unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his
passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs
have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been
blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional
landslide following JFK's martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their
fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide.
Kennedy and Johnson may have been intensively hostile personal rivals, but there seem to
have been few deep ideological differences between the two men, and most of the leading figures
in JFK's government continued to serve under his successor, surely another source of enormous
embarrassment to any ardent liberals who came to suspect that the former had been murdered by a
conspiracy involving the latter. Talbot, Douglass, and many other left-leaning advocates for an
assassination conspiracy prefer to point the finger of blame towards far more congenial
villains such as hard-line, anti-Communist Cold Warriors and right-wing elements, notably
including top CIA officials, such as former director Allan Dulles.
An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass,
and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book
publishing industry. By the 2000s, JFK assassination conspiracies had long become
passé and were treated with disdain in mainstream circles. Talbot's strong reputation,
his 150 original interviews, and the quality of his manuscript broke that barrier, and
attracted The Free Press as his very respectable publisher, while later drawing a
strongly positive review by a leading academic scholar in the New York Times Sunday Book
Review and an hour long television segment broadcast on C-Span Booknotes . But
if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered
by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of "outrageous conspiracy theory" would
have ensured that his book sank without a trace.
However, if we cast off these distorting ideological blinders and the practical
considerations of American publishing, the prima facie case for Johnson's involvement
seems quite compelling.
Consider a very simple point. If a president is struck down by an unknown group of
conspirators, his successor would normally have had the strongest possible incentive to track
them down lest he might become their next victim. Yet Johnson did nothing, appointing the
Warren Commission that covered up the entire matter, laying the blame upon an erratic "lone
gunman" conveniently dead. This would seem remarkably odd behavior for an innocent LBJ. This
conclusion does not demand that Johnson was the mastermind, nor even an active participant, but
it raises a very strong suspicion that he at least had had some awareness of the plot, and
enjoyed a good personal relationship with some of the principals.
A similar conclusion is supported by a converse analysis. If the plot succeeded and
Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they
would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even
a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed
that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to
sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive
acquiesce.
Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK
assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson's foreknowledge, or that he was
not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up.
ORDER IT NOW
But the specific details of Johnson's career and his political situation in late 1963
greatly strengthen these entirely generic arguments. A very useful corrective to the "See
No Evil" approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed
Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ , published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political
operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the
sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he
had strong reasons to do so.
Among other things, Stone gathers together an enormous wealth of persuasive information
regarding Johnson's decades of extremely corrupt and criminal practices in Texas, including
fairly plausible claims that these may have included several murders. In one bizarre 1961
incident that strangely foreshadows the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" finding, a federal
government inspector investigating a major Texas corruption scheme involving a close LBJ ally
was found dead, shot five times in the chest and abdomen by a rifle, but the death was
officially ruled a "suicide" by the local authorities, and that conclusion was reported with a
straight face in the pages of the Washington Post .
Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson's career is that he was born dirt-poor, held
low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the
wealthiest president in modern American history , having accumulated a personal fortune of
over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate
benefactors having been laundered through his wife's business. This odd anomaly is so little
remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I
mentioned it to him a decade ago.
ORDER IT NOW
The Dark Side of Camelot strongly suggest that personal blackmail was a greater
factor than geographical ticket-balancing. In any event, Kennedy's paper-thin 1960 victory
would have been far more difficult without Texas narrowly falling into the Democratic column,
and election fraud there by Johnson's powerful political machine seems almost certainly to have
been an important factor.
Under such circumstances, Johnson naturally expected to play a major role in the new
administration, and he even issued grandiose demands for a huge political portfolio, but
instead he found himself immediately sidelined and treated with complete disdain, soon becoming
a forlorn figure with no authority or influence. As time went by, the Kennedys made plans to
get rid of him, and just a few days before the assassination, they were already discussing whom
to place on the reelection ticket in his stead. Much of Johnson's long record of extreme
corruption both in Texas and in DC was coming to light following the fall of Bobby Baker, his
key political henchman, and with strong Kennedy encouragement, Life Magazine was
preparing a huge expose of his sordid and often criminal history, laying the basis for his
prosecution and perhaps a lengthy prison sentence. By mid-November 1963, Johnson seemed a
desperate political figure at the absolute end of his rope, but a week later he was the
president of the United States, and all those swirling scandals were suddenly forgotten. Stone
even claims that the huge block of magazine space reserved for the Johnson expose was instead
filled by the JFK assassination story.
Aside from effectively documenting Johnson's sordid personal history and the looming
destruction he faced at the hands of the Kennedys in late 1963, Stone also adds numerous
fascinating pieces of personal testimony, which may or may not be reliable. According to him,
as his mentor Nixon was watching the scene at the Dallas police station where Jack Ruby shot
Oswald, Nixon immediately turned as white as a ghost, explaining that he had personally known
the gunman under his birth-name of Rubenstein. While working on a House Committee in 1947,
Nixon had been advised by a close ally and prominent mob-lawyer to hire Ruby as an
investigator, being told that "he was one of Lyndon Johnson's boys." Stone also claims that
Nixon once emphasized that although he had long sought the presidency, unlike Johnson "I wasn't
willing to kill for it." He further reports that Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and
numerous other prominent political figures in DC were absolutely convinced of Johnson's direct
involvement in the assassination..
Stone has spent more than a half-century as a ruthless political operative, a position that
provided him with unique personal access to individuals who participated in the great events of
the past, but one that also carries the less than totally candid reputation of that profession,
and individuals must carefully weigh these conflicting factors against each other. Personally,
I tend to credit most of the eyewitness stories he provides. But even readers who remain
entirely skeptical should find useful the large collection of secondary source references to
the sordid details of LBJ's history that the book provides.
Finally, a seemingly unrelated historical incident had originally raised my own suspicions
of Johnson's involvement.
U.S.S. Liberty , our most advanced intelligence-gathering ship, to remain offshore in
international waters and closely monitor the military situation. There have been published
claims that he had granted Israel a green-light for its preemptive attack, but fearful of
risking a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet patrons of Syria and Egypt, had strictly
circumscribed the limits of the military operation, sending the Liberty to keep an eye
on developments and perhaps also to "show Israel who was boss."
Whether or not this reconstruction is correct, the Israelis soon launched an all-out attack
on the nearly defenseless ship despite the large American flag it was flying, deploying attack
jets and torpedo boats to sink the vessel during an assault that lasted several hours, while
machine-gunning the lifeboats to ensure that there would be no survivors. The first stage of
the attack had targeted the main communications antenna, and its destruction together with
heavy Israeli jamming prevented any communications with other U.S. naval forces in the
region..
Liberty and drive off the attackers, each time they were recalled, apparently upon
direct orders from the highest authorities of the U.S. government. Once the Israelis learned
that word of the situation had reached other U.S. forces, they soon discontinued their attack,
and the heavily-damaged Liberty eventually limped into port, with over 200 dead and
wounded sailors and NSA signal operators, representing the greatest loss of American servicemen
in any naval incident since World War II.
ORDER IT NOWW
Liberty survivor, risked severe legal consequences and published Assault on the
Liberty in 1979 .
As it happened, NSA intercepts of Israeli communications between the attacking jets and Tel
Aviv, translated from the Hebrew, fully confirmed that the attack had been entirely deliberate,
and since many of the dead and wounded were NSA employees, the suppression of these facts
greatly rankled their colleagues. My old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the
NSA for Ronald Reagan, later shrewdly circumvented the restrictions of his political masters by
making those incriminating intercepts part of the standard curriculum of the Sigint training
program required for all intelligence officers.
In 2007 an unusual set of circumstances finally broke the thirty year blackout in the
mainstream media. Real estate investor Sam Zell, a Jewish billionaire extremely devoted to
Israel, had orchestrated a leveraged-buyout of the
Tribune CompanyLos Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune , investing merely
a sliver of his own money, with the bulk of the financing coming from the pension funds of the
company he was acquiring. Widely heralded as "the grave dancer" for his shrewd financial
investments, Zell publicly boasted that the deal gave him nearly all of the upside potential of
the company, while he bore relatively little of the risk. Such an approach proved wise since
the complex deal quickly collapsed into bankruptcy, and although Zell emerged almost unscathed,
the editors and journalists lost decades of their accumulated pension dollars, while massive
layoffs soon devastated the newsrooms of what had been two of the country's largest and most
prestigious newspapers. Perhaps coincidentally, just as this business turmoil hit in late 2007,
the Tribune ran a massive 5,500 word
storyyLiberty attack, representing the first and only time such a comprehensive
account of the true facts has ever appeared in the mainstream media.
By all accounts, Johnson was an individual of towering personal ego, and when I read the
article, I was struck by the extent of his astonishing subservience to the Jewish state. The
influence of campaign donations and favorable media coverage seemed completely insufficient to
explain his reaction to an incident that had cost the lives of so many American servicemen. I
began to wonder if Israel might have played an extraordinarily powerful political trump-card,
thereby showing LBJ "who was really boss," and once I discovered the reality of the JFK
assassination conspiracy a year or two later, I suspected I knew what that trump-card might
have been. Over the years, I had become quite friendly with the late Alexander Cockburn, and
the next time we had lunch I outlined my ideas. Although he had always casually dismissed JFK
conspiracy theories as total nonsense, he found my hypothesis quite intriguing.
Liberty incident certainly demonstrated the exceptionally close relationship between
President Johnson and the government of Israel, as well as the willingness of the mainstream
media to spend decades hiding events of the most remarkable nature if they might tread on
particular toes.
These important considerations should be kept in mind as we begin exploring the most
explosive yet under-reported theory of the JFK assassination. Almost twenty-five years ago the
late Michael Collins Piper published Final Judgment presenting a very large body of
circumstantial evidence that Israel and its Mossad secret intelligence service, together with
their American collaborators, probably played a central role in the conspiracy.
For decades following the 1963 assassination, virtually no suspicions had ever been directed
towards Israel, and as a consequence none of the hundreds or thousands of assassination
conspiracy books that appeared during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s had hinted at any role for
the Mossad, though nearly every other possible culprit, ranging from the Vatican to the
Illuminati, came under scrutiny. Kennedy had received over 80% of the Jewish vote in his 1960
election, American Jews featured very prominently in his White House, and he was greatly
lionized by Jewish media figures, celebrities, and intellectuals ranging from New York City to
Hollywood to the Ivy League. Moreover, individuals with a Jewish background such as Mark Lane
and Edward Epstein had been among the leading early proponents of an assassination conspiracy,
with their controversial theories championed by influential Jewish cultural celebrities such as
Mort Sahl and Norman Mailer. Given that the Kennedy Administration was widely perceived as
pro-Israel, there seemed no possible motive for any Mossad involvement, and bizarre, totally
unsubstantiated accusations of such a monumental nature directed against the Jewish state were
hardly likely to gain much traction in an overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry.
ORDER IT NOW
The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy described the
extreme efforts of the Kennedy Administration to force Israel to allow international
inspections of its allegedly non-military nuclear reactor at Dimona, and thereby prevent its
use in producing nuclear weapons. Dangerous Liaisons: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli
Covert Relationship by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn appeared in the same year, and covered
similar ground.
Although entirely hidden from public awareness at the time, the early 1960s political
conflict between the American and Israeli governments over nuclear weapons development had
represented a top foreign policy priority of the Kennedy Administration, which had made nuclear
non-proliferation one of its central international initiatives. It is notable that John McCone,
Kennedy's choice as CIA Director, had previously served on the Atomic Energy Commission under
Eisenhower, being the individual who leaked the fact that Israel was building a nuclear reactor
to produce plutonium..
ORDER IT NOW
The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy
Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel's
founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost
entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same
year.
Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel had previously
documented that U.S. Middle East Policy completely reversed itself following Kennedy's
assassination, but this important finding had attracted little attention at the time.
Skeptics of a plausible institutional basis for a JFK assassination conspiracy have often
noted the extreme continuity in both foreign and domestic policies between the Kennedy and
Johnson Administrations, arguing that this casts severe doubt on any such possible motive.
Although this analysis seems largely correct, America's behavior towards Israel and its nuclear
weapons program stands as a very notable exception to this pattern..
An additional major area of concern for Israeli officials may have involved the efforts of
the Kennedy Administration to sharply restrict the activities of pro-Israel political lobbies.
During his 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy had met in New York City with a group of wealthy
Israel advocates, led by financier Abraham Feinberg, and they had offered enormous financial
support in exchange for a controlling influence in Middle Eastern policy. Kennedy managed to
fob them off with vague assurances, but he considered the incident so troubling that the next
morning he sought out journalist Charles Bartlett, one of his closest friends, and expressed
his outrage that American foreign policy might fall under the control of partisans of a foreign
power, promising that if he became president, he would rectify that situation. And indeed, once
he had installed his brother Robert as Attorney General, the latter initiated a major legal
effort to force pro-Israel groups to register themselves as foreign agents, which would have
drastically reduced their power and influence. But after JFK's death, this project was quickly
abandoned, and as part of the settlement, the leading pro-Israel lobby merely agreed to
reconstitute itself as AIPAC.
ORDER IT NOW
Final Judgment went through a number of a reprintings following its original 1994
appearance, and by the sixth edition released in 2004, had grown to over 650 pages, including
numerous long appendices and over 1100 footnotes, the overwhelming majority of these
referencing fully mainstream sources. The body of the text was merely serviceable in
organization and polish, reflecting the total boycott by all publishers, mainstream or
alternative, but I found the contents themselves remarkable and generally quite compelling.
Despite the most extreme blackout by all media outlets, the book sold more than 40,000 copies
over the years, making it something of an underground bestseller, and surely bringing it to the
attention of everyone in the JFK assassination research community, though apparently almost
none of them were willing to mention its existence. I suspect these other writers realized that
even any mere acknowledgement of the existence of the book, if only to ridicule or dismiss it,
might prove fatal to their media and publishing career. Piper himself died in 2015, aged 54,
suffering from the health problems and heavy-drinking often associated with grim poverty, and
other journalists may have been reluctant to risk that same dismal fate.
As an example of this strange situation, the bibliography of Talbot's 2005 book contains
almost 140 entries, some rather obscure, but has no space for Final Judgment , nor does
his very comprehensive index include any entry for "Jews" or "Israel." Indeed, at one point he
very delicately characterizes Sen. Robert Kennedy's entirely Jewish senior staff by stating
"There was not a Catholic among them." His 2015 sequel is equally circumspect, and although the
index does contain numerous entries pertaining to Jews, all these references are in regards to
World War II and the Nazis, including his discussion of the alleged Nazi ties of Allen Dulles,
his principal bête noire . Stone's book, while fearlessly convicting President
Lyndon Johnson of the JFK assassination, also strangely excludes "Jews" and "Israel" from the
long index and Final Judgment from the bibliography, and Douglass's book follows this
same pattern.
Furthermore, the extreme concerns that the Piper Hypothesis seems to have provoked among JFK
assassination researchers may explain a strange anomaly. Although Mark Lane was himself of
Jewish origins and left-wing roots, after his victory for Liberty Lobby in the Hunt libel
trial, he spent many years associated with that organization in a legal capacity, and
apparently became quite friendly with Piper, one of its leading writers. According to Piper,
Lane told him that Final Judgment made "a solid case" for a major Mossad role in the
assassination, and he viewed the theory as fully complementary to his own focus on CIA
involvement. I suspect that concerns about these associations may explain why Lane was almost
completely airbrushed out of the Douglass and 2007 Talbot books, and discussed in the second
Talbot book only when his work was absolutely essential to Talbot's own analysis. By contrast,
New York Times staff writers are hardly likely to be as versed in the lesser-known
aspects of the JFK assassination research community, and being ignorant of this hidden
controversy, they gave Lane
the long and glowing obituaryy that his career fully warranted.
When weighing the possible suspects for a given crime, considering their past pattern of
behavior is often a helpful approach. As discussed above, I can think of no historical example
in which organized crime initiated a serious assassination attempt against any American
political figure even moderately prominent on the national stage. And despite a few suspicions
here and there, the same applies to the CIA.
By contrast, the Israeli Mossad and the Zionist groups that preceded the establishment of
the Jewish state seem to have had a very long track record of assassinations, including those
of high-ranking political figures who might normally be regarded as inviolate. Lord Moyne, the
British Minister of State for the Middle East, was assassinated in 1944 and Count Folke
Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator sent to help resolve the first Arab-Israel war, suffered
the same fate in September 1948. Not even an American president was entirely free of such
risks, and Piper notes that the memoirs of Harry Truman's daughter Margaret reveal that Zionist
militants had tried to assassinate her father using a letter laced with toxic chemicals in 1947
when they believed he was dragging his heels in supporting Israel, although that failed attempt
was never made public. The Zionist faction responsible for all of these incidents was led by
Yitzhak Shamir, who later became a leader of Mossad and director of its assassination program
during the 1960s, before eventually becoming Prime Minister of Israel in 1986.
ORDER IT NOW
Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by
journalist Ronen Bergman suggests that no other country in the world may have so regularly
employed assassination as a standard tool of state policy.
ORDER IT NOWW
There are other notable elements that tend to support the Piper Hypothesis. Once we accept
the existence of a JFK assassination conspiracy, the one individual who is virtually certain to
have been a participant was Jack Ruby, and his organized crime ties were almost entirely to the
huge but rarely-mentioned Jewish wing of that enterprise, presided over by Meyer Lansky, an
extremely fervent supporter of Israel. Ruby himself had particularly strong connections with
Lansky lieutenant Mickey Cohen, who dominated the Los Angeles underworld and had been
personally involved in gun-running to Israel prior to the 1948 war. Indeed, according
to Dallas rabbi Hillel Silverman , Ruby had privately explained his killing of Oswald by
saying "I did it for the Jewish people."
JFK film should also be mentioned. Arnon Milchan, the wealthy Hollywood producer who
backed the project, was not only an Israeli citizen, but had also reportedly
played a central role in the enormous espionage projectt to divert American technology and
materials to Israel's nuclear weapons project, the exact undertaking that the Kennedy
Administration had made such efforts to block. Milchan has even sometimes been described as
"the Israeli James Bond."JFK scrupulously avoided presenting any of the details
that Piper later regarded as initial clues to an Israeli dimension, instead seeming to finger
America's fanatic home-grown anti-Communist movement and the Cold War leadership of the
military-industrial complex as the guilty parties.
Summarizing over 300,000 words of Piper's history and analysis in just a few paragraphs is
obviously an impossible undertaking, but the above discussion provides a reasonable taste of
the enormous mass of circumstantial evidence mustered in favor of the Piper Hypothesis..
Final Judgment struck me as quite persuasive, a good fraction of the names and
references were unfamiliar, and I simply do not have the background to assess their
credibility, nor whether the description of the material presented is accurate.
Under normal circumstances, I would turn to the reviews or critiques produced by other
authors, and comparing them against Piper's claims, then decide which argument seemed the
stronger. But although Final Judgment was published a quarter-century ago, the
near-absolute blanket of silence surrounding the Piper Hypothesis, especially from the more
influential and credible researchers, renders this impossible.
However, Piper's inability to secure any regular publisher and the widespread efforts to
smother his theory out of existence, have had an ironic consequence. Since the book went out of
print years ago, I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my
collection of controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on
the Internet to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily
checking the multitude of references or searching for particular words or
phrases..
This edition actually incorporates several much shorter works, originally published
separately. One of these, consisting of an extended Q&A, describes the genesis of the idea
and answers numerous questions surrounding it, and for some readers might represent a better
starting point.
There are also numerous extended Piper interviews or presentations easily available on
YouTube, and when I watched two or three of them a couple of years ago, I thought he
effectively summarized many of his main arguments, but I cannot remember which ones they
were.
The Kennedy assassination surely ranks as one of the most dramatic and heavily reported
events of the twentieth century, yet the overwhelming evidence that our president died at the
hands of a conspiracy rather than an eccentric "lone gunman" was almost entirely suppressed by
our mainstream media during the decades that followed, with endless ridicule and opprobrium
heaped on many of the stubborn truth-tellers. Indeed, the very term "conspiracy theory" soon
became a standard slur aimed against all those who sharply questioned establishmentarian
narratives, and there is strong evidence that such pejorative use was deliberately
promoted by government agencies concerned that so much of the American citizenry was
growing skeptical of the implausible cover story presented by the Warren Commission. But
despite all these efforts, the period may mark the inflection point at which public trust in
our national media began its precipitous decline. Once an individual concludes that the media
lied about something as monumental as the JFK assassination, he naturally begins to wonder what
other lies may be out there.
Although I now consider the case for an assassination conspiracy overwhelming, I think that
the passage of so many decades has removed any real hope of reaching a firm conclusion about
the identities of the main organizers or their motives. Those who disagree with this negative
assessment are free to continue sifting the enormous mountain of complex historical evidence
and debating their conclusions with others having similar interests.
However, among the cast of major suspects, I think that the most likely participant by far
was Lyndon Johnson, based on any reasonable assessment of means, motive, and opportunity, as
well as the enormous role he obviously must have played in facilitating the subsequent Warren
Commission cover-up. Yet although such an obvious suspect must surely have been immediately
apparent to any observer, Johnson seems to have received only a rather thin slice of the
attention that books regularly directed to other, far less plausible suspects. So the clear
dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a conspiracy seems matched by
a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which has done its best to avoid
recognizing the most likely perpetrator.
Final Judgment provided an enormous mass of circumstantial evidence suggesting a
major, even dominant, role for the Israeli Mossad in organizing the elimination of both our
35rd president and also his younger brother, a scenario that seems second in likelihood only to
that of Johnson's involvement. Yet Piper's hundreds of thousands of words of analysis have
seemingly vanished into the ether, with very few of the major conspiracy researchers even
willing to admit their awareness of a shocking book that sold over 40,000 copies, almost
entirely by underground word-of-mouth.
So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over
"Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history
of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades
within the synthetic reality of "Our American Pravda."
Q: Who fired the shot that killed Mussolini?
A: A thousand Italian marksmen.
Johnson has been my perennial favourite as the person who had the most to gain, but he
could not have done it without his Texas machinery, not the least of which was KBR, and they
certainly had a lot to gain by elevating their boy to the pinnacle of power if the rumours,
that JFK planned to scale back in Viet Nam, were true. Coincidence that it happened in
Dallas? Hardly, in that scenario.
Other interesting players on the ground in Dallas that day included GHW Bush, who, unlike
most Americans, can't quite remember where he was when the President was shot. Was he behind
it? Almost certainly not, but he may have been an unwitting co-conspirator by doing something
tangentially connected, e.g. delivering cash. This is pure speculation, but it is interesting
that he rose out of relative obscurity to become a Texas oilman, partnered with a former CIA
operative, with oil interests in a number of international hotspots, and that formed the
basis for him to build a fortune as well as launch a long and storied political career that
saw him elected to Congress, then appointed to the head of the CIA, and ultimately crowned as
President.
I particularly loved it when Trump tried to connect Ted Cruz's father to Oswald. It is not
entirely out of the question, given his father, while a anti-Batista rebel turned
refugee-student at the U of Texas might have crossed paths with Oswald while in Texas .
Yes, all roads seem to lead to Texas, except for that one that goes to NOLA, but that
isn's so far from TX, and it seems like the kind of place oil industry types might go to cat
around and conspire on a coup. It's also one of the few places in the South where Israelis
might not appear to be so out of place.
As for the Israelis well, they're the Israelis. If they saw a shot to capture effective
control of our government by offing a guy more likely to keep them in check for a venal type
who probably didn't give a rat's behind for the Israelis, but salivated over destabilising
the middle east, because destabilizing the middle east actually made Texas oil and other oil
assets around the world controlled by or lifted by Texans in the oil industry far more
valuable, then who can blame them for joining the cabal and taking the shot?
Very nice. Just one thing, though- anyone who was an adult during the Cold War understands
the immense importance of propaganda and 'optics' as they say now. In 1981 the French
Communist Party won 15% of the Presidential vote. Together with the Socilaist Party that was
a combined 40%.
Much of what constituted American' political theater' in the Cold War era consisted of
'double bank-shot' efforts to convince a somewhat cold and borderline hostile European public
to support the trans-Atlantic alliance and the American system which underlay it, a difficult
proposition given that European leftists were ideologically opposed to America's capitalist
system, while seemingly natural-ally European rightists were often repulsed by the gauche
nature of American culture, critical of unrestrained 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism, plus resentful
of American pop-cultural 'imperialism' as well.
In such a climate the cultivation of a positive American image abroad was a primary
concern of the Deep State, and given what immeasurable harm the exposure of a CIA coup would
have done to America's standing as 'leader of the free world' I cannot imagine the plot was
CIA-hatched or led. CIA connivance and behind-the-scenes assistance raises very interesting
possibilities, though.
Something to consider is that these people in the intelligence agencies are supposed to
protect America , but they can't even spot an assassination when it occurs right under
their noses with a pile of evidence stacked to the ceiling. The majority of Americans can see
it, but not the people tasked with "keeping us safe."WTF?
In the RFK assassination we have video and photos of CIA assassins in the hotel when it
occurs, but they can't see that either.
We have endless crime shows on TV with forensic experts tracking killers, but our real law
enforcement officials can't see anything wrong with the way WTC building 7 implodes.
We are talking about treason and it is ongoing, not simply in the past. Trump delayed
release of the Kennedy files yet again.
A remote viewer psychic came up with an interesting notion as to why JFK was murdered. The
power brokers believed he was reckless and a danger to the whole world.
It's a miracle that the Cuban missile crisis didn't end the world. USSR sub commanders had
immediate authority to use nuclear weapons if attacked – and they were depth
charged.
LBJ had a crew of Texas Oil magnates and John Birch Society types in place and ready to help.
They even posted a 'Wanted for Treason' poster the day Kennedy arrived:
If this is to be believed, the Birch society was in bed with the Zio crew, which might be
believable, because the crusade against Russia was mostly utilizing the bitterness of the
Trotskyites against Stalin's siezure of the Russian state, and thus a natural alliance
between the Zio and Birch groups:
On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise,
of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm
conclusion.
Perhaps. One thing that becomes more clear over time is who benefited. Look closely at
those who were put into positions to enable the coverup, people like George Joannides
and Richard Helms. Who was promoted?
The Israel angle is interesting, but Israel doesn't work for me. My government owes
me an explanation. They have a duty to uphold the constitution. They swear an
oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed. It is their duty to protect America
from All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.
The late Harold Weisberg once told me exactly the same thing: figuring out precisely who
was in control of the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of 11/22/63 was the
key to unraveling the cover-up.
U. S. Military authorities ran that thing and made every single damned decision. (Not RFK
or Jacqueline Kennedy.)
Hell, there is credible, provocative and reasonably persuasive evidence the no less a
figure than the legendary USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay flew in to Bethesda and was
playing a major role in directing the autopsy.
The (suspiciously undated) autopsy report was re-written after Ruby shot "Oswald" on
Sunday morning, and the original "draft notes" were burned. The hand-written version was then
edited with very significant changes, most infamously the original wording that JFK had a
"puncture" wound in his neck – WHICH MEANT A SHOT FROM THE FRONT! – was changed
in the typed version as "much smaller".
These changes were not because Humes, Boswell and Finck demanded them. These changes were
done at the behest of military brass, for reasons known only to themselves.
The autopsy was the start of the cover-up, and the autopsy was controlled by the U.S.
Military.
By the way, LeMay was the inspiration for the General Buck Turgidson in "Dr.
Strangelove".
"... The CIA command structure exercises not authority, but something akin to the divine right of kings, concealed for appearances' sake as state secrets ..."
While commenting at the Part I I had similar thoughts concerning the 9/11 as you. The
preponderance of mutually contradictory technical theories of JFK assassination completely
detracted anybody from looking at the qui bono which inevitably would lead to Israel.
It occurred to me that 9/11 may share a similar fate.
This thought was very depressing. Relatively recently we have learned about the term of
the 'cognitive infiltration' from Cass Sustain. It seems clear to me that exactly this
cognitive infiltrations were successfully carried out in the case of JFK truthers.
In writing my article, I'd forgotten to mention that in 1946 Zionist groups led by future
Israeli prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had apparently planned to
assassinate British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. There's a link to a 2003 article from the
Daily Telegraph:
Interestingly enough, the British government files also claim that an American Jewish
activist named Rabbi Korff planned to organize some sort of aerial terrorist bombing attack
against London around the same time. Korff later enjoyed a moment of considerable fame as a
very high-profile supporter of President Richard Nixon shortly before his resignation during
the Watergate Scandal.
I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my collection of
controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on the Internet
to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily checking the
multitude of references or searching for particular words or phrases.
"I really doubt that anyone, even the US vice president or director of the CIA has the
authority to order anything like a political assassination of a sitting President."
Authority is not the word you're looking for. The appropriate term, depending on your
point of view, is either absolute sovereignty or impunity. A US Secretary of State formally
defined sovereignty in absolute life-and-death terms repudiated two millenia ago by the
Germanic tribes of pre-modern Europe. The entire world has negated this viewpoint by
acclamation, so the USA's a throwback.
In universally-acknowledged law, sovereignty is responsibility. But the US government
thinks state responsibility is bullshit, and always did do. The US government has been
assiduously undermining it ever since WWII. The US fights tooth and nail to make sure its
citizens have no recourse to actions of the state, lawful or not.
Congress wrote absolute sovereignty into municipal law in the Central Intelligence Agency
Act, various bureaucratic loopholes, and secret confidential legal pretexts. They gave it to
CIA. The CIA command structure exercises not authority, but something akin to the divine
right of kings, concealed for appearances' sake as state secrets . So you misunderstand,
or misrepresent, the government bureaucracy when you imagine that there's that someone CIA
would be scared to kill. They do what they want. And you do what they tell you to, or
else.
What we have in the case of the Zionist movement and Israel is a pattern of a serial
perpetrator of murder, mass murder and terror. This is a well established fact. That
pattern started well before the creation of Israel, see eg the murder of Jacob Israël
de Haan on 30/6/1924 or the King David Hotel bombing on 22/7/1946. That murderous pattern
continued after the creation of Israel, see for the early days for example the murder of
Folke Bernadotte on 17/9/1948 and then read "Israel's sacred terrorism" based on Moshe
Sharett's Personal Diary:
Since the early days of Zionism there are so many proven Zionist and Israeli state
sponsored murders that it is hard to keep tracking them all. The murderous pattern of
Israeli behaviour continues to the very recent time, think for example of the attampted
assassination of Khaled Mashal on 25/9/1997, the car bomb killing Imad Mughniyah on
12/2/2008, the murder of Brig Gen Mohammed Suleiman on 1/8/2008 (which was just recently
proven by US documents to be an Israeli job), the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh on
19/1/2010 or the recent serial murder of Iranian scientists.
The murder of Jacob Israël de Haan proves that the Zionist movement targeted also
jews. It was not a single case. Naeim Giladi wrote in detail about his role as a Zionist in
attacking Iraqi jews on behalf of Israel in his book: Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the
Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews. We also know from things like Operation Susannah
and the attempt to sink the USS Liberty that Israel also has already attacked US targets in
the past.
Generally I'ld say Israeli murders and terrors fit in two motive categories: either
Israel committed state sponsored murders to get rid of anactual or perceived enemy like
Khaled Mashal or Imad Mughniyah or someone deemed otherwise harmful to Israeli interests
like Folke Bernadotte, or Israel committed acts of terror and murder with the intention of
blaming the crime on someone else, ie perpetraiting "false flag operations", like it was
the case with attacking Iraqi jews or Operation Susannah. One regular motivation for
Israeli false flag ops was to enlist the US in fighting Israel's real or perceived enemies,
ie starting US-led wars of aggression in the service of Israel. AIPAC/WINEP operatives
publicly talk about using such "options" in the service of starting wars Israel wanted to
get started:
A typical Israeli method to ensure false blame was faking signal intelligence. Victor
Ostrovsky wrote about how the Mossad did falsely blame Libya of terror in his time with
radio signal boxes placed by the Mossad in Libya for that purpose. In the case of the
Ghouta chemical false flag terror attack, Israel simply provided the US with faked signal
intelligence, essentially saying to Obama: now you must go to war, because we proved hereby
that Syria crossed your chemical red lines.
So, now comes the funny thing. Despite this whole record of serial Israeli murder,
terror and false flag terror targeting likewise enemies and friends, terrorists and
innocents, Arabs and Westerners, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Syrians and Americans, and
clear motives for Israel to perpetrate the crimes, there still exists a big taboo of
talking about and investigating a possible Israeli sponsorship of the JFK murder and 9/11.
It's even deemed anti-semitic to speak about this.
What exactly did the editor of Atlanta Jewish Time who called for Obama assassination
say? I could not find the original but here is the quote in The Atlantic
I think the "neocons" tried to get their wars started under Clinton with the USS Cole
attack October 12 2000, while it was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor, that they also
blamed on Al-Qaeda.
Sounds very similar to USS Liberty eh? Same people again, same story .
I guess Clinton refused to go along even after ((((Lewinsky))) sex blackmail, and false flag
attack on USS Cole. So they knew they had to get a Republican into office, thats why there
was such a fuss about that election, should also tell you where the Supreme Court stands
9/11, WTC planning, demolition rigging, probably started soon after USS Cole false flag.
It all adds up when you start thinking about it.
and I don't doubt Johnson played a huge role, he obviously did, I also believe some in CIA
played a role as well as in Military/MIC, and probably even Wall St/Banking, Big Oil, that is
what makes it a CONSPIRACY!
But I think the head honcho is Israel/Zionist intrests, and their plan of world
domination.
One important aspect of Piper's book is that his overwhelming focus on Israel and the Mossad
provides a very helpful corrective to the CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many
"conspiracy people," who seem to believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful
controlling force.
For example, in Appendix Six, Piper suggests that Mossad may have assassinated former CIA
Director William Colby, as well as John Paisley, another former high-ranking CIA
official:
I certainly don't know enough about these cases to comment, but the NSA is supposedly also
a pretty powerful intelligence organization, and lots of NSA people were killed or wounded
during the Liberty attack, with absolutely no apparent consequences. And if top CIA people
could also occasionally be killed with relative impunity, maybe that organization also isn't
really so all-powerful.
Furthermore, one of Piper's major arguments is that long-time CIA counter-intelligence
chief James Angleton had effectively become a Mossad intelligence asset at least by the
1960s, and he seems to provide a great deal of circumstantial evidence in favor of this
notion. Therefore, he points toward Angleton as the likely CIA figure who spearheaded the CIA
involvement in the JFK assassination.
One nice thing about my HTML Book software is that it allows full text searches of the
books in question, controlled by the little Search icon next to the Email button. Or you can
use this link:
"..CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many "conspiracy people," who seem to
believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful controlling force."
The CIA was also the "easy" and "obvious" culprit after 9/11. It came under an incredible
amount of criticism from the "courageous" media, and George Tenet, its director at the time,
was almost forced to resign.
It turned out later that the CIA had previously warned G. Bush about the increased risks
of terror attack, and that their warnings were dismissed by Rumsfeld and the NeoCons, who a
contrario were never blamed for anything.
This really shows who is higher up the food chain.
Jack Ruby was running guns and ammunition from Galveston Bay to Fidel Castro's
guerrillas in Cuba about 1957, a former poker-playing partner of the Dallas nightclub owner
told The News Thursday.
James E. Beaird said he waited until 1966, almost three years after the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, and "nothing had come out so I called them (FBI) just to find
out why I was curious. However, they didn't see fit to even mention it to me again, so I
never heard of anything they ever opened up on it."
Beaird said the FBI finally "sent a man out in 1976. I don't know why they did it
then."
The FBI agent who interviewed Beaird in 1976 didn't mention in his report that Beaird
had volunteered information about Ruby's gunrunning to the bureau in 1966. The report
stated that since the 1963 assassination, "there had been so·much speculation as to
possible foreign connections and he (Beaird) thought it better not to mention his knowledge
of Jack Ruby in Kemah (southeast of Houston on Galveston Bay)."
The Warren Commission in 1964 investigated numerous allegations of gunrunning by Ruby
but concluded that no factual information existed.
Beaird told the FBI that he "personally saw many boxes of new guns, including atltomatic
rifles and handguns," stored in a 2-story house near the channel at Kemah and loaded on
what looked like a 50-foot surplus military boat.
"He stated each time that the boat left with guns and ammunition, Jack Ruby was on the
boat," the FBI report said.
Beaird, who was an automobile dealer in Houston from 1955 to 1957, said Ruby "was in it
for the money. It wouldn't matter what side, just one that would pay him the most I don't
even know who the ship belonged to. But he was in command of it. He went out every time it
went. It was meeting a connection down there (in Cuba), that's all I ever heard."
Ruby would show up in Kemah, generally on weekends, to play poker and "just killing time
until the boat was loaded," Beaird said, and usually was there not more than one or two
hours.
"They loaded up at least twice while I was down there," be said. "Pickup trucks would
carry it from the house over to this boat."
By 1959, Castro had taken control of Cuba and Ruby was beginning to switch sides as
Castro threatened to force Mafia-backed professional gamblers out of the casinos in
Havana.
Dallas Morning News, 18 Aug 1978
What was Ruby's connection to the splinter groups of left-over Cubans in Dallas? Was he
selling them guns? Was he hiring them for odd jobs? Did he hear of the crazy violent commie
anglo Oswald through his connections to these Cubans?
[Hide MORE]
What were these Israeli goats doing in Cuba shortly after the revolution that brought
Fidel Castro to power? It turns out that Castro had taken notice of Israeli goats and was
just waiting for the chance to taste their milk following the establishment in 1960 of
diplomatic relations between the two countries.
"Fidel thought there were goats in Israel that produced milk like cows," recounted
Clarita Malhi, who worked at the Cuban embassy in Israel. "He was really enamored by the
technical progress Israel had made in the field of agriculture."
The Cuban ambassador in Israel was a Jewish millionaire revolutionary by the name of
Ricardo Wolf (Ricardo Subirana y Lobo in Spanish), who decided to fulfill the dream of his
boss who had sent him to Israel. The ambassador went looking for goats that "produced milk
like cows" and could be shipped far across the ocean.
Yitzhak Zilber, a Cuban Jew and a member of Kibbutz Gaash, was chosen for the mission.
Zilber, 89, sent Haaretz photos in which he is seen with the goats he found, waiting for a
plane at the airport and travelling around Cuba.
Ultimately, when the goats for the mission were found, they were brought together at the
airport, awaiting the moment when they could be airlifted to Cuba. An El Al plane landed in
Israel from Cuba with new immigrants from the Cuban Jewish community who had decided to
flee Castro's revolution. They came as part of an agreement under which Cuba effectively
exchanged the immigrants for the goats.
The Haaretz archives contain a piece of information that might buttress the story about
Castro and his Israeli goats. In an article in July 1961, it was reported that the Israeli
Agriculture Ministry had sent an expert to Cuba to help the Cubans improve goat
breeding.
Wolf, who was born in Germany, emigrated to Cuba in the 1920s and became a close
associate of Castro. As a wealthy industrialist, he gave a large sum of money to finance
the revolution. He later politely declined the offer of a cabinet position, but asked
Castro to appoint him ambassador to Israel. Castro assented and Wolf arrived in the country
in 1960 as Cuba's first – and only – ambassador. The trade involving the goats
and the new immigrants was funded by Wolf personally.
'Twas not ever thus. Not only did Cuba establish ties with nascent Israel in 1949, but
Castro dispatched a key supporter, Ricardo Wolf, as his ambassador to Israel in 1960.
Dworin says Wolf, who made his fortune as a pioneer in the metal industry, helped
finance the purchase of the yacht Granma, the cabin-cruiser built for 12 that ferried the
Castro brothers, Che and 80 other revolutionaries from Mexico to Cuba in 1956 -- on the
voyage that would culminate in the overthrow of Batista.
"What can I do to repay you?" Castro, once installed in power, asked Wolf, in Dworin's
telling. "I want to be ambassador to Israel," he replied.
Was Ricardo Subirana Y Lobo (Ricardo Wolf), a Cuban Jew and supporter of Castro, the
bridge between Castro and Mossad? Castro originally offered Wolf the post of Minister of
Finance in the communist government, but Wolf preferred to be Ambassador to Israel.
Hello Ron, I found your comment about growing up with the belief in the lone gunman
official story interesting. I grew up in a communist country which was not part of the USSR
block and I grew up with a belief in the official story that CIA was the main culprit in
the JFK assassination although without a direct mention of LBJ. I would be interested to
learn also what the official story inside the Eastern block was.
Even to this day, I have to admit that this official story was actually very close to the
truth. So many years later and even after reading your high quality article I tend to believe
that LBJ was heavily involved but at arms length distance, that CIA has done all of the
ground work, that Mossad probably assisted and that Oswald did not even shoot let alone kill
anyone.
Why is a local belief relevant? Well because whoever killed Kennedy tried to point blame
at communists, those of USSR and Cuba. What I was lead to believe in this instance proves the
old saying audi alteram partem – do not form any belief before you hear both
sides. This applies to practically all strange events of history. Historical, geographical
and ideological distance make quite a difference in the beliefs that we grow up with.
Next, the culprits would probably be mirrored in the case of 911, where the Israelis have
done most of the ground work, whilst the dual citizens and the US agencies they control
played the supporting and enabling role.
Obviously, the logistics of 911 dwarfs the logistics of the Kennedy assassinations, but it
would be the same team, different era and with a different emphasis. The acts becoming more
self-confident and brazen.
The account you are responding to has Macnamara ordering back nuclear armed planes which
obviously had nothing to do with seeing off Israeli fighters and gunboats.
The more "mainstream" account that has been widely reported is that squadrons of U.S. jets
were twice dispatched to rescue the Liberty, and then twice recalled based on top-level
instructions from D.C.
I've sometimes seen another account floating around on the Internet that the Johnson and
the Israelis had concocted a plan to have the latter sink the Liberty with all hands,
after which Johnson would blame the attack on Egypt and launch a nuclear attack against Cairo
in retaliation. Frankly, I find this scenario *extraordinarily* implausible, and until
someone provides a credible source, I would just dismiss it. And by a "credible source" I
mean something more than some random guy making the claim somewhere in some book.
The 'bad-apples' disinformation relies on the idea that compartmentation and plausible
deniability are incompatible with strict hierarchy. CIA lets a thousand flowers bloom when it
makes a directive, but its assets are always strictly controlled with inducements, coercion,
and compromise. The multiple JFK plots show CIA's telltale M.O. for important programs, not
hordes of sneaky bad apples.
All the mafia-did-it disinformation relies on a sharp distinction between CIA and
organized crime. Anywhere CIA is, they farm crime for agents and cutouts. Robert Kennedy Jr.
makes this point in his book American Values (and that is why it sank without a ripple.)
And of course Johnson had foreknowledge. He was at Clint Murchison's party, in the little
closed-door conclave where CIA green-lighted the coup. So was Rockefeller henchman John
McCloy. CIA arranged to implicate lots of influential people.
The key point here is CIA impunity. CIA did it because CIA can get away with it. That
makes Johnson a figurehead, not a potential threat.
Here's what we all have to face. All of us grew up under an autocratic CIA regime that
hires and fires presidents, legislators, and judges. Kills them, too. They still kill or
torture anyone they want. Ask Gina.
I too have read Stone's book and, while he did not in any way "prove" that LBJ had JFK shot,
he certainly laid out a plausible case for his involvement. Any one who has read Caro's
series of books on LBJ will come away with the realization that he (Johnson) was capable of
having him assassinated as well as having the means and the motivation. The man had no
principles or scruples whatsoever.
I can't comment on any Israeli involvement, but praise for Ron Unz for adding his voice to
those who believe LBJ almost had to have played a role in that event. Like others here, I was
not a JFK fan either. But johnson's elevation to the presidency was an unparalleled disaster
for the USA.
The late Col. Fletcher Prouty was assigned to the Pentagon in charge of Air Force support of
CIA operations in the years leading up to the assassination. His boss there was Gen. Edward
Lansdale, nominally Air Force but actually undercover CIA, father of Special Forces and the
engineer of the coup in the Philippines in the mid-fifties. Those familiar with the JFK
treachery will recall the clear press photos of "the three tramps", men arrested in the
railroad yard behind the grassy knoll, who were led away and never seen again. Two of those
men were Howard Hunt (CIA) and Charles Harrelson (Texas mafia assassin). One of these photos
shows a suited man passing by casually, seeming to reassure the three men. Col. Prouty, who
worked closely with Lansdale for years, positively identified him and this was affirmed by
Gen. "Brute" Krulak, who was at the time commander of MAAG in South Vietnam. The distinctive
shape of his head and his West Point ring are clearly visible. Go to the website dedicated to
Col. Prouty's works at http://www.prouty.org for this and much else directly from the
horse's mouth. By the way, toward the end of the nineties, the only fingerprint on the sixth
floor of the book depository that was not identified after the assassination was matched to
Malcolm Wallace, Lindon Johnson's hitman, reportedly executing at least three murders for
him.
Viewing the Zapruder film carefully, one can see that, during the six seconds of shooting,
the limousine's brake lights are on and it almost comes to a halt. The chauffeur is looking
back all this time and does not speed off until he sees JFK's head explode. There is a film
clip that shows that, as the cortege begins to leave Love Field, the SS agents that attempted
to ride in the normal protective position on the back bumper were called away by the chief of
the detail. The two men protested strongly but were ordered back to a car. There were no
motorcycle outriders, a standard security procedure. The 1112th Military Intelligence group,
which normally would have secured the parade route was ordered to stand down and there was no
additional security to replace them. Make of it what you will.
the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the
contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion. At
best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high likelihoods let
alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our exploration
of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious speculation.
What pathetic bollocks. You should write for CNN.
If the doctors attending on Kennedy at the Parklands Hospital, men experienced with
gunshot wounds, all agreed, as they did, that Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the front of
his head, then he was not killed by bullets from the Texas School Book Depository window
where Oswald is alleged to have been. Therefore, the Warren Commission Report is based on
lies. In particular, a phony autopsy report and a rewriting of the autopsy report findings by
none other than President-to-be, Gerald Ford. That's not a matter of plausibilities or
possibilities, liklihoods or non-certainties. It's as hard evidence as you ever likely to get
in a court of law.
But Israel didn't do it! LOL. Who said Israel did do it? Only some of the nutters that
comment freely here.
What would be interesting, if anyone would take the trouble to do it, is to delve more
deeply into the political connections of the people in the CIA who organized the crime. If
LBJ was the greatest beneficiary, it is nevertheless likely that there were Republicans on
side with the killing, otherwise the CIA would surely not have acted. That E. Howard Hunt,
Mexico City CIA station chief at the time of the assassination appears to have been connected
with the event through (a) Oswald's visit to the Mexico City CIA office, and (b) Hunt's
alleged presence in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, suggests that Hunt's role
in the Watergate burglary was to see what information the Democratic Party may have had
relating to the assassination that could have been used to damage Richard Nixon in his run
for re-election.
All of this seems pretty interesting and completes my suppositions as to what happened to JFK
and RFK and who was responsible and, perhaps even more importantly, who benefited "cui bono"
a usual criterion in determined who instigated a murder.
" Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice."
Lyndon Johnson's long-standing friendship/strategic partnership with J. Edgar Hoover
points to the "passive supporter" role. Act of Treason (1991), by Mark North, documents
Hoover's knowledge of, but not active participation in, the JFK hit. Hoover's job was to
provide bureaucratic support of the coup d'état and to ease his friend Lyndon into the
White House.
The prime mover in the assassination was the Allen Dulles cabal at CIA: The presence of
Lee Harvey Oswald speaks of James Angleton's involvement. But the details of the network that
took the operational role still seems to be in question. There was that group of U.S.
intelligence officers and Mafia figures that began during the second world war. And now the
new research that suggests an Israeli role on one hand, and Fourth Reich elements on the
other. (Fourth Reich elements being the Otto Skorzeny network known as Die Spinne or Odessa
that had ties with MacArthur's WW2 intelligence chief Charles Willoughby.)
So the mystery continues. But however the network that assumed the operational role in the
JFK hit was configured, Allen Dulles was the godfather.
Nice summary of the salient points of the assassinations. A couple of things that did not get
mentioned:
The "wink" as LBJ was being sworn in. It clinches it.
Marion Brown's statement that LBJ, her lover, told her well in advance that JFK was going to
be killed.
Peter Dale Scott stated: The door to the assassination is through Jack Ruby.
Ruby's phone calls were looked at by the FBI and Justice Dept., and catalogued. Almost all
were to Jewish mafia figures–not Italians. When the House Assassinations Committee
asked for these transcripts, they were told they no longer existed! But old copies were
eventually found. Someone in DOJ tried to scrub them from the records.
One of the best books on the assassination IMHO is Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last
Investigation."
Piper's book is essential reading, but he focuses only on Israel and the Jewish connections.
Because of its lack of "balance", it should not be read as a stand-alone treatise on the JFK
assassination.
Among my top ten books are–admittedly a list long out of date:
On the Trail of the Assassins
The Last Investigation
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
JFK and the Unspeakable
Final Judgment (with above reservations)
Probably more important would be a list of books absolutely NOT to be read–among
them Gerald Posner's "Case Closed."
As a general rule, you can consider ANYONE arguing that Unz is full of s$#t and Oswald did
it as a crazed lone assassin, is a paid TROLL. The assassinations are grounded in solid
research that has been going on since the 1970s, when I attended a four-hour lecture by David
Lifton at SUNY Stony Brook–an event that literally toppled my world. It has never
recovered.
You might want to find a copy of Dr. Mary's Monkey. I think it is a really good read about a
side story to the JFK assassination about the goings on in New Orleans and the CIA.
It matters only because the truth always matters, and until it is satisfied it will always
be a pebble in the shoe. The past is only past because it has happened, but in its own
strange way its always with us. Events that occurred 200 years ago affect today, as well as
those events from 500 years ago. And sometimes things need to be covered up for very good
reasons.
As for our "kulcher", I personally believe it's just part of a nations life cycle. None of
us age younger, neither does a nation, it can also die.
You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing
LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have
them killed?
I very much doubt that. Johnson died at the beginning of 1973, a very widely despised and
hated figure, and surely few people feared any retaliation much after that, let alone Talbot
and Douglass writing forty years later.
I suspect there were several factors, mostly the ones I outlined in my discussion.
First, most JFK researchers were strong liberals or otherwise admired "Camelot," and it
surely would have been very difficult for them to psychologically accept that most of JFK's
top people were perfectly willing to continue working for LBJ, if the latter had murdered the
former.
Also, "LBJ Killed JFK" might sound like such a ultra "crazy conspiracy theory" to
publishers and editors who overwhelmingly may still believe that a "lone gunman" killed JFK.
So writers who considered making such a claim might fear having their careers totally ruined.
I think fear of humiliation, reputation-loss, and the resulting financial damage is a far
greater factor than fear of physical harm.
Here's another factor. Having a vice president come to power by assassinating his
predecessor is the sort of thing that just doesn't happen in developed First World countries.
Offhand, I can't think of even a single case in any major country over the last couple of
hundred years. It would probably be pretty embarrassing for even a Third World
banana-republic. What respectable American historian would want to admit that the politics of
our own country at the height of its international prestige during the early 1960s may have
actually made Guatemala look like a shining example of orderly, constitutional
government?
As for our "kulcher", I personally believe it's just part of a nations life cycle. None
of us age younger, neither does a nation, it can also die.
"Culture" is not a subset of "nation". The American culture has changed -- all culture
changes in accordance with external influences. America, as a nation founded under a set of
Enlightenment principles, has ended. There remains a huge morass/aggregation of conflicting
cultures, overseen and manipulated by a horrificly corrupt government.
McClennan is the son of one of Johnson's attorneys
I read them both along with Piper's book.
They make a lot more sense that the right wing atmosphere of hate Dallas PD including
officer Tippett another of Oswald's Victims and president bush & cia fbi secret service
army navy Air Force departments of agriculture and every other government department and of
course the man directing the military ambush by 15 shooters, umbrella man.
Have fun with your myths legends and fairy tales, naive credulous gullible idiots.
And if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, what had they to cover up? Government
complicity in the assassination of JFK, obviously. So who, in particular, was involved. Well
obviously that branch of government that does assassinations, the CIA. But that does not mean
that the CIA went rogue.
The CIA serves the powers that be, so whatever the antagonism of some individuals within
the Agency, the CIA would not have acted on the assassination of JFK without bipartisan
political support.
LBJ, the obvious beneficiary, had every reason to give the CIA the nod, but someone on the
other side of the aisle had to be complicit too. Who?
Well Nixon had been the Republican Presidential candidate in the previous election, so he
was the effective head of the party and thus the man to go to.
As I argue
here , Nixon's guilty knowledge of the assassination may have been the real cause of his
downfall. Nixon's Vice President, Gerald R. Ford had been appointed to the Warren Commission
by LBJ and it was he who made a critical falsification of that report, therby casting
responsibility for the killing on Lee Harvey Oswald.
It is likely, therefore, that Ford had the goods on Nixon and blackmailed him into
resignation over the Watergate inquiry.
What exactly did the editor of Atlanta Jewish Time who called for Obama assassination say? I
could not find the original but here is the quote in The Atlantic
Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed
unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place , and
forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state
obliterate its enemies.
Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve
Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario,
don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most
inner circles ?
Where from did Mr. Andrew Adler, who was forced to resign later, get the idea of killing a
president so he would be replaced with Israel friendly VP? Did Mr. Adler study JFK
assassination and LBJ policy with respect to Israel? Or is it a common knowledge and common
Jewish modus operandi: kill whoever does not like Israel? Do Jews think and talk about
assassinating of American presidents who are unfriendly to Israel? Do Jews believe that the
Deep Sate in Israel considers assassinations and act on it when necessary?
"You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing
LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have
them killed? Was it perhaps because some in our media were on the payroll and being used to
distract from the "mastermind" assassin?"
You have the reason already in Maurice Joly's Dialogues. The opposition media is created
to nominally represent alternative views but in reality to silence of the issues you want
silenced. Even the opposition, which always picks up on everything, agrees with this issue,
so it accepted by all. Much of the alternative media has nothing to fear as it is not
alternative media in anything but appearance. But with the Internet it is getting harder to
do this. Finally they fail.
"As for the Israelis well, they're the Israelis. If they saw a shot to capture effective
control of our government by offing a guy more likely to keep them in check for a venal type
who probably didn't give a rat's behind for the Israelis, but salivated over destabilising
the middle east, because destabilizing the middle east actually made Texas oil and other oil
assets around the world controlled by or lifted by Texans in the oil industry far more
valuable, then who can blame them for joining the cabal and taking the shot?"
So, LBJ just wanted to promote Texas oil and to become the President, no special Israel
connection? And the Israelis just joined the cabal and who can blame them?
I found it very interesting that young LBJ was helping in the Galveston project. Galveston
somehow reminded me of Jacob Schiff. And I also found it fascinating that young Allan Dulles
was the guy who produced the very copy of Joly's Dialogues from which Ohrana plagiarized the
Protocols. Both were working for the dark side from their youth.
I recently learned of another smoking gun. After JFKs Limo arrived at Parkland hospital, many
people looked it over and took photos. There was a bullet hole through the front windshield.
It entered from the front, yet was never discussed afterwards by anyone. The Limo was hauled
away to Washington within hours and secretly repaired. There are lots of links about this,
such as:
Prouty was the source for Mr. X in Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Prouty was an air force pilot
in WWII. He flew missions around the world and witnessed history as it happened. After WWII,
he worked in the pentagon as a liaison officer between the military and the CIA. He saw the
original documents authorizing military support of CIA operations around the world.
As Prouty explains it, throughout human history war was a means of killing the other guy
and taking his stuff. The preparation for war and the prosecution of war provided an
organizing principle for human society that gave people the motivation to develop their own
societies, lest the other guy become more powerful than you and kill you.
As he describes it, with the detonation of atomic weapons at the end of WWII, conventional
war was instantly understood to be obsolete. In any future conventional war, if one side was
about to win a decisive victory, the potentially losing side would simply go nuclear, and
everyone would lose.
With the end of conventional war, and the impossibility of nuclear war, the global power
elite invented the proxy war as the new means for the continuation of war as an organizing
principle of society. In the U.S., the CIA was the tool for starting and prosecuting proxy
wars.
Prouty describes how, at the end of WWII, he was flying supply missions to Okinawa for the
staging of the invasion of Japan. The military bases in Okinawa were overflowing with every
conceivable type of materiel necessary to support more than a million man invasion.
After the atomic bombs were dropped and Japan had surrendered, Prouty claims that he asked
a supply officer if they were just going to send all the supplies back to the states.
The officer said no. He said that all the materiel was going to be divided in half, and
that half was going to Seoul, Korea, and that the other half was going to Hanoi, Vietnam.
Prouty believes that by 1945 Korea and Vietnam had already been decided to be the sites of
the first proxy wars, and that the CIA was already involved in planning the wars.
Kennedy was planning to dismantle the CIA, and Prouty recounts in his books, lectures, and
videos how the JFK assassination reversed the course of history.
The JFK assassination is an endless rabbit hole of history. If you jump in, you won't come
out the same way.
This article is a nice overview that explains the problem. There were many powerful groups
who wanted Kennedy killed, and probably several plots were underway. Allow me to suggest "The
Secret Team" by Col. Prouty to your reading list.
Your last post resulted in too many posts to read, but one pointed to an outstanding video
of Lee Oswald's life, showing facts that make it clear he was a CIA operative. Note that
after he returned from Russia after openly committing treason, he was never arrested, and
granted a spousal visa for his Russian wife. That undeniable fact itself is proof he was a
CIA plant. Oswald hoped to become an official CIA officer and federal employee, but remained
a low-level paid operative until his death. Oswald expressed concern in New Orleans that
operatives were considered disposable.
In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that
the Committee was "inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton (Louisiana) in late
August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay
Shaw,"[64] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana "established an association of an
undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the
assassination".[65]
The CIA also admitted that Clay Shaw had worked for them in some capacity. See quote
below.
During a 1979 libel suit involving the book Coup D'Etat In America, Richard Helms,
former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of
the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his
travels abroad, mostly to Latin America.[70] Like Shaw, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and
journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS by the mid-1970s.[70] [nb 1] In
February 2003, the CIA released documents pertaining to an earlier inquiry from the
Assassination Records Review Board about QKENCHANT, a CIA project used to provide security
approvals on non-CIA personnel, that indicated Shaw had obtained a "five Agency" clearance
in March 1949.[72]
More interesting information below.
New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews testified to the Warren Commission that while he was
hospitalized for pneumonia, he received a call from "Clay Bertrand" the day after the
assassination, asking him to fly to Dallas to represent Lee Harvey Oswald.[28][29]
According to FBI reports, Andrews told them that this phone call from "Clay Bertrand" was a
figment of his imagination.[30]
In his book, On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison says that after a long search of
the New Orleans French Quarter, his staff was informed by the bartender at the tavern
"Cosimo's" that "Clay Bertrand" was the alias that Clay Shaw used. According to Garrison,
the bartender felt it was no big secret and "my men began encountering one person after
another in the French Quarter who confirmed that it was common knowledge that 'Clay
Bertrand' was the name Clay Shaw went by."[\
So it appears likely that Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw knew each other. Which is sort of
strange.
Then there's George de Mohrenschildt, a very complex and interesting character. I wonder
if anyone here could tell me more about the nature of his relationship with Oswald.
I believe the Zionists in Israel placed the order and Freemasons in the American Deep State
executed the order. It's also quite possible that Zionist terrorists did the actual shooting
as they had the experience in killing Western high profile targets (Moyne, Bernadotte, King
David Hotel bombing, etc) but more likely that elements of the Deep State in America who
hated JFK did the actual shooting. In either case, Oswald was not lone-nut and the case is
certainly not closed. We know this because Trump recently reclassified the sealed JFK
assassination records which were mandated to be released in October, 2017. He stated that he
did so to protect "national security" (aka protect the Deep State and Israel) and to protect
the "names and addresses" of individuals still alive. Trump, far from being an opponent of
the Deep State, is actually working hand-in-hand with them (the Mueller "investigation" is
actually smoke and mirrors to distract the Sheeple from the fact that Trump is actually part
of the Deep State).
I've heard Stone talk about Nixon's reaction to seeing Ruby shoot Oswald, but this surely
wasn't an eyewitness account, as Stone was in 6th grade at the time. His career as a
political operative goes back about 45 years to volunteering for CREEP as a college student
in 1972, somewhat less as an influential one.
Apparently Johnson's mistress said he told her in so many words that the assassination was
going to happen. I think there's little doubt that he was aware and acquiescent, perhaps an
active participant. Ruby probably was his man, and he and Ruby both likely were Israel's men.
A few years later Johnson was blood in the water for the mainstream media shark tank over
Vietnam and civil disorder. If he were the prime mover of the JFK assassination, I doubt that
the media would uniformly have laid off the subject. Only Israel, it would seem, could have
orchestrated such a massive and continuous cover up.
Another well-reasoned and highly-detailed article. I agree that we'll probably never know
many of the important details of how the assassination was planned and who was involved,
given almost all the participants and witnesses are long since dead. However, we can almost
certainly conclude that there was a conspiracy that involved many important individuals from
the establishment, including President LBJ.
What are your thoughts on Seymour Hersh and his book "The Dark Side of Camelot"? I recall
his book received very negative coverage by the MSM, but I can't really judge how credible
his claims happen to be. It's a very shocking book though.
You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing
LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have
them killed? Was it perhaps because some in our media were on the payroll and being used to
distract from the "mastermind" assassin?
So the clear dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a
conspiracy seems matched by a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which
has done its best to avoid recognizing the most likely perpetrator.
Here's a good History Channel special on how LBJ may have been involved with the JFK
assassination. I personally think it makes a pretty good case.
says:
June 25, 2018 at 8:09 am GMT 100 Words For anyone who hasn't seen it, here is a stabilized,
panoramic version of the Zapruder film. With this, you can get a clearer idea of the scene and
what really happened. For me at least, it removes a lot of the mystery, revealing that the
physical event itself was not that remarkable, no matter who did it.
Read More Replies:
@JohnnyWalker123 Dan Rather lied about the event to the public.
Which was remarkable.
Watch Rather lie here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXFwbIx2mbc ,
@TonyVodvarka Viewing the Zapruder film carefully, one can see that, during the six seconds
of shooting, the limousine's brake lights are on and it almost comes to a halt. The chauffeur
is looking back all this time and does not speed off until he sees JFK's head explode. There is
a film clip that shows that, as the cortege begins to leave Love Field, the SS agents that
attempted to ride in the normal protective position on the back bumper were called away by the
chief of the detail. The two men protested strongly but were ordered back to a car. There were
no motorcycle outriders, a standard security procedure. The 1112th Military Intelligence group,
which normally would have secured the parade route was ordered to stand down and there was no
additional security to replace them. Make of it what you will. ,
@Heros Every time I see that Zapruder film I am reminded by the Kinks song "Give the people
what they want":
When Oswald shot Kennedy, he was insane
Yet still we watch the re-runs again and again
We all sit glued while killer takes aim.......
Hey Mom there go the pieces of the Presidents Brain
Both Kennedy assassinations were also a massive psyop, and they remain so today. All the
talk shows, all the movies, all the images flashing on screen, all the background music. But
the scandal, is always used to push the sexualize and destroy the family agenda. Kennedy
publicly had so many lovers, including Maralyn Monroe, another psyop herself.
It is the same with Clinton's famous cigar. This obsession with perverse sex is a very
strong indicator of where the scandal is emanating. All the dogs not barking that point to this
place are evidence too.
Much better articles in italian or spanish. They basically say that's because of 'recent'
events of P2 sect fraud in 1981. More sensible to think they don't want globalist with hidden
loyalties infiltrating a new inexperienced government, but I don't follow italian
developments closely. Any thoughts?
If Israel and Jewish Power killed JFK it matters very much. If by a magic wand I could
make people believe that Israel and Jewish Power were behind JFK assassination it would be
much easier to stop and undo all those things that you have listed:
This is simply wrong. Basically, it's the Joo (or any other) conspiracy, according to this
world-view.
The crucial mistake virtually all conspiracy- theories minded people make is that they try
to pin-point a clearly defined group (mostly religious, ethnic, racial,..) as the
source of major socio-cultural changes, and frequently it's Jews (sometimes masons or
something similar).
And this is a major misfire, because no such group exists. There is no causal
connection between any ethnicity/race/ & great upheavals in the West (and in the US) in
past 3-4 decades, especially re immigration debates, influx of culturally & racially
foreign and inimical masses, disintegration of family & denigration of national loyalties
etc. To think that a group (or groups), which is relatively easy to identify, can be the
source of such monumental upheavals bespeaks of historical illiteracy.
There was no ethnic nor ideological group of people behind such shattering revolutions
& world-view changes like transition from Roman republic to Imperial Rome, Protestant
Reformation, Crusades, formation of national monarchies, Enlightenment, collapse of "divine
rights" of kings, imperialist expansion of European powers, national awakening in the 19th C,
WW1 and WW2, Not Jews, not masons, not Illuminati, not Rosicrucians, not some occult
brotherhood residing in the Himalayas.
Simply, Western civilization has come to a dead end -as it was the continuity of the 18th C
Enlightenment- and we are witnessing the processes of further decay, encapsulated in famous
hypothetical question ascribed to Lenin: " Are the forces which propel us to greatness the
same that will, transformed by mutations of History, eventually lead to our collapse
?"
A man who, despite his shortcomings & delusions about the role of technology, various
national cultures and their dominant currents, understood this better than most was Oswald
Spengler. The Western civilizational matrix is old and tired. And this is the root of
the Western decline. That what plagues the West & the US the most (race replacement, PC
"liberal" ideological muzzle, hedonist emptiness & biological collapse manifested in
infertility, pathological altruism, lunatic ideological fashions like n-th wave of feminism,
media aggression promoting "diversity" & homosexualism- as different from homosexuality,
self-hatred of European & Western culture .)-this is as present, although a bit modified,
in Italy, Spain, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Switzerland,.. as in the US. And in these
countries Jewish presence in the media & the overall life is negligible or
non-existent.
Although ruling elites differ in these countries, they are a mixture of hereditary
aristocracy, established bourgeois families & plutocratic oligarchs. These groups have,
historically, served their countries. Now, they are morally & culturally bankrupt and
serve outmoded gods whose future is annihilation- similar situation that had befallen pompous
& deluded aristocrats in the 18th-19th C or imperialist jingoists in the 20th.
The failure of nerve that comes with exhausted & geriatric social-cultural matrix
is to blame, not some group conspiracy.
But, the societal-cultural matrix is exhausted, not the people. Our flaw is linear
extrapolation of current events which leads to paralyzing pessimist fatalism. We should know
from history this is a fatal mistake. Just compare Europe in 1930 (cars, planes, fascism,
communism, cubism, quantum mechanics, relativity, psychoanalysis, radio, tanks, films, ..)
and during 1900 (technologically, scientifically, ideologically and artistically more or less
the same as 1880).
So, we should not give up hope, and some of us who are obsessed with Jews, should give up
this tired old chestnut. If all of US Jewish ethno-nationalists were booted to Israel, life
would be somewhat easier for Euro-Americans in some respects, but not essentially different.
Blacks would remain blacks, PC muzzle would remain PC muzzle, dopeheads would remain
dopeheads, Pentagon would remain Pentagon,
"It appears that Belfield, an Englishman, has obtained through FOIA the tapes of the in
flight conversations among the Israelis concerning the strikes on USS Liberty. I wrote in my
post quoted below of having read transcripts in the Spring 0f 1968 that were of exactly the
same material. It seems likely that this is the same material now released by NSA. .
pl
"I quote below from my Athenaeum post written in 2010 and entitled "What I know About the
USS Liberty.
"What I know about the USS Liberty" re-published from October, 2007
Jim Ennes, who was a watch standing officer on the USS Liberty asked me for a statement as
to what I knew of the transcripts of Israeil conversations and the ship. This is what I sent
him. I was quoted about this in the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun on Monday. pl
(Wednesday, 19 July 2017) I have re-published this because people have written to me
saying that the transcripts were not published before the recent Haaretz article. pl
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Dear Jim
I was a student in the Military Intelligence Officer Advanced Course at Ft. Holabird,
Maryland (Baltimore) in 1967-1968. The course lasted about ten months. We students were
required to take several electives from a group offered and I took a course in Cryptology.
This was taught by people from the NSA School at nearby Ft. Meade. This course was taught in
the winter or early spring of 1967-1968. There were several sub-courses, one of which had to
do with voice intercepts. In the course of this, the instructor introduced a booklet produced
at Ft. Meade as material for the course. It contained various course materials. Among them
were transcripts of the translated intercepts of radio conversations between the Israeli
strike commander and his base before and during the attacks on USS Liberty. The instructor, a
retired cryptologic warrant officer or NCO identified the transcript as being of the Liberty
incident. It was also so marked in the booklet.
In the transcript, the flight leader spoke to his base to report that he had the ship in
view, that it was the same ship that he had been briefed on and that it was clearly marked
with the US flag. I think he said that the ship was displaying the US flag on an upper deck,
but my memory of that might be inexact. He asked for confirmation of his orders to attack the
ship and seemed reluctant (understandably) to attack the ship. He asked more than once and
was told to carry out his orders and attack the ship.
There was some further discussion of damage to the ship.
Extensive Interviews with USS Liberty Survivors' – Audio tapes obtained by award
winning British film maker Richard Belfield prove what every USS Liberty survivor, former
Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas
Moorer have said all along: that Israel deliberately attacked an American ship. The plan was
to sink it, blame Egypt, and draw the US into the Six Day War on the Israeli side, but the
heroism of the Liberty crew in fighting ship damage, often while wounded, prevented it from
sinking with all hands. The tapes are featured in "The Day Israel Attacked America" by
film-maker Richard Belfield, whose previous production credits include National Geographic TV
and Discovery Channel."
" Despite these very difficult conditions, a member of the crew heroically managed to
jerry-rig a replacement antenna during the attempt, and by trying numerous different
frequencies, was able to evade the jamming "
It was Israeli stupidity that made it possible to send a message despite the jamming.
Israel had constructed missiles that homed in on the antennae and frequencies the Liberty
used.
However, the jamming emitters were so strong that the missiles flew in the direction of the
jammers.
So these had to be switched off after each firing of a missile.
In these pauses, the Liberty could inform Washington that it was an Israeli attack.
Then McNamara had to call back the two bombers with atomic bombs already on their way to
Cairo.
I'm racking my brain where I found this information, but no result, so far.
The Liberty incident is mentioned in many books, articles, and tv reports.
I have found that these "conspiracy theories" are usually quite simple to solve: verify
that there was a conspiracy verify that there was a cover-up verify that mass media is in the
cover-up
- verify that there was a conspiracy
- verify that there was a cover-up
- verify that mass media is in the cover-up
Then, who can make a cover-up in media?
- the mob, no - the CIA, can try but really
cannot do it long - the US President, like for instance JFK, Nixon, Clinton, no - the ones,
who control the media and suppress publications they do not like, yes
Then only, why?
- the assassination of the president succeeded, so something major in
the US politics changed - only one major thing changed
Solving these problems is easy, but the opponents behave as lawyers in kangaroo courts:
deny everything, play a moron, refer to judicial decision, start repeating childish mumble
like wackawackaconspeeracy.. and so on.
Indeed, as with MH17.
Literally overnight EU sanctions against Russia were possible.
And, as with Kennedy, what exactly happened, we do not know, and, I fear, will never
know.
On the afternoon of the day of the disaster prime minister Rutte phoned vice prime minister
Asscher, who was on vacation in the south of France.
Rutte asked him to call back on a landline 'so that Russia could not listen in'.
Fool Asscher told this in a tv show.
Nobody has asked Asscher what was so secret a few hours after the disaster that the
Russians should not know.
Why was the Diana 'accident' ?
I suppose to prevent that the future British king would have a Muslim stepfather.
Why was Anna Lyndh killed accidentally ?
She was to be the next Swedish prime minister, in favor of a EU economic boycott of
Israel
Why was the phoney Hess suicided ?
Had he talked WWII history would have to be rewritten.
Why was Kelly suicided ?
He knew quite well Blair's nonsense about the 45 minutes WMD's
DARAA, Syria – At first glance, all appears calm in this southern Syrian city where
protests first broke out seven years ago. Residents mill around shops in preparation for the
evening Iftar meal when they break their daily fast during the holy month of Ramadan.
But the tension is nonetheless palpable in this now government-controlled city. A few weeks
ago, Russian-brokered reconciliation talks in southern Syria fell apart when Western-backed
militants rejected a negotiated peace.
Whether there will now be a full-on battle for the south or not, visits last week to Syria's
three southern governorates, Daraa, Quneitra, and Suweida, reveal a startling possibility:
al-Qaeda's Syrian franchise -- the Nusra Front -- appears to be deeply entrenched alongside
these U.S.-backed militants in key, strategic towns and villages scattered throughout the
south.
U.S. media and think tanks obfuscate this fact by referring to all opposition fighters as
"rebels" or "moderates." Take a look at their maps and you only see three colors: red for the
Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies, green for opposition forces, black for ISIS.
So then, where is the Nusra Front, long considered by Western pundits to be one of the most
potent fighting forces against the SAA? Have they simply -- and conveniently -- been erased
from the Syrian battle map?
Discussions with Syrian military experts, analysts, and opposition fighters during my trip
revealed that Nusra is alive and kicking in the southern battlefields. The map below
specifically identifies areas in the south controlled by Nusra, but there are many more
locations that do not appear where Nusra is present and shares power with other militants.
Despite its U.S. and UN designation as a terrorist organization, Nusra has been openly
fighting alongside the "Southern Front," a group of 54 opposition militias funded and commanded
by a U.S.-led war room based in Amman, Jordan called the Military Operations Center (MOC).
Specifics about the MOC aren't easy to come by, but sources inside Syria -- both opposition
fighters and Syrian military brass (past and present) -- suggest the command center consists of
the U.S., UK, France, Jordan, Israel, and some Persian Gulf states.
They say the MOC supplies funds, weapons, salaries, intel, and training to the 54 militias,
many of which consist of a mere 200 or so fighters that are further broken down into smaller
groups, some only a few dozen strong.
SAA General Ahmad al-Issa, a commander for the frontline in Daraa, says the MOC is a
U.S.-led operation that controls the movements of Southern Front "terrorists" and is highly
influenced by Israel's strategic goals in the south of Syria -- one of which is to seize
control of its bordering areas to create a "buffer" inside Syrian territories.
How does he know this? Issa says his information comes from a cross-section of sources,
including reconciled/captured militants and intel from the MOC itself. The general cites MOC's
own rulebook for militants as an example of its Israel-centricity: "One, never threaten or
approach any Israeli border in any way. Two, protect the borders with (Israeli-occupied) Golan
so no one can enter Israel."
To illustrate the MOC's control over southern militants, Issa cites further regulations:
"three, never take any military action before clearing with MOC first. Four, if the MOC asks
groups to attack or stop, they must do so."
What happens if these rules are not upheld? "They will get their salaries cut," says
Issa.
The armed opposition groups supported by the MOC are mostly affiliated with the Free Syrian
Army (FSA), itself an ill-defined, highly fungible group of militants who have changed names
and affiliations with frequency during the Syrian conflict.
Over the course of the war, the FSA has fought
alongside the Nusra Front and ISIS -- some have even joined them. Today, despite efforts to
whitewash the FSA and Southern Front as "non-sectarian" and non-extremist , factions
like the Yarmouk Army, Mu'tazz Billah Brigade, Salah al-Din Division, Fajr al-Islam Brigade,
Fallujah al-Houran Brigade, the Bunyan al-Marsous grouping, Saifollah al-Masloul Brigade, and
others are currently occupying keys areas in Daraa in cooperation with the Nusra Front.
None of this is news to American policymakers. Even before the MOC was established in
February 2014, Nusra militants were fronting vital military maneuvers for the FSA. As one Daraa
opposition
activist explains: "The FSA and al-Nusra join together for operations but they have an
agreement to let the FSA lead for public reasons, because they don't want to frighten Jordan or
the West . Operations that were really carried out by al-Nusra are publicly presented by the
FSA as their own."
Efforts to conceal the depth of cooperation between Nusra and the FSA go right to the top.
Says one FSA commander in Daraa: "In many battles, al-Nusra takes part, but we don't tell the
(MOC) operations room about it."
It's highly doubtful that the U.S. military remains unaware of this. The Americans operate
on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis with regard to FSA-Nusra cooperation. In a 2015 interview with this
reporter , CENTCOM spokesman Lieutenant Commander Kyle Raines was quizzed about why
Pentagon-vetted fighters' weapons were showing up in Nusra hands. Raines responded: " We
don't 'command and control' these forces -- we only 'train and enable' them. Who they say
they're allying with, that's their business."
In practice, the U.S. doesn't appear to mind the Nusra affiliation -- regardless of the fact
that the group is a terror organization -- as long as the job gets done.
U.S. arms have been seen in Nusra's possession for many years now, including highly valued
TOW missiles , which were game-changing weapons in the Syrian military theater. When
American weapons end up in al-Qaeda hands during the first or second year of a conflict, one
assumes simple errors in judgment. When the problem persists after seven years, however, it
starts to look like there's a policy in place to look the other way.
It's also not difficult to grasp why U.S. maps patently ignore evidence of Nusra embedded
among U.S.-supported militias. The group, after all, is exempt from ceasefires, viewed as a
fair target for military strikes at all times.
In December 2015, UN
Security Council Resolution 2254 called for "Member States to prevent and suppress
terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known
as Da'esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and
entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the
Security Council" (emphasis added). Furthermore, the resolution makes clear that ceasefires
"will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups,
undertakings and entities."
This essentially means that the Syrian army and its allies can tear apart any areas in the
south of Syria where Nusra fighters -- and "entities associated" with it -- are based. In
effect, international law provides a free hand for a Syrian military assault against
U.S.-backed militias co-located with Nusra, and undermines the ability of their foreign
sponsors to take retaliatory measures.
That's why the Nusra Front doesn't show up on U.S. maps.
In an interview last week, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad blamed the sudden breakdown of
southern reconciliation efforts on "Israeli and American interference," which he says "put pressure on the terrorists in that
area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution."
Today, the Israeli border area with Syria is dotted with
Nusra and ISIS encampments, which Israel clearly
prefers over the Syrian army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies. The Wall Street
Journal even
reported last year that Israel was secretly providing funding for salaries, food, fuel, and
munitions to militants across its border.
In early June, two former Islamist FSA members (one of them also a former Nusra fighter) in
Beit Jinn -- a strategic area bordering Syria, Lebanon, and Israel -- told me that Israel had
been paying their militia's salaries for a year before a reconciliation deal was struck with
the Syrian government. "Every month Israel would send us $200,000 to keep fighting," one
revealed. "Our leaders were following the outside countries. We were supported by MOC, they
kept supporting us till the last minute," he said.
Earlier that day, in the village of Hadar in the Syrian Golan, members of the Druze
community described a bloody Nusra
attack last November that killed 17: "All the people here saw how Israel helped Nusra
terrorists that day. They covered them with live fire from the hilltops to help Nusra take over
Hadar. And at the end of the fights, Israel takes in the injured Nusra fighters and
provides them with medical services," says Marwan Tawil, a local English teacher.
"The ceasefire line (Syrian-Israeli border) is 65 kilometers between here to Jordan, and
only this area is under the control of the SAA," explains Hadar's mayor. "Sixty kilometers is
with Nusra and Israel and only the other five are under the SAA."
Israel is so heavily vested in keeping Syria and its allies away from its borders, it has
actively
bolstered al-Qaeda and other extremists in Syria's southern theater. As Israeli Defense
Minister Moshe Ya'alon famously explained
in 2016, "In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic
State." To justify their interventions in the battle ahead, the U.S. and Israel claim that
Iranian and Hezbollah forces are present in the south, yet on the ground in Daraa and Quneitra,
there is no visible sight of either.
Multiple sources confirm this in Daraa, and insist that that there are only a handful of
Hezbollah advisors -- not fighters -- in the entire governorate.
So why the spin? "This is a public diplomacy effort to make the West look like they've
forced Iran and Hezbollah out of the south," explains General Issa.
The U.S., Israel, and their allies cannot win this southern fight. They can only prolong the
insecurity for a while before the SAA decides to launch a military campaign against the
54-plus-militias-Nusra occupying the south of Syria. The end result is likely to be a
negotiated settlement peppered with a few "soft battles" to eject the more hardline
militants.
As one SAA soldier on the scene in Daraa tells me: "Fifty-four factions in a small area
shows weakness more than it shows strength." And their cooperation with the Nusra Front just
makes the targets on their backs even larger.
Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and
analyst of Mideast geopolitics based in Beirut.
Now halfway into the 2 nd year of the Trump presidency it is clear that what
seemed to be a severe national hissy fit being thrown by bitterly-defeated leftist Democrats
after the 2016 election, gradually morphing into a chronic collective temper tantrum, has in
fact turned out to be one of the most severe cases of mass psychosis in modern history.
This all-too-real mental derangement is manifested in seething, unhinged, pathological rage
that has utterly consumed the entire Democrat party and countless authoritarian leftist
malcontents across America, who have literally lost their minds thanks to Donald Trump's
stunning victory. Their inability to control or contain it, even as it is becomes their steady
undoing on a national scale, only makes it that much more disturbing.
The Democrat party's legion of arrogant simple-minded fake news media propagandists have
only made matters worse for their fellow traveler politicians. No matter how badly their
clumsy, malignant subversions are backfiring in their faces (the Russian collusion hoax being
Exhibit A), no matter how sloppy, desperate and even absurd their ham-handed manipulations have
become, apparently they will simply never cease their vicious crusade to inflict malicious harm
on and, if possible, destroy the lives of their political opponents.
President Trump's strongest supporters and closest allies have the misfortune of being the
central targets of their psychotic obsession and their most vile, degenerate misbehavior. In
one sense it is a badge of honor to be a target of the seditious American left. But it is also
a serious challenge to live a normal life at the top of their political kill list. Life as a
highly-prized, ruthlessly-hunted target of a rage-driven leftist Democrat/corporate media/deep
state lynch mob is no picnic.
"Greenberg", whose real name turned out to be Gennady Vasilievich Vostretsov, solicited a
meeting with me through my longtime colleague and fellow diehard Trump loyalist Michael
Caputo.
I took the meeting. It barely lasted 20 minutes before I walked out, having neither given
nor received anything whatsoever from Vostretsov, who I never saw or talked to again. My sole
comment after the meeting was to text Michael Caputo that it had been waste of time. We never
discussed it again.
Until a few weeks ago, I had not even recalled having the meeting, given that it was the
only contact I have ever had with Vostretsov and the result was zilch.
Vostretsov's Russian nationality was of no consequence at the time of the meeting and is of
no consequence today, EXCEPT in how it has conveniently created yet another fake news cycle
opportunity wherein the media lynch mob could screech for awhile about how a "Trump ally met
with a Russian!!!!"
(In case you missed the memo, apparently now it is a crime just to meet with anyone even
remotely Russian. Same goes for considering any offer of opposition research .it's all ILLEGAL,
no??).
My short-lived one-off meeting with Vostretsov is of no relevance to anything or anyone
outside of the fake news unreality that is the Russian collusion delusion world.
Just because Democrats and the media cooked up this hoax to sustain their perpetual campaign
of public disinformation and personal destruction doesn't mean sane people have to buy into
it.
There is no dispute that the meeting with Vostretsov was a non-starter and I summarily
walked away from any involvement with him. The substance of the meeting (or more accurately the
lack thereof) is 100% exculpatory of me.
Beyond this, no one has the slightest obligation to entertain or otherwise indulge this
Russian collusion madness merely because some cabal of Democrat spinmeisters and their media
whores are consumed with chasing their own hoax and dragging the world along with them.
Clearly this cabal is willing to twist any and every conceivable circumstance however it
suits their mania to persecute any Trump allies they can. Their attempts to frame and defame
their political opponents are, frankly, pure rubbish, along with their histrionic chest-beating
in favor of their sleazy objectives.
This story, however, does have a real bombshell. It is not that Vostretsov is a Russian
national but that he was an FBI informant for at least 17 years prior to the time he
solicited a meeting with me.
Even more explosive is Vostrestov's extensive criminal history, including violent crimes
that landed him serious prison time in both Russia (10 years) and the United States.
The bombshell becomes nuclear when one considers how Vostretsov's criminal past would have
excluded him from ever being in the United States at the time he tried to lure me into
purchasing campaign intelligence, unless he had some sort of U.S. government
dispensation such as is given only to criminal informants who are doing the bidding of
their FBI patrons and handlers.
These extremely-relevant details, however, have quite deceitfully been either omitted or
glossed over by the leftist media megaphonies, in a brazenly-deceitful attempt to re-cast a
nothing-nowhere one-time meeting I had over two years ago as some sort of puzzle piece in their
disintegrating Russian collusion hoax.
Leftstream media manipulators have purposefully disregarded the most relevant and revealing
facts in order to dishonestly reduce their reporting to: "Stone met with a Russian!!!"
Incredible detail and documentation about Vostretsov's murky past and his decades of work as
an FBI stooge may be found at the website democratdossier.org
Now the FBI is righteously under massive fire for its unprecedented, undeniable
politicization and abuse of its extraordinary law enforcement powers in order to protect
Hillary Clinton from prosecution, despite her clear cut crimes, while conspiring to frame
Donald Trump and those around him with this bogus Russian collusion rap that the kill-Trump
media have been gleefully peddling for nearly two years now.
From democratdossier.org:
" In a
remarkable 2015 court affidavit (attached), Vostretsov admitted that he is FBI informant
who worked for the agency for more than 17 years. He appears to have traded information about
criminal activity for temporary visas provided to him by the FBI. We were able to collect 14
different Significant Public Benefit Parole (SPBP) documents allowing him to enter the US. This
type of visa waiver is made available to international persons participating in a law
enforcement action as an informant. The steady flow of these special waivers, with upgrades
like multi-entry status and extensions, indicate his involvement and success in FBI informant
projects. While Vostretsov claimed in the 2015 affidavit he sent to an immigration judge that
he stopped working for the FBI that year, it would be safe to assume that if a criminal alien
with his immigration background is still in the US today, he is only here with the support from
the US government and is still working with the FBI."
So, to summarize: in May 2016 a person using the alias Henry Greenberg solicited a meeting
with me, claiming they had information of importance to the presidential race. When I met with
this person (who incidentally dressed up like a Trump campaign volunteer) he made no mention of
Russia or Russian affairs and said he wanted $2M for what he had and, further, that he expected
it would be paid for not by me but by Donald Trump himself.
I immediately suspected this was some sort of shakedown and told the person I was not
interested, ending the meeting barely 20 minutes after it began. I never had any contact with
this person again.
Two years later, this individual's name comes up, again via my colleague Michael Caputo, and
I was reminded of this brief, one-off meeting, so wasteful of my time and pointless, from my
view, that I never even recalled it. But then this is the case with 100's upon 100's of
glancing encounters I've had with strangers over the course of a nearly two-year presidential
campaign, not to mention my other professional and personal pursuits, from filming a
documentary to writing multiple books to organizing efforts to beat back the establishment GOP
machinations against Trump in the lead-up to the convention.
I most certainly had not thought at the time of the meeting that is was anything in the same
universe as doing business with a "Russian", as opposed to being solicited by some random
grifter whom I knew little about, either before or after the meeting, and from whom nothing
came but a total waste of my time.
Once I recalled this meeting and pieced it together as something far more sinister than I
had ever thought, with far greater implications than merely a glancing contact with some
shakedown artist, I notified the House Intelligence Committee, and the information was
simultaneously provided to the Washington Post.
A normal, rational, objective observer would conclude from all this that 2 years ago, in the
midst of a whirlwind presidential campaign, I had a single 20-minute meeting with a random con
man who used an alias, who may have been Russian, and about whom I knew literally nothing
else.
Further, the meeting produced literally nothing, I took no further action, there was no
further contact and I had no further thought about or even recall of it until the individual's
name came up recently and took onfar greater dimension once we pieced together what was really
going on (an attempted FBI set-up), after which I reported the truth about Mr. Vostrestov's
(that he was yet another FBI "lure") to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes.
Seems pretty simple, yes?
Well, not according to the Clinton-Obama leftist media juggernaut, which not only spun this
meeting as 'another contact with Russia by a Trump loyalist', but even twisted my own
pro-active revelation of it into some sort of proof that I had lied previously. Some of the
more brazen propagandists went so far as to misportray my voluntary disclosure as a murky
scheme to somehow conceal (in plain sight, no less) long-absent proof they so far have had to
manufacture as they go, in order to prop up their Russian collusion conspiracy theory.
Predictably, the most nasty, malicious and pathologically-deceitful partisan media
manipulators, epitomized by the glib, shifty leftist ambulance chaser and wannabe Watergate
hero narrative flamekeeper Ariel Melber, immediately set about spouting their sanitized
half-truth version of this story out of the usual Clinton-Obama propaganda defamation outlets,
like MSNBC.
A full complement of fake news artists seized on my revelation of this incident as yet
another cheap opportunity to mislead their audiences and, yet again, fire up their tired,
repetitious false narrative, based solely on the same manipulative insinuations and factual
distortions they have used before in an attempt to cast me as having somehow engaged in some
sinister conspiracy.
These media hyenas will never miss a chance to peddle their fabricated version of reality,
even where it completely flies in the face of demonstrable facts (unless, of course, you have
the clairvoyance to read between the lines, aided by a giant pair of leftist lunatic
lenses.)
Rather than highlight that I walked away from this meeting after maybe 20 minutes, never
looking back, taking no action to avail myself of what was offered or even to pass it along to
anyone in the Trump Campaign to pursue, Melber and his fake news wannabes twisted their
coverage of it into a 10 minute roundtable spouting off ways in which they think I have somehow
lied, not been fully honest or am a Soviet spy.
Naturally they simply ignored, or summarily dismissed as mere speculation and a ploy on my
part, the most relevant data point of all -- that "Mr. Greenberg" turned out to be a
17-year FBI informant , who just so happened to be inspired in May 2016, of all times, to
approach someone close to Donald Trump to sell information he supposedly had.
Returning to Melber and his stunted panel of forgettable nobodies looking for their 15
minutes of fame, these bullshitters epitomize the dishonesty and unhinged animus I described
above. These are cheap partisan propagandists who do not report news or analyze facts or
illuminate their audience with insights, but instead manipulate data points and spin the
conclusions that suit their partisan orthodoxy.
Were it not for the Russian collusion hoax, what ever would the likes of Melber and his
fellow dreck peddlers do to fill their airtime? Perhaps when the witch hunt is finally
exhausted and their fake scandal finally falls apart, and I continue to walk the earth a free
man, Ari Melber will have the opportunity to go out and get a real job and do some real work,
rather than further pollute the world with his phony malicious propaganda.
I know beyond question that it is the absolute, unalterable operating premise of leftist
lynch mobsters in anything and everything they either say, write, report or do concerning me
that NOTHING that I say, or have ever said, will not be automatically presumed to be a lie, and
that NOTHING I do, or have ever done, even in the most mundane and transparent of day-to-day
activities, will not automatically be construed as some sort of criminal act or part of some
larger criminal conspiracy (i.e. anything and everything I do or say is, per the jackass media
manipulators, RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!!).
No matter what is said, no matter what facts come to light, no matter how many defamatory
leftist fabrications about me are serially and conclusively debunked, no matter how
consistently my statements all along are subsequently validated as truthful and correct none of
it matters because deceitful leftist attackbots and cheap Democrat propagandists will
cherry-pick, parse or otherwise manipulate the facts and twist my statements to cast me as a
suspicious villain.
No amount of debunking of their defamatory hoax-peddling spin and lies will dissuade them
from persisting in their deceitful malpractice and their continued pollution of the airwaves
and print outlets with their wildly-false, reckless, baseless allegations and defamatory
suspicion-manufacturing. This is just the bottom line with these news fakers.
From the moment they first hatched their cynical, vindictive partisan charade against the
American people (and sanity generally), almost 2 years ago, the leftist Democrats' sleazy
Russian collusion hoax peddlers, along with their fake news media collaborators, have been
nothing if not consistent.
In their spastic mania to prop up and prolong their Trump-Russia collusion fantasy they have
proven themselves consistently deceitful, consistently manipulative, and consistently consumed
with propagating and perpetuating a pure fiction they know damn well is not simply erroneous or
exaggerated, but in fact is a complete and total fabrication, unparalleled in the amount of
wanton malevolence that is behind it.
Underhanded and calculating as the leftist Democrats' manufactured torrent of breathless
sensationalism, phony outrage and fake news recycling may be, these political bunco artists are
not fooling anyone, at least who has an iota of common sense and rational discernment.
In fact, I doubt that the Russian collusion hoax is genuinely believed even by many of the
vicious profane malcontents who lap up this sort of leftist sewage and hatefully spew it
anywhere and everywhere possible, from social media to the family dinner table.
Of course, leftist Democrats and the Trump-hating national media are far too arrogant and
self-serving to limit their deceitful machinations to merely concocting and proliferating a
cynical treason hoax as a partisan weapon to take down a duly-elected President of the United
States. No, they must also be able to cast their seditious skullduggery as some sort of high
holy public service, saving America from itself by torpedoing the hated president it had the
gall to elect.
[It is precisely this variety of boundlessly hypocritical self-regard that pretty much sums
up the leftist attitude towards everything they do in their ceaseless lust to seize
and wield supreme power.]
Back in reality, no one with even half of a functioning brain buys this patently-absurd
notion that preening partisan pygmies from the megalomaniacal left actually give a rat's ass
about serving the public interest or preserving the sanctity of our Republic.
Only the left's most repulsive partisan parasites (see e.g. Adam Schiff; Eric Swalwell) and
deceitful media propagandists (see e.g. Ari Melber; Don Lemon; MSNBC; CNN; NY Times; WaPo .too
many to possibly list) actually seem to believe there is some high holy civic purpose behind
their endlessly-malicious, pathologically-dishonest scheming to frame, shame and defame
President Donald Trump.
It would take a truly-mindless hoaxster to think they are somehow serving their country by
conspiring to give constant false cover and perverted quasi-legitimacy to a lawless corrupt
bureaucratic hit squad of Trump-hating Hillarybot lawyers and power-crazed federal bullies set
loose, like a pack of rabid hyenas, to gleefully wage a ruthless legal jihad against President
Trump, his family members, staff, political associates, loyal longtime supporters and anyone
even marginally connected to his amazing 2016 victory and his (so far) stunningly- successful
presidency.
Even the seditious trash perpetrating this Russia collusion scam know all too well what
Trump's presidency and, above all, his singular leadership portend for the continued survival
of the undeserved power and illegitimate control that these lowlife self-dealing elites
consider to be theirs by divine right. (Suffice to say, it is not a pretty picture for
them.)
The bottom line is that Russian collusion hoaxsters serve no higher or more noble purpose
than to exact malicious petty revenge on the hated Trump and his allies, and fraudulently undo
the epic smackdown that America handed them and their corrupt fellow swamp dwellers in November
2016 -- once and for all smiting the repulsive amoral witch their party has in the greedy
self-entitled criminal hag Hillary Clinton.
Whether the Russia collusion hoaxsters like it or not, whatever minuscule shards of
credibility, believability and basic dignity they might have once had long ago vaporized into
their own toxic smoke-and-mirrors shit cloud of seething partisan malevolence and brazen
underhanded deceit. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of scoundrels
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in
the comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I
think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they
are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been,
and is, actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with
the following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB – disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of
distinct-looking individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups.
These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we
all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American
concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the
nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to
promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council
-- the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity
training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards
diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e.,
the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression – promoting a policy of
diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become
problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in
their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction
in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host
nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an
untenable position in the eyes of many goyim – i.e., either one favours
multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism one cannot favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make
up their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its
doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist
from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid
this this film will not have a happy ending.
-- -- -- -- -
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism.
That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is
the spice of life."
What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians,
journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's
like speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)
Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to
feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.
The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the
world is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.
Hey uh, not to torque your cognitive dissonance, I know you have a lot of Democrat Party
revolutionary self-criticism sessions to go through, but when Putinhitlernazi takes over, we
get all our human rights, not just the niggardly hind-tit worthless US Bill of Rights that
DHS revoked. The Putinhitlernazi constitution prohibits the bad-faith phony rights the US
government screws us with. And the Putinhitlernazi constitution lets us go over the head of
the government to the international human rights authorities if we get no satisfaction at
home.
Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says rights and freedoms of person and citizen are
recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles and norms of
international law. Ratified international treaties supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise. Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person and citizen
are directly applicable. That prohibits bad-faith tricks like the US pulls, declaring
"non-self executing" treaties, making legally-void reservations, declarations,
understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article 46(3) gives citizens a
constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and
freedoms if all available internal means of legal redress are exhausted.
So where can I sign up for the Putinhitlernazi waffle SS commandos? I wanna overthrow this
shitcrap crapshit USA and get my rights.
=>
◄
►
◄
❌
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Add to Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Technically, this is flag desecration--but Olbermann has hate America for years.
Of course, this begs
an obvious question. Traitor to
what?
In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture,
language,
ethnos
, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?
The open celebration of what any other
generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully self-discrediting is the Russian "interference"
narrative.
John Harington
famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper,
none dare call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly
denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia isn't
very powerful within our government and society.
In contrast, our government and media
seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile actions by foreign governments against the
United States, but celebrate them.
To criticize any of these countries, or
to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters in this country, is political death. Of course, that
is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.
Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual
loyalty would be a massive improvement.
The only reason we can't call men like
these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever considered themselves Americans in any meaningful
way. What could be more ridiculous than considering
Chuck Schumer
"a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?
It's not double loyalty; that would be
giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own
standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the
Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.
Of course, there is a Trump associate
who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that. The main focus of the investigation into "Russian
collusion" is focusing on former
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn
. But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem to be to be
increasingly extreme and anti-European Turkey
of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn
even wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey
on election day itself.
[
Our
ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support
, by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November 8, 2016]
As Turkey is quite openly facilitating
the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a
threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian
websites [
Best-selling
author predicted Flynn's departure
, WND,
February 14, 2017]. The MSM is utterly
indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated to destroying General
Flynn personally.
Part of it simply could be the defense
industry and the
"Deep State"
need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and power. As
it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.
The real reason Russia is hated is
because it is a
media threat.
Russia is funding, or at least is tied to, several alternative media
sources such as
RT,
possibly
Wikileaks, Sputnik etc.
Contrary to MSM claims,
RT
is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there
is at least a slightly different point of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night
comedy show, network news broadcast, cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [
The
Hard Road For Putin
,
by Gregory Hood,
Radix,
July 22, 2014].
There is also an undeniable,
and openly articulated
, sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members of the
media. Russians are hated both as a specific
ethnos
and as a white nation which does not seem to be
fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class, consists of various
forms of degeneracy. [
Welcome
to Weimerica
,
by Ryan Landry,
Daily Caller,
May 5, 2017].
John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill"
we are not.
It's not just idiotic but obscene that
the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing the American identity now demand Middle America
rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War nostalgia. Needless to say,
these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist
and killing millions of Orthodox
Christians.
For immigration patriots, it's
especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity is a result of mass immigration. And
immigration is more important than every other issue for two reasons.
Immigration cuts to the heart of what a country is, of who you mean when you say "my people." Are
Americans still one people? Indeed, it's hard to claim America is even a geographic expression: referring
to the United States shorthand
as "America" is now designated as offensive
. The replacement of existing American citizens is
celebrated
by the media and
funded
by our own government.
And even citizenship means nothing, The
MSM constantly promotes
Jose Antonio Vargas
and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags not just as
"Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.
It's a strange definition of patriotism
where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason" but banning the American flag in public schools
because it might offend Mexicans
is government policy
.
Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the
reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea of "American" identity -- that of a "proposition" or
"universal" nation which exists only to fight a global struggle for equality [
Superpowers
,
by James Kirkpatrick,
NPI,
June 24, 2013].
But can you betray a "proposition
nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"
Actually, you can. If you are part of
the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans who actually think of this country as a real
nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way the only people left out of what it means to be a
modern "American." To consider America a particular place with a specific culture and history that not
everyone in the world can join simply by existing is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world
can be an "American," except, you know, actual Americans.
This is why the MSM is insistent that
the governing philosophy of "
America
First
," which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead
something subversive and dangerous
.
The hard truth is that "our" rulers
aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat to our independence.
And this isn't an unprecedented
circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia, Carl von Clausewitz
violated
his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces in the
hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying Prussia;
it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia that would
unite all of Germany.
The same situation applies today. Today,
those actively pursuing the destruction of my people, culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't
even concede those are enemies at all.
Our enemies are in New York, Washington,
and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.
The real America is under occupation –
and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country. We elected Donald Trump because we thought he
could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation so we could have a country once again.
The attempt to destroy the President has
ripped the mask off
the forces behind this occupation
. And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy
his administration, dispossess our people, and destroy our country.
Because in the end, "treason" to the
occupation is loyalty to America.
(Republished from
VDare
by permission of author or representative)
I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet
behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with
flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and
deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American
people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.
Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of
Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders.
The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not
cater to gays.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and
they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia
running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the
accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a
gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into
total
madness.
"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience
to even elaborate thereon.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz artist.
PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster
American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and
they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia
running the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any
enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are
hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers,
and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't
communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as
evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.
I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?
It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions
about global Marxism.
The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives
I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not
quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a
heretical communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way
are they actual communists?
"I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any
enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians
are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international
bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree.
We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous
are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and
hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against
both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with
the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So
our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this
policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error.
I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is
what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed
vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren
'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly,
have married outside our religion of birth.
I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a
historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German
medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the
great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book.
Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper
class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary-
right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a
romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy
Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his
generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his
friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out,
barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced
Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and
observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in
reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor
for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.
oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the
50′s he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission
that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath,
since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal
he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch
in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.
"Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal
advocacy such as this."
False characterization.
"I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer
that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational
hatred. It is not."
It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the
purposeful destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that
diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda
machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed
into promoting these concepts. Except you are conveniently discounting this important fact
human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of people have made decisions of their own
accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies for a host of reasons. You are a
snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering our youth. Let us assume
that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there would be some other
group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination and mind
control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of the
masses.
"According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their
own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to
define hate speech and racism."
That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a
particular group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You
have every liberty to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind"
have the freedom to question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those
protections are put in place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as
"racism" and "hate speech"? It's a ruse.
"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October
2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired
30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over
the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of
Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to
machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the
water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be
brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a
President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have
on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador
Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward
Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own
service members and their families"
That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a
religious one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of
Israel defines what a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the
Nuremberg race acts that defined what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will
claim they are using it for those fleeing oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this
knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were correct in their definitions.
Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly)
for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a
tenure-track appointment, that I abandoned after three days.
The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable
to conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For
Jews, it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a
religion that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges
the Jews to go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.
Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions
of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically
Jewish interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of
suspicion, fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they
ran much
of Hollywood , were among the
principal peddlers of porn in America , had
massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout
to determine
who holds many of the other seats in Congress .
None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and
an American-firster.
WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship
and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the
Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national
importance to Israel?
Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the
crucial WHY of the operation.
Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating
around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has
evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to
the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.
One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed
that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to
Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.
First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea.
Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian
government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in
advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would
have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.
"Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the
crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has
been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you
suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies
abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot):
"People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public
Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is,
that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are
entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this
country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers
among the Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for
Jewry in the US and EU?
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has
been hushed for many years.
yep
also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to
be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.
It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you
don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America
with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic
cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get
Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions
into smoking ashes.
"and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and
religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the
world forward as and when it did."
You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons,
the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was
the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies
of the Enlightenment.
"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance,
restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown
institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow
a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""
The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a
"philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in
philosophy and instructs students in this field.
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and
federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in
the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory:
Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help,
at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the
aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries
which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full
constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and
engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities
have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In
Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past
thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of
Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values. Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular,
modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of
Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."
The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very
simply:
What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and
naval attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?
You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli
false-flag operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.
The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.
This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.
Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple
visual identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote
possibility of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.
Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out
what actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude
involves at a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept
completely secret.
The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian
targets, but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.
Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined
air-sea attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual
observation is unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.
So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?
Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military
leadership, the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major
and indeed mortal threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to
risk a major rift with the U.S. to eliminate the threat.
How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military
intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred
either pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because
the local command went rogue.
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin
a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish,
as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN
100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split
second about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took
IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to
pin it on Egypt.
(1) I said that "reading between the lines," one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY
set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of course, such efforts (if they indeed took
place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would be kept top secret even years
later.
(2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined
air/sea attack on the USS Liberty.
The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War
trying to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.
CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing
high-grade intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.
If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of
radar by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.
QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt,
other Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?
as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and
importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya,
and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your
logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the
excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian
natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy,
considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the
despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against
ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress,
"conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction.
Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be
traced back to them within hours at the latest.
then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?
that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to
sink the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.
and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly,
murderous treason.
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military
forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is
happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of
Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US-
Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what
was going on. Duh.
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty"
of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of
people have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by
Israel and be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.
We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were
called back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not
once, but twice.
So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that
purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about
it, we'll likely never know.
"As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington
eliminate obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein's government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's
demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."
So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that
purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about
it, we'll likely never know.
This interpretation is at least internally consistent. It is also consistent with my
earlier observation that nobody could seriously claim that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for
even a split second about who launched the attack.
Putting the known factors together, we are left with two viable hypotheses as to the
Israelis' reason for sinking the USS Liberty:
(1) To eliminate a mortal threat to Israel's national security in a time of war, e.g.
because the USS Liberty was feeding intelligence information to Egypt and the Arabs.
(2) As an intentional false flag operation, with express (or at least hinted) support
from the Pentagon for the purpose of publicly "justifying" a U.S. war against Egypt.
This would necessarily mean that the sailors and staff on the USS Liberty were
intentionally betrayed and sacrificed by Johnson and McNamara.
In either case, the Israeli leadership would have been painfully aware that it could NOT
mislead the U.S. as to its authorship of the attack, whatever the Pentagon or Israel might
later say in public later.
"Jet aircrafts came in firing and strafing our ship," he said. "Within minutes they took
out hundreds of antennae and all of our .450-caliber machine guns. We were
defenseless."
But all those aboard were not without hope. Utilizing true American ingenuity and never
giving up their fighting spirit, Tourney described a miraculous effort.
"About half-an-hour into the attack," he said, "one of our men stretched a long wire so
that we could transmit a message to the Sixth Fleet: 'Under Attack by Unmarked Fighters.
Send Help.' A number of ships received this SOS, and soon Capt. Joseph Tully of the USS
Saratoga ordered planes to rescue us."
However, in an act that goes well beyond betrayal into the realm of full-fledged
treason, Tourney laid out how Liberty became a ship without a country.
"Defense Secretary Robert McNamara contacted the Saratoga and recalled the fighters,
telling them not to aid our ship," he said. "But, showing true courage, Tully re-launched
the jets, without authorization . . . After the second set of fighter jets were dispatched,
the president of the United States -- Lyndon Johnson -- personally recalled them," said
Tourney.
Tourney says Johnson told Tully: "I don't give a [expletive] if that ship goes to the
bottom and every sailor is lost. We will not embarrass our ally, Israel."
A day or two later as Liberty limped toward a port in Malta, Adm. Isaac Kidd assembled
the survivors in small groups and, after removing his stars, demanded to know what
occurred.
After learning the truth, a red-faced Kidd pinned his stars back on his uniform and
said, "If any of you ever repeat a word, I'll make sure you end up in the penitentiary, or
worse," Tourney said.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance,
restraint, privacy and secularism
It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American
Revolution, and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they
were perceived by the educated class in the colonies.
The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier
ages, are neither here nor there for these purposes.
says:
May 21, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT 200 Words While the "progressives" badmouth bad-bad russkies
for "destroying our democracy," an obscene spectacle of persecution of the most important
whistleblower of our times continues.
"Getting Assange: the Untold Story," by JOHN PILGER
"Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret
supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed, "Can't we just drone
this guy." According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is
"unprecedented in scale and nature." In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought
for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Assange's
ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US
declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release
of all information about the "national security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it
was "active and ongoing" and would harm the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge,
Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in
matters of national security." This is a kangaroo court."
The Saker publishes some interesting news re the MH17 tragedy:
"SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] orders to destroy all evidence of the conducted special
operation MH17″
http://thesaker.is/sbu-orders-to-destroy-all-evidence-of-the-conducted-special-operation-mh17/
by Scott Humor: " If you want to know my opinion that hasn't changed since 2014. The Boeing
flight MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian air force fighter jets, but not necessarily
piloted by Ukrainian pilots. It was a CIA and NATO operation to frame Russia. Most likely the
Dutch government was a part of this operation. Now, they are trying to hang all the dogs on
Waltzman -Poroshenko, because neither the Dutch monarchs, nor the CIA would fancy to be
implicated in this crime."
Looks like Fox and Free Beacon are part of the Deep state as they repeat the Deep State memo that DNC was hacked, not
that information was leaked by an insider and then false flag was performed by intelligence agencies to attribute it to Russia.
Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael
Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a "stand down" order was given to counter Russian
cyberattacks during the 2016 election.
During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel
about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's
team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told
Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's
cyberattacks.
Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the
Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in
disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"
"That is an accurate rendering of the conversation at the staff meeting but the larger
context is something that we can discuss in the classified session," Daniel said. "But I can
say there were many concerns about how many people were involved in the development of the
options so the decision at that point was to neck down the number of people that were involved
in our ongoing response options. It's not accurate to say all activities ceased at that point.
"
Daniel and his team were tasked in developing options to Russia's cyberattacks on the United
States. Russian hacked the Democratic National Committee servers in 2015 and into voter
registration systems of several U.S. states in 2016.
can anyone tell me if the de-escalation zone that was agreed upon by russia - usa - jordan - over a year ago, is supposed
to remain in effect still? it is my understanding it was going to last a year.. the year is over, but the usa seems to be
bellyaching, or better yet - israel is giving the usa a bellyache so as to look after itself, lol..
Any de-escalation zone agreed to by Russia is always conditional on Al Qaeda and ISIS being
cleared from that zone by the locals. Although the US may try to claim AQ in the south as
moderates, the protected south western ISIS pocket on all maps remains unchanged. If my
memory is right, Russian military maps at one stage showed and area for a southern
de-escalation zone but US were claiming a much larger area was included.
No, it's no longer in effect due to terrorist attacks on civilians and SAA. Indeed, it
died almost as soon as was born. Outlaw spokespeople always tried to make the area bigger
than it was and still operational when it wasn't. Best source for all this is Russian
Ministry of Defense's press conferences and detailed presentations.
Second would be Foreign
Ministry's Zakharova's weekly pressers. Sorry, but no time to look for proper links. You'll
need to trust me!
A late comment on the southern Syria situation - I wasn't free before.
I'm sure the current idea of an offensive is limited to East Deraa, clearing the area east
of the city of Deraa, unless it is felt that Israel is not going to defend the jihadis on the
cease-fire line. Touch-and-go. Israel indicates that it's going to defend the jihadis, and no
attack will take place. Reserved till later.
"... the 'news' media don't care about that evil, and that falsehood, and that dangerousness -- they do it anyway, and none of them attacks the others for perpetrating this vicious war-mongering lie, that lying provocation to yet more and worse war than already exists there. ..."
"... accepted the request from Syria's Government, for assistance in protecting Syria's Government, ..."
Both President Trump and former President Obama are commonly said in America's 'news' media
to be or to have been "ceding Syria to Russia" or "ceding Syria to Russia and Iran," or similar
allegations. They imply that 'we' own (or have some right to control) Syria. That's not only a
lie; it is a very evil and harmful one, dangerously goading the US President to go even more
against Russia (and Iran) (and, of course, against Syria ) than has yet been done --
but the 'news' media don't care about that evil, and that falsehood, and that dangerousness --
they do it anyway, and none of them attacks the others for perpetrating this vicious
war-mongering lie, that lying provocation to yet more and worse war than already exists there.
And the fact that none is exposing the fraudulence of the others on this important matter, is a
yet-bigger additional scandal, beyond and amplifying the media's common lying itself. Because
they all function here like a mob, goading to more and worse invasions, and doing it on the the
basis of dangerous lies -- that America, and not the Syrians themselves, own Syria.
These lies simply assume that America (probably referring to the US Government, but
whatever) somehow "has" or else "had" Syria (so that America can now 'cede' it, to anyone); and
this assumption (that the US somehow owns Syria) is not only an imperialistic one
(which is bad, and wrong, in itself), but it reduces to nothingness the rights (in the minds of
the American public) of the Syrian people, to control their own land . That lie is
what America's 'news'media won't expose, but instead they all cooperate with it, when they're
not actually participating, themselves, in spreading these lies.
What they are doing is also to slur Russia, and to slur Iran, for having accepted the
request from Syria's Government, for assistance in protecting Syria's Government, against
the tens of thousands of jihadists who had been recruited throughout the world by the
Saudi-American alliance, to overthrow and replace Syria's Government, to replace it with one
that would be appointed by the Saud family ('America's ally'), the fundamentalist-Sunni royal
family who (as the absolute monarchy there) do actually own Saudi Arabia -- a monarchical
dictatorship, which the US Government calls an 'ally'.
The evilness of this imperialistic assumption, which is being constantly spread by the
US-and-allied 'news'media, is as bad as is its falseness, because "America" (however one wishes
to use that term) never had, never possessed, any right whatsoever to control Syria. Of course,
neither does Russia possess such a right, nor does Iran, but neither Russia nor Iran is
asserting any such right; both instead are there to protect Syria's national
sovereignty, against the invaders (including the US, and the Sauds' regime). But the
US-and-allied 'news'media don't present it that way -- the honest way -- not at all. Such
truths are instead suppressed.
I was immediately struck by this false and evil assumption that the US owns Syria, when
reading the June 15th issue of The Week magazine. It contained, under its "Best
Columns" section, a piece by Matthew Continetti ( "Obama Too Good for
America" ), which says, among other falsehoods, "Obama was wrong about a lot of other
things, too, like ceding Syria to Russia." That phrase, "ceding Syria to Russia" rose straight
out from the page to me as being remarkable, stunning, and not only because it suggests that
America owns that sovereign nation, Syria. I was especially struck by it because the CIA has
several times attempted Syrian coups and once did briefly, in 1949, overthrow and replace
Syria's democratically elected President. But is that really something which today's America's
'news'media should encourage the American public to be demanding today's American
politicians to be demanding from today's American President? How bizarre, even evil, an idea is
that? But it is so normal that it's a fair indication of how evil and untrustworthy today's
American 'news'media actually are. I just hadn't noticed it before.
Publishing such a false and evil idea, without any accompanying commentary that truthfully
presents its context and that doesn't simply let the false and evil allegation stand
unchallenged -- that instead lets it be unchallenged both factually and morally -- is not
acceptable either factually or morally, but then I checked and found that it's the almost
universal norm, in today's US 'news'media. For examples:
On 17 April 2018, CBS News headlined
"Lindsey Graham 'unnerved' after Syria briefing: 'Everything in that briefing made me more
worried'" and presented that US Senator saying, "It seems to me we are willing to give
Syria to Assad, Russia, and Iran." He was criticizing President Trump as being "all tweet and
no action." He wanted more war, and more threat of war. But when President Obama had repeatedly
denied in public that only the Syrian people should have any say-so over whom Syria's
leaders ought to be, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon repeatedly contradicted the US
President's viewpoint on this, and he said,
"The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people." If the American people have
become so dismissive of international law as this, then is it because the US 'news'media start
with the ridiculously false presumption that "America" (whatever that refers to) is the arbiter
of international law, and therefore has the right to dictate to the entire world what that law
is, and what it means? Is America, as being the dictator over the whole planet, supposed to be
something that Americans' tax-dollars ought to be funding -- that objective: global
dictatorship? How does that viewpoint differ, then, from perpetual war for perpetual 'peace' --
a dictum that's enormously profitable for America's big 'Defense' contractors, such as Lockheed
Martin, but that impoverishes the general public, both in America, and especially in the
countries (such as Syria) where 'our' Government drops bombs in order to enforce its own will
and demand, that: "Assad must go!"
In fact, as any journalist who writes or speaks about the Syrian situation and who isn't a
complete ignoramus knows, Bashar al-Assad would easily win any free and fair Presidential
election in Syria, against any contender. His public support, as shown not only in
the 2014 Syrian Presidential election , but also in the many
Western-sponsored opinion-polls in Syria (since the CIA is always eager to find potential
candidates to support against him), show this.
On 17 December 2016, Eric Chenoweth, a typical neocon Democratic Party hack, headlined
"Let Hamilton Speak: Recapturing American Democracy" , and he wrote: "Trump's statements
and appointments make clear he intends to tilt American policy to serve Russian interests:
ceding Syria to Russia by ending support to pro-Western rebels; possibly lifting economic
sanctions and recognizing the annexation of Crimea; proposing an alliance with Russia in the
war on terror while remaining uncommitted to the defense of NATO allies, in particular the
Baltic countries vulnerable to Russian aggression. Restoring American Democracy When they meet
on December 19, Republican Electors who reflect on their constitutional duty should not then
affirm Trump's election." Those
"pro-Western rebels" in Syria were actually led by Al Qaeda's Syrian branch. Without them, the
US regime wouldn't have had any "boots on the ground" forces to speak of there. In fact,
the US regime has
actually been fronting for the Saud family to take over control of Syria if and when Syria's
Government falls. The Saud family
even selected the people who in the U.N. peace talks on Syria represent 'the rebels' -- the
Sauds, who have been Syria's enemy ever since 1950, selected 'Syria's opposition', who were now
seeking to take over Syria if and when 'America's moderate rebels' succeed. Both Al Qaeda and
ISIS are actually fundamentalist-Sunnis, like the Saud family are, and Assad's Government is
resolutely non-sectarian. Assad himself is a non-Islamist Alawite Shiite secularist, which
virtually all fundamentalist Sunnis (such as the Sauds are) are taught to despise and to hate
-- especially because he's Shiite. The US regime knows that neither it, which is considered
Christian, nor Israel, which is theocratically Jewish, could practically succeed at imposing
rule in Syria, but that maybe the Sauds could -- so, they are the actual leaders of the
'pro-Western' forces, seeking to replace Syria's secularist Government. Overthrowing Syria's
Government would be their victory. It would be the Saud
family's victory. But this fact is kept a secret from the American public, by the US
'news'media.
Already by late September of 2015, even prior to Russia's having been requested by President
Assad to enter the war in order to speed up the defeat of what Washington still calls 'the
rebels', it was clear that Washington (actually Riyadh) wasn't going to take over Syria; and
Americans were -- and are -- being taught by the 'news'media, that this was because Obama was
'weak' and didn't care enough about 'human rights' in Syria, and about 'democracy' in Syria.
So, on 28 September 2015, Matt Purple at the libertarian
"Rare Politics" site, headlined
"Pentagon admits that the Syrian rebels it trained handed over weapons to al Qaeda" , and
he wrote "Neoconservatives wail that President Obama is ceding Syria to Russia -- but the
reason the Russians are taking the lead is precisely because America has sidelined itself." But
the US regime hadn't at all "sidelined itself"; it continued -- and it continues to this day --
its invasion and occupation of that land. Trump's
policy on Syria is basically a continuation of Obama's -- and it's not at all "ceding Syria to Russia," or "ceding Syria to Russia and
Iran."
Because of America's 'news'media, it still isn't "ceding Syria to the Syrians" -- as Ban
ki-Moon and international law would. That wouldn't be profitable for Lockheed Martin etc.
(whose biggest customers other than the US Government are the Sauds, and
Trump alone sold $400 billion of US weapons to them ); so, it's not done.
Syria's sovereignty is utterly denied by the US regime, but if the US regime were to
succeed, the big winners would actually be the Saud family.
Do the American people have sovereignty, over 'their' ( our ) Government? US
'news'media effectively ban that question. Perhaps what controls the US Government is
the
Saudi-Israeli alliance: the Sauds have the money, and the Israelis have the lobbyists. Of
course, the US 'news'media are obsessed whether Russia controls the US Government.
That diversionary tactic is extremely profitable to companies such as General Dynamics, and
America's other weapons-manufacturers, which thrive on wars -- especially by selling to the
Sauds, and to their allies (and, obviously, not at all to Russia).
When I saw that Shawn Walker Tweet, and the mostly brilliant take-down responses, I hoped b
would mention it. I can think of no one better suited to address this particularly putrid
propaganda. Bravo! And to the (almost) universally excellent barfly commentariat.
BBC created a whole genre of Russian World Cup scare mongering. One they did was on the
deadly threat of "Russian Football Hooligans." RT did an excellent 4 minute job of combining
journalism with humor to expose that bit of 100% Fake News.
The Media is a complete weapon for propaganda. The "writers" are propagandists. There never
is a report on Russia from the Western media that does not vilify or demonize Russia or
Russians in some way.
The World Cup is experienced by hundreds of thousands of tourists in Russia. They are
going to be the truth-tellers.
The event, like Sochi Winter Olympics will stand for itself. It will be splendid.
And the lies will die.
Never expect the truth from the Media.
Always expect the Russian people to be extraordinary. They have demonstrated it for a
century.
The problem the MSMs have is that the World Cup so far has been a success.
Notable quotes:
"... Also just like the Trump bizzo, when his employers dipped out, Steele's unsubstantiated gossip & slander having done nothing useful, Steele leaked his report to the feds. ..."
"... The claims he makes are utterly fantastic ( WARNING the link is to a graun 'long read' and is brimming with tedious & tendentious bulldust) the most laughable being that 'Putin' - always Putin never any of the many thousands of astute bureaucrats who work in the Russian government, stole a bunch of valuable old paintings from the Hermitage and gave them to the blokes on the World Cup venue committee as a bribe. The feds who went through these poor old buggers' lives with a fine tooth comb found nothing to substantiate that libel. ..."
"... The worst thing about these slanders and the harassment of a few old geezers who prefer sport as a mechanism for nations to interact than war, is that these old fellas were all (well just about all) socialists who yeah probably did allow a coupla mill to fall into their wallets, but who were dedicated to their sport remaining egalitarian. They invested billions into developing their sport all over the world especially in Africa, Latin America and the Mid-East where a shortage of venues, kit and professional coaches used to really hold those nations back. ..."
"... The 'clean sweep' of FIFA has opened the door to neolibs who are talking about corporatising the World Cup like the Olympics, then the billions will all go to corporations and their shareholders ..."
"... It is stuff like this about Skirpal's boss Steele, which really opens up the field of suspects on the 'poisoning'. I have no doubt Skirpal would have been the alleged 'proof' for this farrago of tosh. Russia and Qatar got their world cup final, but england and amerika (who were the finalists against Qatar for hosting in 2022) didn't, surely it is the latter two who are more likely to have a grudge against old Sergei. ..."
"... The Western corporate media is a sorry spectacle to behold. The Baltic and the Scandinavian branches are the most pathetic. Combining native stupidity with pig-headed tenacity to hold on to the past. ..."
And another thing - the other day I came a cross an interesting tidbit, I would include a
link if I can remember where I saw it, it may in fact have even been the graun. It goes like
this:
A few years back the FBI raided the FIFA HQ in Switzerland eventually arresting and charging
many FIFA commissioners alleging they were taking backhanders and at the time I, along with
many other sort of assumed that the amerikans shoving their stickbeaks into an organisation
which was none of their damn business was down to an announcement from FIFA president Blatter
that if the Israeli army and police didn't cease harassing the Palestinian team preventing
players from getting to international games by holding the players up at checkpoints, sometimes
for days, FIFA would have no choice but to penalise the Israeli football team who had already
been granted special dispensation by FIFA to play in the Euro conference rather than the ME one
that their geography should have demanded.
Nuttytahoo did his usual 'antisemite' victim whine so it was a reasonable assumption to think
the fed raid the next week was connected.
It may have been the issue which caused the amerikan sheet sniffers to move, but the actual
investigation was caused by something completely different. Two nations competed for the 2018 world cup hosting rights. One was Russia and the second one
was . . .drumroll. . . England! Yep the perfidious poms had put in their bid and one of the tools in their 'kit' was none other
than the old fibber Christopher Steele, who just as with the Trump investigation, did his
'inquiry' by remote control as he is persona non grata in Russia.
Also just like the Trump bizzo, when his employers dipped out, Steele's unsubstantiated gossip
& slander having done nothing useful, Steele leaked his report to the feds.
The claims he makes
are utterly fantastic ( WARNING the link is to a graun 'long read' and is brimming with
tedious & tendentious bulldust) the most laughable being that 'Putin' - always Putin never
any of the many thousands of astute bureaucrats who work in the Russian government, stole a
bunch of valuable old paintings from the Hermitage and gave them to the blokes on the World Cup
venue committee as a bribe. The feds who went through these poor old buggers' lives with a fine
tooth comb found nothing to substantiate that libel.
The other big lie was that while the Russian president was in Qatar finalising the joint gas
pipeline deal he cut another deal of the 'you vote for us we'll vote for you' as world cup host
in 2018 and 2022 respectively. Yeah that sounds just like President Putin tossing Russia's
economic future to the side while he organised a few soccer games - not.
The worst thing about these slanders and the harassment of a few old geezers who prefer
sport as a mechanism for nations to interact than war, is that these old fellas were all (well
just about all) socialists who yeah probably did allow a coupla mill to fall into their
wallets, but who were dedicated to their sport remaining egalitarian. They invested billions
into developing their sport all over the world especially in Africa, Latin America and the
Mid-East where a shortage of venues, kit and professional coaches used to really hold those
nations back.
The 'clean sweep' of FIFA has opened the door to neolibs who are talking about corporatising
the World Cup like the Olympics, then the billions will all go to corporations and their
shareholders.
No one should begrudge these guys the few quid they grabbed, I know puritans hate it but in
a truly tolerant society we should expect that a few otherwise dedicated types will always
'tickle the peter'. I used to get pissed about it in the union movement but the amounts are
usually small compared to turn-over and I'd rather have a dodgy member of the proletariat who
grabs a little in a position of power than a slimy neolib forever manouvering to flog the
entire kit & kaboodle off to a bunch of anonymous 'financiers'.
It is stuff like this about Skirpal's boss Steele, which really opens up the field of
suspects on the 'poisoning'. I have no doubt Skirpal would have been the alleged 'proof' for
this farrago of tosh. Russia and Qatar got their world cup final, but england and amerika (who
were the finalists against Qatar for hosting in 2022) didn't, surely it is the latter two who
are more likely to have a grudge against old Sergei.
The UK hates the idea that the EU that they left would turn to Russia for friendship. Their
propaganda goes along with the USA that shares this apprehension. Now that Trump has
humiliated the EU, the EU is turning toward Russia despite the UK...
The Western corporate media is a sorry spectacle to behold. The Baltic and the Scandinavian
branches are the most pathetic. Combining native stupidity with pig-headed tenacity to hold
on to the past.
"... The attributions of attacks to countries are very shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation. ..."
Could someone remind me the amount of country's America have invaded since the last world war
30 - 40 , I here'd. Compared to Russia 5-8 ? Russia is in Syria by invitation to deal with
rebels/terrorist's .America is now threatening both. Despite being there to attempt a regime
change. Just who do they think they are ? The sooner they are stopped the better and the
easier.
Russia intervened nowhere; the USSR intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In 1993,
Yeltsin's cabal intervened in Russia to preserve Bush's and Clinton's New World Order. USSR
was invited into Afghanistan; Outlaw US Empire wasn't. An incomplete list from William Blum's
Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II . A graphic map based on Blum's
book.
Yesterday, Putin met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Unfortunately, the Kremlin's recap of
the meeting's currently incomplete, but what is recorded is instructive:
"Of course, we look at the Russian Federation as a founder of the United Nations and as a
permanent member of the Security Council, but I would say that at the present moment we look
at the Russian Federation as an indispensable element of the creation of a new multipolar
world.
"To be entirely frank, these are not easy times for multilateralism and not easy times for
the UN. And I think that after the Cold War and after a short period of unipolar world we are
still struggling to find a way to have a structured, multipolar world with multilateral
governmental institutions that can work. And this is something that worries me a lot and is
something in which, I believe, the Russian Federation has a unique role to play."
Considering many think Guterres just an agent for the Outlaw US Empire, maybe his cited
words will cause a reassessment. I'd like to know what followed. Apparently there was some
discussion about Korea and the
economic initiatives being openly discussed since RoK President Moon will arrive in
Russia tomorrow.
Lavrov met with Guterres today, and his
opening remarks shine a bit more light on what was discussed:
"As emphasised by President Putin, we have invariably supported, support, and will
continue to support the UN, this unique universal organisation. We think highly of your
intention, Mr Secretary-General, to raise the profile of the United Nations in world affairs,
particularly in settling regional conflicts. As you noted yourself at the meeting in the
Kremlin yesterday, this is largely dependent on the general state of the international system
as a whole and the UN member states' readiness to act collectively, jointly, rather than
unilaterally, and to pursue the goals enshrined in the UN Charter rather than
self-centred,[sic] immediate aims.
"We note that you have consistently advocated the pooling of efforts by major players to
deal with world problems. This is the logic of the UN Charter, specifically its clauses on
the creation and powers of the UN Security Council. I hope that based on the values we share
we will be able to successfully continue cooperation in the interests of solving
international problems."
Lots of emphasis on the absolute necessity of making the UN Charter whole again and not
allowing any one nation to make a mockery of it by pursuing its "self-centered, immediate
aims."
Ben @ 14
Thanks Ben. Yep that's what l thought reality would look like, that's my sanity safe for a
while longer. Remember we are not alone!
Zanon @ 12
That is a perfect example of 'fake news' we can spot it here ! Or are we here now msm!
Pantaraxia @ 20
Wow that doubles what I was already shocked about ! And then of course there's the comercal
operations destablising country's using greed as a weapon. Plus the banks, I'm sure South
Africa would have been a real success if they'd kept the banking curuption out. Time for
immoral capitalism to fall.
Also don't you just hate victim blaming.There that's me done. Grrr
@b: I know you're just one man and can't do everything, but it would be wonderful if you
could cover the history of hacking accusations against Russia. No one lays out a sequence of
events better than you.
Just yesterday, another accusation has been leveled against Russia by the head of
Germany's BfV intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maassen:
German intelligence sees Russia behind hack of energy firms - media report (Reuters).
It's a serious accusation, and one would expect a serious proof. However, no proof has been
given except that "it fits the Russian modus operandi". Also, the fact that the alleged
attack has been named "Berserk Bear" by some unknown Western analyst. Apparently, that's
enough proof by today's standards.
There is a critical lack of independent thinking and skepticism in the international
computer security circles nowadays. The attributions of attacks to countries are very
shaky. Throw in a couple of Cyrillic letters and voilà, you have associated a certain
IP address or a certain piece of code with Russia. Somehow these simpleton arguments are
uncritically accepted as proofs by computer security professionals the world over, who, of
all people, really should know better. It's as if all the supposedly smart cryptographers and
programmers are completely oblivious to the concept of manipulation.
I've told you that once you start down the Trade War path forever it will dominate your
destiny.
Well here we are. Trump slaps big tariffs on aluminum and steel in a bid to leverage Gary
Cohn's ICE Wall
plan to control the metals and oils futures markets . I'm not sure how much of this stuff I
believe but it is clear that the futures price for most strategically important commodities are
divorced from the real world.
But today's edition of "As the Trade War Churns" is about China and their willingness to
shift their energy purchases away from U.S. producers. Irina
Slav at Oilprice.com has the good bits.
The latest escalation in the tariff exchange, however, is a little bit different than all
the others so far. It's different because it came after Beijing said it intends to slap
tariffs on U.S. oil, gas, and coal imports.
China's was a retaliatory move to impose tariffs on US$50 billion worth of U.S. goods,
which followed Trump's earlier announcement that another US$50 billion in goods would be
subjected to a 25-percent tariff starting July 6.
It's unclear as to what form this will take but there's also this report from
the New York Times which talks about the China/U.S. energy trade.
Things could get worse if the United States and China ratchet up their actions
[counter-tariffs] . Mr. Trump has already promised more tariffs in response to China's
retaliation. China, in turn, is likely to back away from an agreement to buy $70 billion
worth of American agricultural and energy products -- a deal that was conditional on the
United States lifting its threat of tariffs.
"China's proportionate and targeted tariffs on U.S. imports are meant to send a strong
signal that it will not capitulate to U.S. demands," said Eswar Prasad, a professor of
international trade at Cornell University. "It will be challenging for both sides to find a
way to de-escalate these tensions."
But as Ms. Slav points out, China has enjoyed taking advantage of the glut of U.S. oil as
shale drillers flood the market with cheap oil. The West Texas Intermediate/Brent Spread has
widened out to more than $10 at times.
By slapping counter tariffs on U.S. oil, that would more than overcome the current WTI/Brent
spread and send Chinese refiners looking for new markets.
Hey, do you know whose oil is sold at a discount to Brent on a regular basis?
Iran's. That's whose.
And you know what else? Iran is selling tons, literally, of its oil via the new Shanghai
petroyuan futures market.
Now, these aren't exact substitutes, because the Shanghai contract is for medium-sour crude
and West Texas shale oil is generally light-sweet but the point remains that the incentives
would now exist for Chinese buyers to shift their buying away from the U.S. and towards
producers offering substitutes at better prices.
This undermines and undercuts Trump's 'energy dominance' plans while also strengthening
Iran's ability to withstand new U.S. sanctions by creating more customers for its oil.
Trade wars always escalate. They are no different than any other government policy
restricting trade. The market response is to always respond to new incentives. Capital always
flows to where it is treated best.
It doesn't matter if its domestic farm subsidies 'protecting' farmers from the business
cycle or domestic metals producers getting protection via tariffs.
By raising the price above the market it shifts capital and investment away from those
protected industries or producers and towards either innovation or foreign suppliers.
Trump obviously never read anything from Mises, Rothbard or Hayek at Wharton. Because if he
did he would have come across the idea that every government intervention requires an
ever-greater one to 'fix' the problems created by the first intervention.
The net result is that if there is a market for Iran's oil, which there most certainly is,
then humans will find a way to buy it. If Trump tries to raise the price too high then it will
have other knock-on effects of a less-efficient oil and gas market which will create worse
problems in the future for everyone, especially the very Americans he thinks he's
defending.
I'm glad you linked to C J Hopkins. I am impressed with his wit, intelligence and writing
style. He got booted off Counterpunch as I understand and is now published by the Unz Review,
a rather strange but interesting site that picks up talented writers and thinkers from the
left and from the right and appears to pay them.
I say strange because, judging by the
comments, the alt-right appear to imagine that like zero hedge it is their forum and attack
perfectly good articles because they do not fit in with their ideological mindset.
There is a
sort of muddiness in the identity of the site (unlike MOA), but I am pleased that people like
C J Hopkins may get something for their brilliant efforts. Diana Johnstone, someone I have
huge regard for, is another who appears on Unz.
"... For Mattis to lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting Washington. ..."
"... Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's "actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals." ..."
"... It is classic "in denial" ..."
"... "What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with," ..."
"... "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of its own criminal foreign conduct." ..."
"... "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen." ..."
"... Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of sociopaths." ..."
Jun 20, 2018, RT Op-ed The statements, views and opinions expressed
in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
It's parallel
universe time when US Pentagon chief James 'Mad Dog' Mattis complains that America's "moral
authority" is being undermined by others – specifically Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
This is the ex-Marine general who gained his ruthless reputation from when illegally occupying
US troops razed the
Iraqi city of Fallujah in the 2004-2005 using "shake and bake" bombardment of
inhabitants with banned white phosphorus incendiaries.
A repeat of those war crimes happened again last year under Mattis' watch as Pentagon chief
when US warplanes obliterated the Syrian city of Raqqa, killing thousands of civilians. Even
the pro-US Human Rights Watch
abhorred the repeated use of white phosphorus during that campaign to "liberate"
Raqqa, supposedly from jihadists.
These are but two examples from dense archives of US war crimes committed over several
decades, from its illegal intervention in Syria to Libya, from Iraq to Vietnam, back to the
Korean War in the early 1950s when American carpet bombing killed millions of innocent
civilians.
For Mattis to
lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being
eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting
Washington.
According to Mattis, the problem of America's diminishing global reputation has
nothing to do with US misconduct – even though the evidence is replete to prove that
systematic misconduct. No, the problem, according to him, is that Russia's Putin is somehow
sneakily undermining Washington's moral authority.
Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic
model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's
"actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise
our belief in our ideals."
The US Secretary of Defense doesn't elaborate on how he thinks Russia is achieving this
dastardly plot to demean America. It is simply asserted as fact. This has been a theme recycled
over and over by officials in Washington and Brussels, other Western government leaders and of
course NATO and its affiliated think-tanks. All of which has been dutifully peddled by Western
news media.
It is classic "in denial" thinking. The general loss of legitimacy and
authority by Western governments is supposedly nothing to do with their own inherent failures
and transgressions, from bankrupt austerity economics, to deteriorating social conditions, to
illegal US-led wars and the repercussions of blowback terrorism and mass migration of refugees.
Oh no. What the ruling elites are trying to do is shift the blame from their own culpability
on to others, principally Russia. American political analyst Randy Martin says that Mattis'
latest remarks show a form of collective delusion among Western political establishments and
their aligned mainstream news media.
"What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with,"
says Martin. "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it
has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of
its own criminal foreign conduct."
The analyst added: "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself
to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically
prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and
openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep
in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen."
Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European
allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow
arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of
sociopaths."
This week, three headline-making issues speak volumes about America's declining moral
authority.
... ... ...
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with
articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a
Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including
The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his
columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little tired of waiting for the Hitlerian
nightmare that the corporate media promised us was coming back in 2016. Frankly, I'm beginning
to suspect that all their apocalyptic pronouncements were just parts of some elaborate
cocktease. I mean, here we are, a year and half into the reign of the Trumpian Reich, and,
well, where are all the concentration camps, the SS units with their death's head insignia, the
Riefenstahlian parades and rallies? Trump hasn't even banned the Democratic Party, or annexed
Canada, or invaded Mexico, or made anybody wear color-coded armbands. If he doesn't start
Hitlering relatively soon, the oracles of the corporate media are going to have some serious
explaining to do.
I don't think I'm overreacting. After all, back in 2016, The Guardian promised us an
"
Age of Darkness ," and the end of "civilized order" as we know it. "
Globalization is dead, and white supremacy has triumphed ," one of its more hysterical
pundits proclaimed. "
Donald Trump is actually a fascist ," Michael Kinsley assured us in The Washington
Post . Charles Blow of The New York Times warned that Trump's election was "the
beginning of the end," the descent of the republic into "
racial Orwellianism ," whatever that's supposed to mean. Thomas Friedman called it "
a moral 911 ." Paul Krugman predicted nothing short of " a global
recession with no end in sight ." Jonathan Chait, after heroically vowing not to flee the
country with his terrified family, but to stay and fight to the bitter end, guaranteed us that
the "monster," Trump, would "
shake the republic to its foundations ."
Perhaps my seismometer is on the fritz, but I haven't detected much foundation shaking. Yes,
Trump repulses me, personally. I do not like the man. I never have. I was based in New York for
fifteen years, in the 1990s and early 2000s, before he became a game show host, when he was
still just a
shady real estate mogul with alleged ties to organized crime who occasionally appeared on
Wrestlemania and just generally went about the city making a narcissistic ass of himself
and plastering his gold-plated name onto everything. So I have no illusions about his character
the man is an inveterate snake oil salesman with the moral compass of a Tijuana pimp. All I'm
saying is, we were promised Hitler, or Mussolini at the very least, and it seems like all we're
getting so far is just regular old narcissistic Donald Trump.
Of course, he could just be laying low and holding back on the Hitler stuff as part of the
evil master plan personally developed by Vladimir Putin to systematically brainwash Americans
(with state-of-the-art mind-control Facebook ads) into embracing all-out National Socialism and
marching through the streets in full Nazi regalia singing Amerika Über Alles at which
point Trump will rip off his mask, reveal his true Hitlerian face, Steve Bannon will suddenly
reappear in the turret of an M1 Abrams tank at the head of a division of rebel infantry flying
giant Confederate flags as they hideously rumble down Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Putin-Nazi
Holocaust will begin.
Or maybe the extremely serious, Pulitzer Prize-winning political pundit David Leonhardt is
onto something. In
a prominent op-ed in The New York Times , he wonders if Putin's "secret plan" is for
Trump to destroy "the Atlantic alliance" by arriving late for the G7 meeting and "picking
fights over artificial issues," not to mention insulting the Canadian prime minister, which, it
doesn't get much more hair-raising than that. OK, I know you're probably thinking that sounds
like the hopelessly paranoid jabber of some conspiracy theorist nut on YouTube, but we're
talking The New York Times here, folks, and a bona fide "respectable pundit" who wrote a
whole 15,000-word ebook and has been interviewed by Stephen Colbert, among his many other
distinguished accomplishments.
Examined in the context of other blatantly loony theories the corporate media are currently
attempting to ram down our throats, Leonhardt's theory kind of makes sense. The Guardian
, another very serious newspaper, in addition to covering the repercussions of its coverage of
Corbyn's Nazi Death
Cult , is hot on the trail of the soon-to-be-infamous Putin-Banks-Brexit
Connection . According to "documents seen by The Observer ," a Guardian
sister publication, Arron Banks, a "Brexit bankroller," allegedly
had brunch with the Russian ambassador three times , instead of just once, as he had
claimed. He was also allegedly offered a piece of some shady gold deal in exchange for the
number of someone on Trump transition team, which for some reason it was otherwise impossible
to obtain. Or whatever. It doesn't really matter what happened. The point is, Putin
orchestrated the Brexit, presumably as part of his secret plan to destabilize the Atlantic
alliance, and then blackmailed Trump into running for president with
that "pee-tape" the Democrats paid a former British spook to allege exists .
Paul Krugman of The New York Times concurs. In
his latest extremely serious piece of totally respectable grown-up opinionating , he once
again calls Trump "a quisling" (he's developed a fondness for this term, which goes over well
with New York Times readers) and reiterates that Trump is "a de facto foreign agent" and
that "America as we know it is finished." Tragically, according to Krugman, the FBI, CIA, and
other Guardians of Western Democracy are utterly powerless to deal with this quisling, and his
evil puppet master, Putin, because it turns out the entire Republican Party is "hopelessly,
irredeemably corrupt." Yes, it appears the only chance we have to save the world from
Trumpzilla, and imminent Putin-Nazi Holocaust, is to elect a buttload of Democrats to office,
and eventually an Obama-like Democratic President, so they can launch an all-out thermonuclear
war against Russia and North Korea that'll teach these Putin-Nazis to screw around with our
trade agreements!
Oh, and also, we need to cancel the Brexit, and do away with all these "populist" movements
that Putin has fomented all over Europe. For example,
according to billionaire George Soros , the refugee-hating League in Italy is likely
another Putin-backed front, part of his scheme to "dominate the West." One can only assume that
the AfD, the FPÖ, Rassemblement National, and every other extreme-Right party exploiting
people's rage and fear in Europe are parts of Putin's grand conspiracy (except, of course, for
the Ukrainian Nazis the
Western alliance put into power ). Soros, like billionaire Bruce Wayne before him, tired of
waiting for the West to strike back, is taking matters into his own hands. Not only has he been
tirelessly laboring to prevent Donald Trump from "
destroying the world ," now
he's financing "Best for Britain," a campaign to de-brainwash the British people, who,
obviously, only voted for Brexit because they'd been brainwashed by the Putin-Nazis.
I'm not sure how much more bizarre things can get. This level of bull goose loony paranoia,
media-generated mass hysteria, and mindless conformity would be hysterically funny if it
weren't so fucking horrifying in terms of what it says about millions of Westerners, who are
apparently prepared to believe almost anything the authorities tell them, no matter how nuts.
That famous Voltaire quote comes to mind "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make
you commit atrocities," he wrote. Another, more disturbing way of looking at it is, people
willing to believe absurdities, to switch off their critical thinking faculties in order to
conform to an official narrative as blatantly ridiculous as the Putin-Nazi narrative, are
people who have already surrendered their autonomy, who have traded it for the comfort of the
herd. Such people cannot be reasoned with, because there isn't really anyone in there. There is
only whatever mindless jabber got injected into their brain that day, the dutiful repetition of
which guarantees they remain a "normal" person (who believes what other normal persons
believe), and not some sort of "radical" or "extremist."
These people are the people who worry me these "normal" people who, completely calmly, as if
what they are saying wasn't batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and how Putin
is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these people, some of
whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who genuinely like me in
return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by and watch me marched into
prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
These people are the people who worry me these "normal" people who, completely calmly,
as if what they are saying wasn't batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and
how Putin is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these
people, some of whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who
genuinely like me in return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by
and watch me marched into prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest.
I've got the same friends. Liberal Putin haters. Dupes, and suckers.
It's true that some of this is a matter of loony cultish shibboleths imposed to enforce
conformity. But there's more to it. This hysterical vilification of Trump is rational and
purposive. The system depends on everybody blaming the other party for what CIA does to you.
CIA has impunity and an illegal state of emergency based on secret law. They can kill anybody
they want and get away with it, including the presidential puppet ruler, ask JFK, oh wait,
you can't, he's dead. That absolute sovereignty means CIA's in charge, the buck stops there.
So it's crucial to keep the public's attention and emotional energy fixed on the puppet.
Russia does pose a threat, but it's not what we're told. Tying the demonized political
enemy to Russia is CIA's way of disguising the real threat Russia poses. Russia is the
world's most effective advocate for black-letter rule of law, including human rights law that
would destroy the CIA police state. The CIA regime's fulla-shitness is obvious to everyone in
the world except the American public.
Russia complies with international law. The USA does not. The largest bloc Russia leads is
not the SCO or the BRICS, it's the G-192, the rule-of-law advocates in UNCTAD, UNESCO, and
the General Assembly. People are now discussing Uniting for Peace as a means to counter US
abuse of veto impunity in the UNSC. Uniting for Peace was originally devised in response to
Soviet obstruction, so the tables have turned in a striking way. The free world is ~USA, and
they're going from strength to strength under the Russian nuclear umbrella. They're going to
break down the Iron Curtain and let us out.
Vlad Putin is the leader of the free World, most popular leader in the World, his people like
what he's doing and that would be delivering them a better life while minding his own
business internationally. Again I ask "what has Russia ever done to the USA"?
The left is sinking fast these days, most people aren't interested in being over run with
immigrants or watching the faggots make fools of themselves or having the State in their
business all the time. Time to pave the roads, give us decent schools and Hospitals, put the
junkies into leaky boats and send them out to Sea and make sure everyone gets fed. That's
what we want, fuck that war shit, nobody wants that. America is nothing but a Thug Nation, at
least Trump is something different, anything would be better than the status quo down
there.
Never mind, they'll be broke soon and the World will be wrecked for ten years, worth it I
say.
Agree.
In their feverish desire to be correct in the eyes of their paymasters, the
ever-opportunistic Paul Krugman of The New York Times, the ever-opportunistic "psychologist"
David Brooks, and the "progressively" profiteering Rachel Maddow of MSNBC have crossed all
barriers of decent behavior. They are the product of Rovian creation of reality , when
facts -- the documented facts -- have no weight anymore.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities," indeed.
Meanwhile, in Syria, "Drivers Behind the War on Syria and the Impoverishment of Us All:"
https://www.globalresearch.ca/drivers-behind-the-war-on-syria-and-the-impoverishment-of-us-all/5644381
"We know that the Western narratives about the war on Syria are entirely false, so what are
some of the real reasons that are driving this overseas holocaust, and who is benefiting from
it?
To be blunt, Western policymakers seek to destroy secular democracy in Syria, along with its
socially uplifting political economy, with a view to installing a compliant fascist Wahhabi
government. The end result is chaos, the enrichment of the transnational "oligarchs" and the
impoverishment of Syria.
In doing this, the policymakers are also impoverishing the vast majority of people in Western
countries1, destroying nation-state sovereignties, and endeavouring to create a totalitarian
World Order.
International financial institutions see local banking as a threat. Consequently, in Aleppo,
Syria, terrorists destroyed local banking institutions."
– Same as in Libya. The banking cabal had led the US/EU coalition of war criminals to
murder hundreds of thousands of people in order to destroy Libyan banking system and to
satisfy Israel's aspirations for Ertez Israel: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38009.htm
"America's Collusion With Neo-Nazis," by Stephen F. Cohen:
ttps://www.thenation.com/article/americas-collusion-with-neo-nazis/
"– That the pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa
shortly later in 2014 reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during
World War II has been all but deleted from the American mainstream narrative even though it
remains a painful and revelatory experience for many Ukrainians.
-- That the Azov Battalion of some 3,000 well-armed fighters, which has played a major combat
role in the Ukrainian civil war and now is an official component of Kiev's armed forces, is
avowedly "partially" pro-Nazi, as evidenced by its regalia, slogans, and programmatic
statements, and well-documented as such by several international monitoring organizations.
[The Azov Battalion was financed by a Jewish oligarch Kolomojsky]. (
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Frussia-insider.com%2Fsites%2Finsider%2Ffiles%2F-DaRo81rUvA.jpg&f=1
" -- That stormtroop-like assaults on gays, Jews, elderly ethnic Russians, and other "impure"
citizens are widespread throughout Kiev-ruled Ukraine, along with torchlight marches
reminiscent of those that eventually inflamed Germany in the late 1920s and 1930s. And that
the police and official legal authorities do virtually nothing to prevent these neo-fascist
acts or to prosecute them. On the contrary, Kiev has officially encouraged them by
systematically rehabilitating and even memorializing Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi German
extermination pogroms and their leaders during World War II, renaming streets in their honor,
building monuments to them, rewriting history to glorify them, and more."
– None of the 52 main Jewish American organizations raised their voices to condemn the
revival of neo-Nazism (banderism) in Ukraine. Is this because of the ethnicity of the State
Dept. organizers of the putsch, Nuland-Kagan and Pyatt? Or is it because of the zionists'
visceral hatred towards Russia that has been protecting the sovereign state of Syria from the
supremacist Israeli thugs?
I loved this article! Funny as hell! I do not have quite the negative view of Trump – I
do think he has matured some from his playboy days and clearly is serious about doing some
good things – but the author's depiction of the posturing buffoons of the media is spot
on. Hitler indeed! Ha ha!
When Hillary started ranting about Trump being "Putin's Puppet", I wondered "Where did that
come from?". I decided that she probably had a pot of evil warming on the stove and needed a
scapegoat to go along with it. Later events haven't proven me wrong.
I just discovered the brilliant Shadia Drury, one of the best resources on the Neocon and
Straussian concept of the 'Noble Lie', and the enemy (previously War On Terror, now Russia
Threat) to unite the nihilism of liberal society and prevent it from disintegrating.
trump derangement syndrome here with Hopkins. Trump was a showman, like thousands of others.
He also enjoyed celebrity , again, only this time, like millions of others.
He likes women, especially in a state of undress. Who doesn't? Women as much as men, like
to look at pictures of naked ladies, maybe more than men.
Maybe the whole article by Hopkins is a joke.
What I do not fully understand, and Hopkins does not help is how lunatic-hatred on the
part of liberals has become so powerful.
I talked some race, as in global North and global South and natural selection, to a
liberal gal the other day, and she thought it made sense. But she still hates Trump.
Or take the current moral Outrage over baby Mexicans at the border. None of it makes any
sense, especially inasmuch as Mom and Pop can just keep family together by going home, which
is not an option for the average burglary suspect, etc. here at home.
Trump has become the default target for every aggrieved world-hating liberal sap. The
world must be changed! I demand it!
It may have something to do also with the perception that maybe they picked the wrong
team, and that various career choices may have been wrong, in terms of jobs/career and so on.
Given the armies of professional liberals wearing badges of Equality but scrambling for
Privilege, Trump's laughter at their expense must drive them nuts.
And/or, the SJW types of youngsters (like I was at the time of Vietnam Slaughters) Trump
is the Absolute Negation of everything they dream about the Perfect World, and their own
badges of Revolutionary Correctness/Rectitude which they desperately seek to pin on their
chests/breasts.
( curiously, many young women bare their breasts in protest about something or other. More
sexual politics, I guess, especially if they have nice tits.)
I am you and you are me and we are all together. Milan Kundera has a great image in one of
his novels about the Revolution in Hungary (?), the communist Revolution that is: A circle
dance of young pioneer dancers spiraling up into the sky, like the Ascent of Christians to
heaven. He admitted that he was of that delusion at the time. Hope morphed into Belief.
The Delusions of Race Equality are also at hand. And even though Trump declares himself
politically correct on that score, the Trump Deranged syndrome SJW children and their
parents, deny that Trump is a fellow true-believer. Trump is a Racist! really, and so on.
After a half-century of blatant failure of Blacks to improve the Content of Their
Character, never mind getting grades good enough to get into college without privileged
access, quotas, etc. older liberals, at least, smell Failure. Disillusion dreams dying hard
contributes to the hatreds afoot.
The kids vote for Bernie, but the parents are also disillusioned about socialism, yet the
kids luv Bernie and even now blame Billary, etc. for Trump. Who can blame the kids what with
the economy punishing their generation like we have not seen for generations
(The ten year cycle of recessions is about to recycle another recession, if history means
anything in this regard. Trump is not out of trouble and his standard issue GOP economics is
not going to save him if a recession roars in. Wages are still super low, etc, etc and will
plummet in another recession, never mind Mexicans.)
So, the desperation of adult liberals is two-fold, or three-fold. Socialism failed. Racial
Equality has failed. They know it but cannot admit it to one-another. Trump has won, a
repudiation of Everything they Luv.
Hatred simmers in the melting-pot, acrid fumes enter the Body Politic. Liberals stagger
while genuine conservatives have adjusted over the last couple decades to the stench of
liberalism, all the while buying guns and waiting for the Tipping Point.
Maybe this begins to account for the hatreds swirling out there. I have not even mentioned
the hatreds of Blacks who are the most aware of their Failure, and register it for example in
their admiration of Elijah Muhammed, Reveredn Wright, and of course, the Obama Zip.
Trump is just the Beginning as the American and European peasantry grab their pitchforks
and head for Brussels and D.C.
On origins of the Russia Threat: just more 'perpetual war' to rescue society from the
inherent nihilism of liberalism:
This is made clear in Strauss's exchange with Kojève (reprinted in Strauss's On
Tyranny), and in his commentary on Schmitt's The Concept of the Political (reprinted in
Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue). Kojève lamented
the animalisation of man and Schmitt worried about the trivialisation of life. All three of
them were convinced that liberal economics would turn life into entertainment and destroy
politics; all three understood politics as a conflict between mutually hostile groups
willing to fight each other to the death. In short, they all thought that man's humanity
depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only
perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and
"creature comforts." Life can be politicised once more, and man's humanity can be
restored.
This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honour and glory that the
neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities
of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss
advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists
willing to fight and die for their God and country.
You're right, Drury did give good insight into Strauss & his impact. Whoever compiled
these clips, from Drury on Strauss to the Wolfowitz interview just after 9/11, made all the
right connections.
And the chain of attitudes and actions can be examined in both directions, backward, to
Strauss's expectations of Jew-power in Weimar -- he expected Jews to be the elite overseers
of the "vulgar masses" who resented being resented by said vulgar masses.
It's projection. They fantasize about doing the same things they falsely imagine Trump will
do to them, but to their enemies. They are dangerous. The internet has also allowed the
masses to see just how utterly incompetent the Ruling Class is. Neopotism, networking, and
geography got them their positions, not talent or erudition.
"These people are the people who worry me these "normal" people who, completely calmly, as
if what they are saying wasn't batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and how
Putin is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these people,
some of whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who genuinely like
me in return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by and watch me
marched into prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest."
They can never be allowed to come to power. Ever. Their hysteria over Trump has let the
mask slip too much. They have been revealed. It is no different than if Hitler had announced
the Holocaust before taking office. At that point, it would have been morally correct to deny
him regardless of the vote. We may very well have to consider this in 2020. Do you really
want to hand your fate over to these people? They have made their psychotic feelings plain.
On top of that, they are incompetent buffoons.
Correct.
Meanwhile, the anonymous "nazi-hunters" at stopantisemitism.org have produced another
anti-First Amendment battle cry, this time again a professor at Columbia University, who
dared to speak the truth about The Lobby: http://hamiddabashi.com
The "nazi-hunters" at stopantisemitism.org should visit the Nuland-liberated Ukraine,
where the activities of the US Zionists (specifically, Nuland-Kagan and Pyatt) have brought
about a revival of neo-Nazism (banderism) and the consequent rise in real anti-semitism --
not the one invented by the Jewish vigilantes at stopantisemitism.org
If the "nazi-hunters" from stopantisemitism.org are serious about the memory of the WWII,
they should better start investigating the pro-Nazi activities of the Kagans' clan first and
foremost (see the "liberated" Ukraine) and then proceed with investigating the Israeli
citizen Kolomojsky, who was the main financier of the openly neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.
" the Azov Battalion of some 3,000 well-armed fighters is avowedly pro-Nazi, as evidenced
by its regalia, slogans, and programmatic statements, and well-documented as such by several
international monitoring organizations."
"... Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign. Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there. ..."
"... Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party #Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump. ..."
"... Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone. ..."
"... You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the opinion sections and then log off. ..."
"... I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable journalism. ..."
"... The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell.. ..."
"... If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50. ..."
"... Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift, Waugh. ..."
"... I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again. ..."
"... Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective. ..."
"... As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz', because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle. ..."
From George Orwell's "Inside the Whale," 1940, on the mental atmosphere of English writers
in 1937 (slightly updated):
By 2018 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Establishment thought had
narrowed down to 'anti-Trumpism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature
directed against Russia and the politicians supposedly friendly to Russia was pouring from
the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in America was not such
Twitter spats as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds on Instagram, but the immediate
reappearance in respectable circles of the mental atmosphere of the McCarthy Era. The very
people who for 65 years had sniggered over their own superiority to Kremlin hysteria were the
ones who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1950. All the familiar wartime
idiocies, spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Trumpist?), the
retailing of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never
happened.
Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their hysteria.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone.
Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign.
Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach
children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone.
Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign.
Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach
children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
By 1937 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Left-wing thought had
narrowed down to 'anti-Fascism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature
directed against Germany and the politicians supposedly friendly to Germany was pouring from
the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in Spain was not such
violence as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds behind the lines, but the immediate
reappearance in left-wing circles of the mental atmosphere of the Great War. The very people
who for twenty years had sniggered over their own superiority to war hysteria were the ones
who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1915. All the familiar wartime idiocies,
spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Fascist?), the retailing
of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never
happened.
Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party
#Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump.
I like the acting ability of the Welsh guy tormenting the English guy from the Burton/Hurt
version of 1984. John Hurt could have done a great O'Brien and Richard Burton could have done
a smashing Winston Smith.
...Orwell and Boxer and Whites Without College Degrees from 2017:
I know what happened to Boxer -- Russian working class -- the work horse in George
Orwell's Animal Farm. Boxer busted his arse building the farm back up to snuff after it had
undergone the revolution and other problems. The pigs -- Stalinists -- rewarded Boxer by
carting him away to the glue factory. Poor Boxer finally realized he was going to the glue
factory while in the truck, but he was so exhausted from his labors in working on the farm
that he didn't have enough strength to kick the truck to pieces to escape.
Whites Without College Degrees(WWCDs) are the new Boxer of the present day. The
Stalinists are now the Globalizers. The Globalizers have decided that all the hard work and
all the soldiering over generations by the WWCDs will be rewarded with deliberate attacks
and sneaky ways to harm them. From mass immigration to de-industrialization to hooking the
WWCDs on drugs, the Globalizer pigs have used every trick in the book to destroy Whites
Without Colllege Degrees. Two academics have described this demographic phenomenom as the
WHITE DEATH.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has
gone.
You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I
got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it
through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the
opinion sections and then log off.
Somehow, though, the Left persuaded itself early on that "1984″ was a prophecy of
the Trump Era. IIRC the book actually saw a jump in sales, and a stage adaptation was mounted
in New York.
I was thinking along your lines (and as yet unaware of the above-mentioned trends) when I
saw someone reading it on a commuter train. I cautiously passed a word to him thinking I
might be making contact with a fellow Rightist; but was quickly disabused of the notion when
he responded with some "resistance" B.S., in the nasally whine typical of the species.
I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current
treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media
properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and
advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable
journalism.
The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell..
Yes, most Britons would agree that Orwell needs updating: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of
democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." He sounds awfully American here.
If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a
committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess
which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a
common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50.
Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift,
Waugh.
Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their
hysteria.
This is true, and then some. Just as today, the mainstream media was in on promoting the
leftist agenda, though maybe to a lesser degree. Here's the New York Times' obituary
(or, more accurately, eulogy) for Joseph Stalin back in 1953. Yes, they acknowledge some of
his murderous tendencies, but it seems hard for them to condemn such a great guy for such a
minor flaw. The headline reads, Stalin Rose From Czarist Oppression to Transform Russia
Into Mighty Socialist State . That's the tone of the the whole article, generally
speaking. It's hard for them to conceal their reverence.
The EU is attempting to surreptitiously ban criticism of the Ruling Class using some
copyright/link tax nonsense that will essentially ban memes and expose anonymous critics. The
mask slips ever more.
If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart.
Wrong.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. –Winston Churchill
And just two years later, the anti-fascist rhetoric was completely reversed and became
anti-anti-fascist with the Nazi-Soviet pact. And two years after that, it went back to being
anti-fascist when Hitler broke the pact.
Quite
Orwell was clearly moving to the right being very anti Communist ( and fellow travellers )
but at all times he was first and foremost an English nationalist . Certainly he was no
supporter of Left solidarity
In his time perhaps it was still maybe just possible to consider oneself to be of the left
and to be a nationalist.
That era has long finished.
I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of
major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete
shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is
movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis
was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again.
The left is getting more skilled at it, too, and is significantly helped by the
suppression of right-wing accounts on social media platforms since November 2016. Trayvon was
an early example of this, and they have only gotten better at using the tactics. The
propaganda is often a mix of true and false components.
Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this
recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the
SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to
bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective.
As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz',
because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except
instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle.
"... Here's a thought: If the USG was truly interested in controlling opium production in Afghanistan it would simply use the counternarcotics money to buy up the crop directly from the farmers. The price at that level would be incredibly cheap compared to the "street value" of the drug. The farmers would happily sell to such a reliable buyer and not need to fear the risk of military interference. The current Afghan government would likely earn the goodwill of the farmers and it would cut off funding to the Taliban. It will never happen, however; because our military project in Afghanistan is mostly about enriching private military contractors while keeping the the "threat" of terrorism alive and well. War is a racket. ..."
"... b, have you read "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn (RIP) and Jeffrey St. Clair? It was written decades ago but is still relevant. I'm sure the CIA DOES make money from drugs although the CIA black books budget is so large they hardly need the cash. But one imagines it's nice to have a few millions completely out of government accountability--for lining their own pockets if nothing else. ..."
"... I highly recommend Doug Valentine's book, "CIA as Organized Crime." CIA Director William Colby gave him free access to interview CIA officials who had been involved in the Phoenix program in South Vietnam. Since all those CIA officers/agents had Colby's blessing, they assumed Valentine was on their side. Oops! Bottom line: There is ZERO difference between CIA and the Mafia. They are essentially one and the same, though they generally have different spheres of action. One upon which they overlap is drug production, smuggling and distribution. ..."
"... I would add that there is ZERO difference between supra-national finance and the Mafia. For instance, the bank, HSBC was founded to launder opium money after Great Britain fought the Opium Wars forcing China to permit them to import opium into China. Former FBI Director and on again/off again hero of the partisans, James Comey left his career with the US Government to work for HSBC after they were finally fined for laundering cash from both drug smuggling and terrorist groups. His job was to help them "negotiate" the new "oversight" placed on the bank. ..."
"... John Ehrlichman, who served as President Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief admitted back in 1994 that the "War on Drugs" was actually a political tool to crush leftist protesters and black people. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." ..."
"... Mike Ruppert was an associate of Gary Webb's, was a Los Angeles detective and knew a lot about the CIA's involvement in the Crips/Bloods Drug Wars and its massive importation of drugs into the nation. His investigation was used as his website URL , copvcia, although its name was From The Wilderness. Until 911, his investigation was his passion, then he discovered he had another and it was connected to the former. Here's a page many will want to view . It's hard not to reread the entire website. Unfortunately, Mike saved and only released much of the juicier evidence to his subscribers--he had to eke out a living in some manner. ..."
"... Back in 2002, when the poppy production too off, the idea of flooding Russia was in vogue, it may still be in the game. Transit through Iran to Turkey was also in play. Money laundering started out in "Polish Zlotys", through the banks there. ..."
"... I presume much of that counternarcotics money ends up being cash in hand to thousands of foot-soldiers working for local warlords in Afghanistan as farmers, security personnel, soldiers, prostitutes and what-not, in a way similar to how part of Victoria Nuland's $5 billion investment in Ukraine ended up as cash incentives to entice people from as far as Lvov to travel to Kiev to participate in the Maidan demonstrations over the winter of 2013 / 2014. ..."
"... This in addition to the billions being used to buy weapons, train and send jihadists to fight in other parts of western and central Asia, and line people's pockets at every stage of the drug money trail whether in Afghanistan, Wall Street or various tax havens around the planet. ..."
"... And to the east, I remember reading that one of the first things the US did was to build a bridge and highway towards the east; shortly thereafter, heroin flooded into Russia. ..."
"... Alfred W. McCoy is the authority on drugs and CIA. He's still doing great work, publishing books.His first, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia is a classic.His latest, In the Shadows of the American Century, is brilliant analysis. Some videos on youtube, also. He has traveled, researched every ratline trail and outpost all over the globe. Read him if you want the real facts. ..."
thanks b... the speculation has always been in my mind anyway - that the money is controlled
by the cia... covert money for covert projects and on and on it goes...
The Taliban curtailed the poppy growing without any problem. Shortly after the US invasion
under the guise of capturing OBL. Almost 18 years later, long after the death of OBL (in
reality and in US military BS) the poppy production has increased exponentially. There are
Pics of US military personnel walking through poppy fields.
Other than drug production there is no need for the US to be in Afghanistan except maybe to
use it as a launching platform to attack Iran. Drugs are an excellent source for funding
black ops.
Not only is the US allowing the production, considering how easy it would be for them to kill
the crops, and IMHO it as also assisting in the transportation of drugs to the West.
If you understand the Afghan government as a narco state, then the fact that opium
production has actually increased –while the U.S. spent billions on counternarcotics
efforts and troop numbers surged – starts to make sense. A completely failed state
– Afghanistan in 2001 – can't really thrive in the drug trade. Traffickers have
no reason to pay off a toothless government or a nonexistent police force. In such a
libertarian paradise, freelance actors – like Saleem, the heroin cook –
flourish.
But as the government builds capacity, officials can start to demand a cut. It's not
that there's a grand conspiracy at the center of government, but rather that, in the
absence of accountability and the rule of law, officials start to orient themselves around
a powerful political economy. Big drug barons with links to the government take over the
trade. People who don't pay, or who fall out with government officials, might find
themselves killed or arrested.
In this light, U.S. counternarcotics programs, which have cost nearly $8 billion to
date, and the Afghan state-building project in general, are perversely part of the
explanation for the growing government involvement in the drug trade. Even the newly
rebuilt Afghan Air Force has been investigated by the U.S. military for alleged
trafficking. In many places, the surge had the effect of wresting opium revenue from the
Taliban and handing it to government officials. For example, in Helmand's Garmsir District,
which sits on key trafficking routes between the rest of the province and Baramcha, a big
Marine offensive in 2011 finally pushed out the Taliban and handed the district back to the
Afghan government. The result? The police began taking a cut from those drug routes. "There
are families, as in Mafia-style, that have the trade carved up between them, and when some
outsider tries to get in on it, they serve him up as a success for drug interdiction," one
Western official who worked in Garmsir told me.
I just luv-ed this next paragraph. Glad I wasn't sipping Coca Cola
while I read it. Would have chortled cola out my nose!
Here is government BS-speak at it's vacuous best (enjoy):
The U.S. government, for its part, acknowledged that there are no quick solutions at hand.
"The U.S. interagency is developing an updated counternarcotics strategy for Afghanistan,"
says Jen Psaki, the State Department's spokeswoman. "These are long-term efforts that build
the foundation for eventual reductions in opium harvests."
Here's a thought: If the USG was truly interested in controlling opium production in
Afghanistan it would simply use the counternarcotics money to buy up the crop directly from
the farmers. The price at that level would be incredibly cheap compared to the "street value"
of the drug. The farmers would happily sell to such a reliable buyer and not need to fear the
risk of military interference. The current Afghan government would likely earn the goodwill
of the farmers and it would cut off funding to the Taliban. It will never happen, however;
because our military project in Afghanistan is mostly about enriching private military
contractors while keeping the the "threat" of terrorism alive and well. War is a racket.
b, have you read "Whiteout" by Alexander Cockburn (RIP) and Jeffrey St. Clair? It was written
decades ago but is still relevant. I'm sure the CIA DOES make money from drugs although the
CIA black books budget is so large they hardly need the cash. But one imagines it's nice to
have a few millions completely out of government accountability--for lining their own pockets
if nothing else.
I highly recommend Doug Valentine's book, "CIA as Organized Crime." CIA Director William Colby gave him free access to interview CIA officials who had been
involved in the Phoenix program in South Vietnam. Since all those CIA officers/agents had
Colby's blessing, they assumed Valentine was on their side. Oops! Bottom line: There is ZERO difference between CIA and the Mafia. They are essentially one
and the same, though they generally have different spheres of action. One upon which they
overlap is drug production, smuggling and distribution.
I would add that there is ZERO difference between supra-national finance and the Mafia.
For instance, the bank, HSBC was founded to launder opium money after Great Britain fought
the Opium Wars forcing China to permit them to import opium into China. Former FBI Director
and on again/off again hero of the partisans, James Comey left his career with the US
Government to work for HSBC after they were finally fined for laundering cash from both drug
smuggling and terrorist groups. His job was to help them "negotiate" the new "oversight"
placed on the bank.
John Ehrlichman, who served as President Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief admitted back
in 1994 that the "War on Drugs" was actually
a political tool to crush leftist protesters and black people.
"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting
the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then
criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their
leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the
evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Mike Ruppert was an associate of Gary Webb's, was a Los Angeles detective and knew a lot
about the CIA's involvement in the Crips/Bloods Drug Wars and its massive importation of
drugs into the nation. His investigation
was used as his website URL , copvcia, although its name was From The Wilderness. Until
911, his investigation was his passion, then he discovered he had another and it was
connected to the former. Here's a page many will want to
view . It's hard not to reread the entire website. Unfortunately, Mike saved and only
released much of the juicier evidence to his subscribers--he had to eke out a living in some
manner.
The CIA is the planet's #1 Terrorist Organization, and it has all 3 types of Weapons of
Mass Destruction. It's often hard to determine which poses a greater threat to humanity: The
CIA or its parent the Outlaw US Empire. If humanity's to have any chance at a viable future,
both the CIA and its Imperial parent must be destroyed for their many crimes.
That CIA was experimenting with narcotics as a tool seemed to have metasticised into
something else during the Air America years, which in turn seems to have morphed via Barry
Seal (& Gary Webb's investigation)and the Cocaine Coyboys onward into Silk Airways (famed
by weapons to Syria scandal) - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cockburn-white.html
Back in 2002, when the poppy production too off, the idea of flooding Russia was in vogue, it
may still be in the game. Transit through Iran to Turkey was also in play. Money laundering
started out in "Polish Zlotys", through the banks there.
Addicts were given small sums to
deposit in the banks, by the thousands, which didn't draw attention. A lot of the money was
sent to the U.S. to buy "American Muscle Cars", which were then shipped back to the E.U. and
resold again.
Pakistan was also a transit country where the "Labs" were first set up to
process the opium to heroin. How time fly's when having fun. Addiction to "drugs" isn't the
only addiction nor the addicts involved either. Only one leaf in the book of the minds of
those who believe they are doing the right thing.
I presume much of that counternarcotics money ends up being cash in hand to thousands of
foot-soldiers working for local warlords in Afghanistan as farmers, security personnel,
soldiers, prostitutes and what-not, in a way similar to how part of Victoria Nuland's $5
billion investment in Ukraine ended up as cash incentives to entice people from as far as
Lvov to travel to Kiev to participate in the Maidan demonstrations over the winter of 2013 /
2014.
Also a big portion of the counternarcotics dosh must be going to teams of people digging
up and burning opium and also to teams of people planting new opium seeds in the areas where
the first lot of opium was eradicated later on. Similar to stories people used to hear about
what supposedly happened during the 1930s Great Depression, when teams of people were
employed to dig ditches and then other teams of people were employed to fill up the ditches
which would be dug up again at a later time.
This in addition to the billions being used to buy weapons, train and send jihadists to
fight in other parts of western and central Asia, and line people's pockets at every stage of
the drug money trail whether in Afghanistan, Wall Street or various tax havens around the
planet.
reply to:
".. and IMHO it as also assisting in the transportation of drugs to the West."
Posted by: ken | Jun 18, 2018 2:16:06 PM | 5
And to the east, I remember reading that one of the first things the US did was to build a
bridge and highway towards the east; shortly thereafter, heroin flooded into Russia.
The level of US "counter-narcotic" investment seems to be about right to support the GROWTH
of the narcotics industry...not the otherway around...its black and its dirty
Every comment on this post is like a fine champagne of reality. how do people get by with out
wanting to know the truth. keep the comments coming I need more! Brilliant links. The doors
of perception just opened for me. Who the hell runs our TVs stations that they can turn a
blind I to this lot.
-------
I to find great strength in music, to find the truth. For me it is reggae any group in
society that has sufferd what we discuss on this site for 300 years, but have survived got
stronger and put it to music, I feel needs listening to!!!
The "War on Drugs" was conceived to put black people in jail en masse as Jim Crow came to an
end. Nixon's aides admitted this. Read "The New Jim Crow" for the full story. Marijuana laws
were first introduced in the early 20th century as a tool to arrest and deport Mexicans from
the American southwest. Google it.
The bullshit "War on Drugs" is as phony as the bullshit "War on Terror" in the wake of 3
skyscrapers that were demolished and collapsed at freefall speed.
The real money is to be made in the bullshit wars spawned by these 2 hoaxes that boggle
the mind in their scope.
Basically, these two cornerstones of American domestic and foreign policy are frauds of
biblical proportions.
An empire built on these foundations will come crashing down as fast as WTC 7 on the
afternoon of September 11, 2001.
Various Contra-cocaine type operations of un/controlled shipments of drugs existed in the
early 1990s, some of which existed in order to arm Bosnia (local fighters and foreign
mujahideen), thereby undermining the UN's arms embargo of former Yugoslav states.
Between 1988 and 1992, 22 tons of cocaine was brought into the US via Venezuela by a team
consisting of Mark McFarlin (head of the CIA's counter-narcotics center), Jim Campbell (the
CIA's chief of station in Venezuela) and General Guillén (head of the Venezuelan
National Guard in the pre-Chavez era).
Anti-Drug Unit of C.I.A. Sent Ton of Cocaine to U.S. in 1990
At roughly the same time Albanian mobsters had built a heroin smuggling network for the
purpose of illegally supplying arms to the Bosnian mujahideen. Drugs Paying for Conflict
in Europe
In the summer of 1991, Dutch drug lord Klaas Bruinsma, who had connections with members of
the Dutch elite (corporate and royal), the Colombian Cali cartel and the Yugoslav mafia, was
assassinated by either former cop Martin Hoogland (possibly working for intelligence), or the
Yugoslav mobster Branco Marianovic. In that same summer, the UN Security Council passed
Resolution 713 (the Yugoslav arms embargo), and soon after elements within Dutch customs and
police, in cooperation with Bruinsma's business heirs/infiltrators, started the controlled
shipment of large amounts of cocaine (estimated 25,000 kilo) and hashish (estimated 500,000
kilo) under the name "Operation Delta". The customs officials involved in Operation Delta
were most likely protected by their boss Fred Teeven, later rewarded by given the job of
State Secretary for Security and Justice. Mabel Wisse-Smit, daughter of a top banker
(possibly drug money launderer) and future sister-in-law of the current Dutch king, was first
the lover of drug lord Bruinsma (until his assassination, possibly she was sent to spy on
him) and then the lover of Wall St. banker Mohamed Sacirbey (Bosnia's ambassador to UN in
1992, Bosnia's foreign minister in 1995). Wisse-Smit (later a George Soros
protégé) co-founded the Dutch charity foundation War Child, which was used as a
cover for arms lobbying during the Bosnia war, and she is reported by Bosnian media to have
been involved in a specific arms deal with Egypt.
Alfred W. McCoy is the authority on drugs and CIA.
He's still doing great work, publishing books.His first, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia is a classic.His latest, In the Shadows of the American Century, is brilliant analysis. Some videos on youtube, also. He has traveled, researched every ratline trail and outpost all over the globe.
Read him if you want the real facts.
It's good to know so many are well informed on this. I've read Rupert/Webb's stuff and have
Dark Alliance. There's a good movie/documentary out there about Webb but I can't recall the
name right now. Levine wrote about his undercover work in South American being thwarted by
the CIA. And Bo Gritz was trying to set up a deal where the US would buy up Khun Sa's opium
before it could be distributed but the USG wasn't interested. The amazing thing about the
Afghan ramp up in supply was seeing pictures of US soldiers patrolling in the middle of poppy
fields. Meanwhile at home, congress takes bribes (lobbying efforts) to help protect the legal
drug pushers from prosecution by the DEA shoving millions of pills across the country. A
friend's term for this kind of thing is "racket science."
Yeah, his updated edition is a must read. They do not handle the money directly, they let
the guerillas/rebels/revolutionaries handle that as a reward and provide protection from
legal authorities and access to markets using various agencies and mafia at both ends of the
supply-distribution chain. The dollars from the drugs pay for the weapons and support. The
profits go into nameless offshore Eurodollar accounts which then flow into London and Wall
Street as eurodollar loans in many multiples of the deposits (not to be confused with the
euro) to speculate in various markets and drive up asset prices. When the Taliban shut down
opium production we had the Dot.com crash (coincidence?). 100 billion a year can generate 1
trillion in dollars for speculators, and that was sorely missed (along with Clinton running a
surplus instead of a deficit)
There is so much evidence that in many places where they were or are engaged that drug flows
in the region increased and production increased in those areas known for growing the stuff.
Like any organization only those with a need to know have an idea and the majority are clean
and without information
While we are discussing history of the War on Drugs another example of a major consumer
organization (at the time of print) being turned into a vacuous shell....
The WIkipedia summary
"
The book describes the effects and risks of psychoactive drugs which were common in
contemporary use for recreational and nonmedical purposes.[2] The New York Times paraphrased
some major arguments from the book, saying "'Drug-free' treatment of heroin addiction almost
never works", "Nicotine can be as tough to beat as heroin", and "Good or bad, marijuana is
here to stay. The billions spent to fight it are wasted dollars."[3] The book identifies
marijuana as the most popular drug after tobacco, alcohol, and nicotine.[4] A reviewer for
the Journal of the American Medical Association summarized it by saying that "Brecher holds
that the division of drugs into licit and illicit categories is medically irrational and
rooted mainly in historical and sociological factors."[5]
"
karlof1. Amazing that you knew Mike. And yes, the willful ignorance is horribly frustrating.
The way I see it, almost all "Westerners" are willfully ignorant. We all must know that
the only way we live to the "standards" we do is because of the plunder of both our colonial
past and neoliberal present. But most choose to look aside.
For those who haven't seen it, please spend 17 minutes to see Mallence Bart-Williams give an incredible
talk.
"... Trump's vision would seem to include protection of core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of "democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats. ..."
"... Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior. ..."
"... Trump's basic objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between Russia and the West. ..."
"... And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room. Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left." ..."
"... There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S., which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by terrorists. ..."
"... In Syria there have been two pointless cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will work. ..."
"... The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. ..."
"... And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't. ..."
"... Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war." As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present, it is not pretty. ..."
"... Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities. ..."
I had coffee with a foreign friend a week ago. The subject of Donald Trump inevitably came
up and my friend said that he was torn between describing Trump as a genius or as an idiot, but
was inclined to lean towards genius. He explained that Trump was willy-nilly establishing a new
world order that will succeed the institutionally exhausted post-World War 2 financial and
political arrangements that more-or-less established U.S. hegemony over the "free world." The
Bretton Woods agreement and the founding of the United Nations institutionalized the spread of
liberal democracy and free trade, creating a new, post war international order under the firm
control of the United States with the American dollar as the benchmark currency. Trump is now
rejecting what has become an increasingly dominant global world order in favor of returning to
a nineteenth century style nationalism that has become popular as countries struggle to retain
their cultural and political identifies. Trump's vision would seem to include protection of
core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of
"democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming
regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats.
Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be
called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute
hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend
either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior.
Inevitably, I have other friends who follow foreign policy closely that have various
interpretations of the Trump phenomenon. One sees the respectful meeting with Kim Jong-un of
North Korea as a bit of brilliant statesmanship, potentially breaking a sixty-five year logjam
and possibly opening the door to further discussions that might well avert a nuclear war. And
the week also brought a Trump welcome suggestion that Russia should be asked to rejoin the G-7
group of major industrialized democracies, which also has to be seen as a positive step. There
has also been talk of a Russia-U.S. summit similar to that with North Korea to iron out
differences, an initiative that was first suggested by Trump and then agreed to by Russian
President Vladimir Putin. There will inevitably be powerful resistance to such an arrangement
coming primarily from the U.S. media and from Congress, but Donald Trump seems to fancy the
prospect and it just might take place.
One good friend even puts a positive spin on Trump's insulting behavior towards America's
traditional allies at the recent G-7 meeting in Canada. She observes that Trump's basic
objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby
maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between
Russia and the West. And the military costs exacerbate some genuine serious trade imbalances
that damage the U.S. economy. If Trumpism prevails, G-7 will become a forum for discussions of
trade and economic relations and will become less a club of nations aligned military against
Russia and, eventually, China. As she put it, changing its constituency would be a triumph of
"mercantilism" over "imperialism." The now pointless NATO alliance might well find itself
without much support if the members actually have to fully fund it proportionate to their GDPs
and could easily fade away, which would be a blessing for everyone.
My objection to nearly all the arguments being made in favor or opposed to what occurred in
Singapore last week is that the summit is being seen out of context, as is the outreach to
Russia at G-7. Those who are in some cases violently opposed to the outcome of the talks with
North Korea are, to be sure, sufferers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, where they hate
anything he does and spin their responses to cast him in the most negative terms possible. Some
others who choose to see daylight in spite of the essential emptiness of the "agreement" are
perhaps being overly optimistic while likewise ignoring what else is going on.
And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that
détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room.
Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something
called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and
the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne
Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations.
RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from
different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of
liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting
that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly
deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some
satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for
the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take
action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the
country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S.,
which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not
attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by
terrorists.
And then there is also Donald Trump's recent renunciation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), eliminating a successful program that was preventing nuclear proliferation on
the part of Iran and replacing it with nothing whatsoever apart from war as a possible way of
dealing with the potential problem. Indeed, Trump has been prepared to use military force on
impulse, even when there is no clear casus belli. In Syria there have been two pointless
cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated
intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the
occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground
than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported
that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will
work.
The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new
military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if
Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians.
In Latin America, Washington has backed off from détente with Cuba and has been
periodically threatening some kind of intervention in Venezuela. In Europe, it is engaged in
aggressive war games on the Russian borders, most recently in Norway and Poland. The
Administration has ordered increased involvement in Somalia and has special ops units operating
– and dying – worldwide. Overall, it is hardly a return to the Garden of Eden.
And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently
attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that
the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe
and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes
attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is
precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks
that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to
attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't.
Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war."
As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in
principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the
G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential
grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present,
it is not pretty.
The Establishment (which includes both major political parties) is furious that Trump may be
defusing the (very real) nuclear threat from Kim for the price of a few plane tickets and
dinners, while the Establishment was gung-ho for throwing away a few trillion dollars,
hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, and our nation's once-good reputation in the process
of neutralizing Saddam Hussein, who didn't even have any nukes to begin with. Yep, they're
sore all right.
Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or
disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the
government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The
continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities.
"... However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years, the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American leaders that their own power had its limits. ..."
"... This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do, places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after a fashion, "contained." ..."
"... In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows"). ..."
"... The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels. ..."
Think of it as the all-American version of the human comedy: a great power that eternally
knows what the world needs and offers copious advice with a tone deafness that would be
humorous, if it weren't so grim.
If you look, you can find examples of this just about
anywhere. Here, for instance, is a passage in The New York Times from a piece on the
topsy-turvy Trumpian negotiations that preceded the Singapore summit. "The Americans and South
Koreans," wrote
reporter Motoko Rich, "want to persuade the North that continuing to funnel most of the
country's resources into its military and nuclear programs shortchanges its citizens' economic
well-being. But the North does not see the two as mutually exclusive."
Think about that for a moment. The US has, of course, embarked on a trillion-dollar-plus
upgrade of its already massive nuclear arsenal (and
that's before the cost overruns even begin). Its Congress and president have for years proved
eager to sink at least a
trillion dollars annually into the budget of the national security state (a figure that's
still rising and
outpaces by far that of any other power on the planet), while its own infrastructure
sags and crumbles. And
yet it finds the impoverished North Koreans puzzling when they, too, follow such an extreme
path.
"Clueless" is not a word Americans ordinarily apply to themselves as a country, a people, or
a government. Yet how applicable it is.
And when it comes to cluelessness, there's another, far stranger path the United States has
been following since at least the George W Bush moment that couldn't be more consequential and
yet somehow remains the least noticed of all. On this subject, Americans don't have a clue. In
fact, if you could put the United States on a psychiatrist's couch, this might be the place to
start.
America contained
In a way, it's the oldest story on Earth: the rise and fall of empires. And note the plural
there. It was never – not until recently at least – "empire," always "empires."
Since the 15th century, when the fleets of the first European imperial powers broke into the
larger world with subjugation in mind, it was invariably a contest of many. There were at least
three or sometimes significantly more imperial powers rising and contesting for dominance or
slowly falling from it.
This was, by definition, the history of great powers on this planet: the challenging rise,
the challenged decline. Think of it for so many centuries as the essential narrative of
history, the story of how it all happened until at least 1945, when just two "superpowers," the
United States and the Soviet Union, found themselves facing off on a global scale.
Of the two, the US was always stronger, more powerful, and far wealthier. It theoretically
feared the Russian Bear, the Evil Empire , which it
worked assiduously to " contain " behind that famed Iron
Curtain and whose adherents in the US, always modest in number, were subjected to a mania of
fear and suppression.
However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years,
the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the
Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the
never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American
leaders that their own power had its limits.
This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still
seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do,
places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever
thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after
a fashion, "contained."
In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power
was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the
planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows").
The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going
it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels.
That was the situation until December 1991 when, at the end of a centuries-long imperial
race for power (and the never-ending arms race that went with it), there was just one gigantic
power left standing on Planet Earth. It told you something about the thinking then that, when
the Soviet Union imploded, the initial reaction in Washington wasn't triumphalism (though that
came soon enough) but utter shock, a disbelieving sense that something no one had expected,
predicted, or even imagined had nonetheless happened. To that very moment, Washington had
continued to plan for a two-superpower world until the end of time.
America
uncontained
Soon enough, though, the Washington elite came to see what happened as, in the phrase of the
moment, " the end of
history ." Given the wreckage of the Soviet Union, it seemed that an ultimate victory had
been won by the very country its politicians would soon come to call "the last superpower," the
"
indispensable " nation, the " exceptional
" state, a land great beyond imagining (until, at least, Donald Trump hit
the campaign trail with a slogan that implied greatness wasn't all-American any more).
In reality, there were a variety of paths open to the "last superpower" at that moment.
There was even, however briefly, talk of a "peace dividend" – of the possibility that, in
a world without contesting superpowers, taxpayer dollars might once again be invested not in
the sinews of war-making but of peacemaking (particularly in infrastructure and the well-being
of the country's citizens).
Such talk, however, lasted only a year or two and always in a minor key before being
relegated to Washington's attic. Instead, with only a few rickety "rogue" states left to deal
with – like gulp North Korea, Iraq and Iran – that money never actually headed
home, and neither did the thinking that went with it.
Consider it the good fortune of the geopolitical dreamers soon to take the reins in
Washington that the first Gulf War of 1990-1991, which ended less than a year before the Soviet
Union collapsed, prepared the way for quite a different style of thinking. That instant victory
led to a new kind of militarized dreaming in which a highly tech-savvy military, like the one
that had driven Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in such short order, would
be capable of doing anything on a planet without serious opposition.
And yet, from the beginning, there were signs suggesting a far grimmer future. To take but
one infamous example, Americans still remember the Black Hawk Down moment of 1993
when the world's greatest military fell victim to a Somali warlord and local militias and found
itself incapable of imposing its will on one of the least impressive not-quite-states on the
planet (a place
still frustrating that military a quarter-century later).
In that post-1991 world, however, few in Washington even considered that the 20th century
had loosed another phenomenon on the world, that of insurgent national liberation movements,
generally leftist rebellions, across what had been the colonial world – the very world of
competing empires now being tucked into the history books – and it hadn't gone away. In
the 21st century, such insurgent movements, now largely religious, or terror-based, or both,
would turn out to offer a grim new version of containment to the last
superpower.
Unchaining the indispensable nation
On September 11, 2001, a canny global jihadist by the name of Osama bin Laden
sent his air force (four hijacked US passenger jets) and his precision weaponry (19
suicidal, mainly Saudi followers) against three iconic targets in the American pantheon: the
Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and undoubtedly the Capitol or the White House (neither of
which was hit because one of those jets crashed in a field in
Pennsylvania). In doing so, in a sense bin Laden not only loosed a literal hell on Earth, but
unchained
the last superpower.
William Shakespeare would have had a word for what followed: hubris. But give the top
officials of the Bush administration (and the neocons who supported them) a break. There had
never been a moment like it: a moment of one. A single great power left alone, triumphant, on
planet Earth. Just one superpower – wealthy beyond compare, its increasingly high-tech
military unmatched, its only true rival in a state of collapse – had now been challenged
by a small jihadist group.
To president Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, and the rest of their crew, it seemed like
nothing short of a heaven-sent opportunity. As they came out of the shock of 9/11, of that "
Pearl
Harbor of the 21st century ," it was as if they had found a magic formula in the ruins of
those iconic buildings for the ultimate control of the planet. As secretary of defense Donald
Rumsfeld would instruct an aide
at the Pentagon that day, "Go massive. Sweep it up. Things related and not."
Within days, things related and not were indeed being swept up. The country was almost
instantly said to be "at war," and soon that conflict even had a name, the Global War on
Terror. Nor was that war to be against just al-Qaeda, or even one country, an Afghanistan
largely ruled by the Taliban. More than 60 countries said to have "terror
networks" of various sorts found themselves almost instantly in the administration's potential
gunsights. And that was just to be the beginning of it all.
In October 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was launched. In the spring of 2003, the
invasion of Iraq followed, and those were only the initial steps in what was increasingly
envisioned as the imposition of a Pax Americana on the Greater Middle East.
There could be no doubt, for instance, that Iran and Syria, too, would
soon go the way of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's top officials had been nursing just such dreams
since, in 1997, many of them formed a
think-tank (the first ever to enter the White House) called the Project for the New American
Century and began to write out what
were then the fantasies of figures nowhere near power. By 2003, they were power itself and
their dreams, if anything, had grown even more grandiose.
In addition to imagining a political Pax Republicana in the United States, they truly
dreamed of a future planetary Pax Americana in which, for the first time in history, a single
power would, in some fashion, control the whole works, the Earth itself.
And this wasn't to be a passing matter either. The Bush administration's "unilateralism"
rested on a conviction that it could actually create a future in which no country or even bloc
of countries would ever come close to matching or challenging US military power. The
administration's National Security Strategy of 2002 put the
matter bluntly: The US was to "build and maintain" a military, in the phrase of the moment,
" beyond challenge
."
They had little doubt that, in the face of the most technologically advanced, bulked-up,
destructive force on Earth, hostile states would be "shocked and awed" by a simple demonstration of
its power, while friendly ones would have little choice but to come to heel as well. After all,
as Bush said at a Veterans of
Foreign Wars convention in 2007, the US military was "the greatest force for human liberation
the world has ever known."
Though there was much talk at the time about the "liberation" of Afghanistan and then Iraq,
at least in their imaginations the true country being liberated was the planet's lone
superpower. Although the Bush administration was officially considered a "conservative" one,
its key officials were geopolitical dreamers of the first order and their vision of the world
was the very opposite of conservative. It harkened back to nothing and looked forward to
everything.
It was radical in ways that should have, but didn't, take the American public's breath away;
radical in ways that had never been seen before.
Shock and awe for the last
superpower
Think of what those officials did in the post-9/11 moment as the ultimate act of greed. They
tried to swallow a whole planet. They were determined to make it a planet of one in a way that
had never before been seriously imagined.
It was, to say the least, a vision of madness. Even in a moment when it truly did seem
– to them at least – that all constraints had been taken off, an administration of
genuine conservatives might have hesitated. Its top officials might, at least, have approached
the post-Soviet situation with a modicum of caution and modesty.
But not George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and pals. In the face of what seemed
like the ultimate in possibilities they proved clueless when it came to the possibility that
anything on Earth might have a shot at containing them.
Even among their critics, who could have imagined then that, more than 16 years later,
having faced only lightly armed enemies of various sorts, still wealthy beyond compare, still
with a military funded in a way the next seven
countries couldn't cumulatively match,
the United States would have won literally nothing?
Who could have imagined that, unlike so many preceding imperial powers (including the US of
the earlier Cold War era), it would have been able to establish control over nothing at all;
that, instead, from Afghanistan to Syria, Iraq deep into Africa, it would find itself in a
state of "
infinite war " and utter frustration on a planet filled with ever more failed
states , destroyed
cities , displaced people , and
right-wing "populist" governments, including the one in Washington?
Who could have imagined that, with a peace dividend no longer faintly conceivable, this
country would have found itself not just in decline, but – a new term is needed to catch
the essence of this curious moment – in what might be called self-decline?
Yes, a new power, China, is finally rising – and doing so on a planet that seems
itself to be
going down . Here, then, is a conclusion that might be drawn from the quarter-century-plus
in which America was both unchained and largely alone.
The Earth is admittedly a small orb in a vast universe, but the history of this century so
far suggests one reality about which America's rulers proved utterly clueless: After so many
hundreds of years of imperial struggle, this planet still remains too big, too disparate, too
ornery to be controlled by a single power. What the Bush administration did was simply take one
gulp too many and the result has been a kind of national (and planetary) indigestion.
Despite what it looked like in Washington once upon a time, the disappearance of the Soviet
Union proved to be no gift at all, but a disaster of the first order. It removed all sense of
limits from America's political class and led to a tale of greed on a planetary scale. In the
process, it also set the US on a path to self-decline.
The history of greed in our time has yet to be written, but what a story it will someday
make. In it, the greed of those geopolitical dreamers will intersect with the greed of an ever
wealthier, ever more gilded 1%, of the billionaires who were preparing to swallow whole the
political system of that last superpower and grab so much of the wealth of the planet, leaving
so little for others.
Whether you're talking about the urge to control the planet militarily or financially, what
took place in these years could, in the end, result in ruin of a historic kind. To use a
favored phrase from the Bush years, one of these days we Americans may be facing little short
of "regime change" on a planetary scale. And what a piece of shock and awe that's likely to
prove to be.
All of us, of course, now live on the planet Bush's boys tried to swallow whole. They left
us in a world of infinite war, infinite harm, and in Donald Trump's America where cluelessness
has been raised to a new power.
"... The declaration of the DPRK came after the US- backed Rhee declared the ROK and reneged on peninsula-wide elections that had been agreed to at the UN. I guess you can call it a civil war, but that really isn't germane to the question: Why can the US not stomach any rapprochement between the two de facto Koreas two-thirds of a century later, while it was willing to accept a reunification of a historically more aggressive Germany? ..."
"... According to I.F. Stone in his "Hidden History of the Korean War" (1952), the intent of the Korean War was to destabilize the Chinese Revolution which had consolidated power the year before. ..."
Fearing that peace might break out with the two Koreas talking to each
other, Washington instructed South Korean President Moon Jae-in to
keep the message about anything but peace
. It is not just Trump. A former top official for the Obama
administration warned Moon that South Korea was not going to get anywhere with the North Koreans unless they
have the "US behind them". Humiliating, that is like saying that Moon's "button" is not as big as Kim's. The
metaphor is exactly how the Washington elite see South Korea: as Washington's obedient eunuch. The official
went on to say, "If South Koreans are viewed as running off the leash, it will exacerbate tension within the
alliance". Running off the leash! Now more humiliation, is South Korea a US poodle? Instead President Moon
Jae-in is showing that he has teeth, and that South Koreans want their country back from US humiliating
domination.
During the talks it was agreed for North
Korea to participate in the Winter Olympics in February. The two countries will even march together under a
common flag, and future talks between the two are planned to reduce tension. Trump continues to bluster,
while the two Koreas have "
engaged
in the most substantive direct talks in years". Neocons such as John Bolton are
outraged
that North Korea has proven once again that it is willing to come to the negotiation table.
Bolton says it is a dirty trick and that North Korea is "taking advantage of a weak South Korean
government", adding more insulting humiliation. To Washington, South Korea talking peace is weak, running
off the leash and going it alone without its US master. The North using the peace option is seen as a
provocation and propaganda that Washington will not tolerate. In retaliation the
US sent
more nukes to Guam, and put the state of Hawaii on a full alert that a "
ballistic
missile was inbound
". The nukes outbound to Guam are real; the ones inbound to Hawaii were fake, just
like the ability of the billion dollar THAADS to shoot them down. Too conveniently the Hawaii false alarm
comes just as the US and its vassals are readying for what the US plots to be a
show of solidarity
and unity on killer sanctions against North Korea. The US wants its chorus to perform
the tragedy of telling North Korea to obey or watch 500,000 of their children die. As Madeleine Albright
said about Iraq's 500,000 dead children from US sanctions, "
the
price is worth it
". The US does not think the price of diplomacy is worth it though.
The US continues to block efforts at
diplomacy, and express its contempt for South Korea's elected President Moon Jae-in. He was elected on a
peace platform
by the South Korean people. Moon's predecessor Park Geun-hye sang from the US hymnbook
until she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. In 2017 the South Korean people went to the street and
demanded the granddaughter of former dictator Park Chung Hee be impeached, and now she is in prison. Peace
is not anything that Washington's plutocrats want to hear, although the South Korean people like the sound
of it, and elected Moon their president by a wide margin. The self-interests in Washington preferred the
corrupt warmonger Park. She carried the US's tune with perfect pitch, even (
allegedly
)
conspired to assassinate the North's Kim Jong-Un. The message of the humiliation from US apparatchiks is
that if Moon does not change his tune the US will try to undermine South Korea's democracy with a regime
change project might be in his future. The US habitually meddles in other's elections, and wants to keep
tensions high on the Korean peninsula, keep the South Koreans in line, make North Korea a boogeyman,
frighten the American people, station 30,000 US troops in South Korea with wartime operational control, buy
more multi-billion dollar THAADS from Lockheed Martin, and divide the Korean people. Even at the risks of a
nuclear war, which the US proposes
making easier
.
The establishment
nearly went to war
with North Korea in 1994 until Bill Clinton negotiated peace. The neocons in
Washington and the mainstream media keep saying that North Korea refused to come to the negotiating table.
Clinton's decision to use diplomacy instead of threats proved the warmongers wrong again. It was the US all
along that refused to talk, preferring belligerence and threats just as it does now. Once Clinton showed a
willingness to bargain, then a nuclear deal was struck. The deal was called the
Agreed Framework
. What North Korea wanted then for it to suspend its nuclear program was for the US to
halt the massive military exercises on North Korea's border, a non-aggression guarantee, compensation for
abandoning its needed electric producing nuclear reactors, and relations with the US. Now the situation with
North Korea is back to where it was in 1994. George W. Bush reversed the path of peace when he came into the
White House. In 2001 he tore up the Agreed Framework, put North Korea on the
Axis of Evil
list in 2002,
invaded Iraq
in 2003, and
hanged Saddam
Hussein in 2006. Very predictably North Korea resumed its nuclear program for self-defense
against a paranoid and unpredictable USA that sees enemies to attack under every bed.
Bush scrapped
the Agreed Framework, and told then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung that future talks
with North Korea were dead. Kim Dae-jung had come to visit Bush shortly after winning the Nobel Peace Prize
for his
Sunshine Policies
of peace with North Korea. Instead of welcoming President Kim and his peace efforts,
Bush humiliated him by shockingly calling North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il a dwarf. North Korea predictably
withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and resumed work on its nuclear program. A month later
Bush called out North Korea to pay particular attention to Libya as an example of how a country is welcomed
into the international community when it unilaterally gives up its nuclear defense program. North Korea paid
attention and it was listening when Muammar Gaddafi said in a 2008 speech that "
one
of these days America may hang us
like they did Saddam ". In 2011 Gaddafi met a
brutal death
at the hands of US proxies; he was anally raped with a bayonet and left to rot on public
display in a meat locker. Before Gaddafi's corpse was even cold a hysterically glowing Hillary Clinton
cackled "
we
came, we saw, he died", hahaha
". Now fast forward to 2018 and the US is threatening war against North
Korea again.
The US has been abusing Korea since 1871
when it first invaded it with an expeditionary force of Marines to forcibly open trade. Korea just wanted to
be left alone, but the US forced Korea to sign an exclusive trade treaty in 1882 at the point of a gun. In
exchange for that unequal trade agreement the US promised Korea protection. In 1910 the US proved that its
promise was worthless. Instead of protection, President Theodore Roosevelt stabbed Korea in the back by
conspiring with Japan. Roosevelt had enthusiastically supported Japan in the Russo-Japanese War. Japan
pre-emptively attacked the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in a sneak attack. Teddy congratulated Japan for
their brilliance in 1941 his nephew Franklin would call a Japanese sneak attack "a day of infamy". After
Japan and Russia ground down to a bloody stalemate, Japan secretly appealed to Teddy to open negotiations.
Roosevelt acted as a (dis)honest broker in negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth, for which he won the Nobel
Peace Prize. Japan won the spoils of the war. Roosevelt had a secret deal that Japan could have Korea and
the US would take the Philippines. In 1945 the US deceived Korea again. Instead of liberating Korea from the
Japanese occupation, the US occupied Korea for 3 more years until 1948 and then blocked its independence.
The US was largely responsible for the division of Korea and backing dictatorships in South Korea until
1993. Americans do not know the US treachery, but Koreans do. Why would they trust the USA now?
In order to understand North Korea, one
must start with the "anticolonial and anti-imperial state growing out of a half-century of Japanese colonial
rule and a half-century of continuous confrontation with a hegemonic United States", as Bruce Cumings writes
in his book
North Korea: Another Country
. In order to understand South Korea one should take a similar approach. The
Japanese colonization of Korea in 1910 was greeted with cheers from the USA. Teddy Roosevelt encouraged
Japan to have its own
Japanese Monroe Doctrine
for Northeast Asia. The Japanese were harsh rulers, and Koreans remember
colonial times as a national humiliation. Under the Japanese the Korean economy grew rapidly, but Koreans
will rightly argue that little of it helped the average Korean. Like the Korean "comfort women" sex slaves
during World War Two, Koreans were forced to obey their Japanese masters. Some Koreans complied reluctantly,
some willingly and some enthusiastically. Many, but not all of the enthusiastic collaborators came from the
landed aristocratic class of Koreans known as the
yangban
. Other collaborators were traitors that saw advancing their economic and social status by
collaborating. After the division of Korea in 1945 many of the yangban class and collaborators fled to the
South where they felt safe with the US occupation army, and for good reasons. The North was redistributing
the yangban's vast landholdings. Many of the yangban and collaborators were safer in the US occupied south.
Some went on to achieve leadership in business and government in South Korea. For instance, the future South
Korean dictator Park Chung-hee (from 1963 until his assassination in 1979) had collaborated with the
Japanese as a lieutenant in the Japanese army in Manchuria fighting against the Korean resistance fighters.
Korea has a long history of thousands of
years. It united as one people in the 7
th
century and remained so until after World War Two. The
US had started planning for the occupation of Korea six months after Pearl Harbor, according to Bruce
Cumings. The day after Japan surrendered a future Secretary of State Dean Rusk drew a line at the
38
th
Parallel
where the US proposed that Korea be divided, and the Russian allies agreed.
Thousands of Koreans protested in the streets. They were told that a
trusteeship
was temporary until elections. Instead the US feared that the people would elect a communist
government, and so they rigged a fraudulent election for a separate government in the South. The United
Nations rubber stamped it. As in the South, the North then held
separate elections
for the Supreme People's Assembly which then elected Kim Il Sung, a famous
anti-Japanese guerilla resistance leader since 1932. The US and South Korean propaganda portray that North
Korea was a puppet and satellite project of the Soviet Union. This is probably the US projecting its own
imperial intentions. Cummings says that no evidence exists that the Soviets had any long-term designs on
Korea. They withdrew all of their military from North Korea in 1948.
North Korea has experience with US
brutality. During the Korean War the US bombed Korea for 3 years, wiped out 20% of its population and
destroyed every city, village and vital structure. President Truman threatened to bomb them with the atomic
bomb, and General Douglas MacArthur planned to use 30 nuclear bombs which were shipped to a US base in
Okinawa. Truman fired MacArthur not because MacArthur wanted to use nukes, but because Truman wanted someone
more loyal he could trust with them. Truman preauthorized MacArthur's replacement General Matthew Ridgeway
to use the nuclear bombs at his discretion. The US public is oblivious to US recklessness with nuclear bombs
and is passive about what is done in their name. The Korean War (1950 to 1953) is called the Forgotten War
because the US public has amnesia. Whatever propaganda they do remember is a flawed version of history put
out by the US government. Oblivious, passive and amnesia are why all US wars of aggression are quickly
forgotten as the US moves on to the next one.
After the US military occupation of
South Korea from 1945 to 1948, South Korea was ruled by US backed
repressive
dictators until the first democratic election in 1993. The first despot that the US installed
was Syngman Rhee in 1948. Rhee was a practically unknown in Korea because he had lived in the USA from 1912
until 1945, when he was flown back to Korea by the US military. The US pumped billions of dollars into South
Korea to make it a showplace of US-style capitalism during the Cold War, but South Korea did not develop
under either democracy or a free market, according to Ha-Joon Chang, the author of
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
.
For many decades North Korea outpaced
South Korea in economic development and in their standard of living until the 1970's. With the 1991 demise
of its most important trading partner the Soviet Union, North Korea fell on very hard economic times. Then
it suffered two floods and a drought in the 1990′s that resulted in famines. On top of that the US has
imposed killer economic sanctions. So now US propaganda constantly reinforces the belief that North Korea is
an economic failure that cannot even feed its own people. While the US touts that South Korea is an economic
miracle of democracy, capitalism and free markets. Little is ever mentioned about the economic collapse of
South Korea in 1997, which the US had to rescue with a
financial bailout package
that reached $90 Billion. The package included IMF loans that came with
humiliating conditionalities of austerity. The minister of finance Lim Chang Yuel went on TV, humiliated and
begging for the South Korean people's forgiveness.
Despite all the propaganda otherwise,
North Korea is not only willing to sit down at the table with the US, but it has long been proposing
negotiations to a deaf USA ear. What North Korea says it wants today are the same things that were
negotiated with Clinton in the Agreed Framework: security, compensation, and economic relations with the US.
There is nothing unreasonable that North Korea is asking for, and that is probably why the US refuses to
negotiate. It does not want peace for its own insane naked imperialism reasons. Instead the US wants
continued hostilities; otherwise if it wanted peace it would welcome diplomacy.
It is the US that is unpredictable. One
day Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson says
that the US is willing to hold unconditional talks with North Korea. Then he says
the US won't
. Trump says that he will destroy North Korea with fire and fury, and then he says he would
"
absolutely
talk
to North Korea's Kim on the phone". It is the US that is paranoid and finding enemies everywhere:
Cuba, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia to name just a few. The US enemies list has nothing to
do with democracy, freedom and human rights. If it did the US would not be friends, allies, and benefactors
to brutal kingdoms, monarchies, dictators, fascists and human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Israel, Honduras, Haiti, and Ukraine, for example. US foreign policy is based on hegemony, empire, power,
corporate interests, corruption and self-interests of the high and mighty, not democracy and human rights.
Who is paranoid? Compare how much of a
threat the US is compared to North Korea. Since World War Two North Korea has not invaded anybody. The
Korean War (1950 to 1953) was a civil war and authoritative historians such as I. F. Stone, Bruce Cumings,
and David Halberstam agree that the South was responsible for instigating it too. Korea itself has not
invaded anybody since the 16
th
century. The US has attacked at least
32 countries
just since WW2. North Korea has a defense budget of only
$7.5 billion
, compared to the US $1 Trillion. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons because the US
has been threatening it with nuclear destruction since 1950, introduced nuclear weapons into South Korea in
1957 in violation of the armistice agreement and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US keeps
practicing regime change decapitation invasions and nuclear attacks against North Korea. North Korea has an
estimated arsenal of 20 nuke bombs that are not a threat to the US's 15,000 nuclear arsenal. Instead the US
is an asymmetrical and existential threat to North Korea and every other non-compliant small country. North
Korea has nuclear weapons because it does not want to humiliate itself by being a US poodle. When are the
American people going to wise up to the US propaganda and false cries that the evil wolf is at the door
again?
References:
"North Korea: Another Country", by Bruce
Cumings.
"The China Mirage: The Hidden History of
American Disaster in Asia," by James Bradley.
"Korean Mind: Understanding Contemporary
Korean Culture", by Boye Lafayette De Mente
(Republished from
The
Greanville Post
by permission of author or representative)
United Sh-thole of America. The people in Washington are degenerates. They want to murder millions of
Koreans and tens of thousands of their own people.
This article is too easy on the Norks, who are no angels themselves. It's quite unlikely that the South
started the war, when the South didn't have adequate weaponry or effective armed forces, unlike the North.
North Korea has done some horrible things in the past, most recently the (likely) sinking of a South Korean
vessel.
But overall, yes, in the current situation the US could easily avoid war, but doesn't want to.
Absolutely zero chance of JUSA attacking Korea for the obvious reason that there is nothing in it for the
jooies. Why would the clever conniving jooies waste their satrap's military assets on Korea when they could
be used to further the main jooie goal of destroying the ME and Iran? Think about it ..
Could be that the Trump administration is playing a game of hyper-aggression that always goes 'wrong',
uniting everyone against the empire and bringing America down in the least bad of hard landings from its
imperial role. Trump's kind words vis-a-vis Kim might have served as an assurance that Kim could trust his
channel. That purpose having been served, Trump was back in hyper-aggressive mode with his "I'd" versus "I"
explanation.
Trump's statements regarding Jerusalem, Iran and Pakistan/Afghanistan all follow the same
pattern.
We do have President Moon's statement, cited by a seemingly clueless Patrick Buchanan, that he is
nonetheless grateful to Trump for bringing the North Koreans to the table. Trump's overtly bad behavior
makes it easier for Kim to move against the entrenched forces on his own side.
Just a possibility. But it fits Trump's personality, if you go by indications over the decades rather
than the last two years.
So what? America is not an angel either. Doesn't give America the right to interfere. I'm glad other
countries have the balls to give America a bloody nose. Never has there been such a dishonest and immoral
country.
Where are you from Europe lol?
Hope your not expecting your obedience to pay off someday.
"When are the American people going to wise up to the US propaganda and false cries that the evil wolf is at
the door again?"
The hippie paradigm, if the people have awareness, they will care and change things
I think you underestimate the % of people who don't care and those understand, better them than me. Trump
was quoted as saying about the next Korean war, better Seoul nuked than us or something to that effect. Do
Trump supporters mind what he said that the USA should take the oil at the very least with regards to Iraq?
Nexus321, please, a little respect for our own country. We are the United States of America. Do not curse
the family.
Now, we are, all of us, disappointed with misdeeds done in our name. But, we are Americans and we can fix
this.
We should not judge the essence of ourselves as a nation by what some wayward politician whores do. Check
their motives and see on whose behalf they are working. It ain't ours. If what they do keeps the war game
alive, ask who benefits. Where does the buck lead? There lies the snake. Curse that. Bad deeds done in our
government's name shame us all, but that shame should make us citizens mature and determined, not adolescent
and whiny. I repeat, do not curse the family.
We are a good country founded on solid, moral principles. Act like a white man, Nexus321. Let's take this
country back and delouse it.
I don't know, what were you trying to say? That North Korea should be nuked, since they are "no angels"? no
matter what your personal opinion of them is, the fact, that they didn't attack anybody is still true!
"Since World War Two North Korea has not invaded anybody."
North Korea inarguably invaded the South. The arguable point might be whether or not it was provoked and
therefore a response.
I haven't read the histories the author cites, but I am aware of the history and the case that can be
made, and it is generally consonant with the gist of this article. The declaration of the DPRK came after
the US- backed Rhee declared the ROK and reneged on peninsula-wide elections that had been agreed to at the
UN. I guess you can call it a civil war, but that really isn't germane to the question: Why can the US not
stomach any rapprochement between the two de facto Koreas two-thirds of a century later, while it was
willing to accept a reunification of a historically more aggressive Germany?
Absolutely. There are suburbs coast to coast that depend on weapons manufacturing and all things defense.
They'll stick to the script.
I'm disappointed the author didn't embellish the truth of the Korean war – the way the US went after
civilians like the Nazis and used biological agents. Empire has a lot of secrets about fightin' communism
they still hide.
Screw the "family" mafia for the family is just as corrupt as the leaders you curse, do you really think the
family gives a shit about how many we killed in Asia, do you really think the family gives a shit about how
many we kill in the Mid-East or anywhere else for that matter,and what the country was founded on has no
bearing to what it is today, corrupt to the core, immoral degenerate with a fascist type government which the
"family" is just as guilty of as its leaders .
According to I.F. Stone in his "Hidden History of the Korean War" (1952), the intent of the Korean War was
to destabilize the Chinese Revolution which had consolidated power the year before. As Iraq was told that it
was acceptable to the USA if it reunified with Kuwait in 1993, so North Korea was suckered into attempting
to reunify their country. Those thirty atomic bombs were not intended for Korea which had already been
utterly destroyed by conventional weapons, they were meant for China. McArthur sacrificed a Marine division
by sending it without support to the border of China and predictably brought that country into the war; he
then demanded the nuclear bombing of China. Truman didn't go along and MacArthur was soon replaced. A fine
article from Mr. Pear.
Lots of good stuff but too sympathetic to North Korea which is ruled by a truly vile regime.
North Korea
is not about nationalism. It's about dynasticism. Also, 'Kim Il Sung' was not the real Kim Il Sung. His real name was Kim Sung Ju and he appropriated the
name of a guerrilla fighter. And his cult of personality was obnoxious.
Bak Jung-Hi worked for the Japanese, but collaboration is par for the course when resistance is futile.
Resistance became futile under Japanese who were only defeated by great powers. Sukarno collaborated with
Japanese too. And Kim collaborated with the Soviets. North Korea redistributed land to the peasants but then state collectivized the land, and the peasants
became slaves of the state.
The fact that Red China and communist Vietnam turned to market economics is proof that capitalism works
better than communism. Communism is like City Hall running all the economy of a big city. Who wants that?
The US has been threatening to use nukes against the DPRK during and since the war. Is it any wonder that
they decided to nuke up themselves as a deterrent? They're not going to give up their nuclear deterrent
under the bombast of threats of annihilation but are more likely to dig in and expand it. This doesn't seem
to be particularly complex or difficult to understand. Where does the US think it can go from here, what
does it think it could realistically do to them? It might be a good first step to stop the bluffing. Can we
say 'self-inflicted' when it comes to this confrontation?
{ Can we say 'self-inflicted' when it comes to this confrontation}
The confrontation is not
'inflicted
' as such: it was and is carefully planned.
This is not the first time South Korea has tried to approach North Korea: US previously also threatened SK
leaders, and forced them to back off.
US needs maximum tension on the Korean peninsula to have an excuse to keepa large contingent of armed
forces in the region. If South and North Korean make peace, US will be asked to leave SK.
Next might be Japan. Then US is completely cut out of the region.
So in desperation, US will do anything, possibly even instigating a military clash, to stay in SK and
Japan. Last thing US MIC wants anywhere in the world is peace: it's bad for business.
What we need are more psyops like the recent drill in Hawaii. More fear and loathing so empire can create a
virtual camp x-ray with live updates from Facebook and twitter to coddle the sheep. It's a shame North Korea
can't buy Democracy to keep it from Dying in Darkness.
But how dare Russia try to use our twitter weapon that we use on Americans that the Russians want to use on
Americans too.
Pussy hat controlled resistance, doom porn and fake antiwar will continue to play an
important part of the lives of the American porn consumer. In the name of security the CIA may give us the
race war, or hatred of the wealthy or the ol' immigrant rat trap. The possibilities are endless but the
dictatorship is making itself clear with endless promotion of scarcity through their scribes in social
media.
Post on social media everyday – what you think matters!
To make matters much more confusing, we have hypocritical stealth DOD contractors like Code Pink play up
fake resistance to the threat of war. Barging into meetings as if the whores on Capitol Hill are calling the
shots is an uniquely insidious form of stunt based propaganda. The motive for groups like Code Pink is to
have a group that part of the press can immediately call "far left, unpatrioric" endearing them to at least
half the sheep who are convinced they are the real McCoy of antiwar dynamite.
Code Pink first crushes any
questions about whether Democracy even exists in the USA. "Look at us, we are right here where it matters
isn't the country wonderful"
Then the absolute suffocation of anyone who dares question empires' gun running operations outside of
state approved stunt idiocy and clown show electoral politics.
Why did you omit the fact that the S Korean sex trade is completely run by S Koreans not Americans?
I do
remember an American colonel in the occupation forces stating that he basically ran a brothel.
The US has had sanctions on N. Korea for more than forty years.
During that period, more than one S, Korean government has entertained re-unification. The reason we
might challenge that reunion if because should we actually have to go to war at some point with China, a
friendly Korea with China would be a problem.
But what is driving unification at least when I visited was the population.
But the choice by Pres Trump to entertain conversation -- is a wise choice.
So? Most of the propaganda put out during the Cold War by the Soviet Union turned out to be more accurate
and closer to the truth than propaganda put out by the United States government though the US State
Department. For instance, Russia's version (at the time) as of what transpired immediately prior to and
after Francis Gary Powers was shot down over Russia in 1959 (?) turned out to be much more accurate than the
US's version which was essentially a pack of lies.
No idea what you're talking about with 'the Truth'. This article is highly accurate, it seems to me: it's
description of endless and ongoing US atrocities is absolutely true, as is the author's statement that never
has such a rotten, lying government existed, a government that perpetually provokes any and all countries on
earth, that hates peace, that destroys any attempts at decency. I have only read IF Stone, cited here, 'The
Hidden History of the Korean War' or something similar. It is a staggering book. Essentially the war was a
military exercise, a chance for troops to see action, test out new machines and weaponry. Most importantly,
my interpretation here, it presented a vast theater for psy ops and 'country building' ie utter destruction.
These kinds of great experiments are a Brit and by extension US govt specialty. This is really thinking big,
thinking long term. Cut countries in two after first murdering millions and utterly destroying literally
everything–in this case, for example, Seoul was literally first evacuated then set on fire by US troops,
just kinda for fun. It's the kind of really big thinking going on now too (and in all the intervening
years), eg with the utter destruction of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Britain (a misnomer–it
is really England but wants others to share the burden. I mean, the Welsh??) did this to Ireland four
centuries ago, to India more recently, to mention nothing of Africa and others.
'Then there's a whole range of wild attacks and accusations going all the way back to 1871(!).'
It's
called history, not an American specialty. But rather important to understanding the present and future.
Your whole post is very ignorant.
It was the same in VietNam–we installed a dictator (Diem) who had lived mostly in the US, and reneged on the
national elections that had been agreed on as a part of the peace agreement after the French defeat.
After
JFK tried and lost, nothing has been able to stop the Military bla bla bla complex that actually rules this
country.
If South Korea officially requested this, would the US refuse?
Of course the USG would refuse such a request -- it thinks it is master of the world. The greatest hindrance
to world peace since WWII is the monster on the Potomac.
Michael Kenny's comment ignores the fact that the rocket motors could have been airshipped from the Dnipro factory directly to
DPRK, or even shipped by sea.
Maybe they came via China. The bottom line is we don't know when or how they got there.
What we do know is that Rocket Man's displays of prowess have brought things to a head in one of the Empire's critical nodes. The
background for this crisis is ROK's desire to participate in China's BRI. The chaebols are drooling over the opportunities, but DPRK
isolates them in the southern end of the Korean peninsula. Hence, Putin & Moon's joint announcement in Vladivostok of the "9
Bridges" initiative bringing DPRK into the Eurasian fold.
It would appear DPRK likes the idea, and the suddenness of the thaw in North – South relations is an indication that big wheels
are turning behind the scenes. The US' recent statements indicate it finally dawned on them as well, and that they are, in their
typically knee-jerk fashion, actively trying to torpedo further peaceful developments.
If ROK loosens its tethers to the US sufficiently to gain direct land access to the rest of Eurasia, Japan's Keiretsu will not
allow themselves to be sidelined. Abe & Putin have met 17 times, perhaps as a result of the pressures Abe is already feeling from
them.
The US' absurd statements, the patently silly "Vancouver Summit", the flip-flopping, all indicate that the US and its Imperial
satraps have no idea what to do in the face of Rocket Man's exposure of their irrelevance in the N.W. Pacific.
So let them, officially, invite us to leave.
My bet – and certainly my hope – is that we'd bow out, more
or less gracefully.
And if we refused – well, that would certainly clarify things.
The Korean Peninsula is cursed by geography. Reunification of Korea would mean one of two things.
1. A
Korean Peninsula allied with the US. This would put US troops on the Chinese border. No one should want
this. Too easy for a border incident to escalate into a war between the two most powerful countries and
economies on the planet.
2. A non-aligned Korean Peninsula. No way this would happen. Without US support the entire peninsula
would become a Chinese satellite. Japan fought two wars because it saw Chinese / Russian control of Korea as
an existential threat. Japan would get nukes if this happened and the entire NW Pacific would be greatly
destabilized.
The sad reality is that a buffer state in the north part of the Korean Peninsula is in the best interest
of South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the US. What everyone needs to figure out is how to make N. Korea
more like East Germany, and less like Stalinist Russia at its worse.
"North Korea is not about nationalism. It's about dynasticism." -- Anon
Except that the current Kim may actually be a Korean nationalist, not a North Korean nationalist, in
which respect he is in agreement with all the Korean people. Korea will become reunited, but the price of
reunification may be, probably will be, that it will become part of Han China.
China regards Korea as it does Tibet, only more so -- as now and since ever throughout all time, as part
of China, speaking and writing Mandarin, integrated into the PRC economically, culturally and politically.
I'm sure this will please the anti-USA crowd gathering here around this article by Pear -- as they always
do to show support for any Leftist revisionist supporter of the "USA==Evil" dogma.
"Except that the current Kim may actually be a Korean nationalist, not a North Korean nationalist, in which
respect he is in agreement with all the Korean people. Korea will become reunited, but the price of
reunification may be, probably will be, that it will become part of Han China."
No, Little Rocket Man is a
self-centered spoiled brat who puts himself above all else. He was raised as a spoiled princeling and acts
like it.
"China regards Korea as it does Tibet, only more so -- as now and since ever throughout all time, as part
of China, speaking and writing Mandarin, integrated into the PRC economically, culturally and politically."
No, China always regarded Korea as a separate kingdom and left it alone as long as Korea paid tribute. It
was Japan that tried to swallow Korea twice, not China.
The only time Korea became part of Han Empire was when China itself was conquered by foreigners. Mongols
conquered China and Korea. Later, Manchus, using Mongol archers, also conquered China and Korea. It was not
China conquering Korea but non-Chinese conquering both.
Even so, the Manchus regarded Korea as a separate kingdom in the end.
Tibet is a different because of its small population. It's a huge area and had less than a million people
when it came under Han hegemony. Same with the Turkic Northwest. It's like US could easily swallow Alaska
and sparsely populated SW territories but didn't try to take Mexico proper.
In a way, Mongols really changed China and Russia. If not for Mongols, Russia might be much smaller and
China too. Both Russia and China were conservative powers. Russian expansion was paradoxically defensive as,
lacking sufficient natural barriers, Russia could only survive as an empire. Even so, Russians might not
have been interested in East Siberia and North Asia if not for concerns of invasions from the East.
Pacifying Siberia and North Asia became a priority because of the memory of threat from the East. Also, the
Mongols proved that the vast area could be traversed if the people had the will to do so.
And if not for Mongols, Current China might be much smaller. Han China used to be much smaller and was
restricted to the East Coast. Chinese were very conservative and not very adventurous, exploratory, and/or
invasive. Instead of trying to conquer northern territories, China just built walls to keep the barbarians
out. And Chinese had little interest in areas outside Han areas.
So, for most of Chinese history, their civilization was mostly along the east coast.
The massive expansion of Chinese borders happened under Mongols who
were
adventurous and expansive.
Mongols not only invaded China but went far beyond.
Later, the Manchus, using Mongol archers and warriors, expanded much further into the West, regions that the
Han Chinese mostly neglected. These semi-barbarian warlords had the aggressive zeal that the conservative
Han Chinese lacked.
Thus, it was Manchu-Mongol ambitions that expanded the size of China, and when the Manchus and Mongols were
either expelled from or dissolved into Han China, their conquests became absorbed into China. Mongolia would
be part of China too if not for Soviets. Like Tibet, Mongolia is huge and sparsely populated. Easier for
Chinese to control. Also, both Mongols and Tibetans are less developed than Koreans who are more adept at
imitation.
Likewise, Byzantine Greeks had an empire they inherited from the Romans.
"Highly unlikely. He called himself Kim Il Sung already when people who have met the original Kim Il Sung
were still around. Such change of identity is not impossible, but not too easy either."
No, 'Kim Il Sung'
was a fraud. He had been part of some resistance movement, but he was not THE Kim Il Sung who's more legend,
like Robin Hood.
Kim was so unknown in Korea that Soviets initially had trouble installing him as leader. Most people saw
him as Soviet stooge, which was what he was.
So, as in the South, the domestic patriots had to be repressed or executed, and a cult of personality had to
be built up around Kim that became more and more ridiculous.
Kim was an unimaginative Stalinist.
That said, I don't see how his 'invasion' of South was a bad thing. How can a Korean invade Korea? The
north/south divide was artificially imposed by great powers on a nation. As idiotic as both Kim and Rhee
were, there was nothing wrong in their dream of reuniting the nation. The great wrong was in the (1)
division of Korea itself (2) installing puppet rulers in both artificially created entities.
Suppose China and Russia divided Israel into north and south. Would it be wrong if either Israel, north
or south, tried to reunify the nation? If north Israel entered south Israel to unify the nation once again,
would that be 'invasion'?
Kim's Stalinism and personality cult would have been bad for Korea, but I don't see anything wrong with
his desire to unify his nation. And in that, Rhee had every right to want to unify the nation.
Where Rhee and Kim were idiotic was in blaming one another instead of blaming the great powers that
divided their nation. But how could either blame his sponsor? If not for USSR, Kim would not have been
installed as leader of north. If not for US, Rhee would not have been shoehorned in as leader of south. They
gained power as dogs to foreign masters.
If they really had sense, both would have stepped down as leader(as both were installed by empires) and
graciously allowed for unification and new leadership chosen by the people than by foreign powers. But both
had petty egos, and Kim wanted to be ruler of all Korea, and Rhee wanted to be ruler of all Korea. Neither
blamed the great powers but just one another.
If Israel were divided by great powers, I think Jews would have enough sense to come together and act in
unison. After all, Israel itself was created by the coming together of all kinds of Jews: capitalist,
communist, socialist, liberal, conservative, secular, religious. Jews may be neurotic and crazy, but they
have enough sense of world affairs and the nature of power.
But Koreans are a stupid people. Divide them and set them against each other like dogs, and they are like
two pitbulls. A culture of slavish servitude and emotions-over-reason made them act like dogs than sensible
humans.
When the british empire ended, I think a lot of borders were drawn to create ever lasting problems/conflicts.
Israel was also it's creation with american backing of course.
When are the American people going to wise up to the US propaganda and false cries that the evil wolf
is at the door
I doubt the masses will ever awake from the constant propaganda. I mean, all major information outlet is
controlled. and besides, the smart ones also believe it is necessary to keep their way of life.
ask any american if their way of life will end, everything will become 100% more expensive, they can no
longer take vacations, work twice as hard for the same pay or less, they will instantly think nothing of the
current wars
very, very very few people are selfless humanists.
I am just scare of the fact if usa attacks NK unilaterally in the near future, china will get involved =
WW3 + maybe nuclear war.
I read similar drooling nonsense to what you just wrote all over the internet: "Look, first off, I
don't support the guy but this is obvious lefty slander".
Ok. You don't support the guy but you need to qualify that non-support by saying he's being impuded.
In other words you support the guy, warning of the coming leftists
– Anonymous
What am I supposed to asy? "I feel your pain" or what? I mean you have to read "similar drooling nonsense
all over the internet" so what?
First off, it's not that I don't support Pear, but I actually condemn him as a Leftist revisionist. And
then there's no' but', there's an
'and' it's obvious lefty drool.
BTW, my "non-support" for Pear is
unqualified, as is my disrespect for you,, Anonymous. Are yoo actually Pear writing under that pseudonym?
No, 'Kim Il Sung' was a fraud. He had been part of some resistance movement, but he was not THE Kim Il
Sung who's more legend, like Robin Hood.
He was made into such a legend by North Korean propaganda after Kim became the leader. He was the most
daring Korean guerrilla commander, but that's not saying very much, because he couldn't do much against the
Japanese.
Kim was an unimaginative Stalinist.
Oh, he had a lot of imagination and original ideas. They led to a dystopia, but original he was. He also
was a skillful and daring politician, who managed to get rid of his pro-China and pro-Soviet factions
simultaneously in the late 1950s, at a time when he depended on both. That was quite bold and required a lot
of political skills. Founding a dynasty in a nominally Marxist-Leninist society was not very easy either.
There was some opposition to it even among his otherwise loyal associates, who wanted a normal communist
succession with one of the top dogs becoming the new leader.
"Oh, he had a lot of imagination and original ideas. They led to a dystopia, but original he was."
He was
shrewd, not original. But then, he was surrounded by second-raters and hacks, not men of talent.
"He also was a skillful and daring politician, who managed to get rid of his pro-China and pro-Soviet
factions simultaneously in the late 1950s, at a time when he depended on both. That was quite bold and
required a lot of political skills."
No, purges were quite common in Stalinist systems. Stalin, Mao, Tito, and the rest all purged 'bad
elements'. Nothing original about that.
And it's not so much that he got rid of pro-China-elements and pro-Soviet-elements as he balanced them out.
If not for the Korean War, he would have leaned to the USSR. But China played such a huge role in the war
that it gave him an opportunity to lean to China as well. so, he played on both USSR and China for aid. Now,
where he was skillful was maintaining this balance even after the Sino-Soviet rift.
"Founding a dynasty in a nominally Marxist-Leninist society was not very easy either. There was some
opposition to it even among his otherwise loyal associates, who wanted a normal communist succession with
one of the top dogs becoming the new leader."
It turned out to be pretty easy because he did it and then his son did it too. It was easy because North
Korea under Kim was more about the dynasty than ideology. People were raised to worship Kim, not to think
ideologically. And Kim surrounded himself with yes-men and hacks. If there was overt opposition, it was
easily dealt with. The gulag.
Kim was a stupid bumpkin who got to leader because Stalin saw him as pliable and obedient.
The US was largely responsible for the division of Korea and backing dictatorships in South Korea
until 1993. Americans do not know the US treachery, but Koreans do. Why would they trust the USA now?
Most SKoreans do not know, either. And those who do and talk about it probably risk imprisonment for
treason.
Moon's predecessor Park Geun-hye sang from the US hymnbook until she got caught with her hand in the
cookie jar. In 2017 the South Korean people went to the street and demanded the granddaughter of former
dictator Park Chung Hee be impeached, and now she is in prison.
She is the daughter.
Korea itself has not invaded anybody since the 16th century.
Korea was invaded by Japan in the 16th century. It's difficult to pinpoint when Korea invaded anyone.
We'd have to go back to a time prior to their nominal unification at least in the 7th century.
The Korean Peninsula is cursed by geography. Reunification of Korea would mean one of two things.
It's the 21st century. There's no curse of geography. It's a global village. Trade is global.
Communication is global. Cultural exchange is global. It has a combined population of 70M. SKorea is
technologically/economically advanced. Its biggest threat is its own lethargy/apathy.
The sad reality is that a buffer state in the north part of the Korean Peninsula is in the best
interest of South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the US.
No, that's only in the best interest of the US and Japan.
Why did you omit the fact that the S Korean sex trade is completely run by S Koreans not Americans?
Sounds familiar. That's what Japan says about WWII sex slaves.
I do remember an American colonel in the occupation forces stating that he basically ran a brothel.
The subtext being that SKorea turned itself into a brothel? US forces, war and starvation had nothing to
do with women selling their bodies to survive?
I agree. As much as I hate to admit as much, and also being a veteran, the USA government is rotten to the
core. Manipulation and coercion all across the board. Hard to escape the feeling we will pay for these
misdeeds somewhere along the way. Cosmic Justice demands as much. Neither nation nor person can continue on
in such manner indefinitely. USA is the agitator. If the Koreans could just tell Uncle Sam (er . Sap) to
pack his bags and get out of Dodge, they would be on their way to a much better future. nx
You're just going along with this article and making up shit. That's not something Americans did. Your
people are the ones who are mentally and spiritually enslaved by the British till this day. Your people are
so engrained with wanting to be White, even after your motherland was invaded, occupied, murdered by the
British, that your people bleach their skin and praise, put a whites on a pedestal, and strive to be like
their oppressors.
The reason why the United States doesn't want the two Koreas to reunify, is because if they reunite, the
United States loses its revenue. South Korea pays to have American soldiers stationed in their country. The
U.S. sells it's weapons to South Korea, out of fear mongering. The longer the U.S. can keep the two Koreas
separated, the more they can make money off of the fear of war. War creates revenue for the United States.
That's why we keep going at it with the Middle East. It's always the U.S. going to war with others, usually,
over false pretenses. Let's not forget, how we lied about weapons of mass destruction to go to war with
Iraq. Fear mongering, allows the U.S. government to sell weapons to not only South Korea, but to other
countries in Asia. That's why.
Korea, is actually blessed by geography. They're not in Europe & part of the E.U. So they're not forced to
have migrants by the millions in their country against their will, with open borders. They're not located
where the U.S. is, where Latinos invade their country by the thousands. They're not where Japan is, to get
butt raped by mother nature and thank goodness, they're not located where china is. I visited china. It was
horrid. Korea's ecosystem is rich, diverse & unique because it's a peninsula. China, never controlled Korea.
If anything, Korea fought against china, defeating them many times throughout history. They did this before
America existed. Koreans are clever people who have a strong military and several decades of stockpiled
weapons on hand, along with new ones. They don't need American soldiers in Korea after reunification, to
protect them. Japan, is afraid Korea will reunify, because that means Korea will be even stronger. The same
goes for china. A stronger one unified Korea, is a threat to other Asian countries.
You've worked for "Samsung." Lol. and I'm the King of England. China, has the highest suicide rate per
capita. 22.24 for every 100,000. That makes them the country with the highest suicide rate in the world.
Japan is close behind.
By the way, japan, has the lowest birth rate in Asia. They're not reproducing enough male japanese babies to
replace the old, sickly, & dying in the work place. Japan, is screwed. Again, deflecting other's short
comings on to Korea.
It's actually the Middle East, Dubai, that is the plastic surgery capital of the world. They get the most
rhinoplasties. Plastic surgeons go there months out of the year, to make the most amount of money in the
shortest amount of time. Then it's the United States & the UK close behind. Plastic surgery is on the rise
in ethnic chinese countries, like taiwan, hong kong, & singapore, china, japan, & in southeast asian
countries, like philippines, thailand, veitnam, and indonesia, more than ever. As of 2017, these asian
countries get the most procedures done & they compete with each other in who does it the most percentage
wise. No one wants to admit their race of people get plastic surgeries, so they deflect, finger point to
others, especially to better looking people as an excuse as to why others are far more attractive than their
ugly selves. (I'm pointing at you.) Asians do it out of jealousy. They can't stand seeing a Korean get
compliments. Whites get the most plastic surgeries in the West, but asians don't finger point at them,
unless they're discriminated by Whites, because asians think Koreans are far better looking than Whites.
I'll have to remind you that if Korea, in which this is all true, have a technologically advanced country,
are an advanced people, who excel in intelligence, inventions, sports, have a booming economy, are talented,
have the most popular genres of music in the world and one of the most addictive forms of entertainment, (K
pop) and Korean dramas, movies, have the most amazing style unlike other races & nationalities, both men and
women have the best complexions, their skincare products are the most popular in the world, that do what
they say, have two electrictronic companies in which one has completely dominated the globe, a successful
car manufacturing industry, Korean foods & alcohol, that all races love, an amazing rich history unlike any
other, which draws people in to want to learn more about Koreans, the first in asia to always break records
and make history, before any other asian country, the most popular race in asia, and the best looking in
asia and in my opinion, better looking than any other race of people other than some Whites. So with all
these great attributes Korea has, there's no reason to think and hate on them or to think they're less in
any way, unless one is a jealous person or a whole jealous race of people who only hate online, because they
themselves, don't have any of these attributes the Koreans have, hence, making them haters like you, whether
you're asian or not.
"... Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents. ..."
Nice account of 'getting woke' from Ron Unz quite appreciate the tidbits such as the mention
of the once-very-famous Dorothy Kilgallen of the 'What's My Line?' TV show (1950-67)
Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in
1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two
arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999),
you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.
Maybe even more hidden from public knowledge, is the truth of the Watergate 'Silent Coup'
(Colodny / Gettlin book). Bob Woodward was a US Navy intelligence agent under Admiral Maurer,
and when Maurer became head of the US Joint Chiefs and thus the entire US military, Woodward
was planted at the CIA's Washington Post to be the fake 'brave reporter' for the coup
d'état of 'Watergate', entirely a US Joint Chiefs -- CIA operation. Bob Woodward was
apparently such an idiot re journalism at first he needed lots of remedial coaching to meet
minimal standards.
'Deep Throat' was fiction, the CIA had all the info, the CIA fake 'leaker' is another big
distraction game getting repeated (Daniel Ellsberg; Deep Throat; Wikileaks Assange who was
admitted by both Brzezinski and Netanyahu to be fake, seems he isn't even really 'living' at
the London Ecuador Embassy, faker
Edward Snowden , first 'leaking' to the CIA's Washington Post, ha!, with Glenn Greenwald
posing as the latest Jewish 'brave journalist'; Mossad-historian-supervised 'Panama Papers',
etc.)
Another 'impeachment' farce was the Deep State 'Monica Lewinsky' nonsense against Bill
Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime
bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands. For Clinton-Lewinsky, another Jewish figure,
Matt Drudge, was propped up to play the Woodward role of 'great investigative reporter' When
Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was 'acquitted' -- the
bombings of Serbia began shortly afterwards. Clearly, the Deep State cannot even trust its
highly pre-vetted White House occupants.
Now that the Unz site is on board with collusion in US President removals, we still have
to get Unz site writers woke on the laughably fake 9 'trips to the moon' with 6 alleged 'moon
landings' of 1968-72 regarding which director Stanley Kubrick even admitted before in March
1999 before he died, that he faked the 'moon landing' NASA videos (CIA movie studios, Laurel
Canyon, California) 50th anniversary of the 'trips to the moon' starts this December a good
time for Unz debunking
Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by
a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged
'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40%
removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents. ..."
"... Ron's suspicions may be correct. However, I am bothered by two things left out of his article: the identity of the conspirators and their motivation. What was President Kennedy doing that had to be stopped? ..."
One of the main reasons why "conspiracy theory" is used in the pejorative sense:
After JFK was killed, there were many articles and books written claiming a conspiracy.
And then nothing happened.
At some level, most Americans are still convinced that the police and prosecutors are
looking out for them: If it really were proved that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, of
course the conspirators would be prosecuted, right?
The same is true of the "suicide" of Gary Webb, the man who uncovered Iran Contra. He was
found with an alleged suicide note, and two gunshot wounds to the back of the head. The
coroner ruled his death a suicide. Case closed.
The thing is, the kind of high-level people who're generally accused of wanting to murder
poor, poor, innocent JFK both knew that at worst, he'd be gone by January 21, 1969, and knew
more than enough about him to come up with a much better plan. Getting "Dr. Feelgood," with
or without his conscious cooperation, to give JFK a "hot shot" would do the trick just fine,
as would sending in a "bimbo" with a cyanide injector in her beehive hairdo. First rule of
this as in many other things -- KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)
The kinds of scenarios I've seen from conspiracy believers are so complicated and iffy
that they make Jimmy Carter's "Operation Eagle Claw" look like a sure-fire, can't-lose
winner. Having Oswald be the only shooter makes sense, and comports with what we know of
Oswald's personality. The men who've murdered other presidents were generally attention
sponges with an exaggerated view of their importance in the scheme of things. Oswald thought
he was rightfully a world-shaking hero, instead of the twerp he was, but compared to Charles
Guiteau (who shot James Garfield) Oswald was a shrinking violet.
In criminal investigations the first question always is 'who benefits'.
The weird thing in political suspicious deaths is that this question is seldom asked.
This is the case with, to name a few, Sikorsky, Kennedy, Palme, Anna Lyndh,
Hammarskjöld, Diana, Hess, Pearl Harbour, Sept 11, MH17, MH370, Bernadotte, Barschel,
there must be more.
In the Kennedy case, he was killed some two weeks after he had threatened Israel not to sell
weapons any more, if they continued building the atomic bomb.
Both patsies Harvey Lee Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan were selected with respect to the legends,
real or synthetic, that could be used in the post assassination story spin off. In both cases
the legends were to deflect the attention form the actual conspirators. In the case of Oswald
it was his defection to the USSR. Involvement of Soviets in the assassination was an option
that was not played in the media in the end but it could have been if the lone nut assassin
narrative for some reason could not gain the traction. In the case of Sirham his legend as a
disgruntled Palestinian who was upset with RFK's alleged support for Israel was played to the
full extent. It was done for two reasons: (1) to decouple JFK assassination from RFK
assassination; crazy lone nut Texan American and crazy lone nut Arab Palestinian had only one
thing in common: being a crazy lone nut, and (2) paint RFK as a martyr for his pro Israel
views. The second spin off was risky because it brought Israel into the story, nevertheless
the conspirators thought it was important and took the risk so the could make out of RFK the
first (and the only one so far afaik) American politician who died for his pro Israel
position. This certainly pushed away any suspicions that Israel might have been involved or
could have benefited from his assassination. Sirhan Sirhan legend was also used to foreshadow
Palestinian terrorism that began to grow in the wake of the Six Day War of 1967.
Try taking a look at 'Prayer Man', most likely the image of Lee Harvey Oswald on the front
steps of the TSBD building shortly after the shooting. A good introduction can be found at
http://22november1963.org.uk/prayer-man-jfk-assassination
The 1991 Oliver Stone movie unblocked many Americans to think about and consider the
conspiracy behind the assassination. Still four years earlier Stanley Kubrick was reinforcing
the meme of Lee Harvey Oswald in Full Metal Jacket:
Excellent article, Ron. Thankyou for writing this.
On his deathbed, CIA Agent E. Howard Hunt confessed to being involved in the JFK
assassination. He implicated other intelligence agents and Vice-President LBJ. Watch this
short video here in which he confesses.
If anyone wants to understand the JFK assassination in more detail, I highly recommend
watching Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Here's a very good part of the movie that explains how
Oswald couldn't have shot JFK, as Oswald was behind JFK and JFK's head snaps back and to the
left. So the true assassin must've been in the front (his shot knocked JFK's head back)
– and couldn't have been Oswald. Watch the video below. "Back and to the left."
Here's an interesting video on how many JFK assassination witnesses died mysterious
deaths. Start watching this video from 1:50. Particularly interesting is that on the day when
the House tried to get George De Mohrenschildt (a close friend of Oswald and a very prominent
socialite in Dallas) to testify, he was found death. The death was ruled a suicide.
Jack Ruby (the Dallas club owner who assasinated Oswald) claimed that LBJ had JFK
assassinated. See video below.
He also claimed a conspiracy was keeping him from speaking. See video below.
When JFK was assassinated, there was a man with an umbrella who was right next to the
president. It was an extremely sunny day in Dallas on that day. Why was the man holding the
umbrella? Reporter Bill O'Reilly reports evidence that the "Umbrella Man" may have used the
umbrella to fire a dart into JFK. Interestingly, the CIA had developed a dart weapon before
that date. See this video below. Starts at 40 seconds.
Dr. Charles Crenshaw (who treated JFK's bullet wound and went on to become ) claimed that
the entry points of 2 of the wounds he observed were in the front of JFK's throat. Therefore,
the assassin must've been in the front and couldn't have been Oswald. He also claimed that
the wound was tampered with to make it seem the bullet came from behind.
"Dark Journalist" has a very good video on the JFK assassination.
Here's an interesting video of Dan Rather lying about the JFK assassination. This news clip
was made shortly after the assassination. Dan Rather told the American viewing public that
JFK's head went forward after he was shot. Later, it would be revealed that Dan Rather had
lied that day.
By the way, you always hear the Warren Commission found that there was no conspiracy and
that Oswald was the "lone gunman." However, in 1976, the House of Representatives
investigated the matter and concluded that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK
assassination. The assasination involved multiple gunmen. The media never reports this.
The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was
established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther
King, Jr. The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and issued its final report the
following year, concluding that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a
conspiracy. In addition to acoustic analysis of a police channel dictabelt recording,[1]
the HSCA also commissioned numerous other scientific studies of assassination-related
evidence that corroborate the Warren Commission's findings.[2]
Here's a very persuasive History Channel video on how LBJ had JFK killed.
Also, the military-industrial complex wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam.
By the way, it's sort of interesting how the mysterious Gulf of Tonkin incident led to a
huge war in Vietnam.
This video demonstrates how wildly implausible it was that Oswald pulled the trigger. The
FBI couldn't replicate Oswald's supposed shooting with their best shooters.
FBI didn't find a palm print on Oswald's rifle. Then, a week later, a Dallas policeman
found a palm print on the rifle.
"We're through the looking glass people. White is black – and black is white."
Nice account of 'getting woke' from Ron Unz quite appreciate the tidbits such as the mention
of the once-very-famous Dorothy Kilgallen of the 'What's My Line?' TV show (1950-67)
Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by
a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged
'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40%
removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.
Maybe even more hidden from public knowledge, is the truth of the Watergate 'Silent Coup'
(Colodny / Gettlin book). Bob Woodward was a US Navy intelligence agent under Admiral Maurer,
and when Maurer became head of the US Joint Chiefs and thus the entire US military, Woodward
was planted at the CIA's Washington Post to be the fake 'brave reporter' for the coup
d'état of 'Watergate', entirely a US Joint Chiefs – CIA operation. Bob Woodward
was apparently such an idiot re journalism at first he needed lots of remedial coaching to
meet minimal standards.
'Deep Throat' was fiction, the CIA had all the info, the CIA fake 'leaker' is another big
distraction game getting repeated (Daniel Ellsberg; Deep Throat; Wikileaks Assange who was
admitted by both Brzezinski and Netanyahu to be fake, seems he isn't even really 'living' at
the London Ecuador Embassy, faker
Edward Snowden , first 'leaking' to the CIA's Washington Post, ha!, with Glenn Greenwald
posing as the latest Jewish 'brave journalist'; Mossad-historian-supervised 'Panama Papers',
etc.)
Another 'impeachment' farce was the Deep State 'Monica Lewinsky' nonsense against Bill
Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime
bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands. For Clinton-Lewinsky, another Jewish figure,
Matt Drudge, was propped up to play the Woodward role of 'great investigative reporter' When
Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was 'acquitted' – the
bombings of Serbia began shortly afterwards. Clearly, the Deep State cannot even trust its
highly pre-vetted White House occupants.
Now that the Unz site is on board with collusion in US President removals, we still have
to get Unz site writers woke on the laughably fake 9 'trips to the moon' with 6 alleged 'moon
landings' of 1968-72 regarding which director Stanley Kubrick even admitted before in March
1999 before he died, that he faked the 'moon landing' NASA videos (CIA movie studios, Laurel
Canyon, California) 50th anniversary of the 'trips to the moon' starts this December a good
time for Unz debunking
Follow the Jack Ruby trail: If Oswald was "just a patsy," the first thing to do is to
investigate on the man who silenced Oswald, thereby preventing any doubts being raised in a
court case. Strangely enough, no one (not even Ruby's biographer Seth Kantor) seem to care
that Jack Ruby's real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein.
Allow me to quote from my earlier
article, and add a few details: Ruby, the son of Jewish Polish immigrants, was a member of
the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had
known and admired since 1946. Cohen was the successor of the famed Benjamin Siegelbaum, aka
Bugsy Siegel, one of the bosses of Murder Incorporated.
Cohen was infatuated with the Zionist
cause, as he explained in his memoirs: "Now I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually
pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun
war". Mickey Cohen was in contact with Menachem Begin, the former Irgun chief, with whom he
even "spent a lot of time," according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los
Angeles Police Department. So there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen,
to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false
flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after
Oswald's arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the
underworld. Ruby's defense lawyer William Kunstler wrote in his memoirs that Ruby told him he
had killed Oswald "for the Jews," and Ruby's rabbi Hillel Silverman received the same
confession when visiting Ruby in jail.
Probably as a cryptic message to Johnson, whom he expected to pardon him, Ruby made the
following odd statements to the Warren Commission: "There will be a certain tragic occurrence
happening if you don't take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don't suffer
because of what I have done." He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some
falsehood about some of the Jewish faith."
According to a declassified US State Department document, Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir
reacted to the news that Ruby had just killed Oswald with this sentence: "Ruby is alive, Oy
vaaboy if we get caught!" (quoted in Alan Hart, Zionism , vol. 2, p. 279).
Make it three assassinated Kennedys, with JFK Jr. Hell, make it four, counting his unborn
child : On July 20, 1999, the New York Daily News published a piece by Joel Siegel
titled: "JFK Jr. Mulled Run for Senate in 2000". The page seems to have just been deleted,
but I had saved it, so I reproduce the first lines : "A private poll in 1997 found that John
F. Kennedy Jr. was by far the state's most popular Democrat, and two friends said yesterday
they believed he would have run for office some day. Earlier this year, in one of the
best-kept secret in state politics, Kennedy considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen.
Daniel Moynihan " Moynihan was a former Kennedy associate, so it is likely that he would have
supported JFK Jr.'s bid. And recall that the same seat had once been held by RFK. So JFK Jr.
was walking on his father's and his uncle's footsteps. They saw him coming, and decided to
eliminate him before his ambitions even became public. Guess who won the seat, after JFK Jr.
died in a mysterious plane crash: Hillary Clinton.
What would JFK Jr. have done next if he had been allowed to walk this path? Well, if you want
to know what was on his mind, check some of the covers of his magazine George on
https://www.vfiles.com/vfiles/16372 You will see
that he was obsessed with "conspiracy theories":
In a special "Conspiracy Issue", October 1998, George published a piece by Oliver
Stone, director of the film JFK, titled "Paranoid and Proud of it". Earlier in December 1996,
the cover announces an article on "TWA Conspiracy Theories" (about TWA 800). And in March
1997, another conspiracy theory under the title "Who was behind the killing of Yitzhak
Rabin?". And so on.
Considering that JFK Jr.'s unborn child also died with him, and if we follow the logic of
Ronald Kessler, author of The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He
Founded (1996) (a message to JFK Jr.?), then three generations of Kennedys were punished
for "the sins of the father". That fulfills Exodus 20:5: "I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous
god and I punish a parent's fault in the children, the grandchildren, and the
great-grandchildren among those who hate me."
People conspire all the time. A board of directors gathering for their annual meeting is
literally a conspiracy: they are conspiring to plan the company's trajectory over some period
of time.
Do people ever conspire nefariously? Well, what is the first thing investigators will do
when looking into a company like Enron? That's right, they will subpoena email records,
because despite the negative connotation surrounding the term "conspiracy theory," people
implicitly sense and really know that *this is exactly the kind of shit that happens all the
time*.
For example, the Seth Rich murder, as its official story goes is literally a conspiracy.
Two MS-13 members conspired to rob Mr. Rich while he was walking home from a bar. Why is it
that people will believe that two people will conspire over a few hundred bucks, but refuse
to believe powerful people will conspire over tens or hundreds of billions? Only because of
media programming.
Once you unplug from the Matrix, so much that never made sense comes into clarity. Thanks,
Mr. Unz for your tireless work and financial contributions to the American Pravda series.
I've learned so much and it has been integral to my eyes being opened over the last four
years.
I think we all know the JFK-assassination was a conspiracy. Oswald was the patsy.
But, we do not know for sure who participated in the conspiracy.
The report by the Warren commission was a cover up. CIA Director McCone was "complicit" in
a Central Intelligence Agency "benign cover-up" by withholding information from the Warren
Commission, according to a report by the CIA Chief Historian David Robarge released to the
public in 2014.[24] According to this CIA report, CIA officers had been instructed to give
only "passive, reactive, and selective" assistance to the commission, in order to keep the
commission focused on "what the Agency believed at the time was the 'best truth' -- that Lee
Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy."
Witholding evidence in order to cover up a crime is usually done because of involvement in
the crime. Thus, it is most likely that the CIA was involved in the Kennedy
Assassination.
What evil consumes the innocents?
What witch stages these mind control spectacles? I add one bread crumb to the Ron Unz Trail, through the deep dark forest of the fairy tale of our lives.
No matter who you are, we have a vector for you!
"Lane, it should be noted, was in U.S. Army intelligence in post-war Germany in 1945-47.
This is the branch that became the C.I.A. after the war. Lane was paid some $5 million in
legal fees by the Liberty Lobby, according to a veteran of the lobby. None of this is widely
known among the people who read and support American Free Press. It is important because it
shows how a Zionist Jew from the C.I.A. can actually control a movement that purports to be
working for the American patriot audience. "
Ron's suspicions may be correct. However, I am bothered by two things left out of his
article: the identity of the conspirators and their motivation. What was President Kennedy
doing that had to be stopped? Fifty-five years have passed without any conspirator's deathbed
confession. Gerald Posner's Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of J. F.
K. seemed convincing to me when I read it many years ago. One fact that struck me as
specially persuasive was that the kindly Quaker woman who was sheltering Marina Oswald and
baby saw an ad in the paper for a job at the Book Depository building and pointed it out to
Oswald who applied for the job and got it sometime before the route of the Kennedy drive past
the building was chosen and published. Perhaps Mr. Unz might share his opinion of Posner's
book with us.
Take the pain to read actual eyewitness testimonies from medical personnel who attended
President Kennedy when taken to Parkland hospital after being shot.
That may stop you from embarrassing yourself defending the ludicrous lone gunman
theory.
Wonder if anyone read the Warren Report.
Reading it I got the same feeling as, in the seventies, when I still believed mainstream
history, reading Churchill's memoirs: too good to be true.
Harold Weisberg, 'Whitewash – the report on the Warren Report', 1965, 1966, New York
tears Warren to shreds.
It is a sad comment on mental pliability of US public that someone as perspicacious as Ron
Unz could have for so long subscribed to "single gunman" (alright, he was not single, Oswald
was married) "theory".
I came of age much more recently and my encounters with JFK and RFK's assassinations were all
about supposed conspiracies. If anything, there seems to be a conspiracy to make you think
there's a conspiracy.
Furthermore, it is pretty easy to kill someone so, if there was a conspiracy to kill those
two, goodness knows why the conspirators would not just use more subtle methods
All of these types of theories always seem to end up with their hypothesiser pointing out
inconsistencies in the historical account of incredibly complex events while, at best, only
proposing a much more inconsistent alternative.
Conspirator super genius: how shall we kill him?
Conspirator normal: we could give him an aneurysm so he dies in his sleep in the middle of
the night. It would be utterly untraceable and medically unsuspicious. Indeed, if we do it
when he has one of his girls round, then that will stop further questions.
Conspirator super genius: no, we should stage an assasination in the open. With bullets
that might miss, a patsy who might blab or get away and our target could easily survive and
take revenge. It will also make everyone suspicious and will need endless effort to keep
quiet.
If you examine the first page of JFK's death certificate, (easily done on your search engine)
you will see that the President died of "gunshot wounds to the head and neck." and that he
was killed by a "High Velocity Rifle". At that time a High Velocity Rifle had a muzzle
velocity speed of 2500/600 feet per second, now I believe it is up to 3000 feet per second.
The only weapon associated with Lee Harvey Oswald on the day of the assassination was a
Manlicher Carcano 6.5mm as agreed by the Warren Commission, Pozner (Case Closed) and
Bugliosi. This rifle is not only notoriously inaccurate but has a muzzle velocity of 2000
feet per second and therefore could not have inflicted the wounds to JFK's head and neck that
killed him.
Oswald may have tried to kill the President (personally I doubt it) from the sixth floor
of the Book Depository overlooking Dealy Plaza but he didn't because JFK was killed by a High
Velocity weapon and Oswald didn't have one.
Syrian state media said overnight Sunday to Monday that US-led coalition aircraft had
carried out a deadly strike on a regime position in the country's east near the Iraqi
border.
"Aircraft of the American coalition bombarded one of our military positions in the area
of Al-Hari southeast of Albu Kamal" town in Deir Ezzor, state news agency SANA reported a
military source as saying, adding a number of people had been killed.
"... Assad is adamant that the price demanded by the Americans, that of absolute US hegemony, is one that Syria will never pay ..."
"... For the Americans, there is a general principle they follow in dealing with any problem in the world. The only price they ask for is absolute hegemony, regardless of the issue and the place. Of course, we shall never provide that price; otherwise we wouldn't have fought this war for years . We have been fighting for the independence of Syrian decision-making, for the Syrian homeland, and for the unity of Syrian territory. As for Iran in particular, let me be very clear: the Syrian-Iranian relationship is a strategic one not subject to a deal in the south or in the north. This relationship, in terms of its implications and results on the ground, is linked to the present and future of the region ..."
Assad is adamant that the price demanded by the Americans, that of absolute US hegemony, is one that Syria will never pay
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad revealed in a recent interview with Iranian media al-Alam TV that attempts at achieving non military
resolutions to conflicts inside Syria via reconciliation is being actively prevented by intervention from Israel and the US. He is
adamant that the price demanded by the Americans, that of absolute US hegemony, is one that Syria will never pay. Video of the interview
is furnished below in English,
courtesy of Press TV ,
followed by
a transcript
obtained from Syria 360 Internationalist News Agency . Added emphasis on certain statements is mine.
President Bashar al-Assad affirmed that the Syrian south is in front of two options; reconciliation or liberation by force, indicating
that at this point, there are no concrete results for a simple reason which is Israeli and American interference, for they put pressure
on the terrorists in that area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution.
The President added in an interview given to Iran's Al-ALAM TV that the Syrian-Iranian relation is strategic not subject to a
deal and it is linked to the present and future of the region , affirming that neither Syria nor Iran has floated this relationship
on the international political bazaar for it to be subject to haggling.
President al-Assad affirmed that since the beginning of the war, particularly when it started to have a clear military nature
on the southern front in particular, the Israelis used to shell Syrian forces continuously, and consequently provide direct support
to the terrorists. Israeli artillery and aircraft are the terrorists' artillery and aircraft Despite Israeli support to the terrorists,
we have been doing our job, and the Syrian Army is fighting its way towards the southern front, and has liberated a number of areas
within the limits of its capabilities. So, with or without its approval, the decision is a Syrian one, and this is a national duty
we shall carry out.
Following the full text of the interview;
Question 1: Mr. President, there are many issues which we will talk about, but in the light of the victories you have achieved,
the main focus remains the south of Syria. What's happening exactly, or what is the nature of what is happening in the south of Syria?
President Assad: To put it simply, after the liberation of al-Ghouta, it was suggested that we should move south. We were faced
with two options, as is the case in all other areas in Syria: reconciliation or liberation by force. At this point, the Russians
suggested the possibility of giving reconciliation an opportunity, similar to what happened in other areas, in order to restore the
situation that prevailed before 2011. In other words, for the Syrian Army to be deployed in that area, which is an area of confrontation
with the Zionist enemy. And of course the terrorists should leave the area. This proposition suits us. Up till now, there are no
concrete results for a simple reason which is Israeli and American interference; for they put pressure on the terrorists in that
area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution . That is how the situation stands now.
Question 2: So, it hasn't been decided whether to move towards a military operation or towards reconciliation?
President Assad: No, contacts are still ongoing between the Russians, the Americans, and the Israelis, while nobody is communicating
with the terrorists, because they are mere tools, and they implement what their masters decide ultimately. This is what happened,
i.e. there was an opportunity to reach reconciliation, but the American and Israeli interference prevented that possibility .
Question 3: Of course, this is the reality there. But on the other hand, there are those who talk about many things taking
place in the south. Mr. President, is there a certain deal, what is the price? Is there really a price for concluding this deal in
the south? Let me talk frankly about the issue of getting the Iranians to leave the southern region in return for al-Tanf, for example.
What did the Americans demand, or let's say, what was the price the Americans asked to approve the reconciliation process in the
south?
President Assad: For the Americans, there is a general principle they follow in dealing with any problem in the world. The
only price they ask for is absolute hegemony, regardless of the issue and the place. Of course, we shall never provide that price;
otherwise we wouldn't have fought this war for years . We have been fighting for the independence of Syrian decision-making, for
the Syrian homeland, and for the unity of Syrian territory. As for Iran in particular, let me be very clear: the Syrian-Iranian relationship
is a strategic one not subject to a deal in the south or in the north. This relationship, in terms of its implications and results
on the ground, is linked to the present and future of the region. Consequently, it is not subject to the price tags of the international
bazaar. Neither Syria nor Iran has floated this relationship on the international political bazaar for it to be subject to haggling.
The proposition was made by the Israelis with the objective of provoking and embarrassing Iran. At the same time, this comes in line
with the international propaganda campaign launched against Iran regarding the nuclear file. It is not a separate issue; for everything
happening now is linked to Iran in order to create an international position against it. As for us in Syria, the decision concerning
our land is an exclusively Syrian decision. We are fighting the same battle, and when we have a decision concerning Iran, we will
talk about it with the Iranians and not with any other party .
Question 4: Of course, we will talk more about Iran and in more detail, but since we are talking about the southern front, let's
explore it further. Practically, in the same context, there is the MOC which hasn't stopped its operations since the beginning of
the war on Syria about eight years ago. It is working and is still active, and is directly linked to the Israelis. But we have noticed
recently that it has been reactivated, and there are more communications. Mr. President, does this mean that the Syrian state is
practically moving towards a military decisive action in the south regardless of the consequences, whether things reach a stalemate
or not? Is a decisive action in the cards for the Syrian leadership?
President Assad: No, MOC has nothing to do with this decision. MOC has been linked to the presence and the role of the terrorists
since the beginning of the war on Syria. That's why it existed: in order to lead them militarily. Consequently, the continued existence
of this operations room means the continuation of the role given to these terrorists, i.e. they are equipped and prepared to carry
out more terrorist acts. MOC is linked to the terrorists and not to the role of the Syrian state. Our role has nothing to do with
it. Our decision has been clear from the beginning: we will liberate all Syrian lands. As to when to move south, north, east, or
west, this is a purely military issue. But regardless of MOC, we have moved towards the south and we are giving the political process
a chance. If that doesn't succeed, we have no other option but to liberate it by force.
Question 5: But there is a confrontation in the south, and the issue is not limited geographically to Syria in the larger political
sense. There are the Americans, the Russians, the Iranians, the Israelis, and Hezbollah. All these parties are there in the area.
What does that mean? How are you going to deal with this?
President Assad: You are talking about two axes: one supporting terrorism, and represented by the US, Israel, and some flunkies
in the region including some Arab and non-Arab states, and an anti-terrorist axis. The first axis supports terrorism and seeks hegemony,
while the second axis seeks independence. So, there can be only one result for this confrontation, i.e. the victory of one of these
axes. At least, as far as the anti-terrorist axis is concerned, it will not give up the process of cleaning Syria and the region
of terrorism and will not give up on the unity of Syrian territory .
As to the other axis, will it change as a result of the reality on the ground? Let's wait and see. But in terms of substance and
convictions, it will not change, while in terms of the political practices dictated by reality and the facts on the ground, it might.
Question 6: Will the Americans leave al-Tanf?
President Assad: The Americans say they are ready, but everyone knows that the Americans are historically professional liars in
politics. So why should we believe them? Also, we have to wait and see.
Question 7: Mr. President, what's happening now in Jordan? Is it linked to what's happening on the southern front in particular,
i.e. is it linked to what is being plotted in that region, in your view?
President Assad: In fact, the only information we have is what we hear in the media. In any case, we wish Jordan stability, not
chaos, because the latter will have a negative impact on us.
Question 8: Since we are talking about the south, let's close this file. Mr. President, what would make the Israeli occupation
agree to the return of the Syrian Army to the borders, i.e. a return to the situation which existed at the beginning of 2011, after
seven years of repeated Zionist attempts, directly and indirectly, to undermine the Syrian state, the regime in Syria, and stability
in Syria. Why would it agree now to the return of the Syrian Army to the borders and to the occupied Golan?
President Assad: Certainly, neither conviction, morality, nor international law means anything to the Israelis. Since the beginning
of the war, particularly when it started to have a clear military nature on the southern front in particular, the Israelis used to
shell Syrian forces continuously, and consequently provide direct support to the terrorists. Israeli artillery and aircraft are the
terrorists' artillery and aircraft. That applies to Jabhat al-Nusra of course . Nothing is going to change this Israeli approach.
As far as we are concerned, Israel's approval had no role at all. Despite Israeli support to the terrorists, we have been doing our
job, and the Syrian Army is fighting its way towards the southern front, and has liberated a number of areas within the limits of
its capabilities. So, with or without its approval, the decision is a Syrian one, and this is a national duty we shall carry out.
Question 9: So, a return of the Syrian Army is better than having resistance in the Golan, for instance?
President Assad: For the Israelis?
Journalist: Yes.
President Assad: I think the two options are bad for the Israelis. Both of them are bad. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah has repeatedly
talked about Syria's relationship with the resistance and a Syrian role in the resistance. So, how would the Israelis choose between
two bad things for them?
Question 10: As you said, Mr. President, Israel has financed, supported, and more dangerously was capable of enlisting a large
number of Syrians, some of whom were treated inside occupied Palestine. They talked about it. In the future, how would you deal with
this large number of Israeli agents? Maybe some of them were misled and Israel might have exploited the financial and living conditions
of some; and some have chosen to side with the Israelis. How would you deal with them in the future?
President Assad: This is true; we cannot put everyone in the same basket. There are different reasons for moving in this wrong
direction; and these people have wronged the homeland and every Syrian citizen. Ultimately, they are the children of this homeland,
and we all bear responsibility for this problem, not only those who have done wrong. When crime, for instance, becomes widespread
in a certain country, the whole society bears responsibility for this crime, not only the security agencies or the criminals themselves.
The first thing that should be done is to accommodate these people. Second, we need to address the root causes which led to this
case of weak patriotism. The causes here are many and complicated, and the scope of this interview doesn't allow for all of them
to be mentioned.
Question 11: In the same context, while you are talking about restoring the Syrian air defense systems and confronting the Zionist
occupation, statements have been made by leaders of the Israeli entity that they will strike at the depth of Syrian territory. How
would you deal with that situation, particularly that balance has been achieved recently, i.e. balance between Israeli aggressions
and Syrian responses?
President Assad: Basically, we haven't stopped responding. First of all, we haven't stopped fighting terrorists, and at the same
time we haven't stopped responding to Israeli aggression within the capabilities available to us, militarily and technically. Moreover,
the more these capabilities improve; the response will be better and higher. But in fact the strongest response to Israel now is
to strike the Israeli army existing in Syria which consists practically of the terrorists .
Journalist: You consider them an Israeli army?
President Assad: Of course, for they are acting clearly and starkly in Israel's interest. The first acts they carried out were
attacks against the air defense systems. What is the link between air defense systems and the terrorists acting as infantry on the
ground? This was an Israeli order. It was an Israeli-American order because it is the same thing. So, they are Israel's army inside
Syria; and the first strike against Israel, politically, militarily, and in every other area, is to strike Israel's terrorists inside
Syria, whether they belong to ISIS, al-Nusra, or the other groups linked to the Israeli plan and strategy.
Journalist: If Israel escalates, are you prepared to respond more forcefully?
President Assad: This is what's happening. It is escalating, and we are responding. Ultimately, we are fighting the war within
the capabilities available to us, and we are doing our best within these capabilities. A response does not need a political decision.
I stress that responding or not responding is not a political decision. It is a national decision, and it was taken from day one.
But implementing this decision depends on what we can do militarily and not politically.
Question 12: In terms of capabilities, there is one issue in the media which we are always following, i.e. the S300 Russian missiles.
Russia says, "We will deliver these missiles", and then says, "We will not deliver them", which means that the issue is not clear.
What is happening exactly? Why this Russian hesitation, in your view, in delivering the S300 missiles to Syria, while some other
countries have been seeking S400, i.e. they are ahead of us in this regard.
President Assad: You know that military action and military considerations are part of political considerations. Consequently,
a statement, even if it is of a military nature, carries at the same time political messages. So, why did the Russians say that they
want to send or not send? This is a statement that the Russians should be asked about because it might be part of their political
tactics. As to the military aspect of the statement, which concerns Syria, it's not our custom to talk about the weapon which will
be delivered or not delivered. The evidence was that the weapons used in response to the last two aggressions, the tripartite aggression
and after that the Israeli aggression, were not announced by Syria. We traditionally do not announce cases of a technical military
nature.
Journalist: So, even the nature of the response is not linked to the issue of the S300 missiles?
President Assad: No. The same applies. Even if the S300 missiles will be provided or not provided, we will not say that they were
delivered to Syria. A weapon is used when it must be used.
Journalist: Is there a possibility that you have developed certain weapons?
President Assad: This remains a possibility. In any case, the result is the same: weapons shouldn't be talked about until they
are used. Weapons announce themselves only when they are used.
Question 13: Mr. President, let's return to the political aspect, since we are talking about the southern front. Regarding the
general situation, in light of all that has been achieved on the Syrian arena today, the most prominent actor is the tripartite alliance,
or what is being called the tripartite alliance. I mean Syria, Iran, and Russia. What is the nature of this alliance? Is it a temporary
alliance, in the sense that it is linked to fighting terrorism or to certain developments on the Syrian arena? Recently, we have
started to see – or let's say some have focused on certain points in order to show – a certain fracture in this alliance. What is
your take on that and what is the actual reality of this alliance?
President Assad: If we talk first about the Syrian-Iranian part, for 40 years, and in the different conditions that the Middle
East region has gone through, this alliance remained solid. So, there is no reason to say that it is temporary or otherwise. The
new element in the war on Syria is the Russian element, and that's why this tripartite alliance came into existence. Our relationship
with Russia is now about seven decades old. Despite the fluctuations and the fall of the Soviet Union, the rule of President Yeltsin,
and the deterioration of these relations to a large degree for us, it has never reached the stage of reversing this relationship
with Syria. Russia continued to deal with Syria as a friendly state, and we have imported everything from Russia, including weapons,
during the different stages of the sanctions imposed on Syria. It is not in the nature of the Russians to build temporary or self-serving
alliances or to sell out on relations in order to get deals done. The relationship is definitely a strategic one, but the political
statements allowed for these speculations.
These statements also aim at sending messages in different directions. Maybe, sometimes the language or the choice of particular
terminology might not be helpful and might take the statement in a different direction at odds with the content of the statement.
This happens from time to time. However, these statements shouldn't be taken out of context: the Russian view of the relationship
with Iran is a strategic one. As for Syria, the Russians do not interfere in Syrian affairs. If they have a certain opinion, they
raise it with us and say that in the end, the decision is that of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian people. This is a constant
principle for Russia. Therefore, the alliance is a strategic one, and if there are differences, such differences happen within the
Syrian state, and you see differences within the Iranian state and within the Russian state. It is natural for us to differ on daily
tactical details, for why conduct a dialogue if we agree on everything? We meet extensively in order to reach agreement.
Journalist: So, this tripartite alliance is being consolidated.
President Assad: Of course. This is dictated by reality, interest, and international changes that make it necessary for this alliance
to be consolidated. As long as the other axis supports terrorism, and as long as we, together with Iran and Russia, feel the danger
of terrorism, not only in Syria, but also on all these countries and on the whole world, and as long as Syria, Iran, and Russia realize
the importance of abiding by international law, these facts make the existence of this alliance necessary.
Question 14: But there are those who say that Syria will get a price if the Iranians leave Syrian territories. Is there a certain
political, moral, or military price in this regard?
President Assad: As I said in the beginning, as long as this relationship is not floated in the bazaar, they cannot offer a price,
and the answer will be clear. That's why they don't dare suggest this price. This issue was raised by different countries, including
Saudi Arabia for instance, at the beginning of the war, and not only at the beginning, but at different stages. The proposition was
that if Syria cut its relationship with Iran, the situation in Syria will be normal. This principle is basically rejected by us.
Journalist: So, there were initiatives, so to speak, made in this regard by Saudi Arabia.
President Assad: During the war?
Journalist: Yes.
President Assad: Of course, more than once, and in a clear manner.
Journalist: Directly?
President Assad: Directly. The relationship with Iran was the basis for every proposition; and Saudi Arabia's position on this
subject is public. I'm not revealing a secret.
Question 15: An issue is raised, whether in Syria, Iran, or Lebanon, about the nature of Iranian presence in Syria. Some call
them Iranian advisors. Even the Syrian Foreign Minister used the same term. At the same time, we notice that there are Iranian martyrs.
Frankly, Mr. President, what is the nature of Iranian presence in Syria now?
President Assad: The term adviser is sometimes used in a broad manner, i.e. these advisers have been with us, through the longstanding
relationship with Iran, even before the war, because the military relationship is close. When a military formation moves to a fighting
position, the adviser becomes a fighter. So, the word can be used in different senses. There are certainly Iranian advisers in Syria,
and there are groups of Iranian volunteers who came to Syria, and they are led by Iranian officers. Iran has fought with and defended
the Syrian people. It offered blood. That's why when we say "advisers" this is a generic term, but this doesn't mean that we are
ashamed of any Iranian presence, even if it is official. But we use the word "advisers" because there are no regular Iranian fighting
units in Syria.
Journalist: Full formations.
President Assad: Exactly. There are no battalions, or brigades, or divisions. First, we can't hide them, and then why should we
be ashamed of that? When we invited the Russians legally to come to Syria, we were not ashamed of that. And if there were an Iranian
formation, we would announce it, because such relations need agreements between the two states endorsed by parliaments. Such relations
cannot be concealed.
Journalist: And you invited Iranian advisers to come?
President Assad: Of course, from the beginning we invited the Iranians, and then we invited the Russians. We needed the support
of these countries, and they answered the call.
Journalist: Mr. President, you said more than once that there are no Iranian bases in Syria.
President Assad: That's correct.
Journalist: Why there are no Iranian bases, while we notice that there are a number of Russian bases?
President Assad: There's nothing that prevents the existence of such bases as long as Iran is an ally as is Russia.
Journalist: This means that if Iran requested the existence of such bases, you would agree?
President Assad: If we ask. We will ask them to agree. I mean that we could ask for the existence of such forces to support us.
Iran has never asked and does not have an interest except in fighting terrorism. But the evolution of the war made it necessary to
develop the nature of this presence.
This happened as far as the Russians are concerned. In the beginning, Russian support, like Iranian support, was different from
what it is today. The support for terrorism has developed internationally and globally when the Syrian Army confronted those terrorists,
and with that Russian and Iranian military presence developed. At a certain stage, we found – with the Russians of course – that
the existence of air bases was necessary to provide air support to the Syrian Army. And now, if we find, in cooperation, coordination,
or dialogue with the Iranians, that there is a need for Iranian military bases, we will not hesitate. But now, Iranian support in
its present form is good and effective.
Question 16: Why haven't you visited Iran so far, although you visited Russia more than once?
President Assad: That's correct. In fact, there was a scheduled visit to Iran a few months ago, and it was postponed and not cancelled.
It was postponed because of an emergency in Syria related to the development of battles. There is certainly no reason which prevents
such a visit, and I'll visit Iran hopefully soon on the earliest opportunity. This is natural, but the issue is logistic, no more,
no less.
Question 17: Mr. President, I move to another file. Last week, it was the Jerusalem International Day, and the Palestinian cause
is going through its most difficult stages. We are talking about the "deal of the century", and moving the American Embassy to occupied
Jerusalem. What do you have to say about Palestine? Is Syria still capable of supporting the Palestine cause? Basically, wasn't one
of the most important objectives of the war on Syria to get Syria out of the axis of resistance and to prevent it from supporting
resistance, whether in Lebanon or Palestine?
President Assad: The Palestine context, since 1948 up till now, has been a complicated one, because the regional context is complicated.
Of course, it is complicated because the colonial West, which is particularly supportive of Israel, has always created elements which
aim at one single thing. First, to drive to desperation the Arab citizen who is historically attached to the cause of Palestine and
who has always considered it a pan-Arab cause that touched him even on the national level.
The other objective has been to distract the Arab peoples together with states or societies in general to marginal causes so that
they do not have time to think about Israel. And they have succeeded to a great extent, most recently through the so-called Arab
spring which has aimed at destroying the political, military, and psychological infrastructure of Arab societies.
Nevertheless, recent development have proven that the Arab people is still conscientiously attached to the cause of Palestine.
As for Syria – since it has been part of these plots to undermine the Arab condition in general – first, for Syria to support the
cause of Palestine, it should first of all destroy the Israeli army in Syria. Restoring stability in Syria, striking terrorism, and
foiling the Israeli plot in Syria is certainly part of supporting the cause of Palestine. The support might be indirect with direct
consequences, but these direct consequences are linked to the internal Palestinian condition. We shouldn't forget that the Palestinians
are divided between groups which resist Israel and are genuinely linked to the cause of Palestine, and other groups which are against
the resistance and support surrenderist and defeatist peace, while there are other groups which use resistance as a title in order
to achieve their political objectives under the slogan of religion. This is of course the Muslim Brotherhood's approach.
Question 18: Are you prepared to offer whatever the resistance asks of you, whether in the form of political, military, or any
other form of support?
President Assad: Politically, we haven't changed. The Palestinian question for us is still as it was ten years ago and decades
ago. It hasn't changed. As to what we can offer, this has to do with two things: first, Syria's current capabilities; and there's
no doubt that the priority is given now to cleaning Syria of terrorism. Second, it has to do with the Palestinian condition and the
parties with which we can deal within the Palestinian arena.
Question 19: Since we are talking about resistance, there is the other side. In addition to some countries which stood beside
Syria in fighting terrorism, there was also a role played by the resistance in Lebanon, particularly Hezbollah, which provided a
great deal and contributed to fighting terrorism. What do you say, Mr. President, to resistance fighters and families of martyrs
and the wounded?
President Assad: When all these groups of resistance get together to defend Syrian soil and Syrian citizens, including the Lebanese
resistance and the brothers who came from Iraq some of whom reproached me for not mentioning them by name, I take this opportunity
to stress that there are brothers from Iraq to whom we give the same weight of any resistance fighter who came from any other country.
There are also the families of resistance fighters who came from Iran and sacrificed their blood in Syria. We should put all these
in the same basket next to the Syrian martyrs, fighters, and their families. To those I say that all the letters, the words, the
sentences, and the whole of literature are much less than a single drop of blood. Therefore, words are of a much lesser value than
what they have offered. What's more important is what history will write about them.
In fact, when we talk about writing history, we need to highlight that history needs a strategy and needs tactics, but the fact
remains that strategy without implementation on the ground has no value. It remains mere thought which we might include in books
and essays. But the reality is that these individuals in these countries, this group of resistance fighters, not politics, write
history. I would like to use the answer to this question to express to them all my love, respect, and appreciation, and my reverence
to the fighters, the wounded, and martyrs, and to all their families who are courage incarnated and who sent these individuals to
Syria to defend it and fight terrorism, so that these families become models of morality and principles for present and future generations.
Question 20: Have you asked Hezbollah to leave Syria? A few days ago His Eminence Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah talked about this issue
and said that nobody can get us out of Syria unless the Syrian leadership asked us to do so.
President Assad: The battle is long and ongoing. When we talk about this tripartite alliance – and if we consider it a quadruple
alliance when we add Hezbollah, we talk about the tripartite alliance in terms of the states included, but in the end Hezbollah is
a basic element in this war – the battle is long, and the need for these military forces will continue for a long time. When there
is a need, and when Hezbollah, Iran, or others believe that terrorism has been eliminated, they will tell us that they want to go
home. As Sayyed Hasan said, they have families and daily interests, which is normal, but it is still early to talk about this subject.
Question 21: Up till now, there are still areas under the control of terrorism and areas under occupation. At the same time, regretfully,
some Arab countries, and here I am talking particularly about Saudi Arabia, announced that it is ready to send forcers to Syria.
On the other hand, a few days ago popular tribal units were formed to resist occupation. Are these really popular resistance units?
Do they receive support from the Syrian government? Does this mean that the army cannot liberate those areas, and that's why it is
asking for the help of the tribes? What is the nature of this issue?
President Assad: There are different forms of this resistance which appeared a few years ago. In the beginning they were fighting
ISIS before they started to fight the occupiers. They were against ISIS in the central and eastern regions, and there were cases
where they appeared in other regions which were not given media coverage and about which we hear sometimes through information and
indications.
Now, this situation has started to expand. So, it's not one single case. There are a number of cases which might be individual
sometimes, or in the form of small groups not affiliated to an organization. In any case, our position as a state has been from the
beginning to support any act of resistance, whether against terrorists or against occupying forces, regardless of their nationality,
i.e. American, French, Turkish, or Israeli. We support these resistance forces based on our national role as a government.
Question 22: What about Saudi Arabia and sending Saudi forces to Syria?
President Assad: First, when we talk about a state, we should assume that such a state can take decisions independently. That's
why we will not talk about the role of Saudi Arabia. You better ask me about the American decision on this issue.
Question 23: On the other hand, there are a number of Arab countries which we talk about and which had a role or contributed to
the role or to the destruction of Syria. These countries are now trying to get to Syria through the reconstruction process. What
do you say in this regard, particularly that these countries are the ones which have capital and huge financial power? How are you
going to deal with that?
President Assad: Reconstruction in Syria is not a cause for concern for us. It needs two factors: first, the human factor which
is more important than the financial factor. When a country like Syria possesses the human factor, the financial cost will be less
when it comes to reconstruction. This is self-evident, and we possess all these factors despite the fact that many competent and
qualified Syrians have immigrated because of the war.
But we still have the capability to start reconstruction. And the evidence is clear now, for the state is moving forward and reconstruction
has begun. As to money, the Syrian people have financial capabilities, capital, most of which is not in Syria, but outside Syria.
But there is capital waiting for reconstruction to begin, so it will begin investing. On the other hand, there are the friendly countries
which have capabilities and have the desire; and we have the desire to have them participate in reconstruction, so that they benefit
and we Syrians benefit from this process. In the end, we do not need those countries and we will never allow them to be part of reconstruction.
Journalist: Never?
President Assad: Absolutely.
Journalist: Not even if there was a need in this regard, I mean in terms of financial resources?
President Assad: Financial resources are not everything. As I said, this is available. There are different sources in the world
and in Syria for capital.
Question 24: With these tough years, we are talking about the legendary steadfastness of the Syrian Army, the Syrian people, the
Armed Forces. If you wanted to talk about two cases, the most difficult case or incident that you have encountered during these years,
and on the other hand the best and most beautiful case.
President Assad: It is natural, at the heart of the military battle, for the best and worst cases to be linked to the development
of the military battle. If I say that the worst cases were when terrorists used to control a certain area, this is self-evident,
but it is related more to specific battles, particularly when the area is strategic or the city is big with a large population. Consequently,
the impact will be much greater psychologically and in terms of morale.
But there was an ongoing situation which we are still living and we must think about: when a martyr or a group of martyrs fall,
and this is ongoing on a weekly basis for us, we must think that a family lost a dear one who cannot be compensated. He might be
compensated by achieving victory at a certain stage, but on the family, psychological and human level, you cannot compensate a dear
one lost to a certain family, or maybe a friend. This is a very painful situation which we have lived and continue to live. This
will not stop until the war itself stops. But there were painful cases at the beginning of the war, when you see this huge lack of
patriotism. They were perhaps a minority, but a large minority, of individuals who were prepared to sell the homeland and trade it
together with their principles, if they had ones, in return for money or a certain interest, in addition to a certain percentage
of extremism.
On the other hand, there were victories, particularly when victories started in the city of al-Qsair in 2013, and culminated in
the city of Aleppo in 2016, that was the beginning of the major victories. That was followed by Deir Ezzor, and today we are living
the joy of liberating Damascus and its countryside. This is a situation we have all lived through, and you were with us, and I am
sure you feel the same joy.
Question 25: Have you felt tired at a certain moment? Have you felt hesitant at a certain moment, in light of all the decisions
you have taken, have you ever, even for a moment, thought of leaving? Haven't you said to yourself: let me save my family and resign,
as some people did at a certain point in time?
President Assad: This question might be raised in a personal manner. When I am faced with a personal situation as an individual,
I might feel despair after a few months. I might feel tired or bored or I might want to move to a different situation, or give up.
That is possible.
Journalist: As an individual?
President Assad: Of course, as an individual, but the case you are proposing is not personal, it is national. Imagine yourself
in a different condition, perhaps building something on your own. You feel tired, but when you see a large number of people helping
you build it and share the same determination, you forget the tiredness.
Now we are in a national situation. We are talking about millions of Syrians. When you see a shell striking and victims falling
anywhere in Syria, you feel frustrated. But when you see life being restored to the same area after one hour, your psychological
condition changes. When you see that the electricity worker, the oil worker, the teacher, the employee, are moving side by side with
fighters, moving without despair and without tiredness, how can you feel tired? This is a collective condition not related to me
as a person. It has to do with our human condition when we are together as a society. How do we live? This defines whether you are
tired or not. Would the Syrian society have arrived at this stage of despair and surrender, I would certainly have been with it.
I would have surrendered because I do not have the necessary elements for steadfastness. This is self-evident.
Journalist: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for giving us this opportunity, and for your candidness in answering these questions.
Thank you very much.
In a way we now can talk about Intelligence Industrial complex
Notable quotes:
"... The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. ..."
"... In a damning passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications. ..."
"... Enough: The DOJ Must Show Its Cards to the American Public A Higher Loyalty is Jim Comey's Revenge, Served Lukewarm ..."
"... Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the situation." ..."
"... Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President" and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by Clinton. ..."
"... Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like "adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements." ..."
"... In that sense, the IG just poured a can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn. ..."
"... One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. ..."
"... The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss' job. ..."
"... the most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA warrants and pseudo-legal warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition research from the Steele Dossier , and so on. ..."
June
15, 2018The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally
feared.
It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI's Clinton email
investigation really means.
While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey
as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this:
the FBI influenced the election of a president.
In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who
previously worked on the 2012 study of "Fast and Furious"), opened his probe into the FBI's
Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the
presidential campaign. Horowitz's focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to
re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding
Russiagate.
In a damning
passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and
insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose
of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates
in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department
norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair
administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for
Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch
though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early
indications.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public
perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI
investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and
to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her
decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the
situation."
The report also
criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging
Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts
"brought discredit" to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one
exchange that read, "Page: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: "No.
No he's not. We'll stop it." Another Strzok document
stated "we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least
one secret message."
Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for
Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their
new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President"
and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend
her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by
Clinton.
Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility
toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise
makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like
"adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the
conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements."
But at the end of it all, the details really don't matter, because the report broadly found
no political bias, no purposeful efforts or strategy to sway the election. In aviation disaster
terms, it was all pilot error. Like an accident of sorts, as opposed to the pilot boarding
drunk, but the plane crashed and killed 300 people either way.
The report is already being welcomed by Democrats -- who feel Comey
shattered Clinton's chances of winning the election by reopening the email probe just days
before the election -- and by Republicans, who feel Comey let Clinton off easy. Many are now
celebrating it was only gross incompetence, unethical behavior, serial bad judgment, and
insubordination that led the FBI to help determine the election. No Constitutional crisis.
A lot of details in those 568 pages to yet fully parse, but at first glance there is not
much worthy of prosecution (though Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he will review the
report for possible
prosecutions and IG Horowitz will testify in front of Congress on Monday and may reveal
more information.) Each side will point to the IG's conclusion of "no bias" to shut down calls
for this or that in a tsunami of blaming each other. In that sense, the IG just poured a
can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn.
One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of
prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just
seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as
tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. As justification for firing
Comey, the White House initially pointed to an earlier Justice Department memo criticizing
Comey for many of the same actions now highlighted by the IG (Trump later added concerns about
the handling of Russiagate.) The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for
Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss'
job.
It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there
is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a
role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they
meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and
anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up
the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA
warrants and pseudo-legal
warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition
research from the
Steele Dossier , and so on.
The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. But even if
one fully accepts the IG report's conclusion that all this -- and there's a lot -- was not
intentional, at a minimum it makes clear to those watching ahead of 2020 what tools are
available and the impact they can have. While we continue to look for the bad guy abroad, we
have already met the enemy and he is us.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell .
If Kiev wants to attack Donbas they better hurry. After World Cup, and definitely next year
when the pipelines bypassing Ukraine will be ready, Ukraine's strategic situation will get
worse. We are in a transition phase: sh..t happened in 2013-15 that is impossible to undo,
but there were fortunately constraints on all sides that prevented a meltdown. In a year or
two most of those constraints will be gone.
Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington
was always stupid – there are forces in Europe, in all countries, who want a
confrontation with Russia. Any event, real or fake, will be used to escalate. West cannot
lose this one without another fight. And if they sit on their hands, they will eventually
lose with a disillusioned Ukraine and slowly disintegrating EU. Populist energy needs to be
re-directed eastward, and for that a more aggressive policy is required. This is not
pessimism, there simply is no way for EU elite to climb down. How could UK make up with
Russia without looking like complete idiots? Or Macron and Merkel? The hostility is at this
point inherent in the situation – what started out as a badly thought-out attempt to
get some quick goodies (bases in Crimea, Nato expansion, sell weapons) has evolved into a
real death spiral.
We are one Franz Ferdinand moment away from a catastrophe. Let's enjoy the games while we
still can. Trump knows this, so he is trying desperately to organize a summit or send some
messages of conciliation. But he is powerless and it might be too late for that. Hubris never
dissipates, it requires a disaster and an elite turnover to cure hubris.
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events.
He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining
the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups
in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London
and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each
other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't
see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self
evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we
haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at
stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude
towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the
US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is
right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the
Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the
position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a
subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know
people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but
this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his
latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario,
it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also
put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is
Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This
interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos
seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian
institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is
again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
I don't think you realize that armies need supplies. To break into Donbas cities would be
hard enough, but to re-supply them would be impossible. Civilians would mostly evacuate, so
there would be little to 'hide in'. Kiev cannot win militarily as long as Russia opposes it.
Russia can always blast their bases from air, or with missiles. Don't kid yourself, if Russia
has the will, they will prevail.
Since you mentioned 2014, there was a perfect opportunity for Maidanistas to avoid this.
All they had to do was to be friendly and accommodating to its Russian minority. Offer them
autonomy, re-assure them, promise that trade and ties with Russia would continue. Kiev did
the exact opposite, an extremely bad tactic. US kept on telling them to cool it, that one
doesn't win by attacking before ready. But in Kiev emotions prevailed, and so we are where we
are.
Sooner or later a more accommodating government in Kiev will try the 'let bygones be
bygones' tactic on Russia. If we are lucky enough to make it that far.
"The rally featured a pointed anti-war speech from Obama, then a fairly anonymous state
lawmaker, who deemed the impending Iraq engagement 'a dumb war.'"
The political entertainer Obama gave a number of speeches advocating transparency in
government, advocating for financial reform and even mentioned "we tortured some folks"
decrying torture.
Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as
he went with the flow.
Obama's Illinois anti-war speech served him well, as he could milk this "anti-war" stance
for years while running military actions as President.
Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty
words, the elite got what they wanted.
Bernie Sanders actually DID vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force in
Iraq
"... It wasn't just bad intelligence, it was consistently purposeful bad intelligence. The consequences have been dire for the world, and our country as well. The Russians in that period never represented a serious military threat even to the continent of Europe, far less the US. ..."
"... You are correct. The forever wars are just one of the ways to bleed the Middle Class dry. The media propaganda and rule by the 10% can't let the suckers know what is really going on. There are always enough men to man the colonial wars but they are unwinnable unless the whole nation is involved. ..."
"... Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as he went with the flow. ..."
"... Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty words, the elite got what they wanted. ..."
"... The MSM is waging a propaganda campaign at every level completely obscuring the truth. And the politicians play the fear card at every level. I don't believe any of us is in "happy compliance" at the airport. I for one, grind my teeth and cuss out the crooked corporations (including that bastard "skull" Chertoff who personally benefited from the x-ray screening machines) that reap a bundle of money from the so called screening and invasive body searches. Travel has become something to dread. ..."
"... The officer corps might be an opponent but I think that America has been badly served by them due to how officers are selected & trained and who makes it to the top. The only time they balk is when some idiot in Washington pushes them to fight the Russians or the Chinese. And most people don't really care in any case so long as the US wins. Out of sight, out of mind as they say. ..."
"... It's harder and harder to sell these military actions to the public. What are we in Korea and Japan for? To contain China? If you ask most people, they'll probably tell you that China won, or at very least our bosses are in league with their bosses. ..."
"... The Borg moves without regard to public sentiment, so we have to replace politicians with those who'll bring it to heel. That's a death sentence, but I feel like enough people have the guts to try and make it happen. ..."
"... *sigh* someone please trot out that Goering quote again: To the extent that public opinion matters, public opinion is easy to arrange. ..."
"... I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a solid electoral reason to have nice vague policies, not least because a campaign against foreign wars would be an excellent way for the left to make common cause with some parts of the right, such as the paleoconservatives and isolationists. ..."
"... It did for Russia. There is now an ongoing civil war on its border in Ukraine. NATO went to war with Serbia in the later 1990's. The breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will splinter Europe. Humans being humans. The strong will try to steal from the weak. ..."
"... The old adage that our country rallies around a war president is no longer operative IMHO. In a nation tired of perpetual war, the commander-in-chief would get at best a short-term surge in public approval by opening up a new battle zone, before slipping precipitously in the polls. Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally crumbles for lack of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy? ..."
"... Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally crumbles for lack of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy? ..."
"... Those are their constituents: beltway bandits, private contractors, public/private partnerships, insurance companies, arms companies, private equity firms, military contractors, and whatever other combinations you want to come up with. ..."
"... I remember when Tim Kaine gleefully suggested that we needed an "intelligence surge" to protect the country. I almost gagged. It was a not so subtle message of "prepare for the handouts to the private military contractor industry". ..."
"... How does positioning 2,000 – 4,000 US troops in Syria fit into your "Trump is a peace-maker" narrative? How about the comment Wednesday that the US will attack Syrian forces if they attack Sunni jihadis (er "moderate rebels") in SW Syria? ..."
"... How about us aiding and abetting a famine in Yemen that could kills tens of thousands? ..."
"... I think you are attributing a sentiment to juliania that her comment does not actually contain. She doesn't say Trump is a peace-maker, she says he was far in front of Bernie in using "anti-war rhetoric as a strategy." The example of Nixon doing the same thing indicates that juliania is well aware that strategic rhetoric and actual decisions are not the same thing. ..."
"... I know a fair number of Trump voters, and my read is similar to juliania's: Trump's anti-war rhetoric was a big draw for a lot of people, and helped many be able to hold their nose and vote for him. Understanding this and commenting on it does not make one a Trump supporter, obviously, or indicate that one puts any credence in his dovish rhetoric. ..."
"... You might be correct and my apologies to juliania if I misread her post. I have heard so much of the "Trump is fighting [the deep state, Wall Street, the neocons]" on other blogs that I am a bit hypersensitive and go off on a rant when I see or perceive that argument. From my perspective, Trump is doing everything in his power to entrench Wall Street, the neocons, etc. ..."
"... The war in Yemen is to secure the Saudi monarchy and our interest in their vast reserves of oil and gas. ..."
"... Are militarism* and democracy compatible? I'm not so sure they are. ..."
"... A lot depends on how you define "democracy", "will of the people" etc.. What the role of "finance" in a context of "capitalism" and "democracy" should be, e.g., citizens united(note orwellian language) may be considered a " reason why they would not be compatible" and even antithetical. ..."
"... America itself is the most destabilizing force on the planet. i would love to see what America leaving the world to its' own devices would look like. Like Weimar/Nazi Germany, nothing good comes from these kind of "American Values." ..."
"... The military is A-ok with Trump and this is what seems to matter. The roar of hysteria from the media over Trump first 2-3 months in office died down considerably when he showed a willingness to engage in a show of force by striking Syria (remember when he was so concerned about the welfare of children?) ..."
"... Only a *faction" of the security establishment is anti-Trump because he is skeptical of *neoliberal* globalism. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Prez who can't seem to enact *anything* to make lives better for the people who put him in office, is magically able to enact the agenda of the 1%. This repeat of the 1% 's manipulations is one I can do without. ..."
"... Regarding the question posed by this post I think there is very little evidence of an anti-war "fever" and even if there were, and if it were projected into the streets and/or ballot box, I am pessimistic that it could have any effect on the U.S. government of today. I don't think the U.S. government cares what the American people think or feel about anything -- except of course as those cares and feelings affect the mechanisms of control through the propaganda pushed through our media, the levels of surveillance and suppression, and the increased viciousness of our "laws" and their enforcement. ..."
"... I believe the U.S. government is run by several powerful and competing interests. So I think I'll ask a different question -- though in the same vein as that posed by the title of this post. Are those interests who compete with the interests of the MIC and Spook Industrial Complex (SIC) beginning to see the futility and stupidity of our endless wars? ..."
"... "Peaceniks are Kremlin stooges!" It's depressing when you can predict the media's response six months in advance. ..."
Is anti-war fever building in the U.S.? One would not think so given all the signs -- apparent public apathy toward multiple military
involvements, happy compliance with "security" at the increasingly painful airport, lack of protests and so on.
Yet there are two signs I'd like to put forward as indicating a growing willingness to forgo foreign "entanglements" (undeclared
wars), springing either from a weariness with them, a nascent abhorrence of them, or a desire to focus U.S. dollars on U.S. domestic
solutions, like the
hugely popular Medicare for All . (Click to see just how popular Medicare for All, called "Medicare Buy-In" at the link, is across
party lines.)
The first sign is Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician in America and by far its most popular senator, making statements
like these in the speech linked and discussed in the video at the top
of this piece. For example, at 9:00 in the clip, Sanders says (emphasis his):
SANDERS: In other words, what we have seen in time and time again, disasters occur when administrations, Democrat and Republican,
mislead Congress and the American people. And when Congress fails to do its constitutional job in terms of asking the questions
of whether or not we should be in a war. And I think we need to ask that very hard question today.
And here is the point that I hope the American people are asking themselves. Is the war on terror, a perpetual, never-ending
war, necessary to keep us safe?
I personally believe we have become far too comfortable with the United States engaging in military interventions all over
the world. We have now been in Afghanistan for 17 years. We have been in Iraq for 15 years. We are occupying a portion of Syria,
and this administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even more.
We are waging a secretive drone war in at least five countries. Our forces, right now, as we speak, are supporting a Saudi-led
war in Yemen which has killed thousands of civilians and has created the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet today.
Talk like this is anathema in our militarized state, comments usually relegated to the fringes of public discourse. For Sanders
to say this (and similarly anathemic remarks elsewhere in the speech) certainly denotes a shift, especially since Sanders during
the campaign was not considered strong on foreign policy, especially progressive (non-orthodox) foreign policy.
As Jimmy Dore said in reply to the last sentence quoted above, "It's not Syria? Can you [say] "stop the butcher" is the worst?
No. Turns out what we're doing is the 'worst humanitarian crisis in the world today,' committing siege warfare in Yemen, which
is a war crime. And we're doing it, with Saudi Arabia."
Sanders also says we're "fighting terror" in 76 countries. Let that sink in, as Sanders wishes it to -- we're engaged in military
conflict in 76 countries, almost a third
of the nations in the world. I'm not sure many in the lay public appreciate the importance, or the likely consequences, of that
surprising fact. (For one example of those consequences, consider that foreign wars often
come home .)
Elsewhere in the video Dore asks, "Do you see Chuck Shumer saying our wars have had 'dire consequences'?" Sanders, it seems to
me, is launching a toe-to-toe battle with what right-wingers have lately been calling the American "deep state" and I've been calling
the security establishment.
The second sign comes from Donald Trump during the campaign. This isn't just Sanders going out on a limb -- taking a flier,
as it were -- on a deeply unpopular position. Consider how often Donald Trump, the campaign version, made similar statements:
He also famously
said this about NATO and its mission:
What I'm saying is NATO is obsolete. NATO is -- is obsolete and it's extremely expensive for the United States, disproportionately
so. And we should readjust NATO.
If the U.S. security establishment is working to get rid of Trump, to take him out by whatever means necessary, campaign
statements like that would be one of many reasons.
If Americans Could Vote Against the Forever War, Would They Do It?
I recently
noted how different the outcomes are when the public indicates policy preferences with their votes versus polling data. DC politicians
of both parties ignore polling with impunity. Votes, on the other hand, especially in party primaries, can force change -- witness
the Trump nomination and the Sanders (stolen) near-nomination.
In some ways, small but not insignificant, the 2016 election was a test of the anti-war waters, with Trump asking questions about
the need and mission of NATO, for example, that haven't been asked in over a generation, and Clinton, the proud choice of the neocon
left and right, in strong
disagreement .
It's too much or too early to say that Trump's public pullback from U.S. hegemony helped his election, though that's entirely
possible. But it's certainly true that his anti-Forever War sentiments did not hurt him in any noticeable way.
I'll go further: If Sanders runs in 2020 and adds anti-war messaging to his program, we'll certainly see the title question tested.
If the U.S. security establishment is working to get rid of Trump, to take him out by whatever means necessary, campaign
statements like that would be one of many reasons.
Bernie had better watch his back then. Make sure no one associated with him has any contact with any Russians or Iranians or
whatever.
The "security establishment/Blob" no coubt has already filled its supply chain with anti-Bernie Bernays-caliber ordnance, ready
to deploy. I don't doubt that there are plenty of James Earl Rays out there, happy to be the ones who will "rid the Blob of this
troublesome politician." Just remember that Bernie has a summer house, and his wife was president of a failed college, and he's
a GD Socialist, for Jeebus' sake!
There's far less than six degrees of separation between any one person and someone who is Russian or Chinese or Iranian or
whatever. Even two degrees of separation is enough for a headline these days.
Districts with military casualties correlate to Trump votes. I'd would be nice to see Sanders do a Town Hall on the empire,
in six months or so when this speech has time to sink in, in one such district.
Yes. Sanders is going to have to pull off a communicative high wire act bridging relatively acceptable criticism of "unnecessary
and expensive foreign entanglements" to hinting at the idea that the US citizens have to understand the expansive pressures that
flow from capitalism and the MIC. I've appreciated the regular links here to American Conservative and Unz articles. They are
valuable reminders that some on the Right aren't in complete denial, at least about the MIC.
One scenario would see a revival of the terms of discussion that briefly saw daylight in at least the late 1940s, when state
planners openly linked a "defensive" military posture with a need for markets. It would at least get the cards out on the table
and assist in clarifying how world politics isn't just a matter of great and secondary powers inevitably pushing each other around.
The idea of Realpolitik is a fundamental and fatal ground of reification.
Presidential ambitions aside, it would be a good idea to pressure trump's crew that are plotting to attack Iran. Plus, any
chance to push back against the awful Dem leadership is also a positive. We need to see more grassroots pushback against that
leadership. Sanders is the best around at generating that grassroots pushback.
Bernie makes many salient points on the Military Industrial Complex in a floor speech concerning the Defense Dept. budget bill.
I especially like the part where he is trying to add an amendment that would limit the compensation of CEOs of defense contractors
to no more than the Secretary of Defense ($205,000). This speech will not make him any friends among the military corporate contractors.
(26 min.)
We are in the world's most favorable geopolitical position. We have the Atlantic to the east, the Pacific to the West, Canada
to the North, and Mexico to the South. We have enough nukes to blow up the world many times over. I don't know why we don't don't
treat the entire imperial enterprise as a sunk cost and get out, starting with the Middle East (and by get out, I mean cut off
all funding, too).
The Taliban announced the three-day halt to hostilities earlier this month, days after a unilateral ceasefire lasting until
Wednesday was ordered by the government.
It is the Taliban's first ceasefire since the government they ran was toppled by the 2001 US-led invasion.
I don't know if it's Trump or it's just coincidence. But peace has broken out in Korea for hte first time in decades, and now
peace has broken out in Afghanistan for the first time in decades.
You should take a look at The Threat by Andrew Cockburn. Fairly exhaustive detail about how Russian military
might was inflated, in the 70s and 80s, in virtually every possible way. From badly coordinated civil defense, to the complete
inreadiness of its airforce, to the caste system pervading the army that had reduced morale to almost nothing, the overall picture
is pretty stunning, compared to the magnitude of the threat that was presented to the US public.
It wasn't just bad intelligence, it was consistently purposeful bad intelligence. The consequences have been dire for the
world, and our country as well. The Russians in that period never represented a serious military threat even to the continent
of Europe, far less the US. Nor do they now, spending less than a tenth on their military than the US. The 80 billion dollar
incease in the US military budget this year was more than the entire Russian military budget. Meanwhile,our own bases
encompass the globe, and we wage war and threaten genocide wherever we choose.
The facts are abundantly clear, that our own military represents by far the greatest threat to human life on this
planet.
I want to tell you, that you and I and everyone in this damned country, we are not just the most lied to people in the world.
We're arguably the most lied to people in history, at least if you consider the number and frequency of lies. It's a wonder we
get anything right at all! I encourage you to read more, and read more widely, and to start at a position of distrust, with any
foreign policy reporting that isn't based on first hand knowledge.
I am heartened by the position Bernie is taking, even as I disagree with him on the Russia hysteria and wonder at some of his
qualifications like "blunder" to describe out and out imperialism. We need to start somewhere, and why not start with "let the
people and the people's representatives decide when we use our military"?
I know many progressives on the left have questioned Bernie's foreign policy positions and for not going far enough in opposing
our imperial wars. Personally, I think Bernie knows exactly how stupid, immoral, illegal, and costly our wars are, especially
as it "crowds out spending" on his favored domestic policies. Bernie is also smart enough to know how he would be attacked by
our right-wing corporate media and the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex if he were too outspoken. So, he tempers his
statements, not just because his domestic agenda is most important to him, but also because he knows attacking our militarized
foreign policy will not play well with the working class base he needs to appeal to. Unlike Obama who played up his anti-Iraq
War vote, only to expand our wars across the Middle East and Africa (after collecting his Nobel Peace Prize), Bernie is holding
his cards closer to the vest.
> play well with the working class base he needs to appeal to
I think the working class in the flyover states is ready to hear that the endless war needs to end. It's tricky message to
convey, because "Are you saying my child died in vain?" But Trump saying Iraq was a strategic blunder went over very well, and
military casualties correlate with Trump votes . I think Sanders (or his as-yet-unknown successor) must deliver that
message, but it's going to be tricky, if only because it will smash an enormous number of rice bowls in the national security
and political classes (which overlap). Maybe we could move all the uniform-worshippers to an island, give them a few billion dollars,
and let them play war games among themselves. Cheap at twice the price.
UPDATE I would bet "addiction" would work as a trope in the flyover states; "the war machine is a needle in America's arm"
is the concept. Especially because
veterans are prone to opioid addiction . Again, the rhetoric would be tricky to avoid blaming victims or "hating the troops,"
but I think there's good messaging to be found here. (People do horrid things when trapped in addictive systems. That's why they
seek cure )
Sanders needs to protect the people who are part of the 95% who work for the military industrial complex. He does this not
by raising welfare (which Americans find humiliating), not by only giving extensive retraining benefits, (which in an opportunity
starved country like America, will only lead to work stints at an Amazon Warehouse) but by repurposing the capitol and retraining
the working people to issues that must be addressed for the future, such as energy sustainability or infrastructure that can resist
increasingly severe climate chaos. Furthermore, he must announce and do both simultaneously, probably via an MMT program and raising
Taxes on rhe elite 2% and via transaction taxes on all capitol outflow from the USA.
Stopping the war machine, but putting people out of work, will never be acceptable to those who work for the war machine or
the friends and family of those people.
You are correct. The forever wars are just one of the ways to bleed the Middle Class dry. The media propaganda and rule
by the 10% can't let the suckers know what is really going on. There are always enough men to man the colonial wars but they are
unwinnable unless the whole nation is involved.
The Bolshevik Revolution and the Bonus Army were within living memory of WWII leaders. The new global aristocracy has lost
all history and doesn't perceive the inevitable consequences of inequality. My personal opinion was that for Marshall and Truman
one of the reasons for the use of atomic weapons on Japan was that they did not want millions of combat tested soldiers traveling
across the USA by train with the ultimate destination a number of deadly invasions of the Japanese Islands. Each worse than Okinawa.
They were afraid of what the soldiers would do. This is also the reason why these Vets got a generous GI Bill.
You reminded me of Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq. She protesteted at the GWB TX compound if you recall and remains
an activist to this day. I can't speak for her but it seems to me like she understands that her son should not have died to further
this ugly, pointless war.
I can't begin to understand the pain of losing a child, spouse, parent, etc., but I can wrap my head around it enough that
I don't want anyone to experience it. And I have no doubt that facing the true causes of the war would make the pain worse. But
every time I hear this nonsense about how some poor kid "didn't die in vain" in VietRaq, I want to scream "yes they did! Now what
are we going to do to stop it from happening again???".
The tropes of "supporting the troops", yellow ribbons, "they are protecting us", etc. just keeps the propaganda ballon inflated.
Here is how I support the troops: I'm against war.
This reminds me of Forest Gump where some well meaning hippies call Forest Gump a baby killer. The peace activists must refrain
from blaming and shaming soldiers as a group; specfic criminals (such as those who committed crimes at my lai) should investigated,
shamed and punished, the whistleblowers should be greatly honoured, and soldiers ad a group should be respected and not blamed
for going to war, as indeed many do not know the truth for why the war was fought. On the other hand, politicians, lobby groups,
and venal media and intelligence agencies should be exorciated for the lies that they believe or spread, as indeed it should be
their business to try to discern the truth.
Hence it was very admirable when members of the Mossad leaked out facts that Iran was not pursuing development of the Nuclear
bomb, even while Netanyahoo was pursuing a media blitz to justify greater economic and ultimately military aggression against
Iran
Who is "blaming and shaming" anyone? I'm saying that I agree with this mother who lost her child that we should be extremely
skeptical about the motivation for war of any kind. And the lack of skepticism (expressed or not) impedes any real movement away
from war without end.
The Sheehans are real people who lost a son and brother. Forest Gump is just some character from a dumb movie. Good grief.
I think that you can respect the sacrifice and commitment of people who sign up to fight for their country while still criticizing
the uses that leaders have chosen to put them to. In fact I think that makes the message stronger: the willingness of our friends,
family, children etc. to sign up to fight and die for America places a duty and obligation on our leaders to ensure they are deployed
wisely and for the betterment of America and the world. Those leaders – the ones we elected – have failed in that trust, and continue
to fail. Our military friends and family haven't let us down – we've let them down, by not holding our government accountable.
It's time we changed that!
"The rally featured a pointed anti-war speech from Obama, then a fairly anonymous state lawmaker, who deemed the impending
Iraq engagement 'a dumb war.'"
The political entertainer Obama gave a number of speeches advocating transparency in government, advocating for financial reform
and even mentioned "we tortured some folks" decrying torture.
Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as he went with the flow.
Obama's Illinois anti-war speech served him well, as he could milk this "anti-war" stance for years while running military
actions as President.
Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty words, the elite got what they wanted.
Bernie Sanders actually DID vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
Sadly, there is no contemporaneous transcript*
or recording . I remember the 2008 controversy vividly, because the Obama campaign released a campaign ad that purported to
be Obama delivering the Chicago 2002 speech, but it quickly emerged that he had re-recorded it for the campaign (see the link).
I think we're more than being lied to. The MSM is waging a propaganda campaign at every level completely obscuring the
truth. And the politicians play the fear card at every level. I don't believe any of us is in "happy compliance" at the airport.
I for one, grind my teeth and cuss out the crooked corporations (including that bastard "skull" Chertoff who personally benefited
from the x-ray screening machines) that reap a bundle of money from the so called screening and invasive body searches. Travel
has become something to dread.
You can tell a lot about a country's intent by the design of the army they assemble. Here is a deep technical description about
the new army the Russians are putting together. Hint: it is not designed to attack.
"The decision to create a tank army (armoured corps in Western terminology) is an indication that Russia really does fear attack
from the west and is preparing to defend itself against it. In short, Russia has finally come to the conclusion that NATO's aggression
means it has to prepare for a big war."
Interesting technical take on the whole thing. Worth a read.
Well, Russia could probably triumph over the austerity-racked countries of the EU, with the possible exception of France. But
it wouldn't be able to hold much for long if it had to occupy anything. And it would take a mauling in the process, a mauling
that would be prohibitively expensive to repair. The modern Russian military simply isn't organized in a fashion that is conducive
to large scale conquest. It has exactly one fully integrated, combined arms unit suitable for full-scale armored warfrare, the
1st Guards Tank Army, which was reactivated in 2014.
The nightmare visions of armor pouring through the Fulda Gap were basically always delusional. In 2018 they're downright laughable.
I don't think that the US can stop at this point. As an example, the one time the people were asked if they wanted to bomb
Syria the answer was a definite 'no' so the next time they never even bothered asking them. There is far too much money, power
and prestige at stake too consider stopping.
The officer corps might be an opponent but I think that America has been badly served by them due to how officers are selected
& trained and who makes it to the top. The only time they balk is when some idiot in Washington pushes them to fight the Russians
or the Chinese. And most people don't really care in any case so long as the US wins. Out of sight, out of mind as they say.
America is more likely to get single-payer health than for the US armed forces to pull back as any suggestion of the later
brings charges of being 'unpatriotic'. At least with single-payer health you only get charged with being a 'socialist'. Know a
good place to start? The US Special Operations Command has about 70,000 people in it and they want more. The US would be better
served by cutting this force in half and giving their jobs back to regular formations.
These are the people that want constant deployments in more and more countries hence cutting them back would be a good idea.
I expect things to go along until one day the US armed forces will be sent into a war where they will take casualties not seen
since the bad days on 'Nam. Then there will be the devil to pay and him out to lunch.
It's harder and harder to sell these military actions to the public. What are we in Korea and Japan for? To contain China?
If you ask most people, they'll probably tell you that China won, or at very least our bosses are in league with their bosses.
The Borg moves without regard to public sentiment, so we have to replace politicians with those who'll bring it to heel.
That's a death sentence, but I feel like enough people have the guts to try and make it happen.
One issue I have right now with 'anti-War' is that to be 'anti' is one thing, but to make serious arguments you have to be
able to present arguments about what you are actually 'for'. For example, if the US were to suddenly withdraw from the eastern
Pacific, the effect could be highly destabilising and could actually increase the chance of war. These are questions that need
to be answered.
Just to take one example of I think a positive idea – there is research
here which argues that the 'optimum' nuclear deterrent is less
than 100 warheads. This is of course a difficult argument to put into political play, but its important I think to put the militarists
on the back foot in order to make arguments for withdrawal from empire and peace mainstream.
I would bet that most people think that being anti-war encompasses the following:
-being for peace
-being for stability
-being for more social spending instead of military spending
-being for fewer civilians being killed
-being for fewer military deaths
Is that enough to meet your ridiculous threshold for 'serious arguments?'
you're being cavalier. PK makes a great point, and your vague and oyerly broad "fors" remind me of many arguments regarding
the 2016 election. The democrat side (Brock and CTR et al) couldn't say what they were for outside of abstract bernaysian generalities.
If you want to convince people (and I have this difficulty, as do I'm sure most of the readers here, trying to get dems off of
the russia russia russia putins bitch train)
You really need to focus on slow walking through complicated and dangerous waters, and just shut up sometimes when certain
people are just not going to listen, but if you can get that one cogent, not hysterical argument into the minds of the people
you want to convince, then you have a chance to stem the tide. Read some of the fantastic commentary regarding brexit from our
european commenters as an example of what works in discourse, and how to puts facts on the ground in a way people can relate to.
> You really need to focus on slow walking through complicated and dangerous waters . Read some of the fantastic commentary
regarding brexit from our european commenters as an example of what works in discourse, and how to puts facts on the ground in
a way people can relate to.
That's a cogent argument. I don't mean to imply in my comments that "getting out" will be easy. ("You must do it, Catullus,
you must do it. You must do it whether it can be done or not.")
We might begin by renaming the "Department of Defense" to the "Department of War," just to be truthful, and then ask ourselves
what kind of wars we want to fight. And I think most people would be very willing to cross anything that looked like Iraq off
the list, followed (it is to be hoped) with a willingness to rethink self-licking ice cream cones as our industrial policy. In
a way, the project would have the same feel as my hobbyhorse, gutting the administrative layers of the universities as not central
to mission.
Thanks tegnost. I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a solid electoral reason to have nice vague policies, not least
because a campaign against foreign wars would be an excellent way for the left to make common cause with some parts of the right,
such as the paleoconservatives and isolationists.
The problem as I see it with policies 'against' something is that you end up a little like Five Star in Italy – having gotten
into power on opposing everything bad about Italy, they are now facing a 'now what' moment, and are seemingly clueless about what
to do. As usual, the right makes the running.
The war-mongers will always find "serious arguments" for why we musn't end the American empire. Their arguments will be nuanced
and filled with details that would take the average citizen months, if not years, to verify and analyze. When the best minds in
the American empire can fail to forsee the fall of the Soviet Union or the response to their coup on Chavez, why should we put
credence in their "serious" analyses?
Meanwhile, the case against war is a simple and easily verifiable. "My son is dead." "My friend came home a broken person."
etc. Telling poor Americans that their family members need to keep dying because allowing them to come home would, maybe, make
war more likely in a country they've only seen on a map is an argument not likely to find much traction. It is also, in my mind,
ethically vapid -- an argument that presses for a guaranteed evil as a means of avoiding a possible evil.
Trying to forsee the outcome of major (or even minor) changes to a system as complex as the American empire is a sucker's game.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is likely a sucker themselves. In situations of such complexity, the only way forward is the ontological
one. All teleology is sheer fantasy. We should act, therefore, not on the basis of what we think will happen as a result of our
actions, but rather on the basis of what the just thing to do is. You can't base your actions on ends (as in "the ends justify
the means") because the situation is so complex that there is no way to credibly predict the ends that any action might lead to.
IMHO, the ethical policy is to bring 'em home. All of 'em. Let them protect our country, as they've sworn to do. Let us put
them to work rebuilding our infrastructure, assisting those who need it, and making the country better than it is, rather than
filling it up with more walking wounded from our endless imperial adventuring.
It did for Russia. There is now an ongoing civil war on its border in Ukraine. NATO went to war with Serbia in the later
1990's. The breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will splinter Europe. Humans being humans. The strong will try to steal from the
weak.
The question is how to restore the West's middle class. Without a middle class; revolts, religious and ethnic wars will inevitable
break out all over. The unrest right now is due to democracy not being compatible with globalization.
It was not just Bush who told lies to justify an invasion of Iraq. Members of Congress and the press did as well. Sen. Biden,
the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee then, would only allow pro-war people to testify to his committee. At the
time a lobbyist told me that the leadership of the Democratic party had decided to promote this war. They felt this would remove
this issue from the next election, which would then focus on economic issues that would play to their strength.
Thanks for this. Another reason to break up the MIC is all the money that would be freed up for health care, infrastructure
and the country's many other needs. Perhaps Sanders now realizes that the balance in USG priorities needs to be restored and he
is making an economic, and not just humanitarian argument.
As for Trump, it's just possible he meant what he said about NATO and all the rest. If one believes his real priorities are
his family and business it's hard to see what he gets out of perpetual war. That's more Obama and Hillary's bag.
Which doesn't make the above true. But we should at least entertain the possibility that it could be true.
As one who could never bring himself to vote for Trump (or for Clinton, for that matter), let me make a counter-intuitive prediction.
If Trump allows the MIC to goad him into starting a new war with Iran, he will lose if he decides to run again.
If, on the other hand, he starts no new war against Iran or any other country that does not threaten us militarily, then he
will be re-elected should he decide to go for another term.
The old adage that our country rallies around a war president is no longer operative IMHO. In a nation tired of perpetual
war, the commander-in-chief would get at best a short-term surge in public approval by opening up a new battle zone, before slipping
precipitously in the polls. Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally
crumbles for lack of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy?
Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally crumbles for lack
of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy?
They do it for the money, pretty much everyone in congress is a millionaire, including the ones who were not millionaires when
they got elected hmmmmmm .
Those are their constituents: beltway bandits, private contractors, public/private partnerships, insurance companies, arms
companies, private equity firms, military contractors, and whatever other combinations you want to come up with.
I remember when Tim Kaine gleefully suggested that we needed an "intelligence surge" to protect the country. I almost gagged.
It was a not so subtle message of "prepare for the handouts to the private military contractor industry".
> Another reason to break up the MIC is all the money that would be freed up for health care, infrastructure and the country's
many other needs
Since Federal taxes don't fund Federal spending, the connection between gutting the MIC and more money for health care is not
direct.
However, if you think in terms of real resources , the effect is as you say. (The same reasoning applies to finance,
where enormous salaries sucked in the best talent that might otherwise have been put to non-parasitical purposes.)
Mt is not yet sellable to the public, will take years. Best story is that foreign wars strip resources from local spending
and jobs, which is also what most pols seem to think. Bills should be presented as less for mil and mor for infra. Starve mic
You don't have to go back to the last campaign to see anti-war rhetoric as a strategy. Trump is already, in his meeting with
Kim, starting the ball rolling. (Moon of Alabama.com has a good recent post on the subject). Sorry Bernie, you are late to the
party, too late. Reminds me a bit of 1968. Nixon got in promising to end that war (which he didn't.) But it is good to see anti-war
stuff going mainstream at last. May it bear fruit this time around!
And yes, Gaius Publius, anti-war statements Trump made during his first campaign DID make a huge difference. They won him the
presidency, in my opinion.
How does positioning 2,000 – 4,000 US troops in Syria fit into your "Trump is a peace-maker" narrative? How about the comment
Wednesday that the US will attack Syrian forces if they attack Sunni jihadis (er "moderate rebels") in SW Syria?
How about us aiding and abetting a famine in Yemen that could kills tens of thousands?
Is setting us on a potential course for war with Iran further evidence of your "dovish" Trump?
I think you are attributing a sentiment to juliania that her comment does not actually contain. She doesn't say Trump is
a peace-maker, she says he was far in front of Bernie in using "anti-war rhetoric as a strategy." The example of Nixon doing the
same thing indicates that juliania is well aware that strategic rhetoric and actual decisions are not the same thing.
I know a fair number of Trump voters, and my read is similar to juliania's: Trump's anti-war rhetoric was a big draw for
a lot of people, and helped many be able to hold their nose and vote for him. Understanding this and commenting on it does not
make one a Trump supporter, obviously, or indicate that one puts any credence in his dovish rhetoric.
You might be correct and my apologies to juliania if I misread her post. I have heard so much of the "Trump is fighting
[the deep state, Wall Street, the neocons]" on other blogs that I am a bit hypersensitive and go off on a rant when I see or perceive
that argument. From my perspective, Trump is doing everything in his power to entrench Wall Street, the neocons, etc.
I was also receptive to the idea that Trump might be less hawkish than HRC (although I did not vote for him) but have now been
thoroughly disabused of that notion.
SW Syria does not have Kurds active, so these are Sunni jihadi-lites. They are however not HTS, which we re-branded from Al-Nusra
and had been classified as an Al Qaeda affiliate at one time. Of course we are framing it as a de-escalation zone; others call
it a jihadi base.
The war in Yemen is to secure the Saudi monarchy and our interest in their vast reserves of oil and gas. The war in
Syria is to secure our preferred pipeline feeding the EU. Our entrenched position surrounding Iran is no accident – we are an
existential threat to Iran and intend to remain that way. If China discovered a giant oil field under its western desert we'd
be there too. One rationale for all this control freakery is that we think we can maintain our "capitalist" economy, our silly
pretenses about a free market, etc. But Karma is the real truth-teller here: Free markets do not work. So it follows logically
that privatization also does not work. And to continue, at some point, forced capitalism fails. Markets fail. Profit seeking could
be the thing that brings it all down. It's a strangely comforting thought because it leaves us with a clear vision of what not
to do anymore. Unfortunately, people are not angels. If we attempt to invoke the ghost of John Foster Dulles and not engage in
little wars but just sell arms to every tin pot dictator it will be worse chaos than it is now. And worse still, chaos in a time
of environmental devastation. The only good option is the Mr. Scrooge option. Instead of arms and WMD and fascist control for
the sake of preventing uprisings, we should skip the fascist control part and directly mainline the resources to make civilization
thrive. Since that's definitely not capitalism, we'll have to think up a new ism.
Yes, let's devote enormous real resources to fabricating bespoke military aircraft that catch fire on the runway. Meanwhile,
we don't have any machine shops anymore .
> I have the feeling that Sanders here is reacting to all the ex-CIA (but not 100% ex) candidates taking over the D Party.
That is an excellent point. (I don't think it's just CIA, though; it's CIA and military personnel generally.* That's why I
voted against ranked Jared Golden low, because Golden (like Seth Moulton in MA) fits that template, which is vile.
UPDATE * "Professional authoritarians," we might call them. That would fit all this neatly into Thomas Frank's framework.
People ask if capitalism and democracy are compatible, and I think they are, at least I don't see any inherent reason why they
would not be compatible.
Another question: Are militarism* and democracy compatible? I'm not so sure they are.
Ancient Athens was on some level democratic, and the populist party typically favored war and expansion. E.g.Pericles and the
peloponesian war come to mind. By contrast, the aristocratic parties were generally less in favor of military adventurism.
However, a constitutional republic is not compatible with empire.
The link between populism and war featured prominently in "Electing to fight. Why emerging democracies go to war" This is a
fairly obscure book (one review in Amazon), but – by a wide margin – the best book I have ever read about politics or political
science. The last 100 pages are cliff notes versions of the politics underlying the start of many wars; the first 150 pages are
a really dense read.
A lot depends on how you define "democracy", "will of the people" etc.. What the role of "finance" in a context of "capitalism"
and "democracy" should be, e.g., citizens united(note orwellian language) may be considered a " reason why they would not be compatible"
and even antithetical. Noting that "militarism" depends on public funding, where should the power to influence this funding
be? Neo-cons, dominated by militarists, and neo-liberals, dominated by de-regulated banksters, may not be the same but certainly
seem like symbionts in the context of 326MM people.
America itself is the most destabilizing force on the planet. i would love to see what America leaving the world to its'
own devices would look like. Like Weimar/Nazi Germany, nothing good comes from these kind of "American Values."
the Ugly American is what American Values signify, and mostly always have. America is the most destabilizing force i ever read
of or heard of. Americans have just taken the Nazi theme of One People, One Land and One Leader on a Global scope. and it ain't
good. Either do as America tells you, or we will bring American Democracy to your country.
Maybe there's hope, as Caitlyn Johnstone implies in her last essay, i sure doubt it, though, as long as America/the Empire
continues to destabilize not just the Pacific but everywhere else in the world. Why does anything think the South/Central Americans
come to America. The American Empire has screwed up the Western Hemisphere so badly, these "refugees hope to escape from the American
made Plantations the Western Hemisphere has been carved into. These immigrants are just part of the blowback from the American
Way.
also makes me wonder if the Europeans don't understand why there are refugees coming through Greece and via boats, primarily
to Italy. dont they see it's America's Wars in MENA that are causing this "invasion." gosh, what a black and white cause and effect.
Germany needs workers due to the low birth rate. so, open the doors to the chaos America has made in the Middle East, and voila,
cheap labor and departure from an America made hell in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Algeria, the whole "New American Century"
Project the Neocons have us in and paying for.
Doesn't the average European see how American and Apartheid Israeli support for forces like the Taliban, Al Queda, Wahabbism,
and the ongoing media censored Yemeni/Palestinian Holocaust, wars of profit, i.e. created the refugess that are streaming into
Europe. Maybe the Europeans are also stymied by the Rich who keep the wars going and the Media who profit off the death of the
"deplorables" who no longer "matter."
i know in America most Americans are ignorant due to total control of the Media and the "narrative" that controls what can
be said. Americans have no shame when it comes to getting what they want, politically. no enough blowback. no sense of connection
between here and there or anywhere outside the Media Narrative.
as a bumper sticker from long ago said, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." The Empire will not give up
until it can't go on.
Thanks for calling attention to this. I noticed the same thing immediately, and I gave the remainder of the article less credence
because of it. A true leftie knows the difference between Improved Medicare for All and a Medicare buy-in program.
To me, making the argument that one must be 'for' something is simply a way to dismiss whatever the 'anti' side represents,
whether or not PK meant to be dismissive.
And it reminds me of the efforts to impede and dismiss the anti-war or occupy-type movement outright – "what, you people don't
have any policies (and nothing for us to analyze to death and criticize??) !!!! How dare you speak up about something!!! Go away
until you go to Harvard and produce a few papers. Until then, your silly notions mean nothing to us!!" and the underlying elitism
of the concept.
So, that is what I am reminded of, again, whether or not PK meant it that way.
(Before reading the comments) "If Americans Could Vote Against the Forever War, Would They Do It?"
Sadly, I think the answer is no, mainly because Americans do not vote based on foreign policy unless it "comes home," eg in
the form of body bags – a lot of them. The "wasted money" argument, which brings it home, might be the most effective; that's
a pitfall of MMT. Of course, as a practical matter there's a POLITICAL choice between guns and butter, whether or not the economics
is valid.
In those remarks, Sanders is filling in the gaping hole in his resume. It may be an indication that he plans to run in 2020.
Finally: I question whether the 2016 nomination was actually "stolen." Certainly there was a good deal of cheating by the party,
but I'm not convinced it was decisive (there's no way to be sure). The actual votes ran about 47% for Sanders, and that's including
Oregon and California. I think that reflects the actual nature of the Democratic Party.
The reason is that its membership has been falling, if not plummeting, at the same time that its policies have become more
and more right-wing. Affiliation, which is a poll result, is down near 30%; I suspect registrations have fallen, too, but I haven't
seen numbers. Given the variations in state law, registrations aren't very indicative. All that means that the remaining party
members are a remnant that has been selected for conservatism. The primary vote reflects that. (This doesn't change the argument
that the Dems knowingly chose their weaker candidate; it just means that the voters did, too.)
The military is A-ok with Trump and this is what seems to matter. The roar of hysteria from the media over Trump first
2-3 months in office died down considerably when he showed a willingness to engage in a show of force by striking Syria (remember
when he was so concerned about the welfare of children?)
Only a *faction" of the security establishment is anti-Trump because he is skeptical of *neoliberal* globalism. However
this faction is doing a great job of re-enacting the framework used to deny/disrupt/disable during the Clinton administration:
scandals and selective corruption investigations. This serves a purpose: to martyr the Prez with the constituents who *should*
be holding the Prez accountable on lack of follow through and betrayal of promises made on the camapign trail.
Trump voters can't make him hold himaccountable; they are too busy feeling he has been victimized -- and many Trump voters
are victims, so the identification is real.
Meanwhile, the Prez who can't seem to enact *anything* to make lives better for the people who put him in office, is magically
able to enact the agenda of the 1%. This repeat of the 1% 's manipulations is one I can do without.
Regarding the question posed by this post I think there is very little evidence of an anti-war "fever" and even if there
were, and if it were projected into the streets and/or ballot box, I am pessimistic that it could have any effect on the U.S.
government of today. I don't think the U.S. government cares what the American people think or feel about anything -- except of
course as those cares and feelings affect the mechanisms of control through the propaganda pushed through our media, the levels
of surveillance and suppression, and the increased viciousness of our "laws" and their enforcement.
I believe the U.S. government is run by several powerful and competing interests. So I think I'll ask a different question
-- though in the same vein as that posed by the title of this post. Are those interests who compete with the interests of the
MIC and Spook Industrial Complex (SIC) beginning to see the futility and stupidity of our endless wars? Are those interests
growing anxious at enriching their share of the pie by shoving aside the budget gluttons feasting on war? Are any of those interests
whose long-term, and often short-term interests are damaged by endless wars and their ongoing deconstruction of American Empire
finally growing weary of how those wars undermine the American Empire? War may be a racket but the burning of bridges and collapse
of Empire isn't a racket I would hope even the most clueless of our masters will continue to tolerate. Have the MIC and SIC assumed
power?
"... It wasn't just bad intelligence, it was consistently purposeful bad intelligence. The consequences have been dire for the world, and our country as well. The Russians in that period never represented a serious military threat even to the continent of Europe, far less the US. ..."
"... You are correct. The forever wars are just one of the ways to bleed the Middle Class dry. The media propaganda and rule by the 10% can't let the suckers know what is really going on. There are always enough men to man the colonial wars but they are unwinnable unless the whole nation is involved. ..."
"... Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as he went with the flow. ..."
"... Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty words, the elite got what they wanted. ..."
"... The MSM is waging a propaganda campaign at every level completely obscuring the truth. And the politicians play the fear card at every level. I don't believe any of us is in "happy compliance" at the airport. I for one, grind my teeth and cuss out the crooked corporations (including that bastard "skull" Chertoff who personally benefited from the x-ray screening machines) that reap a bundle of money from the so called screening and invasive body searches. Travel has become something to dread. ..."
"... The officer corps might be an opponent but I think that America has been badly served by them due to how officers are selected & trained and who makes it to the top. The only time they balk is when some idiot in Washington pushes them to fight the Russians or the Chinese. And most people don't really care in any case so long as the US wins. Out of sight, out of mind as they say. ..."
"... It's harder and harder to sell these military actions to the public. What are we in Korea and Japan for? To contain China? If you ask most people, they'll probably tell you that China won, or at very least our bosses are in league with their bosses. ..."
"... The Borg moves without regard to public sentiment, so we have to replace politicians with those who'll bring it to heel. That's a death sentence, but I feel like enough people have the guts to try and make it happen. ..."
"... *sigh* someone please trot out that Goering quote again: To the extent that public opinion matters, public opinion is easy to arrange. ..."
"... I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a solid electoral reason to have nice vague policies, not least because a campaign against foreign wars would be an excellent way for the left to make common cause with some parts of the right, such as the paleoconservatives and isolationists. ..."
"... It did for Russia. There is now an ongoing civil war on its border in Ukraine. NATO went to war with Serbia in the later 1990's. The breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will splinter Europe. Humans being humans. The strong will try to steal from the weak. ..."
"... The old adage that our country rallies around a war president is no longer operative IMHO. In a nation tired of perpetual war, the commander-in-chief would get at best a short-term surge in public approval by opening up a new battle zone, before slipping precipitously in the polls. Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally crumbles for lack of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy? ..."
"... Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally crumbles for lack of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy? ..."
"... Those are their constituents: beltway bandits, private contractors, public/private partnerships, insurance companies, arms companies, private equity firms, military contractors, and whatever other combinations you want to come up with. ..."
"... I remember when Tim Kaine gleefully suggested that we needed an "intelligence surge" to protect the country. I almost gagged. It was a not so subtle message of "prepare for the handouts to the private military contractor industry". ..."
"... How does positioning 2,000 – 4,000 US troops in Syria fit into your "Trump is a peace-maker" narrative? How about the comment Wednesday that the US will attack Syrian forces if they attack Sunni jihadis (er "moderate rebels") in SW Syria? ..."
"... How about us aiding and abetting a famine in Yemen that could kills tens of thousands? ..."
"... I think you are attributing a sentiment to juliania that her comment does not actually contain. She doesn't say Trump is a peace-maker, she says he was far in front of Bernie in using "anti-war rhetoric as a strategy." The example of Nixon doing the same thing indicates that juliania is well aware that strategic rhetoric and actual decisions are not the same thing. ..."
"... I know a fair number of Trump voters, and my read is similar to juliania's: Trump's anti-war rhetoric was a big draw for a lot of people, and helped many be able to hold their nose and vote for him. Understanding this and commenting on it does not make one a Trump supporter, obviously, or indicate that one puts any credence in his dovish rhetoric. ..."
"... You might be correct and my apologies to juliania if I misread her post. I have heard so much of the "Trump is fighting [the deep state, Wall Street, the neocons]" on other blogs that I am a bit hypersensitive and go off on a rant when I see or perceive that argument. From my perspective, Trump is doing everything in his power to entrench Wall Street, the neocons, etc. ..."
"... The war in Yemen is to secure the Saudi monarchy and our interest in their vast reserves of oil and gas. ..."
"... Are militarism* and democracy compatible? I'm not so sure they are. ..."
"... A lot depends on how you define "democracy", "will of the people" etc.. What the role of "finance" in a context of "capitalism" and "democracy" should be, e.g., citizens united(note orwellian language) may be considered a " reason why they would not be compatible" and even antithetical. ..."
"... America itself is the most destabilizing force on the planet. i would love to see what America leaving the world to its' own devices would look like. Like Weimar/Nazi Germany, nothing good comes from these kind of "American Values." ..."
"... The military is A-ok with Trump and this is what seems to matter. The roar of hysteria from the media over Trump first 2-3 months in office died down considerably when he showed a willingness to engage in a show of force by striking Syria (remember when he was so concerned about the welfare of children?) ..."
"... Only a *faction" of the security establishment is anti-Trump because he is skeptical of *neoliberal* globalism. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Prez who can't seem to enact *anything* to make lives better for the people who put him in office, is magically able to enact the agenda of the 1%. This repeat of the 1% 's manipulations is one I can do without. ..."
"... Regarding the question posed by this post I think there is very little evidence of an anti-war "fever" and even if there were, and if it were projected into the streets and/or ballot box, I am pessimistic that it could have any effect on the U.S. government of today. I don't think the U.S. government cares what the American people think or feel about anything -- except of course as those cares and feelings affect the mechanisms of control through the propaganda pushed through our media, the levels of surveillance and suppression, and the increased viciousness of our "laws" and their enforcement. ..."
"... I believe the U.S. government is run by several powerful and competing interests. So I think I'll ask a different question -- though in the same vein as that posed by the title of this post. Are those interests who compete with the interests of the MIC and Spook Industrial Complex (SIC) beginning to see the futility and stupidity of our endless wars? ..."
"... "Peaceniks are Kremlin stooges!" It's depressing when you can predict the media's response six months in advance. ..."
Is anti-war fever building in the U.S.? One would not think so given all the signs -- apparent public apathy toward multiple military
involvements, happy compliance with "security" at the increasingly painful airport, lack of protests and so on.
Yet there are two signs I'd like to put forward as indicating a growing willingness to forgo foreign "entanglements" (undeclared
wars), springing either from a weariness with them, a nascent abhorrence of them, or a desire to focus U.S. dollars on U.S. domestic
solutions, like the
hugely popular Medicare for All . (Click to see just how popular Medicare for All, called "Medicare Buy-In" at the link, is across
party lines.)
The first sign is Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician in America and by far its most popular senator, making statements
like these in the speech linked and discussed in the video at the top
of this piece. For example, at 9:00 in the clip, Sanders says (emphasis his):
SANDERS: In other words, what we have seen in time and time again, disasters occur when administrations, Democrat and Republican,
mislead Congress and the American people. And when Congress fails to do its constitutional job in terms of asking the questions
of whether or not we should be in a war. And I think we need to ask that very hard question today.
And here is the point that I hope the American people are asking themselves. Is the war on terror, a perpetual, never-ending
war, necessary to keep us safe?
I personally believe we have become far too comfortable with the United States engaging in military interventions all over
the world. We have now been in Afghanistan for 17 years. We have been in Iraq for 15 years. We are occupying a portion of Syria,
and this administration has indicated that it may broaden that mission even more.
We are waging a secretive drone war in at least five countries. Our forces, right now, as we speak, are supporting a Saudi-led
war in Yemen which has killed thousands of civilians and has created the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet today.
Talk like this is anathema in our militarized state, comments usually relegated to the fringes of public discourse. For Sanders
to say this (and similarly anathemic remarks elsewhere in the speech) certainly denotes a shift, especially since Sanders during
the campaign was not considered strong on foreign policy, especially progressive (non-orthodox) foreign policy.
As Jimmy Dore said in reply to the last sentence quoted above, "It's not Syria? Can you [say] "stop the butcher" is the worst?
No. Turns out what we're doing is the 'worst humanitarian crisis in the world today,' committing siege warfare in Yemen, which
is a war crime. And we're doing it, with Saudi Arabia."
Sanders also says we're "fighting terror" in 76 countries. Let that sink in, as Sanders wishes it to -- we're engaged in military
conflict in 76 countries, almost a third
of the nations in the world. I'm not sure many in the lay public appreciate the importance, or the likely consequences, of that
surprising fact. (For one example of those consequences, consider that foreign wars often
come home .)
Elsewhere in the video Dore asks, "Do you see Chuck Shumer saying our wars have had 'dire consequences'?" Sanders, it seems to
me, is launching a toe-to-toe battle with what right-wingers have lately been calling the American "deep state" and I've been calling
the security establishment.
The second sign comes from Donald Trump during the campaign. This isn't just Sanders going out on a limb -- taking a flier,
as it were -- on a deeply unpopular position. Consider how often Donald Trump, the campaign version, made similar statements:
He also famously
said this about NATO and its mission:
What I'm saying is NATO is obsolete. NATO is -- is obsolete and it's extremely expensive for the United States, disproportionately
so. And we should readjust NATO.
If the U.S. security establishment is working to get rid of Trump, to take him out by whatever means necessary, campaign
statements like that would be one of many reasons.
If Americans Could Vote Against the Forever War, Would They Do It?
I recently
noted how different the outcomes are when the public indicates policy preferences with their votes versus polling data. DC politicians
of both parties ignore polling with impunity. Votes, on the other hand, especially in party primaries, can force change -- witness
the Trump nomination and the Sanders (stolen) near-nomination.
In some ways, small but not insignificant, the 2016 election was a test of the anti-war waters, with Trump asking questions about
the need and mission of NATO, for example, that haven't been asked in over a generation, and Clinton, the proud choice of the neocon
left and right, in strong
disagreement .
It's too much or too early to say that Trump's public pullback from U.S. hegemony helped his election, though that's entirely
possible. But it's certainly true that his anti-Forever War sentiments did not hurt him in any noticeable way.
I'll go further: If Sanders runs in 2020 and adds anti-war messaging to his program, we'll certainly see the title question tested.
If the U.S. security establishment is working to get rid of Trump, to take him out by whatever means necessary, campaign
statements like that would be one of many reasons.
Bernie had better watch his back then. Make sure no one associated with him has any contact with any Russians or Iranians or
whatever.
The "security establishment/Blob" no coubt has already filled its supply chain with anti-Bernie Bernays-caliber ordnance, ready
to deploy. I don't doubt that there are plenty of James Earl Rays out there, happy to be the ones who will "rid the Blob of this
troublesome politician." Just remember that Bernie has a summer house, and his wife was president of a failed college, and he's
a GD Socialist, for Jeebus' sake!
There's far less than six degrees of separation between any one person and someone who is Russian or Chinese or Iranian or
whatever. Even two degrees of separation is enough for a headline these days.
Districts with military casualties correlate to Trump votes. I'd would be nice to see Sanders do a Town Hall on the empire,
in six months or so when this speech has time to sink in, in one such district.
Yes. Sanders is going to have to pull off a communicative high wire act bridging relatively acceptable criticism of "unnecessary
and expensive foreign entanglements" to hinting at the idea that the US citizens have to understand the expansive pressures that
flow from capitalism and the MIC. I've appreciated the regular links here to American Conservative and Unz articles. They are
valuable reminders that some on the Right aren't in complete denial, at least about the MIC.
One scenario would see a revival of the terms of discussion that briefly saw daylight in at least the late 1940s, when state
planners openly linked a "defensive" military posture with a need for markets. It would at least get the cards out on the table
and assist in clarifying how world politics isn't just a matter of great and secondary powers inevitably pushing each other around.
The idea of Realpolitik is a fundamental and fatal ground of reification.
Presidential ambitions aside, it would be a good idea to pressure trump's crew that are plotting to attack Iran. Plus, any
chance to push back against the awful Dem leadership is also a positive. We need to see more grassroots pushback against that
leadership. Sanders is the best around at generating that grassroots pushback.
Bernie makes many salient points on the Military Industrial Complex in a floor speech concerning the Defense Dept. budget bill.
I especially like the part where he is trying to add an amendment that would limit the compensation of CEOs of defense contractors
to no more than the Secretary of Defense ($205,000). This speech will not make him any friends among the military corporate contractors.
(26 min.)
We are in the world's most favorable geopolitical position. We have the Atlantic to the east, the Pacific to the West, Canada
to the North, and Mexico to the South. We have enough nukes to blow up the world many times over. I don't know why we don't don't
treat the entire imperial enterprise as a sunk cost and get out, starting with the Middle East (and by get out, I mean cut off
all funding, too).
The Taliban announced the three-day halt to hostilities earlier this month, days after a unilateral ceasefire lasting until
Wednesday was ordered by the government.
It is the Taliban's first ceasefire since the government they ran was toppled by the 2001 US-led invasion.
I don't know if it's Trump or it's just coincidence. But peace has broken out in Korea for hte first time in decades, and now
peace has broken out in Afghanistan for the first time in decades.
You should take a look at The Threat by Andrew Cockburn. Fairly exhaustive detail about how Russian military
might was inflated, in the 70s and 80s, in virtually every possible way. From badly coordinated civil defense, to the complete
inreadiness of its airforce, to the caste system pervading the army that had reduced morale to almost nothing, the overall picture
is pretty stunning, compared to the magnitude of the threat that was presented to the US public.
It wasn't just bad intelligence, it was consistently purposeful bad intelligence. The consequences have been dire for the
world, and our country as well. The Russians in that period never represented a serious military threat even to the continent
of Europe, far less the US. Nor do they now, spending less than a tenth on their military than the US. The 80 billion dollar
incease in the US military budget this year was more than the entire Russian military budget. Meanwhile,our own bases
encompass the globe, and we wage war and threaten genocide wherever we choose.
The facts are abundantly clear, that our own military represents by far the greatest threat to human life on this
planet.
I want to tell you, that you and I and everyone in this damned country, we are not just the most lied to people in the world.
We're arguably the most lied to people in history, at least if you consider the number and frequency of lies. It's a wonder we
get anything right at all! I encourage you to read more, and read more widely, and to start at a position of distrust, with any
foreign policy reporting that isn't based on first hand knowledge.
I am heartened by the position Bernie is taking, even as I disagree with him on the Russia hysteria and wonder at some of his
qualifications like "blunder" to describe out and out imperialism. We need to start somewhere, and why not start with "let the
people and the people's representatives decide when we use our military"?
I know many progressives on the left have questioned Bernie's foreign policy positions and for not going far enough in opposing
our imperial wars. Personally, I think Bernie knows exactly how stupid, immoral, illegal, and costly our wars are, especially
as it "crowds out spending" on his favored domestic policies. Bernie is also smart enough to know how he would be attacked by
our right-wing corporate media and the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex if he were too outspoken. So, he tempers his
statements, not just because his domestic agenda is most important to him, but also because he knows attacking our militarized
foreign policy will not play well with the working class base he needs to appeal to. Unlike Obama who played up his anti-Iraq
War vote, only to expand our wars across the Middle East and Africa (after collecting his Nobel Peace Prize), Bernie is holding
his cards closer to the vest.
> play well with the working class base he needs to appeal to
I think the working class in the flyover states is ready to hear that the endless war needs to end. It's tricky message to
convey, because "Are you saying my child died in vain?" But Trump saying Iraq was a strategic blunder went over very well, and
military casualties correlate with Trump votes . I think Sanders (or his as-yet-unknown successor) must deliver that
message, but it's going to be tricky, if only because it will smash an enormous number of rice bowls in the national security
and political classes (which overlap). Maybe we could move all the uniform-worshippers to an island, give them a few billion dollars,
and let them play war games among themselves. Cheap at twice the price.
UPDATE I would bet "addiction" would work as a trope in the flyover states; "the war machine is a needle in America's arm"
is the concept. Especially because
veterans are prone to opioid addiction . Again, the rhetoric would be tricky to avoid blaming victims or "hating the troops,"
but I think there's good messaging to be found here. (People do horrid things when trapped in addictive systems. That's why they
seek cure )
Sanders needs to protect the people who are part of the 95% who work for the military industrial complex. He does this not
by raising welfare (which Americans find humiliating), not by only giving extensive retraining benefits, (which in an opportunity
starved country like America, will only lead to work stints at an Amazon Warehouse) but by repurposing the capitol and retraining
the working people to issues that must be addressed for the future, such as energy sustainability or infrastructure that can resist
increasingly severe climate chaos. Furthermore, he must announce and do both simultaneously, probably via an MMT program and raising
Taxes on rhe elite 2% and via transaction taxes on all capitol outflow from the USA.
Stopping the war machine, but putting people out of work, will never be acceptable to those who work for the war machine or
the friends and family of those people.
You are correct. The forever wars are just one of the ways to bleed the Middle Class dry. The media propaganda and rule
by the 10% can't let the suckers know what is really going on. There are always enough men to man the colonial wars but they are
unwinnable unless the whole nation is involved.
The Bolshevik Revolution and the Bonus Army were within living memory of WWII leaders. The new global aristocracy has lost
all history and doesn't perceive the inevitable consequences of inequality. My personal opinion was that for Marshall and Truman
one of the reasons for the use of atomic weapons on Japan was that they did not want millions of combat tested soldiers traveling
across the USA by train with the ultimate destination a number of deadly invasions of the Japanese Islands. Each worse than Okinawa.
They were afraid of what the soldiers would do. This is also the reason why these Vets got a generous GI Bill.
You reminded me of Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq. She protesteted at the GWB TX compound if you recall and remains
an activist to this day. I can't speak for her but it seems to me like she understands that her son should not have died to further
this ugly, pointless war.
I can't begin to understand the pain of losing a child, spouse, parent, etc., but I can wrap my head around it enough that
I don't want anyone to experience it. And I have no doubt that facing the true causes of the war would make the pain worse. But
every time I hear this nonsense about how some poor kid "didn't die in vain" in VietRaq, I want to scream "yes they did! Now what
are we going to do to stop it from happening again???".
The tropes of "supporting the troops", yellow ribbons, "they are protecting us", etc. just keeps the propaganda ballon inflated.
Here is how I support the troops: I'm against war.
This reminds me of Forest Gump where some well meaning hippies call Forest Gump a baby killer. The peace activists must refrain
from blaming and shaming soldiers as a group; specfic criminals (such as those who committed crimes at my lai) should investigated,
shamed and punished, the whistleblowers should be greatly honoured, and soldiers ad a group should be respected and not blamed
for going to war, as indeed many do not know the truth for why the war was fought. On the other hand, politicians, lobby groups,
and venal media and intelligence agencies should be exorciated for the lies that they believe or spread, as indeed it should be
their business to try to discern the truth.
Hence it was very admirable when members of the Mossad leaked out facts that Iran was not pursuing development of the Nuclear
bomb, even while Netanyahoo was pursuing a media blitz to justify greater economic and ultimately military aggression against
Iran
Who is "blaming and shaming" anyone? I'm saying that I agree with this mother who lost her child that we should be extremely
skeptical about the motivation for war of any kind. And the lack of skepticism (expressed or not) impedes any real movement away
from war without end.
The Sheehans are real people who lost a son and brother. Forest Gump is just some character from a dumb movie. Good grief.
I think that you can respect the sacrifice and commitment of people who sign up to fight for their country while still criticizing
the uses that leaders have chosen to put them to. In fact I think that makes the message stronger: the willingness of our friends,
family, children etc. to sign up to fight and die for America places a duty and obligation on our leaders to ensure they are deployed
wisely and for the betterment of America and the world. Those leaders – the ones we elected – have failed in that trust, and continue
to fail. Our military friends and family haven't let us down – we've let them down, by not holding our government accountable.
It's time we changed that!
"The rally featured a pointed anti-war speech from Obama, then a fairly anonymous state lawmaker, who deemed the impending
Iraq engagement 'a dumb war.'"
The political entertainer Obama gave a number of speeches advocating transparency in government, advocating for financial reform
and even mentioned "we tortured some folks" decrying torture.
Then behind the scenes Obama did very little to back up his speeches with actions as he went with the flow.
Obama's Illinois anti-war speech served him well, as he could milk this "anti-war" stance for years while running military
actions as President.
Obama had two groups to satisfy, the populace and the elite. The populace got empty words, the elite got what they wanted.
Bernie Sanders actually DID vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq
Sadly, there is no contemporaneous transcript*
or recording . I remember the 2008 controversy vividly, because the Obama campaign released a campaign ad that purported to
be Obama delivering the Chicago 2002 speech, but it quickly emerged that he had re-recorded it for the campaign (see the link).
I think we're more than being lied to. The MSM is waging a propaganda campaign at every level completely obscuring the
truth. And the politicians play the fear card at every level. I don't believe any of us is in "happy compliance" at the airport.
I for one, grind my teeth and cuss out the crooked corporations (including that bastard "skull" Chertoff who personally benefited
from the x-ray screening machines) that reap a bundle of money from the so called screening and invasive body searches. Travel
has become something to dread.
You can tell a lot about a country's intent by the design of the army they assemble. Here is a deep technical description about
the new army the Russians are putting together. Hint: it is not designed to attack.
"The decision to create a tank army (armoured corps in Western terminology) is an indication that Russia really does fear attack
from the west and is preparing to defend itself against it. In short, Russia has finally come to the conclusion that NATO's aggression
means it has to prepare for a big war."
Interesting technical take on the whole thing. Worth a read.
Well, Russia could probably triumph over the austerity-racked countries of the EU, with the possible exception of France. But
it wouldn't be able to hold much for long if it had to occupy anything. And it would take a mauling in the process, a mauling
that would be prohibitively expensive to repair. The modern Russian military simply isn't organized in a fashion that is conducive
to large scale conquest. It has exactly one fully integrated, combined arms unit suitable for full-scale armored warfrare, the
1st Guards Tank Army, which was reactivated in 2014.
The nightmare visions of armor pouring through the Fulda Gap were basically always delusional. In 2018 they're downright laughable.
I don't think that the US can stop at this point. As an example, the one time the people were asked if they wanted to bomb
Syria the answer was a definite 'no' so the next time they never even bothered asking them. There is far too much money, power
and prestige at stake too consider stopping.
The officer corps might be an opponent but I think that America has been badly served by them due to how officers are selected
& trained and who makes it to the top. The only time they balk is when some idiot in Washington pushes them to fight the Russians
or the Chinese. And most people don't really care in any case so long as the US wins. Out of sight, out of mind as they say.
America is more likely to get single-payer health than for the US armed forces to pull back as any suggestion of the later
brings charges of being 'unpatriotic'. At least with single-payer health you only get charged with being a 'socialist'. Know a
good place to start? The US Special Operations Command has about 70,000 people in it and they want more. The US would be better
served by cutting this force in half and giving their jobs back to regular formations.
These are the people that want constant deployments in more and more countries hence cutting them back would be a good idea.
I expect things to go along until one day the US armed forces will be sent into a war where they will take casualties not seen
since the bad days on 'Nam. Then there will be the devil to pay and him out to lunch.
It's harder and harder to sell these military actions to the public. What are we in Korea and Japan for? To contain China?
If you ask most people, they'll probably tell you that China won, or at very least our bosses are in league with their bosses.
The Borg moves without regard to public sentiment, so we have to replace politicians with those who'll bring it to heel.
That's a death sentence, but I feel like enough people have the guts to try and make it happen.
One issue I have right now with 'anti-War' is that to be 'anti' is one thing, but to make serious arguments you have to be
able to present arguments about what you are actually 'for'. For example, if the US were to suddenly withdraw from the eastern
Pacific, the effect could be highly destabilising and could actually increase the chance of war. These are questions that need
to be answered.
Just to take one example of I think a positive idea – there is research
here which argues that the 'optimum' nuclear deterrent is less
than 100 warheads. This is of course a difficult argument to put into political play, but its important I think to put the militarists
on the back foot in order to make arguments for withdrawal from empire and peace mainstream.
I would bet that most people think that being anti-war encompasses the following:
-being for peace
-being for stability
-being for more social spending instead of military spending
-being for fewer civilians being killed
-being for fewer military deaths
Is that enough to meet your ridiculous threshold for 'serious arguments?'
you're being cavalier. PK makes a great point, and your vague and oyerly broad "fors" remind me of many arguments regarding
the 2016 election. The democrat side (Brock and CTR et al) couldn't say what they were for outside of abstract bernaysian generalities.
If you want to convince people (and I have this difficulty, as do I'm sure most of the readers here, trying to get dems off of
the russia russia russia putins bitch train)
You really need to focus on slow walking through complicated and dangerous waters, and just shut up sometimes when certain
people are just not going to listen, but if you can get that one cogent, not hysterical argument into the minds of the people
you want to convince, then you have a chance to stem the tide. Read some of the fantastic commentary regarding brexit from our
european commenters as an example of what works in discourse, and how to puts facts on the ground in a way people can relate to.
> You really need to focus on slow walking through complicated and dangerous waters . Read some of the fantastic commentary
regarding brexit from our european commenters as an example of what works in discourse, and how to puts facts on the ground in
a way people can relate to.
That's a cogent argument. I don't mean to imply in my comments that "getting out" will be easy. ("You must do it, Catullus,
you must do it. You must do it whether it can be done or not.")
We might begin by renaming the "Department of Defense" to the "Department of War," just to be truthful, and then ask ourselves
what kind of wars we want to fight. And I think most people would be very willing to cross anything that looked like Iraq off
the list, followed (it is to be hoped) with a willingness to rethink self-licking ice cream cones as our industrial policy. In
a way, the project would have the same feel as my hobbyhorse, gutting the administrative layers of the universities as not central
to mission.
Thanks tegnost. I don't mean to suggest that there isn't a solid electoral reason to have nice vague policies, not least
because a campaign against foreign wars would be an excellent way for the left to make common cause with some parts of the right,
such as the paleoconservatives and isolationists.
The problem as I see it with policies 'against' something is that you end up a little like Five Star in Italy – having gotten
into power on opposing everything bad about Italy, they are now facing a 'now what' moment, and are seemingly clueless about what
to do. As usual, the right makes the running.
The war-mongers will always find "serious arguments" for why we musn't end the American empire. Their arguments will be nuanced
and filled with details that would take the average citizen months, if not years, to verify and analyze. When the best minds in
the American empire can fail to forsee the fall of the Soviet Union or the response to their coup on Chavez, why should we put
credence in their "serious" analyses?
Meanwhile, the case against war is a simple and easily verifiable. "My son is dead." "My friend came home a broken person."
etc. Telling poor Americans that their family members need to keep dying because allowing them to come home would, maybe, make
war more likely in a country they've only seen on a map is an argument not likely to find much traction. It is also, in my mind,
ethically vapid -- an argument that presses for a guaranteed evil as a means of avoiding a possible evil.
Trying to forsee the outcome of major (or even minor) changes to a system as complex as the American empire is a sucker's game.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is likely a sucker themselves. In situations of such complexity, the only way forward is the ontological
one. All teleology is sheer fantasy. We should act, therefore, not on the basis of what we think will happen as a result of our
actions, but rather on the basis of what the just thing to do is. You can't base your actions on ends (as in "the ends justify
the means") because the situation is so complex that there is no way to credibly predict the ends that any action might lead to.
IMHO, the ethical policy is to bring 'em home. All of 'em. Let them protect our country, as they've sworn to do. Let us put
them to work rebuilding our infrastructure, assisting those who need it, and making the country better than it is, rather than
filling it up with more walking wounded from our endless imperial adventuring.
It did for Russia. There is now an ongoing civil war on its border in Ukraine. NATO went to war with Serbia in the later
1990's. The breakup of the Atlantic Alliance will splinter Europe. Humans being humans. The strong will try to steal from the
weak.
The question is how to restore the West's middle class. Without a middle class; revolts, religious and ethnic wars will inevitable
break out all over. The unrest right now is due to democracy not being compatible with globalization.
It was not just Bush who told lies to justify an invasion of Iraq. Members of Congress and the press did as well. Sen. Biden,
the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee then, would only allow pro-war people to testify to his committee. At the
time a lobbyist told me that the leadership of the Democratic party had decided to promote this war. They felt this would remove
this issue from the next election, which would then focus on economic issues that would play to their strength.
Thanks for this. Another reason to break up the MIC is all the money that would be freed up for health care, infrastructure
and the country's many other needs. Perhaps Sanders now realizes that the balance in USG priorities needs to be restored and he
is making an economic, and not just humanitarian argument.
As for Trump, it's just possible he meant what he said about NATO and all the rest. If one believes his real priorities are
his family and business it's hard to see what he gets out of perpetual war. That's more Obama and Hillary's bag.
Which doesn't make the above true. But we should at least entertain the possibility that it could be true.
As one who could never bring himself to vote for Trump (or for Clinton, for that matter), let me make a counter-intuitive prediction.
If Trump allows the MIC to goad him into starting a new war with Iran, he will lose if he decides to run again.
If, on the other hand, he starts no new war against Iran or any other country that does not threaten us militarily, then he
will be re-elected should he decide to go for another term.
The old adage that our country rallies around a war president is no longer operative IMHO. In a nation tired of perpetual
war, the commander-in-chief would get at best a short-term surge in public approval by opening up a new battle zone, before slipping
precipitously in the polls. Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally
crumbles for lack of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy?
Why on earth have the Democrats eagerly embraced the role of the war party, while our country literally crumbles for lack
of public investment? Could there be a more effective losing strategy?
They do it for the money, pretty much everyone in congress is a millionaire, including the ones who were not millionaires when
they got elected hmmmmmm .
Those are their constituents: beltway bandits, private contractors, public/private partnerships, insurance companies, arms
companies, private equity firms, military contractors, and whatever other combinations you want to come up with.
I remember when Tim Kaine gleefully suggested that we needed an "intelligence surge" to protect the country. I almost gagged.
It was a not so subtle message of "prepare for the handouts to the private military contractor industry".
> Another reason to break up the MIC is all the money that would be freed up for health care, infrastructure and the country's
many other needs
Since Federal taxes don't fund Federal spending, the connection between gutting the MIC and more money for health care is not
direct.
However, if you think in terms of real resources , the effect is as you say. (The same reasoning applies to finance,
where enormous salaries sucked in the best talent that might otherwise have been put to non-parasitical purposes.)
Mt is not yet sellable to the public, will take years. Best story is that foreign wars strip resources from local spending
and jobs, which is also what most pols seem to think. Bills should be presented as less for mil and mor for infra. Starve mic
You don't have to go back to the last campaign to see anti-war rhetoric as a strategy. Trump is already, in his meeting with
Kim, starting the ball rolling. (Moon of Alabama.com has a good recent post on the subject). Sorry Bernie, you are late to the
party, too late. Reminds me a bit of 1968. Nixon got in promising to end that war (which he didn't.) But it is good to see anti-war
stuff going mainstream at last. May it bear fruit this time around!
And yes, Gaius Publius, anti-war statements Trump made during his first campaign DID make a huge difference. They won him the
presidency, in my opinion.
How does positioning 2,000 – 4,000 US troops in Syria fit into your "Trump is a peace-maker" narrative? How about the comment
Wednesday that the US will attack Syrian forces if they attack Sunni jihadis (er "moderate rebels") in SW Syria?
How about us aiding and abetting a famine in Yemen that could kills tens of thousands?
Is setting us on a potential course for war with Iran further evidence of your "dovish" Trump?
I think you are attributing a sentiment to juliania that her comment does not actually contain. She doesn't say Trump is
a peace-maker, she says he was far in front of Bernie in using "anti-war rhetoric as a strategy." The example of Nixon doing the
same thing indicates that juliania is well aware that strategic rhetoric and actual decisions are not the same thing.
I know a fair number of Trump voters, and my read is similar to juliania's: Trump's anti-war rhetoric was a big draw for
a lot of people, and helped many be able to hold their nose and vote for him. Understanding this and commenting on it does not
make one a Trump supporter, obviously, or indicate that one puts any credence in his dovish rhetoric.
You might be correct and my apologies to juliania if I misread her post. I have heard so much of the "Trump is fighting
[the deep state, Wall Street, the neocons]" on other blogs that I am a bit hypersensitive and go off on a rant when I see or perceive
that argument. From my perspective, Trump is doing everything in his power to entrench Wall Street, the neocons, etc.
I was also receptive to the idea that Trump might be less hawkish than HRC (although I did not vote for him) but have now been
thoroughly disabused of that notion.
SW Syria does not have Kurds active, so these are Sunni jihadi-lites. They are however not HTS, which we re-branded from Al-Nusra
and had been classified as an Al Qaeda affiliate at one time. Of course we are framing it as a de-escalation zone; others call
it a jihadi base.
The war in Yemen is to secure the Saudi monarchy and our interest in their vast reserves of oil and gas. The war in
Syria is to secure our preferred pipeline feeding the EU. Our entrenched position surrounding Iran is no accident – we are an
existential threat to Iran and intend to remain that way. If China discovered a giant oil field under its western desert we'd
be there too. One rationale for all this control freakery is that we think we can maintain our "capitalist" economy, our silly
pretenses about a free market, etc. But Karma is the real truth-teller here: Free markets do not work. So it follows logically
that privatization also does not work. And to continue, at some point, forced capitalism fails. Markets fail. Profit seeking could
be the thing that brings it all down. It's a strangely comforting thought because it leaves us with a clear vision of what not
to do anymore. Unfortunately, people are not angels. If we attempt to invoke the ghost of John Foster Dulles and not engage in
little wars but just sell arms to every tin pot dictator it will be worse chaos than it is now. And worse still, chaos in a time
of environmental devastation. The only good option is the Mr. Scrooge option. Instead of arms and WMD and fascist control for
the sake of preventing uprisings, we should skip the fascist control part and directly mainline the resources to make civilization
thrive. Since that's definitely not capitalism, we'll have to think up a new ism.
Yes, let's devote enormous real resources to fabricating bespoke military aircraft that catch fire on the runway. Meanwhile,
we don't have any machine shops anymore .
> I have the feeling that Sanders here is reacting to all the ex-CIA (but not 100% ex) candidates taking over the D Party.
That is an excellent point. (I don't think it's just CIA, though; it's CIA and military personnel generally.* That's why I
voted against ranked Jared Golden low, because Golden (like Seth Moulton in MA) fits that template, which is vile.
UPDATE * "Professional authoritarians," we might call them. That would fit all this neatly into Thomas Frank's framework.
People ask if capitalism and democracy are compatible, and I think they are, at least I don't see any inherent reason why they
would not be compatible.
Another question: Are militarism* and democracy compatible? I'm not so sure they are.
Ancient Athens was on some level democratic, and the populist party typically favored war and expansion. E.g.Pericles and the
peloponesian war come to mind. By contrast, the aristocratic parties were generally less in favor of military adventurism.
However, a constitutional republic is not compatible with empire.
The link between populism and war featured prominently in "Electing to fight. Why emerging democracies go to war" This is a
fairly obscure book (one review in Amazon), but – by a wide margin – the best book I have ever read about politics or political
science. The last 100 pages are cliff notes versions of the politics underlying the start of many wars; the first 150 pages are
a really dense read.
A lot depends on how you define "democracy", "will of the people" etc.. What the role of "finance" in a context of "capitalism"
and "democracy" should be, e.g., citizens united(note orwellian language) may be considered a " reason why they would not be compatible"
and even antithetical. Noting that "militarism" depends on public funding, where should the power to influence this funding
be? Neo-cons, dominated by militarists, and neo-liberals, dominated by de-regulated banksters, may not be the same but certainly
seem like symbionts in the context of 326MM people.
America itself is the most destabilizing force on the planet. i would love to see what America leaving the world to its'
own devices would look like. Like Weimar/Nazi Germany, nothing good comes from these kind of "American Values."
the Ugly American is what American Values signify, and mostly always have. America is the most destabilizing force i ever read
of or heard of. Americans have just taken the Nazi theme of One People, One Land and One Leader on a Global scope. and it ain't
good. Either do as America tells you, or we will bring American Democracy to your country.
Maybe there's hope, as Caitlyn Johnstone implies in her last essay, i sure doubt it, though, as long as America/the Empire
continues to destabilize not just the Pacific but everywhere else in the world. Why does anything think the South/Central Americans
come to America. The American Empire has screwed up the Western Hemisphere so badly, these "refugees hope to escape from the American
made Plantations the Western Hemisphere has been carved into. These immigrants are just part of the blowback from the American
Way.
also makes me wonder if the Europeans don't understand why there are refugees coming through Greece and via boats, primarily
to Italy. dont they see it's America's Wars in MENA that are causing this "invasion." gosh, what a black and white cause and effect.
Germany needs workers due to the low birth rate. so, open the doors to the chaos America has made in the Middle East, and voila,
cheap labor and departure from an America made hell in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Algeria, the whole "New American Century"
Project the Neocons have us in and paying for.
Doesn't the average European see how American and Apartheid Israeli support for forces like the Taliban, Al Queda, Wahabbism,
and the ongoing media censored Yemeni/Palestinian Holocaust, wars of profit, i.e. created the refugess that are streaming into
Europe. Maybe the Europeans are also stymied by the Rich who keep the wars going and the Media who profit off the death of the
"deplorables" who no longer "matter."
i know in America most Americans are ignorant due to total control of the Media and the "narrative" that controls what can
be said. Americans have no shame when it comes to getting what they want, politically. no enough blowback. no sense of connection
between here and there or anywhere outside the Media Narrative.
as a bumper sticker from long ago said, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." The Empire will not give up
until it can't go on.
Thanks for calling attention to this. I noticed the same thing immediately, and I gave the remainder of the article less credence
because of it. A true leftie knows the difference between Improved Medicare for All and a Medicare buy-in program.
To me, making the argument that one must be 'for' something is simply a way to dismiss whatever the 'anti' side represents,
whether or not PK meant to be dismissive.
And it reminds me of the efforts to impede and dismiss the anti-war or occupy-type movement outright – "what, you people don't
have any policies (and nothing for us to analyze to death and criticize??) !!!! How dare you speak up about something!!! Go away
until you go to Harvard and produce a few papers. Until then, your silly notions mean nothing to us!!" and the underlying elitism
of the concept.
So, that is what I am reminded of, again, whether or not PK meant it that way.
(Before reading the comments) "If Americans Could Vote Against the Forever War, Would They Do It?"
Sadly, I think the answer is no, mainly because Americans do not vote based on foreign policy unless it "comes home," eg in
the form of body bags – a lot of them. The "wasted money" argument, which brings it home, might be the most effective; that's
a pitfall of MMT. Of course, as a practical matter there's a POLITICAL choice between guns and butter, whether or not the economics
is valid.
In those remarks, Sanders is filling in the gaping hole in his resume. It may be an indication that he plans to run in 2020.
Finally: I question whether the 2016 nomination was actually "stolen." Certainly there was a good deal of cheating by the party,
but I'm not convinced it was decisive (there's no way to be sure). The actual votes ran about 47% for Sanders, and that's including
Oregon and California. I think that reflects the actual nature of the Democratic Party.
The reason is that its membership has been falling, if not plummeting, at the same time that its policies have become more
and more right-wing. Affiliation, which is a poll result, is down near 30%; I suspect registrations have fallen, too, but I haven't
seen numbers. Given the variations in state law, registrations aren't very indicative. All that means that the remaining party
members are a remnant that has been selected for conservatism. The primary vote reflects that. (This doesn't change the argument
that the Dems knowingly chose their weaker candidate; it just means that the voters did, too.)
The military is A-ok with Trump and this is what seems to matter. The roar of hysteria from the media over Trump first
2-3 months in office died down considerably when he showed a willingness to engage in a show of force by striking Syria (remember
when he was so concerned about the welfare of children?)
Only a *faction" of the security establishment is anti-Trump because he is skeptical of *neoliberal* globalism. However
this faction is doing a great job of re-enacting the framework used to deny/disrupt/disable during the Clinton administration:
scandals and selective corruption investigations. This serves a purpose: to martyr the Prez with the constituents who *should*
be holding the Prez accountable on lack of follow through and betrayal of promises made on the camapign trail.
Trump voters can't make him hold himaccountable; they are too busy feeling he has been victimized -- and many Trump voters
are victims, so the identification is real.
Meanwhile, the Prez who can't seem to enact *anything* to make lives better for the people who put him in office, is magically
able to enact the agenda of the 1%. This repeat of the 1% 's manipulations is one I can do without.
Regarding the question posed by this post I think there is very little evidence of an anti-war "fever" and even if there
were, and if it were projected into the streets and/or ballot box, I am pessimistic that it could have any effect on the U.S.
government of today. I don't think the U.S. government cares what the American people think or feel about anything -- except of
course as those cares and feelings affect the mechanisms of control through the propaganda pushed through our media, the levels
of surveillance and suppression, and the increased viciousness of our "laws" and their enforcement.
I believe the U.S. government is run by several powerful and competing interests. So I think I'll ask a different question
-- though in the same vein as that posed by the title of this post. Are those interests who compete with the interests of the
MIC and Spook Industrial Complex (SIC) beginning to see the futility and stupidity of our endless wars? Are those interests
growing anxious at enriching their share of the pie by shoving aside the budget gluttons feasting on war? Are any of those interests
whose long-term, and often short-term interests are damaged by endless wars and their ongoing deconstruction of American Empire
finally growing weary of how those wars undermine the American Empire? War may be a racket but the burning of bridges and collapse
of Empire isn't a racket I would hope even the most clueless of our masters will continue to tolerate. Have the MIC and SIC assumed
power?
The current anti-Russian hysteria is the attempt to unite the society which become hostile to neoliberal elite.
Notable quotes:
"... A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever, and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. ..."
"... In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world. ..."
"... All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog" get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake? ..."
"... As we've been discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that. ..."
"... It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing. Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff. ..."
"... You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care. ..."
At a graduation ceremony for the US Naval War College (barf), US Secretary of Defense James Mattis
asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin "aims to diminish the appeal
of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority," and that "his actions are designed not to challenge
our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."
A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever,
and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia
narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and
the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. If you accept the idea that
the exchange is anything close to 50/50, with Russia giving back more or less what it's getting and simply protecting its own interests
from the interests of geopolitical rivals, it no longer makes any sense to view Putin as a leader who poses a unique threat to the
world. If you accept the idea that the west is actually being far more aggressive and antagonistic toward Russia than Russia is being
toward the west, it gets even more laughable.
In order to believe that the US has anything resembling "moral authority" you have to shove your head so far into the sand you
get lava burns, but that really is what is needed to keep western anti-Russia hysteria going. None of the things the Russian government
has been accused of doing (let alone the very legitimate questions about whether or not they even did all of them) merit anything
but an indifferent shrug when compared with the unforgivable evils that America's unelected power establishment has been inflicting
upon the world, so they need to weave a narrative about "moral authority" in order to give those accusations meaning and relevance.
And, since the notion of America having moral authority is contradicted by all facts in evidence, that narrative is necessarily woven
of threads of fantasy and denial.
Establishment anti-Russia hysteria is all narrative, no substance. It's sustained by the talking heads of plutocrat-owned western
media making the same unanimous assertions over and over again in authoritative, confident-sounding tones of voice without presenting
any evidence or engaging with the reality of what Russia or its rivals are actually doing. The only reason American liberals believe
that Putin is a dangerous boogieman who has taken over their government, but don't believe for example that America is ruled by a
baby-eating pedophile cabal, is because the Jake Tappers and Rachel Maddows have told them to believe one conspiracy theory and not
the other. They could have employed the exact same strategy with any other wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy narrative and had just
as much success.
In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or
absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower
because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being
some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world.
Of equal interest to the Defense Secretary's "moral authority" gibberish is his claim that Putin's actions "are designed not to
challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."
I mean, like what? So Russia isn't challenging America militarily and isn't taking any actions to attempt to, but it's trying
to, what, hurt America's feelings? All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting
like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog"
get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake?
I'm just playing. Actually, when Mattis says that the Russian government is trying to "undercut and compromise our belief in our
ideals," he is saying that Moscow is interrupting the lies that Americans are being told about their government by the plutocrat-owned
media. As we've
been
discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear
establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our
ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and
vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that.
More and more, the threads of the establishment narrative are ceasing to be unconsciously absorbed and are being increasingly
consciously examined instead. This development has ultimately nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with our species
moving
out of its old relationship with mental narrative as it approaches evolve-or-die time in our challenging new world. I am greatly
encouraged by what I am seeing.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my
website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish.
My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , checking out my
podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
This is so right on that it is scary. The only problem, while more are questioning, is the fact that the majority of Americans
actually believe the bullshit that people like Mattis says. And, with a nickname like Mad Dog, it's a wonder that he hasn't been
put down yet.
Even today I had to deal with a typical American – 'swallow-it-hook-line-and-sinker' – idiot.
"The stock market is honest and above board.' 'All immigrants don't belong here.' 'It's fine if the government violates your
civil rights' 'Oh and immigrants don't have any.'
I could go on, but I learned long ago to say my piece and move on. For some people, there is no changing their minds, nor even
opening them up to considering the truth. There are the descendants of those who were protested against in the 1960s. The 'My
country right or wrong' people. Most likely they never had the balls, as children, to speak back to their parents, when those
adults were in the wrong. I always wondered whether intellectual blindness is a learned trait. I'm pretty sure that it must be.
William / June 17, 2018
Much or most of what you write about the American narrative is true. However, you weave it into a narrative that ignores central
historical facts and themes. Examples; Russia's behavior in Poland after WW2, the Hungarian revolution, the Check invasion and
oppression, the take over of Manchuria in the last weeks of WW2.
Stalin killing 20-40 million of his own people, Chechnya, the
Korean war, the Berlin wall. Not to mention recent assassinations of its own citizens. Yes, America has done cruel and horrific
things in many countries, but it pales to what the Russians have done throughout the ages. It would be akin to comparing what
the Nazis did to what the French underground did in response. Both killed, both did things that were horrific, but the French
did it in response and not nearly in the same magnitude. Historical contrast is very important when viewing these issues. It is
very easy to criticize one's own country but balance is called for. Was Russia justified in taking Crimea, perhaps, but then was
Hitler justified in taking the Sudetenland?
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
What Lee Yates just did there is a beautiful example of Advantageous Comparison defense in Bandera's Moral Disengagement Theory.
Yes, the US is morally bankrupt, but so what? The Soviets or Hitler or somebody else was worse. Sorry, that is bullshit.
What did the US overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran have to do with the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? Nothing. And he brings
up Russian Crimea, which voted 95% to rejoin Russia, an example of democracy in action.
william / June 17, 2018
The so what is this: when dealing with monsters one has to stoop as low to defend against it. What happened in Iran was Brittain's
provocation. They approached Eisenhower once previously and he refused to intervene. It was only after they convinced him that
it was a Russian plot to take over the oil fields that he relented. So yes it was wrong and even monstrous but put in the historical
perspective at the time, it made sense. At that time, France was in danger of collapsing and with it the rest of Europe. I am
of Middle Eastern ethnicity so I too am sensitive to Western colonialization of the region. However, things are not always as
simple as we would like them to be.
I really enjoy when people lower themselves to using vulgarities because they disagree with a point of view-most flattering and
intelligent.
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Just more evasive moral disengagement. So the Dulles boys finally duped Ike into giving the green light to the overthrow of democratically
elected Mossadegh installing a bloodthirsty tyrant that ended up destabilizing the Middle East for the next 50years and running,
based on the pretext of Russia hysteria.
Was it true the Russians were really going to take over the oilfields? I never heard
that story before. I doubt it very much. History teaches a different lesson. Mossadegh had the temerity to want to share oil profits
with the Iranian people who owned it. Thats too much democracy for any country.
Just like Truman was tricked into Korea. Or Johnson was duped into Vietnam.
And so how do you explain why the CIA overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala beginning a reign of terror with genocude lasting 50 years
against unarmed peasant villages? East Timor? Chile? Brazil and Argentina? Greece? Angola?
This is just more Advantageous Comparison to justify moral bankruptcy. Sorry, sometimes things are as simple as they look.
No I respectfully disagree. If these seem like difficult moral choices to you, I pity you.
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Although I must apologize for not recognizing your rank as a cut above the usual G-7 troll with your knowledge of the advanced
techniques of argument for moral disengagement, defending your country against the indefensible. Tough job that calls for an expert.
You must be one of those G-12 trolls called to fill in for overtime duty on fathers day. I'm sorry your wife and kids are going
to be missing you today. You can make it up to them tomorrow.
William / June 18, 2018
Funny thing, I agree that the overthrow was wrong, and horrible. I also think it was wrong and perhaps criminal when we invaded
both Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of my relatives were killed by tyrants in the Middle East and much of what has happened there
is ugly. But again, I do not stoop to personal disparagement. It has no place in honest debate. Same tactic used by the deplorable
. Trump and McCarthy for that matter, and of course, now you. As for Mossadegh, he was truly a statesman. England owned the oil
fields and he went to the UN to mediate the purchase of the oil fields at market value. The English refused and tried to convince
Eisenhower that it was a Russian plot. He tried again and finally Eisenhower relented, wrongly I might add. But do remember, that
Eisenhower also stopped the English and French when they wanted to invade Egypt to take over the Suez.
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
Thank You, JRGJRG. I did not know that I knew that much philosophy. What I said was more in light of current events circa the
1990s. Our "bankers" went to Russia and "helped" them get capitalism. Well they got it, and now their gangsters/bankers are just
as wealthy and sophisticated as ours, or more so. Politically, I cannot really blame Putin for holding a grudge about our meddling
in Russia and general promotion of Boris Yeltsin. Still I doubt that he would make it easy for us to install another Yeltsin or
buy all of Russia's resources either, so why would we make it easy for him to meddle in our country, or do what we do overseas?
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
This is what you're doing, even if you don't recognize it. If you understand this you will begin to understand the errors of your
own ways. This is how totalitarianship develops. Read and learn.
Take off the blinders and fully explain how the U.S. genocide of native Americans – and the ongoing horrific treatment of them
– pales in comparison to anything except, possibly, the unnecessary dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan.
Sorry, but your
dissertation of an excuse just doesn't cut the mustard – or maybe your mother never told you that two wrongs don't make a right.
Or in the case of the U.S., dozens of never ending wrongs. Unless you really open your eyes and mind and understand the truth,
you will never come off as anything more than an apologist for the top 1/10th of the top 1%.
Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
This was a reply to William, but comes off looking as an original comment and criticism of Caity, with whom I am in complete agreement
on todays article.
jrgjrg / June 18, 2018
Not just the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, but remember that Gen. LeMay firebombed every city in Japan before the bombs
were dropped, causing at least another half million deaths. Robert MacNamara said in an interview that if the US had lost the
Second World War they both would have been tried as war criminals, and it would be right. See:
Always impressed by Caitlin driving a bulldozer through lying narratives. We need more Caitlin's; we need an antiwar mass movement
of Caitlin's. But the antiwar movement is very weak and it is divided against itself.
In the 1990's there was a coming together of the Chronicles paleoconservatives and the CounterPunch progressives against the
US/NATO attack on Yugoslavia. But today Thomas Fleming and Chronicles have retreated and those controlling CounterPunch have explicitly
rejected an alliance with the 'right' against the US march to war.
I wish I could share the Caitlin enthusiasm for the future but I am depressed and fearful for the future. The US public is
asleep. The US is gearing up for war in Europe and Asia. Starting with Clinton each president has murdered about a million souls.
They are gearing up for a bigger war in the MENA and even Eastern Europe with Iran as the major target and will likely claim another
million+.
From Jungian psychology I learned that unless the opposites come close together change (a birth out of the tyranny of the status
quo) will not happen. The elites in control of the US use the fake dialectic of the major two parties to keep us apart. Those
in charge of each pole of the fake dialectic derive power from defending it against the 'other' and see alliance with the 'other'
as a diminution of their power (a good example is those in control of CounterPunch arguing against antiwar alliance with the 'right';
that they are captured by their power drive is plain to see).
Liberals (neolibs) and many progressives have walked straight into a trap set by the CIA that engineered a Cold War v2. They
knew the neocons would come along. The CIA, Wall Street, military, NSA are marching to war. They thirst for their holy war. They
are the supremacist 'exceptional and indispensable' while the rest of the world is unexceptional and dispensable.
If the left and right do not come together in an antiwar alliance then how can the warmongering trajectory of the US change?
geoffreyskoll / June 17, 2018
It's just like you, Caitlin, to bring up such quibbles as genocide, slavery, torture, and a few others too minor to even mention.
We're talking IDEALS here. You know like complete global domination, slavish catering to the most exploitive class in human history–the
stuff that makes America great!
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
I agree that the U.S. is Imperialist and has been for a long time. However, it is false that Russia opposes the US kleptocracy
or represents anything other than the same bankster/gangsters that run the West. They came into the fold after the end of the
Soviet Union, and there they remain, probably not too happy about it, but neither are we right. The elites from all over launder
money, hide wealth enjoy power and luxury beyond our imagination. A small spat between them is death sentence for the rest of
us, but they will make up and enjoy their stolen wealth again.
The moral authority that the West or USA enjoys is a hollow thing,
much like Christianity at the height of the Church's power. But the words are still there maybe some day a true believer will
come along and do something about them.
Forgive me, I could not get beyond the 'undermine America's moral authority'. I take it, Mattis means the 'moral authority' to
starve the Yemenis to death and deny them medicine while they are dying . aided by our French Poodle and a mad woman from the
Isles! Or maybe the 'moral authority' of Albright when she said killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children 'was worth it'.
Or maybe it was 'moral authority' of Clinton, giggling over the sadist murder of Kaddafi. Some how, as an American I don't feel
'moral authority' , all I feel is the pain of inhumanity.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No, no, no, you're still not getting it. Let me explain it to you. It means the authority of the autocrats to determine what's
moral for you. They themselves are above morality, like Nietzsche taught, remember? Authoritarianism.
Now do you understand?
elkojohn / June 17, 2018
As was hinted at by the FBI-IG report, neither political party in the criminal U.S. government is complying with law (domestic
nor international). The U.S. government system is an organized crime syndicate of liars, thieves and murders. The ruling class
and the inside players of the secret government consider the common folk to be deplorable, trailer-park trash.
That's the mind-set of the "holier-than-thou" professionals working inside the U.S. government. Whatever trust, loyalty and
respect citizens had for this government has been completely squandered – and voters (not Putin) gave the FU finger to the status
quo by electing Trump.
The treasonous, seditious, murdering 2-party dictatorship has absolutely NO ONE to blame but themselves. The time has come
to eliminate and defund the secret espionage agencies that run our government, – and which have morphed into crime syndicates.
Ditto the two political parties. Until we see all the top level law-breakers in jail (i.e., Clinton, Bush, Obama), until we witness
2/3's of the House and the Senate being purged and replaced, until we witness the complete dismantling of the FED, until we witness
ALL military bases around the world being closed and our troops brought home, until we witness the M-I-C's budget cut down to
1/4th and used ONLY for national protection, until we witness a purge of the CIA/FBI cartel, until we witness manufacturing being
restored to this country, until we witness the USA cutting all special interest lobbying (in particular, Israel and Saudi Arabia),
until we witness the break-up of the death grip that Wall St. and the banking monopoly has on our economy, until we witness the
full restoration of the "rule of law" in our government, – until then, it will be the absolute, open, in-your-face, tyrannical,
24/7, lawlessness of the U.S. government that destroys this nation.
So I disagree with James Mattis, that the U.S. holds the moral high ground.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological
defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. They're playing the "I'm rubber and you're
glue" game. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't
care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
Mattis didn't realise how well he described Trump. When you look at what Trump's regime has done since taking office last year,
it 'trumps' [pun intended] Putin's efforts, such as they are, by a mile. Putin could never hope to achieve so much in such a short
time, if that's what he wanted to do.
It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing.
Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff.
All one has to do is change a few names in the narrative – replace Putin with Trump, Russia / China with USA. That's it. Easy.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological
defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they
are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
No, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying he/they use it as a defense, but that they don't realize how close it
is to what it (the USA) is doing.
Believe me, I have no respect for Mattis & that mob, nor Putin for that matter. None of them deserve respect.
I agree with you on the dirty rotten lying, too. They do know they are lying, but don't know how close to the truth it is when
applied to them.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No worries. We are in the "post-truth era." That sounds crazy, I know. The plutocrats are discussing this exact topic this year
at the Bilderberg Conference.
As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of
international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be
suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing
publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that
sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership
for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other,
territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on
historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.
Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic
criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting
a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these
guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.
As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of
above, he must somehow understand (Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior
to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian
nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political
tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese
consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible
actors as Putin, Trump, Xi (affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war
cannot be anything more then policing.
To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse,
after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior).
No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into
quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China
dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in
International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.
Honest writing of Saker.
How good are these supranational, corporatacracy (another commenter), "globally organized
elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way
above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular
dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough.
Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in
itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies
on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve
this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better
tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods.
It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual
fate.
War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be
seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity,
migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of
humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans.
Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the
only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub,
that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plague if
not.
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that would
run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project would
threaten the security of its European allies.
Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would
extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern Germany.
Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia could
provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told reporters in
Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in the region and
that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop it, according to
the Associated Press.
Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr 20, 2018 - A Europe-wide
diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump administration to ease US sanctions
targeting Russia, as fears mount that ...
We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export
to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the
dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the
security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed
in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of
history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about
perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards
anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional
hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays,
stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on
reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is
also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is
neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between
EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and
EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility
will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional
anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination
were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20
years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.
My advise to Russia would be to mind its
own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired
because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in
general. Business doesn't change that.
First, there is no "EU", at least not in political terms . More crucially, there is no "EU
foreign policy". Yes, there are EU member states, who have political leaders, there is a big
business community in the EU and there are many EU organizations, but as such, the "EU" does
not exist, especially not in terms of foreign policy. The best proof of that is how clueless
the so-called "EU" has been in the Ukraine, then with the anti-Russian sanctions, in dealing
with an invasion of illegal immigrants, and now with Trump. At best, the EU can be considered a
US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus
Greece). Most (all?) EU member states are abjectly obedient to the US, and this is no surprise
considering that even the so-called "EU leader" or "EU heavyweight" – Germany –
only has very limited sovereignty. The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite
which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe. The
undeniable fact is that the so-called "EU foreign policy" has gone against the vital interests
of the people of Europe for decades and that phenomenon is only getting worse.
Second, the single most powerful and unified organization in Europe is not even an EU
organization, but NATO. And NATO, in real terms, is no less than 80% US . Forget about those
fierce looking European armies, they are all a joke. Not only do they represent no credible
force (being too small, too poorly trained, under-equipped and poorly commanded), but they are
completely dependent on the US for a long list of critical capabilities and " force
multipliers ": command, control, communications, intelligence, networking, surveillance,
reconnaissance, target acquisition, logistics, etc. Furthermore, in terms of training, force
planning, weapon systems procurement, deployment and maintenance, EU states are also totally
dependent on the US. The reason? The US military budget totally dwarfs anything individual EU
states can spend, so they all depend on Uncle Sam. Of sure, the NATO figurehead – the
Secretary General – is usually a non-entity which makes loud statements and is European
(I think of that clown Stoltenberg as the prefect example), but NATO is not run by the NATO
Secretary General. In reality, it is run by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who
is the head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and these guys are as red,
white and blue as it gets. Forget about the "Eurocorps" or any other so-called "European
armies" – it's all hot air, like Trudeau's recent outburst at Trump. In reality in the
EU, as in Canada, they all know who is boss. And here is the single most important fact: NATO
desperately needs Russia as justification for its own existence: if relations with Russia
improve, then NATO would have no more reason to exist. Do you really think that anybody will
let that happen? I sure don't! And right now, the Europeans are busy asking for more
US troops on their soil, not less and they are all
pretending to be terrified by a Russian invasion , hence the need for more and bigger military
exercises close to the Russian border . And just to cover all its bases,
NATO is now gradually expanding into Latin America .
Third, there is a long list of EU governments which vitally need further bad relationships
with Russia . They include:
Unpopular governments which need to explain their own
failures by the nefarious actions of an external bogyman . A good example is how the
Spanish authorities blamed Russia for the crisis in Catalonia. Or the British with their
"Brexit". The Swedes are doing even better, they are already preparing their public opinion for a
"Russian interference" in case the election results don't turn out to be what they need.
Governments whose rhetoric has been so hysterically anti-Russian that they cannot possibly
back down from it. Best examples: the UK and Merkel. But since most (but not all) EU states
did act on the Skripal false-flag on the basis of the British "highly likely" and in the name
of "solidarity", they are now all stuck as accomplices of this policy. There is no way they are
simply going to admit that they were conned by the Brits.
EU prostitutes : states whose
only policy is to serve the US against Russia. These states compete against each other in the
most abject way to see who can out-brown-nose each other for the position of "most faithful and
willing loyal servant of the US". The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets,
but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now
willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same
Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars ). True, now that EU
subsidies are running out, the situation of these states is becoming even more dire, and they
know that the only place where they can still get money is the US. So don't expect them to
change their tune anytime soon (even if
Bulgaria has
already realized that nobody in the West gives a damn about it ).
Governments who want
to crack down on internal dissent by accusing any patriotic or independent political
party/movement to be "paid by the Kremlin" and representing Russian interests. The best
example is France and how it treated the National Front. I would argue that most EU states are,
in one way or another, working on creating a "national security state" because they do realize
(correctly) that the European people are deeply frustrated and oppose EU policies (hence all
the anti-EU referendums lost by the ruling elites).
Contrary to a very often repeated myth, European business interests do not represent a
powerful anti-russophobic force . Why? Just look at Germany: for all the involvement of Germany
(and Merkel personally) in the Ukraine, for all the stupid rhetoric about "Russia being an
aggressor" which "does not comply with the Mink Agreements", North Stream is going ahead! Yes,
money talks, and the truth is that while anti-Russian sanctions have cost Europe billions, the
big financial interests (say the French company Total) have found ways to ignore/bypass these
sanctions. Oh sure, there is a pro-trade lobby with Russian interest in Europe. It is real, but
it simply does not have anywhere near the power the anti-Russian forces in the EU have. This is
why for years now various EU politicians and public figures have made noises about lifting the
sanctions, but when it came to the vote – they all voted as told by the real bosses.
Not all EU Russophobia is US-generated , by the way. We have clearly seen that these days
when Trump suggested that the G7 (or, more accurately, the G6+1) needed to re-invite Russia, it
was the Europeans who said "nope!". To the extend that there is a "EU position" (even a very
demure and weak one), it is mostly anti-Russian, especially in the northern part of Europe. So
when Uncle Sam tells the Europeans to obey and engage in the usual Russia-bashing, they all
quickly fall in line, but in the rare case when the US does not push a rabidly anti-Russian
agenda, EU politicians suddenly find enough willpower to say "no". By the way, for all the
Trump's statements about re-inviting Russia into the G6+1 the US is still busy slapping more
sanctions on Russia .
The current mini-wars between the US and the EU (on trade, on Iran, on Jerusalem) do not at
all mean that Russia automatically can benefit from this . Again, the best example of this is
the disastrous G6+1 summit in which Trump basically alienated everybody only to have the G6
reiterate its anti-Russian position even though the G6+1 needs Russia far more than Russia
needs the G7 (she really doesn't!). Just like the US and Israeli leaders can disagree and, on
occasion, fight each other, that does not at all mean that somehow they are not fundamentally
joined at the hip. Just think of mob "families" who can even have "wars" against each other,
but that does not at all mean that this will benefit the rest of the population whom all
mobsters prey upon.
The Ukrainian crisis will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe . There is a very high
probability that in the near future the Ukronazi regime will try to reconquer Novorussia
(DNR/LRN). I submit that the outcome of such an attack is not in doubt – the Ukronazis
will lose. The only question is this: to whom will they lose:
Option one: they lose to the combined forces of the DNR and LNR. This is probably the most
likely outcome. Should this happen, there is a very high probability of a Novorussian counter
attack to liberate most of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, especially the cities of
Slaviansk and Mariupol. Since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, we can
be pretty darn sure of what the reaction in Kiev and in the West will be: Russia will be
blamed for it all. The AngloZionists will never admit that the Ukronazi regime lost a civil
war to its own people because the Novorussians will never accept a Nazi regime ruling over
them. Thus, a Novorussian victory will result in more hysterical Russophobia.
Option two: the Ukronazis succeed in their attack and threaten to overrun Donetsk, Lugansk and the rest of
Novorussia. Putin simply cannot allow this to happen. He has made that promise many times and
he has recently repeated it during his "open line" with the Russian people. If the Russians
are forced to intervene, this will not be a massive ground invasion – there is no need
for that. Russia has the firepower needed in the form of missile and artillery strikes to
destroy the attacking Urkonazi forces and to impose a no-fly zone over all of Novorussia. If
Kiev pushes on and launches a full-scale attack on Russia proper, the Ukrainian armed forces
will be totally disorganized and cease combat in about 48 hours. This scenario is what I call
the "Neocon dream" since such a Russian intervention will not be imaginary, but quite real
and the Kremlin will even confirm it all very publicly and probably recognize the two
Novorussian Republics just like what happened in 08.08.08 when Saakashvili decided to invade
South Ossetia. So, AngloZionists will (finally!) have the "proof" that Russia is the
aggressor, the Poles and Balts will prepare for an "imminent" Russian invasion and I think
that there is a pretty good chance that NATO forces will move into the Western Ukraine to
"stop the Russians", even if the said Russians will have absolutely no desire (or even
possible motive) to want to invade the rest of the Ukraine or, even less so, Poland, Sweden
or the Baltic statelets.
I will admit that there is still a small possibility that a Ukronazi attack might not
happen. Maybe Poroshenko & Co. will get cold feet (they know the real condition of the Ukie
military and "dobrobat" death squads) and maybe Putin's recent not-so-veiled threat about "
grave consequences for the Ukrainian statehood " will have the needed effect. But what will
happen even if this attack does not take place? The EU leaders and the Ukronazi regime in Kiev
will still blame Russia for the Ukraine now clearly being a failed state. Whatever scenario you
find more likely for the Ukraine, things there will only get worse and everybody will blame
Russia.
The crisis in Syria will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe. It is becoming pretty
clear that the US is now attempting a reconquista of Syria or, at least, a break-up of
Syria into several zones, including US-controlled ones. Right now, the US and the "good
terrorists" have lost the war, but that does not stop them from re-igniting a new one, mostly
by reorganizing, retraining, redeploying and, most importantly, re-branding the surviving "bad
terrorists" into "good ones". This plan is backed by Saudi money and Israeli firepower.
Furthermore, Russia is now reporting
that US Special Forces are already working with the (new) "good terrorists" to – you
guessed it – prepare yet another fake chemical attack and blame it on the Syrians. And
why not? It worked perfectly already several times, why not do that again? At the very least,
it would give the US another try at getting their Tomahawks to show their effectiveness (even
if they fail again, facts don't matter here). And make no mistake, a US "victory" in Syria (or
in Venezuela) would be a disaster not only for the region, but for every country wanting to
become sovereign (see Andre Vltchek's excellent article on this topic here ). And, again, Russia will be
blamed for it all and, with certifiable nutcasts like Bolton, Russian forces might even be
attacked. As I wrote already many times, this is far from
over . Just as in the Ukrainian case, some deal might be made (at least
US and Russian military officials are still talking to each other ) but my personal opinion
is that making any kind of deal with Trump is as futile as making deals with Netanyahu: neither
of them can be trusted and they both will break any and all promises in a blink of an eye. And
if all hell breaks loose in Syria and/or Iran, NATO will make sure that the Europeans all
quickly and obediently fall in line ("solidarity", remember?).
The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for
Russia and the future does look rather bleak.
One objection to my pessimism is the undeniable success of the recent Saint Petersburg
summit and the Parliamentary Forum. However, I believe that neither of these events was really
centered around Europe at all, but about the world at large (see excellent report by Gilbert
Doctorow on this topic
here ). Yes, Russia is doing great and while the AngloZionist media loves to speak about
the "isolation" of Russia, the truth is that it is the Empire which is isolated, while
Russia and China are
having tremendous success building the multi-polar world they want to replace the Empire
with. So while it is true that the western leaders might prefer to see a liberal "economic
block" in the new Russian government, the rest of the world has no such desire at all
(especially considering how many countries out there have suffered terrible hardships at the
hands of the WTO/WB/IMF/etc types).
Conclusion :
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on
the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different
interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang
racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face
to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about
your face: what they want is your submission. Vladimir Putin put it best
when he said " They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their
problems at our expense ".
However, if the EU is, for all practical purposes, non-existent, Russia can, and will,
engage with individual EU member states. There is a huge difference between, say, Poland and
Italy, or the UK and Austria. Furthermore, the EU is not only dysfunctional, it is also
non-viable. Russia would immensely benefit from the current EU either falling apart or being
deeply reformed because the current EU is a pure creation of the US-backed Bilderberger types
and not the kind of Europe the European people need. In fact, I would even argue that the EU is
the single biggest danger for the people of the European continent. Thus Russia should use her
resources to foster bi-lateral cooperation with individual EU member states and never take any
action which would strengthen (or even legitimize) EU-derived organizations such as the EU
Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. These are all entities which seek to
undermine the sovereignty of all its members, including Russia. Again, Putin put it best when
he
recently declared that " either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no
Russia ".
Whatever the ideology and slogans, all empires are inherently evil and inherently dangerous
to any country wanting to be truly sovereign. If Russia (and China) want to create a
multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are
totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple. Instead, Russia needs to engage
those countries, political parties and forces who advocate for what de Gaulle called "
the Europe of
fatherlands ". Both the AngloZionist Empire and the EU are undergoing the most profound
crisis in their history and the writing is on the wall. Sooner rather than later, one by one,
European countries will recover their sovereignty, as will Russia. Only if the people of Europe
succeed in recovering their sovereignty could Russia look for real partnerships in the West, if
only because the gradually developing and integrating Eurasian landmass offer tremendous
economic opportunities which could be most beneficial to the nations of Europe. A prosperous
Europe " from the Atlantic to the
Urals " is still a possibility, but that will happen only when the current European Union
and NATO are replaced by truly European institutions and the current European elites replaced
by sovereignists.
The people of Russia, EU and, I would argue, the United States all have the same goal and
the same enemy: they want to recover their sovereignty, get rid of their corrupt and, frankly,
treacherous elites and liberates themselves from the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire. This
is why pushing the issue of "true sovereignty" (and national traditional values) is, I believe,
the most unifying and powerful political idea to defeat the Empire. This will be a long
struggle but the outcome is not in doubt.
The usual Saker, but, there are a couple of not bad snippets:
The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the
opinions and interests of the people of Europe.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella.
They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our
expense".
As for this:
If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually
disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it
is really that simple.
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events.
He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining
the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups
in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London
and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each
other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't
see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self
evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we
haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at
stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude
towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the
US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is
right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the
Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the
position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a
subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know
people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but
this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his
latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario,
it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also
put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is
Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This
interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos
seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian
institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is
again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that
would run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project
would threaten the security of its European allies.
Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would
extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern
Germany. Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia
could provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told
reporters in Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in
the region and that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop
it, according to the Associated Press.
Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr
20, 2018 – A Europe-wide diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump
administration to ease US sanctions targeting Russia, as fears mount that
Excellent comment as usual Beckow, I could have typed the same. In fact, I have been
commenting online since 1992 that neither EU, nor most European states can be friends of
Russia. This was based on how those treated Yugoslavia/Serbia during the recent Balkan wars
that the same entities helped initiate. Because Serbia is Russia without nuclear weapons.
Russia would have gotten exactly the same treatment (Barbarossa 2) as Yugoslavia if it did
not have them. Nobody expected Russia to recover so quickly from Yeltsin and even
develop the world leading stand-off weapons on a budget. This is the only reason that
Barbarossa 2 will never happen. But they cannot stop hoping for a US-lead miracle.
Yet, the economic interest is there and if China and Russia manage to economically
integrate Europe and Asia, then the Euro-doggies will stop yapping and biting at the Russian
heels and will fall in line. What else could one expect from such pathetic shameless trash?
Give the One-Road another 15 years and watch this unfurle.
Finally, although I believed that Ukronazis would attack Novorussians, I now think that
Ukraine may have run out of suicidal dumb maniacs. It is much cheaper to make noise and beat
your Galician chest then to engage the enemy protected by Russia. Ukraine is, unfortunately,
already a total economic basket case, plus all One-Road plans circumvent it (as MH17 should
have, due to instability). Will there ever be a better example than Ukraine of the benevolent
influence of the Anglo-Zionist on a country?
As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of
international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be
suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing
publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that
sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership
for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other,
territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on
historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.
Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic
criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting
a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these
guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.
As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of
above, he must somehow understand(Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior
to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian
nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political
tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese
consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible
actors as Putin, Trump, Xi(affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot
be anything more then policing.
To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse,
after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior).
No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into
quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China
dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in
International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.
Honest writing of Saker.
How good are these supranational, corporatacracy(another commenter), "globally organized
elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way
above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular
dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough.
Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in
itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies
on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve
this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better
tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods.
It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual
fate.
War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be
seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity,
migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of
humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans.
Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the
only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub,
that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plage if
not.
The CIA seems to have spent five billion $ in Ukraine.
Who wants to incorporate Ukraine in the west therefore is not clear, the USA, NATO or EU, or
all of them ?
In any case, many in Europe see Putin just as an honest gas supplier.
Trump's gas is much more expensive.
Definitely. He stays well within the Judeo-Overton window. He is kosher, so to speak.
Sure, like Alex Jones, he will make the occasional slap at Israel or Zionism, but he will not
verge outside of the window's "Nazi Germany was the ultimate evil" or the holy 6 million
martyrs. I also have never read any of his work where he delves into 9/11, and what it means
about everything that has happened since.
You have three "not bad snippets" that I don't really agree with:
The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the
opinions and interests of the people of Europe.
It is not that they don't give a damn, it is that they take their orders from a higher
source. Euro-serfs see the coerced passage of Lisbon and Maastricht, the ongoing 3rd world
invasion, the restriction of free speech, the increasing criminality, the ECB destruction and
removal of elected officials in Greece and Italy. They know it is a sham, they just don't
understand why, because they are constantly being lied to. Saker is not helping here.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella.
Saker is not willing to tell us exactly who this entity is. He is not going to take us
outside of the Judeo-Overton window.
They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our
expense
With this dog whistle he is treading on thin ice. Sure, "their problems" could describe
past crimes like Maidan that may be catching up with them, but it could also cover such
things as Gaza, the Liberty, the King David Hotel, or even the targeting of Nagasaki in 1945.
As usual though, he won't confront the serpent.
The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to
go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be
militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for
billions of dollars).
Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer
dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive
co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with
"historic enemy" Russia?
There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases
on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are
under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.
"For targeting purposes, the bombing crew used St. Mary's Urakami Cathedral, the largest
Christian church in East Asia. At 11:02 a.m., on Aug. 9, 1945, when the bomb was dropped over
the cathedral, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan."
Hey, Quartermaster, why don't you tell us more about the amazing progress achieved by
Ukraine after the Kagans-sponsored revolution of 2014? For instance, you could tell us
(proudly?) about the rise of neo-Nazi power in Ukraine and about certain Kolomojsky, the
Ukrainian/Israeli thug, and his financing of the Azov battalion.
The EU countries put people in prison for questioning the tight official narrative/numbers of
holocaust biz.
What is wrong with using the word "Ukronazis?"
How would you name the happy warriors beholden to the memory of the 14th Waffen Grenadier
Division of the SS (1st Galician)?
"The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater
Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in
Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite
occupation.
The Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will
continue to fight with the Allied German Army against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign
and united State and a new order in the whole world.
Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists! Long live the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the
Ukrainian people – STEPAN BANDERA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Ukrainian_State_Act
We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to
export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But
the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the
security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed
in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of
history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about
perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards
anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional
hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays,
stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on
reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is
also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is
neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between
EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and
EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility
will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional
anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination
were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20
years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. My advise to Russia would be to mind its
own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired
because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in
general. Business doesn't change that.
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
"... Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm. ..."
"... And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :). ..."
"... On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade. ..."
... EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without
interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed
by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because
that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany,
Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and
contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been
added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push.
Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German
world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement
between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such
an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases,
nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in
Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.
My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always
backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change
that.
Thanks. Current trends strengthen Euro-asia (and thus China and Russia), so West will have to do something, otherwise they
get weaker over time.
There has been a maximalist group in the West who believe that ' anything is possible ', that even with nukes it is
possible to defeat and dismember Russia. The key factor would be internal instability inside Russia. Maidan, Saaksavilli's mad
dash in 2008, and the support for Caucas separatists were all done with that in mind. It has mostly failed with Russia becoming
more united in the process.
Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty
of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm.
And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether
this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :).
On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that
they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then
Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate.
Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade.
The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to
go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be
militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for
billions of dollars).
Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer
dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive
co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with
"historic enemy" Russia?
There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases
on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are
under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.
Al-Qaeda claims it is 'fighting alongside' US-backed coalition forces in Yemen | The Independent
Qasim al-Rimi, who has led the branch of the global jihadist movement known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (Aqap) since his
predecessor was killed in 2015, told the group's media arm al-Malahem on Sunday that his followers were de facto aligned with an
array of forces in the complex conflict.
"We fight alongside all Muslims in Yemen, together with different Islamic groups," he said, including "the Muslim Brotherhood
and also our brothers among the sons of (Sunni) tribes."
While al-Rimi did not elaborate on what he meant by "alongside", many Sunni tribal militias, as well as the pan-Arab Muslim Brotherhood
movement and conservative Salafis, are allied to the exiled Yemeni government fighting against Shia rebels known as Houthis who seized
control of the capital Sanaa in 2014.
The militias receive extensive funding and arms from the US-backed Saudi-led coalition, which has supported President Abed Rabbo
Mansour Hadi with air strikes and ground troops since March 2015.
Yemen's civil war has killed more than 10,000 people to date and left more than half of its 27 million strong population reliant
on food aid. The international community has condemned the
Saudi Arabian bombing campaign , which is thought to be responsible for most civilian deaths.
Im Bundestag kämpfen Merkel und ihre Treuesten derweil darum, ihre
Anti-Deutschland-Politik unter anderem gegen die CSU durchzusetzen -- sogar in der CDU gibt
es erste Mutige, die sich daran erinnern, wer sie bezahlt und wem sie eigentlich verpflichtet
sind.
Rough translation:
" In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German
policy against the CSU -- even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who
that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations. "
There are German rumours that Merkel will fall this week.
Historians from time to time write how curious it is that apparently unrelated events in
different parts of the world change history.
I wonder if the Trump election with the realisation, long overdue, in Germany, that the
migrants are a burden in stead of a contribution to the economy, may combine to Merkel's
fall,in her wake maybe the implosion of the EU, and the end of the euro.
It was Merkel who prevented Greece leaving the euro.
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men
they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
It is completely unnecessary and foolish to bring up and try to argue about
the faith of another man, especially by superimposing one's own views onto the matter. It's
clear that you believe it is impossible or highly unlikely to have high intelligence and be a
true believer, but to me that is neither here nor there.
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the
Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity. Yes! Russia's history and the levers of power were wrenched away from
its traditional Orthodox roots by those intent on revenge, those with a mad desire to unite the
world under the banner of international communism, bringing about (so they hoped and continue
to hope) the birth of their messiah. Thankfully that chapter of history is over, but it's not
over for the chosen: intent on revenge on Russia, just as they are forever intent on their
innocence in all historical matters, they have moved on and rooted themselves into another
host: the USA. They will be smacked down and put in their place again, but I hesitate to
estimate the scheduling. The main question is how many human lives will they end through their
machinations before the smack down.
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of
the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity.
No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back
to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the
secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his
least attractive features.
Thankfully that chapter of history is over
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is –
to borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song – is more alive than the living. The
Soviet period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in
every area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.
It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet
standards – culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would
disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the
Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does – the Soviet Union will live
one.
Russia still is a neoliberal country. What do you expect ?
It is interesting that Russia which oppose neoliberal globalization in foreign policy, implements neoliberal reforms within
the country. The current pensoin reform is clienly neoliberal in spirit, even if it does not include privatization. there is
a big different between those who work at factories and those who work at offices.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this was amply justified. ..."
"... Basically there were real issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism regime. ..."
"... Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake. ..."
"... I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical sites all over Europe. ..."
"... I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these "reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact, American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US level). ..."
"... I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent research in Russia now than there was in the USSR. ..."
"... Huge inequality is another negative, especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that regress rather than progress. ..."
"... On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be damned. ..."
Maybe it is presumptuous to express my opinion about another person's faith, but let me
remind you that Putin was a KGB officer and a member of the communist party. As such, he was
(or pretended to be) a militant atheist. Now he publicly goes to church and remains there
throughout the service (mind you, Russian Orthodox Christmas and Easter services are
all-night affairs). Thus, he either lied then or is lying now about his faith. Take your
pick.
Yes, Orthodox Christianity was one of the pillars of Russian culture. But again, let me
remind you that one of the greatest Russian writers, Leo Tolstoy, was excommunicated by the
church. What's more, current patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox church, was
photographed with a watch worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, owns an apartment in the
center of Moscow, likely worth millions of $, and a collection or rare books in this
apartment with a huge value. If you are a Christian, you should know that "it is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God" (Matthew 19:24; also Mark 10:25).
I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red
herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that
afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was
that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were
mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this
was amply justified.
I frankly do not think that communism requires redemption. It was first attempt at moving
humanity towards next step in social evolution and it did not happen under the best
conditions. It happened in the country ridden with accumulated problems from previous regime
mishandling the country for a couple of centuries with those issues coming to a head and
after so much pressure it resulted in massive eruption of violence which would have been even
worse without Bolsheviks as it would lead to Russia disintegration and Russian state death.,
There would have happened something similar to modern Ukraine.
Basically there were real
issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force
caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and
these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and
other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism
regime.
Current Russian regime got bad roots and I do not believe anything good will come out of
these bad roots. The system is freakish and rotten at the core. It care s not for people.
Current increase of retirement age is another testament to this. Bolsheviks when they started
made their intentions rather obvious in destroyed and poor country. They assured real human
rights while current system removed those rights and there is no guarantees that we as a
soviet citizen used to enjoy. Obviously things were not perfect. They never are.
Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake.
I also wonder what do you think of spontaneous life appearance? I read some books on this
issue including Dawkins' and Behe, but considering your experience and professional
background it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts.
I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge
achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in
Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money
to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical
sites all over Europe.
I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they
degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these
"reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact,
American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US
level).
I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in
the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent
research in Russia now than there was in the USSR.
Huge inequality is another negative,
especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now
continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned
and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that
regress rather than progress.
On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in
international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a
thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps
those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be
damned.
Percentages of ethnic groups to be destroyed and/or deported to Siberia by Nazi Germany from future settlement areas.[15][16][3]
Ethnic group/Nationality Population percent subject to removal
Russians[17][16] 50–60% to be physically eliminated and another
15% to be sent to Western Siberia
Estonians[3][18] almost 50%
Latvians[3]
50%
Czechs[16]
50%
Ukrainians[16] 65%
Belarusians[16] 75%
Poles[16]
20 million, or 80–85%
Lithuanians[3] 85%
Latgalians[3] 100%
"... "We are going to do the worst thing we can do to you. We are going to take your enemy way from you." ..."
"... "There's no way I would ever agree to give [Russia] that legitimacy," ..."
"... "The Soviet Union may have fallen, but the evil it represents is alive and well in Putin's Russia." ..."
"... "He is no friend of the United States," ..."
"... "He's dismembering democracies everywhere and trying to do so in our own backyard." ..."
"... In order to put to rest this tortured Soviet ghost, it needs to be reminded that the business of "dismembering democracies" ..."
"... "move to re-Sovietize the region." ..."
"... "In respect of Karl Marx, I think he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting Syria by condoning the use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory." ..."
"... "recapturing the Soviet position on the world stage." ..."
"... "America's Putin apologist" ..."
"... "The intelligence committees have never produced any evidence," ..."
"... "They never even did a forensic exam of the DNC computers." ..."
"... "genetically driven to co-opt." ..."
"... "The parting with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be long and difficult," ..."
"... "We must acknowledge that many will not believe or agree with the death warrant written in Minsk and confirmed in Alma-Ata." ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Listening to Western media and politicians these days, you would never guess that nearly
three decades ago the Soviet hammer and sickle lowered for the last time over the Kremlin,
replaced by the Russian tricolor. Ironically, the collapse of the Soviet Union - an empire made
up of 15 republics encompassing some 12 million
square miles - has been far more difficult for the West to come to grips with than it has
been for the Russian people, who witnessed the decline and fall firsthand. Indeed, many
Westerners are ardent believers that the Soviet Union is still alive and kicking.
This apparent paradox was foreseen many years ago by the Soviet political scientist, Georgi
Arbatov, when he told a
US diplomat shortly after the collapse: "We are going to do the worst thing we can do to
you. We are going to take your enemy way from you."
Thirty years later the West still revisits the grave of its former Soviet nemesis, yearning
for its rise from the ashes. Just this week, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham conjured up the
spirit of America's ex arch-enemy when responding to Donald Trump's suggestion that Russia be
readmitted into the G7.
"There's no way I would ever agree to give [Russia] that legitimacy," Graham
said
. "The Soviet Union may have fallen, but the evil it represents is alive and well in
Putin's Russia."
"He is no friend of the United States," he continued. "He's dismembering
democracies everywhere and trying to do so in our own backyard."
In order to put to
rest this tortured Soviet ghost, it needs to be reminded that the business of "dismembering
democracies" has been solely the purview of the US and its NATO allies. At a time when the
world lacked a countervailing force to check Western military aggression – which the
Soviet Union duly provided – the West eagerly pursued a regime-change agenda
that not only destroyed viable governments, like Iraq and Libya, but set in motion a migrant
crisis that the European Union is
at pains to control today. Read more Russia should be
back in G7 as 'we spend 25% of time' talking about it anyway – Trump
For its part, Russia has resorted to military action against a foreign country on just one
occasion. In August 2008, in response to a deadly attack on Russian peacekeepers in South
Ossetia, Russian forces entered Georgian territory. Even the EU
concluded that the government of ex Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili, was to blame
for sparking the five-day conflict.
So, what is the reason for Graham's gross distortion of the historical record? And why the
apparent need to conflate modern, democratic Russia with the vanquished Soviet Union? For the
answer, it is always helpful to follow the money trail, and unsurprisingly it leads straight to
the door of America's largest defense contractors.
It is no secret that Lindsey Graham – perhaps second only to John McCain - is one of
the most notorious war hawks in Washington. During his failed run for the 2016 presidential
elections, the Super PAC supporting his bid collected $2.9 million, the bulk of which came from the
coffers of defense contractors.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, another darling of the military industrial complex, who
raked in just under $500 million from the defense industry for her presidential bid, was
portraying Russia as some sort of Soviet-style menace as early as 2012.
Discussing Vladimir Putin's efforts to promote greater economic integration in Eurasia,
Clinton
depicted the venture as a "move to re-Sovietize the region." Unfortunately, no one
challenged the Democrat to explain how one of the largest capitalistic ventures in the world
could be confused with communism.
Clearly, Western leaders are intentionally dragging up memories of the bygone Cold War-era
in order to incite an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty - the ultimate stimulant for military
spending, corporate profit-taking and, last but not least, NATO sprawl up to Russia's border.
For defense sector lobbyists, the rhetoric is music to the ears.
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but
very few outlets have covered it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of
Tump and the election. https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof
The threat of peace
does not boost the bottom line of the defense contractors, who represent some of the most
influential people in Washington, while the politicians who are most hawkish on foreign policy
are richly rewarded. In short, it is a marriage made in hell, with a 'honeymoon' somewhere in
the Middle East. Russia, due to its stunning resurgence, which was put on full display in Syria
as it foiled another Western scheme for regime change, has also appeared on the radar.
Thus, we see Western politicians and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic attempting to
make a strained connection between Russia and the Soviet Union, and even more now with
'Russiagate' and the Skripal saga in full hysteria mode. This is clearly being done in an
effort to isolate Russia on the global stage.
Britain's Ambassador to the United Nations Karen Pierce, for example, in a heated debate
with her Russian counterpart, Vassily Nebenzia, lectured Russia for its 'regrettable behavior'
in Syria, saying : "In respect of
Karl Marx, I think he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on
many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting Syria by condoning the use of chemical
weapons on Syrian territory."
One wonders how such a high-ranking official could possibly understand what is happening in
Syria today when the collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have escaped her attention.
Meanwhile, perennial Russophobes, which make up the overwhelming majority of fellowship
positions among US think tanks, regularly argue that Russia is somehow 'nostalgic for empire,'
and determined to 'restore the glory of the Soviet times.'
Anne Applebaum, a member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, gave a distorted version of reality on
Ukrainian television, arguing that Vladimir Putin is interested in "recapturing the Soviet
position on the world stage." There is just one problem with that position: Not a single
thing the Russian leader has done or not done to date would reasonably support that thesis. But
good luck finding an academic to challenge such misguided notions.
Whenever the tiny cadre of Western academics strays from the reservation and argues from the
Russian perspective, they are exiled to academia's version of the Gulag Archipelago seldom to
be heard from again. Stephen Cohen, emeritus at Princeton University and NYU, is referred
to as "America's Putin apologist" among his peers for daring to suggest there might
just be an alternative reality to the mainstream media madness we are being fed about 'Putin's
Russia' on a daily basis.
Speaking on the subject of 'Russiagate,' Cohen acknowledged what so few academics have the
intellectual courage to say: there is no evidence whatsoever to show that Putin ordered the
hacking of the Democratic National Committee in 2016. "The intelligence committees have
never produced any evidence," Cohen said
. "They never even did a forensic exam of the DNC computers."
Obviously, this sort of 'crazy talk' is not well received in US policy circles, and if it
were not for Cohen's serious credentials as a leading expert on Russia he would be simply
'exiled' from the mainstream discourse. That is because the US has entered a dark,
unrecognizable place where top officials, like James Clapper, the former Director of National
Intelligence, can actually describe the Russian people
in racist overtones, saying they are "genetically driven to co-opt."
The reality is that the West is acquiring a dangerous totalitarian mindset (genetically
driven?) in that it has become – similar perhaps to the Soviet times - nearly impossible
to question anything that the mainstream media, think tanks and academia disseminates.
"The parting with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be long and
difficult," Izvestia
warned with uncanny foresight. "We must acknowledge that many will not believe or agree
with the death warrant written in Minsk and confirmed in Alma-Ata."
Indeed, nostalgia for the Soviet times – complete with a new cold war and lucrative
arms race - is so rampant in the West that its roots are beginning to crack through the
surface. Such a repressive climate chokes off all any discussion that presents a challenge to
the official narrative which proclaims, as absolute fact, that 'Russia is aspiring for
Soviet-style empire,' a groundless assertion that is every bit as ridiculous as it is
dangerous.
If the current trend towards the homogenization of thought continues - like a chapter torn
from Orwell's 1984 - Westerners will awake one sunny morning to a shiny new totalitarian state
of their own design and making, complete with jackboots on the streets, under an awning falsely
proclaiming 'democracy'.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The Moscow
News, he is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in 2013.
The "collective West" clearly pursued its own goals in Ukraine, and the last thing they were concerned was well being of
Ukraine people. Russia also viewed Ukraine mainly from the position of its own interests, although being isolated they provided
somewhat better terms for economic cooperation, just to counter influence of the EU and the USA.
The USA wanted the Ukraine to became yet another Baltic republic as a part of its geopolitical efforts of encircling Russia
and, if possible, installing another Yeltsin-style comprador government. EU wanted a market for its good and to exclude
Russia from using Ukrainian resources as well as the leverage to get better prices for Russian natural resources.
So the Ukrainian people got on the receiving end of those efforts and paid a huge price. Was it unavoidable or not is
difficult to say. May be less bloodshed was possible but economic decimation of Ukraine and conversion it into a debt slave was in
the cards, and probably was not avoidable. It just occurred faster and the drop of the standard of living went deeper that
in other circumstance.
For all his corruption and thugishness Yanukovich tried to play Russia against the West and get some concession from both. Now
such a policy is impossible as the country de-facto lost independence as happens with any debt-slave.
So the conflict in Donbass became important for Poroshenko government as the mean of uniting people, who became disillusioned
in the results of EuroMaydan and pointing to Russia as a scapegoat for all their difficulties. In a way Poroshenko now needs
Donbass conflict to survive politically.
While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there,
some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.
Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is
possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is
likely he knows what is going on.
While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form
iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly,
that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist
appropriate as well.
Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper
concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished
to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path,
he impoverishes his people even more.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up
dead.
The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize
Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the
West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and
prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime
example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted
should we be so inclined?
It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats
cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West
organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate
"government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine
is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and
fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did
was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed
for that.
"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most
unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by
virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American)))
advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.
An interesting point about refugees and emigration of Ukrainians to Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president. ..."
"... During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
"... Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton. ..."
"... the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance. ..."
Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to
task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his
encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda
against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English
language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy
establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's
challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and
should be said in reply to Peter's comments.
Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In
one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down
of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS.
You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed
ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with
roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.
Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the
years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to
those killed by US and Israeli military actions.
Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills
journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country
does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early
1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who
attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.
Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out
hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for
the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These
individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the
overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.
During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be
colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received
significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem
less legit than the American revolutionaries.
Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of
Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in
Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of
the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to
Russia.
Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more
anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin
views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters
isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11.
The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties
(even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has
appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.
Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the
Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true.
However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many
Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively
more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians
questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.
I suppose many of us saw the Tucker with Max Boot. Boot seemed unhinged, really
emotionally overwrought by Tucker raising commonsensical challenges to his neocon orthodoxy.
Sad, angry man.
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... JRL promoted a recent Kirchick piece: http://russialist.org/newswatch-the-soviet-roots-of-invoking-fears-about-world-war-iii-brookings-james-kirchick/ The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.) ..."
"... A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistic references the Cold War period with present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of "lazy". ..."
"... As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. ..."
"... Agree entirely--a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional and not) is a direct result of neoliberalism as a whole. ..."
"... However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy: they are cynical people without scruples working for money. ..."
"... Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum paid to do the hatched job. ..."
"... The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against Russia. ..."
The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)
ah, so it was Dubya all along! What a clever little schemer he was! Pretending
all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the
neocons to his own advantage! So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were
being schooled at the feet of ((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along
who was the mastermind behind the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !
sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American
middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!
The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal
aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of
working class Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and
others in a transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel - at the direct and
catastrophic expense of America and the American people.
I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to
Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As
Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?
Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that
printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the
ZUSA?
Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to
benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing
so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their
marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians
to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition. The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going
on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education
system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of
persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM.
Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our
Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I
recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug
addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.
He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a
monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I
once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring
Europe, as Fred Reed explained:
Nothing new in the above article. That such people are elevated to the stature of cushy
mainstream propping and ridicule by some non-mainstream others is a tell all sign on what's
wrong with the coverage.
Regarding this excerpt:
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist
and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick:
The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening
ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim
immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a
subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to
reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than
attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable:
Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its
age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and
the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry,
anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal
democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage,
across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, "George Soros
Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent," January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistic references the Cold War period with
present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has
transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of
"lazy".
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews
in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
As I always say -- as repulsive and debilitating Jewish influence on US body
politic is, this influence, now transformed in almost complete "intellectual" dominance, it
wouldn't have been possible without willing accomplices from radical Christian Zionists and a
massive corruption in the highest echelons of power.
Agree entirely--a wholesale dumbing down of masses and even "elites" (both intentional
and not) is a direct result of neoliberalism as a whole. The crisis is systemic and Jews
are only one, however important, part of that. In the end, Bolton is a practicing Lutheran
but look at him -- the guy is completely mad. And I mean this in purely psychiatric terms --
he has some real serious demons haunting him and I even have suspicion about what some of
those are. Just an example.
Yes, sick ideology often attracts nutcases. I know a guy in Ukraine with a history of
mental illness who is a staunch supporter of current "president" Poroshenko.
However mad Bolton might be, most card-carrying Russophobs and neocons are not crazy:
they are cynical people without scruples working for money.
Say, Hillary Clinton or Mike Pompeo are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, but
they are not too mad or too stupid to understand the reality. They are simply greedy scum
paid to do the hatched job.
The same applies to most current politicians involved in the smear campaign against
Russia. The greatest sin of Russia and Putin is that they got in the way of thieves who
wanted to loot the whole world but encountered resistance. Assad in Syria, Iran, North Korea,
China, and Venezuela committed the same sin: got between the thieves and their intended
loot.
Thursday's DOJ Inspector General report covering the
Obama DOJ/FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation confirms a bombshell that had previously been hinted at through
WikiLeaks disclosures:
Obama lied when he said in 2015 that he learned of Hillary Clinton's private email server through a New York Times report.
Specifically, Obama told CBS News the following a March 7, 2015 report:
President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a
New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after
his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.
' The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,' the president told Plante. -
CBS
The OIG report reveals this was a lie . A footnote on page 89 reads " President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with
whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account "
What's more, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok told the Inspector General that the top brass of the agency wrestled over
whether or not to include Obama's involvement in Clinton's exoneration statement - and that former FBI Director James Comey knew
Obama had lied :
"A paragraph [in Comey's "exoneration" statement] summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that
hostile actors accessed Clinton's server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton's use of her private email for an exchange
with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary, " the IG report reads. " This reference later was changed
to 'another senior government official,' and ultimately was omitted ."
My recollection is that the early Comey speech drafts included references to emails that Secretary Clinton had with President
Obama and I think there was some conversation about, well do we want to be that specific? -Peter Strzok
We already knew all of this though...
In October of 2016, a round of emails released by WikiLeaks featured an email from top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills reacting Obama's
statement that he didn't know about Obama's server - writing to John Podesta "we need to clean this up - he has emails from her -
they do not say state.gov"
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest
later claimed
that Obama was simply "not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up," and that "The President,
as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office exchange emails with his Secretary of State."
The
Washington Examiner , meanwhile, reported in October 2016 that FBI agents "revealed in notes from their closed investigative
file that Obama communicated with Clinton on her private server using a pseudonym . "
The ramifications of what the World is witnessing are Gargantuan to say the least.
"Clinton, Obama might have be labeled Democrat but their Foreign Policy was 100% percent neocon"
Suffice it to, say, you can add Bush Senior, Jr to you list & the last 30 years of a Globalist Foreign Policy.
We're at a National Emergency & Constitutional Crises.
"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple pieces of information in a Fake Dossier,
I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday, Brennan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know
much about the Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."
"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Brennan doing this? Because Brennan knows that the Dossier was his
case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John
Brennan started a Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified. John Brennan is
going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."
"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show you that Brennan has run from this
Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And, he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen
to how he emphasizes on the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him with Chuck
Todd:"
Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath John Brennan admits the Fake Dossier
Played:
"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. That was presented to then...President
Obama & President Elect Trump."
It was Brennan, Obama and Clapper. I can remember when Obama said we were going after the Russians for election interference.
It became so big, the Homeland Security director said he would have to federalize elections, then the push back-out cry from states
shut that down.
Brennan has always worked with Obama in political dirty tricks operations, Brennan worked for the Obama election campaign,
providing political intelligence.
Clapper created his own intelligence network. He conducted political dirty tricks to damage Trump before and after. The secret
wars conducted by the CIA, involved Clinton, Brennan, Clapper and Obama, I remember when Obama was asked when he was on his way
to the UN to be crowned president of the world, he said the secret wars was "smart war". Nobel Prize winning Obama, conducted
genocide smart war on the Christians of Syria, killing over 500K using Brennan CIA funded by Saudi and Qatar money. Look at what
they have done, and how the MSM spewed lies to hide and are still hiding the crimes. Ukraine, Libya, Egypt? Why?
Clinton, Brennan, Obama, Clapper is the center of the Russian collusion narrative, it's a coordinated plan to prevent Trump
from being president, and when it was known Trump would be president, to sabotage Trump by destroying the last vestige of relations
with Russia and to accuse Trump of campaign collusion with the Russians, knowingly using false information paid for by Clinton,
coordinated with operatives of MI6. Who made the contacts with MI6, and the UK GHQ, the NSA of the UK? Clapper. Also remember
McCain hand carrying the false data, the Steele Dossier to the FBI? How sick was that? McCain is lower than dog shit and can't
vote on his death bed, thus why won't he resign for health reasons to allow his vote to be used to help rebuild the nation? It's
because he's mentally ill and wants to do as much damage, working with the communist, to this nation as possible, ask anyone who
is for this nation.
The extent of the criminal activity is so great, it can't see the light of day, it would cause a civil war to take down the
last administration. The precedence for Obama crimes were Bush II crimes, it was a continuation. The Bush II imperial presidency,
created the foundation, the huge intelligence apparatus created by Bush II, the Homeland Security police state, all built by Bush
II, was expanded and used against the American people. Not the terrorist the extreme corrupt media brainwashed into everyone to
submit to the state and to give up our rights.
The reason Clapper and Brennan are giving the most delusional analysis to confuse the truth is they know they are guilty so
they must take Trump down to survive. Obama is quite because he knows he is guilty, and more questions of real crimes are coming
out. Clinton, she's taunting everyone and believes she will be able to have revenge on the American people through a long term
plan to use the Clinton Foundation billions to build her revenge socialist communist homosexual reform of the American people.
They plan on buying the government through more manipulation of the vote and political campaigns, money rules and the Clinton's
have the money to rule America.
That's where we are, the Clinton Foundation is a racketeering operation, most all of the money was acquired illegally. If it
wasn't for loans provided by the Clinton Foundation, the DNC wouldn't have been able to run the election campaign.
Have a listen to this Greg Hunter/USA Watchdog interview with Dr David Janda. He's a courageous individual and he addresses
Zero Hedge commenters specifically in parts. Here's what he says about all this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rri-Ngj8QoE
"but his name was removed from the IG report and replaced with "government agent"..."
Correction: I believe you mean Comey's exoneration speech. The IG report (which is referenced above in the article we are commenting
on) did just the opposite and clearly stated that Obama emailed the wicked wench.
"The IG report was a whitewash, nothing about clinton herself".
I'm surprised to read that here on ZH. I've not been spending much time in the comments section here lately, but hadn't realized
that things had gotten this bad. ZHers used to be more aware.
The IG was not a whitewash. It is loaded with absolute bombshells. We're talking game-changing-save-the-republic bombshells.
There are tons of findings that will likely end up in criminal charges.
But, see, that's the point. IG's do not make criminal charges. They investigate internal processes. They can share their findings
or coordinate with actual US Attorney Generals, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE CRIMINAL DETERMINATIONS!
What's nice is, is that this is exactly what is happening. Horowitz has been working side by side with Huber, who is actually
an AUSAG, and who has already convened at least one grand jury (meaning criminal charges are likely).
"no one implicated other than underlings and it's obvious that Horowitz is on the deep state team"
The key to getting kingpins is to get his underlings first and have them turn on the kingpins to save their own skin.
I disagree with your conclusions on Horowitz. I think he is exactly what his reputation says he is: a rigidly straight arrow
who is narrowly focused on his holy mission to preserve the proper procedures in his blessed Bureau of Matters. This makes him
a White Hat in this whole saga.
Sorry if I picked on you with my reply, but I just think this story is so important to get right, particularly in light of
how blatantly untruthful CNN and the MSM are being (even more blatant than normal).
When the real bombshell hits, a lot of our fellow Americans are going to be very confused as their entire worldview is shaken.
It is our job to make that as painless as possible, and setting expectations based on what is actually happening/going to happen
is a huge step towards that worthy goal.
"... More fundamentally, the quarter-century of invasions and occupations that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union is rapidly developing into a conflict between major nuclear-armed powers. The effort of the American ruling class to offset its economic decline using military force is leading mankind to the brink of another world war. As the National Defense Strategy, published less than a month before the release of the indictments, declared, "Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security." ..."
"... The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political dissent effectively treasonous. ..."
"... Already, this campaign has led the major US technology firms to implement far-reaching measures to censor political speech on the Internet. Google is manipulating its search results and Facebook is manipulating its news feeds, while seeking to turn the social media platform it has developed into an instrument of corporate-state surveillance. ..."
"... Now, the Democrats, along with their appendages among the organizations of the upper-middle class, are at the forefront of the campaign for war, employing neo-McCarthyite tactics to criminalize opposition while seeking to subordinate all popular opposition to the Trump administration to its right-wing and militarist agenda. ..."
Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass
demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State
Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was rapidly
stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was planning to
use against the United States.
In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held up
a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides purporting to
show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."
There was only one problem with
Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to end.
The World Socialist Web Site , in an editorial board statement published the next day,
declared the brief for war "the latest act in a diplomatic charade laced with cynicism and
deceit." War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction." Rather,
"it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that
center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global hegemony."
The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different.
Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the
Iraqi government.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could
have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations
-- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove
to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a
doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude
otherwise."
The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at
the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that there
"is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the
capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more
recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."
Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its media
accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one million
people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.
Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time,
instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once
again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again,
the media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American government
-- which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has been
relentlessly expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.
The argument presented by the American media is that the alleged existence of a fly-by-night
operation, employing a few hundred people, with a budget amounting to a minuscule fraction of
total election spending in the US, constitutes a "a virtual war against the United States
through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda" ( New York Times ).
In the countless articles and media commentary along this vein, nowhere can one find a
serious analysis of the Mueller indictment of the Russians itself, let alone an examination of
the real motivations behind the US campaign against Russia. The fact that the indictment does
not even involve the Russian government or state officials is treated as a nonissue.
While the present campaign over Russian "meddling" has much in common with the claims about
"weapons of mass destruction," the implications are far more ominous. The "war on terror" is
exhausted, in part because the US is allied in Syria and elsewhere with the Islamic
fundamentalist organizations it was purportedly fighting.
More fundamentally, the quarter-century of invasions and occupations that followed the
dissolution of the Soviet Union is rapidly developing into a conflict between major
nuclear-armed powers. The effort of the American ruling class to offset its economic decline
using military force is leading mankind to the brink of another world war. As the National
Defense Strategy, published less than a month before the release of the indictments, declared,
"Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national
security."
Russia is seen by dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus as a principal
obstacle to US efforts to control the Middle East and to take on China -- and it is this that
has been at the center of the conflict between the Democratic Party and the Trump
administration.
There have already been a series of clashes in recent weeks between the world's two largest
nuclear-armed powers. On February 3, a Russian close-air support fighter was shot down by
al-Nusra Front fighters, which are indirectly allied with the United States in its proxy war
against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Then, on February 7 and 8, Russian soldiers were
killed in US air and artillery barrages in Deir Ezzor, in what survivors called a "massacre."
Both the US and Russian governments have sought to downplay the scale of the clash, but some
sources have reported the number killed to be in the hundreds.
Even as US and Russian forces clashed in Syria, representatives of the Kremlin and the
Pentagon sparred at the Munich security conference this weekend over the deployment and
development of nuclear weapons. While accusing Russia of violating the Intermediate Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Washington this month issued a nuclear posture review envisioning
a massive expansion of the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons.
The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military
aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for
censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted
under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to
believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political
dissent effectively treasonous.
Already, this campaign has led the major US technology firms to implement far-reaching
measures to censor political speech on the Internet. Google is manipulating its search results
and Facebook is manipulating its news feeds, while seeking to turn the social media platform it
has developed into an instrument of corporate-state surveillance.
Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic
principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it. The
target of the repressive measures is not Russia, but the American working class. The ruling
elite is well aware that as it plots war abroad, it stands upon a social powder keg at
home.
The working class must draw the necessary conclusions from its past experiences. In 2003,
the Democratic Party supported the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and provided it with
the necessary political cover. Now, the Democrats, along with their appendages among the
organizations of the upper-middle class, are at the forefront of the campaign for war,
employing neo-McCarthyite tactics to criminalize opposition while seeking to subordinate all
popular opposition to the Trump administration to its right-wing and militarist
agenda.
Pathological Russophobia of neocons is explanation by two factors: (1) they are lobbyists for
MIC and this is the way MIC wants the US foreign policy to be execute; (2) this is the way of
earning money for people, many of whom are good no nothing else.
Notable quotes:
"... Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or ..."
"... From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." ..."
Almost one year ago the United States Congress (with only a handful of "nay" votes)
adopted
new and severe sanctions against Russia for its supposed attempt to influence and interfere
in the 2016 national elections. Included in that legislation was a provision -- specifically
placed there by Russophobe Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) -- that President Trump cannot alter
or lift any of the sanctions without future Congressional approbation.
The government of Vladimir Putin, in response to this provocation, announced that the
American diplomatic presence in Russia would be reduced by 755 persons, a drastic move by any
standards. But we cannot say it was unexpected -- or undeserved.
That sanctions vote was fascinating as it illustrated during the first year of the
contentious Trump presidency a rare point of political unity between the socialist
Left, the Democrats and the mainstream media -- formerly noted for their "soft" and favorable
attitude to the old and unloved Soviet Communist Russian regime -- and the conservative/GOP
mainstream, dominated by the Neoconservatives. Of course, perspectives and approaches to the
question differ, whether it was the Trump campaign that was colluding with Moscow, or if it was
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation that had collaborated in some way, but their target remained
the same: that man in the Kremlin and the country he governs.
One thing was clear: the result of the 2016 presidential election had the most unheard of
and remarkable result in recent American political history: a de facto alliance of
these supposedly antipodal political forces. And what we have witnessed is a phalanx of the
pseudo-Right Neocons and the formerly pro-Soviet Left linked together, competing to see who
could be more "anti" and who could come up with the more far-fetched Russia conspiracy
theories, and -- as with the 2017 sanctions -- the latest unwarranted, over the top
legislation.
Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew
Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right."
Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington
Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and
Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons &
Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges
"the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects
in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or
the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin,
calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the
German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally
left the Fox News network in March 2018 )
When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters
provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters
immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was
a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum .
Of course, such examples aren't rare in the establishment "conservative movement" media.
Pick up any issue of National Review or The Weekly Standard or listen to the
Glenn Beck radio program and you can find the same hysteria, largely laced with faked quotes or
disinformation (e.g., "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was
head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad
nauseum ).
Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the
grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's
nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils lost big time
financially in his manipulations in Russia, as investigative journalists Philip
Giraldi and Robert
Parry have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir
Putin.
For the Neoconservative leaders of what passes for "conservatism" these days, it is as if
nothing has changed since 1991, since the ignominious fall of Communism. It's even
arguable that their hostility to Moscow has increased since then.
Let me suggest several reasons for this: First, many of the more prominent Neoconservatives
descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the
pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin
and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and
apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until
Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II. [See the partially
translated excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together at: https://200yearstogether.wordpress.com , and the
commentary
]
Putin, despite his strong support from native Russian Jews and from the Moscow Rabbinate, is
a Russian nationalist and fervent supporter of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church, and
those two factors bring up painful memories of the "bad old days" of discrimination and Jewish
persecution for the Neocons.
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and
homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The
End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously
in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants
from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle
"holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert
national traditions and Christian identity;
for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia
seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox
Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time"
religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and
"extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and
equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board
equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, " George Soros Aghast
as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent, " January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic
considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and
Bruxelles, or Russia, itself. Unlike the weak and pliant Boris Yeltsin, Putin the
nationalist ended the strangle-hold of Russian industry, in particular control of Russia's
important energy sector, by those few international businessmen, the oligarchs (many of them
Jewish), most of whom fled the country. That could not stand! How dare Russia -- and its
president -- oppose the economic diktats of Bruxelles and Wall Street!
Lastly, we should add one more reason for hostility, and that is Russia's remaining
international presence, in particular, in Syria. It is very simple: you don't go from being one
of the world's two "superpowers" to all of a sudden a second-rate, economically-handicapped
"has been" without some remorse. As a patriot and nationalist President Putin has,
understandably, attempted to reassert Russian prosperity and power -- certainly, not as much or
in the same manner as the old Communist leaders. But, from his reasonable point of view, the
largest country in the world does have interests, and not just in what goes on in neighboring
nations where millions of Russians (formerly within Russia) reside, but also with long-time
allies such as Syria.
Is not this same criterion true for the United States and its dealings with its neighbors
and allies?
More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic
terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the
horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin
has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic
terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul
Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't
need your assistance or intel."
And thus, the revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received.
But, as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there
is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with
equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its
traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have
witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality.
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall
an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition
problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.
He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a
monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I
once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring
Europe, as Fred Reed explained:
Nothing new in the above article. That such people are elevated to the stature of cushy
mainstream propping and ridicule by some non-mainstream others is a tell all sign on what's
wrong with the coverage.
Regarding this excerpt:
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist
and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick:
The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening
ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim
immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a
subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to
reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than
attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable:
Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its
age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and
the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry,
anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal
democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage,
across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, "George Soros
Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent," January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the
positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)
A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistically references the Cold War period with
present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has
transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of
"lazy".
To me it is all quite simple.
FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and a smaller Britain.
Stalin had other ideas.
Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government, in
my view.
Deep State still tries to impose this world government.
Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons
are back'.
Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.
The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingless to realise that it could no longer
maintain the empire.
This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standars became too expensive, the one
fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.
Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half.
What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria.
Alas, seldom in history did reason rule.
If it will in the present USA, I doubt it.
Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. Putin's mistake
was in thinking he could reason with the Neoconservatives. The Neocons are not guided by
pragmatic or rational concerns. Of course, many are starting to think Putin was just "part of
the show" all along, as evidenced by his recent capitulation to Netanyahu.
The American Government are a bunch of morons. I ask again "what has Russia ever done to the
USA"? A real thin book as far as I can see, time to grow up and be big boys, there's money
over there.
The American diplomat, Bruce P Jackson, who is credited with expanding NATO, made a statement
several years ago. He heavily criticized Putin, saying he was responsible for "the largest
theft of Jewish property since the Nazis."
Excellent analysis by Dr. Cathey of the roots of the anti-Russian hysteria. This is also
reflected in popular culture – Hollywood movies and the various spy/covert ops novels
of people like Ted Bell and Brad Thor, who has hinted that he may run against Trump in the
2020 Republican primaries. Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains.
Was Jackson referring to some of the oligarchs who had fallen out with Putin and was he
suggesting Putin rather than the state benefitted? Would he have included the Orthodox
Khordokovsky as Jewish?
The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have
turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control
and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their
psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world,
but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of
this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader
they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and
dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.
Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting
individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.
I wonder what jewish property Putin stole.
In the USSR there was hardly any private property.
What was stolen, sold for ridiculously low prices, was state property, to former USSR
managers, and/or foreign 'investors'.
As far as I understand it, some crooks have been persecuted.
Any foreigner who, after 1990, went to live in a former USSR state can explain it.
Some did to me.
Possibly Jackson is referring to how Putin threw out Soros, and his Open Society
indoctrination organisation.
Hungary just now also threw him out.
Timmermans of the EU again threatened the E European nations, for refusing to let migrants
enter.
Soros wants multi ethnic countries
"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."
And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it
existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of
the Federal Reserve.
There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the
former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool
right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then
virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.
The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver
Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made
precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white
Christian cultures and identities.
That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever
they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of
Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and
World War 2.
What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major
voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original
junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.
But the original alliance is the same.
You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon
problem without also solving the WASP problem.
This is true only in the loosest sense. There is a huge difference between holding church
membership, or attending church, and being a Christian. Putin may have done the 1st two, but
the last is utterly unknown to him.
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there,
some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.
Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is
possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is
likely he knows what is going on.
While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form
iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly,
that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist
appropriate as well.
Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper
concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished
to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path,
he impoverishes his people even more.
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since
1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR
agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the
Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.
Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in
point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in
the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists
have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and
historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia
in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist
communists.
The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel
and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person
knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.
While I defer to no one in my loathing and contempt for the WASPs of the Northeastern
U.S., whose career of mischief began with the brutal war of conquest against my native South,
I'd would like to point out what I see as some problems in your assigning to Oliver Cromwell
to baleful title of WASP the first.
To wit: "Oliver Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and
privileges."
This simply isn't true. Menasseh ben Israel did indeed present a "Humble Address on Behalf
of the Jewish Nation" to the Lord Protector and the Counsel of State in 1655. Readmission was
opposed by most of the English people and of the Puritan pastorate. However, there was no Act
of Parliament, proclamation by Cromwell or notice from the Council of State allowing
readmittance. Some historians have "deduced" that Cromwell have Menasseh "verbal assurance
that they'd be allowed it, but those are deductions and speculation and no more. As far as sa
subsequent petition for Jews to be allowed to practice Judaism in their homes and have a
burial place outside the City of London, Cromwell referred that to the Council of State,
which took no action.
Who did grant the Jews religious tolerance and naturalized a number of Jews by an Act of
Parliament? Why, Charles II – after the Restoration.
You wrote: "made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate
non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities."
I can only assume you are referring to the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, which began in
May 1649. I assume you're aware that Ireland had been engulfed in a bloody and brutal civil
war since 1641; indeed, one of the precipitating causes of the English Civil War was the
matter of who would control the army raised to suppress the rebellion (Charles I or
Parliament). Also as you know, England was swept by fear that Charles meant to bring an Irish
army to England to suppress Parliament (and, indeed, there's probably more evidence that this
was the actual case than there is that Cromwell cut a deal with the Jews). At any rate, there
is no one single shred of evidence or even contemporary speculation that the Cromwellian
conquest was at the behest of the Jews. It should be instead regarded in the context of the
17th century wars of religion, rather than 21st century conspiracy theory. Cromwell ended the
civil war and pacified Ireland – in a brutal fashion, of course, but probably less
vicious than Wallenstein in Germany.
Or are you referring to the Scots, crushed at Preston, Dunbar and Worcester? Again, the
quarrel with the scots was over the matter of church governance, and the English
unwillingness to impost the Presbyterian system on England. If Cromwell stood for anything,
it was religious tolerance for the various sects that exploded after the Civil War; the sort
of forced conformity demanded by the Scots displeased him (see the letters to Major Crawford
in 1643).
And while both the New Englanders and English are labeled "Puritan," may I point out that
the Puritan movement was a large one, with considerable variance. Cromwell favored tolerance
and theologically tended toward a sort of univeralism (to judge by his pastors, eg Jeremiah
Burroughs); I imagine that if he had gone to New England, he'd have been chased out along
with Sarah Hutchinson and Roger Williams by the fanatical shits of Boston.
Boston is the "urgrund" of the WASP plague; not Cromwell. And while there's any number of
things to fault him for, creation of the WASP was not one of them. In theological and
existential terms, Cromwell and the New Model were probably closer to the Puritan "pioneers"
of the Appalachian and Southern frontiers – many of whom were descended of troops
planted in Ireland by Cromwell – and who of course made up the rank and file of the
Confederate States Army.
You might want to take a look at the history of the Unitarian movement. You'd find
everything you need to support your dislike of the WASP plaque there; I certainly have.
1 undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
Think of Israel. But no don't think of Isreal. That is anti Semitism
2 "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has
had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum)."
Think of US – harking back to the past of Roosevelt and Reagan and Eisenhower or to
Monroe
Think of Pap Bush working for CIA
Thinks of thousands of people – leaders, trade unionists, communist, socialists killed
by USA
3 Bill Browder, the grandson of -- – have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious
personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin."
Think of -
be afraid of the screwing the neocons They will move to China or India and denounce US sue
the country, and poison the well of the democracy and the well of the justice ,media,
religious organizations to get back at US
4 James Kirchick: -- efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants "
Think of the perversions of the beliefs and attitudes within the psyche of this false
man
He is of the same mindset that encourages Islamophobia among the clueless , zealous fervent
bible thump er and among the poor indigent uneducated misinformed white populations of France
USA Australia and Poland . He does same to the military and leftists secular outfit of
Richard Dawkins .
He then encourages to dismember Arabs countries . The half-baked moron Richard Dawkins type,
and military, and the white trash fall for it and get ready to pick up the gun for the
invisible pervasive psychopathic chants of Kirchick. He also makes sure that each and every
members of the opposite conflicting groups never stray way from kowtowing to Zionism who is
the enemy of the Islam and the Christianity and the of the respective people.
Jews definitely feel comfortable in all weather and among the separates and in all kind of
geography
The more Christian that country and its leaders become, the more the atheistic west hates
them. Too bad "Uncle Joe" wasn't still the Premier. We would treat that murderous atheist as
a beloved relative, maybe even hand him over half of eastern Europe like we did last time.
Instead, we send in LGBT protesters to disturb their new found faith.
From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.
Also waiting for that other nut who always comes with his tirades about "surrendering ukraine
to Putin", no matter what article is about.
Mike something, was it?
"talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had
committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator."
Classic garbage in, garbage out.
fact: Hitler and the Germans did not, could not have committed the crimes they are
alleged to have committed.
"we've often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And
to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in
Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do?
We didn't have the evidence."
- so called "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous
'holocaust' storyline is the message.
The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
"Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go
back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally
welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest
supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka
and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II."
There is no proof of these "pogroms" and the fake "wave of anti-semitism after World War
II".
The source of such claims are Jews who benefit / profit from making such claims.
The umpteenth serving of the classic US hegemonist pro-Putin/anti-EU line. The distinction is
thus not between those who favour the maintenance of US global hegemony and those who oppose
it. It is whether Putin is still useful as a battering ram to destroy the EU precisely so as
to maintain US global hegemony into the indefinite future. The most logical explanation of
the known facts surrounding the Ukrainian coup is that Victoria Nuland was in cahoots with
Putin. Behind Nuland, of course were the US neocons. The split came when Putin waded into the
Syrian civil war on Assad's side. By doing so he made himself a threat to Israel and, for the
neocons, the whole point of maintaining US global hegemony is to prop up Israel. Logically,
therefore, their priority became Putin's defeat and removal. The other side of the US
hegemonist camp, which seems to be motivated by something like hubris or a master race
delusion, still believes that Putin can be used to break up the EU. That's the position Mr
Cathey is arguing.
I don't think Putin is still viable as an anti-EU battering ram. The American groups that
have been financing far-right nationalism in Europe have got caught in the web of their own
contradictions. On the one hand, they preach national identity and sovereignty to us but
then, as Mr Cathey is doing here, they justify Putin's refusal to respect Ukrainian
sovereignty and the Ukrainian national identity. Secondly, European nationalism is
essentially "anti-other". That means that it is inherently anti-American, which makes newly
nationalist Europe the inevitable enemy of US domination. It also means that anti-Semitism is
inherent in European nationalism, which is probably what has Soros up in arms. The final
contradiction is that, very often, the same people who preach nationalism at us in Europe
preach white nationalism in the US. If white Americans are a single ethnic group and entitled
to live in a single political entity, then we white Europeans must also be a single ethnic
group and should also live in a single political entity (the EU, for example).
I never cease to be amused at the way in which the various American anti-EU scams cut across
each other and cancel each other out!
"WASP" in the "USA" refers fairly specifically to the Protestants of New England and New
York who as a result of the War of Northern Aggression attained complete power over the
development of the American empire. Their interests were concentrated in banking, railroads,
industry and so on. While descended from the Puritans of New England, most of them had lost
any traditional religious fervor by, oh, 1700 or so and gradually moved into loopy,
nonsensical ideologies like Transcendentalism, Unitarianism, the Social Gospel, and various
other creation-fixing endeavors like temperance, abolitionist, progressivism and so on. To
them can be attributed the Gnostic notion of the United States as God's appointed righter of
wrongs around the world, with quite coincidentally matched up with their commercial
interests. On the whole about as nasty and horrible group of people that ever walked the
earth; however. WASP does not include the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of Appalachia, the
Deep South, Texas and so on. The Bush family are WASPs. Robert E. Lee was not a WASP. Jake is
correct to disdain them; he's wrong in saying Cromwell was the archetype.
@ Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement.. yes but the Lenin
crowd were from Salonkia (1908) and Hertzl's Germany @ many above Exactly, the by name, rank
and serial number identification including dual nationalities, corporate by name ownership,
board membership, and positions, management, advisory positions or whatever.
Deeper yet into the deep state might identify the corporate officers, directors and
outside auditors who serve the needs of those identified. Bureaucrat who echo deep state
intentions might be a problem?
Who cannot name the few corporations and their owners and directors that strongly support
the neocon ideology on the Internet? Which does the intelligence gathering (spying), which
processes the data(data mining), which produces and sells OS(limits user security), which
makes sleuthing back doors for browsers and application software, which make the devices that
negotiate the bits between hardware (CPU) and software (OS), you know one bit for you the
user and a duplicate bit of your bit for deep state intelligence units.
At the next level is the global benefactors(Profiteers) . expensive war equipment makers,
oil well production gear makers, robot makers, transport organizations, phantom for hire
mercenary armies labor agencies, Democrat and Republican candidates managers to be placed on
the "vote for 5 election" ballots, inventors of the fake, producers of "the fake" into
propaganda, distributors of the propaganda designed fake news to masses in the public, and
access managers who gate, for massive fees, lobbyist into see and deal with politicians,
media giants, and power wielding bureaucrats.
As I looked through this list I realized that if the public were to deny its elected
government authority to support its neocon capitalist, the entire economy would be forced to
switch from Global to Domestic.. showering all kinds of benefits on the governed sheep
. No wonder the government is so insistent: without globalism there is no neocon-ism, without
neocon-ism open competition would flourish, the restrictions on human progress in copyrights
and patents would disappear and prices would move from controlled levels to competitive
levels.
But I do not think the neocons are "ideologues" ; unless lawless disregard for
humanity in search of profit, is an ideology. I am not even sure they are tightly organized,
they are not colonist, they are monopolist (meaning any profit potential (tangible or
intangible) will soon belong to them or be within their control. They will write laws, or get
nations to sanction, start wars, regime change, terrorize, whatever to advance and to protect
their exclusive right to competition free profit making); you might call it ownership of all
of the factors of production by whatever means is necessary. I look at them as capitalist,
who have co-opted many different governments, who have forgone their humanity, who
independently profiteer, interactively, and for a multitude of different reasons, to produce
a common collective set of extremely effective outcomes.
Interesting, the video asserts that part of Leo Strauss's philosophy was the introduction of
Plato's 'Noble Lie', which, in this case, was the bugaboo of an evil Russian Empire as a foil
to bring Americans together and avoid the inevitable collapse of liberalism into nihilism. I
wonder if anyone can confirm this as part of Strauss's gift the the neopsychoticons?
Also, pretty obvious reason for hatred of Russia is the closeness of the State and the
Church. Strauss here talks about how the secular sphere has but one purpose, providing room
for the meddlers to thrive:
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the
name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the
whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they
accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25
years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't
do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence"
budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's
their incompetence.
James Kirchick: by encouraging balkanization of ME per the plans advocated by PNAC now FDD
and Friends of Syria or SITE -Sharon-Netanahyu Joe Lieberman Kirchick favorite White Helmet
or Jishs Fishas Islam Whitewash ludicrous Jihadist and cemented in stone by Yoneen Yidod ( or
what ever is the name of that Jew ) sends those same muslims he encourages the "deplorable"
to feel suspicious and hate and same time advocating the acceptance by the countries .
"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most
unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by
virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American)))
advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.
My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:
10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is
based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to
problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and
mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law
only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive
rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established
facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal
democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with
practical programs grounded in fact and reason.
Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their
status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a
permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that
globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.
I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the
drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the
USA .
Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its
age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and
the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry,
anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal
democracy and equality".
more so even than any concern for Jewish supremacy or glorification of sodomy or all the
other shibboleths oozing out of the gaping orifices of Jewish fudge packers like Kirchick, is
a visceral, unearthly animosity (hatred) for the Western world and its (comparatively)
beautiful, well-adjusted, happy and prosperous people.
Indeed, it is the 'happy' part that drives them insane with stinging malice and seething,
rancorous rage.
I remember as a kid celebrating Christmas, and how the Jewish children I knew were not
allowed. This is all part of the carefully constructed paradigm that the Jewish elite impose
on their people to keep them resentful and envious. Eventually metastasizing into a
deep-seated hatred.
They want to see all those ruddy-cheeked Christians pay! for their pain during those
terrible years.
Like the boy who was picked last for sports or never 'got the girl', they develop a
psychological imperium of wrath, which their religion bolsters in spades.
That is why when ever they get the drop on the Gentiles (who tormented them with
good-natured hails of 'Merry Christmas!, which stung to their core, because all that love and
happiness was not for them. ) – regardless of the obvious sincerity of the
Christians. – [which made it even worse]
Eventually it roils and burns in their ids like an acid. And they want revenge. And
that's why the Palestinians, and the Syrians and Lebanese are menaced day and night.
That's why the Russians and Ukrainians and Estonians and Poles, and so many others
suffered to monstrously under the cruel Jewish, Bolshevik yoke.
It has nothing to do with fear over a re-ascendant Russia. Hardly. That's laughable.
Rather, the reason they can't abide Russians going to church and thriving and prospering,
is because it means the Russians have become happy again, and that drives them
absolutely bonkers with murderous, Talmudic rage.
Good description of them. Basically I see all their anti Russian crap, as a revenge minded
attitude so often seen from jews. They tried to overtake the largest nation, of mainly Whites
and Christians, at least once prior to 1917 jewish revolt against Russia. That was I believe
in 1905, it ended when the $$$ ended. But with another better funded, by usa and german
fellow jew banksters, attempt in 1917.
Those Bolshevik jews took over Russia first, then every eastern nation which also was
mainly a White and Christian peoples nation's. They did so basically by mass Murdering aprox
1/2 of orig populations in those nations. And now 100 years later, after Russian soviet
commies has crashed, and a huge return to prior Christian ways etc, is going gangbusters Due
to Bolsheviks and jews for the most part getting that Big Boot Out jews are so famous
for.
So now here in America we have inherited most of those Children and especially Grand Kid
jew commies of the Orig 100 years ago Russian Bolshevik butchers, torturers, and mass
murderous bastards. And besides infiltrated into All what matters in usa society and govnt
and culture, they also have as a "side agenda" of sorts a massive huge Lusting for typical
jewish blood thirsty revenge upon Russia and its Christian Whites,and of course its leader
Putin. Those jews had Russia in palm of hand, then totally Lost it. They began with around
8.5 to maybe 10-million jews in Russia/Poland soviet and today have around less than 27o,ooo
total jews within Russia iirc.
Likely it was Putin more than all other issues or reasons those, mostly jewish swindlers,
finally were also Booted Out and their scammed assets from their Raping of Russia resources
etc Taken away from them Being such mamon/money worshipers they are also so famous for, no
other thing would so piss them scamming jews off eh.
I also believe that after the jewish 1917 revolt in Russia, when top control jews there
with plans to use control of Russia as largest nation on earth, to gain their foamed at mouth
lust of a JWO control made reality. That it finally dawned on them that in order to Rule as a
JWO one world govnt of jewry Vs all gentile others, they could never do so without a huge
Navy like usa has.
You must have Navy ships to Carry Jet fighter planes To distant areas you wish to rule
over, because most other nations wont simply agree to being jew-ruled with a JWO clan of
fanatical jewry. Ergo you need also Ocean Waters, warm waters to Park said ships and navigate
those waters to get to those other reluctant nations. Russia failed for such scheme plans for
jewry.
So since so many of the tribe were in usa already .Just join fellow tribe in usa, and turn
America and its military etc into a huge Tool of international jewry so to complete jwo plans
that Russia didn't fulfill.
And both the agenda of jewish revenge, as well as their desired jwo plans probably play an
equal part within those evil nasty minds that they are also so famous for having.
In response to your query, the difference between the US and Russia is that in geopolitics
the latter has performed well above the cards it has been dealt with.
And where, dear sir, can we find any "religious fervor" in the likes of that beau ideal of
the Southern antebellum statesman, John C. Calhoun? Calhoun began life as a Calvinist (a
Presbyterian) and ended it as a kind of Unitarian. This is almost the exact trajectory as the
religious life of the Boston Yankee culture. The Old Nullificator was backcountry
Scotch-Irish – as opposed to WASP – but Unitarian crap is Unitarian crap no
matter where it exists.
Calhoun was, of course, a giant among those of the 1830s and '40s who pushed the South
from the 18th century American conception of slavery – as something that should be
contained until its eventual death – to a new conception that exclaimed, vigorously,
that slavery was a legitimate part of the American way of life. No, no. I cannot abide this
poison. If you all want to condemn Hamilton and Sumner and all, go ahead. I'll agree. But
when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the American republic as
the protection of slavery, he was right. And he was neither fanatical nor alone in his view.
To this day, we tend to conflate Lincoln and the anti-slavery bloc with the radical
Republican abolitionist bloc. This is unfair.
General Meade, the victor of Gettysburg, was condemned by the radical Republicans in
Congress because of their hatred for Lincoln. Some unity there.
The Anti-Federalist Marylander Luther Martin was right to criticize the powerful framers
for allowing the slavery problem to go on, for enshrining it in the Constitution. Too many
antebellum Southern elites decided that the likes of Martin were wrong.
You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few
miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin. One was even born
in Pennsylvania, and fought in his own hometown during Lee's invasion.
But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. No one in the North
forced the Southern elites to accept a conception of black slavery as a "positive good" (i.e.
James Henry Hammond). The idea of a "War of Northern Aggression" is convenient and cute, but
I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I have.
And it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had, then
it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and the
Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types
in the South as there were in Boston.
P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described
himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading.
Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true
believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US
elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to
be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse
"righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and
bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right"
and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot
and resent being thwarted from stealing even more. Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to
be exposed as a king with no clothes by various countries switching the trade to their own
currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the US dollar and US government debt. The
hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal
aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain, like
all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about inevitable course of history.
Wally, by keeping Americans always focused on Hitler and Nazis and SS storm troops, they
will not have time, nor ever find out what the Real True 20th century crimes against humanity
were. When starting in 1917 JEWS that invented communism, and Used it as main means to mass
murder almost 1/2 of eastern euro nations and Russia itself Those crimes and mass killings
jewry should get blame for makes whatever bads or evils done by Hitler and Nazis Pale in
comparison, and makes german Nazis look like small kindergarten kiddies at play in back yard
sand box with wooden swords.
Thanks to internet over past 15 years, many usa folks are waking up and getting very
jewized up.
Which we know is main reason such massive attempts at internet censorship has been
occurring. And is happening at a furious pace like no other agenda we have seen in our lives.
Plus the EU and Canada nations non stop Prison terms for truth tellers of any jew issues.
Soon to arrive here in usa with 99.9% of us senate and congress full approval votes when
pressed by AIPAC and 599 Other jewish usa orgs.
We can toss out our sun glasses as our American future does Not look bright at all. Unless
we see soon a massive wake up call and enough armed citizens willing to take back America.
That too looks very dim so far.
I think Jake should say WASP elites rather than just WASP. The majority of the US Anglo-Saxon
stock are working class and middle class who, along with the Catholic Irish, German, and
Italian, have made this country what it is; and in their demographic decline we see the
decline of the United States. The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
In every political question we should remember to look past grandiose abstractions and see
the operative gut loyalties, both our own and those of the competing sides. What is going on
with Russia is simply Jewish mania to prevent Russia from being Russian and keep it under
Jewish or surrogate rule. Similarly, NATO and the EU are now just enforcers of political
correctness. The Slavs and other illiberal peoples of central and eastern Europe are to be
re-subjugated now that Communism is not there to persecute the priests and re-educate the
sexists. The author, in citing ancient persecutions of Jews to excuse the machinations of
current Jews, attempts to meet his critic half-way. Some day perhaps we will be able to state
the truth without the dance of apology.
Here is an analogy: Suppose in the 90s we thought it critical to weigh in on the Northern
Irish Question. Suppose we had a Department of Irish Affairs to formulate US policy, and it
was staffed by Clancy, Reilly, Finnegan, O'Toole and O'Meara. Would anyone hesitate to raise
the issue of objectivity? Or suppose our middle-eastern team consisted of 5 guys named
Muhammad. Do you think there might be questions?
The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)
ah, so it was Dubya all along!
what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a
tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!
So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of
((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind
the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !
sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American
middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!
The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless
suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going
down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class
Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a
transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and
catastrophic expense of America and the American people.
I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to
Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As
Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?
Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that
printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the
ZUSA?
Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to
benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing
so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their
marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians
to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up
dead.
The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize
Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the
West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and
prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime
example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted
should we be so inclined?
It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats
cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West
organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate
"government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine
is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and
fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did
was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed
for that.
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best.
Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as
Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater
Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria
Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria
Thanks for your eloquent response. A few thoughts:
1. I wouldn't extend Calhoun's religion, ot the lack thereof, to the "common soldier" of
the Confederacy. You might take a look at Fehrenbach's "Lone Star" history of Texas; he
understands the "puritanism" of the South.
2.
But when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the
American republic as the protection of slavery, he was right.
–> sorry, I don't think "original sin" is attributable to nations. History is a
bloodbath, and always will be, and the whole notion that slavery is some sort of "sin"
demanding atonement is quite ridiculous. That's the sort of gnosticism practiced by the
Bostonians that played sure a huge part in causing the War of Nort.. er. War for Southern
Independence. Far as antebellum slavery itself, might I recommend the work of Genovese and
Fogelberg on the character of American slavery? A review of how exactly the victorious
Yankees and their Republican bosses provided for the liberated slaves after Appomattox is
enlightening.
3.
But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter.
Saint Abe himself admitted he connived South Carolina into opening fire.
4.
I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I
have.
So we have that in common!
5.
nd it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had,
then it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and
the Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone
types in the South as there were in Boston.
This is speculation on your part, so hardly the truth. Stonewall Jackson, of course, would
have been happy to bring fire and sword to the North. Probably Edward Ruffin, too. But at the
same time, the South was primarily acting a defensive capacity during the war, not as a force
of invasion.
5.a: "
Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were
in Boston."
hellfire and brimstone in what sense?
6,
P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described
himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.
-- yes, AND? What's your point? what's this to do with anything? When the Confederate
memorial in Beaumont, Texas was dedicated around the turn of the last century, the local
rabbi gave opening remarks. Different creeds tended to get along somewhat better in Dixie.
That's a well known fact.
7.
You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few
miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin.
Why would I find that controversial? Are you suggesting I was arguing for a "celtic
south"? I always thought the notion ridiculous. I know Grady McWhiney and others push it, but
it's inaccurate to say the least.
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in
the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading
lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those
"black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any
protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep
don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
As I pointed out in my last comment on the previous Korea thread, only the UNSC sanctions
are legal--Outlaw US Empire sanctions have no legal force outside its borders and can be freely
ignored. It's entirely possible Russia will use its position as UNSC President this month to
introduce a resolution canceling or greatly scaling back UNSC sanctions.
That almost the entire Imperial Establishment has given the Finger to the entire affair
isn't being ignored by the rest of the world, the EU in particular.
Although short, the Global Times link I provided has useful information as does the
Black Agenda Report item I linked to in my comment previous to my last on that
thread.
I very much approve of b's linking what was just accomplished with the NPT and hope other
writers pick it up and help further broadcast his very important point.
As for 100% denuclearization of Korea, lots of nuclear power plants will need to be replaced
and decommissioned, and that will likely take several decades to attain.
One can hope that an historical movement's begun to finally decolonize those nations
occupied by the Outlaw US Empire upon WW2's end. Admittedly, the Asian nations will find such a
process much easier than those in Europe. I doubt I'll live to see it, but somehow I can't find
any reason for Germany to continue being occupied in 2045, a full century after the end of WW2.
But if Germany is to become free, it cannot afford any more Merkels.
The root is neoliberal government that came to power in 2015
Notable quotes:
"... Why is any of this still "surprising" ..."
"... Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term "ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now. ..."
"... Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little hope. Keynes' BANCOR was the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible. ..."
Thanks for the link. I will be spending some time thinking of what Argentina would best
employ as best practices from where it is.
Would they be best off if they stopped issuing such high paying bonds? Should they pay them
all off and stop with it. It does appear to me that issuing bond after bond is one of the
single most dangerous things you can do.
It would appear to me to be a superior practice to sell what you produce for the best price
you can get on the open markets and dictate the value of your currency.
I'll have to do some more study here.
Again, thanks for the link.
You're uttering the discourse of the most recalcitrant neo-liberal cum
austerity-fundamentalists around.
The US doesn't tax soybean exports. Argentina needs to maximize its exports to earn
foreign exchange.'
it's misleading to say the least to draw a comparison between how the US handles soybean
exports and Argentina does it. They're around a quarter of the latter's exports, barely a
hundredth of the latter's.
The US will never have forex issues, Argentina does have them, and they are very serious.
You make it as if simply exporting commodities will fill the country's economy with USD,
while in truth those dollars will be neatly parked in tax heavens. Eliminating tax and
controls over Argentina's biggest exports -agricultural commodities- is in practice as if
these commodities were produced not in this country but in some foreign territory over which
only the very few who hold most of the land are sovereign. Which is what the current
administration has been doing for the past two years.
You also make it as if the current situation where the value of the peso is given over
completely to whatever short-term speculators feel like doing with it whenever LEBACs are due
is more desirable than the capital controls imposed by the previous government. These
prevented the hurtful rapid rise we're seeing in the exchange rate and reduced the negative
consequences of the fiscal deficit thus allowing significant investment in and expansion of
the real economy.
Addressing the fiscal deficit through increased value added and income tax is something
that clearly benefits the owner over the working class and depresses private consumption. I
can only sarcastically wonder who would want such a thing.
I don't feel the need or the duty to defend the previous government, but victimization of
the Sociedad Rural is something I just lack the words to condemn strongly enough
Argentina is probably the most self sufficient country on earth. It has everything,
fertile land that produces an abundance of wheat, barley, oats, rye, wine grapes. As well as
oil, gas. uranium, silver, gold, lead, copper, zinc. Foreigners are well aware of the wealth
in Argentina and are more than willing to lend to Argentinian governments and companies. This
is why Cristina Kirchner refused to give in to the US vulture funds as it dissuaded
foreigners from believing that reckless lending would always be rewarded. Macri ponied up,
restarting the old familiar economic doom cycle. As always its the old dog for the long road
and the pup for the puddle. Macri is now in a place that he chose, the puddle. As long as
foreig lenders remain reckless Argentina will remain mired in the mud, well short of its
potential. I was last there in 2008 when the country was booming. When I heard of Macri's
plan to pay the vulture funds I knew they were headed for disaster. This is just the
beginning.
Those "foreign lenders" can't be called "reckless." Some, maybe most among them always
seem to profit from the looting, whether by "bailouts" or "backstops" from governments like
the US that for "geopolitical reasons" facilitate that lending, or by extortion after the
first-round lenders (who know the risks, of course -- they are big boys and girls after all)
have been forestalled.
Call them "wreckers," maybe. Like early denizens of the Florida Keys, and other places,
who set fires or put up lamps that resembled lighthouses to lure passing ships onto the sands
and rocks where their cargoes and the valuables of their drowned passengers and crews could
be stripped.
Why is any of this still "surprising" to anyone?! Most countries in the world
(non G7/G8) are forced to go into foreign debt in order to pursue their "development"
initiatives. They are told they can export themselves out of trouble but the "free
trade" (more like unfair trade!) mantra puts them at a distinct disadvantage –
"unequal
exchange" was the term Marx used for it.
Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term
"ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and
trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now.
Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little
hope. Keynes' BANCOR was
the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left
to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible.
Bolton must be "turning and burning." Good! Will Kim survive this at home? We will see. Will the North Koreans actually follow
through on this? We will see. Will the US follow through on this? We will see. Who will be the poor bastard who will be the first
McDonald's manager in Pyongyang? Will he end his days in the Gulag? What will Nancy Pelosi say about this? Where was Kim's dishy
sister during the Singapore expedition? She is the head of propaganda in NOKO. pl
I couldn't be happier with the outcome of this summit. No one is talking war in Korea anymore. So Trump gave away future military
exercises on the Peninsula and characterized them as provocative. So what? In exchange we have a North Korea feeling a little
less threatened. The idea of a denuclearized Peninsula could lead to a minimal or even nonexistent US presence along with a complete
dismantling of the North's nuclear weapons program. That would be grand. There will be a lot of fault found in this summit and
its outcome, but I don't care. This was a bold and courageous move on Trump's part. Some may think it was a courage born out of
ignorance, but it was also born out of a willingness to try something new, a willingness to deal with KJU as a partner. This is
refreshing. Trump done good and the world is better today than it was a few short months ago.
Perhaps Trump can apply this same reasoning to other military deployments and exercises. Recognize their potential provocativeness
and withdraw. Withdraw from Syria. Withdraw from Europe. Apply the same type of conciliatory engagement to Iran, Cuba and others
that he showed to North Korea. Now that would be a legacy.
Trump is blowing holes in old paradigms. The concepts he's applying aren't particularly genius; rather just sensible, but
he's the only one who seems to be able think outside the box enough to even consider making a try for a new way. I'm sure that
a lot of prep work went into this historic meeting; lots of wheeling and dealing. However, the simple yet elegant, idea behind
it all is that it's better for all parties to be friends than enemies. Trump has transcended all the moralizing that holds back
others (e.g."But North Korea has gulags!"). He realizes that redemption of bad actors is possible through friendship and prosperity.
An adversarial relationship fixes nothing unless an actual existential war is waged and one winner emerges from the carnage- and
war is costly. This kind of acting on cost/benefit analysis is one reason why some of us voted for a businessman as opposed to
a career pol. Glad you are able to give credit where it's due.
Now if Trump can just blow holes in the old paradigms concerning Iran and Cuba. Now would be the time to do it. Obama was doing
that in the case of Iran and Cuba and the neocons and Republicans gave him holy hell for daring to question those old paradigms.
If Trump could get over supporting anything Obama supported, I believe he could carry these policies of reconciliation to fruition
despite the opposition. He's like the honey badger. He just don't give a f#ck. And that's just what the situation calls for.
The ultimate paradigm that needs holes blown into it is Israel's parasitic relationship with the US. I've said it before. The
sooner Trump realizes our policies regarding Israel are a cost center, the better off we will all be.
IMO, he'll get there. First he needs to build momentum and trust. He has to prove himself to the world. NoKo is a great
place to start. The neocons and borg are less invested in certain outcomes there - therefore the probability of sabotage is lower.
Trump has to deal with both the external powers as well as the internal (I think the internal are the bigger barriers to success).
I don't think he really gives a flying f###k about how Kushner or his daughter feel about Israel. He tossed Israel and the US
rightwing a bone w/ the embassy move. That's as much as they'll get from here on out if they get too pushy. Despite some Islamic
quarters making big noise about it, I don't see them actually doing anything more than protesting and getting shot for it. We've
annihilated Iraqi uniformed forces twice in recent history. That serves as an object lesson to the rest of the countries in the
region. So a cost free bone toss by Trump as far as he is concerned.
I agree largely with your post, however I just cannot see how it can lead to further withdrawals, simply because it kind of
implies the US is there for the benefit of others and not for themselves. They could pull out of Europe now. Pretty sure everyone
knows Russia is not going to invade Europe, right?
But yes, Trump has shown good faith, and lets hope NK reciprocate. I think they will. The idea that Kim wants his country in
its current state is just ignorant.
I'd say the same reason why the US has bases all over the world. Please excuse my ignorance, I am just a lay man with a keen interest.
Why have bases in Japan? Or indeed anywhere? Hegemony, no? Why not pull out years ago? Genuine questions. The US seems to want
to check EU growth - why would they pull out their military presence there? Or, say, Japan? There are no "allies", just overlapping
interests, right?
Since Commodore Perry's mission to Japan in 1853, what has US gained except war and unemployment in her interactions with Japan?
Would it not have been a superior policy to leave Japan alone to wallow in her brutal feudalism and delay or prevent the unleashing
of that brutality on the rest of East Asia?
One could say the same about all empires I guess. The pursuit of power and domination seems to cloud all judgment. So, in your
opinion, should the US have any bases outside of the US? I am from the UK, so there are still bases lingering from our own days
of rule. They really just kept as forward operating positions, right? For example, the UK base in Cyprus used for ME operations.
The two Cyprus bases are just springboards for adventurism. IMO we should abandon NATO as a vestige of the Cold War an leave you
Europeans to your own devices. Korea? We should leave as soon as Trump can arrange it. Australia? Why are we there? So that we
can meddle in Asia? Where else? I can't think of anywhere we should stay off our own territory.
LeMoore00 "Hegemony" as a goal or reward has no value except to the collective ego of the Borg. If there was some economic value
derived from these commitments and deployments there would be some basis for your remark but there is not.
So is Trump genuinely trying to extricate the US from these situations? There is a view amongst the commentariat that perhaps
he is trying to alienate allies in order for them to begin cutting lossening ties with the US, causing the very isolation Trump
made a significant part of his campaign. Thoughts?
South Korea is strong and rich enough to look after the North. The complicated matter of how reunification will occur will be
for them to work out between them. The nuclear issue is really the easy part.
The necessary framework for nuclear disarmament or re-unification is a Global Peace - a la Peace of Yalta - is lacking; in
my opinion.
We have entered a period of Warring States - waiting, I suppose, for the Shi, Hwang Ti moment - but until such time a multipolar
world does not make itself conducive to such strategic settlements - certainly not with NATO still existing.
When one considers the fact that Arms Control is dead, NPT is dead, Peace of Yalta is dead, JCPOA is dead then one cannot rightly
expect a strategic settlement on the Korean Peninsula between US and DPRK.
No doubt, for what can the NK leadership conclude when they have seen a consistent foreign policy -be Republican or Democrat-
of destroying any nation whose policies are seen as a threat by the US? There is no basis of trust.
Trump deserves huge credit for the way he handled himself with a man who has been demonized by our propaganda ministry media
and the deep state criminals who have been trying to pull a regime change in Washington since January 2017...
I have to admit I gave up on Trump quite a while ago...today changes everything...
Is it surreal that President Trump is the most moderate and sensible voice not only in the room but in the entire country...?
This is what the people voted for...and this is what 'presidential' looks like...Trump is headed for the history books in a
very very large way...
I have to believe that he is consolidating control of the machinery of state...I was actually first surprised by Pompeo's breakthrough
and surprise visit to DPRK...and even Bolton has turned out not to be the spoiler I had feared...
What in the world is going on here...?
Did the universe just turn upside down...?
All of the questions Col Lang asks are relevant, but just the huge success that this day has become overshadows everything
for now...
What next...will Putin and Trump finally get together and really start putting the screws to the enemies of mankind that are
besetting both men...?
This seems to be the meat of the summit from the George Stephanopoulos interview:
G: Did you talk about pulling troops out? U.S. troops out of South Korea.
T: We didn't discuss that, no. But we're not gonna play the war games. You know, I wanted to stop the war games, I thought
they were very provocative. But I also think they're very expensive. We're running the country properly, I think they're very,
very expensive. To do it, we have to fly planes in from Guam -- that's six and a half hours away. Big bombers and everything else,
I said, 'Who's paying for this?' I mean, who pays, in order to practice.
Apparently the South Koreans were caught by surprise (again).
I'm assuming canceling war games once in a while is fine....but what happens to readiness if they are cancelled over a long
time and how important (and specific to a North Korean context) are these games? Experts...please weigh in? How long would it
take North Korea to take over South Korea with conventional troops and weapons?
Kim invading SK, its 600,000 effectives (3mln reserves), 30,000 US servicemen & nukes & Carrier strike group, on the eve of a
diplomatic breakthrough that could end up with engraving his name in gold throughout history...
Sounds a bit like Assad gassing his civilians right on the brink of a strategic victory. But on a devastating, enormous, monumental
scale.
i dont know if you aware that south korean military is estimated 5x stronger compared to NK , and it is a folly to compare the
1950 SK and NK in term of combat strength , readiness and whatnot
The key condition that triggered this series of events was NK's development of a nuclear weapon and delivery capability. That
put KJU in a position to make conciliatory moves towards SK and the rest followed. However, Trump's disposition to try something
The key condition that triggered this series of events was NK's development of a nuclear weapon and delivery capability. That
put KJU in a position to make conciliatory moves towards SK and the rest followed. However, Trump's disposition to try something
new was also instrumental... and fortuitous.
I meant it's fortuitous for us. I agree it's inherent in his character. That's why i think it's entirely possible he and/or
his organization conspired with Russians to circumvent election laws and norms to gain some kind of advantage in the election.
He would feel no inhibition to trying something new. It's inherent in his character.
Here's a fascinating tidbit on the Trump Teams PR efforts...
White House Created Production Video to Assist Singapore Summit Talks With North Korea .
https://theconservativetree...
Details are surfacing of a video put together by the White House to assist in diplomacy messaging toward Kim Jong-un and the team
of North Korea negotiators. According to reports, toward the end of the talks between President Trump and Kim Jong-un the video
was shared in both Korean and English languages to the audience of both teams. The video was also shared with the international
media audience prior to President Trump's remarks at the press conference
------------------------
The 4 min video is very well done, and as one commenter pointed out is a great example of positive propaganda.
Perhaps his hiring as NSC chief was a case of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Or as LBJ put it, "Have them
inside the tent pi**ing out."
Kim's sister was in Singapore. She is the one who handed him all the documents to be signed , after bringing him the pen which
has been dusted and verified by a NOKO agent.
Seems like Trump echoed what I assume is a N Korean view..no nukes anywhere around the Korean peninsula which, I'd imagine, in
the view, would include S. Korea and Japan and perhaps...and in return POTUS gets to build some resorts on N Korean beaches...I
hope I'm wrong but that seemed the between the lines message
No more war games with S. Korea??? as added inducement for Kim..to sign an agreement that didn't expand beyond previous agreements
with respect to nukes?
"and in return POTUS gets to build some resorts on N Korean beaches." If this is not irony you may actually be too stupid for
SST. that would put you in an elite group.
If you want some insight into DT's or Kim's personalities, look at the list of people Sammy "The Bull" Gravano murdered. DT and
Kim are both criminals who have risen to the "top" through criminality. This current claptrap is DT trying to bring out the base
for the midterms. How are things in Yemen these days?
I'm pretty certain that zero of Trump's supporters live in Yemen. How about the Obama replacement 2020 candidate; are they going
to run on liberating Yemen? I'm sure that will pull the democratic base out to vote.
"... It is our joy that during the hard years of the war the Red Army and the Soviet people were led by the wise and experienced leader of the Soviet Union – the GREAT STALIN. ..."
"... "He found Russia working with wooden plows and left her equipped with atomic piles" ..."
"... "Wait, if the revolution hadn't happened, Russia would have simply frozen at 1913 levels forever?" ..."
"... "If Tsarist Russia was so industrially backward, where did her working class come from, with the Bolshevik Party as its self-proclaimed leadership?" ..."
"... physical eradication ..."
"... Petropavlovsk ..."
"... History of a Town ..."
"... so deep ..."
"... Map of the "Future Europe" (not like Wilhelm II would have liked it!) ..."
"... lesser ..."
"... starets ..."
"... Children of the Arbat ..."
"... In turn, this makes me wonder–had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked ..."
"... with the caveat that I do not consider it politically realistic even for the USSR ..."
Vladislav Pravdin – GREAT STALIN (1949)
.
It is our joy that
during the hard years of the war the Red Army and the Soviet people were led by the wise and experienced
leader of the Soviet Union – the GREAT STALIN.
Translator's Foreword (Fluctuarius Argenteus)
And now for something completely
different. Instead of snippets from larger works, here's Egor Kholmogorov's two-part takedown of the notion
of "Stalin as a Russia national hero" merged into a single text.
The relationship of Russian nationalism
and Neo-Stalinism is a torturous one. Modern Neo-Stalinism emerged in the early 2000s as one aspect of an
anti-Yeltsinist and anti-Liberal consensus, an attempt to reconcile the Imperial and Soviet past under the
banner of a broadly defined Russian patriotism and do away with the kind of historical nihilism that painted
Stalin as the ultimate expression of a "millennium-old Russian yearning for slavery". Many, including the
author of the article and its translator, paid lip service to this movement in their younger years.
By approximately 2005, the movement had
gone mainstream, and by 2012, it completely morphed into a cancerous outgrowth. The nerve of early
Neo-Stalinist rhetoric was the belief that Stalin had made a U-turn from (((Old Bolshevik
cosmopolitanism))), legalised some forms of Russian national consciousness, and generally put Russian
history back on track (i.e.,
was not true Marxism, and it was good
). The Neo-Stalinism of The New Tens is virulently hostile towards
the slightest hint of Russian patriotism and a positive appraisal of pre-1917 Russia, going as far as to
condemn liking Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great (both lionised under Stalin) as "Vlasovism" (oh the
sweet irony).
Needless to say, this text provoked some
gnashing of teeth in the Neo-Stalinist camp.
AK's Foreword
After
my takedown of Lenin
, some
people suggested that I extend it to Stalin. But what point is there when we have Kholmogorov? I agree with
this 90%, down to the biographical details of my own modest (if still regrettable)
quasi-Stalinophile sentiments
a decade ago.
This is something that afflicted many
Russian patriots of that time, being part of a general rejection of the Russophobic narratives of the
liberal elites. Support for Stalin became
intensely tribal,
and a means to troll those people. However, it has now gone on for far too long. That
particular culture war is no longer relevant, and lingering Stalinophilia now only serves to distort Russian
history and Russia's self-image of itself. It is time to put that mustachioed, medals-bedecked Halloween
costume back into the cupboard.
Although we may quibble with some details
– I had quite a few myself as I edited this – this piece may be considered to be as close to a Russian
nationalist statement on Stalin as any.
38% of Russian citizens polled by Levada Center
put Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of
Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I, Gagarin, Leo Tolstoy, Georgy
Zhukov, Catherine II, Lermontov, Lomonosov, Mendeleev, and even Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The only
non-Russians who made it to the top are Napoleon, Newton, and Einstein.
Well well well This is an obvious
disgrace. If trustworthy, it reveals than the average Russian doesn't have the vaguest idea about the course
of Russian and world history and the true importance of historical figures. To be fair, sociologists aren't
that far from the masses, mixing in the same poll politicians, generals, writers, and scientist, whose
relative importance just can't be measured by the scale. Essentially, this a list of the best-advertised
personalities.
The absolute disaster here is that, in
2017, almost a good half our citizens are confident enough to place Stalin at #1 in Russian and world
history. Of course, the Generalissimo here is playing the part of an epic or even mythological hero; the
details and real achievements do not matter. For our people, Stalin is a byword for "a strong Russia to be
reckoned with in the global arena". And this strength acts as an acceptable rationale for everything else:
millions of murdered Russians, from great scientists to common villagers, demolished churches and martyred
priests, a completely fleeced countryside Everything is pardoned and justified, following Isaac Deutscher's
formula
:
"He found Russia working with wooden plows and left her equipped with atomic piles"
(which is frequently misattributed to Winston Churchill instead of this obscure Trotskyite and has "atomic
piles" replaced with the "atomic bomb").
In other words, Stalin is seen by the
Russian consciousness as the architect of our incredible grandeur, which was enabled by the tremendous
industrial leap forward and Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This grandeur is enough to excuse his
transformation of Russia into a hellish bloodbath of terror.
If we put mythological and epical
thinking aside and deal with historical facts, is Stalin's #1 place among the greatest personalities in
world history, afforded by our compatriots and sociologists, in any way justified?
I have never been into anti-Stalinist
hysterics. I even published multiple articles calling to refrain from cartoonish nihilism while evaluating
Stalin's contribution to our country's Victory in the Great Patriotic War. I am an even stauncher opponent
of identifying Russia with Stalin, of using Stalin's horrifying atrocities as a pretext to erase our
national heroism and demand "reparations", "territorial concessions", and other vile nonsense. I couldn't
care less about Stalin being distasteful to other countries and nations – the Russians are blameless before
them.
What really concerns me is Stalin's
place in the history of the Russian people. And it is in this domain, no thanks to meddlesome "National
Stalinists" who go as far as to
put Stalin on icons
, where the role of this historical figure is inflated to infinity and beyond. It now
turns out that it wasn't Stalin's good fortune that the Russians stayed loyal to him during the military
debacle of 1941, as he claimed himself in his famous
Victory Toast
. No, it was a great honor and mercy for the Russians on Stalin's part, because he
condescended to rule them, shoot them, exile them where they could plow permafrost, let them get slaughtered
in Nazi encirclements, and starve them with famines. It turns out that we Russians are allegedly unworthy of
Stalin, our Messiah.
This boundless and hypertrophied
propaganda poisoning the minds of our countrymen is sometimes even more obscene than the cult of the Great
Leader as it existed in his lifetime. To heighten Stalin's pedestal, they keep placing more and more
falsehood at its base, be it myths of a pathetic backward Tsarist Russia or new slander against victims of
the regime, long rehabilitated by state security and never held in contempt by the nation or history. Even
the greatest of victims, such as
Nikolai Vavilov
, are now dragged through the mud, and the most despicable of rogues, such as
Trofim Lysenko
, are now lionized, for the sole purpose of keeping Stalin's halo intact.
That is why we have to return to the
question of Stalin the historical figure and not Stalin the myth, and enquire into the degree and character
of his greatness.
The first foundation stone of Stalin's
pedestal is the Industrialization. Allegedly, the very Russia that languished in backwardness under the
pathetically incompetent Tsars made a huge industrial leap under Stalin, storming into global industrial
leadership, beating Hitler, and becoming a superpower.
This claim is false in several
respects. First, Tsarist Russia wasn't backward either in industry or in military technology. The country
was developing dynamically, and there is no reason to suggest she would have reached a lower level of
industrial progress than the one attained by the USSR in 1939. When we were little kids, Soviet textbooks
hypnotized us with diagrams of industrial development compared to "Russia in 1913". And no one would pose
the question:
"Wait, if the revolution hadn't happened, Russia would have simply frozen at 1913 levels
forever?"
. And here's another naïve question no one came to ask Soviet history teachers:
"If
Tsarist Russia was so industrially backward, where did her working class come from, with the Bolshevik Party
as its self-proclaimed leadership?"
Russian industrialization began in the
1890s mostly thanks to the efforts of Count Sergei Witte, who was a follower of the great German economist
Friedrich List, the theorist of the forces of production (a term later plagiarized by Karl Marx) and
protectionism. An active ally of Witte's was Dmitry Mendeleev, not only a famous chemist but also an
economist who organised the Russian oil industry and also followed List's principles of economic
protectionism.
Enjoying the complete support of
Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II, Witte achieved an impressive surge in industrial development.
However, he was often criticised for overstraining the Russian peasantry to achieve said surge, which
backfired with the unrest of 1905-06 that coincided with a cyclic crisis in world economy. In 1909, Russia
saw the start of a new economic boom and a new wave of industrialization overseen by Peter Stolypin.
Stolypin's approach was much more
merciful to the peasantry than Witte's. The countryside stopped being an economic donor and became a
full-fledged partner, reaping the benefits of industrialization together with urban areas. The Great War,
despite extreme conditions, gave an even greater boost to Russia's military and industrial development. It
was was the Bolshevik Revolution, as well as the ensuing "War Communism" and Civil War, which caused the
terrible desolation that almost plunged the country into a new Stone Age. As a member of the Bolshevik
leadership, Stalin was directly responsible for that.
Evidently, to endure as a Great Power
(and, consequently, protect the Bolshevik dictatorship from being deposed by a foreign invasion), Russia
couldn't stay at the rock bottom where Bolshevism had flung her. Hence the idea of resuming
industrialization, now under a new Communist management and based on Communist ideas. Stalinism didn't
attempt anything new here, because industrialization had already been running for a quarter of a century
under the Tsars and was in any case supported by all rival Communist factions. Stalin's contribution to
industrialization is limited to inventing a new method, not based on strong-arming the countryside (as with
Witte) or robbing it blind (as proposed by Trotsky and
Pyatakov
).
Stalin's industrialization was powered
by the
physical eradication
of the Russian countryside via forced collectivization, punitive
expeditions, mass exile, famine, and terror. Yes, this method of industrialization had been previously
unknown to the wider world and could be perfectly dispensed with, as demonstrated by Tsarist Russia. But can
the invention of cannibalism be considered a contribution to the culinary arts? Probably not.
To Stalin's credit, he was very
successful in simultaneously bleeding the country dry to gain funds for industrialization with exploiting
the vicissitudes of the global market. The Great Depression engulfed the entire world, flooding the market
with cheap imported machinery and tractors, as well as jobless American engineers. In this respect, Stalin's
industrialization turned out to be cheaper for the USSR than if it had happened at the peak of the global
business cycle. But let's not forget that Russian bread and Russian exports also became cheaper cheaper. To
turn a profit, Soviet industrialization needed not just cheap labor, but a slave-like one, spurred by a
famine stemming from Stalin's 1930-31 attempts at monopolizing global grain exports. As grain prices kept
falling during the Great Depression, the Soviet Union was forced to increase export volume and thus
physically decimate its own citizenry with starvation and terror.
In 1929, the Soviets exported 1.3
million metric tons of grain worth $68 a ton, earning $88 million. In 1930, the exports amounted to 4.8
million tons worth $45 to $60 a ton, netting a marvelous $288 million in profits. However, in October 1930,
grain prices on the world market collapsed. After completely fleecing the peasantry and exporting 5.2
million tons, Stalin earned a paltry $72 million. At the same time, a mass urban exodus from the countryside
required greater grain procurements for the domestic market as well. Combined with plummeting grain harvests
in 1931-32, this would lead to a terrible famine, now appropriated by Ukrainian nationalists under the name
of "Holodomor" and "genocide" (in reality, the Kuban and Volga regions didn't suffer any less).
Stalin's great contribution to
industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze Age or plantation economy, but in an
economy of the Industrial Age, a feat hitherto unknown to human history. Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt
because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the work
teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and had
decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards. Stalin demonstrated that Southern slave owners
could compete with the industry of the Union if only they had abandoned their paternalistic views of their
slaves and sent them, overseen by cruel taskmasters, to build factories, roads, and mines
Low labor costs, achieved through
extreme coercion and terror, did make the USSR capable of undertaking projects that hadn't been considered
economically viable in Tsarist Russia, such as the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, dependent on both
Kuznetsk coal and Urals ore. When capital was the main factor of production, such projects wouldn't have
made a profit. The historical Russian model of industrialization was capital-intensive: the Morozovs,
Ryabushinkys, Tereschenkos, Putilovs, Konovalovs and other tycoons invested in costly machinery, often more
advanced than in neighboring Germany. Based on this trend, the Russian-American economist Alexander
Gerschenkron wrote of the advantages of "economic backwardness", that is, a belated industrialization.
The Bolsheviks blew the old Russian
industry to smithereens. However, the Great Leader and the Great Teacher successfully triumphed over the
laws of economics. The leading economic factor in Soviet industrial projects, in Soviet circumpolar
canal-digging and railroad construction, was
labor
. Slave labor. The profitability of most
industrial projects soared, as a train full of Gulag convicts acted as a replacement for costly machinery,
which was doubly economical: money was saved on both expensive equipment and maintenance for the workers
themselves.
Stalin sought to apply the same
principle of making labor the main industrial factor while lowering the importance of capital everywhere,
including science.
Sharashkas
and threats of arrest turned out to be a better stimulus for scientific progress, in the
short run at least, than German sausages and American mansions with swimming pools. Alas, biology is
different from mechanics: Vavilov couldn't get wheat chromosomes to
vernalize
even at gunpoint, which ended in his elimination and the rise of Lysenko, who promised to
impose Stalinist labor discipline even on plant life
Is enriching global economic thought
with the principle of forced labor superiority to the capital enough to make Stalin the greatest person in
history? I don't think so. Russia used to have its own model of industrialization, which had produced
excellent results and created an industrially developed economy integrated into the global economic system.
Of course, it wasn't without its failings, and had patent elements of financial dependence. But didn't the
USSR have the same kind of dependence on foreign credit, both during and after the industrialization, though
only working harder to conceal it? Professor Katasonov's calculations
reveal
that all profits from Soviet exports, all the gold pillaged from the Church and the general
populace, all the money made from
art sales
couldn't pay for the equipment imported by the USSR. This meant that the Soviets were
systematically dependent on foreign loans, which Stalin himself acknowledged on multiple occasions in his
correspondence. In this respect, the Great Leader merely differed from the Tsar in hiding his debts from the
masses.
World War II caught Stalin's Soviet
Union in the midst of an incomplete industrialization, dependent on foreign imports in many types of
machinery, up to the eyes in debt, with a part of the populace – oftentimes the intellectually and
economically superior one – exterminated or jailed, and with a unique slave-labor driven industrial economy.
Any organic path of Russia's development, especially Stolypin's, would have given Russia much better
historical prospects.
But perhaps the Stalinist Soviet Union
developed some kind of unique technology that was beyond the powers of old Russia? Nope. Stalin did bequeath
us the proverbial atomic piles, using slave labor and nuclear espionage to save the billions of dollars
spent by the USA on the Manhattan Project, which the Soviets simply didn't have. God forbid me from
chastising Stalin for that act of espionage – actually, it was one of his greatest and most innocent
achievements that cost only two human lives (the Rosenbergs) and saved millions of them.
However, Stalin kept dreaming of Soviet
battleships for the entirety of reign, but the USSR never managed to complete its large warships program.
The naval contribution to the defense of Leningrad in WWII consisted of
Gangut
and
Petropavlovsk
, two Tsarist battleships built by
Admiral Grigorovich
and paid for by a Duma browbeaten into submission by Stolypin. Soviet aircraft
carriers at that time were also a complete impossibility.
The story of Stalin's fighter planes
turned into a tale of endless anguish for engineers, constructors, and pilots, which the Great Leader
himself confirmed by mass imprisonment of the apparatchiks responsible for the wartime aircraft production
(the so-called "Aviation Affair"). The same thing happened with bombers: It would suffice to mention that
the Soviet Tu-4 was a reverse-engineered copy of the American B-29.
These examples have nothing to do with
the myth of Russia's backwardness. Quite to the contrary: Russia, by virtue of NOT being a backward country
and having amassed a huge intellectual and technological potential, could survive the emigration and mass
murder of scientists and engineers and the savagery of the slave labor system, and advance to new
technological horizons. However, almost all of these new horizons were revealed to us by "old-schoolers".
The most prominent of the Soviet scientists involved in the nuclear and missile projects came almost
exclusively from the ranks of the "enemy class
These examples have nothing to do with
the myth of Russia's backwardness. Quite to the contrary: Russia, by virtue of NOT being a backward country
and having amassed a huge intellectual and technological potential, could survive the emigration and mass
murder of scientists and engineers and the savagery of the slave labor system, and advance to new
technological horizons. However, almost all of these new horizons were revealed to us by "old-schoolers".
The most prominent of the Soviet scientists involved in the nuclear and missile projects came almost
exclusively from the ranks of the "enemy class" of the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, receiving their
education either before the Revolution or in the 1920s, when the old foundations of education hadn't been
completely ruined. Without these human resources, Stalin wouldn't have had a shot at leaving Russia with
atomic piles. The same atomic piles, however, could well have be developed by the same date by a Tsar
Alexey Nikolayevich
or
Mikhail Alexandrovic
h
By the way, about those plows that
Stalin "found Russia" with. Indeed, Stalin took Russia with wooden plows from Lenin. And Lenin had grabbed
Russia by the neck after she had lost her Tsar, under whose rule she had been a country with automobiles,
armored cars, Sikorsky airplanes, early aircraft carriers, battleships and tank blueprints. And the truth is
that Stalin took Russia from Lenin with plows and left her with the same implements. The plow was in use in
1953 just as in 1924, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (the
sokha
, the Russian light wooden
plow, is better suited to certain soil types than heavier plows). All in all, measuring the trajectory of
Stalinism in terms of plows and atomic piles is a gross oversimplification.
However, let us not lapse into slander
and calumny by claiming that all Stalin's achievements came only as a result of cannibalism and mass
destruction of his own citizens. After the war, many residential and industrial objects in the Soviet Union
were erected by German POWs, following the same slave labor model. Some select citizens of the USSR whirled
around Moscow in an Opels (rechristened Moskvitch) while sporting nice Carl Zeiss glasses. Stalinist
industrialization got a new a material and moral resource: Victory. And that Cictory is what our compatriots
deservedly count as one of Stalin's greatest achievements.
Can the victor in the greatest war in
history
not
be named the greatest man in history? This is a story for our next article.
So, let's go back to Stalin as the
"greatest person in Russian and world history". This reputation – to the degree that it actually exists
among the populace and wasn't engineered by sociologists – dwells mostly upon the Soviet Victory in the
Great Patriotic War. World War II being the greatest war ever waged by mankind, it seems reasonable and
justified to hail the victor in this war as the greatest man ever.
There can be a lot of objections to
this. First, the Great Patriotic War was just one part of World War II, won fair and square by the United
States. The Americans, having lost the least amount of people by dint of replacing them with guns and
dollars, using the Russians to do the bloody work, and stealing the thunder of their British allies, went on
to become the masters of the postwar world order.
Even during the Cold War, the USSR was,
for a long time, a mere challenger to American supremacy and not an equal contender. And we all know how
this war ended for us. The US victory in WWII under President Roosevelt is undisputed. He died when their
victory was a
fait accompli
, and President Truman took no new decisions of his own (Roosevelt would
have probably nuked Hiroshima, too). But is Roosevelt the greatest person in history? Not quite! He keeps
getting flak from the left and the right, even for his New Deal, even for his meagre concessions to the
Soviets in Tehran and Yalta. Even in the US proper, his ranking among top US presidents never rises above
#2, and usually he occupies the #3 spot.
Regarding Russia, her greatest pre-1941
war was the Patriotic War of 1812, greatest by the stature of the enemy (Napoleon, one of the greatest
characters in history), by the size and the power of his Army of the Twelve Nations, the tragedy of the fall
of the Russian capital, the charity and sacrifice of the nobility, the merchant class, and the peasantry,
the complete destruction of the adversary – in all these respects, the "thunder of 1812" was historically
unparalleled. Who won this war? Alexander I the Blessed. To quote Pushkin's lines, "he conquered Paris, he
founded
the Lyceum
".
But is this Emperor counted among the
all-time greats of Russian history, according to Levada or whatever other poll? No. He is half-forgotten,
his reputation destroyed by ignominious military settlements (still less outrageous than the Gulag), the
infamy of
Arakcheevschina
(still not quite the
Yezhovschina
), the sin of patricide[1] (is it worse than Patria-cide?), the ridicule of other, much less
flattering Pushkin poems[2]. And if it is ever to be proven that he was already been canonised by the
Orthodox Church as a saint and revered by the common folk under the name of Feodor Kuzmich[3], this glory
and grace would only be bestowed upon his second life, granted to expiate the sins of the first.
Stalin founded no Lyceum, he created
the sharashkas, and, to paraphrase Saltykov-Schedrin's
History of a Town
, "torched public schools
and abolished (some of) the sciences". He didn't reach Paris but quite definitely conquered Berlin, a feat
unseen since the days of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, God bless her memory. He lucked out with his enemy –
Hitler wasn't as great as Napoleon, but he was extraordinary vile towards the Russians and brought Russia
untold of devastation. Before the invasion, his generals fulminated with very clear instructions: "war
crimes in the East are not to be considered as such", "any cultural assets in the East do not matter".
Anyone who would stand between Hitler and the Russians and organize resistance was deserving of great
praise.
Stalin is deserving of such praise,
too. He managed to collect himself and lead the struggle, distributing his forces so that Hitler's onslaught
got bogged down in Russia's expanse and failing to reach any Russian capital except Kiev. He evacuated and
thus preserve the bulk of Soviet industrial production. The army that he assumed supreme command of
experienced almost no defeats after November 1942 and led an unstoppable march to the Elbe. Stalin was
prudent enough to make peace with the Russian people and unfurl the banner of Russian patriotism – quickly
furled back up after the war but not as completely, since no one dared to derogate the Russians as brazenly
as in the 1920s and 1930s. Stalin was shrewd enough while dealing with the Alleis that the USSR ended the
war with large, even somewhat excessive gains. It is historically disingenuous to deny Stalin these
achievements, and it would be nothing but a parallel falsehood to the rising tide of diehard Stalinist lies,
which provoked this essay in the first place.
If we are to speak of Stalin's greatness
in world history and Russian history, his halo needs to be knocked down a couple of notches. Who is to blame
but the country's political and military leader for allowing the claws of the German eagle to sink
so
deep
into the chest of our eagle-turned-red-star? Who is to answer for the unthinkable casualties
sustained by our army in the 1941 encirclements?
Of course, these losses can't be deemed
"excessive". Modern calculations place Soviet and German irrevocable military losses at 11.5 million vs. 8.6
million, a ratio of 1:3 to 1. But what are these 3 million "surplus" dead if not the price paid for the
chaos and incompetence reigning in 1941, especially in September and October, when the tide of the
Blitzkrieg seemed to have been stemmed?
Yes, June 22, 1941 was a case of the
Wehrmacht's military luck, intensified by a vile sneak attack. Luck has its place in warfare. But the
encirclements near Kiev and Vyazma, the siege of Leningrad, to say nothing of the crushing 1942 defeats,
were less a case of German good luck than our own failures.
The more one reads documents and
memoirs, the clearer it is that Stalin's interference in warfare was incompetent, arbitrary, and
short-sighted. He was intelligent, driven, obstinate, obsessive about details, and despotic, all great
qualities for a general, but his mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is
all it takes to achieve a result, and a resulting utopian mindset. His meticulousness often turned into
nitpicking, and he would obsess over trivial details. In spite of the Neo-Stalinist mythology, his views
were ideologically blinkered in many important questions. Given the conditions of a hyper-centralized system
of military management, all of the Commander-in-Chief's foibles, all of his idiosyncrasies and fantasies
took their greatly magnified toll on the real command of warfare. Yes, Stalin was smarter than Hitler, but
setting the bar for greatness so low would be embarrassing even for the Generalissimo himself.
"It is all well and good", some might
say, "and a lot of what you say might be true –
but don't forget, the winner takes it all.
"
Perhaps a winner does take it all, but
it doesn't make him immune to criticism for misusing his spoils of victory. An untold loss of life,
devastation, suffering, the horror of POW camps, occupation, and terror should have given the Russian a
right to sizeable reparations. Did Stalin give its due to the nation he called "great" in his Victory Toast?
Let's give an objective rundown of military gains and talk about Stalin's diplomacy.
When you hear any talk of Stalinism as
an era when Russia was a Great Power to be reckoned with, you should realize that World War II started, and
started the way it did, only because the pre-war Stalinist USSR was a pariah state, a rogue state written
off by everyone. Through Foreign Affairs Commissar Maksim Litvinov, Stalin kept proclaiming a policy of
collective defense, trying to cobble together anti-Fascist coalitions. He waged a "proxy war" with the Nazis
in Spain, which was such an ideological trash fire that many past Republican sympathizers had to admit that
Franco, a rational nationalist with a strong vision of unity, was better than bloodthirsty Red psychos.
Nothing revealed the truth about Red methods for the European Liberal Left and pitted former fellow
travelers against the Soviet Union quite like the Spanish Civil War.
When, in 1938, an agreement regarding
the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was reached in Munich, no one bothered to ask the opinion of the USSR,
an alleged "Great Power".
When, in 1938, an agreement regarding
the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was reached in Munich, no one bothered to ask the opinion of the USSR,
an alleged "Great Power". This pushed Stalin towards a reasonable and prudent idea: if you can't side with
hyenas against a wolf, you pit the wolf against the hyenas. In his 1939 pact with Hitler, Stalin attempted,
without a major war or sometimes without a single shot fired, to restore the territorial losses of 1918: the
Baltics, Western Ukraine and Belarus, and Bessarabia. He bungled with Finland but at least got Vyborg back.
He also grabbed what hadn't belonged to Russia but should have: Galicia and Bukovina (the latter would be
cited by Hitler as a pretext for the invasion on June 22, 1941).
Was this return to imperial borders
justified? It was. Did Stalin do well by this? Probably yes. Did those returned territories do any good for
the Russians? Not at all. Stalin fixed the crimes and mistakes of Lenin, a fellow Bolshevik. He pushed the
balance of Russian history from "in the red" to "zero". Doesn't sound much for a "great leader".
But what happened to the regathered
lands? They were turned into ethnic republics that easily "de-occupied" themselves in 1991. Only tiny tracts
of borderlands were annexed to the Pskov oblast. A once heavily Russified Vilna, recaptured from Poland, was
given to the Lithuanian SSR. A Moldovan Republic was merged from Bessarabia and Transnistria, which is now
on its way to fusing with Romania and dragging the Transnistrian Russians with it. However, Stalin's most
toxic and jinxed gift of all was Galicia. The entirety of Ukrainiznig potential accumulated there over the
course of Austrian and Polish dominance engulfed Soviet Ukraine and dragged it into the abyss of
"anti-Moskalism". Stalin could fight the Banderites however he wanted, but, in the national absence of a
Russian idea in the USSR, with Ukrainism propped up by all means possible, it became inevitable that
Ukrainian identity would crystallize according to Galician precepts. Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt
to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.
All of these toxic gifts came with a
terrible price, paid for by our people during the war. This price gave the Russians the right to expect even
greater gifts, now destined only for the Russian people and no one else.
So what happened in reality? Pechenga,
once the scene of
St. Tryphon of Pechenga's
ascetic devotion, became Russian once again. Another restoration of what had
been ours before. Carpathian Ruthenia, however, despite the pleas of Rusyn delegates to incorporate their
land into the RSFSR, was not united with Russia and sacrificed on the altar of Ukrainization.
The rest was a gift to Poland, that
backstabber who managed to reap three harvests from the same field. In exchange for restoring to Russia what
Lenin had given away with the
Riga peace treaty
, they occupied, with Stalin's consent, all of Eastern Germany, and expelled its ethnic
German population, and gained highly developed industrial regions, and received the lion's share of East
Prussia, and got the Augustów district back from the USSR, and kept running around the world for 80 years
complaining about the "Russian occupation" and demanding Lvov and Grodno back. Talk about stuffing the
goose! And who kept feeding that pocket monster as a ploy to appease the British? Stalin, that's who.
If there's ever a World War III, it
will start with a NATO blockade of Kaliningrad. And Stalin would be to blame for that, because he stripped
the Augustów district from Belarus and carved up East Prussia in such a way that our communications with
Kaliningrad stretch through Lithuania, always eager to block them entirely. Another toxic gift, because
Stalin didn't even believe that Prussia would not stay with the Russians forever. He wanted to trade it in
exchange for German neutrality, which is why the first wave of Russian settlement there mainly consisted of
exiles. As a result, it wasn't really Stalin's gift to the Russians but Adenauer's: the West German
Chancellor wasn't swayed by the prospect of neutrality.
The same happened in the Far East.
Stalin did the barest minimum of what every government of nationalist Russia would have done in a military
grudge match against Japan: restoring the losses of the Russo-Japanese War and grabbing the Kuril Islands
"for the trouble". However, even those gains were left in a suspended and toxic state. Instead of
strong-arming Japan into accepting the totality of our gains without further delay, the peace treaty
question was dragged out until it blossomed into the mythical problem of the so-called Northern Territories.
Toxic gifts, here we go again.
Let's not forget the assets in Manchuria
sacrificed in the name of solidarity with Red China – the Chinese Eastern Railway and Dalniy/Dalian, all the
more frustrating because Manchuria's specificities made it possible to give it a
sui generis
status
profitable to the Soviets.
What could have been
:
Map of the "Future Europe" (not like Wilhelm II would have liked it!)
For the USSR, WWII resulted in
lesser
territorial gains that would have been plausibly claimed by Russia at the end of the Great War,
which was "surrendered" by the Bolsheviks in Brest-Litovsk. Almost everywhere he would go, Stalin only
picked up what had been squandered by Lenin. He failed to gain from a crushing German defeat even a half of
what could have and would have been acquired by the Tsar. Under the Tsar, Galicia would have been
incorporated into Russia under a Russian banner (to say nothing of the Turkish Straits). The few
acquisitions of the Soviet Empire actually beneficial for the Russians, such as Kaliningrad, turned out to
be this way almost by pure happenstance.
As part of a package deal involving
these gains, the Russians got a bunch of freeloaders that had to be schooled in the ways of Communism and
kept in line at gunpoint (East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia). And they had to be fed, fed, and fed once
again. Exhausting the Russians under the burden of hangers-on in an incomprehensible Communist experiment is
hardly a solid basis for greatness.
If we calculate the war losses of our
nation and our more than modest gains, our victory was indeed Pyrrhic – as great as it was unprofitable. If
it was indeed a historical comeback, it remedied not the historical faults of Tsarist Russia but those of
Stalin's mentor Lenin, who had wrecked historical Russia both morally and territorially.
Let's give Stalin his due. He knew very
well that he had started the war and had been rubbish at managing it. The Russians had every reason to give
him the boot. He explicitly mentioned this in the Victory Toast:
"A different people could have said
to the Government: "You have failed to justify our expectations. Go away. We shall install another
government which will conclude peace with Germany and assure us a quiet life."
However, Stalin also considered the
Russians' understanding that "running away" from a world war, failing to complete it for a second time would
be tantamount to ending our history as a great nation. This was evident to both people of intelligence and
the national instinct of the masses. Even such a fervent anti-Communist as Ivan Ilyin wrote that a desertion
similar to the one of 1917 was impossible, that one had to fight on and win. Stalin harnessed this resource
of Russian prudence and patience to reap the laurels of victory. However, he failed to repay most of his
"debts" to the Russians.
The war was barely over, but Marxist
historians wasted no time in trampling all over the academic defenders of Russian Imperial legacy led by
Academician Tarle
. By Stalin's and Zhdanov's decree, the term "Russian nation-state" was almost
completely purged from the historical idiom. Orthodox hierarchs were still needed for reasons of
international diplomatic representation, but the persecution of the Church would make a comeback, including
the closure of churches (bear in mind that most of the churches "opened under Stalin" were churches that
reopened by themselves under German occupation, and churches reopened in Stalin-held territories were a drop
in the ocean). Barely four years after the victory, state security boss Viktor Abakumov would torture those
few Soviet apparatchiks who dared to have but a smidgen of Russian identity. Stalin would destroy his
incredibly talented assistant Nikolay Voznesenskiy, ruining all chances of the USSR being led by an
intellectually developed Russian person. In the USSR, a prison of the Russian people designed by Lenin and
built by Stalin, they briefly opened a fresh-air shutter and then slammed it shut.
We, Russians, cannot elevate this man to
the rank of the greatest genius in history while keeping a straight face. We cannot sell our memory –
mutilated national livelihood, demolished churches, massacred priests and murdered scientists, engineers,
and poets, our forefathers exiled to Siberia for refusing to give their last horse to Red activists – for a
minute of Stalin's "Victory Toast".
Yes, we should be fair in our historical
judgement and shouldn't defame Stalin with the fantasies of the "children of the Arbat"[4]. But we also
should, with even greater force and rage, be fair in the opposite respect: never cutting Stalin any slack
for his horrifying sins, mistakes, cruelties, and injustices, never forgetting just how many eggs he broke
to make his omelet.
***
[1] Alexander I is
widely accepted to have been complicit in the palace coup that led to the death of his
father Paul I.
[2] For instance,
in the so-called Chapter X of
Eugene Onegin
Pushkin described Alexander I as
"a feeble and conniving ruler, a bald fop, the enemy of all work, crowned with glory by
happenstance".
[3] Legend has it
that Alexander I, remorseful of his past misdeeds and faced with a profound religious
crisis, feigned his own death in 1825 and fled to Siberia, where he lived as a
starets
(mystic hermit) under the name of Feodor Kuzmich (died 1864). The Orthodox
Church officially canonized Feodor Kuzmich as a saint in 1984 but rejects his
identification with the Emperor.
[4] Reference to
Anatoly Rybakov's 1987 novel
Children of the Arbat
(referring to a central
Moscow street populated by high-ranking "Old Bolsheviks" after the revolution), a
hallmark of Perestroika anti-Stalinism, where Stalin was portrayed as a
one-dimensionally diabolical and sadistic figure.
38% of Russian citizens polled by Levada Center put Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of
Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I, Gagarin, Leo Tolstoy, Georgy
Zhukov, Catherine II, Lermontov, Lomonosov, Mendeleev, and even Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The only
non-Russians who made it to the top are Napoleon, Newton, and Einstein.
Well well well This is an obvious disgrace. If trustworthy, it reveals than the average Russian
doesn't have the vaguest idea about the course of Russian and world history and the true importance of
historical figures.
How
trustworthy
is it? Volgograd hasn't been renamed Stalingrad. The still popular in Russia Putin
has spoken out against Stalin era oppression. By and large, the May 9 Victory Day honors the Russian people,
without emphasizing Stalin.
A Moldovan Republic was merged from Bessarabia and Transnistria, which is now on its way to fusing
with Romania and dragging the Transnistrian Russians with it.
Any polling support of this? At last glance, Moldovan support for becoming a part of Romania is closer to
15% than 33%. Either way, there's no majority. In addition, the Gagauz have a legit basis to break from
Moldova, were it to merge with Romania. Never mind trying to get Pridnestrovie (
Transnistria
) to go
along with such a move.
Pridnestrovie is ethnically pretty evenly distributed among Russiasn, Ukrainians and Moldovans, while
having a pro-Russian outlook.
Upon further review, I came across this reference to a poll on Moldovan support for becoming a part of
Romania:
Still a clear minority, with a noticeably strong opposition in Gagauzia (under the control of Moldova)
and the disputed territory of Pridnestrovie (which has essentially been separate from Moldova since the
Soviet breakup).
Stalin's great contribution to industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze
Age or plantation economy, but in an economy of the Industrial Age Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt
because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the
work teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and
had decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards
Really? '
Slave labor
' was never used to build Industry? This is just silly, and borders on its own
nihilism. From pre-Victorian Britain to US company towns and China's recent out-sourcing paradise, the
quasi-slave methods have always been used to build industry. There was nothing all that extra-ordinary about
1930′s Soviet Union, other than sheer size. That's how stuff gets built.
And the belated, romantic look at the builders of the Pyramids is neither here, nor there. We don't know,
but I suspect the day to day conditions were not that great and probably approximated what peasants building
endless dams in Soviet Union experienced.
Stalin was a Bolshevik and Bolshevism was a revenge, not an economic ideology.
Stalin's mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is all it takes to
achieve a result
True, but why is there no mention of why tens of millions were ready for the revenge on the system? The
life before Bolsheviks wasn't that great and WWI bloody mess was the last straw; the Bolshie nihilism came
out of enormous suffering.
I often hear that it was 'about to get better', 'look at European welfare states' or New Deal. I wouldn't
be so sure. After hundreds of years of not caring why would the elites voluntarily change the systems to be
more broadly-based and spread the wealth? What makes people think that
the 20th century enormous
egalitarian progress
was about to happen without the threat of Bolshevism, socialism of all kinds,
Maoism, even fascism in its more populist forms?
We can see that right after the 'revenge' systems collapsed in the late 20th century, the elites
immediately went back to restoring the wonderful neo-liberal systems from the early 20th century. There is
no fear any more, so why not? Why not have it all? We are living in a transition era before the real
consequences hit again. Beginnings are often fun, the neo-liberalism is a pyramid system with its asset
privatisation and appreciation, there are lost of winners in the first few decades. But we are heading
towards the same paralysis that spawned Bolshevism and other basically revenge philosophies. I would worry
about that a lot more than about 'Lithuania' blocking the Augustow pass to Kaliningrad (Russia has planes
and ships, don't they?).
I wasn't even aware that Stalin had any connection to that idea. The way I had heard it, it was Beria who
was favorable to German re-unification – but Khrushchev won the power struggle.
That means nothing, do you have a point? Would you like to be an English coal-miner in the early 19th
century? Or a peasant on Polish latifundias in Galicia? Or work 12 hours a day for Foxconn in Shenzhen
today?
Tens of millions out of hundreds of millions isn't much.
Ok, I can go with hundreds of millions seeking revenge on the system towards the end of WWI. They were
clearly either a majority or close to it.
Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone
today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.
Surviving is not an '
epic failure
', it is better that the alternative. The post-WWII settlement
was about the best Russia could had done, small adjustments here and there, but they basically got it right.
The issue was that they didn't know how to disengage and withdraw. By 1960′s they should had let go. On
their own terms. And that wasn't Stalin's fault, but his successors.
"win back lost three provinces of Greater Romania"
That is tricky because one cannot really define Greater Romania or most other states in that region.
There are no natural borders, the population was mixed. E.g. who does Silesia 'naturally' belong to? The
shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options. I agree that
adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn't reunite 5-10 million
Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.
Obviously Galicia is a sparsely populated and financially irrelevant shithole in Ukraine. It's political
relevance is massively overrated ( plus many have left there to go to Russia or Poland) .the big problem is
American money or organisations over there, not the political power of the individuals there.
[Hide MORE]
Obviously it's to do with American money because the "nationalism" of the fuckedup fake sytate of Ukraine makes even less
sense if propagated by idiots from Galicia ( so does the fantasism about the Golodomor, for a region
never touched by it)
The Soros/State Department for the orange revolution and other elections either side of it then
criminally exaggeratd the number of people living there, and then under-exaggerated massively the
amount of people in the most populous areas of Ukraine (Novorossiya 5 out of 7) hence why we had all
these retarded lies about "120% turnout in Donetsk)
I am not familiar with Herr Rudel, but let me try to explain:
Keeping Silesia as part of Germany after
WWII was untenable – most Germans were expelled, or about to be driven out. Poles were very, very angry, and
the resulting geography would threaten both shrunken Poland (Galicia was gone) and Czechoslovakia. Silesia
reaches out quite far eastward.
Making it a part of East Germany would make E Germany too big for the Western allies. That could be
reshuffled, but went against 'let's keep divided Germany as small as possible' attitude at Potsdam.
The option of having an independent Silesia, with 'Silesian' ethnicity (it does exist), was economically
not viable: land-locked, surrounded, destroyed.
So what would be a better option than (re-)uniting it with Poland and allowing millions of Poles from the
Galician east to move there? It has been relatively stable.
You should cut it out, you are being irrelevant. I am talking 'industrialisation', that has happened in
different countries at different times. I can find 'company towns' in US (Colorado mines ) that were
brutally exploitative. And you can find huge relatively nice areas of Russia's industrialisation. Picking up
the worst examples in one, and the best in another is not serious.
The 5-year old miners in England in
1840′s were not better off than most peasants in Russia sent to build a big dam. It was all sh..t, thus the
revenge I mentioned today check out some working conditions in Asia, is Stalin responsible for that?
So what? The Ukrainization had already wrought tremendous changes by 1932 when it was scaled back. And it
seems obvious that Galicians would shift their attention east as they sought to break free of Poland and
weren't powerful enough to stand on their own.
If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than
the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical,
damned fool.
The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor,
and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.
For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the
early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process – virtually all of them during
a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200
Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to
Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.
By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a
million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project,
Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With
all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to
accomplish a big task? Couldn't great Comrade Stalin – friend of Russian people – do better than those awful
western capitalist bosses?
Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist
laborers could not eat?
On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial
slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga
Canal: "On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation
pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very
warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no
footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear
was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men
in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch."
Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to
its liking. Reasonable failure.
Bethmann-Hollweg put forth Germany's demands with the
Septemberprogramm
.
They were:
France should cede some northern territory, such as the iron-ore mines at Briey and a coastal strip
running from Dunkirk to Boulogne-sur-Mer, to Belgium or Germany.
France should pay a war indemnity of 10 billion German Marks, with further payments to cover veterans'
funds and to pay off all of Germany's existing national debt. This would prevent French rearmament, make
the French economy dependent on Germany, and end trade between France and the British Empire.
France will partially disarm by demolishing its northern forts.
Belgium should be annexed to Germany or, preferably, become a "vassal state", which should cede
eastern parts and possibly Antwerp to Germany and give Germany military and naval bases.
Luxembourg should become a member state of the German Empire.
Buffer states would be created in territory carved out of the western Russian Empire, such as Poland,
which would remain under German sovereignty "for all time".
Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually
dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states.
The German colonial empire would be expanded. The German possessions in Africa would be enlarged into
a contiguous German colony across central Africa (Mittelafrika) at the expense of the French and Belgian
colonies. Presumably to leave open future negotiations with Britain, no British colonies were to be
taken, but Britain's "intolerable hegemony" in world affairs was to end.
The Netherlands should be brought into a closer relationship to Germany while avoiding any appearance
of coercion.
Sounds a lot like the European Union.
Noteworthy that the German reparations' demand is about thirteen times smaller than Versailles imposed on
the Germans (granted, the war was only a month old at the time). Land over money apparently.
Not listed here, but the Germans also intended to continue their Drang nach Osten by settling veterans in
the east. Nothing like Generalplan Ost of course.
After the collapse of Russia, Germany started realizing some of these aims by setting up a network of
puppet states in Eastern Europe ruled by German princes.
By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to
around a million (!).
Well, a million is just nonsense. It's possible that 30,000 is also nonsense. In addition to the Erie
canal there are unfortunately other examples
"A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger .
If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine
killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. -- 26 million."
(ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII -- начало XX в.) Книга 2)
The industrialization of Western Europe was accompanied by the murder (direct or indirect) of tens, maybe
hundreds of millions of people. And America was part of the same system (the transatlantic slave trade was
measured in numbers with six zeros)
It's also not only in India, but industrialization in the UK was not following very 'ethical labour' inside
the UK itself.
Revealed: Industrial Revolution was powered by child slaves
Child labour was the crucial ingredient which allowed Britain's Industrial Revolution to succeed, new
research by a leading economic historian has concluded.
After carrying out one of the most detailed statistical analyses of the period, Oxford's Professor
Jane Humphries found that child labour was much more common and economically important than previously
realised. Her estimates suggest that, by the early 19th century, England had more than a million child
workers (including around 350,000 seven- to 10-year-olds) – accounting for 15 per cent of the total
labour force. The work is likely to transform the academic world's understanding of that crucial period
of British history which was the launch-pad of the nation's economic and imperial power
Her work has revealed that during most of the 18th century only around 35 per cent of ten year old
working-class boys were in the labour force while the figure for 1791-1820 (when large scale
industrialisation started) was 55 per cent, rising to 60 per cent for the period of 1821-1850.
The number of eight-year-old working-class boys at work also rose substantially in that period – with
around a third of them being part of the work force between 1791 and 1850 compared to less than 20 per
cent before 1791.
(there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of
Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites)
You're big on giving personal anecdotes. I've heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that
Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the
Whites. That recollection is quite believable given the actual circumstances.
Petliura's support was limited and his forces were unable to successfully defeat the Whites. Petliura's
weakness explains his willingness to become Pilsudski's puppet in a move that saw Petliura recognizing all
of Galicia going to Poland. In turn, the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the
Russian Whites.
If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse
than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain
You provide a classical straw man diversion, so common among 'educated' in the West. No, my argument is
that industrialization, then and now, in 19th century or in the 1930′s, is often a painful, violent,
unpleasant process. I specifically mentioned China's today outsourced factories where people work 12 hours,
jump from roofs, and live pretty close to a slave life. That was very common in 19th century England where
5-year olds were dropped to 'mine for coal'.
Your method is predictably faulty: pick a worst examples, worst place, worst time (1930′s) in Russia,
exaggerate or quote '
some people say that maybe a 1 million died..
' and compare it to heavily '
explained
'
case in Britain or US, with allusions to 'malaria', etc.. and that gives you a self-satisfied feeling that,
of course, the sh..t in Britain-US doesn't stink, and never did. Forget slavery, Victorian child labor,
koolies, forget all of that and just focus razor-sharp on that 'Volga-canal'.
And you are surprised nobody takes you seriously? Fighting straw men is the true fools's errand
It was a disaster because it created a dysfunctional Ukraine with populations quite different and attitudes
that are hard to reconcile. But it took a few generations, in 1945 I still think it was the best among the
available bad options.
If you ask me to start from scratch (that was not possible in 1945 with all the emotions), I would say
that Galicia existence as a province of a larger 'Habsburg-lite' country might had worked the best. It would
fit the pro-Western orientation of Galicians, keep them in 'Europe', and allow the east to rationally
develop on its own. That was not an option in 1945, so we got the mess that we have today. It will get much
worse before this is settled.
Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing
down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader,
he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to
worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need
for some idols in their lifes.
Russians and Ukrainians have better alternatives than Stalin and Bandera to look to with pride.
Why should the British oligarchy
care
about the plight of Indians?
Whom should it provide those
excuses to, anyway?
It would only be comparable if the "British oligarchy" had starved a couple of million Englishmen to
death (the English being the state-making people of Britain). However, as I recall, the last famine
affecting ENGLAND occurred prior to the Black Death (!).
Stalin's heavy handedness in Galicia didn't help things from a Soviet and to a certain degree Russian
viewpoint.
The Galician Ukrainians were generally not happy with being ruled by Poland. Having Russian speaking
Soviets (including some Ukrainians) being brutal following Molotov-Ribbentrop and before the Nazi attack on
the USSR, nurtured a convoluted image among those with a pro-Bandera/Captive Nations Committee sentiment.
But Galicians have by and large been content to develop within a Ukrainian state. They often refer to
themselves as the 'Piedmont of Ukraine' and relish their role of being in the vanguard of Ukraine's national
revival. In fact, I know of no Galician of any stature that has advocated Galicia apart from the rest of
Ukraine – the Western Ukrainian Republic was an anomaly that lasted for a short time and was only to be a
temporary solution for Ukraine's larger development.
To provide context doesn't men defending something. Isolated thoughts often become just empty sloganeering.
I have seen an estimate by an Indian historian that claimed that British Empire caused the death of 200
million people. From India to Africa, from America to Ireland.
Probably true, or maybe exaggerated, maybe
it was only 100 million. People die for all kinds of reasons. French and Spanish (even Italians) can also be
counted on causing millions and millions to die. The two objections that I hear is that it was long time ago
and that it was 'not their own people'. Both are partially true, but not really relevant – Masais were being
killed by Britain in 1950′s and Irish are kind of part of the family.
Context matters, but I disagree with 'hero Stalin' arguments – I generally dislike heroes of all kinds.
And Stalin was a twerp, murderer and in many ways a failure. To defend him out of spite is silly. Let
history take care of what happened. (I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he
was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism )
The Great Famine (Irish: an Gorta Mór, [anˠ ˈgɔɾˠt̪ˠa mˠoːɾˠ]) or the Great Hunger was a period of
mass starvation, disease, and emigration in Ireland between 1845 and 1849.[1] It is sometimes referred
to, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine, because about two-fifths of the population was
solely reliant on this cheap crop for a number of historical reasons.[2][3]
During the famine, about
one million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[4] causing the island's population to
fall by between 20% and 25%.[5]
Since the Acts of Union in January 1801, Ireland had been part of the United Kingdom.
Executive
power lay in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Chief Secretary for Ireland, who were
appointed by the British government. Ireland sent 105 members of parliament to the House of Commons of
the United Kingdom, and Irish representative peers elected 28 of their own number to sit for life in the
House of Lords. Between 1832 and 1859, 70% of Irish representatives were landowners or the sons of
landowners.[8]
Records show that Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland
had experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the
Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in
the 1780s overrode their protests.[79] No such export ban happened in the 1840s.[80]
Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting enormous quantities of food.
Sure, it didn't help. Also Hitler's, Bandera's, Polish, and even Habsburg heavy handedness didn't help.
Look around, most of history are stupid heavy-handed over-reaching acts
Ok, but would you agree that Ukraine has had a few contradicting tendencies? Galicians are 10-15% of Ukraine
and are totally Western-oriented. Donbass is not, no matter how you spin it. And Odessa, Kiev or Kharkov are
also not quite in the '
West-is-best, and there can be nothing else
' camp. Thus today's difficulties
in Ukraine.
The economic integration of the eastern 2/3 of Ukraine with Russia is real and hard to change
without major living standards disruption. That says that a compromise, or some degree of decentralisation
are required. Galicians and their allies don't want a compromise – they want it all. It will not work. It it
will cause a lot of tears and regrets.
Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?
Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?
It would only be comparable if the "British oligarchy" had starved a couple of million Englishmen to
death. However, as I recall, the last famine affected BRITAIN occurred prior to the Black Death (!).
This is a joke? The English common people of the times of James Watt, worked fifteen hours a day for a
bowl of soup for the family. Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in
the mines. Throughout England, concentration camps (work houses) were established. A little earlier White
British were traded as cattle-raids were carried out in port cities to replenish the number of slaves on
sugar cane plantations. But white slaves in the tropical climate died very quickly, so they were replaced by
Negroes. British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed
with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
Grigory Potemkin was going to buy several tens of thousands of Englishmen for the settlement of the Crimea
and Novorossiya. Count Vorontsov (Russian Ambassador to England) managed to destroy this deal, otherwise in
the Crimea would speak English.
In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but
monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.
If my grandma had different genitalia, I would have called her a grandpa. I would have also grown up a very
confused kid: Why do I of all kids have a transgendered grandma and is this a sign of the things to come?
Anyhow, my favorite theory about history is this: The most optimal history, with the best case scenario
circumstances is the one that already happened. There is only one history and we can't improve on it based
on our superior knowledge now.
Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can't improve
some parts of the equations that you don't like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was
communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism
– yeah right.
Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no
matter what kind of political system they have. It's called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler
for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.
If the political system in Russia in WW2 was "democracy" – that might have lulled them into believing
that when the going got tough, a "deal" could have been made with the Nazis (even Stalin tried to sue for
peace with Hitler), or the west or whomever they might have ended up fighting in the revised version of
history of WW2. By not having those delusional options that they – the Russians as a democracy can make a
deal with the west which will save them – they might have avoided committing a national suicide.
In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but
monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.
England and Ireland were the same country (under the union – the United Kingdom), ruled from London –
until 1922. (Part of Ireland – Northern Ireland – is still with the United Kingdom).
So there was a mass famine, in which 25% of the population fell in one republic of the United Kingdom,
under the rule of London.
Couple this with your observation that there was virtually no support for Russian nationalism in
Ukraine, and what you have is a large area where in fact it appears that the Ukrainian national idea was
quite popular.
In central Ukraine the Ukrainian idea was popular. An overwhelming majority of the people voted for
Ukrainian parties, and they clearly had a Ukrainian self-identity. But unlike Galicians, or Poles, or Finns,
they were less likely to fight and die for their national idea in 1917-1920. To be sure, this spirit was not
absent – 100,000 volunteers isn't nothing. But it wasn't much either.
To put it in perspective – the two Donbas oblasts had 6.5 million people in 2013, compared to 27 or so
million ethnic Ukrainians in the Russian-ruled parts of Ukraine. So about 1/4 the population. Donbas
militias have about 40,000 troops. That would be equivalent to 160,000 troops in 1917 Ukraine. Now, there
are numerous caveats – Russia lavishly supplies the Donbas militias, Ukrainian ones were on their own, and
there are some pro-Kiev volunteers from Donbas whereas there were virtually no pro-Russian ones among
Russian Empire Russians.
Of course, to repeat myself, there was basically zero sentiment among these people to fight for Russia.
There were some Kadets from among ethnic Russians in Kiev but no pro-White military units of
Ukrainians/Little Russians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Even Makhno, already losing, murdered Wrangel's
emissary's rather than join forces with him.
I've heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with
Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites.
Name any military units from Russian Ukraine who fought on the side of the Whites. There were not.
Zero. Some Ukrainian-speaking Cossacks from the Kuban did, but Kuban isn't in Ukraine.
the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.
It's telling that only the Galicians (briefly) placed themselves under White command but no ethnic
Ukrainian forces from Russian Ukraine ever did. Galicians did it after they became stateless (Petlura signed
Galicia over to Poland in exchange for help against the Soviets) during a typhoid epidemic and received
much-needed medicine from the Entente that the Whites had access to. I don't think they ever fought a battle
for the Whites, although I may be mistaken on that point. The Whites disintegrated before the Galicians
could get healthy.
Under similar circumstances some Galicians ended up fighting in the Red Army against Poland. One of the
Red Galician commanders, Alfred Bizanz (an ethnic German), eventually made his way west and 20 years later
become a commander of the Galician SS Division.
: Out of curiosity–had Ukraine been smaller (no Galicia, Volhynia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Bessarabia, and
northern Bukovina–for instance, had Hitler never become to power in Germany and there would have thus been
no German-Soviet partition of Poland), and had Ukraine would have joined the Eurasian Economic Union after
the collapse of the Soviet Union (if it would have still occurred in this scenario, that is), what do you
think that the long(er)-term future of the Eurasian Economic Union would have looked like in this scenario?
Also, as a side note, it's interesting that, with the exception of Yekaterinoslav Guberniya, Ukrainian
parties don't appear to have done very well in "Novorossiya" in the 1917 elections. Indeed, they failed to
win in the Kharkiv Guberniya, in the Taurida Guberniya, and in the Kherson Guberniya.
In turn, this makes me
wonder–had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable
would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked (I can't see Russia agreeing to give up Yekaterinoslav Guberniya considering that it would cut off the Taurida Guberniya, the Kherson Guberniya, and
the Bessarabian Guberniya from the rest of Russia) and would have thus had to rely on Russia, Poland, or
Romania for sea access.
Finally, off-topic, but as a side question–why exactly were Ukrainians outside of Galicia unwilling to
fight en masse for the Ukrainian national cause in 1917-1920?
Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can't
improve some parts of the equations that you don't like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that
Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because
of communism – yeah right.
Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no
matter what kind of political system they have. It's called jealousy. By having communism it provided
Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.
Read
Mein Kampf
. The H-man didn't use communism as an "excuse". He openly planned to eliminate
Russians because they stood in the way of his dream of a continental German Empire, and he considered slavs
to be racially inferior (a view he reneged on at the end of his life for obvious reasons).
The idea that the West is "naturally" hostile to Russia is completely bogus. The American Empire has been
mostly hostile to Russia since 1945, and yes for America communism was mostly (though not completely) an
excuse. The "wise men" who formulated the doctrine of Containment admitted as much.
Prior to 1945 Russia was part of the normal European state system. Depending on the state of the times
Russia could be friendly, isolated, allied, at war, etc. with any number of European states. Where was the
implacable Western hatred of Russia exactly?
Germany fought two wars with Russia in the 20th century, but in the 19th century it was a German
statesman (vom Stein) who convinced Tsar Alexander to join with Prussia in forming the Sixth Coalition to
finally beat Napoleon. Only the year before one out of three soldiers in Napoleon's Grand Army had in fact
been German!
Likewise Napoleon invaded Russia, but a century later France was Russia's greatest ally.
Awhile back, I had earlier presented those in the officer ranks of the White Russians with ties to Ukraine.
You pooh poohed that by noting their ties to Russia proper (for lack of a better term) – which BTW was part
of the same entity as much of what's now known as Ukraine.
That the White leadership was top heavy with folks from outside Ukraine doesn't mean that there wasn't a
noticeable degree of rank and file White participation among people from the territory of what became the
Ukrainian SSR – including individuals who'd qualify as being ethnic Ukrainian. Hence the previously noted
recollection of Ukrainian being spoken among the Whites. I also know someone whose family joined the Whites
after serving under Skoropadsky. That person's family has direct roots to Ukraine and has what's considered
a typical Ukrainian surname. He has played a lead role in patriotic Russian anti-Communist emigre circles.
Know some others with a similar background as well.
The Whites started their anti-Bolshevik opposition outside the territory of what became modern day
Ukraine. The Russian Civil War era elections in Kiev didn't include a large segment of the overall
population of what became the Ukrainian SSR and is therefore not so conclusive in determining public opinion
at the time there. Hence, it's within reason to say (as has been previously stated by others) that a good
number of folks on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR weren't so motivated to support any of the
lead Russian Civil War era combatants.
Meantime, it's clear that Petliura lacked support on the territory he sought to represent. He was
militarily no match for either the Whites or Reds. The latter two had support within what became the
Ukrainian SSR. Despite their differences, the Whites and Reds each supported some form of Russo-Ukrainian
togetherness which brings to mind Skoropadsky's edict for an
All-Russian Federation
, inclusive of
Russia and Ukraine:
Due to the dominating German presence, Skoropadsky and the Whites had problems connecting. In addition,
the Germans restricted the amount of weapons to Skoropadsky's forces – which was to greatly assist those who
overthrew Skoropadsky as WW I came to an end.
On another matter you recently brought up, Makhno fought Petliura's forces. Makhno, was arguably more of
an anarchist than a Ukrainian nationalist.
The idea that the West is "naturally" hostile to Russia is completely bogus
Let's drop the 'naturally' qualifier, since we wouldn't agree on how to define it. That leaves a
question: has West been hostile to Russia? Yes, in the last 10-15 years, no sane person could deny it. Maybe
there are reasons for it, but the hostility is undeniable – and it covers Brits, Americans, French, German,
Spanish, and even Italians. Dutch, Swedes and Danish have also been hostile.
West claims that they would not be hostile if Russia '
would change its ways
'. Interesting, by that
standard we could all be friends. I always tell people '
if you do 100% what I want, and agree with me
100%, I will be your best friend'
. To ask others to change is to admit that you dislike them as they
are, thus logically, you simply dislike them.
The second weasel excuse is that West likes Russian people, just dislikes their government (for some
strange reason always personalised as 'Putin'). We hear this less and less because it is so absurd –
Russians have chosen the government, they agree with most main policies. Let's call spade a spade: West
doesn't like Russia as it is.
How long has this been going on before 2000? Putting aside the communist era, one can find very strong
anti-Russian sentiments in all main Western countries at least since late 18th century, with Britain being
the outstanding hater. There were occasional opportunistic thaws when some country needed an ally, or needed
something, but in general West was always quite hostile towards Russia. It is too big, it is Orthodox, it
has its own vibe. From Napoleon, to Crimean War (West invaded to side with Ottoman Moslems to keep Russia
from gaining influence in the Balkans), to Hitler's coalition
European Christian civilization will not prosper divided. West gleefully destroyed and abandoned
Byzantium 500 years ago. They are making the same mistake today.
Maybe no-one here knows or cares, but I would be interested to know about the impact of the war with Germany
on Marxist-Leninist ideology in Russia. It seems like the original Marxist conception was that the workers'
revolution would just happen and spread until it was universal.
Then fascism was supposed to be a last-ditch
defense of the system by the capitalists. So after an enormous war in which fascism was actually defeated –
did they think that now the tide had turned? And with the disintegration of the European maritime empires,
and with many of the newly independent countries turning towards socialism, an optimistic attitude (towards
the eventual global victory of socialism) must have been possible for many decades Maybe I should read
something by Suslov, I've heard that he was the ideological chief in the Brezhnev era.
Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled
Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.
You failed to do so.
Because there were none.
There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled
Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those
so it must have been a small number indeed.
Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn't count.
Meanwhile, around 100,000 ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine did fight for various Ukrainian
nationalist leaders from Russian-ruled Ukraine, such as Symon Petliura, or Danylo Zeleny (30,000 troops at
peak). Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for
Russia.
Makhno's wife was a Ukrainian-language teacher. His forces were basically neutral towards those of the
Ukrainian nationalist Petliura while being bitterly opposed to the Whites; Makhno contributed to Denikin's
defeat, and even when he was about to be defeated by the Bolsheviks he killed Wrangel's envoys rather than
cooperate with the Whites.
(I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social
situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism )
Levada doesn't explicitly say 'heroes', just 'great personalities', so Pushkin would be considered due to
his cultural contributions.
The polls are often based on the public's knowledge of historical figures, their perception of who is
good and current societal moods (which is why Putin is a joint second place).
Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.
Oh really?
"
Both in England and in France used all means in order to gain the right immigrants (slaves)
In
Bristol simply abducted men, women and children
Under Cromwell held mass sending Scottish and Irish
prisoners. From 1717 to 1779 Britain sent to the colonies 50 thousand exiles (as slaves), and in 1732 the
humane Evangelist John Ogtrop founded a new colony in Georgia wanting to gather many prisoners for debt
Consequently, there was widespread and long-lasting white slavery it disappeared for economic reasons, not
for racial ones
."
Fernand Braudel. -- Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe siècle
There are many similar examples in this book. Here's another (not going to translate into English, as I
don't have time):
"
Задержанного бродягу пороли плетьми "прикованного палачом к задку телеги". Ему выбривали голову, его
клеймили каленым железом; в случае рецидива его грозили повесить без суда и следствия или отправить на
галеры – и запросто отправляли В 1547 г. английский парламент постановил, что бродяги будут не более не
менее обращаться в рабство (эта мера была два года спустя отменена, так как не удалось решить вопрос с
использованием этих рабов) идея витала в воздухе. Ожье Бузбек (представитель испанского короля при турецком
султане) полагал что "ежели бы рабство применялось справедливо или мягче, как того требуют римские законы,
не было бы необходимости вешать и карать всех тех, кои ничего не имея ничего кроме свободы и жизни
становится преступником от нужды". И в конечном счете это решение возобладает в 17 веке ибо разве заключение
в тюрьму и на каторжные работы это разве не рабство? Повсюду бродяг сажают под замок: в Италии в приюты для
бедных, в Англии в работные дома (workhouse), в Женеве в исправительную тюрьму (Discipline), в Германии в
исправительные дома (Zuhthauser), в Париже – в смирительные дома (maison de forse): в Гранд Опиталь
созданный ради заключения там бедняков в 1662, в Бастилию, Венсенский замок, Сен-Лазар, Бисетр, Шарнтон,
Мадлен, Сен-Пелажи. На помощь властям приходили также болезни и смерть И однако же ни неутомимая
труженица-смерть, ни свирепые тюрьмы не искоренили зло Не взирая на экономический подьем, пауперизм
усилился в 18 веке из за демографического роста Тысячи крестьян оказались выброшенными на дороги – наподобие
того, как задолго до этого времени происходило в Англии с началом огораживаний. В 18 веке эта человеческая
грязь от которой никому не удавалось избавится поглощала все: вдов, сирот, калек, беглых подмастерьев,
священников без церковных доходов, стариков, погорельцев, жертв войн, обрюхаченных служанок, девиц матерей
ото всюду прогоняемых и детей посылаемых за хлебом или на воровство Порядочные люди старались не думать о
этих "подонках общества, отбросах городов, биче республик, материале для виселиц. Их столько и повсюду, что
было бы довольно трудно их счесть, а годны они лишь на то, чтобы отправить их на галеры или повесить, чтобы
служили примером
"
White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in
Britain's American colonies.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as
slaves. Urchins were swept up from London's streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy
was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide "breeders" for Virginia. Hopeful migrants
were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be
bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael
Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on
whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried
to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in
Anglo-American history.
This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the
overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface
.
However, I did not read this book, perhaps the author of a falsifier like Solzhenitsyn. But the story
about the failed purchase of two-legged cattle ("free" British) for the settlement of the Crimea – true. And
this is the end of the 18th century.
Your personal anecdotes haven't been shown to be more legit than the ones I've provided.
Militarily, Petliura's forces did nothing of significance against the Whites and Reds for the reasons I
mentioned. You fail to grasp the fact that people on what became Ukrainian territory fought on the White side. Such
folks were typically never with Petliura – which is understandable given how many never supported him.
There's some difference on the actual number of Petliura's forces. Lehovich notes that just prior to
Petliura's break with the Galician Ukrainians, he commanded a force of 35,000, of which 20,000 were
Galician.
Wikipedia and other sources make note that Makhno fought Petliura's forces.
Upon Petliura's break with the Galician Ukrainian Army, the Whites severely beat his forces in the areas
of Uman, Gaisin and Birsula. Thereafter, Petliura's forces retreated behind Polish lines.
You're irrelevantly boorish, with an autistic trait by not acknowledging the obvious about folks ethnically
akin to the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR, who fought on the White side, without having
previously been associated with Petliura, who lacked a good deal of popular support.
Their looting aside, what great battles did Zeleny's forces win? In comparison, Makhno had military
significance in a way that Petliura and Zeleny didn't. Onc e again noting that Makhno was more of an
anarchist than Ukrainian nationalist. The academically written works on the Russian Civil War give little
comparative mention to Zeleny.
Makhno fought all factions which sought to impose any external authority over southern Ukraine,
battling in succession the Ukrainian Nationalists, the Imperial German and Austro-German occupation, the
Hetmanate Republic, the Russian White Army, the Russian Red Army, and other smaller forces led by
Ukrainian otamans.
Denikin was militarily stronger than Petliura. That aspect motivated Makhno to concentrate more of his
efforts against Denikin than Petliura.
An autistic trait is the inability to not grasp a valid point that conflicts with a rehashed mantra. You've
exhibited such much unlike myself.
Once again noting that folks ethnically akin to what became the former Ukrainian SSR fought on the White
side, without having necessarily been associated with Petliura's forces or any other committed to a complete
Ukrainian separatism from Russia – thereby explaining the accounts of Ukrainian being spoken among some
Whites. Quite believable given Petliura's limited popularity.
So, the russians invaded, looted and destroyed our countries and kept us imprisoned by force for 50
years in their dystopia and now they call us freeloaders that needed to be fed?
The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced
manufactured goods in return. The RSFSR was likewise one of only two net donors to the USSR. Moreover, in 1946-47, "conquered" East Germans were literally fed at the expense of
starving Russians
.
Consequently, Kholmogorov is perfectly correct.
So your real objection is "tone" or similar crap. This makes you the East European edition of an SJW.
* Indentured servants – People
*willingly*
signed a
contract to work for x number of years (as I recall, 3-5 was standard) in return for the Trans-Atlantic
ticket. Well, labor laws were harsh then, no doubt about that.
* Press-ganging into the Royal Navy – Perhaps closer to "white slavery", but then again, you could look
at it as a sort of roughhouse conscription. And they got paid once in service.
All of the rest was either (1) not slavery, or (2) much have been small-scale and untypical.
First off, we're talking about a replacement religion for the bozos who march around with Stalin icons.
But I'll defend them anyway.
First image has a powerful aesthetic that evokes the techpriests of the Adeptus Mechanicus in the
Imperium of Man. Praise be to the Omnissiah!
This is also in line with Kholmogorov's vision of
Atomic
Orthodoxy
, whereby our permanent nuclear stalemate leads to the primacy of ideological struggle. Psykers
awake!
Second image is the book cover to a sci-fi novel by Alexander Zorich, which is a collective pen-name for
a male and female writer from Kharkov. Their series takes place in the 27th century where Russia and Ukraine
are united, and constitute a space empire.
Press-ganging was doubtless unpleasant for those experiencing it, but was minor compared to the full-scale
conscription present in every other European state.
Sending rebels and other criminals to America was
obviously much more humane than the alternative of execution or mutilation. Georgia was actually founded by
philanthropists to try and reform criminals, but failed like most such projects. There was of course nothing
unique about this, the French attempt to try and populate Louisiana with prostitutes, among other criminals,
is well-known.
Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.
You completely flopped in trying to disprove the historically obvious:
- Petliura had limited support on
the territory which became the Ukrainian SSR
- that resulted in his willingness to become Pilsudski's puppet.
If his vision was so popular, the Whites and Reds would've had a difficult time with him, which wasn't
the case – partly on account of the Reds and Whites each finding support on the territory that became the
Ukrainian SSR. As noted earlier, there was also the matter of many on the territory of what became the
Ukrainian SSR, not being so supportive of any of the armed groups.
Galicia is the North-Western part of the modern Ukrainian state. It was always part of Poland throughout
history. They're distantly related to people in Ukraine proper, and were annexed to the Ukrainian SSR by
Stalin in 1939.
They're the political and cultural driver behind a 'Western' orientation for Ukraine. Which is not
surprising: they're just wanting to rejoin a historical greater Poland.
Which will happen sooner or later, one way or the other. Outright annexation is probably unfeasible
today, so Poland as a 'plan B' is right now in the process of giving Galicians Polish citizenship.
These people (in very many cases) were not volunteers (read the quote carefully). Temporary slavery (7
years) on sugar cane plantations (where white people have been dying for 2 years) is an evil joke. There was
(along with temporary) and permanent white slavery. And if you like the British Empire slavery, I have
absolutely no idea what you're up against Stalin. Stalin's concentration camps were no worse than the
British plantations. And of course, in both cases, the victims were "criminals".
Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.
I don't think that's the motivation in this case, it's rather an attempt to claim that whites were
subject to slavery just as blacks (which isn't true, indentured servitude was limited in time). Part of the
debate who's had it worse in American history, blacks or "white trash".
In reality, many were children of single mothers who had been forced to give them up for adoption in
an era when their solitary status constituted a grave social stigma.
An excellent program that should immediately be revived, in other words.
Single mothers are parasites and a plague on society.
If a single mother is unable or refuses to marry prior to giving birth to her child, by law the child
should be immediately confiscated from her and placed for adoption (alternatively, raised by the state as a
janissary).
No abortion unless the child is mixed race or genetically unfit, as we want to inflict maximal emotional
trauma on these whores rather than provide them with an easy way out.
The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced
manufactured goods in return.
Even if that's true, the "freeloader" accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have
been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit. At the
very least, it would be nice to acknowledge that the Soviet system was bad for everyone involved and
Russians hardly its only victims.
Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he's writing for a Russian
audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what's the point then of
translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.
Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he's writing for a
Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what's the point then of
translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian
nationalists.
Absolutely correct. But Kholmogorov is a very marginal figure in Russia.
Levada doesn't explicitly say 'heroes', just 'great personalities', so Pushkin would be considered due
to his cultural contributions
That clarifies it. But if you ask people about 'greatness', their answers are based on notoriety for
some, admiration for others, sympathy, etc. I recently saw Pushkin on a list of African contributors to civilisation due to his partial Abyssinian
ancestry. His story has always puzzled me.
You're
German
. Other than some unhinged HIAG fanatics (are any left?), without exception even German
nationalists are so traumatized by WW2 and the postwar denazification that none of you dare to assert
yourselves. I see it as increasingly likely that we'll be forced to liberate you. Though perhaps you'll yet
find your Stresemann.
Russians, and many other nationalities, aren't like that.
That said I'll agree that Russian nationalists in general (not just Kholmogorov) could use a better tone
on certain subjects. They're particularly unhinged about the Baltic states, even people of mild temperament
like Dmitri.
The loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness. Boo-hoo. Try not
being losers instead. The Poles to their credit do try.
there were zero military units and virtually no Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fighting for the
Whites.
I am not sure people put that much thought into it. If they did, the Whites were socially very
unsympathetic for most people. The uniforms, rituals, pomposity. A friend of mine is a descendant of a White
Russian officer, he says he wouldn't fight with the Whites either, too snotty and you had to polish your
boots.
Out of curiosity, how many people in Ukraine fought for the Reds? Since they won, there had to be a few.
Or were they mostly Latvian riflemen with angry lapsed Jews as officers?
It's got to be his strong Christian Orthodox message. Don't forget, Kholmogorov stated that:
Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.
Don't forget, in the Russian nationalist parallel universe (for internal consumption only!
Stalin
was the father of the Ukrainian nation. I can't wait to get my hands on Karlin's magnum opus 'Putler, the
Dark Lord of the Kremlin', where it will finally be revealed to whom exactly Putler owes his fortunes to. Is
it just a coincidence that both Putler and Porkoshenko were implicated in the 'Panama papers' scandal, where
both civic patriots, in their own right, were implicated in international money laundering projects? Seems
like its been all quieted down since when it first surfaced in 2015?
I see it as increasingly likely that we'll be forced to liberate you
No thanks, Americans "liberating" us is one of the main reasons for the mess we're in (interesting though
that even Trump supporters have this messianic impulse to tell other peoples what to do, that seems to be an
unchanging constant of the American character).
Look, I get how those "might is right" power fantasies are great fun on internet message boards, but they're
not a sound basis for constructive and mutually beneficial European-Russian relations which is still what I
want. It's not my business to tell Russians how to run their country or how to deal with their history, but
I just don't see how a vision as one-sided as Kholmogorov's will do much good. I'm all for nationalism in
the sense of rejecting mass immigration, multiculturalism etc., but do I want a return to pre-1914
nationalisms with all their national antagonisms? Given how it ended last time, certainly not.
Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller nationalities.
Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.
loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness
You miss the longer historical picture if you dismiss us as 'loser countries'. In the last 100 years, by
any standard, the big winners have been the smaller countries between Germany and Russia (or West and
Russia). Politically, demographically, economically they have prospered beyond anything one would guess in
1900. This includes the endlessly demonised post-WWII period. They also probably have a better future than
their western and southern neighbours. All we need is peace and well managed borders, and for the Western
meddlers to mind their business.
Why do the German people continue to elect politicians and political parties that encourage the immigration
patterns of third world refugees? Or are the results different than in France, where its plainly obvious
that the country is descending into the sewers? (for some reason, one doesn't expect more from the French).
Even if that's true, the "freeloader" accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have
been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit.
You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with
Stalinists
. What kind of argument is likely
to get through to them? Certainly not any of the regular anti-Stalin bromides that have currency in the
West.
This whole thing is so out of context, I don't know why it was translated in the first place.
Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller
nationalities. Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.
Actually, Russians are generally not like that. Or at least they weren't in the past. What you are seeing
is a natural reaction to the messages the Russians were getting from the Eastern Europe in the past 30
years.
This whole thing is so out of context, I don't know why it was translated in the first place.
What context? Although I find most of Kholmogorov's ideas to be infantile and unbelievable, I applaud
Karlin for bringing it up here, outside of the ghetto that it was intended for. It's good to see just what
sorts of idiotic ideas and concerns are circulating today in the parallel universe of the Russian
nationalists. Keep doing it Anatoly!
You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to
get through to them?
Complaining that Russians didn't get enough out of WW2 in territorial annexations is a really weird
argument imo (Kholmogorov even complains about the loss of Russian influence in Manchuria does anybody in
Russia care about this?).
The part about collectivization and industrialization is more relevant imo given the damage Stalinist
methods caused to Russia itself (I know many Russian commenters here will disagree about that, and I'm not
going to argue with them since that's an internal Russian debate as far as I'm concerned).
What's weird about it?
What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it
other than Konigsberg?
The Russians might as well have made a separate peace after 1943.
Instead they quite literally
wasted
millions more men in order to impose communism in Eastern
Europe, and proceeded even to impose yet another famine on their own people in order to shore up the
ridiculous East German regime.
If the Germans had won instead you can bet your country would've gotten something out of it.
That's interesting, thanks. Haven't had time to read it yet but here is an article by the author cited above
(Jane Humphries), from the
Economic History Review
, on the same subject, based on her book
What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than
Konigsberg?
Well, what exactly should Russia have annexed then? And what would have been done to the non-Russian
population already in place there? Forced population transfers like in East Prussia or former East Poland?
If they had been left in place, that would obviously conflict with Russian nationalism in the narrow sense
and be more in the tradition of multiethnic imperialism.
Out of curiosity, how many people in Ukraine fought for the Reds? Since they won, there had to be a
few. Or were they mostly Latvian riflemen with angry lapsed Jews as officers?
The Reds had a lot of ethnic Russian troops from cities like Kharkiv. There were a few ethnic Ukrainians
fighting for the Reds (perhaps the most significant was Semyon Timoshenko, from Odessa region) but mostly it
was a matter of anarchists or nationalists making temporary alliances with the Reds and placing themselves
under Red command in order to keep the Whites out. Even some of the Galicians temporarily joined the Reds,
in order to fight against Poland:
Kholmogorov apparently thinks the Tsarist WW1 war aims were good.
I'm not Russian, and I suggest that
Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.
Had I been in Stalin's shoes, I would've concluded a separate peace with Germany as soon as practical.
Russia is not a country which needs more territory, resources, and population. The blood letting from
1943-1945 were not worth anything which could have been obtained.
Essential aims would have been independent and neutral Central European buffer states, resumption of
German-Russian trade, and German technological assistance.
If you want me to discuss "maximalist" objectives, I would've annexed everything up to the Elbe. Cities
would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable
groups. Peasants, farmers, etc. would continue to work their lands but for Russian barons. No peasant would
be admitted to a city unless with Russian fluency and sincere profession of the Orthodox faith. Catholic and
Protestant Churchs would be turned into Orthodox churchs. German technicians, scientists, machinists, and
other skilled technical workers would be employed in Russian service under good conditions.
Stalin couldn't really have concluded a separate peace with Hitler in 1943 (or anytime later).
1) The
Western powers might've made a peace with Hitler themselves after this. Then Hitler would've destroyed the
USSR, and Stalin would've made a fool of himself.
2) Hitler might've won the war in the West, and then turned once more on the USSR. You know the story from
here on.
3) The Western allies might've defeated Hitler anyway, but would've been way more hostile to the USSR (which
then would immediately be seen as a treacherous power willing to prop up Hitler despite having been attacked
by him), the USSR would've received way less assistance from them (the bulk of it came 1943-45), would've
been unable to steal the nuclear secrets (the Britons wouldn't have sold the designs of their jet engine, by
the way), and so would've been much weaker relative to the victorious and way more hostile West.
As a bonus point, how would you sell the separate peace to your own population, which by that point in
time properly hated the Germans, and with good reasons?
I'm not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.
That would indeed be interesting, and I'd also like to see specific statements about how one should have
dealt with non-Russian populations in those areas.
In general, I find AK's stance on those issues somewhat contradictory. To me it seems like he's clearly a
Russian ethnic nationalist. But then he lauds the multiethnic Tsarist empire with all its troublesome
national minorities, and makes insinuations about lost chances for territorial annexations (as if Russia
weren't a huge country even today) that would have brought even more non-Russians into that empire.
This basically comes down to the thesis that Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no
matter what.
I'm highly skeptical of this thesis.
The Western allies had proven already in 1940 that they were completely unwilling to negotiate with
Hitler. Granted, who knows what the reaction to a separate peace would have been.
There is one simple criteria when truing to evaluate a ruler or a statesman. Just compare the country before
and after him/her. In this sense Stalin is as great as Peter the Great, just not in name. No amount of "what
if", "alternative history" or "cost and effect" analysis can change that.
Of the topic (or precisely on
the topic) both Russian Empire and more recently Soviet Union collapsed, and there must have been a
perfectly mundane reasons for that.
It's a duty of current generations to learn the good and bad from both, avoid pitfalls and continue forward.
There was plenty that the empire left to the SU that it could build upon, just as there is quite a bit of
legacy left by the Soviet Union that modern RF can rely on.
But, as someone here already mentioned here, and I agree, that is what Putin has been doing.
I agree the Makhnovists fought mainly against the Whites, who were the biggest threat for them, but
neutrality and occassional collaboration with the Petliurists was purely tactical.
This isn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. The trouble is that people like us have created a
mental anchor by settling on the term "nationalism".
A Russian ethnic nation-state is not necessarily more
desirable than a Russian-dominated multiethnic empire, nor vice-a-versa. It depends on the particular
circumstances and conditions.
Or to move over to your country, would a federal Europe be a bad thing if it was led by people with ideas
more like yours or the Magyar Miracle rather than Jean Claude Juncker?
Steve Sailer likes to harp on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and points out that because "continentalism"
isn't a political concept no one ever thinks of this. Hence the patriotic resistance in Europe gets itself
into traps like Marine Le Pen campaigning for the abolition of the Euro.
Authors are filmmakers or something. Actual historians were not impressed. Sorry, you believe nonsense.
I'm afraid in this case your sense of nonsense is misplaced. I read the book a couple of years ago, and
while it had its flaws I found it pretty convincing.
The fact that "actual historians" don't like it says nothing, since it is obviously an anti-PC book that
could not possibly be embraced by the guardians of our past. However, before the "conventional wisdom" had
coalesced to relegate it to the rubbish bin, an early review in the
New York Times
was far more
favorable:
"White Cargo" is meticulously sourced and footnoted -- which is wise, given its contentious material --
but it is never dry or academic. Quotations from 17th- and 18th-century letters, diaries and newspapers
lend authenticity as well as color. Excerpts from wills, stating how white servants should be passed down
along with livestock and furniture, say more than any textbook explanation could. The authors are not
only historians, but also natural storytellers with a fine sense of drama and character.
Despite the heaviness of the subject matter, their playful way with words and love of literary
allusion come through. There are kidnapping victims of the kind written about in Daniel Defoe's "Colonel
Jack," and a tumultuous ocean voyage that may have inspired Shakespeare's writing of "The Tempest."
What little discussion there is about this forgotten bit of American history is sometimes linked to
those with ulterior political motives, usually interested in delegitimizing current-day discourse about
race or the teaching of black history. "White Cargo," which was first published in Britain last year, has
a refreshing sense of distance and neutrality. The authors take care to quote African-American sources
and clearly state that they have no wish to play down the horrors of the much larger black slave trade
that followed.
If anything, Jordan and Walsh offer an explanation of how the structures of slavery -- black or white --
were entwined in the roots of American society. They refrain from drawing links to today, except to
remind readers that there are probably tens of millions of Americans who are descended from white slaves
without even knowing it.
By the way, one of the authors that you so belittle last year published a very well-received book
entitled
The King's City: London under Charles II: A city that transformed a nation – and created modern
Britain
-- the third volume in his trilogy about Charles II (the first two written jointly in
collaboration with the second author of
White Cargo
).
Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no matter what
Not demonic, just driven by an ideology. He believed in his own mission to create the great Thousand Year
Reich up to the Ural (and beyond, actually), and would've thought such a stroke of luck as a sign from
Providence that he needs to press ahead with his plans. In any event, Hitler was unwilling to even seriously
negotiate with Stalin, because he also didn't (and couldn't) trust Stalin, a man he'd already betrayed
before. So the issue was mutual. Hitler was (must've been) afraid that Stalin would stab him in the back
later. While Stalin was (must've been) afraid that Hitler would stab him in the back later, as he'd already
done once.
But what did exactly the US or the UK gotten out of their victory? The US got some satellite states (just
as the USSR), but because it was richer to begin with and didn't have an insane economic system, it could at
least keep them after 1990. But those satellites were actually still unreliable from a US viewpoint. It's
questionable if they will keep them another seven decades, I highly doubt it. In the meantime they opened up
their borders to prove the world that they are not racists. They also opened up their markets to Japan and
Germany and South Korea etc. to prop those countries up.
It seems to me that long term, the US got just as little from its victory as Russia. It might actually be
totally destroyed ethnically, while Russia at least plausibly could stay Russian long term. If you compare
ethnically Russian areas 1939 and 2018, they are almost the same. But ethnically white American areas 1939
vs. 2018, and it seems like the Americans were even bigger losers.
People change their beliefs. Hitler for instance no longer consider slavs to be inferior at the end of his
life. Supposing you're correct then we have my maximalist vision of a Russian Empire reaching the Elbe,
ideally with a port on the North Sea as well if the army could've gotten there in time (plausible with a
different offensive strategy in 1944-45).
But what did exactly the US or the UK gotten out of their victory? The US got some satellite states
(just as the USSR), but because it was richer to begin with and didn't have an insane economic system, it
could at least keep them after 1990. But those satellites were actually still unreliable from a US
viewpoint. It's questionable if they will keep them another seven decades, I highly doubt it. In the
meantime they opened up their borders to prove the world that they are not racists. They also opened up
their markets to Japan and Germany and South Korea etc. to prop those countries up.
It seems to me that long term, the US got just as little from its victory as Russia. It might actually
be totally destroyed ethnically, while Russia at least plausibly could stay Russian long term. If you
compare ethnically Russian areas 1939 and 2018, they are almost the same. But ethnically white American
areas 1939 vs. 2018, and it seems like the Americans were even bigger losers.
I have complained bitterly about this before. American foreign policy took a permanently fatal wrong turn
with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Previously American foreign policy had oscillated between isolationism and expansionism, but always with
a clear pursuit of American self-interest. This was firmly established already in the 1790s, when George
Washington flatly rejected airheaded nonsense about aiding revolutionary France b/c muh liberty.
After FDR American foreign policy pursued idealistic, errant nonsense. The only significant departures
from that have been Nixon and Trump.
This started when FDR placed sanctions on Italy for the "crime" of invading Ethiopia. Willingly giving up
commercial exports during the Great Depression.
The outrages continued with FDR's refusal to punish Mexico from expropriating American oil interests in
1938.
Our fate was sealed with the adoption of the Atlantic Charter (airheaded rubbish) and the passing of the
Lend-Lease Program, where we gave weapons to countries fighting the Axis in exchange for nothing (other than
a 99 year lease of some British bases). Why not instead demand Bermuda and the British West Indies?
The appropriate strategy in dealing with the Axis would've been either hemispheric defense (as proposed
by the American First Committee) or joining them to dismember the British Empire.
I'm surprised you have such a PC view of American history. As multiple sources make clear, the information
presented in
White Cargo
is correct -- large numbers of (white) people were effectively involuntarily
"enslaved" in colonial America, in conditions that were no better (and often worse) than enslaved Africans.
Surely his views and outlook are a little distinctive, in every country, not just Russia (or America). But
it doesn't make them less entertaining/interesting/funny, etc.
From the perspective of a blog, if the viewpoint of the blogger is more frequently found in the public ,
then they would be easier to find, less rare – and there would be less reason for audience to visit the
blog. If all the blogger's views are 'typical' – then why would anyone visit the blog? They could read the
main news sites and encounter the identical content.
More generally, the more thinking or thoughtful people, will usually have more unusual and unpredictable
combinations of views, which cannot be categorized into simple groups.
If you encounter that your views can 'map' predictably onto any political movement, common ideology, or
political party in your country -then you need to question your views (and the influence of conformism in
the predictability).
Thanks. How does an anarchist-nationalist temporarily allied with the Reds look like in person? I am always
amused by the ability of certain eastern European types to push the boundary of coherent thought. There is
too much of something there, or maybe something missing. Many just want a gun to take a revenge on the
crappy world.
It is not different today: there are Pan-Slavic nationalists who hate anything Russian (or
even Polish), are fanatically pro-Western, loudly admire Israel and more quietly the Nazis, their economic
policy is quasi-communist and social views are to the right of a 19th century pope. Quite a mess.
Cities would be
depopulated
of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs
and other reliable groups
I'm curious, just how exactly you envision the 'depopulation' of the indigenous nationalities to have
taken place? Do you feel that a rather war weary Russia was really in any position to follow through on any
such violent and crazy proposals? As far as 'reliable East Slav groups' we can see today how that ha turned
out in Ukraine. As many others here have pointed out, did Russia really need extra territories? I can't
figure out what motivates such malicious and incoherent ideas? Me thinks that Thorfinnsson should stick to
the calculation of P/E ratios and not to international relations?
Both Reds and anarchists were opposed to the landlords and capitalists, so they had common cause against the
Whites and could cooperate against them in order to prevent White victory. Similarly, both Reds and
non-Russian nationalists were opposed to the Whites who were Russian nationalists. In the Galicians' case,
it was opposition to the Poles who had just conquered their country.
In reality cooperation between Reds and nationalists wasn't as substantial as between anarchists and
Reds.
It wasn't the product of ideological twisting, it was simply a matter of – we hate them more than each
other, so let's cooperate against them, for now.
natural reaction to the messages the Russians were getting from the Eastern Europe in the past 30
years
Possibly, although I would say that messages have been mixed. I have argued with my comprador friends
that full devotion to the Atlanticist West limits one's options, that it is the worst game strategy, and
that burning bridges is a often a bad idea. But rationality is in short supply when salmon buffets call and
that umpteenth trip to a DC 3- star hotel for 'training' is dangled in front of them.
To be fair, Russians for most of the last 25 years were not that different, and would probably do it
again. Human weakness has few boundaries.
No, it was the peak, but it was not typical. 'Typical' is defined as 'faithfully representing'. 1930′s
were an extreme, the 1917-1991 period as a whole was very different. So yes, you are cherry-picking.
How about them 5-year olds in the British mines? Ok, with that?
The war-weary Russian population would have been in need of vast reconstruction. And also the non-Russian
populations of Europe. The workers of these conquered cities would've been very useful for that.
Depopulation isn't a euphemism here for execution or even necessarily deportations. Unlike Hitler and his
gang I don't have fantasies of wiping people out.
Look instead at something like, say, the history of England and the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms. The preceding Brittonic and Romano-British populations weren't eliminated at all. The ruling
classes were replaced, the cities transformed, and overtime the countryside itself.
If Canute the Great had established a real dynasty then today there wouldn't even be an England, but not
because demonic vikings had some demented plot to butcher every Englishman.
As far as I can tell Ukrainians were generally reliable in Tsarist and Soviet times.
And no, Russia didn't need extra territory. I said that myself. But I figured German_reader was curious
about a maximalist proposal.
on
topic, Stalin kinda sucked, what with the random arrests, the Doctors' Affair, the random
arrests, but with all the degeneracy and decivilization going on – rap battles, corruption, gopniks,
RSP-shki, "kowtowing to the West" – you sometimes wish he was back.
I am sure it sounds weird to you, but what Kholmogorov is doing here, is telling the Stalinists that even by
their own criteria their hero is a failure. What they say are his greatest achievements are not so great
after all, even from the Imperial Stalinist POV.
Another way Kholmogorov likes to troll Stalinists is to take a Soviet accomplishment (like going into
space) and credit Nicholas II.
You are getting warmer, it is about unbounded hatred. Any enemy will do. Did they have flow-charts
mapping out the complexity? Or does this kind of well-calculated hatred come to them intuitively?
My intuition tells me that when you mess with people repeatedly, and they end up living worse and worse,
at some point the '
kill them all
' mentality takes over. It happened in Ukraine in 1917-20, in WWII
and after. I hope we can avoid it from happening again. But if Ukraine lives as today in 2020-25 (lousy
living standards), if there are guns everywhere, something could spark the downward spiral again.
Incidentally, I consider that Kaliningrad should be remained to it proper name.
Korolevets?
hem do what they will with Poland would have been particularly amusing. However, it was not
politically realistic, even for a totalitarian system such as the USSR.
The war-weary Russian population would have been in need of vast reconstruction. And also the
non-Russian populations of Europe. The workers of these conquered cities would've been very useful for
that.
The populations of Russia and Eastern Europe had already been depopulated severely due to the savagery of
the war. The returning Soviet soldiers, including the remnant of the remaining population, had their hands
full with rebuilding of what was left of their own settlements, not in a position to 'repopulate' nor
rebuild Eastern Europe without the direct participation of its own indigenous populations. A prolonging of
the war at the expense of millions of more lives, either resettled (to where?) or exterminated, would not
have been in the cards. Besides, what makes you think that Eastern Europe would have fared any better than
it did, with a new race of Russian ubermensch calling all of the shots anyway? History has shown us that
they did a rather lousy job of things in their own country and in those that it did end up controlling.
The populations of Russia and Eastern Europe had already been depopulated severely due to the savagery
of the war. The returning Soviet soldiers, including the remnant of the remaining population had their
hands full with rebuilding of what was left of their own settlements, not in a position to 'repopulate'
nor rebuild Eastern Europe without the direct participation of its own indigenous populations.
Take the conquered women as polygamous wives. Rapid repopulation follows.
A prolonging of the war at the expense of millions of more lives, either resettled (to where?) or
exterminated, would not have been in the cards.
Hence why I suggested making peace in 1943.
Besides, what makes you think that Eastern Europe would have fared any better than it did, with a new
race of Russian ubermensch calling all of the shots anyway? History has shown us that they did a rather
lousy job of things in their own country and in those that it did end up controlling.
Did I say it would've fared better?
My point was that the whole point of
winning
a war is to get something out of it. Something that
everyone aside from the Axis apparently did not understand.
I suppose the French did try to get something out of it, but their demands were ignored by the real
victors.
I think that you assume that things have to make a lot more sense than they have to. The Adeptus Mechanicus
is honestly not a terrible response to overwhelming complexity – which is pretty likely if we ever get to
the point where we have code creating code creating code.
They're dealing with machines they don't fully understand, realize that it has very real "demons"
within(viruses), and the safest way to handle it has just been to keep doing whatever works. Thus the
stories of prayers ending with hitting the "on" switch: the functionality is still there, it has just been
couched in ritual.
At some point, the only realistic way of handling it is ritual – which is very human anyway. I've been
involved in a lot of pretty high tech stuff for awhile and while its not quite religious, the tendency
toward some form of ritual really does gradually take over, even if we tend to call them procedures or "best
practices." There's a lot of weirdness, cultishness and bubble insanity in SV, and this isn't even
considering the more fringe things like transhumanism or immortality organizations.
Seems like a possible outcome of this proposed peace is a future war against Britain and Japan at the same
time. Oddly, Russia might be able to gain America as an ally in such a conflict.
And obviously, heavy reparations to turbocharge Russia's continuing postwar industrialization.
Unrealistically long time horizons. The US did of course unambiguously win the war – it accounted for
something like 50% of world manufacturing production by 1945. It dominated all the markets. In the late
1940s-early 1950s, if it had really wanted to, it could have conquered the entire world and/or instituted a
one world government. (The Soviet nuclear deterrent was not credible until 1955 or so).
To develop
Thorfinnsson's idea of a 1943 Nazi-Soviet peace further (
with the caveat that I do not consider it
politically realistic even for the USSR
):
First off, I do not think the Allies would have made a separate peace with the Nazis. Public opinion
there mattered more, for obvious reasons (democracy), and it's not even clear that the Russians hated the
Germans more (there are accounts of German POWs being treated generously – disgracefully – well, by elderly
babushkas with low national consciousness).
With the Wehrmacht having its hands untied in the East, D-Day would no longer be feasible. However, the
Manhattan Project would not be going away, with the result that a campaign of democidal atomic attrition
against the German population would begin from 1945.
The Nazis are not limp-wristed like the Kaiser or even Hindenburg/Ludendorff and will hold onto power as
German city after city gets wiped off the Earth.
At some point, Germany will be sufficiently weak for an Allied invasion to be possible, especially
considering that there would have been years to prepare for it. Obviously, at this point, the USSR could use
the opportunity to scavenge. Even the East Europeans will be less of a problem at this point, having been
subjected to 2-3x the degree of democide by the Nazis as they were historically. There will at a basic level
be much fewer of them. And they'd hate the Germans even more.
The USSR could have used the armistice with Germany to refocus on science spending and turbocharge the
nuclear program, developing it earlier and having a credible deterrent by 1950 instead of 1955. So no
Operation Unthinkable in principle (IRL, the USSR in reality seriously lucked out on that score!!).
The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced
manufactured goods in return.
Moreover, in 1946-47, "conquered" East Germans were literally fed at the expense of starving Russians.
50/50= truths/myths. East Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians have similar stories. They always blamed
shortages on the so-called 'exports' to USSR. There were no noticeable Soviet products in stores there but
plenty of Eastern Block products in Soviet Union.
inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return
How anybody can determine what was overpriced or underpriced in the system of exchange they had? Eastern
European products often were inferior with respect to the West but superior to what was being produced in
the USSR. Muscovites were going crazy when shoes from Czechoslovakia or DDR were sold in few stores. Anybody
lined up for Soviet products in Hungary or Poland. Perhaps for
Sovetskoye Shampanskoye
before the New
Year's Eve
Buses and pharmaceuticals form Hungary, high-tech optical and electronics equipment from DDR, ship
industry in Poland mainly functioning for USSR, more that 50% sulphuric acid used in the USSR was from
Poland, CSFR motor vehicles, for example, passenger cars, trams, motorcycles , lathes, pumps , compressors.
(10 min of googling).
Russian nationalist want empire but they do not know how they are going to run it. Actually they did not
know in the past. They have never managed to culturally dominate people they subjugated except for some
Siberian tribal people. One thing is true, the emotional prerequisite for Russians is to be loved and
appreciated by the people they subjugated. When they see all the evidence to the contrary they display the
spurned lover syndrome and show hurt ego how much they sacrificed for the subjugated and so on. You even
detect it in Uber-rational A. Karlin. Americans have it too but to much lesser extent because they are much
more secure in their beliefs. They do not have to support them by myths only. It suffices to look around and
see how America is powerful and dominant. But the megalomania and some sense of missions are very similar
among Russians and Americans. People from 'lesser' countries are fed up with it. Now they may sympathize
with Russia in hope that counterbalancing of American power would be good but when they hear the nationalist
imperial spiel like that of Kholmogorov they pause and have a second thought and may consider that beefing
up Ukraine might be a very good thing after all and opening border with Mexico and turning the US into a
Latin America might be a good thing after all from the point of view of small countries that want to have
more sovereignty whether to create the ethno-state state or gay utopia or both.
1. Germany was not doing well at the start of 1917. AH and Turkey were doing catastrophically.
2. There is
a difference between the degree of hurt you can expect if you sign an armistice when you're losing (applies
to both Russia and Germany in 1918), and if you capitulate and/or are conquered (France in 1940 lost the
bulk of its core territory, for instance).
Well a good enough number did fight on the White side, thereby explaining why they never lost to Petliura's
forces, which were representative of a completely separatist Ukraine, until Petliura sold out to Pilsudski –
in a move which saw the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse come under the command of the Whites.
and it's not even clear that the Russians hated the Germans more (there are accounts of German POWs
being treated generously – disgracefully – well, by elderly babushkas with low national consciousness)
iirc about 90% of the Germans taken prisoner by the Soviets in 1941-1943 didn't survive the war; it's
also clear that German prisoners were frequently tortured and killed.
Not that I'm complaining, Germans started the war and if anything behaved worse. But you can't seriously
believe that Russians felt
less
hatred for Germans than the British, let alone the Americans did.
That's completely implausible.
There were a few ethnic Ukrainians fighting for the Reds
Another one of your gross understatements. Also keeping in mind that a number of folks from the territory
of Russian Empire Ukraine could qualify as ethnic Ukrainian, but identified differently.
Why should Britain and France have supported the realization of such extreme war aims to the benefit of
Russia? Their alliance with Russia was purely one of convenience, liberal opinion in the West despised
Tsarism. And once the US had entered the war, the whole war was changed into a "crusade for democracy"
anyway, which made such imperialist annexations even more unlikely.
Your idea of Tsarist Russia being unjustly robbed of great territorial gains is fantasy imo. The Bolshevik
takeover was deplorable for many reasons, but not because Russia failed to gobble up even more land.
I think that you assume that things have to make a lot more sense than they have to. The Adeptus
Mechanicus is honestly not a terrible response to overwhelming complexity – which is pretty likely if we
ever get to the point where we have code creating code creating code.
They're dealing with machines they don't fully understand, realize that it has very real "demons"
within(viruses), and the safest way to handle it has just been to keep doing whatever works. Thus the
stories of prayers ending with hitting the "on" switch: the functionality is still there, it has just
been couched in ritual.
At some point, the only realistic way of handling it is ritual – which is very human anyway. I've been
involved in a lot of pretty high tech stuff for awhile and while its not quite religious, the tendency
toward some form of ritual really does gradually take over, even if we tend to call them procedures or
"best practices." There's a lot of weirdness, cultishness and bubble insanity in SV, and this isn't even
considering the more fringe things like transhumanism or immortality organizations.
Atomic physics is a field already near theology.
The idea of future religions integrating such scientific concepts is something beautiful (and there was
already something this in the Soviet Union).
There has to be some actual integration though.
You can't take current priests (low IQ, superstitious people who usually fail maths in school), and put
them next to an abstract scientific concept like the word 'atom' – without making both sides look
ridiculous.
It is like the arrangement most designed to turn them into an object for ridicule from educated people.
(Likewise photos of priests near to specific technology which was entirely created by Soviet trained
people).
It is just like seeing the scene of primitive monkeys from the 2001 film.
"It seems obvious that the ideal combination is both. And the
*late*
Russian Empire was in
fact just that."
I agree with you that ideal combination would indeed be "both".
I am not sure that "late" Russian Empire was just that, though.
Perhaps, I am much too influenced by later Bolshevik propaganda, winners, after all, get the privilege to
write the (hi)story.
But, most likely, the Russian Empire's fate is just another case of that famous "too little too late".
Russians, having the first hand experience of these, epic, failures of both the Empire and Soviet Union,
have both the necessary perspective and hindsight to move on in much better future. We have to see if they
have acquired the wisdom, too. Again, in this respect, and in my opinion, Putin has been doing a "hell of a
job" so far.
Russia was also crumbling even without the Bolsheviks. The Kerensky offensive was a catastrophe. Military
discipline had completely evaporated.
Assuming the Russians had hung in long enough to participate at
Versailles, I doubt they would've gained much. Britain and America would both oppose most of Russia's war
aims. Certainly the idea that President Wilson and David Lloyd George would agree to transfer Constantinople
to Russia is a fantasy.
Probably Russia would've gotten some more sullen Poles to administer, Galicia, and the rest of Armenia.
And of course the reparations which the Germans would largely fail to pay.
Dismemberment of Germany like France and Russia wanted was never going to be tolerated by Britain or
America.
Note that I posit a Cold War emerging between France/UK and Russia after the war.
Absent nuclear weapons, why exactly would that have stayed a Cold war in the 1920s/1930s and not become a
hot one? Russia was seen as a potential rival to British imperial interests well before 1914 and would have
been seen as an even greater threat in your scenario.
However, the great bulk of them relate to economic and political ones inherent to Communism (e.g.
central planning; using your
*own*
population as disposable bodies
Obviously I agree about the defects of communism, but the insinuation that it would be ok to treat other
populations as "disposable bodies" really irritates me what exactly would be your problem with the Nazis
then, apart from the fact that they targeted Russians as a population to be disposed of? The general vibe I
get from this thread is that any moral considerations would be for losers and cucks anyway.
Have to say, these insights into the views of Russian nationalists make me think it's probably better
they're still fairly marginal in Russia and not looked kindly upon by the state.
The "sicko nationalist stuff bordering on fascism" is how statecraft was practiced from the Bronze Age
to Bismarck.
If I understand you correctly, you're actually an American, and therefore I find it amusing that you
subscribe to such 'tribal' worldviews. For all of its faults, 'American exceptionalism' which acts a an
underlying motivator for American imperialism, does not include components of ethnic or national superiority
(imperialism without the 'pure blood' racial component) that I think is a step in the right direction. For
all of the criticism of the inclusion of different ethnicities in the make-up of American society (and I'm
not a proponent of open borders, etc;), I think that a strong case can be made that one of the strengths of
the vibrant, US nation, is its inclusion of all ethnicities. Although it's getting harder and harder,
immigrants are still adding to the overall good of American society. US multiculturalism should not be a
blueprint for all societies throughout the world, but it certainly will continue to slowly influence how
many of the advanced countries of the world model their own societies. I strongly suspect that your own
genetic make-up was formed through the melding of more than just your own German heritage that began over 5
centuries ago? Even Karlin's ethnic pedigree is far from 'pure' Russian, and the both of you don't seem to
be any worse for the resulting cocktail?
Here's the exact quotation, taken from Makhno's three volume autobiography:
One thing alone must bother me in publishing this outline, and that is that it does not come out in
the Ukraine and in the Ukrainian language. The Ukrainian nation is advancing culturally step by step
toward a full definition of its own individual essence and this [the memoirs, F.S.] could be important.
That I cannot publish my writings in the language of my people is not my fault but that of the conditions
in which I find myself.[68]
Russia behaving like any normal European country
*one century ago*
with respect to
war aims – note that Germany would have created a continental empire, and here is the French version
But how many Germans or Frenchmen are still going on about this as if it were relevant today? French and
German nationalists have rather different concerns now, all this talk about territorial annexations and
imperialism looks like out of another universe.
The problem isn't that Russian imperial elites a century ago had extreme ambitions (which backfired
horrendously on them), the problem is that one can get the impression that Kholmogorov and others like him
think like that even today.
This further reinforces my suspicions that Russia should not have any sentimental illusions about
Europeans, even European nationalists.
Self-fulfilling prophecy "They'll hate us anyway, so why not give them a reason?". Hardly a constructive
sentiment.
The "sicko nationalist stuff bordering on fascism" is how statecraft was practiced from the Bronze Age
to Bismarck.
It wasn't though. The borders of France, for example, barely changed for centuries, despite being the
most powerful nation in Europe. Louis XIV's attempt to acquire just Belgium and some German cities united
all of Europe against him. Of course even those conquests which were made were within the framework of
multi-national empires (which often disadvantaged the dominant ethnicity, if anything), rather than
Assyrian-style subjugation.
Events like the Polish Partitions were unique and regarded as horrible.
I suppose this is the American educational system at work.
Americans were mostly white supremacists and frequently Anglo-Saxon supremacists as well for more than three
centuries.
The unforced error of admitting millions upon millions of non-Anglos from the 1840s through WW1
diluted the original American identity beyond the possibility of restoration, but mid-century experiences
(Great Depression, WW2, mass media, space race, etc.) managed to forge a composite American nation.
But then America's elite threw it all in the trash by deciding that white supremacy was getting in the
way of winning the ever important HEARTS AND MINDS of shithole countries like Upper Volta.
America isn't a blueprint for anyone, other than wreckers who want to break nations. It's a warning.
Too bad for Eurocucks that they're our vassal states and thus instead following us like lemmings off the
cliff.
That's not to say that a focus on purity is necessarily desirable. Obviously such a focus in Russia or
America today is ridiculous and counterproductive. But in a country like Sweden or Japan it isn't.
My family's genealogy is pretty well done, but no doubt if you go far enough back you'd be likely to find
something more "exotic" than a German. Danes and Norwegians certainly; and possibly Scots, Dutchmen, and
Walloons. Finns and Slavs less likely but who knows.
iirc about 90% of the Germans taken prisoner by the Soviets in 1941-1943 didn't survive the war
They were high but 90% sounds unlikely though it would be good if someone looked the figures up (though I
dimly recall that might have been the case in the singular aftermath of Stalingrad).
Anyhow, the two situations are not comparable not even on account of the Nazis having been the ones who
attacked as by the fact that the USSR faced a food crisis of its own. A few million died of food shortages
within
the USSR during 1941-43; IIRC, around half of all Gulag deaths ever also occurred during that
period. It was undergoing a low-key famine of its own then (unlike Germany, which was well fed until late
1944). I mean yes, sovcucks will sovcuck, but I suppose even they draw the line at privileging captured
enemy combatants over their "own" people.
I think it was in Beevor's Stalingrad there was some account of a German POW Wehrmacht doctor getting fed
and clothed by Russian peasants to supplement his low rations. Certainly there was very little of that
happening wrt Russian POWs in Germany.
The French themselves developed a concept known as the
NATURAL BORDERS OF FRANCE
, and the "natural"
eastern border was the Rhine. And the Rhineland was
completely
German.
Napoleon succeeded in making
that the eastern French border, but we know how that turned out.
This thread is about Joseph Stalin and thus involves the discussion of
history
.
No doubt French and
German nationalists have views on the two World Wars as well.
Russia has territorial concerns France and Germany do not for the simple reason that the USSR collapsed
and stranded millions of Russians outside Russia's borders. Russia's late historical development also means
we have oddities like two pseudo-Russian nations on its border. The only comparable thing to this in France
or Germany is, what, Corsica?
The situation of Russia today is comparable to that of Germany after 1919, not Germany after 1990.
The French made hardly any progress towards accomplishing that between Richelieu and Napoleon. Louis XIV
only got Alsace and Louis XV Lorraine (part of a negotiated swap) and Corsica , over a span of almost 200
years. They couldn't even add the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands despite occupying them many times.
The revolutionary policy of annexation was obviously new (and not repeated in the 19th century) and ended in
complete failure, with France being restored to pre-Revolutionary borders.
Frederick II's annexation of Silesia was also regarded as exceptional and shocking.
All of this is despite Europe being more at war (and on a large scale) than not during the 17th and 18th
centuries.
What's unique about the Polish Partitions at all?
Nothing like it was repeated (barring the very minor and ultimately irrelevant division of Venice).
Austria and Russia couldn't even ever finish off the Ottoman Empire, despite having the idea since Potemkin
and Catherine the Great.
though I dimly recall that might have been the case in the singular aftermath of Stalingrad
Stalingrad is well known, only about 6000 of the Germans captured there survived; but iirc the same was
true for Germans taken prisoner in 1941/1942 (the numbers weren't that high by WW2 standards, somewhat above
100 000, unfortunately I can't find a reference right now). Anyway, it could of course hardly be expected
that the Soviet Union in 1941/42 would give much priority to caring for German pows, and in any case the
policy changed during the later years of war; I also don't doubt that something like with the elderly
Russian women you mentioned did happen. It just seems implausible to me that Russians could have felt
less
hatred for Germans than the western allies, when the entire character of the war in the east was
different (mostly conventional war in the west vs. highly ideological war in the east that was waged as a
war of extermination and conquest by the Germans).
But how many Germans or Frenchmen are still going on about this as if it were relevant today?
It is a concern in
a historic context
.
I mean, the entire point of the second half of EK's article is that Stalinists say Stalin is good because
he returned the Russian Empire to its older borders; EK points out that it was merely a rectification of
Lenin's sabotage, came at a huge cost, and in the end turned out to be a toxic gift anyway.
What, exactly, is controversial about any of that?
Modern Russian nationalists are quite open about having imperial ambitions on Belorussia, Novorossiya,
and to a lesser extent, Northern Kazakhstan (fast becoming demographically unfeasible) and
Malorossiya/Central Ukraine (has become politically unfeasible since 2014).
You are of course free not to like that, but, whatever. Romanian nationalists have imperial ambitions on
their lost province of Moldova:
(Incidentally, Russian nationalists don't, aside from Transnistria; even though more Moldovans would vote
to join Russia
"... Germany's mighty Wehrmacht, which included the Luftwaffe, was destroyed by Stalin's Soviet Union. The Red Army claims to have destroyed 507 German divisions, 48,000 German tanks, 77,000 German aircraft, and 100 divisions of Axis troops allied to Germany from Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Finland. ..."
"... Of Germany's 10 million casualties in WWII, 75% were inflicted by the Red Army. The once mighty Luftwaffe was decimated over Russia. Almost all German military production went to supplying the 1,600 km Eastern Front where Germany's elite forces were ground up in titanic battles like Kursk and Stalingrad that involved millions of soldiers. ..."
On my many walking visits to the vast Normandy battlefield in France, I kept recalling the
ever so wise dictum of Prussia's great monarch, Frederick the Great: 'he who defends
everything, defends nothing.' On this 74 th anniversary of the D-Day landings, it's
well worth recalling the old warrior-king.
Adolf Hitler, a veteran of the infantry, should certainly have known better. Defending the
European coast from Brittany to Norway was an impossibility given Germany's military and
economic weakness in 1944. But he did not understand this. Having so brilliantly overcome
France's Maginot Line fortifications in 1940, Hitler and his High Command repeated the same
strategic and tactical errors as the French only four years later: not having enough reserves
to effectively counter-attack enemy breakthrough forces.
Germany's vaunted Atlantic Wall looked formidable on paper, but it was too long, too thin,
lacked defensive depth and was lacking in adequate reserve forces. The linear Maginot Line
suffered the same failings. America's fortifications protecting Manila and Britain's
'impregnable' fortifications at Singapore also proved worthless. The Japanese merely marched
into their undefended rears.
In 1940, the German Wehrmacht was modern history's supreme fighting machine. But only four
years later, the Wehrmacht was broken. Most Americans, British and Canadians believe that D-Day
was the decisive stroke that ended WWII in Europe. But this is not true.
Germany's mighty Wehrmacht, which included the Luftwaffe, was destroyed by Stalin's
Soviet Union. The Red Army claims to have destroyed 507 German divisions, 48,000 German tanks,
77,000 German aircraft, and 100 divisions of Axis troops allied to Germany from Italy, Romania,
Hungary, Slovakia, and Finland.
Few Americans have ever heard of the Soviet Far East offensive of 1945, a huge operation
that extended from Central Asia to Manchuria and the Pacific. At least 450,000 Japanese
soldiers were killed, wounded or captured by the Red Army, 32% of Japan's total wartime
military losses. The Soviets were poised to invade Japan when the US struck it with two nuclear
weapons.
Of Germany's 10 million casualties in WWII, 75% were inflicted by the Red Army. The once
mighty Luftwaffe was decimated over Russia. Almost all German military production went to
supplying the 1,600 km Eastern Front where Germany's elite forces were ground up in titanic
battles like Kursk and Stalingrad that involved millions of soldiers.
Soviet forces lost upwards of 20 million men. Total US losses, including the Pacific, were
one million. To Marshal Stalin, D-Day, the North African and Italian campaign were merely
diversionary side-shows to tie down Axis forces while the Red Army pushed on to Berlin.
D-Day was without doubt one of the greatest logistical feats of modern military history.
Think of General Motors versus the German warrior Siegfried. For every US tank the Germans
destroyed, ten more arrived. Each German tank was almost irreplaceable. Transporting over one
million men and their heavy equipment across the Channel was a triumph. But who remembers that
Germany crossed the heavily defended Rhine River into France in 1940?
ORDER IT NOW
By June, 1944, German forces at Normandy and along the entire Channel coast had almost no
diesel fuel or gasoline. Their tanks and trucks were immobilized. Allied air power shot up
everything that moved, including a staff car carrying Marshal Erwin Rommel strafed by Canada's
own gallant future aviator general, Richard Rohmer. German units in Normandy were below 40%
combat effectiveness even without their shortages in fuel.
The Germans in France were also very short of ammunition, supplies and communications. Units
could only move by night, and then very slowly. Hitler was reluctant to release armored forces
from his reserves. Massive Allied bombing of Normandy alone killed 15,000 to 20,000 French
civilians and shattered many cities and towns.
Churchill once said, 'you will never know war until you fight Germans.' With no air cover or
fuel and heavily outnumbered, German forces in Normandy managed to mount a stout resistance,
inflicting 209,000 casualties on US, Canadian, British, Free French and allied forces. German
losses were around 200,000.
The most important point of the great invasion is that without it, the Red Army would have
reached Paris and the Channel Ports by the end of 1944, making Stalin the master of all Europe
except Spain. Of course, the Allies could have reached a peace agreement with Germany in 1944,
which Hitler was seeking and Gen. George Patton was rumored to be advocating. But the
German-hating Churchill and left-leaning Roosevelt were too bloody-minded to consider a peace
that would have kept Stalin out of at least some of Eastern Europe.
Trump knows his prostrate allies. He moralizes: 'the more you screw them the better they
like it'!
That's the Trump doctrine. And its not only his personal views: the stock market loves it;
the Silicon billionaires and the manufacturers are cashing in on protection at home and free
markets overseas
"... The top White House adviser and son-in-law of Trump failed to identify his part ownership of Cadre, a real-estate startup he founded, which links him to the Goldman Sachs Group and the mega-investors George Soros and Peter Thiel, sources told The Journal. ..."
I guess the "Deep State" is deeper than the White House is reporting.....
Jared Kushner didn't disclose his business ties with George Soros, Peter Thiel, and Goldman Sachs, or that he owes $1 billion
in loans, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.
The top White House adviser and son-in-law of Trump failed to identify his part ownership of Cadre, a real-estate startup
he founded, which links him to the Goldman Sachs Group and the mega-investors George Soros and Peter Thiel, sources told The Journal.
"... In Syria the goal of Israel, the US, Saudis and other Gulf satrapies was the same: eliminate a strong secular regime that keeps the country unified and convert Syria into a bunch of impotent warring Bantustans. ..."
"... Israel wanted to make sure that there is no Syria to fulfill UN SC resolution and retake its Golan Heights, and have a chance of creating additional occupied "security areas" at will; Saudis and allied satrapies wanted to build oil and gas pipelines through Syrian territory without having to ask the permission of real government; the US wanted to promote Israeli and Saudi interests and create Libya-like chaos, making Syrian territory free-for-all playground. ..."
"... Russian intervention ruined those plans. Moreover, it appears that Iranian, Hezbollah, and other forces supporting Assad submitted to overall Russian military planning and possibly command: the war became pretty successful all of a sudden; high-ranking Iranian commanders are no longer killed in Syria on a regular basis. Thus, Russia foiled Israeli, Saudi, and the US plans. But it is important to keep in mind that Putin did this to promote Russian interests in the region, not Iranian or even Syrian. For the most part these interests coincide, but when they don't, Russian actions might look like a "betrayal" of partners, even though Russia cannot betray anyone there, as it did not pledge allegiance to anyone. ..."
"... Russia (both under tsars and in Soviet times) used to put too much effort into a thankless task of saving the world and learned its lesson. ..."
"... Yes, the string of ME wars (Syria is not an exception: remember Somalia, Libya, turmoil in Egypt, Yemen, etc) is part of the global war between the US Empire and Russia, where Russia seeks lasting order and balance of interests, whereas the Empire creates chaos in the hopes of getting new puppets and generally dominating, on behalf of Israel and itself. ..."
"... Yes, the US Empire is on the decline, hence the US policies are becoming more and more hysterical. In essence, no enemy undermines the US in the ME and all over the world more than it undermines itself. That's how all dominant Empires in history ended: by committing suicide. ..."
"... Bottom line is, Putin's Russia fends for itself, entering into long- and short-term deals with anyone (even Erdogan, who is as trustworthy as a used car salesman), as long as those deals serve its interests. ..."
"... Objectively, Russia cannot let the Empire (or Israel, for that matter) vanquish Assad or Iran. However, Putin tries to minimize the costs for Russia, and therefore will avoid direct confrontation with Israel or the Empire as long as possible. That's the whole story, the rest is fantasy. ..."
Let's look at that thesis from a purely logical point of view. First, what were the Israeli
goals initially? As I have explained
it elsewhere , initially the Israelis had the following goals:
Bring down a strong
secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces, and security services.
Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone" by Israel
not only in the Golan but further north. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the
Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death,
then create a "security zone", but this time in Lebanon. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis
Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon. Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines. Create a Kurdistan
which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Make it possible for Israel to
become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait
and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project. Gradually isolate,
threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces.
Eliminate all centers of Shia power in the Middle-East.
Now let's stop right here and ask a very simple question: if Putin and Netanyahu were on the
same side all along, what should Putin have done to aid the Israelis? I submit that the obvious
and indisputable answer is: absolutely nothing . By the time the Russian initiated their (very
limited but also very effective) intervention in Syria those plans were well under way towards
full realization!
The undeniable truth is that Putin foiled the initial Israel plan for Syria.
In fact, Hezbollah and Iran had already intervened in Syria and were desperately "plugging
holes" in a collapsing Syrian front. So, if anything, Putin has to be the one to be credited
for forcing the Israelis to give up on their "plan A" and go to plan "B" which I described here and which can be
summarized as follows:
Step one, use your propaganda machine and infiltrated agents to re-start the myth about an
Iranian military nuclear program. ( ) If Trump says that the JCPOA is a terrible deal, then
this is so. Hey, we are living in the "post-Skripal" and "post-Douma" era – if some
Anglo (or Jewish) leaders say "highly likely" then it behooves everybody to show instant
"solidarity" lest they are accused of "anti-Semitism" or "fringe conspiracy theories" (you
know the drill). So step one is the re-ignition ex nihilo of the Iranian military nuclear
program canard. Step two is to declare that Israel is "existentially threatened" and ( ) and
let the dumb Americans fight the Iranians.
As I have explained it in great detail
here , Russia does not have any moral obligation to protect anybody anywhere, not in the
Middle-East and most definitely not Syria and/or Iran. I have also explained in great detail
here
why Putin also has a lot of pragmatic internal reasons for not getting Russia involved in a
major war in the Middle-East.
Finally, as I have explained here , the Israelis
are clearly baiting Iran by striking Iranian (or, more accurately, Iranian-linked or
Iranian-supported) targets in Syria. They hope that Iran's patience will come to an end and
that the Iranians will retaliate with enough firepower to justify not only an attack on
(relatively low value) Iranian-linked targets in Syria but on Iran proper, thus leading to a
guaranteed Iranian retaliation on Israel and The Big Prize: a massive US attack on Iran.
Now let's look at Russian actions once again. If Putin was "on the same side with Netanyahu
all along", he would be helping the Israelis do what they are doing, that is baiting the
Iranians, right? But what did Putin really do?
It all began with a statement by Foreign Minister Lavrov who declared that all foreign
forces must leave Syria. It is my understanding that no direct quote exists from Lavrov's
initial statement, only interpreted paraphrases . Lavrov also made some
clarifying comments later, like
this one . But let's not get bogged down in trying to decide which was an off-the-cuff
comment and which one was "official", but let us begin by noticing this: even before Lavrov's
comment on "all foreign forces" the same Lavrov also said that "
all US forces must leave Syria after the defeat of the terrorist forces ". May I also
remind everybody here that Israel has been illegally occupying the Syrian Golan for years and
that the IDF exactly fits into the definition of "foreign force in Syria"? It gets better,
according to the Syrians and, frankly according to common sense and international law,
the Syrians say that all foreign
forces must leave Syria except those legally requested to stay by the Syrian government . So
when the Russians say that all foreign forces
including Iranians (assuming Lavrov really said that) must leave Syria they have absolutely
no legal or other authority to impose that, short of a UNSC Resolution endorsing that demand.
Considering that the Israelis and the USA don't give a damn about international law or the
UNSC, we might even see a day when such a resolution is passed, enforced on the Iranians only,
and ignored by the Israelis. The trick here is that in reality there are rather few Iranian
"forces" in Syria. There are many more "advisors" (which would not be considered a "force") and
many more pro-Iranian forces which are not really "Iranian" at all. There is also Hezbollah,
but Hezbollah
is not going nowhere , and they are Lebanese, not Iranian anyway. No doubt the Israelis
would claim that Hezbollah is an "Iranian force" but that is basically nonsense. And just to
add to the confusion, the Russians are now being cute and saying: "
of course, the withdrawal of all non-Syrian forces must be carried out on a mutual basis, this
should be a two-way street ". I suggest that we can stop listing all the possible
paraphrases and interpretations and agree that the Russians have created a holy (or unholy)
mess with their statements. In fact, I would even submit that, what appears to be a holy (or
unholy) mess, is a verydeliberate and crafty ambiguity .
According to numerous Russian sources, all this rhetoric is about the southern part of Syria
and the line of contact (it ain't a border legally speaking) between Syria and Israel. The
deals seem to be this: the pro-Iranian forces and Hezbollah get out of the south, and in
exchange, the Israelis let the Syrians, backed by Russian airpower and "advisors" regain
control of southern Syria but without any attempts to push the Israelis out of the Golan which
they illegally occupy. Needless to say, the
Syrians are also insisting that as part of the deal, US forces in southern Syria must pack
and leave. But, frankly, unless the US plans to have tiny (and useless) US enclaves inside
Syrian controlled territory I don't see the point of them staying. Not only that, but the
Jordanians seem to
be part of this deal too. And here is the best part: there is some pretty good evidence
that Hezbollah
and Iran also are part of the deal . And, guess what?
So are the Turks .
This sure looks like some kind of major regional deal has been hammered out by the Russians.
And if that is really the case, then that would also explain the tense denials in
Israel and
Iran , followed by
more confirmations (also
here ) And, just to make things even more confused, we now have Stoltenberg (of all
people!) saying that NATO
would not assist Israel in case of an Iranian attack which, considering that the NATO
Secretary General has no power, that NATO is about 80%+ made up of the USA and that the
US now has permanent a "tripwire" force inside Israel and could claim to be under attack,
is utter nonsense, but still amusing to note as "adding to the chaos".
If all this looks to you like evidence for the thesis that "Putin and Netanyahu were on the
same side all along", then I wonder what it would take to convince you otherwise because to me
this looks like one of three things:
some kind of major regional deal has been made or some
kind of major regional deal is in the process of being hammered out or some kind of major
regional deal has been made but nobody trusts anybody else and everybody wants to make that
deal better for itself
and, of course, everybody wants to save face by either denying it all or declaring victory,
especially the AngloZionists.
So let's ask the key question: is there any evidence at all that Putin and/or Assad is/are
"ditching Iran"?
Away from the realm of declarations and statements and back to the world
Let's begin with a simple question: What does Iran want above all else?
I submit that the overwhelming number one priority of Iran is to avoid a massive US
attack on Iran.
Not because of a non-existing Iranian nuclear program threatening Israel, but because Iran
offers a most successful, and therefore dangerously competing, alternative civilizational model
to both the AngloZionist Empire and the Saudi-Wahabi version of Islam. Furthermore, unlike
(alas!) Russia, Iran dares to openly commit the "crime of crimes", that is, to publicly
denounce Israel as a genocidal, racist state whose policies are an affront to all of civilized
mankind. Finally, Iran (again unlike Russia, alas!) is a truly sovereign state which has
successfully dealt with its 5th columnists and which is not in the iron claws of IMF/WB/WTO/etc
types (I wrote about that last week so I
won't repeat it here).
I also submit that Iran also has as a top priority to support all the oppressed people of
the Middle-East. Resisting oppression and injustice is a Quranic imperative and I believe that
in its Iranian interpretation this also extends to non-Shia Sunnis and even Christians
and Jews, but since I know that this will trigger all sorts of angry accusations of being naive
(or even a Shia propagandist) I will concede that helping the oppressed Shia in the region is
probably more important to the Iranian leaders than helping all the other oppressed. In secular
terms, this means that Iran will try to protect and assist the Shia in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon
and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, considering the amazing
mercy shown by Hezbollah to the SLA in southern Lebanon in 2000, and the fact that
currently, the Syrian security forces are acting with utmost restraint in the parts of Syria
which have accepted the Russian deal (this even has some Russian analysts outright worried ) I
think that Iranian-backed forces liberating Syria from Daesh are the best thing which anybody
could hope for.
"My personal evaluation is that Putin is playing a very complex and potentially dangerous
game. He is trying to trick not one, but many "devils", all at the same time." Of course you
knew that all along, didn't you? Welcome back! i truly really mean that.
Saker, your argument hinges on 2 premises:
1. Russia is not ethically obliged to defend either Syria or Iran
2. Putin is playing a very clever, complex, dangerous game "trying to trick not one, but many
"devils", all at the same time."
Re 1: the whole 'game' in Syria and the wider ME is not about noble obligations, it is all
about power and influence. Russia has tried to portray itself as the new power broker,
believing that defeating Daesh with the help of Iran, Hezbollah and the SAA was enough to
attain that status. Russia seems to believe it can stay on the sidelines concerning the
ZioNazi statelet's & the US's incessant provocations of Syria and Iran; Russia also
stayed on the sidelines when the FUKUS trio bombed Syria over the fake chemical attack.
Unfortunately for Russia, that sideline position has only encouraged, and continues to
encourage, the muderous, psychopathic war criminals in Washington and Jerusalem to ever more
boldness because they see Russia's position as weakness. And that increasing boldness is
risking a major unplanned confrontation that puts humanity in danger. So Russia DOES have an
ethical obligation, if not to its 2 allies (which I do not agree with) then certainly to the
world.
As for your 2nd premise, unless you have access to Putin's inner circle and are privy to
his thinking, it is completely speculative, seemingly given in by an urge to defend Putin's
inaction.
Incidentally, in 2011 Russia/Putin promised Assad those S300′s, and basically
reneged on that (signed?) promise to its ally? Ethically this is unacceptable, no matter how
you spin it.
Perhaps not one of Saker's better articles. But core point has value: there is a deal.
Putin
is
dealing with a soggy bag of spitting devils.
I dont discount the possibility of war: especially if the zionist can manufacture appropriate
circumstances. However, ulimately Iran is (relatively) a side show.
The Empire is still committed to sanctions/propaganda/
diplomatic/political means to its ultimate goals of regime change in Russia, followed by
further intensified action against an isolated China.
Yes, the Zionist ghost in the Empire Golom itches to lash out militarily. But as we know,
they both like enemies such as Gaza, or Iraq, Libya & Syria until the Russians said
"enough !". They like enemies sufficiently small as to match their courage & moral vision
.
As a Russian I thought this text is pretty funny, because it reminded me of a classic
debate going on the Russian internet: "Путин
слил" (Putin sold out) vs "Путин
хитрый план" (this is all part of
an eleborate 3-D chess combination). Clearly, Saker is inclined towards the "3-D chess"
explanation.
It wasn't a "defensive war". Leaving out the fact that Israel's existence itself is not
entirely legitimate as the Arabs never recognised the UN mandated partition of Palestine, it
was Israel that started the war of 1967 by attacking Egypt, Syria's ally.
Russians are not conducting ethnic cleansing in Crimea or Donbass, herding native
population into reservations like Gaza, killing those, who try to escape – you know,
all these things that Israel is doing.
Thank you. Your insightful comment has somehow transformed my initial experience from an
exercise in futile reading into a significant and thoughtful -- nope! Sorry. This is a
repeat offence. 4,000 words of meandering foolishness is unredeemable. The Saker's writing,
in nearly every case, and over a long period of time, shows him to be a disingenuous hack who
delivers bulky loads of zero.
The Empire's propaganda machine denies and obfuscates this, and those who believe it don't
see i"
A NYT scribe was quoted by Globalresearch and ?Huffingtonpost saying :"Americans eagerly
and passionately want to believe something ,something , coming out of government " just to
feel good and and confident.
Personally, I hate unsolicited advice, but I am tempted to give it to the Saker: read what
you wrote at least once and edit in the process, so that your writing does not feel like a
stream of consciousness, where one has to fish for pearls of meaning in the muddy waters of
endless text. You are not a politician, your job is not to generate content-free verbal
diarrhea.
Back to substance. In Syria the goal of Israel, the US, Saudis and other Gulf
satrapies was the same: eliminate a strong secular regime that keeps the country unified and
convert Syria into a bunch of impotent warring Bantustans.
Israel wanted to make sure that there is no Syria to fulfill UN SC resolution and
retake its Golan Heights, and have a chance of creating additional occupied "security areas"
at will; Saudis and allied satrapies wanted to build oil and gas pipelines through Syrian
territory without having to ask the permission of real government; the US wanted to promote
Israeli and Saudi interests and create Libya-like chaos, making Syrian territory free-for-all
playground.
Russian intervention ruined those plans. Moreover, it appears that Iranian, Hezbollah,
and other forces supporting Assad submitted to overall Russian military planning and possibly
command: the war became pretty successful all of a sudden; high-ranking Iranian commanders
are no longer killed in Syria on a regular basis. Thus, Russia foiled Israeli, Saudi, and the
US plans. But it is important to keep in mind that Putin did this to promote Russian
interests in the region, not Iranian or even Syrian. For the most part these interests
coincide, but when they don't, Russian actions might look like a "betrayal" of partners, even
though Russia cannot betray anyone there, as it did not pledge allegiance to anyone.
There is no moral dimension to the events: Putin is purely pragmatic, rational rather than
moral. Russia (both under tsars and in Soviet times) used to put too much effort into a
thankless task of saving the world and learned its lesson.
Yes, the string of ME wars (Syria is not an exception: remember Somalia, Libya,
turmoil in Egypt, Yemen, etc) is part of the global war between the US Empire and Russia,
where Russia seeks lasting order and balance of interests, whereas the Empire creates chaos
in the hopes of getting new puppets and generally dominating, on behalf of Israel and
itself.
Yes, the US Empire is on the decline, hence the US policies are becoming more and more
hysterical. In essence, no enemy undermines the US in the ME and all over the world more than
it undermines itself. That's how all dominant Empires in history ended: by committing
suicide.
Bottom line is, Putin's Russia fends for itself, entering into long- and short-term
deals with anyone (even Erdogan, who is as trustworthy as a used car salesman), as long as
those deals serve its interests.
Objectively, Russia cannot let the Empire (or Israel, for that matter) vanquish Assad
or Iran. However, Putin tries to minimize the costs for Russia, and therefore will avoid
direct confrontation with Israel or the Empire as long as possible. That's the whole story,
the rest is fantasy.
Well, I know some history, about 100 times more than an average US citizen. Stalin's USSR
pushed for the creation of Israel and then supplied it (via satellites) with weapons to fight
Arab neighbors. Later the USSR took a strong pro-Arab anti-Israeli position. The position of
Yeltsin's Russia did not matter, as the regime was run by traitors dismantling and looting
everything. Putin's Russia is quite neutral, in a sense that Putin does not want to fight
Israel, but does not want to be seen as her friend, either. Israeli intelligence considers
Russia an unfriendly country, even though Russia pays pensions to Russian Jews who emigrated
to Israel, including military pensions to WWII vets. Bibi carefully avoids any confrontation
with Russia, even though Putin's interference in Syria thwarted Israeli goal of turning it
into something like Somalia or Libya.
My point is, Putin acts out of self-interest, avoiding direct confrontations wherever
possible, but firmly moving towards his goals. That includes his dealings with Syria, Israel,
Turkey, Iran, China, North Korea, and would include dealings with Devil himself, if such a
personage existed. Nothing personal, strictly business. That's what the Saker studiously
refuses to see.
Well, Putin maintains close relations with Assad government in Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, and
Turkey, all of which Israel considers foes. He is not particularly friendly with the US and
many of its vassals who provide political cover for Israeli crimes. However, Putin does not
want to be seen as a foe of Israel, either. He talks to Netanyahu on the regular basis and
likely has some situational deals with Israel. At least Israel studiously avoids any
confrontations with Russian military forces in Syria. Russia reciprocates by avoiding direct
confrontations with Israeli forces, even when they clearly break international law. You can
call it prudent policy or a bargain with the Devil, depending on your preferences.
Putin blunted Imperial aggression for the first time since Washington's defeat in Vietnam.
How this can be construed as cooperation with Israel is a mystery.
Saker defends Putin and Russia. That's why his detractors (Zionist scum) hate him. Why are
Zionist trolls working to discredit Saker if Putin is one of them?
I too found this piece difficult to read. I think because is takes so long to refute a
proposition that is so obviously false.
Israel has had a covert and now an overt role in the war in Syria, from the beginning. It
is laughable nonsense to proclaim they have protected Assad. They have provided material
support and medical aid to injured jihadists so they can return to Syria and continue their
mass murder.
I don't think this is really too complicated. Now that the war in Syria is winding down and
legitimate Russian interests have been secured (much praise goes to them for as well saving
the Syrian people from Zio-American terror), we are starting to see that Russian and Iranian
interests are diverging. Since they were never identical, this should not be too surprising.
The fact is, the relationship between Russia and Israel is complicated, and Russia has no
problem with a Zionist state in the Middle East. Whatever one may think of Israel, it's
presence/existence does not conflict with Russian interests. If Iran wishes to escalate the
fighting to attack Israel, it should not expect Russian sympathy on the matter. (And Assad's
government should know when to declare victory and go home.)
You really think Putin does not know that the tail is wagging the dog, the dog with the
neocons and AEI, that want the USA to conquer the whole world militarily ?
You obviously did not read the article, or it does not fit your prejudices.
A ME without an Israel would solve a lot, a USA without AIPAC and whatever could solve many
remaining problems.
The headlines in Israeli newspapers about the closeness between Putin and Bibi may be a
clever ploy to hide just the opposite, there's no deal between Russia and Israel, the latter
can offer the former little as you say yourself.
The best option for Putin would be to stick with Iran, get the country into the Chinese
run Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (both China and Russia have hinted as such), this will
boosts the organisation clout, and deter the US from attacking Iran.
I always look forward to The Saker's writing. He's a zealot, to be sure, and he needs a
proofreader / editor. But his intelligence, moral decency, desire to educate, and dedication
to what he thinks is right, are all plain to see.
Israel is the primary source of instability in the ME, and Organized Jewry is the driving
force behind much global chaos and subversion, no doubt. Putin unquestionably knows this. (He
has publicly spoken about the Jewish role in the early Bolshevik state, and his purge of the
worst Jewish oligarchs engendered much of the insane hostility towards him by the neocons
etc. Curiously he did pass a law banning Holocaust denial, however.)
However these twin malefactors will not go away quietly, and Putin/Russia knows this as
well. Organized Jewry and their brain-dead Bible-thumper bots in America may want global
conflagration, but Russia does not so they are properly proceeding with caution. They are
under no obligation to help the Iranians expand the fighting.
Yes, I disagree with the proposition that Russia doesn't have to defend Iran, which
borders Russia and has ethnic Russians. In fact, Putin cannot allow the Anglo-Zionists to
control Iran, because that would threaten Russia in several ways. Putin would have to go all
in to prevent a successful attack on Iran.
Iran is NOT "escalating" anything, nor is it trying to attack Israel. This is a red
herring being used against Iran much like the nuclear file BS. Be careful with the
anti-Iranian propaganda. If there is a country more demonized than Russia, it is surely
Iran.
Direct Iranian military presence in Syria is relatively small, even if Iranian backed
militias(many of them Syrian) are included. Iran has a defense pact with Syria and has been
invited by the Syrian government to help just like Russia.
The Iranian support is often overlooked but it has been crucial to hold and defeat the
mercenaries/jihadists backed by the ZUSA led coalition.
Mark Sleboda, during a RT CrossTalk debate, stated clearly that without Iran, ISIS and Al
Qaeda could not have been defeated in Iraq and Syria.
As for Syria, I really don't understand your statement. The Syrians will seek, and rightly
so, to restore all of their country.
Obviously there are differences within the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance in Syria, and
Zionist officials & propaganda will try exploit any rifts I doubt they'll succeed, though
they may use their media to pretend they achieved something
B of MoA is very much pro-Russia, a retired German army officer, have a look at:
Syria – Israel Falsely Claims Iran Pull-Back Deal With Russia – Again
Israel loves to pretend that it is an important country which can move other governments
to do its bidding.
1. Russia has no way to keep Iran out of Syria or to tell Iranian advisors and militia
where to go or not to go. The Syrian government will not do away with its best ally, Iran,
which came to its help before Russia came in and will continue to help while Russia lowers
its presence in the conflict. Were Russia to play "either-or" hardball with the Syrian
government the decision would likely be against Russia and for Iran.
2. Iran already announced that it will not take part in the upcoming Daraa operation in
southwest Syria.
Also important to understand the situation; RUSSIA HAS REACHED THE END OF THE ROAD IN
SYRIA, SO DAMASCUS WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT ON WITH ITS REMAINING ALLIES
Elijah J Magnier
"As for the Israelis, they would make Satan himself look honest and are ideologically
incapable of honesty (or even decency)."
I would have written "naturally" rather than "ideologically", but notwithstanding, the
Saker knows it, I know it, and I have a hard time believing that Putin doesn't know it.
Actually, I believe everybody knows it, some just dare not say it or have more interest in
pretending, that's all. The corollary is that you can never trust a single word an Israeli
utters. It's like the punch line of an old Serbian joke about a monk tempted by the devil to
break his fast only to get exposed before his fellow monks. When the monk asks "but why?", as
there seems to be no gain for the devil, he's answered "I never tell the truth".
Unlike the Saker, I don't see this turning into a hot war, which doesn't mean that I see
the Anglo-Zionist imperialists getting along with Russia. They will go more and more into
hysterics mode but that is a sign of impotence. If I were Russian, I would just let the USA
bleed its taxpayers white through defence spending, knowing that the psychopaths in New York,
Washington DC, Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem are crazy but not suicidal. I believe they have
realised that a hot war against Russia is now unwinnable. They had a window of opportunity
that is now closed.
It seems to me that the Saker calls Russian Jews "zionists" just in order to avoid calling
them Jews. As I wrote before, Russian Jews don't descend from Judea, they descend from
Khazars, a tribe originating from the shores of the Black Sea that espoused Judaism in the
early Middle Age. Russia is their homeland, not Israel, and though Judaism plays a big role
in why they feel entitled, they want to rule Russia for the sake of ruling Russia, not for
Israel, and not because they are USA's 5th column. The bolsheviks didn't give a damn about
Israel. They wanted Russia. And they wanted the whole world incidentally. Confusing the
Russian "Jewish problem" to Zionism is a huge mistake. It is a domestic problem, not a
foreign imported one. With or without Israel, it remains the same, unlike the American
"Jewish problem". If you remove Russia-obsessed Jews and hard-core Zionists from the picture,
the remainder of USA Jews actually contribute to the richness of American society.
All that said, though the whole article often slides from fact-based analysis into wishful
thinking, I generally agree that the Russian approach is the only possible sensible one.
Putin is guided by the principle that "doing no harm" does indeed less harm than inflicting
harm to punish harm. So far, it works, even though a lot of people are frustrated by what
they perceive as bad guys' impunity. Refusing to punish the bad guys because it would entail
too much "collateral damage" is a sign of humanity, not weakness. I praise Putin for it.
So who is the biggest threat to the Shia and, I would argue, to all the people of the
Middle-East? The Takfiris of Daesh of course.
This is quite a non-sequitor after listing Israel's goals in the region; as we all know,
Daesh, Alqueda, etc. are the tools. They cannot supply themselves, they only achieve success
if they are sponsored by other powers, as they have been all along.
The truth is that Israel, unlike Iran, has very little to offer Putin or Russia.
What about calling off the Empire from their necks?
(I generally agree with 90% of the analysis, 100% of the tone and direction, but every
week or so there seems to be one or two statements that are just glaringly inconsistent in
the Saker's articles, like he was fulfilling some contractual obligation or something)
You are right of course, I did not mean to give that impression, Iran is definitely
unfairly maligned. However, if they continue supporting Hezbollah, they should not be
surprised if Israel works out a deal with Russia to strike these assets (while duplicitously
hitting Syrian government forces), because this is simply not Russia's particular fight. The
only question would be how far Israel would push the envelope, and what Russia would do
then.
The Russian Ministry of Defense has accused the Free Syrian Army and US Special Forces with
preparing a new chlorine attack in Deir ez-Zor province in Syria.
My Jewish Uncle said in a quiet moment with my Dad that the problem with Jewish behaviour is
that they always go one step too far. I would have been about Twelve at the time but I still
remember that conversation. As Col. Lang states, Syria is "betting the farm" in this
operation, my guess is that Israel will do likewise and try to destroy the SAA. I have no
idea if the U.S. will intervene with more than logistic support.
To do otherwise than attack, in my view, would condemn Israel to living with a capable and
reinvigorated Syria for the foreseeable future. This is an unacceptable risk to Israel. The
concentration of the major units of the SAA so close to the Israeli border is both an
irresistible opportunity to the current Israeli Government and a direct provocation in terms
of "territory marking" (the polite term) by Syria.
This is the time for the last throw of the (non nuclear) dice by the Netanyahu Government.
Russia must know this as well. Presumably Russia and Syria have made prudent air defence
plans for this eventuality.
If Israel and the U.S. had any common sense they would acquiesce to the destruction of the
last of the Jihadists and concentrate on building a new working relationship with Syria and
eventually Iran.
Dear Colonel, Beginning with the interpretation that this is an attempt to collapse the
resistance through a massive force commitment, do you think that such a decision could be
made without Russian concurrence?
If ISIS supporting air support (US, Israeli) can be prevented from entering the fray, then
the risk is low.
Perhaps the unbelievably poor performance of US missiles against Russian air defenses
could have provided Russia the confidence to effectively warn off Israel / US.
Otherwise, Syria risks all the investment that Russia has made.
My money is on SAA's bombing of Golan upon last Israeli attack.
New rule: you bomb me, your civilians flock to the shelters*.
As of today it is working: provocations, loud mouthing, no more attacks.
Russia is playing Good Cop here. Carving out some face-saving for Bibi.
*2006 Lebanon campaign was devastating for the alleged Israel's military superiority. They
didn't lost because of casualties: actually, their numbers are those of a successful
campaign.
They just couldn't afford the prolonged psychologic backslash of a powerful, defiant foe's
retaliation.
It took 10 years of downplaying the débâcle to rebuild confidence in their
Army.
Syrians are not the only ones betting a lot in a possible all-out confrontation.
Dominant powers are used to be able to attack weak countries with impunity. Long range fires
until time is right to close in. What Hezbollah and Syria has shown is that there is a
political price to pay, and an economical one as well if the army is mobilized and
exports/imports through a port like Haifa are interrupted.
How many insurgents are they up against in these locations? How many insurgents remain in
idlib? One can't assess the operation's chances without knowing the composition of the enemy.
As the Colonel suggests, it will be interesting to see whether Israel goes along with
whatever agreement they allegedly got from Putin to stay out of Israel's argument with Iran
in Syria. I suspect that even though no Iranian forces will be involved in this operation,
Israel will claim there are and use that as an excuse to attack SAA forces.
It then becomes interesting as to whether Russia will react to that. Russia said in 2016
that "anyone" attacking SAA forces would be shot down. So far that "anyone" appears to have
not included Israel, allegedly because Israel has only attacked Hizballah and Iranian forces
in Syria (not counting the numerous times they've shelled SAA forces in exchange for alleged
shelling inside Israel.) If Israel attacks SAA forces, that excuse will no longer hold.
As I've said, to me it appears inevitable that at some point Russia is going to have to
confront Israel's military aggression in the region either diplomatically or militarily,
whether it wants to or not.
With respect, Colonel: do you think the strategy of relocating jihadis to Idlib and
encouraging them to fight amongst themselves has, in the long run, failed to give an
advantage? My sense has been that Syria used Idlib as a dumping ground; since the territory
was within its own borders, this allowed it to contain any possible side-effects that might
accrue following the expulsion of conquered jihadis.
No NATO, Turkish, nor other Middle Eastern states have been able to avail themselves of
some sort of excuse that would be read something like "Syria is not managing its borders
competently; we need to intervene".
As an outsider with no direct experience in this sort of thing, it also seems to me--from
the reports I've read, over the last year or so--that the jihadis in Idlib have been doing a
very good job of killing themselves.
What role Turkey will play in the endgame, however: that, I agree, appears to be a
wildcard.
From the reports I've read about the constant infighting, Turkey's inability to establish
control or obeisance over the area, and Syria's own intention to either push the southern
enclaves back into Israel or destroy them, I honestly can't see how eliminating Idlib would
have done anything other than:
A) Remove the pressure on Turkey to make sure those jihadis didn't slip back into its
border
B) Give the neighboring nations that would be forced to absorb the jihadis a UN-validated
excuse to "aid" the "Syrian people" by "restoring order"
C) Given Israel even more time to prepare the Daraa resistance, and
D) Removed the (as we have seen) oft-used military option of "Deportation to Idlib" from the
lexicon of SAA alternatives to "complete and total destruction of a largely
civilian-inhabited enclave"
This question is sincere. It seems, to me, that in the larger political sphere of things,
the Idlib tactic has been a resounding success: beat a enclave down, deport the remaining
enemies to a contained area where they will be forced to fight for survival against other
enemies, and rest easy that there will be no international declarations for intervention in a
conflict that has spilled over into neighboring countries.
From a military standpoint: yeah, destroying Idlib would have eliminated a power center.
But wouldn't the troops that survived have simply moved into the various pockets we've seen
so completely eliminated in the last six months or so? Wouldn't that have simply reinforced
the attackers on Damascus & Hama, and hardened those troops into a fight-to-the-death
mentality?
It remains to be seen whether jihadis infighting in Idlib Province will weaken them all
enough to make them easy meat when the time comes to re-take the province. There is a trade
off there the result of which is not yet clear to me. There is also the problem of Erdogan's
intentions and whether he will in the end try by hook or crook to hang on to the province
which would make a spectacular addition to the Turkish holding in Hatay. His "observation
posts" worry me and they should worry the R+6. IMO he intends to keep the Afrin District of
Aleppo Province if he can as well as other territories farther to the east including some in
Iraq.
Then I would wager that the Russians expect that any Israeli/US response, and their
subsequent reaction, to be over by the time the World Cup starts so as not to ruin the show.
Or is this timeline setup to upstage the Singapore summit? Either or both. Regardless, any
response would have to be quick and heavy for the message to get through quickly enough.
Given the logistical setup time for such an operation, we can infer that Putin drew Netanyahu
a bright red line on the subject during his last visit to Moscow. This would mean Putin is
also pot committed. Is this the correct view of the table? If so, then the big question is
does Bibi call or fold?
Interesting that the Daily Mail article on Hala Jaber's interview with the Syrian President
was not open for BTL comments. I presume this could be because many DM readers might well agree
with Bashar al Assad on much of what he says about Britain's role in the West's war against
Syria and the White Helmets in particular. As a whole, DM readers tend to be much more
skeptical about the MSM in Britain than, say, followers of The Guardian or the BBC.
>
> Question 14: Russia appears to be making a lot of decisions about Syria, whether about
foreign troops withdrawing to deals being struck with Israel over southern Syria, to which
weapons you may or may not have. Does Russia now make your decisions?
>
> President Assad: Russia is fighting for the international law, and part of this
international law is the sovereignty of different countries, of the sovereign countries,
Syria is one of them. Their politics, their behaviors, their values are not about interfere
or dictate; they don't. We've had good relations with Russia for more than six decades now,
nearly seven decades.
They never, during our relation, try to dictate, even if there are differences; because
there is a war and because there's high dynamism now in the region, it's natural to have
differences between the different parties, whether within our government or other
governments; Russia-Syria, Syria-Iran, Iran-Russia, and within these governments, that's very
natural, but at the end the only decision about what's going on in Syria and what's going to
happen, it's a Syrian decision. No one should have any doubt about this, regardless of the
statements that you may hear, because I know on which base the question is.
>
> Question 15: So, why has Russia not given you the S300 they promised for years, at a
time when Israel is striking Syria practically every week, and why is Russia coordinating
these strikes' targets behind the scenes with your enemies?
>
> President Assad: Russia never coordinated with anyone against Syria, either politically
or militarily, and that's contradiction; how could they help the Syrian Army advancing and at
the same time work with our enemies in order to destroy our army?
>
> Journalist: But they usually know in advance where the attacks are going to happen
>
> President Assad: No, no, that's not true, that's not true, definitely. We know the
details. Regarding the S300, why they announced it and then they stopped talking about it,
you better ask the Russian officials. It's a political statement, they have their own
tactics. But whether they send it or they're going to send it or not, this is a military
issue; we don't talk about it.
>
> Question 16: Senior Pentagon officials have warned they will militarily retaliate should
you mess with their alliance. Are you ever going to get rid of the US military presence in
Syria, are you prepared to fight them directly?
>
> President Assad: Since the beginning of the war, the Americans and their allies haven't
stopped threatening Syria, they haven't stopped supporting the terrorists, and they haven't
stopped attacking us directly on numerous occasions. But in spite of this we have been
advancing against the terrorists, and we have said that we're going to liberate every inch of
Syria regardless of any statement or any attack. This is our land and this is our duty; it's
not a political opinion, it's a national duty. We're going to advance in that direction
regardless of the military or political position of our adversaries.
>
> Question 17: You've said that you will take back every inch of Syrian territory, how
long you anticipate this will take you?
>
> President Assad: This is not only about the Syrian Army and the terrorists, or about the
events within the border of our country, otherwise I would have given you, let's say, maybe a
precise timeframe. But I have always said that in less than a year we can solve this
conflict, it's not very complicated. What has made it complicated is the external
interference. The more we advance, the more support the terrorists have from the West. Look,
for example, we were about to achieve reconciliation in the southern part of Syria only two
weeks ago, but the West interfered and asked the terrorists not to follow this path in order
to prolong the Syrian conflict. So, we think the more advances we make politically and
militarily, the more the West, especially US, UK, and France, will try to prolong it and make
the solution farther from the Syrians. But in spite of this, we are closing the gap between
the two.
> Question 22: Your wife is British, and you've lived in London for many years, is
there anything in particular that you miss from your days there?
>
> President Assad: I lived in London, I learned as a doctor. It's impossible for you to
live in a city and you don't feel there is a special link with that city or with the people
that you work with on a daily basis. So, you miss maybe this relation, but you live sometimes
in contradiction; that the same city that you like is the same country that's been attacking
your country, which is not good.
I'm still up in the air about this. It seems to me that the US establishment is united
against Russia, socialism (in any form) , and the middle class (squeezing them
economically to enrich themselves and reduce resources available to activists) . Some
have summarized these elite proclivities as neo-feudalism and neoliberal/NWO hegemony.
Looking at the US political system, it has worked remarkably well for The Powers That Be
(TPTB). Democratic Party failures (their focus on identity politics, corruption, etc.)
have destroyed the progressive left. Yet, while Hillary is recognized as very establishment,
the media portrays the Democrats and Republicans as being in constant struggle.
Would Hillary have doubled down in Syria with a 'no-fly' zone that could lead to WWII? I
think not. I think the 'smart' move was to do exactly what Trump did. I think the
establishment knows this. And I think we should also assume that the top people (Hillary,
Obama, McCain, Feingold, Schumer, etc.) know that the "Russian influence" investigation is
bogus.
It's difficult not to see (by now) that Trump is a faux populist President like
Obama. They both had crazy opposition that called into question their loyalty to America
(Trump was a leader of the anti-Trump 'birther' movement). And both found reasons to betray
promises made to their base (Obama: nice-guy "bipartizanship"; Trump: seeming reasonable
attitude toward Russia fuels "Russian influence" investigation) . Both said they would
extract US from foreign wars. Both said they would fight corruption (Obama: "most
transparent administration in history"; Trump: "drain the swamp") . Both gave big tax
cuts to the wealthy.
Trump just nominated Gina Haspel for CIA Director and she was confirmed quickly.
Suprisingly (or not) Gina Haspel was recommended by John Brennan(!), who was (supposedly) a
leader in the Obama Administration efforts against Trump.
So, while I can see the outlines of a struggle ("elite civil war") between Muslim
Brotherhood-Hillary-Soros "globalists" and Saudi-Trump-Netanyahu "nationalists", I am very
skeptical about whether it is real or put-on. TPTB have gotten very good at controlled
opposition and psy-ops. (Consider: Obama's "Change You Can Believe It" and the
oft-repeated claims that he was anti-Israel; as well as the White Helmets.)
What might shed some light on this is the very curious Orlando Pulse Nightclub (OPN)
attack in June 2016 and (what appears to be) the uneventful demise of ISIS. When wars
are lost, there are bound to be people that are outraged on the losing side. Especially when
those people are religious fanatics and ideologues.
IMO there were clear reasons for the San Bernadino (SB) and OPN attacks. SB was about
pluging a whole in the narrative (Russia was attacked within weeks of entering the Syrian
conflict but USA had not been attacked despite bombing ISIS for over a year) , and it
seems clear that the OPN attack was meant to influence the Presidential election. The attack
seems to favor Hillary because of her experience and Democratic Party's large and vocal gay
constituency, but Trump actually won the exchange between himself and Hillary by pointing out
that Saudi Arabia provides no rights to gays. The attack was attributed to "domestic
terrorism" but may have helped Trump in making his case for leaving Syria. In any case, afaik
Hillary refrained from bringing up the attack during the remainder of the campaign.
Note: In what I wrote earlier, I had speculated that OPN was ordered by a rouge op ordered
by an ISIS sympathizer that bought into the goodcop-badcop routine run by Hillary-Trump.
That's because both candidates seem to have ignored the attack for most of the remaining race
(as though it was an embarrassment) .
Then we have the curious case of MbS's elevation. Would that have been done without CIA
approval/guidance? Was it related to the (anticipated) reigning in of ISIS? Isn't it
reasonable to assume that there are there Saudis that are angry with the setback in Syria and
the failure (from their perspective) to do "what ever it takes" to win (i.e. more
support to ISIS)? Was/is the elite civil war (along with "Russian influence"
allegations) part of a rouse to mollify ISIS sympathizer discontents and thereby
forestall 'blowback'?
This line of thinking leads to questions about the Vegas attack (covered up to look
like a lone nut?) and MbS's "shakedown" of wealthy Saudis weeks later. It might also shed
some light on the apparent coup attempt against Erdogan in July 2016 - about 6 weeks after
OPN. (I still maintain that strengthening Erdogan HELPED the 'Assad must go! effort
- a real coup would've meant disruptive civil unrest in Turkey.)
What do you think? Is there an elite civil war? Or just more psy-op where minor
differences and/or opinions of a very small minority is blown up to look like a real
conflict?
After my departure from government in part over my disagreement with the Iraq War, this
willingness to place the United States in peril to serve the interests of a foreign country
began to bother me, and there is no country that manipulates the U.S. government better or more
persistently than Israel. I gradually became involved with those who were pushing back against
the Israel Lobby, though it was not generally referred to in those terms before Stephen Walt
and John Mearsheimer produced their seminal work The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy in 2006.
It does not take a genius to figure out that the United States is deeply involved in a
series of seemingly endless wars pitting it against predominantly Muslim nations even though
Washington has no vital interests at stake in places like Syria, Libya and Iraq. Who is driving
the process and benefiting? Israel is clearly the intended beneficiary of a coordinated effort
mounted by more than 600 Jewish organizations in the U.S. that have at least as part of their
programs the promotion and protection of Israel. Ironically, organizations that promote the
interests of a foreign government are supposed to be registered under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) but not a single pro-Israel organization has ever done so nor
even been seriously challenged on the issue, a tribute to their power in dealing with the
federal government.
Those who are in the drivers' seat of the Israel promotion process are what some would
describe as the Israel Lobby but which I would prefer to call a subset of the Jewish Lobby,
which in itself is supported by something I would designate Jewish Power, an aggregate of
Jewish money, control over key aspects of the media and entertainment industries plus easy
access to corrupted politicians desirous of positive press and campaign donations. This
penetration and control of the public discourse has resulted in the creation of what I would
refer to as the official "Israel narrative," in which Israel, which claims perpetual
victimhood, is reflexively referred to as "the only democracy in the Middle East" and
"Washington's closest ally and friend," assertions that are completely false but which have
been aggressively and successfully promoted to shape how Americans view the Israeli-Arab
conflict. Palestinians resisting the Israeli occupation are invariably described as
"terrorists" both in the U.S. and Israel.
While the Israeli lobby has been a major influence in pushing America in a militaristic
direction, it has mostly been pushing against an open door. The US has been militarily
expansionist and imperialist since its inception while always finding a way to blame its
enemies. The most hilarious recent example of this was Trump blaming Canada (yes, Canada!)
for burning the White House in the war of 1812. In reality of course, it was the US which
invaded Canada and burned some regional government buildings there. The war party in the US
is an unholy alliance of Christian, Jewish and secular Zionists and American exceptionalists.
Many Jews and Christians are opposed to these militaristic policies, but unfortunately they
are without political influence.
Dr. Giraldi this is much more difficult than it seems. I have "friends" who have retired from
the CIA (if that is possible) and they tell me that there are at least two factions in the
CIA Hierarchy that are extremely pro Israel. Would you care to comment on this or is this
just their imagination?
Fifty-one years ago today Israeli fighter aircraft and torpedo boats tried to sink the USS
Liberty, a surveillance ship stationed off the coast of Egypt during Israel's attack on Egypt
and Syria. Israel was unable to sink the USS Liberty, but did manage to kill or wound almost
the entire crew. Thirty-four Americans were killed and 174 were wounded.
There are two explanations for the attack. As Washington has blocked every attempt at an
investigation, we do not know which one is correct. Perhaps both are the reasons for the
attack.
One is that Israel, which was committing a war crime by mass execution of Egyptian prisoners
of war, was fearful that the USS Liberty's surveillance had discovered the crime. The other is
that Israel fearing an unfavorable outcome of the war that Israel had initiated intended to
blame the attack on the USS Liberty on Egypt, thus bringing the US into the war on Israel's
side.
I have written about this attack a number of times, having interiewed sailors and officers
on board during the attack, an officer, Captain Ward Boston, who was ordered to produce a
cover-up, and Admiral Tom Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the US Joint
Chiefs of Staff. Frustrated at Washington's coverup, indeed, Washington's complicity in the
crime, upon retirement Admiral Moorer convened the Moorer Commission to set the record
straight.
The Moorer Commission concluded:
" That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt
to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.
"That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the US Navy
from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support
while the ship was under attack.
"That surviving crew members were threatened with 'court-martial, imprisonment or worse'
if they exposed the truth; and [the survivors] were abandoned by their own government.
"That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history.
"That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing
to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation."
You can find my articles on my website or online as well as the proceedings of the Moorer
Commission.
The most disturbing thing about the Israeli attack is that when the Liberty's distress
signal reached the fleet commander and US Navy fighters were launched to drive off the Israeli
attackers, the White House ordered the fleet commander to recall the American jets. Frustrated
by his inability to defend the US Navy from murderous assault, the fleet commander used open
radio to scare off the Israelis by announcing that US fighters were on their way to the
Liberty's rescue. This caused the Israelis to immediately call off the attack and to issue an
apology that it had mistaken the USS Liberty, which was flying a massive American flag and had
USS Liberty in tall letters, as an Egyptian ship.
ORDER IT NOW
On orders from the White House, Admiral McCain, Senator McCain's father, ordered a cover up.
The Liberty's crew were ordered not to mention the event. It was two decades before one of the
Liberty's officers, then retired, wrote the story. American taxpayers, who were shelling out
billions of dollars from their desperate needs every year to enable Israel to purchase the US
government with the billions of dollars hapless Americans are forced to hand over to Israel,
knew nothing about the attack for 20 years.
If 51 years ago Israel had such power over the US government that the White House itself
refused to protect an American ship from Israeli attack and then covered up the attack in order
to give Israel a free pass, just imagine how much more control Israel has achieved over the US
government in the past half century. If you have any doubt that Israel rules America, just look
at Nikki Haley's subservience to Israel in the UN as US ambassador, or at President Trump
himself defying the entire world and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Just look at Trump, on
Israel's orders, unilaterally disregarding the Iranian nuclear agreement signed by President
Obama and upheld by all other signatories, in the hopes of creating a pretext for an American
attack on Iran that serves only Israel's interest. Just look at the extraordinary groveling at
Israel's feet of the entire US Senate and House of Representatives who unanimously pass Israel
Lobby sponsored laws and resolutions. Just look at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN,
National Public Radio, MSNBC, and so on who serve as megaphones for the voice of Israel.
Every American, especially those superpatriots who wrap themselves in the flag, should be
totally ashamed that their government is nothing but an adjunct of Israel. (Republished from
PaulCraigRoberts.org
by permission of author or representative)
The real reason for which 'information apocalypse' terrifies the mainstream mediaIn short: because they are rapidly losing the propaganda monopoly by system failure
No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't find a source to inform me about the exact origin
(who and when) of the term 'fake news'. Generally, the term became mainstream during the last
years, and especially after some shocking events for the Western neoliberal establishment, like
Trump's presidency and Brexit.
Very briefly, it appears that the term was suspiciously invented by the neoliberal apparatus
to discredit people who supported such events, through social media and other Internet
platforms completely independent from the mainstream media control. Of course, one can easily
discredit this perception as 'conspiracy theory' or even 'fake news', as well.
While it's true that there has been a lot of hyperbole, misinformation and hard propaganda
circulated inside the cyberspace, it seems that the 'fake news' term was expanded somehow to
include even opinions and positions outside the dominant neoliberal orthodoxy expressed by the
political center in the West.
What's perhaps most interesting in the whole story, is that the term 'fake news' eventually
backfired against the establishment, as it was immediately adopted by the political 'extremes'
outside the neoliberal center, to include the misinformation and the smearing campaigns by the
mainstream media against those who didn't comply with the neoliberal narratives. Mainstream
media propaganda is what brought us numerous wars and plenty of disaster in previous decades,
after all.
numerous wars and plenty of disaster in previous decades, after all.
Now, a
relatively new technology with its origins in the beginning of the previous decade,
seems that it spreads a sort of panic among the mainstream media, often described as
'information apocalypse'.
What is new is the democratisation of
advanced IT, the fact that anyone with a computer can now engage in the weaponisation of
information. 2016 was the year we woke up to the power of fake news, with internet
conspiracy theories and lies used to bolster the case for both Brexit and Donald Trump. We
may, however, look back on it as a kind of phoney war, when photoshopping and video
manipulation were still easily detectable. That window is closing fast. A program developed
at Stanford University allows users to convincingly put words into politicians' mouths.
Celebrities can be inserted into porn videos. Quite soon it will be all but impossible for
ordinary people to tell what's real and what's not. What will the effects of this be? When a public figure claims the racist or sexist audio of
them is simply fake, will we believe them? How will political campaigns work when millions
of voters have the power to engage in dirty tricks? What about health messages on the
dangers of diesel or the safety of vaccines? Will vested interests or conspiracy theorists
attempt to manipulate them? Unable to trust what they see or hear, will people retreat into
lives of non-engagement, ceding the public sphere to the already powerful or the
unscrupulous? The potential for an "information apocalypse" is beginning to be taken seriously. The
problem is we have no idea what a world in which all words and images are suspect will look
like, so it's hard to come up with solutions. Perhaps not very much will change –
perhaps we will develop a sixth sense for bullshit and propaganda, in the same way that it
has become easy to distinguish sales calls from genuine inquiries, and scam emails with
fake bank logos from the real thing. But there's no guarantee we'll be able to defend
ourselves from the onslaught, and society could start to change in unpredictable ways as a
result.
The perspective described here is indeed frightening. Yet, what's really impressive in this
article and in other similar articles by the big media on the Internet, is that there is a type
of information elitism, implying that there is a media priesthood, which has the copyright of
Truth. You can tell that by the fact that the article completely ignores the possibility that
this technology could be used by the mainstream media too, to manipulate the public.
Inside this increasingly artificial reality, is there really anyone today who holds the keys of
the 'ultimate' truth? I don't think so.
So, this bizarre panic around the mainstream media about this new, and indeed frightening
technology, is not coming from their concern that you will be heavily misinformed. It's coming
from the fact that they want the monopoly to misinform you. Because they know that after
decades of lies and propaganda being upgraded to a literally scientific level, their
credibility today has reached a record low.
Celebrities can be inserted into porn videos by anyone. I don't like it. I don't think is
right.
Personalities should be protected and perhaps we need a new legislation code to achieve
that.
But what about the mainstream media pundits who will use this frightening technology to grab
the consent of the masses for another devastating war with millions of dead?
Nowhere in the Western world is truth respected. Even universities are imposing censorship
and speech control. Governments are shutting down, and will eventually criminalize, all
explanations that differ from official ones. The Western world no longer has a print and TV
media. In its place there is a propaganda ministry for the ruling elite.
Whistleblowers are prosecuted and imprisoned despite their protection by federal statue. The
US Department of Justice is a Department of Injustice. It has been a long time since any
justice flowed from the DOJ.
The total corruption of the print and TV media led to the rise of Intermet media such as
Wikileaks, led by Julian Assange, a prisoner since 2012.
Assange is an Australian and Ecuadorian citizen. He is not an American citizen. Yet US
politicians and media claim that he is guilty of treason because he published official
documents leaked to Wikileaks that prove the duplicity and criminality of the US
government.
It is strictly impossible for a non-citizen to be guilty of treason. It is strickly
impossible under the US Constitution for the reporting of facts to be spying. The function of
the media is to expose and to hold accountable the government. This function is no longer
performed by the Western print and TV media.
Washington wants revenge and is determined to get it. If Assange were as corrupt at the New
York Times, Washington Post, CNN, National Public Radio, MSNBC, etc., he would have reported
the leaker to Washington, not published the information, and retired as a multi-millionaire
with Washington's thanks. However, unfortunately for Assange, he had integrity.
Integrity today in the Western world has no value. You cannot find integrity in the
government, in the global corporations, in the universities and schools, and most certainly not
in the media.
After leaving Assange, an Australian citizen, to Washington's mercy since 2012, belated
pro-Assange protests in Australia forced the US vassal state to come to Assange's aid before
the new corrupt president of Ecuador sells him to Washington for muilti-millons of dollars by
revoking his asylum.
When the story was printed in the Sydney Morning Herald, the incompetent or brainwashed, or
bought-and-paid-for journalist, Nick Miller, wrote:
"Assange entered the embassy on June 19, 2012, after he had exhausted his appeals against an
extradition order to go to Sweden to face rape and sexual assault allegations.
Nick Miller has committed libel, whether from his ignorance or from pay.
There was no extradition order from Sweden for Assange to be returned to Sweden "to face
rape and sexual assault allegations." No such charges were issued by the Swedish prosecutorial
office, and no such charges were made by the women involved.
The case had already been closed by the Swedish prosecutorial office, and the two women who
willingly shared their beds with Assange did not press any charges. The Swedish female
prosecutor, who many suspect reopened the closed case at the urging of Washington, wrote in the
extradition request that she only wanted Assange for questioning.
Normally, extraditions are not granted for questioning. There has to be actual criminal
charges, and there were no such charges against Assange. However, under pressure from
Washington, a corrupt UK court granted, perhaps for the first time in history, extradition for
questioning.
Assange's attorneys understood that if Assange left his embassy refuge and travelled to
Sweden to be questioned, there was nothing to prevent Sweden from turning him over to
Washington to be tortured, as Washington does, into confession of some crime.
Consequently, Assange's attorneys told the Swedish female prosecutor, a person who seems
shortchanged on integrity, that Assange would be available for questioning in his place of
refuge. The prosecutor, showing her hand, refused to question Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy
in London. After refusing for many months while the presstitutes blackened Assange's repution
as a "rapist who was escaping justice," the sort of ignorant nonsense that Nick Miller writes,
the prosecutor consented to go to London to interview Assange.
As nothing incriminating emerged from the questioning and as neither of the women claimed
that they were raped, the female prosecutorclosed the case for the second time. But the corrupt
British would not release Assange. They claimed that he was wanted for jumping bail, an
argument that made no sense as the charge for his arrest had been dismissed. But Washington
insisted, and British "justice" again served Washington instead of justice.
The basis of the political assault on Assange came from the concern of one of his willing
sex partners that he had not used a condum. With everyone worried crazy about HIV and Aids, the
woman inquired at a Swedish public office if Assange could be required to take a HIV/Aids test.
Assange, not realizing his vulnerability, apparently refused the test, and thus opened himself
to a controversy that Washington immediately took advantage of.
It is safe for rock stars to have groupies, but not for truth-tellers.
If you understand the extreme extent to which the US government has gone, riding roughshod
over many laws and traditions, to destroy Assange, perhaps you can understand the threats that
the very few of us who have the education, experience, and integrity to tell you the truth live
under.
When I write an article, it does not inform me. I already know. When I inform you, I am
doing so at my risk. I am not going to take this risk if readers do not support this website. I
do this for you. If it is not important to you, I have no need to do it.
You need to support truth-tellers as we are a disappearing breed under constant assault.
Mixture of interesting although almost irrelevant information about personalities such as
Gorbachov and his wife (viewed over rose glasses) with some idiotic statements. Avoid.
The collapse of the USSR was the collapse of the society which ideology (Marxism-leninism)
collapsed and replacement it with neoliberalism. Neoliberal counterrevolution.
Also the economics of the USSR was a war economics. Part of it was due to the threat from the West and embargo on high tech.
Part due to own military-industrial complex. Agriculture was a failure. The net result was deterioration of he standard of
living in 80th. People because seduced by western consumerism and elite was seduced by neoliberal ideology. So
neoliberal revolution (counter-revolution) logically followed
April 5, 2017
In this lecture, William Taubman, professor of Political Science at Amherst College and the
Pulitzer Prize-winning author, sheds a light on how Mihail Gorbachev undermined the Soviet
system in pursuit of his dream of the democratized country.
The West will always hate Russia. Because the Soviet Union destroyed the colonial world
order where the rules of the West. Despotism of the "white man" was destroyed, and enslaved
peoples of Africa, Asia, Islamic world, Latin America was released. In the 19th century, the
West ruled the world, now only n their historical lands. Russia has caused considerable
damage to Western domination.
Why USSR collapsed according to America, Fake news. The USSR empire collapsed for the same
reasons that European empires collapsed. The American empire has been in decline for a while
now and will eventually collapsed too.
The USSR was doomed to collapse. It is a totally corrupted union, with selfish leaders who
lived in luxury while the people lived in poverty. However, it devoted its resources to
military development. No extra resources were given to production of consumer goods and foods
for the people. Its union comprises many countries with different races and cultures, which
could never be reconciled. Its collapse is just a matter of time, and could not blame
Gorbachev.
Fueling hysteria about "Russian disinformation," "Russian meddling," and "Russian
propaganda" has quickly become a lucrative pastime. Now NATO's Atlantic Council has gathered
the leading proponents under one umbrella.
"Russian's everywhere, everywhere Russians" – that's long been the mantra of NATO's
propaganda wing, the Atlantic Council. And, since 1961, the American lobby group's raison
d'être has been to convince the world that Moscow presents an existential threat to
the rest of Europe.
And as NATO has expanded, the "think tank's" agitprop has evolved from the "reds in the bed"
whispers of the Soviet-era to today's new racket: "disinformation."
This week, Atlantic Council
announced a new initiative known as the "DisinfoPortal."
Their latest wheeze is pitched as "an interactive online guide to track the Kremlin's
disinformation campaigns abroad." Something you can take to mean pretty much everything which
contradicts NATO-friendly messaging, whether accurate or not.
There is no universal, global brotherhood of "nationalist, right-wing, anti-SJW" values as
you seem to be trying to imply. The western far-right/alt-right is entirely self-serving and
their appeals to some kind of global nationalistic ideology is basically just a thin facade
that they promote in order to help generate support for their own self-serving agenda. The
only reason that the western far-right wants to reach out for allies right now is because
they are on the ropes and in a position of weakness; if the western far-right was instead in
a position of strength then they would not hesitate to put their boot on your neck. You are
quite naive if you don't think otherwise.
As an long time observer of the western far-right; its very clear that at the end of the
day, it is not principles that they care about, it is only themselves. That in itself would
be fine if they were upfront about it, however the problem is that they insist on being very
deceptive about their true motives. As I have said in this post, and so many others; why is
it that the far-right wants to postulate about "rights" and "fairness" when it comes to the
preservation of the white race, but then when it comes to any other ethnic group on earth
that has been negatively impacted by western colonialism the far-right just tells them to go
fuck themselves? This tells you all you need to know about how the far-right really feels
about its so called vaunted principles regarding racial/cultural preservation. They believe
in it for themselves yes, but will be more than willing to compromise this belief when it
comes to any others. You are missing the forest for the trees if you insist on adhering to
notions of abstract jointly-held values at the expense of basic strategic interests; this is
something I guarantee you is not lost on the western far-right.
You also assume that SJWism is going to spread to east asia and negatively affect the
culture there in the same way that it has in the west. Is this or is this not the primary
motivation why you seek an alliance with the western far-right? Have I understood your motive
correctly? Going on the assumption that this is actually your motive; then why haven't you
taken into account the fact that culturally and genetically speaking, east asians simply
think differently than whites do? There is no reason to believe that SJWism is going to run
as rampantly in east asia as it has in the west. It will gain a foothold that is for sure,
but it won't gain the same kind of traction that it has in the west. Ideologies cannot
completely change the essential natures of people, if this was the case then the alt-right
(based on racial determinism) would not exist in the first place. Anyways this is a moot
point; if the west fully declines then it would be unable to export its leftist ideals
anyways, so I don't see what you're mad about.
Once again, to reiterate my original point. It is absurd for POC to assume that the
western far-right in any way, shape or form represents their interests or at the very least
is a neutral entity towards them. It is true that POC is a clumsy, extremely general term,
but in this context it functions perfectly. The western far-right worldview is basically
encapsulated as "whites vs all others"; therefore within this context, a pan non-white
concept like POC is useful for working within such a stark, extremist ideological framework.
What is playing out in the west right now is basically the west struggling with its own past
actions; highly conscientious POC need to sit on the sidelines, shutup and let this play out
on its own. There is no need to take sides here, the west made its own bed, let it sleep in
it, this has nothing to do with POC.
Most of us are against both 'invite the world' and 'invade the world'.
Im an old hand on the internet far-right/alt-right scene; what you said is generally true
except with a major caveat. The alt-right is against invading the world only when it doesn't
result in any net gain for the west. The alt-right doesn't actually have a principled stance
against colonization/invading other countries; rather they are only against invading other
countries when it inconveniences them, but when it happens to benefit them, they are fully
supportive of all kinds of invasions. This is probably one of the things that disgusts me
most about the alt-right is how they lack any kind of true, consistent moral foundation but
like to act as if they do.
Its not really a useful argument to ask if something is really a grassroots thing or not.
You could apply that same line of reasoning to anything to the extent where it could obscure
the true reality of an event. Is globalization due to the actions of a jewish ruling class?
Perhaps. But many on the alt-right still blame jews in general because they understand that
there is something in jewish culture that is sympathetic to the globalization project
overall. The same thing applies to western colonization as well. Regardless of what the
western ruling class chose to do, there was an eager, sympathetic and compliant population
which enabled western colonization to happen. If the population was not enthusiastic about
the colonization project then the broad and thorough scale of european colonization would
have been impossible otherwise.
The very act of colonizing and expansion is something that speaks to the very soul of
western man. Most on the far-right fully agree with this sentiment btw and this is something
that you see them say over and over. Simply trying to deflect all the blame on the ruling
class and absolve the people actually carrying out actions is pretty disingenuous. The
reality is, both the ruling class and its subjects are both equally culpable for european
colonization. More importantly, I want to add that while colonialism may not have originated
as a grassroots movement, it certainly had (and continues to have) grassroots support
(especially among the far-right). Which is something that is equally important to consider
(and equally damning as well)
You have a weird obsession with colonialism. Everyone's self-serving; the form changes but
at the end of the day, that's nature.
You're just as self-serving, except that you've apparently have a global image of "POC"
being united for some reason. And evidently the West, which for whatever foibles it has,
shouldn't at least make an effort to survive?
Lol, you couldn't address any of my points, that's why you just throw everything out and
take potshots at me.
The modern world, and nearly everything that unz.com is about ultimately goes back to
colonialism. You could equally say that the writers on unz.com have a weird obsession with
immigration/globalization. Likewise, I could equally say that you have some weird obsession
with leftism. You see how flawed your logic is?
No, im not being self-serving here. I know that my usage of the term POC triggered your
anti-left/anti-SJW sensibilities, but you're reading too much into the usage of a word. The
term POC was used because it was appropriate for the context (as I explained in my reply to
you and you conveniently ignored), not because I have an extreme left political
orientation.
Once again, to reiterate my original point. It is absurd for POC to assume that the
western far-right in any way, shape or form represents their interests or at the very least
is a neutral entity towards them. It is true that POC is a clumsy, extremely general
term, but in this context it functions perfectly. The western far-right worldview is
basically encapsulated as "whites vs all others"; therefore within this context, a pan
non-white concept like POC is useful for working within such a stark, extremist ideological
framework. What is playing out in the west right now is basically the west struggling
with its own past actions; highly conscientious POC need to sit on the sidelines, shutup
and let this play out on its own. There is no need to take sides here, the west made its
own bed, let it sleep in it, this has nothing to do with POC.
As for the west trying to make some effort to survive; I had never claimed that it should
not. In fact I never made any argument to that effect in any of my comments on this article.
In fact, I want you to prove me wrong . Since you seem so sure of your position, quote
and paste where I clearly made an argument to the effect of the west should just give up and
stop trying to survive. I'll be waiting.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Clearly I have been making the argument
that POC (I hope you get triggered by this) need to stop trying to prop up the west by
rubbing shoulders with the alt-right and should instead sit back and watch things play out.
This is not their fight. Making this argument is completely different than what you were
trying to imply I was saying.
As I've said before, I give as much effort to a reply as I think a person deserves.
Obviously you're not one of them, in no small part because of your insane fetish with
"colonialism" – which I barely could care for.
Indeed, colonialism can be plenty helpful for improving the condition of a population
objectively, which is surprising given that its goal is traditionally extractive but when the
native elite is so incompetent or even more extractive of their population, then it is a net
benefit to the population.
Not that I really care; I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with conquest. At the end
of the day, competition is the means to determine which values and memes of humanity survive
and by removing violence completely as a method, it leads to warping of the population.
I'm descended from mandarins; I have a pretty clear line of family history as far back as
the Yuan. We've done beautiful things – marvelous terraced farms, canals that remain to
this day, and a slew of impressive artwork. We've done terrible things – kept
generations of illiterate serfs and bondsmen. "European colonialism" may hurt us, but the
Cultural Revolution did a lot more damage and almost wiped us out. And we've invaded Vietnam,
and I don't regret it: Annam, the peaceful south. Had the Ming held it, had it remained
Chinese, its hard to argue that it would not be wealthier and more beautiful than it is
now.
So no, I don't feel anything in common with your so-called POC. And your rants about
colonialism only irritate me further. There are many terrible things in life and the world.
And often, they are also beautiful and glorious things.
LOL. This is hilarious, keep backtracking. You obviously care because you bothered to
reply in the first place. Tellingly, you were unable to address the most cogent points in the
argument that I brought up against you in my previous replies and instead prefer to dissemble
about something that has nothing to do with the original point of discussion. Don't think I
didn't notice the (clumsy) sleight of hand. You try to act as if you're above replying to me
but really the problem is that you're unable to argue against the points that I made. Its
really that simple. If you were able to disprove my arguments then you would already be doing
that instead of talking in circles about it.
Ethically speaking, colonialism is wrong. Doesnt matter who does it, white black or
yellow. That being said, I understand the dark parts of human nature and why colonialism
happens. Time and time again, I have clearly stated how the crux of my argument is the
hypocrisy of the far-right when it comes to the topic of colonialism, not so much the act of
colonialism itself. That's it. And I couldn't make my point any clearer. The onus falls on
you, and not on I to correctly perceive this point. My problem is not that the west colonized
the world (shit happens), my problem is that the far right wants to celebrate and condone
colonialism (hence celebrate the historical destruction of other races and cultures) while
simultaneously wanting to complain about their own racial displacement and cultural
destruction (ironically brought about by globalization which in turn was brought about
through western colonialism in the first place). The far-right has a major ideological
consistency here which it is either blind to, or willfully ignores. I'm sorry but the western
far-right can't have its cake and eat it too. It needs to clearly decide how they feel about
the ethics of colonization and then take a principled and consistent stance on it.
Regardless, both in the comments for this post, and for the entirety of my posting
history, my stance regarding colonization has been the same. It is you that has misunderstood
it due to your faulty reading comprehension, and anybody who doubts my words is perfectly
free to read my prior comments in this thread as well as look through my comment history as
well. Therefore, the thrust of your reply completely misses the mark. I suspect however that
your misunderstanding was intentional considering how clearly I made my point regarding
colonialism in all of my posts. Regardless, why should anyone take what you have to say
seriously when you have already demonstrated a clear tendency for poor reading comprehension
or willful misperception? Don't forget about this:
You're just as self-serving, except that you've apparently have a global image of
"POC" being united for some reason. And evidently the West, which for whatever foibles
it has, shouldn't at least make an effort to survive?
God, that's stupid.
As for the west trying to make some effort to survive; I had never claimed that it
should not. In fact I never made any argument to that effect in any of my comments on this
article. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong . Since you seem so sure of your
position, quote and paste where I clearly made an argument to the effect of the west should
just give up and stop trying to survive. I'll be waiting.
I'm still waiting for you to clearly provide proof of your assertion that I implied the
west should just give up; which in fact I never wrote anything to the effect of that, but in
your rush to debunk me, you obviously missed that. The alt-right always prides itself on
relying strictly on the facts, so please live up to this ethos. Everything I wrote is an open
book, either prove your assertions or admit that you can't.
So no, I don't feel anything in common with your so-called POC. And your rants about
colonialism only irritate me further. There are many terrible things in life and the world.
And often, they are also beautiful and glorious things.
Nor do you have to feel anything in common with so-called POC. Do you think I care what
you feel? You vastly overestimate your own importance. Remember, it was you who went out
of you way to start up this dialogue with me, not I . I'm glad that my "rants" regarding
colonialism irritate you. That being said, if they irritate you so much, instead of
responding to them, please ignore them from now on. You are aware that you are not obligated
to reply to anything I write, right?
True! There are many terrible things in life and the world, and also there are many
glorious and beautiful things as well. I think it is beautiful that the west has lived at the
expense of others for so long, and now we are reaching a point where everything that the west
has done is now catching up with it in unexpected ways. It turns out the the universe has a
sense of humor afterall. What goes up, must come down. This applies to all races and all
civilizations. As humans, we must seek to live in harmony with each other, and not simply
exploit and kill one another. There is beauty in seeking to rise above such primitive
impulses, and if possible acting with understanding and compassion towards our fellow man.
That is truly the meaning of "being civilized".
Truly I do not harbor ill-will against the west because it is western, rather I harbor
ill-will towards the west because of its past actions and present attitudes. This is why I
specifically target the far-right (because of their present attitudes about the west's past
actions), as opposed to attacking all western people. I especially have a soft-spot for
westerners that are able to genuinely feel remorse about the past. I strongly believe in the
concept of forgiveness and letting things go, provided that the sentiment is genuine and
mutual. Actually on that topic; even indifference is an acceptable emotion. I think its
stupid to morally hold westerners to past events when even they are indifferent about their
own racial/cultural future. I only stick it to the far-right because they automatically incur
higher moral/ethical standards for themselves to meet when they want to start talking about
the importance of having moral rights for racial/cultural survival.
That being said, the west has a tremendous amount of momentum from its past actions
gathered against it; so it doesn't really matter how I feel, the west will still have to deal
with everything that is happening to it and what is going to happen to it in the future.
Nothing you say or do will impact this in any way, so you might as well enjoy the ride
instead of complaining that I am pointing out inconvenient truths which harm your delicate
sensibilities. Ironically those who complain most about fragile SJW snowflakes are those who
get triggered the easiest themselves
In fact, looking at your history, you are a rare breed: you are a genuine, unironic
anti-white crusader. You actually think there is something uniquely evil about "white
people" and talk without any sense of contradiction that you have "extensive experience of
white people."
The mind boggles.
It was a mistake to give you any time at all.
This is actually a lie what you have written. For your convenience, and for the
convenience of anybody reading, I have provided the quote of what I had originally written
which you are referring to:
GammaRay says:
April 29, 2018 at 7:04 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz
This is an interesting question and definitely worth looking into. That being said, I do
not buy into the reasoning that an exploding british population is the only or even major
reason behind colonization. From learning about european culture, and understanding the
general weltanschauung of white people, as well as from having extensive social experience
with them; it is clearly evident to me that there is a strong extraversive, expansive
component that exists in the white collective consciousness which under certain
circumstances strongly compels them to colonize, displace and replace much more so than
other races would do so under similar circumstances. What alt-righters/WN would call
"ambition" and "drive", others might prefer to recognize it as "greed". Regardless of the
semantic trivialities; it is clear that there is a strong internal drive within westerners
that causes them to vigorously pursue both the physical and cultural colonization of "the
other". This is not a negative or positive judgment though; it is merely intended to be
understood as an objective observation.
What I had written clearly strives to be dispassionate and objective as opposed to the
maniacal and frothing at the mouth anti-white diatribe that you are attempting to make it out
to be.
Im sorry but the truth of the matter is that HBD is probably real; racial differences
probably exist on a genetic level which influence the behavior and temperaments of different
races and ethnic groups. The fact that whites are more likely to be domineering and have a
tendency for colonizing "the other" does not make them evil; it is an impulse that can be
channeled in both positive and negative ways. That being said, just because I bring up this
inconvenient fact doesn't automatically make me racist or "anti-white". I am merely trying to
work within a framework of reality, we have both multiple centuries of history to draw
inferences from, as well as interpersonal anecdotal observations of white behavior both in
real life as well as on the internet in spaces such as these. I don't think its very
controversial that I am making observations based on noticing patterns. I mean, is noticing
patterns illegal or something undesirable?
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to
emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate
story, as Daniel Lazare explains.
Special to Consortium News
With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy
named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in
shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.
It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald
Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread
the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these
reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press
accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be
the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block "
Siberian
candidate " Trump.
The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business
partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The
Washington Post , Dearlove
told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers"
opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years
earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US
authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in
communication with the Kremlin."
Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down.
When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make
him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable
scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for
his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director
Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top
Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese
academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA
Director (and now NBC News analyst).
In-Bred
A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to
run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now
partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are
connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also
connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke
and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another
MI6 vet. Alexander Downer
served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is
linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped
found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an
unpaid
advisor .
Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about
this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom
every Russian is a Boris
Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike
Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian
scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that
Lokhova convincingly
argues are absurd.
Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign
In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian
intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge
history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.
As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known,
Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass
destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
argued that the Iraqi
military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in
fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.
Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence
against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend
the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses
fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult"
hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly
misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and
spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.
The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public
manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public
furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
It Started Late 2015
The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland,
Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring
what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and
known or suspected Russian agents."
Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy
establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was
somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant
named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in
Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set
about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed
to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors.
Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow
where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands
of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York
Timesdescribes
Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at
meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr.
Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later
tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking
British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security
agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in
such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by
telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing
Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a
friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer
advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about
Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.
Was Papadopoulos Set Up?
Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking
into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm
employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.
On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise
the
Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been
cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence
possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show
for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele
briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington
to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material
so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."
One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was
telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau
as well.
Page: Took Russia's side.
On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on
U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western
capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such
as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "
unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's
side in a growing neo-Cold War.
Stefan Halper then
infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks
before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter
re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign.
Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.
On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke.
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London
to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty.
"George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there,
but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national
campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in
Washington.
The rightwing Federalist website
speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that
"Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating
it." Clovis believes
that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in
the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue
warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought
a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue
after inauguration.
Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty
rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does
his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite
countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the
sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a
"nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said
it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others
on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for
corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency
with violating US election laws.
But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the
indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved.
Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive –
just $46,000 worth of Facebook
ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with
no particular slant
at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under
intense pressure to come up with anything at all.
The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The
Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2
article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a
six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one
billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election
Day.
The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to
cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way
but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus
"had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather
than business success."
Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea
that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was
destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic
National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible
still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite
the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape
if you don't use it?
Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.
Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he
said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but
were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation
given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was
opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in
an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig
up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at
taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not
his government.
Using it Anyway
Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both
advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled
Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that
the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David
J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.
Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security
official who
says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump
with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper
and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later
testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type
situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over
him in some way."
But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few
days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on
government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure
hate to see end up in the press."
Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, TheNew
Yorker
continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well,
saying it's a
"rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not
long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian
disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the
intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the
public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that
they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this
out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his
charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area
such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of
breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.
But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on
the advantage to the deep state.
From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a
guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of
the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them
becomes "collusion".
I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's
persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the
White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been
motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten
into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never
recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb,
Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would
have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged
"puppet."
The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his
candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were
always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of
jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to
beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat
themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and
other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what
really happened.
backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the
birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the
presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and
Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology
has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he
would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.
I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are
both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the
Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The
multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it
is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S.
multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its
tariffs:
"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products
will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on
washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.
Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and
mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.
Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also
benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.
In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be
slashed to zero from 6 percent before.
In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations
will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."
Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at
least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.
I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've
underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always
the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the
chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons
and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their
favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump
did.
Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am
"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm,
the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to
reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an
all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in
the eastern Mediterranean.
"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to
the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide
to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential
campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential
information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in
turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and
subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the
American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a
foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.
"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for
political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More
recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British
intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think
tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.
"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant
layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less
disruptive' than Trump's.
"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016
elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine
the Kremlin attempting."
Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different
perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump.
Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact
is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their
brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an
audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations
which ushered in the age of dark money.
When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of
their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by
their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The
only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.
What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of
every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential
checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates
for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to
the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be
the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a
premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed
a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were
sucked dry.
What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like
a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the
term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause
all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was
"in the lead".
It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job
and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.
Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one
little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House.
Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a
democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal
ideology for the most part.
What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the
establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than
continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us
all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense
projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.
The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin
horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every
year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the
hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and
entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of
governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White
House.
What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies
were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former
administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and
form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable
targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump
Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them
of many dollars.
It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very
threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the
hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its
existence based on foreign enemies.
So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and
the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It
had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in
the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they
committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the
White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.
In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign
finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell
anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven
million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's
decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out
Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which
eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman
Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns
with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been
eliminated.
In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of
our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the
corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked
republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including
the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now
face a new internal enemy.
That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent
the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their
control of our nation. Here is a quote:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they
create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral
code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am
Different journalist covering much the same ground:
"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery,
and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike
the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened
"Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors
(including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted
and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own
lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on
Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its
constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am
Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that
their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the
election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching
an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the
title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was
unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line
"and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to
investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture
uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of
evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry
about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to
meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation
leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain,
then it is not reasonable to cry foul.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am
The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything
since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction).
Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being
is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.
Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am
Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep
people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is
president, not the evil Ruskies.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am
We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I
know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the
deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application
of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.
dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the
intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt
need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and
suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the
smashing of the Sanders campaign.
Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the
forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.
robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am
Spot on, Seer.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and
ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was
just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains
were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands
of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the
carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.
Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Seth Rich
anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am
Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with
secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal
affair).
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am
Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am
Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's
puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the
debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her
collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she
would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto
Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part
and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.
Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for
Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and
"unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals
like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton
campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is
no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the
moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter
or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front."
I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)
Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the
impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply
accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike)
that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional
(nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian
Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely
who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not
pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has
Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and
supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as
the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the
"Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC
servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to
bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the
corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a
kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part
of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly
flawed reportage?
I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's
other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to
meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in
American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun
shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White
House.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm
You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original
post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the
details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the
remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much
heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the
Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that
it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor
point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks.
Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his
investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think
Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he
may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig
Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the
media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original
post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual
journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a
deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the
biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American
journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter
category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as
rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see
it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer
than the original.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm
My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz
by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence
paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his
article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.
Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not
a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:
"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake
information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the
suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants,
and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the
process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to
remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?
It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely
was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.
As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it,
and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is
evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins
Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.
Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media
conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up,
like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with
intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.
As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any
there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary
Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed,
they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to
stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion
with Russia.
This is the Swamp versus the People.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo
court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he
examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of
truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the
President.
Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even
begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this
so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.
I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him –
anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about
what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the
country is truly lost.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether
you like him and his questionable policies or not.
Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto
to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of
politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as
hell.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm
When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass
to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a
partisan operation.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Michael – good point!
KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am
Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do
with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert
attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate
choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders
campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the
intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to
set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful
& illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win?
This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking
of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its
treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her
crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was
also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was
pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up,
convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once
& get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into
this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real
criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up
& held to account for this treasonous behaviour?
Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm
Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as
Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's
article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:
"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian
counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with
memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more
information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/
Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so
called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it
paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'
Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm
In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary
adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.
dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am
Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for
another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on
the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over
getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in
setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than
Watergate, IMO.
Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in
covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified
information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working
for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the
NSA.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using
her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the
same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email
address during her whole tenure as SOS.
Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by
both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email
server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill
there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had
just donated to their foundation.
Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses
or their foundations? I think not.
The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for
her crimes is a different matter.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm
If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax
exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and
campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government
paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at
all. Not that she's innocent, mind you
Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am
I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due
respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little
bit.
the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called
"Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40
years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.
i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on
behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting
elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.
of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or
surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial
circles.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm
chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or
other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand.
You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual
Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious
was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they
make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something,
anything.
Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in
their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they
left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!
This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky
clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to
take down a duly-elected President.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm
His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments
paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as
deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm
F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral
involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the
plot. Risk of exposure costs money.
ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these
things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew
every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there,
and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile
of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function.
There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler
titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action
as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer.
(Maybe another reader knows how?)
We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff
necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our
politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still
believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm
ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the
little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the
address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")
Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will
come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse.
This will copy the link.
Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your
post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this
point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste",
and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.
If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help
you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm
If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste
function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch
screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of
it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's
also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !
This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you
want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option,
which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks
seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)
Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or
your
computer crashes . . . )
ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it,
but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm
ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together.
Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with
me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do
it every day and the world still goes on.
I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you
think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're
middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you
realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.
Good luck, ranney.
irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm
I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old
fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't
usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the
younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut &
paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste'
what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or
(this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other
possibilities too!
mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm
No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing
more.
It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican"
affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political
realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's
face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic
Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected
wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S.
and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into
line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and
others demonstrates.
One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state
nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA
vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former
CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House
through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing
Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously
proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded
as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two
future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation.
You truly can't make this stuff up.
Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right
direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole
cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama
White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that
beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe
going on.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Gary – great post.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.
Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm
This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco.
Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.
Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm
So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the
permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they
serving? How do they know what those interests are?
It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular
– but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist
dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of
the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not
knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble
more lies for money.
It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge
robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over
the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less
than 20% of the US spend.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm
You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but
they think that the whole world is theirs.
To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever
the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one
unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the
groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning
Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the
Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.
For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing
Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy
resources.
Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".
But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players
interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel
neoconservative think tank in 2014.
In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.
In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.
Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian
Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts,
and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request
by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in
Syria.
Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream
media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.
Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.
"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."
And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably
say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the
Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per
capita what is allocated to Israel's
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am
A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could
create a lawless madness like Washington DC.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.
I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm
But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.
irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am
The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.
When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.
So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them.
Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going
concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very
scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift
the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable
for
how our funds are used !
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm
this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing,
if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects:
1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden
tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually
due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of
people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to
take notice.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government
and armed forces of the United Kingdom.
In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting
all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing
disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.
For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal
details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty
trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.
In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close
relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.
Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that
his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals
intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in
the UK and Israel but in many other countries."
Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between
British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel
reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is
saving British lives."
Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of
Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."
The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim
SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er
Sheva.
Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of
a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.
After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services
firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.
BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel
Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler,
formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division
head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.
In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British
private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military
deception operations.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich
bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies
that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the
Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare
against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of
treason.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am
This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes
covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely,
vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it
didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting
communications in the US..
Secrecy kills.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am
Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US
telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full
access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people
should be prosecuted for treason.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am
To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two
entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by
Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence
is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of
President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email
server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are
attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect
"national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was
a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears
to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money
laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the
Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It
follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections,
and prosecution will become inevitable.
Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire
government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to
Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current
administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter
how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is,
if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't
really afford that.
"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think
it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that
happen.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm
The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an
investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.
It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible
criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with
Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a
crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people
(electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off
hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities
before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes
come with big risks.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm
My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any
"collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole,
sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is
obviously phony.
But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with
his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct
being exposed.
So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm
fine with it.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am
My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't
that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental
stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I
don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm
it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the
laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with
wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and
probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's
significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm
There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete
smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.
On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to
anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a
Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even
my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.
In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of
its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this
investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with
such ancillary matters.
The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this
may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on
appeal.
Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only
admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must
be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do
with the original warrant.
In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a
Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles
long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working
all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.
This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the
entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere
activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country
of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political
infrastructure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and
incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am
All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such
actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've
effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel
in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully
"briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats
(knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to
Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).
What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to
say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively
nullified now.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am
Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of
investigations beyond the remit He failed.
Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am
There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western
intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared
with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including
two universities:
"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include
senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries,
especially Italy and the United Kingdom.
Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of
Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the
UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."
Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book
they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid
point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks
it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian
agent."
Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to
belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of
funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.
As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are
looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the
governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything
wrong."
From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian
spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George
Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?
I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still
missing?
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at
Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".
A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old
Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst –
reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.
Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an
Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying
anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he
never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where
should I have this [information]?"
Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who
alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said
Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing
material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that
Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about
Clinton-related emails either.
In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a
Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.
According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo
Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go
into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by
someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."
Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am
" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with
Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they
write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""
Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is,
that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud
mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am
The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy
destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of
Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the
economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.
We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.
Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond
slavery to oligarchy.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am
You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News.
Joe
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass
media.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am
The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of
others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a
world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense
of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with
what they already had.
If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might
discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top
of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am
How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded
that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in
the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the
productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we
offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who
can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none
of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.
Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the
greatest achievement of our times.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm
An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of
Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was
paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could
not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike,
if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's
workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would
be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly
like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that
saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for
the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there
could be more to go around. Joe
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm
"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious
preference."
Good luck with that!!!
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm
Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.
john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am
The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the
American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we
are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump'
(lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many
decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption
and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the
deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and
there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can
be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won
there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of
the deep state.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am
I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could
have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not
that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered,
but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive
overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am
sure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am
It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by
its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman,
who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty
years after the USSR.
Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am
"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."
Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing
was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly
what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the
institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach
to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian
Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of
believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our
current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous
Thank you Daniel Lazar.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am
The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping
to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and
UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal
and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as
the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long
before we see evidence.
Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's
Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs
of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took
Real Power.
In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts
together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for
me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to
the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight
Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are
simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm
Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power,
which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general
policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of
politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security,
deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line
of oligarchy in any form.
Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of
cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available,
and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success,
because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.
You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare ,
McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm
SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a
position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being
stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents.
Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight.
Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.
Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.
What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.
"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in
which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential
progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality,
corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing
the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War
Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to
spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and
naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your
health.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am
The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign
monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am
Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth
degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival
opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and
required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele
dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town
on bringing down Trump.
"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you
reason to carry out a phony investigation.
"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged
themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television
and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been
kept alive.
These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election.
None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the
polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."
I hope they see jail time for what they've done.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am
Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this
could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to
ruin the Trump Presidency.
JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am
I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with
the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am
It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm
Orbis.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei
Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn
but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it
was published.
robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm
John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal
affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and
that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia =
evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably
received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am
Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a
scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over
Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the
Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and
directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their
story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a
huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am
"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."
Not so.
Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times
op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to
employ a question mark.)
I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember
reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate
reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along
with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated
media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after
Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting
on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.
Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013
worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and
it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even
hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI
told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court
allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the
Trump transition team/administration.
Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort
joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had
previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing,
Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had
eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such
explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.
My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the
WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow
sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page
– maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that
sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).
Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a
ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.
So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is
part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to
feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:
"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.
He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the
public see the truth.
That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture
Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for
itself, to "undermine" an investigation.
And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to
its reputation with the public and with Congress."
What do you bet he does?
RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am
I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running
through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To
dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough
such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.
What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no
one seems to ever say what it is.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am
RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I
actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the
paring knife.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am
Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask
people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that
has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian
hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's
candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book
villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American
media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue
like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.
Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic
handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel,
the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even
the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with
rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs
with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media.
Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better
interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements
and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent
variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it,
especially when directed at them.
Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose
the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all
the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by
the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who
must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late.
All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth
accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it
may well be far too late.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day
mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told
by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who
never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury.
They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.
This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging
Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so
retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real
fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to
them – they're dirty little fighters.
Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on –
maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State
is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.
There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this
opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.
The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all
documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not
going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In
fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope
he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He
needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a
lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am
You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.
Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am
Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate
has been one big Gish Gallop.
strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm
RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very
strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about
Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of
this and they don't say that either.
John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am
What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?
You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy
Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that
Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be
sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?
It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to
be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of
Jim Jones!
strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm
That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz
because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual
relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story
Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens
bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say
to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And
Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia
investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it
has to do with Russia Gate.
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked
into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand
close scrutiny . It
could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to
investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with
WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former
National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange
did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the
Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access
to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage
device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained
this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.
On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted
that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to
WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to
blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained
no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of
that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian
intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to
WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.
Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the
blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that
Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had
to have been the Russians.
Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to
challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks.
Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not
exist.
WikiLeaks
It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that
Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the
Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails
were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to
create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the
emails by blaming Russia for their release.
Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various
media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even
we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails
from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The
diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave
little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer'
Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.
Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic
facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:
June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to
Hillary Clinton."
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there
is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the
"hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a
pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish
and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
Enter Independent Investigators
A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for
reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts"
who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found
verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5,
2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or
anyone else.
Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016
for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics"
principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to
disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May
31
published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not
from Russia.
In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated ,
"We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."
Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be
related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this
general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA
documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or
former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the
information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which
disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's
Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital
Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned
President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]
Marbled
"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it
race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described
and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part
3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too
delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has
never been mentioned since .
"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March
31
article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA
cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'
"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use
'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text
obfuscation.
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution
double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version
published in The Baltimore Sun
The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was
neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his
associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a
non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24
Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like
it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we
know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and
with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017
VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together
at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary
straightforwardness. ]
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin.
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager
– to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's
technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can
understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or
any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a
scenario? I can.'
New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published
16-minute
interview last Friday.
In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must
append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24,
2017:
"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in
the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political
agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our
former intelligence colleagues.
"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say
and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it
is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as
a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the
President's Daily Brief.
ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic
attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in
Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of
choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies.
MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to
blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the
supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US
allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not
capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of
the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during
the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis
could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth
Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted
by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.
The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the
CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all
over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security
firms (Wikipedia):
cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant,
SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of
"Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the
cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy
Bear).
Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally
obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of
the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with
connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly
thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday,
Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known
evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.
Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it
lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.
anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am
I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed
out" propaganda.
One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not.
No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin
supply."
CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm
There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence
agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false
flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false
flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible
to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.
In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to
create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many
examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by
the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.
Examples:
The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship
Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying
munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the
Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was
torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but
it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.
There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor
Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning
radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the
Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that
our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.
There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was
planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out
the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq
which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with
Iraq.
The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was
greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in
Vietnam.
The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow
journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed
by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a
boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be
caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and
war was waged.
In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made
up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was
led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every
case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under
attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or
justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our
nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or
just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a
publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support
for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.
Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which
enable global communication and commerce.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on
military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create
in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false
flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the
government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world
events to justify military action?
Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we
get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.
Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags
will happen for better or worse in any medium available.
susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm
I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral
"highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before
anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.
The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so
many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism
writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked"
to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another
(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund
marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy
targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is
able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and
printed.
Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as
source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal
State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.
Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm
I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict
control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7
releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm
It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep
donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It
was the Rooskies."
Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am
An earlier time line.
March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.
April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".
May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.
May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically
e-mails.
June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.
It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably
Intelligence services) for > 6 months.
Specific points.
On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the
(presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his
domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?
There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the
unlikely event that he went on to win.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being
"Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the
two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long
before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to
use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are
right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to
the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were
trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest
(more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.
Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Steven Halper?
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am
I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been
ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and
visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails
were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and
angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost
knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her
defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which
covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was
please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing,
though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another
innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this
story.
MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm
"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"
Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation –
with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not
done?
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am
MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency
agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan,
Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing
there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he
will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is
probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18
minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean
Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller
investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and
witness TAMPERING. A great American there!
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am
strgr-tgther:
Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.
As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents,
politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am
Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the
Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant
rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who
was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)
It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC
machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively,
show.)
incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am
What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are
alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate,
which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground
– and it would have been published for all to read.
The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating
Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a
strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress
such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical
directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven
through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC
computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many
times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the
facts?
As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the
Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which
Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page,
McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say,
what matters is the evidence.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles,
and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm
The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before
Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse,
bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms.
Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or
in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the
electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the
Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the
septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal
government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in
Washington.
Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am
"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."
You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked
spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17
sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice
a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and
deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive
to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were
you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential
campaign and candidate.
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm
/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep
comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be
are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY
why. Stay tuned!!!
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night
fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.
And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason
why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted
and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the
Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to
hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you,
that's why she lost.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start
focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see
the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections.
Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them
"shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack
trade.)
Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two:
"we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time
ago.
Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all
this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this
will benefit all.
Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since
our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters,
and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to
determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.
It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has
re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build
out from there This is just a suggestion.
What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were
bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as
well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever
attributed to Trump?
Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm
Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on
their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their
"investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry
picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.
More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable
public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered
Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party
debates! In a democracy! How dare they?
Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why
did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board
member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made
about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie
artillery?
Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am
Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never
questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to
Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to
divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the
truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's
activities are a complete sham.
MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's
investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks
– has and has not done?"
Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special
counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the
Department of Justice.
I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power
to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016
presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.
That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself.
The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate
the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via
impeachment.
As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow
investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a
corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon
did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively
investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no
democratic control.
The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the
Constitution intended.
As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act
as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it
must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't
happen.
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm
There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!
No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!
Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!
Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!
They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!
Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!
That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!
Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!
She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!
But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!
There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!
Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!
There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!
F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.
KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm
What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered &
committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just
about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal
invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for
something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not
to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The
point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander &
demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for
the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just
happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump
impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away
from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities
& her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate
nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public
apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a
crime they never committed?
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely
cause of the Russiagate scams.
I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True
elections are now impossible.
Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any
resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely
coincidental."
Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All
of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only
they could realize it.
Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.
mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm
For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which
pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering
a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic
conspiracy.
And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will
automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the
higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the
way the oligarchs do business.
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am
Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in
knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is
involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB
drive, it is not a known.
There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that
the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth
Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being
done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated
reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.
" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.
Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the
mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable
DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his
crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they
even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill
Gang!
jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm
If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They
know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The
Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.
Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in
our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your
disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government
official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If
they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you
know they are lying.
john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm
I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know
this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is
supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find
anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as
they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm
I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this
Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.
My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After
all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart
Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not
be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for
justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved
in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?
Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful
handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN
nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news,
meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be
that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.
In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals
in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place
leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make
more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When
will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for
all?
Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to
hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your
attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn &
Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying
eyes?
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our
Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes
uninterrupted. Joe
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about
Freddy Fleitz!
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last
line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!
Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am
We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New
Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right
are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank
control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution,
etc.
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to
emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate
story, as Daniel Lazare explains.
Special to Consortium News
With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy
named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in
shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.
It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald
Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread
the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these
reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press
accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be
the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block "
Siberian
candidate " Trump.
The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business
partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The
Washington Post , Dearlove
told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers"
opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years
earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US
authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in
communication with the Kremlin."
Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down.
When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make
him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable
scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for
his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director
Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top
Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese
academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA
Director (and now NBC News analyst).
In-Bred
A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to
run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now
partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are
connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also
connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke
and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another
MI6 vet. Alexander Downer
served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is
linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped
found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an
unpaid
advisor .
Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about
this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom
every Russian is a Boris
Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike
Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian
scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that
Lokhova convincingly
argues are absurd.
Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign
In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian
intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge
history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.
As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known,
Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass
destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
argued that the Iraqi
military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in
fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.
Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence
against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend
the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses
fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult"
hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly
misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and
spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.
The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public
manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public
furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
It Started Late 2015
The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland,
Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring
what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and
known or suspected Russian agents."
Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy
establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was
somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant
named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in
Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set
about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed
to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors.
Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow
where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands
of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York
Timesdescribes
Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at
meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr.
Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later
tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking
British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security
agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in
such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by
telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing
Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a
friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer
advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about
Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.
Was Papadopoulos Set Up?
Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking
into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm
employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.
On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise
the
Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been
cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence
possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show
for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele
briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington
to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material
so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."
One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was
telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau
as well.
Page: Took Russia's side.
On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on
U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western
capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such
as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "
unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's
side in a growing neo-Cold War.
Stefan Halper then
infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks
before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter
re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign.
Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.
On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke.
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London
to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty.
"George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there,
but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national
campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in
Washington.
The rightwing Federalist website
speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that
"Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating
it." Clovis believes
that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in
the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue
warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought
a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue
after inauguration.
Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty
rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does
his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite
countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the
sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a
"nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said
it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others
on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for
corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency
with violating US election laws.
But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the
indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved.
Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive –
just $46,000 worth of Facebook
ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with
no particular slant
at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under
intense pressure to come up with anything at all.
The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The
Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2
article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a
six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one
billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election
Day.
The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to
cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way
but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus
"had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather
than business success."
Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea
that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was
destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic
National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible
still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite
the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape
if you don't use it?
Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.
Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he
said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but
were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation
given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was
opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in
an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig
up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at
taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not
his government.
Using it Anyway
Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both
advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled
Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that
the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David
J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.
Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security
official who
says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump
with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper
and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later
testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type
situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over
him in some way."
But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few
days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on
government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure
hate to see end up in the press."
Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, TheNew
Yorker
continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well,
saying it's a
"rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not
long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian
disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the
intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the
public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that
they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this
out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his
charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area
such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of
breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.
But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on
the advantage to the deep state.
From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a
guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of
the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them
becomes "collusion".
I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's
persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the
White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been
motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten
into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never
recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb,
Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would
have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged
"puppet."
The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his
candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were
always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of
jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to
beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat
themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and
other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what
really happened.
backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the
birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the
presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and
Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology
has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he
would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.
I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are
both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the
Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The
multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it
is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S.
multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its
tariffs:
"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products
will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on
washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.
Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and
mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.
Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also
benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.
In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be
slashed to zero from 6 percent before.
In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations
will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."
Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at
least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.
I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've
underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always
the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the
chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons
and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their
favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump
did.
Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am
"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm,
the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to
reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an
all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in
the eastern Mediterranean.
"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to
the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide
to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential
campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential
information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in
turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and
subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the
American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a
foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.
"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for
political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More
recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British
intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think
tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.
"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant
layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less
disruptive' than Trump's.
"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016
elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine
the Kremlin attempting."
Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different
perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump.
Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact
is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their
brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an
audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations
which ushered in the age of dark money.
When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of
their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by
their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The
only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.
What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of
every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential
checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates
for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to
the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be
the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a
premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed
a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were
sucked dry.
What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like
a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the
term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause
all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was
"in the lead".
It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job
and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.
Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one
little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House.
Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a
democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal
ideology for the most part.
What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the
establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than
continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us
all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense
projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.
The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin
horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every
year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the
hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and
entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of
governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White
House.
What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies
were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former
administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and
form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable
targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump
Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them
of many dollars.
It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very
threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the
hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its
existence based on foreign enemies.
So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and
the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It
had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in
the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they
committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the
White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.
In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign
finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell
anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven
million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's
decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out
Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which
eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman
Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns
with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been
eliminated.
In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of
our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the
corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked
republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including
the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now
face a new internal enemy.
That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent
the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their
control of our nation. Here is a quote:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they
create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral
code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am
Different journalist covering much the same ground:
"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery,
and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike
the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened
"Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors
(including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted
and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own
lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on
Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its
constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am
Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that
their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the
election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching
an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the
title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was
unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line
"and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to
investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture
uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of
evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry
about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to
meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation
leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain,
then it is not reasonable to cry foul.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am
The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything
since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction).
Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being
is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.
Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am
Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep
people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is
president, not the evil Ruskies.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am
We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I
know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the
deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application
of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.
dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the
intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt
need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and
suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the
smashing of the Sanders campaign.
Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the
forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.
robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am
Spot on, Seer.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and
ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was
just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains
were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands
of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the
carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.
Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Seth Rich
anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am
Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with
secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal
affair).
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am
Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am
Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's
puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the
debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her
collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she
would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto
Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part
and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.
Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for
Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and
"unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals
like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton
campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is
no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the
moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter
or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front."
I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)
Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the
impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply
accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike)
that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional
(nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian
Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely
who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not
pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has
Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and
supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as
the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the
"Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC
servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to
bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the
corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a
kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part
of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly
flawed reportage?
I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's
other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to
meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in
American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun
shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White
House.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm
You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original
post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the
details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the
remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much
heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the
Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that
it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor
point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks.
Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his
investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think
Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he
may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig
Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the
media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original
post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual
journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a
deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the
biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American
journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter
category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as
rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see
it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer
than the original.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm
My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz
by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence
paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his
article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.
Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not
a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:
"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake
information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the
suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants,
and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the
process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to
remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?
It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely
was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.
As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it,
and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is
evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins
Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.
Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media
conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up,
like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with
intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.
As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any
there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary
Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed,
they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to
stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion
with Russia.
This is the Swamp versus the People.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo
court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he
examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of
truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the
President.
Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even
begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this
so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.
I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him –
anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about
what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the
country is truly lost.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether
you like him and his questionable policies or not.
Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto
to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of
politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as
hell.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm
When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass
to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a
partisan operation.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Michael – good point!
KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am
Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do
with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert
attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate
choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders
campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the
intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to
set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful
& illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win?
This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking
of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its
treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her
crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was
also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was
pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up,
convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once
& get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into
this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real
criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up
& held to account for this treasonous behaviour?
Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm
Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as
Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's
article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:
"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian
counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with
memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more
information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/
Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so
called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it
paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'
Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm
In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary
adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.
dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am
Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for
another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on
the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over
getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in
setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than
Watergate, IMO.
Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in
covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified
information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working
for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the
NSA.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using
her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the
same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email
address during her whole tenure as SOS.
Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by
both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email
server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill
there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had
just donated to their foundation.
Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses
or their foundations? I think not.
The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for
her crimes is a different matter.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm
If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax
exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and
campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government
paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at
all. Not that she's innocent, mind you
Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am
I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due
respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little
bit.
the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called
"Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40
years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.
i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on
behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting
elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.
of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or
surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial
circles.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm
chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or
other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand.
You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual
Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious
was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they
make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something,
anything.
Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in
their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they
left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!
This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky
clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to
take down a duly-elected President.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm
His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments
paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as
deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm
F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral
involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the
plot. Risk of exposure costs money.
ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these
things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew
every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there,
and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile
of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function.
There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler
titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action
as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer.
(Maybe another reader knows how?)
We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff
necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our
politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still
believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm
ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the
little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the
address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")
Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will
come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse.
This will copy the link.
Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your
post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this
point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste",
and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.
If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help
you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm
If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste
function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch
screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of
it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's
also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !
This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you
want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option,
which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks
seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)
Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or
your
computer crashes . . . )
ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it,
but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm
ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together.
Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with
me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do
it every day and the world still goes on.
I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you
think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're
middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you
realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.
Good luck, ranney.
irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm
I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old
fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't
usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the
younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut &
paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste'
what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or
(this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other
possibilities too!
mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm
No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing
more.
It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican"
affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political
realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's
face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic
Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected
wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S.
and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into
line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and
others demonstrates.
One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state
nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA
vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former
CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House
through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing
Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously
proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded
as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two
future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation.
You truly can't make this stuff up.
Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right
direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole
cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama
White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that
beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe
going on.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Gary – great post.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.
Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm
This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco.
Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.
Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm
So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the
permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they
serving? How do they know what those interests are?
It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular
– but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist
dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of
the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not
knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble
more lies for money.
It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge
robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over
the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less
than 20% of the US spend.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm
You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but
they think that the whole world is theirs.
To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever
the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one
unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the
groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning
Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the
Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.
For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing
Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy
resources.
Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".
But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players
interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel
neoconservative think tank in 2014.
In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.
In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.
Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian
Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts,
and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request
by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in
Syria.
Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream
media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.
Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.
"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."
And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably
say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the
Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per
capita what is allocated to Israel's
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am
A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could
create a lawless madness like Washington DC.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.
I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm
But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.
irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am
The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.
When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.
So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them.
Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going
concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very
scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift
the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable
for
how our funds are used !
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm
this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing,
if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects:
1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden
tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually
due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of
people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to
take notice.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government
and armed forces of the United Kingdom.
In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting
all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing
disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.
For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal
details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty
trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.
In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close
relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.
Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that
his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals
intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in
the UK and Israel but in many other countries."
Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between
British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel
reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is
saving British lives."
Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of
Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."
The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim
SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er
Sheva.
Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of
a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.
After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services
firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.
BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel
Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler,
formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division
head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.
In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British
private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military
deception operations.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich
bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies
that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the
Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare
against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of
treason.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am
This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes
covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely,
vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it
didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting
communications in the US..
Secrecy kills.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am
Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US
telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full
access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people
should be prosecuted for treason.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am
To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two
entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by
Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence
is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of
President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email
server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are
attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect
"national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was
a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears
to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money
laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the
Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It
follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections,
and prosecution will become inevitable.
Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire
government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to
Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current
administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter
how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is,
if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't
really afford that.
"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think
it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that
happen.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm
The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an
investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.
It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible
criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with
Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a
crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people
(electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off
hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities
before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes
come with big risks.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm
My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any
"collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole,
sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is
obviously phony.
But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with
his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct
being exposed.
So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm
fine with it.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am
My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't
that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental
stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I
don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm
it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the
laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with
wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and
probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's
significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm
There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete
smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.
On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to
anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a
Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even
my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.
In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of
its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this
investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with
such ancillary matters.
The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this
may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on
appeal.
Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only
admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must
be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do
with the original warrant.
In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a
Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles
long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working
all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.
This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the
entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere
activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country
of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political
infrastructure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and
incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am
All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such
actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've
effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel
in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully
"briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats
(knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to
Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).
What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to
say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively
nullified now.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am
Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of
investigations beyond the remit He failed.
Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am
There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western
intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared
with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including
two universities:
"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include
senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries,
especially Italy and the United Kingdom.
Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of
Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the
UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."
Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book
they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid
point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks
it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian
agent."
Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to
belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of
funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.
As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are
looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the
governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything
wrong."
From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian
spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George
Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?
I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still
missing?
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at
Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".
A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old
Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst –
reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.
Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an
Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying
anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he
never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where
should I have this [information]?"
Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who
alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said
Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing
material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that
Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about
Clinton-related emails either.
In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a
Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.
According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo
Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go
into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by
someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."
Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am
" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with
Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they
write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""
Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is,
that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud
mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am
The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy
destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of
Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the
economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.
We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.
Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond
slavery to oligarchy.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am
You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News.
Joe
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass
media.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am
The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of
others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a
world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense
of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with
what they already had.
If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might
discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top
of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am
How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded
that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in
the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the
productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we
offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who
can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none
of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.
Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the
greatest achievement of our times.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm
An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of
Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was
paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could
not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike,
if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's
workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would
be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly
like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that
saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for
the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there
could be more to go around. Joe
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm
"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious
preference."
Good luck with that!!!
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm
Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.
john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am
The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the
American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we
are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump'
(lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many
decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption
and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the
deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and
there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can
be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won
there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of
the deep state.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am
I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could
have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not
that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered,
but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive
overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am
sure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am
It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by
its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman,
who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty
years after the USSR.
Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am
"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."
Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing
was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly
what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the
institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach
to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian
Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of
believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our
current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous
Thank you Daniel Lazar.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am
The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping
to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and
UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal
and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as
the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long
before we see evidence.
Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's
Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs
of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took
Real Power.
In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts
together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for
me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to
the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight
Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are
simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm
Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power,
which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general
policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of
politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security,
deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line
of oligarchy in any form.
Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of
cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available,
and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success,
because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.
You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare ,
McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm
SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a
position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being
stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents.
Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight.
Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.
Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.
What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.
"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in
which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential
progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality,
corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing
the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War
Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to
spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and
naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your
health.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am
The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign
monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am
Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth
degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival
opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and
required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele
dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town
on bringing down Trump.
"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you
reason to carry out a phony investigation.
"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged
themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television
and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been
kept alive.
These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election.
None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the
polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."
I hope they see jail time for what they've done.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am
Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this
could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to
ruin the Trump Presidency.
JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am
I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with
the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am
It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm
Orbis.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei
Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn
but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it
was published.
robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm
John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal
affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and
that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia =
evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably
received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am
Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a
scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over
Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the
Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and
directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their
story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a
huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am
"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."
Not so.
Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times
op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to
employ a question mark.)
I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember
reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate
reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along
with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated
media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after
Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting
on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.
Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013
worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and
it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even
hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI
told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court
allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the
Trump transition team/administration.
Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort
joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had
previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing,
Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had
eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such
explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.
My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the
WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow
sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page
– maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that
sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).
Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a
ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.
So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is
part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to
feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:
"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.
He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the
public see the truth.
That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture
Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for
itself, to "undermine" an investigation.
And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to
its reputation with the public and with Congress."
What do you bet he does?
RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am
I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running
through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To
dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough
such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.
What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no
one seems to ever say what it is.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am
RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I
actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the
paring knife.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am
Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask
people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that
has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian
hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's
candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book
villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American
media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue
like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.
Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic
handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel,
the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even
the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with
rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs
with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media.
Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better
interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements
and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent
variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it,
especially when directed at them.
Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose
the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all
the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by
the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who
must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late.
All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth
accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it
may well be far too late.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day
mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told
by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who
never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury.
They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.
This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging
Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so
retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real
fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to
them – they're dirty little fighters.
Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on –
maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State
is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.
There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this
opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.
The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all
documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not
going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In
fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope
he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He
needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a
lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am
You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.
Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am
Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate
has been one big Gish Gallop.
strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm
RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very
strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about
Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of
this and they don't say that either.
John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am
What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?
You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy
Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that
Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be
sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?
It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to
be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of
Jim Jones!
strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm
That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz
because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual
relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story
Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens
bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say
to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And
Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia
investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it
has to do with Russia Gate.
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked
into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand
close scrutiny . It
could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to
investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with
WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former
National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange
did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the
Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access
to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage
device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained
this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.
On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted
that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to
WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to
blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained
no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of
that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian
intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to
WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.
Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the
blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that
Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had
to have been the Russians.
Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to
challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks.
Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not
exist.
WikiLeaks
It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that
Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the
Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails
were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to
create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the
emails by blaming Russia for their release.
Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various
media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even
we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails
from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The
diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave
little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer'
Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.
Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic
facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:
June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to
Hillary Clinton."
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there
is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the
"hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a
pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish
and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
Enter Independent Investigators
A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for
reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts"
who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found
verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5,
2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or
anyone else.
Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016
for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics"
principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to
disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May
31
published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not
from Russia.
In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated ,
"We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."
Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be
related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this
general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA
documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or
former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the
information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which
disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's
Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital
Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned
President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]
Marbled
"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it
race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described
and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part
3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too
delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has
never been mentioned since .
"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March
31
article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA
cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'
"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use
'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text
obfuscation.
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution
double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version
published in The Baltimore Sun
The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was
neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his
associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a
non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24
Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like
it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we
know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and
with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017
VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together
at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary
straightforwardness. ]
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin.
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager
– to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's
technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can
understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or
any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a
scenario? I can.'
New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published
16-minute
interview last Friday.
In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must
append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24,
2017:
"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in
the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political
agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our
former intelligence colleagues.
"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say
and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it
is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as
a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the
President's Daily Brief.
ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic
attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in
Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of
choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies.
MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to
blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the
supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US
allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not
capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of
the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during
the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis
could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth
Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted
by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.
The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the
CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all
over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security
firms (Wikipedia):
cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant,
SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of
"Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the
cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy
Bear).
Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally
obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of
the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with
connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly
thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday,
Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known
evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.
Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it
lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.
anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am
I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed
out" propaganda.
One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not.
No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin
supply."
CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm
There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence
agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false
flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false
flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible
to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.
In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to
create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many
examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by
the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.
Examples:
The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship
Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying
munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the
Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was
torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but
it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.
There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor
Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning
radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the
Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that
our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.
There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was
planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out
the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq
which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with
Iraq.
The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was
greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in
Vietnam.
The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow
journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed
by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a
boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be
caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and
war was waged.
In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made
up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was
led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every
case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under
attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or
justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our
nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or
just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a
publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support
for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.
Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which
enable global communication and commerce.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on
military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create
in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false
flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the
government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world
events to justify military action?
Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we
get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.
Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags
will happen for better or worse in any medium available.
susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm
I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral
"highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before
anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.
The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so
many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism
writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked"
to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another
(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund
marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy
targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is
able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and
printed.
Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as
source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal
State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.
Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm
I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict
control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7
releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm
It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep
donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It
was the Rooskies."
Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am
An earlier time line.
March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.
April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".
May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.
May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically
e-mails.
June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.
It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably
Intelligence services) for > 6 months.
Specific points.
On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the
(presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his
domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?
There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the
unlikely event that he went on to win.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being
"Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the
two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long
before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to
use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are
right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to
the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were
trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest
(more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.
Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Steven Halper?
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am
I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been
ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and
visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails
were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and
angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost
knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her
defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which
covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was
please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing,
though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another
innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this
story.
MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm
"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"
Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation –
with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not
done?
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am
MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency
agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan,
Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing
there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he
will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is
probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18
minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean
Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller
investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and
witness TAMPERING. A great American there!
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am
strgr-tgther:
Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.
As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents,
politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am
Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the
Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant
rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who
was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)
It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC
machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively,
show.)
incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am
What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are
alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate,
which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground
– and it would have been published for all to read.
The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating
Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a
strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress
such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical
directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven
through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC
computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many
times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the
facts?
As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the
Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which
Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page,
McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say,
what matters is the evidence.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles,
and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm
The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before
Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse,
bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms.
Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or
in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the
electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the
Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the
septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal
government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in
Washington.
Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am
"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."
You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked
spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17
sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice
a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and
deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive
to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were
you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential
campaign and candidate.
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm
/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep
comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be
are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY
why. Stay tuned!!!
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night
fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.
And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason
why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted
and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the
Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to
hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you,
that's why she lost.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start
focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see
the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections.
Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them
"shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack
trade.)
Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two:
"we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time
ago.
Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all
this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this
will benefit all.
Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since
our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters,
and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to
determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.
It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has
re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build
out from there This is just a suggestion.
What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were
bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as
well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever
attributed to Trump?
Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm
Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on
their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their
"investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry
picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.
More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable
public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered
Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party
debates! In a democracy! How dare they?
Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why
did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board
member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made
about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie
artillery?
Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am
Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never
questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to
Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to
divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the
truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's
activities are a complete sham.
MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's
investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks
– has and has not done?"
Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special
counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the
Department of Justice.
I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power
to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016
presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.
That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself.
The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate
the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via
impeachment.
As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow
investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a
corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon
did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively
investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no
democratic control.
The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the
Constitution intended.
As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act
as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it
must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't
happen.
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm
There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!
No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!
Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!
Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!
They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!
Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!
That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!
Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!
She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!
But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!
There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!
Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!
There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!
F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.
KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm
What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered &
committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just
about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal
invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for
something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not
to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The
point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander &
demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for
the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just
happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump
impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away
from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities
& her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate
nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public
apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a
crime they never committed?
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely
cause of the Russiagate scams.
I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True
elections are now impossible.
Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any
resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely
coincidental."
Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All
of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only
they could realize it.
Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.
mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm
For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which
pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering
a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic
conspiracy.
And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will
automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the
higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the
way the oligarchs do business.
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am
Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in
knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is
involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB
drive, it is not a known.
There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that
the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth
Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being
done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated
reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.
" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.
Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the
mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable
DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his
crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they
even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill
Gang!
jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm
If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They
know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The
Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.
Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in
our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your
disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government
official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If
they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you
know they are lying.
john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm
I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know
this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is
supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find
anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as
they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm
I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this
Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.
My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After
all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart
Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not
be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for
justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved
in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?
Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful
handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN
nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news,
meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be
that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.
In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals
in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place
leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make
more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When
will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for
all?
Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to
hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your
attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn &
Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying
eyes?
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our
Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes
uninterrupted. Joe
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about
Freddy Fleitz!
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last
line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!
Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am
We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New
Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right
are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank
control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution,
etc.
June 8, 2018
1,200 Words
1 Comment
Reply
🔊
Listen
॥
■
►
RSS
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
◄
►
◄
❌
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Add to Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
My late friend Christopher Hitchens once
told me that his American friends often expressed surprise at the number of articles and books he was able
to produce. He said that there was a simple reason for his high productivity, which was: "I never watch
television."
He was definitely telling the truth about
this, since the only television in his apartment in Washington was in the spare bedroom where I was staying
and it did not work.
Christopher was right to believe that
time spent watching television was time largely wasted, or could be spent more usefully in some other
activity. Television supplies less information, and at a slower speed, than newspapers, books or radio.
The internet is more efficient, speedy and weakens state and elite monopolies over news and knowledge.
Misused it may be to spread misinformation and propaganda, but the internet remains the most democratic
instrument of communication to emerge since the invention of printing.
The strength of the internet is that it
supplies infinite quantities of information. But this is also its weakness, because this great torrent of
data makes it difficult to distinguish facts that are significant from those that are trivial or
meaningless. Emails, for instance, make it easy to communicate information in any quantity, but are less
good at promoting discussion and explanation.
The sending and receiving of emails can
become as big a waste of time as television ever was. I often have prolonged and inconclusive email
exchanges over a period of days or weeks on a matter that could have been dealt with in 10 minutes by a
short conversation on the phone.
Once I came near to cancelling a weekend
book tour to Barcelona because I could not face another email from the efficient and energetic organisers of
the event. When I printed their messages out, they covered 25 pages. Fortunately, everything was put right
in the end by a short talk on the phone, which should have taken place weeks earlier.
Soon afterwards, I gave a lecture at a
university in the UK which was reasonably well attended, but I pointed out politely to the people in charge
that there might have been more people present if they had advertised the topic on which I was speaking.
"But you never sent it to us," they
replied defensively. I knew I had done so, and later found my email giving the title of my lecture, which my
hosts had understandably missed, about half way through our lengthy exchange of messages.
The obvious reason for this plague of
emails – along every other sort of internet communication – is that they are too easy to send. At a deeper
level, their frequency and length may be fuelled by a natural human tendency to be over-impressed by the
amount of information supplied and believe instinctively that, if there is a lot of it and it is in great
detail, then it is more likely to be true. In practice, the opposite is usually the case.
In the 1990s, I used to interview Iraqis
who claimed to have escaped from Iraq and to have secret information about the inner workings of Saddam
Hussein's regime and his weapons of mass destruction.
My heart used to sink as they produced
more and more uncheckable detail, which they assumed would add to their credibility, but made me ever more
convinced that they were making the whole thing up.
Politicians and security forces have
been traditionally prone to believe that accumulating mountains of data will enable them to influence or
monitor whole populations. Their critics buy into the idea that the internet has vastly increased the amount
of information about people that can be garnered from their online activities.
Part of Cambridge Analytica's pitch to
its clients was to claim that, once its computers had harvested information about millions of voters, it
could identify and target those most likely to support a particular party or politician.
In practice, this data-driven approach
never worked and campaigns that relied on it, like Hillary Clinton's presidential bid in 2016, have usually
ended in failure.
Security agencies are likewise
vulnerable to a similar myth – in which they themselves may not believe – that trying to identify all
potential "terrorists" will make the country safer.
The Prevent programme, which aims to
detect potential Islamic jihadis before they act, has proved useless or counter-effective for many reasons,
but a main one is that by trying to turn everybody into an informer the authorities produce a deluge of
dubious information.
This clogs up the system and leaves
those who were truly dangerous, like the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi, to slip through a net that has been
spread too wide and has too many holes.
People have always had an exaggerated
respect for facts and, thanks to the internet, these are now easily accessible in far greater quantities
than ever before. There is a tedious debate about "fake facts", but this is not really the problem. The fact
is, people do not really know what a fact is.
My father Claud Cockburn, a journalist
formerly on
The Times
, once did some damage to his reputation by explaining that facts were not
"like pieces of gold ore in the Yukon", waiting for the prospector to dig them out and give them to the
world.
Unlike gold nuggets waiting to be
excavated, there are an infinite number of facts in the universe, but these only gain significance and have
a meaning because somebody – a journalist, a policeman – decides that they matter, so every fact in the
media is the result of the point of view of the person who chose to report them and related them to other
facts.
This theory, which became known as the
"heresy of the facts", earned my father some abuse from people who thought he was admitting, as they had
long suspected, that journalists make things up.
But many years after he had written
about it, I requested his file from MI5, and a year later 26 bulky folders were deposited in the National
Archives at Kew. They very much bore out his belief that what mattered most was not the collection of facts,
so much as the choice made about which of these were significant and true.
MI5 had been much interested in my
father's activities in the 1930s, when he ran a newsletter similar to
Private Eye
. The security men
had many sources of information, several of them well-informed and accurate (such as his former boss, the
bureau chief of
The Times
in Berlin), but others were conspiracy theorists and crackpots.
One man was convinced that my father was
the head of a Comintern sabotage ring in Western Europe, its counterpart in the US being
The Time
magazine office in New York.
Claud told one woman he had met at
dinner (as a joke) that revolution was imminent, and would begin with a mutiny by the Brigade of Guards. She
immediately wrote to MI5 in extreme alarm, warning them about the plot.
Looking through the MI5 reports, it
becomes clear that their usefulness, like that of the great quantities of information transmitted by the
internet, depended entirely on the quality of the person (in this case an MI5 officer) who reviewed them.
(Republished from
The Independent
by permission of author or representative)
"... our government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They are the rule ..."
"... The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. ..."
"... "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home." ..."
"... "Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows in his latest book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , ..."
"... "The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on our side. ..."
A final matter concerns the problem of imperial chickens coming home to roost. Liberals
don't like to hear it, but the ugly, richly documented historical fact of the matter is that
their party of binary and tribal choice has long joined Republicans in backing and indeed
crafting a U.S. foreign policy that has imposed
authoritarian regimes (and profoundly undemocratic interventions including invasions and
occupations) the world over . The roster of authoritarian and often-mass murderous
governments the U.S. military and CIA and allied transnational business interests have backed,
sometimes even helped create, with richly bipartisan support, is long indeed.
Last fall, Illinois Green Party leader Mike Whitney ran some fascinating numbers on the 49
nation-states that the right-wing "human rights" organization Freedom House identified as
"dictatorships" in 2016. Leaving aside Freedom House's problematic inclusion of Russia, Cuba,
and Iran on its list, the most remarkable thing about
Whitney's research was his finding that the U.S. offered military assistance to 76 percent
of these governments. (The only exceptions were Belarus, China, Central African Republic, Cuba,
Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria.). "Most
politically aware people," Whitney wrote:
"know of some of the more highly publicized instances examples of [U.S. support for
foreign dictatorships], such as the tens of billions of dollars' worth of US military
assistance provided to the beheading capital of the world, the misogynistic monarchy of Saudi
Arabia, and the repressive military dictatorship now in power in Egypt apologists for our
nation's imperialistic foreign policy try to rationalize such support, arguing that Saudi
Arabia and Egypt are exceptions to the rule. But my survey demonstrates that our
government's support for Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not exceptions to the rule at all. They
are the rule ."
The Pentagon and State Department data Whitney used came from Fiscal Year 2015. It dated
from the next-to-last year of the Obama administration, for which so many liberals recall with
misplaced nostalgia. Freedom House's list should have included Honduras, ruled by a vicious
right-wing government that Obama and his Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton helped install in a June 2009 military coup .
The problem here isn't just liberal hypocrisy and double standards. The deeper issue is
that, as the great American iconoclast Mark Twain knew, you cannot maintain democracy at home
while conducting an authoritarian empire abroad. During the United States' blood-soaked
invasion and occupation of the Philippines, Twain penned an imaginary history of the
twentieth-century United States. "It was impossible," Twain wrote, "to save the Great Republic.
She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the
helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at
home."
"Just a decade after Twain wrote those prophetic words," the historian
Alfred W. McCoy has observed , "colonial police methods came home to serve as a template
for the creation of an American internal security apparatus in wartime." The nation's first Red
Scare, which crushed left and labor movements during and after World War One, drew heavily on
the lessons and practices of colonial suppression in the Philippines and Cuba. As McCoy shows
in his latest book, In the Shadows of the
American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power , the same basic process --
internal U.S. repression informed and shaped by authoritarian and imperial practices abroad and
justified by alleged external threats to the "homeland" -- has recurred ever since. Today, the
rise of an unprecedented global surveillance state overseen by the National Security Agency has
cost the US the trust of many of its top global allies (under Bush43 and Obama44, not just
under Trump45) while undermining civil liberties and democracy within as beyond the
U.S.
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home," James Madison wrote in 1799 , "have ever
been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary
dangers abroad." Those are wise words well worth revisiting amidst the current endless
Russiagate madness, calculated among other things to tell us that the FBI, the CIA, and the
rest of the nation's vast and ever more ubiquitous intelligence and surveillance state are on
our side.
The Democratic Party has made a strategic decision to bypass candidates from its progressive
wing and recruit former members of the military and intelligence agencies to compete with
Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. The shift away from liberal politicians to
center-right government agents and military personnel is part of a broader plan to rebuild the
party so it better serves the interests of its core constituents, Wall Street, big business,
and the foreign policy establishment. Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning
candidates who think the party should promote issues that are important to working people and
replace them with career bureaucrats who will be more responsive to the needs of business. The
ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty comprised
almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be depended on to
implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors. Here's more
background from Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Web Site:
"An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as
widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as
many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power
in the lower chamber of Congress .
it should be noted that there would be no comparable influx of Bernie Sanders supporters
or other "left"-talking candidates in the event of a Democratic landslide. Only five of the
221 candidates reviewed in this study had links to Sanders or billed themselves as
"progressive." None is likely to win the primary, let alone the general election." ("The CIA
Democrats, Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
Progressive candidates are being ignored to make room for center-right
functionaries who will focus on reducing government spending, rolling back Trump's trade
policy, and supporting the foreign wars. This new wave of fiscally-conservative Democrats will
execute their tasks in a party that serves as the political wing of the federal bureaucracy.
Democrat leaders have long-abandoned the idea that a party should be a vehicle for political
change. Their aim is to create a top-down pro-business collective that marginalizes activists
and liberals in order to avoid disruptive political convulsions that impact corporate
profitability. Here's more on the Dems' attack on its liberal base from an article by Patrick
Martin:
"The New Jersey Democratic Party establishment successfully imposed its choice in
contested congressional nominations, brushing aside several candidates backed by Bernie
Sanders and his Our Revolution group. Nearly every Sanders-backed candidate in other states
-- for governor of Iowa and congressional seats in Iowa, Montana New Mexico and California --
suffered a similar fate." ("US primary elections in eight states confirm rightward shift by
Democratic Party", Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
As a result "Only a handful of candidates running under the Bernie Sanders banner survived
primaries held in six states on Tuesday. As of Wednesday afternoon, only seven of 31 candidates
endorsed by Our Revolution -- - had been declared winners." (USA Today)
Simply put, Democrat leaders have successfully derailed the progressive bandwagon. Even so,
Sanders role vis a vis the Democratic Party has always been a bit of a ruse. Here's how author
Tom Hall sums it up:
"The major political function of Sanders' campaign is to divert the growing social
discontent and hostility toward the existing system behind the Democratic Party, in order to
contain and dissipate it. His supposedly 'socialist' campaign is an attempt to preempt and
block the emergence of an independent movement of the working class." ("Is Bernie Sanders a
socialist?", July 16, 2015), Tom Hall, World Socialist Web Site)
Sanders task will become increasingly more difficult as progressives realize that
the Dems are building a party apparatus that sees activism as a fundamental threat to their
strategic objective, which is to create a secure environment where business can flourish.
Sanders has helped the party by seducing leftists with his fake liberalism, but he has
undermined the aims of working people who need an independent organization to advance their own
political agenda. As long as Sanders continues to sell his populist snake oil from a Democratic
soapbox, liberals are going to continue to hope that the party can be transformed into an
instrument for progressive change. The evidence, however, suggests the party is moving in the
opposite direction. Here's more from Patrick Martin's:
"The Democratic Party's promotion of a large number of military-intelligence candidates
for competitive districts represents an insurance policy for the US ruling elite. In the
event of a major swing to the Democrats, the House of Representatives will receive an influx
of new members drawn primarily from the national security apparatus, trusted servants of
American imperialism The preponderance of national security operatives in the Democratic
primaries sheds additional light on the nature of the Obama administration (which) marked the
further ascendancy of the military-intelligence apparatus within the Democratic Party .
The Democratic Party is running in the congressional elections not only as the party that
takes a tougher line on Russia, but as the party that enlists as its candidates and
representatives those who have been directly responsible for waging war, both overt and
covert, on behalf of American imperialism. .
The upper-middle-class layer that provides the "mass" base of the Democratic Party has
moved drastically to the right over the past four decades, enriched by the stock market boom,
consciously hostile to the working class, and enthusiastically supportive of the
military-intelligence apparatus which, in the final analysis, guarantees its own social
position against potential threats, both foreign and domestic. It is this social evolution
that now finds expression on the surface of capitalist politics, in the rise of the
military-intelligence "faction" to the leadership of the Democratic Party." ("The CIA
Democrats", Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)
The dramatic metamorphosis of the Democratic party hasn't taken place in a vacuum but in a
fractious and politically-charged environment where elements within the intelligence community
and law enforcement (FBI) are attempting to roll back the results of the 2016 presidential
elections because their preferred candidate (Hillary Clinton) did not win. And while these
agencies have not yet produced any hard evidence that their claims (of collusion with Russia)
are true, there is mounting circumstantial evidence that senior-level officials at these
agencies were actively trying to entrap members of the Trump campaign to justify more intrusive
surveillance in the hopes of uncovering incriminating evidence that could be used in
impeachment proceedings.
As more information surfaces, and we learn more about the "unmasking", wiretapping, National
Security Letters, FISA warrants, paid informants and other surveillance abuses that were
directed at the Trump campaign, we should think back to 2005 when the New York Times first
reported that the National Security Agency had been eavesdropping on Americans inside the
United States "without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."
("Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts", New York Times) That incident was reported
just 13 years ago and already we can see that the infrastructure for a permanent Orwellian
police-state –that uses its extraordinary powers of surveillance to sabotage the
democratic process and maintain its stranglehold on power– has already arisen in our
midst. And while Russiagate is proof-positive that these malign spying techniques are already
being used against us, the Democratic party is now creating a home for deep-state alums and
their military allies so they continue to prosecute their war against personal liberty and the
American people.
"The ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty
comprised almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be
depended on to implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors."
If by "regressive" you mean a move away from a mixed economy to a more fundamentalist
market-based approach, then yeah, I would agree.
"Their aim is to create a top-down pro-business collective that marginalizes activists and
liberals in order to avoid disruptive political convulsions "
The only activism I've seen from progressives in the past two years has nothing to do with
economic concerns; their energy is entirely focused on race, gender, and sexuality. The
cultural-Marxist troika.
" Russiagate is proof-positive that these malign spying techniques are already being used
against us, the Democratic party is now creating a home for deep-state alums and their
military allies "
You forgot to mention neoconservatives who are now finding safe spaces for their
warmongering in the liberal media. Currently the Democrats are inflamed with identity
politics; more than likely this infection will continue to fester for another two election
cycles. Democrats are proceeding down a dark path: identity politics brings only conflict,
civil war.
The Democrat party is a high-low coalition of the fringes. The ultra rich use the poor to
attack the middle so they can distract everyone else from uniting and doing something like
raising taxes on the rich or deporting minorities to democrat neighborhoods. So, it's not
surprising that the high part of the coalition would strike back.
This only further strengthens my desire to see a secession movement. When statist
democrats are in power, they will surely abuse this growing national security state to keep
us down. It's time to break up the USSA ASAP before it's too late.
"Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning candidates who think the party should
promote issues that are important to working people."
Note to M. Whitney: the New Deal coalition is dead. Left/Progressives today despise
working people. Didn't you get the memo? Working people are deplorable! Antifa, BLM, the
Women's Studies Dept, the sex lobby, Amy Goodman, Michael Moore – they all hate working
people.
"Progressive candidates are being ignored to make room for center-right functionaries who
will focus on reducing government spending, rolling back Trump's trade policy, and supporting
the foreign wars."
Note to M. Whitney: Progressives today love free trade and advocate war against Russia.
Didn't you notice when pro-war progressives kicked you off the Counterpunch website? Today's
Progressives love War! Punch the Nazi!
"Simply put, Democrat leaders have successfully derailed the progressive bandwagon"
Note to M. Whitney: The progressive bandwagon exists solely for identity politics
hysteria, and it is not derailed. Haven't you noticed the race and gender, baiting and
slander bandwagon barreling down the highway? It's getting louder all the time.
Stop holding out hope that someday there will be a groundswell of progressives on the left
who are on the side of the little guy. Progressives are an elite crowd of identity politics
ideologues. Radical reformers are misanthropes – they don't like social norms because
they don't like basic human nature. They will never like working stiffs. They will never care
about 3rd world villagers getting bombed.
The fault line here is race and gender politics. You are on the right side on war and
economic issues and you are on the wrong side on race/sex/gender issues. Don't blindly accept
the dogma that differing group outcomes are caused by Bad White Males. Trust in facts and
reason. Don't feel you have to grovel because you're white or male. Change your mind on these
issues – it's called learning.
It brings power to its practitioners. Which is the whole point.
You forgot to mention neoconservatives who are now finding safe spaces for their
warmongering in the liberal media
Why wouldn't they? Warmongering has been a "liberal" preoccupation for a century, since
the income-taxing suffragist Wilson. Remember Bob Dole's "Kinsley gaffe" in the 1976 debate
with Walter Mondale.
"... While the U.S. is certainly not Weimar Germany, and the risks of full-blown fascism are not as great now as they were then, one can see parallels. Just as the feckless, vacillating liberalism of Jimmy Carter ushered in the reactionary age of Reagan, so the vacillating liberalism of Obama prepared the way for the semi-fascism of Trump and the reinvigoration of white supremacy. (So much for Obama's supposed furtherance of the Civil Rights Movement. He is arguably one of the worst things to have happened to minorities since the end of Jim Crow.) You can't be neutral on a moving train. If you try, you're actually on the side of the reactionaries. ..."
"Sometimes I wonder whether I was 10 or 20 years too early," Obama sighed. The country
hadn't been ready for the first black president and his lofty post-racial vision.
These quotations are all the evidence one needs to understand what goes on in the mind of
someone like Barack Obama.
In fact, the last quotation is revealing enough in itself: it alone suggests the stupefying
dimensions of Obama's megalomania. It is hardly news that Obama is a megalomaniac, but what is
moderately more interesting is the contemptible and deluded nature of his megalomania. (In some
cases, after all, egomania might be justified. I could forgive Noam Chomsky for being an
egomaniac -- if he were one, which his self-effacing humility shows is far from the case.)
Obama clearly sees himself as the culmination of the Civil Rights Movement -- he who
participated in no sit-ins, no Freedom Rides, no boycotts or harrowing marches in the Deep
South, who suffered no police brutality or nights in jail, who attended Harvard Law and has
enjoyed an easy and privileged adulthood near or in the corridors of power. This man who has
apparently never taken a courageous and unpopular moral stand in his life decided long ago that
it was his historic role to bring the struggles of SNCC and the SCLC, of Ella Baker and Bob
Moses, of A. Philip Randolph and Martin Luther King, Jr. to their fruition -- by sailing into
the Oval Office on the wave of millions of idealistic supporters, tireless and selfless
organizers. With his accession to power, and that of such moral visionaries as Lawrence
Summers, Hillary Clinton, Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, Arne Duncan, Robert Gates, and
Samantha Power, MLK's dream was at last realized.
Obama was continuing in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists when his
administration deported
more than three million undocumented immigrants and broke up tens of
thousands of immigrant families. He was being an inspiring idealist when he
permitted
arms shipments to Israel in July and August 2014 in the midst of the Gaza slaughter --
because, as he
said with characteristic eloquence and moral insight, "Israel has a right to defend itself"
(against children and families consigned to desperate poverty in an open-air prison).
He was being far ahead of his time, a hero of both civil rights and enlightened globalism,
when he
presided over "the greatest disintegration of black wealth in recent memory" by doing
nothing to halt the foreclosure crisis or hold anyone accountable for the damage it caused.
Surely it was only irrational traditions of tribalism that got Trump elected, and not, say, the
fact that Obama's administration was far more friendly
to the banking sector than George H. W. Bush's was, as shown for instance by the (blatantly
corrupt) hiring of financial firms'
representatives to top positions in the Justice Department.
And it's only because the masses are stupid and prejudiced that they couldn't see the
glorious
benefits they would have received from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the few issues
in which Obama seems genuinely to have been emotionally
invested . What primitive tribalists they are to be worried about the loss of millions of
manufacturing jobs, the increase of prices for medicines, inadequate protection for the
environment, and in general massive empowerment of corporations.
Taken together, the two quotes above that constituted Obama's initial explanation of Trump's
victory -- 'we pushed too far' and 'I was too ahead of my time' -- also confirm the not very
surprising fact that the moral issue of class doesn't exist for him, as (by
definition) it doesn't exist for any centrist politician. Obama may have paid lip-service to it
in his rhetoric, but what he cared about more was a threadbare type of identity politics,
cultural inclusivity, symbols and spectacles of the post-racial, post-nationalist millennium,
of which he saw himself as the great exemplar. If Trump was elected it can only be because
people aren't ready for this millennium quite yet. But that doesn't affect Obama's own place in
history: he is certain he'll be vindicated, indeed will be viewed as even more remarkable for
having come too soon.
This perception of his probably also explains his general reluctance to publicly criticize
Trump. He simply doesn't care enough to do so -- he has nothing like a deep outrage
against the continuous injustices of Trumpian politics -- because his task has already been
accomplished: he has written himself into the history books by being the U.S.'s first black
president. That achievement is what matters, that and his eight years of (supposed) attempts to
"heal the country's divides." Again, it's too bad the country wasn't ready for him, but that
isn't his fault.
Thus, rather than getting involved in any thoroughgoing resistance to Trump -- which might
exacerbate cultural divisions, horror of horrors, and wouldn't be decorous or "presidential"
(for the powerful shouldn't criticize each other) -- the Obamas are now planning to
produce shows on Netflix that will be unpolitical and "inspirational." This new project of
theirs is symptomatic. Powerful people like to propagate "uplifting" stories, for anything else
might prick their conscience, challenge the legitimacy of the social order from which they
benefit, and inspire resistance movements. Better to focus on feel-good stories that reassure
people about the essential justness of the world, or that inculcate the notion that anyone can
improve their situation if they only try. This is the same reason that Bill Gates' new favorite
book is Steven Pinker's Enlightenment
Now , which argues that things are far better now than they've ever been, so we should
all be grateful.
I happened to watch a video recently in which Norman Finkelstein psychoanalyzed
Obama , and his interpretation stuck with me. Not because the pathetic person who was being
analyzed is of any intrinsic interest, but because the type he represents is always
with us -- and will always be popular, and will always be morally and intellectually vacuous.
Finkelstein had learned from reading David Garrow's biography that, as
president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama had a very conciliating style. Whenever arguments
arose between the conservatives and the liberals he approached the problem in the same way: he
took the interlocutors aside and said, "Don't get so excited, it's not such a big deal. Why are
you getting so excited? There are bigger things in life." "Because for Obama," Finkelstein
explains, "there was only one big deal in life: me . Everything else was just small
change, except him."
That's the key. When your overriding value in life is self-glorification, what you tend to
get is the moral cowardice and fecklessness of people like Obama, the Clintons, and, in truth,
all centrist politicians. They'll do whatever they have to do to rise to power, so they can
realize their "destiny" -- of being powerful. They'll always try to please "both sides" -- a
binary notion that leaves out the genuine left, which is to say the interests of the large
majority of people -- because that is the safest and surest road to power.
Which brings us to Obama's real legacy, as opposed to the one he imagines. The moment he
committed himself to a life of pale centrism in a time of escalating social crisis, he
determined what his place in history would be. I'm reminded of Georg Lukács's analysis
of Germany's waffling liberal intelligentsia during the 1920s in his book The
Destruction of Reason . The elite liberals of the Weimar Republic couldn't countenance
fascism but wouldn't commit themselves to a decisive democratic program to resist it -- for
they feared socialism even more than fascism -- so they ended up vacillating pathetically,
criticizing mass democracy while on occasion semi-defending it, fecklessly counseling
moderation, thereby enabling ultra-reaction.
While the U.S. is certainly not Weimar Germany, and the risks of full-blown fascism are
not as great now as they were then, one can see parallels. Just as the feckless, vacillating
liberalism of Jimmy Carter ushered in the reactionary age of Reagan, so the vacillating
liberalism of Obama prepared the way for the semi-fascism of Trump and the reinvigoration of
white supremacy. (So much for Obama's supposed furtherance of the Civil Rights Movement. He is
arguably one of the worst things to have happened to minorities since the end of Jim Crow.) You
can't be neutral on a moving train. If you try, you're actually on the side of the
reactionaries.
From comments: "Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries." But the problem with this statement is the dynamics of American Imperialism, which would not tolerate any
government which is not a vassal.
Notable quotes:
"... Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality. Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example, the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but dangerous. ..."
"... When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs. ..."
"... For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is indispensable in analyzing world events. ..."
"... However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in Westphalian terms. ..."
"... Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive, idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of their own nations but that of the others. ..."
"... Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American companies and capitalists. ..."
"... The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood, from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions (Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard, too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence of the Emirs of Kuwait). ..."
"... An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank. ..."
"... What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for it to protect the nation. ..."
"... Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other countries. ..."
"... Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other, leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914. ..."
"... There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables). ..."
"... Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just and moral", which is an idealistic a notion. ..."
Great power competition is everywhere these days -- in Syria, Ukraine, the South China Sea,
North Korea. With the rise of China and the rejuvenation of Russian military power, realist
thinking is suddenly back in vogue, as it should be.
Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality.
Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example,
the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably
progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but
dangerous. The liberal idea that the UN can foster world order through international
institutions is likewise naïve and perilous. Fantasy lands in art and literature can be
wonderful divertissements , but using them as the basis for great nation's foreign
policy can produce nightmares.
George W. Bush created a dream world in his mind where it seemed plausible for American
military power to end "tyranny in our world." Tyranny, as anyone who has not slipped the bonds
of reality knows, is rooted in the human soul and cannot be "ended." Tyranny can be checked and
mitigated, but only through extraordinary effort and with the help of a rich tradition.
But it is always easier to assign oneself virtue based on self-applauding and unrealistic
notions about world peace. When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the
bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and
bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs.
Yet for all their sagacity, realist thinkers are not without their problems either. They
tend to deny the moral nature of human beings and the role that this may play in world events.
Because they have seen the great danger of moralistic idealism in foreign policy, they
sometimes don't think morality should be considered at all. Realist theory has a cold, inhumane
quality that makes it inattentive to the moral dimension of human existence.
The failure of realists to incorporate moral considerations into their thinking has made
realism unpopular with the American people, who historically believe that their nation's
foreign policy should have at least some moral content. They, after all, send their own boys
and girls to war, and they would like to think that those sacrifices are not made for some
mechanistic balance of power. They know that statesmen must often make cold calculations in the
national interest, but surely somewhere in there must be right and wrong, as in all human
endeavors.
Because some realists have adopted the philosophically untenable position that morality has
no role in world affairs, many Americans have signed on with the moralists' disastrous crusades
instead. The realists have the stronger policy case, but they have ceded the moral ground to
the idealists.
Ironically, it may be the work of Henry Kissinger that can show realists an intellectual
path toward restoring a sense of morality in foreign policy.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from
interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a
general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of
Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is
indispensable in analyzing world events.
However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to
create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is
required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in
itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will
break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in
Westphalian terms.
Kissinger also says that enlightened leaders must not only recognize the realities of power
politics and the hard Machiavellian truths of international competition, but possess a certain
moral quality that he calls "restraint." Without a willingness to restrain themselves and to
act dispassionately, world leaders will be incapable of building an international order. When
facing difficult challenges, enlightened diplomats and statesmen must have the moral courage to
accept certain "limits of permissible action." Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that
morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a
certain temperament and moral character can support the Westphalian model.
Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior
for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive,
idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under
complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure
self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of
their own nations but that of the others. Such a policy cannot be sketched out in the
abstract in advance; it can emerge only through the moral leadership of genuine statesmen who
act to find a specific solution in a set of complex, concrete circumstances. This is one of the
great lessons of classical political philosophy: justice is not an abstraction but found
concretely in the soul of the just man.
The answer to the question of what a just and moral foreign policy might look like is that
it's the kind that truly just and moral, but also supremely realistic, statesmen will adopt.
That such statesmen are rare is what has caused the great philosophers to lament that only the
dead have seen the end of war.
William S. Smith is managing director and research fellow at the Center for the Study of
Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.
Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential
in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a certain temperament and moral character can support
the Westphalian model.
1) In 1971, the government of Pakistan carried out a genocide of its Hindu minority in
what is now Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). Somewhere between 1 and 3 million Hindus were
killed, and many thousands of Bengali Muslim leaders and intellectuals were murdered by the
Pakistani regime.
Kissinger and Nixon supported Yahya Khan's government, and even shipped weapons to
Pakistan while the genocide was going on.
From Gary Bass's article in the New Yorker:
While the slaughter in what would soon become an independent Bangladesh was underway,
the C.I.A. and State Department conservatively estimated that roughly two hundred thousand
people had died (the official Bangladeshi death toll is three million). Some ten million
Bengali refugees fled to India, where untold numbers died in miserable conditions in refugee
camps. Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United States, and Richard Nixon and his
national-security advisor, Henry Kissinger, resolutely supported its military dictatorship;
they refused to impose pressure on Pakistan's generals to forestall further
atrocities.
2) Kissinger was one of key organizers of the 1973 coup against the democratically elected
Allende government in Chile. When Allende was elected, this moral stalwart told his staff "I
don't see any reason why we should stand around and do nothing when a country goes communist
because of the irresponsibility of its own people."
In the first months after the coup d'état, the military killed thousands of
Chilean leftists, both real and suspected, or forced their "disappearance". The military
imprisoned 40,000 political enemies in the National Stadium of Chile In October 1973, the
Chilean songwriter Víctor Jara, and 70 other political killings were perpetrated by
the death squad, Caravan of Death (Caravana de la Muerte).
The government arrested some 130,000 people in a three-year period; the dead and
disappeared numbered thousands.
****************
Tom Lehrer once said that satire died when Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Fortunately William Smith's article about Kissinger's "morality" shows that comedy is not yet
dead, even if the comic relief is inadvertent.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of MAJOR POWERS refraining from interference in
each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general
equilibrium of power."
Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the
affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United
States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American
companies and capitalists.
The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood,
from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention
Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions
(Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard,
too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have
been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence
of the Emirs of Kuwait).
Would the realists have responded to the 2009 coup in Honduras with any more morality than
Hilary Clinton did? Would the economic war upon Venezuela be any less damaging than it has
been under Bush II, Obama or Trump? Yes, some of the realists would not have launched the
invasion of Iraq, but would they have lifted the sanctions regime on Iraq? Would they have
restrained the Saudis in Yemen?
An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and
woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist
making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank.
Dr. Smith apparently has a misunderstanding about Machiavelli's realism being devoid of
morality.
What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality
as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency
they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for
it to protect the nation.
Example: Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan;
Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in WW II
because to warn them would have revealed that the Brits had cracked the German secret codes;
and Pres. Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua.
This is in sharp contrast to statesmen (women) such as Hillary Clinton
who used evil gratuitously by taking bribes from foreign nations to fund her foundation; or
Pres. Bill Clinton who "wagged the dog" by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to divert
attention away from a sex scandal.
Machiavelli was not anti-religious or anti-morality,
contrary to pop explanations by liberal media, novels and academics (read Erica Benner's book
Machiavelli's Ethics).
Henry Kissinger as a moral man? I really wish you had a better example to prove your valid
point. The man who was responsible for the murder of millions in Indo China including the
bombing of non combatant countries like Laos is hardly qualified to talk about morality of
anything.
Im not sure morality is even possible. I wonder if it ever was possible.
Everyone in the west is taught the values of multicultural and diversity while the rest of
the world is still tribal. It is those tribes who we (US) considers allies which are
controlling much of our foreign policy. The other constituency is just as old and its the
monied class or the corporations whose only goal is to maintain and grow revenue.
Thank god we have domestic and international law which constrains our foreign policy to
moral issues.
These terms get murky.
Neocons are idealists but most definitely believe in great power competition and dominance.
U.S. interests can only be protected if authoritarian regimes are replaced by pro-U.S.
Democratic govts which is why we were so aggressive in expanding our influence in Eastern
Europe, often through covert means and by force in the M.E. I never had much use for the term 'realism'.
Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries.
We have been brainwashed to consider him an offender in this model because of Ukraine but
his response was a minimalist response to a crisis on his border. We go on crusades and
experiment on other countries thousands of miles away from our shores.
Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in
relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The
balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers
wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the
balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other,
leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914.
Westphalia
was a slightly different situation. A 30-year, on again–off again, triangular German
"civil war" between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, with much foreign interference, had
reached a stalemate, which, in practice, amounted to a Catholic defeat. The only way out was
to let everybody keep what they had and agree not to try to take more. It was forced
forbearance rather than balance.
In Europe, at least, peace certainly depends upon "a system of independent states refraining
from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions
through a general equilibrium of power". The European Union is the modern expression of that
principle.
That's why Putin's interferences in Ukraine's domestic affairs and his undisguised
attempts to destroy the EU have set off alarm bells all across Europe and why US
unwillingness to check his ambitions is making the EU the only viable option to ensure peace
in Europe.
Kissinger is an extremely bad person to cite on the subject of morality in a realist foreign
policy. John Quincey Adam's would be better. Coincidentally, TAC printed him on this very
subject --
"Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world"
It need not be that. The "vision thing" that Bush I famously did not do could well be a
part of our national interest, one of the things coldly evaluated, and contributing to our
strength when done correctly.
Of Wayne Lusvardi's examples of "existential" emergencies for which evil can be done to
"protect the nation," "Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan" is at best
debatable given the evidence that the Japanese were willing to surrender as long as they
could keep their emperor, and especially to keep the Soviets from declaring war on them,
while "Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in
WW II" is legitimate, in my opinion.
But "Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua" is laughable. American pride may have needed protection from the
hostage "crisis," but the American nation certainly did not, as it was not threatened in any
way. American foreign policy continued on its way, funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan,
backing the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese Stalinists who drove them from power in
Cambodia, and buying off Egypt, so you can't even say that America's "standing in the world"
particularly suffered from the hostage "crisis."
And as for "Pres. Bill Clinton who 'wagged the dog' by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to
divert attention away from a sex scandal," I'll trump that shameful episode with Pres. Ronald
Reagan invading Grenada two days after the Beirut barracks bombing.
Our D.I. In basic training in his frustration to turn raw recruits into soldiers would raise
his arms to the sky imploring the aid of the Commander-in-Chief in the heavens and holler,
"Dear Lord, give'em books and all they do is eat'em!" That's the way I viewed William Smith's
essay on the need for an infusion of a reconstituted morality in our foreign policy.
After
basic training, I then served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, where I was confronted with
the grim and brutal reality of that quagmire and learned that the road to hell is paved with
good intentions. LBJ would come to regret calling South Vietnam President Ndo Dinh Diem the
"Churchill of Asia." There lies the dilemma when idealism confronts reality.
More generally,
I disagree with the centrality of the Westphalian concept of what constitutes a nation in the
post-modern world. Smith mentions the influence of non-actors such as jihadists to alter our
foreign policy goals but overlooks how corporations have also altered that concept with their
doctrine of globalization for profits which undercuts national sovereignty established in
Westphalia. Smith seems to be wandering between two worlds, "one dead / The other peerless to
be born" as Mathew Arnold lamented in his poem "Stanzas from the Grande Chartreuse."
Smith is
trying to promote a revisionist history of the last fifty years just as Niall Ferguson did in
the first volume of his authorized biography of Henry Kissinger as an idealist. Ferguson
notes even Kissinger obviously knew the war was a lost cause after he did two fact-finding
tours in South Vietnam early in the war but thought the war was still necessary to prosecute
to save a vestige of our credibility as policeman to the world. Ken Burns also attempts a
revisionist coup of the Vietnam War when he editorialized in his documentary that our
fearless leaders prosecuted that war with the best intentions. So unfortunately, I view this
essay as a current trend to to promote revisionism in our history of the last fifty years
despite the contrary conclusions of the historical facts.
But as John Adams, a foundering
father, once observed "facts are stubborn things."
I agree-Putin's response to our actions is often not even considered: The biggest flaw with realism that it's like a multivariate experiment
-- with everyone
having different variables they think to be relevant. For instance, Kissinger thought Vietnam would fall under Chinese influence under Communist
NVA, yet he ignored the variable of ethnic rivalries between Chinese and Vietnamese. GWB ignored the variables of Iran -- how it would swoop in and nurture newly Shia Iraq..
There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables).
Vietnam: perhaps the only conflict fought on half of another of but minor, if any real
benefit to the US. That with or without Sec. Kissinger is clear as day. As for quagmires --
it seems that all ward have them. Vietnam was a quagmire because our policy was one of
protect and hold as opposed to invade and conquer -- an unfortunate choice. In the world of a
realist, we should have killed any and all Vietcong, raced up to Hanoi and ended the matter.
'nough said.
I am not sure many here are reading the same article, because my take is that the author
is claiming that Sec Kissinger was a realist -- practical – what needed to be done to
accomplish task A -- morality doesn't enter into it. That explains why he found Pres Nixon's
faith amusing. So all of the comments bemoaning the Sec lack of moral attend, only confirms
the realists perspective.
Nonetheless,
I disagree with your version of the last seventeen years. it has not been orchestrated or
led by realists. Quite the opposite. The rhetoric may be couched in all manner of idealism ,
but so was their application of force.
A realist would not give a lick aboy religious affiliation to the aims of regime chang,
cpital market or democracy creation. The onlu factor that would have mattered is who was on
board, or not in the way -- all challengers regardless of their faith, political agendas,
personality, or concerned about symbols as nonsensical historical artifacts would moved aside
by any means necessary. A realist so engaging such large opposition would decided the matter
-- to utter destruction to complete compliance – period.
In fact, I will contend that these pseudo realists, were thwarted by their own bouts if
idealist moral relativity and were the worst sort for the job at hand.
What a joke of an article, Kissinger as a moralist. He is one of the major war criminals of
the second half of the 20th Century. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands if not
millions on his hands, as others above have details. And not all foreigners. Lest we forget
the part he played in Nixon's great lies about Vietnam that delayed a peace settlement to
help Nixon get elected. 30,000 dead Americans later we got pretty much the same settlement.
The author of this article has entered into the realm of the absurd.
Wow, I thought I wasn't ever going to read anything on economic war on Venezuela! Finally,
even if it is from the comments.
There is an article about not to support/encourage a cup here, but obviously, when it is
about the bad economic situation, only the leftish govenrments are blamed, as if Venezuela
wasn't thoroughly dependet on debt.
Besides of that, even if that mention weren't thre, I agree and thanks most of the
comments in this article.
Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their
hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to
reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to
only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his
Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or
religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists
who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just
and moral", which is an idealistic a notion.
If, as Samuel Johnson is reputed to have said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
then using Kissinger as an example of realism is the last refuge of a fantasist.
"... There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters ..."
"... What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added. ..."
"... "That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration. ..."
Speaking at CPAC in 2017, John Bolton boasted that his Super
PAC's implementation of "advanced psychographic data" would help elect "filibuster majorities"
in 2018. According to a New York Times
report published on Friday, Bolton's Super PAC paid $1.2 million to Cambridge Analytica,
the British firm that has come under scrutiny for its misuse of Facebook data to influence
voters. Bolton's Super PAC, moreover, was heavily funded by the Mercer family, who gave
millions to Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential campaign.
There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the
personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was
using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters. "The data and modeling Bolton's PAC
received was derived from the Facebook data," Christopher Wylie, the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica turned whistleblower, told the Times . "We definitely told them about how we
were doing it. We talked about it in conference calls, in meetings."
What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of
the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed
and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told
the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he
added.
"That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering
advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The
relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up
talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration.
This article on almost a year old but thinks are developing as predicted. Which increases its
value.
"... Since when did Trump become an expert on political science and world history anyway? Who
does he think he is lecturing? Yet another US middle school classroom?! Does he not realize that
a good number of the countries represented at the UN consider themselves Socialist?! Furthermore,
while I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that Socialist and Communist ideas have often
been a disaster in the 20th century, Socialism in the 21st century is an entirely different beast
and the jury is still very much out on this issue, especially when considering the social,
political, economic, ecological, psychological and even spiritual disaster Capitalism is now
proving to be for much of the planet. Being the President of a country as dysfunctional as the
US, Trump would be well-advised to tone down his arrogant pontifications about Socialism and
maybe even open a book and read about it. ..."
"... My guess is that all they want is to send a clear messages to the Comprador elites
running most countries that this is the "official ideology of the AngloZionist Empire" and if
they want to remain in power they better toe the line even if nobody takes this stuff seriously.
Yup, back to a 1980s Soviet kind of attitude towards propaganda: nobody cares what everybody else
really thinks as long as everybody continues to pretend to believe the official propaganda.
..."
"... Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as
their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
"... Because, and make no mistake here, if the US cannot get anything constructive done any
more, they retain a huge capability to disrupt, subvert, create chaos and the like. ..."
"... However, the US themselves are now the prime victim of a decapitated Presidency and a
vindictive and generally out of control Neocon effort to prevent true American patriots to "get
their country back" (as they say) and finally overthrow the regime in Washington DC. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... Since when did Trump become an expert on political science and world history anyway? Who does he think he is lecturing? Yet another US middle school classroom?! Does he not realize that a good number of the countries represented at the UN consider themselves Socialist?! Furthermore, while I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that Socialist and Communist ideas have often been a disaster in the 20th century, Socialism in the 21st century is an entirely different beast and the jury is still very much out on this issue, especially when considering the social, political, economic, ecological, psychological and even spiritual disaster Capitalism is now proving to be for much of the planet. Being the President of a country as dysfunctional as the US, Trump would be well-advised to tone down his arrogant pontifications about Socialism and maybe even open a book and read about it. ..."
"... we all know who Trump's puppet-masters are nowadays so we know what to expect ..."
"... Trump is now clearly fully endorsing that fairytale that "The West" (in which Trump now hilariously includes Poland!) has defeated Hitler and saved the world. The truth is that the Nazis were defeated by the Soviets and that all the efforts of the Poles, French, Brits and even Americans were but a minor (20% max) sideshow to the "real event" (Those who still might believe in this nonsense can simply read this ). Yet again, that the Americans would feel the need to appropriate for themselves somebody else's victory is, yet again, a clear sign of weakness. Do they expect the rest of the planet to buy into this nonsense? Probably not. ..."
"... My guess is that all they want is to send a clear messages to the Comprador elites running most countries that this is the "official ideology of the AngloZionist Empire" and if they want to remain in power they better toe the line even if nobody takes this stuff seriously. Yup, back to a 1980s Soviet kind of attitude towards propaganda: nobody cares what everybody else really thinks as long as everybody continues to pretend to believe the official propaganda. ..."
"... Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
"... Because, and make no mistake here, if the US cannot get anything constructive done any more, they retain a huge capability to disrupt, subvert, create chaos and the like. ..."
"... However, the US themselves are now the prime victim of a decapitated Presidency and a vindictive and generally out of control Neocon effort to prevent true American patriots to "get their country back" (as they say) and finally overthrow the regime in Washington DC. ..."
"... It appears that for the foreseeable future Trump will continue to focus his energy on beating Obama for the status of "worst President in US history" while the Neocons will continue to focus their energy on trying to impeach Trump ..."
"... I still maintain that the worst President in history (excluding possibly Woodrow Wilson) was Bill Clinton (strongly influenced, no doubt, by Hillary.) Sure, the 90′s were a great time in America, but Clinton's evil actions (signing NAFTA, the Crime Bill, ignoring Bin Laden, and repealing Glass-Steagall to name just a few) had not yet come to fruition. ..."
"... Consider that the scene he bought into is the product of 70 years of constant propaganda aimed at the American psyche and how successful that has been. ..."
"... Hillary would not have done anything different than Trump. Trump is a dumb shit sycophant of the Deep State just like Hillary. ..."
"... "Step by step the US is getting closer to a civil war" That pretty much says it all. All it will take is for US troops to get an unexpected butt kicking somewhere, sometime. ..."
Late this morning, outraged emails started pouring in. My correspondents reported "getting
sick" and having their "heart ache". The cause of all that? They had just watched Trump's
speech at the UN...
You can read the full (rush, not official) text
here or watch the video here .
Most of it is so vapid that I won't even bother posting the full thing. But there are a few
interesting moments including those:
"We will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense. Our military will
soon be the strongest it has ever been"
This short sentence contains the key to unlock the reason behind the fact that while the US
military is extremely good at killing people in large numbers, it is also extremely bad at
winning wars. Like most Americans, Trump is under the illusion that spending a lot of money
"buys" you a better military. This is completely false, of course. If spending money was the
key to a competent military force, the US armed forces would have already conquered the entire
planet many times over. In reality, they have not won anything meaningful since the war in the
Pacific.
...then he suddenly decided to share this outright bizarre insight of his:
The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that
socialism has been faithfully implemented. From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela,
wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and
devastation and failure.
Since when did Trump become an expert on political science and world history anyway? Who
does he think he is lecturing? Yet another US middle school classroom?! Does he not realize
that a good number of the countries represented at the UN consider themselves Socialist?!
Furthermore, while I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that Socialist and Communist
ideas have often been a disaster in the 20th century, Socialism in the 21st century is an
entirely different beast and the jury is still very much out on this issue, especially when
considering the social, political, economic, ecological, psychological and even spiritual
disaster Capitalism is now proving to be for much of the planet. Being the President of a
country as dysfunctional as the US, Trump would be well-advised to tone down his arrogant
pontifications about Socialism and maybe even open a book and read about it.
I won't even bother discussing the comprehensively counter-factual nonsense Trump has spewed
about Iran and Hezbollah, we all know who Trump's puppet-masters are nowadays so we know
what to expect . Instead, I will conclude with this pearl from The Donald:
In remembering the great victory that led to this body's founding, we must never forget
that those heroes who fought against evil, also fought for the nations that they love.
Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and
the Brits to stand strong for Britain.
Echoing the nonsense he spoke while in Poland, Trump is now clearly fully endorsing that
fairytale that "The West" (in which Trump now hilariously includes Poland!) has defeated Hitler
and saved the world. The truth is that the Nazis were defeated by the Soviets and that all the
efforts of the Poles, French, Brits and even Americans were but a minor (20% max) sideshow to
the "real event" (Those who still might believe in this nonsense can simply read this ). Yet
again, that the Americans would feel the need to appropriate for themselves somebody else's
victory is, yet again, a clear sign of weakness. Do they expect the rest of the planet to buy
into this nonsense? Probably not.
My guess is that all they want is to send a clear messages to the Comprador elites
running most countries that this is the "official ideology of the AngloZionist Empire" and if
they want to remain in power they better toe the line even if nobody takes this stuff
seriously. Yup, back to a 1980s Soviet kind of attitude towards propaganda: nobody cares what
everybody else really thinks as long as everybody continues to pretend to believe the official
propaganda.
[Sidebar: When my wife and I watched this pathetic speech we starting laughing about the
fact that Trump was so obscenely bad that we (almost) begin to miss Obama. This is a standing
joke in our family because when Obama came to power we (almost) began to miss Dubya. The
reason why this is a joke is that when Dubya came to power we decided that there is no way
anybody could possibly be worse than him. Oh boy where we wrong! Right now I am still not at
the point were I would be missing Obama (that is asking for a lot from me!), but I will
unapologetically admit that I am missing Dubya. I do. I really do. Maybe not the people
around Dubya, he is the one who truly let the Neocon "crazies in the basement" creep out and
occupy the Situation Room, but at least Dubya seemed to realize how utterly incompetent he
was. Furthermore, Dubya was a heck of a lot dumber than Obama (in this context being stupid
is a mitigating factor) and he sure did not have the truly galactic arrogance of Trump
(intelligence-wise they are probably on par)].
In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the
planet and a sense of real worry for the US. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and
made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a
virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing nothing.
That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a blessing for the
rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done. Because, and make
no mistake here, if the US cannot get anything constructive done any more, they retain a huge
capability to disrupt, subvert, create chaos and the like.
But for as long as the US remains paralyzed this destructive potential remains mostly unused
(and no matter how bad things look now, Hillary President would have been infinitely worse!).
However, the US themselves are now the prime victim of a decapitated Presidency and a
vindictive and generally out of control Neocon effort to prevent true American patriots to "get
their country back" (as they say) and finally overthrow the regime in Washington DC.
Step by step the US is getting closer to a civil war and there is no hope in sight, at least
for the time being. It appears that for the foreseeable future Trump will continue to focus
his energy on beating Obama for the status of "worst President in US history" while the Neocons
will continue to focus their energy on trying to impeach Trump , and maybe even trigger a
civil war. The rest of us living here are in for some very tough times ahead. As they say in
Florida when a hurricane comes barreling down on you "hunker down!".
Netanyahu has spoken, stating that Trump has given the boldest, most courageous UN speech
that he has ever heard. Well that settles that with the prescient oracle rendering his
definitive and omnipotent judgment!
A lot of old friends didn't like President Trump's UN speech today because it didn't
break cleanly with UniParty foreign policy! E.g. Paul Craig Roberts' comments here. But
it did contain these revolutionary comments on immigration and refugee policy ! The
latter especially significant because Trump has to set the quota for U.S. quota for
refugees (actually expedited, subsidized, politically favored immigrants) in the next few
days. Who knows what Trump will do! But Hillary would never even have said it
[...] For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10
in their home region.
[...] For decades, the United States has dealt with migration challenges here in the Western
Hemisphere. We have learned that, over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply
unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries.
For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political
and economic reform, and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and
implement those reforms.
For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are
borne overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media
and government.
I still maintain that the worst President in history (excluding possibly Woodrow
Wilson) was Bill Clinton (strongly influenced, no doubt, by Hillary.) Sure, the 90′s
were a great time in America, but Clinton's evil actions (signing NAFTA, the Crime Bill,
ignoring Bin Laden, and repealing Glass-Steagall to name just a few) had not yet come to
fruition.
Assuming the keen political insight Trump exhibited to get himself the job he sought still
exists, perhaps all this insane blather is proof it continues. Consider that the scene he
bought into is the product of 70 years of constant propaganda aimed at the American psyche
and how successful that has been.
Then imagine Trump feeding the ravenous American mindset for the status quo while actually
working around it. Brilliant! Then again, if he truly means what he says, all is lost.
Thank you Stephen Miller! He must be reading Peter Singer:
International support for countries bearing the greatest refugee burden also makes economic
sense: it costs Jordan about €3,000 ($3,350) to support one refugee for a year; in
Germany, the cost is at least €12,000.
Another threat to the Church is the illegal immigration control movement. If this movement
succeeds, and what is perceived by Latin Americans and other governments as an escape valve
is shut off, these governments would logically say, "Our demographic course cannot
continue." These governments would have little choice but to confront the Church and say,
"If we are to survive as governments, then we must get serious about population growth
control. Otherwise, we in Latin America are destined to become a sea of chaos. We, as Latin
Americans, must make family planning and abortion services fully available and encourage
their use." Turning off the valve to illegal immigration is therefore a serious threat to
the power of the Church.
President Trump's Message: Make The United Nations Great
In fact, he's strengthened our alliances in meetings in Washington with key allies, by
going to foreign capitals - the trip to France and the Bastille Day with America's
oldest ally, with which the United States has in recent years had something of a rocky
relationship – was strengthened enormously by that visit to Paris this year. And
the president has, you know, both on a personal level and on an alliance level, really
strengthened the alliance with France and with President Macron. In fact, he met with
him yesterday and had a very, extremely positive and friendly meeting where they talked
substantive business, but they also talked about the history of the alliance and reminisced
a bit about the grandeur of that trip to Paris in July.
The French president's suggestion that African women are breeding like animals and must
be restrained by an enlightened elite awakens primordial terrors in the hearts of the
mainstream Left and Right.
[...]
If Europeans are replaced with Africans, Western Civilization will disappear. The choices
are simple: The West, yes or no? The white race, yes or no? Our rulers have exhausted all
other options.
Peter Singer on How Political Correctness Let African Population Growth Run Amok for a
Generation
The outrage evoked by Macron's remark, however, appears to have little to do with its
inaccuracy. Macron violated a taboo that has been in place since the International
Conference on Population and Development, held under the auspices of the UN in Cairo in
1994. The conference adopted a Programme of Action that rejected a demographically driven
approach to population policies, and instead focused on meeting the reproductive-health
needs of individuals, especially women. Population targets were out; rights were in.
Don't lose hope
[...]
I shared this video here at the Unz Review before, but I would like to share it again,
because it best encapsulates and captures what I personally associate with term "Alt
Right"
"Step by step the US is getting closer to a civil war" That pretty much says it all.
All it will take is for US troops to get an unexpected butt kicking somewhere,
sometime.
Churchill himself, one of a long list of Anglo-genocidal killers (according to The Saker's
last post) admitted that, "The Red Army tore the guts out of The Wehrmacht." Is this even in
dispute?
In Russian thinking therefore, with only 20% contribution by American/UK Commonwealth
forces, we subtract that, and this is the diplomatic question. Why would Stalin's T34s not
have rolled up to The English Channel and installed compliant Communist regimes in
France/Belgium/Holland as they did in Eastern Europe?
They did the same in North Korea by installing the grandfather (Kim Il-Sung) of this young
'Rocket Man' in 1945 at the conclusion of the fighting against Japan in the far-east.
It is a very sad day to admin the neocon Kristof ( see Robert Parry evalution of this guy at
America's Journalistic Hypocrites – Consortiumnews
) is mostly right in his one year old Trump evaluation. Rephazing Oscar Wilde (
Notable quotes:
"... But while you voted for Trump because you put faith in his gauzy pledges, I bet he will do no better with campaign promises than with marriage vows. ..."
"... The biggest Trump bait-and-switch was visible Friday when he talked about giving Americans "access" to health care. That's a scam his administration is moving toward, with millions of Americans likely to lose health insurance: Instead of promising insurance coverage, Trump now promises " access " -- and if you can't afford it, tough luck. ..."
"... This promise of "access" is an echo of Marie Antoinette. In Trump's worldview, starving French peasants wouldn't have needed bread because they had "access" to cake. ..."
"... Let's not get distracted by his howls or tweets. What's most important at this moment is not Trump's theatrics, but the policies he is putting in place in areas like health care and immigration that will devastate the lives of ordinary Americans. ..."
"... The truth is that among the biggest losers from Trump policies will be you Trump voters, especially those of you from the working and middle class. You were hoping you'd elected a savior, and instead Donald Trump is doing to you what he did to just about everyone who ever trusted him: He's betraying you. ..."
You've been had. President Trump sold you a clunker. Now that he's in the White House, he's betraying you -- and I'm writing in
hopes that you'll recognize that betrayal and hold him accountable.
Trump spoke to your genuine pain, to the fading of the American dream, and he won your votes. But will he deliver? Please watch
his speeches carefully. You'll notice that he promises outcomes, without explaining how they'll be achieved. He's a carnival huckster
promising that America will thrive with his snake oil.
"We're going to win, we're going to win big, folks," Trump declared Friday at the CPAC meeting, speaking of his foreign policy.
Great! Problem solved. Next? He then outlined his take on drug trafficking and what will surely be his outcome:
"No good. No good. Going to stop." Wow! Why didn't anyone else think of that?
Similarly, all looks rosy for tax outcomes: "We're going to massively lower taxes on the middle class," Trump said.
But that seems like a classic shell game. The Tax Policy Center
estimated that
Trump's tax plan (to the extent that there is one) would hugely increase the federal debt and give middle-income households an average
tax cut of $1,010, or 1.8 percent of after-tax income -- while the top 1 percent would save $214,690, or 13.5 percent of after-tax
income.
Trump made more than 280 campaign promises as a candidate, and a few -- such as infrastructure spending to create jobs -- would
be sensible if done right. But there still is no infrastructure plan, and The Washington Post Fact Checker
is tracking
60 specific campaign promises and found only six cases so far of promises kept.
It's still early, and Trump has nominated a smart conservative to the Supreme Court and followed his campaign line on issues like
barring refugees.
But while you voted for Trump because you put faith in his gauzy pledges, I bet he will do no better with campaign promises
than with marriage vows.
Health care will be one of the greatest betrayals. On Friday, he described his plan: "We're going to make it much better, we're
going to make it less expensive."
Yet the steps that Republicans seem likely to take on health care will hurt ordinary Americans.
For example, Trump seems poised to weaken the
contraception
mandate for insurance coverage and curb funding for women's health clinics. The upshot will likely be more unintended pregnancies,
more abortions, more unplanned births -- and more women dying of cervical cancer.
The biggest Trump bait-and-switch was visible Friday when he talked about giving Americans "access" to health care. That's
a scam his administration is moving toward, with millions of Americans likely to lose health insurance: Instead of promising insurance
coverage, Trump now promises " access
" -- and if you can't afford it, tough luck.
This promise of "access" is an echo of Marie Antoinette. In Trump's worldview, starving French peasants wouldn't have needed
bread because they had "access" to cake.
Many of you voted for Trump because he campaigned as a populist. But instead of draining the swamp, he's wallowing in it and monetizing
the presidency. He retains his financial interests, refuses to release his taxes or explain what financial leverage Russia may have
over him, and doubled the fee to join Mar-a-Lago to $200,000.
The greatest betrayal of all will come if, as some of his
advisers
recommend , he "reforms" and tears holes in some of the big safety net programs like Medicaid, Social Security or Medicare. Medicaid
is particularly vulnerable.
Trump howls at the news media, not just because it embarrasses him, but because it provides an institutional check on his lies,
incompetence and conflicts of interest. But we can take his vitriol: When the time comes, we will write Trump's obituary, not the
other way around.
Let's not get distracted by his howls or tweets. What's most important at this moment is not Trump's theatrics, but the policies
he is putting in place in areas like health care and immigration that will devastate the lives of ordinary Americans.
Trump's career has often been built on scamming people who put their faith in him, as Trump University shows. Now he's moved the
scam to a much bigger stage, and he boasts of targeting Muslims, refugees and unauthorized immigrants.
Please don't cheer, or acquiesce in these initial targets. The truth is that among the biggest losers from Trump policies
will be you Trump voters, especially those of you from the working and middle class. You were hoping you'd elected a savior, and
instead Donald Trump is doing to you what he did to just about everyone who ever trusted him: He's betraying you.
The sooner you recognize that, the sooner you can fight back and push for policies that will protect your health care and Social
Security, defend the integrity of our election system and protect your own interests. You have a false savior, and you will have
to turn on him to save yourselves and our nation.
"... There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters ..."
"... What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added. ..."
"... "That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration. ..."
Speaking at CPAC in 2017, John Bolton boasted that his Super
PAC's implementation of "advanced psychographic data" would help elect "filibuster majorities"
in 2018. According to a New York Times
report published on Friday, Bolton's Super PAC paid $1.2 million to Cambridge Analytica,
the British firm that has come under scrutiny for its misuse of Facebook data to influence
voters. Bolton's Super PAC, moreover, was heavily funded by the Mercer family, who gave
millions to Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential campaign.
There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the
personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was
using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters. "The data and modeling Bolton's PAC
received was derived from the Facebook data," Christopher Wylie, the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica turned whistleblower, told the Times . "We definitely told them about how we
were doing it. We talked about it in conference calls, in meetings."
What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of
the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed
and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told
the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he
added.
"That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering
advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The
relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up
talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration.
"... Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive. The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant reminders. ..."
"... The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic backwater ..."
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also Dutch and other, trade, with Russia
was resumed.
WWII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia should be punished for MH17 by more
sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive.
The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show. Or even the holocaust show, constant reminders.
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold: (1) more trade with Russia makes subjugation of
Russia impossible; (2) more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA into an economic
backwater
Another column by Girardi disconnected from reality and full of his bête noir, the
neocons.
Russia has long been a colonial power. It simply expanded into its near abroad and has
remained an empire in spite of the dissolution of the Tsarist/Soviet empire. Putin is just
another thug that has imperial desires and is willing to steal his people blind to realize
them. As a result, corruption runs rampant and the oligarchs enrich themselves at the expense
of the Russian people who have, historically, simply been sheep.
I haven't seen any hatred that Giraldi imagines, but I have seen fear in Putin's
neighbors, and concern in those who aren't nearby who hate to see people oppressed by thugs
like Putin. Putin has invaded Ukraine, stealing the Crimea, and attempting to gain a land
bridge by backing a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and
equipment.
Putin is just another thug that has imperial desires and is willing to steal his people
blind to realize them.
Other than reliable sources like John Brennan, James Clapper, the New York Times
and the Washington Post , I presume you have evidence to share of this
Putin has invaded Ukraine,
and this.
stealing the Crimea
Two referenda are "stealing"?
a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment.
Well, the dead people in Donbas, and their families, would probably disagree it was fake,
particularly since the victim of the US coup d'etat (with its mercenaries) and rightful
President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, was from Donbas. As for the allegations of Russian
troops and equipment, I return to my request for evidence.
The mystique of the European Union is anti-nationalism, based on the theory that "nations"
are bad because they caused the devastating wars of the twentieth century, while European
unification is the sole guarantee of "peace". Convinced of their mission, the Eurocentrists
have had no qualms in throwing out the baby of democratic choice along with the nationalist
bathwater.
The notion that "peace" depends on "Europe" persists despite the NATO bombing of Serbia and
European participation in U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, not to mention EU
participation in the current major military buildup in the Baltic States against "the Russian
enemy". Indeed, thanks to NATO, the EU is gearing for a war even worse than the previous
ones.
Since the "nation-state" is blamed for evil in the world, the Eurocentrists react with
horror at growing demands in Member States for a return to "national sovereignty". This,
however, is a natural reaction to the economic and social disasters resulting from policies
dictated by EU institutions in Brussels. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty legally bound member
countries to centralized neoliberal monetarist policies; not only "socialism" became illegal
– even Keynesianism was ruled out. Promised endless peace and prosperity, citizens of
European countries were cajoled into giving up their sovereignty to EU institutions, and many
now want it back.
Disillusioned Italy
Italian disillusion is particularly significant. Italy was an exceptionally enthusiastic
founding member of the unification begun with the 1957 Treaty of Rome. And yet, Italy's own
history illustrates what can go wrong with such unification, since the 19 th century
political creation of a unified Italy centered in Turin led to the enrichment of the industrial
north at the expense of southern Italy, where the splendor of Naples declined into chronic
poverty, crime and corruption. Now Italy is "the south", in the periphery of a European Union
centered around Germany.
Antagonism between North and South Italy has given way to a much stronger antagonism between
Italy and Germany – each blaming the other for the crisis.
It is only fair to recall that Germans were very attached to their Deutsche Mark and to
their own austere financial policies. Germany could only be lured into the common currency by
agreeing to let the euro follow German rules. France eagerly supported this concession based on
the notion that the common currency would unify Europe. It is doing quite the opposite.
Germany is a major exporting nation. Its trade with the rest of the EU is secondary. It uses
the EU as its hinterland as it competes and trades on the global scale with China, the United
States and the rest of the world. The proceeds of Germany's favorable EU trade balance is less
and less invested in those countries but in Germany itself or outside the EU. In the official
German view, the main function of the Southern EU members is to pay back their debts to
Germany.
Meanwhile, Italy's once flourishing industrial network has lost its competitive edge due to
the euro. It cannot save its exports by devaluation, as it was accustomed to doing. Italy's
debt is now 132% of its GNP, whereas the Maastricht Treaty governing the monetary union puts a
ceiling of 60% on national debt. And to continue paying the debt, public services are cut back,
the middle class is impoverished, the domestic market declines and the economy gets even
weaker.
This is precisely the situation that has plunged Greece into ever deepening poverty.
But Italy is not Greece. Greece is a small peripheral country, which can be pounded to death
by creditors as a warning of what can happen to others. Italy, on the contrary, is too big to
fail. Its collapse could bring the whole EU crashing down.
Italy's Potential Strength Through Weakness
The traditional Italian parties had no solution beyond those that have ruined Greece: cut
back social spending, impoverish workers and pensioners, and pay back the foreign banks, with
interest.
The odd coalition of the League and the M5S was obliged to try something different:
basically, to invest in the economy rather than abandon it to its creditors. Their program
combines lower taxes with Keynesian stimulation of investment. Since the leader of the League,
Matteo Salvini, and Luigi Di Maio of M5S do not like each other, they selected law professor
Giuseppe Conte to be Prime Minister in their coalition cabinet. The interesting choice was that
of Paolo Savona for the key post of Minister of Economy and Finance. Savona, whose long career
has taken him across the summits of Italian and international finance, was certainly the most
qualified choice imaginable. Savona knows everything there is to know about the Italian economy
and international currency creation.
And yet, it was the appointment of this 81-year-old expert that created outrage in the
Eurocenter.
The uproar was spurred by the fact that in one of his books Savona had described the euro as
"a German prison". Savona had also said it was necessary to prepare a Plan B, to leave the euro
if there is no other choice. "The alternative is to end up like Greece."
This hint of disloyalty to the euro was totally unacceptable to the European
establishment.
The Center struck back in the person of the largely figurehead President of Italy, Sergio
Mattarella, who used, or misused, his unique constitutional power by refusing to approve the
government. On May 28, he designated as Prime Minister Carlo Cottarelli of the International
Monetary Fund – a man who represented everything the Italians had just voted against.
Known in Italy as "Mr. Scissors" for his advocacy of drastic government spending cuts,
Cottarelli was supposed to run an apolitical "technical" government until new elections could
be held in the fall.
This coup against the Italian voters caused momentary rejoicing in the Authoritarian Center.
The European Budget Commissioner (a German of course), Günther Oettinger, was reported to
be gloating over the prospect that "the markets" (meaning the financial markets) would soon
teach Italians how to vote. Italy's economy "could be so drastically impacted", he said, as to
send a signal to voters "not to vote for populists on the right and left."
This simply intensified Italian indignation against "German arrogance".
Meanwhile Savona wrote a letter to President Mattarella which introduced a bit of cold
reason into an increasingly hysterical situation. He reminded the president that an important
meeting of EU heads of state was to be held at the end of June; without a political government,
Italy would be absent from negotiations which could seal the fate of the EU. Italy's plea for
economic change could expect French support. Savona denied having called for leaving the euro;
in the spirit of game strategy, he had mentioned the need for Plan B in order to strengthen
one's position before negotiations. He made it clear that his strategy was not to leave the
euro but to transform it into a genuine rival to the dollar.
"Germany prevents the euro from becoming 'an essential part of foreign policy', as the
dollar is for the United States", wrote Savona. But change becomes necessary, as the dollar is
less and less suitable for its role as world currency.
Indeed, the Italian crisis merges with a mounting trans-Atlantic crisis, the U.S. uses
sanctions as a weapon in competition with its European "partners". The paradox is that Italy
could use its very weakness to oblige Germany to reconsider its monetary policy in a moment
when the German economy is also facing problems due to U.S. sanctions on deals with Russia and
Iran, as well as protectionist measures. Savona's message was that clever diplomacy could work
to Italy's advantage. In its own interest, Germany may need to accept transformation of the
euro into a more proactive currency, able to defend European economies from U.S.
manipulation.
It was a matter of hours before Cottarella stepped back and a new M5S-League government was
formed, with Savona himself back as Minister of Relations with the European Union.
Italy's Double Jeopardy
The new Italian cabinet sworn in on June first is riven with contradictions. Despite all the
released anti-EU sentiment, it is definitely not an "anti-EU" government. Conte is back as
Prime Minister. The new foreign minister, Enzo Moavero Milnesi, is a staunch pro-European. As
Interior Minister, the northern Italy chauvinist Salvini – who doesn't even care
particularly for Southern Italians – will get tough with migrants. As Minister of
Economic Development, Di Maio will try to find ways improve conditions in the southern regions
that elected him. Since Salvini is the more experienced of the two, the League is likely to
profit from the experiment more than the M5S.
Some Italians warn that by leaving the "German prison" Italy would simply find itself even
more dependent on the United States.
One should never forget that ever since the end of World War II, Italy is an occupied
country, with dozens of U.S. military bases on its territory, including air bases with nuclear
weapons poised to strike the Middle East, Africa or even Russia. The Italian Constitution
outlaws participation in aggressive war, and yet Italian bases are freely used by the United
States to bomb whichever country it pleases, regardless of how Italians feel about it. Worst of
all, the U.S. used its Italian "NATO bases" to destroy Libya, a disaster for Italy which
thereby lost a valuable trade partner and found itself inundated with African refugees and
migrants. While international financial experts exhort Italy to cut government expenses, the
country is obliged by NATO to spend around 13 billion euros to buy 90 U.S. F-35 fighters and to
increase its military spending to around 100 million euros per day.
Italy's economic prospects have been badly hit by U.S.-enforced sanctions against trade with
Russia and Iran, important potential energy sources.
U.S. economic aggression, in particular Trump's rejection of the Iranian nuclear deal, is
the issue with the potential to bring European leaders together at a time when they were
drifting apart. But at present, the Europeans are unable to defy U.S. sanctions in punishment
for trade with those countries because their international dealings are in dollars. This has
already led to U.S. exacting billions of dollars in fines from the biggest French and German
banks, the BNP and Deutsche Bank, for trading that was perfectly legal under their own laws.
The French petroleum giant has been obliged to abandon contracts with Iran because 90% of its
trade is in dollars, and thus vulnerable to U.S. sanctions. And that is why the idea is growing
of building financial instruments around the euro that can protect European companies from U.S.
retaliation. [2] See Wolfgang
Münchau, "The euro must be made more robust to rival the dollar; US sanctions expose the
mistakes made by the founders of the single currency", The Financial Times, 27 May, 2018.
https://www.ft.com/content/ca8c6826-5f76-11e8-ad91-e...56df68
The Disappearance of the Left
The disappearance of left political forces has been almost total in Italy. There are many
reasons for this, but a curable part of the problem has been the inability of what remains of
the left to face up to the two main current issues: Europe and immigration.
The left has so thoroughly transformed its traditional internationalism into Europism that
it has been unable to recognize EU institutions and regulations as a major source of its
problems. The stigmatization of "the nation" as aggressively nationalistic has held back left
ability to envisage and advocate progressive policies at the national level, instead putting
its hopes forever in a future hypothetical "social Europe". Such a transformation would require
unanimity under EU rules – politically impossible with 28 widely differing Member
States.
Without such inhibitions, the far right capitalizes on growing discontent.
Another related handicap of the left is its inability to recognize that mass immigration is
indeed "a problem" – especially in a country like Italy, with a flagging economy and 20%
official unemployment (although this figure is probably too high, considering undeclared
labor). There is resentment that prosperous Germany issued a general invitation to refugees,
which for geographic reasons pile in Mediterranean countries unable to cope. The mass influx of
economic migrants from Africa is not even "taking jobs away from" Italians – the jobs are
not there to take. These migrants fled war and misery to come to Europe in order to earn money
to send back to their families, but how can they meet possibly meet these expectations?
It is all very well to extol the glorious hospitality of America entreating the world to "
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched
refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me ". Such
generosity was suited to a new nation with huge empty spaces and rapidly growing industry in
need of a work force. The situation of a "full" nation in a time of economic downturn is quite
different. What is to become of the tens of thousands of vigorous young men arriving on Italian
shores where there is nothing for them to do except sell African trinkets on the sidewalks of
tourist centers? To make matters worse, the great contemporary thrust of technical innovation
aims at replacing more and more workers with robots. Leftist denial of the problem leaves its
exploitation and resolution to the extreme right.
Some leftist politicians in Italy, such as Stefano Fassina of the Sinistra Italiana
are waking up to this need. A left that dogmatically ignores the real concerns of the people is
doomed. A bold, honest, imaginative left is needed to champion Italians' independence from both
German-imposed austerity and the expensive military adventurism demanded by the United States.
But the interlaced problems created by unregulated globalization do not lend themselves to easy
solutions.
Notes
[1] David Adler,
"Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists", The New York Times, May 23,
2018.
Italy's primary problem is not the euro per se. It isn't even the much talked about
"proliferagacy". Italy has in fact run a primary surplus for most of the last 20 years
(primary surplus is the government budgetary balance sans interest payments). Italy's main
problem is the disastrous lack of productivity.
Its per capita productivity growth has actually declined by 0.1% the last 20 years,
versus around 0.7% positive growth for Germany and 0.6% for France. What explains this?
Supply side factors. Italy has many large-scale firms which are world-class. This leads a
naïve observer to conclude that the problem lies elsewhere.
Scratch the surface a little bit, and you'll find that the main problem for Italy is in
the SME sector. The comparison with the German Mittelstand is relevant here. Though many
German firms are still family-owned, they nevertheless have a significant amount of
meritocracy. Family scions frequently take on more ceremonial roles if they can find a
competent outsider to run large parts of the company. By contrast, Italian SMEs are much more
nepotistic. Italy also has far less labour mobility, meaning that the potential pool
of labour that a local company can draw from is quite limited.
There is therefore no easy solution. Devaluation is not a panacea. Italy is running a
current account surplus already. Their problem is lack of growth, which in turn is rooted in
supply-side factors.
There's a good paper by Luigi Zingales of University of Chicago (himself an Italian) as
you can surmise. He writes a lot of what I've outlined in greater detail if anyone is
interested in diving deeper:
The take-away is that there is no simple solution, Italy's problems are deep, structural
and tied to their social organisation. Devaluation, while tempting, would not fix these
issues and given that Italy is already running a current account surplus, it is hard to make
the case for one. Their exports is already competitive. Their debt problem stems from lack of
growth, not persistent budget deficits (mostly running a primary surplus for past few
decades).
Just to illustrate the point about the myth of 'profligate' Italy.
The problem is lack of growth, not lack of fiscal discpline. And the lack of growth is
rooted in deeply entrenched supply-side structural patterns, which changing the currency (or
letting it devalue) will do nothing to fix.
The interesting thing is that it is in Italy the same as in France, both what is called
extreme left, Mélenchon, and extreme right, Marine le Pen, are against the EU.
In the first round of the presidential elections Mélenchon and Le Pen together got 40%
of the votes.
In Italy now what is called extreme left and extreme right together formed a government.
Brussels fears for the euro.
They're quite right, the southern European countries, including France, have a long histories
of solving economic problems by devaluation, made impossible by the euro.
As the retired German sociologist Seeckt, retired men can speak their minds, says 'the big
mistake of the EU was (and is, my opinion) that the northern EU countries said to the
southern "become like us" '.
Cultures change very slowly, in France traces of the Louis XIV reign can still be found, a
love of bureaucracy.
In about 1973 an Italian consultant said to me 'there is only one way to solve our
problems, sell our civil servants for what they cost, and buy them back for what they're
worth'.
World Values Survey results indicate that in Europe and the United States, people who
describe themselves as "centrist" on the average have less attachment to democracy (e.g.
free and fair elections) that those on the left, and even those on the far right
I find this article sort of weird. And the above statement is based on this -- ->David
Adler, "Centrists Are the Most Hostile to Democracy, Not Extremists", The New York Times, May
23, 2018
Which is based on this -- -> http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp
And theses questions: ..which are totally sloppy. For instance question V138. 'People obey
their rulers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.' is a ridiculous kindergarten question. A 'serious'
question on the value of democracy would have been "People obey the (rule of) law", not
'rulers'. Sorry, this is junk in which evidently those who didnt go for 1 or 2 or 9 or 10
were categorized as centrist and you and Adler somehow interpreted that as the problem.
Then you proceed to say .."Leftist denial of the problem leaves its exploitation and
resolution to the extreme right.'
And that .'A bold, honest, imaginative left is needed to champion Italians' independence from
both German-imposed austerity and the expensive military adventurism demanded by the United
States. '
So what is your point? .That 'centrist' should move to the left to solve your
problems?
The survey questions:
[MORE]
"I'm going to describe various types of political systems and ask what you think about
each as a way of
governing this country. For each one, would you say it is a very good, fairly good, fairly
bad or very bad
way of governing this country? (Read out and code one answer for each):
Very
good
Fairly
good
Fairly
bad
Very bad
V127. Having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections
1
2
3
4
V128. Having experts, not government, make decisions
according to what they think is best for the country
1
2
3
4
V129. Having the army rule
1
2
3
4
V130. Having a democratic political system
1
2
3
4
(Show Card T)
Many things are desirable, but not all of them are essential characteristics of democracy.
Please tell me for
each of the following things how essential you think it is as a characteristic of
democracy. Use this scale
where 1 means "not at all an essential characteristic of democracy" and 10 means it
definitely is "an
essential characteristic of democracy" (read out and code one answer for each):
Not an essential An essential
characteristic characteristic
of democracy of democracy
V131. Governments tax the rich and subsidize the poor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
V132. Religious authorities ultimately interpret the laws. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
V133. People choose their leaders in free elections. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
V134. People receive state aid for unemployment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
V135. The army takes over when government is incompetent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
V136. Civil rights protect people from state oppression. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
V137. The state makes people's incomes equal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
V138. People obey their rulers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
V139 Women have the same rights as men.
Good analysis of the reasons the left has declined. I do not see them changing course, but
rather doubling down. In Spain, Podemos wants to have universal basic income (or something
close to it) AND open borders
For a generation, acceptance of the neoliberal doctrine "there is no alternative" has
paralyzed politics in the West. If there is no alternative, what is politics to be
about?
What is politics to be about? Why, tranny bathrooms, of course!
Not being any kind of an economist and in general mistrusting economy as a wannabe science, I
would just take a compass, find the economic center point of EU and draw a circle. Whatever
is far from the center will face problems because in unification the center develops faster
than the outskirts. The traditional solution to this dilemma is to have borders (no
unification) since borders create a micro-economy that can function in its limits (better
than outskirts of an unified economy) just like animal species can survive if there are
natural barriers but removing them many species die out. Another alternative is to pack your
bags and move closer to the center.
I agree with much of this. But a quibble when you say that the EU was created out of a desire
to remove the evil of nationalism and create peace. That's the lipstick on the pig. The EU
was and is entirely devoted to boosting the profits of the super-rich, and putting big
finance in charge. The push against nationalism has nothing to do with peace, and only
because nationalism will tend to fight against the strip-mining of a society for profit. And
massive immigration was never a moral issue, neither today nor in the America of a century
ago. It was all about cheap labor and the massive profits that flow therefrom. Even with all
those resources, mass immigration in the United States at the end of the 19th and beginning
of the 20th centuries, created crushing poverty and a massive spike in crime. It was only
after the borders had been closed, after the shock of the Wall Street crash in 1929 (no, NOT
1924), and there was an immigration time-out, that America developed its prosperous middle
class. Which hurt profits for the rich, which is why it is being rolled back
LOL. Yes, there's a wedge issue a thinking man can sink his teeth into.
SCOTUS just reignited another one by surprisingly getting a case right, 7-2, in finding
for religious liberty and the baker who didn't want to do a wedding cake for poofters. I seem
to recall Tucker Carlson feeling the wrath and fury of all MSM for daring to suggest that the
baker had a legitimate constitutional issue.
Breyer and Kagan voted with the Republican/goy majority. Kagan, of course, regularly gets
offered up as the embodiment of in-your-face liberal-feminist-Jewish rule, but the couple of
opinions I've read by her suggested a pretty good legal mind, possibly tempered by some
common sense.
In any case, yes, identity politics provide the MSM with all the wedge issue substance
needed for the American public discourse. Europe, however, may have some remaining
expectations of adult content.
These "problems" are 100% within the context of the neoliberal consensus. The idea that we
have to have 2-3% annual growth – forever – or the world will somehow be
devastatingly awful is not a very sound foundation for a Good life.
That fiscal discipline you speak of is a significant factor in Italy's lack of growth.
Furthermore, it was designed and implemented for precisely that reason.
Their (Italy's) problem is lack of growth, which in turn is rooted in supply-side
factors
That is a fallacy that lies at the heart of the current European crisis. (I agree with the
other things you wrote.). It is not the 'supply', but lacking demand that is constraining
growth. All supply and higher productivity solutions are based on more 'flexible' labor,
removal of barriers, including borders, more 'competition' in everything. That translates in
practise into working more for less .
It had worked initially in the 70′s to 90′s when the entrenched inefficiency
was the main issue. It hasn't worked in the last 10-15 years. Suggesting more 'supply and
higher productivity' reforms simply means doubling down on policies that are failing. What is
needed is a huge shift in the labor markets toward more demand for workers so they can
improve their work lives, raise incomes, create more economic security. What Europe (and
West in general) need is a very tight labor market. By all means, cut and simplify taxes,
abandon austerity, promote some inflation, but the main reform that is needed is to restrict
outside labor migration and simultaneously restrict outflow of work. That is explicitly anti
neo-liberalism, it is also at the heart of the populist appeal.
Left has completely lost its way with its inability to distinguish between its local
voters and the feel-good charity towards the rest of the world. They are in effect being used
by the most anti-left business interests to keep labor as cheap as possible. Power to
negotiate doesn't come from institutions – it comes from having a strong hand in the
labor demand-supply equation.
Given the left collapse, the future is with the nationalist political forces. Trump
understands it, so does Salvini, La Pen, Orban, The names might change, but unless democracy
is completely abolished the 'selfish', restrict cheap labor politicians will eventually
prevail.
Please help me understand the implications of your comment.
Are you implying support for government debt fuelled expenditures as in Greece before the
GFC – or Argentina time and again?
Are you really saying the EU's (?EZ's) fiscal discipline rules were designed so that Italy
(and maybe some and what other country?) would have lower growth in economic activity? If so
why? And designed and intended by what persons?
Lot of people still think Keynes is wrong because its used as an excuse to tax and spend.
He wasn't wrong about the fact that fiance matters. Neither was Kalecki and neither was
Irving Fischer wrong that fiance matters after figuring out his disastrous mistake. Even
Thomas Mun understood money needs to circulate. Seems like Europe thinks the idea's of the
Spanish empire are best. Hoard coin.
It seems to me that the issue boils down to this:
- Capitalism seeks to concentrate capital and maximize profits;
- Communism seeks to concentrate capital, albeit in a different form than capitalism and
minimize profits.
- Efficiency means low cost and/or poorly made, and competition is no longer local, its
global.
- Free trade has replace fair trade.
The economic system in place today is not sustainable. In the not so distant past,
products exported had to have an internal market, or they were considered "dumped" into the
market at artificially low prices. tariffs were imposed for dumping. Today, electronic
products, such as alarm clocks, which are made in Asia, are dumped into the American market.
The electrical systems in Asia are incompatible with the 110v 60hz system in the US.
Ice hockey equipment is made in that global ice hockey powerhouse, Mauritius, as are winter
parkas and mitts. Cars produced in Japan include models for export that would not fit on the
roads in Japan. The list of these types of productions is endless. De-regulation has produced
20th and 21st century sweatshops in areas like call-centres, which are fast becoming
off-shored.
Local and national producers have been eliminated due to ending import duties to protect
internal companies. The set up has shifted taxation on imported goods to income taxes and
business taxes.
The narrative says competition is good, and higher production means lower cost to the
consumer. That only works when the competition is on a level playing field, and I'm employed
to be able to buy what is on offer. As for consumer products, how many TVs or refrigerators
do I really need? Korea has the capacity to supply all of the world's automobiles. Over
supply is rampant.
So, who really benefits? Those who seek to concentrate the wealth, and have the capability
to transfer out of the country, the value of a smaller (economic) country's GDP, with the
push of a button. When it all collapses they'll be off on their private islands or hiding in
their bastions.
On another note, yes, Italy is occupied, but so is Germany. The current German government,
according to a 1956 Constitutional Court ruling is not the legitimate government of Germany.
The "Old" Reich i.e. Wiemar Republic is. Therefore, it is an occupation government of the
Allies.
As if we didn't understand that.
A lot of bad assumptions and conclusions in this article.
Matteo Salvini has been supported by the southerners as well as the northerners because he is
defending Italy and Italians from the Globalists and their hordes invading Italy and DiMaio
and the MS5 agree with him and gave him the Interior ministry to handle it. But he still gets
a lot of resistance from the controlled globalist press. Go Salvini!
And the problem is, that Italy lacks competitiveness on a global scale. It's a puppet-home
perspective (and zero-sum-reasoning) to argue, that German exports are the reason, that
Italin exports declined. – Look at delivery cars, for example. something now even
Italian customers by more and more in Asia (once, this was a quasi monopoly, because it was
just something everybody did, to buy Italian Vans. – Even that is eroding now. And look
at -look at what you want in Italy consumer products, industrial products,
Meanwhile, Italy's once flourishing industrial network has lost its competitive edge due
to the euro.
So – this is a complete hoax, in the end. Especially since Italy is drowned in cheap
money – except that most of it is not invested, nowadays, but used to pay – for
the pensions, for social security, for univeristies the Police
Meanwhile in rome: The local authorities tell the public, that there are "missing busses"
at RomaTransporti or however th correct name of thsi fabulous enterprise is. Story is true
though: There are at least dozens 8some say:Hundreds!) of buses, which exist only in the
paperwork
"The idea that we have to have 2-3% annual growth – forever – or the world
will somehow be devastatingly awful is not a very sound foundation for a Good life."
Growth in GDP per capita is sustainable provided excess population is disposed of, which,
historically, it always has been via conflict. A world without war and the sanctity of human
life are the ideas in opposition here.
Centrist is a focus group tested term used to hide what a Centrist actually is. Neither
Center Right nor Center Left has ANY ideology. A Centrist seeks/holds office to receive money
from rent seekers. Nothing else.
Bottom line, IMHO:
A good idea (EU) failed because power corrupts.
A bad idea (nationalism) is coming up. Won't be pretty, especially there.
As
Growth in GDP per capita is sustainable provided excess population is disposed of,
which, historically, it always has been via conflict. A world without war and the sanctity
of human life are the ideas in opposition here.
Nobody is willing, apparently, to address the real issue:
Automation, overproduction, mass of people not needed as workers/employers anymore.
The nature of (modern/future) work, DISTRIBUTION of produced good and services, organization
of such society, etc.
Nationalism is regression into known.
We need a change of a full paradigm. Pass too hard.
Looking at the mix of "people" and "leaders" I go for a decent bloodshed as the most
likely option, hopefully not within next 10 years.
Hopefully.
From what other authors say, and what seems far more reasonable, demand has collapsed
because the corporate locust is doing the same thing they are doing in America, namely
destroying the entire industrial base and leaving a wasteland of debt and unemployment. Add
to that an inability to have a monetary policy and it's game over:
Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, a former chairman of Ferrari, Fiat and Alitalia, and now a
public enemy because of his dismissal of the "Made in Italy" label, acquired both companies
and moved them to Turkey, choosing profit over quality -- and Italian jobs. Montezemolo, of
aristocratic background, is a champion of Italian neoliberalism, having founded the
influential "free market" think tank Italia Futura (Future Italy) in 2009.
"Capital osmosis" is well known fact in economic science, and it means that, inside one
limited area, profit always runs from the "lower capitally equipped" sides to higher ones.
That is the reason why countries always take the money from rich sides and give it to poorer
ones. The truth isn't that poor part of nation works less, or that is stupid or unorganized;
no, the truth is in that "osmosis".
Amid 'Russiagate' Hysteria, What Are the Facts? | The Nation
"W
hom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
That saying -- often misattributed to Euripides -- comes to mind most mornings when I pick up
The New York Times
and read the latest "Russiagate" headlines, which are frequently featured across two or three columns on the front
page above the fold. This is an almost daily reminder of the hysteria that dominates our Congress and much of our
media.
A glaring example, just one of many from recent months, arrived at my door on February 17. My outrage spiked
when I opened to the
Times
'
lead editorial
: "Stop Letting the Russians Get Away With It, Mr. Trump." I had to ask myself: "Did the
Times
' editors perform even the rudiments of due diligence before they climbed on their high horse in this
long editorial, which excoriated 'Russia' (not individual Russians) for 'interference' in the election and
demanded increased sanctions against Russia 'to protect American democracy'?"
It had never occurred to me that our admittedly dysfunctional political system is so weak, undeveloped, or
diseased that inept Internet trolls could damage it. If that is the case, we better look at a lot of other
countries as well, not just Russia!
The New York Times
, of course, is not the only offender. Its editorial attitude has been duplicated or
exaggerated by most other media outlets in the United States, electronic and print. Unless there is a mass
shooting in progress, it can be hard to find a discussion of anything else on CNN. Increasingly, both in Congress
and in our media, it has been accepted as a fact that "Russia" interfered in the 2016 election.
So what are the facts?
It is a fact that some Russians paid people to act as online trolls and bought advertisements on Facebook
during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Most of these were taken from elsewhere, and they comprised a
tiny fraction of all the advertisements purchased on Facebook during this period. This continued after the
election and included organizing a demonstration against President-elect Trump.
It is a fact that e-mails in the memory of the Democratic National Committee's computer were furnished to
Wikileaks. The US intelligence agencies that issued the January 2017 report were confident that Russians hacked
the e-mails and supplied them to Wikileaks, but offered no evidence to substantiate their claim. Even if one
accepts that Russians were the perpetrators, however, the e-mails were genuine, as the US intelligence report
certified. I have always thought that the truth was supposed to make us free, not degrade our democracy.
It is a fact that the Russian government established a sophisticated television service (RT) that purveyed
entertainment, news, and -- yes -- propaganda to foreign audiences, including those in the United States. Its
audience is several magnitudes smaller than that of Fox News. Basically, its task is to picture Russia in a
more favorable light than has been available in Western media. There has been no analysis of its effect, if
any, on voting in the United States. The January 2017 US intelligence report states at the outset, "We did not
make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election."
Nevertheless, that report has been cited repeatedly by politicians and the media as having done so.
It is a fact that many senior Russian officials (though not all, by any means) expressed a preference for
Trump's candidacy. After all, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had compared President Putin to Hitler and had
urged more active US military intervention abroad, while Trump had said it would be better to cooperate with
Russia than to treat it as an enemy. It should not require the judgment of professional analysts to understand
why many Russians would find Trump's statements more congenial than Clinton's. On a personal level, most of my
Russian friends and contacts were dubious of Trump, but all resented Clinton's Russophobic tone, as well as
statements made by Obama from 2014 onward. They considered Obama's
public comment
that "Russia doesn't make anything" a gratuitous insult (which it was), and were alarmed by
Clinton's expressed desire to provide additional military support to the "moderates" in Syria. But the average
Russian, and certainly the typical Putin administration official, understood Trump's comments as favoring
improved relations, which they definitely favored.
There is no evidence that Russian leaders thought Trump would win or that they could have a direct
influence on the outcome. This is an allegation that has not been substantiated. The January 2017 report from
the intelligence community actually states that Russian leaders, like most others, thought Clinton would be
elected.
There is no evidence that Russian activities had any tangible impact on the outcome of the election. Nobody
seems to have done even a superficial study of the effect Russian actions actually had on the vote. The
intelligence-community report, however, states explicitly that "the types of systems we observed Russian actors
targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying." Also both former FBI director James Comey and NSA
director Mike Rogers
have testified
that there is no proof Russian activities had an effect on the vote count.
There is also no evidence that there was direct coordination between the Trump campaign (hardly a
well-organized effort) and Russian officials. The indictments brought by the special prosecutor so far are
either for lying to the FBI or for offenses unrelated to the campaign such as money laundering or not
registering as a foreign agent.
So, what is the most important fact regarding the 2016 US presidential election?
The most important fact, obscured in Russiagate hysteria, is that Americans elected Trump under the terms set
forth in the Constitution. Americans created the Electoral College, which allows a candidate with a minority of
popular votes to become president. Americans were those who gerrymandered electoral districts to rig them in favor
of a given political party. The Supreme Court issued the infamous
Citizens United
decision that allows
corporate financing of candidates for political office. (Hey, money talks and exercises freedom of speech;
corporations are people!) Americans created a Senate that is anything but democratic, since it gives
disproportionate representation to states with relatively small populations. It was American senators who
established non-democratic procedures that allow minorities, even sometimes single senators, to block legislation
or confirmation of appointments.
Now, that does not mean that Trump's presidency is good for the country, just because Americans elected him. In
my opinion, the 2016 presidential and congressional elections pose an imminent danger to the republic. They have
created potential disasters that will severely try the checks and balances built into our Constitution. This is
especially true since both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republican Party, which itself represents
fewer voters than the opposition party.
I did not personally vote for Trump, but I consider the charges that Russian actions interfered in the
election, or -- for that matter -- damaged the quality of our democracy ludicrous, pathetic, and shameful.
"Ludicrous" because there is no logical reason to think that anything that the Russians did affected how people
voted. In the past, when Soviet leaders tried to influence American elections, it backfired -- as foreign
interference usually does everywhere. In 1984, Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader then, made preventing Ronald
Reagan's reelection the second-most-important task of the KGB. (The first was to detect US plans for a nuclear
strike on the Soviet Union.) Everything the Soviets did -- in painting Reagan out to be a warmonger while Andropov
refused to negotiate on nuclear weapons -- helped Reagan win 49 out of 50 states.
Support Progressive Journalism
If you like this article, please give today to help fund
The Nation
's work.
"Pathetic" because it is clear that the Democratic Party lost the election. Yes, it won the popular vote, but
presidents are not elected by popular vote. To blame someone else for one's own mistakes is a pathetic case of
self-deception.
"Shameful" because it is an evasion of responsibility. It prevents the Democrats, and those Republicans who
want responsible, fact-based government in Washington, from concentrating on practical ways to reduce the threat
the Trump presidency poses to our political values and even to our future existence. After all, Trump would not be
president if the Republican Party had not nominated him. He also is most unlikely to have won the Electoral
College if the Democrats had nominated someone -- almost anyone -- other than the candidate they chose, or if that
candidate had run a more competent campaign. I don't argue that any of this was fair, or rational, but then who is
so naive as to assume that American politics are either fair or rational?
Instead of facing the facts and coping with the current reality, the Russiagate promoters, in both the
government and the media, are diverting our attention from the real threats.
I should add "dangerous" to those three adjectives. "Dangerous" because making an enemy of Russia, the other
nuclear superpower -- yes, there are still two -- comes as close to political insanity as anything I can think of.
Denying global warming may rank up there too in the long run, but only nuclear weapons pose, by their very
existence in the quantities that are on station in Russia and the United States, an immediate threat to
mankind -- not just to the United States and Russia and not just to "civilization." The sad, frequently forgotten
fact is that, since the creation of nuclear weapons, mankind has the capacity to destroy itself and join other
extinct species.
In their first meeting, President Ronald Reagan and then General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed that "a
nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." Both believed that simple and obvious truth and their
conviction enabled them to set both countries on a course that ended the Cold War. We should think hard to
determine how and why that simple and obvious truth has been ignored of late by the governments of both countries.
"... My own hunch is that these reports may well be true. How long can the Saudis (and the Western media) conceal what has happened? ..."
"... Second, I believe the trip by our Secretary of State was in response to the incident of April 21st. My hunch is the Crown Prince was gravely wounded and later perished at a Military Hospital. ..."
"... Third, the night of the incident a twitter user named CivMilAir tracked the Royal Medevac jet leaving the airport near the gunfire and documented the airplane turning off its transponder. There was speculation concerning whether or not it was the Crown Prince that night on that thread. There was even push back from other twitter users based in Saudi Arabia. Even one demanding to know how this twitter user obtained this information. ..."
"... Fifth, the outrage at the German Government and the reports from German businesses that the door to trade has been slammed shut this past month. I attribute this to the one and only exile prince from the Royal family, Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Farhan. living in Europe. He was granted asylum by Germany. There were 3 other exiles but they have been tricked or kidnapped back to Saudi Arabia. This Prince was advocating for the removal of the Crown Prince as recently as March 23, 2018. ..."
"... Sixth, I noticed this week in the news that Crown Prince "MBS" has consolidated his control further this week by taking operational control of the construction and cyber security industries in the country. 35% of the Bin Laden group was basically stolen. I watched an interview of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after his release from detention and he was clearly shaken. He was playing a confidence game where everything would go back to normal and mention how the Bin Laden group was back working on his projects. Then this? 35% gone overnight. Cyber security crack down or internet crackdown coming in Saudi Arabia? ..."
"... Seventh, there is no way that MBS approved the recent arrest of the feminist. Not after his carefully cultured PR campaign in the United States. ..."
"... Eight, where's Waldo? ..."
"... Here is my speculation. Al-Qaeda will be the cover story. Crown Prince MBS was killed by members of the Royal Family and other powerful individuals he made enemies with in his short rule. ..."
"... The Royal family members who supported MBS are furious at Germany for the above stated reasons and lashing out in all directions. Threatening to invade Qatar if Russia provides them the S-400. I believe even President Trump's bizarre threat to put huge tariffs on German luxury automobiles because the German public doesn't want to buy crappy American cars like the Chevy Impala is his frustration over one of his essential architects on the plan to change regime's in Iran being eliminated. ..."
"... A lot of torture and indiscriminate arrest is going on at this very moment in Saudi Arabia. The family appears split and trust lost. Time will tell. ..."
"... It would appear that there's no one in charge in SA at the moment. One can now expect a period of confusion, and lots of infighting between various factions trying to assert dominance, or just survive. ..."
"... Considering MbS's policies, I think his exit is better for the Middle East. His tilt of SA policy towards the US and Israel is likely to be reversed. ..."
"... All you need to know is that Mr. Media Roadshow decided overnight to shun video cameras, and not come out for Pompeo. The guy is dead as a door knob. He made way too many enemies during the forced corporate retreat he hosted at the Ritz. ..."
"... myself , i think the attack succeed in wounding and ultimately kill the prince , otherwise why no public appearance at all ? ( if i recall , muslim have to be buried no more than 24 hours after death so that's why i assume he was wounded at first and the medical team failed to keep him alive) ..."
"... In Assad's interview with RT he pointed out that the "opposition" first attacked Syria's air defenses at the beginning of the "civil war". Hillary wanted a "no-fly zone" over Syria. All that's missing is Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... The playground version: The neocons and Netanyahu think they're playing Trump, who in turn thinks he's use them. MbS wanted to be one of the cool kids and tried to get in on the action and might have gotten himself dead in the process. ..."
Re Saudi Arabia: I have previously referred to reports regarding the death of the Saudi Crown
Prince, MbS, as a result of the AQ attack on his palace on April 21. Now, pictures are
circulating of his funeral.
There is so far no official announcement, but that means nothing.
My own hunch is that these reports may well be true. How long can the Saudis (and the
Western media) conceal what has happened?
Agree. There is also the report that he was not at the Graduation Ceremony of the King Abdul
Aziz Military College on May 19. (As Defence Minister, he would have been expected to
attend).
I have been following the story. A few things. Yes, I have seen the pictures of the funeral
and his actual corpse prepared for burial under #mbs at twitter. The pictures are not the
best. The size of the corpse and the nose and receding hairline along with the cheekbones and
body size could definitely be MBS along with the eyes.
Second, I believe the trip by our Secretary of State was in response to the incident
of April 21st. My hunch is the Crown Prince was gravely wounded and later perished at a
Military Hospital.
Third, the night of the incident a twitter user named CivMilAir tracked the Royal
Medevac jet leaving the airport near the gunfire and documented the airplane turning off its
transponder. There was speculation concerning whether or not it was the Crown Prince that
night on that thread. There was even push back from other twitter users based in Saudi
Arabia. Even one demanding to know how this twitter user obtained this information.
Fourth, the recent trip of the Lebanon Prime Minister being called to Saudi Arabia when
his schedule indicated no such trip.
Fifth, the outrage at the German Government and the reports from German businesses
that the door to trade has been slammed shut this past month. I attribute this to the one and
only exile prince from the Royal family, Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Farhan. living in Europe. He
was granted asylum by Germany. There were 3 other exiles but they have been tricked or
kidnapped back to Saudi Arabia. This Prince was advocating for the removal of the Crown
Prince as recently as March 23, 2018.
And he asserted that he receives emails and other forms of communications from disaffected
family members and the security services desiring for a change to be made.
Sixth, I noticed this week in the news that Crown Prince "MBS" has consolidated his
control further this week by taking operational control of the construction and cyber
security industries in the country. 35% of the Bin Laden group was basically stolen. I
watched an interview of Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after his release from detention and
he was clearly shaken. He was playing a confidence game where everything would go back to
normal and mention how the Bin Laden group was back working on his projects. Then this? 35%
gone overnight. Cyber security crack down or internet crackdown coming in Saudi
Arabia?
Seventh, there is no way that MBS approved the recent arrest of the feminist. Not
after his carefully cultured PR campaign in the United States.
Eight, where's Waldo?
Finally, here is what I find so fascinating. The KIng of Saudi Arabia is reported to have
dementia. Unfortunately, I have a great deal of experience with this dreadful disease. My
stepfather. 16 years. There is no King in charge of Saudi Arabia. In fact, if MBS was killed
like I believe there is no legitimate line to the next ruler. Survival of the Fittest.
Here is my speculation. Al-Qaeda will be the cover story. Crown Prince MBS was killed
by members of the Royal Family and other powerful individuals he made enemies with in his
short rule.
The Royal family members who supported MBS are furious at Germany for the above stated
reasons and lashing out in all directions. Threatening to invade Qatar if Russia provides
them the S-400. I believe even President Trump's bizarre threat to put huge tariffs on German
luxury automobiles because the German public doesn't want to buy crappy American cars like
the Chevy Impala is his frustration over one of his essential architects on the plan to
change regime's in Iran being eliminated.
A lot of torture and indiscriminate arrest is going on at this very moment in Saudi
Arabia. The family appears split and trust lost. Time will tell.
Thank you for that excellent rundown of events. I tend to agree with your "speculation".
It would appear that there's no one in charge in SA at the moment. One can now expect
a period of confusion, and lots of infighting between various factions trying to assert
dominance, or just survive.
Considering MbS's policies, I think his exit is better for the Middle East. His tilt of SA
policy towards the US and Israel is likely to be reversed.
All you need to know is that Mr. Media Roadshow decided overnight to shun video cameras,
and not come out for Pompeo. The guy is dead as a door knob. He made way too many enemies
during the forced corporate retreat he hosted at the Ritz.
This is news to me. How big do you think the resulting power struggle would be if MbS was
killed or incapacitated? I can envision outcomes that range from 2nd page news all the way up
to Archduke Ferdinand grade but I don't have any feel for the probabilities.
If true, would it cause you to see the events of the last month in the region in a
different light?
With MBS dead, how will Saudi react to MBS's previous Israel's right to exist scenario,
along with Jerusalem being declared Israel's capital and the embassy move by DT?
How much longer will the Saudi and international press be able to remain silent on
this?
Who do you think will now ascend the Saudi throne as heir apparent?
FB Ali , sir , it is so hard to get info in the AQ Attack that allegedly mortally wound MBS..
as for the shooting reported as a wayward drone , i recall this video (anyone can confirm the
skyline if this is saudi city near palace ?) , the gunfire last for long time , far too long
to be guards firing on a drone.
myself , i think the attack succeed in wounding and ultimately kill the prince ,
otherwise why no public appearance at all ? ( if i recall , muslim have to be buried no more
than 24 hours after death so that's why i assume he was wounded at first and the medical team
failed to keep him alive)
do you think this is the 'blowback' from the massive shakedown that the prince did to his
seniors ?
Has DT done a single thing that has helped Israel? I would say no. In Assad's interview
with RT he pointed out that the "opposition" first attacked Syria's air defenses at the
beginning of the "civil war". Hillary wanted a "no-fly zone" over Syria. All that's missing
is Victoria Nuland.
Your post vividly depicts how isolated Israel has become. I reiterate DT has done nothing
to help Israel and everything to harm it. One is permitted to ask what's going on.
The playground version: The neocons and Netanyahu think they're playing Trump, who in turn
thinks he's use them. MbS wanted to be one of the cool kids and tried to get in on the action
and might have gotten himself dead in the process.
All the while Putin and the SCO crew wait
and play for time as they tangle each other up into an ever larger mess of their own making
hoping to avoid, or minimize, whatever conflict is necessary to get them all to accept the
coming multi-polar world order.
Perhaps in the future when they make a movie about this period it will be called "A Deal
Too Far".
Everything is so convoluted. Sometime I have impression that I am reading depiction of the operations of
Meyer Lansky not a government agency.
Notable quotes:
"... Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a twitter thread about him last year and wrote about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines. ..."
"... So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn't do it. ..."
"... Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior). ..."
"... In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up. ..."
"... Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation. ..."
"... Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme team, despite his centrality to all of it. ..."
"... Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct 21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application. ..."
"... Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly invisible – still in position. ..."
"... With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities. ..."
"... Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki quit, Priestap went back to work. ..."
FBI Counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, will sit down for a closed-door session with lawmakers on Tuesday, according to
John Solomon of The Hill .
Priestap will be answering questions about the Hillary Clinton email case as well as the counterintelligence operation on the
Trump campaign - both of which he oversaw . Priestap was the direct supervisor of Peter Strzok - the FBI agent whose anti-Trump /
pro-Clinton bias was revealed after 50,000 text messages to his FBI-attorney mistress, Lisa Page, were discovered by the DOJ's Inspector
General, Michael Horowitz.
All accounts say that Priestap is a cooperating witness . In other words, if there's one person who can confirm that the FBI counterintelligence
operation on the Trump campaign was politically motivated - or that malfeasance occurred during the process, it's Bill Priestap.
Note how excited Solomon looks breaking the news of Priestap's testimony...
Solomon: "I think tomorrow is going to be a pivotal day. I think Congress is going to learn a lot of new information tomorrow
during these interviews."
Dobbs: He is going to be speaking candidly about his employer, the FBI, and those who were running the agency during that period.
Solomon: He was very high up. Had a bird's-eye view of everything that went on in both of these investigations.
While the session will be closed-door, we imagine leaks will be forthcoming as seems to be standard operating procedure these
days.
Just who is Bill Priestap really?
The Conservative Treehouse presented an in-depth analysis in February. We recommend reading this before deciding on what size
popcorn to buy:
***
The game is over. The jig is up. Victory is certain... the trench was ignited... the enemy funneled themselves into the valley...
all bait was taken everything from here on out is simply mopping up the details. All suspicions confirmed.
Why has Devin Nunes been so confident? Why did all GOP HPSCI members happily allow the Democrats to create a 10-page narrative?
All questions are answered.
Fughettaboudit.
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence member
Chris Stewart appeared on Fox News with
Judge Jeanine Pirro, and didn't want to "make news" or spill the beans, but the unstated, between-the-lines, discussion was as subtle
as a brick through a window. Judge Jeannie has been on the cusp of this for a few weeks.
Listen carefully around 2:30 , Judge Jeanine hits the bulls-eye; and listen to how Chris Stewart talks about not wanting to make
news and is unsure what he can say on this...
...Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian
Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a
twitter thread about him last year and wrote
about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines.
E.W. "Bill" Priestap is the head of the FBI Counterintelligence operation. He was FBI Agent Peter Strozk's direct boss. If anyone
in congress really wanted to know if the FBI paid for the Christopher Steele Dossier, Bill Priestap is the guy who would know everything
about everything.
FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap was the immediate supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy
Peter Strzok.
Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.
The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation began in July 2016. Bill Priestap
would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI counterintelligence operations. FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically
in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn't (according
to structure anyway) make a move without Priestap approval.
On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight
about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because
the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.* I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important
detail . Again, notice how Comey doesn't use Priestap's actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]
FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn't anticipate
it.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence "Gang of Eight" of any counterintelligence
operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began,
oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight: Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want
to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent
Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an "insurance policy".
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory
oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently,
according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation
simply by recommending he doesn't do it.
Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility
in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began
in July 2016. (9 months prior).
At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see
FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance
operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.
In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the
same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.
Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why
should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the
operation.
Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme
team, despite his centrality to all of it.
Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill
Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct
21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian
Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.
Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation just doesn't happen. Heck,
James Comey's own March 20th testimony in that regard is concrete evidence of Priestap's importance. Everyone around Bill Priestap, above and below, were caught inside the investigative net.
Above him: James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
Below him: Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Jim Rybicki, Trisha Beth Anderson and Mike Kortan.
Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted
twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly
invisible – still in position.
The reason was obvious. Likely Bill Priestap made the decision after James Comey's testimony on March 20th, 2017, when he realized what was coming. Priestap
is well-off financially; he has too much to lose. He and his wife, Sabina Menschel, live a comfortable life in a $3.8 million DC
home; she comes from a family of money.
While ideologically Bill and Sabina are aligned with Clinton support, and their circle of family and friends likely lean toward
more liberal friends; no-one in his position would willingly allow themselves to be the scape-goat for the unlawful action that was
happening around them. Bill Priestap had too much to lose and for what? With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability
with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities.
Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki
quit, Priestap went back to work.
Bill Priestap remains the Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence operations.
It's over.
I don't want to see this guy, or his family, compromised. This is probably the last I am ever going to write about him unless
it's in the media bloodstream. I can't fathom the gauntlet of hatred and threats he is likely to face from the media and his former
political social network if they recognize what's going on. BP is Deep-Throat x infinity nuf said.
The rest of this entire enterprise is just joyfully dragging out the timing of the investigative releases in order to inflict
maximum political pain upon the party of those who will attempt to excuse the inexcusable.
Putin & Moscow denounce Iran for anti-Israeli activity From retired Indian Ambassador M
K Bhadrakumar,
'Russia Censures Iran' :
Close ties between Russia and Israel are sailing into full view it all does seem a cosy
condominium between Putin and Netanyahu Extraordinary statements for an establishment think
tank known to be close to the Kremlin:
The commentary contextualised Putin's recent call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces
from Syrian soil. It openly rapped the Iranians on the knuckle: "Iran's operations in Syria
go far beyond fighting terrorists and are hardly welcomed by anyone within the region and
beyond. This heightens tensions in Israel's relations with its bitter rivals Serving as a
platform for fighting the 'Zionist' enemy is something Syria needs the least."
Key elements [according to the Kremlin-tied think tank]:
a) Russia holds Iran as responsible for ratcheting up tensions with Israel;
b) Russia thoroughly disapproves of Syria being turned into a turf for Iran's policy of
'Resistance' against Israel; and,
c) Moscow expects the Assad regime to distance itself from Iran's anti-Israeli
activities.
The most valuable part is the comments. They, while biased, given a very good overview of the complexity of the issues and the
US political system and political clans that seen power within it.
I think more powerful interests the Israel were involved. Israel would never do this on their own. Now more then 50 years after JFK assassination I have suspicion that probably this murder will never be solved
although several plausible hypothesis were already establish (the role on LBJ and CIA, especially Angleton, are two
most prominent). The theory tht Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin theory is discredited, but there is no consensus about what
should replace it other then consensus that CIA played an important role and there was understand that LBJ will cover this up.
A really interesting quote from comments: " I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assassination attempt
on JFK within which the actual assassination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were looking the
other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up.
Notable quotes:
"... In March 1964, he had a face-to-face conversation with mobster Jimmy Hoffa, his sworn enemy, whom he had battled for ten years ..."
"... Robert also asked his friend Daniel Moynihan to search for any complicity in the Secret Service, responsible for the President's security ..."
"... And of course, Robert suspected Johnson, whom he had always mistrusted, as Jeff Shesol documents in Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade (1997). ..."
"... Robert also contacted a former MI6 officer who had been a friend of his family when his father was Ambassador in London. This British retired officer in turn contacted some trusted friends in France, and arrangements were made for two French Intelligence operatives to conduct, over a three-year period, a quiet investigation that involved hundreds of interviews in the United States. Their report, replete with innuendo about Lyndon Johnson and right-wing Texas oil barons, was delivered to Bobby Kennedy only months before his own assassination in June of 1968. ..."
"... "President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared. [ ] the plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a 'madman' and negligence." ..."
"... Garrison was allowed to view Abraham Zapruder's amateur film, confiscated by the FBI on the day of the assassination. This film, despite evident tampering, shows that the fatal shot came from the "grassy knoll" well in front of the President, not from the School Book Depository located behind him, where Oswald was supposed to be shooting from. ..."
"... He refrained from openly supporting Garrison, believing that since the outcome of the investigation was uncertain, it could jeopardize his plans to reopen the case later, and even weaken his chances of election by construing his motivation as a family feud. ..."
"... In conclusion, there can be little doubt that, had he been elected president, Robert Kennedy would have done everything possible to reopen the case of his brother's assassination, in one way or another. This fact certainly did not escape John's murderers. They had no other option but to stop him. This first conclusion is a sufficient reason to conduct a comparative analysis of both Kennedy assassinations, in search of some converging clues that might lead us to the trail of a common mastermind. We begin with Robert's assassination. ..."
"... Even if we assume that Sirhan did kill Robert Kennedy, a second aspect of the case raises question: according to several witnesses, Sirhan seemed to be in a state of trance during the shooting. ..."
"... In 2008, Harvard University professor Daniel Brown, a noted expert in hypnosis and trauma memory loss, interviewed Sirhan for a total of 60 hours, and concluded that Sirhan, whom he classifies in the category of "high hypnotizables," acted unvoluntarily under the effect of hypnotic suggestion: "His firing of the gun was neither under his voluntary control, nor done with conscious knowledge, but is likely a product of automatic hypnotic behavior and coercive control." [17] Jacqui Goddard, "Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later," The Telegraph, December 3, 2011, on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/ ..."
"... We know that in the 1960s, American military agencies were experimenting on mental control. Dr Sidney Gottlieb, son of Hungarian Jews, directed the infamous CIA MKUltra project, which, among other things, were to answer questions such as: "Can a person under hypnosis be forced to commit murder?" according to a declassified document dated May 1951. [18] Colin Ross, Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists , Manitou Communications, 2000,summary on www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg ..."
"... hypnotize him into becoming ..."
"... programmed killer" ..."
"... If Sirhan was hypnotically programmed, the question is: Who had some interest in having a visceral anti-Zionist Palestinian blamed for the killing of Robert Kennedy? Israel, of course. But then, we are faced with a dilemma, for why would Israel want to kill Robert Kennedy if Robert Kennedy was supportive of Israel, as the mainstream narrative goes? ..."
"... Robert had not been, in his brother's government, a particularly pro-Israel Attorney General: He had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an investigation led by Senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would had considerably hindered its efficiency (after 1963, the AZD escaped this procedure by changing its status and renaming itself AIPAC) [21] The Israel Lobby Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/ . ..."
"... Robert Kennedy's death had not been a bad thing for the precious "American-Israeli relationship." Rather, it was a great loss for the Arab world, where Bobby was mourned just as had his brother John before him. ..."
"... But there is plenty of evidence that Angleton, who was also the head of the CIA "Israel Office," was a Mossad mole. According to his biographer Tom Mangold, "Angleton's closest professional friends overseas [ ] came from the Mossad and [ ] he was held in immense esteem by his Israeli colleagues and by the state of Israel, which was to award him profound honors after his death." [24] Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA's Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 318. No less that two monuments were dedicated to him at memorial services in Israel during ceremonies attended by chiefs of Israeli Intelligence and even a future Prime Minister. [25] Michael Howard Holzman, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of COunterintelligence, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008, p. 153. ..."
"... Oswald's assassin is known as Jack Ruby, but few people know that his real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, and that he was the son of Jewish Polish immigrants. Ruby was a member of the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had known and admired since 1946. ..."
"... there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after Oswald's arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the underworld. ..."
"... a single bullet supposed to have caused seven wounds to Kennedy and John Connally sitting before him in the limousine, and later found in pristine condition on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. ..."
"... Five months later, Kennedy's death relieved Israel of all pressure (diplomatic or otherwise) to stop its nuclear program. Faced with Johnson's complete lack of interest in that issue, John McCone resigned from the CIA in 1965, declaring: "When I cannot get the President to read my reports, then it's time to go." ..."
"... Kennedy's determination to stop Israel's Dimona project was only part of the "Kennedy problem". During his first months in the White House, Kennedy committed himself by letters to Nasser and other Arab heads of State to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Ben-Gurion reacted with a letter to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, intended to be circulated among Jewish American leaders, in which he stated: ..."
"... "Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and Kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser's missiles and his Soviet MIGs. [ ] Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.'" [43] Quoted in George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present , W.W. Norton & Co., 1992, p. 51. ..."
"... After Kennedy's death, American foreign policy was reversed again, without the American public being aware of it. Johnson cut the economic aid to Egypt, and increased the military aid to Israel, which reached 92 million dollars in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined. ..."
"... Several investigators have identified Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's vice-president, as the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination. It is, at least, beyond doubt that the plotters acted with the foreknowledge that Johnson, who automatically stepped in as head of State after Kennedy's death, would cover them. ..."
"... Johnson's privileged control over the Navy is an important aspect of the case because the Navy was critical in the setting up and in the cover-up of the plot. ..."
"... Lee Harvey Oswald had been recruited by the Navy and not by the CIA. He was a Marine, and as a Marine he had worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). ..."
"... at the Naval Hospital in Washington, under the control of Navy officers, that Kennedy's autopsy was performed, after his body had been literally stolen at gunpoint from Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The report of this autopsy stated that the fatal bullet had entered the back of Kennedy's skull, which contradicted the testimonies of twenty-one members of the Dallas hospital staff who saw two entry bullet-wounds on the front of Kennedy's body. This was critical because Oswald was presumably shooting from behind Kennedy, and could not possibly have caused these bullet wounds. ..."
"... It is noteworthy that Johnson had actually taken advantage of his connections in the Navy to participate in the greatest corruption case ever recorded at that time. His accomplice Fred Korth was forced to resign as Navy Secretary in November 1963, only weeks before the Dallas coup, after the Justice Department headed by Robert Kennedy had implicated him in a fraud involving a $7 billion contract for the construction of 1,700 TFX military aircraft by General Dynamics, a Texan company. Johnson's personal secretary, Bobby Baker, was charged in the same case. ..."
"... Because of this mounting scandal and other suspicions of corruption, Kennedy was determined to change Vice-President for his upcoming reelection campaign. ..."
"... President's visit, Nixon publicized the rumor of Johnson's removal, and the Dallas Morning News was reporting on November 22 nd : "Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson." Instead, Johnson became president that very day. ..."
"... According to his biographer Robert Caro, Johnson was a man thirsting "for power in its most naked form, for power not to improve the lives of others, but to manipulate and dominate them, to bend them to his will." ..."
"... Jack Ruby, whom Nixon identified a one of "Johnson's boys," according to former Nixon operative Roger Stone ..."
"... He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith," but added that "maybe something can be saved [ ], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me." [49] Read Ruby's deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm With such words, Ruby seems to be trying to send a message to Johnson through the Commission, or rather a warning that he might spill the beans about Israel's involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor. We get the impression that Ruby expected Johnson to pardon him. ..."
"... It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger ( A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House, 1965), that the two men who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, were Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher and columnist of the Washington Post , and strong supporters of Israel. ..."
"... Thanks to JFK's death, Israel was also able to carry out its plan to annex Palestinian territories beyond the boundaries imposed by the United Nations Partition plan. By leaning on Pentagon and CIA hawks, Johnson intensified the Cold War and created the climate of tension which Israel needed in order to demonize Egyptian president Nasser and reinforce its own stature as indispensable ally in the Middle East. ..."
"... During the Six Day War of 1967, Israel managed to triple its territory, while creating the illusion of acting in legitimate defense. The lie could not deceive American Intelligence agencies, but Johnson had given a green light to Israel's attack, and even authorized James Angleton of the CIA to give Israel the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases, which enabled Israel to destroy them in just a few hours. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Johnson, from the White House, intervened personally to prohibit the nearby Sixth Fleet from rescuing the USS Liberty after the crew, despite the initial destruction of its transmitters, had managed to send off an SOS. ..."
"... The USS Liberty affair was suppressed by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II, Commander-in-Chief of US Naval Forces in Europe (and Father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). Johnson accepted Israel's spurious "targeting error" explanation. In January 1968 he invited the Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, to Washington, and warmly welcomed him to his Texas ranch. What's more, Johnson rewarded Israel by lifting the embargo on offensive military equipment: US-made tanks and aircraft immediately flowed to Tel Aviv. ..."
"... Let's now conclude our overview of the evidence: beside the fact that John and Robert were brothers, their assassinations have at least two things in common: Lyndon Johnson and Israel. ..."
"... Laurent Guyénot is the author of JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State , Progressive Press, 2014 , and From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land Clash of Civilizations , 2018. ($30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556). ..."
"... With my limited studies on the JFK murder I came to the same conclusion: Piper was essentially correct, but you fill up the case of Robert Kennedy in a convincing way. Maybe Meyer Lansky could be mentioned, he probably had some role. But the issue was the bomb. ..."
"... I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assassination attempt on JFK within which the actual assassination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were looking the other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up. ..."
"... Israel was created by the British oligarchs as a bridgehead in the Middle East. Furthering Israel was/is furthering the interests of those oligarchs (who ran the British Empire which morphed to the Anglo-American Empire). JFK was critical of Israel. If someone killed him, it the Anglo-American deep state. Israel likely pulled the trigger. Let's remember what the fake father of Modern Zionism who admired Cecil Rhodes, Theodor Herl said: "England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence." ..."
"... In spite of the mendacious narrative regurgitated in the West about the war of 1967, it was Israel who planned and attacked its neighbors. The seizing of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza were objectives Israel couldn't achieve in 1948 and deterring Nasser, an objective failed in 1956. The only problem Israel had was: would another US President intervene. Norman Finkelstein, who's research on 1967 is to date unchallenged successfully, showed that Israel sent diplomats to Washington ..."
"... Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel. Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no. ..."
"... Did Israel kill the Kennedys? It is entirely possible. In fact, any conspiracy theory that links the murders that does not see the Israelis and American Jews involved is almost certainly a waste of time. But here is what is essential: if Israel and/or American Jews 'did it,' you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's WASP Deep State was behind it all. ..."
"... This article is simply bizarre. If the CIA didn't do it why is it still sanitizing the files 55 years later? ..."
"... LBJ's negotiation with Warren is a matter of historical record. He told Warren that if he didn't stick with the official bullshit story, Cuba's responsibility would lead to war entailing nuclear war with Russia. ..."
"... John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora Jews. They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis on issues of race and sex. ..."
"... They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans. ..."
"... In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously, Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced, Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite, almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe – far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly distributed among the various ethnicities ..."
"... I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy. ..."
"... Here's Mathilde Krim with a soirée of Fine Folks to include LBJ & Lady Bird. She certainly made the rounds. Definitely an Intelligence Operative considering her prodigious network of contacts ..."
"... Not Israel exactly but the banker clans that created Israel with US wealth and still own monopolies in banking, media, and drugs legal and illegal. Kennedy was put in office because they thought he was just a skirt chasing son of a bootlegger that would not interfere with the Globalist agenda. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Then he starts talking about "secret societies" and backing off the constant war agenda. And he fostered a trusting relationship with Russia, trying to really be president. He is the last one to try that. ..."
"... I recently bought a book about Lansky's Havana operations from Cuba. Before the revolution by Castro Lansky run the crime empire there. It is also written of his connections to Israel, which you can check even from Wikipedia. We all get our information from books and documents. This book was rather OK concerning facts. Lansky lost a lot when Castro came to power. In 1963 Lansky had a very good reason to want the USA to attack Cuba to gain his empire. Besides, he run the USA organized crime at that time and had reasons not to like Kennedys actions against organized crime. ..."
"... Behind the JFK and RFK assassinations is the Allen Dulles gang: Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, and James Jesus Angleton. ..."
"... Oswald was a CIA asset since his time as Marine serving at the US Atsugi base in Japan. Researcher HP Albarelli connects Oswald to right-wing Agency operative and pedophile David Ferrie as far back as the early 1950s. Oswald was also part of Angleton's false defector program, which inserted him into the USSR in the late 1950s. ..."
"... The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys -- which on any objective reading they clearly were not -- is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. ..."
"... Garbage. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. He didn't try to kill Walker. ..."
"... The most likely scenario is of course that the assassinations met the needs of not only Israel/Mossad, but of the U.S. oligarchs/Wall Street, European oligarchs, and the U.S. deep state forces of the CIA/Pentagon. It isn't an "either/or" with the Mossad vs the CIA as to who is the culprit, but rather that everyone benefited by these assassinations. From the U.S. Joint Chiefs who wanted to end JFK's efforts to stop the Cold War, to Mossad who wanted carte blanche Israeli power in the Middle East AND the bomb, to the CIA which most definitely did not want to be "splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds" – you have a set of powerful interests that converge and all benefit by these deaths. ..."
"... The whole debate of whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog misses the point that the very creation of Israel was all about helping the Western colonial powers maintain neo-colonial power in the Middle East as their former colonies were being liberated post-WWII. ..."
"... all these parties not only benefited, but also knew each other's secrets and operated in coordination to make these events happen, and to sew intrigue and endless questions in their wake. ..."
"... the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed. This fits the scenario which I also believe for 9/11. http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html And I liked Janney's book. ..."
"... Next we have to look what changed in the US policy after the successful assassination, since it had to have some goal. The USA did not attack Cuba, so that was not the goal. The USA forgot Israel's nuclear bomb project, so that was the goal. (Go through the other alternatives and discard.) ..."
"... Because local Jews & pro-Israel bunch are not equivalent to "deep state". It is true that Zionist Jews are now more influential than ever, but they do not "own" US nor direct most currents of US policy. Being 2% of US population, Jews are perhaps 20-25% among American elites (which, evidently, is not the majority), and most of them are liberals who are not involved in shaping of American middle east politics. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld . were/are American imperialists, and not some Jewish puppets. ..."
"... It is bizarre to consider that Israelis would even think of, let alone try to execute US president, just because he gave them slap on the wrist at some point. ..."
"... And, in 1963, Zionist Jews (and all US Jews) were much less influential then today, after 5 decades that have, beginning with counter-cultural 60s, multiculturalism & Vietnam war, transformed US beyond recognition. Back in 50s/early 60s they had just wanted to assimilate into society as quickly as possible & minimize traces of their ethnic identity, while Israel was a schnorrer, beggar economy trying to survive & keep a low profile. ..."
"... That Golda Meir or Ben Gurion would even contemplate anything similar is simply weird: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-golda-meir-had-doubts-on-kennedy-death-1.5292291 ..."
"... According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined "acquisition" by Israel as either (a) a detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent's primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause 'substantial damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world. ..."
"... Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America's interests – not Israel's interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy. ..."
"... Here's just one example of the CIA trying to clean out the jewish Israeli agents at the CIA. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/355/661/500422/ ..."
"... JFK was killed by somebody. This somebody had power to modify Audiograph data in 1970ies. This data was available to CIA, FBI and the Warren Commission members, maybe also to others. CIA had dealings with mafia concerning assassination of Castro. The mafia that had been in Havana was Lansky's mafia. Thus, CIA had dealings with Lansky's gangsters. Dulles, LBJ and Angleton did not like JFK's policies, especially towards Israel. Israel was weak at that time, but had friends in the US, like Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Dulles. Together these might have pulled the assassination, but even together they could not make the coverup by media. There had to be media and the US media has a tendency to silence one topic only. No President can control the media, the CIA can influence, but not control, mafia cannot control media. Only one power can do it and does it. ..."
"... [It's not good commenting policy to produce a continuing series of lengthy totally unsourced excerpts, spread over series of different comments, which makes it difficult for others to avoid them. They have now been consolidated, but you should stop this sort of bad behavior.] ..."
"... In case of JFK it is pretty obvious that Israel was the greatest beneficiary of his death because of JFK determination to stop Israel's nuclear program. Some correspondence of JFK with PM's of Israel is available on line. Israel defense doctrine was formulate to be based on what later was called Samson Option. In 1963 Israel still cooperated with France on its secret nuclear program. ..."
"... JFK definitively was set on stopping Israel nuclear program which Israel was conducting in secret cooperation with France. After strong letter on May 18, 163 letter PM Ben Gurion preferred to resign than to answer the letter ..."
"... During that same 1962-63 period Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council (AZC). The Committee uncovered evidence that the Jewish Agency, a predecessor to the state of Israel, operated a massive network of financial "conduits" which funnelled funds to U.S. Israel lobby groups. As a result, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) ordered the AZC to openly register and disclose all of its foreign funded lobbying activity in the United States. The attempt was subsequently thwarted first by the Israel lobby itself and then by the death of President Kennedy which lead to growing concerns regarding the impact of the ever-growing Zionist influence on U.S. policy making decisions. On April 15, 1973, Fulbright -- who lost his Senate seat the following year -- had no qualms about boldly announcing on CBS Face the Nation that : "Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. -- somewhere around 80% -- is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our government." ..."
"... While it is quite plausible that the Zionist entity and the CIA regime have congruent criminal interests, this is not what Guyanot theorizes. He imagines a CIA that sets up all the preconditions for a coup, without actually meaning to go through with it, and a foreign devil that unexpectedly takes it all and runs with it. That's idiotic. It also happens to be CIA's boilerplate excuse for all their grave crimes. There's nothing new up there. What's worse, it's plagiarized from Langley fops and jarheads. It's not just stupid, but stupid in a telltale way. ..."
As Lance deHaven-Smith has remarked in Conspiracy Theory in America:
"It is seldom considered that the Kennedy assassinations might have been serial murders. In fact, in speaking about the murders,
Americans rarely use the plural, 'Kennedy assassinations'. [ ] Clearly, this quirk in the Kennedy assassination(s) lexicon reflects
an unconscious effort by journalists, politicians, and millions of ordinary Americans to avoid thinking about the two assassinations
together, despite the fact that the victims are connected in countless ways."
[1] Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy
Theory in America , University of Texas Press, 2013,kindle 284-292.
John and Robert were bound by an unshakable loyalty. Kennedy biographers have stressed the absolute dedication of Robert to his
elder brother. Robert had successfully managed John's campaign for the Senate in 1952, then his presidential campaign in 1960. John
made him not only his Attorney General, but also his most trusted adviser, even on matters of Foreign or Military affairs. What John
appreciated most in Robert was his sense of justice and the rectitude of his moral judgment. It is Robert, for example, who encouraged
John to fully endorse the cause of the Blacks' civil rights movement
[2] John Lewis' testimony is in the
PBS documentary American Experience Robert F. Kennedy. .
Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated?
Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. Basic common sense suggests that the Kennedy brothers have been
killed by the same force, and for the same motives. It is, at least, a logical working hypothesis that Robert was eliminated from
the presidential race because he had to be prevented from reaching a position where he could reopen the case of his brother's death.
Both his loyalty to his brother's memory, and his obsession with justice, made it predictable that, if he reached the White House,
he would do just that. But was there, in 1968, any clear indication that he would?
The question has been positively answered by David Talbot in his book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years
, published in 2007 by Simon & Schuster. Robert had never believed in the Warren Report's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the
sole assassin of his brother. Knowing too well what to expect from Johnson, he had refused to testify before the Warren Commission.
When its report came out, he had no choice but to publicly endorse it, but "privately he was dismissive of it," as his son Robert
Kennedy, Jr. remembers [3] Associated
Press, "RFK children speak about JFK assassination," January 12, 2013, on www.usatoday.com . To close friends who wondered why
he wouldn't voice his doubt, he said: "there's nothing I can do about it. Not now."[4] David Talbot, Brothers: The
Hidden History of the Kennedy Years , Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 278-280, 305.
From 22 November 1963, Robert was alienated and monitored by Johnson and Hoover. Although still Attorney General, he knew he was
powerless against the forces that had killed his brother. Yet he lost no time beginning his own investigation; he first asked CIA
director John McCone, a Kennedy friend, to find out if the Agency had anything to do with the plot, and came out convinced that it
hadn't. In March 1964, he had a face-to-face conversation with mobster Jimmy Hoffa, his sworn enemy, whom he had battled for
ten years, and whom he suspected of having taken revenge on his brother. Robert also asked his friend Daniel Moynihan to
search for any complicity in the Secret Service, responsible for the President's security[5] David Talbot, Brothers, op.
cit. , 2007, p. 21-22. . And of course, Robert suspected Johnson, whom he had always mistrusted, as Jeff Shesol documents
in Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade (1997).
In fact, a mere week after JFK's death, November 29, 1963, Bill Walton, a friend of the Kennedys, travelled to Moscow and passed
to Nikita Khrushchev, via a trusted agent who had already carried secret communications between Khrushchev and John Kennedy, a message
from Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy; according to the memo found in the Soviet archives in the 90s by Alexandr Fursenko and Timothy
Naftali ( One Hell of a Gamble , 1998), Robert and Jackie wanted to inform the Soviet Premier that they believed John Kennedy
had been "the victim of a right-wing conspiracy," and that "the cooling that might occur in U.S.-Soviet relations because
of Johnson would not last forever."[6] David Talbot, Brothers, op.
cit., p. 25-7.
ORDER IT NOW
Robert also contacted a former MI6 officer who had been a friend of his family when his father was Ambassador in London. This
British retired officer in turn contacted some trusted friends in France, and arrangements were made for two French Intelligence
operatives to conduct, over a three-year period, a quiet investigation that involved hundreds of interviews in the United States.
Their report, replete with innuendo about Lyndon Johnson and right-wing Texas oil barons, was delivered to Bobby Kennedy only months
before his own assassination in June of 1968. After Bobby's death, the last surviving brother, Senator Ted Kennedy, showed no
interest in the material. The investigators then hired a French writer by the name of Hervé Lamarr to fashion the material into a
book, under the pseudonym of James Hepburn. The book was first published in French under the title L'Amérique brûle, and was
translated under the title Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK . Its conclusion is worth quoting:
"President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake
mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared. [ ] the plotters were correct when they guessed
that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a 'madman' and negligence."
[7] James Hepburn, Farewell
America: The Plot to Kill JFK, Penmarin Books, 2002, p. 269.
Robert had planned to run for the American Presidency in 1972, but the escalation of the Vietnam War precipitated his decision
to run in 1968. Another factor may have been the opening of the investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in 1967.
Garrison was allowed to view Abraham Zapruder's amateur film, confiscated by the FBI on the day of the assassination. This film,
despite evident tampering, shows that the fatal shot came from the "grassy knoll" well in front of the President, not from the School
Book Depository located behind him, where Oswald was supposed to be shooting from.
When talk of the investigation began, Kennedy asked one of his closest advisors, Frank Mankievitch, to follow its developments,
"so if it gets to a point where I can do something about this, you can tell me what I need to know." He confided to his friend
William Attwood, then editor of Look magazine, that he, like Garrison, suspected a conspiracy, "but I can't do anything
until we get control of the White House."[8] David Talbot, Brothers, op.
cit., p. 312-314.He refrained from openly supporting Garrison, believing that since the outcome of the investigation
was uncertain, it could jeopardize his plans to reopen the case later, and even weaken his chances of election by construing his
motivation as a family feud.
In conclusion, there can be little doubt that, had he been elected president, Robert Kennedy would have done everything possible
to reopen the case of his brother's assassination, in one way or another. This fact certainly did not escape John's murderers. They
had no other option but to stop him. This first conclusion is a sufficient reason to conduct a comparative analysis of both Kennedy
assassinations, in search of some converging clues that might lead us to the trail of a common mastermind. We begin with Robert's
assassination.
Just hours after Robert's assassination, the press was able to inform the American people, not only of the identity of the assassin,
but also of his motive, and even of his detailed biography.
[9] Extract of TV news in the documentary
film Evidence of Revision: Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before , 01:11:42 Twenty-four-year-old Sirhan Bishara
Sirhan was born in Jordania, and had moved to the United States when his family was expelled from West Jerusalem in 1948. After the
shooting, a newspaper clipping was found in Sirhan's pocket, quoting favorable comments made by Robert regarding Israel and, in particular,
what sounded like an electoral commitment: "The United States should without delay sell Israel the 50 Phantom jets she has so
long been promised." Handwritten notes by Sirhan found in a notebook at his home confirmed that his act had been premeditated
and motivated by his hatred of Israel.
That became the story line of the mainstream media from day one. Jerry Cohen of the Los Angeles Times wrote a front page
article, saying that Sirhan is "described by acquaintances as a 'virulent' anti-Israeli," (Cohen changed that into "virulent
anti-semite" in an article for the The Salt Lake Tribune ), and that: " Investigation and disclosures from persons
who knew him best revealed [him] as a young man with a supreme hatred for the state of Israel." Cohen infers that "Senator
Kennedy [ ] became a personification of that hatred because of his recent pro-Israeli statements." Cohen further revealed that:
After September 11, 2001, the tragedy of Robert's assassination was installed into the Neocon mythology of the Clash of Civilizations
and the War on Terror the story. Sirhan became a precursor of Islamic terrorism on the American soil. In a book entitled The Forgotten
Terrorist, Mel Ayton, who specializes in debunking conspiracy theories, claims to present "a wealth of evidence about [Sirhan's]
fanatical Palestinian nationalism," and to demonstrate that "Sirhan was the lone assassin whose politically motivated act
was a forerunner of present-day terrorism" (as written on the back cover).
In 2008, on the 40 th anniversary of Robert's death, Sasha Issenberg of the Boston Globe recalled that the death
of Robert Kennedy was "a first taste of Mideast terror." He quotes Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz (best known as Jonathan
Pollard's lawyer), as saying:
The fact that Sirhan was from a Christian family was lost on Dershowitz. The Jewish Forward took care to mention it on
the same occasion, only to add that Islamic fanaticism ran in his veins anyway:
"But what he shared with his Muslim cousins -- the perpetrators of September 11 -- was a visceral, irrational hatred of Israel.
It drove him to murder a man whom some still believe might have been the greatest hope of an earlier generation."
This leitmotiv of the public discourse begs the question: Was Bobby really a supporter of Israel? But before we answer that question,
there is on more pressing one:
Did Sirhan really kill Bobby?
If we trust official statements and mainstream news, the assassination of Robert Kennedy is an open-and-shut case. The identity
of the killer suffers no discussion, since he was arrested on the spot, with the smoking gun in his hand. In reality, ballistic and
forensic evidence show that none of Sirhan's bullets hit Kennedy.
According to the autopsy report of Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner Thomas Noguchi, Robert Kennedy died of a gunshot wound to the
brain, fired from behind the right ear at point blank range, following an upward angle. Nogushi restated his conclusion in his 1983
memoirs, Coroner . Yet the sworn testimony of twelve shooting witnesses established that Robert had never turned his back
on Sirhan and that Sirhan was five to six feet away from his target when he fired.
Tallying all the bullet impacts in the pantry, and those that wounded five people around Kennedy, it has been estimated that at
least twelve bullets were fired, while Sirhan's gun carried only eight. On April 23, 2011, attorneys William Pepper and his associate,
Laurie Dusek, gathered all this evidence and more in a 58-page file submitted to the Court of California, asking that Sirhan's case
be reopened. They documented major irregularities in the 1968 trial, including the fact that the bullet tested in laboratory to be
compared to the the one extracted from Robert's brain had not been shot by Sirhan's revolver, but by another gun, with a different
serial number; thus, instead of incriminating Sirhan, the ballistic test in fact proved him innocent. Pepper has also provided a
computer analysis of audio recordings during the shooting, made by engineer Philip Van Praag in 2008, which confirms that two guns
are heard. [13] Frank Morales, "The
Assassination of RFK: A Time for Justice!" June 16, 2012, on www.globalresearch.ca; watch on YouTube, "RFK Assassination 40
th Anniversary (2008) Paul Schrade on CNN."
Even if we assume that Sirhan did kill Robert Kennedy, a second aspect of the case raises question: according to several witnesses,
Sirhan seemed to be in a state of trance during the shooting. More importantly, Sirhan has always claimed, and continues to
claim, that he has never had any recollection of his act:
"I was told by my attorney that I shot and killed Senator Robert F. Kennedy and that to deny this would be completely futile,
[but] I had and continue to have no memory of the shooting of Senator Kennedy."
Psychiatric expertise, including lie-detector tests, have confirmed that Sirhan's amnesia is not faked. In 2008, Harvard University
professor Daniel Brown, a noted expert in hypnosis and trauma memory loss, interviewed Sirhan for a total of 60 hours, and concluded
that Sirhan, whom he classifies in the category of "high hypnotizables," acted unvoluntarily under the effect of hypnotic suggestion:
"His firing of the gun was neither under his voluntary control, nor done with conscious knowledge, but is likely a product of automatic
hypnotic behavior and coercive control."
[17] Jacqui Goddard, "Sirhan Sirhan,
assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later," The Telegraph, December 3, 2011, on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/
If Sirhan was hypnotically programmed, the question is: Who had some interest in having a visceral anti-Zionist Palestinian
blamed for the killing of Robert Kennedy? Israel, of course. But then, we are faced with a dilemma, for why would Israel want to
kill Robert Kennedy if Robert Kennedy was supportive of Israel, as the mainstream narrative goes?
The dilemma rests on a misleading assumption, which is part of the deception. In fact, Robert Kennedy was definitely not
pro-Israel. He was simply campaigning in 1968. As everyone knows, a few good wishes and empty promises to Israel are an inescapable
ritual in such circumstances. And Robert's statement in an Oregon synagogue, mentioned in the May 27 Pasadena Independent Star-News
article found in Sirhan's pocket, didn't exceed the minimal requirements. Its author David Lawrence had, in an earlier article entitled
"Paradoxical Bob," underlined how little credit should be given to such electoral promises: "Presidential candidates are
out to get votes and some of them do not realize their own inconsistencies."
All things considered, there is no ground for believing that Robert Kennedy would have been, as president of the US, particularly
Israel-friendly. The Kennedy family, proudly Irish and Catholic, was known for its hostility to Jewish influence in politics, a classic
theme of anti-Kennedy literature, best represented by the 1996 book by Ronald Kessler with the highly suggestive title, The Sins
of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded.[20] Ronald Kessler, The Sins
of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.
Robert had not been, in his brother's government, a particularly pro-Israel Attorney General: He had infuriated Zionist leaders
by supporting an investigation led by Senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations aimed at registering
the American Zionist Council as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938,
which would had considerably hindered its efficiency (after 1963, the AZD escaped this procedure by changing its status and renaming
itself AIPAC) [21] The Israel Lobby
Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/ .
In conclusion, it is only with outstanding hypocrisy that The Jewish Daily Forward could write, on the 40th anniversary
of Bobby's death:
Robert Kennedy's death had not been a bad thing for the precious "American-Israeli relationship." Rather, it was a great loss
for the Arab world, where Bobby was mourned just as had his brother John before him.
Of course, the fact that the Zionist media lied when granting Robert Kennedy some posthumous certificate of good will toward Israel,
and thereby provided Israel with a fake alibi, is not a sufficient reason for concluding that Israel murdered Robert. Even the fact
that the masterminds of the plot chose as their programmed instrument an anti-Zionist Palestinian, and thereby stirred a strong anti-Palestinian
feeling among Americans at the same time as getting rid of Robert, does not prove that Israel was involved. What is still lacking
for a serious presumption is a plausible motive.
The motive of Robert's assassination must be found, not in what Robert publicly declared in an Oregon synagogue during his presidential
campaign, but rather in what he confided only to his most close friends: his intention to reopen the investigation on his brother's
death. Our next question, therefore, is: What would an unbiased investigation, conducted under the supervision of Robert in the White
House, have revealed?
It is obvious to anybody just vaguely informed that a genuine investigation would first establish that Oswald was a mere "patsy"
, as he said himself, a scapegoat prepared in advance to be blamed for the crime and then be slaughtered without a trial.
We will not here review the evidence that contradicts the official thesis of the lone gunman. It can be found in numerous books and
documentary films.
Just as notorious is the theory that the plot to kill Kennedy originated from a secret network within the CIA, in collusion with
extremist elements in the Pentagon. That conspiracy theory looms the largest in books, articles and films that have been produced
since John Kennedy died.
That CIA-Pentagon theory, as I will call it (add the military-industrial complex if you wish) has a major flaw in the motive ascribed
to the killers: besides getting rid of Kennedy, the theory goes, the aim was to create a pretext for invading Cuba, something the
CIA had always pushed for and Kennedy had refused to do (the Bay of Pigs fiasco). With Oswald groomed as a pro-Castro communist,
the Dallas shooting was staged as a false flag attack to be blamed on Cuba. But then, why did no invasion of Cuba followed Kennedy's
assassination? Why was the pro-Castro Oswald abandoned by the Warren Commission in favor of the lone nut Oswald? Those who address
the question, like James Douglass in his JFK and the Unspeakable , credit Johnson with preventing the invasion. Johnson, we
are led to understand, had nothing to do with the assassination plot, and thwarted the plotters' ultimate aim to start World War
III. This is to ignore the tremendous amount of evidence accumulated against Johnson for fifty years, and documented in such groundbreaking
books as Phillip Nelson's LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (2010) or Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy:
The Case Against LBJ (2013).
Another weakness in the CIA-Pentagon theory is the lack of agreement about the mastermind of the plot. In fact, one of the names
that comes up most often is James Jesus Angleton, the head of Counter-Intelligence within the CIA, about whom Professor John Newman
writes in Oswald and the CIA :
"In my view, whoever Oswald's direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton
was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind
to manage this sophisticated plot."
[23] Michael Collins Piper,
False Flag, op. cit., p. 78.
Another aspect must be taken into account: if the trail of the CIA is such a well-trodden path among Kennedy researchers, it is
because it has been cut and marked by the mainstream media themselves, as well as by Hollywood. And that began even before the assassination,
on October 3, 1963, with an article by the New York Times' chief Washington correspondent Arthur Krock. The article denounced
the CIA's "unrestrained thirst for power" and quotidian unnamed "very high official" who claimed that the White House
could not control the CIA, and that:
In such a way, The New York Times was planting a sign, a month and a half before the Dallas killing, pointing to the CIA
as the most likely instigator of the upcoming coup. The sign said: "The President is going to fall victim of a coup, and it will
come from the CIA."
One month after Kennedy's assassination, it was the turn of the Washington Post to use a very similar trick, by publishing
an op-ed signed by Harry Truman, in which the former president said he was "disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its
original assignment." "I never had any thought when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations,"
at the point of becoming across the globe "a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue [ ] there are now some searching
questions that need to be answered."[27] "Harry Truman Writes: Limit
CIA Role to Intelligence," Washington Post, December 22, 1963, quoted in Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA
in the Murder of JFK , Skyhorse Publishing, 2011 , p. 246. Truman was hinting at the CIA's role in toppling foreign
governments and assassinating elected leaders abroad. But given the timing of his article, one month to the day after Dallas, it
could only be understood by anyone with ears to hear, and at least subliminally by the rest, as an indictment of the CIA in the Kennedy
assassination. This article, widely reprinted in the 1970s after the creation of the Church Committee and the House Select Committee
on Assassinations, is regarded as Truman's whistleblowing. Yet its mea culpa style is quite unlike Truman; that is because
it was not written by Truman, but by his longtime assistant and ghostwriter, a Russian born Jew named David Noyes, whom Sidney Krasnoff
calls "Truman's alter ego" in his book, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President's Alter Ego (1997). Truman probably never saw
the article prior to its publication in the Washington Post morning edition, but he may be responsible for its deletion from
the afternoon print runs. [28] Thomas
Troy, "Truman on CIA," September 22, 1993, on www.cia.gov ; Sidney Krasnoff, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President's Alter Ego,
Jonathan Stuart Press, 1997.
So the two most influential American newspapers, while ostensibly defending the official theory of the lone gunman, have planted
directional signs pointing to the CIA. Most Kennedy truthers have followed the signs with enthusiasm.
In the 70s, the mainstream media and publishing industry played again a major role in steering conspiracy theorists toward the
CIA, while avoiding any hint of Israeli involvement. One major contributor to that effort was A. J. Weberman, with his 1975 book
Coup d'État in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, co-authored by Michael Canfield . According
to the New York Jewish Daily Forward (December 28, 2012), Weberman had "immigrated to Israel in 1959 and has dual American-Israeli
citizenship," and is "a close associate of Jewish Defense Organization founder Mordechai Levy, whose fringe group is a spin-off
of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane's militant right-wing Jewish Defense League." Weberman acknowledged Neocon Richard Perle's assistance
in his investigation. [29] Michael
Collins Piper, False Flags: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 67. The Weberman-Canfield book contributed
to the momentum that led the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to reinvestigate in 1976 the murders of JFK and Dr.
Martin Luther King.
It is also in this context that Newsweek journalist Edward Jay Epstein published an interview of George De Mohrenschildt,
a Russian geologist and consultant for Texan oilmen who had befriended Oswald and his Russian wife in Dallas in 1962. In this interview,
De Mohrenschildt admitted that Oswald had been introduced to him at the instigation of Dallas CIA agent J. Walton Moore.
[30] James Douglass, JFK and the
Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008 , p. 46. That piece of information is dubious for several
reasons: First, Moore was officially FBI rather than CIA. Second, De Mohrenschildt was in no position to confirm or deny the words
that Epstein ascribed to him: he was found dead a few hours after giving the interview. In fact, De Mohrenschildt's interview published
by Epstein contradicts De Mohrenschildt's own manuscript account of his relationship to Oswald, revealed after his death.
[31] George de Mohrenschilldt,
I am a Patsy! on jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscapatsy.htm De Mohrenschildt's death was ruled a suicide. The
Sheriff's report mentions that in his last months he complained that "the Jews" and "the Jewish mafia" were out to
get him. [32] Read the Sheriff's
Office report on mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt Needless to say, Epstein didn't mention anything about this. More suspicions
arise from the fact that Epstein's main source for his 1978 book, Legend: the Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald , was James
Jesus Angleton, who was actively spreading disinformation at the time of the HSCA, defending the theory that Oswald was a KGB agent
with CIA connections.
By a strange paradox, the authors who stand for the consensual conspiracy theory of a CIA plot against Kennedy build their case
on the biography of Oswald, while at the same time claiming that Oswald had almost nothing to do with the killing. If Oswald was
"just a patsy," as he publicly claimed, the quest for the real culprits must logically begin by investigating the man who silenced
Oswald.
Oswald's assassin is known as Jack Ruby, but few people know that his real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, and that he was
the son of Jewish Polish immigrants. Ruby was a member of the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen,
whom he had known and admired since 1946. Cohen was the successor of the famed Benjamin Siegelbaum, aka Bugsy Siegel, one of
the bosses of Murder Incorporated . Cohen was infatuated with the Zionist cause, as he explained in his memoirs: "Now I
got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this
Irgun war".[35] Mickey Cohen,
In My Own Words , Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 91-92. Mickey Cohen was in contact with Menachem Begin, the former Irgun chief,
with whom he even "spent a lot of time," according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department.
So there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem
Begin, a specialist in false flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after Oswald's
arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the underworld.[36] Michael Collins Piper, Final
Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy , American Free Press, 6 th ed., ebook 2005, p. 133-155,
226. Ruby's defense lawyer William Kunstler wrote in his memoirs that Ruby told him he had killed Oswald "for the Jews," and
Ruby's rabbi Hillel Silverman received the same confession when visiting Ruby in jail.
[37] William Kunstler, My Life
as a Radical Lawyer , Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, "Lee Harvey Oswald's Killer 'Jack Ruby' Came From Strong Jewish
Background," The Forward , November 17, 2013, on forward.com
That is not all. At every levels of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, we also find the fingerprints of the Israeli deep state. JFK's
trip to Dallas, being officially "non political," was sponsored by a powerful business group known as the Dallas Citizens Council,
dominated by Julius Schepps, "a wholesale liquor distributor, member of every synagogue in town, and de facto leader of the Jewish
community," as described by Bryan Edward Stone in The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas.[38] Bryan Edward Stone, The Chosen
Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200. Kennedy was on his way to the reception organized
in his honor when he was shot.
The "host committee" inviting Kennedy was chaired by another influential figure of the wealthy Jewish community in Dallas: advertising
executive and PR man Sam Bloom. According to former British Intelligence Officer Colonel John Hughes-Wilson, it was Bloom who suggested
to the Police "that they move the alleged assassin [Oswald] from the Dallas police station to the Dallas County Jail in order
to give the newsmen a good story and pictures." Oswald was shot by Ruby during this transfert. Hughes-Wilson adds that, "when
the police later searched Ruby's home, they found a slip of paper with Bloom's name, address and telephone number on it."[39] John Hughes-Wilson, JFK-An
American Coup d'État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.
After the Dallas tragedy, Israel's sayanim were also busy fabricating the official lie. Apart from its chairman Earl Warren,
chosen for his figurative role as Chief Justice, all key people in the investigative Commission were either personal enemies of Kennedy
-- like Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by Kennedy in 1961 -- or ardent Zionists. The man who played the key role in fabricating
the government lie purveyed by the Warren Commission was Arlen Specter, the inventor of what came to be called the "magic bullet"
theory: a single bullet supposed to have caused seven wounds to Kennedy and John Connally sitting before him in the limousine,
and later found in pristine condition on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. Specter, who with an ironic touch
of chutzpah titled his autobiography Passion for Truth, was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, and, at his death in 2012,
was mourned by the Israeli government as "an unswerving defender of the Jewish State," and by AIPAC, as "a leading architect
of the congressional bond between our country and Israel."[40] Natasha Mozgovaya, "Prominent
Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82," Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on www.haaretz.com.
So, at all stages of the plot, we find a Zionist cabal including business men, politicians and Irgun-connected gangsters, not
forgetting media executives, all devoted to Israel.
The most plausible motive for Israel to kill Kennedy has been revealed by two books: Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option
in 1991, then Avner Cohen's Israel and the Bomb in 1998, and the lead has been followed up in 2007 by Michael Karpin in
The Bomb in the Basement. What these investigators reveal is that Kennedy, informed by the CIA in 1960 of the military aim pursued
at the Dimona complex in the Negev desert, was firmly determined to force Israel to renounce it. With that purpose in mind, he replaced
CIA Director Allen Dulles by John McCone, who had, as Eisenhower's chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), leaked to The
New York Times the truth about Israel's Dimona project; the story was printed on December 19, 1960, weeks before Kennedy was
to take office. As Alan Hart writes, "there can be no doubt that Kennedy's determination to stop Israel developing its own nuclear
bomb was the prime factor in his decision to appoint McCone."[41] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real
Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009 , p. 273. Then Kennedy urged Ben-Gurion
to allow regular inspections of Dimona, first verbally in New York in 1961, and later through more and more insistent letters. In
the last one, cabled June 15, 1963 to the Israeli ambassador with instruction to hand it personally to Ben-Gurion, Kennedy demanded
Ben-Gurion's agreement for an immediate visit followed by regular visits every six months, otherwise "this Government's commitment
to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized."[42] Warren Bass, Support any
Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, 2003, p. 219. The result was unexpected: Ben-Gurion
avoided official reception of the letter by announcing his resignation on June 16. As soon as the new Prime Minister Levi Eshkol
took office, Kennedy sent him a similar letter, dated July 5, 1963, to no avail. Did Ben-Gurion resign in order to deal with Kennedy
from another level?
Five months later, Kennedy's death relieved Israel of all pressure (diplomatic or otherwise) to stop its nuclear program.
Faced with Johnson's complete lack of interest in that issue, John McCone resigned from the CIA in 1965, declaring: "When I cannot
get the President to read my reports, then it's time to go."
Kennedy's determination to stop Israel's Dimona project was only part of the "Kennedy problem". During his first months in
the White House, Kennedy committed himself by letters to Nasser and other Arab heads of State to support UN Resolution 194 for the
right of return of Palestinian refugees. Ben-Gurion reacted with a letter to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, intended to be
circulated among Jewish American leaders, in which he stated:
After Kennedy's death, American foreign policy was reversed again, without the American public being aware of it. Johnson
cut the economic aid to Egypt, and increased the military aid to Israel, which reached 92 million dollars in 1966, more than the
total of all previous years combined.
For 50 years, the Israeli trail in the Kennedy assassination has been smothered, and anyone who mentioned it was immediately ostracized.
American congressman Paul Findley nevertheless dared write in March 1992 in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs :
"It is interesting to note that in all the words written and uttered about the Kennedy assassination, Israel's intelligence agency,
the Mossad, has never been mentioned." One single author has seriously investigated that trail: Michael Collins Piper, in his
1995 book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy. Piper was largely ignored by the mainstream
of the Kennedy truth movement. But his work has made its way nevertheless. In 2013, Martin Sandler wrote about Piper's work in his
edition of letters by Kennedy, which included those addressed to Ben-Gurion about Dimona: "Of all the conspiracy theories, it
remains one of the most intriguing." It is, in fact, a theory widespread in Arab countries.
[45] Listen to Libyan leader Muammar
Gaddafi on the topic on www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV4kvhs8I8E
Several investigators have identified Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's vice-president, as the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination.
It is, at least, beyond doubt that the plotters acted with the foreknowledge that Johnson, who automatically stepped in as head of
State after Kennedy's death, would cover them. The context of national crisis enabled him to bully both Justice and the press
while achieving his life's ambition. Johnson not just benefitted from the plot; he participated in its elaboration. As a former senator
from Texas, he could mobilize high-ranked accomplices in Dallas to prepare the ambush. Johnson also had his men in the Navy. In 1961,
Texan senator John Connally had been appointed as Navy Secretary at the request of Johnson. When Connally resigned eleven months
later to run for governor of Texas, Johnson convinced Kennedy to name another of his Texan friends, Fred Korth.
Johnson's privileged control over the Navy is an important aspect of the case because the Navy was critical in the setting
up and in the cover-up of the plot. First, contrary to a widespread but erroneous belief, Lee Harvey Oswald had been recruited
by the Navy and not by the CIA. He was a Marine, and as a Marine he had worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).
Secondly, it is at the Naval Hospital in Washington, under the control of Navy officers, that Kennedy's autopsy was performed,
after his body had been literally stolen at gunpoint from Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The report of this autopsy stated that the
fatal bullet had entered the back of Kennedy's skull, which contradicted the testimonies of twenty-one members of the Dallas hospital
staff who saw two entry bullet-wounds on the front of Kennedy's body. This was critical because Oswald was presumably shooting from
behind Kennedy, and could not possibly have caused these bullet wounds.
It is noteworthy that Johnson had actually taken advantage of his connections in the Navy to participate in the greatest corruption
case ever recorded at that time. His accomplice Fred Korth was forced to resign as Navy Secretary in November 1963, only weeks before
the Dallas coup, after the Justice Department headed by Robert Kennedy had implicated him in a fraud involving a $7 billion contract
for the construction of 1,700 TFX military aircraft by General Dynamics, a Texan company. Johnson's personal secretary, Bobby Baker,
was charged in the same case.
Because of this mounting scandal and other suspicions of corruption, Kennedy was determined to change Vice-President for his
upcoming reelection campaign. [46] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 372. While in Dallas the day before
the President's visit, Nixon publicized the rumor of Johnson's removal, and the Dallas Morning News was reporting on November
22 nd : "Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson." Instead, Johnson became president that very day.
Many Americans immediately suspected Johnson's involvement in the Dallas coup, especially after the publication in 1964 of a book
by James Evetts Haley, A Texan Looks at Lyndon , which portrayed Johnson as deeply corrupt. According to his biographer Robert
Caro, Johnson was a man thirsting "for power in its most naked form, for power not to improve the lives of others, but to manipulate
and dominate them, to bend them to his will."[47] Quoted in Phillip Nelson, LBJ:
The Mastermind, op. cit. , p. 17.
"If you don't take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you
will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen." "There will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don't take
my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don't suffer because of what I have done."
He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith," but added that "maybe
something can be saved [ ], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me."
[49] Read Ruby's deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm
With such words, Ruby seems to be trying to send a message to Johnson through the Commission, or rather a warning that he might spill
the beans about Israel's involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor. We get the impression that Ruby expected Johnson
to pardon him.
Yet Johnson did nothing to get Ruby out of jail. Ruby's sense of betrayal would explain why in 1965, after having been sentenced
to life imprisonment, Ruby implicitly accused Johnson of Kennedy's murder in a press conference: "If [Adlai Stevenson] was Vice-President
there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy."[50] See on YouTube, "Jack Ruby Talks."
Ruby died from a mysterious disease in his prison in 1967.
Ruby is not the only link between Johnson and Israel, far from it. In truth, Johnson had always been Israel's man. His electoral
campaigns had been funded since 1948 by Zionist financier Abraham Feinberg, who happened to be president of the Americans for Haganah
Incorporated, which raised money for the Jewish militia. It is the same Feinberg who, after the Democratic primaries in 1960, made
the following proposal to Kennedy, as Kennedy himself later reported to his friend Charles Bartlett: "We know your campaign is
in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy." Bartlett recalls that
Kennedy was deeply upset and swore that, "if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it."[51] Seymour Hersh, The Samson
Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy , Random House, 1991, p. 94-97.
It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger ( A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House, 1965),
that the two men who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, were Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher
and columnist of the Washington Post , and strong supporters of Israel.
[52] Arthur Schlesinger,
A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56; Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2, op.
cit., p. 257. Schlesinger doesn't reveal Graham and Alsop's arguments, and states that Kennedy's final decision "defies
historical reconstruction" -- a curious statement for a historian so well informed on the topic. But Evelyn Lincoln, Kennedy's
personal secretary for twelve years, had her own idea about it. She believed that Kennedy was blackmailed with proofs of his many
infidelities to his wife: " Jack knew that Hoover and LBJ would just fill the air with womanizing." Whatever the details of
the blackmail, Kennedy once confided to his assistant Hyman Raskin, as an apology for taking Johnson, "I was left with no choice
[ ] those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don't need more problems."[53] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The
Mastermind, op; cit. , p. 320.
In 2013, Associated Press reported about newly released tapes from Johnson's White House office showing LBJ's "personal and
often emotional connection to Israel," and pointed out that under Johnson, "the United States became Israel's chief diplomatic
ally and primary arms supplier." An article from the 5 Towns Jewish Times "Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?"
recalls Johnson's continuous support of Jews and Israel in the 1940s and 50s, and concludes: "President Johnson firmly pointed
American policy in a pro-Israel direction." The article also mentions that, "research into Johnson's personal history indicates
that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was
a member of the Zionist Organization of America." And, in an additional note: "The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back
three generations in Lyndon Johnson's family tree. There is little doubt that he was Jewish."[54] Morris Smith, "Our First Jewish
President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!," 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.
Whatever was the reason of Johnson's loyalty to Israel, it is a fact that, thanks to Johnson, Israel could continue its military
nuclear program undisturbed, and acquire its first atomic bomb around 1965. Historian Stephen Green writes: "Lyndon Johnson's
White House saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when the reactor went critical in early 1964."[55] Stephen Green, Taking Sides:
America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.
Thanks to JFK's death, Israel was also able to carry out its plan to annex Palestinian territories beyond the boundaries imposed
by the United Nations Partition plan. By leaning on Pentagon and CIA hawks, Johnson intensified the Cold War and created the climate
of tension which Israel needed in order to demonize Egyptian president Nasser and reinforce its own stature as indispensable ally
in the Middle East.
During the Six Day War of 1967, Israel managed to triple its territory, while creating the illusion of acting in legitimate
defense. The lie could not deceive American Intelligence agencies, but Johnson had given a green light to Israel's attack, and even
authorized James Angleton of the CIA to give Israel the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases, which enabled Israel to destroy
them in just a few hours.
Four days after the start of the Israeli attack, Nasser accepted the ceasefire request from the UN Security Council. It was too
soon for Israel, which had not yet achieved all its territorial objectives. On June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty, a NSA spy ship stationed
in international waters off Sinai, was bombed, strafed and torpedoed during 75 minutes by Israeli Mirage jets and three torpedo boats,
with the obvious intention of sinking it without leaving any survivors. (Even the rescue channels were machine-gunned.) Meanwhile,
Johnson, from the White House, intervened personally to prohibit the nearby Sixth Fleet from rescuing the USS Liberty after the crew,
despite the initial destruction of its transmitters, had managed to send off an SOS.
The attack would have been blamed on Egypt if it had succeeded, that is, if the ship had sunk and its crew had all died. The operation
would then have given Johnson a pretext for interveening on the side of Israel against Egypt.
But it failed. The USS Liberty affair was suppressed by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II, Commander-in-Chief
of US Naval Forces in Europe (and Father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). Johnson accepted Israel's spurious "targeting error"
explanation. In January 1968 he invited the Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, to Washington, and warmly welcomed him to his Texas
ranch. What's more, Johnson rewarded Israel by lifting the embargo on offensive military equipment: US-made tanks and aircraft immediately
flowed to Tel Aviv.
This failed false flag attack is evidence of the secret complicity of Johnson and Israel, implying high treason on the part of
Johnson.
Let's now conclude our overview of the evidence: beside the fact that John and Robert were brothers, their assassinations
have at least two things in common: Lyndon Johnson and Israel.
First, their deaths are precisely framed by Johnson's presidency, which was also the context for other political assassinations,
such as Martin-Luther King's. Johnson was in control of the State during the two investigations on John and Robert's murders.
Secondly, in both cases, we find the fingerprints of Israel's deep state. In the case of Robert, it is the choice of the manipulated
patsy, which was obviously meant to disguise Robert's assassination as an act of hatred against Israel. In the case of John, it it
is the identity of the man asked to kill the patsy, a Jewish gangster linked to the Irgun.
Johnson and Israel, the two common elements in the Kennedy assassinations, are themselves closely linked, since Johnson can be
considered as a high-level sayan, a man secretly devoted to Israel, or owned by Israel, to the point of committing high treason
against the nation he had been elected to lead and protect.
The causal link between the two assassinations then becomes clear: even if Robert had been pro-Israel, which he was not, Israel
and Johnson would still have had a compelling reason to eliminate him before he got to the White House, where he could -- and would
-- reopen the investigation on his brother's death.
What should have been obvious from the start now appears brightly clear: in order to solve the mystery of the assassination of
John Kennedy, one has simply to look into the two other assassinations which are connected to it: the assassination of Lee Harvey
Oswald, the man whose trial could have exposed the hoax and possibly put the plotters into the light, and the assassination of Robert
Kennedy, the man who would have reopened the case if he had lived. And both these assassinations bear the signature of Israel.
At his death in 1968, Robert Kennedy left eleven orphans, not counting John's two children, whom he had somewhat adopted. John's
son, John F. Kennedy Jr., aka John John, who had turned three the day of his father's funeral, embodied the Kennedy myth in the heart
of all Americans. The route seemed traced for him to become president one day. He died on July 16, 1999, with his pregnant wife and
his sister-in-law, when his private plane suddenly and mysteriously nose-dived into the ocean a few seconds after he had announced
his landing on the Kennedy property in Massachusetts.
John John had long been portrayed as a superficial, spoiled and harmless young man. But that image was as misleading as young
Halmet's in Shakespeare's play. John had serious interest in mind, and, at age 39, he was just entering politics. In 1995 he founded
George magazine, which seemed harmless until it began to take an interest in political assassinations. In March 1997, George
published a 13-page article by the mother of Yigal Amir, the convicted assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The article
was supporting the thesis of a conspiracy by the Israeli far-right. So JFK Jr. was eliminated while following in the footsteps of
his father, entering politics through the door of journalism and taking an interest in the crimes of the Israeli deep state. Canadian-Israeli
journalist Barry Chamish believes John Kennedy Jr. was assassinated precisely for that.
[56] Barry Chamish, "The Murder of
JFK Jr – Ten Years Later," www.barrychamish.com (also on: www.rense.com/general87/tenyrs.htm).
The nonsensical notion of a mysterious curse on the Kennedy family is an obvious smoke screen. The unsolved murders of JFK and
his two legitimate heirs -- his younger brother and his only son -- require a more rational explanation. The sense that the official
stories about their deaths amount to a huge cover-up is obsessing the American psyche, a bit like a repressed family secret affecting
the whole personality from a subconscious level.
President John Kennedy and his brother are heroic, almost Christ-like figures, in the heart of a growing community of citizens
who have become aware of the disastrous longtime effect of their assassinations. Only when the American public at large come to grips
with the truth of their deaths and honor their legacy and sacrifice will America have a chance to be redeemed and be great again.
[9] Extract of TV news in
the documentary film Evidence of Revision: Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before , 01:11:42
[10] Jerry Cohen, "Yorty
Reveals That Suspect's Memo Set Deadline for Death," Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1968, pages 1 and 12, on latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/06/june-6-1968.html.
Jerry Cohen, "Jerusalem-Born Suspect Called An Anti-Semite," The Salt Lake Tribune , June 6, 1968, on
www.newspapers.com. See also Harry Rosenthal, "Senator Kennedy's support
for Israel promoted decision declares Sirhan," The Telegraph, March 5, 1969, on news.google.com
[11] Sasha Issenberg, "Slaying
gave US a first taste of Mideast terror," Boston Globe, June 5, 2008, on
www.boston.com
[12] Jeffrey Salkin, "Remember
What Bobby Kennedy Died For," Forward.com, June 5, 2008. Also Michael Fischbach, "First Shot in Terror War Killed RFK,"
Los Angeles Times, June 02, 2003, on articles.latimes.com
[13] Frank Morales, "The
Assassination of RFK: A Time for Justice!" June 16, 2012, on www.globalresearch.ca;
watch on YouTube, "RFK Assassination 40 th Anniversary (2008) Paul Schrade on CNN."
[14] Philip Melanson,
The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations On the Conspiracy And Cover-Up, S.P.I. Books , 1994, p. 25. For
a full overview, watch Shane O'Sullivan's 2007 investigative documentary RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy.
For more detail, read his book Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy , Union Square Press, 2008. See
also Don Schulman's testimony in The Second Gun (1973), from 42 min 40.
[15] In a parole hearing
in 2011, failing to convince the judges for the fourteenth time. Watch on YouTube, "Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsm1hKPI9EU
[16] Shane O'Sullivan,
Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy , Union Square Press, 2008, p. 5, 44, 103.
[17] Jacqui Goddard, "Sirhan
Sirhan, assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later," The Telegraph, December 3, 2011,
on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/
[18] Colin Ross, Bluebird:
Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists , Manitou Communications, 2000,summary on
www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg
[19] David B. Green, "Brainwashing
and Cross-dressing: Israel's Assassination Program Laid Bare in Shocking Detail," Haaretz, February 5, 2018.
[20] Ronald Kessler,
The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.
[22] Jeffrey Salkin, "Remember
What Bobby Kennedy Died For , " op. cit. .
[23] Michael Collins Piper,
False Flag, op. cit., p. 78.
[24] Tom Mangold, Cold
Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA's Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 318.
[25] Michael Howard Holzman,
James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of COunterintelligence, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008, p. 153.
[26] "Assassination studies
Kennedy knew a coup was coming," on Youtube. Image of Arthur Krock's article is shown on
www.youtube.com/watch?v=snE161QnL1U at 1:36.
[27] "Harry Truman Writes:
Limit CIA Role to Intelligence," Washington Post, December 22, 1963, quoted in Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment of the
CIA in the Murder of JFK , Skyhorse Publishing, 2011 , p. 246.
[28] Thomas Troy, "Truman
on CIA," September 22, 1993, on www.cia.gov ; Sidney Krasnoff, Truman and Noyes:
Story of a President's Alter Ego, Jonathan Stuart Press, 1997.
[29] Michael Collins Piper,
False Flags: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 67.
[30] James Douglass,
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008 , p. 46.
[31] George de Mohrenschilldt,
I am a Patsy! on jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscapatsy.htm
[32] Read the Sheriff's
Office report on mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt
[33] Meir Doron, Confidential:
The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan , Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi.
[34] Stuart Winer, "Hollywood
producer Arnon Milchan reveals past as secret agent," The Times of Israel, November 25, 2013, on
www.timesofisrael.com ; Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret
Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan , Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi
[35] Mickey Cohen, In
My Own Words , Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 91-92.
[36] Michael Collins Piper,
Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy , American Free Press, 6 th ed., ebook 2005,
p. 133-155, 226.
[37] William Kunstler,
My Life as a Radical Lawyer , Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, "Lee Harvey Oswald's Killer 'Jack Ruby' Came From
Strong Jewish Background," The Forward , November 17, 2013, on forward.com
[38] Bryan Edward Stone,
The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200.
[39] John Hughes-Wilson,
JFK-An American Coup d'État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.
[40] Natasha Mozgovaya,
"Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82," Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on
www.haaretz.com.
[41] Alan Hart, Zionism:
The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009 , p. 273.
[42] Warren Bass, Support
any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, 2003, p. 219.
[43] Quoted in George and
Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present , W.W. Norton & Co., 1992,
p. 51.
[44] Philip Muehlenbeck,
Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy's Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012.
[51] Seymour Hersh,
The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy , Random House, 1991, p. 94-97.
[52] Arthur Schlesinger,
A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56; Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2,
op. cit., p. 257.
[53] Phillip Nelson,
LBJ: The Mastermind, op; cit. , p. 320.
[54] Morris Smith, "Our
First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!," 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.
[55] Stephen Green,
Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.
My interest in this is as the reader of a good thriller which I can excuse myself spending time on because it is just possible
that I shall learn something about the real world including important levels of government. So no dog in any fight. But I am alerted
to conventional journalistic slickness by such foolishness as the snide and inaccurate statement that Alan Dershowitz is best
known as counsel for Jonathan Pollard. Also the slippery statement that a connection between the two brothers' assassinations
should be "assumed". (Obviously it is worth asking a few questions such as "could there be common motives but that sort of intelligent
lateral thinking is not what the author was talking about).
Arthur J. Schlesinger is mentioned so why not his careful journal record of what RFK had to say about his brother's assassination.
A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended
to Cuba and "gangsters".
A recent TV series (not mentioned here) using recently declassified material does strongly suggest that Oswald was relying
for support on a group if fiercely anti-Castro Cubans who had been infiltrated by a Castro man. Not difficult to see why in the
end he might have thought he was a patsy. Also there is no mention here of the at least plausible theory that the fatal bullet
was one accidentally fired by a Secret Serviceman in the car behind.
The total rubbish about JFK Jr's plane crash also serves to undermine credibility and support the view that this is written
by someone suffering a severe case of confirmation bias.
A very good article. With my limited studies on the JFK murder I came to the same conclusion: Piper was essentially correct,
but you fill up the case of Robert Kennedy in a convincing way. Maybe Meyer Lansky could be mentioned, he probably had some role.
But the issue was the bomb.
The truth is that Robert Kennedy was much despised by Israel and its Jewish-American lobby of the time, the American Zionist Council
(AZC) and was considered a major foe. After many months of back and forth, on Oct 11, 1963 the New York law firm representing
the AZC received a formal written demand from Attorney General RFK's office to immediately (72 hours) proceed to register as foreign
agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. Forms for said registration accompanied the letter. This would have
upended the AZC's operations and rendered it or any subsequent Israeli lobby (AIPAC) – near powerless.
The JFK assasination is a very interesting whodunnit and the couple of books I have read on it led to me to the very same conclusion
as the author. A lot of credit must go to Piper. I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assassination
attempt on JFK within which the actual assassination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were
looking the other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up.
Israel was created by the British oligarchs as a bridgehead in the Middle East. Furthering Israel was/is furthering the interests
of those oligarchs (who ran the British Empire which morphed to the Anglo-American Empire). JFK was critical of Israel. If someone
killed him, it the Anglo-American deep state. Israel likely pulled the trigger. Let's remember what the fake father of Modern
Zionism who admired Cecil Rhodes, Theodor Herl said: "England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence."
A parallel could also be established between the killing of JFK and the "Six-Day War" of 1967
In 1954, Israeli teamed with the Muslim Brotherhood to plant explosives in American and British offices to start a civil war
to prompt the presence of British troops. The failed terror plot was known as the "Lavon Affair".
In 1956, Israel (supported by Britain and France) invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal nationalized by Nasser. Deterring
Nasser who had crushed the Muslim Brotherhood (a British machination aimed at keeping Muslim nations backwards culturally and
economically ( https://bit.ly/2J06YDO )) was also another primary objective.
Einsenhower was the one who tenaciously worked on removing Israel from Egypt but it didn't come easy:
1956-1957: England and France removed their troops following Einsenhower's advise but Israel did not. As a result, Eisenhower
joined the 75 countries at the UN General Assembly (February 1957) to pass a resolution against Israel's occupation of Egyptian
territory. Despite that, Israel still refused to remove its troops. It made Einsenhower reach out to the Congress but it was heavily
bought out by Zionists and the end-result was to no avail.. When that failed, Einsenhower met with congressional leaders to gather
support but even they were in support of Israel. Einsenhower then went on TV to make the case public. After which he threatened
Israel with sanctions (including the $40M of tax deductible donations and $60M of private bonds). Making the case public and threatening
economically worked – Israel withdrew its troops.
The failed invasion was a major blow to Britain (who's PM resigned) France and Israel (who destroyed everything on its way
out).
In spite of the mendacious narrative regurgitated in the West about the war of 1967, it was Israel who planned and attacked
its neighbors. The seizing of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza were objectives Israel couldn't achieve in 1948 and deterring
Nasser, an objective failed in 1956. The only problem Israel had was: would another US President intervene. Norman Finkelstein,
who's research on 1967 is to date unchallenged successfully, showed that Israel sent diplomats to Washington
The U.S. agreed with Israel that Nasser had no plans to attack.
The U.S. agreed that Israel would easily defeat Egypt on the battlefield, either alone or with any combination of other
Arab nations.
And the U.S. tacitly gave Israel permission to start the war, or at least indicated there would be no repeat of Eisenhower's
repudiation after the 1956 Suez invasion.
We all know who followed JFK. None other than absolute bent-over to Israel, Lyndon Johnson.
-- -- --
If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it's "interesting" how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major
plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel. One has to only remember the
airplane hijackings, Munich, etc. Coincidentally, most of those Palestinians were all led by the infamous Abu Nidal – who was
never apprehended while the rest of the Palestinians were either killed or arrested.
The case of 9/11 wasn't any different. The five dancing Israelis, who were "documenting the event" from New Jersey proclaimed
– while being arrested:
"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."
Ari Ben-Menashe, in his book "Profits of War : Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network" spoke of the CIA and the Mossad
covertly training Palestinians in Yugoslavia to have them attack Western targets. The ultimate goal was to draw negative attention
and sentiment against their cause.
Most of the information was from the book Nemesis: The True Story of Aristotle Onassis, Jackie O, and the Love Triangle That
Brought Down the Kennedys , by Peter Evans.
In December 1971 Aristotle Onassis's ex-wife Tina met with their daughter Christina to ask her to stop bad-mouthing her current
husband Stavros Niarchos, a man long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Christina was Niarcho's niece and step-daughter, since he had
been married to Tina's sister Eugenie and was now married to Tina herself. Among the accusations that Christina kept repeating
about Niarchos was that he had murdered Eugenie. In order to give Christina a broader perspective, Tina informed Christina that
her father Aristotle had financed the assassination of Robert Kennedy.
The next day Christina passed this information on to her brother Alexander Onassis, who subsequently placed some related papers
into a safe-deposit box. After that, Alexander told his lover Fiona Thyssen that these papers would prevent his father Aristotle
from harming Fiona, a woman long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Since Fiona was 16 years older than Alexander, Aristotle considered
her to be a gold-digger and wanted her out of Alexander's life.
Several months later Alexander showed some of his papers to Yannis Georgakis, a lawyer who was close to the entire Onassis
family. The papers included photocopies of pages from the notebooks of Sirhan Sirhan, who had assassinated Robert Kennedy. During
the weeks before the assassination, Sirhan would place himself into a hypnotic state and write stream-of-conscious thoughts into
a notebook. On one page Sirhan had written at the center of a roundel, amid Arabic writing, the single name Fiona . On
another page he had written 2 Narkos! . On a third page, between the lines One Hundred thousand Dollars and Dollars
and One Hundreds , Sirhan had written in Arabic: they should be killed , next to which he had written the number
three .
It was obvious to Tina, Christina and Alexander that for some reason Sirhan had been hypnotized into a fixation on killing
three people -- Fiona Thyssen, Stavros Niarchos, and Robert Kennedy -- who had long been fiercely hated by Aristotle Onassis.
=====
[MORE]
In the fall of 1974 a 34-year-old photographer Helene Gaillet was stranded in Paris on her way to a job in Africa, because the
job was canceled. A year earlier she had met Aristotle Onassis at a dinner party in New York, and he had told her to call him
if she ever needed a place to stay in Paris. She called his number but was told he was away on his private island, Skorpios, in
the Aegean Sea. Several minutes later, however, Onassis returned her call and invited her to join him in Skorpios. He would fly
her there at his own expense. She accepted his invitation and subsequently spent several days with him there.
During that time they had a short affair, which included a series of intimate conversations about their lives. By that time
his health was failing (he died four months later), so he was in a confessional mood. During one of those conversations he told
her, "You know, Helene, I put up the money for Bobby Kennedy's murder."
=====
In May 1968 the above-mentioned lawyer Yannis Georgakis was serving as the chief executive officer of Olympic Airways, which
was owned by Aristotle Onassis. Georgakis was informed by a Mossad official serving in Israel's embassy in Paris that Onassis
was meeting regularly in Paris with a Palestinian terrorist named Mahmoud Hamshari. About a week later Onassis informed Georgakis
that a Palestinian terrorist group had demanded $1.2 million in protection money from Olympic Airlines, threatening to blow up
the company's airliners if the money was not paid. Onassis said he had reached an agreement with Hamshari and now needed $200,000
from the company's funds to pay the first installment of the protection money. Onassis assured Georgakis that the subsequent installment
payments would be arranged "off the books" and channeled through Onassis's Panama corporations.
Reluctantly, Georgakis agreed to provide the $200,000. He asked to be included in any future negotiations between Onassis and
Hamshari, but Onassis assured him that the entire agreement had already been settled and that no further negotiations should occur.
Onassis flew to New York with the $200,000 in cash. He put all the money into a shopping bag and gave it to his long-time chauffeur,
Roosevelt Zanders, who personally delivered the money to someone in an apartment at United Nations Plaza. As instructed by Onassis,
Zanders did not ask for a receipt for the money.
To be continued.
Continued from my previous comment at 7:08 a.m.
=====
In January 1954 Aristotle Onassis signed a secret agreement with Saudi Arabia's finance minister. The agreement basically said
that Onassis would provide Saudi Arabia with its own fleet of oil tankers. Saudi Arabia expected that its ownership of such a
fleet would help that country to become independent of Western petroleum companies, to earn a fuller share of profits, and eventually
to nationalize the entire industry on its territory. Onassis expected to earn hundreds of millions of dollars for his role in
the arrangement.
Despite the secrecy, however, the US Government soon learned of the deal and during the following months employed a variety
of methods to undermine it. The US Justice Department found fault with Onassis's past purchases of oil tankers and subsequently
seized his tankers and also money he had earned from those tankers. In February 1954 the Justice Department arrested Onassis himself
and charged him with criminal conspiracy to buy the tankers illegally. The State Department pressured the Saudi government to
disassociate itself from Onassis. Arrangements were made for Peru to seize nine of Onassis's whaling ships. One of Onassis's business
associates was pressured to sue Onassis for swindling him out of $200,000 and to accuse Onassis of paying a $350,000 bribe to
the Saudi finance minister. Eventually in October 1954 King Saud decided not to sign the agreement, which therefore became void.
All these developments almost bankrupted Onassis.
Most of Onassis's anger about the collapse of the Saudi deal was misdirected toward Robert Kennedy, who in 1954 was a 29-year-old
attorney working on the staff of a Senate subcommittee. One of Kennedy's investigations for the subcommittee had raised accusations
about shipping business that some Greek companies conducted with Red China, but this issue did not involve Onassis in particular.
Kennedy did not play any apparent role in the seizure of Onassis's assets or in his arrest. The business associate who sued Onassis
hired as an expert witness an accountant who had worked for Robert's father Joseph Kennedy for many years, but that accountant
had no direct association with Robert Kennedy himself.
In fact Robert Kennedy had nothing at all to do with the US Government's discovery of Onassis's Saudi deal. The CIA station
in Athens had been informed about it by another Greek shipper, Stavros Niarchos, who was Onassis's brother-in-law (the two men
were married to two sisters). Niarchos had heard about the deal from Onassis's wife Tina, who was involved in a love affair with
Niarchos.
In order to protect the real source of its information, the CIA cleverly encouraged Onassis's initial reaction that the deal
had been exposed during Kennedy's investigation of the Greek shippers who did business with Red China. For example, the accountant
of Robert Kennedy's father was apparently moved into and out of the lawsuit in order to inflame Onassis's suspicions about Kenned's
role in the matter. Niarchos himself certainly collaborated in the continuing effort to divert Onassis's anger away from himself
and onto Kennedy. And in the following years Kennedy himself publicly criticized Onassis on many occasions, which further enraged
Onassis.
=====
In the early 1960s Onassis became closely involved in several business enterprises with a fellow Greek ex-patriot, Spyros Skouras,
who had immigrated to the United States in 1912. Skouras became a movie producer and during that career, he clashed angrily several
times with Joseph Kennedy, who was also a movie producer. In May 1962 Skouras's movie studio was losing millions of dollars in
the filming of Cleopatra and Something's Got to Give . The latter movie starred Marilyn Monroe, who was extraordinarily
capricious and absent during the filming. In conversations with Onassis, Skouras blamed Monroe's misbehavior on Robert Kennedy,
her secret lover. Skouras knew about this affair (and about Monroe's earlier affair with John Kennedy) and informed Onassis.
Exasperated by the problems and losses caused by these two films, Skouras decided to leave the movie business and to establish
a shipping business. Onassis invested $10 million in Skouras's shipping business, which intended to introduce new loading and
unloading technology that would require far fewer longshoremen. Because of this manpower issue, Onassis became involved in negotiations
with Jimmy Hoffa, the chief of the Teamsters labor union and also a hater of Robert Kennedy, who was then the US Attorney General.
During this same time, Onassis began a love affair with Lee Radziwill, the younger sister of Jacqueline Kennedy. Lee and her
husband Prince Stanislas Radziwill were each divorced from previous spouses when they married each other, so they married in a
civil wedding instead of a Roman Catholic wedding. Since John Kennedy was now President of the United States, Robert Kennedy used
the family's prestige to try to convince the Catholic Church to annul the Radziwills' previous marriages. This effort (and the
Kennedy family's reputation) was endangered by publicity about Lee's affair with Onassis, and so Robert Kennedy phoned Onassis
directly and asked him to stay away from Lee. Onassis responded with the words, "Bobby, you and Jack fuck your movie queen [Monroe]
and I'll fuck my princess [Radziwill]." Onassis thus revealed to Robert Kennedy that he knew about the Kennedy-Monroe affairs,
which were still very secret.
Also during this same time, Hoffa learned (perhaps from Onassis) about the Kennedy brothers' affairs with Monroe and so he
bugged Monroe's home and telephones to record related conversations. Through these recordings, Hoffa learned that Monroe and Robert
Kennedy had met in Monroe's home on August 4, 1962, a few hours before she died of an overdose and that some of Kennedy's associates
had subsequently entered her house during the period between her death and the notification of the police. Hoffa apparently hinted
to Onassis about the existence of these tape recordings, since Onassis asked Monroe's publicist whether he knew anything about
them, offering to pay big money to buy them.
=====
During the following months Robert Kennedy communicated subtle threats in order to pressure Onassis to stay away from Lee Radziwill.
The main thrust of these threats was that Kennedy would exploit his position as US Attorney General to cause legal problems for
Onassis and his businesses. This pressure backfired, as Onassis arranged for Radziwill to live blatantly with him on his yacht.
The feud escalated dramatically in September 1963, when Jackie herself also moved onto the yacht for a few weeks in order to convalesce
from a miscarriage. Robert Kennedy responded by continuing his subtle threats against Onassis, and Onassis responded by seducing
Jacqueline on the yacht.
Refreshed by her affair with Onassis, Jacqueline returned to the White House. A few weeks later, on November 22, 1963, John
Kennedy was assassinated. At Jacqueline's invitation, Onassis came and stayed in the White House during the funeral days. Robert
Kennedy confronted Onassis in the White House, and they eventually engaged in a ridiculous argument that embarrassed Onassis in
front of the other guests. Kennedy wrote up a written statement for Onassis to sign, promising to donate half of his wealth to
the poor, and Onassis signed the paper with Greek words that nullified the promise.
In the months following the assassination, Jacqueline wanted to quickly marry Onassis, but this desire was discouraged by Robert
Kennedy, who now headed the Kennedy family. Robert Kennedy managed to prevent the marriage as long as he lived. He was assassinated
on June 5, 1968. Onassis then married Jacqueline on October 20.
=====
To be continued.
Continued from my previous comments.
=====
In January 1968 David Karr arranged for Mahmoud Hamshari, also known as Dr. Michel Hassner, to be introduced to Aristotle Onassis.
Karr introduced Dr. Michel Hassner to Onassis's circle as an expert in aviation finance who would propose a restructuring of the
debt of Onassis's Olympic Airline. Eventually, Hamshari (aka Hassner), using money provided by Onassis, arranged for Sirhan Sirhan
to assassinate Robert Kennedy.
David Karr had known Onassis since 1956. Karr worked in many varied jobs during his life, but at that time he managed a public
relations company that specialized in helping companies that were involved in proxy fights in corporate takeovers. It might be
more accurate to say that Karr was specialized in performing dirty tricks for his clients. He collected and distributed (or threatened
to distribute) scandalous information about his clients' opponents. By 1967 Onassis was using Karr for a variety of secret tasks;
in that year, for example, he asked Karr to ask Soviet officials about possibly supplying crude oil for a refinery he considered
building near Athens. Onassis's closest associates wondered about that assignment, because Karr had no expertise related to the
petroleum business or to the Soviet Union. Onasssis's trust in Karr was a mystery.
At some point in his own past, while working as a movie producer in Hollywood, Karr had become acquainted with William Joseph
Bryan, Jr., a local hypnotist. Bryan's American Institute of Hypnosis treated people in the film industry for alcohol and drug
additions, and he had served as the technical adviser on the filming of the movie The Manchurian Candidate. Karr gave Bryan's
phone number to Hamshari and advised him to visit Bryan. Karr later said he referred Hamshari to Bryan because Hamshari complained
that he suffered headaches whenever he visited Los Angeles, which he did frequently during 1967 and 1968.
==============
In the summer of 1979 Karr contacted Leslie Linder, a former movie agent, whom Karr had known while he worked in the movie
business. Karr wanted Linder to represent his proposed memoirs, which would include a revelation that Onassis had played a key
role in the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Linder was interested and scheduled another discussion of the proposal again with
the added participation of Oscar Beuselinck, a London lawyer.
In the meantime, Karr departed for a business meeting in Moscow, where he planned to open a big hotel. He remarked that he
had all the evidence of the Onassis story in Paris, and he promised to call Linder and Beuselinck as soon as he returned from
Moscow.
Karr was found dead in his Paris apartment on the morning of July 7, 1979. He had a fractured larynx, and blood was found on
his pillow. A forensic examination concluded he had died of a heart attack, but his widow Evia Karr and his business partner Ronnie
Driver insist that Karr was murdered by agents of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Continued from my previous comments
=====
Mahmoud Hamshari was born in a village near Jaffa in 1939 and eventually became an important official in the Palestinian Fatah.
In June 1967, following the Six-Day War, he attended a Fatah meeting in Damascus to discuss further strategy. The meeting's participants
represented a broad scope of attitudes within Fatah, and Hamshari appeared to be among the most aggressive. When he spoke, he
focused his anger on US support of Israel and proposed actions that would attack the US. In particular, he proposed the Fatah
"kill a high-profile American on American soil" in order to make the US "think twice about backing the Jews."
This proposal seemed to earn little explicit support at the meeting, so Hamshari then proposed that the organization greatly
increase its fund-raising activities in the US, in order to manipulate the US to support the Palestinians too. Fatah apparently
adopted this proposal and assigned Hamshari himself to implement it, operating under the supervision of Fatah's intelligence chief,
Abu Iyad (Salah Khalef). In the following months, Hamshari began to travel to Europe and the United States, using several false
names, including Dr. Michel Hassner. Late in 1967 a Fatah official gave Hamshari a list of Palestinian immigrants living in Los
Angeles. The list had been acquired from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which had records on the Sirhan family, then
living in Los Angeles.
=====
In some unknown circumstances, Dr. Hassner (Hamshari) began to associate frequently with David Karr, a mysterious associate
of Aristotle Onassis. Karr did not introduce Hassner to Onassis directly, but instead introduced him indirectly into Onassis's
nner circle as an investment consultant for Arab Bank, specializing in the restructuring of airline debts. Such expertise was
of interest because Onassis's Olympic airline was struggling with debts. A meeting between Hassner and Onassis was scheduled for
a day in January 1968 in Paris, but Onassis left for Athens unexpectedly right before the meeting. Therefore Hassner met instead
with several members of Onassis's inner circle. The airline's chief executive officer, Yannis Georgakis, was not informed about
the meeting by Onassis and so did not participate.
At this meeting, Hassner revealed to the group that he had been approached by a Palestinian terror group who demanded that
the airline pay $350,000 to the group so that they not blow up bombs on Olympic airliners. Hassner said he was acting only as
an honest broker, a facilitator, and did not know the identities of the terrorists, who had contacted him through the Palestine
National Fund.
After Onassis returned to Paris, he began to meet frequently in Paris with Hassner, the two alone. Between meetings, Hassner
sometimes traveled to Los Angeles and back. Karr says that during this period he gave Hassner the phone number of a Los Angeles
hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan, Jr.
Georgakis, the CEO of Olympic, heard about Hassner for the first time in May 1968. He heard about him not from Onassis, but
from a Mossad official stationed at the Israeli embassy in Paris. Onassis himself informed Georgakis about a week later, saying
that he had already decided to pay $1.2 million (no longer just $350,000) to Hassner and that Georgakis should provide the first
$200,000 in cash from Olympic funds. Georgakis complied, and Onassis subsequently flew with the cash to New York, where his chauffeur
delivered it to an apartment at United Nations Plaza.
=====
To be continued.
Allow me to conclude with one more passage.
=====
On the evening of June 4, 1968, an itinerant Christian preacher named Jerry Owen (he himself said) parked a horse trailer outside
the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, where Robert Kennedy's campaign organization had scheduled its anticipated victory following
the California primary elections. Later that night, Sirhan assassinated Kennedy in the hotel. The next day, Owen reported to the
Los Angeles police that he had picked up Sirhan and a young woman hitchhiking on June 3. During the course of that meeting, Owen
said, Sirhan had agreed to buy a horse from Owen on the night of June 4 in the hotel parking lot. That deal, explained Owen, was
why he himself had parked his horse trailer in the parking lot and why Sirhan had four one-hundred-dollar bills in his pocket
when he was arrested. Owen further surmised that Sirhan intended to use the horse trailer as a get-away vehicle.
The Police basically dismissed Owen's report as a publicity stunt. (In 1970 this incident was examined in a lawsuit that Owen
filed against a television station. During that trial, several witnessed testified that Owen had become acquainted with Sirhan
at the Corona race track, where on one occasion a few weeks before the assassination Owen had given Sirhan a large wad of cash)
Immediately after he was arrested, Sirhan declared that "I did it for my country." Within a few minutes, though, he began avoiding
any discussion of his motive. He instead wanted to talk with the investigating policemen about Albert DeSalvo, the so-called Boston
Strangler. Later, Sirhan claimed that he had no memory of anything about the assassination, about his intention, about his notebooks,
or about the act itself. During his trial he reluctantly allowed his lawyers to construct a legal defense of diminished responsibility
due to mental illness.
Sirhan was not hypnotized by himself or anyone else in order to manipulate him to assassinate Robert Kennedy. Even without
the hypnosis, Sirhan was willing and eager to assassinate Kennedy because of the latter's support for Israel. The initial purpose
of Sirhan's self-hypnosis was to focus his mind and bolster courage for this difficult mission. Eventually, though, the hypnosis
served also as a legal excuse to try to avoid execution. The notebook served as evidence that he was often in deep trances and
so plausibly had no memory of the assassination. Also, the hypnosis deflected political blame from the Palestinian cause as Sirhan's
main motivation.
Sirhan hoped that if he could avoid execution, then eventually he would be freed in a prisoner swap forced by Palestinian terrorists.
He was sentenced to death, but later that sentence was commuted when the Supreme Court declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional.
Sirhan mentioned Albert DeSalvo repeatedly in his notebooks and at the police station immediately after his arrest. DeSalvo
had been hypnotized by a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan. After he died in 1977, a couple of prostitutes whom
he frequently hired told investigators that he sometimes bragged that he had hypnotized Albert DeSalvo and Sirhan Sirhan.
They most certainly did. They stole US enriched plutonium and triggers for Israel's continuing illegal nuclear weapons programs.
They also whipped up the entire cold war and the Vietnam war as a cover for the genocide and theft of Palestine. They passed nuclear
weapons research through jews like the Rosenbergs and Pollard to their other puppet, the USSR, so that the US and the entire planet
could be kept under their strategy of tension while they set up the capital of the planet in Jerusalem.
But that is all merely frosting on the cake. This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution,
the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and is directly responsible for the never
ending wars for Eretz Israel. With their Havara agreement, this family set up all the jews that it deemed racially inferior to
suffer through WWII in Europe while it forced the National Socialists to set up training centers to train young Zionist Übermenschen
in all facets of German technology before shipping them, with their belongings, tools and equipment to Palestine. It is also amazing
that immediately after the war they twisted Germany's arm into resuming the shipments of technology, power stations, trains and
ships.
Israel clearly is not a legal state in any sense of the word. It is the capital of by far the worlds largest crime syndicate.
It is a scourge to all humanity.
JFK had also told an aide that Israel would have the 'bomb' over his dead body. Well, Israel has the bomb and control of the
USA, thanks to their murders of the Kennedy's and the masterminding of the 9/11 False Flag.
But if you point this out, you'll get hit with a barrage of anti-Semite slurs, accusing one of being a neo-Nazi or worse, all
the while never discussing what you just wrote.
"A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended
to Cuba and "gangsters"."
Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel.
Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators
it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no.
Did Israel kill the Kennedys? It is entirely possible. In fact, any conspiracy theory that links the murders that does not
see the Israelis and American Jews involved is almost certainly a waste of time. But here is what is essential: if Israel
and/or American Jews 'did it,' you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's
WASP Deep State was behind it all.
Once this guy writes, "Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy
assassinations were unrelated? Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. Basic common sense suggests
that the Kennedy brothers have been killed by the same force, and for the same motives," there is really no point in reading further.
If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up with? Two women
tried to kill Gerald Ford in 1975; does "basic common sense suggest" that they represented "the same force"? Robert Kennedy and
Martin Luther King were both killed in 1968; does that suggest their murders were related? This guy belongs on Infowars.
I had long thought the shareholders of the Federal Reserve (FR) were behind the assasination. Kennedy had signed the executive
order to forbid the FR from charging interest on its fraud money. He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed
by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.
Later events by Johnson surely indicated he was at least a water boy for the FR. Johnson went on to sign the coin act that
removed silver from dimes and quarters and reduced the amount of silver in fifty cent coins. He also removed the gold cover requirement
for Federal Reserve notes.
At the very least there were two reasons to get rid of Kennedy; stop the Dimona project and remove jeopardy to FR income.
It is the same Feinberg who, after the Democratic primaries in 1960, made the following proposal to Kennedy, as Kennedy
himself later reported to his friend Charles Bartlett: "We know your campaign is in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills
if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy."
Whatever the details of the blackmail, Kennedy once confided to his assistant Hyman Raskin, as an apology for taking Johnson,
"I was left with no choice [ ] those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don't need more
problems."
I wonder if Trump is confiding in anyone? If he is, it would be interesting to hear what he's saying.
"We all know that Jack and Bobby were killed by lone nutcases three years apart and there can't possibly be any connection
between them. Stop messing about with the Official Narrative."
Maybe the Magic Bullet got Bobby too.
In any case, the involvement of Israel would explain why the complete JFK assassination files will never see the light of day.
Even the CIA doesn't have that kind of clout.
My comment was about the author's failure to take account of one of tbe best sources for what RFK thought and proposed. Obviously
that suggests the question whether it was sloppy research or dishonest suppression.
As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or
his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And
anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger
"Cubans or gangsters" as code for Israel.
Or, conceivably you think RFK didn't know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which
might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?
Not only did Israel kill JFK and RFK but they also killed JFKjr. with a bomb on his plane and the Israelis did 911 and by the
way the Israeli attack on the USS LIBERTY where 34 dead and 174 were wounded in brutal attack on an American ship and every one
of these diabolical act proved over and over again that Israel and the Zionists control America lock stock and gun barrel.
America is an Israeli slavery colony and the America military is a proxy arm of the IDF to fight Israels wars .
This whole article on Israeli angle is simply preposterous.
If the Dimona project was so crucial, there were numerous other options for Israel to try to persuade JFK to let them proceed
with their project. To try to latch JFK's supposedly adamant decision onto one or two documents is absurd: politicians frequently
change their opinions & actions and there is no proof that JFK considered Dimona to be such a big deal, make-or-break of anything.
Then, Israelis would, even if this were true, be more prone too blackmail JFK- mostly about his sexual escapades, or try to,
say, eliminate him in a clandestine manner (poisoning or something similar).
No, the JFK assassination was a public execution, a coup by the deep state (in modern parlance) in front of the whole world,
the message being: we can do whatever we want & you can't do anything about it.
This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression,
the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War
Hmmm – sounds like a family of winners. So how do I sign up with them?
Lansky killed Kennedy for Israel and for mob interests within the U.S. Knock off one president and reap multiple benefits.
Lansky was a fanatical Zionist as well as a crime boss. The JFK hit is all about Permindex and the Lansky-Marcello connection.
The following is from 'Final Judgement' by Michael Collins Piper. "Tibor Rosenbaum was one of the godfathers of the state of
Israel and the first director for finance and supply for Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad. Rosenbaum was a prime financial
angel behind the Permindex corporation. His Swiss banking concern, the Banque De Credit International, also served as the chief
European money laundry or the global crime syndicate of Miami-based crime chief Meyer Lansky."
Yaras, a friend of Jack Ruby, was the hitman. Oswald was heavily intertwined as well.
Lyndon Johnson must have completely known that the hit would take place because he immediately dropped all operations JFK implemented
regarding Israel.
"Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were
unrelated? If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up
with?"
I do not find it silly at all. Assuming that the Kennedys were close (which is most probably true), then if JFK was worried
about Israel's atom bomb program, Robert almost certainly knew about it and shared JFK's opinion. He may not have known who was
behind the JFK assassination, but he would very probably have opened the case. If the case is honestly studied, it is immediately
seen as a conspiracy. I confirmed it easily to myself by analyzing the Dictabelt data: more than one shooter. As the likely culprit
is very probably to be found by checking what changed in the US policy (and what changed was the US attitude to the Israel bomb),
the argument of the article becomes quite strong: the purpose of the second assassination was very possibly to cover the first
assassination. I find it purely logical, not silly.
Biff wisely reflected: "I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story."
Hi Biff,
This article author, Laurent Guyenot, did an admirable job at attempting to distance CIA involvement from Israeli intelligence,
and the killing of JFK, pursuant coup, overturning a US election.
Not so with author Peter Janney who wrote the terrific book, "Mary's Mosaic." He focused upon CIA James Jesus Angleton's Israeli-cozy
career & deadly pre/post assassination undertakings prior to November 23, 1963.
F.y.i, Biff, perhaps you're aware about the Fall 1964 murder (unsolved!) of Mary Pinchot Meyer, CIA Cord Meyer Jr.' ex-wife
and JFK flame?
Unfortunately, Israeli interest & involvement in JFK's killing escaped Peter Janney's survey. Nonetheless, below is Mr. Janet's
very sound description about CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton's mad pursuit to locate & confiscate the diary of the
dead, Mary Pinchot Meyer.
Subsequently, I do not endorse a "Rush to Judgement" that exonerates the CIA from the treasonous Kennedy murders.
They threatened to assassinate 0bama if he got out of line: Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher
suggesting that U.S.-based Israeli Mossad agents might someday need to "order a hit" on the president of the United States.
On Jan. 13 the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that Israel might someday need to "order
a hit" on the president of the United States. In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime
Minister Netanyahu would need to "give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to
Israel." The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that would help the Jewish state
"obliterate its enemies." Adler wrote that it is highly likely that the idea "has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles."
He threatened the fake Jews narrative on Hitler too:
From JFK diary. The diary reveals that during his time in Berlin, Kennedy wrote about visiting Hitler's bunker only months
after Germany surrendered in the Second World War.
"You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of
the most significant figures who ever lived," Kennedy wrote in his diary in 1945.
"He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about
him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him," he added. "He had in him the stuff
of which legends are made."
"The room where Hitler is supposed to have met his death showed scorched walls and traces of fire," he wrote. "There is no
complete evidence, however, that the body that was found was Hitler's body."
"The Russians doubt that he is dead," Kennedy added. JFK was visiting Europe after a stint in the Navy.
Screwed up world we live in when these frauds are our #1 ally, according to the traitors in DC.
We shoulda destroyed them after USS Liberty incident, 9/11 and the mass murder that followed would have been prevented.
To understand exactly what Kennedy's order was trying to do, we must understand the purpose of the legislation which gave
the order its underlying authority. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (ch. 25, 48 Stat 51) to which Kennedy refers permits
the President to issue silver certificates in various denominations (mostly $1, $2, $5, and $10) and in any total volume so
long as the Treasury has enough silver on hand to redeem the certificates for a specific quantity and fineness of silver and
that the total volume of such currency does not exceed $3 billion. The Silver Purchase Act of 1934 (ch. 674,48 Stat 1178) also
grants this power to the Treasury Secretary subject to similar limitations. Nowhere in the text of the order is a quantity
of money mentioned, so it is unclear how Marrs arrived at his $4.2 billion figure. Moreover, the President could not have authorized
such a large issue because it would have exceeded the statutory limit.2
As economic activity grew in the fifties and sixties, the public demand for low denomination currency grew, increasing the
Treasury's need for silver to back additional certificate issues and to mint new coins (dimes, quarters, half-dollars). However,
during the late fifties the price of silver began to rise and reached the point that the market value of the silver contained
in the coins and backing the certificates was greater than the face value of the money itself.2
To conserve the Treasury's silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963
with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer
the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills
to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations).
The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left
only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O.
11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury
Secretary.2
E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose
of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury
ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and
in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson
and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However,
by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2
In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was
to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with
a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that
gave the Fed still more power?
If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it's "interesting" how they always found themselves in the spotlight of
major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel.
But not 9/11 that was perpetrated by inconveniently Saudi terrorists hosted thousands of miles away from Palestine in Nowheresville,
Afghanistan.
Great article. Well-researched and well-presented. It's a convincing case. It reveals the CIA was compromised in favor of Israel.
That was then and this is now.No doubt the Israeli termites have completely consumed the structure. I would have to imagine at
this point the CIA is a dupe division of Mossad and it's so inundated with Israeli Moles to rid the undemocratic organization
of the infestation would be tantamount to playing whack-a-mole. The only option is to burn it to the ground. Destroy it, end it,
and jail the majority of its members, past and present, for High Treason.
One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons , not often stated, but obvious, is their "use" on the United States
.
THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES:
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
The Counterproliferation Papers
Future Warfare Series No. 2
USAF Counterproliferation Center
Air War College
Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
September 1999
Johnson, IMHO, worst President in US history. HE DID MORE LASTING DAMAGE than even Obama. But the Kennedy myth is overdrawn.
If JFK had lived he would have been reelected but not by a Johnsonian o landslide. Consequently, Congress would have kept him
in check. If HHH had been his VP, Kennedy would have got less out of Congress than with Johnson ( who knew where the bodies were
buried).
The real tragedy is not that Kennedy was so good; it was that Johnson was so bad. Had Bobby won in 1968, he would have torn the
country apart worse than Johnson. There are so many loose ends in this feature it is hard to find where to start. But it is clear
that this person believes that for a few years we Americans had Gods living amongst us.
The curse of the whole Kennedy family was raised by Teddy while successfully avoiding blame and guilt for Mary Jo's unfortunate
accident. However, the author brings the curse to life again while seeming to reject it concerning JFK, junior's plane crash disappearance.
Could pilot error by lack of experience and failure to heed weather forecast advice have had any role in this family's continuing
misadventures?
Is there any explanation for anything negative happening to this clan that can not be blamed on Jews, right-wing extremists, Cosa
Nostra, CIA, the Navy, military intelligence or talk radio?
you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's WASP Deep State was behind
it all.
Certainly complicit. The article does seem to give a pass to the CIA, but if the CIA is everything it's cracked up to be, it
had to know about this and the author even indicates some of its more influential agents were cooperative with Mossad so in the
least it was compromised and therefore complicit in High Treason. If it didn't know, the CIA should have been abolished then &
there but it certainly should be abolished now.
Who hasn't been mentioned so far is the very beautiful and brilliant Mathilde Krim. Krim was LBJ's mistress in the 1960s. She
also just happened to be a fanatical supporter of the interests of Israel. In the late 1940s, she had been an active promoter
of the Israeli terror group The Irgun. Mathilde was also most likely a Mossad agent with long-time contacts to the highest levels
of the Israeli government.
I would have loved to hear the "pillow talk" between these two total opposites: the incredibly crude, totally uncultured and
flabby LBJ and the cultured, slim, sleek and highly educated Krim. You can bet that she was able to supply Israel with a constant
supply of all sorts of top secret information that she was able to extract out of her bedmate. Maybe she also gave advice to LBJ
about who exactly to assassinate or what transgressions by Israel for LBJ to ignore (like the USS Liberty attack).
Mathilde Krim's husband was the very wealthy Arthur Krim, one of the most powerful and active supporters of Israel in the USA.
Mathilde Krim's relationship with LBJ was most likely known about by her husband but was "overlooked" by him because of its huge
value to Israel as both as a source of information as well as for its potential use as blackmail. (You can bet that somewhere
in Israel is a vault full of movies taken of their bedroom activities.)
The heads of MSM at the time apparently knew all about the relationship between Krim and LBJ but "wisely" chose to ignore it
just as they had done for JFK and his affairs.
You can also bet that Krim dropped her boyfriend LBJ like a hot potato once he left office and was no longer of use to her
friends.
I've often wondered to what extent the CIA is Zionized and acting in concert with Israel, and how long it has been that way.
Anecdotally: I had two students at the University of Wisconsin who interviewed with the CIA. Both were NY Jews who ardently supported
Israel, and I do mean ardently. This piece was an eye opener for me. I read all about Angleton in The Devil's Chessboard, but
nothing about his connection with Israel. And LBJ a Jew??
This article is simply bizarre. If the CIA didn't do it why is it still sanitizing the files 55 years later? Surely this
article (which contains numerous basic errors (for example, there were never two entry wounds seen on the front of JFK's body,
only a neck wound) is either written by an ignorant hack or more likely a CIA hack's imaginative narrative designed to confuse
the idiots. For a start try the Kennedy and King website hosted by Jim D'Eugenio and spend a few years getting the facts before
taking this rubbish seriously.
Its actually quite easy. Promise your first born and swear complete and total obeisance, and you are in the club. But remember,
never refuse to partake in the ceremonies and sacrifices. And don't ever even think about backing out of your oath to give up
your first born, otherwise expect the same as what happened to Heath Ledger or Kurt Kobain.
When Langley wants to take that CIA smell off their official line, they use a foreign source. Guyenot's act is boilerplate disinfo,
reinterpreting the obvious with double-reverse psychology.
Like, Truman's editorial, assiduously suppressed by Dulles himself, was a diabolical head-fake. And But but but no invasion
of Cuba followed Kennedy's assassination!! CIA framed Cuba not to justify an immediate attack on Cuba, but to force Warren to
bend over for the official story. LBJ's negotiation with Warren is a matter of historical record. He told Warren that if he
didn't stick with the official bullshit story, Cuba's responsibility would lead to war entailing nuclear war with Russia.
And more standard CIA argumentum ad ignorantiam: you don't know who the CIA mastermind was, so it was Israel. You don't know
who the mastermind was because CIA flouts the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act.
Guyenot applies Occam's sledghammer to prove that it wasn't the guys who had military, commercial, and criminal cutouts nationwide,
extensive illegal domestic operations including blanket surveillance, arbitrary classification authority, and impunity in municipal
law. It was Israel, who cleverly put one over on the dumb ol' CIA, nyuk nyuk nyuk. And CIA couldn't do nuthin' about it. This
is how stupid they think you are.
JFK blah blah blah. CIA's your CHEKA. They've ruled your country since inception. They kill and torture whoever they want.
What are you gonna do about it?
Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK? LHO was a devotee of Casto and when he visited the Cuban Consulate in Mexico and was denied permission
to travel to Cuba Oswald stormed out. The Kennedys were trying to kill Castro, and Oswald,, who had narrowly missed killing
Edwin Walker months before, and found himself in a job that provided a shot on the JFK parade route, killed JFK for his anti communism.
Kennedy had almost taken the world to WW3 in the Cuba crisis, which was Nikita Khrushchev's response to JFK's insane revival of
Eisenhower's plan to give Germany a say in Nukes (to save the US taxpayer money basically). Perhaps it is just as well that Marine-trained
rifleman Oswald put an end to Kennedy when he did.
John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora
Jews. They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis
on issues of race and sex.
They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their
support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification
of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic
Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans.
The Kennedy brothers adopted this platform after the crucially important events of 1956-1957:
In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously,
Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced,
Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian
counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite,
almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe – far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly
distributed among the various ethnicities.
In other words, Soviet communism was no longer "good for the Jews". No longer were millions of counter-revolutionary "antisemites"
being murdered. No longer were Jews massively over-represented in positions of power and prestige. And no longer was the Soviet
Union a supporter of Zionism and Israel.
Similarly, the rise of American Jews from the working class into the upper middle and wealthy classes, meant that domestically
the American old-left economic policies such as progressive taxation and support for rogue unions such as the Teamsters, were
no longer "good for the Jews".
In these circumstances, Eisenhower's moves towards detente with the Soviet Union, insistence on Israeli withdrawal from the
Sinai, support for immigration restriction (which prevented the migration into America of the Jewish former ruling class of communist
eastern Europe – Kaganovich, Rakosi and hordes of lesser-known radical Bolsheviks, commissars and secret police agents), and even
his continuation of FDR-era progressive taxation and public works projects, were seen as "bad for the Jews", just as Kennedy's
exact opposite platform was seen as "good for the Jews".
Perhaps more significantly, the Eisenhower-Nixon cultural conservatism (praising Robert E. Lee as the greatest American who
ever lived, expressing regret for having appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and living a chaste life of faithfulness
to their wives) contrasted with the cultural radicalism of the Kennedy brothers (full support for the most radical elements of
the civil rights movement, libertine personal lives filled with not-so-secret love affairs).
Compared to what came before, JFK represented an assault on the ethnic self-respect of old-stock Americans and the cultural
norms of traditional Christianity – to the delight of the Jewish movements examined in Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique
.
Whatever personal animosity may have existed, in political terms LBJ was indistinguishable from the Kennedy brothers. He too
was hostile towards the Soviet bloc, a friend of Israel, and supportive of the cultural left.
Given this macro-historical background, I think the simplest explanations of the assassinations are correct, and the various
convoluted conspiracy theories are incorrect.
Lee Harvey Oswald was an old-left Marxist who saw JFK as an enemy, a traitor against the "true" left.
Jack Ruby was a hyper-ethnocentric Jewish gangster who murdered Oswald to avenge the death of the Jewish people's best friend.
Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist.
Conspiracy theorist are typically Kennedy sycophants who don't like being reminded that their heroes were enemies of socialism,
enemies of the long-suffering Palestinian people, and heroes to the likes of Jack Ruby.
They'd prefer to believe that JFK and RFK were martyrs murdered by reactionary WASPs – but that is pure fantasy.
I'm really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David
Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys -- both of which articles
are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract
(and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about
any of it. Not only is it a frustrating exercise in futility to try to discuss anything with such people (their minds are closed
not only with respect to the lunacy that they themselves believe but also with respect to what they assume you believe
-- they've already assigned you to a camp and will never allow you to depart from it), but also the subjects themselves have grown
tiresome and tedious and are only anymore of interest to the very same propounders of revisionist idiocy who keep them alive with
their siege mentality.
What purpose can there be in publishing such articles other than to fuel the febrile files of this phantasist fringe? There
is nothing here in the interests of truth; this is demagoguery and obscurantism of the worst sort. Articles like this are the
intellectual equivalent of a plague bacillus, winding its way through human minds, putrefying and perverting all in its course.
Such foul air requires a constant nosegay of truth to ward it off, and these flowers are in very short supply around here.
I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved
with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that
they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not
need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot
be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy.
Here's Mathilde Krim with a soirée of Fine Folks to include LBJ & Lady Bird. She certainly made the rounds. Definitely an Intelligence
Operative considering her prodigious network of contacts. A Cancer to Humanity. It reminds me of a scene from Rosemary's Baby.
Considering that you belong to the resident Hasbara brigade, your position fits well with the hypothesis of this piece – the
"limited hang-out" of the U.S. "deep state" to cover up the Israeli connection.
Dimona was clearly a major point of contention – and it is very unlikely that JFK would have aided and abetted the shenanigans
surrounding the war of 1967. Israel had plenty of reason to do away with him.
"the bullet tested in laboratory to be compared to the the one extracted from Robert's brain had not been shot by Sirhan's revolver,
but by another gun, with a different serial number; "
The author seems blankly ignorant of guns, apparently believing that a serial number can be determined from a bullet. He sounds
as though he has some vague recollection that marking left by lands and grooves on bullets are unique to the gun firing them,
and somehow confuses this with serial numbers. Amateurish research does not breed confidence in conclusions. Does he give a link
to which labortory and its report?
Well researched and written article! Additional and further research is needed in the following possibilities raised by the people
living outside of the US in 1960's:
1. JFK's opposition to the planning of Israelis initiating a war against the Arab states in 1967
2. Killing 2 birds with one shot by falsely accusing an Arab for killing RK before he reopens the assassination case of his brother
3. Destruction of the world media from the 1967 war to the assassination of RK
4. Involvement of LBJ in both assassinations since he is a Zionist from his mother side
Yes, the JFK assassination was a public execution, but why would that incriminate the deep state rather than Israel? I would
rather think the opposite. I think you also miss a point that you could perhaps get by reading James Douglass: JFK considered
it his most important task to abolish nuclear weapons. It was possible then. So it makes sense to believe that his determination
to stop Dimona was very, very strong.
No, I am not that ignorant. Either I expressed myself poorly (English being not my native language), or you misunderstood.
The serial number of the gun from which the test bullet was shot (as indicated on official report) is different from the serial
number of Sirhan's gun (as indicated on another official report.
Thank you Laurent Guyénot. This is a long(ish) article, and obviously complex.
So, in breaking down this theory, one must first admit, in light of what is known of the Kennedy assassinations, consideration
of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective as a potential prime operative, is reasonable, based on the
prime-facia motives .
Specifically:
1. the intention of registering the American Zionist Council (AZC subsequently AIPAC ) as a "foreign agent" subject to
the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938
2. the Kennedy's determination to stop Israel [secretly, like many things] developing its own nuclear bomb
3. Kennedy committed to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees
Anybody familiar with the trends of the last 200 years of the activities and well- [self]- published political motivations
of Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective , notably pro-zionists and their leading spokes people,
would be aware that each one of the listed intentions, if validated , would be considered ample justification
for another political assassination, from such an extremist ideological perspective.
The thornier, but potentially more revealing issue is capability .
But one must ask oneself, who in the world, could have the capability to kill a sitting U.S. president and a leading presidential
nominee?
In consideration of this question, one can greatly reduce the number of potential suspects, since the range is extremely
small, and I would suggest, probably included the collaboration of several of the very few limited candidates.
For example, does anyone think that the Soviet Union could possibly have managed this alone, or even more ridiculously, Fidel
Castro?!
I personally think it at least on the verge of absurd.
Capability continued
Frequently, I find myself drawn back to Gilad Atzmons excerpt from testimony, as expert witness on Jewish Identity politics,
at 'hate crime" trial of Arthur Topham 20151108-20151109
Sourced originally at: http://blog.balder.org/?p=1673
"When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc') some Jews are "racially offended" in spite of the
fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned. When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the
argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious
teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple,
yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and
racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary
3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress
any possible criticism."
But most particularly, " Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress
. ""
I am also reminded of Noam Chompsky's model (explanation), as described in Manufacturing Consent for what he
describes as a passive media skewing mechanism (my words), along the lines of, systemically, many slight slanted/nudged
editorial decisions, which aggregated, may well completely distort an accurate picture of events.
By not being able to identify one clear, discrete actor/provocateur, the system, the way it operates, will be incapable
of actually making a determination and assignment of cause.
Now, if one followed a operational model of negative sum gain gaming of systems to always gain advantage, one
might have identified this weakness in the system, and employed a quantum-mechanics like distribution of a fifth column in the
system to effect the political change one desired.
That's a good point but it still doesn't explain how Sirhan Squared fired the fateful shot from behind Kennedy when he was
always in front of Kennedy.
Fyi, I have always felt horrible for Sirhan Squared. So much so, I named my dog after him and it's a female dog. You should
see the reaction when I take her to the vet and they ask her name and I say it's Sirhan Sirhan. The look is priceless. My next
dog's name will be Jesus. I'm sure it will go over equally as well with the hoi polloi.
Does anyone really believe that if a POTUS decided to eradicate Israel's nuclear weapons program and cut off all funding to
Israel that said POTUS wouldn't be assassinated before he/she could make it happen? Trump has been egregiously disrespectful to
the Intelligence Community and yet he's still alive, but what if Trump was egregiously disrespectful to Israel instead of kissing
Israel's ass as the first Jewish POTUS that he is? What if Trump ended all American aid to Israel and went to the United Nations
and put forth a resolution for Israel to eliminate its nukes because if Iran and North Korea and Ted Nugent can't have them, neither
can Israel. If Trump got elected on such a platform, which he never would have by the way, he would have been assassinated before
he or any POTUS could implement such a plan. Israel has made it clear many times over, it will do ANYTHING & EVERYTHING it has
to do to protect itself existentially and I'm sure that includes assassinating the POTUS if need be and all else fails.
Not Israel exactly but the banker clans that created Israel with US wealth and still own monopolies in banking, media, and drugs
legal and illegal. Kennedy was put in office because they thought he was just a skirt chasing son of a bootlegger that would not
interfere with the Globalist agenda. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Then he starts talking about "secret societies" and backing off
the constant war agenda. And he fostered a trusting relationship with Russia, trying to really be president. He is the last one
to try that.
"As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him
and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In
1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his
friend Schlesinger "Cubans or gangsters" as code for Israel.
Or, conceivably you think RFK didn't know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might
have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?"
I recently bought a book about Lansky's Havana operations from Cuba. Before the revolution by Castro Lansky run the crime empire
there. It is also written of his connections to Israel, which you can check even from Wikipedia. We all get our information from
books and documents. This book was rather OK concerning facts. Lansky lost a lot when Castro came to power. In 1963 Lansky had
a very good reason to want the USA to attack Cuba to gain his empire. Besides, he run the USA organized crime at that time and
had reasons not to like Kennedys actions against organized crime.
There is no reason for "Cubans and gangsters" to be a code word for Israel as Cubans and gangsters were almost certainly involved
in the JFK assassination.
I think Robert Kennedy did know of the Israel atom bomb project and he did not like it, same as JFK. Robert Kennedy probably
did not know if Israel was involved in the JFK assassination but was going to investigate who was. It might have lead to Israel.
There was this danger.
You lose all credibility for anything sensible you might say when you spout such tendentious rubbish as "he is[sic] a Zionist
from his mother [sic] side". You presumably are confusing the Orthodox criterion for someone to be a Jew with the choice a person
makes to be a Zionist (for which you don't even have to be a Jew come to think of it). It's even sillier than people saying Rupert
Murdoch is a Jew because a great or great great grandmother may have been Jewish.
Interesting and well-researched article, but ultimately, as commenter Wizard of Oz notes, it serves the author's "confirmation
bias."
Behind the JFK and RFK assassinations is the Allen Dulles gang: Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, and James Jesus Angleton.
It is true, as the author notes, that Angleton had deep ties with Mossad. It is also true that since the end of the second world
war, Israeli skullduggery in the US and Europe has been massive. But these two political murders were planned and executed by
the above Dulles cabal.
Oswald was a CIA asset since his time as Marine serving at the US Atsugi base in Japan. Researcher HP Albarelli connects Oswald
to right-wing Agency operative and pedophile David Ferrie as far back as the early 1950s. Oswald was also part of Angleton's false
defector program, which inserted him into the USSR in the late 1950s.
The grooming and handling of Sirhan Sirhan in California in the mid 1960s speaks of a well-entrenched domestic network of CIA
assets. He was picked for patsydom for a number reasons, and Angleton, again, a prince of an ally for Mossad, liked Sirhan's Palestinian
background, which amped up the Arab threat, in the eyes of the US audience, to his Israeli friends. The author is correct that
Thane Caesar was the real assassin of RFK. Previous to the RFK hit, Caesar work for the Hughes corporation in Burbank. The sprawling
Howard Hughes business empire had served as a CIA cover since the 1950s.
Why would the Dulles gang want to murder the Kennedy brothers? JFK: revenge for the Bay of Pigs betrayal and the subsequent
firing of Dulles. RFK: a man who worked closely with the Agency in the early 1960s on the Castro project. David Talbot's book
Brothers, referenced by the author, makes clear that RFK had an absolutely clear conception of who killed his brother. There was
no way he was going to reach the White House.
Both brothers also sought to wind down the profitable war in Vietnam. RFK was especially vocal about his goal of ending the
war on the'68 campaign trail. And then there's Richard Nixon: a national security state favorite since his time as congressman
during the so-called Red Scare of the early 1950s, Nixon was their favored candidate in the '68 election. RFK's death sealed the
deal for Nixon. Nixon would go on to incur the wrath of his former national security state allies with his secret negotiations
with China and the USSR while president. Because of his previous good works for them, a political death was arranged rather than
a violent physical one.
Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.
I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect
their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible.
Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage
an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined
any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone)
continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even
if all the world were converted to their opinion.
They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But
this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present
moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists
to make saints out of the Kennedys -- which on any objective reading they clearly were not -- is by itself sufficient to discover
the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole
American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so
as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very
politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if,
peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots
are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.
The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and
lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious
occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.
PTI, but just wanted to make a quick observation. Is it just me or have others noticed that there have been quite a number
of Presidents upon whom this honorary title has been bestowed, including:
LBJ
Ronald Reagan
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
(Bill Clinton and George W Bush should receive honorary mention).
I should have mentioned that Jeff Gates goes into the LBJ/Krim relationship, NUMEC, McCain father and son, the USS Liberty,
with a measure of Jeff Flake in his book. It bears rereading, now if only I can find it.
Well you have just proved what a hopeless amateur you are as conspiracy theorist and as analyst.
What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason
to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a
US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed
forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained
assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal's casino. Pathetic.
There is indeed no need for "Cubans or gangsters" to be code for "Israel" but again you have shot yourself in the foot by your
missing the point completely. My obvious point, which you managed to get confused about, was that Bobby Kennedy had no reason
not to mention Israel to his confidant Schlesinger so his use of the words "Cubans" and "gangsters" meant that he didn't have
Israel in mind
The most likely scenario is of course that the assassinations met the needs of not only Israel/Mossad, but of the U.S. oligarchs/Wall
Street, European oligarchs, and the U.S. deep state forces of the CIA/Pentagon. It isn't an "either/or" with the Mossad vs the
CIA as to who is the culprit, but rather that everyone benefited by these assassinations. From the U.S. Joint Chiefs who wanted
to end JFK's efforts to stop the Cold War, to Mossad who wanted carte blanche Israeli power in the Middle East AND the bomb, to
the CIA which most definitely did not want to be "splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds" – you have a set
of powerful interests that converge and all benefit by these deaths.
The whole debate of whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog misses the point that the very creation of Israel was all about
helping the Western colonial powers maintain neo-colonial power in the Middle East as their former colonies were being liberated
post-WWII.
The oligarchic power blocs in Europe, the U.S., the U.K. and Israel have all benefited from the assassinations of the
Kennedy brothers and the policy shifts that were then possible by their permanent removal from political office. Chasing the –
"was it the Mossad, or was it the CIA"- train, leaves us grasping at phantoms like "the girl in the polka dot dress," or "the
second Oswald," and simply distract from the obvious reality that all these parties not only benefited, but also knew each other's
secrets and operated in coordination to make these events happen, and to sew intrigue and endless questions in their wake.
I did not mean to exonerate the CIA. I tried to be as brief as I could, so I didn't get into the detail of CIA involvement.
CIA had to be involved to some extent in order to be blackmailed into powerlessness. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind
and I wanted to point out that the mainstream media were pointing to the CIA, which is in itself very significant: it is like
when the mainstream media say "the CIA controls the media". I am actually inclined to agree with Gary Wean's thesis (as Piper
seemed to do) that the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed.
This fits the scenario which I also believe for 9/11.
http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html
And I liked Janney's book.
I agree about the plane crash inserted into the article. It was a combination of an unusually thick fog and an inexperienced
pilot. There was a thread recently in which John Jrs plane crash was discussed. A couple of pilots who flew the same Plane write that
in that kind of fog with a pilot unskilled in flying by instruments it was not shot down but just happened.
Another poster write that he was in the area that night and it was one of the worst fogs he'd ever seen.
Of course he does. He is part of that dwindling demographic which believes whatever they are told by the kosher mainstream
media, i.e., CBS, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Fox, the History Channel, NBC, ABC, etc. There may be variations, but the
narrative remains within the acceptable kosher parameters.
An individual who believes in the official version of 9/11 will have no trouble at all believing in the "lone nut" theory of
Oswald or Sirhan. For want of a better term, I would call it "Mainstream Delusionism." It affects all of those who choose to accept
the bogus liberal/conservative bifurcation of mainstream politics here in the US.
"What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason
to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a
US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed
forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained
assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal's casino. Pathetic."
1) The assassination of JFK was a conspiracy because there were more than one shooter. This is shown by analyzing the Audiograph
and the Dictabelt, and the Zapruder film shows that one shot came from the front. You have two pdf files by me in this link
2) Next we have to look what changed in the US policy after the successful assassination, since it had to have some goal. The
USA did not attack Cuba, so that was not the goal. The USA forgot Israel's nuclear bomb project, so that was the goal. (Go through
the other alternatives and discard.)
3) Finally make a scenario who could have done the assassination. As the Audiograph was manipulated in 1970ies, there was someone
with access, like CIA (or FBI? etc). There was Ruby, so there was a link to Jewish gangsters leading to Lansky, who was the high
boss of organized crime. Much points to LBJ. So, I got this scenario:
Totally agree about the Jewish role in JFKs assassination. As for Oswald, he was an avowed communist and the American communist
party and all the far left groups were very, very, Jewish at the time. It was impossible to be a goyishe leftist and not meet
a lot of lefty Jews at the time.
Oswald always told people he became interested in communism when he was living in NYC age 11 & 12. It was the time of the Rosenberg
atomic spy trials.
"Old Jewish ladies" in his Bronx neighborhood were always handing out pamphlets defending the Rosenbergs.
Perhaps I missed it in the article but the "manufacturer" of the single bullet theory was Jewish Senator Arlen Specter of the
Warren Commission. Another point about the Kennedy's hatred of Israel .it was much greater than anyone thought especially from
the old man Joe. It evidently may have had something do with business dealings both legitimate and illegitimate.
Lyndon Johnson's great-grandparents, on the maternal side, were Jewish and Johnson helped smuggle Jews legally and illegally
into Texas ( http://www.5tjt.com/our-first-jewish-president-lyndon-johnson-an-update/
). It always sounds antisemitic but rule one that is accurate about 97% of the time is that most of the political, economic or
social upheaval in the world always has something to do with Jews.
The Kennedy worship on display by Mr. Guyenot, like that of Oliver Stone, is remarkable. I'm not singling him out – a lot of people
share in it. But the notion that the Kennedys were some kind of unique family of righteous, justice-seeking heroes is ludicrous.
They were a clan of reckless, smarmy, cynical politicians. John was probably the best of them, and he seemed to have had a few
good instincts, but he was massively compromised by his libido, which opened him up to blackmail.
And the notion that John-John was killed by some kind of conspiracy is ridiculous. He was a light-weight and a dilletante.
I don't imagine anyone feared his political or literary ambitions. His was another case of DWK – driving while Kennedy. Nobody
in that family could be trusted behind the controls of any kind of vehicle. I wouldn't knowingly step in front of stroked-out
old Joe in his wheelchair.
Clearly LBJ did not run for a second term and keep control of the investigative agencies because he could be implicated in the
assassination of the Kennedy brothers. Or maybe people who think that way are spending too much time smoking hash in their mommy's
basement.
I've read the book Nemesis that claims Onassis paid for the murder of Robert Kennedy. It also claims Onassis and Jacqueline
agreed to marry on a cruise she took on Onassis' yacht a few months before JFK was killed.
The plan was when he either lost the 64 election or was re elected and his Presidency ended in January 69, she would divorce
JFK for his numerous adulteries and marry Onassis. Who knows? It's all enjoyable reading anyway.
My favorite genres are political, spy, detective, financial corruption and historical thrillers. So I enjoy all the Kennedy conspiracy books.
Every Marine is considered a "rifleman," even those who fail to qualify with the rifle. At the end of his tour Oswald tested
on the low end of 'marksman,' which is the lowest of three qualifying categories. Which means he wasn't a particularly good shot.
Thanks for this intelligent, insightful and courageous article.
It is exceptionally interesting and well-researched, and simply outstanding, considering the intellectual decadence and cowardice
of thoughts we have been dragged into. Thanks also for the sensitivity of your conclusion: John and Robert Kennedy's memory is cherished throughout the world. They
died because they wanted to make the world a better place for humankind. They will never be forgotten.
Because local Jews & pro-Israel bunch are not equivalent to "deep state". It is true that Zionist Jews are now more influential
than ever, but they do not "own" US nor direct most currents of US policy. Being 2% of US population, Jews are perhaps 20-25%
among American elites (which, evidently, is not the majority), and most of them are liberals who are not involved in shaping of
American middle east politics. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld . were/are American imperialists, and not some Jewish puppets.
As regards Kennedy, it is true that he had strong positions re nuclear weapons, but, having in mind huge arsenals of US & Soviet
Union, and smaller ones of Britain, China..- Israel's nuclear program was not considered to be something spectacularly important,
especially at that stage. It is bizarre to consider that Israelis would even think of, let alone try to execute US president,
just because he gave them slap on the wrist at some point.
And, in 1963, Zionist Jews (and all US Jews) were much less influential then today, after 5 decades that have, beginning with
counter-cultural 60s, multiculturalism & Vietnam war, transformed US beyond recognition. Back in 50s/early 60s they had just wanted
to assimilate into society as quickly as possible & minimize traces of their ethnic identity, while Israel was a schnorrer, beggar
economy trying to survive & keep a low profile.
The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood
and lies and intellectual pollution
No one but a Jew and/or Israel supporter would make that statement.
Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy's murder and they used some Jewish organized crime members to set it up. Only our
Israeli occupied congress, not the CIA, could have "controlled' the investigation to ensure it produced the conclusion it fed
to the public.
In his book, The Passionate Attachment, former Undersecretary of State George Ball summarized the results of Johnson's Middle
East policies:
First, the Johnson administration put America in the position of being Israel's principal arms supplier and sole unqualified
backer.
"Second, by assuring the Israelis that the United States would always provide them with a military edge over the Arabs, Johnson
guaranteed the 'escalation of an arms race
Third, by refusing to follow the advice of his aides that America make its delivery of nuclear-capable F-4 Phantoms conditional
on Israel's signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Johnson gave the Israelis the impression that America had no fundamental
objection to Israel's nuclear program.
"Fourth, by permitting a cover-up of Israel's attack on the Liberty, President Johnson told the Israelis in effect that nothing
they did would induce American politicians to refuse their bidding.
From that time forth, the Israelis began to act as if they had an inalienable right to American aid and backing."
As Stephen Green concluded in his discussion of the incredible changes in U.S. policy toward Israel that took place during the
Johnson era in 'Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With A Militant Israel':
"By June of 1967, for a variety of reasons that prominently included 'domestic political considerations,' Lyndon Johnson and his
team of foreign-policy advisors had completely revised U.S.-Israeli relations. To all intents and purposes, Israel had become
the 51st state."
This was the exact opposite of what Kennedy's attitude toward Israel was and had he lived we would probably have a different relationship
with Israel today.'
Former high-ranking U.S. diplomat Richard H. Curtiss, writing in 'A Changing Image: American Perceptions of the Arab-Israeli
Dispute', elaborated on Kennedy's attitude toward the Middle East controversy. In a chapter appropriately titled: "President Kennedy
and Good Intentions Deferred Too Long," Curtiss comments:
"It is surprising to realize, with the benefit of hindsight, that from the time Kennedy entered office as the narrowly-elected
candidate of a party heavily dependent upon Jewish support, he was planning to take a whole new look at U.S. Mideast policy.
"He obviously could not turn the clock back and undo the work of President Truman, his Democratic predecessor, in making the establishment
of Israel possible. Nor, perhaps, would he have wanted to.
"Kennedy was determined, however, to develop good new personal relationships with individual Arab leaders, including those with
whom the previous administration's relations had deteriorated.
Soon after Kennedy assumed office, Israel and its American lobby began to understand the import of Kennedy's positioning in regard
to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel was not happy – to say the very least – and began putting heat on the White House through
its supporters in Congress, many of whom relied upon support from the Israeli lobby for campaign contributions and political leverage.
By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the
very survival of the Jewish State .
Kennedy according to Curtiss cited four areas causing a strain in U.S.-Israel relations: 1) Israel's diversion-from the Arab
States-of the Jordan River waters; 2) Israel's retaliatory raids against Arab forces in border areas; 3) Israel's pivotal role
in the Palestinian refugee problem; and 4) Israel's insistence that the United States sell advanced Hawk missiles to Israel.
"The President outlined to Mrs. Meir what has come to be called the Kennedy Doctrine. Kennedy told Meir that U.S. interests
and Israel's interests were not always the same.
The Talbot memorandum described Kennedy's forthright stance:
"We know, "that Israel faces enormous security problems, but we do too. We came almost to a direct confrontation with the Soviet
Union last spring and again recently in Cuba. Because we have taken on wide security responsibilities we always have the potential
of becoming involved in a major crisis not of our own making.
"Our security problems are, therefore, just as great as Israel's. We have to concern ourself with the whole Middle East. We would
like Israeli recognition that this partnership which we have with it produces strains for the United States in the Middle East
when Israel takes such action as it did last spring when Israel launched a raid into Syria, resulting in a condemnation by the
UN Security Council. Whether right or wrong, those actions involve not just Israel but also the United States."
According to Seymour Hersh: "Israel's bomb, and what to do about it, became a White House fixation – part of the secret presidential
agenda that would remain hidden for the next thirty years."
In March, 1963, Sherman Kent, the Chairman of the Board of National Estimates at the CIA, wrote an extended memorandum to the
CIA's Director on the highly controversial subject entitled "Consequences of Israeli Acquisition of Nuclear Capability."
According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined "acquisition" by Israel as either (a) a
detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that
it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent's primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause 'substantial
damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world.
According to Green, "The memorandum was very strong and decidedly negative in its conclusions" which were as follows:
"Even though Israel already enjoys a clear military superiority over its Arab adversaries, singly or combined, acquisition of
a nuclear capability would greatly enhance Israel's sense of security. In this circumstance, some Israelis might be inclined to
adopt a moderate and conciliatory posture
"We believe it much more likely, however, that Israel's policy toward its neighbors would become more rather than less tough.
Israel would seek to exploit the psychological advantages of its nuclear capability to intimidate the Arabs and to prevent them
from making trouble on the frontiers."
In dealing with the United States, the CIA analyst estimated, a nuclear Israel would "make the most of the almost inevitable Arab
tendency to look to the Soviet Bloc for assistance against the added Israel threat, arguing that in terms of both strength and
reliability Israel was clearly the only worthwhile friend of the U.S. in the area.
"Israel," in Kent's analysis, "would use all the means at its command to persuade the U.S. to acquiesce in, and even to support,
its possession of nuclear capability."
In short, Israel would use its immense political power – especially through its lobby in Washington – to force the United States
to accede to Israel's nuclear intentions.
Stephen Green believes that Kennedy's position vis-a-vis Israel was an important stand: "It was a remarkable exchange, and
the last time in many, many years in which an American president precisely distinguished for the government of Israel the differences
between U.S. and Israeli national security interests."
Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America's
interests – not Israel's interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy.
Kennedy's friendly overtures to the Arab states were only a public aspect of what ultimately developed into an all-out 'secret
war' between Kennedy and Israel.
Another part of the all secret war between Kennedy and Israel according to Hersh was Ben-Gurion's hated Kennedy because he consider
his father an anti semite and Hitler supporter. Hersh wrote, "The Israeli prime minister, in subsequent private communications
to the White House, began to refer to the President as 'young man.' Kennedy made clear to associates that he found the letters
to be offensive."
Kennedy himself told his close friend, Charles Bartlett, that he was getting fed up with the fact that the Israeli "sons of bitches
lie to me constantly about their nuclear capability."
Obviously, to say the very least, there was no love lost between the two leaders. The U.S.-Israeli relationship was at an ever-growing
and disastrous impasse, although virtually nothing was known about this to the American public at the time." .Green
There seem to be a lot of small plane crashes which involve controversial politicians
such as, JFK ,Jr, Ron Brown, Wellstone, John Towers, Michael Connell, (Bush campaign it expert) to name but a few.
There use to be detailed analysis of the Martha's Vineyard crash on the web, but these seem
To have been scrubbed lately and only official MSM versions are easily available.
An exception to that rule is the book, Ron Brown's body: how one man's death saved
The Clinton Presidency.
Am very gratified when busy U.R. authors engage comments corresponding to their articles. Thank you!
Comment # 80, you wrote: "I did not mean to exonerate the CIA."
Above, I knew such was impossible since your mentioning having read James Douglass's classic, "JFK and the Unspeakable."
Also you wrote:. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind "
Above, so it appears you believe that CIA depended upon the Israeli intelligence Lowerarchy as the JFK assassination planning
/ operational "mastermind?"
Had he come squeaky clean, I intuit CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton might support such a view as yours.
Such smacks of how the ZUS military (Gitmo-based) tribunal deceptively presented Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) as the 9/11 terror
attack "mastermind."
To conclude, am very pleased to have read this sentence: "And I liked Janney's book."
F.y.i., just last month while attending a Delaware Valley High School varsity baseball game, while in the stands, I spoke with
three (3) mother's who lived in nearby, Milford, Pa. One lady taught public school.
Regrettably, no one had any knowledge about Mary Pinchot Meyer's JFK affair, brutal murder on the Georgetown canal-trail, and
her Milford, Pa burial @ the Gifford Pinchot estate.
Thanks very much, Laurent Guyenot!
Continue to be honestly unflappable.
There is nothing cynical about such ultimate patriotic sacrifice; the pompous Zionist posting on this thread could not even
start to comprehend the adjective "patriotic".
He was a Texan (like Audie Murphy) and familiar with rifles from an early age. He was a trained rifleman who though not an
expert shot scored 49 hits and one miss at a target 200 yards away. LHO was seen practicing at a rifle range before Dallas, and
at a range of under 100 yards his performance in getting one fatal shot on Kennedy was good, not exceptional, even for a rusty
and mediocre shot (which he was not).
Charles Wittman was a Texan too, as was Chris Kyle.
I just have to say this about the Jew hasbara who insist people believe that the CIA is the 'deep state' when in fact the CIA
and the FBI are the ONLY gov arms that aggressively go after Israel and the Jew fifth column in the US ..and it is ONLY Congress
and/or the WH that has stopped them and interfered in their investigation time after time. As for the other retards who promote
this -- -you're are dangerously stupid .so stupid you dont even know who the real deep state is.
On December 13, 1999, Ciralsky was terminated from his job as a lawyer for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). On July 19,
2000, Ciralsky filed suit against the CIA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and nine of their employees and agents, alleging
that he had been "interrogated, harassed, surveilled and terminated from his employment with the CIA solely because he is a Jew
and practices the Jewish religion."
689 F. Supp. 2d 141 (2010)
Adam CIRALSKY, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 00-1709-JDS.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
February 26, 2010
Shortly after he began working at the CIA, the Agency initiated a reinvestigation of Plaintiff's security clearance, administering
a series of polygraph examinations and interviews to evaluate his fitness. On August 19, 1997, Plaintiff failed a polygraph examination.
In the month following this polygraph session, various CIA employees interviewed Plaintiff on four separate occasions. At one
of these interviews on September 11, 1997, Plaintiff was given a laptop computer and told to use it to document and explain issues
arising out of the failed polygraph session of August 19, 1997. Plaintiff returned this laptop to the CIA on September 29, 1997.
The veracity of Plaintiff's declarations in these interviews was tested through another polygraph examination on October 3, 1997.
Following the reinvestigation, the CIA advanced the process of revoking Plaintiff's security clearance. On October 20, 1997,
the CIA placed Plaintiff on administrative leave and informed him that an employee review panel ("ERP") would reconsider his access
to classified information. After Plaintiff submitted a memorandum defending himself, the ERP met on or about November 21, 1997,
and recommended that the CIA revoke Plaintiff's security clearance and terminate his employment. After reviewing two additional
memoranda submitted by Plaintiff in response to certain damaging information, the ERP maintained its initial recommendation when
it reconsidered the matter on March 6, 1998. Records of both ERP meetings describe the panel's concern to be Plaintiff's failure
to disclose information about and lack of candor regarding several contacts that were or may have been involved in the Israeli
security establishment. See Pl.'s Mot. for Disc. Attach. 1 and 2 (official summaries of ERP meetings).
"The UK also developed nuclear weapons, as did France. The incredibility of America blowing its own brains out by getting into
a nuclear exchange to defend Britain, France or Israel meant that those countries having their own nuclear deterrent suited America."
As the article we are commenting mentions, JFK wanted inspections on Israel nuclear weapon program, which unlike those of UK
and France, was secret and denied. Israel was not yet the best friend of the USA. JFK had to ponder what should be the US-Arab
relations. Trump is now against North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, yet he is not opposing British and French nuclear weapons.
So, we know JFK was trying to stop the Israel nuclear weapon program and probably would have offered US protection instead.
JFK was killed by somebody. This somebody had power to modify Audiograph data in 1970ies. This data was available to CIA, FBI
and the Warren Commission members, maybe also to others. CIA had dealings with mafia concerning assassination of Castro. The mafia
that had been in Havana was Lansky's mafia. Thus, CIA had dealings with Lansky's gangsters. Dulles, LBJ and Angleton did not like
JFK's policies, especially towards Israel. Israel was weak at that time, but had friends in the US, like Lansky, Angleton, LBJ,
Dulles. Together these might have pulled the assassination, but even together they could not make the coverup by media. There
had to be media and the US media has a tendency to silence one topic only. No President can control the media, the CIA can influence,
but not control, mafia cannot control media. Only one power can do it and does it.
We do not need to know if the reason for the assassination was the Israel atomic bomb program (though it is likely and a sufficient
reason). We only need to know who could coverup the issue and especially cover it up in media.
I looked at this JFK stuff after accidentally watching a video by Donald B. Thomas, where he explained his echo analysis of
the Dictabelt. His paper was refuted by former members of the Warren Commission. I checked, did not fully agree with Thomas but
got more or less similar conclusions, I think I did it more correctly being much closer to the field than Thomas. The response
by these Warren Commission members was false, in my opinion intentionally, so I checked what might be their backgrounds. This
showed that echo analysis must always be done.
I doubt Oswald was a genuine Communist, he knew David Ferrie (who was hated Communism) in the 1950s, it may have been Ferrie
who got him involved in the CIA, and I suspect it was the CIA that sent Oswald to the USSR
Once he returned from the USSR and got involved with pro Castro groups in the US he was the perfect fall goy in the plot to
murder Kennedy
An interesting fact, when his car made the turn past the book depository LBJ ducked down to tie his shoe laces just as the
shooting started, strangely he also wanted Connolly to travel in his car not with JFK
There was at least one other plot to assassinate Kennedy, in the Chicago plot the patsy was to be another former Marine called
Thomas Vallee
Sorry, they were not Warren Commission members, they were members of a scientific panel, which refuted the House Select Committee
of Assassinations findings. Anyway, I checked their backgrounds as their paper was strangely wrong when there were Nobelists in
the group.()
The author made the point to me that English is not his first language, though he certainly writes it well, and that his mention
of serial numbers may have been misleading. It was, at least for me. In any event I retract my criticism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vehk03v23y4 This
documentary goes into great detail about the many strange things going on the day of the JFK Jr's crash.
The missing seat, flying instructor's seat – taken out of the plane ? How long it took to find the plane? JFK jr was another Kennedy
assassination.
I totally agree with you. That's my take. Oswald the pro Castro life long communist worked right on the Kennedy parade route.
Sirhan's bother was killed by an Israeli bombing of a crowded intersection. His father was fired from a 25 year job with the
City of Jerusalem with no pension. Family rental property was confiscated with no compensation
When Sirhan was 4 armed Israeli soldiers invaded the family home and gave the family 1 hour to leave. No compensation of course.
Family moved from a nice 10 room house to a pilgrims hostel run by the Greek Orthodox Church to which they belonged.
Family ended up in Pasadena Ca. Summer of 1967 the papers were full of RFK's promises to Israel. Sirhan believed those articles.
So he shot that supreme scum bag RFK.
RFK was absolutely into the Democrat party War on Whites. He was marching with Cesear Chavez and worshipped MLK. He persecuted,
not prosecuted the White male Teamsters Union. Had he been elected he would have enforced affirmative action and pro Hispanic
& pro black activism as eagerly as 2 other anti White Presidents, Johnson and Nixon did. RFK was pro black from the day his brother
became president
Personally, I don't give a rats ass about who killed the pro Hispanic pro black enemy of Whites, RFK.
Just a side note: there is a surviving witness of the Robert Kennedy assassination , Paul Schrade.
He attended Sirhan's parole bid in 2016, and told the panel that he believed Sirhan shot him at the hotel, but that an unidentified
second shooter killed Mr Kennedy.
Interestingly, even hard core MSM report the inconsistencies within the official inquiry:
" But the autopsy showed the candidate was shot from behind, with evidence that indicated he was hit at close range . "
Murdoch's maternal grandfather was a Rabbi. That makes him and his mother Jewish. And I doubt a rabbi's daughter would raise
her children completely no Jewish whether religuous or tribal ethnic Jewish.
Red Scare?? If you can't read any of the numerous books written about the Verona Papers and Soviet KGB archives opened after
1990, at least ask Mr. Google about them.
Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched
in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.
Does your post have anything to do with your disbelief in Darwin and evolution and the Bible history that goes back to God's
creation of the world 6,000 years ago?
[It's not good commenting policy to produce a continuing series of lengthy totally unsourced excerpts, spread over series
of different comments, which makes it difficult for others to avoid them. They have now been consolidated, but you should stop
this sort of bad behavior.]
You're right. But there's also a lot of small plane ceashes that involve entertainment people especially musicians on tour.
Could it be that politicians musicians some businessmen and wealthier than average people use small planes more than the rest
of us who just drive and use airlines when traveling?
I don't watch YouTubes. If someone can't get it together enough to write a coherent account of their theories it's worthless.
There's a dozen YouTubes and internet articles about Kennedy's lack of instrument certification and the unusual fog of the
century that night.
If anyone killed him it would be Hildabeast. You Kennedy worshipers do realize that Joe Kennedy created a massive Kennedy worshipful
PR machines back in the 1920s and it's more powerful now than ever or do you?
joe Kennedy 3 is running for President. He is the one who nearly died of a heroin overdose on a plane trip. He is raising questions
about his father s death as a means of getting publicity and sympathy for his campaign from all the old baby boomers who remember
the Kennedy deaths
Both archives reveal that the HUAC and McCarthy & FBI investigations show that there were many, many more Soviet spies entrenched
in the federal government during and after the FDR administration that the HUAC & McCarthy investigations ever revealed.
Yes, but McCarthy played it badly by going after too many people with tenuous connections with communists and radicals. Just
because your side is right doesn't mean your side should give into hysteria.
Also, by McCarthy came on the scene, most of the spies had been captured and Soviet intelligence had effectively been ended
in the US. So, McCarthy just kept looking for more and more suspects, and it got a bit ridiculous.
We saw the same problem after 9/11. Yes, the government had been lax in security and there needed to be more vigilance. But
Bush II and Co. over-played their hand and even used 9/11 as hysteria for war with Iraq.
Funny how RFK's kid comes out and acknowledges the obvious, that CIA whacked his family, and all of a sudden this frog Guyenot
shows up in multiple alt media with his Orientalism shtik saying, oh wait, it was the Zionazis.
You see, CIA was just kidding about murdering Kennedy but those crafty Jews got away from them and really did it, Oops! Just
like all those incompetent pilots got away from CIA on 9/11 and really did what CIA only pretended they could do so we could catch
them red-handed. Oops!
Cracks me up, CIA's still trying to shit you even though they're so utterly, hopelessly busted that they have to blame it on
the Jewish State, the most despised shithole on earth. CIA's running out of people who are more despicable and full of crap than
them.
Interesting. When Oswald was in boot camp he scored as sharp-shooter between 210 and 219 points out of 250. HE would fire 10
rounds slow fire from the off-hand (standing) position from 200 yards. Then later he would fire 10 rounds rapid fire in 60 seconds
from the standing to sitting position. So this hitting 49 of 50 rounds from 200 yards is a cock and bull story.
What is not a cock and bull story is a beer drinking session in spring 1959 with Sergeants Dean Nelson from Arkansas, Leroy Alsbury
and another Sergeant Dorsey from Illinois at enlisted club MCAS El Toro, California. Topic turned to a Marine who was at a near
by station called LTA. They knew him from Japan and said he was frequently in trouble and he was convinced that the US was corrupt
for among other things "using germ warfare in Korea". They said he was called Ossie Rabbit.
I doubt Oswald was a genuine Communist, he knew David Ferrie (who was hated Communism) in the 1950s, it may have been Ferrie
who got him involved in the CIA, and I suspect it was the CIA that sent Oswald to the USSR. Once he returned from the USSR and
got involved with pro Castro groups in the US he was the perfect fall goy in the plot to murder Kennedy.
Oswald needed some kind of Ism to give meaning to his marginal life. Playing Marxist radical gave his life meaning. It was
more about personality than ideology.
He hung around anti-communist types because he saw himself as a brilliant agent-provocateur who would play all sides in a 5D
chess. He was seriously deluded as a mover and shaker of history when he was a total non-entity. The fact is no one gave a damn
about him. Even Russians found him useless and didn't want him. When he defected to Russia, he thought he would be accepted as
a great hero. Russians just sent him to a factory to work. Back in the US, he wanted attention, but no one gave it to him. Radical
and Marxist groups had no use for him. He was too low, too un-intellectual.
So, he created his own Narrative as a man who would rub shoulders with all sides to make something happen. So, it was disingenuous
for him to bitch that he was just a 'patsy'. He put himself in places to play the role of 'patsy' to all sides. It's what he relished
as he wanted to be where the action is. But he was useless as a patsy.
So, he finally decided to do something big and kill JFK. But he didn't even have the guts to say he did it. He ran like a chicken
and killed a cop.
I suspect Ruby was sent by the Mafia to kill Oswald. Why? Even though mafia didn't order the hit, it feared that Oswald would
blab about the mafia because the idiot met some mafia types when he was dillydallying with anti-Castro factions.
renfro insightfully wrote:
"By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a threat to the
very survival of the Jewish State."
Hi renfro,
In contrast, & as you may might know, Ben-Gurion loved GOP, Richard M. Nixon, who became the 1st sitting-USrael president to
visit Israel!
F.y.i., On comeback trail, RMN wrote an interesting book titled "Leaders" in which David Ben-Gurion is deified.
Thanks for such thoughtful posts, renfro.
P.S.:
Below is a work of political-satire which was also posted by "The Smirking Chimp" web site, & afterward, the concerned editor
badgered me for anti-semitism, & subsequently, I became the Smirking Chimp's U-peel Shrimp!
Yes but I read a mobster's autobiography, Chauncey Holt, and he said tinkering with a guy's plane was a great way to off someone.
As you note plane crashes happen.
Despite my reservations about the statement, "Only Israel had anything to gain from Kennedy's murder." , I find this
comment be very well organized and persuasive.
While I don't think intent to somehow disrupt the zionist occupier of Palestine lands acquiring nuclear weapons
capability and actual armaments as the only potential disposition of JFK, which would have made him a target of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud
global collective , I agree that even by itself, it would have.
Well, I agree with Wiz and Anon, that your post is sane . What is obvious, however, is that you either haven't done
your homework or are a sophisticated troll. James Douglas' JFK and the Unspeakable , which sums up decades of research
is a good place to start. Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK is also essential to get a sense of some
of the moving parts and the need for humility, in approaching the matter.
I agree. And have come to the conclusion that, once one gets very jewized up and comprehends just how involved international
jewry and its current political offspring of Zionists are, in so many events. That they really do represent also a true misfortune
for the entire world of non jewish goyim.
And furthermore, I have concluded that due to so many bad, wrong, evil ongoing events that are headed by or consist of an huge
number of jews involved within them. That at this late date point in time, it would almost be better when discussing various past
and current and even likely future events, as far as jewish involvments, to instead ask the question of
What Is there that history has proven as evil or wrong within such events, that jews have Not been involved in or with eh?
Because the deeper you go into such events and infos, and ergo the longer back in past times one delves into such issues The
more one learns of a constant jewish involvement throughout history going back at least 3,500 yrs ago! ..35-Centuries so far,
with most times each century getting worse and more evil due to their insidious craving of remaining stiff necked and stubborn,
and always unwilling to repent or change period.
And yes yes I know there are a few so called good jews But imho those good types number very very few when compared to jewry
as a whole. For I consider their huge silent bunch of tribe members as willing accomplices, and based upon the ever ongoing group
silence we see no matter which jews do wrongs and no matter how bad those wrongs are. No other logic nor sane conclusion can be
had.
And for immediate proof examples of how their majority tribe members always cover for, deny wrongs, toss out straw men, or
simply revert to the time tested method of Fully ignore all presented facts, and begin to use vile slanderous name calls of "Nazis"
and "Antisemite" etc. One only need read any of the many articles here on This forum, as well as all other website forums that
have become infested with Zionist jews and hasbara agents.
And for these reasons one must also conclude is the main reason that every time jews get booted from another host nation, the
entire bunch bar none get booted out. Yes that means those few good jews also get booted out, which some can argue is unfair But
after 109 host nations and around a total of 300+ boot outs since about 1800 yrs ago Well one can also understand why a host nation,
having no good method to determine accurately which are the few good ones, always ends up giving the big boot out to them all
eh.
And also one can conclude that most everything jews have complained about for that entire 3,500 years and still do today, has
been caused by jews themselves by their own disgusting ways and traits and evil criminalities etc ..There simply would be zero
so called antisemitism if there were zero jews within a nation period. But good luck in attempting to convince any jews of such
truths.
One of the very best and most accurate descriptions yet I have read or heard of regarding jewry and why they have been so despised
by so many distinctly different groups of gentiles, and in so many different locations and in so many eras of time has to be what
the new testament verses about them states (Paraphraseing here) "For they are the adversaries of God and of All of Mankind"!
That single short verse speaks volumes of past and present truths.
He has been consistently debunking political manipulation over the last 10 years. He does so with objectivity and measure,
and thanks to his hard work and erudition. He tries to avoid baiting into easy and stupid conspiracy theories, such as the ones
promoted by Michael Moore and Alex Jones.
Mr Guyenot has loyal and long-standing readers within the French-speaking world, where he is highly respected (and ignored
by MSM, which is a badge of honour).
He mostly publishes on a right-wing, populist website that attracts readers from all political shades, thanks to their more honest
and overt positions.
I just read from Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land ..and Clash Of Civilizations. The book is an excellent
history of the nefarious role played by Jews in the cycle of civilizations for thousands of years up to the JFK assassination
and 9/11 which feature Jews in supporting and initiating roles. These two mentioned events are arguably the endgame of the Anglo-Zionist
Empire. The destroyers indeed!
The JFK assassination and 9/11 featured Jews documenting the event for celebration and narrative control. The dancing Israelis
and Abraham Zapruder were on site at the exact moment of the mortal event. What a coincidence the Jew Chorus shouts! I would like
to know more about Abraham Zapruder, born in the Ukraine in 1905. Did he know the Zionist founders of the apartheid state?
A friend of mine visited the Book Depository and was struck by how close Oswald was. It was an easy shot.
The question the conspiracy idiots don't consider is: If the "deep state" wanted to get rid of him, why not expose JFK in a
sex scandal forcing his resignation?
It would be (a lot) safer than a "conspiracy" composed of the entire government. A forced resignation from a sex scandal would
make Kennedy a laughing stock and totally disgrace him. The assassination made him a martyr, causing the passage of every measure
he had favored.
The fallout concerning the East German woman from Bobby Baker's stable whom JFK had consorted with was still bubbling on November
22, 1963.
We see more and more articles about "the Jews killed the Kennedys." True or not, this is not good for the Jews. This opens the
floodgates to "the Jews did 9/11."
Defending 9/11 is problematic for the Jews. There are many many angles that are impossible to defend.
Wiz of Oz,
Are you a troll or a Zionist sympathizer? Giving birth by a Zionist the child is a Zionist or Zionist sympathizer even if he or
she doesn't acknowledge it! This can go back as far as 7 generations if you really like to know!
Your comments are worthless indicating you have nothing to say or to add to the subject matter! Bye!
RFK was NOT going to win the presidency in 1968. A few weeks before his death, he lost the Oregon primary to Eugene McCarthy.
RFK couldn't get enough votes beyond his black base to win a general election. A poll in late May 1968 had him running 10 points
behind Nixon. Robert Kennedy was about as out of touch with Middle America as George McGovern would be for years later.
Hubert Humphrey was way ahead in delegates and in those days the "bosses" still had control. Humphrey was better liked than
Bobby withing the party. The New York primary was going to give Bobby a poor result for his "home state."
Although, RFK won the California primary, his 46-42 margin was 3-4 points lower than expected and was due to a heavy black
and Mexican vote. Bobby still didn't do well enough with white voters.
If we reject the official versions of JFK and RFK assassinations and assume they were results of conspiracies with Oswald and
Sirhan as active players or patsies then we must go by the qui bono, cui prodest, cuius bonum legal principle which certainly
will not prove who were the conspirators but will point to the most likely conspirators.
In case of JFK it is pretty obvious that Israel was the greatest beneficiary of his death because of JFK determination to stop
Israel's nuclear program. Some correspondence of JFK with PM's of Israel is available on line. Israel defense doctrine was formulate
to be based on what later was called Samson Option. In 1963 Israel still cooperated with France on its secret nuclear program.
JFK definitively was set on stopping Israel nuclear program which Israel was conducting in secret cooperation with France.
After strong letter on May 18, 163 letter PM Ben Gurion preferred to resign than to answer the letter:
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/When-Ben-Gurion-said-no-to-JFK
Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president warned that unless American inspectors
were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any military activities), Israel would find itself totally isolated. Rather than
answering, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned. Kennedy's repeated emphasis on America's "deep commitment to the security of Israel"
was all well and good, but, as seen after Egypt's sudden expulsion of UN peacekeepers in 1967, Israel could not depend on anyone
– even the US.
Ben-Gurion's successor, Levi Eshkol received Kennedy's next letter, which upped the pressure, warning that the American
commitment and support of Israel "could be seriously jeopardized."
At the same time RFK as AG was considering forcing pro Israel lobbies to register as Foreign Agents. The last before JFK death
communication from DOJ was on 10/11/1963: DOJ Demanded for AZC Registration "the Department expects a response from you within
72 hours with regard to this matter." Six days later
http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/
"Judge Rifkind then made a plea for no registration, stating it was the opinion of most of the persons affiliated with the
Council that such registration would be so publicized by the American Council on Judaism that it would eventually destroy the
Zionist movement he did not believe his clients would file any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was
an agent of a foreign principal. I told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made
part of the Department's public files available for inspection by the public "
In DOJ internal memo on 4/30/1964 before replacing RFK as AG with Nicholas Katzenbach the following was stated: "This is the
most blatant stall we have encountered. Do you mind suggesting what we do next because all of us here would call their records
before a grand jury." RFK resigns as AG in September 1964. When Katzenbach became acting AG and then AG exchanges between Jewish
lobby and DOJ continued but no action was taken by DOJ. Eventually on n 11/27/1967, four years and five days after JFK's death
AIPAC applies for a federal tax exemption. The lobby has won.
As far as RFK is concerned the conspirators could not allow him to become president, period. His assassination is predicated
on conspiracy of JFK assassination and subsequent cover up. If we assume that Sirhan was indeed hypnotized patsy conspirators
seem to overdid the cover story and the created legend (though it worked for most people who bought the story) by trying to bring
attention to Palestinians who were allegedly upset with RFK's strong pro-Israel stance. The problem with the story is that RFK
did not demonstrate that he had strong pro-Israeli position. Anyway, most people got a message that RFK got killed because he
was pro-Israel, so certainly Israel was off the suspect list, right?
Since the two assassinations dozens of theories were floated, including the most ridiculous ones, like that Onassis was behind
it, which got public exposure often in MSM. The only theory that can't get any traction in MSM is the one linking Israel.
Although this is actually an insightful comment, you overlook the fact that Organized Jewry has no problem turning on former
acolytes (even fellow Jews) who are not completely lockstep with the party line.
The tenuous connections were not all that tenuous. For instance Owen Latimore was indeed a soviet agent who influenced many
state department operatives.
The real reasons McCarthy was brought down was that the entire communist operation was so heavily Jewish. It's really a wonder
that the Rosenbergs were arrested and found guilty.
I read that silly RFK the dead messiah would have cured the problems thing you posted. What a crock.
JFK MLK RFK the holy trinity what a load.
Robert Kennedy jr is running for president. He just wants to get his name in the papers and the internet and get votes from
all the baby boomers who grow up when the media was so worshipful of the Kennedys and MLK.
I'm really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher
David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys -- both of which
articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are
sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to
the the truth about any of it.
I would be disappointed if all the articles on unz.com were like this one; but it is better to have some articles that we might
consider moronic, than to expect Ron Unz to personally arbitrate between fact and fiction on readers' behalf – as the NYT and
WP do.
There will always be boundaries on what can be published, and IMHO in most media the boundaries are far too narrow. It is better
if the boundaries are over-broad than over-narrow. A possible downside with over-broad boundaries is that bad stories might "taint"
good ones, by association; on the other hand, a narrow scope might be taken to imply that the publisher endorses each article.
The same with commenters: IMHO it is better to have some that are odious, than to give moderators the job of removing any comments
that could reasonably be considered offensive. It is not difficult to scan the comments and skip past the ones that are not informative.
On the article itself, it did make us think about the headline question for half an hour – even if most of us agree that Betteridge's
Law Of Headlines applies in this case. I looked up the JFK Jr case again, remembering the official story that his plane crashed
into the sea during very heavy rain – only to find that this is not the official story at all (JFK Jr was supposedly disoriented
by conditions that were merely hazy). So who spread the "heavy rain" story and why? And if the Israelis killed JFK Jr, should
we remove his name from the "Clinton body count"?
Nowadays we accept that Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. It is worth remembering that in the sixties the Israeli
nuclear weapons program was a shocking secret, and it remained so until 1986 when Mordechai Vananu told the story. JFK's opposition
to Dimona, and the possible Israeli reaction to it, must be seen in this context.
Michael Rivero has examined the many clues that JFK JR was assassinated. Here are some of clues that he found. We don't have
a "free" press in our MSM. Investigating or questioning the narratives given to us by our "free controlled press" is considered
"conspiracy theories".
Having established that the government and the media have a prior (and quite deplorable) record of deliberate lies to the public,
let us look at how the official story of the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr's plane evolved, and why it is suspect.
As first reported by United Press International, John F. Kennedy Jr. on approach to Martha's Vineyard in 8 mile visibility, was
in radio contact with the ground, calmly informing them of his intentions to drop off a passenger before proceeding to Hyannis
airport. Then, according to ABC News, JFK Jr's plane went into a steep dive, and crashed.
However, even before the wreckage was found, the story being put out in the media began to change. Gone was the previously reported
radio conversation a calm JFK Jr. had with ground personnel just before the plane fell out of the sky, replaced by a declaration
from the NTSB that JFK Jr. had not used his radio at all as he approached Martha's Vineyard. Gone also was the originally reported
8 mile visibility while the media began to hammer home the claim that Martha's Vineyard had been totally blanketed with a haze
so heavy that pilots in the air would have been blind.
No sooner were the various stories put out but they quickly fell apart.
Here are some examples.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. was lost.
FACT: When JFK Jr. radioed controllers on the Cape (as reported on Boston TV News) to announce his approach to Martha's Vineyard,
radar showed him to be just where he stated he was and at the correct altitude for the approach.
PROPAGANDA: JK Jr. was in "over his head".
FACT: JFK Jr's conversational tone on the radio reveals that he was calm. He was not disoriented. He didn't ask for directions.
He didn't indicate he had any problem at all. He clearly was confident he was going to find the airport and land.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. stalled the plane.
FACT: The radar track shows that he was well above stall speed.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. went into a steep turn and lost his horizon.
FACT: There is no reason for JFK Jr. to have been in any turn at all at that point on the flight path leading into the airport.
He was already lined up with the main runway at Martha's Vineyard airport.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. didn't know his altitude and simply "flew into the ocean".
FACT: The radar track shows him flying at the proper altitude, then (as ABC News put it) "falling out of the sky".
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. lost his instruments, and that is why he could not handle the dark and hazy (?) conditions
FACT: The fact that the radar was getting good data from his encoding altimeter proves his instruments were operating.
PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. would have lost his artificial horizon if the vacuum pump failed in the aircraft.
FACT: MSNBC is the only media outlet to have tried to hype this one, using a self-proclaimed "aviation expert". His claim is also
false, as there is a backup vacuum system in the pitot assembly of that aircraft.
PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. was a reckless pilot.
FACT: This claim was planted everywhere in the media, always attributed to an "unnamed source". One reporter, Cindy Adams at the
New York Post, later had cause to suspect she had been lied to. So did Andrew Goldman at the New York Observer. Interviews with
individuals directly familier with JFK Jr's flying ability shown on Inside Edition confirmed that he was a highly skilled and
careful pilot.
PROPAGANDA JFK Jr's wife was afraid to fly with him.
FACT: Again a story attributed to "unnamed sources", and again debunked by the interviews shown on Inside Edition. JFK Jr's wife
had no problem flying with JFK Jr. and flew with him often.
PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. had only 40 hours experience.
FACT: He had 40 hours in that one aircraft. His total experience was about 300 hours, more than enough to qualify him for a commercial
pilot's license. According to FAA statistics, 300 hours made him a more careful and safer pilot than one with 1000 hours, who
is more complacent.
PROPAGANDA The weather was very hazy.
FACT: The FAA issued VFR weather conditions that night, and the weather report (mentioned in the UPI story) called for 8 mile
visibility. One witness on shore reported that there was very little haze and that standing on the shore, he could see airplanes
out over the ocean on approach to the island, proof that airplanes on the approach could see the shore. This claim is backed up
not only by the weather report of 8 mile visibility, but by a weather radar image taken at about the time of the crash. This radar
image is showing haze and fog along New York and Long Island (if this radar image were of clouds, the FAA would not have declared
VFR flying conditions that night) but none at all at Martha's Vineyard. On the morning after the crash, CNN reported that weather
could be ruled out as a factor in the crash!
PROPAGANDA: Martha's Vineyard is very dark and won't show through the haze.
FACT: That may have been true only a few months ago. However, as evidenced by a Letter to the Editor of the Martha's Vineyard
Times just days after the JFK Jr. crash, new lights installed on the island, lights that point up in the sky, are so bright they
are drawing complaints from island residents.
That the Kennedy family has been the target of political assassination is a part of the American political landscape. It's a given.
That cover-ups surrounded the deaths of Kennedys is also a given.
That our government lies to us, with the media's help, is a given.
There is good cause to assume we are being lied to yet again.
During that same 1962-63 period Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened
hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council (AZC). The Committee uncovered evidence that the Jewish Agency, a
predecessor to the state of Israel, operated a massive network of financial "conduits" which funnelled funds to U.S. Israel lobby
groups. As a result, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) ordered the AZC to openly register and disclose all of its foreign
funded lobbying activity in the United States. The attempt was subsequently thwarted first by the Israel lobby itself and then
by the death of President Kennedy which lead to growing concerns regarding the impact of the ever-growing Zionist influence on
U.S. policy making decisions. On April 15, 1973, Fulbright -- who lost his Senate seat the following year -- had no qualms about
boldly announcing on CBS Face the Nation that : "Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests
rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. -- somewhere around 80% -- is completely
in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign
policy] difficult for our government."
AIPAC eludes US law, part of international lobby for Israel
The most powerful and effective foreign-government lobby in Washington is so dominant that it has been able to avoid registering
for the past 55 years. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was last confronted by FARA when its predecessor organization
the American Zionist Council was pressured by John F. Kennedy's Justice Department in 1962 and 1963. Kennedy's death stopped that
effort -- and ended White House attempts to hold Israel accountable for the development of its secret nuclear weapons program
(which depended on nuclear material removed illegally from the United States with the connivance of a company located in Pennsylvania
called NUMEC).
A Jewish Defector Warns America:
Benjamin H. Freedman Speaks on Zionism
And no doubt your 'friend' could have fired the "magic bullet" as well. "Sex scandal"? LOL. That would have taken years to have had any impact, if at all. And since when do sex scandals force Presidents to retire. Given your logic, a sex scandal could have been used against Lincoln, therefore John Wilkes Booth is innocent.
I visited the Book depository when I was in Dallas for a week and noted that the distance was short, the window was way above
the street and it would have been an easy shot. I doubt a Marine would have missed.
What's really silly is the way people who've never held any type of gun in their lives keep insisting that Oswald's score on
the Marine marksman test proves he was a bad shot. Just because he didn't get the highest score doesn't mean he wasn't capable
of firing the shot that killed Kennedy.
Thanks for your perspective! I have read some of M. Guanot's work with interest.
While it is quite plausible that the Zionist entity and the CIA regime have congruent criminal interests, this is not what
Guyanot theorizes. He imagines a CIA that sets up all the preconditions for a coup, without actually meaning to go through with
it, and a foreign devil that unexpectedly takes it all and runs with it. That's idiotic. It also happens to be CIA's boilerplate
excuse for all their grave crimes. There's nothing new up there. What's worse, it's plagiarized from Langley fops and jarheads.
It's not just stupid, but stupid in a telltale way.
An engineer is highly trained, not highly educated. That might be why he applies bog standard old-fashioned Orientalism, which
originally applied to Jews, then didn't, and now does again – and voila, we've got a suspect that isn't CIA! Guyanot's Orientalism
is interesting because it highlights the Israeli state's exploitation of biblical myth as pretext for genocidal ideology. But
he's over his head when trying to re-interpret the documented conduct of the US command structure. Perhaps that's how he falls
into the CIA's propaganda line. Let's hope so.
Polack is, effectively, almost any Polish national who dances upon the official
fairy-telling narrative of Polish state puppeteers. In that Marvelous Universe, Poland is a
truly indispensable part of the West, for its glorious deeds of once Saving the Christendom
in Vienna, and containing the Bear all other time.
In reality, it is a loser entity that 'Cannot Into Space' on many historic occasions
– mostly from building multi-ethnic empire to invading Russia. Poles suffer from being
surrounded by equally capable neighbors, Russians and Germans. Chopin is good, but he is
neither Mozart nor Chaikovsky, and to have such genii, one has to build empire first, and
then enjoy imperial music and literature.
For the West, Poland is an 'useful idiot' or a dupe, never treated as equal partner. In
Western (Capitalist) division of nations labor Poles are The Exploited. They are 1) cannon
fodder from Vienna to Monte-Cassino 2) theater of war and destruction to prevent Russians
from entering and destroying True Europe 3) cheap labor or preferrable white slaves 4) one
who pays for everything. Today, option 3 is fullfilled, others are selected by the the West.
Poland is a still a resource, and will be consumed by the West on any pretext. To the East,
there is a Big Brother that has its own resources.
We Russians used to treat the Polish identity illness, by capturing Warsaw many times. The
prognosis is still grave. Dear Polish brethren, we have no other options for you. Stick with
the West, keep your Catholic dreams and continue to perish. When you go critical, we may
think of surgery again.
The US decided, by promulgating Act 447, that a Polish Jew has never been a citizen of
Poland; he was a member of Jewry, and his property should revert to Jewry, not to the
Goyish Polish state.
It is nice that the US issues laws that are supposed to have effect in other states; the
slightly tipsy Galactus of Democracy is in his Heaven, all is right with the World.
It means that they can seize property of recently deceased ones in the Homeland and
embiggen the Tribe, But how are they going to enforce it in Poland? Sanctions? Threats to
move NATO out of Poland? No F-35 for you?
(Also, did the Scriptures say anything about when the Monstrously Swollen Jewish Messiah
will meet Ultra-Confucius for a Battle at the End of Times?)
The West pushed the Poles to rise against Germans in 1944, hoping to re-establish
anti-Russian Poland once again, but did nothing when the rebels bled to death. (Well, not
exactly nothing: they complained why Russian soldiers do not want to die for them).
Please do not forget the extraordinary role of the RAF and SAAF aircrews who flew supplies
to the Home Army in Warsaw from bases in southern Italy. Many of them lost their lives and
are buried in a Commonwealth cemetery in Krakow.
Magnificent article . Pole troops even invaded Spain with Napoleon , those " catholic " Poles
did not seem to feel bad for joining antichristian French revolutionary armies invading
Catholic Spain .
Polish Pope John Paul II , Woytila , joined forces with Reagan and Thatcher , with the
most wild anglosaxon imperialism , against the rest of the world . John Paul II , with his 27
year pontificate , left the Catholic Church devastated , the Catholic churches empty , the
people faithless .
When Polacks , baltics , and other weirdo countries of eastern europe joined the EU I
realized that the EU had no future .
Poland is a very sinister country , a factor of endless conflicts .
To liken Jewry to a feudal order of obligations and ownership explains a lot about their
collective behavior.
I hope the Polish people tell the United States to go to hell.
Perhaps there is little that we as Americans can do right now to stop the control freaks
in our Zionist controlled government from behaving like ruthless feudal landlords, but I am
hoping that the rest of the Western world removes the American boot off its neck and tells
the US to -- - off.
"... Let me just say this: the President used the word "wiretapping" but I think it was very clear to us that have been in the intelligence business, that this was a synonym for "surveillance". ..."
"... When I was in senior position in CIA's counterterrorism center, I had a deputy who was an FBI officer. An office in FBI HQ down in Washington had an FBI lead with a CIA deputy. There's a lot more cooperation than one would think. There are individuals that do assignments in each other's organisations to help foster levels of cooperation. I had members of NSA in my staff when I was at CIA, members of diplomatic security, members of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and it was run like a task force, so, there's a lot more cooperation than the media presents, they always think that there are these huge major battles between the organisations and that's rarely true. ..."
"... John Brennan is acting more like a political operative than a former director of CIA. ..."
The mighty CIA has fallen victim to a major breach, with WikiLeaks revealing the true scope of the Agency's ability for cyber-espionage.
Its tools seem to be aimed at ordinary citizens – your phone, your car, your TV, even your fridge can become an instrument of surveillance
in the hands of the CIA. How does the CIA use these tools, and why do they need them in the first place?
And as WikiLeaks promises even more revelations, how is all of this going to shape the already tense relationship between new
president and the intelligence community?
A man who has spent over two decades in the CIA's clandestine service – Gary Berntsen is on SophieCo.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Gary Berntsen, former CIA official, welcome to the show, great to have you with us.
Now, Vault 7, a major batch of CIA docs revealed by Wikileaks uncovers the agency's cyber tools. We're talking about world's most
powerful intelligence agency - how exactly did the CIA lose control of its arsenal of hacking weapons?
Gary Berntsen:
First off, I'd like to say that the world has changed a lot in the last several decades, and people are communicating in
many different ways and intelligence services, whether they be American or Russian, are covering these communications and their coverage
of those communications has evolved. Without commenting on the specific validity of those tools, it was clear that the CIA was surely
using contractors to be involved in this process, not just staff officers, and that individuals decided that they had problems with
U.S. policy, and have leaked these things to Wikileaks. This is a large problem, for the U.S. community, but just as the U.S. is
having problems, the Russia face similar problems. Just this week you had multiple members of the FSB charged with hacking as well,
and they have been charged by the U.S. government. So both services who are competitors, face challenges as we've entered a new era
of mass communications.
SS: So like you're saying, the leaker or leakers of the CIA docs is presumably a CIA contractor - should
the agency be spending more effort on vetting its own officers? Is the process rigorous enough?
GB: Clearly.
Look There have been individuals since the dawn of history. Espionage is the second oldest occupation, have conducted spying
and espionage operations, and there have been people who have turned against their own side and worked for competitors and worked
for those opposing the country or the group that they're working with. It's been a problem from the beginning, and it continues
to be a problem, and the U.S. clearly is going to have to do a much better job at vetting those individuals who are given security
clearances, without a doubt.
SS: The CIA studied the flaws in the software of devices like iPhones, Androids, Smart TVs, apps
like Whatsapp that left them exposed to hacking, but didn't care about patching those up - so, in essence the agency chose
to leave Americans vulnerable to cyberattacks, rather than protect them?
GB: I think you have to understand, in this world that we're operating and the number one target of our intelligence
community are terrorists. Since the attacks of 9\11, 16 years ago, the obsession of the American intelligence community is to
identify those planning terrorist attacks, collecting information on them and being able to defeat them. These individuals are
using all these means of communication. I have spoken with many security services around the world, since my retirement back in
2005-2006, a lot of them have had problems covering the communications of somebody's very devices and programs that you've talked
about - whether they be narcotraffickers or salafist jihadists, they are all piggybacking off of commercial communications. Therefore
the need for modern intelligence services to sort of provide coverage of all means of communications. And there's a price that
you pay for that.
SS: One of the most disturbing parts of the leaks is the "Weeping Angel" program - CIA hacking into
Samsung Smart TVs to record what's going on even when the TV appears to be turned off. Why are the CIA's tools designed to penetrate
devices used by ordinary Western citizens at home?
GB: Look, I wouldn't say it has anything to do with Western homes, because the CIA doesn't do technical operations
against American citizens - that's prohibited by the law. If the CIA does anything in the U.S., it does it side-by-side with the
FBI, and it does it according to FISA - the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act laws. It's gotta go to the judge to do those
things. Those tools are used primarily against the individuals and terrorists that are targeting the U.S. or other foreign entities
that we see as a significant threat to the U.S. national security, which is the normal functioning of any intelligence service.
SS: Just like you say, the CIA insists it never uses its investigative tools on American citizens
in the US, but, we're wondering, exactly how many terrorist camps in the Middle East have Samsung Smart TVs to watch their favorite
shows on? Does it seem like the CIA lost its direction?
GB: Plenty of them.
SS: Plenty?...
GB: I've travelled in the Middle East, Samsungs are sold everywhere. Sophie, Samsung TVs are sold all over
the world. I've spent a lot of time in the Middle East, I've seen them in Afghanistan, I've seen them everywhere. So, any kind
of devices that you can imagine, people are using everywhere. We're in a global economy now.
SS: The CIA has tools to hack iPhones - but they make up only around 15 % of the world's smartphone
market. IPhones are not popular among terrorists, but they are among business and political elites - so are they the real target
here?
GB: No. The CIA in relative terms to the size of the world is a small organisation. It is an organisation
that has roughly 20 or more thousand people - it's not that large in terms of covering a planet with 7 billion people. We have
significant threats to the U.S. and to the Western world. We live in an age of super-terrorism, we live in an age when individuals,
small groups of people, can leverage technology at a lethal effect. The greatest threats to this planet are not just nuclear,
they are bio. The U.S. needs to have as many tools as possible to defend itself against these threats, as does Russia want to
have similar types of tools to defend itself. You too, Russian people have suffered from a number of terrible terrorist acts.
SS: Wikileaks suggest the CIA copied the hacking habits of other nations to create a fake electronic
trace - why would the CIA need that?
GB: The CIA, as any intelligence service, would look to conduct coverage in the most unobtrusive fashion as
possible. It is going to do its operations so that they can collect and collect again and again against terrorist organisations,
where and whenever it can, because sometimes threats are not just static, they are continuous.
SS: You know this better, so enlighten me: does the he CIA have the authorisation to create the
surveillance tools it had in the first place? Who gives it such authorisation?
GB: The CIA was created in 1947 by the National Security Act of the U.S. and does two different things - it
does FI (foreign intelligence) collection and it does CA - covert action. Its rules for collection of intelligence were enshrined
in the law that created it, the CIA Act 110, in 1949, but the covert action part of this, where it does active measures, when
it gets involved in things - all of those are covered by law. The Presidential finding had to be written, it had to be presented
to the President. The President's signs off on those things. Those things are then briefed to members of Congress, or the House
Permanent Subcommittee for Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence. We have a very rigorous process of review
of the activities of our intelligence communities in the U.S.
SS: But you're talking about the activities in terms of operations. I'm just asking - does CIA need
any authorisation or permission to create the tools it has in its arsenal? Or it can just go ahead
GB: Those tools and the creation of collection tools falls
under the same laws that allowed the CIA to be established. And that was the 1949 Intelligence Act. And also, subsequently, the
laws in 1975. Yes.
SS: So, the CIA programme names are quite colourful, sometimes wacky - "Weeping Angel", "Swamp
Monkey", "Brutal Kangaroo" - is there a point to these, is there any logic, or are they completely random? I always wondered...
GB: There's absolutely no point to that, and it's random.
SS:Okay, so how do you come up with those names? Who like, one says: "Monkey" and another one says: "Kangaroo"?...
GB: I'm sure they are computer-generated.
SS: Trump accused Obama of wiretapping him during the campaign Could the CIA have actually spied
on the president? It seems like the agency doesn't have the best relationship with Donald Trump - how far can they go?
GB: Let me just say this: the President used the word "wiretapping" but I think it was very clear to us that
have been in the intelligence business, that this was a synonym for "surveillance". Because most people are on cellphones, people
aren't using landlines anymore, so there's no "wiretapping", okay. These all fall under the Intelligence Surveillance Act, as
I stated earlier, this thing existing in the U.S.. It was clear to President Trump and to those in his campaign, after they were
elected, and they did a review back that the Obama Administration sought FISA authorisation to do surveillance of the Trump campaign
in July and then in October. They were denied in July, they were given approval in October, and in October they did some types
of surveillance of the Trump campaign. This is why the President, of course, tweeted, that he had been "wiretapped" - of course
"wiretapping" being a synonym for the surveillance against his campaign, which was never heard of in the U.S. political history
that I can remember, I can't recall any way of this being done. It's an outrage, and at the same time, Congressional hearings
are going to be held and they are going to review all of these things, and they are going to find out exactly what happened and
what was done. It's unclear right now, but all we do know - and it has been broken in the media that there were two efforts, and
at the second one, the authorisation was given. That would never have been done by the CIA, because they don't do that sort of
coverage in the U.S.. That would either be the FBI or the NSA, with legal authorities and those authorities the problem that
the Trump administration had is they believed that the information from these things was distributed incorrectly. Any time an
American - and this is according to the U.S. law - any time an American is on the wire in the U.S., their names got to be
minimized from this and it clearly wasn't done and the Trump administration was put in a bad light because of this.
SS: If what you're saying is true, how does that fall under foreign intelligence? Is that more of
the FBI-NSA expertise?
GB: It was FBI and NSA - it was clearly the FBI and the NSA that were involved, it would never have been the
CIA doing that, they don't listen to telephones in the U.S., they read the product of other agencies that would provide those
things, but clearly, there were individuals on those phone calls that they believed were foreign and were targeting those with
potential communications with the Trump campaign. Let's be clear here - General Clapper, the DNI for President Obama, stated before
he left office, that there was no, I repeat, no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. This has been something
that has been dragged out again, and again, and again, by the media. This is a continuing drumbeat of the mainstream, left-wing
media of the U.S., to paint the President in the poorest light, to attempt to discredit Donald Trump.
SS: With the intelligence agencies bringing down Trump's advisors like Michael Flynn - and you said
the people behind that were Obama's loyalists - can we talk about the intelligence agencies being too independent from the White
House, playing their own politics?
GB: I think part of the problem that we've seen during the handover of power from President Obama to President
Trump was that there was a number of holdovers that went from political appointee to career status that had been placed in the
NatSec apparatus and certain parts of the intelligence organisations. It is clear that President Trump and his team are determined
to remove those people to make sure that there's a continuity of purpose and people aren't leaking information that would put
the Administration into a negative light. That's the goal of the administration, to conduct itself consistent with the goals of
securing the country from terrorism and other potential threats - whether they be counter-narcotics, or intelligence agencies
trying to breach our you know, the information that we hold secure.
SS: Here's a bit of conspiracy theories - could it be that the domestic surveillance agencies like
the NSA or the FBI orchestrated the Vault 7 leaks - to damage CIA, stop it from infringing on their turf?
GB :I really don't think so and that is conspiracy thinking. You have to understand something, in the
intelligence communities in the U.S., whether it be the CIA and FBI, we've done a lot of cross-fertilizations. When I was in senior
position in CIA's counterterrorism center, I had a deputy who was an FBI officer. An office in FBI HQ down in Washington had an
FBI lead with a CIA deputy. There's a lot more cooperation than one would think. There are individuals that do assignments in
each other's organisations to help foster levels of cooperation. I had members of NSA in my staff when I was at CIA, members of
diplomatic security, members of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and it was run like a task force, so, there's a lot more cooperation
than the media presents, they always think that there are these huge major battles between the organisations and that's rarely
true.
SS: Generally speaking - is there rivalry between American intel agencies at all? Competition for
resources, maybe?
GB: I think, sometimes, between the Bureau and the CIA - the CIA is the dominant agency abroad, and the FBI
is the dominant agency in the U.S. What they do abroad, they frequently have to get cleared by us, what we do domestically, we
have to get cleared by them, and sometimes there's some friction, but usually, we're able to work this out. It makes for great
news, the CIA fighting FBI, but the reality is that there's a lot more cooperation than confrontation. We are all in the business
of trying to secure the American homeland and American interests globally.
SS: I'm still thinking a lot about the whole point of having this hacking arsenal for the CIA since
you talk on their behalf - the possibility to hack phones, computers, TVs and cars - if the actual terrorist attacks on US soil,
like San Bernardino, Orlando are still missed?
GB: Look. There are hundreds of individuals, if not thousands, planning efforts against the U.S. at any
time. It can be many-many things. And the U.S. security services, there's the CIA, the FBI, NSA - block many-many of these things,
but it is impossible to stop them all. Remember, this is an open society here, in America, with 320 million people, here. We try
to foster open economic system, we allow more immigration to America than all countries in the world combined. This is a great
political experiment here, but it's also very difficult to police. There are times that the U.S. security services are going to
fail. It's inevitable. We just have to try the best we can, do the best job that we can, while protecting the values that attract
so many people to the U.S.
SS:The former CIA director John Brennan is saying Trump's order to temporarily ban travel from some
Muslim states is not going to help fight terrorism in 'any significant way'. And the countries where the terrorists have previously
come from - like Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, it's true - aren't on the list. So does he maybe have a point?
GB: John Brennan is acting more like a political operative than a former director of CIA. The countries that
Mr. Trump had banned initially, or at least had put a partial, sort of a delay - where states like Somalia, Libya, the Sudan,
Iran - places where we couldn't trust local vetting. Remember something, when someone immigrates to the U.S., we have what's called
an "immigration packet": they may have to get a chest X-ray to make sure they don't bring any diseases with them, they have to
have background check on any place they've ever lived, and in most of these places there are no security forces to do background
checks on people that came from Damascus, because parts of Damascus are totally destroyed - there's been warfare. It is actually
a very reasonable thing for President Trump to ask for delay in these areas. Look, the Crown-Prince, the Deputy Crown-Prince of
Saudi Arabia was just in the United States and met with Donald Trump, and he said he didn't believe it was a "ban on Muslims".
This was not a "ban on Muslims", it was an effort to slow down and to create more opportunity to vet those individuals coming
from states where there's a preponderance of terrorist organisations operating. A reasonable step by President Trump, something
he promised during the campaign, something he's fulfilling. But again, I repeat - America allows more immigration into the U.S.,
than all countries combined. So, we really don't need to be lectured on who we let in and who we don't let in.
SS: But I still wonder if the Crown-Prince would've had the same comment had Saudi Arabia been on
that ban list. Anyways, Michael Hayden, ex-CIA
GB: Wait a second, Sophie - the Saudis have a reasonable form to police their society, and they provide accurate
police checks. If they didn't create accurate police checks, we would've given the delay to them as well.
SS: Ok, I got your point. Now, Michael Hayden, ex-CIA and NSA chief, pointed out that the US intelligence
enlists agents in the Muslim world with the promise of eventual emigration to America - is Trump's travel ban order going to hurt
American intelligence gathering efforts in the Middle East?
GB: No, the question here - there were individuals that worked as translators for us in Afghanistan and Iraq
and serving in such roles as translators, they were promised the ability to immigrate to the United States. Unfortunately, some
of them were blocked in the first ban that was put down, because individuals who wrote that, didn't consider that. That has been
considered in the re-write, that the Trump administration had submitted, which is now being attacked by a judge in Hawaii, and
so it was taken into consideration, but the objective here was to help those that helped U.S. forces on the ground, especially
those who were translators, in ground combat operations, where they risked their lives alongside American soldiers.
SS: You worked in Afghanistan - you were close to capturing Bin Laden back in 2001 - what kind of
spying tools are actually used on the ground by the CIA to catch terrorists?
GB: The CIA as does any intelligence service in the world, is a human business. It's a business where we work
with local security forces to strengthen their police and intelligence forces, we attempt to leverage them, we have our own people
on the ground that speak the language, we're trying to help build transportation there. There's no "secret sauce" here. There's
no super-technology that changes the country's ability to conduct intelligence collections or operations. In Afghanistan the greatest
thing that the U.S. has is broad support and assistance to Afghan men and women across the country. We liberated half of the population,
and for women were providing education, and when the people see what we were doing: trying to build schools, providing USAID projects
- all of these things - this makes the population willing to work with and support the United States. Frequently, members of the
insurgence groups will see this and sometimes they do actually cross the lines and cooperate with us. So, it's a full range of
American political power, whether it's hard or soft, that is the strength of the American intelligence services - because
people in the world actually believe - and correctly so - that American more than generally a force of good in the world.
SS: Gary, thank you so much for this interesting interview and insight into the world of the CIA.
We've been talking to Gary Berntsen, former top CIA officer, veteran of the agency, talking about the politics of American intelligence
in the Trump era. That's it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.
GreenPizza:
Just thinking here in the light of how things are unfolding with the CIA I am wondering since Federal crimes are committed
can the FBI investigate the CIA acting as America Federal Law Enforcement.
RedBlowDryer -> GreenPin
I think the US intelligent agencies are harming their country more than any enemy of the US.
CyanGrapes
There is a reason why JFK wanted to dismantle the CIA. This guy is lying.
PurpleWieghts
CIA needs hacking tools to make it look like it was carried out by another state simply for plausible deniability.
Carl Zaisser
a "force for good in the world"?...sounds like the American white hat-black hat myth...read Naomi Klein's "The Shock
Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". This is a detailed litany of America's various kinds of interventions in multiple
countries that cold hardly be described as "a force for good in the world"...a force for "America's values" (read with
ironically), perhaps
Carl Zaisser
WHO is responsible for the outbreak of chaotic warfare in Libya and Syria?
Should we trust the Saudi vetting services...think of who the September 11 bombers were? Was there another reason they were
not on Trump's banned countries list? Too big to mess with, i.e., oil and weapons sales?
GreenPin
Amazing how they justify their destructive behaviour in a way as they are serving America people and doing good around the
wold. You can sugar count your crimes against humanity as much as you can, but the reality of today' human misery speaks for
itself.
waterbearer
since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence
XXX
interesting, but begs the question "Can we really trust what this guy tells us?" If not, what parts can we trust, and what
parts can't we?
XXX
You'd have to deconstruct his talking points and I don't know how that is done. Intelligence probably knows how to do that. I
noticed he was becoming more zealous on hegemony and exceptionalism as the interview neared the end.
I agree. Bernsten is almost like-ably energetic, but he is, in the end, an uncompromising warrior of the empire.
XXX
if Trump is to be controlled--they gotta have some dirt--or threat against his family --it's how they operate---
XXX
Mr. Berntsen left out the very important NSC10/2 legislation, which gave the CIA free reign with deniability as the cover.
This needs to be repealed. With this legislation, the CIA answers to no one, and goes around the world wrecking havoc with the
governments and people where they like. We will never have peace until that legislation is repealed.
XXX
This is why interesting books to read about the history of the CIA.
The Dulles brothers,
David Talbot: The Devil's Chessboard,
Fletcher Prouty: The Secret Team.
XXX
I applaud former CIA and FBI Gary Bernstein for speaking out on the most powerful intelligence networks on the planet
regarding their surveillance activities. Every nation needs intelligence to safeguard but if we go beyond the call of duty and
get exposed .this leaves Pres Trump and his Adm with no option but to consider corrective measures with a visit to Langley
etc.. Here again the failures of Liberalism are coming up in the wash for cleaning up.
XXX
Liberalism has not been running the country for the last 54 years. We have been under a coup government and just got used
to it.
This is the essence of the JQ. Jewish interest transcends borders and so it is futile to
speak of "Israel wants" when essentially all the major Jewish orgs are very Zionist and in
effect act as a fifth column within their respective host nations.
The big mistake of Jew-aware people and organizations is (and has always been in the past)
to treat Jews based on that perceived unity as if they were a monolithic organization, which
they aren't.
Hitler thought that Jews were pushing the US (and previously the UK) to enter the war. (He
was not wrong.) He thought that a good way to make them stop this would be to threaten
European Jews. He thought that if American Jews saw that a war might endanger the very lives
of all European Jews (and his threats beginning in January 1939 were quite explicit in that
regard – "if Jews succeed in pushing the world into a world war once again, the result
will be the extermination of European Jewry"), then American Jews might be deterred from
pushing the US into the war.
Hitler's calculations would've been correct, if Jewry were monolithic organization, which
it is not. If there was a World Jewish Committee which would regularly meet, then they'd
coolly and rationally examine the possibilities, and perhaps decide that the destruction of
the National Socialist German Reich was not worth the destruction of European Jewry. They
might try to engage in talks with the Germans to get Jews out of Europe in exchange for
guaranteed peace, or something.
But Jewry was totally decentralized. Hitler's anti-Jewish threats merely had the effect of
making Jews (including influential Jews) more determined in their anti-German or anti-Nazi
hatred, and so strengthened their push for war.
I'm afraid a similar strategy (which I had proposed just this week) would probably lead to
similar results: if Russia started threatening Israel in response to American policies
(pushed by American Jewry), the result would be a strengthening of resolve and would make
Israel (whose policies are currently not very hostile to Russia, for example they don't
participate in any sanctions or embargoes against it) also explicitly hostile to Russia.
So I'm not sure what a strong Russian stance against Israel would accomplish. I understand
for example utu, since he'd be delighted if a nuclear war broke out between Israel and
Russia, but I can understand why Russians (including Putin and Karlin) don't really want to
risk it for Arabs.
This People and Power film from 2010 investigated accusations that in 1952 the United States
acquired and used germ-warfare technology on North Korea.
The film followed professor Masataka Mori as he journeyed inside the secretive regime of
North Korea to take eye-witness testimony from survivors of, and witnesses to, the germ-warfare
attacks. Together with Professor Mori, who has investigated these claims over a twenty year
period Al Jazeera's team travelled to the villages and townships where the US Army/Air Force
allegedly dropped bombs containing infected insects, rodents and food.
Mori's painstakingly acquired trust, and the remarkable evidence he has collected, produced
a film which is both extraordinary and controversial - not least because it comes at a time
when America and its allies are so determined to prevent North Korea developing nuclear weapons
- the most potent of all weapons of mass destruction.
In Harbin, China, Mori located survivors of the wartime Japanese army's Unit 731 responsible
for germ warfare attacks on China. After the war, the man behind this research co-operated with
US Army scientists in return for not being prosecuted for war crimes.
Harbin also houses a small research museum dedicated to uncovering the extent of Unit 731's
activities - both during World War Two and in the years when America allegedly adopted it.
Is amazing how those insect field bombs we're laying perfectly on top of a layer of snow
that it did not penetrate after falling from an airplane and the capsules weren't even dented
or destroyed in any way amazing
Russia vetoed resolutions to investigate the allegations, the US pow's who "confirmed" the
use of biological weapons later admitted to being tortured to make those statements and
renounced everything they said, in the 1990's the US released Soviet documents and
communications confirming it was a disinformation campaign by NK which was then backed up by
former Soviet officials.
And one year later in 1953 they clandestinely tested LSD in the bread of an unsuspecting
French town of Pont-Saint-Esprit while France was considered a "friend".Some psycho friend
the US is...
"... The reports delivered during the four-hour meeting provided a devastating exposure of the connection between propaganda and censorship by the media and the warmongering of governments in Britain, the United States and across the world. ..."
"... Professor Piers Robinson (Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism) spoke on the rebranding of government propaganda as "public relations." Drawing on his research into the Iraq war, he cited material from the Chilcot Inquiry into the war confirming the systematic manipulation and exaggeration of "intelligence" on Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction. This included discussions between the US and British governments over how the 9/11 terror attacks could be used for regime change operations, under the slogan of the "war on terror", which Robinson described as a propaganda slogan for mobilising support for military operations. ..."
"... Stuart gave a presentation on his examination of film recorded by BBC personnel at Atareb Hospital in Aleppo on August 26, 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of a napalm-style bombing by Syrian government forces. The footage was broadcast the same evening that parliament delivered a shock vote against a military attack on Syria. He showed that much of it was staged. Not only did this potentially include the use of military casualty trauma simulations, but BBC personnel were travelling in vehicles displaying ISIS flags and alongside senior members of the western-funded White Helmets. ..."
"... It was impossible to have a functioning democracy without a functioning fourth estate, he said. This had been the gold standard but was no longer the case. Henningsen noted widespread popular opposition to war in the US that successive presidential candidates had sought to manipulate, only to betray once in power -- from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Donald Trump. ..."
"... The mainstream media have enormous assets and resources but claim democracy is threatened by "fake news", when they are the purveyors of fake news and the real threat to democracy. ..."
"Government propaganda and the war on terror from 9/11 to Syria"
Media on Trial held a successful event in Leeds on Sunday, in the face of sustained efforts
to prevent the meeting taking place.
The group was formed by Frome Stop War, based in Somerset. Working with academics,
investigative journalists and other interested parties and individuals, and drawing on the
illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, Media on Trial seeks to "cultivate public scepticism when faced
with establishment and corporate media's partisan reporting at times of conflict". It held
well-attended meetings in Frome and London last year. Its success in exposing the ongoing
regime-change operations in Syria, and government/media propaganda to this end, has made its
members the subject of an organised media smear campaign, culminating in efforts to silence it
altogether.
" Government propaganda and the war on terror from 9/11 to Syria" was booked at
Leeds City Museum. But in an assault on free speech, Labour-run Leeds City Council in West
Yorkshire cancelled the event .
Sheila
Coombes speaking at Media on Trial
Sheila Coombes (Frome Stop War) has reported that the ban, made on May 3 -- World Press
Freedom Day -- came after a series of attacks on several of the
featured speakers by the Huffington Post , Guardian and Times
newspapers as "Assad Apologists".
Among those targeted were Professor Piers Robinson
(University of Sheffield), Professor Tim Hayward (University of Edinburgh) -- both of the
Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM) -- and investigative journalist Vanessa
Beeley.
Having travelled to Leeds to check out the venue, Coombes was told that Leeds City Council
had cancelled the event, suggesting that "security issues" were involved. She was informed that
it was a blanket ban and that no other council-run venue would host it.
Less than an hour after she had been informed, the Yorkshire Post ran an online
article welcoming the ban, followed by a similar report in the Huffington Post . The
speed of publication suggests that these media outlets were aware of the ban before Coombes
herself had been informed.
Piers Robinson speaking at the Media on Trial event
Coombes reports that she was in contact with police regarding security arrangements for the
event and that she had been informed by the police officer in charge that he had advised Leeds
City Council there was "no intelligence to assess a threat". A second alternative private venue
was also cancelled.
Media on Trial was forced to keep details of the third venue secret until shortly before it
was due to open and restrict entrance to those who had already purchased tickets. The panel was
eventually able to go ahead on Sunday at the Baab-ul-llm Islamic education centre, one of the
few venues prepared to stand in defiance of this campaign of censorship. Approximately 200
people attended.
The reports delivered during the four-hour meeting provided a devastating exposure of
the connection between propaganda and censorship by the media and the warmongering of
governments in Britain, the United States and across the world.
Professor Piers Robinson (Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism) spoke on
the rebranding of government propaganda as "public relations." Drawing on his research into the
Iraq war, he cited material from the Chilcot Inquiry into the war confirming the systematic
manipulation and exaggeration of "intelligence" on Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction.
This included discussions between the US and British governments over how the 9/11 terror
attacks could be used for regime change operations, under the slogan of the "war on terror",
which Robinson described as a propaganda slogan for mobilising support for military
operations.
Robert Stuart is an independent researcher whose presentation on the "irregularities" in the
BBC Panorama documentary, "Saving Syria's Children," encouraged film producer and
writer Victor Lewis-Smith to tear up his BBC contract in disgust.
Robert Stuart speaking at
the Media on Trial event
Stuart gave a presentation on his examination of film recorded by BBC personnel at
Atareb Hospital in Aleppo on August 26, 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of a napalm-style
bombing by Syrian government forces. The footage was broadcast the same evening that parliament
delivered a shock vote against a military attack on Syria. He showed that much of it was
staged. Not only did this potentially include the use of military casualty trauma simulations,
but BBC personnel were travelling in vehicles displaying ISIS flags and alongside senior
members of the western-funded White Helmets.
Professor Tim Hayward (Environmental Political Theory) questioned the morality of the media
presenting information that was untrue and its implications for democracy and society. He
questioned the media's complicity in glorifying jihadi figures, despite this being in
contravention of the British governments' own anti-terror laws. He drew attention to broadcasts
on Channel 4 that provided flattering accounts of British women signing up for jihad. The media
were guilty of inverting the truth and placing a "lockdown" on information that breached the
rudiments of journalistic integrity.
American journalist and broadcaster Patrick Henningsen (21st Century Wire), drew attention
to the unprecedented conditions in which the meeting was being held, "in secret, in a
tent".
It was impossible to have a functioning democracy without a functioning fourth estate, he
said. This had been the gold standard but was no longer the case. Henningsen noted widespread
popular opposition to war in the US that successive presidential candidates had sought to
manipulate, only to betray once in power -- from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Donald
Trump.
The mainstream media have enormous assets and resources but claim democracy is threatened by
"fake news", when they are the purveyors of fake news and the real threat to democracy.
Peter Ford is a former UK ambassador to Syria (2003–2006) and now Director of the
British Syrian Society. He noted that the government had been forced to convene the Leveson
Inquiry into the media after the phone-hacking scandal involving Murdoch's News of the
World . But those actions were trivial in comparison with the real charge sheet that
needed to be presented against the media: that of "war mongering and aiding and abetting war
mongering".
Vanessa Beeley is an international investigative journalist and photographer who had
reported from inside Syria (including East Aleppo), Egypt and Palestine. She played an
important role in exposing Syria's White Helmets as an arm of western propaganda and regime
change operations.
She delivered a moving account of the situation within Syria and the capital Damascus. In
addition to detailing the role of the White Helmets and other institutions financed and backed
by western governments, Beeley noted that, especially following the Second World War, pro-war
propaganda was deemed a threat to peace. The Nuremberg Trials in 1946 characterised propaganda
to facilitate war as a serious crime against humanity; one of the gravest that could be
committed. Today, those who advocate peace and the defence of international law are smeared and
silenced, while those who promote war are being lauded in the media.
In the short time available for questions, contributions were made, including the
possibility of practical action against war-mongering.
Julie Hyland, speaking for the World Socialist Web Site , was greeted warmly by the
audience for raising that the high point of the international campaign of smears and censorship
is the attack on Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who is in grave danger of eviction from
the Ecuadorian Embassy and extradition to the United States.
Henningson replied that the embassy had determined to cut Assange's internet access and
personal communications while Syria was being targeted for military strikes. "I don't
underestimate the influence of Julian Assange at those critical times. His own website was
taken offline as the air strike by the US, Britain and France were happening, along with
several other web sites". He added, "Julian Assange is being silenced because they don't want
someone like him to have a platform".
Video of the Media on Trial Leeds event can be viewed here
"... John Richard Cookson is a non-resident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. ..."
"... Image: An explosion rocks Baghdad during air strikes March 21, 2003. U.S.-led forces unleashed a devastating blitz on Baghdad on Friday night, triggering giant fireballs and deafening explosions and sending huge mushroom clouds above the city centre. Missiles slammed into the main palace complex of President Saddam Hussein on the bank of the Tigris River, and key government buildings, in an onslaught that far exceeded strikes that launched the waron Thursday, Reuters correspondents said. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic. ..."
Iran today has uncanny echoes of the Iraq War's beginning.
Why did the United States invade Iraq in 2003? The stock answer is because of a lie -- the
drummed-up belief that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). After
all, everyone knows that no such weapons were ever found. However, the claim that the U.S.
invaded Iraq solely because of WMDs is also a lie. On its own, the WMD explanation is false
because it was not the first or determining reason why America went to war. It is a concision
of history that is as misleading as attributing the inevitability of World War I to Gavrilo
Princip being a crack shot. That is not a sufficient or complete explanation and is at best a
lie of omission that dumbs down the causes of the war. The lie of why America invaded Iraq must
be torn down now, though, before history is repeated. Political seismologists are even now
noticing similar rumblings around Iran to those that occurred before the Iraq War. As Jacob
Heilbrunn, editor of the National Interest,recently
wrote , "the spirit of George W. Bush has once more begun to inhabit the White House."
National security adviser John Bolton, Heilbrunn said, "is busy urging Trump to revive the
regime change policies that seemed to be discredited after the 2003 Iraq War, but are now
making a comeback."
Such policies should remain discredited, and so it is necessary, if not to discard the WMD
lie entirely, then to situate it in a more accurate context. The WMD narrative is not unique to
Iraq and serves as a useful warning today. It is also necessary to acknowledge that the United
States set against Baghdad well before Secretary of State Colin Powell shook a vial of anthrax at the
United Nations, dramatically making the case that Iraq had WMDs. The fact is that the case for
invasion was made up of three components largely separate from Saddam's supposed WMDs.
First, the White House did its utmost to link Iraq to as many problems as possible in the
region, be it supporting terrorism, antagonizing Gulf states, or threatening Israel. This is
not to say Iraq was uninvolved in these activities as clearly it was. Rather, Iraq's support
was too often described in ways suggesting it was decisive, essential to the activities'
survival, and unique to Saddam's leadership. More often than not, however, such support by
Saddam was complementary, less than critical, and a result of more-or-less fixed Iraqi
geopolitics. Iraq, for instance, remains formally at war with Israel even without Saddam in
power.
In addition, the U.S. continually, and quickly, listed many grievances in the runup to the
war. Doing this created momentum and accumulated guilt onto Saddam and his regime more than any
one specific Iraqi action could have done. Furthermore, a list of grievances made them seem all
the more credible and of a piece. The image created was that every grievance was part of some
coordinated, even grandly strategic, and therefore dangerous, plot by Saddam's Iraq. Such a
dangerous actor therefore required a response, even though the reality is often otherwise.
Today the current White House is attempting the same with Iran. Ambassador Nikki Haley
explained to the UN Security Council on May 15 that when it comes to the conflicts in Syria
and Yemen, and with Hamas, "the common thread in all of this is the destabilizing conduct of
the Iranian regime." Secretary of State Mike Pompeo followed suit with his speech on May 21 , adding
injustices in Afghanistan and Europe to the list. As was the case with Iraq, Iran is indeed
involved and even influential in each of these conflicts. But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's blessing
is hardly the be-all and end-all. The implied idea here is that Iran limiting its support would
end these conflicts or that a different regime in Tehran would suspend its support altogether.
But these ideas are more or less bunk. For example, neither Syria nor Yemen would suddenly
become a haven of peace and stability upon the exit of Iran from their conflicts. Additionally,
Palestinians would have charged the Israeli fences with rocks and homemade flaming kites to
protest the U.S. embassy relocation to Jerusalem regardless of Iran's influence. Palestinians
do not need Iran's robust international financing or high-end technology to continue their
struggle with Israel.
Second, the George W. Bush White House and its Iraq War supporters pushed the idea that
there was strong local support among Iraqis, who were in fact great admirers of America. Take
the contribution of Bernard
Lewis , who just died on May 19 at the age of 101. The eminent historian was brought in to
educate the Bush administration on the Middle East right after 9/11, and he had an equation to
reveal which locals were really on America's side. "In countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
with governments seen as American allies, the popular mood is violently anti-American," Lewis
explained in December 2001. "In Iran and Iraq, with governments seen as anti-American, public
opinion is pro-American," he added. Thus, public support is the inverse of government support.
This dodgy equation led him to an ominous conclusion that would support further U.S.-led regime
change: "The joy displayed by the Afghan people at the ending of Taliban rule could be
repeated, on a larger scale, in both these countries." Moreover, it was often added that
democracy was supposedly concomitant with an affinity for Americans. "In two countries, Iraq
and Iran, where the regimes are strongly anti-American, there are democratic oppositions
capable of taking over and forming governments," Lewis explained in
2003 . "We, in what we like to call the free world, could do much to help them, and have
done little." After President Trump's exit from the Iran nuclear deal, Secretary Pompeo was
keen to explain that the United States will "advocate tirelessly for the Iranian people."
Recent protests, he added, should be understood not as calls for reform but rather as cries for
revolution, for "liberty," he said. Commentators, too, are already cajoling the president to "
fight for Iranian freedom ."
Third, the White House and its regime-change advocates emphasized that the Iraq war would
be, well, a lark. It would be an easy and achievable adventure at minimal cost. It would be
"a cakewalk." After all, it was said, America avoided quagmires and fiascos in the Middle
East and could still do so while forcing regime change. As Lewis again
explained 2003, "if one compares the record of American policy in the Middle East with that
of other regions, one is struck not by its failure but by its success. There is, after all, no
Vietnam in the Middle East, no Cuba or Nicaragua or El Salvador, not even an Angola." It's hard
to make that argument now, of course, but has the lesson been learned? Unfortunately, today,
despite all evidence since to the contrary, there remains no shortage of voices ready to speak
to the ease with which a nation might be invaded and occupied by the United States.
What we should learn from Iraq is that there's a tried-and-true recipe for beguiling the
United States into war; link every irritation directly to the adversary, assert robust local
support for the invasion and claim the whole conflict will be a lark. In short, link,
local, lark . While the reasons why America went to war in 2003 are many and varied, the
main three are encapsulated in this trio and serve as both a formula for those who want war and
a warning to those who wish to avoid it.
John Richard Cookson is a non-resident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global
Affairs.
Image: An explosion rocks Baghdad during air strikes March 21, 2003.
U.S.-led forces unleashed a devastating blitz on Baghdad on Friday night, triggering giant
fireballs and deafening explosions and sending huge mushroom clouds above the city centre.
Missiles slammed into the main palace complex of President Saddam Hussein on the bank of the
Tigris River, and key government buildings, in an onslaught that far exceeded strikes that
launched the waron Thursday, Reuters correspondents said. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic.
Just because we used a ground invasion to attack Iraq does not mean we have to do so
against Iran: in Iraq, we used ground forces to attack the Iraqi army and bring about
regime change. But with Iran, the main goal is not regime change; rather it is destroying
Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities. America could do this fairly easily using its
air power and long range missiles. In fact, the Iranian fear of American air power forced
them to negotiate with America, where, much to their delight, they found that Obama and
the EU could be tricked into paying Iran in return for Iran temporarily freezing its
nuclear program, while still being totally free to destabilize Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and
Yemen. It appears that those who oppose bombing Iran the most, are always strongly in
favor of the destruction of Jewish Israel. Many of them would prefer that America bomb
Jewish Israel instead of Iran.
The one person that Mr. Cookson leaves out in his analysis is Netanyahu. He is deeply
admired by the Neo-Cons and he was instrumental in encouraging the US to invade Iraq. In
his remarks to the Congress in 2002: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I
guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region," Mr.
Netanyahu said then. "And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young
people, and many others, will say the time of such regimes, of such despots is gone."
The irony of history repeating itself is described by the author. In a healthy political
scene, the Neo-Cons would be fully discredited, hanging their heads in shame and banished
from any decision making for their role in goading the US into the catastrophic Iraq war.
It has been terrible for the US and the region. The primary beneficiary of the Iraq war
was Israel. Netanyahu must be smiling at all this. With so many patsies and useful idiots
in our elected officials, he will probably succeed in his efforts to get the US to start
a war with Iran.
I'm against any scenario which includes invading Iran as it would be a disaster BUT
the author is totally wrong about majority of Iranians not willing a regime change! Most
of Iranians are extremely unhappy with the regime which has taken them hostage for 4
decades. Lack of liberty and corrutpion from head to toe plus spending a large amount of
money for helping shia's in neighboring countries are main issues! If this regime goes
down there would be people all over place celebrating the end of this black chapter of
Persians history!
The Persian Gulf war was very near a lark, and the Bush Admin bragged it had made a
net profit from the war after counting contributions greater than costs. This experience
was boldly said to have overcome the Vietnam Syndrome.
Well, now we've got an Iraq War Syndrome. This time around has been no lark. That may
not be enough of a difference to stop a war, but it should help. One of these three
factors is not the same at all.
America was never envisioned by its Founding Fathers to be some kind of global
watchdog or a world police of any kind. All these foreign wars do is to plunge its
economy further into debt and devastate its international image.
Given his track record for inaccurately predicting the ability of Israel's enemies to
develop nuclear weapons, Washington would be unwise to be dragged into Bibi's latest
folly.
"... Thucydides tells us that war changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when " mil-splaining " military-related holidays was all the rage. ..."
"... Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" -- but many also see OxyContin that way. ..."
"... A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like " The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing world. ..."
"... What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs, there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not due consideration of the nation. This situation is genuinely tragic . ..."
"... The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire. ..."
"... It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars. NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. ..."
"... But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social cohesion in this country. ..."
"... "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them." ..."
"... U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free will. ..."
"... The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so? ..."
"... The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the architect of the pathological incongruence. ..."
"... The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very fabric of our society and on those engaged in them. ..."
"... With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your service" as we go on with our daily lives. ..."
"... In my opinion, Demanding answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of respect for our military personnel. ..."
"... " instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why' there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there." ..."
"... Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor. ..."
"... According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one. ..."
Thucydides tells us that war
changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when
" mil-splaining
" military-related holidays was all the rage. From memes outlining the differences between
Veterans, Armed Forces, and Memorial Day, to Fourth of July "safe space" declarations seemingly
applied to all vets, the trend was everywhere. Thankfully, it seems now to have passed.
Memorial Day is, of course, for remembering the fallen, those who died in service to the
nation. Veterans and their families remember their loved ones in ways they deem appropriate,
and the state remembers, too, in a somber, serious manner.
This remembrance should in no way preclude the typical family barbecue and other customs
associated with the traditional beginning of summer. National holidays are for remembering and
celebrating, not guilt. Shaming those who fail to celebrate a holiday according to one's
expectations is a bit like non-Christians feeling shame for skipping church: it shouldn't
matter because the day means different things to different people. Having a day on the calendar
demonstrates the national consensus about honoring sacrifice; anything more than that is a slow
walk towards superficiality. President Bush stopped golfing during the Iraq war, but it didn't
stop him from continuing it.
Instead, Memorial Day should engender conversation about our military and the gulf between
those who serve and those who don't. The conversation shouldn't just be the military talking at
civilians; it must be reciprocal. Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols
that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" --
but many also see OxyContin that way. This situation is lamentable because the
aforementioned "mil-splaining" could only occur in a country so profoundly divided from its
military as to misunderstand basic concepts such as the purpose of holidays. It's also striking
how the most outspoken so-called "patriots" often
have little connection to that which they so outlandishly support. Our "thank you for your
service" culture is anathema to well-functioning civil-military relations.
The public owes its military more consideration, particularly in how the armed forces are
deployed across the globe. Part of this is empathy:
stop treating military members as an abstraction , as something that exists only to serve a
national or increasingly political purpose. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are
deserving of praise and support -- especially considering the burden they've carried -- but
what they need more is an engaged public, one that's even willing to
scrutinize the military . Because scrutiny necessitates engagement and hopefully
understanding and reform.
But the civil-military divide goes
both ways. Military members and veterans owe the public a better relationship as well. This
Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to
correct them. Open a dialogue: you might
build a real connection . Better yet, volunteer to speak at a school or church: partly to
explain your service, sure, but more so to show that military personnel are people, too, not
just
distant abstractions . Veterans are spread across the county and better able to interact
with civilians than our largely cloistered active duty force. They shouldn't go to schools,
churches, and civic organizations for the inevitable praise. They should go to educate, nurture
relationships, and chip away at the civil-military divide.
Perhaps by questioning the fundamentals -- the "why" instead of the so often discussed
"what" in military operations -- the public would be in a better position to demand action from
a Congress that, heretofore, has largely abdicated serious oversight of foreign policy. Perhaps
the public, instead of asking "what" we need to break the
stalemate in Afghanistan , could ask "why" there is a stalemate at all -- and whether
American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to
achieving desired ends there.
A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and
strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we
have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like "
The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing
world. Consumed by domestic strife and the emergence of nationalism
, American foreign policy has wandered fecklessly since the end of the Cold War. While we can
strike anywhere, this
capability is wasted in search of a lasting peace.
What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted
while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat
remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs,
there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not
due consideration of the nation. This situation is
genuinely tragic .
For America to dig its way out of its domestic and foreign troubles it must start with
sobering analysis. For the civil-military dialogue, Memorial Day is as good a place to begin as
any day. So this weekend, civilians should move beyond "Thank you for your service" and ask a
vet about his or her service and lost comrades. Veterans, don't expect praise and don't
lecture; speak with honesty and empathy, talk about what you've done and the conditions you've
seen. You might be surprised what we can learn from each other.
John Q. Bolton is an Army officer who recently returned from Afghanistan. An Army
aviator (AH-64D/E), he is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a 2005 graduate of West
Point. The views presented here are his alone and not representative of the U.S. Army, the
Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
12 Responses to On Memorial Day,
Getting Beyond 'Thank You For Your Service'
(This reply was intended for an older article
"http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-deep-unfairness-of-americas-all-volunteer-force"
from 2017 but since the topics are kind of related, so )
The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire.
It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII
is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars.
NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. Scrapping/re-constituting these
frameworks would put the US on par with most other countries on earth sporting home-bound
defense forces. Congressional authority/oversight would be reinvigorated, and acting under
the auspices of the UN becomes a procedural impairment (sovereignty concerns and selfishness
notwithstanding). A practical start would be lobbying for more base closures abroad, for
those who feel strongly about this.
But there is a danger: nature abhors a vacuum.
The other thing, I am definitely for professionalism in militaries. Better to have one
dedicated soldier than three squirmish kids dragged into the mud.
Seems to me a universal draft would be the best way to say thank you. Under that scenario
most wars would be avoided or resolved quickly as the cost would be political defeat. An all
volunteer/mercenary force is blatantly unfair as virtually no kids of the wealthy fight,
prohibitively expensive, as recruiting and retaining soldiers in these times is an uphill
challenge, and dangerous as it encourages needless risk since only a tiny percentage of the
voting population pay the price
Sir: Thank you for your timely comments. I am a USN veteran and fully support the idea that
communication has to be a two-way street between civilians and our military women and men.
But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social
cohesion in this country. Not having common experiences makes us all more foreign to one
another which leads to isolation and platitudes such as "Thank you for your service." I have
heard that comment many times, too, and after a while it comes across as: "better you than
me." I know I am being cynical but I am also only human .
Re: "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and
proceed to correct them."
U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins
the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free
will.
Thanking someone for signing up for the War Machine to wreck havoc on natives thousands of
miles from American shores makes little sense.
The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support
to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And
those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so?
The U.S. military slaughters the Syrian army operating in their own country and we are
supposed to thank them for "their service"? Military drone drivers who slaughter Yemeni
wedding parties from comfortable installations in Florida and the operators on U.S. Navy
ships who launch missiles into Syria based on bogus False Flag scenarios are "Warrior
Heroes"?
The veterans we should be thanking are the ones who realized early on that they were being
played for chumps by the war-mongers and got out. If John Q. Bolton has that understanding,
why hasn't he gotten out?
The real "heroes" in America are the young people who get real jobs in the real economy
providing real value to their fellow citizens.
The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive
propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the
architect of the pathological incongruence.
This is an excellent article. Memorial Day should call upon all Americans to ask some
essential questions.
As an aside, The Washington Post ran an article today about the funeral of Spec. Conde who
recently was killed in Afghanistan. The article spoke of Spec. Conde's motivations for
serving, the events that led to his death, the funeral service, and the effect that his death
at age 21 had and will have on his family and those who knew and loved him.
What struck me most about the article was how remote the funeral service and the family's
grief seem from the rest of what is taking place in America. For example, there was an
oblique reference to a funeral detail for a veteran who committed suicide that apparently no
one attended.
The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a
media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military
engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very
fabric of our society and on those engaged in them.
The vast majority of the American public go about their daily lives, seemingly insulated
from the effects of our endless engagements. For example, Spec. Conde's death in Afghanistan
did not even make the front page of our major media when it first happened. The death of four
soldiers in Niger has faded from view.
With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be
in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent
of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your
service" as we go on with our daily lives.
Thank you, Sir, for articulating my position. In 7 Second Soundbite format, "I Support the
Troops, not the Policy that put them in harms way."
The military should never be deployed for political purposes. As a nation, we have willfully
refused to learn anything from the lessons of Korea and Viet Nam.
Military service preserves the Ultimate Expression of America, "Question Authority!" (I
recognize the Irony of suppressing it within it's ranks.) In my opinion, Demanding
answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of
respect for our military personnel.
Accept Officer Bolton's challenge. When you see me kneeling at the National Anthem, ask me
why. [The Answer: I do it to show respect for those that have fallen at the hands of those
who oppose the Values embodied in the American Flag.]
" instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why'
there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the
structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there."
Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will
consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while
on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US
troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously
condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor.
According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of
the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to
justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an
important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one.
Perhaps we need "our leaders" to do some war "Service."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
March 9, 2009
"Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders"?
Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such
is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed,
destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have
war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games
every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of
these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if
enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games? How could this be arranged? All the
leaders and elites of the world would have to lead by example, instead of leading from their
political platforms, palaces and offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do
the dirty work in wars. The world's leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first.
A venue could be arranged in a deserted area and the people of the world could watch via
satellite TV their courageous leaders and other elites leading the charge in the war games
.
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html
"... Thucydides tells us that war changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when " mil-splaining " military-related holidays was all the rage. ..."
"... Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" -- but many also see OxyContin that way. ..."
"... A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like " The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing world. ..."
"... What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs, there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not due consideration of the nation. This situation is genuinely tragic . ..."
"... The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire. ..."
"... It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars. NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. ..."
"... But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social cohesion in this country. ..."
"... "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to correct them." ..."
"... U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free will. ..."
"... The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so? ..."
"... The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the architect of the pathological incongruence. ..."
"... The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very fabric of our society and on those engaged in them. ..."
"... With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your service" as we go on with our daily lives. ..."
"... In my opinion, Demanding answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of respect for our military personnel. ..."
"... " instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why' there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there." ..."
"... Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor. ..."
"... According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one. ..."
Thucydides tells us that war
changes the meaning of words . Social media demonstrated this maxim several years ago when
" mil-splaining
" military-related holidays was all the rage. From memes outlining the differences between
Veterans, Armed Forces, and Memorial Day, to Fourth of July "safe space" declarations seemingly
applied to all vets, the trend was everywhere. Thankfully, it seems now to have passed.
Memorial Day is, of course, for remembering the fallen, those who died in service to the
nation. Veterans and their families remember their loved ones in ways they deem appropriate,
and the state remembers, too, in a somber, serious manner.
This remembrance should in no way preclude the typical family barbecue and other customs
associated with the traditional beginning of summer. National holidays are for remembering and
celebrating, not guilt. Shaming those who fail to celebrate a holiday according to one's
expectations is a bit like non-Christians feeling shame for skipping church: it shouldn't
matter because the day means different things to different people. Having a day on the calendar
demonstrates the national consensus about honoring sacrifice; anything more than that is a slow
walk towards superficiality. President Bush stopped golfing during the Iraq war, but it didn't
stop him from continuing it.
Instead, Memorial Day should engender conversation about our military and the gulf between
those who serve and those who don't. The conversation shouldn't just be the military talking at
civilians; it must be reciprocal. Increasingly civilians see " soldiers as symbols
that allow them to feel good about themselves, and the country" --
but many also see OxyContin that way. This situation is lamentable because the
aforementioned "mil-splaining" could only occur in a country so profoundly divided from its
military as to misunderstand basic concepts such as the purpose of holidays. It's also striking
how the most outspoken so-called "patriots" often
have little connection to that which they so outlandishly support. Our "thank you for your
service" culture is anathema to well-functioning civil-military relations.
The public owes its military more consideration, particularly in how the armed forces are
deployed across the globe. Part of this is empathy:
stop treating military members as an abstraction , as something that exists only to serve a
national or increasingly political purpose. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are
deserving of praise and support -- especially considering the burden they've carried -- but
what they need more is an engaged public, one that's even willing to
scrutinize the military . Because scrutiny necessitates engagement and hopefully
understanding and reform.
But the civil-military divide goes
both ways. Military members and veterans owe the public a better relationship as well. This
Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and proceed to
correct them. Open a dialogue: you might
build a real connection . Better yet, volunteer to speak at a school or church: partly to
explain your service, sure, but more so to show that military personnel are people, too, not
just
distant abstractions . Veterans are spread across the county and better able to interact
with civilians than our largely cloistered active duty force. They shouldn't go to schools,
churches, and civic organizations for the inevitable praise. They should go to educate, nurture
relationships, and chip away at the civil-military divide.
Perhaps by questioning the fundamentals -- the "why" instead of the so often discussed
"what" in military operations -- the public would be in a better position to demand action from
a Congress that, heretofore, has largely abdicated serious oversight of foreign policy. Perhaps
the public, instead of asking "what" we need to break the
stalemate in Afghanistan , could ask "why" there is a stalemate at all -- and whether
American forces can truly ameliorate the structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to
achieving desired ends there.
A strategy is needed that's rooted in serious analysis of American interests and
strengths and a realistic assessment of the world. For nearly a generation, we
have failed to align ends, ways, and means . Like "
The Weary Titan ," America finds itself unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a changing
world. Consumed by domestic strife and the emergence of nationalism
, American foreign policy has wandered fecklessly since the end of the Cold War. While we can
strike anywhere, this
capability is wasted in search of a lasting peace.
What do we have to show for our expenditures? A divided country, financially exhausted
while waging war across the globe against an elusive enemy -- who is, frankly, not a threat
remotely approaching the resources we have aligned against him. Beyond the material costs,
there's the social. Our military has become a syncretic religion, enjoying the support but not
due consideration of the nation. This situation is
genuinely tragic .
For America to dig its way out of its domestic and foreign troubles it must start with
sobering analysis. For the civil-military dialogue, Memorial Day is as good a place to begin as
any day. So this weekend, civilians should move beyond "Thank you for your service" and ask a
vet about his or her service and lost comrades. Veterans, don't expect praise and don't
lecture; speak with honesty and empathy, talk about what you've done and the conditions you've
seen. You might be surprised what we can learn from each other.
John Q. Bolton is an Army officer who recently returned from Afghanistan. An Army
aviator (AH-64D/E), he is a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a 2005 graduate of West
Point. The views presented here are his alone and not representative of the U.S. Army, the
Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.
12 Responses to On Memorial Day,
Getting Beyond 'Thank You For Your Service'
(This reply was intended for an older article
"http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-deep-unfairness-of-americas-all-volunteer-force"
from 2017 but since the topics are kind of related, so )
The reason US acts like an empire is because she *IS* an empire.
It recently dawned on me that the US' empire status solidified during and after WWII
is the biggest reason why it's so easy for America to wage prolonged, deep-involvement wars.
NATO, overseas bases, freedom of navigation, etc. Scrapping/re-constituting these
frameworks would put the US on par with most other countries on earth sporting home-bound
defense forces. Congressional authority/oversight would be reinvigorated, and acting under
the auspices of the UN becomes a procedural impairment (sovereignty concerns and selfishness
notwithstanding). A practical start would be lobbying for more base closures abroad, for
those who feel strongly about this.
But there is a danger: nature abhors a vacuum.
The other thing, I am definitely for professionalism in militaries. Better to have one
dedicated soldier than three squirmish kids dragged into the mud.
Seems to me a universal draft would be the best way to say thank you. Under that scenario
most wars would be avoided or resolved quickly as the cost would be political defeat. An all
volunteer/mercenary force is blatantly unfair as virtually no kids of the wealthy fight,
prohibitively expensive, as recruiting and retaining soldiers in these times is an uphill
challenge, and dangerous as it encourages needless risk since only a tiny percentage of the
voting population pay the price
Sir: Thank you for your timely comments. I am a USN veteran and fully support the idea that
communication has to be a two-way street between civilians and our military women and men.
But let's be honest: when we "killed" the draft we killed, in part, what is called social
cohesion in this country. Not having common experiences makes us all more foreign to one
another which leads to isolation and platitudes such as "Thank you for your service." I have
heard that comment many times, too, and after a while it comes across as: "better you than
me." I know I am being cynical but I am also only human .
Re: "This Memorial Day, don't cringe when someone says "Thank you for your service" and
proceed to correct them."
U.S. policy of perpetual war has been well established since 9/11. Everyone who joins
the military is well aware of the job description (kill and destroy) and has free
will.
Thanking someone for signing up for the War Machine to wreck havoc on natives thousands of
miles from American shores makes little sense.
The U.S. military is currently providing refueling, logistics and intelligence support
to the odious Saudis as they pulverize Yemen to smithereens and starve the population. And
those American service people are "defending our freedoms" by doing so?
The U.S. military slaughters the Syrian army operating in their own country and we are
supposed to thank them for "their service"? Military drone drivers who slaughter Yemeni
wedding parties from comfortable installations in Florida and the operators on U.S. Navy
ships who launch missiles into Syria based on bogus False Flag scenarios are "Warrior
Heroes"?
The veterans we should be thanking are the ones who realized early on that they were being
played for chumps by the war-mongers and got out. If John Q. Bolton has that understanding,
why hasn't he gotten out?
The real "heroes" in America are the young people who get real jobs in the real economy
providing real value to their fellow citizens.
The reason these episodes of introspection are called for is because of the massive
propaganda machine (Pentagon, Corporate, MSM) of Military Exceptionalism that is the
architect of the pathological incongruence.
This is an excellent article. Memorial Day should call upon all Americans to ask some
essential questions.
As an aside, The Washington Post ran an article today about the funeral of Spec. Conde who
recently was killed in Afghanistan. The article spoke of Spec. Conde's motivations for
serving, the events that led to his death, the funeral service, and the effect that his death
at age 21 had and will have on his family and those who knew and loved him.
What struck me most about the article was how remote the funeral service and the family's
grief seem from the rest of what is taking place in America. For example, there was an
oblique reference to a funeral detail for a veteran who committed suicide that apparently no
one attended.
The 'military-civilian' divide, as the author stated it, is as much a product of a
media that no longer holds policymakers accountable for seemingly endless military
engagements and, the true effect that our endless military engagements are having on the very
fabric of our society and on those engaged in them.
The vast majority of the American public go about their daily lives, seemingly insulated
from the effects of our endless engagements. For example, Spec. Conde's death in Afghanistan
did not even make the front page of our major media when it first happened. The death of four
soldiers in Niger has faded from view.
With a volunteer military that effectively is at the disposal of whoever happens to be
in office, no grass-roots opposition movement to hold politicians accountable, and 95 percent
of the population untouched by war, the most veterans will receive is a "thank you for your
service" as we go on with our daily lives.
Thank you, Sir, for articulating my position. In 7 Second Soundbite format, "I Support the
Troops, not the Policy that put them in harms way."
The military should never be deployed for political purposes. As a nation, we have willfully
refused to learn anything from the lessons of Korea and Viet Nam.
Military service preserves the Ultimate Expression of America, "Question Authority!" (I
recognize the Irony of suppressing it within it's ranks.) In my opinion, Demanding
answers and justifications for sending people into harms way is the best expression of
respect for our military personnel.
Accept Officer Bolton's challenge. When you see me kneeling at the National Anthem, ask me
why. [The Answer: I do it to show respect for those that have fallen at the hands of those
who oppose the Values embodied in the American Flag.]
" instead of asking 'what' we need to break the stalemate in Afghanistan, could ask 'why'
there is a stalemate at all -- and whether American forces can truly ameliorate the
structural, cultural, and historical obstacles to achieving desired ends there."
Be aware that when you ask why, many people (including, sadly, many veterans) will
consider this questioning of government foreign policy as a species of treason. Once, while
on active duty with the US Army (1970), I suggested to a fellow officer that sending US
troops to fight in Vietnam might not be in nation interest. I was immediately and vigorously
condemned as a communist, a fascist, and a traitor.
According to this reasoning, once the first soldier dies in battle, any criticism of
the war denigrates the sacrifice of the deceased. So, we must continue to pile up the dead to
justify those who have already died. This is part of the mechanism of war, and is an
important reason why it is always easier to start a war than to stop one.
Perhaps we need "our leaders" to do some war "Service."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
March 9, 2009
"Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders"?
Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such
is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed,
destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have
war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games
every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of
these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if
enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games? How could this be arranged? All the
leaders and elites of the world would have to lead by example, instead of leading from their
political platforms, palaces and offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do
the dirty work in wars. The world's leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first.
A venue could be arranged in a deserted area and the people of the world could watch via
satellite TV their courageous leaders and other elites leading the charge in the war games
.
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html
They gave Obama their tepid approval, then poured millions into a three-year campaign to kill it -- and won.
By William D. Hartung and Ben Freeman
• Benjamin Netanyahu's April 30
presentation accusing Iran of lying about its nuclear program was clearly aimed at a Western audience, and at one man in particular
-- Donald Trump. Trump was already inclined to violate and exit the multi-party deal to block Iran's path to a nuclear weapon, but
Netanyahu's presentation offered a timely addition to the administration's rhetorical arsenal. His PowerPoint performance, filled
with misleading assertions and
stale information dressed up as new revelations, was referenced by Trump as part of the justification for abandoning the nuclear
deal.
While this garnered headlines, another U.S. ally -- Saudi Arabia -- had been orchestrating a quieter but equally effective lobbying
and public relations push to dismantle the deal. The Saudis' arguments were used just as much, if not more, by Trump in justifying
his decision for the U.S. to walk away from a carefully crafted agreement that even some of his own military leaders had
acknowledged was working.
The Saudi lobby's push began long before the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was formally announced on July 14, 2015.
In fact, Saudi lobbyists had been working behind the scenes in the U.S. for years to ensure that the Kingdom's concerns were incorporated
into any deal Washington would agree to with Iran -- if there was to be a deal at all.
In total, the Christian Science Monitor
found that Saudi Arabia spent $11 million dollars on Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)-registered firms in 2015, and "much
of this spending relates to Iran." They were also assembling former policymakers like Senator Norm Coleman, whose FARA
disclosure mentions his work on "limiting
Iranian nuclear capability." More recently, Coleman penned an op-ed in The Hill applauding Trump for leaving the deal
without disclosing
that he was being paid by the Saudi government.
Despite their strong opposition to any deal with Iran, however, many of the Saudis' concerns were ultimately addressed by the
JCPOA, specifically their demands that "snapback" provisions be incorporated to quickly reinstitute sanctions if Iran violated the
agreement and that inspectors have access to military and other suspect sites. Above all, the Saudis wanted an assurance that the
deal would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The agreement provided this and President Obama
guaranteed it. This led to what many had thought impossible --
Saudi Arabia supporting
the Iran deal . Obama sealed the grudging support of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States in a May 2015 meeting at Camp David where
he offered "reassurances" that the deal would not jeopardize their security, underscored by a
promise to sell them even more weaponry.
But Saudi support for the deal was tepid and ephemeral at best. While publicly supporting it, the Saudis and their lobbyists in
D.C. were quietly working to undermine it. Their arguments largely centered on two points: that the funds freed up by the deal would
underwrite Iran's continued support for terrorist groups, and that the deal would do nothing to halt Iran's ballistic missile program.
While more than two dozen D.C. lobbying and public relations firms working for Saudi interests have registered under FARA since
the U.S. agreed to the Iran deal, none has been more aggressively pushing these anti-Iran talking points than the MSLGroup (which
acquired long-serving Saudi client Qorvis Communications in 2014). The MSLGroup, which has been paid more than
$6 million dollars by the Saudis
just since the U.S. agreed to the Iran deal, has distributed a variety of "informational materials" (formerly called
propaganda ) on each of
these topics, including a five-page fact sheet on "
Iranian Aggression in Yemen ,"
and a press release on Iran being the "
biggest state sponsor of terrorism
," among many others. And of course, the MSLGroup wasn't alone in spreading anti-Iran propaganda on behalf of the Saudi regime. For
example, as recently as March 2018, the Glover Park Group distributed information on Iran's "region," and Hogan Lovells distributed
" facts about the Houthis and Iran
," with a section on Iran's ballistic missiles.
With these talking points in hand, the Saudis saw an opportunity in the election of the neophyte Donald Trump to up the ante on
Iran, and they invested heavily in
courting him. Their efforts paid off handsomely as Trump made his first overseas visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, initially
supported them in their spat with Qatar (until he learned the U.S. has a rather large military base in Qatar), kept U.S. military
support and bombs flowing for a Saudi-led campaign in Yemen that has cost more than
10,000 civilians
their lives, and agreed to sell them billions of dollars in additional U.S. weaponry of all sorts, from more munitions to a costly
missile defense system. But Saudi Arabia still wanted more -- they wanted the U.S. out of the Iran deal.
While Saudi Arabia's most unlikely ally in this cause, Israel, took a very outspoken approach to move the president, which culminated
in Netanyahu's misleading presentation, the Saudis used their well-financed lobbying machine to disseminate their message into the
D.C. bloodstream. Their primary talking points found their way to the president's ears and became routine features of his justification
for abandoning the deal. The White House
statement justifying leaving the Iran deal is littered with Saudi lobby talking points, including that "The JCPOA failed to deal
with the threat of Iran's missile program," and Iran "continues to fund terrorist proxies In Yemen, the regime has escalated the
conflict and used the Houthis as a proxy to attack other nations." The president's
remarks on the day he announced that the U.S. was abandoning the deal are also rife with language that could easily have been
lifted from a Saudi-financed "fact sheet." In fact, Trump's second sentence, "the Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of
terrorism," is nearly verbatim off of an anti-Iran
talking point distributed by
the MSLGroup.
Why did the Saudis want the U.S. to abandon the Iran deal? A New York Timesanalysis
identified what is probably the primary reason -- a fear that the deal would be the first step towards a U.S. rapprochement with
Iran that would undermine the Saudi regime's power in the region in general and its campaign against Iran in particular. "Exiting
the deal, with or without a plan, is fine with the Saudis," the Times wrote. "They see the accord as a dangerous distraction
from the real problem of confronting Iran around the region -- a problem that Saudi Arabia believes will be solved only by leadership
change in Iran."
Former State Department official Jeremy Shapiro
underscored
this point when he noted that the Saudis and their Gulf allies "believe they are in this existential conflict with the Iranian regime,
and nuclear weapons are a small part of that conflict . If the deal opened an avenue for better relations between the United States
and Iran, that would be a disaster for the Saudis," he said. "They need to ensure a motivation for American pressure against Iran
that will last even after this administration."
One disquieting outcome of the trashing of the Iran nuclear deal is that Saudi Arabia has threatened to acquire a nuclear weapon
of its own if the end of the agreement leads Iran to revive its program. This is not the first time Saudi leaders have made such
threats. Just after Trump announced the U.S. would be leaving the deal, the Saudi foreign minister
said that if Iran now builds a nuclear weapon his country "will do everything we can" to follow suit. So on top of its implications
for increased conventional conflict in the region, the end of U.S. participation in the Iran deal could spark a nuclear arms race
in the Middle East -- an outcome that would have been far less likely if U.S. participation in the Iran deal had been maintained.
The potential for a Mideast nuclear arms race is yet another example of the disastrous consequences of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed
bin Salman's reckless foreign policy, which includes everything from his regime's brutal, counterproductive intervention in Yemen,
to the Saudi-led effort to impose a blockade on Qatar, to its promotion of regime change in Iran -- preferably carried out by the
United States.
In the wake of the U.S. pullout from the Iran deal, we can expect the Saudi lobby, working in concert with administration allies
ranging from Jared Kushner to newly appointed national security advisor John Bolton, to double down in its efforts to promote these
ill-advised, dangerous directions for U.S. foreign policy in the region. Countering Riyadh's blatant influence peddling should be
part of an expanded effort to distance the United States from its increasingly risky, counterproductive relationship with Saudi Arabia.
If Mohammed bin Salman's aggressive policies -- and Saudi advocacy for them in Washington -- continue, Riyadh is one "friend" the
United States should consider doing without.
William D. Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, and Ben Freeman
directs the Center's Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative.
Mark Karlin: How much money has gone to the U.S. war on terror and what has been the impact of this expenditure?
Tom Engelhardt: The best figure I've seen on this comes from the Watson Institute's Costs of War Project at Brown University and
it's a staggering
$5.6 trillion , including certain future costs to care for this country's war vets. President Trump himself, with his usual sense
of accuracy, has inflated that number even more, regularly speaking of
$7
trillion being lost somewhere in our never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East. One of these days, he's going to turn out
to be right.
As for the impact of such an expenditure in the regions where these wars continue to be fought, largely nonstop, since they were
launched against a tiny group of jihadis just after September 11, 2001, it would certainly include: the spread of terror outfits
across the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Africa; the creation -- in a region previously autocratic but relatively calm -- of a
striking range of failed or failing states, of major cities that have been turned into absolute
rubble (with
no money in sight for serious
reconstruction), of internally
displaced people and waves of refugees at levels
that now match the moment after World War II, when significant parts of the planet were in ruins; and that's just to start down
a list of the true costs of our wars.
At home, in a far quieter way, the impact has been similar. Just imagine, for instance, what our American world would have been
like if any significant part of the funds that went into our fruitless, still spreading, now nameless conflicts had been spent on
America's crumbling infrastructure , instead of on the rise
of the national security state as the unofficial fourth branch of government. (At TomDispatch , Pentagon expert William Hartung
has estimated that approximately $1 trillion annually goes into that security state and, in the age of Trump, that figure is
again on the rise.)
Part of the trouble assessing the "impact" here in the U.S. is that, in this era of public demobilization in terms of our wars,
people are encouraged not to think about them at all and they've gotten remarkably little attention. So sorting out exactly how they've
come home -- other than completely obvious developments like the
militarization
of the police, the
flying of surveillance drones in our airspace, and so on -- is hard. Most people, for instance, don't grasp something I've long
written about at TomDispatch : that Donald Trump would have been inconceivable as president without those disastrous wars, those
trillions squandered on them and on the military that's fought them, and that certainly qualifies as "impact" enough.
What makes the U.S. pretension to empire different from previous empires?
As a start, it's worth mentioning that Americans generally don't even think of ourselves as an "empire." Yes, since the Soviet
Union imploded in 1991, our politicians and pundits have proudly called this country the "last" or "lone" superpower and the world's
most "exceptional" or "indispensable" nation, but an empire? No. You need to go someplace off the mainstream grid -- Truthout or
TomDispatch , for instance -- to find anyone talking about us in those terms.
That said, I think that two things have made us different, imperially speaking. The first was that post-1991 sense of ourselves
as the ultimate winner of a vast imperial contest, a kind of arms race of many that had gone on since European ships armed with cannon
had first broken into the world in perhaps the fifteenth century and began to conquer much of it. In that post-Soviet moment of triumphalism,
of what seemed to the top dogs in Washington like the ultimate win, a forever victory, there was indeed a sense that there had never
been and never would be a power like us. That inflated sense of our imperial self was what sent the geopolitical dreamers of the
George W. Bush administration off to, in essence, create a Pax Americana first in the Greater Middle East and then perhaps the world
in a fashion never before imagined, one that, they were convinced, would put the Roman and British imperial moments to shame. And
we all know, with the invasion of Iraq, just where that's ended up.
In the years since they launched that ultimate imperial venture in a cloud of hubris, the most striking difference I can see with
previous empires is that never has a great power still in something close to its imperial prime proven quite so incapable of applying
its military and political might in a way that would successfully advance its aims. It has instead found itself overmatched by underwhelming
enemy forces and incapable of producing any results other than destruction and further fragmentation across staggeringly large parts
of the planet.
Finally, of course, there's climate change -- that is, for the first time in the history of empires, the very well-being of the
planet itself is at stake. The game has, so to speak, changed, even if relatively few here have noticed.
Why do you refer to the U.S. as an "empire of chaos"?
This answer follows directly from the last two. The United States is now visibly a force for chaos across significant parts of
the planet. Just look, for instance, at the cities -- from
Marawi in the Philippines to
Mosul and
Ramadi
in Iraq,
Raqqa and
Aleppo
in Syria,
Sirte in Libya, and so on -- that have literally been -- a word I
want to bring into
the language -- rubblized, largely by American bombing (though with a helping hand recently from the bomb makers of the Islamic State).
Historically, in the imperial ages that preceded this one, such power, while regularly applied brutally and devastatingly, could
also be a way of imposing a grim version of order on conquered and colonized areas. No longer, it seems. We're now on a planet that
simply doesn't accept military-first conquest and occupation, no matter the guise under which it arrives (including the spread of
"democracy"). So beware the unleashing modern military power. It turns out to contain within it striking disintegrative forces on
a planet that can ill afford such chaos.
You also refer to Washington D.C. as a "permanent war capital" with the generals in ascension under Trump. What does that represent
for the war footing of the U.S.?
Well, it's obvious in a way. Washington is now indeed a war capital because the Bush administration launched not just a local
response to a relatively small group of jihadis in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but what its top officials called a "Global War
on Terror" -- creating possibly the worst acronym in history: GWOT. And then they instantly began insisting that it could be applied
to at least 60 countries supposedly harboring terror
groups. That was 2001 and, of course, though the name and acronym were dropped, the war they launched has never ended. In those years,
the military, the country's (count 'em)
17
major intelligence agencies, and the
warrior
corporations of the military-industrial complex have achieved a kind of clout never before seen in the nation's capital. Their
rise has really been a bipartisan affair in a city otherwise riven by politics as each party tries to outdo the other in promoting
the financing of the national security state. At a moment when putting money into just about anything else that would provide security
to Americans (think health care) is always a desperate struggle, funding the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state
continues to be a given. That's what it means to be in a "permanent war capital."
In addition, with Donald Trump, the generals of America's losing wars have gained a kind of prominence in Washington that was
unknown in a previously civilian capital. The head of the Defense Department, the White House chief of staff, and (until recently
when he was succeeded by an even more militaristic civilian) the national security advisor were all generals of those wars -- positions
that, in the past, with rare exceptions, were considered civilian ones. In this sense, Donald Trump was less making history with
the men he liked to refer to as "
my generals " than channeling it.
What is the role of bombing in the U.S. war-making machine?
It's worth remembering, as I've written in the past, that from the beginning the war on terror has been, above all (and despite
full-scale invasions and occupations using hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops), an
air war . It started that way. On September 11, 2001, after all, al-Qaeda sent its air force (four hijacked passenger jets) and
its precision weaponry (19 suicidal hijackers) against a set of iconic buildings in the U.S. Those strikes -- only one of them failed
when the passengers on a single jet fought back and it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania -- may represent the most successful use
of strategic bombing (that is, air power aimed at the civilian population of, and morale in, an enemy country) in history. At the
cost of a mere $400,000 to $500,000 , Osama
bin Laden began an air war of provocation that has never ended.
The U.S. has been bombing, missiling, and
drone-assassinating ever since. Last year, for instance, U.S. planes dropped an estimated
20,000 bombs just on the Syrian city
of
Raqqa , the former "capital" of the Islamic State, leaving next to nothing standing. Since the first American planes began dropping
bombs (and cluster munitions ) in
Afghanistan in October 2001, the U.S. Air Force has been in the skies ceaselessly -- skies by the way over countries and groups that
lack any defenses against air attacks whatsoever. And, of course, it's been a kind of rolling disaster of destruction that has left
the equivalent of World Trade Center tower after tower of dead civilians in those lands. In other words, though no one in Washington
would ever say such a thing, U.S. air power has functionally been doing Osama bin Laden's job for him, conducting not so much a war
on terror as a strange kind of war for terror, one that only promotes the conditions in which it thrives best.
What role did the end of the draft play in enabling an unrestrained U.S. empire of war?
It may have been the crucial moment in the whole process. It was, of course, the decision of then-president Richard Nixon in
January 1973 , in
response to a country swept by a powerful antiwar movement and a military in near rebellion as the Vietnam War began to wind down.
The draft was ended, the all-volunteer military begun, and the American people were largely separated from the wars being fought
in their name. They were, as I said above, demobilized. Though at the time, the U.S. military high command was doubtful about the
move, it proved highly successful in freeing them to fight the endless wars of the twenty-first century, now being referred to by
some in the Pentagon (according to the Washington Post ) not as "permanent wars" or even, as General David Petraeus put it, a "
generational struggle
," but as "
infinite war ."
I've lived through
two periods of public war mobilization in my lifetime: the World War II era, in which I was born and in which the American people
mobilized to support a global war against fascism in every way imaginable, and the Vietnam War, in which Americans (like me as a
young man) mobilized against an American war. But who in those years ever imagined that Americans might fight their wars (unsuccessfully)
to the end of time without most citizens paying the slightest attention? That's why I've called the losing generals of our endless
war on terror (and, in a sense, the rest of us as well) " Nixon's
children ."
17 major intelligence agencies. For fuck's sake! It's not seventeen – it is SIXTEEN! ;-)
Looney
P.S. I hate re-posting shit or using the same joke twice, but THIS is worth re-posting (from January 13, 2017): U.S. intelligence agencies contend that Moscow waged a multifaceted campaign of hacking and other actions All Democrats, from our own MDB to Hillary and 0bama, have been citing the "
17 intelligence agencies
" that agree with their ridiculous claims.
Here's the list of "The Magnificent Seventeen", but (spoiler alert!) there are actually only SIXTEEN INTEL AGENCIES, but who
counts? The highlighted agencies have nothing to do with Hacking, Elections, Golden Showers, or whatever sick lies the Libtards
have come up with.
Each Agency's responsibilities are very clearly defined by Law and 13 out of the "17 agencies" have absolutely nothing to do
with the DNC, Wikileaks, Elections, Hillary's e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, the Russian Hacking, etc.
Twenty-Fifth Air Force - Air Force Intel only
Intelligence and Security Command (US Army) – Army Intel only
Central Intelligence Agency is prohibited by Law to conduct any activities within the US!!!
Coast Guard Intelligence – Coast Guard, really?
Defense Intelligence Agency – Military Intel only
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (Dept. of Energy) – Nukes, Nuclear Plants
Office of Intelligence and Analysis (Homeland Security)
Bureau of Intelligence and Research - State Dept. Intel
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (Treasury) – Treasury and Hacking/Elections? Hmm
Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA) – Drug Enforcement, really?
Intelligence Branch, FBI (DOJ)
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity - Marine Corps Intel only
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (Dept. of Defense) – Satellites, Aerial Intel
National Reconnaissance Office (Dept. of Defense) – Defense Recon Only
NSA
Office of Naval Intelligence Navy Defense – Navy only
On the rare occasions when the US halfheartedly admits that, somehow, mistakes might have been made, it cannot evade employing
important US citizenish "core values" like hypocricy and psychological projection.
Four days ago an outstanding example of this type of embarrassment,
Russia's Moral Hypocrisy , was posted by Colonel
James McDonough, US Army attaché to Poland. Its urgent bleatings display the inadequacy and extremely low level of cohesion to
which US propaganda has fallen. The short version: the US fights for all good against all bad, and the Russians disagree because
they are very bad and also mean people.
Two days ago, Colonel Cassad posted a response to McDonough's piece which skewered it like a kebab. Using a
nota bene format, each point is considered and then crushed
into a paste. Even via the Yandex machine translation, the well-deserved kicking to the curb comes through loud and clear.
Wars are always about money and control. The war machine supports so many jobs in the US from shipyards to consulting. It's
a way to pump cash into a system that essentially died after the 2001 crash.
During a memorial day conversation today, "But you live in the evil empire and reap the benefits, why are you complaining about
the democrats. Can't you see the black mark on your soul is more important because you support the Empire on either side of the
so called two party system."
More divide & conquer BS the commies are belching now that they've been caught "red handed".
If it was a family member resolve yourself that you will have to just deal with it. If only a friend or acquaintance, resolve
yourself that there may come a time in the not to distant future you will have to slit their throat lest they slit yours.
Morbid as it maybe, nmewn is still correct. It's kinda like the saying, " Two people can keep a secret, as long as one of them
is dead." You cannot truly depend on or trust anyone, except yourself. And often times family can be worse than friends.
Well, what do want me to say?...lol...I know we're all thinking the same thing, we've all had the very same conversations with
these assholes whether friends or family. They are unreachable.
Hey, don't kill the guy pointing out the elephant in the middle of the room ;-)
It's not sixteen either, it was three ...the CIA ( Brennan ) the FBI ( Comey at the time) and the NSA which in my opinion was
in a go-along-to-get-along position. Seventeen was a lie when Hillary first uttered it. "The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components
of the intelligence community," said former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during a congressional
hearing in May. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."
He spoke the truth (that time) probably not wanting another perjury charge ;-)
It's the attitude. The American political leaders have this idea of righteousness and exceptionalism. They think they'll go
around the world telling everyone else what to do. I've got two words for them - Fuck-off:
This article could have been written by a second-year political science undergraduate at a U.S. public university. This adds
a sum total of zero to the public understanding of the rise of American imperialism.
To state the obvious; the CIA has deeply humiliated the American people in their attempt to tie the American people to be responsible
for the CIA's crimes against humanity across the world.
The CIA appears to be the world's greatest threat to peace and prosperity. It is the penultimate terrorist organization, being
the direct or indirect creator of all other terrorist organizations. It also appears to be the world's penultimate illegal drug
smuggler and pusher making all other illegal drug trading possible and instigating the horrors of addiction and suffering around
the world.
If I believed that the CIA was working in any way on behalf of the US government and the American people then it would be sad
and shameful indeed. However, it is my belief that the CIA instead was captured long ago, as was the secret military operations
and now works for a hidden power that wants to dominate or failing that, destroy humanity.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since
the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
The Agency is Cancer. There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long,
that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
The author seems comfortable finding fault with Bush and Trump but can't muster up a criticism of Obama (the Cal Ripken of
presidential war mongers), Clinton, Holder, et al.
What a dichotomy. On the one hand, America self-righteously proclaiming it is the one protecting everyone's freedom, while
at the same time making war and spying and oppressing others. On the other hand, seems like America is at war with everyone to
have such a large military and 17 spy agencies, and more people in prison than any other country in the world. Really sounds like
America has got some serious problems.
Note, a majority of the Muslims living close to Iraq still held a positive view of the U.S. even after the 1990-1991 attack
on Iraq. And after 12 years of starvation sanctions, even denying Iraq baby formula with the claim that it "can be used to make
weapons". And after the UK and US bombing Iraq on average once a week for those 12 years, targeting water refineries so Iraqis
had to drink dirty water, and power plants so there was no air conditioning in the blistering summer heat. Causing the death of
half a million children, as confirmed by the U.S. ambassador to the UN, which State Secretary Madeleine Albright said was "worth
it".
Even after that mass murder, 60% of Gulf residents were generally positive toward the U.S.
"Clash of cultures," right? There wasn't much Islamism at all, except the anger directed at thieving puppet rulers installed
after the European empires withdrew. Arabs, who were mostly secular, had always loved the U.S. as an anti-imperialist country.
Thus they couldn't understand when the U.S. backed the Zio invasion of Palestine. And then started sanctioning and attacking every
Middle Eastern nation that supported the Palestinians.
The U.S. used to have many "Arabist" diplomats, those who wanted to work with Arab nationalists, especially against the Soviets.
But the pro-Arab diplomats were sidelined by the media-backed neocon line, where everything was about who were for or against
the Palestinians. Saddam Hussein in Iraq had been secular and pro-American, but he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide
bombers - these families saw their homes razed with all their possessions, with just an hour's notice, by the Israelis. For the
crime of giving these destitute people some money, all of Iraq was targeted.
No wonder the Arabs started hating the U.S. Still even after the Iraq invasion in 2003, most Arabs just want to be left alone
by the U.S. But that is not allowed. Arab nationalism was destroyed in favor of puppet regimes.
"... Exactly right Sam. 'It's the oligarchs, stupid" should be our slogan. To keep us focused on the real source of most of our problems. ..."
"... Memorial ceremonies and flag waving allow the rich dictators to demand loyalty to themselves in the name of the principles they have overthrown. The rich despise America's principles and spit upon the Constitution. ..."
"... Actually, there are a lot of evil empires. History has a long list too. The natural state of man is to create evil abusive murderous empires which kill as many people as they can. "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." George S. Patton ..."
"... The National Security State is a protection racket for western oligarchy. All the romanticism that surrounds Memorial Day is just to keep the sentimental mythology in tact. Of course, 911 and the GWOT was used to reinforce the troops as national heroes mindset. ..."
"... Americans are that classic example of lab mice being used to form the predetermined outcome of the experimentation. We Americans should just look up and wave and give our controllers the finger, as we all smile and go in the other direction. Joe ..."
As much as I admire and respect Ray McGovern – he and other veterans must understand
that suggesting the best leaders in our government would be those with a military background
is disappointing. I would rather NOT have those types calling the shots. Look what it's got
us?
Cindy reminded me of a quote (whose origin I forget): 'War undoes a mother's work." All
power to Cindy Sheehan and all the peace seekers out there. #WomenMarch4Peace
mike k , May 28, 2018 at 5:47 pm
What if Memorial Day was an occasion to remember all the horrific crimes of our nation,
and vow to atone for them? Instead of a day to worship and kiss the militarist boot that is
grinding our culture into the dirt.
KiwiAntz , May 28, 2018 at 6:20 pm
It's not that America hates peace, they hate, not being able make a profit from War? Peace
& it implies means the MIC is obsolete & no longer needed so no more trillions off
dollars wasted on stupid Wars & Militarily hardware? Just imagine all that wasted money
being put to better use in America, such as on social programs & providing universal
healthcare, free college education for America's youth, infrastructure spending & other
things? That's the unfortunate thing about funding this bloated killing machine called the
MIC?
Send "our leaders" to the front lines of war.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
March 9, 2009
"Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders"?
Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such
is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed,
destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have
war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games
every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of
these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if
enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games?
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html
Jeff , May 28, 2018 at 12:38 pm
As with everybody else, I'll say this is a great piece because it is. Nominally speaking,
I would be left with little to say. But I have one little comment to augment what Ray has
said. We are frequently told that our military "protects our freedom" and when you say
something that somebody doesn't like, they'll say "thank a vet for your freedom to say
something like that." Pfui.
The military hasn't "protected our freedom" in a very long time.
Protecting our freedom implies that it is under attack from some external group with capable
of being an existential threat to the existence of the United States.
The last time that
happened was WWII. Not one single country we've attacked since then has had a snowball's
chance in hell of bringing the US to its knees and please note that no country has actually
attacked us. As for the "thank a vet for your freedom to say nasty things about the
government", the military doesn't protect us from our own government. The government is
supposed to protect our constitutional guarantees. They've been doing a shitty job ever since
9/11.
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 12:05 pm
Afghanistan has been a wonderful test of the corrupt former democracy of the US. The
"graveyard of empires" is of no value to anyone, but sought by all empires solely because
they fear that Russia might want it.
Britain invaded Afghanistan and failed three times in the 19th century, each campaign a
"surge" from the last, their oligarchy afraid of a "threat" to "their" India, of an invasion
by Russia. In two centuries that never happened, but they still claim this.
The US warmongers seek Afghanistan to harass Russia, block the Asian road project, harass
Pakistan, harass Iran for the zionists, or get opium revenue to their secret gangs. These
projects are all unconstitutional, genocidal, and damaging to US security.
America is history's largest example of the destruction of democracy by unregulated economic
power, the dictatorship of oligarchy. Their political tyrants create foreign monsters to pose
as protectors and accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty. Their mass media sells wars to
those angry at the misfortunes brought upon them by the rich, as the means to symbolic
personal triumph by killing all who disagree.
The ruined "American Century" can be saved only by a humanitarian vision, and if the people
cannot depose US oligarchy so as to rise to that vision, the US must hide in shame from the
enemies its selfishness has made, ruined by isolation and embargo. No one will miss the US
when it has collapsed into permanent disgrace.
Wake up, America! We are slaves until the oligarchy is destroyed.
mike k , May 28, 2018 at 4:02 pm
Exactly right Sam. 'It's the oligarchs, stupid" should be our slogan. To keep us focused
on the real source of most of our problems.
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 6:20 pm
Thank you, Mike. It is hard to recommend solutions when focused upon the problems of
oligarchy, without advising people to shake their cage or use extreme measures, but we have
seen good ideas here, and the vision is certainly needed.
John , May 28, 2018 at 9:57 pm
The only thing wrong with your post is the claim "The "graveyard of empires" is of no
value to anyone".
Afghanistan is first, geographically positioned so that many pipelines are planned to run
through it.
Also, Afghanistan is very mineral-rich, including and especially in Lithium – which is
needed for batteries for everything from consumer electronics to electric cars.
Ray McGovern is a national treasure, and so is Cindy Sheehan. They are 2 of the
all-too-few voices willing to stand against the horrific military industrial machine. Just
imagine how much courage it took both of them to do what they did back in 2004, at the height
of the jingoistic blood-lust fest the neocons created in the wake of 9/11. I have watched and
read the work of both of these amazingly courageous people over the course of 15 years or so,
and what strikes me as tragic is that there are still so many who buy into the 'patriotism'
b.s. and are willing to sacrifice their own children to senseless wars.
Anon , May 28, 2018 at 10:17 am
Memorial ceremonies and flag waving allow the rich dictators to demand loyalty to
themselves in the name of the principles they have overthrown. The rich despise America's
principles and spit upon the Constitution.
Soldiers are the fools of rich dictators and they know it, hoping to escape war and retire.
They have no honor.
Flag-wavers are cowardly imbeciles destroying America because they have no principles. They
are traitors.
vinnieoh , May 28, 2018 at 10:15 am
Since CN decided to re-cycle this piece (that is not a complaint against its quality,)
I'll post this as evidence that ordinary little citizens can have more knowledge, common
sense, and morality than our ruling class.
From: lawrences
To:
Subject: The impending war against Iraq
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:43 PM
Dear Sir:
Although I am a resident of Ohio, I am contacting you because you have proven to be a man
of honor and reason and a powerful force in the U.S. Senate. I am strongly opposed to the
impending war in the Middle East, and have already expressed these views to the senators from
Ohio, but I believe that if anybody can mobilize opposition to this impending disaster, it
may be you. I listened to your comments prior to the non-debate concerning the Resolution to
authorize the use of force, and I agree that the real consequences of this conflict were not
addressed at all.
This conflict is worse than folly. I believe that at the very least: the situation in the
Middle East will be much worse and not better; world opinion will solidify against Americans
and American policies; terrorist organizations and activities will be strengthened, not
weakened; we will be bankrupted into the unforeseeable future. At the worst, this act of
aggression could plunge humanity into global conflict the likes of which previous human
experience will not have prepared us. Lest these concerns seem selfish and self-centered, I
do not wish to again see American sons and daughters slaughter innocent civilians from the
safety of our high-tech weaponry, and all for the true purpose of expanding the corporate
oligarchy.
Now is not the time to remain silent for the purpose of political expediency. While
representative democracy still exists between these shores it is time to rein in a chief
executive and his cabal who are apparently in the throes of a consuming blood-lust. I have
considered myself and have voted Democrat all of my life (I'm 50 years old), and I must say
that I am disgusted that most of the elected Democrats in Washington have been struck mute on
this issue. No reasonable person who is fully contemplating the consequences of what is about
to happen could come to the conclusion that any good is going to come from this. I believe,
despite the gaudy and superficial manifestations of popular American culture, that this
country is populated by reasonable people, and our elected representatives should consider
the consequences of remaining mute and cowardly as George II leads us into a national
disgrace and disaster.
History, if indeed there be anyone left to record it, will justly lay the blame for this
catastrophe at our feet. Please sir, I implore you, do everything in your power to stop this
from happening.
A sincere Veteran, American, and a Human Being,
Vince Lawrence
email: *********@***.net
"Happy" Memorial Day. One last thought. Kind of paraphrases what Ray was trying to say,
and they are my own words that I decided on, several years into the criminal invasion of
Iraq: One can not earn honor and glory for one's self by prosecuting an illegal and immoral
policy.
Is this perhaps one of many reasons for the high suicide rate of GWOT veterans?
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 11:05 am
With the endless "marches of folly" of our dictatorship of rich traitors, Memorial Day has
become a flag-waving psyop for a "national religion" of lies and bullying that sacrifices
poverty [sicken] draft animals to the ideological fantasies of opportunist demagogues. Their fake
praise for "the fallen" and disgusting lies about the motives and effects of their constant
genocides and subversions betray their deliberate murder of US citizens and foreign innocents
to get money, public office, and promotions. The families of those sacrificed should denounce
rather than legitimize these schemes of murder by corrupt politicians.
Dorothy Hoobler , May 28, 2018 at 10:12 am
A great article! Another extraordinary quality about Cindy Sheehan was and is that she saw
the tragedy for the mother's of Iraq was as real as her own. Very few people have that sense
of common humanity – certainly none of our politicians.
mike k , May 28, 2018 at 7:39 am
The United States of America is the Evil Empire on this planet. One of the most evil
groups in this Empire of Evil is the military. Young people are trained to kill and brutalize
others, then celebrated as heroes – just as ruthless hit men are celebrated and honored
by the Mafia. The worst among us are put forward as the best. Noble words are turned into
lies in the mouths of our politicians and media propagandists.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 10:16 am
Actually, there are a lot of evil empires. History has a long list too. The natural state
of man is to create evil abusive murderous empires which kill as many people as they can. "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for
his."
George S. Patton
The problem comes not from war itself but from the ultimate reason for the war. Some wars
like WWII were necessary because the all too real possibility that Germany would come to
dominate Europe and Japan would dominate the Pacific. It was a classical war fought purely
for economic gain by the Axis powers. Also it was classical since it was a war waged by
governments and heads of state. Hence when it was over those nations unconditionally
surrendered and the war ended.
Fast forward to later years and many still question the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria and Libya.
The reasons become complex for these wars and the outcomes less certain than the clear
victory in WWII. We lost Vietnam and all the hype about dominoes and evil empires didn't
happen. We won Iraq but that outcome created ISIS which we later funded to attack Syria. Is
this what we expect our leaders to do?
Another example is the Iran Coup d'etat where we installed a dictator to counter Iran's
nationalizing the oil companies. This led to the student uprising, the hostage crisis and our
long cold war with Iran. We had an October Surprise when we found out that Iran Contra went
back to before the Reagan Election and there is evidence that George Bush was personally
negotiating terms with the Iranians in order to prolong thir captivity until after the
election. It seems to me that secretly dealing with a foreign enemy nation that is holding US
citizens hostage to prolong their captivity for political gains fits the definition of high
crimes and misdemeanors.
Why don't hold leaders accountable under the law?
George Bush went on to be the international spokesperson for The Carlyle Group perhaps the
largest private arms dealers on the planet. All of the investors in the Carlyle Group became
insanely wealthy after 9/11. Their basic investment strategy was to buy up depressed military
defense contractor stocks which fell after the Berlin Wall came down knowing that those
stocks would go up if there were another conflict. What about the moral conflict of their
investment strategy especially since major shareholders were also in key positions to be able
to influence foreign policy?
It seems fairly obvious that when federal intelligence agencies fail to react to foreign
nationals learning to fly with no desire to go to landing school there was at least willful
ignorance regarding the plans of Osama. The reasons for recent wars seems entirely too
conflicted. Just like the classical wars of the past, today's wars are still being waged by
the leaders of nations for economic gain.
Are our troops to blame? Absolutely not. They are young, idealistic and loyal. They
believe in America and are willing to fight for our freedom. They are to be honored on this
day for their sacrifice.
On the other hand, the leaders who are making a killing behind the scenes while ginning up
wars for profit wherever they can need to be held accountable for their actions and at least
a shred of acknowledgement by the "liberal" media needs to reach peoples ears.
We can honor the dead for their sacrifice but we need to honor the living by preventing
their lives being lost in the quest for money.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 10:17 am
Here is a link to the Carlyle Group a few documentaries.
Great little essay CitizenOne. You give a valuable lesson in the art of 'buying low and
selling high, and damn those who don't agree'. We are witnessing what you get from an all for
profit military. Take the profit out of war, and you will end all war. Joe
John , May 28, 2018 at 10:11 pm
I really have to wonder why the Carlyle Group is not better known.
An arms dealing consortium started by the Bush and Bin Laden Family, that JUST HAPPENED to be
meeting in NYC on Sept 11, 2001, for a super-early morning meeting, in a conference room with
a panoramic view of the Twin Towers No, nothing suspicious there .
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 10:50 am
Yes, in the military "young people are trained to kill and brutalize others, then
celebrated as heroes."
Also true as Citizen says that many are "young, idealistic and loyal willing to fight for our
freedom."
But no one not paid to recite propaganda would think that the US has been fighting for its
freedom, and no one who pays attention thinks that it is fighting for anything positive. So
the military above age 20-25 just don't question the obvious lies, due to their ulterior
motives. Those who agree with the foreign policies of US warmongers don't believe in the
principles of America, only its dictators' ideology of lies and killing for profit. The
majority are simply forced to go along with the dictators like everyone else.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 1:05 pm
But fighting for our freedom is exactly what the propaganda preaches. Like Orwell's
"nineteen eighty-four", the citizens of Oceania are taught to hate Emmanuel Goldstein and the
enemy states Eastasia and Eurasia. Perhaps the most disturbing part is that you never really
know if Big Brother or Emmanuel Goldstein even exist. It could be that these are fictional
straw men that serve the purpose of the state to control the masses. Either way, real or not,
it is the same issue to be handled by the state. It is all fake news all the time in
Oceania.
I'm not selling the volunteers who sign up short. I do not believe they join the military
(for the most part) so they can become legal mafia wise guys. Obviously and especially given
the recent trends to use contractors (mercenaries and soldiers of fortune) there is some of
that going on.
Let's face facts. Propaganda works. At least PT Barnum was correct when he said you can
fool most of the people most of the time.
I don't know any parents who wish their children in the military would bring home lots of
money they got pilfering corpses. However I do know that governments wage wars to bring home
lots of money by pilfering other nations.
This point is key. Blaming servicemen and women for the foreign policy decisions of our
government is ludicrous as is any suggestion they should take the "high ground". In the
military you follow orders; period.
On the other hand we should never allow those who want to squash criticism of our
government to use the false argument that in so doing, the critics of the government are
dishonoring the folks that sacrificed for the nation. That is the false patriotism used by
totalitarian nations to silence debate while conducting immoral and unethical deeds. As
Samuel Johnson said in 1775, "(false) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Indeed there is diversity among volunteers, perhaps even as mercenaries. One certainly
does not wish to unfairly criticize the volunteer with good intentions. But I see thuggish
teams here who often fired guns at our charity to "defend the town" (their thug tribe
subset), who apparently learned "skills" in the military. So it seems that many sign up for
the opportunity to kill for the tribe, looking for any excuse to vent their anger at unknown
processes. They are looking for an imaginary enemy just as much as the demagogues who
"defend" us in Washington.
Truthful and thoughtful people like Ray know the truth of this and all wars but they, like
Ralph Nader, will never be guests on any corporate T.V. shows, nor will any of the swamp
creatures dare to debate them in public, as they could not defend the lies they perpetrate
for profit. The insanity of our foreign policy has miseducated the general public to the
point of insanity. I always get the usual zombie phrase of "Thank you for your service" and
the bewildered look when I say that I didn't serve, I was used. They usually never approach
me again and look at me as some sort of creature because I don't see the world through their
eyes but they look thru the glass darkly. I have no idea how we are going to make them see
the truth of this tragic farce and inhumanity. we destroy the world and ourselves with the
illusions that pass as truth. I guess I just want to know the truth when I die! They will
never see the fact that all are connected as well as every particle in the universe, one and
the same, that is the mystery of it all that the sages tried to get people to understand. God
in you, you are god and everyone else is also. Not separate! You can connect to the sacred my
understanding this. Thank you Ray, for being who you are and for having the courage to speak
the truth, with much love, Jack Williams.
RickD , May 28, 2018 at 7:35 am
As a fellow veteran I echo and support your eloquent words.
War is a profit center, the cause is generally linked to corporate desire for capturing
markets and an ever increasing need for more and more profits.
That wars endure is directly linked to the vast amounts spent on the MIC as well, and not the
needs of our nation as a whole.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 1:18 pm
I agree. Well said.
Add Noam Chomsky ("Evil Noam") to the list of banned interviewees. After years of cold
shoulders, he got his shot on PBS but at the last minute the higher-ups at PBS decided to
pull the plug so there was just 5 minutes of radio silence. He is the man America loves to
hate. The most dangerous liberal in America etc
Amazing how the "liberal" press fails to connect with him despite his best efforts.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 1:19 pm
Here is a link to The "Evil Gnome" Chomsky. BTW, I think he would fit right in here.
Chomsky is most emphatically not a "Liberal".
He is very openly a Libertarian Socialist.
RnM , May 28, 2018 at 5:18 am
It's very disconcerting how Memorial Day has, in this topsy-turvey culture has become a
celebration of the type of denial and forgetting that Ray McGovern so eloquently describes.
Thanks, Ray for again upholding the spirits of the American Revolution, and the Civil War for
us, and to name the names of certain betrayers of the Americans who may or may not have
chosen wisely (Who can really say about the origins of any one individual's choices?)
Myself, I boycott cookouts and partying the last weekend in May, and buy an artificial poppy
instead from a disabled Vet It's a time for remembering and committing to put those memories
toward sanity (i. e., not repeating the same futile actions).
Realist , May 28, 2018 at 1:52 am
Not to sound callous, but without forced conscription, nobody joins the military against
their free will. Unless they spent their formative years under a rock, or possess an IQ in
the low double digits, they ought to know from just casual exposure to the media, school
books, zines and even graphic novels that America is not under any real threat from any other
country or combination of countries on the face of the earth. Yes, the propaganda is
pervasive, but it's patently transparent, just like the politicians who hypocritically sell
it; like Trump telling one narrative on Monday and a diametrically opposite story on Tuesday.
No one in authority has any credibility any longer.
The grunts ought to know that they join the American service to exert the power and
influence of the empire into every far corner of the globe through use of lethal force with
extreme prejudice. Our American "heroes" get to do all their killing "over there," on the
other side of the planet, never here in any actual defense of their "homeland." They are not
accurately described as "defenders" or "warriors" or any other lauditory appellation. Rather,
they are raiders, conquerors, conquistadors, or legionnaires. When they attack they put the
"Blitzkrieg" to shame with the obscene kill ratios their space-age weapons allow against
thoroughly outclassed relatively primitive countries that have never left their own borders,
let alone fired a shot at America. Our troopers stomp 10,000 miles to go shoot fish in a
barrel, only they are human beings, not fish or turkeys, which would be another apt analogy
for what the U.S. military specializes in. They have massacred millions from Viet Nam to
Yugoslavia to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen and made untold more homeless
refugees, and their apologists want the world to feel sorry and shed crocodile tears for the
few thousand of them who randomly died because someone effed up while they were following
immoral and illegal orders. Many of those were accidentally killed by their own comrades and
subsequently lied about by the government and its media mouthpieces.
The only pity I feel for these hired killers is the way they were recruited: being plucked
by means of bribes and false promises from a disintegrating working class deliberately
sabotaged by the economic policies of its own government. For them the army takes the place
of a job and a living wage. For children of the disappearing middle class, enlisting is their
last hope to cover some college tuition, if they finish their hitch alive. I wouldn't say
either of these groups is eager to do the dirty work the chain of command has in store for
them. Even the kids from the hood can mostly see through the trickery and hypocrisy. They
know they won't be defending Compton, Overtown, the Lower Ninth Ward or West Garfield Park
from any Jihadis. Those fish aren't biting as frequently any more, so the feds have to
recruit numerous immigrants in return for promises of citizenship rather than deportation.
The other thing they now do is to hire mercenaries–"independent
contractors"–which used to be against American law not that long ago, but now makes up
nearly half the manpower in hotbeds like Iraq and Syria. The next logical step for our great
and powerful empire will be to establish an equivalent of the old French Foreign Legion, in
which dregs from all over the planet are employed in the armed service of American empire or
maybe ISIS and Daesh already qualify for that role? Do our hired terrorists get medical and
retirement benefits? Probably ahead of taxpayers once AmGov starts prioritizing to save money
under its new constitution.
Did that sound disrespectful? What is to be respected about a society that allows its
leadership to scoop up dispensable citizens to use as cannon fodder in the service of an
empire that kills and thieves wantonly to benefit only a tiny fraction of those at the very
tip of the pyramid?
LarcoMarco , May 28, 2018 at 4:08 am
"Not to sound callous, but without forced conscription, nobody joins the military against
their free will. Unless they spent their formative years under a rock, or possess an IQ in
the low double digits"
Most Americans of fighting age, I believe, consider military enlistment far beneath them.
So, I am totally mystified when I read about polls that reveal the military is the profession
Americans hold in the highest esteem.
Realist , May 28, 2018 at 8:14 am
I think that most also believe genocidal wars of aggression are not exactly moral or in
the interests of the country or themselves. They've got better things to do with their lives
than throw them away killing people who did nothing inimical to our country on the other side
of the world. They may spout patriotic platitudes about the military because they are
expected under serious social pressure and they don't want the hassle of a public
argument.
The second line of my text that you included within your quotes is not a dependent clause
to the first sentence. It is part of the next sentence: an adverbial clause modifying "they
ought to know that America is not under any real threat " which is the main declarative
statement. I'd rather not be misunderstood.
Skip Scott , May 28, 2018 at 11:16 am
I think the biggest problem is that neither our children, nor the vast majority of the
citizenry, are taught any critical thinking skills. It is all about image. Teenage boys fall
for anything that paints them as macho men. The 1986 movie Top Gun was all about recruiting
teenage boys who wanted to be macho men to be our new generation of cannon fodder in our "all
volunteer" armed forces and, as HW said, "to kick the Vietnam syndrome once and for all".
I really do pity these kids as victims as much as those they are sent to kill. I am
reminded of Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" when the Ghost of Christmas Present reveals the two
children beneath his robe, who are ignorance and want. "but mostly beware this boy, for on
his forehead I see that which is written "doom" "
Skip I'll go along with that considering to how many of my generation found themselves
standing in a rice paddy with bullets whistling by, until they finally realized that that
John Wayne image was just a movie. Joe
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 10:32 am
I think that you both agree, and I agree with you both. The polls are deceptions of the
MIC.
Realist , May 28, 2018 at 4:36 pm
Yes, and I realise that most Americans, being herd animals who don't do nuance, would tell
most of us here to "go back to Russia" for the remarks we've posted, even though they really
don't want the lives of their friends and relatives wasted in wars of conquest.
Cindy Sheehan is right not to let that go.
I had at least six classmates killed in Nam. They've been dead much longer than they
lived, the first one buying the farm in January of 1966.
Lois Gagnon , May 28, 2018 at 9:22 pm
Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be soldiers. I raised my boys to be pro-peace. When
the recruiters started calling in their senior year of high school, they were prepared to
resist. It galled me that they had to register for the draft at all.
The National Security State is a protection racket for western oligarchy. All the
romanticism that surrounds Memorial Day is just to keep the sentimental mythology in tact. Of
course, 911 and the GWOT was used to reinforce the troops as national heroes mindset.
As you say, if you are even casually paying attention, you know what the real aim of US
militarism is. There's a lot of active denial going on. The truth is just so damn ugly, most
folks would rather avoid it even when their own kids get taken down by it. We are a sad
spectacle of a country right now.
John , May 28, 2018 at 10:23 pm
My dad was a vet who was scarred by 'Nam.
When the army recruiter called me, I told him "Your motto is, 'be all that you can be in the
army'. Well, if all you are capable of is is allowed by the army, then it would probably be
better for you to go get killed in war and weed out the gene pool."
I was 17 at the time, it was the best I could come up with off the time of my head.
Ray misses a point or two, especially important with the rise of alt-right types with
Trump in office. We as a nation must NEVER forget that Memorial Day was founded to remember Union dead from
the Civil War.
Consortiumnews.com , May 28, 2018 at 5:53 am
This is a reprint of a piece Ray wrote in May 2015. It focuses on the Bush and Obama
administrations.
Strngr - Tgthr , May 28, 2018 at 12:43 am
How to Honor Memorial Day? (hmmm omg) With who is in office what is there to be proud of?
(Stalingrad?) Articles like this go back and forth between Presidents like Bush (akk: Cheney)
& Obama, I suppose to be politically correct in the wrong way. But all one has to do is
look at HISTORY and just see what party is the party of war and PEACE. If anyone thinks Obama
would have invaded Iraq in the first place after 9-11 – it is not even an argument. He
would not even fire missles in to Syria. (Don't do stupid stuff was his way.) And so eight
years after don't do stupid stuff we have a guy who can't wait to drop a H-Bomb someplace to
make his mark on histiory. Great, lets be thankful. I guess he will drop it wherever Putin
and Juliana Assange want it.
LarcoMarco , May 28, 2018 at 4:16 am
Obama lost his balls when his version of John Bolton, Killary, sawed them off. Then she
cooked up false intelligence, a la Dumbya, which led to Libya's dismemberment under Obomber's
passive watch.
Lois Gagnon , May 28, 2018 at 9:27 pm
Funny how Dembots always attempt to brush the destruction of Libya under the rug as if the
people who perished there and continue to suffer and die as a result of Killary's
warmongering never existed.
John , May 28, 2018 at 10:40 pm
Democrats the party of peace?
You mean like in the former Yugoslavia?
Libya?
Vietnam?
Yemen?
Heck, your hero the Queen of Chaos is on video pimping the war in Iraq!
The Dims have forced almost all of the anti-war people out! (Cynthia McKinney, Dennis
Kucinich, etc)
The parties of peace are the Greens and Libertarians. If you vote for EITHER Dimocraps or
Repugnicans, you are actively supporting wars of aggression.
Even in your own delusional rhetoric, you engage in sabre-rattling against Russia (the ONE
good thing that Trump had going for him in his campaign was detente with Russia, but the
Dims, with their histrionic unhinged ranting about the thoroughly discredited "Russia Hacked
The Elections" nonsense – which Ray McGovern has written about rather extensively) and
you point at Assange, who is a hero who has NEVER been shown to print incorrect information,
unlike anyone in the Dim party, as if, by telling UNDENIABLE TRUTH, he is somehow a bad
guy.
As far as Obama's claim to "not do stupid stuff", it is well documented that, under his
administration, a Nazi-led coup in Ukraine was fomented, Al-Queida was armed and trained in
Syria, arms funding for Israel was INCREASED after they carried out grave war crimes (which
meet the Geneva Convention definition of Genocide), Libya was decimated (based on lies), etc
ad nauseum.
Is David Brock still sending out paychecks?
Joe Tedesky , May 27, 2018 at 11:33 pm
Ray thanks for this important article, as your struggling with it paid off.
Now I'm not one to rain on anybody's parade, but I have a hard time reconciling people's
true patriotism while we all stand for the National Anthem at sporting events, or other
events where our flag is honored. Not to judge anyone's admiration of our country, but with
all of the honoring of our military, and with jets flying over the ball yard, I find these
over produced displays of patriotism to be a bit over the top. Like, do these people not know
that our country is feared by the majority of the world's population, and that this fear is
based on a real life deadly everyday reality? Don't these taxpayers, who complain all the
time about paying high or any taxes at all realize that this military spending our country is
doing, is a debt trap just waiting to gobble up what's left of the American treasure if there
still is any treasure left? Or are the joyous fans just glad that they didn't, or don't have
to serve in our ever active military? Why can't these cheering patriots see through the many
lies about war, that this country's leaders have lead us to time and time again? Ask a red,
white, and blue, sports fan when was the last time America won a war . then listen to their
silence, and watch the contortions in their face muscles twitch. At this point you may wish
to leave these patriots alone, for the confusion over your questioning all of this military
madness may make them slash out at you.
Not only has America gone a step to far with its for profit war machine, but it's war
propaganda has been so packaged as to make it, one hellva commercial grade product. And in
America isn't that's what it's all about packaging a fantastically shinny beautifully made
profitable product.
RnM , May 28, 2018 at 5:37 am
Joe --
Your comment is a apt distillation of the fruits of the purposeful dumbing down of the US.
I'd put the latest push (by Dubya) squarely in the lap of the Bushes.
Joe Tedesky , May 28, 2018 at 9:21 am
Americans are that classic example of lab mice being used to form the predetermined
outcome of the experimentation. We Americans should just look up and wave and give our
controllers the finger, as we all smile and go in the other direction. Joe
Memorial Day should be a time of sober reflection on war's horrible costs, not a moment to
glorify war. But many politicians and pundits can't resist the opportunity...
Originally published on 5/24/2015
How best to show respect for the U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and for their
families on Memorial Day?
Simple: Avoid euphemisms like "the fallen" and expose the lies about what a great idea it
was to start those wars in the first place and then to "surge" tens of thousands of more troops
into those fools' errands.
First, let's be clear on at least this much: the 4,500 U.S. troops killed in Iraq so far and
the 2,350 killed in Afghanistan [by May 2015] did not "fall." They were wasted on no-win
battlefields by politicians and generals cheered on by neocon pundits and mainstream
"journalists" almost none of whom gave a rat's patootie about the real-life-and-death troops.
They were throwaway soldiers.
And, as for the "successful surges," they were just P.R. devices to buy some "decent
intervals" for the architects of these wars and their boosters to get space between themselves
and the disastrous endings while pretending that those defeats were really "victories
squandered" all at the "acceptable" price of about 1,000 dead U.S. soldiers each and many times
that in dead Iraqis and Afghans.
Memorial Day should be a time for honesty about what enabled the killing and maiming of so
many U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and the
senior military brass simply took full advantage of a poverty draft that gives upper-class sons
and daughters the equivalent of exemptions, vaccinating them against the disease of war.
What drives me up the wall is the oft-heard, dismissive comment about troop casualties from
well-heeled Americans: "Well, they volunteered, didn't they?" Under the universal draft in
effect during Vietnam, far fewer were immune from service, even though the well-connected could
still game the system to avoid serving. Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Joe Biden, for example,
each managed to pile up five exemptions. This means, of course, that they brought zero military
experience to the job; and this, in turn, may explain a whole lot -- particularly given their
bosses' own lack of military experience.
The grim truth is that many of the crëme de la crëme of today's Official
Washington don't know many military grunts, at least not intimately as close family or friends.
They may bump into some on the campaign trail or in an airport and mumble something like,
"thank you for your service." But these sons and daughters of working-class communities from
America's cities and heartland are mostly abstractions to the powerful, exclamation points at
the end of some ideological debate demonstrating which speaker is "tougher," who's more ready
to use military force, who will come out on top during a talk show appearance or at a
think-tank conference or on the floor of Congress.
Sharing the Burden?
We should be honest about this reality, especially on Memorial Day. Pretending that the
burden of war has been equitably shared, and worse still that those killed died for a "noble
cause," as President George W. Bush liked to claim, does no honor to the thousands of U.S.
troops killed and the tens of thousands maimed. It dishonors them. Worse, it all too often
succeeds in infantilizing bereaved family members who cannot bring themselves to believe their
government lied.
Who can blame parents for preferring to live the fiction that their sons and daughters were
heroes who wittingly and willingly made the "ultimate sacrifice," dying for a "noble cause,"
especially when this fiction is frequently foisted on them by well-meaning but naive clergy at
funerals. For many it is impossible to live with the reality that a son or daughter died in
vain. Far easier to buy into the official story and to leave clergy unchallenged as they gild
the lilies around coffins and gravesites.
Not so for some courageous parents. Cindy Sheehan, for example, whose son Casey Sheehan was
killed on April 4, 2004, in the Baghdad suburb of Sadr City, demonstrated uncommon grit when
she led hundreds of friends to Crawford to lay siege to the Texas White House during the summer
of 2005 trying to get Bush to explain what "noble cause" Casey died for. She never got an
answer. There is none.
But there are very few, like Cindy Sheehan, able to overcome a natural human resistance to
the thought that their sons and daughters died for a lie and then to challenge that lie. These
few stalwarts make themselves face this harsh reality, the knowledge that the children whom
they raised and sacrificed so much for were, in turn, sacrificed on the altar of political
expediency, that their precious children were bit players in some ideological fantasy or pawns
in a game of career maneuvering.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is said to have described the military
disdainfully as "just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." Whether or
not those were his exact words, his policies and behavior certainly betrayed that attitude. It
certainly seems to have prevailed among top American-flag-on-lapel-wearing officials of the
Bush and Obama administrations, including armchair and field-chair generals whose sense of
decency is blinded by the prospect of a shiny new star on their shoulders, if they just follow
orders and send young soldiers into battle.
This bitter truth should raise its ugly head on Memorial Day but rarely does. It can be
gleaned only with great difficulty from the mainstream media, since the media honchos continue
to play an indispensable role in the smoke-and-mirrors dishonesty that hides their own guilt in
helping Establishment Washington push "the fallen" from life to death.
We must judge the actions of our political and military leaders not by the pious words they
will utter Monday in mourning those who "fell" far from the generals' cushy safe seats in the
Pentagon or somewhat closer to the comfy beds in air-conditioned field headquarters where a
lucky general might be comforted in the arms of an admiring and enterprising biographer.
Many of the high-and-mighty delivering the approved speeches on Monday will glibly refer to
and mourn "the fallen." None are likely to mention the culpable policymakers and complicit
generals who added to the fresh graves at Arlington National Cemetery and around the
country.
Words, after all, are cheap; words about "the fallen" are dirt cheap especially from the
lips of politicians and pundits with no personal experience of war. The families of those
sacrificed in Iraq and Afghanistan should not have to bear that indignity.
'Successful
Surges'
The so-called "surges" of troops into Iraq and Afghanistan were particularly gross examples
of the way our soldiers have been played as pawns. Since the usual suspects are again coming
out the woodwork of neocon think tanks to press for yet another "surge" in Iraq, some
historical perspective should help.
Take, for example, the well-known and speciously glorified first "surge;" the one Bush
resorted to in sending over 30,000 additional troops into Iraq in early 2007; and the
not-to-be-outdone Obama "surge" of 30,000 into Afghanistan in early 2010. These marches of
folly were the direct result of decisions by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to prioritize
political expediency over the lives of U.S. troops.
Taking cynical advantage of the poverty draft, they let foot soldiers pay the "ultimate"
price. That price was 1,000 U.S. troops killed in each of the two "surges."
And the results? The returns are in. The bloody chaos these days in Iraq and the faltering
war in Afghanistan were entirely predictable. They were indeed predicted by those of us able to
spread some truth around via the Internet, while being mostly blacklisted by the fawning
corporate media.
Yet, because the "successful surge" myth was so beloved in Official Washington, saving some
face for the politicians and pundits who embraced and spread the lies that justified and
sustained especially the Iraq War, the myth has become something of a touchstone for everyone
aspiring to higher office or seeking a higher-paying gig in the mainstream media.
Campaigning in New Hampshire, [then] presidential aspirant Jeb Bush gave a short history
lesson about his big brother's attack on Iraq. Referring to the so-called Islamic State, Bush
said, "ISIS didn't exist when my brother was president. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out the
surge created a fragile but stable Iraq. "
But suffice it to say that Jeb Bush is distorting the history and should be ashamed. The
truth is that al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq before his brother launched an unprovoked invasion
in 2003. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" arose as a direct result of Bush's war and occupation. Amid the
bloody chaos, AQI's leader, a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, pioneered a particularly
brutal form of terrorism, relishing videotaped decapitation of prisoners.
Zarqawi was eventually hunted down and killed not during the celebrated "surge" but in June
2006, months before Bush's "surge" began. The so-called Sunni Awakening, essentially the buying
off of many Sunni tribal leaders, also predated the "surge." And the relative reduction in the
Iraq War's slaughter after the 2007 "surge" was mostly the result of the ethnic cleansing of
Baghdad from a predominantly Sunni to a Shia city, tearing the fabric of Baghdad in two, and
creating physical space that made it more difficult for the two bitter enemies to attack each
other. In addition, Iran used its influence with the Shia to rein in their extremely violent
militias.
Though weakened by Zarqawi's death and the Sunni Awakening, AQI did not disappear, as Jeb
Bush would like you to believe. It remained active and when Saudi Arabia and the Sunni gulf
states took aim at the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria AQI joined with other
al-Qaeda affiliates, such as the Nusra Front, to spread their horrors across Syria. AQI
rebranded itself "the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" or simply "the Islamic State."
The Islamic State split off from al-Qaeda over strategy but the various jihadist armies,
including al-Qaeda's Nusra Front, [then] seized wide swaths of territory in Syria -- and the
Islamic State returned with a vengeance to Iraq, grabbing major cities such as Mosul and
Ramadi.
Jeb Bush doesn't like to unspool all this history. He and other Iraq War backers prefer to
pretend that the "surge" in Iraq had won the war and Obama threw the "victory" away by
following through on George W. Bush's withdrawal agreement with Maliki.
But the crisis in Syria and Iraq is among the fateful consequences of the U.S./UK attack 12
years ago and particularly of the "surge" of 2007, which contributed greatly to Sunni-Shia
violence, the opposite of what George W. Bush professed was the objective of the "surge," to
enable Iraq's religious sects to reconcile.
Reconciliation, however, always took a back seat to the real purpose of the "surge" buying
time so Bush and Cheney could slip out of Washington in 2009 without having an obvious military
defeat hanging around their necks and putting a huge stain on their legacies.
Cheney and Bush: Reframed the history. (White House photo)
The political manipulation of the Iraq "surge" allowed Bush, Cheney and their allies to
reframe the historical debate and shift the blame for the defeat onto Obama, recognizing that
1,000 more dead U.S. soldiers was a small price to pay for protecting the "Bush brand." Now,
Bush's younger brother can cheerily march off to the campaign trail for 2016 pointing to the
carcass of the Iraqi albatross hung around Obama's shoulders.
Rout at Ramadi
Less than a year after U.S.-trained and -equipped Iraqi forces ran away from the northern
Iraqi city of Mosul, leaving the area and lots of U.S. arms and equipment to ISIS, something
similar happened at Ramadi, the capital of the western province of Anbar. Despite heavy U.S.
air strikes on ISIS, American-backed Iraqi security forces fled Ramadi, which is only 70 miles
west of Baghdad, after a lightning assault by ISIS forces.
The ability of ISIS to strike just about everywhere in the area is reminiscent of the Tet
offensive of January-February 1968 in Vietnam, which persuaded President Lyndon Johnson that
that particular war was unwinnable. If there are materials left over in Saigon for reinforcing
helicopter landing pads on the tops of buildings, it is not too early to bring them to
Baghdad's Green Zone, on the chance that U.S. embassy buildings may have a call for such
materials in the not-too-distant future.
The headlong Iraqi government retreat from Ramadi had scarcely ended when Sen. John McCain,
(R-AZ), described the fall of the city as "terribly significant" which is correct adding that
more U.S. troops may be needed which is insane. His appeal for more troops neatly fit one
proverbial definition of insanity (attributed or misattributed to Albert Einstein): "doing the
same thing over and over again [like every eight years?] but expecting different results."
As Jeb Bush was singing the praises of his brother's "surge" in Iraq, McCain and his Senate
colleague Lindsey Graham were publicly calling for a new "surge" of U.S. troops into Iraq. The
senators urged President Obama to do what George W. Bush did in 2007 replace the U.S. military
leadership and dispatch additional troops to Iraq.
But Washington Post pundit David Ignatius, even though a fan of the earlier two surges, was
not yet on board for this one. Ignatius warned in a column that Washington should not abandon
its current strategy:
"This is still Iraq's war, not America's. But President Barack Obama must reassure Prime
Minister Haider al-Abadi that the U.S. has his back, and at the same time give him a reality
check: If al-Abadi and his Shiite allies don't do more to empower Sunnis, his country will
splinter. Ramadi is a precursor, of either a turnaround by al-Abadi's forces, or an Iraqi
defeat."
Ignatius's urgent tone was warranted. But what he suggests is precisely what the U.S. made a
lame attempt to do with then-Prime Minister Maliki in early 2007. Yet, Bush squandered U.S.
leverage by sending 30,000 troops to show he "had Maliki's back," freeing Maliki to accelerate
his attempts to marginalize, rather than accommodate, Sunni interests.
Perhaps Ignatius now remembers how the "surge" he championed in 2007 greatly exacerbated
tensions between Shia and Sunni contributing to the chaos now prevailing in Iraq and spreading
across Syria and elsewhere. But Ignatius is well connected and a bellwether; if he ends up
advocating another "surge," take shelter.
Keane and Kagan Ask For a Mulligan
Jeb Bush: Sung his brother's praises. (Sun City Center, Florida, on May 9, 2006. White House
photo by Eric Draper)
The architects of Bush's 2007 "surge" of 30,000 troops into Iraq, former Army General Jack
Keane and American Enterprise Institute neocon strategist Frederick Kagan, in testimony to the
Senate Armed Services Committee, warned strongly that, without a "surge" of some 15,000 to
20,000 U.S. troops, ISIS would win in Iraq.
"We are losing this war," warned Keane, who previously served as Vice Chief of Staff of the
Army. "ISIS is on the offense, with the ability to attack at will, anyplace, anytime. Air power
will not defeat ISIS." Keane stressed that the U.S. and its allies have "no ground force, which
is the defeat mechanism."
Not given to understatement, Kagan called ISIS "one of the most evil organizations that has
ever existed. This is not a group that maybe we can negotiate with down the road someday. This
is a group that is committed to the destruction of everything decent in the world." He called
for "15-20,000 U.S. troops on the ground to provide the necessary enablers, advisers and so
forth," and added: "Anything less than that is simply unserious."
(By the way, Frederick Kagan is the brother of neocon-star Robert Kagan, whose Project for
the New American Century began pushing for the invasion of Iraq in 1998 and finally got its way
in 2003. Robert Kagan is the husband of Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the 2014 coup that brought "regime change" and bloody chaos to
Ukraine. The Ukraine crisis also prompted Robert Kagan to urge a major increase in U.S.
military spending. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's " A Family Business
of Perpetual War. "] )
What is perhaps most striking, however, is the casualness with which the likes of Frederick
Kagan , Jack Keane, and other Iraq War enthusiasts advocated dispatching tens of thousands of
U.S. soldiers to fight and die in what would almost certainly be another futile undertaking.
You might even wonder why people like Kagan are invited to testify before Congress given their
abysmal records.
But that would miss the true charm of the Iraq "surge" in 2007 and its significance in
salvaging the reputations of folks like Kagan, not to mention George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
From their perspective, the "surge" was a great success. Bush and Cheney could swagger from the
West Wing into the western sunset on Jan. 20, 2009.
As author Steve Coll has put it, "The decision [to surge] at a minimum guaranteed that his
[Bush's] presidency would not end with a defeat in history's eyes. By committing to the surge
[the President] was certain to at least achieve a stalemate."
According to Bob Woodward, Bush told key Republicans in late 2005 that he would not withdraw
from Iraq, "even if Laura and [first-dog] Barney are the only ones supporting me." Woodward
made it clear that Bush was well aware in fall 2006 that the U.S. was losing. Suddenly, with
some fancy footwork, it became Laura, Barney and new Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen.
David Petraeus along with 30,000 more U.S. soldiers making sure that the short-term fix was
in.
The fact that about 1,000 U.S. soldiers returned in caskets was the principal price paid for
that short-term "surge" fix. Their "ultimate sacrifice" will be mourned by their friends,
families and countrymen on Memorial Day even as many of the same politicians and pundits will
be casually pontificating about dispatching more young men and women as cannon fodder into the
same misguided war.
[President Donald Trump has continued the U.S.'s longest war (Afghanistan), sending
additional troops and dropping a massive bomb as well as missiles from drones. In Syria he has
ordered two missile strikes and condoned multiple air strikes from Israel. Here's hoping, on
this Memorial Day 2018, that he turns his back on his war-mongering national security adviser,
forges ahead
with a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un rather than toy with the lives of 30,000
U.S. soldiers in Korea, and halts the juggernaut rolling downhill toward war with Iran.]
It was difficult drafting this downer, this historical counter-narrative, on the eve of
Memorial Day. It seems to me necessary, though, to expose the dramatis personae who played such
key roles in getting more and more people killed. Sad to say, none of the high officials
mentioned here, as well as those on the relevant Congressional committees, were affected in any
immediate way by the carnage in Ramadi, Tikrit or outside the gate to the Green Zone in
Baghdad.
And perhaps that's one of the key points here. It is not most of us, but rather our soldiers
and the soldiers and civilians of Iraq, Afghanistan and God knows where else who are Lazarus at
the gate. And, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "Justice will not be served until those who are
unaffected are as outraged as those who are."
Mark Karlin: How much money has gone to the U.S. war on terror and what has been the impact of this expenditure?
Tom Engelhardt: The best figure I've seen on this comes from the Watson Institute's Costs of War Project at Brown University and
it's a staggering
$5.6 trillion , including certain future costs to care for this country's war vets. President Trump himself, with his usual sense
of accuracy, has inflated that number even more, regularly speaking of
$7
trillion being lost somewhere in our never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East. One of these days, he's going to turn out
to be right.
As for the impact of such an expenditure in the regions where these wars continue to be fought, largely nonstop, since they were
launched against a tiny group of jihadis just after September 11, 2001, it would certainly include: the spread of terror outfits
across the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Africa; the creation -- in a region previously autocratic but relatively calm -- of a
striking range of failed or failing states, of major cities that have been turned into absolute
rubble (with
no money in sight for serious
reconstruction), of internally
displaced people and waves of refugees at levels
that now match the moment after World War II, when significant parts of the planet were in ruins; and that's just to start down
a list of the true costs of our wars.
At home, in a far quieter way, the impact has been similar. Just imagine, for instance, what our American world would have been
like if any significant part of the funds that went into our fruitless, still spreading, now nameless conflicts had been spent on
America's crumbling infrastructure , instead of on the rise
of the national security state as the unofficial fourth branch of government. (At TomDispatch , Pentagon expert William Hartung
has estimated that approximately $1 trillion annually goes into that security state and, in the age of Trump, that figure is
again on the rise.)
Part of the trouble assessing the "impact" here in the U.S. is that, in this era of public demobilization in terms of our wars,
people are encouraged not to think about them at all and they've gotten remarkably little attention. So sorting out exactly how they've
come home -- other than completely obvious developments like the
militarization
of the police, the
flying of surveillance drones in our airspace, and so on -- is hard. Most people, for instance, don't grasp something I've long
written about at TomDispatch : that Donald Trump would have been inconceivable as president without those disastrous wars, those
trillions squandered on them and on the military that's fought them, and that certainly qualifies as "impact" enough.
What makes the U.S. pretension to empire different from previous empires?
As a start, it's worth mentioning that Americans generally don't even think of ourselves as an "empire." Yes, since the Soviet
Union imploded in 1991, our politicians and pundits have proudly called this country the "last" or "lone" superpower and the world's
most "exceptional" or "indispensable" nation, but an empire? No. You need to go someplace off the mainstream grid -- Truthout or
TomDispatch , for instance -- to find anyone talking about us in those terms.
That said, I think that two things have made us different, imperially speaking. The first was that post-1991 sense of ourselves
as the ultimate winner of a vast imperial contest, a kind of arms race of many that had gone on since European ships armed with cannon
had first broken into the world in perhaps the fifteenth century and began to conquer much of it. In that post-Soviet moment of triumphalism,
of what seemed to the top dogs in Washington like the ultimate win, a forever victory, there was indeed a sense that there had never
been and never would be a power like us. That inflated sense of our imperial self was what sent the geopolitical dreamers of the
George W. Bush administration off to, in essence, create a Pax Americana first in the Greater Middle East and then perhaps the world
in a fashion never before imagined, one that, they were convinced, would put the Roman and British imperial moments to shame. And
we all know, with the invasion of Iraq, just where that's ended up.
In the years since they launched that ultimate imperial venture in a cloud of hubris, the most striking difference I can see with
previous empires is that never has a great power still in something close to its imperial prime proven quite so incapable of applying
its military and political might in a way that would successfully advance its aims. It has instead found itself overmatched by underwhelming
enemy forces and incapable of producing any results other than destruction and further fragmentation across staggeringly large parts
of the planet.
Finally, of course, there's climate change -- that is, for the first time in the history of empires, the very well-being of the
planet itself is at stake. The game has, so to speak, changed, even if relatively few here have noticed.
Why do you refer to the U.S. as an "empire of chaos"?
This answer follows directly from the last two. The United States is now visibly a force for chaos across significant parts of
the planet. Just look, for instance, at the cities -- from
Marawi in the Philippines to
Mosul and
Ramadi
in Iraq,
Raqqa and
Aleppo
in Syria,
Sirte in Libya, and so on -- that have literally been -- a word I
want to bring into
the language -- rubblized, largely by American bombing (though with a helping hand recently from the bomb makers of the Islamic State).
Historically, in the imperial ages that preceded this one, such power, while regularly applied brutally and devastatingly, could
also be a way of imposing a grim version of order on conquered and colonized areas. No longer, it seems. We're now on a planet that
simply doesn't accept military-first conquest and occupation, no matter the guise under which it arrives (including the spread of
"democracy"). So beware the unleashing modern military power. It turns out to contain within it striking disintegrative forces on
a planet that can ill afford such chaos.
You also refer to Washington D.C. as a "permanent war capital" with the generals in ascension under Trump. What does that represent
for the war footing of the U.S.?
Well, it's obvious in a way. Washington is now indeed a war capital because the Bush administration launched not just a local
response to a relatively small group of jihadis in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but what its top officials called a "Global War
on Terror" -- creating possibly the worst acronym in history: GWOT. And then they instantly began insisting that it could be applied
to at least 60 countries supposedly harboring terror
groups. That was 2001 and, of course, though the name and acronym were dropped, the war they launched has never ended. In those years,
the military, the country's (count 'em)
17
major intelligence agencies, and the
warrior
corporations of the military-industrial complex have achieved a kind of clout never before seen in the nation's capital. Their
rise has really been a bipartisan affair in a city otherwise riven by politics as each party tries to outdo the other in promoting
the financing of the national security state. At a moment when putting money into just about anything else that would provide security
to Americans (think health care) is always a desperate struggle, funding the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state
continues to be a given. That's what it means to be in a "permanent war capital."
In addition, with Donald Trump, the generals of America's losing wars have gained a kind of prominence in Washington that was
unknown in a previously civilian capital. The head of the Defense Department, the White House chief of staff, and (until recently
when he was succeeded by an even more militaristic civilian) the national security advisor were all generals of those wars -- positions
that, in the past, with rare exceptions, were considered civilian ones. In this sense, Donald Trump was less making history with
the men he liked to refer to as "
my generals " than channeling it.
What is the role of bombing in the U.S. war-making machine?
It's worth remembering, as I've written in the past, that from the beginning the war on terror has been, above all (and despite
full-scale invasions and occupations using hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops), an
air war . It started that way. On September 11, 2001, after all, al-Qaeda sent its air force (four hijacked passenger jets) and
its precision weaponry (19 suicidal hijackers) against a set of iconic buildings in the U.S. Those strikes -- only one of them failed
when the passengers on a single jet fought back and it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania -- may represent the most successful use
of strategic bombing (that is, air power aimed at the civilian population of, and morale in, an enemy country) in history. At the
cost of a mere $400,000 to $500,000 , Osama
bin Laden began an air war of provocation that has never ended.
The U.S. has been bombing, missiling, and
drone-assassinating ever since. Last year, for instance, U.S. planes dropped an estimated
20,000 bombs just on the Syrian city
of
Raqqa , the former "capital" of the Islamic State, leaving next to nothing standing. Since the first American planes began dropping
bombs (and cluster munitions ) in
Afghanistan in October 2001, the U.S. Air Force has been in the skies ceaselessly -- skies by the way over countries and groups that
lack any defenses against air attacks whatsoever. And, of course, it's been a kind of rolling disaster of destruction that has left
the equivalent of World Trade Center tower after tower of dead civilians in those lands. In other words, though no one in Washington
would ever say such a thing, U.S. air power has functionally been doing Osama bin Laden's job for him, conducting not so much a war
on terror as a strange kind of war for terror, one that only promotes the conditions in which it thrives best.
What role did the end of the draft play in enabling an unrestrained U.S. empire of war?
It may have been the crucial moment in the whole process. It was, of course, the decision of then-president Richard Nixon in
January 1973 , in
response to a country swept by a powerful antiwar movement and a military in near rebellion as the Vietnam War began to wind down.
The draft was ended, the all-volunteer military begun, and the American people were largely separated from the wars being fought
in their name. They were, as I said above, demobilized. Though at the time, the U.S. military high command was doubtful about the
move, it proved highly successful in freeing them to fight the endless wars of the twenty-first century, now being referred to by
some in the Pentagon (according to the Washington Post ) not as "permanent wars" or even, as General David Petraeus put it, a "
generational struggle
," but as "
infinite war ."
I've lived through
two periods of public war mobilization in my lifetime: the World War II era, in which I was born and in which the American people
mobilized to support a global war against fascism in every way imaginable, and the Vietnam War, in which Americans (like me as a
young man) mobilized against an American war. But who in those years ever imagined that Americans might fight their wars (unsuccessfully)
to the end of time without most citizens paying the slightest attention? That's why I've called the losing generals of our endless
war on terror (and, in a sense, the rest of us as well) " Nixon's
children ."
17 major intelligence agencies. For fuck's sake! It's not seventeen – it is SIXTEEN! ;-)
Looney
P.S. I hate re-posting shit or using the same joke twice, but THIS is worth re-posting (from January 13, 2017): U.S. intelligence agencies contend that Moscow waged a multifaceted campaign of hacking and other actions All Democrats, from our own MDB to Hillary and 0bama, have been citing the "
17 intelligence agencies
" that agree with their ridiculous claims.
Here's the list of "The Magnificent Seventeen", but (spoiler alert!) there are actually only SIXTEEN INTEL AGENCIES, but who
counts? The highlighted agencies have nothing to do with Hacking, Elections, Golden Showers, or whatever sick lies the Libtards
have come up with.
Each Agency's responsibilities are very clearly defined by Law and 13 out of the "17 agencies" have absolutely nothing to do
with the DNC, Wikileaks, Elections, Hillary's e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, the Russian Hacking, etc.
Twenty-Fifth Air Force - Air Force Intel only
Intelligence and Security Command (US Army) – Army Intel only
Central Intelligence Agency is prohibited by Law to conduct any activities within the US!!!
Coast Guard Intelligence – Coast Guard, really?
Defense Intelligence Agency – Military Intel only
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (Dept. of Energy) – Nukes, Nuclear Plants
Office of Intelligence and Analysis (Homeland Security)
Bureau of Intelligence and Research - State Dept. Intel
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (Treasury) – Treasury and Hacking/Elections? Hmm
Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA) – Drug Enforcement, really?
Intelligence Branch, FBI (DOJ)
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity - Marine Corps Intel only
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (Dept. of Defense) – Satellites, Aerial Intel
National Reconnaissance Office (Dept. of Defense) – Defense Recon Only
NSA
Office of Naval Intelligence Navy Defense – Navy only
On the rare occasions when the US halfheartedly admits that, somehow, mistakes might have been made, it cannot evade employing
important US citizenish "core values" like hypocricy and psychological projection.
Four days ago an outstanding example of this type of embarrassment,
Russia's Moral Hypocrisy , was posted by Colonel
James McDonough, US Army attaché to Poland. Its urgent bleatings display the inadequacy and extremely low level of cohesion to
which US propaganda has fallen. The short version: the US fights for all good against all bad, and the Russians disagree because
they are very bad and also mean people.
Two days ago, Colonel Cassad posted a response to McDonough's piece which skewered it like a kebab. Using a
nota bene format, each point is considered and then crushed
into a paste. Even via the Yandex machine translation, the well-deserved kicking to the curb comes through loud and clear.
Wars are always about money and control. The war machine supports so many jobs in the US from shipyards to consulting. It's
a way to pump cash into a system that essentially died after the 2001 crash.
During a memorial day conversation today, "But you live in the evil empire and reap the benefits, why are you complaining about
the democrats. Can't you see the black mark on your soul is more important because you support the Empire on either side of the
so called two party system."
More divide & conquer BS the commies are belching now that they've been caught "red handed".
If it was a family member resolve yourself that you will have to just deal with it. If only a friend or acquaintance, resolve
yourself that there may come a time in the not to distant future you will have to slit their throat lest they slit yours.
Morbid as it maybe, nmewn is still correct. It's kinda like the saying, " Two people can keep a secret, as long as one of them
is dead." You cannot truly depend on or trust anyone, except yourself. And often times family can be worse than friends.
Well, what do want me to say?...lol...I know we're all thinking the same thing, we've all had the very same conversations with
these assholes whether friends or family. They are unreachable.
Hey, don't kill the guy pointing out the elephant in the middle of the room ;-)
It's not sixteen either, it was three ...the CIA ( Brennan ) the FBI ( Comey at the time) and the NSA which in my opinion was
in a go-along-to-get-along position. Seventeen was a lie when Hillary first uttered it. "The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components
of the intelligence community," said former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during a congressional
hearing in May. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."
He spoke the truth (that time) probably not wanting another perjury charge ;-)
It's the attitude. The American political leaders have this idea of righteousness and exceptionalism. They think they'll go
around the world telling everyone else what to do. I've got two words for them - Fuck-off:
This article could have been written by a second-year political science undergraduate at a U.S. public university. This adds
a sum total of zero to the public understanding of the rise of American imperialism.
To state the obvious; the CIA has deeply humiliated the American people in their attempt to tie the American people to be responsible
for the CIA's crimes against humanity across the world.
The CIA appears to be the world's greatest threat to peace and prosperity. It is the penultimate terrorist organization, being
the direct or indirect creator of all other terrorist organizations. It also appears to be the world's penultimate illegal drug
smuggler and pusher making all other illegal drug trading possible and instigating the horrors of addiction and suffering around
the world.
If I believed that the CIA was working in any way on behalf of the US government and the American people then it would be sad
and shameful indeed. However, it is my belief that the CIA instead was captured long ago, as was the secret military operations
and now works for a hidden power that wants to dominate or failing that, destroy humanity.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since
the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
The Agency is Cancer. There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long,
that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
The author seems comfortable finding fault with Bush and Trump but can't muster up a criticism of Obama (the Cal Ripken of
presidential war mongers), Clinton, Holder, et al.
What a dichotomy. On the one hand, America self-righteously proclaiming it is the one protecting everyone's freedom, while
at the same time making war and spying and oppressing others. On the other hand, seems like America is at war with everyone to
have such a large military and 17 spy agencies, and more people in prison than any other country in the world. Really sounds like
America has got some serious problems.
Note, a majority of the Muslims living close to Iraq still held a positive view of the U.S. even after the 1990-1991 attack
on Iraq. And after 12 years of starvation sanctions, even denying Iraq baby formula with the claim that it "can be used to make
weapons". And after the UK and US bombing Iraq on average once a week for those 12 years, targeting water refineries so Iraqis
had to drink dirty water, and power plants so there was no air conditioning in the blistering summer heat. Causing the death of
half a million children, as confirmed by the U.S. ambassador to the UN, which State Secretary Madeleine Albright said was "worth
it".
Even after that mass murder, 60% of Gulf residents were generally positive toward the U.S.
"Clash of cultures," right? There wasn't much Islamism at all, except the anger directed at thieving puppet rulers installed
after the European empires withdrew. Arabs, who were mostly secular, had always loved the U.S. as an anti-imperialist country.
Thus they couldn't understand when the U.S. backed the Zio invasion of Palestine. And then started sanctioning and attacking every
Middle Eastern nation that supported the Palestinians.
The U.S. used to have many "Arabist" diplomats, those who wanted to work with Arab nationalists, especially against the Soviets.
But the pro-Arab diplomats were sidelined by the media-backed neocon line, where everything was about who were for or against
the Palestinians. Saddam Hussein in Iraq had been secular and pro-American, but he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide
bombers - these families saw their homes razed with all their possessions, with just an hour's notice, by the Israelis. For the
crime of giving these destitute people some money, all of Iraq was targeted.
No wonder the Arabs started hating the U.S. Still even after the Iraq invasion in 2003, most Arabs just want to be left alone
by the U.S. But that is not allowed. Arab nationalism was destroyed in favor of puppet regimes.
"... Exactly right Sam. 'It's the oligarchs, stupid" should be our slogan. To keep us focused on the real source of most of our problems. ..."
"... Memorial ceremonies and flag waving allow the rich dictators to demand loyalty to themselves in the name of the principles they have overthrown. The rich despise America's principles and spit upon the Constitution. ..."
"... Actually, there are a lot of evil empires. History has a long list too. The natural state of man is to create evil abusive murderous empires which kill as many people as they can. "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." George S. Patton ..."
"... The National Security State is a protection racket for western oligarchy. All the romanticism that surrounds Memorial Day is just to keep the sentimental mythology in tact. Of course, 911 and the GWOT was used to reinforce the troops as national heroes mindset. ..."
"... Americans are that classic example of lab mice being used to form the predetermined outcome of the experimentation. We Americans should just look up and wave and give our controllers the finger, as we all smile and go in the other direction. Joe ..."
As much as I admire and respect Ray McGovern – he and other veterans must understand
that suggesting the best leaders in our government would be those with a military background
is disappointing. I would rather NOT have those types calling the shots. Look what it's got
us?
Cindy reminded me of a quote (whose origin I forget): 'War undoes a mother's work." All
power to Cindy Sheehan and all the peace seekers out there. #WomenMarch4Peace
mike k , May 28, 2018 at 5:47 pm
What if Memorial Day was an occasion to remember all the horrific crimes of our nation,
and vow to atone for them? Instead of a day to worship and kiss the militarist boot that is
grinding our culture into the dirt.
KiwiAntz , May 28, 2018 at 6:20 pm
It's not that America hates peace, they hate, not being able make a profit from War? Peace
& it implies means the MIC is obsolete & no longer needed so no more trillions off
dollars wasted on stupid Wars & Militarily hardware? Just imagine all that wasted money
being put to better use in America, such as on social programs & providing universal
healthcare, free college education for America's youth, infrastructure spending & other
things? That's the unfortunate thing about funding this bloated killing machine called the
MIC?
Send "our leaders" to the front lines of war.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
March 9, 2009
"Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders"?
Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such
is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed,
destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have
war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games
every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of
these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if
enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games?
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html
Jeff , May 28, 2018 at 12:38 pm
As with everybody else, I'll say this is a great piece because it is. Nominally speaking,
I would be left with little to say. But I have one little comment to augment what Ray has
said. We are frequently told that our military "protects our freedom" and when you say
something that somebody doesn't like, they'll say "thank a vet for your freedom to say
something like that." Pfui.
The military hasn't "protected our freedom" in a very long time.
Protecting our freedom implies that it is under attack from some external group with capable
of being an existential threat to the existence of the United States.
The last time that
happened was WWII. Not one single country we've attacked since then has had a snowball's
chance in hell of bringing the US to its knees and please note that no country has actually
attacked us. As for the "thank a vet for your freedom to say nasty things about the
government", the military doesn't protect us from our own government. The government is
supposed to protect our constitutional guarantees. They've been doing a shitty job ever since
9/11.
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 12:05 pm
Afghanistan has been a wonderful test of the corrupt former democracy of the US. The
"graveyard of empires" is of no value to anyone, but sought by all empires solely because
they fear that Russia might want it.
Britain invaded Afghanistan and failed three times in the 19th century, each campaign a
"surge" from the last, their oligarchy afraid of a "threat" to "their" India, of an invasion
by Russia. In two centuries that never happened, but they still claim this.
The US warmongers seek Afghanistan to harass Russia, block the Asian road project, harass
Pakistan, harass Iran for the zionists, or get opium revenue to their secret gangs. These
projects are all unconstitutional, genocidal, and damaging to US security.
America is history's largest example of the destruction of democracy by unregulated economic
power, the dictatorship of oligarchy. Their political tyrants create foreign monsters to pose
as protectors and accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty. Their mass media sells wars to
those angry at the misfortunes brought upon them by the rich, as the means to symbolic
personal triumph by killing all who disagree.
The ruined "American Century" can be saved only by a humanitarian vision, and if the people
cannot depose US oligarchy so as to rise to that vision, the US must hide in shame from the
enemies its selfishness has made, ruined by isolation and embargo. No one will miss the US
when it has collapsed into permanent disgrace.
Wake up, America! We are slaves until the oligarchy is destroyed.
mike k , May 28, 2018 at 4:02 pm
Exactly right Sam. 'It's the oligarchs, stupid" should be our slogan. To keep us focused
on the real source of most of our problems.
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 6:20 pm
Thank you, Mike. It is hard to recommend solutions when focused upon the problems of
oligarchy, without advising people to shake their cage or use extreme measures, but we have
seen good ideas here, and the vision is certainly needed.
John , May 28, 2018 at 9:57 pm
The only thing wrong with your post is the claim "The "graveyard of empires" is of no
value to anyone".
Afghanistan is first, geographically positioned so that many pipelines are planned to run
through it.
Also, Afghanistan is very mineral-rich, including and especially in Lithium – which is
needed for batteries for everything from consumer electronics to electric cars.
Ray McGovern is a national treasure, and so is Cindy Sheehan. They are 2 of the
all-too-few voices willing to stand against the horrific military industrial machine. Just
imagine how much courage it took both of them to do what they did back in 2004, at the height
of the jingoistic blood-lust fest the neocons created in the wake of 9/11. I have watched and
read the work of both of these amazingly courageous people over the course of 15 years or so,
and what strikes me as tragic is that there are still so many who buy into the 'patriotism'
b.s. and are willing to sacrifice their own children to senseless wars.
Anon , May 28, 2018 at 10:17 am
Memorial ceremonies and flag waving allow the rich dictators to demand loyalty to
themselves in the name of the principles they have overthrown. The rich despise America's
principles and spit upon the Constitution.
Soldiers are the fools of rich dictators and they know it, hoping to escape war and retire.
They have no honor.
Flag-wavers are cowardly imbeciles destroying America because they have no principles. They
are traitors.
vinnieoh , May 28, 2018 at 10:15 am
Since CN decided to re-cycle this piece (that is not a complaint against its quality,)
I'll post this as evidence that ordinary little citizens can have more knowledge, common
sense, and morality than our ruling class.
From: lawrences
To:
Subject: The impending war against Iraq
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:43 PM
Dear Sir:
Although I am a resident of Ohio, I am contacting you because you have proven to be a man
of honor and reason and a powerful force in the U.S. Senate. I am strongly opposed to the
impending war in the Middle East, and have already expressed these views to the senators from
Ohio, but I believe that if anybody can mobilize opposition to this impending disaster, it
may be you. I listened to your comments prior to the non-debate concerning the Resolution to
authorize the use of force, and I agree that the real consequences of this conflict were not
addressed at all.
This conflict is worse than folly. I believe that at the very least: the situation in the
Middle East will be much worse and not better; world opinion will solidify against Americans
and American policies; terrorist organizations and activities will be strengthened, not
weakened; we will be bankrupted into the unforeseeable future. At the worst, this act of
aggression could plunge humanity into global conflict the likes of which previous human
experience will not have prepared us. Lest these concerns seem selfish and self-centered, I
do not wish to again see American sons and daughters slaughter innocent civilians from the
safety of our high-tech weaponry, and all for the true purpose of expanding the corporate
oligarchy.
Now is not the time to remain silent for the purpose of political expediency. While
representative democracy still exists between these shores it is time to rein in a chief
executive and his cabal who are apparently in the throes of a consuming blood-lust. I have
considered myself and have voted Democrat all of my life (I'm 50 years old), and I must say
that I am disgusted that most of the elected Democrats in Washington have been struck mute on
this issue. No reasonable person who is fully contemplating the consequences of what is about
to happen could come to the conclusion that any good is going to come from this. I believe,
despite the gaudy and superficial manifestations of popular American culture, that this
country is populated by reasonable people, and our elected representatives should consider
the consequences of remaining mute and cowardly as George II leads us into a national
disgrace and disaster.
History, if indeed there be anyone left to record it, will justly lay the blame for this
catastrophe at our feet. Please sir, I implore you, do everything in your power to stop this
from happening.
A sincere Veteran, American, and a Human Being,
Vince Lawrence
email: *********@***.net
"Happy" Memorial Day. One last thought. Kind of paraphrases what Ray was trying to say,
and they are my own words that I decided on, several years into the criminal invasion of
Iraq: One can not earn honor and glory for one's self by prosecuting an illegal and immoral
policy.
Is this perhaps one of many reasons for the high suicide rate of GWOT veterans?
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 11:05 am
With the endless "marches of folly" of our dictatorship of rich traitors, Memorial Day has
become a flag-waving psyop for a "national religion" of lies and bullying that sacrifices
poverty [sicken] draft animals to the ideological fantasies of opportunist demagogues. Their fake
praise for "the fallen" and disgusting lies about the motives and effects of their constant
genocides and subversions betray their deliberate murder of US citizens and foreign innocents
to get money, public office, and promotions. The families of those sacrificed should denounce
rather than legitimize these schemes of murder by corrupt politicians.
Dorothy Hoobler , May 28, 2018 at 10:12 am
A great article! Another extraordinary quality about Cindy Sheehan was and is that she saw
the tragedy for the mother's of Iraq was as real as her own. Very few people have that sense
of common humanity – certainly none of our politicians.
mike k , May 28, 2018 at 7:39 am
The United States of America is the Evil Empire on this planet. One of the most evil
groups in this Empire of Evil is the military. Young people are trained to kill and brutalize
others, then celebrated as heroes – just as ruthless hit men are celebrated and honored
by the Mafia. The worst among us are put forward as the best. Noble words are turned into
lies in the mouths of our politicians and media propagandists.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 10:16 am
Actually, there are a lot of evil empires. History has a long list too. The natural state
of man is to create evil abusive murderous empires which kill as many people as they can. "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for
his."
George S. Patton
The problem comes not from war itself but from the ultimate reason for the war. Some wars
like WWII were necessary because the all too real possibility that Germany would come to
dominate Europe and Japan would dominate the Pacific. It was a classical war fought purely
for economic gain by the Axis powers. Also it was classical since it was a war waged by
governments and heads of state. Hence when it was over those nations unconditionally
surrendered and the war ended.
Fast forward to later years and many still question the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria and Libya.
The reasons become complex for these wars and the outcomes less certain than the clear
victory in WWII. We lost Vietnam and all the hype about dominoes and evil empires didn't
happen. We won Iraq but that outcome created ISIS which we later funded to attack Syria. Is
this what we expect our leaders to do?
Another example is the Iran Coup d'etat where we installed a dictator to counter Iran's
nationalizing the oil companies. This led to the student uprising, the hostage crisis and our
long cold war with Iran. We had an October Surprise when we found out that Iran Contra went
back to before the Reagan Election and there is evidence that George Bush was personally
negotiating terms with the Iranians in order to prolong thir captivity until after the
election. It seems to me that secretly dealing with a foreign enemy nation that is holding US
citizens hostage to prolong their captivity for political gains fits the definition of high
crimes and misdemeanors.
Why don't hold leaders accountable under the law?
George Bush went on to be the international spokesperson for The Carlyle Group perhaps the
largest private arms dealers on the planet. All of the investors in the Carlyle Group became
insanely wealthy after 9/11. Their basic investment strategy was to buy up depressed military
defense contractor stocks which fell after the Berlin Wall came down knowing that those
stocks would go up if there were another conflict. What about the moral conflict of their
investment strategy especially since major shareholders were also in key positions to be able
to influence foreign policy?
It seems fairly obvious that when federal intelligence agencies fail to react to foreign
nationals learning to fly with no desire to go to landing school there was at least willful
ignorance regarding the plans of Osama. The reasons for recent wars seems entirely too
conflicted. Just like the classical wars of the past, today's wars are still being waged by
the leaders of nations for economic gain.
Are our troops to blame? Absolutely not. They are young, idealistic and loyal. They
believe in America and are willing to fight for our freedom. They are to be honored on this
day for their sacrifice.
On the other hand, the leaders who are making a killing behind the scenes while ginning up
wars for profit wherever they can need to be held accountable for their actions and at least
a shred of acknowledgement by the "liberal" media needs to reach peoples ears.
We can honor the dead for their sacrifice but we need to honor the living by preventing
their lives being lost in the quest for money.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 10:17 am
Here is a link to the Carlyle Group a few documentaries.
Great little essay CitizenOne. You give a valuable lesson in the art of 'buying low and
selling high, and damn those who don't agree'. We are witnessing what you get from an all for
profit military. Take the profit out of war, and you will end all war. Joe
John , May 28, 2018 at 10:11 pm
I really have to wonder why the Carlyle Group is not better known.
An arms dealing consortium started by the Bush and Bin Laden Family, that JUST HAPPENED to be
meeting in NYC on Sept 11, 2001, for a super-early morning meeting, in a conference room with
a panoramic view of the Twin Towers No, nothing suspicious there .
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 10:50 am
Yes, in the military "young people are trained to kill and brutalize others, then
celebrated as heroes."
Also true as Citizen says that many are "young, idealistic and loyal willing to fight for our
freedom."
But no one not paid to recite propaganda would think that the US has been fighting for its
freedom, and no one who pays attention thinks that it is fighting for anything positive. So
the military above age 20-25 just don't question the obvious lies, due to their ulterior
motives. Those who agree with the foreign policies of US warmongers don't believe in the
principles of America, only its dictators' ideology of lies and killing for profit. The
majority are simply forced to go along with the dictators like everyone else.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 1:05 pm
But fighting for our freedom is exactly what the propaganda preaches. Like Orwell's
"nineteen eighty-four", the citizens of Oceania are taught to hate Emmanuel Goldstein and the
enemy states Eastasia and Eurasia. Perhaps the most disturbing part is that you never really
know if Big Brother or Emmanuel Goldstein even exist. It could be that these are fictional
straw men that serve the purpose of the state to control the masses. Either way, real or not,
it is the same issue to be handled by the state. It is all fake news all the time in
Oceania.
I'm not selling the volunteers who sign up short. I do not believe they join the military
(for the most part) so they can become legal mafia wise guys. Obviously and especially given
the recent trends to use contractors (mercenaries and soldiers of fortune) there is some of
that going on.
Let's face facts. Propaganda works. At least PT Barnum was correct when he said you can
fool most of the people most of the time.
I don't know any parents who wish their children in the military would bring home lots of
money they got pilfering corpses. However I do know that governments wage wars to bring home
lots of money by pilfering other nations.
This point is key. Blaming servicemen and women for the foreign policy decisions of our
government is ludicrous as is any suggestion they should take the "high ground". In the
military you follow orders; period.
On the other hand we should never allow those who want to squash criticism of our
government to use the false argument that in so doing, the critics of the government are
dishonoring the folks that sacrificed for the nation. That is the false patriotism used by
totalitarian nations to silence debate while conducting immoral and unethical deeds. As
Samuel Johnson said in 1775, "(false) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Indeed there is diversity among volunteers, perhaps even as mercenaries. One certainly
does not wish to unfairly criticize the volunteer with good intentions. But I see thuggish
teams here who often fired guns at our charity to "defend the town" (their thug tribe
subset), who apparently learned "skills" in the military. So it seems that many sign up for
the opportunity to kill for the tribe, looking for any excuse to vent their anger at unknown
processes. They are looking for an imaginary enemy just as much as the demagogues who
"defend" us in Washington.
Truthful and thoughtful people like Ray know the truth of this and all wars but they, like
Ralph Nader, will never be guests on any corporate T.V. shows, nor will any of the swamp
creatures dare to debate them in public, as they could not defend the lies they perpetrate
for profit. The insanity of our foreign policy has miseducated the general public to the
point of insanity. I always get the usual zombie phrase of "Thank you for your service" and
the bewildered look when I say that I didn't serve, I was used. They usually never approach
me again and look at me as some sort of creature because I don't see the world through their
eyes but they look thru the glass darkly. I have no idea how we are going to make them see
the truth of this tragic farce and inhumanity. we destroy the world and ourselves with the
illusions that pass as truth. I guess I just want to know the truth when I die! They will
never see the fact that all are connected as well as every particle in the universe, one and
the same, that is the mystery of it all that the sages tried to get people to understand. God
in you, you are god and everyone else is also. Not separate! You can connect to the sacred my
understanding this. Thank you Ray, for being who you are and for having the courage to speak
the truth, with much love, Jack Williams.
RickD , May 28, 2018 at 7:35 am
As a fellow veteran I echo and support your eloquent words.
War is a profit center, the cause is generally linked to corporate desire for capturing
markets and an ever increasing need for more and more profits.
That wars endure is directly linked to the vast amounts spent on the MIC as well, and not the
needs of our nation as a whole.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 1:18 pm
I agree. Well said.
Add Noam Chomsky ("Evil Noam") to the list of banned interviewees. After years of cold
shoulders, he got his shot on PBS but at the last minute the higher-ups at PBS decided to
pull the plug so there was just 5 minutes of radio silence. He is the man America loves to
hate. The most dangerous liberal in America etc
Amazing how the "liberal" press fails to connect with him despite his best efforts.
CitizenOne , May 28, 2018 at 1:19 pm
Here is a link to The "Evil Gnome" Chomsky. BTW, I think he would fit right in here.
Chomsky is most emphatically not a "Liberal".
He is very openly a Libertarian Socialist.
RnM , May 28, 2018 at 5:18 am
It's very disconcerting how Memorial Day has, in this topsy-turvey culture has become a
celebration of the type of denial and forgetting that Ray McGovern so eloquently describes.
Thanks, Ray for again upholding the spirits of the American Revolution, and the Civil War for
us, and to name the names of certain betrayers of the Americans who may or may not have
chosen wisely (Who can really say about the origins of any one individual's choices?)
Myself, I boycott cookouts and partying the last weekend in May, and buy an artificial poppy
instead from a disabled Vet It's a time for remembering and committing to put those memories
toward sanity (i. e., not repeating the same futile actions).
Realist , May 28, 2018 at 1:52 am
Not to sound callous, but without forced conscription, nobody joins the military against
their free will. Unless they spent their formative years under a rock, or possess an IQ in
the low double digits, they ought to know from just casual exposure to the media, school
books, zines and even graphic novels that America is not under any real threat from any other
country or combination of countries on the face of the earth. Yes, the propaganda is
pervasive, but it's patently transparent, just like the politicians who hypocritically sell
it; like Trump telling one narrative on Monday and a diametrically opposite story on Tuesday.
No one in authority has any credibility any longer.
The grunts ought to know that they join the American service to exert the power and
influence of the empire into every far corner of the globe through use of lethal force with
extreme prejudice. Our American "heroes" get to do all their killing "over there," on the
other side of the planet, never here in any actual defense of their "homeland." They are not
accurately described as "defenders" or "warriors" or any other lauditory appellation. Rather,
they are raiders, conquerors, conquistadors, or legionnaires. When they attack they put the
"Blitzkrieg" to shame with the obscene kill ratios their space-age weapons allow against
thoroughly outclassed relatively primitive countries that have never left their own borders,
let alone fired a shot at America. Our troopers stomp 10,000 miles to go shoot fish in a
barrel, only they are human beings, not fish or turkeys, which would be another apt analogy
for what the U.S. military specializes in. They have massacred millions from Viet Nam to
Yugoslavia to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen and made untold more homeless
refugees, and their apologists want the world to feel sorry and shed crocodile tears for the
few thousand of them who randomly died because someone effed up while they were following
immoral and illegal orders. Many of those were accidentally killed by their own comrades and
subsequently lied about by the government and its media mouthpieces.
The only pity I feel for these hired killers is the way they were recruited: being plucked
by means of bribes and false promises from a disintegrating working class deliberately
sabotaged by the economic policies of its own government. For them the army takes the place
of a job and a living wage. For children of the disappearing middle class, enlisting is their
last hope to cover some college tuition, if they finish their hitch alive. I wouldn't say
either of these groups is eager to do the dirty work the chain of command has in store for
them. Even the kids from the hood can mostly see through the trickery and hypocrisy. They
know they won't be defending Compton, Overtown, the Lower Ninth Ward or West Garfield Park
from any Jihadis. Those fish aren't biting as frequently any more, so the feds have to
recruit numerous immigrants in return for promises of citizenship rather than deportation.
The other thing they now do is to hire mercenaries–"independent
contractors"–which used to be against American law not that long ago, but now makes up
nearly half the manpower in hotbeds like Iraq and Syria. The next logical step for our great
and powerful empire will be to establish an equivalent of the old French Foreign Legion, in
which dregs from all over the planet are employed in the armed service of American empire or
maybe ISIS and Daesh already qualify for that role? Do our hired terrorists get medical and
retirement benefits? Probably ahead of taxpayers once AmGov starts prioritizing to save money
under its new constitution.
Did that sound disrespectful? What is to be respected about a society that allows its
leadership to scoop up dispensable citizens to use as cannon fodder in the service of an
empire that kills and thieves wantonly to benefit only a tiny fraction of those at the very
tip of the pyramid?
LarcoMarco , May 28, 2018 at 4:08 am
"Not to sound callous, but without forced conscription, nobody joins the military against
their free will. Unless they spent their formative years under a rock, or possess an IQ in
the low double digits"
Most Americans of fighting age, I believe, consider military enlistment far beneath them.
So, I am totally mystified when I read about polls that reveal the military is the profession
Americans hold in the highest esteem.
Realist , May 28, 2018 at 8:14 am
I think that most also believe genocidal wars of aggression are not exactly moral or in
the interests of the country or themselves. They've got better things to do with their lives
than throw them away killing people who did nothing inimical to our country on the other side
of the world. They may spout patriotic platitudes about the military because they are
expected under serious social pressure and they don't want the hassle of a public
argument.
The second line of my text that you included within your quotes is not a dependent clause
to the first sentence. It is part of the next sentence: an adverbial clause modifying "they
ought to know that America is not under any real threat " which is the main declarative
statement. I'd rather not be misunderstood.
Skip Scott , May 28, 2018 at 11:16 am
I think the biggest problem is that neither our children, nor the vast majority of the
citizenry, are taught any critical thinking skills. It is all about image. Teenage boys fall
for anything that paints them as macho men. The 1986 movie Top Gun was all about recruiting
teenage boys who wanted to be macho men to be our new generation of cannon fodder in our "all
volunteer" armed forces and, as HW said, "to kick the Vietnam syndrome once and for all".
I really do pity these kids as victims as much as those they are sent to kill. I am
reminded of Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" when the Ghost of Christmas Present reveals the two
children beneath his robe, who are ignorance and want. "but mostly beware this boy, for on
his forehead I see that which is written "doom" "
Skip I'll go along with that considering to how many of my generation found themselves
standing in a rice paddy with bullets whistling by, until they finally realized that that
John Wayne image was just a movie. Joe
Sam F , May 28, 2018 at 10:32 am
I think that you both agree, and I agree with you both. The polls are deceptions of the
MIC.
Realist , May 28, 2018 at 4:36 pm
Yes, and I realise that most Americans, being herd animals who don't do nuance, would tell
most of us here to "go back to Russia" for the remarks we've posted, even though they really
don't want the lives of their friends and relatives wasted in wars of conquest.
Cindy Sheehan is right not to let that go.
I had at least six classmates killed in Nam. They've been dead much longer than they
lived, the first one buying the farm in January of 1966.
Lois Gagnon , May 28, 2018 at 9:22 pm
Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be soldiers. I raised my boys to be pro-peace. When
the recruiters started calling in their senior year of high school, they were prepared to
resist. It galled me that they had to register for the draft at all.
The National Security State is a protection racket for western oligarchy. All the
romanticism that surrounds Memorial Day is just to keep the sentimental mythology in tact. Of
course, 911 and the GWOT was used to reinforce the troops as national heroes mindset.
As you say, if you are even casually paying attention, you know what the real aim of US
militarism is. There's a lot of active denial going on. The truth is just so damn ugly, most
folks would rather avoid it even when their own kids get taken down by it. We are a sad
spectacle of a country right now.
John , May 28, 2018 at 10:23 pm
My dad was a vet who was scarred by 'Nam.
When the army recruiter called me, I told him "Your motto is, 'be all that you can be in the
army'. Well, if all you are capable of is is allowed by the army, then it would probably be
better for you to go get killed in war and weed out the gene pool."
I was 17 at the time, it was the best I could come up with off the time of my head.
Ray misses a point or two, especially important with the rise of alt-right types with
Trump in office. We as a nation must NEVER forget that Memorial Day was founded to remember Union dead from
the Civil War.
Consortiumnews.com , May 28, 2018 at 5:53 am
This is a reprint of a piece Ray wrote in May 2015. It focuses on the Bush and Obama
administrations.
Strngr - Tgthr , May 28, 2018 at 12:43 am
How to Honor Memorial Day? (hmmm omg) With who is in office what is there to be proud of?
(Stalingrad?) Articles like this go back and forth between Presidents like Bush (akk: Cheney)
& Obama, I suppose to be politically correct in the wrong way. But all one has to do is
look at HISTORY and just see what party is the party of war and PEACE. If anyone thinks Obama
would have invaded Iraq in the first place after 9-11 – it is not even an argument. He
would not even fire missles in to Syria. (Don't do stupid stuff was his way.) And so eight
years after don't do stupid stuff we have a guy who can't wait to drop a H-Bomb someplace to
make his mark on histiory. Great, lets be thankful. I guess he will drop it wherever Putin
and Juliana Assange want it.
LarcoMarco , May 28, 2018 at 4:16 am
Obama lost his balls when his version of John Bolton, Killary, sawed them off. Then she
cooked up false intelligence, a la Dumbya, which led to Libya's dismemberment under Obomber's
passive watch.
Lois Gagnon , May 28, 2018 at 9:27 pm
Funny how Dembots always attempt to brush the destruction of Libya under the rug as if the
people who perished there and continue to suffer and die as a result of Killary's
warmongering never existed.
John , May 28, 2018 at 10:40 pm
Democrats the party of peace?
You mean like in the former Yugoslavia?
Libya?
Vietnam?
Yemen?
Heck, your hero the Queen of Chaos is on video pimping the war in Iraq!
The Dims have forced almost all of the anti-war people out! (Cynthia McKinney, Dennis
Kucinich, etc)
The parties of peace are the Greens and Libertarians. If you vote for EITHER Dimocraps or
Repugnicans, you are actively supporting wars of aggression.
Even in your own delusional rhetoric, you engage in sabre-rattling against Russia (the ONE
good thing that Trump had going for him in his campaign was detente with Russia, but the
Dims, with their histrionic unhinged ranting about the thoroughly discredited "Russia Hacked
The Elections" nonsense – which Ray McGovern has written about rather extensively) and
you point at Assange, who is a hero who has NEVER been shown to print incorrect information,
unlike anyone in the Dim party, as if, by telling UNDENIABLE TRUTH, he is somehow a bad
guy.
As far as Obama's claim to "not do stupid stuff", it is well documented that, under his
administration, a Nazi-led coup in Ukraine was fomented, Al-Queida was armed and trained in
Syria, arms funding for Israel was INCREASED after they carried out grave war crimes (which
meet the Geneva Convention definition of Genocide), Libya was decimated (based on lies), etc
ad nauseum.
Is David Brock still sending out paychecks?
Joe Tedesky , May 27, 2018 at 11:33 pm
Ray thanks for this important article, as your struggling with it paid off.
Now I'm not one to rain on anybody's parade, but I have a hard time reconciling people's
true patriotism while we all stand for the National Anthem at sporting events, or other
events where our flag is honored. Not to judge anyone's admiration of our country, but with
all of the honoring of our military, and with jets flying over the ball yard, I find these
over produced displays of patriotism to be a bit over the top. Like, do these people not know
that our country is feared by the majority of the world's population, and that this fear is
based on a real life deadly everyday reality? Don't these taxpayers, who complain all the
time about paying high or any taxes at all realize that this military spending our country is
doing, is a debt trap just waiting to gobble up what's left of the American treasure if there
still is any treasure left? Or are the joyous fans just glad that they didn't, or don't have
to serve in our ever active military? Why can't these cheering patriots see through the many
lies about war, that this country's leaders have lead us to time and time again? Ask a red,
white, and blue, sports fan when was the last time America won a war . then listen to their
silence, and watch the contortions in their face muscles twitch. At this point you may wish
to leave these patriots alone, for the confusion over your questioning all of this military
madness may make them slash out at you.
Not only has America gone a step to far with its for profit war machine, but it's war
propaganda has been so packaged as to make it, one hellva commercial grade product. And in
America isn't that's what it's all about packaging a fantastically shinny beautifully made
profitable product.
RnM , May 28, 2018 at 5:37 am
Joe --
Your comment is a apt distillation of the fruits of the purposeful dumbing down of the US.
I'd put the latest push (by Dubya) squarely in the lap of the Bushes.
Joe Tedesky , May 28, 2018 at 9:21 am
Americans are that classic example of lab mice being used to form the predetermined
outcome of the experimentation. We Americans should just look up and wave and give our
controllers the finger, as we all smile and go in the other direction. Joe
Memorial Day should be a time of sober reflection on war's horrible costs, not a moment to
glorify war. But many politicians and pundits can't resist the opportunity...
Originally published on 5/24/2015
How best to show respect for the U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and for their
families on Memorial Day?
Simple: Avoid euphemisms like "the fallen" and expose the lies about what a great idea it
was to start those wars in the first place and then to "surge" tens of thousands of more troops
into those fools' errands.
First, let's be clear on at least this much: the 4,500 U.S. troops killed in Iraq so far and
the 2,350 killed in Afghanistan [by May 2015] did not "fall." They were wasted on no-win
battlefields by politicians and generals cheered on by neocon pundits and mainstream
"journalists" almost none of whom gave a rat's patootie about the real-life-and-death troops.
They were throwaway soldiers.
And, as for the "successful surges," they were just P.R. devices to buy some "decent
intervals" for the architects of these wars and their boosters to get space between themselves
and the disastrous endings while pretending that those defeats were really "victories
squandered" all at the "acceptable" price of about 1,000 dead U.S. soldiers each and many times
that in dead Iraqis and Afghans.
Memorial Day should be a time for honesty about what enabled the killing and maiming of so
many U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and the
senior military brass simply took full advantage of a poverty draft that gives upper-class sons
and daughters the equivalent of exemptions, vaccinating them against the disease of war.
What drives me up the wall is the oft-heard, dismissive comment about troop casualties from
well-heeled Americans: "Well, they volunteered, didn't they?" Under the universal draft in
effect during Vietnam, far fewer were immune from service, even though the well-connected could
still game the system to avoid serving. Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Joe Biden, for example,
each managed to pile up five exemptions. This means, of course, that they brought zero military
experience to the job; and this, in turn, may explain a whole lot -- particularly given their
bosses' own lack of military experience.
The grim truth is that many of the crëme de la crëme of today's Official
Washington don't know many military grunts, at least not intimately as close family or friends.
They may bump into some on the campaign trail or in an airport and mumble something like,
"thank you for your service." But these sons and daughters of working-class communities from
America's cities and heartland are mostly abstractions to the powerful, exclamation points at
the end of some ideological debate demonstrating which speaker is "tougher," who's more ready
to use military force, who will come out on top during a talk show appearance or at a
think-tank conference or on the floor of Congress.
Sharing the Burden?
We should be honest about this reality, especially on Memorial Day. Pretending that the
burden of war has been equitably shared, and worse still that those killed died for a "noble
cause," as President George W. Bush liked to claim, does no honor to the thousands of U.S.
troops killed and the tens of thousands maimed. It dishonors them. Worse, it all too often
succeeds in infantilizing bereaved family members who cannot bring themselves to believe their
government lied.
Who can blame parents for preferring to live the fiction that their sons and daughters were
heroes who wittingly and willingly made the "ultimate sacrifice," dying for a "noble cause,"
especially when this fiction is frequently foisted on them by well-meaning but naive clergy at
funerals. For many it is impossible to live with the reality that a son or daughter died in
vain. Far easier to buy into the official story and to leave clergy unchallenged as they gild
the lilies around coffins and gravesites.
Not so for some courageous parents. Cindy Sheehan, for example, whose son Casey Sheehan was
killed on April 4, 2004, in the Baghdad suburb of Sadr City, demonstrated uncommon grit when
she led hundreds of friends to Crawford to lay siege to the Texas White House during the summer
of 2005 trying to get Bush to explain what "noble cause" Casey died for. She never got an
answer. There is none.
But there are very few, like Cindy Sheehan, able to overcome a natural human resistance to
the thought that their sons and daughters died for a lie and then to challenge that lie. These
few stalwarts make themselves face this harsh reality, the knowledge that the children whom
they raised and sacrificed so much for were, in turn, sacrificed on the altar of political
expediency, that their precious children were bit players in some ideological fantasy or pawns
in a game of career maneuvering.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is said to have described the military
disdainfully as "just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." Whether or
not those were his exact words, his policies and behavior certainly betrayed that attitude. It
certainly seems to have prevailed among top American-flag-on-lapel-wearing officials of the
Bush and Obama administrations, including armchair and field-chair generals whose sense of
decency is blinded by the prospect of a shiny new star on their shoulders, if they just follow
orders and send young soldiers into battle.
This bitter truth should raise its ugly head on Memorial Day but rarely does. It can be
gleaned only with great difficulty from the mainstream media, since the media honchos continue
to play an indispensable role in the smoke-and-mirrors dishonesty that hides their own guilt in
helping Establishment Washington push "the fallen" from life to death.
We must judge the actions of our political and military leaders not by the pious words they
will utter Monday in mourning those who "fell" far from the generals' cushy safe seats in the
Pentagon or somewhat closer to the comfy beds in air-conditioned field headquarters where a
lucky general might be comforted in the arms of an admiring and enterprising biographer.
Many of the high-and-mighty delivering the approved speeches on Monday will glibly refer to
and mourn "the fallen." None are likely to mention the culpable policymakers and complicit
generals who added to the fresh graves at Arlington National Cemetery and around the
country.
Words, after all, are cheap; words about "the fallen" are dirt cheap especially from the
lips of politicians and pundits with no personal experience of war. The families of those
sacrificed in Iraq and Afghanistan should not have to bear that indignity.
'Successful
Surges'
The so-called "surges" of troops into Iraq and Afghanistan were particularly gross examples
of the way our soldiers have been played as pawns. Since the usual suspects are again coming
out the woodwork of neocon think tanks to press for yet another "surge" in Iraq, some
historical perspective should help.
Take, for example, the well-known and speciously glorified first "surge;" the one Bush
resorted to in sending over 30,000 additional troops into Iraq in early 2007; and the
not-to-be-outdone Obama "surge" of 30,000 into Afghanistan in early 2010. These marches of
folly were the direct result of decisions by George W. Bush and Barack Obama to prioritize
political expediency over the lives of U.S. troops.
Taking cynical advantage of the poverty draft, they let foot soldiers pay the "ultimate"
price. That price was 1,000 U.S. troops killed in each of the two "surges."
And the results? The returns are in. The bloody chaos these days in Iraq and the faltering
war in Afghanistan were entirely predictable. They were indeed predicted by those of us able to
spread some truth around via the Internet, while being mostly blacklisted by the fawning
corporate media.
Yet, because the "successful surge" myth was so beloved in Official Washington, saving some
face for the politicians and pundits who embraced and spread the lies that justified and
sustained especially the Iraq War, the myth has become something of a touchstone for everyone
aspiring to higher office or seeking a higher-paying gig in the mainstream media.
Campaigning in New Hampshire, [then] presidential aspirant Jeb Bush gave a short history
lesson about his big brother's attack on Iraq. Referring to the so-called Islamic State, Bush
said, "ISIS didn't exist when my brother was president. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out the
surge created a fragile but stable Iraq. "
But suffice it to say that Jeb Bush is distorting the history and should be ashamed. The
truth is that al-Qaeda did not exist in Iraq before his brother launched an unprovoked invasion
in 2003. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" arose as a direct result of Bush's war and occupation. Amid the
bloody chaos, AQI's leader, a Jordanian named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, pioneered a particularly
brutal form of terrorism, relishing videotaped decapitation of prisoners.
Zarqawi was eventually hunted down and killed not during the celebrated "surge" but in June
2006, months before Bush's "surge" began. The so-called Sunni Awakening, essentially the buying
off of many Sunni tribal leaders, also predated the "surge." And the relative reduction in the
Iraq War's slaughter after the 2007 "surge" was mostly the result of the ethnic cleansing of
Baghdad from a predominantly Sunni to a Shia city, tearing the fabric of Baghdad in two, and
creating physical space that made it more difficult for the two bitter enemies to attack each
other. In addition, Iran used its influence with the Shia to rein in their extremely violent
militias.
Though weakened by Zarqawi's death and the Sunni Awakening, AQI did not disappear, as Jeb
Bush would like you to believe. It remained active and when Saudi Arabia and the Sunni gulf
states took aim at the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria AQI joined with other
al-Qaeda affiliates, such as the Nusra Front, to spread their horrors across Syria. AQI
rebranded itself "the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" or simply "the Islamic State."
The Islamic State split off from al-Qaeda over strategy but the various jihadist armies,
including al-Qaeda's Nusra Front, [then] seized wide swaths of territory in Syria -- and the
Islamic State returned with a vengeance to Iraq, grabbing major cities such as Mosul and
Ramadi.
Jeb Bush doesn't like to unspool all this history. He and other Iraq War backers prefer to
pretend that the "surge" in Iraq had won the war and Obama threw the "victory" away by
following through on George W. Bush's withdrawal agreement with Maliki.
But the crisis in Syria and Iraq is among the fateful consequences of the U.S./UK attack 12
years ago and particularly of the "surge" of 2007, which contributed greatly to Sunni-Shia
violence, the opposite of what George W. Bush professed was the objective of the "surge," to
enable Iraq's religious sects to reconcile.
Reconciliation, however, always took a back seat to the real purpose of the "surge" buying
time so Bush and Cheney could slip out of Washington in 2009 without having an obvious military
defeat hanging around their necks and putting a huge stain on their legacies.
Cheney and Bush: Reframed the history. (White House photo)
The political manipulation of the Iraq "surge" allowed Bush, Cheney and their allies to
reframe the historical debate and shift the blame for the defeat onto Obama, recognizing that
1,000 more dead U.S. soldiers was a small price to pay for protecting the "Bush brand." Now,
Bush's younger brother can cheerily march off to the campaign trail for 2016 pointing to the
carcass of the Iraqi albatross hung around Obama's shoulders.
Rout at Ramadi
Less than a year after U.S.-trained and -equipped Iraqi forces ran away from the northern
Iraqi city of Mosul, leaving the area and lots of U.S. arms and equipment to ISIS, something
similar happened at Ramadi, the capital of the western province of Anbar. Despite heavy U.S.
air strikes on ISIS, American-backed Iraqi security forces fled Ramadi, which is only 70 miles
west of Baghdad, after a lightning assault by ISIS forces.
The ability of ISIS to strike just about everywhere in the area is reminiscent of the Tet
offensive of January-February 1968 in Vietnam, which persuaded President Lyndon Johnson that
that particular war was unwinnable. If there are materials left over in Saigon for reinforcing
helicopter landing pads on the tops of buildings, it is not too early to bring them to
Baghdad's Green Zone, on the chance that U.S. embassy buildings may have a call for such
materials in the not-too-distant future.
The headlong Iraqi government retreat from Ramadi had scarcely ended when Sen. John McCain,
(R-AZ), described the fall of the city as "terribly significant" which is correct adding that
more U.S. troops may be needed which is insane. His appeal for more troops neatly fit one
proverbial definition of insanity (attributed or misattributed to Albert Einstein): "doing the
same thing over and over again [like every eight years?] but expecting different results."
As Jeb Bush was singing the praises of his brother's "surge" in Iraq, McCain and his Senate
colleague Lindsey Graham were publicly calling for a new "surge" of U.S. troops into Iraq. The
senators urged President Obama to do what George W. Bush did in 2007 replace the U.S. military
leadership and dispatch additional troops to Iraq.
But Washington Post pundit David Ignatius, even though a fan of the earlier two surges, was
not yet on board for this one. Ignatius warned in a column that Washington should not abandon
its current strategy:
"This is still Iraq's war, not America's. But President Barack Obama must reassure Prime
Minister Haider al-Abadi that the U.S. has his back, and at the same time give him a reality
check: If al-Abadi and his Shiite allies don't do more to empower Sunnis, his country will
splinter. Ramadi is a precursor, of either a turnaround by al-Abadi's forces, or an Iraqi
defeat."
Ignatius's urgent tone was warranted. But what he suggests is precisely what the U.S. made a
lame attempt to do with then-Prime Minister Maliki in early 2007. Yet, Bush squandered U.S.
leverage by sending 30,000 troops to show he "had Maliki's back," freeing Maliki to accelerate
his attempts to marginalize, rather than accommodate, Sunni interests.
Perhaps Ignatius now remembers how the "surge" he championed in 2007 greatly exacerbated
tensions between Shia and Sunni contributing to the chaos now prevailing in Iraq and spreading
across Syria and elsewhere. But Ignatius is well connected and a bellwether; if he ends up
advocating another "surge," take shelter.
Keane and Kagan Ask For a Mulligan
Jeb Bush: Sung his brother's praises. (Sun City Center, Florida, on May 9, 2006. White House
photo by Eric Draper)
The architects of Bush's 2007 "surge" of 30,000 troops into Iraq, former Army General Jack
Keane and American Enterprise Institute neocon strategist Frederick Kagan, in testimony to the
Senate Armed Services Committee, warned strongly that, without a "surge" of some 15,000 to
20,000 U.S. troops, ISIS would win in Iraq.
"We are losing this war," warned Keane, who previously served as Vice Chief of Staff of the
Army. "ISIS is on the offense, with the ability to attack at will, anyplace, anytime. Air power
will not defeat ISIS." Keane stressed that the U.S. and its allies have "no ground force, which
is the defeat mechanism."
Not given to understatement, Kagan called ISIS "one of the most evil organizations that has
ever existed. This is not a group that maybe we can negotiate with down the road someday. This
is a group that is committed to the destruction of everything decent in the world." He called
for "15-20,000 U.S. troops on the ground to provide the necessary enablers, advisers and so
forth," and added: "Anything less than that is simply unserious."
(By the way, Frederick Kagan is the brother of neocon-star Robert Kagan, whose Project for
the New American Century began pushing for the invasion of Iraq in 1998 and finally got its way
in 2003. Robert Kagan is the husband of Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the 2014 coup that brought "regime change" and bloody chaos to
Ukraine. The Ukraine crisis also prompted Robert Kagan to urge a major increase in U.S.
military spending. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's " A Family Business
of Perpetual War. "] )
What is perhaps most striking, however, is the casualness with which the likes of Frederick
Kagan , Jack Keane, and other Iraq War enthusiasts advocated dispatching tens of thousands of
U.S. soldiers to fight and die in what would almost certainly be another futile undertaking.
You might even wonder why people like Kagan are invited to testify before Congress given their
abysmal records.
But that would miss the true charm of the Iraq "surge" in 2007 and its significance in
salvaging the reputations of folks like Kagan, not to mention George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
From their perspective, the "surge" was a great success. Bush and Cheney could swagger from the
West Wing into the western sunset on Jan. 20, 2009.
As author Steve Coll has put it, "The decision [to surge] at a minimum guaranteed that his
[Bush's] presidency would not end with a defeat in history's eyes. By committing to the surge
[the President] was certain to at least achieve a stalemate."
According to Bob Woodward, Bush told key Republicans in late 2005 that he would not withdraw
from Iraq, "even if Laura and [first-dog] Barney are the only ones supporting me." Woodward
made it clear that Bush was well aware in fall 2006 that the U.S. was losing. Suddenly, with
some fancy footwork, it became Laura, Barney and new Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen.
David Petraeus along with 30,000 more U.S. soldiers making sure that the short-term fix was
in.
The fact that about 1,000 U.S. soldiers returned in caskets was the principal price paid for
that short-term "surge" fix. Their "ultimate sacrifice" will be mourned by their friends,
families and countrymen on Memorial Day even as many of the same politicians and pundits will
be casually pontificating about dispatching more young men and women as cannon fodder into the
same misguided war.
[President Donald Trump has continued the U.S.'s longest war (Afghanistan), sending
additional troops and dropping a massive bomb as well as missiles from drones. In Syria he has
ordered two missile strikes and condoned multiple air strikes from Israel. Here's hoping, on
this Memorial Day 2018, that he turns his back on his war-mongering national security adviser,
forges ahead
with a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un rather than toy with the lives of 30,000
U.S. soldiers in Korea, and halts the juggernaut rolling downhill toward war with Iran.]
It was difficult drafting this downer, this historical counter-narrative, on the eve of
Memorial Day. It seems to me necessary, though, to expose the dramatis personae who played such
key roles in getting more and more people killed. Sad to say, none of the high officials
mentioned here, as well as those on the relevant Congressional committees, were affected in any
immediate way by the carnage in Ramadi, Tikrit or outside the gate to the Green Zone in
Baghdad.
And perhaps that's one of the key points here. It is not most of us, but rather our soldiers
and the soldiers and civilians of Iraq, Afghanistan and God knows where else who are Lazarus at
the gate. And, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "Justice will not be served until those who are
unaffected are as outraged as those who are."
"... Shatter Syria and Iraq Into Many Small Pieces ..."
"... By WashingtonsBlog ..."
"... February 25, 2016 ..."
"... With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it. ..."
"... "[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again. ..."
"... "When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces – we ..."
"... dismantled their army ..."
"... , and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was ..."
"... , and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – ..."
"... electrical plants ..."
"... water facilities ..."
"... – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was ..."
"... , leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all. ..."
"... By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya , Global Research, November 2006) ..."
Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli
thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled "A clean break:
a new strategy for securing the realm", it was intended as a political blueprint for the
incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu . As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing
Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an
entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the
nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism "
***
The paper set out a plan by which Israel would "shape its strategic environment", beginning
with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.
With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan
and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and "roll back" Syria. Jordan, it
suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by "weaning" the Shia Muslim population away from Syria
and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of
Iraq. "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them", the paper concluded.
***
The leader of the "prominent opinion makers" who wrote it was Richard Perle – now
chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon . Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds
one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy .
***
Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav (see US
thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy , August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of
Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers
portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise
Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton,
the under-secretary for arms control and international security.
A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory
board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas
Feith.
***
With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington,
the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more
achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to
achieve it.
(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people –
including Richard Perle, Paul
Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views
during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the "Project for a New
American Century".)
Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford,
Connecticut –
writes :
[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whether the
chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in
Washington and Tel Aviv .
***
One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the
territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet .
***
The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash
the target country's social matrix and physical infrastructure.
***
Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the
military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.
In short divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial
game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.
To those -- and I suspect there are still many out there -- for whom all this seems too neat
or too conspiratorial , I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:
a) the "Clean Break" manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996
and
b) the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" paper generated by The Project for a New American
Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the
aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of George Bush Junior to the White
House, to the most exclusive sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.
To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents -- which speak, in
the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel's
"strategic environment" and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of
US "forward bases" in the region .
To do so now, after the US's systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya -- two notably
oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or
out of government with more than passing interest in history -- , and after the its carefully
calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in
Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media's deafening silence
on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.
And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise
the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the
ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously
fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this
part of the world.
Iraq's fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I
pointed out again and again
in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate
states: the Shi'ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest,
and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion.
This was the War Party's
real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the
entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are
seeing today.
"[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush
it, so that it would never rise again.
"When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces
– wedismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other
institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not
reconstituted. The infrastructure waspulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized
society –roads,bridges,electrical plants,water
facilities,museums,schools– were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair.
Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to
function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – wasdissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.
" What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can
say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized."
Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why
deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors
were living in trees?
The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who
have advanced Israeli interests – at America's expense – at every opportunity. In "
A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of
neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg,
David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged
to "break out" of Israel's alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of "regime change"
across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the
exception of Iran – and that one's still cooking on the back burner – this is
precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic "victory" in Iraq,
then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these "rogue states"
– Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party's target
list.
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the
Pentagon for more than 10 years .
What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the
institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing and the
elimination of Iraq as a country .
This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an
impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's
intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is
contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines .
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the
Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US
ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.
The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation
of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven "independent states" (Serbia, Croatia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo). According to Mahdi Darius
Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of
redrawing the Map of the Middle East.
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed
Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map
Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Similarly, Neooconservatives in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the
balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion. The goal was to
break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate
nation.
In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry
allegedlywrote a book
expressly calling for the break up of Syria:
All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units . Dissolution of
Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is
Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run.
It is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated : Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.As Michel Chossudovsky
points out :
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's
intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is
contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.
In 2013, former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas
said :
Let them both [sides] bleed, haemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As
long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.
Indeed, in May 2015, one of the key architects of
the Iraq war – John Bolton –
said:
The Arabs divided between Sunnis and Shias – I think the Sunni Arabs are never going
to agree to be in a state where the Shia outnumber them 3-1. That's what ISIS has been able to
take advantage of.
I think our objective should be a new Sunni state out of the western part of Iraq, the
eastern part of Syria run by moderates or at least authoritarians who are not radical
Islamists. What's left of the state of Iraq, as of right now, is simply a satellite of the
ayatollahs in Tehran. It's not anything we should try to aid.
In September 2015, Pentagon intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart said
that he has "a tough time" seeing either Iraq or Syria really coming back together as sovereign
nations.
In general, Israel ideally prefers regime changes that result in the installation of stable
puppets. That is Plan A. But Plan B is to balkanize . Better to divide and conquer than to
countenance a "rogue" (independent) neighbor.
So it is noteworthy that Israel is endorsing its Plan B for Syria just when its enemies are
making it plain that Plan A (" Assad Must Go ") is not
happening any time soon.
And SecState John Kerry confirmed
just yesterday that "Plan B" is to break Syria up into different states.
Memoria day is an anti-war holiday designed to remeber horrible number of Civil war dead. But now it is converted into
something like glorification of militarism day.
Neocons are renegade Trotskyites 'aligned' with US imperialism and how fighting for "world neoliberal revolution".
Pay for their revolutionary fervor is much better though.
Notable quotes:
"... Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people. Shouldn't a movement that caused this much damage ruin the reputation of its architects? ..."
"... Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin. ..."
"... Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well, pots and kettles and all that. ..."
"... that today's Trotskyites come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because yesterday's Trotskyites are now called (((neo-cons))) originally via the "anti-Stalinist" Partisan Review, then Commentary, then Nat Review. ..."
"... It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos – malicious gloating. ..."
"... It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark night – a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing. ..."
"... Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: "Who has this purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people's countries?" I feel it clarifies matters. ..."
"... Maybe Bronstein himself was a delusional revolutionary true believer, we'll probably never know for sure, but I doubt very much his neocon disciples are motivated by some internationalist idealism. ..."
"... A well known saying in left wing activist circles in the UK was "Never trust a Trot." ..."
"... Trotskyites, much more than Stalinists, love war, worship war, live to make war for everybody and everything they see as not theirs. Trotskyites have as large an appetite for carnage leading to their greater empire than any people that ever lived with the exception of Mongols. ..."
Trotsky helped create the Red Army as well as the intellectual underpinnings of the (worldwide) communist revolution. This
movement destroyed/ended/ruined the lives of many millions of innocent people. Shouldn't a movement that caused this much damage
ruin the reputation of its architects?
Not in the case of Trotsky. He was such a brilliant Jew!
Trotsky was not that competent militarily, and even tried to arrange a transfer of e.g. Czech troops to Vladivostok to allow
them to fight on the western front, and allowed American inspections of German prisoners of war in a hope of forestalling the
coming Allied invasion (through Siberia and the North). Frunze was the real architect of the Red Army, while Trotsky's main
contribution to the Red Army was getting Czarist commanders to join. Trotsky likely had Frunze assassinated, rather than Stalin.
Considering America (and Japan's) Siberian adventure, and the mass killings involved, e.g. by Japanese and Americans, well,
pots and kettles and all that.
If we are to compare death tolls, we could look at the US and UK armies' intervention (and Canada's!), directly (1994, from
Burundi, mainly to prevent Hutu civilians from fleeing), and, more importantly, via proxy (1990 to the present, using the Ugandan
army, armed by the former armies, with constant supply flights until at least 1994) in Rwanda and later Congo-Kinshasa. Two million
Hutu (Rwanda, 1994, from former Kagame Henchman, Eric Hakizimana) and five to ten million eastern Congolese (mainly in the Kivus),
from that intervention alone. The intervention also included the assassination of Rwandan president Habyarimana, and of former
Burundian president Cyprien Ntaryamira (Burundi's first democratically elected president, deposed in a baTutsi (feudal aristocrat)
coup likely sponsored by same western armies), mere days after the
death threat by former US secretary of state for
African affairs, Herman Cohen.
that today's Trotskyites come down on the side of Isramerican-backed Sunni terrorists in Syria should surprise no one. Because
yesterday's Trotskyites are now called (((neo-cons))) originally via the "anti-Stalinist" Partisan Review, then Commentary,
then Nat Review.
It was quite striking how, when Gaddafi was brutally murdered, you got similar reactions from Hillary Clinton and British
Socialist Workers Party honcho Alex Callinicos – malicious gloating.
It was a bit like a flash of lightning on a dark
night – a brief illumination of surroundings and what these people really stand for, as opposed to the ideological posturing.
Whenever I read anything purporting to identify international bad guys and good guys, I always like to ask: "Who has this
purported bad guy invaded recently? How many bombs has this bad guy dropped on other people's countries?" I feel it clarifies
matters.
@The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.
Wasn't 'Trotskyism' 'aligned' with US imperialism from the very moment when he transported the Warburg-Schiff money to Russia
to carry on the 'permanent revolution'?
And when Stalin cut Trotsky's crap who jumped to his defense? The Dewey "Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon
Trotsky in the Moscow Trials". And who are the imperialist 'neo-cons' other than 'old Trotskyists'?
I did not read about the suspicion that Bron(f)stein in reality was a German agent. What one reads in these two books does not
make the suspicion go away
John W Wheeler-Bennett, 'Brest-Litovsk, The forgotten peace, March 1918', 1938, 1963, London
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
If they weren't so nefarious, the trotsies wouldn't be worth reading, let alone mentioning. Maybe Bronstein himself was a
delusional revolutionary true believer, we'll probably never know for sure, but I doubt very much his neocon disciples are motivated
by some internationalist idealism.
Neocons are jewish supremacists aided by corrupt to the core goyim, plain and simple. They do have in common with their guru
one conviction, that the end justifies the means. That is the recipe of evil.
It's a pity that so many youth are misled still today in believing in the hoax that Trotskyism is somehow something moral.
Trotsky was himself a murderer. Killing is immoral. It sometimes is necessary and cannot be avoided as with regards to the psychotic
butchers who came from abroad to Syria and are known as ISIS but it is still immoral.
Normal people sense killing as immoral therefore psychopaths have to come up with stories such as Germans slaughtering Belgian
babies with bayonets, Iraqis throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, Serbs genociding Bosniaks or Albanians, Qadhafi readying
for genocide in Benghazi, Assad pulling children's fingernails or gassing them, Iran being responsible for 9/11 etc, all in order
to dehumanise the enemy of the moment and compel people to accept that killing "sub-humans" half way around the world is a moral
act. It isn't. Period.
Unlike all those fake atrocities, Western and Saudi trained, armed and financed foreign terrorists in Syria did film themselves
doing horrors. They videotaped themselves burning people alive, throwing people off building tops. They videotaped themselves
beheading children. Assad didn't make those videos, ISIS did, to brag. Only mentally ill people can support those "rebels" against
Assad. Yet, as a Christian, I don't consider killing them as moral, I consider it as necessary and unavoidable, but it is an act
that mandates penitence.
Trotsies ignore those qualms and, whether real or alleged followers, are sick people. End of story.
From Trotsky's doctrine of Permanent Revolution onward, the hallmark of Trotskyism has been a quest for intellectual purity in
revolution – no contradictions allowed. No mixed economies under socialism. No pragmatic alliances. No consideration of national
security. Stake everything on a worldwide wave of revolution. Every real-world tactical issue since 1939 has led to fracturing
of the Trotskyist movement, generally into a "pure" faction and a "get something done" faction. International Socialists represented
the "pure" faction after the 1939 split (after it spun off the forebears of the neoconservative movement). Its sole contribution
of significance was as an intellectual incubator for Christopher Hitchens. More "pure" factions spun off in the early 1960s, which
sooner or later degenerated into cults. Lyndon LaRouche made his mark leading one of the "pure" factions. The "get something done"
faction made its mark as highly effective organizers of protests against the war in Vietnam but started chasing silly fads of
the student New Left, trying unsuccessfully to connect them to a revolutionary strategy. Their "revolutionary" rationale for those
movements blew up when they went in a decidedly bourgeois-aligned bureaucratic direction and became adjuncts to the Democratic
Party. WSWS represents the revival of purist Trotskyism, which offers cogent critiques of the glorified left-liberal postmodernist
"Trotskyism" of Louis Proyect and Socialist Alternative, but seems to choke on the question of what they themselves actually intend
to accomplish.
The Russian revolution served German interests more than it did American ones. Germany sponsored Lenin's return from Zurich
to lead the revolution that would get Russia out of the war. It makes no sense to contend that the Russian revolution served American
interests or that Warburg-Schiff were acting on their behalf. They were acting against the US interest in keeping Russia in the
war against Germany. They had been financing anti-Tsarist activity in Russia for years.
If one wants to make the case that Trotsky was a German agent, they would have to explain his agitation for spreading the revolution
into Germany. You could make a stronger case that George Washington was a French agent against Britain. Revolutions have tended
to occur in the cracks and contradictions opened in the struggles between the great powers, including the revolutions in China
and Vietnam.
The problem is not that an ignorant, Tony McKenna, will still in 2018 be a Trotskyst , that is a defender of a mass murderer.
The problem is that the writer of this piece seems to believe that it is worth spending time writing an article about such
an ignorant and irrelevant man. Maybe because he "writes well", which, she admires.
That one can "write well" and "speak well, as intellectuals do, but be a jerk, doesn't occur to Ms Johnson.
The problem is also because the writer herself, ignores how profoundly ignorant is Tony McKenna.
"Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality "
No, Revolutions are criminal enterprises. They always were and they always will be.
Robespierre, Lenine, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao were criminals.
The first European revolution – The French Revolution – was the first big lie and the first to put into practice the industrial
killing of a people – People of Vendée – . The first EUropean Genocide was committed by the French revolutionaries.
It is not by chance that all major criminals (Lenine etc ) studied the French Revolution and would apply later in their countries
the model that the French terrorists (Revolutionaries) applied to France.
Those who are interested in knowing the truth about the Franch Revolution (and all revolutions and why so called Trotskysts
are a bunch of fools) should read Reynald Secher – A French Genocide: The Vendee.
"In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries"
Well, if one can write such nonsense, then when can admire Tony McKenna and waste time writing a silly article.
Great article! Thanks to Diana Johnstone for writing such a fine article which blows right out of the water so much of the BS
being bandied about in relation to the Syrian War, Stalin, etc. Ms. Johnstone is a REAL intellectual. Wish there were more like
her in the Anglosphere nowadays.
President Asad is a doctor by profession. He is a family man and has raised a beautiful family. Prior to this Saudi Terrorist
Revolution he rode his own car, at times taking his family shopping .hardly signs of a baby killer or a 'chemical animal'.
Trotskyites, much more than Stalinists, love war, worship war, live to make war for everybody and everything they see as not
theirs. Trotskyites have as large an appetite for carnage leading to their greater empire than any people that ever lived with
the exception of Mongols.
Trotskyites and WASPs – who created the largest empire in world history – in bed together, with the evil House of Saud, could
destroy civilization.
I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative). The
purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements. My other theory is that they were a paychological
projection of guilt from the collectivization murders, realized as more murders.
Fools and idiots come in various shapes and sizes, as do socialists and wildlife. The zebra stands out from afar, its stripes
give it away. Likewise, the Trotskyites stand out markedly in the fairly jumbled-up socialist landscape, given away by their towering
stupidity and luminous obstinacy. Whenever some wretched poor, weak country is being bombed by the West, these useful idiots of
empire jump up and down in merriment. Whenever a union anywhere is trying to extort more money for less work, these fools give
their support. The burning down of churches and the spreading of atheism at gunpoint is another trait of theirs. Christian Socialists
they hate with a special vengeance, taking their cue from Marx the great "visionary", whose vision was fairly deficient in many
ways.
Stalin had Trot's head badgered-in, if I recall. Well, with a head as stupid as Trotsky's, half the world would be itching
to bash it in. One of those good things that Stalin did, IMHO.
The purges would have made more sense as a full on battle with the Trotskyite elements.
That's exactly how I interpret Stalin's purges, too. I think he was trying to wrest control of the Communist Party generally–and
the NKVD specifically–from the (((Trotskyite))) mafia which then dominated them.
I just finished Kotkin's Stalin book chapter on the purges, which made no sense (the book is good but has no narrative).
Is Kotkin Jewish? Maybe the reason his recounting of the purges doesn't make sense is because he doesn't really want to talk
about what prompted them. Like anything else in life, if you want to understand Stalin's purges, you first have to understand
the context in which they took place.
Syrians have told me that Bashar al-Assad was a decent chap. But taking his family shopping could not be different from John McCain
walking through Baghdad with one hundred soldiers around him and helicopters overhead to show how safe it was. If Bashar al-Assad
"went shopping" in Damascus (instead of London or Paris) then two thousand plain clothes were also shopping with him. And for
what would he "go shopping" in Damascus? Shopping for an illusion, that's what.
"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of
deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening
contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment
while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." [ -Tony McKenna ]
This is like cursing the pizza store owner who gives 'protection' money to the mafia, without cursing the mafia which extorts
him! As Johnstone later points out, back then Assad had little choice but to try and make his peace with Uncle Scam as best he
could, since the USSR was no longer around to protect Syria.
McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the
rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or
any other advanced capitalist country?"
Ah yes: Louis Proyect. The one and only! It was he who recently defended the 'rebels' as proletarian Bolsheviks struggling
for a new, socialist Syria:
"The Syrian rebels are generally drawn from the poor, rural and unrepresented majority of the population, the Arab version
of John Steinbeck's Joad family. Despite the tendency of some on the left to see them as sectarians who rose up against a generous
Baathist welfare state because it supported a different interpretation of who was the true successor to Muhammad, the revolutionary
struggle in Syria was fueled by class hatred."
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They
are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this
brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.
Which is why, once they reach a certain age and a certain level of burn-out, rather than simply give up on politics entirely,
they usually tend to become neoconservatives , as did Chris Hitchens. For them, the Rockefeller/Rothschild 'new world order'
is the next best thing to Trotsky's 'world revolution'.
The thing that escaped the author is that Trotskyism is a dead horse. The number of Trotskyists in any country is as close to
zero as makes no difference. These deluded weirdos are outnumbered even by flat-Earthers.
I don't know if Kotkin is a member of the tribe, but he definitely is on the Putin/Russia bashing wagon and is deeply steeped
in all the classic WASP institutions.
Most of the Hoover people seem to have the anti-Russian disease.
The give away in his chapter on the purges was that he blamed it on the defective personality of Stalin, i.e. Stalin was just
crazy.
Certainly Stalin was a brutal murderer, but any time the sole reason for a historical event is someone's personality you can bet
you're reading propaganda.
If you have an sources that make for a better reading on the purges, please do post.
Absolutely. Ghadafi was sodomized by bayonet and Clinton cackled over it with malicious glee.
The posing of Assad as some kind of monster is just lynch-mob rationalization. McKenna doesn't believe what he is saying any
more than Stalin believed show trial confessions obtained under torture.
It's all the more pleasurable to these psychopaths that they cloak their crimes with phony virtue. Hence, putting Assad out
there as this cartoon villian.
As if ISIS, who we fostered and nurtured, was any better? Or communist Kurds? My God how we forget each disaster from Afghanistan
to Iraq, to Libya, to Syria now the scorched-earth war and subsequent disease, etc.? These people thrive on death and mayhem.
Excellent point. The global revolution socialists are hard core ideologies who put ideological purity over practical considerations.
Hence their failure to achieve any kind of real world success. Wherever socialists have had some sustainable success it has been
achieved by combining socialism with elements of nationalism and capitalism. The communist military successes in Russia, China
and Vietnam were achieved by appealing to nationalism. The Chinese economic miracle has been achieved through state capitalism.
The Scandinavian welfare state has depended on government support for big companies like Volvo and Nokia.
There are lessons here for English-speaking countries with their dogmatic attachment to liberal values like free trade, open
borders and anti-nationalism.
Eh No. The first *modern* European revolution was the American revolution, and it's not a joke. Fully European, of European
people and European powers. All European powers indeed, UK, France, Spain, many German states, and so on. And French revolution
was broadly more than Robespierre, it was UK, Spain, the German states, the Pope, the Austrian Empire, the many factions of the
French people (if such concept had any sense then, in a territory only less than 25% spoke French), all of them were criminals,
or only was Robespierre? Was criminal the previous kingdom, in a permanent basis of bloody wars and social injustice?
Maybe revolutions are simply a security valve, steaming a bit and that's all. By the way, the word itself goes back to Coppernicus,
a revolution is a full orbit of a planet around the Sun. It ends where started.
The entire Human History is criminal, against Humankind itself and our own planet. We must understand, not look for criminals.
You are right. I was surprised to see the article as I thought they were all in old age homes.
They really really are gone in America, even in the universities. May be because in America because our "struggle" is multi
millionaire Jews and upper middle class blacks Asians Hispanics and Indians against poor Whites.
In America a $200,000 a year black women school administrator is an opressed victim. The poorest disabled White man is a privileged
aristocrat who must be sent to the guillotine.
I'm very interested in the Vendeens. I have the memoirs of Renee Bourderau.
It's not a book. I got it from the library of Congress copying service and put the pages in a binder.
Loyola uni Los Angeles has a copy in their rare books section. UCLA and USC libraries have lots of books about it, many in
English. The Lucius Green library at Stanford has many Vendean resistance books too
Quite a different story from the conventional Masonic enlightenment narrative. Our American Whiskey rebels were lucky they
surrendered so quickly or they might have met the fate of the Vendeans. There used to be a website devoted to Renee Bourdereau
maintained by some college history department.
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They
are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this
brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for
permanent war.
For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home
and mind their own business.
Trotsky was a danger to the survival USSR, because he was an internationalist as is the Israeli-allied globalist cabal that
runs the USA. His differences with Stalin and the nationalists inside the Kremlin was not a small disagreement, as you assert.
You must not have ever even picked up a book on the subject.
Would you be surprised to learn that Lenin too was conspiring with the Japanese in 1904-5?
'Revolutionary defeatism' was a central tenet of his worldview and of Trotsky's too.
As brutal as Stalin was, his rule was providential, in the sense that he saved Russian nationalism, culture, and spirituality
from absolute destruction at the hands of the usual suspects' willing instrument, Lev Davidovich Bronstein.
Bronstein was an agent of the Jewish banking cabal headquartered in New York. He was financed primarily by Jacob Schiff of
Kuehn and Loeb.
Trotsky and his acolytes desired the total destruction of Russian culture and Russian Orthodoxy in particular.
Stalin was sagacious enough to realize that the Russians would never fight against the Germans and their allies for the cause
of world revolution, but knew they would fight for their Russian motherland and its spiritual traditions and folkways. Stalin
restored the patriarchate, opened up many churches, and commissioned the composition of the "Hymn of the Soviet Union" (now the
Russian National Anthem with different lyrics) in the Orthodox chorale tradition; it would ultimately replace "The Internationale."
In the meantime, the almost entirely kosher Trotskyites became viciously anti-Soviet (actually anti-Russian) and pledged their
temporary allegiance to their great American golem.
The origins of the Cold War (and today's Russia xenophobia) was- in my humble opinion- the great schism and struggle between
the international rootless tool of Wall St. and his acolytes and the ruthless- but providential -Georgian autocrat.
This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions
This Permanent revolutions is very good. But what you going to do with the Old revolutioners..
It does not bode well. If they are in the way of more and other revolutions
Louis Proyect – this is a vile scribe, who blackens the pages of the Counterpunch. A part of the Trotskyite gang that took over
this once venerable magazine!
I remember with emotion the old days, where in Minnesota, the Communist Party with me among others, and the Trotskyist of the
WS with you, among others, if my memories are good, we were fighting inside the movement against the war from VietNam.
The Trotskyists said then that once peace is won, it would be necessary to work for the overthrow of the regime of "pro-Soviet
revisionist HoChiMinh".
Even today, most of the troskysts (and CPF Eurocommunists for that matter) still deny the socialist character of China, Viet
Nam, Cuba, North Korea, and so on.
And this is even more true since these countries are inscribing their economy in the continuity of Lenin's NEP!
We come to this fable of the end of History with "globalized capitalism", as we enter a multipolar world where the socialist
countries (China, VietNam, North Korea, Cuba, Kerala ) in alliance with the BRICS non-imperialist, take over.
Have you evolved from Minnesota, or are you still a fellow traveler on the WS Trotskyite?
Maybe you're right. The first European Revolution was the American Revolution Except that it wasn't really a Revolution. If
we want to be precise, we should call it war for "Independence"/For Power.
What is sure is that future criminals (Europeans/Asians/Africans) will have the French revolution has their model and not the
American Revolution.
Revolution or not, the fact of matter is that Americans have nothing to learn from Europeans in terms of barbarism. Indian Genocide
is an example how "revolutionary" (criminal), the American Elite were/are.
"The entire Human History is criminal" – It's false.
"We must understand, not look for criminals." Obvious. But if you understand the nature of revolution you know that revolutions
are made by criminals Not just Robespierre, of course.
Renée Bourdereau is what Howard Zinn calls "Unsung Heroine".
In France, today they prefer to celebrate criminals like Robespierre, Turreau, Westermann etc..(executioners of Vendéen Genocide)
Normal, Revolution won and French politicians and Elites are very proud of their "République".
If you're interested in Vendée, you have to read Reynald Secher. He's one of the greatest French Historian. Of course he's
almost unknown because he doesn't write the official history, which is most about propaganda and not trying to find the truth.
Yes, it was. All Revolutions are about power. Obviously the Americans could not overthrown the British Crown, an Ocean in the
Middle. But they would have do if they could. Dettaching part of the Empire was (is) a way to make easier the way for others.
And, actually, American Revolution was and is a model. It was a successful model for most of Latin American independences, many
bloodbaths and not at all exempts of tyrants and psycopaths. Nor the American Revolution was an angelical promenade.
Of course, choose a model depends on the user. In fact the point here is your meeting point, actual or pretended. The ayatollahs
cannot choose the French Revolution at all as a model, not to say the Soviet one (the American neither, obviously).
What I am trying to say it's maybe Revolutions are more an accident than a deliberate political move. Maybe if the French Revolution
had not existed, France neither nowadays. And without her, the French bourgeoise. A forgotten Revolution is the Polish one, earlier
than French too. If none speaks about it's because it was a complete failure (by the way, no violence at all), and Poland was
dismembered and ceased to exist for 125 years.
If you have such "accidents" you seriously cannot expect normal people at command. The more brutal the affair, the more brutal
the "criminals". Makes no difference being an arson or an accident. You have a fire and minimizing the disaster is over any other
considerations. Call them criminals if you want, but I guess they did not many chances to behave other way. It is a common place
to say Lenin was the saint, Trotsky the martyr, and Stalin the beast. Trostky was a toff, and Stalin was a redneck who did the
dirty job. The Central Committee under Stalin was killed more than 500 out of 600 members in 30 years, all commies and most of
them personally selected by Stalin himself, I mean, it's hard to believe any real treason beyond a paranoia of pure power. But,
Russia do exist today if things had ran other way? Can anyone say the number of dead people would be lesser? Hitler came to power
with no Revolution at all, on the contrary, the 1919 German Revolution was another failure, ending with Hitler.
Kotkin's writing is readable and the details are interesting. But he appears to be a full on propagandist on the important
details, like the Tsar, the Czech and Austrian conflicts, as well as the Stalin purges.
You tell me, a man who purges millions for no apparent reason (Kotkin gives none other than paranoia) isn't an implied psychopath?
Frankfurt School ideology replaced Marxism as the driving ideology of the American Left during the 1960s. Nominal Marxists
tried to fudge that ideology into Marxism because they thought it would help to sell Marxism, but boy were they wrong! Marxist
theory instead became a talisman for selling the various identitarian ideologies used to divide and weaken the working class –
the exact opposite of what the opportunist-identitarian Marxists had anticipated. Their claims that identitarian movements were
somehow akin to the anti-colonial nationalist movements of the postwar era were diametrically wrong. They became tools of the
ruling class in their 40+ year neoliberal campaign to impose hyper-exploitive colonial conditions on the former imperial homelands.
We are all Third World now.
The idea that Stalin was fighting a Jew-mafia takeover of the USSR has been put forth by several prominent Third Positionists,
such as Francis Parker Yockey:
There are, in my judgment, three great novels that explore American military life in the
twentieth century. They are, in order of publication, Guard of Honor (1948) by James
Gould Cozzens, From Here To Eternity (1951) by James Jones, and The Sand Pebbles
(1962) by Richard McKenna.
The first is a book about airmen, set at a stateside air base during World War II. The
second is a soldier's story, its setting Schofield Barracks in the territory of Hawaii on the
eve of Pearl Harbor. In The Sand Pebbles, the focus is on sailors. It takes place in
China during the 1920s when U.S. Navy gunboats patrolled the Yangtze River and its
tributaries.
As far as I can tell, none of the three enjoys much of a following today. Despite winning
the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, Guard of Honor has all but vanished. To the extent that
the other two retain any cultural salience, they do so as movies, superb in the case of From
Here to Eternity , colorful but mediocre in the case of The Sand Pebbles.
Yet for any American seeking an intimate account of military service, all three novels
remain worth reading. Times change, as do uniforms, weapons, and tactics, but certain
fundamentals of military life endure. Leaders and led see matters differently, nurse different
expectations, and respond to different motivations. The perspective back at higher headquarters
(or up on the bridge) differs from the way things look to those dealing with the challenges of
a typical duty day. The biggest difference of all is between inside and outside -- between
those in uniform and the civilians who necessarily inhabit another world. Each in his own way,
Cozzens, Jones, and McKenna unpack those differences with sensitivity and insight.
Of the three, McKenna's novel in particular deserves revival, not only because of its
impressive literary qualities, but because the story it tells has renewed relevance to the
present day. It's a story about the role that foreign powers, including the United States,
played in the emergence of modern China.
Prompted in part by the ostensible North Korean threat, but more broadly by the ongoing rise
of China and uncertainty about China's ultimate ambitions, the American military establishment
will almost inevitably be directing more of its attention toward East Asia in the coming years.
To be sure, the conflict formerly known as the Global War on Terrorism continues and appears
unlikely to conclude anytime soon. Yet the character of that conflict is changing. Having come
up short in its efforts to pacify the Islamic world, the United States is increasingly inclined
to rely on proxies, generously supported by air power, to carry on the jihadist fight in
preference to committing large numbers of U.S. troops. Almost imperceptibly, East Asia is
encroaching upon and will eventually eclipse the Greater Middle East in the Pentagon's
hierarchy of strategic priorities.
It's this reshuffling of Pentagon priorities that endows The Sand Pebbles with
renewed significance. If past is prologue, McKenna's fictionalized account of actual events
that occurred 90 years ago involving U.S. forces in China should provide context for anyone
intent on employing American military power to check China today.
Of course, the armed forces of the United States have a long history of involvement in East
Asia. Ever since 1898, when it liberated, occupied, and subsequently annexed the Philippines,
the United States has maintained an enduring military presence in that part of the world.
To the extent that Americans are even dimly aware of what that presence has entailed, they
probably think in terms of three 20th-century Asian wars: the first in the 1940s against Japan;
the second during the 1950s in Korea; the third from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s in
Vietnam. In each, whether as ally or adversary, China figured prominently.
Yet even before the attack on Pearl Harbor initiated the first of those wars, U.S. air,
land, and naval forces had been active in and around China. Dreams of gaining access to a
lucrative "China Market" numbered among the factors that persuaded the United States to annex
the Philippines in the first place. In 1900, U.S. troops participated in the China Relief
Expedition, a multilateral intervention mounted to suppress the so-called Boxer Rebellion,
which sought to expel foreigners and end outside interference in Chinese affairs. The mission
succeeded and the U.S. military stayed on. Army and Marine Corps units established garrisons in
"treaty ports" such as Shanghai and Tientsin.
Decades earlier, the U.S. Navy had begun making periodic forays into China's inland
waterways. In the early 20th century, employing small shallow-draft vessels captured from Spain
in 1898, this presence became increasingly formalized. As American commercial and missionary
interests in China grew, the Navy inaugurated what it called the Yangtze Patrol, with Congress
appropriating funds to construct a flotilla of purpose-built gunboats for patrolling the river
and its tributaries. Under the direction of COMYANGPAT back in Shanghai, small warships flying
the Stars-and-Stripes sailed up and down the Yangtze's immense length to "protect American
lives and property."
This is the story that McKenna, himself a YANGPAT veteran, recounts, focusing on a single
fictional ship the U.S.S. San Pablo. Known as "Sand Pebbles," the few dozen sailors
comprising the San Pablo's crew are all lifers. A rough bunch, their interests rarely
extend beyond drinking and whoring. In 1920s China, an American sailor's modest paycheck
provides ample funds for both pursuits.
Even afloat, life for the Sand Pebbles is more than agreeable. Onboard the San Pablo,
an unofficial second crew consisting of local Chinese -- "contractors," we would call them
today -- does the dirty work and the heavy lifting. The Americans stay topside, performing
routines and rituals meant to convey an image of power and dominance.
San Pablo is a puny and lightly armed ship. Yet it exists to convey a big impression,
thereby sustaining the privileged position that the United States and the other imperial powers
enjoyed in China.
The revolutionary turmoil engulfing China in the 1920s necessarily challenged this
proposition. Nationalist fervor gripped large parts of the population. Imperial privilege
stoked popular resentment, which made San Pablo 's position increasingly untenable, even
if the Sand Pebbles themselves were blind to what was coming. That their own eminently
comfortable circumstances might be at risk was literally unimaginable.
McKenna's narrative describes how the world of the Sand Pebbles fell apart. His nominal
protagonist is Jake Holman, a machinist mate with a mystical relationship to machinery. Jake
loathes the spit-and-polish routine topside and wants nothing more than to remain below decks
in the engine compartment, performing duties that on San Pablo white American sailors
have long since ceased to do. In the eyes of his shipmates, therefore, Jake represents a threat
to the division of labor that underwrites their comforts.
The ship's captain, one of only two commissioned officers assigned to San Pablo,
likewise sees Jake as a threat to the status quo. To my mind, Lieutenant Collins is McKenna's
most intriguing creation and the novel's true focal point. Although the Sand Pebbles are
oblivious to how they may figure in some larger picture, for Collins the larger picture is a
continuing preoccupation. He sees his little ship, the entire U.S. Navy, America's providential
purpose, and the fate of Western civilization as all of a piece. Serious, sober, and dutiful,
he is also something of a fanatic.
Collins dimly perceives that powerful forces within China pose a direct threat not only to
the existing U.S. position there, but to his own worldview. Yet he considers the prospect of
accommodating those forces as not only intolerable, but inconceivable. So in the book's
culminating episode he leads Jake and several other Sand Pebbles on a symbolic but utterly
futile gesture of resistance. Fancying that he is thereby salvaging his ship's honor (and his
own as well), he succeeds merely in killing his own men.
I interpret McKenna as suggesting that there is no honor in denying reality. Only waste and
needless sacrifice result. Today a national security establishment as blind to reality as
Lieutenant Collins presides over futile gestures far more costly than those inflicted upon the
Sand Pebbles. It's not fiction and it's happening right before our eyes.
So skip the movie. But read McKenna's book. And then reflect on its relevance to the present
day.
"... * Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. His latest book is A Whistleblower at the CIA . (City Lights Publishers, 2017). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org . ..."
by Melvin Goodman
25 May, 2018 President Donald Trump's abrupt decision to run away from a summit meeting
with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un should not be a surprise to anyone. The White House is
encouraging the notion that China's Xi Jinping is to blame for souring the notion of a
U.S.-North Korean summit and for toughening Kim Jong Un's negotiating position, and the
mainstream media is doing its predictable best to validate such a self-serving explanation. In
actual fact, the Trump administration was never prepared to discuss any issue that resembled
arms control and disarmament, and national security adviser John Bolton, the formidable
chairman of the new "war cabinet," was never agreeable to the idea of U.S.-North Korean
diplomacy.
Any exercise in arms control and disarmament involves two sets of negotiations: first is the
internal set within the administration itself; second is the external set with foreign
counterparts. Typically, the internal negotiations within any administration is the tougher
road. One of President John F. Kennedy's greatest successes was disciplining the Pentagon in
1963 in order to negotiate the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Over the past fifty years, there has
never been an arms control and disarmament treaty that the Pentagon has welcomed.
President Richard Nixon and national security advisor Henry Kissinger were particularly
skillful at disciplining the national security bureaucracy that found the civilian and
uniformed military leaders of the Pentagon opposed to any arms control negotiations with the
Soviet Union. Nixon and Kissinger had to win the bureaucratic battles before garnering the
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty and the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 1972. Nixon and
Kissinger also knew how to prepare for summitry, which finds the Trump administration
particularly clueless.
President Ronald Reagan learned important lessons in the 1980s when Secretary of Defense
Casper Weinberger and his senior advisor, Richard Perle, had to be defeated bureaucratically on
the way to the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987. Weinberger and Perle were routed and
ultimately resigned. It is not an exaggeration to say that the internal negotiations on the
home front were just as difficult as the external negotiations with the Soviet Union. And in
some ways, negotiating with Soviet leaders Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev was less
problematic because they had a genuine interest in disarmament and they had more control over
their military establishments than their U.S. rivals.
In the case of the U.S.-North Korean summit, which probably would not have led to North
Korean denuclearization, there was a reasonable opportunity of arranging a serious deescalation
of U.S. and North Korean military activities on the Korean peninsula. National security adviser
Bolton has never shown any interest in deescalating military rivalries with any U.S.
adversaries, and the general officers around President Trump are not prepared to reduce the
U.S. military presence in South Korea or to temper U.S.-South Korean exercises that are so
threatening to the North Koreans. Communist military doctrine views such exercises as a
possible prelude to an actual attack.
Bolton is new to Trump's national security team, but he is clearly the major winner in this
diplomatic setback. Other members of the team, including the Secretaries of State and Defense
were not consulted prior to the sudden announcement on May 24, 2018, and there is no record of
any deliberations at the National Security Council for preparations for an historic meeting
with Kim Jong Un, let alone the possible trade offs in any disarmament discussion. In record
time, Bolton has taken charge of the national security and foreign policies of the Trump
administration, and has quietly built a neoconservative team of staffers at the NSC that will
take hardline positions on all items on the international agenda.
Inside and outside government, Bolton has typically surrounded himself with a like-minded
group of advisers and staffers who share his bellicose views and his bellicose manner that
deprived him of any chance to gain congressional confirmation for a senior position in previous
administrations. Bolton is already consulting with former members of the Pentagon's short-lived
Office of Special Plans (OSP) that was responsible for falsifying intelligence in 2002-2003 to
make the case for war against Iraq. In previous assignments at the United Nations and the
Department of State for the Reagan and Bush administrations, Bolton had a well-earned
reputation for falsifying intelligence on a variety of issues in order to justify hardline
positions and to argue against arms control negotiations.
Any connection to OSP is particularly revealing because of the results of a study by the
Pentagon's Inspector General that determined the office's major mission was to provide the
White House with "intelligence" to make the case for war. According to the IG, David Wurmser
was the creator of a provocative and specious Power Point presentation that linked Iraq and al
Qaeda for which there was no credible evidence. The phony intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and possible Iraqi-al Qaeda links were the keys to making the case for war. Wurmser
is now advising Bolton on staffing decisions at the NSC.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may not have been involved in the decision making to scuttle
the summit, but it is noteworthy that his first selection of an important ambassadorial post
was a senior uniformed officer and not a foreign service professional. One of Pompeo's first
decisions as secretary of state was to select Admiral Harry Harris Jr. as ambassador to South
Korea. It was predicted at the time that Harris would join Bolton and Pompeo in arguing against
the pursuit of a diplomatic bargain with North Korea. Admiral Harris was well known for his
hard line briefings over the years before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Obama
administration actually issued a "gag order" on Harris prior to President Barack Obama's
meetings with Xi Jinping.
The emergence of Bolton and the neoconservative staffing at the NSC points to more hardline
decision making that will be influenced by cherry-picked data, unexamined assumptions, and an
unwillingness to hold open debates on foreign policy options. President Trump survived his
first foreign policy crisis in Syria last month because of the effective and moderating role
played by Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Bolton's "success" in halting the diplomatic
minuet between Washington and Pyongyang points to greater instability in the near term with
U.S. allies as well as adversaries. And if Bolton's neoconservative allies dominate the debates
at the NSC, there will be little room for Secretary of Defense Mattis to operate and more room
for Bolton's pursuit of hardline foreign policies.
"Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" is Run by MI6?
On Sources And Information - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights
By Moon Of Alabama
May 26, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (SOHR)
claims to be a one person shop in Coventry, Britain. But that is only the front story. It is
part of a larger organization and the intelligence infrastructure used to wage war on
Syria.
A few commentators have recently criticized that I used SOHR as a source in some of my
pieces. Here is why.
SOHR is not a pure propaganda operation like the White Helmets are . It is relatively
truthful in its reporting of events and casualties in Syria. The total casualty count of the
war SOHR gives is likely too high due to some estimates it uses in its bottom numbers. But an
early check of its
detailed accounts showed that its reports from incidents on the ground were mostly correct.
SOHR's numbers have been quoted by about every news outlet in the world, usually in
pro-rebel propaganda pieces. But it is not the observatory that turns the information it
collects into propaganda. The media do that when they quote SOHR without the necessary caveats
or when they disregard it where its information contradicts the official story. The examples
below show that this is now often the case.
One of the first descriptions of the one man who allegedly runs SOHR is in a Reuters
portrait from late
2011:
With only a few hours sleep, a phone glued to his ear and another two ringing, the
fast-talking director of arguably Syria's most high-profile human rights group is a very busy
man.
"Are there clashes? How did he die? Ah, he was shot," said Rami Abdulrahman into a phone,
the talk of gunfire and death incongruous with his two bedroom terraced home in Coventry,
from where he runs the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
When he isn't fielding calls from international media, Abdulrahman is a few minutes down
the road at his clothes shop, which he runs with his wife.
The idea that one man alone could keep track of all casualties in Syria, or stay in contact
with so many local contacts on the ground, never made sense. It is simply too much work for one
man who also runs a shop and cares for a family. It was obvious that there was more behind
it.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
SOHR's main function was to keep a current casualty count of the war in Syria. The Reuters
piece noted:
According to the observatory's latest figures, 3,441 civilians and 1,280 security forces have
been killed.
The overall number in the casualty count SOHR gave did make sense. The categorization of the
numbers did not. The numbers led casual readers assume that only one side of the war in Syria
was armed. The numbers could not explained how the security forces were killed. It took a while
before people woke up to that mismatch and asked SOHR. It willingly answered
the question . But only few reports,
like this one from June 2012 , used the answer and explained the mismatch to their
readers:
Those killed since March last year comprised 9,862 civilians, 3,470 soldiers and 783 army
deserters, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
The Britain-based watchdog counts rebel fighters who are not deserters from the army as
civilians.
This was a technical correct but crude mislabeling of killed "civilians", most of which were
in fact anti-government fighters. But SOHR did not hide its dubious categorization. Anyone who
asked was provided with the caveat above. But only few journalist asked despite the obvious
mismatch in the casualty numbers and even fewer put the caveat into print. You will hardly find
it in any current news piece that uses SOHR numbers.
Patrick Lang, a trained military spy and former Middle East chief of the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency,
asserted several times that the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" is run by MI6,
Britain's foreign intelligence service.
Peter Hitchens recently
reported that SOHR is at least partially financed by the British Foreign Office:
Talking of war, and Syria, many of you may have noticed frequent references in the media to a
body called the 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights', often quoted as if it is an impartial
source of information about that complicated conflict, in which the British government
clearly takes sides. The 'Observatory' says on its website that it is 'not associated or
linked to any political body.'
To which I reply: Is Boris Johnson's Foreign Office not a political body? Because the FO
just confirmed to me that 'the UK funded a project worth £194,769.60 to provide the
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights with communications equipment and cameras. ' That's quite
a lot, isn't it? I love the precision of that 60p. Your taxes, impartially, at work.
MI6 is subordinated to the British Foreign Office. The paltry sum of £195,000 pounds
was surely not the only money Rami Abdulrahman received for more than seven years of daily
work. There must be a rather large organization behind the dozens of news items and tweets the
observatory puts out each and every day.
The SOHR reports often contain valuable information.
Over the last year, as the Syrian government side regained more and more ground, a new
phenomenon arose. SOHR appeared less in western media reports on Syria. Its version of events
was often missing in stories that involved U.S. operations. The reason was simple. SOHR
continued to report somewhat truthful versions of events while the propaganda moved further
away from reality.
Here are several incidents of many more where SOHR contradicted the official western
propaganda tale. In reports about these incidents in the New York Times and elsewhere the
SOHR's version of the events was simply ignored.
On October 13 2017 the U.S. coalition
made a deal with the Islamic State to give free passage for ISIS fighters from the besieged
Raqqa to south-east Syria. The U.S. military, which leads the coalition, loudly denied that it
was involved.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights received information from Knowledgeable and
independent sources confirming reaching a deal between the International Coalition and the
Syria Democratic Forces in one hand; and the "Islamic State" organization in the other hand,
and the deal stated the exit of the remaining members of the "Islamic State" organization out
of Al-Raqqah city.
In January 10 2018 SOHR reported that the U.S. coalition released 400 ISIS
fighters from prison and that at least 120 of them joined the Syrian Democratic Forces led by
Kurdish fighters and U.S. special forces. It confirmed severalU.S. attacks which had
killed dozens of civilians in east Syria. The U.S. military denied that it let ISIS fighters go
and it denied all civilian casualty claims.
On April 8 2018 the White Helmets propaganda organization claimed
that a chlorine gas attack in East-Ghouta had killed dozens.
SOHR disagreed . It
reported of people suffocating after their shelter came down on them. It did not report of any
gas incident or casualties:
[A]mong the casualties there are 21 civilians including 9 children and 3 women were killed as
a result of suffocation caused by the shelling which destroyed basements of houses as a
result of the violence bombardment that stopped about an hour ago on Douma area.
Witnesses on the ground and especially the doctors in the field hospital in east-Ghouta also
spoke
of suffocation and breathing problems caused by dust clouds after intense aerial bombing and
artillery strikes.
On April 16 the U.S. launched a large cruise missile attack against Syria "in retaliation"
for the fake gas attack in east-Ghouta. It
claimed that all 105 cruise missiles hit the three intended targets.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights managed to monitored interception by the regime
forces to tens of missiles which targeted their positions and military bases in the Syrian
territory, where several intersected sources confirmed to the Syrian Observatory, that the
number missiles that were downed, exceeded 65 missiles, of the total number of missiles fired
by the Trio Coalition ...
SOHR also said that eight targets were attacked but only three received hits. The SOHR
report is consistent with witness reports, earlier published U.S. targeting plans and with
statements by the Syrian and Russian military.
On May 24 2018 Syrian positions in east Syria near the T-2 pumping station were first
attacked by ISIS and then by U.S. airplanes. The U.S.
denied to have attacked there.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned from several reliable sources that the
airstrikes that were carried out on sites of the pro-regime gunmen in Desert Deir Ezzor; have
caused human losses, where the Syrian Observatory documented the killing of at least 12
pro-regime gunmen of non-Syrian nationalities, as a result of the airstrikes that were
carried out by warplanes believed to belong to the International Coalition , which targeted
positions of the above-mentioned forces near the 2nd Station "T2", which is more than 65 km
away of al-Bokamal city in Deir Ezzor Desert, while others were injured with varying
severity, and the death toll is expected to rise because there are some people in critical
situation.
The Russian, Syrian or Iraqi air force are generally not operating in the east, southwards
of the Euphrates. Only U.S. coalition planes are flying there. It is thus very likely that the
SOHR report is correct.
Patrick Lang, the former DIA Middle East chief and a trained spy, always urges to distinguish
between information and its source. A reputable source can give bad information. A source with
a bad repute may nonetheless make correct claims.
There are a few simple rules I use to come nearer to the truth:
Every source is based.
One has to compare bits of information from different sources.
If a reports cites another source one must go to the original to check if the quote is
correct, complete and not out of context.
If it does not sound or feels right the information is probably wrong.
One must apply logic and reasonability checks to further weed the good from the bad.
If an alleged act of a rational entity is against the interest of that entity it probably
did not happen.
If a claimed behavior of an entity is inconsistent with earlier observed behavior of that
entity, the claims are likely wrong.
SOHR, despite being an intelligence outlet of a government hostile to Syria, can be regarded
as a relatively reliable source. Some of its reports may well be wrong or slandered. But that
should not prevent one from using it.
[ Moon of Alabama is currently asking for donations. Please
support this site.]
This article was originally published by " Moon Of Alabama
" -
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
"... The panel showcased the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to 2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s. ..."
"... obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government: its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said. ..."
"... Read also: Is (or can be) the western Far (Hard) Right a friend of Russia? The Ukrainian Test ..."
"... To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a Cold War." ..."
"... Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice, deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American intervention in Ukrainian politics. ..."
"... Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan. And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man, do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear weapons and chaos." ..."
"... The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern -- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military strategy. ..."
The Northwestern University Buffett Institute for Global Studies hosted a roundtable event
in the Chicago area on May 23 titled, "The Kremlin's Global Reach," moderated by Medill
journalism professor and Washington Post veteran Peter Slevin. The panel showcased
the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state
in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to
2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in
the 1990s.
Also present were political science professor Jordan Gans-Morse, public opinion pollster
Dina Smeltz, lecturer and former US ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly and historian John
Bushnell.
The event took place amid a steady escalation of US militarism against Syria, Iran and
Russia. Just two days earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an ultimatum to Iran
demanding a capitulation to the US in the face of additional sanctions. This followed on the
heels of the Trump administration's scrapping of a nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between
Iran and the P5+1 group, the US, UK, France, Germany, China and Russia. Earlier this month, the
US relaunched a naval force, the Second Fleet, in the North Atlantic in preparation for
military confrontation with Russia.
The political perspective of the event was clear from Slevin's opening questions: "What is
to be done? How do you solve a problem like Vladimir Putin?"
Str obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government:
its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic
world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with
China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty
that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said.
To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold
War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a
Cold War."
In line with this reactionary narrative, Talbott presented the conflict between the US and
Russia as one between "democracy" and "tyranny," while some of the other panelists admitted
that is not the way the conflict is viewed in Russia and Europe.
Later, Talbott emphasized the challenge to US hegemony posed by the Balkans, particularly
Serbia, citing their cultural and religious affinities with Russia. In 2015, Montenegro entered
NATO.
Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State
Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I
think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There
was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice,
deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American
intervention in Ukrainian politics. "
A number of the panelists interrupted at this point, some laughing nervously, others
strongly protesting.
Slevin, in concluding the discussion, posed the question of regime change in Russia,
stating, "How does this end? How does Putin fall? Retire? Get replaced? What is the fate of
Vladimir Putin?"
The main obstacle to regime change in Russia was, according to the panelists, the chaos it
would inevitably unleash. Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there
is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan.
And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man,
do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their
regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of
management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear
weapons and chaos."
However, expressing the position of significant sections of the Democratic Party, aligned
with the US state-military-intelligence apparatus, Talbott concluded, "Putin has presided over
Russia in a way that is very, very much like the Soviet Union. That didn't work. This won't
work. He will be an aberration. It would also help if we had a different president in the
United States."
A notable feature of the event was its casual militarism. In introducing himself, Kelly
noted that the US has recently provided both Georgia and Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank
weaponry.
In line with the propaganda pumped out about the US media and political establishment, the
panel speakers presented a picture of reality turned upside down: Russia was presented as an
aggressive, expansionist power, and a growing threat to the American way of life. In fact, it
is the US government and its imperialist allies which have increasingly encircled Russia via
NATO expansion, crippled its economy with sanctions and sought to provoke a military
conflict.
As US Defense Secretary James Mattis noted in releasing the Pentagon's new National Security
Strategy, "Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national
security."
Before the audience assembled by this national security institute, which appeared to include
only a handful of undergraduate students, these leading political figures spoke more bluntly
about imperialist foreign policy than they would normally do on national television or in
supposedly democratic arenas like the US Congress.
The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern
-- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of
billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to
transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military
strategy.
At the time of the Buffett Institute's founding, university students and faculty protested
the appointment as its head of former the US commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl
Eikenberry, whose qualifications were based on military rank and bellicose politics, rather
than any academic credentials. Northwestern faculty members charged that he "advocates
instrumentalizing the humanities and social sciences research to advance US soft power."
The International Youth and Students for Social Equality are leading the opposition
internationally to the transformation of colleges and universities into think tanks for
imperialism and militarism. Contact the Socialist Equality
Party to start an IYSSE chapter on your campus.
"... Coming Next, Part 2: The post WWII global strategy of the neocons has been shaped chiefly by Russophobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia ..."
"... * Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk .com ..."
In this first of a two-part series, Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould trace the origins
of the neoconservative targeting of Russia.
By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould April 29.2018
The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel last September reported
that, "Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is
familiar with the decline of the world's rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British
protectorate of Rhodesia before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies.
There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire Now an American citizen,
Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage the
United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently. The U.S.
political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction "
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz
Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States
claimed the mantle of the world's first and only. Unipower with the intention of crushing any
nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order, foreseen just a few
short years ago, becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of
incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington.
As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America's claim to leadership, by
the time Fischer's interview appeared in the online version of the Der Spiegel , he had
already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve -- eight months ahead of
schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the "globalist" and
former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of
the British Empire as a young student in London, he directly assisted in the wholesale
dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.
As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims,
that makes Fischer not just empire's Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.
Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei
Shleifer, and Jeffry Sachs, in the "Harvard Project," plus Anatoly Chubais, the chief Russian
economic adviser, Fischer helped throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight –
privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never
got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the
robbery from beginning to end.
As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book
Shadow Elite: "Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying
to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them,
this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial,
even among communists the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the
groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but
in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it
was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament."
Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false
narrative, she continues "The outcome rendered privatization 'a de facto fraud,' as one
economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to 'offer
fertile ground for criminal activity' was proven right."
If Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to
post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire
Americans to ask what role he played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Little known
to Americans is the blunt force trauma Fischer and the "prestigious" Harvard Project delivered
to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative's James Carden "As the Center for Economic and Policy
Research noted back in 2011 'the IMF's intervention in Russia during Fischer's tenure led to
one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.'
Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF's
intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack."
Neither do most Americans know that it was President Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that
boomeranged to terrorize Europe and America in the 21 st century. Brzezinski spent
much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying
about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that
hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the
President's top national security officer was that he couldn't find Nicaragua on a map.
If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following
the Soviet Union's collapse it was Brzezinski. And if anyone could be said to represent the
debt driven financial system that fueled America's post-Vietnam Imperialism, it's Fischer. His
departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative's spine. Their dream of a New
World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.
Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to
feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. From the chaos
created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy
to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists, but directed by
the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives' goal,
working with their Chicago School neoliberal partners, was to deconstruct the nation-state
through cultural co-optation and financial subversion and to project American power abroad. So
far they have been overwhelmingly successful to the detriment of much of the
world.
From the end of the Second World War through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the
Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any
and all opposition to their global dominion.
Pentagon Capitalism
Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA's
founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them
with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987's Hot Money and the
Politics of Debt , described how "Pentagon Capitalism" had made the Vietnam War
possible by selling the Pentagon's debt to the rest of the world.
"In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky's couriers , and the European central
banks arranged the 'loan-back,'" Naylor writes. "When the mechanism was explained to the late
[neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era's chief 'think tank' and a man who
popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he
reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, 'We've pulled off the biggest ripoff in
history! We've run rings around the British Empire.'" In addition to their core of
ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such
establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Brzezinski himself.
From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was
known that their emergence could imperil democracy in America and yet Washington's more
moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight.
Peter Steinfels' 1979 classic The
Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America's politics begins with these fateful
words. "THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First, that a distinct and powerful political
outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with
certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics
which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American
democracy."
But long before Steinfels' 1979 account, the neoconservative's agenda of inserting their own
interests ahead of America's was well underway, attenuating U.S. democracy, undermining
détente and angering America's NATO partners that supported it. According to the
distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been
under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces ( led by Senator "Scoop"
Jackson ) from its inception. But America's ownership of that policy underwent a shift
following U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in
his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente
and Confrontation , "To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet
Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without
consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces
in Europe was too much."
In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in
U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, "The United
States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had
plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse
to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble
over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of
alliance unity."
In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a
cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of
détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by
Israel's "politically significant supporters" in the U.S. to begin opposing any
cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all.
Garthoff writes, "The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet
Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete
encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez Thus they [Israel's politically
significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective
cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two
superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem."
"... Shatter Syria and Iraq Into Many Small Pieces ..."
"... By WashingtonsBlog ..."
"... February 25, 2016 ..."
"... "[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again. ..."
"... "When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces – we ..."
"... dismantled their army ..."
"... , and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was ..."
"... , and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – ..."
"... electrical plants ..."
"... water facilities ..."
"... – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was ..."
"... , leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all. ..."
"... By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya , Global Research, November 2006) ..."
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if
Iraq is attacked. "We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region," he
said.
***
They are probably still splitting their sides with laughter in the Pentagon. But Mr Mubarak
and the [Pentagon] hawks do agree on one thing: war with Iraq could spell disaster for several
regimes in the Middle East. Mr Mubarak believes that would be bad. The hawks, though, believe
it would be good .
For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate
side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan .
***
The "skittles theory" of the Middle East – that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down
several regimes – has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has
come to the fore in the United States on the back of the "war against terrorism".
Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli
thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled "A clean break:
a new strategy for securing the realm", it was intended as a political blueprint for the
incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu . As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing
Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy "based on an
entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the
nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism "
***
The paper set out a plan by which Israel would "shape its strategic environment", beginning
with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.
With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan
and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and "roll back" Syria. Jordan, it
suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by "weaning" the Shia Muslim population away from Syria
and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of
Iraq. "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them", the paper concluded.
***
The leader of the "prominent opinion makers" who wrote it was Richard Perle – now
chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon .
Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds
one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy .
***
Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav (see US
thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy , August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of
Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers
portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise
Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton,
the under-secretary for arms control and international security.
A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory
board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas
Feith.
***
With several of the "Clean Break" paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington,
the plan for Israel to "transcend" its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more
achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to
achieve it.
(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people –
including Richard Perle, Paul
Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views
during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the "Project for a New
American Century".)
Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford,
Connecticut –
writes :
[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whether the
chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in
Washington and Tel Aviv .
***
One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the
territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet .
***
The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash
the target country's social matrix and physical infrastructure.
***
Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the
military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.
In short divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial
game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.
To those -- and I suspect there are still many out there -- for whom all this seems too neat
or too conspiratorial , I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:
a) the "Clean Break" manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996
and
b) the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" paper generated by The Project for a New American
Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the
aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of George Bush Junior to the White
House, to the most exclusive sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.
To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents -- which speak, in
the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel's
"strategic environment" and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of
US "forward bases" in the region .
To do so now, after the US's systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya -- two notably
oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or
out of government with more than passing interest in history -- , and after the its carefully
calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in
Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media's deafening silence
on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.
And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise
the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the
ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously
fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this
part of the world.
Iraq's fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I
pointed out again and again
in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate
states: the Shi'ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest,
and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion.
This was the War Party's
real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the
entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are
seeing today.
"[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush
it, so that it would never rise again.
"When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't just militarily defeat Iraq's armed forces
– wedismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other
institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not
reconstituted. The infrastructure waspulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized
society –roads,bridges,electrical plants,water
facilities,museums,
schools– were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair.
Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to
function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – wasdissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.
" What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can
say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized."
Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why
deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors
were living in trees?
The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who
have advanced Israeli interests – at America's expense – at every opportunity. In "
A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of
neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg,
David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged
to "break out" of Israel's alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of "regime change"
across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the
exception of Iran – and that one's still cooking on the back burner – this is
precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic "victory" in Iraq,
then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these "rogue states"
– Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party's target
list.
The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the
Pentagon for more than 10 years .
What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the
institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing and the
elimination of Iraq as a country .
This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an
impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's
intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is
contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines .
The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the
Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US
ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.
The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation
of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven "independent states" (Serbia, Croatia,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo). According to Mahdi Darius
Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of
redrawing the Map of the Middle East.
The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed
Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map
Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).
Similarly, Neooconservatives in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the
balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion. The goal was to
break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate
nation.
In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry
allegedlywrote a book
expressly calling for the break up of Syria:
All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units . Dissolution of
Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is
Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run.
It is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated :
Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria .
Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington's
intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of "regime change" in Damascus. What is
contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.
In 2013, former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas
said :
Let them both [sides] bleed, haemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As
long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.
Indeed, in May 2015, one of the key architects of
the Iraq war – John Bolton –
said:
The Arabs divided between Sunnis and Shias – I think the Sunni Arabs are never going
to agree to be in a state where the Shia outnumber them 3-1. That's what ISIS has been able to
take advantage of.
I think our objective should be a new Sunni state out of the western part of Iraq, the
eastern part of Syria run by moderates or at least authoritarians who are not radical
Islamists. What's left of the state of Iraq, as of right now, is simply a satellite of the
ayatollahs in Tehran. It's not anything we should try to aid.
In September 2015, Pentagon intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart said
that he has "a tough time" seeing either Iraq or Syria really coming back together as sovereign
nations.
In general, Israel ideally prefers regime changes that result in the installation of stable
puppets. That is Plan A. But Plan B is to balkanize . Better to divide and conquer than to
countenance a "rogue" (independent) neighbor.
So it is noteworthy that Israel is endorsing its Plan B for Syria just when its enemies are
making it plain that Plan A (" Assad Must Go ") is not
happening any time soon.
And SecState John Kerry confirmed
just yesterday that "Plan B" is to break Syria up into different states.
"... The following is the third part of a three-part interview with Professor Piers Robinson, an academic at the University of Sheffield and a member of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Parts one and two appeared on May 24 and May 25. ..."
"... We initially issued two briefing notes on Skripal. That was partly because some of the people in the Working Group who had been looking at chemical/biological events in Syria had relevant knowledge and were aware that what the British government was saying straight off was inaccurate, i.e., the idea that the nerve agent used was Russian and only the Russians could have produced it, etc. ..."
"... I did feel, because at the time the Syrian government was retaking large portions of territory, that the representation of Skripal might be being exploited as part of a broader propaganda drive against Russia (which was providing military support to Syria). ..."
"... If there was going to be an escalation in Syria, beyond the bombing that occurred, that would take us up against the Russians. There was a good possibility that the Skripal event was going to be exploited as part of a broader anti-Russian propaganda drive. ..."
"... when [Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson pretty much said it was the Russians who must have poisoned the Skripals, that appeared to be a statement of certainty that was not warranted. And, of course, the recent history of Iraq and UK government claims regarding alleged WMD stockpiles was an important reminder that governments can be strongly motivated to distort and manipulate their claims, especially when intelligence is involved. ..."
"... I think the Skripal poisoning might be connected to events in the US. We do know, because Alex Thomson from Channel 4 tweeted on March 12 that the government had put a D-notice restriction on the reporting of [MI6 agent] Pablo Miller. Professor Paul McKeigue (University of Edinburgh) has issued a new briefing talking about this matter. ..."
"... Pablo Miller was Skripal's handler. He was connected to [former MI6 officer] Christopher Steele. He was responsible for the dossier alleging Trump's collusion with Russia. That, as I understand it, was a key part of initiating proceedings and investigations against Trump. It appears that the dossier was linked to the Democratic National Committee in that they apparently commissioned it. ..."
"... If it is the case that Skripal was in any way connected with that, it forms a possibility that there was a motive for someone other than Russia to have carried out the poisoning. ..."
"... More broadly, there is the possibility that the whole Russia-gate narrative is being used for bigger political purposes -- to influence Trump, to try and shore up action in the Middle East, perhaps on some level to distract Western publics from increasing awareness of how we have been involved in wars in the Middle East. ..."
The following is the third part of a three-part interview with Professor Piers Robinson,
an academic at the University of Sheffield and a member of the Working Group on Syria,
Propaganda and Media. Parts one and two appeared on May 24 and
May 25.
Julie Hyland: What is your estimation of the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
by Russia, and how do they relate to the war in Syria?
PR: We initially issued two briefing notes on Skripal. That was partly because some of
the people in the Working Group who had been looking at chemical/biological events in Syria had
relevant knowledge and were aware that what the British government was saying straight off was
inaccurate, i.e., the idea that the nerve agent used was Russian and only the Russians could
have produced it, etc.
I did feel, because at the time the Syrian government was retaking large portions of
territory, that the representation of Skripal might be being exploited as part of a broader
propaganda drive against Russia (which was providing military support to Syria).
If there was going to be an escalation in Syria, beyond the bombing that occurred, that
would take us up against the Russians. There was a good possibility that the Skripal event was
going to be exploited as part of a broader anti-Russian propaganda drive.
It's not something you can pinpoint for sure at this stage because you don't have access to
the information. I don't think we will know the full truth of exactly what is happening for
some time. But you can make an informed judgement call.
What we do know is that the claims being made at the time were not tenable. So when
[Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson pretty much said it was the Russians who must have poisoned
the Skripals, that appeared to be a statement of certainty that was not warranted. And, of
course, the recent history of Iraq and UK government claims regarding alleged WMD stockpiles
was an important reminder that governments can be strongly motivated to distort and manipulate
their claims, especially when intelligence is involved.
I think the Skripal poisoning might be connected to events in the US. We do know, because
Alex Thomson from Channel 4 tweeted on March 12 that the government had put a D-notice
restriction on the reporting of [MI6 agent] Pablo Miller. Professor Paul McKeigue (University
of Edinburgh) has issued
a new briefing talking about this matter.
Pablo Miller was Skripal's handler. He was connected to [former MI6 officer] Christopher
Steele. He was responsible for the dossier alleging Trump's collusion with Russia. That, as I
understand it, was a key part of initiating proceedings and investigations against Trump. It
appears that the dossier was linked to the Democratic National Committee in that they
apparently commissioned it.
If it is the case that Skripal was in any way connected with that, it forms a possibility
that there was a motive for someone other than Russia to have carried out the poisoning.
More broadly, there is the possibility that the whole Russia-gate narrative is being used
for bigger political purposes -- to influence Trump, to try and shore up action in the Middle
East, perhaps on some level to distract Western publics from increasing awareness of how we
have been involved in wars in the Middle East.
In a related area that people don't usually connect, the same psychological warfare methods
being used in the Middle East are being used in the attack on public education to privatize
education globally.
I've had a degree of dialogue with Piers on Facebook .
Despite the fact that he has done some important work here regards state propaganda and
Syria I have found his political positions very much the typical University sociology
professor , where bourgeois ideology and Post modernism runs rampant .
Not immune to running off a line of expletives and ad hominems as if they constitute an
argument, Piers came to the defence of Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Bealey when I had the
audacity to make a distinction between the defence of Syria against US Imperialism and a
defence of Assad per se and Putin
Both engaged in a somewhat lumpen diatribe on the question, despite the fact that I
clearly never once promoted an Imperialist line . The situation was in fact reminiscent of
what in more recent times the WSWS faced in regards Iran , when it seemingly ''had the
audacity'' to support the Iranian working class against its own bourgeois rulers.
Pity the poor blogger's lot: there are more interesting papers being published every week
than any essayist, however diligent, can possibly cope with. And there will be more, as the
vast genetic databases give up their secrets. No sooner does one team scoop the others with a
savage novelty than their rivals counter-attack with their own surprising findings. If you are
curious about mankind, it is the best time to be alive. We are likely to learn more about
ourselves in the next few decades than was possible in the last few centuries.
Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants
Stuart J Ritchie, Simon R Cox, Xueyi Shen, Michael V Lombardo, Lianne M Reus, Clara Alloza,
Mathew A Harris, Helen L Alderson, Stuart Hunter, Emma Neilson, David C M Liewald, Bonnie
Auyeung, Heather C Whalley, Stephen M Lawrie ,Catharine R Gale, Mark E Bastin, Andrew M
McIntoshIan, J Deary.
Cerebral Cortex, bhy109, https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhy109
Published: 16 May 2018
Sex differences in the human brain are of interest for many reasons: for example, there
are sex differences in the observed prevalence of psychiatric disorders and in some
psychological traits that brain differences might help to explain. We report the largest
single-sample study of structural and functional sex differences in the human brain (2750
female, 2466 male participants; mean age 61.7 years, range 44–77 years). Males had
higher raw volumes, raw surface areas, and white matter fractional anisotropy; females had
higher raw cortical thickness and higher white matter tract complexity. There was
considerable distributional overlap between the sexes. Subregional differences were not fully
attributable to differences in total volume, total surface area, mean cortical thickness, or
height. There was generally greater male variance across the raw structural measures.
Functional connectome organization showed stronger connectivity for males in unimodal
sensorimotor cortices, and stronger connectivity for females in the default mode network.
This large-scale study provides a foundation for attempts to understand the causes and
consequences of sex differences in adult brain structure and function.
There is much to discuss here, but my attention was drawn by two phrases "considerable
distributional overlap" (which in my experience means that one group is pretty different from
another) and "generally greater male variance" (which agrees with most of the observations on
sex differences indicating that men are leptokurtic (more variable), women more platykurtic
(less variable).
Women are more at risk of dementia, depression, schizophrenia and dyslexia. Men are better
than women at mental rotation tasks, and are more physically aggressive; women are more
interested in people than in things, are more neurotic and more agreeable.
One of the most interesting sex differences is intelligence. Here is their introduction to
the topic:
There is more to sex differences than averages: there are physical and psychological
traits that tend to be more variable in males than females. The best-studied human phenotype
in this context has been cognitive ability: almost universally, studies have found that males
show greater variance in this trait (Deary et al. 2007a; Johnson et al. 2008; Lakin 2013;
though see Iliescu et al. 2016). This has also been found for academic achievement test
results (themselves a potential consequence of cognitive differences, which are known to
predict later educational achievement; Deary et al. 2007b; Machin and Pekkarinen 2008; Lehre
et al. 2009a, 2009b), other psychological characteristics such as personality (Borkenau et
al. 2013), and a range of physical traits such as athletic performance (Olds et al. 2006),
and both birth and adult weight (Lehre et al. 2009a). To our knowledge, only two prior
studies have explicitly examined sex differences in the variability of brain structure
(Wierenga et al. 2017; Lange et al. 1997), and no studies have done so in individuals older
than 20 years. Here, we addressed this gap in the literature by testing the "greater male
variability" hypothesis in the adult brain.
[]
We tested male–female differences (in mean and variance) in overall and subcortical
brain volumes, mapped the magnitude of sex differences across the cortex with multiple
measures (volume, surface area, and cortical thickness), and also examined sex differences in
white matter microstructure derived from DT-MRI and NODDI. We tested the extent to which
these differences were regionally-specific or brain-general, by adjusting them for the total
brain size (or other relevant overall measurement; for instance, adjusting volume differences
for total brain volume and cortical thickness differences for mean cortical thickness), and
examining whether the differences found in the raw analyses were still present. We tested the
extent to which these structural differences (in broad, regional, and white matter measures)
mediated sex variation in scores on two cognitive tests, one tapping a mixture of fluid and
crystallized reasoning skills (skills previously found to be linked to brain volumes;
Pietschnig et al. 2015) and one testing processing speed (previously found to be linked to
white matter microstructural differences; see Penke et al. 2012). At the functional level, we
also examined large-scale organization of functional networks in the brain using
resting-state fMRI functional connectivity data and data-driven network-based analyses.
The study compared 2750 females (mean age = 61.12 years, SD = 7.42, range =
44.64–77.12) and 2466 males (mean age = 62.39 years, SD = 7.56, range =
44.23–76.99). These are extremely large samples, two orders of magnitude larger than the
early studies in the 1980s, and way larger than many of the studies that the Press report so
frequently. Consider them "Foxtrot Oscar" samples.
The first result is startling: male brains are very much bigger, a colossal 1.4 effect size.
92% of men will be above the mean for women. On average men have 117.8 cm3 more brain than
women. All this extra brain must be doing something for men, you might surmise, other than just
helping them perpetually contemplate the relative advantages of the more complicated positions
adopted during sexual intercourse. Perhaps not. Broadly the same effect of male advantage can
be found in all the brain region sub-comparisons. Male brains are both larger, and also vary
more in size. Greater male variability seems a fact of nature. If there were a direct
relationship between brain size and cognitive ability, there would be many, many more bright
men than bright women.
The cognitive test was limited to a 13-item verbal-numerical test to be completed in 2
minutes, which ought to be enough to grade the general population. The mere notion of such a
test will discomfort those citizens who regard their own intellects as more wide-ranging and
multi-faceted than could ever be measured by mere earthly means, and who rank their brainpower
of greater value to Western Civilization in ways that could not possibly be assayed in 120
seconds. Personally, I quail at the thought of having to subject myself to such a harsh
evaluation. I mean, 13 into 120 is, let me see, well, not very long at all to solve each item.
On reflection, 9 seconds to pass each question. Can such people exist?
The test might be a little crude if the purpose is to detect sex differences across the
broad range of different cognitive tasks, and also a bit limited if the volunteers are, as one
might expect of this database, somewhat brighter volunteers interested in contributing to
science. However, these are minor quibbles. All intellects can be evaluated in 2 minutes. I
like it. Here are the details:
Verbal-numerical reasoning. This test (UK Biobank data field 20016) consisted of thirteen
multiple-choice items, six verbal and seven numerical. Participants responded to the items on
a touch-screen computer. One of the verbal items was: "Stop means the same as:
Pause/Close/Cease/Break/Rest/Do not know/Prefer not to answer". One of the numerical items
was: "If sixty is more than half of seventy-five, multiply twenty-three by three. If not
subtract 15 from eighty-five. Is the answer: 68/69/70/71/72/Do not know/Prefer not to
answer". Participants had a two-minute time limit to answer the thirteen questions. The
"prefer not to answer" option was considered as missing data for the purposes of the present
analyses. The scores from the test formed a normal distribution.
Reaction Time. This test (UK Biobank data field 100032), which followed immediately after
the verbal-numerical reasoning test, was modelled on the game of 'snap': participants
responded by pressing a button on a button box as quickly as possible with their dominant
hand whenever the symbols on two 'cards' displayed to them on the computer screen matched.
The test had twelve rounds; the first four rounds were considered 'training' (or practice)
rounds so were not included in the calculation of the final score, and four of the remaining
rounds did not include matching symbols. Thus, the final score was calculated on the basis of
the four rounds with matching symbols (the mean time in ms to press the button across these
four trials was the score variable). We excluded the scores of 8 participants who had
Reaction Times of 1100ms or longer. After this exclusion, the Reaction Times formed an
approximately normal distribution. Note that, for analyses, we reflected the raw scores so
that higher scores meant better performance (this meant that the two cognitive tests
correlated positively with each other).
The choice reaction time task should be a good measure of mental alertness, though 4 out of
8 trials is on the short side. However, there is a case for saying that all reaction time tests
should have only one trial. If the person responds very slowly, in real life he would be dead.
That is what reaction times are for. Here are the results for the two cognitive tests:
The insert above shows: female mean, male mean, t-test, probability, d (effect size), and
finally the Bayes Factor showing the probability there is a sex difference. The full results
for Table 2 are in the paper.
Sure enough, Table 2 shows that the cognitive tests are only an effect size of about 0.2 in
favour of men. Where did all the male brain size advantage go? 0.2 of a standard deviation
works out to 3 IQ points. Nothing much, you may say, considering that the test-retest
reliability of the Wechsler is 4 IQ points, but if this is a true representation of male-female
differences, then we can calculate what it would mean for the male/female balance at the higher
levels of ability. As you may have seen in previous posts, if men are really 3 points brighter
than women, and women's standard deviation is narrower than men, say 14 rather than 15 points,
then this makes a big difference at the higher reaches of intelligence.
Here are the estimates, if one assumes men have an IQ of 102, (sd 15) and women an IQ of 99,
(sd 14).
At IQ 130: 69.8% men
At IQ 145: 80.3% men
The authors correctly point out that the sample, though the biggest collected for scanning,
may not be a perfect representation of the population at large (though I doubt this directly
affects sex differences).
This is a very substantial paper. It shows a massive sex difference in brain size of 1.4 d,
and when one factors in that brain size relates to intelligence at a correlation of about 0.28,
then the predicted intelligence difference will be a large 0.39 d, but the observed difference
is only half that. Paradoxical. One implication is that there are sex-linked differences in
brain structure and dendritic arborization which overcome pure size differences. If so, how is
this balancing act achieved? Why don't all people have the smaller, more craftily wired version
of the human brain, which presumably requires a smaller blood supply. On the other hand, it
might be that the cognitive testing has not been wide enough, and has ignored tasks in which
males have an advantage. By the way, if one sex has an advantage in one skill, this is not an
error of testing, it is a triumph of testing that a real difference has been revealed.
It is possible that, in a rush to ensure that men and women's mental ability scores can be
presented as equal, in general men's stronger subject areas have been under-sampled. Test
producers are under pressure to minimize sexual and racial differences. This may have
suppressed the size of real differences. In defence of any group who think that their
specialist strong points have been ignored, we should set the sampling frame for cognitive
tests as wide as possible. These points do not invalidate the findings of this fine paper on
brains, but they leave open the possibility that there is a small but real male advantage in
intelligence which a broader scope of tests would reveal.
U.S. threats to crush Iran and North Korea may yet work, but as of now neither Tehran nor
Pyongyang appears to be intimidated.
Repeated references by NSC adviser John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence to the "Libya
model" for denuclearization of North Korea just helped sink the Singapore summit of President
Trump and Kim Jong Un. To North Korea, the Libya model means the overthrow and murder of Libya
strongman Col. Gadhafi, after he surrendered his WMD.
Wednesday, North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui exploded at Pence's invocation of
Libya:
"Vice-President Pence has made unbridled and impudent remarks that North Korea might end
like Libya I cannot suppress my surprise at such ignorant and stupid remarks.
"Whether the U.S. will meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at nuclear-to-nuclear
showdown is entirely dependent upon the decision and behavior of the United States."
Yesterday, Trump canceled the Singapore summit.
Earlier this week at the Heritage Foundation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo laid out our
Plan B for Iran in a speech that called to mind Prussian Field Marshal Karl Von Moltke.
Among Pompeo's demands:
Iran must end all support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Hamas
in Gaza, withdraw all forces under Iranian command in Syria, and disarm its Shiite militia in
Iraq.
Iran must confess its past lies about a nuclear weapons program, and account publicly for
all such activity back into the 20th century.
Iran must halt all enrichment of uranium, swear never to produce plutonium, shut down its
heavy water reactor, open up its military bases to inspection to prove it has no secret
nuclear program, and stop testing ballistic missiles.
And unless Iran submits, she will be strangled economically.
What Pompeo delivered was an ultimatum: Iran is to abandon all its allies in all Mideast
wars, or face ruin and possible war with the USA.
It is hard to recall a secretary of state using the language Pompeo deployed:
"We will track down Iranian operatives and their Hezbollah proxies operating around the
world and crush them. Iran will never again have carte blanche to dominate the Middle
East."
But how can Iran "dominate" a Mideast that is home to Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel and
Egypt, as well as U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and
Syria?
To Iran's east is a nuclear-armed Pakistan. To its west is a nuclear-armed U.S. Fifth Fleet
and a nuclear-armed Israel. Iran has no nukes, no warships to rival ours and a 1970s air
force.
Yet, this U.S.-Iran confrontation, triggered by Trump's trashing of the nuclear deal and
Pompeo's ultimatum, is likely to end one of three ways:
First, Tehran capitulates, which is unlikely, as President Hassan Rouhani retorted to
Pompeo: "Who are you to decide for Iran and the world? We will continue our path with the
support of our nation." Added Ayatollah Khamenei, "Iran's presence in the region is our
strategic depth."
Second, Iran defies U.S. sanctions and continues to support its allies in Syria, Iraq,
Lebanon, Yemen. This would seem likely to lead to collisions and war.
Third, the U.S. could back off its maximalist demands, as Trump backed off Bolton's demand
that Kim Jong Un accept the Libyan model of total and verifiable disarmament before any
sanctions are lifted.
Where, then, are we headed?
While our NATO allies are incensed by Trump's threat to impose secondary sanctions if they
do not re-impose sanctions on Tehran, the Europeans are likely to cave in to America's demands.
For Europe to choose Iran over a U.S. that has protected Europe since the Cold War began and is
an indispensable market for Europe's goods would be madness.
Vladimir Putin appears to want no part of an Iran-Israel or U.S.-Iran war and has told
Bashar Assad that Russia will not be selling Damascus his S-300 air defense system. Putin has
secured his bases in Syria and wants to keep them.
As for the Chinese, she will take advantage of the West's ostracism of Iran by drawing Iran
closer to her own orbit.
Is there a compromise to be had?
Perhaps, for some of Pompeo's demands accord with the interests of Iran, which cannot want a
war with the United States, or with Israel, which would likely lead to war with the United
States.
Iran could agree to release Western prisoners, move Shiite militia in Syria away from the
Golan Heights, accept verifiable restrictions on tests of longer-range missiles and establish
deconfliction rules for U.S. and Iranian warships in the Persian Gulf.
Reward: aid from the West and renewed diplomatic relations with the United States.
Surely, a partial, verifiable nuclear disarmament of North Korea is preferable to war on the
peninsula. And, surely, a new nuclear deal with Iran with restrictions on missiles is
preferable to war in the Gulf.
Again, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good.
9/11 remains a problem for the legitimacy of the Neocons and the US political elite in
general. But like with JFK assassination they hope to weather the storm. And not without reason.
The power of MSM almost guarantee that.
Notable quotes:
"... So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F. The Twin Towers collapsed at virtually free fall speed, as did WTC 7, which was not hit by an aeroplane, a fact that was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission. ..."
"... in the view of a former NIST employee, 'reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing and denying the evidence.' In other words, the official account – and all the more so in the case of Building 7 with 82 steel columns – is a lie. ..."
Creative chaos is an interesting concept by itself. In modern socity persention of event is
moderated by MSM and, especially TV coverage. That create Matrix style soituation, when power
that be can control narrative, no matter how unscientific it is and how many hole it contain.
Somebody clled the USA the "society of illusions" and that nickname reflects this reality.
Review of David Ray Griffin, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World
(Olive Branch Press, 2017, 398 pp.)
published in Paradigm Explorer: The Scientific & Medical Network (London,
2018/2)
This brilliant, meticulous and searing analysis is David Ray Griffin's most powerful and
important book about the hegemonic foreign policy ambitions of US
neoconservatives and the way in which 9/11 was used to pursue these Machiavellian ends. This
is a book that should have been written by a mainstream investigative journalist, but David
has done their work for them, which they have signally failed to do by accepting the 9/11
Commission claims and labelling those who questioned these as 'conspiracy theorists', a term
originally devised by the CIA to use against their opponents when the position of plausible
deniability in undercover operations was under threat. The book is widely endorsed, for
instance by Professor Daniel Sheehan, who remarks that it is 'a clear and non-sensationalist
presentation of the historical and scientific facts, by one of our generation's most cogent
thinkers. This book should convince any honest and objective person – with a political
and scientific IQ above room temperature – that we have been systematically lied to
about the events of 9/11 and the American invasions in the Middle East.' Seasoned readers of
this journal will recall that I have reviewed all of David's books on 9/11 – here he
summarises his case in the context of the foreign-policy background, with the first part
devoted to this, and the second to a concise discussion of the shortcomings of official
explanations of 9/11.
The failure to prevent 9/11 attack was in itself a massive intelligence disaster,
and may partly be explained by some of the background elaborated in this book. The aftermath
of 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union left the US in a unipolar geopolitical position and
without any clear enemy. The war on terror declared in the wake of 9/11 gave rise a new enemy
and justified further increases in military expenditure on 'security' grounds. During the
1990s, neoconservative thinkers had urged the US to consolidate its status as an unchallenged
superpower and, where deemed necessary in terms of its strategic interests, to act
unilaterally to establish a Pax Americana. This injunction was reinforced by the doctrine of
American exceptionalism, only recently reiterated by the incoming Secretary of State, Mike
Pompeo, and also espoused by John Bolton, the newly appointed National Security Adviser. As a
'benign' power, the US has the right to intervene where it sees fit; other countries such as
Russia may be equally unique, but they are not 'exceptional'.
In 1997, William Kristol founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) with a
call to shape this new century in a way favourable to American principles and interests. In
September 2000, PNAC published a document called Rebuilding America's Defences where
they advocated the use of US military supremacy to establish an empire including the whole
world – hence 'the next president of the United States must increase military spending
to preserve American geopolitical leadership.' This aim should be understood in the Pentagon
context of achieving Full Spectrum Dominance, a policy already developed in the 1990s.
Chillingly, the document reflected that the process of transformation might be a slow one in
the absence of 'some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbour'
– 9/11 was this event and enabled a fast track of neoconservative policies, beginning
with the attack on Afghanistan that had actually been planned many months previously, and the
destructive consequences of which are spelt out in detail. It should be noted that Dick
Cheney has been a leading figure in the neoconservative movement, and it would be more
accurate to describe the Bush – Cheney administration as the Cheney – Bush
administration, at least in the first term.
The chapter on military spending, pre-emptive war and regime change is an eye-opener. The
idea of pre-emptive-preventive war came to be known as the Bush Doctrine, elaborated in a
2002 national security strategy document with the dangerous clause that America can in
self-defence 'act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed' – I will
come back to this below when discussing drones. Challenging regimes hostile to US interests
meant overthrowing them and replacing them, and the 2002 list ominously included Iraq, Iran,
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. The events of the last 15 years show how dangerous
it is in terms of unintended consequences to sow a wind without reaping a
whirlwind: the emergence of ISIS as a result of the invasion of Iraq is just one example.
This document was written by Philip Zelikow, who would later be named the executive
director of the 9/11 commission.
The next chapter is a detailed analysis of the Iraq war and the propaganda campaign of
lies required to justify it, both in the US and the UK. David refers to meetings by
Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, with members of the Bush administration and CIA director
George Tenet. Dearlove remarked that 'the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the
policy', which was also the case in the UK with the so-called dodgy dossier. Amazingly, a
2008 report by the Centre for Public Integrity enumerates as many as 935 false statements
made by members of the Bush administration in the two years following 9/11. David
itemises a few of these with reference to weapons of mass destruction as well as biological
and chemical weapons. During this time, the Joint Chiefs of Staff produced a much more
cautious assessment, which was set aside. In addition, (p. 61) CIA analysts felt pressured by
Dick Cheney to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives,
which dictated the conclusions their analyses should yield. The consequences of the Iraq war
are well-known and include an estimated 2.3 million Iraqi deaths, 4,500 American
deaths and hundreds of thousands of serious injuries, including 320,000 brain injuries. As to
the economic cost, this had reached $4 trillion by 2014, a devastating opportunity cost in
terms of what the money might have been spent on. It should also be noted that the contract
for rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure went to Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney
is a major shareholder and former chief executive officer.
Space does not permit a detailed discussion of all the global chaos brought about by US
interventions in the Middle East on the basis that it could solve all of its problems
by means of military power. Chaotic collapse was regarded as a form of 'creative destruction'
providing a basis for destabilising a regime and eventually removing the incumbent,
especially in this geopolitically significant area for oil and gas (p. 109). David discusses
Libya, showing how the same kinds of lies were used to bring about regime change there, then
he moves on to Syria, where the intractable disaster is ongoing, as we all know. In addition
to military factors, it may also be a case that a form of weather warfare was used (this is
not suggested in the book) to help create the drought as a key destabilising factor; in
either event, whether deliberate or due to climate change, the drought was significant. In
Syria, out of the pre-war population of 22 million, 11% have been killed or injured, 5
million have fled the country and a further 8 million are internally displaced. In addition,
as we know, this chaos also led to the refugee crisis that precipitated the Brexit vote.
David devotes a separate chapter to drone warfare, posing and responding to
a number of key questions: are drone killings acceptable? Are they de facto assassination? Do
drone strikes rarely kill civilians? Are drone strikes used only when capture is impossible?
Are drone strikes used only for imminent threats? Do drone strikes help defeat terrorism?
Don't drones at least keep American warriors safe? There is no good case to be made for drone
warfare extrajudicial killing in the name of 'self-defence'; sometimes 'signature strikes'
were employed and continued on a large scale during the Obama administration. The
justification is tortuous to say the least where 'an imminent threat of violent attack
does not require the US to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons will take
place in the immediate future' (p. 146). This is a 'more flexible' understanding of imminence
which 'defines the term in a way that excludes its only actual meaning' (!).
The chapter on shredding the Constitution makes depressing reading where 'unaccountable
executive power has replaced due process and the checks and balances established by the US
constitution', first embodied in the Patriot Act. David systematically shows how various
amendments to the Constitution have been violated: the first on freedom of speech and
assembly, the fourth on security against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the fifth
relating to deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In addition,
torture violates the Constitution, and the overall result has been an undoing of
democracy in the name of security – an Orwellian outcome.
After chapters on potential nuclear and ecological holocaust (the latter the subject of
one of David's previous books – Unprecedented ), he moves on to a summary
analysis of the events of 9/11 and its aftermath. Here he condenses the findings of his
previous books to show how numerous miracles, defined as violations of the laws of nature,
were necessary in order to sustain the 9/11 Commission's official explanation. He shows how
the choice of Philip Zelikow as Executive Director of this supposedly impartial and
independent commission was in fact an insider selection leading to a foregone structure and
conclusion and tight control on individual commissioners. As early as March 2003, prior to
the first meeting of the commission, Zelikow had prepared a detailed outline including
chapter headings, subheadings and sub sub-headings. The pre-ordained task was to explain how
the building had been brought down by fire and the impact of the airliners.
So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns,
and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only
rise to around 1,700°F. The Twin Towers collapsed at virtually free fall speed, as did
WTC 7, which was not hit by an aeroplane, a fact that was not even mentioned by the 9/11
Commission.
The official reports on WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were provided by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration.
Its reports are more political than scientific as it is a fact of physics that a steel frame
building can only come down essentially in freefall if all the core columns are severed
simultaneously by explosives – in the case of Building 7, the roofline remained
virtually horizontal throughout the sudden collapse. Readers can consult comparative videos
for themselves showing an example of controlled demolition compared with the destruction of
Building 7. In addition, massive sections of steel columns and beams were horizontally
ejected from the Twin Towers up to 650 feet, which is quite inconsistent with the vertical
effects of gravitational collapse. David summarises six miracles required by the official
explanation that, in the view of a former NIST employee, 'reached a predetermined
conclusion by ignoring, dismissing and denying the evidence.' In other words, the official
account – and all the more so in the case of Building 7 with 82 steel columns –
is a lie.
In his conclusion and after further short chapters on the Pentagon attack and Mohamed
Atta, David lists 15 miracles required by the official 9/11 commission explanation. He asks
why mainstream media have not properly examined the evidence, and one significant factor
already mentioned is the fear of being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist', implying credulity,
gullibility and irrationality. In the case of David Ray Griffin, nothing could be further
from the truth: his analysis is thorough and forensic. He explains how the CIA invented this
conspiracy theory tactic in 1964 in the wake of the Warren Report into the Kennedy
assassination. It has become a powerful and intimidating rhetorical device, especially for
journalists who pride themselves on their scepticism and objectivity.
Rather than follow the a priori argument that no government could be evil or
competent enough to cover up 9/11, David urges people to look at the empirical evidence
– and if you, the reader, are feeling similarly uncomfortable, I encourage you to read
this book and his other ones for yourself and to understand the logic of false flag
operations that can be attributed to opponents by means of a suitable propaganda campaign. So
far as 9/11 is concerned, there is a large body of informed and expert professional opinion
across various disciplines that has studied the evidence and concluded that the official
account is false – see also the 9/11 Consensus Panel, the results of which was soon be
published in 9/11 Unmasked: A Six-Year Investigation by an International Review Panel
. This book is a highly significant contribution to exposing the Big Lie of 9/11 and the
neoconservative foreign policy background, and is as such a passionate plea for mainstream
media exposure to put a stop to further Machiavellian ambitions for full spectrum dominance
of the world.
"... Global capitalists do not have this luxury. Generating the simulation of democracy that most Western consumers desperately need in order to be able to pretend to believe that they are not just smoothly-functioning cogs in the machinery of a murderous global empire managed by a class of obscenely wealthy and powerful international elites to whom their lives mean exactly nothing, although extremely expensive and time-consuming, is essential to maintaining their monopoly on power. Having conditioned most Westerners into believing they are "free," and not just glorified peasants with gadgets, the global capitalist ruling classes have no choice but to keep up this fiction. Without it, their empire would fall apart at the seams. ..."
One of the most complicated and frustrating aspects of operating a global capitalist empire
is maintaining the fiction that it doesn't exist. Virtually every action you take has to be
carefully recontextualized or otherwise spun for public consumption. Every time you want to
bomb or invade some country to further your interests, you have to mount a whole PR campaign.
You can't even appoint a sadistic torture freak to run your own coup-fomenting agency, or shoot
a few thousand unarmed people you've imprisoned in a de facto ghetto, without having to do a
big song and dance about "defending democracy" and "democratic values."
Naked despotism is so much simpler, not to mention more emotionally gratifying. Ruling an
empire as a godlike dictator means never having to say you're sorry. You can torture and kill
anyone you want, and conquer and exploit whichever countries you want, without having to
explain yourself to anyone. Also, you get to have your humongous likeness muraled onto the
walls of buildings, make people swear allegiance to you, and all that other cool dictator
stuff.
Global capitalists do not have this luxury. Generating the simulation of democracy that most
Western consumers desperately need in order to be able to pretend to believe that they are not
just smoothly-functioning cogs in the machinery of a murderous global empire managed by a class
of obscenely wealthy and powerful international elites to whom their lives mean exactly
nothing, although extremely expensive and time-consuming, is essential to maintaining their
monopoly on power. Having conditioned most Westerners into believing they are "free," and not
just glorified peasants with gadgets, the global capitalist ruling classes have no choice but
to keep up this fiction. Without it, their empire would fall apart at the seams.
... ... ...
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
One of the most complicated and frustrating aspects of operating a global capitalist empire
is maintaining the fiction that it doesn't exist. Virtually every action you take has to be
carefully recontextualized or otherwise spun for public consumption. Every time you want to
bomb or invade some country to further your interests, you have to mount a whole PR campaign.
You can't even appoint a sadistic torture freak to run your own coup-fomenting agency, or shoot
a few thousand unarmed people you've imprisoned in a de facto ghetto, without having to do a
big song and dance about "defending democracy" and "democratic values."
Naked despotism is so much simpler, not to mention more emotionally gratifying. Ruling an
empire as a godlike dictator means never having to say you're sorry. You can torture and kill
anyone you want, and conquer and exploit whichever countries you want, without having to
explain yourself to anyone. Also, you get to have your humongous likeness muraled onto the
walls of buildings, make people swear allegiance to you, and all that other cool dictator
stuff.
Global capitalists do not have this luxury. Generating the simulation of democracy that most
Western consumers desperately need in order to be able to pretend to believe that they are not
just smoothly-functioning cogs in the machinery of a murderous global empire managed by a class
of obscenely wealthy and powerful international elites to whom their lives mean exactly
nothing, although extremely expensive and time-consuming, is essential to maintaining their
monopoly on power. Having conditioned most Westerners into believing they are "free," and not
just glorified peasants with gadgets, the global capitalist ruling classes have no choice but
to keep up this fiction. Without it, their empire would fall apart at the seams.
This is the devil's bargain modern capitalism made back in the 18th Century. In order to
wrest power from the feudal aristocracies that had dominated the West throughout the Middle
Ages, the bourgeoisie needed to sell the concept of "democracy" to the unwashed masses, who
they needed both to staff their factories and, in some cases, to fight revolutionary wars, or
depose and publicly guillotine monarchs. All that gobbledegook about taxes, tariffs, and the
unwieldy structure of the feudal system was not the easiest sell to the peasantry. "Liberty"
and "equality" went over much better. So "democracy" became their rallying cry, and,
eventually, the official narrative of capitalism. The global capitalist ruling classes have
been stuck with "democracy" ever since, or, more accurately, with the simulation of
democracy.
The purpose of this simulation of democracy is not to generate fake democracy and pass it
off as real democracy. Its purpose is to generate the concept of democracy , the only
form in which democracy exists. It does this by casting a magic spell (which I'll do my best to
demystify in a moment) that deceives us into perceiving the capitalist marketplace we
Westerners inhabit, not as a market, but as a society. An essentially democratic society. Not a
fully fledged democratic society, but a society progressing toward "democracy" which it is, and
simultaneously isn't.
Obviously, life under global capitalism is more democratic than under feudal despotism, not
to mention more comfortable and entertaining. Capitalism isn't "evil" or "bad." It's a machine.
Its fundamental function is to eliminate any and all despotic values and replace them with a
single value, i.e., exchange value, determined by the market. This despotic-value-decoding
machine is what freed us from the tyranny of kings and priests, which it did by subjecting us
to the tyranny of capitalists and the meaningless value of the so-called free market, wherein
everything is just another commodity toothpaste, cell phones, healthcare, food, education,
cosmetics, et cetera. Despite that, only an idiot would argue that capitalism is not preferable
to despotism, or that it hasn't increased our measure of freedom. So, yes, we have evolved
toward democracy, if we're comparing modern capitalism to medieval feudalism.
The problem is that capitalism is never going to lead to actual democracy (i.e., government
by and for the people). This is never going to happen. In fact, capitalism has already reached
the limits of the freedom it can safely offer us. This freedom grants us the ability to make an
ever-expanding variety of choices none of which have much to do with democracy. For example,
Western consumers are free to work for whatever corporation they want, and to buy whatever
products they want, and to assume as much debt as the market will allow to purchase a home
wherever they want, and to worship whichever gods they want (as long as they conform their
behavior to the values of capitalism and not their religion), and men can transform themselves
into women, and white people can deem themselves African Americans, or Native Americans, or
whatever they want, and anyone can mock or insult the President or the Queen of England on
Facebook and Twitter, none of which freedoms were even imaginable, much less possible, under
feudal despotism.
But this is as far as our "freedom" goes. The global capitalist ruling classes are never
going to allow us to govern ourselves, not in any meaningful way. In fact, since the mid-1970s,
they've been systematically dismantling the framework of social democracy throughout the West,
and otherwise relentlessly privatizing everything. They've been doing this more slowly in
Europe, where social democracy is more entrenched, but, make no mistake, American "society" is
the model for our dystopian future. The ruling classes and their debt-enslaved servants,
protected from the desperate masses by squads of hyper-militarized police, medicated in their
sanitized enclaves, watching Westworld on Amazon Prime as their shares in private
prisons rise and the forces of democracy defend their freedom by slaughtering men, women, and
children in some faraway country they can't find on a map, and would never visit on vacation
anyway this is where the USA already is, and where the rest of the West is headed.
Which is why it is absolutely crucial to maintain the simulation of democracy, and the
fiction that we're still living in a world where major geopolitical events are determined by
sovereign nations and their leaders, rather than by global corporations and a class of
supranational elites whose primary allegiance is to global capitalism, rather than to any
specific nation, much less to the actual people who live there. The global capitalist ruling
classes need the masses in the West to believe that they live in the United States of America,
the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and so on, and not in a global marketplace. Because, if
it's all one global marketplace, with one big global labor force (which global corporations can
exploit with impunity), and if it's one big global financial system (where the economies of
supposed adversaries like China and the United States, or the European Union and Russia, are
almost totally interdependent), then there is no United States of America, no United Kingdom,
no France, no Germany or not as we're conditioned to perceive them. There is only the global
capitalist empire, divided into "national" market territories, each performing slightly
different administrative functions within the empire and those territories that have not yet
surrendered their sovereignty and been absorbed into it. I think you know which those
territories are.
But getting back to the simulation of democracy (the purpose of which is to prevent us from
perceiving the world as I just suggested above), how that works is, we are all conditioned to
believe we are living in these imperfect democracies, which are inexorably evolving toward
"real" democracy but just haven't managed to get there quite yet. "Real" being the key word
here, because there is no such thing as real democracy. There never has been, except among
relatively small and homogenous groups of people. Like Baudrillard's Disneyland, "Western
democracy" is presented to us as "imperfect" or "unfinished" (in other words, as a replica of
"real democracy") in order to convince us that there exists such a thing as "real democracy,"
which we will achieve someday.
This is how simulations work. The replica does not exist to deceive us into believing it is
the "real" thing. It exists to convince us that there is a "real" thing . In essence, it
invokes the "real" thing by pretending to be a copy of it. Just as the images of God in church
invoke the "god" of which they are copies (if only in the minds of the faithful), our imperfect
replica of democracy invokes the concept of "real democracy" (which does not exist, and has
never existed, beyond the level of tribes and bands).
This is, of course, ceremonial magic but then so is everything else, really. Take out a
twenty dollar bill, or a twenty Euro note, or your driver's license. They are utterly
valueless, except as symbols, but no less powerful for being just symbols. Or look at some
supposedly solid object under an electron microscope. Try this with a tablespoon. As that bald
kid in The Matrix put it, you will "realize that there is no spoon" or, rather, that
there is only the spoon we've created by believing that there is a spoon.
Look, I don't mean to get all spooky. What that kid (among various others throughout
history) was trying to get us to understand is that we create reality, collectively, with
symbols or we allow reality to be created for us. Our collective reality is also our religion,
in that we live our lives and raise our children according to its precepts and values,
regardless of whatever other rituals we may or may not engage in on the weekend. Western
consumers, no matter whether nominally Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, or of any other
faith, live their lives and raise their children according to the values and rules of
capitalism. Capitalism is our religion. Like every religion, it has a cosmology.
In the cosmology of global capitalism, "democracy" is capitalist heaven. We hear it preached
about throughout our lives, we're surrounded by graven images of it, but we don't get to see it
until we're dead. Attempting to storm its pearly gates, or to create the Kingdom of Democracy
on Earth, is heresy, and is punishable by death. Denying its existence is blasphemy, for which
the punishment is excommunication, and consignment to the City of Dis, where the lost souls
shout back and forth at each other across the lower depths of the Internet, their infernal
voices unheard by the faithful but, hey, don't take the word of an apostate like me. Go ahead,
try it, and see what happens.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Really good, amusing article.
Our replica of democracy is not to deceive us, but to convince us that there really IS
an(unattainable) democracy. The promised land is always just beyond the horizon
"It does this by casting a magic spell that deceives us into perceiving the capitalist
marketplace we Westerners inhabit, not as a market, but as a society."
Yes. Consumer capitalism requires illusion and MK-ULTRA programs to function.
"We create reality, collectively, with symbols "
And those symbols, often repurposed from earlier iterations like the swastika, stem from
ancient sources. Maybe the structure of our reality was designed years ago.
"This is, of course, ceremonial magic but then so is everything else, really."
Yep. The narrow-focused rationalists who have degraded science into a religion will never
accept that there is a sliver of magic and sorcery, originating from Kabbalistic practices,
that operate as a higher level science, the mechanics of which non-initiates can't
quantify.
I agree with much of what this columnist wrote. However this entire globalist criminal
enterprise is rapidly crumbling. This is shown in the rise of patriotic/loyalist and Marxist
parties in Europe and the Far Right and Far Left in the U.S. The globalist elite 0.001%
empire of the banksters, crapitalists and fingerciers and their lackeys, knaves and varlets,
along with their political prostitute puppets, is built on sand. These worthless cretins have
loaded down every nation on earth, and especially in the West, with massive, crushing debt.
Ditto for individuals and businesses. It is not sustainable. In addition they have off shored
much of Western industry into Third World nations and flooded Western nations with Third
World proles to hold down wages and depress living conditions. Reaction among the native
Whites is building stronger by the day. At some point this volcano is going to blow. When it
does all bets are off as to how much destruction will happen.
At this point the super rich and their banks and trans-national corporations can either
gradually give way to democratic change and re-industrialize the West, discount all these
debts, and stop this Third World invasion and begin swift repatriation of these interlopers
and save much of their wealth and power or they will soon face armed revolution and
civil/class/racial war in the streets. These worthless elites have fouled their own nests
since they have left virtually no Western nation untouched by these triple evils of debt,
immigration and de-industrialization. They either never learned the lessons of the French and
Russian revolutions or believe it could not happen in the 21st Century to them. Either way it
makes no difference. Globalism is crumbling and going the way of other evil isms: Fascism,
Communism, Nazism, Imperialism, Colonialism, etc. Its days are numbered and the writing is on
the wall. Meanwhile those nations not controlled by the Western White Collar Mafia, namely
Russia and China, along with Iran and a few other Asian and Middle Eastern nations, are
building up their economies and militaries and increasingly challenging the Western tyrants.
We are definitely in for troubled times ahead. Always remember: Those who make peaceful
change impossible, make violent change inevitable. Globalism has had its evil day and its
black sun is setting. The only questions now are will it go peacefully and quietly or loudly
and violently and what will replace it. I hope and pray something good and true.A new world
order built that that is God and Christ and not man based with peace, prosperity, and justice
for all in a natural order of things.
Free movement of capital, in Europe since 1997, took away power from politicians.
The German Lafontaine made it clear.
He stated that when in Basel a German spoke to the bankers assembled there, blaming them,
they clapped their hands.
One sees it in the terminology used, what in the good old days was called protectionism, a
word suggesting something positive, now is trade war, definitely something bad.
It for me is the same as with privatisation of universal services, water, electricity, etc.,
neither privatising anything is good, also a state economy is not good, as the USSR made
clear.
In the good old days in W European countries we had mixed exonomies, commercial enterprises
for cars and jeans, state enterprise for electricity and public transport.
In my opinion a mixed world economy also is the best option, this means regulation of capital
movement, to mention one thing.
A little snapshot to illustrate the point. Standing in the passport control line at Newark
Airport -- interminably, because of about 24 stations for checking people back in to the
motherland, maybe five were manned. This was in mid-afternoon on a weekday, a time when many
international flights were arriving. The wait was about an hour and a half.
While waiting, you get a superb view through the window of the Manhattan skyline, and
might have occasion to think about all the swells in the financial sector whose ever-growing
prosperity has sucked money not only out of the real economy of goods and services, but out
of government as well, a point Michael Hudson often makes. E.g., cap those property taxes in
California, but drive housing prices in California and interest rates sky high to transfer
wealth out of the hands of home owners and governments, and into finance capital.
You can work yourself up into a pretty good lather thinking about this while you wait your
turn at an under-funded passport control station.
I would recommend this book to unz readers. I read it years ago and its basic premise becomes
more observably true every year .and pertains to the US as well, something Chu didn't
mention.
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability
By Amy Chua
Category: World Politics | Economics | Management
"Chua shows how in non-Western countries around the globe, free markets have concentrated
starkly disproportionate wealth in the hands of a resented ethnic minority. These
"market-dominant minorities" – Chinese in Southeast Asia, Croatians in the former
Yugoslavia, whites in Latin America and South Africa, Indians in East Africa, Lebanese in
West Africa, Jews in post-communist Russia – become objects of violent hatred. At the same time, democracy empowers the impoverished majority, unleashing ethnic
demagoguery, confiscation, and sometimes genocidal revenge."
So maybe revolutions will be the new way of managing the world,
An ex furniture salesman, now the Prime Minister of Israel would not agree. He thinks
history has ended. Jerusalem is soon to be or already is the capital of the globalist world.
Hate speech laws replace the sanctity of the Monarchs and Churches with the sanctity of
Israel and identity politics. His lackeys have even taken away the freedom to shop via the
criminalisation of BDS. Talpiot program has turned everything into a video game. He is either
a genius or a complete fool. But I hope you are right and he is wrong. Another point.
Democracy real and simulated only became fashionable a hundred years ago.
That's the first I've heard of "progressing towards democracy" as a major feature of the
modern Western worldview (a la USSR progressing towards communism, I suppose). No, I've
encountered such ideas before among pundits, but I don't think most people in America, say,
believe that they currently don't live in a democracy but will later live in a "true"
democracy. That seems like a rather exotic notion outside of very narrow intellectual
circles.
Also, "as long as they conform their behavior to the values of capitalism and not their
religion". But people are free to conform their behaviour to the values of their religion to
a large extent. They're not free to violate the laws of what you'd call capitalist society.
But that is not the same as being forced to conform to its values.
Which is why it is absolutely crucial to maintain the simulation of democracy, and the
fiction that we're still living in a world where major geopolitical events are determined
by sovereign nations and their leaders, rather than by global corporations and a class of
supranational elites whose primary allegiance is to global capitalism, rather than to any
specific nation, much less to the actual people who live there.
But it can go wrong. The simulation was supposed to make Hillary Clinton President –
but, in the event, it veered over to real Democracy and produced Trump.
Equally the Brexit vote was planned to fail – but that also turned in a real
Democratic result with a majority for Brexit.
Simulated Democracy is a difficult process and it's probably due for more failures given
the difficulty of controlling the modern flow of information.
I suppose we are all going to spend the rest of our lives listening to bitter millenials rant
about the evils of capitalism. After all, they could move out of their parent's basement if
the government would force the banks to forgive all their student loans.
It should be obvious by now that all forms of government eventually morph into what we see
all around us today. But let's not confuse free market capitalism (which has never existed)
with the aristocratic fascisms that we call "Communism" or "Democracy."
The only way to really solve the problem of government is make government irrelevant.
Well, CJ, If I were your political science professor, I'd fail your sorry ass for 'communist
jargon' and 'Marxist jingoism' maybe that works fine if you're into looking for strokes when
singing to the choir but it won't build alliances that accomplish anything. But maybe that's
not your point, and the substance of your butt-hurt whining is about "I'm CJ Hopkins!" kinda
like "I'm Rick James!"
Look dude, if you want to get down and dirty with your enemies, hit below the belt, and do
it like this:
The worlds elites have us mind controlled and financially controlled via the Zionist Fed that
creates money out of thin air and then loans this money to our gov and we goyim and charge
interest on this ether created money and there in lies the control for by their control over
the money they control every thing.
In addition the Zionists fastened the IRS on we goyims and this IRS is a off shoot of the
FED and so our money is sent to the Zionist bankers who own the FED to make sure we pay for
the wars that the Zionists have arranged for we Americans and so this is a trap that has been
laid by the central bankers which insures their dominance for ever and ever.
This system of control has been in existence since 1913 when the zionist bankers fastened
the FED and the IRS on to the American people and the author of this article is exactly
right, we are in a financial prison a prison without bars but a prison none the less.
In regards to voting as Stalin said ie it is not who votes that counts but who counts the
votes.
These worthless cretins have loaded down every nation on earth, and especially in the
West, with massive, crushing debt. Ditto for individuals and businesses. It is not
sustainable.
Any given iteration of the capitalism model is unsustainable by its very nature, of
course. Any capitalist instantiation is self-exhausting, as capitalism eventually transfers
all wealth (or some very large fraction) to the wealthy. ALL. At that point, that instance
collapses at some rate determined by its state of monetization.
But not all wealth evaporates. After a financial collapse, a new zero-point establishes at
or near "true value". The capitalism model reasserts, and continues. It may be inherent to
the nature of Man.
'Democracy' is a scam that privatizes power, while socializing responsibility.
Reminds me of Oswald Spengler, though he is better read about than read, IMHO. From
wikipedia: "Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the
media are the means through which money operates a democratic political system."
But one minor quibble: yes, for now, in the West, fake democracy is certainly better than
old-style feudalism. But it doesn't have to be, and it doesn't have to stay that way. In many
nominally capitalist and 'democratic' countries – like India, Bangladesh, etc. –
half the population is chronically malnourished, the physical standard of living well below
that of late medieval europe (!). Now that communism has been vanquished, capitalism has no
need of a bargain of power for a decent standard of living, and the rich are moving towards
dragging the entire world towards the Indian model of cheap-labor serfdom. Yes it can happen
here.
Citizens United isn't helping, brought to you by the corrupt Supreme Court. They're starting
to push putting Ted Cruz in SCOTUS, that would be a huge mistake.
"Democracy" is a sham, the candidates are carefully pre-selected and promoted by the
corrupt media, if that fails, the unelected delegates and super delegates can always void
your vote.
This is why we only get Mitt Romneys, Clintons, Bushes, the same ol dirtbags out of
millions of people.
Americans clearly want the homicidal wars to end, are the wars/occupations ending?
More Americans clearly are turning away from supporting Israel, does it matter?
Most Americans want mass immigration and illegal immigration stopped, is it stopping?
There is a petition to End the Federal Reserve scam, do any of the petitions go anywhere?
Go sign it, lets find out .
The Mexican maid is the answer to our collective misery. What do I mean? Well! The white boys
have given up on rebelling against the Empire (1% + 10% Jews and Whites with a small
sprinkling of non-white goys) and da coloreds (Indians and Chinese) are too wrapped up in
trying to prove their worth to the lost crackas while the niggas (Blacks et al) are simply
too stupid to understand, let alone do anything about improving their lot. Alas, fear not!
The unwelcome army of latinas from Central America, employed as caretakers will prove their
worth by simply poisoning the whole perfidious lot, slowly. So, welcome to America,
Guadalupe!
The suffocating hold that propaganda has on an uncritical public must rank as an historic
coup for the ages. It is the modern version of the allegory of the cave. Simpletons are
willing to die for their puppeteers in wars that serve no other purpose than to enrich their
owners. But die for their masters they will. Yet there is a glaring contradiction in foreign
wars and America's favorite pastime, regime change. The chances of "real" democracy, for
instance, taking root in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Egypt are virtually non-existent.
Worse still, they are simply not allowed. And any other countries that steer an independent
course from American hegemony will suffer consequences -- regime change, economic sanctions
or direct military action. Yet it is the public sold on its exceptionalism, living in a
"real" democracy (confused with rampant consumerism and hedonism) that has so utterly failed
to see -- and act, on these contradictions. Although the notion of "inching" toward "real"
democracy may serve to pacify the public, with the ever growing militarization of the deep
police state, true democracy will simply not be allowed to flourish. It is the only credible
threat to rampant capitalism. What is significant is that the lumpen proletariat firmly
believe that they live in a democracy. So change is rendered redundant in such a scenario.
Best expression of capitalism, religion, democracy as a Weltanschauung.
To fuse the totalitarian, univeral concept that paires so well to 98% of the world
population we suggest consumerism.
Do not take for granted that our de facto global elites, and the mercenary middle-classes
have a clear understandig where they are heading. There is cognitive dissonance in idea,
method and projection of their in-group opportunism. Ethics being nothing more then superior
opportunism. Smart, but ailing and failing a religion. In fact the theory proves the
cognitive capacity of the authors.
The ongoing debunking of the sacred yet impossible '6M Jews' is what is really driving so
called "hate speech laws". What your told is merely the pretext.
Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators
go to prison for Thought Crimes.
An obvious admission that the storyline doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, &
rational scrutiny.
And coming to your neighborhood.
The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived.
That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist,
& privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that
denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from
scrutiny.
This is an elegant fleshing out of fashionable despair. Yes, self-rule is a myth. What does
Hopkins recommend to replace it with? Is the aspiration of a democratic republic the problem,
or is it money, media, and the subversion of power?
As flawed as our belief in democracy is, I haven't heard the better alternative. Just as
some say we must go to Mars because we are destroying earth, I think we should take care of
this earth as repairing and caring for it might be within our means. Instead of throwing
democracy out, we should try and make it work.
For example, been reading about the rise of antibiotic resistant germs and industrial
farming. The problem was long known, but there was no political will to do anything about it
because the industry could lobby and also control regulators. In theory, the government
worked for the greater good of all the people, but in practice it auctions us all to special
interest.
Capitalists defend the current system by saying it's not really capitalism. Well, whatever
it is, it came about because democracy was not actual but rather an ongoing auction of
national interest to special interest.
It's a good article and makes a good case, but you will have to wait just a bit longer
until us believers die off as you will not pry this democracy, our heritage and our best
chance, from my cold hands.
similar experience coming through Atlanta.
Want to create jobs? Coulda created 50 there. At least. And prevented missed flight
connections. Obama time.
I shall proudly call myself an idiot then, as I believe capitalism and democracy are both
bad.
The only system capable of inspiring passion and loyalty is some form of feudalism –
personal loyalty to a lord is a beautiful thing, noblesse oblige a beautiful thing, sacred
kingship is a beautiful thing, the tradition of beautiful craftsmanship that arises when
economic considerations are not uppermost is a beautiful thing, the standards of excellence
that are natural to a system that recognizes hierarchy and inequality is a beautiful
thing.
I also think personal freedom, and tolerance for eccentricity is far greater when the
social system is firmly grounded. In a democracy where nothing is secure conformity of
opinion and personality become urgent – to maintain even minimum stability.
Japan has retained elements of feudalism to this day yet is economically far more
egalitarian than America – because when economics is the sole standard of value, the
ambitious will gather all wealth into their hands.
Seeing the Japanese bow to each other – such a beautiful gesture.
Yeah, I suppose I could have half tried but the self-righteous indignation (tone) puts me
off. It's like Tom Englehardt, get people all tied up in some hopeless, helpless outrage that
accomplishes precisely nothing, no solutions, no pointing to a direction that might get
something done. In any case CJ is in Berlin but I bet he wouldn't give a New York second's
thought to risking his butt and work to put the German politicians nuts in a vise, but Hey!
you never know, here's his chance, he can promote this:
Of my five years exile in Germany, two of those years were in Berlin and I can assure you
the German political animal is an authentic coward, and Gregor Gysi of Die Linke is no
exception, he'd go after CJ before he'd go after the NATO war criminals is my best bet. Maybe
CJ has the balls to risk it?
Marxist twaddle about "democracy", lol. As if the founders didn't warn us so strenuously
about the tyranny of the majority.
Our government was formed not so that we could vote on what I am allowed to eat, but so
that others would have no say in it.
The centralization of power and conformity across previously sovereign states now
prohibits people from voting with their feet. The globalists are the next extension of the
same tyranny.
We don't have limited governments and free markets. We have big brother government and a
captured regulatory apparatus ensuring only large corporations can survive. Regulatory law is
nowhere in the constitution and they dictate over subjects also not in the constitution.
I knew it was over when the US electorate was swooned over Iraqis having purple fingers
voting "secret ballots". The candidates names were secret. But all you need to tell the
sheeple is that they voted.
This piece is typical Marxist sleight of hand. To have a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people, you limit what the government can do. Then you have liberty.
Self-rule.
Mr. Hopkins' article is an effective, accurate description of why and how things have
declined into a sort of soft fascism during the last 40 years or so in particular.
Democracy can easily be done on the individual level. There are plenty of resources for this.
I am not my brother's keeper anyway. don't tell me there is no democracy – just people
who want others to give it to them. Go all Thoreau on the world. Go off the grid, or Alaska,
or an island somewhere. Democracy is not for pansies.
no solutions, no pointing to a direction that might get something done
Preceding "solution" is description, and descriptive explanation. The article is not
intended as a set of solutions. It is a description and explanation.
Excellent article with much needed humor. We no longer have a word for an economic system
that supports human life. Hunting and gathering was early agriculture. Moving some rocks and
dirt out of the way to get some obsidian was mining. Knocking rocks against the obsidian was
early manufacturing. The excess from farms, mines and factories is what WAS called capital.
We are supposed to believe that a farmer can't plant a seed without a loan! We are in the
last stages of financialism. Since the word capitalism is useless how about "real stuffism"?
I'm a physical scientist and I can guarantee that math and the physical world always ends
financialism.
That line got me to laughing a lot harder than the rest of your bullshit, so I had to stop
reading. Your comments are now relegated to the "Duuuuuuuhhhhhh .MARXISM!!!" bin.
You could open up the scope of this post's valid point and say that it's not just democracy
that's simulated here. Rights and rule of law are simulated too. Democracy, fetishized though
it is, in degenerate ritual form, is a very small part of rights and rule of law
(specifically, ICCPR Article 25, one article of one of nine core human rights instruments or
about 100 total instruments in world-standard customary and conventional international law.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsInstruments.aspx
)
This exchange is a really good catch. Latching on to the term deep state allows CIA to bat
away a puffball question that avoids the real question. Their scripted answer to the scripted
easy question: employees 'aimed at' the president's objectives and Amerca's objectives. This
is clever first of all because it says objectives and not orders. It's a weaker formulation
that the Pike-Committee era line, CIA works for the president. CIA is trying to evade the US
commitment to command responsibility in the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against
Torture. Secondly, the DCI purports to interpret the president's objectives and proclaim
America's objectives. Used to be State or NSC did that, subject to presidential directives or
decision documents. Pompeo says CIA works for him. We're at the point Frank Zappa told us to
expect: CIA's removing the stage set so we're sitting looking at the brick wall. Pompeo's
telling you that CIA's in charge.
The hard question is: Does CIA have impunity in municipal law? The answer is yes, of
course it does. It's there in black and white in the Central Intelligence Agency Act, the
Houston memo, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the operational files exemption,
and the political questions doctrine. If the DCI had no impunity the new DCI would be in
prison. CIA is obligated to prosecute or extradite its torturers and murderers. Na ga happen.
CIA has the arbitrary life-and-death power of a totalitarian state. CIA is beyond criminal.
Its arbitrary suspension of non-derogable rights and jus cogens says, Law? Fuck law.
I agree that the US is the ultimate expression of materialism.
The original Pilgrim Fathers were looking for religious freedom, but later waves of
immigrants came for economic opportunity, and the US was the first place that "Citizens"
morphed into "Consumers".
Congressmen are bought and sold, and they're probably OK with that, along the lines that
their vote has value, and they'll support whoever bids the highest (which isn't the electors
back home).
Like AaronB says, the US (and West in general) has no spiritual foundation, and is just a
cynical game of exploitation and corruption pretending to be "Democratic" . Real Democracy
does exist, but it's not something that Americans would want to be involved with – it
requires a high level of personal commitment and responsibility (probably obligatory),
regular local public meetings, investment in studying issues, and the primacy of local
decision making and voting over Federal power ( i.e. power residing at the lowest level
possible – which in the US would be the County and State). In other words it's hard and
time consuming work.
To take a parallel, the late Roman Empire was also a sink of absolute corruption and self
interest that couldn't defend its frontiers and finally collapsed, first socially, then
economically.
The spiritual Phoenix that rose out of its ashes was Christianity, with the barbarian
invaders converting and building Christendom in Europe (Rome) and also in the Middle East
(Byzantium). The early Christian communities in the Late Roman Empire were heavily persecuted
but still recognized for their high level of morality, work ethic and "respectability", and
in its last days (too late), the Empire actually adopted to Christianity through the
conversion of Constantine.
It should be obvious by now that all forms of government eventually morph into what we
see all around us today. But let's not confuse free market capitalism (which has never
existed) with the aristocratic fascisms that we call "Communism" or "Democracy."
You are on the right path, good observations.
Thinking people are aware of the fact that Moderns have permission not freedom.
What a surprise another commie writer on economic issues on Unz! These economic pos articles
resemble what you read in the NY times. Sheesh.
"Western consumers are free to buy whatever products they want"
Pure crap. Depending on the state you live in, think for a moment of all the restrictions,
taxes and permission you must go through to own a car, buy gass, freon, herbicide. Pharmacy
products, illegal drugs guns etc. A list a mile long. Anyone who describes the USA as a free
market is plain wrong and has no idea about the problems we face.
Liberty and the free market are not part of the problem. They are part of the
solution.
Switzerland, Singapore, and old Hong Kong to name a few examples are some of the
wealthiest in the world because of low to no taxes and max economic freedom. Two of the three
were crushed by ww2. Came back stronger than ever in 40 yrs or so.
You only discuss democracy as some monolithic idea, with some idealised notion that 'real'
democracy can only be tribal or small scale. This is not true.
Representative democracy = evolutionary autocracy and the right to shout. Laws and
regulations, being made by representatives – and only representatives – remain
purely autocratic in their creation and destruction.
Direct democracy – those tribes. Doesn't work for a society that has a huge
population and needs a 'directing mind' as Aurelius likened the individuals' equivalent.
Semi-direct democracy – a combination of the power to create or strike law by both
representatives (elected or selected), and the electorate. Switzerland has it (to a degree
because of its media, just check the June 10th banking referendum propaganda machine), China
approximates it because it polls its population on every level, decision and preference.
At the very least, the electorate should have power to strike laws made by representatives
and rescind previously struck laws by representatives. This is only fair – people
should have a process for declaring directly what laws they want to abide by. Representatives
may not like it, but society is society, it should be able to make these choices, for good or
bad.
Representative democracy – democracy in the spirit of the law, and autocracy in the
letter of the law – is for the most part an autocracy, with a progressive dumbing down,
frustration, and marginalisation of the electorate due to their practical lack of true power
to change society.
Then there's the question of education and media, as you need a smart and well informed
public with semi-direct much more than with representative. And preferably constitutionally
enforced armed military neutrality, as herd behaviour often tends to violence.
Finally – revolutionary democracy: revolts against systems can often be democratic,
if bloody, so build an effective system that considers the opinions and worries of the
masses.
Three sentences and I was done; and a play wright living in Berlin. Berrrrlin Dude, lets do
some history, Socialism sucks. But I do agree that my vote has been diluted to zero, by
design.
"... Global capitalists do not have this luxury. Generating the simulation of democracy that most Western consumers desperately need in order to be able to pretend to believe that they are not just smoothly-functioning cogs in the machinery of a murderous global empire managed by a class of obscenely wealthy and powerful international elites to whom their lives mean exactly nothing, although extremely expensive and time-consuming, is essential to maintaining their monopoly on power. Having conditioned most Westerners into believing they are "free," and not just glorified peasants with gadgets, the global capitalist ruling classes have no choice but to keep up this fiction. Without it, their empire would fall apart at the seams. ..."
One of the most complicated and frustrating aspects of operating a global capitalist empire
is maintaining the fiction that it doesn't exist. Virtually every action you take has to be
carefully recontextualized or otherwise spun for public consumption. Every time you want to
bomb or invade some country to further your interests, you have to mount a whole PR campaign.
You can't even appoint a sadistic torture freak to run your own coup-fomenting agency, or shoot
a few thousand unarmed people you've imprisoned in a de facto ghetto, without having to do a
big song and dance about "defending democracy" and "democratic values."
Naked despotism is so much simpler, not to mention more emotionally gratifying. Ruling an
empire as a godlike dictator means never having to say you're sorry. You can torture and kill
anyone you want, and conquer and exploit whichever countries you want, without having to
explain yourself to anyone. Also, you get to have your humongous likeness muraled onto the
walls of buildings, make people swear allegiance to you, and all that other cool dictator
stuff.
Global capitalists do not have this luxury. Generating the simulation of democracy that most
Western consumers desperately need in order to be able to pretend to believe that they are not
just smoothly-functioning cogs in the machinery of a murderous global empire managed by a class
of obscenely wealthy and powerful international elites to whom their lives mean exactly
nothing, although extremely expensive and time-consuming, is essential to maintaining their
monopoly on power. Having conditioned most Westerners into believing they are "free," and not
just glorified peasants with gadgets, the global capitalist ruling classes have no choice but
to keep up this fiction. Without it, their empire would fall apart at the seams.
... ... ...
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Since the very first summit talk National Security Advisor John Bolton set impossibly high
expectations for the results. Trump fell for it.
The various 'hostile statements'
go back to remarks by Bolton who has
for some time compared disarmament of North Korea to Libya. On April 29 Bolton again
asserted
that the 'complete de-nuclearization' of North Korea would follow the 'Libya model'. North
Korea never really offered to 'de-nuclearize'. It rejects the 'Libya model' for two
reasons:
When Libya made peace with the U.S. it was not a nuclear capable state which North Korea
is. North Korea demands to be seen as equal to other nuclear armed states.
Libya's transfer of the little nuclear production equipment it had was followed a few
years later by a full fledged war waged by France, the U.K. and the U.S. against Libya and
its government under Muhammad Ghaddafi. The war destroyed the country. North Korea has no
intent to allow a repeat of such treason.
North Korea pushed back against the Bolton statement. On May 16 the White House made amends
by
not endorsing what Bolton said :
Referring to the Libya comparison, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday
that she hadn't "seen that as part of any discussions so I'm not aware that that's a model
that we're using.
"I haven't seen that that's a specific thing. I know that that comment was made. There's
not a cookie cutter model on how this would work."
But a day later Donald Trump was asked about the Libya comparison and he
seemed to agree with it:
"The model, if you look at that model with Gaddafi, that was a total decimation . We went in
there to beat him. Now that model would take place if we don't make a deal , most likely. But
if we make a deal, I think Kim Jong-un is going to be very, very happy."
We
called that the 'art of the mafia deal': "Sign here or we will kill you." Signing under
threat is something North Korea will never do.
The U.S. media played down Trump's talk as somewhat off-the-cuff. North Korea did not react
to it. The summit train was still on track.
But on May 21 Vice President Pence
revived the issue in an interview with Fox News :
PENCE: We really hope that Kim Jong-un will seize the opportunity to dismantle his nuclear
weapons program and do so by peaceable means. You know, there were some talk about the Libya
model last week. And you know, as the president made clear, you know, this will only end like
the Libya Model ended if Kim Jong-un doesn't make a deal .
MACCALLUM: Some people saw that as a threat.
PENCE: Well, I think it's more of a fact. President Trump made it clear the United States
of America under his leadership is not going to tolerate the regime in North Korea possessing
nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and our allies. We've
made it clear that we are continuing to bring economic and diplomatic pressure to bear on
North Korea that all options are on the table to achieve that end .
Propaganda System says summit cancelled because of DPRK's "aggressive talk." Well, it's very
clear that all the "aggressive talk" came from the Outlaw US Empire, making Trump's letter a
fraud despite its authenticity.
As for JCPOA, yesterday I provided this link to
Khamenei's "conditions" to EU for Iran to remain within JCPOA. Today, Khamenei has tweeted a
listing of his "Experiences from the #JCPOA for decisions to make today and in the
future" with point #2 being the most important as it goes to the root of the impasse existing
between the Islamic Republic and the Outlaw US Empire.
I am going to disagree with your projected outcome b while thanking you again for such fine
reporting.
I project the reunification of North and South Korea as a result of this latest "throw
America under the bus" move by the plutocrat "Apprentice" Trump.
It is sad to comment that we are watching our species "leadership" battle about who will
be in charge and no time is spent on discussing what sort of future might be best for
humanity..........sigh
This may seem counter-intuitive but the crazies will say that it is more imperative than
ever to stop Iran before they get nuclear armed ICBM's from N. Korea or help N. Korea build
nuclear ICBM's. I've already heard this crazy talk on FOX and the FDD brigades.
Can't wait to hear Sean Hannity bray ... 'appeasement doesn't work, Trump is
Winston Churchill. It's all Bill Clinton's fault.'
Trump suffered two big losses this week: 1) he got rolled by the Chinese in trade
negotiations, and 2) he won't take home a Nobel to Trump Tower.
Trump won a very narrow election because he was going to bring jobs back, and he wasn't
going to fight any stupid wars.
Now he's painted himself into a corner where his only options are war: a trade war with
China or, as jawbone speculates, a jailhouse scenario where Trump targets the weakest
opponent. I think he's cooked.
US/Trump gain several levers in this cancellation.
With the Trade Talks w/China going nowhere, they get to use sanctions hard against China. The
excuse will be North Korea. Banking and commodities moving again to N.K. will be the excuse.
This gains leverage for Trade Talks.
Also, South China Sea, requires the forceful presence of the QUAD navies. To bring them
into SCS and ECS to show Maximum Force to Pyongyang also is leverage against China.
It whips up Japan, India and Australia to a froth against China's naval power.
So, Trump gains useful tools to look like the Hegemon he is.
Parity with Kim was a big problem in Singapore meeting. Trump never wants parity. He
always wants dominance.
One reason why he doesn't want to sit with Putin as equals.
There's always a lot more to any of these "events".
China, Eurasia and Russia are the game for the Hegemon. North Korea is just a sector on
the GO board.
It was clear from the start that the 'Globalist/Deep State' wanted nothing to do with this
summit. The U.S. presence on the Korean Peninsula depends on a permanent state of war.
However the damage may already be done. The U.S. now clarifies its role as being at the
root of the problem, not the solution.
It will be interesting to see if the U.S. will be able to maintain its control over South
Korea, or will South Korea begin to move closer to the Multi-polar World Order.
Red Ryder @ 16: You assume that Trump enjoys Putin-like levels of support domestically. He
does not. Yes, now he can ratchet things up now against China. But eventually the pain must
come home, and the U.S. population has very little capacity to endure pain, and certainly not
on behalf of political leadership engaged in brinkmanship.
Trump is cooked.
Robert Snefjella , May 24, 2018 2:00:27 PM |
22Circe , May 24, 2018 2:17:46 PM |
23
1.How John Bolton Sabotaged The North Korea Talks
Trump is fully responsible for this outcome. Trump hired Bolton and has been
itching to have him on board since day one. Trump put a hawk like Pompeo at State. Trump
thinks he can bully everyone into submission and he used the Libya model to threaten Kim if
he doesn't agree to de-nuclearize. Trump has shown all his full Neocon colors, soliciting
Neocons to boost his poll numbers by declaring Jerusalem capital of Israel and destroying the
JCPOA and then threatening the EU to submit to this disastrous decision, and since his polls
numbers are rising. Trump is a thug and a fraud so quit treating him like he's a man-baby in
baby pants who still doesn't know any better. It's all intentional and was planned from the
start with his Zionist financiers.
2.Giving up its nuclear capabilities would be suicidal as the U.S. will not honor any
security guarantees it might give in exchange. Trump proved such when he canceled the JCPOA
deal with Iran.
Did you think that maybe, just maybe when Trump realized Kim was playing hardball and
would not cower to de-nuclearization; he turned on the fake outrage to postpone, yes postpone
the summit because there would be no way that he could justify giving NK a deal that was more
lenient and weaker than the JCPOA? I've been writing, that upon recognizing that Kim is no
pushover, Trump would find an excuse to save face; a way to slither out of this, so he could
justify the irrational demands being exacted against Iran.
3.The U.S. media played down Trump's talk as somewhat off-the-cuff. North Korea did not
react to it. The summit train was still on track.
NO it wasn't still on track. North Korea had already given the U.S. the shut out and
channels of comm. were cut after Max Thunder military exercises offended and humiliated Kim
who had just recently made the gesture of releasing of releasing 3 U.S. prisoners.
The U.S. was already shut out and NKn officials incommunicado and the WH was keeping this
under wraps. So, to save face, Trump used NKs reaction to the Pence comments to postpone
while he still had a chance to posture strength.
Trump has no clue how to operate in good faith and respect because he's a thug, an
egotistical opportunist and a blowhard and has surrounded himself with Neocon birds of a
feather that he chose deliberately thinking that he could bully Kim into submission and then
claim the Nobel Prize for himself when really all the rapprochement diplomacy was initiated
by Kim around the Olympics and then through subsequent gestures towards Moon.
Trump is getting a well-deserved schooling from young Kim.
It was to be expected. Never trust the US. It is all just a theater, as it was withh Hussein
an Qaddafi and others before them. The Evil Empire will not budge.
The Evil Empire needs a "color revolution", methinks. So we will just fund some outlying
"LEGAL" radical group, :) , free speech and all, you know like the IRA back in the day, just
fund them. They will find they way.
Majority of South Koreans see unified nuclear Korea as strongly stabilizing politically and
militarily factor in the region.
Yes, SK does not trust US that ignores openly returning of Japanese militarism while
Japanese are capable of building 100 nukes in 9-12 months while missiles threatening Koreans
they already have.
Both Koreans want nukes as guarantee that Japanese occupation and Chinese influence will
never happen again.
Of course blinded globalists do not want to see it in DC as much as in Beijing or
Moscow.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe 24
The Evil Empire needs a "color revolution", methinks.
It will never happen. Fifty years ago Uncle Sam learned how to crush all resistance
movements. Here in Uncle Sam Land we are living with the results: a militarized police state
where folks are regularly gunned down for failure to instantly obey police commands. Even
obeying their commands can still result in death.
Police gun down three civilians a day. Every day. Three hundred and sixty-five days a
year. When the police strap on their gun belt at the beginning of each duty shift, they are
confirming their willingness to gun down a civilian on a moment's notice. Not even the
military does that - they train to kill combatants, not civilians. Yes their definition of
"combatant" is very loose, but they still claim most of the dead are "combatants". Not so the
police.
Anything that has even a *hint* of being a potential movement is co-opted or crushed, like
the "Occupy Movement" a few years ago. Instead of a non-violent revolution there will be more
repression, more police murder, and more suffering as the empire continues to decay from the
incompetence, greed, and corruption of Our Dear Leaders.
I'm not sad to be closer to the end of my life than to the beginning. The near-term future
looks to be very, very grim indeed.
The very real possibility of China carrying through on its statement that it would not help N
Korea if it initiated hostilities but would come to N Korea's aid if it was attacked make a
war in Korea unlikely. Israel really wants the US to go to war with Iran. It almost succeeded
in 2006 with Bush junior in office. The realists in the US military know that war with Iran
would be a no-win contest. That doesn't mean it won't happen. However, Hezbollah is still in
Lebanon and Syria has won its war against the jihadis although many more will die before its
over. So unless Israel can manipulate a unilateral US attack on Iran it won't happen in the
near future. When the inevitable next economic downturn happens (which will be worse than
2008 because they really didn't fix anything but just created 10s of trillions of dollars to
kick the can down the road - this coming downturn will be worse) the war needed to keep
control will happen. That leaves Venezuela. It's nearby. It has oil. The Venezuelan military
will be a slam dunk for the US military. I can remember Grenada and Panama.
The public counts for nothing in Hegemonic policy. 17 years of war in Afghanistan is
meaningless to the voter. Trillions missing, 11 T, 20 T. is nothing. They only care about
their wallet, their stomach and today's Latte.
This move was to disrupt Moon's influence, to separate (again and forever) the South and
the North, and to leverage against China.
You can judge American domestic sensibilities as integral to this policy, but I think you
are really off base.
Hegemony is Empire. And the citizens of the Empire enjoy security at all costs. They have
given their privacy to the Deep State, their jobs to Global Liberalism, their children to
drugs (legaliziation is universal) and just want a Latte in the a.m. and the blue pill to get
hard.
Most males are neutered. The Army is Volunteer. They fear nothing but random terror or
psychotic events or false flag violence.
But they could care less if Trump nukes Pyongyang and Teheran in the same day.
Cooked? The enemies of Empire are cooked, and the dolts called voters are cooked.
South Korea has over 20 nuclear reactors and has re-evaluated its nuclear enthusiasm after
the Fukushima catastrophe involving primarily four reactors. Japan has over 50 reactors, most
idle since Fukushima. But these reactors whether operating or not have also left a legacy of
large amounts of highly radioactive materials, for example spent fuel pools.
Japan has attempted to cleanup its contaminated environment, and one of the highly visible
results is tens of millions of large plastic bags containing radioactive material.
Much of the radioactive material from Fukushima ended up in the North Pacific Ocean, and
much has been deposited around Earth. The North Pacific Ocean coincidentally over the last
few years has experienced unprecedented loss of life.
A real war in the region, even without involvement of nuclear weapons, would have the
potential to create a global scale nuclear catastrophe, among other terrible results.
So for this, as well as other reasons, there is an enormous incentive for all the
countries in the area to find peaceful solutions.
The problem is, as often noted, that the US has a war habit, a war dependence, and a war
'belief system'; simultaneously, a declining military and financial Empire to hang onto. They
also have an elite and deep state with deeply pathological characteristics. And they are at a
seeming 'safe' distance from the Koreas etc. So the horrific remains a possibility.
One of the great problems with the 'Russia did it' crazy-dishonest meme, and the Ukraine
coup, is that it is now difficult for the Americans to have any kind of sensible dialogue
with Russia, let alone one that Russia could trust. And by making China into the 'next big
enemy' an adult type dialogue is again made near impossible.
Mike Maloney 17
The US support for foreign wars has dropped a bit. TPTB don't care. If they can't get
support, they'll take a lack of protest. It's boots on the ground that gets attention. And
the media is on board with either keeping things like Libya below the public radar or only
one-sided viewpoints as with Syria.
Circe 23
I tend to agree that it's not Bolton wagging the tail (Trump). But it is back to birds of a
feather. Trump brought him in of his own accord. It's like the way the media portrayed Obama
as being on the fence for wars with the usual suspects (Hillary, Kerry, Power, Rice) pushing
for war. Whether Obama, Bush, or Trump, Harry Truman was right that the "buck stops here"
(the President's desk).
Has anyone considered that this is simple a face-saving exercise from both sides?
As in: both sides have understood that the chasm between them is much too wide to warrant
a top-level summit and, therefore, that meeting should be delayed until there is at least
*some* prospect of something coming from it.
I mean, the idea that Trump can be offended by belligerent rhetoric is, well, it's pretty
outlandish, don't ya' think?
And, after all, despite the "suddenness" of Kim and Moon meeting on the DMZ line, it bears
mention that when Kim did step over the line there was - surprise! surprise! - a pre-prepared
document just waiting for both of them to sign.
As I said earlier in another thread before this one went up, the prevailing emotion that
drove the orange incompetent to tip over the card table and deny the chance of cutting a deal
with North Korea, has nothing to do with paper tiger Bolton's aggression and everything to do
with Trump's lack of spine - cowardice in short.
Last weekend the NYT ran a story
highlighting the chaotic manner that trumpist 'negotiators' aka sunkist fell into when
attempting to do a trade deal with China. This was a 'home' match conducted on amerikan soil
where there could be no problem with screwy communications being intercepted yet still
orangekist failed to present a unified front - chiefly because trump had provided no
leadership about negotiation priorities - how could he? Trump remains ignorant of the nuts
and bolts inner workings of the policy positions that he trumpets should be adopted.
In the middle of high level talks with China the two lead amerikan negotiators have to step
outside for a quick blue. Coats didn't come off but the cursing out of each other could be
heard back in Beijing without any reliance on 'new tech'. What a joke. Now the other side
were free to run a wedge play and get what they needed.
I apolgise to those who cannot get past the nyt paywall, I only lucked in/out because I
never read the f##kin' rag any more.
I was wised up to orange negotiating incompetence by this article Trump
Has No Idea How Diplomatic Deals Work at FPdotcom. In it a former oblamblam era
negotiator outlines the screwups which orangekist idiots make:
Based on these experiences, what was stunning to learn about the China trade negotiations
was how at every step of the way, U.S. President Donald Trump's economic team did precisely
the wrong the thing. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, U.S. Trade Representative Robert
Lighthizer, Director of Trade and Industrial Policy Peter Navarro, Chief Economic Advisor
Larry Kudlow, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross executed a textbook case study in how to
not conduct international negotiations.
yep the writer one Ilan Goldenberg is likely a dem partisan and maybe even a liberal
interventionist zionist to boot, but he/she does set out a cogent set of reason about how
orangekist screwed the pooch listed under three main hedings which detail exactly how
orangekist destroyed any chance of a viable outcome. They are elementary school mistakes in
negotiating but sunkist made them:
Failure to prepare
Leaking sensitive negotiating positions
Circular firing squad
The NYT on the other hand in typical pseudo-intellectual bitchy style it uses concentrates
on the gossip around last week's summit that led to the collapse of negotiation. The NYT
kicked off with:
"On Friday, Mr. Trump's chief economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, told reporters that China
had offered to reduce its trade surplus with the United States by $200 billion. Two days
later, he said that the number was merely a "rough ballpark estimate," and that the two
countries never expected to reach an agreement and merely planned to issue a statement
laying out next steps.
It was a muddled end to a chaotic process -- one that revealed an American team riven
by conflicts over tactics and policy, working for a president eager for a victory but torn
by his desire to have a smooth summit meeting next month with North Korea, over which China
wields enormous influence."
Yep so what? Given that both these publications are like user manuals for empire, who
reads 'em except as a somewhat amusing way to see the collapse of amerika Inc. Certainly not
me, or most readers at MoA I imagine, but the idjits of pennsylvania ave have lived and died
on the NYT since they first nutured their megalomania. Being taken apart so publically hurt
everyone on the sunkist team sure, but Trump couldn't a flying F*ck bout that. However it
also made him look like a prize goose hanging around the oval office waiting to be
cooked.
trump has become what he claimed to despise - the criticism has cut his fragile persona
and he has now decided only re-election can give him the acceptance and validation to which
he aspires.
Consequently instead of calling in his team and giving them an exact & achievable set of
outcomes, with fallback positions and a workable toolbox of targets, li'l donnie tells the
world he has lost his
balls attempting to conceal his cowardice with the usual trumpian bumptious bluster.
What a mess; both China and the people of North Korea can have a quick laugh up their
sleeves and then get down to factoring trumpian cowardly incompetence into any further
dealings.
Japan's Abe creep will be alternating between anger at the crass stupidity and fear at the
way this issue has suddenly been boiled down to one option - extreme violence, when even old
blind Freddie can see that the amerikans really have no stomach for conflict with a
comparably strong, superior strategically China. Japan will have no choice but go through
'back channels' to cut a deal with China and by proxy North Korea.
A major bulwark has been pulled outta the foundations of empire and replaced with a yellow
belly. hahahha it couldn't have happened to a bigger hatful of arseholes.
This is not about North Korea. It is about controlling China and Russia.
The 'Globalists/Deep State' want regime change in North Korea so that they can put their
military on the N.K./Chinese border. N.K. nuclear capability is just an excuse. For the
'Globalist/Deep State' this summit is the worst news possible.
Russia and China want the U.S. out of East Asia altogether. They have already told the
U.S. that they will not allow the U.S. to attack or take over N.Korea.
I look for the gamesmanship around de-nuclearization to continue. The question is whether
or not Russia/China will be able to shake South Korea loose from U.S. control. I am not sure
that Trump even knows what the real game is.
There will be no U.S. attack on North Korea, for the same reason that they haven't
attacked Syria (beyond token strikes with no follow-up). The U.S. cannot afford to show the
world that it is just a paper tiger, and thus dares not face Russia directly.
The following items are very nearly certain to be correct. The USSA is not going to reach any
direct agreements with N. Korea, since the only card in play is N. Korea removing its nuclear
deterrent, and that card will never be played. (The whole Trump and Kim meeting was doomed
from the start.)
The USSA is most unlikely to attack Iran. The geographic obstacles alone would make it
very cost ineffective, and they also have Russian anti-air. Plus they would destroy the Saudi
oil facilities. Besides, the Chinese would not put up with either of these adventures; all
they would have to do is recall their giant cargo ships and the USSA economy would sink like
a rock.
So that leaves Venezuela. Where might that go? Nobody knows. Brazil would likely be very
unhappy about that. Brazil is probably the third most powerful nuclear power. But the
assholes are fairly likely to go for Venezuela.
@71 "Has anyone considered that this is simple a face-saving exercise from both sides?"
Yes but this is very high stakes poker they are playing. More than just saving face is
involved.
Trump was losing the 'diplomatic game' and his advisors kept reminding him of that. So now he
is looking for a major concession from Kim.
The question is what happens if he doesn't get guaranteed denuclearisation before agreeing to
talks? And it's hard to see that happening.
Yeah probably correct amerika has been pushed off the block and now it can only hide
behind the high walls n locked gate of it's funky and unkempt backyard playing cowboys and
indians with itself.
It would be great if the honest injuns leapt out from behind that rotten orange tree down the
back whooping & waving tomahawks but I just don't see that happening since foggy bottom
has hospitalised injun leaders by dobbing them in to mommy. That gave power back to the slimy
arse kissers of yesteryear. That shift is only temporary but the timing does mean there won't
be much initial push back until the people of Latin America take back what has been
stolen.
Of course JCPOA plays a role here too since europe won't sit on it's hands for a south
american fuck over, but equally they may use that situation as a trading card for their own
agenda...
I get the feeling Trump is like Hitler - he makes his expectations known and then sits back
while all the competing groups within his regime squabble with each other over who does what.
Didn't work too well for Hitler, why does anybody think it'll work any better for Trump.
Otherwise, this is just the neo-con fuckwits like Bolton hammering a few more nails into
the exceptionalist coffin - in a few days or weeks Trump will realize what a threat to
Trump's ambitions Bolton is and sack the cretin.
......If the US cannot hold onto its beach-head in SK, then a future invasion of
China becomes near-impossible .
My goodness such radical dream "future invasions of China become
near-impossible"
Two countries the fucking USA should never invade: One is India and the other China. Why
you might ask? These are two most populated countries. The populations multiples fast and
swallow its invaders. Both arms with nuclear weapons. They were invaded and colonized for
centuries. They learned and moving fast into the next century not as frens but arch rivals.
China unlike India took an aggressive>peaceful dictatorial system while India the
fucking western Democracy . Nevertheless both systems are doom to fail as history had
shown to date. The dictatorial and democracy systems still control by the rich and powerful
Oligarch - sugar coated outside to please its citizens.
I think there was general consensus here beforehand that the US never wanted a summit with
Kim.
But also some had said that North Korea didn't want a meeting either, and I agree strongly
with this. But talking with the US seemed a piece of the necessary protocol that had to be
played out.
So we've seen the round of betting go full circle, and the US checked the bet - and it
could be argued, so did North Korea, since its own actions were not very costly. It's like
the face-saving suggested by commenters, but it's even more than this, it's much more simply
an empty play, a "free round" in the poker parlance. [Explanation of checking the bet , for non-poker
players.]
The protocol has been observed with the US for this round, now the play moves back to the
Koreas. The next round of betting increases the pot. Would this be the peace treaty? I don't
know. One supposes that the US remains in the betting to an extent, but the Koreas will
continue to drive the game. This round has shown all of Asia that the US is not serious. The
day comes closer that China and the UN can sponsor the reunification of the Koreas, and the
US will have to leave.
This game is being run by Korea. As far as I can tell, it proceeds apace.
@65 "If the US cannot hold onto its beach-head in SK, then a future invasion of China becomes
near-impossible. "
It always was an impossibility. But a US military presence all the way up to the Yalu
River is the ultimate prize for the USA, in the same way that pushing NATO up to the very
border of the Russian Federation gives the USA a major strategic advantage.
In both cases it brings the idea of a 1st strike nuclear decapitation into the picture,
and that is just as big a nightmare to Beijing as it is to Moscow.
It is a crazy way to deal with other nuclear powers, but that's modern-day America for
you.....
Too many words to describe what already is known: the US foreign policy is imperial foreign
policy controlled by Military Industrial Complex and alliance of financial oligarchy and
transnational corporations. Neocons are just lobbyists of MIC.
Trump, Pompeo and Haley are clear sign of degradation of the US neoliberal elite. Actually
Trump is just a figurehead of government a Marinette. He folded in April of 2017, just two months
after inauguration.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump had been, and maybe still is, agitating for an even stupider war than the one that might soon break out against Iran, a war against North Korea, a country with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the United States. ..."
"... Ironically, though, the gods seem, for now, still to be smiling upon the Donald, saving him from a mistake monumental enough to turn even his willfully blind, fatally obtuse, and, yes, "deplorable" base against him. ..."
"... Trump's ability to wreck everything he touches should not be underestimated, however; Korea could still be his, and the world's, undoing. But, for now, his blustering, along with the diplomatic skills of all the parties involved, except of course the United States, may, at last, have paved the way for a resolution to the seven decades long state of war that has existed between the two Koreas. It might even lead to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. ..."
As a general rule, it is pointless to rank world leaders or lesser political figures by
measures that track their vileness or how much harm they inflict upon the world.
Sometimes, though, it can be enlightening to do precisely that -- provided it is understood
that what is being compared are not so much the character traits of deplorable individuals, but
the political lines they advance in the circumstances they confront.
One such time is now -- as Donald Trump is doing his best to launch a "stupid war" against
Iran. That expression was candidate Barack Obama's in 2008; he used it to describe the war
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney launched against Iraq.
Since at least 1945, the United States has only fought stupid wars. Some have been stupider
than others, but, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, Democrats and Republicans have supported
them all. If Trump does get an Iran War going, count on bipartisan support for it too, though,
for sheer stupidity, it would rival and perhaps even exceed the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon war
against Vietnam.
It is telling that, notwithstanding his characterization of the Bush-Cheney Iraq War, Obama,
the least lethal of our twenty-first century presidents and also the least odious, kept it
going for many years.
It says a lot too that that Obama never had any problem with the Bush-Cheney Afghanistan
War. Quite to the contrary, he actually revved that one up. It continues to this day, some
seventeen years after it began.
Obama, the Nobel laureate, also launched several under the radar, lower intensity stupid
wars on his own -- in Africa and throughout the Greater Middle East. His machinations were so
deeply under the radar that there is no general agreement about how many wars he started or
even about when and where they took or are still taking place.
Trump had been, and maybe still is, agitating for an even stupider war than the one that
might soon break out against Iran, a war against North Korea, a country with nuclear weapons
and the means to deliver them to the United States.
Ironically, though, the gods seem, for now, still to be smiling upon the Donald, saving
him from a mistake monumental enough to turn even his willfully blind, fatally obtuse, and,
yes, "deplorable" base against him.
Trump's ability to wreck everything he touches should not be underestimated, however;
Korea could still be his, and the world's, undoing. But, for now, his blustering, along with
the diplomatic skills of all the parties involved, except of course the United States, may, at
last, have paved the way for a resolution to the seven decades long state of war that has
existed between the two Koreas. It might even lead to the denuclearization of the Korean
peninsula.
However, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Trump's new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, Islamophobe and nativist
extraordinaire , may not be quite the "deconstructer" of the State Department that Rex
Tillerson -- purportedly one of the "adults in the room" -- was; and he certainly knows more
and is smarter than Jarvanka and Trump's idiot sons. Nevertheless, he is bad news; with him in
charge and Trump calling the shots, the Korean deal could well fall apart.
For the time being, though, the world can breathe a sigh of relief. We should relish the
moment.
There has been talk about how success in Korea would put Trump in line for a Nobel Prize.
The idea is preposterous on its face, but hardly surprising; the Donald would be far from the
only moral monster to be so honored. If a Nobel Peace Prize could go to Henry Kissinger, it
could go to anybody.
Obama's prize came to him before he had a chance to do anything to earn it, which, of
course, he never did. Were the "honor" to come Trump's way, he would deserve it even less. Even
if all comes out well, the most he will have done is bluster, and then not squander whatever
benefits resulted. Could the man even find Pyongyang on the map? Don't count on it.
Insofar as his ravings do ultimately contribute to a good outcome, it would be because the
stars are aligned in just such a way that a madman in the White House is the very thing needed
to bring out diplomatic impulses in others.
Richard Nixon's "madman strategy," which some pundits credit Trump with following, is just
that -- mad, in much the way that a Dr. Strangelove Doomsday Machine would be. But it is a
strategy, and it can sometimes work.
However, to praise or blame Trump for applying it would be a mistake. If it or anything like
it does help defuse tensions in the Korean peninsula, it is just dumb luck that an emotionally
immature "dodderer," as Kim Jong-un aptly called him, managed somehow to stumble into it while
acting out.
Compared to other major political figures currently on the world stage, Trump wouldn't stand
in any relevant competition. But he is so far off the charts that comparing him to anyone else
would be pointless.
He must be taken seriously, however, because of the office he holds and because, on Iran, he
controls the script.
This is well known even in corporate media circles. It is about the only aspect of the
political scene that they get right.
It is different with two of the other important players in the developing Iran story: the
West's all-purpose demon, Vladimir Putin, and the darling of the American political and media
establishment, Benjamin Netanyahu.
... ... ...
But the hypocrisy inherent in the self-righteous protestations of Russophobic Cold War
revivalists that it has occasioned is mind-boggling. The United States is, and long has been, a
serial meddler in Russian affairs and in the affairs of other former Soviet republics. Worse
still: it regularly meddles in the affairs of nearly every country on the face of the
earth.
It is also clear that homegrown assaults on what little (small-d) democracy we have, have
been more damaging by many orders of magnitude than anything even the most ardent Cold Warriors
have ever dared blame on Russians.
Republican voter suppression efforts have done more to diminish democracy than an entire
army of Russian trolls possibly could. American plutocrats like the Koch Brothers, the Mercers,
Sheldon Adelson, and countless others are worse by far than those Russian oligarchs we hear so
much about or the demonic figure that the word "Putin" has come to denote.
.... ... ...
***
What Israel's leaders want has always counted for a lot with the White House and Congress,
no matter which duopoly party is in control. Trump didn't invent the problem, but, as with so
much else, he has made it worse.
He could not have done so, however, were Washington not disposed to wallow in hypocrisy and,
in the case of Israel and therefore Iran, were it not in thrall to an infrangible double
standard.
Compared to whatever Putin did and is still doing, what our own plutocrats have been doing
over the years, as a matter of course, is a lot more harmful to (small-d) democracy. The only
plausible justification for singling out Putin's meddling is the fact that he is the leader of
a country that our leaders find it advantageous to consider an adversary.
However, to hear the pundits that serve them talk, it might seem that their concern is just
that foreigners should not ever even think of influencing our elections. That view is not
without merit; for (small-d) democrats, citizenship matters. But it does not matter in the way
or to the extent that demonizers of Putin suggest. They want to make a fetish of the idea.
It turns out, though, that the citizenship fetishism that has lately taken hold in their
circles is selective. For his meddling, Putin is a demon from hell, while Netanyahu's more
egregious and effective meddling, when noticed at all, is accepted and even welcomed.
Israeli meddling is so extensive that, for all practical purposes, it transcends the
ordinary kind. Directly and through the offices of powerful lobbies representing both Jewish
and Christian Zionists, the Israeli government and the larger Zionist movement effectively own
the American political class -- all of it, left, right (especially right!) and center.
Netanyahu himself is too corrupt, and has been in power too long, for most Israelis,
including the vilest among them, to hold him in high regard. American politicians, on the other
hand, let him ride roughshod over them as a matter of course.
It was largely to please him and the American plutocrats who support him -- and also to
please that other anti-Iranian miscreant, Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince and de facto
leader of Saudi Arabia -- that Trump scuttled the deal with Iran that the United States, along
with Great Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, painstakingly concluded three years
ago.
This folly may go over well with Zionists of the Sheldon Adelson sort, and with America's
death merchants ("defense" industry executives), but it is the stupidest and most
self-destructive "achievement" of American diplomacy in living memory.
When it goes sour, will Netanyahu be villainized in anything like the way that Putin now is?
Don't count on it. Hell will freeze over before a mainstream Democrat or Republican will have a
bad word to say about the Bibster. Corporate media will follow suit; it always does.
Public opinion, however, is catching on. Notwithstanding the deafening corporate media
silence about Israeli atrocities in Gaza, throughout the West Bank and in Israel itself, the
news is getting through and changing Americans' minds.
With the Israel Defense Force, the IDF, mowing down unarmed protestors with live ammunition,
murdering many scores of Palestinians and wounding hundreds, if not thousands, more, it is
impossible to keep the American public and the publics of other nations entirely in the
dark.
And so, Israel continues to lose support all over the world, including in those countries
without which the Zionist project could not be sustained: the United States, Europe, and the
former White Dominions of the British Empire.
Worse still, for the Zionist establishment, liberal Zionists in the United States and
elsewhere have been increasingly losing, when not expressly rejecting, their erstwhile Zionist
sympathies.
"... But the concept didn't work in Vietnam, which drove the US out. It didn't work in Iraq, which is now an client state of Iran, it didn't work in Afghanistan, where the US is still fighting the Taliban 17 years after invading that poorest of countries. ..."
"... But history doesn't matter for the world's "exceptional nation," and so now we have Trump's key advisors -- the neoconservative nut-job John Bolton, Trump's latest National Security Advisor whose primary asset seems to be hair, not brains or even military experience, and Mike Pompeo, recently shifted from the CIA director post over to Secretary of State, a porcine West Point graduate whose international experience appears to be limited to his having concluded that former President Barack Obama somehow managed to be both an "evil Muslim" and a Commuinist. ..."
"... Kim says he is all for denuclearizing the North Korean peninsula (in return for foreign aid and an end to sanctions), but that would include having the US sign an enforceable peace treaty including both China and Russia as guarantors, with the US recognizing his as the legitimate government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It would also include the US pulling its forces out of South Korea, where they used to keep hundreds of nuclear weapons, and are in place to stock up on them again at a moment's notice at present. ..."
It's long been an American conceit that the way you negotiate is to demand a surrender
by your opponent, and then you hammer out the terms of that surrender.
Ir worked great in World War II after the Red Army chewed up Germany's elite army and left
the country with the choice of being overrun by the Soviets or surrendering at least part of
the country to the US, Britain and France. It worked great in Japan too after the US, with a
temporary monopoly on an unimaginably powerful new weapon, incinerated two of the country's
cities and threatened to keep on doing so until The emperor and his generals gave up or let the
Island nation be turned into charcoal.
But the concept didn't work in Vietnam, which drove the US out. It didn't work in Iraq,
which is now an client state of Iran, it didn't work in Afghanistan, where the US is still
fighting the Taliban 17 years after invading that poorest of countries. Truth to tell, the only
time the policy really has worked was against the tiny island nation of Grenada, where the
primary resistance to the US armada that assaulted the place was a company of Cuban
construction workers working on a new airport. (7000 medals were awarded to US military
personnel following that triumphant victory.)
But history doesn't matter for the world's "exceptional nation," and so now we have
Trump's key advisors -- the neoconservative nut-job John Bolton, Trump's latest National
Security Advisor whose primary asset seems to be hair, not brains or even military experience,
and Mike Pompeo, recently shifted from the CIA director post over to Secretary of State, a
porcine West Point graduate whose international experience appears to be limited to his having
concluded that former President Barack Obama somehow managed to be both an "evil Muslim" and a
Commuinist.
This goofy pair, appointed by that wiley deal-maker Trump, have managed to queer the deal on
a summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. First to give Kim second thoughts
was Bolton who announced that the model for a peace agreement between the two nuclear powers,
the US and North Korea, would be Libya, where of course, the US got Libyan leader Muammar
Qaddafy to ship off all his nuclear bomb-making equipment to the US, and then orchestrated his
overthrow and brutal murder. Bolton has insisted, with no disagreement from his boss, that for
starters, North Korea would have to fork over all its nuclear weapons, and destroy all its
nuclear weapons-making facilities. Then we can talk, the idea goes.
Kim, of course, no dummy he, especially backed as he is by a treaty with neighboring China
which commits China to come to North Korea's aid -- as it did quite decisively only a year
after the foundation of the People's Republic of China, remember? -- should North Korea be
attacked by the US or any other foreign power, has said no deal. Kim says he is all for
denuclearizing the North Korean peninsula (in return for foreign aid and an end to sanctions),
but that would include having the US sign an enforceable peace treaty including both China and
Russia as guarantors, with the US recognizing his as the legitimate government of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It would also include the US pulling its forces out of
South Korea, where they used to keep hundreds of nuclear weapons, and are in place to stock up
on them again at a moment's notice at present.
Next up, Bozo number two, Pompeo, let Kim know that just because he signs a treaty with
Trump, it doesn't mean the deal will mean anything. Pompeo did this by pushing for Trump to
pull the US out of the P5+1 treaty agreed in 2015 to by the US and five other countries under
which Iran ceased its nuclear fuel refining program, shipped off all its refined uranium 235 to
Russia, and agreed not to start the process again for 15 years in return for a lifting of all
sanctions on the country. After Trump pulled the US, Pompeo vowed publicly that the US will
"crush" Iran with punishing sanctions, and maybe even by allowing Israel to launch attacks on
Iran's supposed nuclear weapons-making infrastructure. Never mind that international inspectors
say there is no such infrastructure and hasn't been for years, never mind that Iran is known to
have been, unlike the US, abiding by the letter of the P5+1 agreement to end its nuclear fuel
enrichment program. Pompeo says Iran's government has to be ousted by making its economy
scream.
These two White House bozos seem to think that America's multi-trillion-dollar military
gives it the winning hand, but in fact, North Korea's little batch of home-made nukes give him
the trump cards as it were, and Kim knows this. The US military, which is just a bunch of
bull's eyes sitting on bases in South Korea literally seconds away from North Korean nukes or
on ships not much farther away, knows this too, which is why Gen. Jim Mattis, the only one of
Trump's advisors who has any experience with actual war-making, has said a war in Korea would
be terrible and difficult, not just for Koreans, but fo the Americans who would have to fight
it.
So if Trump's goal was to win himself a Nobel Peace Prize by finally having the US sign a
peace treaty ending the Korean War, almost 65 years after the fighting ended, Bozo Bolton
appears to have scotched the plan by letting Kim know the real goal is to put his head on a
pike once he surrendered his nukes. With that cat out of the bag, it means now if there are to
be negotiations with North Korea, they will have to be entered into by equals, not by a
superpower dictating the terms.
Meanwhile the trouble for Trump & Co's scheme in Iran's case is that none of the other
parties to the agreement -- France, Britain, China, Russia and Germany -- see things their way.
They all say that Tehran has been abiding by the terms of the agreement struck in 2015, and
they aren't about to slap sanctions back on Iran. In fact, the European countries are outraged
that Pompeo and Bolton are threatening sanctions against European companies that defy what
would now be US -- not UN -- sanctions on Iran by continuing to trade with or invest in that
country. China meanwhile is vowing to cut deals with Iran for long term oil contracts which it
will pay for in Chinese renminbi, forgoing the heretofore requirement to pay in dollars. Europe
too is talking about protecting its companies from sanctions by striking a deal to deliver
Euros to Iranian banks, thus opting out of the US dollar-based international trading
system.
That is to say, Pompeo and Bolton are triggering the very cataclysm that the US Treasury
Department and the Federal Reserve have long feared, in which countries would abandon the US
dollar as the international currency -- a status that for decades has allowed the US to live
beyond its means and to fund its trillion-dollar-per-year military by simply printing more
dollars at will. If countries don't need the dollar to conduct their international trade and
investment deals, the dollar will crash to its inherent value, which, given the US's horrendous
trade deficit, would be a small fraction of what it is worth today. To prop up the currency,
the US would have to raise interest rates through the roof, crushing the economy.
Nice going Bozos!
It's going to be interesting to watch how all this plays out.
China knew it had the upper hand in trade negotiations when Trump's top trade negotiators,
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Chief Trade Negotiator Peter Navarro, were spotted
engaged in a vulgarity-laced shouting match outside their hotel in Beijing. As the Washington
Post wrote of the incident, "It's been amateur hour at the China negotiations."
Indeed it has. The US opening position -- a version of the usual surrender first, negotiate
with us afterwards format -- was that China must give up its decades-long and very successful
system of state planning for development, in particular its latest 10-year plan of
government-directed investment to make China a leader in 10 key areas of technology, including
communications, aircraft manufacturing and artificial intelligence. Right. Like they're going
to do that. Instead, China turned around and announced plans to include the Chinese special
administrative region of Hong Kong in the government funding program. Take that bozos.
The "moratorium" announced by China and the US on any trade sanctions against each other for
alleged trade violations is a meaningless face-saving sop for Trump. The US actually gets
nothing but the usual vague and unenforceable promises by China to buy more US goods. They
probably will buy more US agricultural products, but there will still be a huge trade deficit
for the US with respect to China. Why? Because the US doesn't make stuff anymore -- not just
stuff that China or other countries would want to buy, but even stuff that Americans want and
need. That means the US cannot hope to sell much more than Third World-type products and raw
materials to China, and that at the same time, it will still have to keep importing increasing
amounts of manufactured goods, from vehicles to iPhones and computers, from China.
The Bozos in the White House don't get this. Maybe they think they can bully China with
their fancy weapons, but that's not likely to work either. China is fast catching up with the
US in military hardware too. Already US aircraft carriers -- the core of US power projection in
Asia -- cannot sail too close to China in any showdown because they would be sitting ducks for
Chinese cruise missiles and other weapons. Short of an all-out nuclear war that nobody would
win, China is pretty much immune to US military threats.
Iran is similarly in a much stronger position than Pompeo and his "crushing" threat implies.
Russia has already been offering support to Iran -- support that is likely to include provision
of top-of-the-line anti-aircraft weapons which would make any Isreali or US strike on Iran too
costly to contemplate. No doubt Russia iis eager to offer Iran some of its state-of-the-art
aircraft too, which would also up the ante for would-be attackers.
The blustery Pompeo, whose technical training was in law, not international affairs (and not
even international law), should probably check out the CIA fact book on Iran. He'd discover
that it is a country more than twice as large in population as Iraq or Afghanistan, and one
that is much more unified than the stitched-together amalgam of Sunnis, Shia's, Arabs, Turkmen
and other nationalities that comprised Iraq under Saddam Hussein, With a national history
dating back at least as far as China's. Iran's citizens may have their gripes about the
religious junta that rules over their sort-of democratically elected government, but like the
Chinese, Russians or Vietnamese, they would all rally quickly to support the defense of their
nation and civilization against any foreign invader.
Only fools would contemplate a war with Iran.
Sadly, the Trump administration, perhaps even more than the Johnson administration in 1965,
is filled with fools with inflated egos and senses of their own intellect and infallibility --
in a word, bozos. And while clowns can be funny, lately we've been seeing cases where they have
been downright dangerous psychos.
We'll have to hope that the next few years will be simply amusing, and not tragic.
"... " . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ." ..."
"... A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence ..."
"... " personally i blame clinton" Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another scapegoat-puppet. ..."
"... It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the division of the world into East and West. ..."
"... In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS. That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept. Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the republicans for the upcoming elections. ..."
Since day one, I felt the entire Russia-gate fiasco was horse excrement. It just never
passed the smell test. My suspicions were confirmed day by day as Mueller came up with
nothing. To my amazement, the MSM pushed the story to the limit with no objectivity, agenda
driven, politically motivated, journalistic suicide. They've shown themselves as the
propaganda outlets they always were, but we were loath to admit.
Robert Emmett , May 19, 2018 at 8:43 am
"They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and they committed a crime
against journalism. And now they're trying to dodge the blame."
That may well be. And Robert Parry meticulously documented such a case. Nevertheless,
their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of
unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and
will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on
and on and on it goes. That's the nature of a infectious culture of lies. The cultured medium
explodes, escapes the lab and runs rampant, leaving those who initiated the whole mess to
scramble in a mad attempt to "save face". It wouldn't surprise me if the H-ill-re eventually
becomes the first, and last, U.S. woman CEO to drop the big one. If you sometimes hear a
faint glug-glug-glug pulsing in your ears, that's the sound of U.S. circling the drain.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:03 am
Very well stated Robert. I like the virus metaphor for propaganda. It's like gossip --
spreading, infecting the gullible with lies .
Rob , May 19, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Excellent point. As you say, their work is done. The Russiagate meme is now firmly
implanted in the minds of tens of millions of Americans, and nothing short of a public
confession by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton that they fabricated the story and
fanned the flames in the media will dislodge it. I cannot envision any other means of killing
this particular virus. All contrary facts and logic will be brushed aside as fake news
created by Russian agents or stooges.
Dave P. , May 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm
Robert Emmet,
" . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been
planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average
consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up
the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ."
Yes. You have summarized it very well. That is how it is in our home too. My wife had been
listening to this for some time, Russia, Russia, Russia, and Putin , Putin, evil Putin
destroying our democracy, and so on on TV and in Newspapers, that it has gone into the
subconscious now. And I read that they, the Ruling Power Structures have done the same to
people in Western Europe too.
j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 7:54 am
While many of the particulars are correct regaring the paucity of evidence against
associates of the President, the author misses two key points, upon which the entire Mueller
coup operation rests. First, that the campaign against Trump started not in the Clinton
campaign or anywhere related, but rather in London with British intelligence, as the Guardian
itself has boasted. Not only did MI6's Steele prepare the document that formed the basis of
the allegations of "collusion" but it is well known that GCHQ's Hannigan met personally with
Brennan in the summer of 2016 to sound the alarm with a "not yet with it" US intel community.
Second, the basis of the investigation itself hinges on the alleged "hacking" of the
Clinton/DNC emailswhich showed her to be a craven puppet of Wall Street, released just prior
to the Democratic Convention. That entire scenario, that the source of the infamous emails
were a result of "Russian hacking," was conclusively and repeatedly demolished on this
website by fomer top NSA analyst William Binney, and his cohorts at the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am
The Clinton campaign paid Steele to do his thing. Their operation against Trump began the
day after his surprise victory.
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:16 pm
Their operation began long before Trump's victory. It began in earnest just a few days
after Hillary Clinton was wrongfully exonerated, way back in July of 2016.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:29 am
The funniest part of all this nonsense is that the democrats are going to keep this
Illusion of RUSSIAGATE alive until the next elections!
So after the next loss in the upcoming elections we all know who to blame for another
democratic loss, right?!
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 3:34 am
You paint a nearly hopeless picture, Mike.
Let us all trust that Mr. Trump, who, despite the intentions of the Totalitarians outed in
Daniel Lazare's fine summary article, is the DULY ELECTED POTUS (by the common folk -- no one
has made a serious demonstration of vote counting fraud, from my recollections), continues in
office.
The American Experiment (in enlightened governance of, by, and for the governed) is in grave
jeopardy. The enemy of the Enlightenment's fine accomplishment is Monotheism, which is the
philosophical parent of Monarchy, which is the civic governing manifestation of said
religious thought patterns.
Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 8:52 am
I'll suggest that the "American Experiment" is threatened by money power, more than
religion, although many fundamentalists are deluded to support zionism. Religion is a problem
where it rationalizes simplistic political views, but the root causes are ignorance and
selfishness. Monotheism is not really the problem now that there are few monarchies. The
Enlightenment, and enlightenment of individuals, has many enemies.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:12 am
The enemies of good government are the greedy and powerful oligarchs who hate democracy,
and do everything to distort and destroy it. No need to drag monotheism into it.
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:25 pm
My career was spent working with local rural politics. Good governance is by far imperiled
by corrupt locals on the take.
Also, Stalin did his purging by setting up secret local committees of three, who fed him
names through a beaurocratic pipeline. The Big Guy gets the blame (or credit), but the little
fellas do the dirty work.
Sam F , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 pm
You are very right about local government corruption, which may have factions based upon
tribal loyalties, but is caused by poor moral standards throughout our society. Most local
officials are elected with little or no public knowledge of who they are, and as a result are
mere low-end power-seekers who will abuse whatever power they can get.
David G , May 19, 2018 at 2:50 am
"[The NY Times] article fails to mention that at the time the conversation with the
Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications in the news were the 30,000
State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her private computer. Instead of
spilling the beans about a data breach yet to come, it's more likely that Papadopoulos was
referring to emails that were already in the news -- a possibility the Times fails to
discuss."
I've been shouting just this at my TV set (oddly, to little effect). And the same goes for
other allegedly damning references to "Clinton emails" in connection with the infamous Trump
Tower meeting and probably elsewhere.
But unfortunately, there are many people who don't care about evidence and rational
inquiry, and they prefer believing in evidencefree conspiracy theories that match their
prejudices. One accusation that is not backed up by any evidence is used to making other
accusations that are not based on evidence look more likely.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:49 am
:lol: " A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence " the good
old PROPAGANDA ! It's alive and kicking
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:47 am
Russia is in fact the only REAL EMPIRE in this world!
They hack and manipulate everything and everyone
Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:26 am
Have you checked the number of US overseas military bases recently?
Do you know why the US Congress is called "Israel-occupied territory?"
Don't you love -- love! -- MSM.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm
Hello Anna!
I know that my written sarcasm is very bad sorry about that! And yes I do love MainShitMedia! Their the best.
Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 7:08 am
Try defining "hacking an election." The term pretends that a few techies tampered
machines.
In the US the election machine makers do that, no doubt, but not likely elsewhere. The US has a very long history of manipulating elections throughout the world and in the
US.
Even while it pretends to be "promoting democracy" it is installing dictators and faking
elections.
The ultimate election hack is allowing big money to control mass media and political
campaigns, as in the US.
Only when we restrict funding of mass media and elections to limited contributions will we
restore democracy.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 am
Washington and its media tools have hacked this guy's brain is what it amounts to.
They could tell the American public anything and have it believed, like, for instance,
that the ideal gas law does not apply to inflated footballs in cold weather.
Realist , May 21, 2018 at 3:32 am
Correction: All your unfounded assertions are bogus. Just read this one simple piece that just came out for the accurate course of events.
While I am fully on board with rubbishing Russia-gate as malignant nonsense, I do think it
may be a mistake to rely too much on there turning out to be no nefarious nexus between Trump
and Russia.
In Trump we have someone devoid of knowledge, sense, or character, an almost altogether
wrong guy -- very much including his views on U.S. foreign policy -- who for some reason has
a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and Putin (though, of course, he has
mostly gone along with the anti-Russia Beltway consensus in his actions as president when
pressured).
It's possibly it's just an isolated, unexplained instance of Trumpian sanity, but to me
it's at least as likely to be the result of greed or fear, based on some grubby link to
Russia that is as yet undisclosed.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:43 am
"who for some reason has a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and
Putin".
Maybe the reason is that Putin is one of history's penultimate statesman who presents the
strongest opposition to the global war/banking beast and last bastion of hope? Time
magazine's Most Powerful Man of the Year (or something like that as I wouldn't be caught dead
reading it.
So does that make Trump a puppet for Russia or a keen observer?
David G , May 19, 2018 at 11:54 am
Do you think Cheeto Dust really capable of appreciating Putin for the reasons you
cite?
"Keen" isn't a word that springs to my mind when I think of Trump.
backwardsevolution , May 20, 2018 at 2:32 am
David G -- maybe you need to oil your springs. When you're trying to navigate your way
through the swamp, you tend to notice capable players who are doing it and admire them for
it.
Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:28 am
Let's begin with Uranium One and the $500.000 fee for a half-hour speech by Bill.
Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 pm
I am also a Green voter. When the choice became Hillary vs Donald that -- for me -- was
the last straw. I de-registered as a Democrat and registered as a Green.
Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:32 am
Good for you Mike. I refuse to be a part of the "lesser of two evils" gambit any longer.
Let's hope we can build a movement.
andrew , May 18, 2018 at 10:40 pm
the core accusations are
1. that the russians hacked the dnc, there is no evidence and no basis for this accusation.
none.
2. that the russians spread a deadly fake news virus that was incredibly damaging to
hillary's campaign. there is no evidence of this and it is a completely ridiculous idea if
one just stops for a moment to contemplate the astronomical amount of fake news available at
all times on the internet and television. what was the fake news lie that was so supremely
effective? nobody knows. there wasn't one. there was for hillary unfortunately a real news
truth about the dnc released by wikileaks but that was not from russians or a lie.
3. that the russians hacked the election. again absolutely no proof or evidence of this has
been offered.
it is in fact a political witch hunt that has been incredibly destructive. it has
distracted energy and attention away from real things that have happened. it has instigated
proxy warfare with russia in syria. it has discredited journalism. it has made an honest man
out of trump.
personally i blame clinton. this mendacious , self defeating , and bizarre ruse is so in
keeping with so many of her and bill's greatest hits. these two people continue to damage the
progressive movement . they won't go away it would seem. i hope after russiagate sputters to
a stop the clintons will finally be finished.
David G , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 am
well said, andrew
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:37 am
A Witch Hunt, alright! Not FOR a witch, but BY a witch.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:51 am
" personally i blame clinton"
Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another
scapegoat-puppet.
j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 11:41 am
Yes, all true but you fail to identify the cause, which goes well beyond naming Russia as
an excuse for Hillary's defeat. It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt
pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with
Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the
division of the world into East and West.
Jeff , May 19, 2018 at 11:59 am
Thanx, Andrew. You wrote the comment I was going to write. I do, however, have one nit.
Russia-gate has not made an honest man out of Trump. Nothing could make an honest man out of
Trump. He is nothing but an incompetent con artist whose real skill was getting people to
lend him money after he had blown it all on bad deals and lousy management. I personally
suspect that the connection between Trump and Russia is not with the Russian government but
with the Russian oligarchs who are laundering their ill-gotten gains looting Russian state
enterprises through Trump.
mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:28 pm
The slimy rats always indulge in phony alibis for their criminal tricks. They should be
investigated and charged with falsely accusing an elected President, in order to unseat him.
Anyone who votes for a "democrat" in the future is just a simple clueless idiot. Trump is a
horrible President, but this does not justify the criminal conspiracy to unseat him through
slander and innuendo lacking any evidence whatever. The appointment of a "special council"
was meant to change the result of the presidential election, and nothing else.
mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:32 pm
If Trump were to be impeached on the basis of this phony witch hunt, it would be the end
of whatever semblance we have of a democracy forever. The whole affair reminds me of the
criminal removal of the President of Brazil recently.
Al Pinto , May 19, 2018 at 11:01 am
In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS.
That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept.
Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the
republicans for the upcoming elections.
The results of the investigations, actual and/or
fabricated, will be invaluable campaign material for the democrats. Especially with the help
of the main stream media, it's going to very effective headlines to grab the limited
attention that most people in the US have for politics
Sam F , May 18, 2018 at 10:10 pm
The Russia-gate hysteria worked fine as a distraction from Israel-gate.
All of Hillary's top ten donors were zionists, and Trump appointed Goldman Sachs to run the
economy.
Not that KSA, the MIC, or WallSt et al lost any bribery chances.
Russia-gate also pressured Trump into the zionist camp. Just what Israel ordered.
Of course the US mass media are almost entirely owned by zionists.
Mission accomplished; time to backtrack; we never really said that.
"... Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI. The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news. ..."
"... Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it. ..."
"... I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super multi-million dollar lotto. ..."
"... The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7 anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia, and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking? ..."
"... No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals. ..."
It also seems that Yahoo also has the total (if not enthusiastic) support of Putin these
days. Pretty tough to buck Israel and achieve peace in the Middle East when it has the full
support of both the American Zionist oligarchs and the Russian Zionist oligarchs (who harbor
most of their wealth in the West and represent the Atlanticist faction in Russia, in other
words play for team USA) who probably comprise the largest and most influential power
factions in both countries. No wonder AIPAC is the most powerful lobby whose existence is
vehemently denied. If it comes to pass, World War III may essentially be fought because of
perceived grievances by thin-skinned megalomaniacs like Adelson and Browder and their ability
to wrap politicians around their pinkies using their billions in wealth. I think the Russians
especially dislike being played by con-men like Browder, who gets full support from the
bought-off American Congress.
Excellent in the facts and your conclusions. It is difficult to imagine what you have done
in so few words -- summarize so clearly what became a maze of groundless speculation early on
only to end as major byzantine monument to almost nothing but empty accusation, political
invective, widespread loose talk and media posturing/gossiping. You described, in the end, a
failed circus of second-rate illusions.
Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am
The Times used to be a credible source of information. Now, I won't even read Times
article unless it is on an issue in which I am very well versed. I simply don't want to be
propagandized. And when I read an article in a matter in which I am well versed, I am often
outraged at the slants and selective omissions.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:22 am
I have come to the conclusion that they are all bad, and that this constant pounding of
Russia interference in our American political establishments is nonsense.
Whether it be Russia-Gate or Uranium One scandals, it always leads back to Russian
collusion, or how Putin is hell bent on subverting American democracy. It's like the word
come down from a Bilderberg high echelon get together where the supreme elite said, 'now you
political puppies go fight amongst yourselves but remember Putin is our target'. After all
Putin's handling of the Rothschild oligarchs is enough to get even the most least powerful
leaders into hot water, let a lone the world's other nuclear super power. So Putin must
go.
So while Palestinians this week died protesting their confinement, N Korea was insulted
away from the negotiating table over a Gaddafi inspired threat, as Europeans looked for
another currency to replace the U.S. Dollar, our American news media gave little time to
those news stories, as it stayed stuck on Russia-Gate, or as FOX is attempting to do with
their trying to launch a Hillary investigation into her poor use of computer servers added to
her selling off uranium stock, we Americans are isolated by what really should matter. Please
keep your eyes on the center ring, for what's around it doesn't matter, is the mantra.
What I'm saying, is that these scandals are in house fights, and that the MSM's
circumventing of any real news, is just another way to dumb us Americans down. Not to say
that investigating political chicanery isn't a priority, but should these investigations be
so overwhelmingly reported over any or all other news? If you answered no to that, then
should we next begin to wonder to what we are not being told, is exactly the very news we
should be talking about?
Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation
progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI.
The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting
anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news.
It's possible, I suppose, that Mueller will come up with something before November, but
there's no sense of inevitability. How could there be? Sixty three American citizens voted
for Trump. Bad news for the country, bad news for Clinton, bad news for the MSM, bad news for
the Deep State. Ironies abound.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 2:58 pm
The one comparison between 1973 and 2018, is that they have the exact same calendar dates.
In my mind, the only thing WaterGate has in common with Russia-Gate is that the MSM likes to
say that the two scandals are the same. And why not, when you are huckstering the news to
sell insurance and pharmaceutical commercials?
WaterGate was of course a break in, and finding Nixon's involvement was key. Russia-Gate
wasn't a break in, and as Mueller's Investigation is struggling to find Russian collusion,
Mueller gives the impression that he's on to something, when eventually we find out he has
nothing. I mean the WaterGate investigation started out with the knowledge that there was a
break in, but the Russia-Gate investigation began with lots of allegations with no proof to
be found. WaterGate didn't, at least in my opinion, start out as a fishing expedition, but
the Russia-Gate Investigation was not only a fishing expedition in as much as it has been a
deep sea fishing trip at its best.
You pointed out the voter support of Trump phillip but might I reference you to the many
who didn't vote, or at least the bunches of voters who left the presidential pick a blank?
America is broken phillip, every institution and every agency which operates inside of it is
too. In my estimation to make it right we Americans will need to go back to starting from
scratch. Let it begin!
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about
collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed
hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it.
What is comparable to Watergate, but a hundred times worse, is what is trickling out now
and what the media have gone out of their way to cover up -- the plot by James Comey and
other members of the FBI, John Brennan and others in the CIA, Clapper, the Department of
Justice (Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton) to overthrow a
duly-elected President.
The Inspector General's report on the FBI and the Department of Justice's role in all of
this is apparently damning. Some of these people may end up in jail.
I think Russiagate was invented because, as Hillary said, "If they find out what we've
done, we'll all hang." She was trading favors with foreign governments in exchange for cash
into the Clinton Foundation. That's why she was using a private server. She didn't want to
use the government servers as they would have a back-up of her files, and when you're intent
on stealing, the last thing you want is a "back-up" of your dirty dealings.
All of this Russiagate insanity has been one great big deflection away from the true
crimes.
It looks like all of them are going to have a date with a Grand Jury.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:03 pm
I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a
free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe
that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as
Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super
multi-million dollar lotto.
The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the
Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7
anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia,
and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and
Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing
the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking?
I'm tired of the constant insinuating that Trump is a Putin puppet, as I'm also
experiencing fatigue over Hillary's being continually left off the hook. Although even more
so, I'm sick of all of them, I'm just venting over our sad state of us citizens being well
informed.
Good to hear from you backwardsevolution. Joe
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:48 pm
Joe Tedesky -- "Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need
investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day,
is all I'm asking?"
Yes, you are so right, Joe, because those other issues are what the average American
really cares about: the price of health care and housing, and whether they're going to be
able to put food on the table.
Of course, had Donald Trump been colluding with the Russians, that certainly would have
been of importance to the country, but they've been looking under every rock for almost two
years now and haven't found anything. Well, Stormy Daniels did pop up, but, hey, Trump never
professed to be an angel. All they've done is tied him up in knots and prevented him from
dealing with the important issues. They have also left far too many Americans with the
impression that he's a traitor when he's not, and by holding these charges above his head,
they've probably pushed him into doing things that he wouldn't ordinarily have done.
If what I'm hearing about the Inspector General's report is anything close to the truth,
then these people (the Deep State people I mentioned above) tried to overthrow a sitting
President. These people are running a parallel government. That is very dangerous and will
have to be dealt with severely, with criminal charges.
Hey, Joe, on that happy note, you have a good night.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 10:37 pm
I'm suffering from RussiaGate fatigue, like I said. I never bought into the Russian
collusion thing. I'm more bothered by the forever nonsense the MSM has us on, where there is
no closure. I mean you sit and listen to people like Rachel go through their hysterics and
after 20 minutes per monologue she gives you nothing.
The Hillary crimes are frustrating because nothing comes of her getting to meet the hard
justice she deserves. Seriously this evil witch starts a civil war withinside of our
governments bureaucracy, and yet no one hears that much about it the way it's going down. On
the other hand Donald Trump for mostly the bad of it, gets news coverage beyond what any
America politician ever gets, and we're suppose to believe we are operating on normal.
No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of
itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good
guys, or gals.
I might add Trump's Middle East policies among his other hard nosed geopolitical endeavors
leaves me exhausted trying to figure him out. Hillary should no doubt be in jail, but here we
are still on the down low and nothing seems to be working as it should.
Thanks, I do value your opinion. Joe
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 11:38 pm
Joe Tedesky -- "I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals."
Yes, I agree. One good thing about Trump's presidency is that it has exposed the Deep
State actors. These are the people who run the government, not the President, and it doesn't
matter who is elected. If you don't play along, you're Kennedy'd! That's why so few good
people ever vie for top positions; you get hammered.
Joe, the World Cup is coming and all is well! I'm going to knock off, watch some old
videos, and get myself psyched up. Good talking to you, Joe, as always.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:06 am
Watergate was focussed. Iran-Contra was focussed. Underlings were convicted in both on
charges directly related to the main issues. Nixon resigned and Reagan retired, the Congress
not having the will to impeach him, which would have been politically unpopular.
"Out-of-the-loop" Bushdaddy saved himself from later impeachment by pardoning some key
cabinet members under Reagan (most notably Caspar Weinberger). In contrast, Whitewater
blossomed into a full-blown fishing expedition, as has so-called Russiagate. Ken Starr didn't
just investigate a land deal or management of the White House travel office, but went over
the lives of both Clinton's with a fine tooth comb, eventually precipitating impeachment
charges over a stained blue dress. Now, I suppose, the Clinton's and their Democratic
adherents feel that turnabout is fair play, though it is undoubtedly just as divisive and
destructive to the country as their go round. The woman has obviously been traumatized during
her years in the public arena and in the aftermath of the election, but she does the country
a great disservice by pushing her vendetta.
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 9:09 am
The Clinton pass was always going to be a problem, and many people knew that going into
the 2016 Presidential Election Campaign. This didn't stop Hillary though. Why, many here on
this comment board wrote with good reason why the Clintons should remain in retirement, but
oh no Hillary was going to run come hell or high water. Only a sociopath would overlook so
many good reasons of why not to run.
Great perspective Realist. One would think you had a scientific mind . oh wait you do.
Joe
As I'm sure others commenters on this site will note, those guilty of trying to create a
lynch mob and encourage hysteria, will as with Iraq WMD's, emerge unscathed, even more
honored for their service to America. And with and increasing number of Americans, we will
feel more and more that you cant believe anything anymore and that is a disastrous position
to be in for a nation.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 9:59 am
Herman, it has always been a mistake to rely on belief without careful examination. Plato
said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Discerning the truth is intellectual work
-- something our false educational system does not teach us to do. Those who learn to sort
things out and demand the real truth are mostly self-educated. To wake others up who have
been taught to conform and accept authorities, is a lengthy and often thankless task. The
tenacity with which many hold onto their false beliefs, is a formidable obstacle to creating
a new and better society. I wish I knew a way to accomplish this awakening of our fellows,
but I do not. We are left with the option of shortcuts, which are no better than new forms of
propaganda to compete with those our subjects have already incorporated in their thinking and
character. Following a new leader or movement seems the most one can expect from our
brainwashed brothers and sisters
"... In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry. ..."
"... We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military. ..."
"... The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own the megaphone. ..."
"... From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party) into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout we are now on the hook for. ..."
"... How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors. ..."
"... So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War. ..."
"... The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all. ..."
"... Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah, sure, whatever you say. ..."
"... It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line. ..."
"... Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the off shore industry is. ..."
"... I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats " ..."
"... Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. ..."
The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which
was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain
more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy.
In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election
process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia
and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry.
We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation
or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into
a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and
contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military.
Trump won because the media cleaned up big time by playing the Super PACs for suckers just as deregulation of the big banks enabled
them to clean up by merging savings banks with investment banks which moved all the savings banks deposits into risky investments.
There is a clear and present danger born out and evidenced by former economic collapses that the media and the big financial institutions
will create public relations campaigns based on the mantra of deregulation to swindle Americans even further. They have a proven
ability to use their power to persuade Americans that some other reason is responsible for the latest swindle.
The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own
that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own
the megaphone.
From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government
into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party)
into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout
we are now on the hook for.
How many media/news organizations signed onto the Tea Party after the implosion of the banking industry and beat the drums to
grant tax breaks for billionaires? All of them.
How many of the media corporations beat the drums to blame Russia for the election results which resulted in sanctions against
Russia and a new Cold War with Russia which resulted in windfall profits for the defense industry? All of them.
How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY
Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors.
The facts are clear in all of these major failures of our free press to get it right. In every case the media have conspired to
fool most of the people into believing the lies of the government and the financial sectors published by main stream press as facts
which are giant falsehoods.
The result of this collaboration between the press and the wealth in our nation has been to deceive us and to lead us down paths
that twist our understanding to a new understanding that benefits the wealthy in times of prosperity and in times of crisis.
So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system
is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be
countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War.
The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on
savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia
Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all.
CitizenOne – "'They got it wrong' is a testament of their ability to fool us."
Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah,
sure, whatever you say. They can't come out and inform us that they lied from the get-go because that would prove intent to deceive,
so they cover up their tracks by saying they made an "error" whenever things fall apart, as they knew they would.
It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions
are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line.
Dave P. , May 20, 2018 at 11:49 pm
Citizen One – Excellent post. Very informed comments indeed.
Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:15 am
Citizen One-
Great post. It reminded me of a joke I saw the other day:
"A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there
is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea Partier and says, "look out
for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."
munchma quchi , May 19, 2018 at 11:51 pm
re: "Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a
formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017, that "Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election [in
order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency." The "assessment" contains this disclaimer: " [You (the author) did not include a disclaimer. please remedy this.]
F. G. Sanford , May 20, 2018 at 9:39 am
Ms. Quchi,
I think the disclaimer said that intelligence assessments are based on sources, methods and interpretations and rely on raw data.
It's raw, so it has to be properly marinated until it's fit for consumption. Addenda to the disclaimer indicate that the Intelligence
Community will not accept outrageous conspiracy theories, noting specifically that, "They hate us for our freedom, and those weapons
of mass destruction must be here somewhere." It's the standard "release from liability" which accompanies all official narratives.
Kinda like eating tuna fish: It's pretty good once you get past the smell.
Chet Roman , May 20, 2018 at 11:35 am
Page 13 of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017
explains: "High confidence does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong. Judgments
are not intended to imply that we have proof that show something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information,
which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
robert e williamson jr , May 19, 2018 at 7:35 pm
Dan I really can not disagree with much you have to say here. Except there are a few things about this whole affair that bug
the hell out of me. For instance the fact that the village idiot from new york spent over $400 million in cash the last 9 years
before he ran for president.
Your effort here sounds quite a lot like whining about having nothing to report. Calm down these things take time. If Russia
isn't to blame fine but Mueller is not talking and seems to be conducting himself very professionally.
Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering
money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane
Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the
off shore industry is.
Trump like doing business with Russians during a time when Russian oligarchs were hiding the money they pulled from the Soviet
coffers. I think it has gotten him in trouble.
Also interesting is the accounts of what has happen with the Inslaw / PROMIS case and Bill Hamilton. Was this software and
early version of what CIA and NSA use to monitor the world now?
One last thing in your last paragraph here you claim the Dimocraps have gone off the deep end with the Russian Connection thing.
Dan the dimocraps went off the deep end with their undying allegiance to Israel. And they do little damned else.
When this is finished if CIA allows the release of the Dogdamned files maybe we will learn what happened. Chill my brotha !
kntlt , May 20, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Listen to this man.
drC , May 19, 2018 at 7:27 pm
"The press, the intelligence community, and the Democrats" have committed FAR MORE than a mere "crime against journalism".
For kryssakes, this isn't a debating society at Yale! They have provoked international tensions, suspicions and distrust that
have pushed the world far closer to the brink of a third world war, damaging national economies across the globe & negatively
impacting the lives of millions.
jose , May 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm
I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this
administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms
to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik
to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative
to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats "
Since the US national media have been
aware of the lack of solid evidence against Russia allege meddling case, they now want to pretend it has not been their fault.
Their sheer dishonesty underscores their deviant reporting.
ranney , May 19, 2018 at 5:54 pm
Joe, Abe, Andrew, Sam, Mike,
You are all correct in blaming the MSM for ignoring Israel in all this and whitewashing the main cause of our problems in the
middle east. I agree that Russia has not been interfering in our politics any more than virtually all the other countries in the
world who have embassys here and things they want to "lobby" for. I believe spying is universal and the US does it more than most,
but everyone does it including Russia (and UK, France Germany Israel, Ukraine and on and on for everyone on the map).
What I find increasingly strange is the fact that the MSM and just about everyone else is ignoring the fact that Trump did indeed
have business with Russia. He was trying to get permission and financial backing for a Trump tower to be built in Moscow. and
he had been trying for a while before he even thought of running for president. THAT is what his now indicted lawyer was doing
initially, along with others in Trump's employ. That is why there is indeed evidence of contact with Russians during the pre-
campaign and during the campaign as well. Trump didn't want to lose this lucrative deal which, also involves money laundering
and other illegal, and/or shady dealings.
I can't figure out why Muller hasn't subpoenaed or somehow got hold of Trump's tax returns. I'm pretty sure he'd find all the
crimes we need to impeach him.
Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of
world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. And I can't help but wonder why Muller is slow walking this whole investigation.
I'm pretty sure he can see what I can see. Trump is a crooked, money launderer, ultra con man with his Trump towers and other
ploys, and too dumb and ignorant of history and science to understand how dangerous the game he plays is to the world when he
has the power of the presidency. But Muller knows that! So what else is really going on that explains why he has moved at snails
pace to stop the damage?
Does anyone have a good guess at that? I'd really like to read it.
"... Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for. ..."
"... Presumably the op would have allowed HRC to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right? ..."
Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests
that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any
sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests
being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for.
That's what I'm thinking. It is apparent the "The Mueller Investigation" is - firstly - a
major distraction. It is also apparent that it doesn't make any headway, lead to any
conclusions or indictments of any big fish.
Re: Mueller. If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was
undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you
never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA
coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump.
Presumably the op would have allowed HRC
to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been
undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that
HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with
UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of
Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right?
The other possibility being that the operation was demanded by Trump winning the Republican
primary, as a kind of insurance policy. He being the only candidate who could not be
predictably counted on to follow the anti-Putin hard liners in the Military-intelligence
community, something needed to be done to ensure that, on the off chance that he won, the
anti-Russian measures already being planned for would not be affected.
So it is perhaps
unlikely that this op would have been necessary had, say, Jeb Bush or Rubio won the primary.
What made it necessary was the unknown quantity that Trump represented. This would mean,
again, that the op was not so much partisan (Dem v Rep) as it was about ensuring continuity
of military-intelligence decisions in face of relatively unknown entity. Had Bush won the R
nomination, there would have been no op because the Bush family like the Clintons are down
for whatever.
You know it's funny, all those 'conservatives' screaming that Edward Snowden is a traitor,
that we should trust the US government to spy on us in secret because national security
demands it, etc. Because only bad people have something to hide, right?
And now we begin to see exactly what it means when the central government can essentially
spy on anyone for any reason not so wonderful after all, is it?
There is an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal
is a conservative who's been arrested. I guess a civil libertarian is a national security
hawk that's been spied on.
The NYT thinks it's a nothing-burger until someone proves Halper was spying? Right, it wasn't
spying; it was an insurance policy. Just ask Strozk and whomever else was meeting over that
topic.
Didn't they all decide they needed an insurance policy when it looked like Clinton might
not win? Hadn't they already completely screwed the pooch covering up for her?
Early in her candidacy, the issue of the private server for government business was
already out there. They–media and law enforcement–let it ride.
What extraordinary treatment she got! In the end it was immunity and destroyed evidence,
party favors all around. Then, she lost. Oops?
The DNC didn't have to provide their server as evidence. Congress's completely odd choice
of IT services went down the rabbit hole. The Clinton Foundation was never investigated as
political slush funds are SOP. There is plenty of evidence that the State's power is being
abused. This can't stand. If this is all accepted and passed or forgotten with the next
financial crisis and/or war, our country is truly gone.
And I agree with Ma Laoshi that twitting is venting, not fighting back. Until these crimes
against the country are addressed with actions taken in public, not behind closed doors and
redacted into oblivion, I have no confidence thatTrump will be more than a speed bump for the
Deep State.
There is no question that Trump of over his head and folded early on, adopting the deep state
foreign policy in even more militant incarnation the under Obama.
All those moves about "Russiagate" now is an empty sound or a cat fight of the faction of the
US elite for contracts and sinecures in government.
Notable quotes:
"... Since being inaugurated, orange clown has reversed himself on the pre-election intimations and campaign promises that apparently got him elected. Instead of improving relations with Russia, he's made everything worse; he never misses a chance to provoke Russia. Instead of pulling out of Afghanistan, he's escalating that pointless war. He's increased the illegal, immoral and unconstitutional U.S. military occupation of Syria. He's escalating the genocidal war against Yemen. He's arming the corrupt puppet government in Kiev. He's already slaughtered more people with drone strikes than Obama did in eight years. He's surrounded himself with bloodthirsty psychopaths. He's trying to overthrow the Maduro government in Venezuela. He puts Israel first and America second (or lower) on the list. He wants more military spending. He seems to want a bigger, more powerful more and aggressive NATO, not the reverse. Rather than investigate 9/11, he studiously avoids the topic. Etc., etc., etc. ..."
"... From a "deep state" perspective, what is there to dislike about orange clown? How can the "deep state" have any kind of serious problem with someone who's making Obama look like Mister Rogers? ..."
"... Has the "deep state" deployed a "lone nut" against him? Apparently not. Is he being impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial "foreign policy"? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military adventurism for example? As far as I know, no. ..."
"... Not where I live in the Northwest. I have spoken to people who are convinced Trump is "beyond guilty" of collusion. These people are either CNN watchers or work in IT. Everyday I go to the gym people are either watching CNN or MSNBC on their screen. ..."
"... How do you "manipulate" a reasonable person into flirting with planetary extinction? How can someone who actually cares about America be manipulated into risking war with Russia for no good reason? Such a person is not morally or mentally fit for the job of president in the first place. ..."
"... So in essence Trump's whole campaign platform was reversed by "deep state" "manipulation" but rather than surround himself with reasonable people, appeal to his supporters, investigate or threaten to investigate 9/11, or even resign (rather than become a mass-murderer), he decides to stay on because he enjoys killing people with drones and he loves the vacations, etc.? ..."
"... The more likely case is that orange clown's a con man whose whole campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. And all this "out to get Trump" nonsense depicting Trump as hapless "victim" of the deep state is pure political theater. ..."
"... Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter, someone other than Halper. ..."
"... Yes, Halper was involved in getting President Carter's debate briefing book to the Reagan/ BUSH campaign ahead of the debate. He's been in there, connected, for years and years, a call-boy the players, the powers-that-be have at their disposal. ..."
"... Democrats and Republicans serve the same master, no difference, neither have real any real power. The Wall St bankers,, The Lobby, MIC, International Corporations call the shots. All the politicians are dirty, and deep state has plenty of blackmail info on ALL of them if they step out of line. They're only puppets for you to get angry at, and vote out to ease your anger. But nothing changes with elections because the ones with power are unelected, and never move. See Jim Traficant or JFK for what happens when one dares to tell the truth, or challenge the establishment. ..."
"... If Trump really wanted to change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions start a new 9/11 investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors, all the way from Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them. ..."
"... In fairness, his life expectancy after such an announcement would be about 6 minutes. Getting the public to realize the truth about 9/11 is the best chance I can see for real political change in the U.S., but hoping that anyone in Washington will lead the charge seems quite futile. A group of lawyers representing victims' families recently filed a petition for a new investigation – the media of course were not interested. It really comes down to spreading the word on the grassroots level. ..."
"... Halper was not a recruiter. He was there to collect information for the FBI, the very definition of a spy. ..."
"... The Democrats truly hate the whole concept of democracy. They've tried as best they can to ban democracy from their party. And now they've instituted both illegal campaign tactics before the election and a coup after the election to try to keep the power in the Democratic Party and the money flowing to them. ..."
"... Did Imram Awan leak the documents exposing that the DNC was colluding with the Clintons and rigging the primaries and convention in her favor? After all, that's where this all began. ..."
"... That was when Hillary came up with the idea to try to blame the Russians for the leaks and thus lead the world close to nuclear war for her own personal ambition. ..."
So, help me out here – the only reason the NYT is even reporting on this is because
Congress was closing in on this turd's identity, right?
"F.B.I. agents sent an informant to talk to two campaign advisers only after they
received evidence that the pair had suspicious contacts linked to Russia during the
campaign.
"Suspicious contacts" = Russians who talked to Trump's employees.
So the FISA surveillance, the national-security letters, the FBI informants and 18
months of relentless probing-harassment have all been justified on the basis of allegations
about Russia hacking that may or may not have happened at all??
The one silver lining to all of this is that the GOP can to absolutely DRAG the Democrats
about this in the next election. If the GOP is smart, they will not listen to a goddamn word
coming out of the mouths of the Democrats or their (((Big Media))) mouthpieces during the
2020 election. They will not respond to a single point they have to make, except to call them
hopelessly corrupt authoritarians who are unfit to govern until they come clean about their
malfeasance and cut the rot from their ranks, and then spout their other talking points and
drop the mic.
"According to people familiar with (General Michael) Flynn's visit to the intelligence
seminar, the source was alarmed by the general's apparent closeness with a Russian woman
who was also in attendance. The concern was strong enough that it prompted another person
to pass on a warning to the American authorities that Mr. Flynn could be compromised by
Russian intelligence, according to two people familiar with the matter."
*Facepalm*
These fucks are beyond parody now. We're literally ruled by corrupt morons, stooges, and
degenerates.
"The cockblocking/penis-envy concern was enough for Stasi agents to follow up "
I would be shocked if both political party's didn't have a myriad of spies in each other's
campaigns dating back to Lincoln! Grow up people, there's a ton of money here.
Rod Rosenstein is a traitorous weasel POS who never should've been appointed. Christopher
Wray worked as a deputy to James Comey and is highly likely dirty and another deep state
puppet. Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, McConnell, Pompeo, John Kelly, Kirstjen Nielsen, Gina Haspel,
John Bolton, Nikki Haley, all are deep state puppets. Why does Trump keep appointing more
deep state puppets to take over from the other deep state puppets?
I cannot for the life of me understand why Jeff Sessions continues to stick up for
Rosenstein the weasel. My only explanation is that this whole thing is a coup set up by Deep
State and Mike Pence from the get go so Pence can be president, and Sessions is in on the
coup to keep his job.
I did not know it was Rosenstein's memo that prompted Trump to fire James Comey. Trump
needs to bring that out in the open and let everyone know Rosenstein set him up. This POS
weasel needs to go to jail. As long as he's still in the DOJ no real investigation of deep
state will ever take place. We've got the fox guarding the hen house.
It notes that all the corporate media knows it was Halper, but they obey the Deep State
and refuse to report this, pretending that evil Republicans are trying to out an innocent FBI
spy. Even today, their coverage is "alleged" informant. For some reason, NBC News was the
only "mainstream" team to ignore this absurd BS and report his name as part of the biggest
news story of the decade. Note that Halper is not a Democratic Party mole, but a Bush family
mole.
Doesn't Mueller have the self-respect to end his witch hunt and crawl back under a
rock?
A very strong move by President Trump. It is a fact that the FBI sent an informant, Mr.
Halper, to gather information on the Trump campaign. The FBI can plead it was to gather info
on alarming Russians, but the informant my gather other info just as easily. If the FBI can
send one, Halper, they can just as easily send another, or more unknown informants. This
RussiaGate nonsense has always been a matter to be tried in the court of public opinion, by
innuendo. Therefore President Trump's investigation can use the "have you stopped beating
your wife?" method. Every time the FBI says no to a question it looks like they are lying to
cover something bigger. Informants have Control Officers, who write reports to superiors, the
reports make reference to code words, places and dates. Reports generate memos and orders.
Everything becomes fuel for innuendo and the only out the FBI will have is "We honestly
thought .but no, we found nothing".
A point well made in qualification of the merits of the article. Surely the author knows
on reflection that no political party or campaign is going to forgo the chance of getting
inside information on what their opponents are up to, including crimes – and
spying.
Since Trump could do some shuffling so as to appoint an Attorney-General who wouldn't
recuse himself or get rid of Rosenstein by appointing him a judge, or ambassador just for
example maybe it is best to assume that the President doesn't feel immediately threatened and
is reasonably confident that he can find and time his countermeasures satisfactorily. It is
hardly beyond belief that there are Trump moles in Mueller's army who are assuring him that
his instinct is right: apparent witch hunting persecution by Mueller is actually a harmless
distraction and so good for him until the time is right to blow it up.
Considered in its entirety, this Trump/Russia business is indeed turning into the political
crime (& shame) of the century. Were someone who had died in the 50′s to suddenly
resurrect, they would suffer the equivalent of a psychotic episode or a bad LSD trip.
Its mind boggling to anyone even vaguely conscious .
Mr Trump needs to clean house: politiclly difficult, yes, but Trump needs to visit a Lehman
Bros' moment on the DOJ, CIA & FBI.
No doubt the above toxic agencies will (again) spew forth the magic word:
"Russia-Russia-Russia" to render all opposition impotent.
One may, of course, truly wonder whether a majority of citizens will awake & notice the
stench of rotting democracy & having noticed, draw the correct conclusions and –
finally – act .
Trump has surrounded himself with lifer Deep Staters who no doubt tell him that
investigations and prosecutions will do grave harm to national security and, at the same
time, would appear to be his own politically motivated witch hunt, the kind one sees only in
third-world basket case countries, and that would reflect more poorly on him than on the
actual cabal attempting to overthrow him and overturn his election.
But the actual collusion has become so obvious that he has to pull the trigger, because
nobody else is going to. Sessions should have been all over this a year ago, but he too is a
long-serving government employee, which suggests he is also of the swamp. As for Congress, a
few brave souls, e.g. Nunes, have tried and have been exposed to withering fire from all
sides.
The purpose of the informant/spy was to "dirty" Page and Papadopoulos; to make them plausible
suspects so that full use of the NSA database could be used on the Trump team both pre- and
post-election and as far back in the past as they wanted to go. The warrants used on Page and
Papadopoulos were counterintelligence warrants that allow using NSA resources on anyone "two
hops" (two people) away from Page and Papadopoulos. "Two-hops" would easily include everyone
near Trump even if Page and Papadopoulos had only minimal contact with the campaign. This is
the heart of the crime. Page and Papadopoulos were used as place-holders to gather
information on everyone near Trump. The informer was used to set those two up.
Trump posting something on Twitter isn't "fighting back"–it's venting steam. As the
article correctly states, letting the DOJ investigate itself is a joke. So Trump needed a
Special Counsel of his own, and he needed him right after his inauguration. It may be that
Trump likes a dose of Russia Scare to push overpriced American weapons and LNG to clueless
Europeans. It may be that he's found out (or at least his people have) that he needs
Deep-State sleaze for his anti-Iran campaign. It may be that Trump well knows he's vulnerable
on nepotism, old NY Mob ties, and oh yeah some sexual peccadilloes, so he better play along
and color within the lines. Or it may simply be that Trump is a moron without the attention
span for anything beyond venting on Twitter.
It doesn't really matter now, the ship has sailed, he's gone too far in with "Putin-Assad
baby killers" to return to sanity now.
"After 18 months of withering attacks and accusations, Donald Trump has decided to get up off
the canvas and fight back."
If "they" are really out to "get" orange clown, why don't "they" go after him for his
impeachable war crimes in Syria, for example? Why don't "they" at least bring a lawsuit
against him for his illegal, immoral and unconstitutional occupation of Syria?
Generally speaking, when one party ostensibly dislikes another party, and apparently seeks
to "get" that party, isn't there usually some kind of plausible, identifiable reason for the
enmity?
Since being inaugurated, orange clown has reversed himself on the pre-election intimations
and campaign promises that apparently got him elected. Instead of improving relations with
Russia, he's made everything worse; he never misses a chance to provoke Russia. Instead of
pulling out of Afghanistan, he's escalating that pointless war. He's increased the illegal,
immoral and unconstitutional U.S. military occupation of Syria. He's escalating the genocidal
war against Yemen. He's arming the corrupt puppet government in Kiev. He's already
slaughtered more people with drone strikes than Obama did in eight years. He's surrounded
himself with bloodthirsty psychopaths. He's trying to overthrow the Maduro government in
Venezuela. He puts Israel first and America second (or lower) on the list. He wants more
military spending. He seems to want a bigger, more powerful more and aggressive NATO, not the
reverse. Rather than investigate 9/11, he studiously avoids the topic. Etc., etc., etc.
From a "deep state" perspective, what is there to dislike about orange clown? How can the
"deep state" have any kind of serious problem with someone who's making Obama look like
Mister Rogers?
"In any event, Trump has decided to throw caution to the wind and go for broke. He's
decided that the only way he's going to get his enemies off his back is by flushing them out
into the open and subjecting their activities to public scrutiny."
Has the "deep state" deployed a "lone nut" against him? Apparently not. Is he being
impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial
"foreign policy"? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of
significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military
adventurism for example? As far as I know, no.
3D chess, 4D chess or what is it up to now, 14D chess? Trumpistas have too much faith in
their man. Trump is a businessman not a politician. He's in over his head. Just look at how
easily he was goaded into canning James Comey that set off this whole sorry affair.
One may, of course, truly wonder whether a majority of citizens will awake & notice
the stench of rotting democracy & having noticed, draw the correct conclusions and
– finally – act.
Not where I live in the Northwest. I have spoken to people who are convinced Trump is "beyond guilty" of collusion.
These people are either CNN watchers or work in IT. Everyday I go to the gym people are either watching CNN or MSNBC on their
screen. Most Americans are brain dead sheeple.
"Has the "deep state" deployed a 'lone nut' against him? Apparently not. Is he being
impeached? No. Is there even a hint of political opposition to his reckless, imperial
'foreign policy'? No. Have any of his appointees been blocked? No. Has there been any kind of
significant legal action against him challenging his blatantly unconstitutional military
adventurism for example? As far as I know, no.
So how is anybody actually '[on] his back'?"
Answer: the Deep State obviously is on his back, It is has successfully manipulated him
into a foreign policy that he did not want. He wanted an America First policy, but because of
political blackmail and dishonest allegations about collusion with Russia, Trump has felt
compelled to do what Zionists want in the Middle East. At home, massive legal immigration
continues, there will be no mass deportations, and the border wall will not be built. The
Democrats will be firmly entrenched after Trump is gone from the scene.
"the Deep State obviously is on his back, It is has successfully manipulated him into a
foreign policy that he did not want. "
Or so goes the Trump apologists' claim. But that's pure unfounded speculation.
How do you "manipulate" a reasonable person into flirting with planetary extinction? How
can someone who actually cares about America be manipulated into risking war with Russia for
no good reason? Such a person is not morally or mentally fit for the job of president in the
first place.
So in essence Trump's whole campaign platform was reversed by "deep state" "manipulation"
but rather than surround himself with reasonable people, appeal to his supporters,
investigate or threaten to investigate 9/11, or even resign (rather than become a
mass-murderer), he decides to stay on because he enjoys killing people with drones and he
loves the vacations, etc.?
I think not. The more likely case is that orange clown's a con man whose whole
campaign was a calculated bait and switch fraud from the beginning. And all this "out to get
Trump" nonsense depicting Trump as hapless "victim" of the deep state is pure political
theater.
"In an earlier version of this article I stated that the FBI planted a spy INSIDE the Trump
campaign. This is not correct, which is why I asked editor Ron Unz to remove the article. The
informant was not part of the Campaign but sought information from members of the Campaign."
Hyper-technical hair splitting that is ultimately false. The point of Halper's approaches
were to recruit people in the campaign to provide information. Those recruits would have been
spies. Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter, someone other than Halper.
Trump is head of the Executive Branch. The DoJ and FBI are part of the executive branch and
subordinate to Trump. He can send 30-40 US Marshals to FBI headquarters, and to DoJ
headquarters, and have them extract by force the necessary documents, and no one can say
"boo!"
I wish he would.
The downside of course is that everyone in the media and in Congress would scream
"tyrant!" So Trump currently is leaving them alone to continue digging their own grave with
the Mueller/Russia witchunt, as the country moves towards the midterm elections.
Yes, Halper was involved in getting President Carter's debate briefing book to the Reagan/
BUSH campaign ahead of the debate. He's been in there, connected, for years and years,
a call-boy the players, the powers-that-be have at their disposal.
Stefan Halper is one of the creepy-crawly things that have been living under the rock
Donald Trump kicked over.
As Steve Sailer points out, Halper is the son-in-law of CIA man Ray. S. Cline, who was
instrumental in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Democrats and Republicans serve the same master, no difference, neither have real any real
power. The Wall St bankers,, The Lobby, MIC, International Corporations call the shots. All
the politicians are dirty, and deep state has plenty of blackmail info on ALL of them if they
step out of line. They're only puppets for you to get angry at, and vote out to ease your
anger. But nothing changes with elections because the ones with power are unelected, and
never move. See Jim Traficant or JFK for what happens when one dares to tell the truth, or
challenge the establishment.
9/11 and silence from both sides with regard to a real investigation into the biggest
"terrorist" attack in US History, and the murder of 3000 Americans, this tells you who is in
power, the people that pulled it off. Neither party supports a real investigation into this
attack, they both work for the same people. The fact that the MSM still lies about it means
they are also controlled by the goons. The FBI, CIA lies about it, and Muellers coverup of
the crime tells you all of the "Intelligence" and "Law" enforcement agencies are also
controlled by the same cabal.
Until they start telling the truth about 9/11, you can bet the same goons are still in
charge, no matter who the president is, no matter which Democrat or Republican you elect, the
shadow government, deep state are still calling the shots. If you do vote, vote 3rd party.
The whole election system is rigged to keep out most anyone who might dare to challenge the
establishment, thats why we only get lowlifes like Mitt Romney or the Cintons running for
office year after year, out of millions of people the same dirtbags just won't go away.
Everything else is just noise, distractions from this reality. If Trump really wanted to
change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions start a new 9/11
investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors, all the way from
Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them.
If Trump really wanted to change things, if he was the real deal, he would have Sessions
start a new 9/11 investigation, and start imprisoning and executing the perps and traitors,
all the way from Tel Aviv back home to Wall St. All of them.
In fairness, his life expectancy after such an announcement would be about 6 minutes. Getting the public to realize the truth about 9/11 is the best chance I can see for real
political change in the U.S., but hoping that anyone in Washington will lead the charge seems
quite futile. A group of lawyers representing victims' families recently filed a
petition for a new investigation – the media of course were not interested. It
really comes down to spreading the word on the grassroots level.
Hyper-technical hair splitting that is ultimately false. The point of Halper's
approaches were to recruit people in the campaign to provide information. Those recruits
would have been spies. Michael Caputo now says he was approached by a SECOND recruiter,
someone other than Halper.
Halper was not a recruiter. He was there to collect information for the FBI, the very
definition of a spy.
Hatunggal Muda Siregar, a spokesman for MNC, said the theme park and the Trump
properties are separate projects within the Lido development. The agreement with the
Chinese company to build the theme park does not include any financing for the project, he
said.
Mr. Trump's business dealings in Indonesia prompted scrutiny even before his
inauguration, and he pledged not to embark on any new deals while in office. But the Trump
Organization held onto the projects in Indonesia, saying the contracts with Mr. Hary were
signed in 2015 and were binding.
Yet another nothing burger. This an old deal made before he even ran for president. The
Chinese loan does not extend to building of the Trump properties.
As the article repeatedly pointed out:
There isn't any evidence that the agreement with the construction company was intended
to sway the Trump administration on any matters.
If there's no evidence, why report it at all? To give more ammo to people who are always
for looking for any reason to disparage Trump, and only bother to read headlines.
"It's worth noting, that the current Russia investigation is based on the dubious claim that
Russia hacked DNC computers."
Imran Awan is not Russian, he's a Paki. And he didn't need to hack the DNC, Debbie
Wasserman Schultz let him in and gave him the password. There, huge mystery solved.
"Anyone who refers to Trump as 'orange clown' is obviously partisan to the point of not
worth listening to."
You may be right about that; now that I think about it, it does seem too generous.
How about "teflon-don-the-con-man"; or, "the ignorant orange savage in the White House"?
Of course there's always the Biblical description to fall back on: "the beast from the earth"
(i.e. the second beast of Rev 13); will that work?
Meanwhile, at the same time we also learn that there is evidence that there really was
collusion between the Trump campaign and foreign powers that wanted to see it elected in
return for favorable policies. But, the problem that the Deep State has is that the foreign
powers were not the cartoon-pinup-all-purpose villan of the Russians. No, it was Israel and
Saudi Arabia.
The point of all of this is that the United States is supposed to be a democracy which
means that the government does what the people want it to do. The one thing that we are
seeing is that nobody in Washington wants that. The Democrats truly hate the whole concept of
democracy. They've tried as best they can to ban democracy from their party. And now they've
instituted both illegal campaign tactics before the election and a coup after the election to
try to keep the power in the Democratic Party and the money flowing to them.
But, it turns out Trump was off cutting deals with Israel and Saudi Arabia that now seem
to have the USA headed straight into a disasterous war that was the last thing that voters
wanted. The voters keep electing candidates who claim to be against these wars. The problem
is that they whole bunch of them are a lot of liars, and the one and only thing they are
truly against is democracy and letting the people have a say.
America desperately needs a Democracy Movement. One that cleans the temples of DC of all
of the corrupt liars that currently rule us in both fake parties.
"He's decided that the only way he's going to get his enemies off his back is by flushing
them out into the open and subjecting their activities to public scrutiny. It's a risky
strategy "
It's the only strategy he can pursue. If he doesn't take the fight out into the open,
where his enemies are vulnerable, they will bury him.
Did Imram Awan leak the documents exposing that the DNC was colluding with the Clintons and
rigging the primaries and convention in her favor? After all, that's where this all began.
It was a bit before the conventions when those emails leaked. Hillary certainly knew that
they could be the death of her lifelong quest to see how much she could steal as President.
If the Bernie voters were upset that the whole fake primary and caucus process had been
rigged all along and refused to support Hillary, then she was done as a Presidential
contender.
That was when Hillary came up with the idea to try to blame the Russians for the leaks and
thus lead the world close to nuclear war for her own personal ambition.
You know it's funny, all those 'conservatives' screaming that Edward Snowden is a traitor,
that we should trust the US government to spy on us in secret because national security
demands it, etc. Because only bad people have something to hide, right?
And now we begin to see exactly what it means when the central government can essentially
spy on anyone for any reason not so wonderful after all, is it?
There is an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal
is a conservative who's been arrested. I guess a civil libertarian is a national security hawk that's been spied on.
I see your point, bread and circus for the people. I'm more worried about is Israel attacking
Lebanon, tbh, dragging the entire ME in to the conflict ending up with trump/bibi and Erdogan
stumbling us into a ww and/or financial breakdown.
America desperately needs a Democracy Movement. One that cleans the temples of DC of all
of the corrupt liars that currently rule us in both fake parties
Yes indeed we do. The Dems are using the corruption theme, but of course they are
hypocrites also and don't live up to ethical standards either.
Still, maybe an election platform based on ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID ..will open the eyes of
some of our more mentally challenged voters.
Hate always works – Tump pretended he was going to drain the hateful deep state swamp to
save his little people -- -so I guess the Dems can pretend they are going to kill the corrupt
to save the little people.
Democrats Roll Out Anti-Corruption Message for 2018
1 day ago – Instead, Democrats are returning to an anti-corruption message that A
decade later, Trump seized on a similar theme, directing voter ire at
Mueller is the only admirable man in this mess. Trump's problem is he is for once up against
an honest man, someone he cant threaten or bribe or bully.
Trump, as we say in the south, is white trash he is way out of his class with Mueller.
Mueller's investigation isn't going to 'wrap up' soon -- and Trump is still in peril
Anyone paying attention over the last year knows Mueller will not yield to political
pressure. His investigators haven't leaked; they have ignored vicious personal attacks; they
haven't veered in the slightest from prosecutorial professionalism.
So to "wrap it up," Trump would have to make a move, but will he?
The president and his lawyers are strategizing about whether he will agree to be
interviewed by Mueller, either voluntarily or under subpoena. If he were to refuse, as the
current swing of the pendulum suggests, and then try to end the probe, he would only seem
more guilty and undermine his support even among Republicans. If his refusal were to lead, as
expected, to a court battle, we would expect the Supreme Court to settle the issue. Any move
by Trump to preempt it would again only undermine his credibility.
In addition, the president and his circle are well aware of how fast the midterm election
is approaching and what effect an attempt to fire Mueller could have on the outcome. They
want to avoid any action that would help the Democrats flip the House. Such a shift would
change every calculation, not least because a Democratic majority could move to impeach the
president early next year.
Of course, Trump may calculate that he could get away with firing Mueller now, if he moved
quickly and the Republican leadership rallied to his side. But it is equally possible that
Congress would respond with legislation to reinstate Mueller. Again, the field of battle
would shift to the courts.
Most importantly, even a successful ouster of Mueller would not derail the investigation
at this point. Too much evidence has been gathered, and too many prosecutors, who have surely
considered and planned for the contingency, stand ready to carry on. Should Trump try to
shutter the entire special counsel's office, a much graver and politically and legally
riskier act than firing Mueller or Rosenstein, other divisions in the Department of Justice,
in particular the Southern District of New York, would also be ready to take up the
charge.
The strength of all that evidence, the careful work done thus far, and the indictments
already filed are the special counsel's protection against "witch hunt" tweets and
protestations that the investigation is already over with nothing to show for it.
In the course of the past year, we've learned not to underestimate what Mueller knows and
what bombshell he may have prepared. It may involve the Russians and the campaign, it may
involve obstruction of justice, but there are other relevant threads as well: the true motive
behind the Seychelles meeting between Trump associate Erik Prince and the head of a Russian
wealth fund, the hacking of Democratic Party emails and its links to Trump political advisor
Roger Stone, the recent sale of Russia's state owned oil company to Qatar.
Last week we discovered that Mueller was way ahead of us on the huge payments made to
Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen for access to the president. We don't yet know what
he's found out from cooperating witnesses, including Michael Flynn and Rick Gates, that might
point directly at the president. And there is still the possibility that Paul Manafort or
Cohen could decide to cooperate with the investigation.
None of these threads signals Trump's removal from office. A conviction in the Senate, no
matter what happens in the midterm, would require a good number of Republicans to turn
against the president, which seems remote absent a smoking gun that proves grave criminal
conduct. But it is more than plausible that the probe and associated investigations will
result in additional indictments of Trump associates -- including Jared Kushner and Donald
Trump Jr. -- and will leave Trump seriously wounded, an untenable candidate in 2020. Once he
leaves office, his legal exposure, both civil and criminal, would skyrocket.
The "wrap it up" crowd is indulging in wishful thinking. The first anniversary of the
Mueller investigation is unlikely to be the last.
Harry Litman teaches constitutional law at UC San Diego. He is a former U.S. attorney
and deputy assistant attorney general.
The question for me is 'can the majority of the USA people be convinced that the era since
1898 is over, that USA foreign policy can no longer be determined merely by internal
politics, internal politics including pressure groups as neocons, AIPAC and AEI ?'.
Maybe the question is the wrong one: can the majority of the USA be made to see that these
pressure groups will ruin the USA, and that their power must be liquidated ?
What Trump's intentions are with threatening Iran, I do not know.
The long term effect must be driving Iran in Russian and Chinese arms.
What the European industrial countries will do, I also do not know.
Is Germany willing to be cut off from trade with the East, or will Germany decide that her
future lies in the East, the Asian continent, from which we are not divided by an ocean,
where countries exist that do not think, as far as I know, that they have a Manifest Destiny
to rule or 'police' the world.
You know it's funny, all those 'conservatives' screaming that Edward Snowden is a traitor,
that we should trust the US government to spy on us in secret because national security
demands it, etc. Because only bad people have something to hide, right?
And now we begin to see exactly what it means when the central government can essentially
spy on anyone for any reason not so wonderful after all, is it?
There is an old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal
is a conservative who's been arrested. I guess a civil libertarian is a national security
hawk that's been spied on.
when a second rate congressman became foreign minister strange things stqrt happing.
Tillirson at least has real international experince and was running huge corporation. Still he
was an embarrassment.
Pompeo, a Tee Party Republican who was elevated to this position due to lack first to CIA
director position and then to the Secretary of the Department of State is a bigger embarrassment.
Lack of qualification cab be hidden under jingoistic rhetoric. But he definitely is better match
for Haley then Tillerson. He's also quite bombastic.
Still the attempt to crash the current government in Iran might succeed because with time
theocratic governments became weaker and weaker.
Iran is asked to stop all uranium enrichment. Stopping enrichment is a no-go for Iran. The
program has wide support in Iranian politics as it is seen as an attribute its sovereignty.
Pompeo demands that Iran closes its heavy water reactor. Iran can not close its heavy water
reactor. It does not have one. The one it was building in Arak was disabled under the nuclear
agreement (JCPOA). Concrete was poured into its core under supervision of IAEA inspectors. How
can the Secretary of State of the United States make such a fact-free demand in a prepared
speech?
Another demand is that Iran ends its support for the Palestinian resistance. This is also a
no-go for Iran as long as the Zionist occupation of Palestine continues. There is a demand that
Iran does not develop "nuclear capable" missiles. Iran had already committed to that under the
JCPOA Trump killed. Another demand is that Iran pulls back all troops from Syria, and ends all
interference in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Together these demands ask for a wholesale change of Iran's national character and policies.
It is apparently supposed to become Lichtenstein.
The Trump administration has no way to achieve that goal.
With painstaking work the Obama administration managed to get much of the world to agree to
sanctions on Iran. It was possible because the other countries trusted Obama's assurances that
he would keep his side of the deal and seriously negotiate. International unity and trust was
necessary to achieve the nuclear agreement.
Now Trump wants much more but he has no united international front behind him. No one trusts
his word. The Europeans are enraged that Trump s threatens them with secondary sanctions if
they stick to the agreement they signed and continue to deal with Iran. While they may
eventually fold and to some extend stop dealing with Iran, they will also try to circumvent
those unilateral U.S. sanctions.
Neither China nor Russia nor India will stop doing business with Iran. For them the
unilateral U.S. sanctions are opening new markets. The French oil company Total announced that
it will stop the development of Iran's South Pars gas field to avoid secondary U.S. sanctions
on its other interests. China said "thank you" and took over the work. Russia will likewise
jump in where it can. Its agricultural industry will deliver whatever food stuff Iran wants and
needs. It will continue to sell weapons to Iran. China, India and others will continue to buy
Iranian oil.
The US is running up against the limits of what being the World's biggest bully can achieve.
It would find it much more productive to make friends and partners but that wouldn't suit one
ally in particular who is an even bigger bully.
"Iran had already committed to that under the JCPOA Trump killed".
With respect, Mr Trump did not "kill" the JCPOA. He could not do that, as the USA was only
one party to the agreement. What he has tried to do is to withdraw unilaterally, refusing to
carry out the USA's obligations. That leaves Iran and the other parties to carry on as
before.
All that has been accomplished is to demonstrate that the US government's word is worth
nothing - if there was any single person in the world who had not already noticed that - and
to raise the question: what on earth has Iran and its government to do with the USA?
The odious Pompeo's ultimatum, or ukase, or bucket list for Iran is so irrational and
unworkable on its face that either: 1) the stewards of the declining US/Western hegemon are
consumed by delusional exceptionalist madness, or 2) this is another ploy, gimmick,
"sales"/marketing tactic.
These options may not be mutually exclusive; this appallingly bumptious, imperious tone
may be part of the well-known foreign-policy "Madman" strategy, in which heads of state and
high-ranking government officials deliberately employ the rhetoric of reckless berserkers to
intimidate and frighten both allies and enemies alike.
It resonates with the approach to Syria and Russia: keep "poking" target governments with
vicious, insulting provocations in hopes of triggering an intemperate response.
Pompeo should read what happened when Austria-Hungary tried to bully Serbia in mid-1914 with
a similar ultimatum. Hint: Serbia refused and it didn't go well for either side. The US
problem is that Iran is more powerful than Serbia was and is backed by a more powerful Russia
than the 1914 one.
I don't know the percentage of numbskulls, but it is a large one, that believes that Obama
gave Iran $150 billion as a gift. Why wouldn't they believe that. It was all over the news
and it is still on the internet tubes.
These numbskulls really enjoy the tough talking cowboy style. Gets them all excited and
MAGA while their social security gets robbed.
Perhaps the most important thing to "appreciate" is that our "representatives" know with
great certainty that they can tell lies that will be accepted as truth. And no one in the
mainstream will dispute them.
Pompeo is now in competition with Nikki Haley for the best Trump and Israel's ass licker.
Threats after threats...
Let's see what Nikki will add to the Pompeo's list. She must to keep up her position.
The USA is becoming a laughing stock for the world, and together with Netanyahu and Bolton
its leaders are perceived as inept but dangerous clowns.
On wonders if they will survive more than a year in their job
The only thing the US has in its favor--at least in the short term, before unilateral
sanctions push more countries to abandon the petro-dollar--is its ability to inflict massive
harm on other countries and companies through sanctions. The US can't change Iran's behavior,
but they can punish a lot of EU companies who do business in Iran in the meantime.
Perhaps most obviously hypocritical section of Pompeo's speech, per the RT report on the
Heritage event:
Speaking directly to the Iranian people, Pompeo claimed that "President [Hassan] Rouhani
and Foreign Minister [Javad] Zarif are your elected leaders. Are they not the most
responsible for your economic struggles?" He added: "The United States believes you deserve
better."
Pompeo wants to pretend as though the US cares about the Iranian people by telling them
that they deserve better leaders...than those the *Iranian people themselves* have "elected"!
Democracy is only valid when its results align with US interests, but any form of government
is also valid when its leaders do the bidding of US interests. It's so patently stupid I
can't believe the silly "address to the people" schtick was even included at all.
Thank god these Netanyahu ass kissers only have two years left. I sincerely doubt that trump
will be re-elected. Let's hope trump drives Europe to a more independent foreign policy. I
suspect Europe will resist for at least a short period.
Such a stance is doomed to failure from the outset. If Trump were an Iranian asset bent on
isolating and sabotaging the US, he wouldn't conduct himself much differently. Maybe that's
it, maybe the mullahs promised him a bag of gold and a temporary marriage.
Today's reportage on Pompeo's list of demands appears quite different than his earlier
postures of being willing to negotiate a broadening out of JCPOA strictures. Also, it would
appear that he is far more belligerent, following the Israeli, Saudi, Kushner/Adelsen script.
Could this be attributable Rouhani's arrival in New York on UN business, alongside the
arrival of the European delegation to discuss these issues with the current administration?
Apparently Pompeo and Mninuchin are unaware that both China and the USSR are building (if
not already moving into place), alternatives to the SWIFT system, at which time US sanctions
will be far less effective. The chronic bullying with sanctions (Syria, Yemen, Iran, USSR,
Venezuela) is only accelerating movement to the petro-yuan. We are simply accelerating a
process of Eurasian integration wherein the US is financially isolated, with country after
country dumping our Treasuries after which time, the only route for the US is currency
devaluation given past fiscal imprudence.
This is an administration which has written a play book for amplifying every weakness of
the US while at the same time, antagonizing friends and enemies both. Trump focusses on
Jerusalem while Washington burns with corruption, ill fated and destructive foreign and
domestic policies.
Dear Iranian People: The United States wants to help you. The same way it is helping Syria.
It would really love to help you the same way it helped Iraq and Libya. That is the "deluxe
help package".
Israeli appeasement and oil price correction.
Low prices were hurting the wrong players for too long and not achieving their aims.
Dusty and pathetic theater by has been hacks. Next.
"A year or two from now the Trump administration will find that its sanction campaign failed.
There will be a push for a direct military attack on Iran."
Do not forget Israel and Saudi Arabia. They will do whatever it takes to push the u.s. to war
against Iran. And they will not wait for years, they will act as soon as possible.
It is absolutely essential to take the US down a peg or two militarily. It is the unfortunate
truth. They will not go with negotiation nor with common sense. A good number of naval assets
in the Persian Gulf region will be a start. Close the area to all large shipping.
Oh how I wish for the day not because I am muslim nor religious. It is simply a case of
wanting to see a right(er) and fair(er) world and that will not exist with the corrupt USA
pulling the strings.
"The SWIFT banking information exchange which routes international payments between banks can
be replaced by country to country systems that do not depend an sanctionable institutions."
There will be no SWIFT sanctions as the EU does not agree with that. Thus for all the
empty talk about the "strongest sanctions ever" these new sanctions are far weaker than the
pre-2015 sanctions, where Iran was banned from SWIFT.
Time is on Iran's side. Even under sanctions, between 2000-2016 Iran registered higher
economic growth than the US and the EU.
A world where Iran grows faster and where the US and EU grow slower is a world where Iran
wins.
@ abierno who wrote:
"
This is an administration which has written a play book for amplifying every weakness of the
US while at the same time, antagonizing friends and enemies both. Trump focusses on Jerusalem
while Washington burns with corruption, ill fated and destructive foreign and domestic
policies.
"
When are folks going to understand that the play book you write about is the plan for the
elite. America is going under the bus if you haven't noticed and some here would give Trump
high marks for that effort.
At issue, which b touched on briefly, is the demise of the US dollar as the Reserve
Currency and other private tools like SWIFT are being defanged as a tool of control for the
larger countries...maybe more. The elite want to transfer their position in the world on the
basis of what they own to the new order under China. What we are watching are the moves
towards that end.
As I said at the time on another forum about Ukraine,its just as much an
attack on Europe as Russia.Again this is just as much about Europe as it is Iran.
Iran is not Syria,its not an expendable square in the Great Game.
Russia and China will support them to whatever level is required ,something
all the thinktanks must know.Has been since before MacKinder.
Iran can expect the us to attempt a major destabilisation project from within. We have seen
how easy it is for the us to buy rebels, and arm them. It would not succeed. But maybe the u
s main aim would be to weaken and distract Iran from helping Syria. If and when u s decides
on a full blown attack against Syria.
Those yanks know the price of everything and the value of nothing !!!
Besides State, the CIA will be doing its nefarious actions inside Iran, and the Pentagon
won't be left out of a "whole of government solution" toward Iran's "destabilizing" influence
in the Middle East. Which means the Pentagon is really, really upset that Iran has had a hand
in handing the US a loss in Syria.
"We are going to take steps necessary to address Iran's malign influence in the region,"
Defense Department spokesman Rob Manning told reporters at the Pentagon.
"They are a destabilizing force in the region ... and we're going to do everything we can
to avert that," Manning added. "This is a whole of government solution that we're working
in order to change Iran's influence in the region and we're continuing to do that."
Pompeo earlier on Monday vowed to impose an "unprecedented" level of economic sanctions as
well as military pressure unless Tehran alters its behavior in the Middle East.
Manning would not say what the Pentagon will do to address Iran, but he said officials "are
actively looking at their influence in the region" and assessing what actions will be
taken.
"We're assessing if we're going to double down on current actions or implement new actions.
It's on the table, we're not going to rule out anything necessary in order to address
Iran," Manning said.. .
here
Wow, officials "are actively looking at their influence in the region" and assessing what
actions will be taken. That's powerful stuff. (not)
Meanwhile, we can trust that Iran, Russia, China and the EU have some impending actions more
constructive and meaningful.
thanks b... good overview.. you nail the central topic right here - "The U.S. dollar as a
universal exchange medium can be avoided..."
what would israel want here? and why is the usa always subservient to israel?
@14 fastfreddy.. too bad you aren't a reporter for the msm, lol..
@16 pnyx... i still think we are about 2 years away from the full on war scenario - spring
2020..
@20 pscyhohistorian.. good post. thanks.
@22 mark2... good one liner at the end!
i think folks are correct that the usa is going to go into the regime change, or
destabilization theme for iran.. it gets tiring thinking of how the usa, aside from being
beholden to israel, is hell bent of going down the wrong road...that says something about the
lack of actual leadership in the usa and how easily it can be bought off too..
Oldest trick in the US regime-change manual (much dog-eared by now and needing its 200th
reprint) is to issue a list of demands that the intended recipient nation can't possibly
fulfill, much less hope to fulfill even if its entire citizenry had decided on collective
suicide.
What kind of real-life reality-TV-show charade is Donald Trump running when all his
"apprentices" are competing to be the most vampiric psychopath and the only sane person on
his team is Defense Secretary Mad Dog James Mattis?
'With painstaking work the Obama administration managed to get much of the world to agree to
sanctions on Iran. It was possible because the other countries trusted Obama's assurances
that he would keep his side of the deal and seriously negotiate. International unity and
trust was necessary to achieve the nuclear agreement.'
but Obamas rule has come to an end and trump a zionist has decide to destroy Obams
legacy...making his presidency one of destruction(libya syria etc) and not construction.
I tend to agree with Psychohistorian about Trump throwing the Outlaw US Empire's citizenry
under the bus with his "Foreign Policy" as THE distracting Sideshow while GOP Congress guts
oh so many domestic laws beneficial to citizens. As for Pompeo's demands, the Outlaw US
Empire is actually powerless to enforce any of them--it's all Bully Bluster, and it's being
done to Venezuela as well. Rouhani essentially told
Pompeo to Shove It! : No longer will the Outlaw US Empire "decide for the world." Zarif
added: "US diplomacy sham is merely a regression to old habits: imprisoned by delusions &
failed policies -- dictated by corrupt Special Interest -- it repeats the same wrong choices
and will thus reap the same ill rewards. Iran, meanwhile, is working with partners for
post-US JCPOA solutions."
What better way for Trump and crew to display what they are: The National Socialist 1%.
Another excellent display of schizophrenic
policy is that toward Venezuela , in which the USA invokes the Venezuelan Constitution on
one point, then casts it aside when the election results don't match what's desired--The
Constituent Assembly's been termed unconstitutional since it was formed. The linked article
provides several more linked examples of that behavior.
Combine the Keystone Kops, the Three Stooges, and the Marx Brothers, and you get Trump's
administration and their foreign policy , which is not at all to be confused with its
domestic policy emblematic of a voracious Ogre.
Thankfully BLOCKCHAIN was created in time for nations to implement a reliable alternative to
SWIFT. I am sure there will be accelerated focus on this much better alternative by eastern
nations. Here is the USA at the behest of its middle east urgers and warmongers trying to
implement BDS in reverse. I think that strategy is likely to fail in yankee hands.
I am not surprised at this yankee blather from their lead disabled establishment. This
mindset in the permanent state has always been so belligerent and supremacist that I suspect
lead in the water supply system is far more widespread than the thousand or so places
identified.
This huge destabilizing threat to mankind from Iran didn't rate United Nations attention.
Better that the leader of the free world handle it by crushing Iran with sanctions, in
support of Iranians(?). Anyhow it brought Germany and Russia together, that's a good thing.
What Trump is demanding is in essence total surrender. It sounds more like a declaration of
war than a negotiation tactic since this is obviously something Iran - under any regime
except for a puppet regime - will ever agree too. It means that if Trump does succceed in
nulling any economic benefit to Iran by adhering to the agreement, it would be irrational of
them to stay in compliance and the logical, if not required path of action is to enrich
uranium and obtain nuclear weapons to create deterrence against American aggression.
Well here we go again.
America was "going under the bus" under the Bush-Clinton-Obama establishment plan, almost
with another Clinton which would have meant more Afghanistan, more in Syria, and war with
Russia. America thankfully avoided that.
Okay, Trump got talked into more Afghanistan, but that's rapidly becoming obviously wrong,
while Syria and Russia look good. Plus the war-maker (Afghan, Libya etc.) union of US/EU has
been spit up, and the pivot to Asia-Pacific is history. Change in Korea and Palestine --
we'll see. At least it's changing the status quo which is a good thing.
The move to an amateurish administration which is less able to lead the world to new wars is
actually pulling the citizenry out from under the bus, using that metaphor.
Let's look on the bright side.
In the short term the most likely outcome from all this trumpian pissfarting is most
countries changing their foreign affairs and economic negotiation tactics by moving away from
the 'compartmentalisation' system in use since the 1815 Congress of Vienna whereby issues are
dealt with on a case by case basis, with each issue negotiated seperately from any other, and
into a more dangerous though far more powerful technique of each nation chucking its entire
pot on the table and where neccessary "going the guts" when they believe they hold a strong
hand.
Compartmentalisation has been effective at preserving peace. In the main nations have
dealt with issues one by one eschewing the sort of gunboat diplomacy which used to get France
and England (say) shooting the shit out of each other everywhere merely because someone had
screwed up drawing or reading a map in some, at that time, obscure corner of Asia or
Africa.
Compartmentalisation can only work in an atmosphere of mutual trust but since the JCPOA
chickenshit act & the moronic trumpian administration following that stupidity up with
Pompeo's ultimatum, which was purely for a domestic audience, means amerika foolishly
imagines it can take on the world with one hand tied behind its back.
They dream of shitting on a big mob of sovereign entities financially yet they can still
depend on those nations to provide support for so called 'security'.
Even if europe chose to ignore the truth that it is amerikan hubris intertwined with idiocy
and a weak arsed feeling of insecurity which wreaked the havoc that drove so many decent
humans into fleeing to europe, the long list of amerikan administrations who have driven the
globe to this state now means that disparate nations are united in their need to end the
bullying.
Anyone who imagines this idiocy could end with a change of prez simply hasn't been paying
attention.
trump was premature in his move yes, by pulling this stunt right before brexit which has
been engineered by amerika eager to ensure the EU remains the runt, the trump mob have shit
the bed bigtime, since even if the englanders wanted to side with amerika, they daren't piss
off the major EU players lest they cop a really rough pineapple from europe during the most
critical negotiations for england since the end of the 20th century euro war.
Up until now amerika would maneuver to take down recalcitrance one by one. A state would be
isolated from everyone else by the usual carrot and stick method, then it would be forced to
the floor. This was effective, however it relies on all other sovereign entities sitting on
their hands refusing aid to the victim out of fear they may be selected next but it is likely
that won't be possible with JCPOA meaning that when the amerikans attempt to punish one
state, by doing something off the wall and likely outside the 'Iran compartment' the response
will be unified and spread across the gamut of international issues with particular care
taken to identify and move against amerika's chinks. Given Israel is the biggest chink in
amerika's armour if the euros do go in hard on that which is less problematic for them (sweet
fuck all Jews left in Western Europe)than it is for Russia, there will be much sport to be
had observing the emasculation of two mush brained over-confident bullies.
@karlof1 28
The next time someone says "The Constituent Assembly's been termed unconstitutional . . ."
show them this --
Article 347 of the Venezuelan constitution says: "The original constituent power rests with the people of Venezuela. This power may be
exercised by calling a National Constituent Assembly for the purpose of transforming the
State, creating a new juridical order and drawing up a new Constitution."
Article 348 of the constitution spells out how a National Constituent Assembly is
called: "The initiative for calling a National Constituent Assembly may emanate from the President
of the Republic sitting with the Cabinet of Ministers; from the National Assembly by a
two-thirds vote of its members; from the Municipal Councils in open session, by a two-thirds
vote of their members; and from 15% of the voters registered with the Civil and Electoral
Registry."
Article 349 says: "The President of the Republic shall not have the power to object to the new Constitution.
The existing constituted authorities shall not be permitted to obstruct the Constituent
Assembly in any way. For purposes of the promulgation of the new Constitution, the same shall
be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Venezuela or in the Gazette of the
Constituent Assembly."
"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive
agreement, and is not a signed document," wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant
secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.
Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in
which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and
wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield's response
emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the
JCPOA as a set of "political commitments" rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to
heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal's terms.
"The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but
rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran's
understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose -- and ramp up -- our sanctions if Iran
does not meet its commitments," Frifield wrote to Pompeo.
"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement,
and is not a signed document," wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary
for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.
Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry,
in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and
wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement. Frifield's response
emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the
JCPOA as a set of "political commitments" rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to
heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal's terms.
"The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but
rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran's
understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose -- and ramp up -- our sanctions if Iran
does not meet its commitments," Frifield wrote to Pompeo.
What hostages? There are some people who have disappeared in the ME and as always it's blamed
on Iran.
end its ballistic missile program
I thought the Supreme Leader has said that the ballistic missile program had reached a
conclusion because Iran had achieved a great enough range and good enough accuracy to meet
their needs. Iran are now in the deployment stage so the "program" can be terminated
withdraw from Syria
Iran itself provided at most a few thousand troops while it funded Iraqi and Afghani militias
in Syria that probably never amounted to more than about 10,000 fighters. With the war in
Syria reaching the stage at which politics determines the future, is there any need for the
Iranians and the Iranian-funded militias to stay in Syria?
end support for the Houthis in Yemen
Pompous believes his own propaganda. There is little or no evidence to support the claim that
Iran supports the Houthis or even that the Houthis want Iranian support.
stop its support for Hezbollah and all other terrorist groups
From what I've read, Hezbollah is pretty much self-sustaining particularly now it can exert
major control on the Lebanese government following March 14th's defeat in the recent
election.
"threatening behavior" in the region
What "threatening behaviour"? Doesn't that fucking moron Pompeo know that it's the United
States, France, United Kingdom, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and UAE that have demonstrated
"threatening behaviour" on steroids in the ME. With Hezbollah in the majority in Lebanon, and
Syria and Iraq stabilized, Iran doesn't need to threaten anyone.
This is all much ado about nothing but with the benefit that Washington looks like an
bunch of tossers and Tehran demonstrates it can do respectable/responsible diplomacy.
Meanwhile, elsewhere I was expecting Putin to give Erdogan a big nah, nah, ne, nah, nah
now that he has delivered his revenge on Erdogan for having the temerity to ambush a Russian
aircraft by utterly destroying Erdogan's wish to become the new Ottoman Emperor.
@ ben 36
There you go, attacking Americans again with your "sheeple" smartass remark.
Well I'm an American, ben, and I resent your slam on me and 300 million people. It's stupid.
No citizenry in any country deserves the crap you dish out, and that includes us. Stop it.
b wrote:
"It will also make the U.S. and Europe weaker and Russia and China stronger."
Last week, James Corbett posted
another chapter in his thesis that Trump is serving his role for the supra-national
financial cabal by further destroying the US/Europe.
I'm an American, and I think it's correct to call most of my compatriots sheeple. I am
mystified by how few of them vote for third-party candidates. The last time I voted for a
major-party candidate for president was 1988. Since then, I have only voted third-party. But
most Americans seem to have a mental block against doing so.
@ all with the Americans are sheeple characterization
It read like Don "knows" stuff but for the rest of us it is catch as catch can. We don't
come with an operating manual nor are the Gawds of our myth and delusion much help.
But as a species we yearn for answers and are proffered lies and deceit by those we place
our trust for social governance. Those that we place our trust in are tools of the elite that
rule our world because, history.
The elite and their tools have developed ways to brainwash and manipulate people against
their better interests. Does that make them sheeple? Only if you want to make yourself feel
better by think others in your socio-economic class are inferior instead of
manipulated....and work against our combined best interests of making the tools of finance a
public utility.
I highly expect the NATO countries lead by FUKUS to be happily bombing Iran within two years.
That will be the price paid for daring to say no to the US while the EU has no bullets in
it's gun. Support for Trump or the US may be running in the very low double digits among the
voters in the EU but countries are run by companies not voters the world over.
The US has pulled back the curtain and revealed the EU member states as the toothless
infective barking dogs they are. Expect the US to keep picking that scab over and over and
over.
I'm British and we are the worst ! I love my country, but my being big enough to know it's
faults in the past and present just may help to improve it. If we all did that what a better
world it would be! if we fail at least we'l be able to look in the mirror.
We all know there are hundreds of millions of good Americans, as there are good people in
every country. The point is we're bombing those people! Nuth said.
It's got to
be either one of the stupidest acts that I can recall or a very wicked plan by Washington
neocons to sabotage Korean peace talks. How else to describe the decision by Big Brother USA
and junior sidekick South Korea to stage major air force exercises on North Korea's border. The
prickly North Koreans had a fit, of course, as always when the US flexes its muscles on their
borders. Continuing South and North Korean peace talks scheduled this week were cancelled by
the furious North Koreans. The much ballyhooed Singapore summit between US President Donald
Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un is now threatened with cancellation or delay. Who can blame
the North Koreans for blowing their tops? As Trump administration mouthpieces were gabbing
about peace and light, the US Air Force was getting ready to fly B-52 heavy bombers and F-22
Raptor stealth fighters around North Korea's borders and missile-armed subs lurked at sea. This
provocation was the first of two major spring military exercises planned by the US and its
reluctant South Korean satrap. In case North Korea failed to get the message, the second
exercise is code-named 'Maximum Thunder.' And this right after Trump and his neocon minions
reneged on the sensible nuclear treaty with Iran. In a policy one could call 'eat sand and
die,' Trump demanded that Iran not only give up any and all nuclear capacity (Iran has no
nukes), but also junk its non-nuclear armed medium range missiles, stop backing the
Palestinians, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, roll over and be good, don't do
anything to upset Israel, and pull out of Syria. In short, a total surrender policy leading to
future regime change. Hardly an encouragement for North Korea. North Korea was right on target
when it accused arch-neocon John Bolton of trying to sabotage the peace deal. In 2005-2006,
Bolton served as the Bush administration's ambassador to the UN. He established a tradition for
the post of being anti-Muslim, pro-Israel and anti-Russian, a policy continued to this day by
the current US UN rep, loud-mouthed neocon Nikki Haley. In the 2005-2006 period, after years of
negotiations, the US and North Korea were close to a nuclear/peace deal. Enter John Bolton. He
succeeded in sabotaging the US-North Korea deal. Why? Because Bolton, as an arch neocon, was
fanatically pro-Israel and feared that North Korea might provide nuclear technology to Israel's
foes. As usual with the neocons, Israel's interests came before those of the United States.
Trump's newly named Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, is also an ardent neocon. Last week,
Bolton went onto US TV and actually suggested North Korea might follow the course set by Libya,
of all places. Libya's then ruler, Muammar Kadaffi, bought some nuclear equipment from Pakistan
so he could hand it over to the US as a gesture of cooperation after the Bush administration
invaded Iraq. The handover was done with much fanfare, then the US, France and Britain attacked
Libya and overthrew Kadaffi. The hapless Libyan leader was eventually murdered by French
agents. Is this what Bolton has in mind for North Korea? The Northerners certainly seemed to
think so. Some wondered if Bolton and perhaps Pompeo were trying to sabotage the North Korea
deal. Or were at least being incredibly obtuse and belligerent. Was Trump involved in this
intrigue? Hard to tell. But he can't be happy. His minions and bootlickers are promoting Trump
for the Nobel Prize – rather ahead of events. Or was the US military rattling its sabers
and trying to protect its huge investments in North Asia? The Pentagon takes a dim view of the
proposed Korean nuclear accords. The burst of sweetness and light coming from Pyongyang just
sounds too good to be true. Veteran Korea observers, this writer included, find it hard to
believe Kim Jong-un will give up his nuclear weapons, particularly after seeing Trump's deceit
in dealing with Iran and Kadaffi's murder. Speaking of de-nuclearization, why does North Korea
not demand that the US get rid of its nuclear weapons based in South Korea, Okinawa, Guam and
with the 7 th Fleet? Many are targeted on North Korea. US nuclear weapons are based
on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Others are secretly based in Japan. Why not demand the US
pull out all its 28,500 troops in South Korea and some 2,000 military technicians at air bases?
Conclusively halt those spring and fall military maneuvers that raise the threat of war. End
the trade embargo of North Korea that amounts to high level economic warfare. Establish normal
diplomatic relations. Pyongyang has not even begun to raise these issues. Smiles and hugs are
premature.
The US Empire has no desire for diplomacy and realistic concessions on both sides when it
comes to North Korea. The US will attempt to have its way and its way only with NK. The great
tragedy is, as long as the US remains entrenched on the Korean peninsula, North and South
Korea cannot make the peace process work that is so long overdue their peoples.
Who is really in control? The US seems like a country at war with itself. One minute, one
decision, another minute, the opposite decision. Trump himself started out with promise but
now follows the Jewish agenda to the letter.
Could it be that the US power structure is completely split along the lines of MAGA vs.
Zionists and everything the rest of the world experiences is secondary?
My advice to Kim – keep the nukes, and try to eat less.
USA stupidities have long consequences.
The British, experienced in ruling an empire, did not want outside interference in the Korean
civil war.
The list of USA stupidities is long, Philippines, Japan, China, South America, Iraq, Iran,
Libia, Syria, two world wars.
Peter Lowe, The Origins of the Korean War, London, 1986
Barbara W. Tuchman, 'Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911- 45', New York,
1970, 1985
William L. Neumann, 'America encounters Japan, From Perry to MacArthur', 1963, 1965, New
York
Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War,
1938)
Charles A. Beard, 'President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances
and realities', New Haven, 1948
Roy Mottahedeh, 'The Mantle of the Prophet, Religion and Politics in Iran', Oxford, 1985,
2000
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
Alan Friedman, 'Spider's Web, Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit', London,
1993
There are more books I could mention, but this seems enough.
The USA's problem, as I see it, that, until now, foreign policy could be determined by
internal political reasons.
Trump's problem, making clear that this is over.
Eric Margolis is one of the 2 or 3 best 'mainstream' published columnists in the country. He
nails the nearly innumerable problems with Neocons about as well as can be done.
As Trump administration mouthpieces were gabbing about peace and light, the US Air Force
was getting ready to fly B-52 heavy bombers and F-22 Raptor stealth fighters around North
Korea's borders and missile-armed subs lurked at sea.
Yet it's them Eye-rainianz what's da threat to whirled peas.
Hey Eric, perhaps instead of "gabbing," you really meant "gabbling?"
US foreign policy: Say one thing, do the opposite, piss on yer own citizens, blame it all
on someone else, and laugh all the way to the bank.
The sad fact is the American troops and nukes are staying in S. Korea to use as a cudgel
against China. The tension, rhetoric and sanctions will continue; though, unless Trump and
his war cabinet are criminally insane, no war will ensue that allows Kim's forces to get in a
punch. Needless American and S. Korean losses wouldn't play well in the media, especially in
an election year. Pre-emptive genocide on a vast scale (implying a nuclear attack), however,
is always possible from the Americans and their "free world" vassals wouldn't dare to
criticise it, nor would the compliant American media. Not when we've been brainwashed to
believe that American cities are N. Korean targets. Once an American military infestation
occurs in a country it cannot be extirpated without killing the host, and the parasite is too
deeply embedded in S. Korean tissue to be driven out or just walk away.
John Bolton does indeed present a quite ferocious image and I am sure the only thing that
held him back from a military career was the possibility that, one day, he might have to
fight.
There's one nation that will benefit from the NK deal, as they have been playing footsies
with the N. Koreans for some time. That nation is Israel.
Trump the Schlump: Iran Nuclear Deal Is Bad; North Korean Nuclear Deal Is
Good
The only country that stands to benefit from this disjointed and hypocritical U.S.
nuclear proliferation policy is Israel. It was the far-right government of Israeli Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, aided and abetted by Israel's wealthy American Jewish
billionaire troika of political influence peddlers – Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer,
and Bernard Marcus – who, in the end, convinced Trump to trash the JCPOA. Trump's
two new additions to his national security and foreign policy team, Pompeo and National
Security Adviser John Bolton, have long advocated blowing up the JCPOA, charging that Iran
has been violating the deal. Nothing is further from the truth, as demonstrated by
conclusive reports on Iran's nuclear program from the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Israel's own Mossad intelligence service, and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency..
Israel's clandestine links with North Korea date back to the operations of the Israel
Corporation, which controlled Israel Aircraft Industries and Zim Israel Navigation
Shipping Company. Eisenberg was the first Israeli to establish trading links with the
People's Republic of China, which eventually extended to North Korea and Khmer
Rouge-controlled Cambodia. Eisenberg's chief exports to China and North Korea were weapons.
In the latter part of his life, Eisenberg was found more often in Beijing, where he died in
1997, than in Tel Aviv. As with Israel's covert oil business with Iran, Eisenberg's
weapons sales to China and North Korea were handled by a shell corporation in Panama called
United Development, Inc.
Wow, imagine that, our foreign policy being run by neoCONs and Zionists in service to
Apartheid Israel.
Those that know 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag will recall ZIM as the Israeli
shipping outfit that broke their WTC lease–costing them over 50k–several weeks
before 9/11 and got the hell out of Dodge, as if they knew something bad was going to
happen.
Gosh, what would the USA do without our good friend and ally Israel always
stabbing us in the back?
Margolis seems like a pretty worldly, well connected guy. He should send the video of
Ghaddafi being sodomized with a sharpened stick to Kim as a reminder of what can happen to
him if he gives up his nuclear deterrent.
"North Korea was right on target when it accused arch-neocon John Bolton of trying to
sabotage the peace deal. "
Bolton is merely the stalking horse in this particular scam. (It is for this kind of role
that Bolton was picked in the first place). Apparently we're to infer that orange clown
really, really, really, really, really, really, really wants some kind of a peace deal with
North Korea, just like he really, really, really, really, really, really, really wants better
relations with Russia for example alas there's always a fly in the imperial ointment.
In reality of course there was never any chance of a peace deal with North Korea, just
like there was never any chance of a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, or a withdrawal from
Syria, or cooperation with Russia (on anything), or a real investigation into 9/11, etc.
Instead what we get is affectatious posturing by actors on a stage; "government" by
diabolical jewish-supremacist-inspired dialectics.
Written byEvgeniy Satanovskiy ; Originally appeared at VPK , translated by J.Hawk exclusively for
SouthFront
Washington's declaration of withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, which is something that
President Trump threatened to do for a fairly long time, and the exchange of strikes between
Iran and Israel, have become the focus of attention of the international media.
Incidentally, what's typical is that in spite of the possibility of escalation, a big
Iran-Israel war, and especially a direct clash in Syria between the US and Russia and even US
and Iran, are far from inevitable. An analysis of events suggests restraint on part of all
concerned. It's no accident Iran fired not on the internationally recognized territory of
Israel but the Golan Heights which nobody in the world officially considers part of Israel. And
even then only military facilities were struck.
At the same time, the Tehran-Jerusalem conflict is far from exhausted, and it may evolve in
several unpredictable directions. This includes the struggle for power and resources within the
Iranian elite, where the military and security officials are openly opposed to President
Rouhani's people. As far as the US violation of the Iran deal is concerned, Trump inflicted
severe damage on "Atlantic solidarity." It can't be ruled out that his main goal was to
subordinate NATO allies to Washington and undermine the EU's economic potential, both of which
are unacceptable to European capitals.
The smoldering Iran-Israel confrontation in the meantime entered an active phase. On early
morning of May 10, Al-Quds units launched rockets at military sites on Gola heights. This event
followed weeks of gradual escalation of Israeli attacks against Iranian positions in Syria,
including the May 9 strike on a supposed IRGC-linked facility in southern suburbs of Damascus.
The initial Iranian and Syrian volley which consisted, according to the IDF, of at least 20
rockets, provoked a retaliation against targets in western Syria including around Damascus. IDF
press service announced that it struck dozens of Al-Quds sites in Syria. They included Iranian
intelligence units controlled by Al-Quds, its headquarters, military and logistical facilities,
an Iranian military camp north of Damascus, Al-Quds weapons storage in the Damascus
international airport, information systems linked to Al-Quds, outposts and observation points
in the buffer zone. An Iranian launcher unleashing rockets against Israel was hit. Israeli
aircraft also attacked Syrian air defense units which opened fire in spite of warnings.
US intelligence sources state that Israeli aircraft operated over the Lebanese airspace to
minimize losses. IDF announced some Iranian rockets were intercepted by Iron Dome. Iranians
delivered a significant response to the constant Iranian attacks, and that fact by itself means
a new phase of the Syria war which is now additionally complicated by the Jerusalem-Tehran
conflict. Moreover, Israel brought its forces on the Golan into full readiness some three days
earlier, and the preparations included restoring bomb shelters there.
Prime Minister's
Reconnaissance
Israel's PM Netanyahu arrived in Moscow with the clear goal of ascertaining Russia's
position and the degree of its military involvement in the Iran-Israel confrontation in Syria.
The main issue were Moscow's efforts to modernize Syria's air defenses which would greatly
complicate future Israeli airstrikes and Russia's ability to deter Iran from future rocket
strikes. But this kind of mediation is only possible if Israel were to abandon preventive
airstrikes, which it's not about to do. But if Iranian rocket strikes are repeated, it might
mean an IDF land operation on Israel's northern borders, leading to the possibility of a direct
clash with Iranians and Lebanese.
On the other hand, Netanyahu's very visit to Moscow for the Victory Day, him walking by the
side of President Vladimir Putin as part of the Immortal Regiment, was supposed to demonstrate
the "closeness of positions." It was a signal to both Iran and the United States. PM's
departure abroad, while his country was in full battle readiness due to the expected Iranian
strike would have appeared odd if the Israeli leadership expected a serious war. However, the
missile exchange was predictable. Right up until this latest escalation, both Israeli and US
sources emphasized the growing likelihood of an Iranian military response. Tehran increased
shipments of weapons and equipment to Syria, and warned more than once that Israeli strikes on
its positions in Syria would not go unanswered.
Even so, Iran is inclined to avoid a big war with Israel, particularly since it's trying to
strengthen its positions in Syria and preserve the strength of its own forces. Its most
important priority is completing the suppression of anti-Assad enclaves in the central and
southern parts of Syria which would shift the center of gravity of operations not toward Israel
but toward Idlib and the regions east of Euphrates. That's where the question of Saudi presence
in Syria will be decided, which is a more important priority for Iran, given its efforts to
establish the "Shia Crescent", than the Israeli sector. Jerusalem is also not interested in a
prolonged armed conflict with Tehran.
The Bomb and Rocket Show
Israel and Iran de-facto enacted an impressive show in the Syrian stage with the aim of
communicating their political stances to the world community. The main issues are the Iran
nuclear deal (JCPOA) and its US abrogation, followed by political isolation of the US by its
allies. This worries Israel. Netanyahu's demonstration of "intelligence documents" on the eve
of Washington's withdrawal from JCPOA accusing Iran of cheating had no effect on the EU, which
may ignore US sanctions. By provoking Iran, Israel sustained a high degree of tension which
made defending JCPOA harder for the EU, due to Iran's "aggressive acts."
Strikes on Israeli targets were supposed to harden US positions, and provoke the US to enter
into a direct confrontation with Syria and Iran. Experts believe that Israel is not prepared
for an independent military campaign against Iran, which it demonstrated during the Obama
years. That's what Pentagon counted on, hence the "calm" reaction from Washington. The US did
not comment on the Al-Quds strikes on the IDF forward positions on the Golan and referred
questions to Israeli government. This means diplomatic support.
Iran demonstrated to Europe possible consequences of the US withdrawal from JCPOA and
negatively reacted to Israeli PM's growing "understanding" with Moscow. Several sources have
indicated this action was backed by IRGC "hard-liners".
US analysts believe Iran and Israel are not about to expand their conflict at beyond the
borders of Syria, but there is risk that their clashes may slip from under control. They
suppose that the diplomatic approach to Moscow had no result. But it's extremely important for
Israel not to cause a conflict with Russia in Syria, while maintaining close cooperation with
the US and adopt a more aggressive stance toward Iran. The last round of strikes and
counter-strikes represents a serious danger of escalation, giving Jerusalem an opening to
pursue more active measures against Iran's presence in Syria. There is also a danger that
Iran-Israel clashes will spread to Lebanon and potentially draw in Russia and the US.
In Syria's east, according to the Pentagon, there are more frequent clashes between
US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Shia militias. Iranian and Syrian air defenses
face the risk of confusing US coalition and Israeli aircraft. Pro-Iranian militants in Syria
could strike US targets. Russia's priority in this situation is undoubtedly the de-escalation
of Iran-Israel conflict, in view of the risks it poses to Russian forces and aims in Syria.
The US is also inclined in favor of de-escalation, in order to avoid being drawn into a
full-scale combat in Syria, which Washington doesn't need. It's aim is to preserve a relative
stability zone east of Euphrates, where political alternatives to Damascus may be established
among the local Sunnis. This requires time and absence of local fighting. On the other hand,
Israel's strikes draw away pro-Iran forces toward Syria's south, away from Eurphrates. But
Israel is not prepared for a constant conflict on the Golan, in addition to Southern Lebanon
and Gaza.
More concerns!
Political scientists' discussions in international media revolve around the following
questions: will the US attack Iran? Will there be a big war? Will US actions lead to IRGC
"hawks" coming to power in Iran, causing a resumption of the nuclear program? Will the region
collapse into chaos that will be remotely controlled from the US, after it leaves from the
Middle East and the Gulf region? Will the US force its will on the EU? What is Russia to do in
this situation?
It seems Washington is not about to strike Iranian targets either in Iran or Syria. At least
not during the period until November 4, which is the date of reimposition of sanctions on Iran
-- the US is introducing sanctions so that it doesn't have to fight. All the more since their
strikes don't solve anything, and can't influence anything. The center of gravity of US policy
toward Iran is not military action, but rather attempts at economic strangulation in order to
facilitate social ferment. Without the US, none of its allies will engage in a full-scale war
with Iran.
This kind of conflict means that, apart from personnel and economic losses, Saudi Arabia and
UAE will not be able to pursue the diversification of economy they proclaimed. This also
applies to Israel, which wants to participate in the stand-off with Iran only jointly with the
US, by incentivizing the US to exit JCPOA and launch a preventive strike. These steps have thus
far been resisted by the Pentagon which is against any military operations until when pro-Iran
forces openly attack US military presence in the region. This is the main guarantee that US
will not strike Iran in the foreseeable future, in spite of all the rhetoric and prognoses made
by Iranian leaders.
Iranians, Europeans, and Americans will seek ways to reach an acceptable compromise before
November 4. Tehran will be in a waiting mode, without leaving JCPOA, and sound out EU
positions. There are yet no grounds to believe IRGC "hawks" will come to power. Their last
attempt to strengthen their positions in Iranian power structure during the recent social
unrest was a failure. The ultraconservatives' leader and former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
is still under house arrest. IRGC dissent was crushed by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, who never allowed the IRGC, rather than the reformers, to seize the role of the
dominant competitor to the clerics in the struggle for power in Iran. Instead, the reformers
have grown stronger thanks to the clerics' efforts to use them against the security bloc.
As far as the EU is concerned, Rouhani's words are quite telling. He said the following in a
phone conversation with Angela Merkel: "I call on the EU, in particular France, UK, and
Germany, to adopt a firm position to guarantee Iranian interests within the signed agreement."
This concerns the sale of oil, gas, and finance. Merkel confirmed Berlin is sticking to the
agreement as long as Iran fulfills its obligations. She also spoke in favor of expanding the
list of countries participating in the talks with Iran on its ballistic missile program, and on
developments in the region, including in Syria and Yemen.
France's Economy and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire commented on the US decision to abandon
JCPOA and reimpose sanctions on radio station Europe 1: "It's time to shift from words to
action from the point of view of economic sovereignty." Europe, according to Le Maire, should
not be a US vassal. He said that he'll meet with his British and French counterparts in late
May "to see what can be done in response to the US". He noted that EU already work on endowing
Europe with financial instruments that would make it independent of the US. he reminded that in
1996 the Council of Europe adopted a resolution on protecting the union against
extraterritorial sanctions. "This turns the US into an economic gendarme of the planet, and
think it unacceptable," said Le Maire.
For Russia, any serious conflict in the Middle East is automatically to its long-term
benefit, both economically (because Europe and Asia lose hydrocarbon sources which cannot be
compensated by US LNG or fracked oil) and politically. It accentuates Russia's potential as a
military superpower and a guarantor of borders of this or that country, not to mention its
prospects for arms conflicts. The conflict moreover does not concern Russia directly, though it
does signal the end of the unipolar world order.
This makes clear what Moscow ought to do: nothing other than what it's been doing so far.
Hover above the fray, and bring to a logical conclusion its current policy in Syria. JCPOA is a
matter for the US, EU, and the Arab world. Here the main tasks for the Russian diplomats is to
say the right things and express concern. Other forms of diplomacy will be more effective,
particularly the military-political one, as in Syria or Afghanistan. Russia won't be able to
exploit EU's unhappiness with the US, or become a bridge between the EU and Iran, which is what
some Russian experts are calling for.
In the first of the two, the relations with Russia are not as critical. US remains the key
EU partner, in spite of differences on certain trade issues and JCPOA. The biggest factor here
is the volume of economic losses caused by loyalty to Washington. Once the losses from Iran
sanctions, aluminum, steel, and iron sanctions, the growth of own expenditures on defense, and
the rest, start to exceed the volume of bilateral trade with the US, the degree of EU loyalty
toward Washington will decline dramatically. Secondly, EU does not need Russia to organize its
relations with Iran.
Trump is trying to re-establish Washington's total dominion over America's European, Arab
allies. It's a strategy, not a tactic. Therefore it's pointless to talk about the US leaving
the Middle East. They won't go anywhere as long as Russia is there. It's a matter of
geopolitics. It's another matter that Trump, as a businessman, is first and foremost trying to
finance US presence there at the expense of allies, and much of what he does is driven by that
goal. Many experts don't consider that factor, and instead they try to explain his actions on
the basis of political scientists' and diplomats' ideas and opinions on how international
relations ought to be based, in accordance with "rules of the game" worked out by these same
political scientists and diplomats.
Trump is not bound by tradition. He's an entrepreneur, of the adventurist variety. That's
what brought him to power in spite of all the opposition and predictions to the contrary made
even by leaders of the party in whose name he won. This victory convinced him he's on the right
course, since it brings him desired results. He operates internationally as if it were a
speculative business: raises and lowers stakes, bluffs, demolishes his partners' expectations,
whenever he considers it beneficial.
Trump pays attention to nothing but the final result, and if it's something other than
expected, he easily claims that's what he was after, and that's what the US needs, it's just
that nobody realized it before. It's enough to remember the Qatar and "Arab Four" confrontation
which he provoked, and from which he benefited by signing arms contracts with both sides and
obtaining unprecedented financial commitments from them in spite of their sincere belief that
each of the sides in the confrontation will get from Trump what they wanted. There is no doubt
that even with Iran his goal is not the same as what he's publicizing.
Evgeniy Satanovskiy (President of the Middle East Institute), with materials from Yu.
Shcheglovin
Looks like Putin does not see alternative to neoliberalism... Also he need to provide for
Russia a time to get from knees it was put by yeltzin regime. Russia is still very week
economically in comparison with the alliance of US and EU. It does not have China advantage of
hosting manufacturing of many high tech products.
Notable quotes:
"... to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. ..."
Meh. I am personally unconvinced. How can Putin say that he wants serious reforms while
keeping the exact same type of people in command? If indeed the Medvedev government did such a
great job, then why is there any need for such major reforms? If Putin's power base is indeed,
as I believe it to be, in the people, then why is he trying to appease the financial elites by
catering to their interests and agenda? Most crucially, how can Russia free herself from the
financial and economic grip of the Empire when the Empire's 5 th column agents are
(re-)appointed to key positions? And in all of Russia was there really nobody more qualified
than Mutko or Kudrin to appoint to these positions?
Of course, there always this "Putin knows something you don't" but I have always had a
problem with that kind of logic which is essentially an open-ended universal cop-out. I hope
that I am wrong, but to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he
has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. And I will gladly
admit that I have yet to hear an explanation which would explain this, never mind offer one of
my own.
On the external front, has Russia caved in to Israeli pressure? Ruslan Ostashko offers a
very good analysis of why this is hardly the case: (I don't necessarily agree with his every
conclusion, but he does make a very good case:
Yes, Netanyahu *did* with his repeated strikes on Syria, thumb his nose at Putin (that
famous Israeli chutzpah at work for you!), and yes, Putin wining and dining Netanyahu
was a painful sight and a PR-disaster. But on substance, did Israel get Russia to "betray
Iran"? No, and not because the Russians are so heroically principled, but because Israel really
has nothing to offer Russia. All Israel has is a powerful pro-Israel lobby inside Russia, that
is true. But the more they use that lobby the more visible it becomes, the more questions at
least Eurasian Sovereignists will ask.
The Israelis sure don't want to give the impression that the run Russia the way they run the
US, and Netanyahu's reception in the Kremlin recently has already raised a lot of eyebrows and
the impression that Putin caved in to the demands of this arrogant bastard are not helping
Putin, to put it mildly. A lot of Russian analysts (Viktor Baranets, Maksim Shevchenko, Leonid
Ivashev) wonder what kind of arguments Netanyahu used with Putin, and the list of possibilities
is an outright uninspiring one.
Part five – another truism: there is a difference between excellent, good, average,
bad and terrible
Even if the situation in Russia has changed for the worse, this is hardly a reason to engage
in the usual "Putin sold out" hysteria or to declare that "Russia caved in". Even when things
are bad, there is still a huge difference between bad and worse. As of right now, Putin is not
only the best possible person to be the President of Russia, Russia also continues to be the
objective leader of the resistance to the Empire. Again, the black-and-white "Hollywood" type
of mindset entirely misses the dynamic nature of what is going on. For example, it is quite
clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed,
really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and
who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that
Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the
voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin
(again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western
liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist
politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension.
For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported
Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension
around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might
witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It
will be interesting to see if Putin's personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will
have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition.
Much will depend on how the Russian economy will perform. If, courtesy of Trump's
megalomaniacal policies towards Iran and the EU, Russia's economy receives a massive injection
of funds (via high energy prices), then things will probably stabilize. But if the European
leaders meekly cave in and join the sanctions against Iran and if the US succeeds in imposing
even further sanctions on Russia, then the Medvedev government will face a serious crisis and
the revival of the Russian economy promised by Putin will end up in an embarrassing failure and
things could also go from bad to even worse.
... ... ...
For Hezbollah, Iran or Russia to defeat Israel, the US or the entire Empire, there is no
need to plant a flag on the enemy's main symbolic building like what Soviet soldiers did in
Germany. All they need to do to win is simply to survive because the other's sides survival is
predicated upon their elimination, it's really that simple. Israel cannot claim victory as long
as Hezbollah exists, the US cannot claim world Hegemony if Iran openly defies it, and the
AngloZionist Empire cannot clain world hegemony over the our planet as long as the Russian
civilizational realm openly challenges it. So while all the talk about the Iranians wanting to
"
wipe Israel off the map " is just a typical ziomedia invention, it is true that by
their very existence Hezbollah, Iran and Russia do represent an existential threat to Israel,
the US and the Empire .
This is the biggest and the fatal weakness of the AngloZionist Empire: its survival depends
on the colonization or destruction of every other country out there. Every independent country,
whether big and powerful, or small and weak, represents an unacceptable challenge to the
hegemony of the "indispensable nation" and the "chosen people", which now try to rule over us
all. This might well be the ultimate example of Hegelian dialectics at work in geopolitics: an
Empire whose power generates it's own demise. Many empires have come and gone in history, but
the globalized world we live in, this dialectical contradiction is tremendously potentialized
by the finite conditions in which empires have to operate.
... ... ...
Right now Putin still has a lot of "credibility capital" left in spite of his recent
mistakes. However, Putin recent decisions have raised a lot of unpleasant questions which must
be answered and will so in time. In the meantime, as they say in the US, " hope for the
best, prepare for the worst, and settle for anything in the middle ". The Scripture also
warns us not to make idols of leaders: " Trust not in princes, nor in the children of men,
in whom there is no safety " (Ps 145:3 LXX). The worldly evil we are fighting, today in the
shape of the AngloZionist Empire, is but a manifestation of a much deeper, spiritual evil: "
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places " (Eph. 6:12). The young men and women from the Shia movement Amal got it right when
they chose the name "Party of God" for their movement when they created Hezbollah in 1985. And
Iran was right when it became an Islamic Republic: if we want to defeat the Empire we need to
always let spiritual matters and moral crieria remain above any of our "pragmatic" worldly
political considerations or national/ethnic loyalties: that is how we can defeat those who
place a dollar value on absolutely everything they see in their narrow materialistic
worldview.
A truly amazing article and the most amazing thing of all is the total lack of even
one paragraph of the existence of China. This article could have been written, word for word,
by a defender of the Empire and the China omission would have been identical.
The Key player on the world scene manages to wear the clock of invisibility like
the Shadow of old time radio and movies. Quite a feat!
robertmagill.wordpress.com
Second, each process carries within itself the seeds of its own contradiction. This is
what makes processes dynamic.
"what makes processes dynamic", could it be "more then just linear"? Referring to changes
of direction regardless of interaction(group dynamics) with other processes. Example: the
Roman Empire process, growing then imploding?
Even the Pantsir which was recently destroyed by the Israelis (with the usual
pro-Israeli PR campaign) was not even on combat alert: the unit was not even camouflaged
and its crew was standing around and smoking. The Israelis are masters at making this look
all very impressive and heroic, but in military terms, this is nonsense: they clearly hit a
unit which was not even part of the action (whatever that "action" was).
Not sure how an AD unit can be "not part of the action" anywhere in any meaningful sense
in the midst of an ongoing surge of strikes within a strategic campaign of air attacks such
as Israel is waging against Syria.
Without knowing the context (how long had it been stationary and out of ammo/action, as it
reportedly was at the time of the strike, and what was the context for the Israelis getting a
missile through to it when it should have been covered by other operational defences), it's
hard to know how much its loss should be put down to Syrian fault, and how much to Israeli/US
technical competence or just to the vagaries of war.
But it certainly doesn't look good and that's of course why the Israelis are so keen to
publicise it.
As for the Saker piece, as usual lots of good points and some not so good, but that's
about all one can expect on such complex topics. Imo he's rather over-stating the case in
excusing the Russian failure to halt the ongoing Israeli assault on Syria. Yes, Russia has no
formal alliance with Syria or Iran committing it to defend them (and by the way these are
attacks on Syria not just Iran, though occasionally they hit Iranian forces within Syria and
allied with Syria – the claims of targeting just Iranian forces are Israeli propaganda
to create a seeming pretext good enough for the pro-Israeli media in the US sphere). But to
say there is no moral onus on Russia whatsoever to do so is simply overstating it –
Iranians, Syrians and Russians are fighting side by side in Syria and that in itself creates
some moral pressure not to stand by and watch your allies get butchered with impunity when
you can do something about it.
But from a purely pragmatic point of view, failing to halt the Israeli attacks is damaging
to Russia, on at least two counts. First, it unavoidably creates a perception of weakness
and/or betrayal, and of unreliability and two-facedness. In a more concrete sense, though,
the simple fact is that Iranian, Syrian and Russian interests are in fact fundamentally
aligned in Syria and diametrically opposed to the Israeli objective, on the core issue, which
is the survival and stabilisation of the Syrian state. Israeli impunity and the level of
attacks it is now carrying out are incompatible with the goal of stabilising Syria, and will
have to be stopped at some time if that goal is to be achieved.
If the Russian government thinks that by appeasing the Israelis it can somehow hope that
they might be persuaded to slow down or halt the attacks, perhaps if the Iranians pull out,
then the Russian government is profoundly naïve. Claims that the strikes are motivated
by Iranian presence are pretexts, not reasons. If that pretext goes, another will be found.
The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran as a
regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it is
under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order to
gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and
escalate its ongoing settler colonisation programs enabled by the US.
Those objectives are important enough that it isn't going to halt in pursuing them as a
favour to Russia, no matter how meek and submissive the Russian government acts, but they are
not important enough for Israel to face open conflict with a major power for them. Israel
does these things because it can. When it is forcefully told that it can no longer do them,
it will stop doing them.
One can certainly argue (and I have done so in the past) that the time isn't right for
Russia to put a halt to Israeli attempts to destabilise the Syria government, though that
argument grows increasingly threadbare. One cannot argue credibly, I think, that it will not
be necessary to do so at some point soon.
This is a very good interpretation of the recent events which have confused us all.
Personally I think any and, all deals Putin has made with the Western Zionists have a short
shelf life as, there seems to be no contract the West will honor short of complete
capitulation.
Patience is a good thing here and,, Putin knows in the end Russia is the prize. So, I
believe right now he is smart to play short ball with Washington and, Tel Aviv. There's a
level of immaturity in guys like Netanyahu and, Trump. Let me just say, they have their egos
to protect.
Saker, what do you know about AI as it relates to Tyler, anything? Is this a topic which can
excite from you an article or, two?
"the "New Russia" (as I like to call it) is not based on anything other than a Constitution
written mostly by US advisors"
That's a bit harsh. Judging by what the Russian command structure has been seen to say and
do, they are evidently based on rights and rule of law, not on the perverted US model but on
black-letter customary and conventional international law. Russia dominates US performance in
terms of human rights,
They took over from France as the world's most articulate advocate of rule of law, and did
it better. In Syria they stressed pacific resolution of disputes, notably by brokering Syrian
chemical weapons disarmament through OPCW. They also press-ganged a military staff committee
and enforced UN Charter Article 47 at gunpoint, using all the megatonnage needed. Now they're
the world's policeman, and they're not USA-style asshole cops. They're taking the role of
international civil servants in the UN Charter's sense. That may be one reason why they're
not consistently kicking US ass, as we would wish: Peace is the law. Friendly relations
– it's the law, A/RES/25/2625.
Not that they're perfect examples of rights or law – the indicators show that in the
specific respect of invitations to special procedures, they're about as bad as the USA, and
that's pretty bad. And your point about double standards on Israeli impunity is very
important. But their opposition to the West is not general, but meticulously grounded in law.
Recall that they justified even a vital interest, Crimean accession, in terms of the Kosovo
precedent set out by the ICJ.
the pantsir was being reloaded.. no rockets in the tubes, maybe that is how it was not
part of the action;)
weapons without ammo cant do their intended operations as far as i know,,
Being out of ammo doesn't mean being "not part of the action". It means you should be
either be being reloaded or getting under cover to reload, or be covered by other systems, or
both.
Were the autocannons out of ammo as well? If it was running low on ammo shortly before,
why wasn't it already on the move towards cover, since the S1 can reportedly fire on the
move? If it was under such rapid and sustained attack that its ammo was exhausted in a
saturation attack (and that of its covering systems as well, bearing in mind it was
reportedly located at a major airbase), and it had no time to move or be reloaded before it
was hit, then it absolutely was not "not part of the action".
I take no joy in pointing it out, but this was a clear defeat for the Syrian AD systems,
however you explain it. It's not the end of the world – losses are inevitable in
combat. Lessons can be learned. But it can't be airily dismissed as "not part of the
action".
What "cancellation" of which promise to supply the S-300?? There never was any promise to do
so to start with. There were only certain questions asked by the JMSM in certain time before
the long-planned visit of Netanyahu on May, 9. The Russian generals had to give some sort of
replies. An ambiguous ones. But the JMSM of course made a conclusion that Russia indeed is
planning the sale. Fast-forward to 9th of May, Bibi comes/Bibi leaves, and the same JMSM
would ask the new questions. To which Moscow obviously had to voice a denial. As a result
– Bibi is a hero at home, while Putin was made look weak. http://www.ancreport.com/report/the-phantom-s-300/
The photos I've seen indicate that the system (if really the same one) had indeed fired
off its missiles and was ready to move as its hydraulic stabilizers had been retracted, and
its radar panel folded. If the crew left the system uncamouflaged and were "standing around
smoking", that can suggest a number of different possibilities. It may indicate a breakdown
in discipline, but they may have been awaiting orders, or even had a mechanical breakdown en
route to a new location. Likely a combination. Who knows?
So, maybe not "part of the action" in the sense that it was actively targeting/firing at
incoming missiles, but definitely "part of the action" in the sense that it had been
obviously doing just that moments before. If its missiles and auto-cannon had seen some
successes, it may even be seen to have "won" rather than been part of a "clear defeat".
In any case, it seems that surprisingly little damage was done. The system was hit in the
front cab area and looked eminently repairable in the photos.
The SAA has seen some discipline problems in the field, and since a number of the the
general staff defected early in the war, a disjointed command & control system. Under
Russian tutelage, they're vastly better today than they were 2 years ago, but perhaps not
quite there yet. If the reports from late 2015 are to be believed, the Russians were very
frustrated with how the SAA operated, and basically had to impose discipline by threatening,
and then actually leaving.
My guess is that that's a large part of why the Russians are reluctant to provide potent
weapons such as the S300. The political implications of using them can outweigh their
military utility, and so must remain under strict control. If somebody starts shooting down
US or IL jets at stand-off distances, things can get uncomfortably complex very quickly. The
Russians don't need that to worry about along with everything else.
Russia and Russians will have to come to terms with the fact they are disliked in large parts
of Eastern Europe, with the possible exception of Serbia.
There are reasons for this, whether just or unjust.
The reaction to comment #1 which might be seen as sarcastic seems a case in point.
I am certain that unfortunate accidents like the coup in Ukraine might in the future be
avoided by a bit more self-awareness and awareness of massive prejudices inherited from an
often less than glorious past.
One has to see, however, that in the Ukrainian case, like in the Georgian case before,
Russia acted swiftly and decisively to reach a position which might be considered better than
the status quo ante before the Free West™ started its sheganigans. So perhaps the
awareness exists and the contingency planning is in place?
That is why I still have more than a little hope for Syria and by extension christendom in
Syria and Lebanon. All to often it is forgotten that these wars in Arabia are also wars
against the christion minorities in Arabia.
The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran
as a regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it
is under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order
to gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and
escalate its ongoing settler colonization programs enabled by the US.
In fact it seems to go further. Planned Greater Israel expands territorially to include
Jordan, Lebanon, most of Syria, western Iraq (oil producing regions), all the Gulf States,
all northern Saudi Arabia (oil producing regions) and the Sinai and other parts of Egypt.
It's the Israeli Imperial dream of becoming a World Power and also controlling the world's
oil supply, somewhat analogous to Hitler's dream of a German World Empire based on
colonization of the East and a Greater Germany extending to the Urals.
Both are/were racist-Imperialist projects with the difference that the Germans tried to
realize the dream using their own military (insufficient) while the Israelis are trying to do
it using US forces.
How long the US plays along (or rather is intimidated into playing along) with this one
sided project is an open question – and there's clearly the issue of how Israel is
going to win these wars without troops on the ground. At least Hitler had most of his army in
Russia and detailed plans for post-war ethnic German settlement.
The Americans aren't going to fight more large scale ground wars in the Middle East and
Israeli/US proxy forces have failed – so that leaves the destruction of the Middle East
from the air – which doesn't really further the Greater Israel project. Political
control on the ground stays the same – generating even greater
anti-Israeli/anti-American sentiment (if that is possible).
Russia correctly opts to keep clear of this mess, and there is only negative blowback for
Israel and the United States – actually serving to isolate internally destabilize these
countries.
At the moment the Russians look either two-faced or weak (and perhaps they are both) in
the face of Israel. That's not a look Russia can afford to have come to be their
characterising feature, in the long run.
Yes, from certain perspectives it does indeed look like that, but I doubt many of us here
are very aware of the calculi being used at the state level, and especially of Russia's.
"Losing face" may be the equivalent of sacrificing a pawn.
There are some complex processes underway, involving a bewildering number of moving parts.
"Russiagate" is imploding in the US at an accelerating rate, heading for a constitutional
crisis. The 2 Koreas are cooking up a scheme between them (w/ support) to end the US'
domination of the W. Pacific. More critical than all, in my view, is Trump's abrogation of
the JCPOA. This has put the US on a trajectory at odds with its allies, and played directly
into the hands of its adversaries. As evidence of the latter, Merkel and Putin have met 2x in
May, and Germany's new foreign minister has also visited with Lavrov. It may well be the
geo-political tipping point.
Remembering Obama's & Kerry's words at the the time the JCPOA was agreed
Obama in Aug '15: "Instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, Congress's rejection would
almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling We'd have to cut off countries
like China from the American financial system trigger(ing) severe disruptions in our own
economy and, by the way, rais(ing) questions internationally about the dollar's role as
the world's reserve currency. "
John Kerry, a few days later: "If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them, 'you're going to have to obey our
rules and sanctions anyway,' that is a recipe, very quickly, for the American dollar to
cease to be the reserve currency of the world. "
With the EU now agreeing to transact with Iran in EURs, Obama's & Kerry's words look
to have been much more than hyperbole, "Losing face", in these circumstances may be nothing
more than what you do as you play rope-a-dope while the big guy punches himself out.
We shall see what happens after the World Cup.
I think that's colouring current events more than we give it credit for. It's an opportune
time for rogue nations to play games and throw tantrums, but I think a new set of rules will
be introduced after the show is over.
{Maybe it would have been better if the Germans had defeated and occupied Russia and
killed all the commies.}
Maybe it would have been much better for Nazis to have occupied whatever putrid swamp you
are from and killed off pond scum like you.
Nazis invaded Soviet Union in order to exterminate the Slavic peoples, the supposed
Untermenschen , take their fast, fertile lands, and populate them with the alleged
"Master Race".
Except they turned out to be somewhat less than "Master", because those
Untermenschen chased the pitiful remainders of the Nazi invaders all the way back to
Berlin, and those Untermenschen Red Army soldiers pissed on the ashes of the supposed
"Master Race" leader.
(Hitler's bloviations about Bolsheviks and all that was just a convenient excuse and to
snow his military who might be less than enthusiastic about murdering civilians of SU.)
btw: it is not too late for youse and your buddies to put on your uniforms, polish up your
jack-boots, grab your weapons .and invade Russia. Who know maybe youse will get lucky and
will get a gift wrapped Sarmat express -delivered right to your address.
NATO intervened but they targeted
one side. The intervention was
biased. NATO countries are under
occupation. In some countries NATO
member ship occurred or is being
pushed when the majority of the
population dont support it,
Montenegro was the latest and a
classic example, and it just happens
to be part of a former Yugoslav.
http://www.iri.org/resource...
Here is how it works. The US wants
control /de-facto occupation of
pretty much every country on the
planet so they give money and
political support to politicians who
sell their souls. Once these people
are in power they push for things
like NATO membership at which point
they have completely lost sovereignty
because they are militarily and/or
economically dependent. Its a
brilliant system. Subjugation without
war. The price is that the
politicians don't govern for their
own people. In fact they become
complacent.
Germany under Merkel has been
dithering for a long time about where
its interests really lie.
Unfortunately, it's been Merkel's
instinct to behave like a good little
Washington vassal. Well, what else
can one expect from a conservative
and a traditionalist. I keep waiting
for her to have an epiphany, wake up
one morning, and realize that the
tectonic plates are shifting, and if
Germany doesn;t shift with them, it
will end up a backwater of the
crumbling American empire.
Russia has had little to gain from
any relationship with Germany or any
other western power.Except war and
destruction,ruined cities and massive
loss of life.It has always been a
tragic and one sided relationship and
Russia should probably look to the
east and China as its natural
partners.And not the Russophobic
west.
"John Brennan, James Clapper and Admiral Rogers stage-managed a paper in January, 2017 that
asserted that the Intelligence Community believed various things about Russian government
tinkering with the US election (much as the US does in other countries' elections)".
Except that:
1. The paper's assertion was untrue (and known by the authors to be untrue). Far from "the
intelligence community" believing any such thing, it was eventually admitted that a handful
of picked individuals from three agencies (of the 16) had cautiously expressed that "belief"
– with the proviso that they acknowledged that they knew of no supporting evidence.
Presumably a handful of picked (and anonymous) individuals would be highly susceptible to
bribery, blackmail, or a combination of the two.
2. The sentence quoted does not make it clear that, whereas the US government routinely
manages and controls other countries' political affairs (it goes a very long way further than
"tinkering") the alleged Russian "tinkering" was on a tiny scale, and had nothing to do with
the Russian government.
An assertion is less than an allegation. Both have some factual basis, however little that
factual basis may be.
A belief is less than an assertion. A belief is based on faith. A factual basis is not
necessary.
In other words, the document was a leap of faith.
What Syria currently needs are more Pantsyr systems. It urgently needs to replace the old
S-200s with the modern and mobile BUK-2. These systems make way more sense for the Syrian
battlefield than the famed S-300. They also have the advantage of being significantly
cheaper.
congress-to-consider-recognition-of-israeli-sovereignty-over-golan-heights/
"Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced on
Thursday a resolution that could lead to an historic recognition by the United States that
the contested area fully belongs to Israel, according to a copy of the amendment obtained by
the Washington Free Beacon."
@ b who wrote: "Deterrence, as established after the last Israeli attack, is the only
available means."
Nice journalism again b. You set a great example that I wish others would follow.
Deterrence is the only available means within this theatre of WWIII, I agree. But I
believe that this war will be won/lost on the "socio/economic" front.
On the one side we have the current God of Mammon, private finance/property, usury and
ongoing inheritance "caste" system and on the other is commucapitasocioism that exist
currently as the NOT God of Mammon types but that have to relate to it. There is lots of
evidence that core global financial institutions don't need to be privately held and that the
whole overarching debt burden that currently exists is irrational.....and since conventional
war is supposedly limited to not nukes, the only other alternative to attempt to force
capitulation/compliance is economic war
I am all for your scenario of the battle being taken to the Golan Heights so that issue
gets worked and hopefully resolved.
Israelis overflying Lebanon, and launching missiles from there, is not going to stop soon, I
would say. I can think of a number of reasons. One is that it is not particularly effective.
Syrian progress has not been affected by the attacks. Two is that trying to prevent it is
politically complicated, Hizbullah is not in government, and the others are more nuanced.
Three is that Russia supplying Syria to defend itself is one thing, supplying Hizbullah in
Lebanon is quite another, not official government activity.
Putin has much bigger fish to fry.The way NATO is fracturing over the
Syrian mess and Isreal is isolating itself, a stalemate on the ground
actually is Russia's best approach.
He doesn't have to win, everybody else has to lose.
This a marathon not a sprint.
Pax Americana's true Achilles heel is global reserve currency status.
Everything the US tries erodes that further and quicker.
Time is on Putin's side and has nearly tolled out for Pax Americana.
If i were Russ, with the hulking huge US armed forces against me, i think i would make damn
sure i didn't use my ace cards in the hole until it was the final lay down. I still don't
understand what was supposed to have happened in the black sea ...what, the russ could shut
down all electronic systems on a modern US warship , and they used it in peacetime? Makes no
sense to me. Why show your hand?
... heard a voice say to him, "Paul, Paul, why do you persecute me? I am Putin, whom you are
persecuting,"
Paul in his anti-Putin posts makes two mistakes.
First, if RF under Putin leadership were about to sell Syria to bidders like USA, Israel,
the last few years were a very strange way to do it, as one can see from the maps
illustrating this article. This progress was achieved in large part with Russian weapons,
training and air support, and we know that before Russia stared to provide air support and
training, the results were that SAA was barely surviving.
Second, there exists a logic of total war that may command all resources of societies, and
states may have to plan for that, but in this conflict, allies of Syria are engaged in
limited war, and its logic is absolutely different. Vast majority of actions can be
counteracted, so there is a huge scope for fruitless escalations. Putin has to make a case
for RF expending "life and treasures" to Russian people, and fruitless escalations are
textbook examples to avoid.
So what can be a solution that avoids such traps? I do not want to speculate in a limited
post, but solutions cannot be obvious -- hence not counteracted in time. With the results so
far, Putin seems a better player than Netanyahu, Obama etc. so one should not be as hasty
with condemnations as Paul.
Excellent comments here is usual. I do support the notion of Putin is sitting on the river
bank and waiting for the dead body of his enemy to float by. Whether this is the best
strategy or not, that is another matter. But Russia has suffered significant human losses
facing this empire in decline. It is understandable that Putin feels that waiting patiently
may be the best approach.
The enemy will die from the self-inflicted financial wounds. Israel & US are becoming
desperate as time is not on their side: rushing to recognise Israeli sovereignty over Golan
Heights to steal its oil (thanks Peter AU). Only God knows what will happen to Israel once
the dead body of its US overused and abused host (the nag) floats by, but it will indubitably
be fully deserved.
b was a bit off in his simplified explanation on the air defences. The sophisticated S-300 is
more a symbol than battle reality for a country almost seven years at war. It would take a
year just to train well the local crews. Pantsyrs in Lebanon would be really nice, but it
reads like a joke. For Russia to put them in the hands of Hezbollah or a Hezbollah dominated
Lebanese government against Israel is not a serious suggestion. I find it fascinating that
Putin took on the chin the Israeli threats to destroy S-300 potentially to be delivered to
Syria. Perhaps, the idea of S-300 delivered to Syria was Putin letting his generals start a
rumour, for Putin to gain some concessions from Israel later on. Nutty really rushed to
Moscow to solve that one and the air attacks appear to have stopped a few days later.
"... "the United States has links with terrorist 'Islamic State', also known as Daesh Daesh a tool of US After it [the US] dropped the [mother of all] bomb on Afghanistan, it did not eliminate Daesh the terrorist group has been supplied weapons by the United States forces The US Army helicopters and army bases are being used to provide assistance to ISIS terrorists I do not differentiate at all between Daesh and America Reports of American assistance to the terrorists are coming from all over the country." ..."
"... "Trump's standards, his comments about the Orlando shooting have been reckless and self-serving. They are also dangerous for the country the strongest remaining force that propels the Islamic State is the Islamophobia of Trump and his European counterparts, argue senior intelligence strategists for the U.S.-led coalition. Inflammatory, xenophobic statements about Muslims reinforce the jihadists' claims that they are Muslim knights fighting against an intolerant West. Trump unwittingly gives them precisely the role they dream about." ..."
"... "In NYC, looks like another attack by a very sick and deranged person. Law enforcement is following this closely. We must not allow ISIS to return, or enter, our country after defeating them in the Middle East and elsewhere. Enough! The United States will be immediately implementing much tougher Extreme Vetting Procedures. The safety of our citizens comes first!" ..."
Modern history of terrorism shows that it has gone through distinct
phases, with shifting missions, messages, and means of mobilizing. But, owing to the US President Donald
Trump's Israeli connections, terrorism has entered a dangerous phase.
Everyone knows that Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban were created by the American
CIA to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
In this regard, former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook stated, "Throughout
the 1980s, he [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian
occupation of Afghanistan."
Osama
bin-Laden (Col. Tim Osman) with Ziggy Brzezinski
The then US
National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and said about the militants
(Mujahideen), "We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed because,
you are fighting against the infidel Russians."
However, one of the alarming phases of terrorism started when, after fulfilling
their interests, Washington left Afghanistan in particular and Pakistan in general to face the fallout of a
prolonged conflict -- terrorism and instability.
These Mujahideen who pulled the Russians out of Afghanistan, later become the
Taliban, Al-Qaeda (new version) and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State group (also known as ISIS, ISIL and
Daesh). They got the label of terrorists.
After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, former US President Bush (41), in
connivance with his Zionist-advisers, saw Islamic fundamentalism as a great threat. Since then, sometimes, Bin
Laden and Al-Qaeda have routinely been used by the US and some Western countries as a scapegoat to malign
Pakistan for 'de-nuclearisation,' as the latter is the only nuclear country in the Muslim World. Sometimes, the
bogeyman of Al-Qaeda was raised to achieve their goals of external policy, and sometimes to pacify their
public, including the opposition. In all cases, the secret underlying purpose was to safeguard the interests of
the Zionists and Israel.
The new frightening phase of terrorism started
after the September 11 tragedy inside the United States. In this regard, US President George W. Bush (43) and
neo-conservatives crossed all the limits in protecting the political, economic and religious interests of the
Jews and Israel at the cost of Muslims and patriot Americans.
Just after the 9/11 catastrophe, statements of Bush, high officials of his
administration and Zionist-controlled media deliberately developed chauvinism and extremism among the
Americans. There had been an organised campaign against the Muslims in the US and other western countries. Its
main themes were that Islam and the Muslims were the true cause of terrorism.
President Bush used the phrase, "crusade against the evil-doers", adding to the
perception that the ongoing 'different war' against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim countries.
Inside the US, suddenly, every Muslim found himself divested of his nationality. Arrests, detentions and
harassment of the Muslims by the CIA and the FBI in the US were other steps which still continue.
Brushing aside Israeli atrocities on the Palestinians, American unity
was projected with such force as to allow no questioning of US policy.
Under the cover of the 9/11 catastrophe, a pre-planned strategy of the
neo-conservatives headed towards a series of unexpected developments and events. Bush warned the world to
choose sides by saying, "either you are with us or with terrorists." It was due to employment of
pressure-diplomacy on the weak states – Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya etc. – that almost all
the Arab states joined Bush's anti-terrorism war. By manipulating public emotion about the 9/11 carnage, Bush
also got the sympathies of almost all the major Western countries including NATO states, which also joined the
fake global war on terror.
Meanwhile, making Osama and Al-Qaeda scapegoats, a number of fake video messages
were telecast on various TV channels and websites by some Zionists to obtain Israel's anti-Muslim goals. For
example, during the November 2004 elections in the US, a fake video helped the incumbent president George W.
Bush to gain a lead over John Kerry.
Can
a leopard change its spots?
It is well-known that, in a tape
released on December 27, 2001, the authenticity of which is not in question, Osama denied any involvement in
the September 11 tragedy.
However, later, two video tapes appeared to validate his guilt in relation to
9/11, because the main aims of the Bush administration were to provoke American public outrage against the
Muslims and to justify a global war on terror -- the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq to possess energy
resources of Central Asia and Iraq, including proxy wars in other Middle Eastern countries and to get their
support for a propaganda campaign against Pakistan and Iran.
Other actions of the Bush era – such as America's state-sponsored terrorism in the
volatile Islamic countries; persecution of Muslims through torture, detentions and arrests; CIA and
FBI-operated facilities; and radicalization of the western Christians against the Muslims – provided a golden
chance for India and Israel to accelerate the systematic genocide of the Palestinians and Kashmiris, and
protected the real architects of the 9/11 tragedy.
While President Barack Obama stated during his first election-campaign that he
would rectify the blunders committed by his predecessor in the name of war on terror, he continued them in
their worst form to secure the illegitimate interests of Israel.
The Obama Administration continued with various techniques of ruthless terror and
extrajudicial killings of innocent persons through illegitimate drone attacks, as in Iraq; and created more
collapsed states such as Libya, Yemen and Syria, thus opening the door for Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
If the double game of President Bush franchised Al-Qaeda at the global level,
President Obama's dual policy franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS as part of the anti-Muslim campaign, and left
no stone unturned in advancing the agenda of the Zionists, Israeli lobbies and the neoconservatives in the
pretext of a phony global war on terror.
Secretly, President Obama authorized the CIA to create ISIS. His perennial, covert
support of the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. He was silent about the smuggling of oil by ISIS to
some European countries whose governments have also not taken action against those companies which were
exporting oil from ISIS-controlled regions of Iraq. He was silent about the CIA-assisted Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra
Front), ISIS militants and rebel groups who were fighting to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government
to achieve the aims of a Greater Israel. All of this comprised Obama's double game.
Training and supply of arms by CIA and Israeli
Mossad to these terrorist outfits and medical treatment of their militants in Israeli hospitals, including
arrests of some CIA and Mossad agents in Syria and Iraq have also verified the Western connections. Yet, as
part of the dual strategy, America and its Western partners have also been waging a war against ISIS.
But at the same time, CIA and Mossad openly support this terrorist group and its
linked terror outfits, in accordance with the covert aims of Tel Aviv, not of America.
In this respect, the Russian TV channel, Russia Today (RT) reported on September
24, 2017 "The Russian Ministry of Defense has released aerial images which they say show US Army special
forces' equipment north of the town of Deir er-Zor, where ISIS militants are deployed. US Army special units
provide free passage for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) through the battle formations of Islamic State
(ISIS/ISIL) terrorists Despite that the US strongholds being organized at them
"This could mean that the US military staff feel
absolutely safe in the area which is held by the terrorists All of the images were taken from September 8 to
12. The photos show several Cougar infantry mobility vehicles and Hummer armored vehicles of the US Army
Special Forces, according the Russian MoD data In this case, securing IS assistance for an unopposed advance of
US backed SDF forces could enable the SDF, widely seen as a US proxy, to seize strategically important (and oil
rich) territory in Deir ez-Zor that otherwise would soon be retaken by rapidly advancing Syrian Army. If so
this once again will raise questions as to what the true purpose of US forces-purportedly in Syria to fight
IS-actually is. Earlier in September, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov accused
the SDF of collusion with ISIS terrorists.SDF militants work to the same objectives as IS terrorists."
According to Global Research Canada (Centre for Research on Globalization), "In
other words, ISIS, al-Nusra, and so-called SDF forces are virtually the same thing – US-recruited, -armed,
-funded and -directed cutthroat killers, waging naked aggression against Syria and its people
"The Pentagon's so-called Operation Inherent Resolve so
far is silent on Russia's damning evidence Separately, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem accused
Washington of working with its terrorist assets in Syria, including al-Nusra, to undermine Astana peace
talks Russia's Defense Ministry saying its intelligence revealed US forces together with al-Nusra terrorists
tried halting the successful advance of government forces east of Deir Ezzor Russian airpower smashed their
offensive. Sergey Lavrov condemned the US-led coalition for refusing to combat al-Nusra, calling it absolutely
unacceptable According to Russia's Defense Ministry, nearly 90% of Syrian territory held by ISIS is now
liberated. Moscow will respond appropriately to any US efforts to impede the campaign to free Syria entirely
from control by terrorists."
Intel Agencies' and False Flag Events
In the case of Asia
and particularly South Asia, well-entrenched
in Afghanistan and some Gulf states, intelligence agencies such as CIA, Indian RAW, Mossad and MI6 are
assisting various terror outfits, including Al-Qaeda and particularly ISIL, in order to achieve the covert
goals of the US-led countries against Pakistan, Syria, Iraq China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Somalia, Yemen etc.
and even Afghanistan, which are being destabilized by various forms of terrorism-related assaults, and which
have continued in one way or the other.
In this context, a news item was published by all the leading dailies of Pakistan
on October 8, 2017 regarding the statement of Afghanistan's Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai who, while
dismissing criticism of Russian ties with the Taliban and echoing Russian claims of American support to the
ISIS terrorists, told Voice of America (VOC) that
"the United States has links with terrorist
'Islamic State', also known as Daesh Daesh a tool of US After it [the US] dropped the [mother of all] bomb on
Afghanistan, it did not eliminate Daesh the terrorist group has been supplied weapons by the United States
forces The US Army helicopters and army bases are being used to provide assistance to ISIS terrorists I do not
differentiate at all between Daesh and America Reports of American assistance to the terrorists are coming from
all over the country."
(It also includes Karzai's revelations to VOC of April 20, 2017 and Newsweek's
report of the same day).
In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera's UpFrontaired on November 10, 2017,
Karzai again disclosed that the US government had allowed ISIL to flourish inside Afghanistan. He said, "In my
view under the full presence, surveillance, military, political, intelligence, Daesh [ISIL] has emerged And for
two years the Afghan people came, cried loud about their suffering, of violations. Nothing was done the US
administration of President Donald Trump used ISIL as an excuse to drop a massive bomb on Afghanistan in April
2017 And the next day, Daesh takes the next district in Afghanistan That proves to us that there is a hand in
it and that hand can be no one else but them [the US] in Afghanistan."
In September 2015, the Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the
National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah started breaking the back of the ISIS terrorists,
Al-Qaeda's Al-Nusra Front and the rebels in Syria and Iraq. In response, Israel's Mossad, which already had
clandestine contact with ISIS, directed this outfit to plan the November 13 terror attacks in Paris in
connivance with the French home-grown militants.
Similarly, when Russian-led forces began
retaking many cities from the control of these insurgents, on the other side, agents of Mossad who were in
collaboration with the CIA sympathizers and the ISIL militants arranged various sorts of terror attacks in
Europe and the US.
Through all these false-flag terror operations, the US and Israel wanted to obtain
their covert aims against Russia and the Muslims.
Mossad had also provided US President Donald Trump with an opportunity to
manipulate various terror assaults of Europe and America to win the US presidential election and to reunite
America and Europe, as a rift had been created between America and its Western allies, especially Europe on a
number of issues, including NATO. And, President Trump left no stone unturned in implementing anti-Muslim
policies, while speaking openly against the Muslims and Syrian immigrants.
Trump had started exaggerating the threat of Islamophobia, while some incidents
were not linked to ISIS, but were the result of self-radicalization by individual actors.
Regarding the shooting at the gay night club in Orlando (Florida) which killed at
least 49 individuals on June 12, 2016, The Washington Post in an article, under the caption, "Trump's reckless,
dangerous Islamophobia helps the Islamic State", wrote on June 13, 2016,
"Trump's standards, his comments about the Orlando
shooting have been reckless and self-serving. They are also dangerous for the country the strongest remaining
force that propels the Islamic State is the Islamophobia of Trump and his European counterparts, argue senior
intelligence strategists for the U.S.-led coalition. Inflammatory, xenophobic statements about Muslims
reinforce the jihadists' claims that they are Muslim knights fighting against an intolerant West. Trump
unwittingly gives them precisely the role they dream about."
In this regard, Khaled A. Beydoun opined on the Aljazeera multimedia network on
March 13, 2016,
"The world brand Trump is becoming synonymous with
expansion of racism and incitement of Islamophobia I think Islam hate us, said Donald Trump, 24 hours before
the Republican presidential debate in Miami is a call to his voting base, to further galvanise them around a
disdain for Islam that not only heightens hateful fervour at his rallies, but incites violence on American
blocks and pushes bigots to the ballot box the statement is rooted in the very ignorance and hate which made
him the darling of bigots and surged him up the polls Islamophobia the suspicion and fear of Islam and its 1.7
billion adherent-is political ideology for Trump."
Nevertheless, the incident of shooting at the gay club in Orlando not only exposed
that false flag operation, but also endorsed other false flag terror-attacks in the US and Europe. In this
connection, in an interview with Brazilian TV on June 14, 2016, the ex-wife of the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen
Sitora Yusufiy revealed that American FBI pressured her to keep quiet about his homosexuality.
While Mateen had been dubbed as an Islamic terrorist by the American politicians,
senior officials and commentators following reports that he had pledged allegiance to the ISIS, the FBI wanted
to downplay the personal and self-hating nature of the assault.
President Obama stated on June 12, 2016, "Federal authorities had made no
definitive judgment on the killer's motivation, and whether he was inspired by or directed by Islamic State or
other terrorist groups."
Obama clarified by explaining "Orlando shooting was the result of Mateen's
personal resentment in relation to the gay club."
Similarly, the teenager Ali David Sonboly who
killed 9 people in Munich had no connection with the ISIS. Police investigation revealed that he was "a
mentally troubled person" and police also discovered extremist material, linked to the attack by Andres Behring
Brevik, the white supremacist who murdered 77 persons in Norway in 2011.
Likewise, the shooting in the French city of Nice was also a false flag
terror-act, as CIA-Mossad arranged it with the help of ISIS, which used homegrown terrorists of France.
At least eight people were killed on October 31, 2017 when the driver of a pickup
truck hit people on a cycle path in Lower Manhattan, New York City near the World Trade Centre. The vehicle
then hit a school bus, injuring two adults and two children on board.
According to the US media reports,
"American investigators found ISIS-related images and
videos on Saipov's cellphone handwritten notes in Arabic near the truck that indicated allegiance to the
Islamic State But investigators had not uncovered evidence of any direct or enabling ties between Mr. Saipov
and ISIS and were treating the episode as a case of an "inspired" attacker Police records show he was arrested
in Missouri last year over a traffic fine. Almost immediately, as investigators began to look into Mr. Saipov's
history, it became clear that he had been on the radar of federal authorities. Three officials said he had come
to the federal authorities' attention as a result of an unrelated investigation."
However various conflicting reports show that, as with previous terror attacks in
the US and Europe, the New York terror attack was likely a false flag operation conducted by Mossad in
connivance with some CIA operatives and the ISIS terrorists. It might also be an individual act of Saipov, who
had been inspired by the extremist agenda of ISIS.
Even then, responsibility goes to the agents of these intelligence agencies, who
have already been radicalizing the Muslims and Christians by dividing them on religious lines, in order to
fulfill the Zionist agenda of Israel. Contradictory and anti-Muslim statements of the pro-Israeli, Donald
Trump, about the terror assaults have further verified collaboration of agencies.
Tweeting his immediate reaction, President Trump said,
"In NYC, looks like another attack by a very sick
and deranged person. Law enforcement is following this closely. We must not allow ISIS to return, or enter, our
country after defeating them in the Middle East and elsewhere. Enough! The United States will be immediately
implementing much tougher Extreme Vetting Procedures. The safety of our citizens comes first!"
He did not
elaborate further.
Regarding the New York terror attack of November 2, 2017, President Trump again
tweeted about immigration, calling for an end to "chain migration lets people bring their whole family with
them, who can be truly evil."
President Trump first introduced the screening process during the election
campaign on a pledge to indefinitely ban the Muslims from entering the United States -- his campaign aides later
tried to finesse as a broader policy aimed at implementing "extreme vetting" for immigrants from certain
countries. As president, he introduced a ban on arrivals to the US from a number of mainly-Muslim countries.
While America's Western partners, especially
European countries had strongly condemned Trump's travel ban on the Muslim countries as discriminatory and
violations of human rights, in a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union – a civil rights group – said
that the term "extreme vetting" was a "euphemism for discriminating against Muslims."
It is noteworthy that 59 people were killed and more than 500 others injured on
October 1, last year, when a gunman-an American national, Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers from the
Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. Next day , through its Amaq propaganda agency,
ISIL, claimed responsibility for the incident, disclosing that, "the Las Vegas attacker is a soldier of the
Islamic State in response to calls to target coalition countries -- converted to Islam several months ago" -- but
provided no evidence to support the assertion." Senior US homeland security officials said that there was no
evidence Paddock had links to international or domestic terror groups or ISIS.
On social media, many individuals had pointed out that if Paddock had been a
Muslim, if he had shouted "Allahu akbar" before he opened fire on all those concertgoers in Las Vegas, the term
"terrorist" would have been used almost immediately to describe him, as a link to Islamist terrorism would be
assumed even without evidence.
To what extent President Trump wants to obtain Israeli illegitimate goals at the
cost of Muslims and the patriot Americans could be judged from the terrorism-related assaults which occurred in
the Spanish city of Barcelona on August 17, 2017 and in her town of Cambrils on August 18, 2017. After
condemning the terror attacks and offering US assistance to Spain, the US President Trump suggested "fighting
terrorism by executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood."
India's Anti-Muslim and Anti-Pakistan
Agenda
It also deserves particular attention
that since the
fundamentalist party BJP led by the Indian Prime Minister Narindra Modi came to power in India, it has been
implementing anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan agenda. Encouraged by the BJP, assaults on Muslims, Christians and
other minorities by the Hindu extremist parties might be cited as instance. India which has strategic
partnership with Israel has perennially been manipulating the double game of the US-led West regarding world
phenomena of terrorism in connection with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
In wake of Modi's aggressive diplomacy, India has continued shelling in Pakistani
side of Kashmir which remains a nuclear flashpoint between both the neighbouring countries.
Emboldened by the President Trump, both Tel Aviv and New Delhi have been equating
the 'wars of liberation' in Palestine and Kashmir with terrorism. Their main purpose is to divert the attention
of the West from their own state terrorism, while employing delaying tactics in the solution of these issues.
Israel Criticizes the UN and Obama
It is worth-mentioning
that Obama's anti-Muslim policies were
clearly exposed. Therefore, before the end of his tenure, President Obama wanted to rectify his blunders. In
this context, on December 23, 2016, the US abstained and allowed a UN Security Council resolution condemning
Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territories of the Palestinians to be adopted, defying
extraordinary pressure from Israeli PM Netanyahu's government, which was in alliance with the US
President-elect Donald Trump.
In a statement, Netanyahu's office accused the
Obama administration of "colluding" with the UN and said it looked forward to working with Trump, as well as
Israel-friendly members of Congress, "to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution."
Netanyahu called the resolution "shameful" and said Israel would not abide by its
terms and continue the construction of the settlements.
In this connection, in a series of tweets, posted on December 28, 2016, Donald
Trump harshly criticized the Obama's policies on the settlement issue and reiterated his support for Israel. He
questioned the effectiveness of the UNO, saying, "it's just a club for people to have a good time."
US' Jerusalem Embassy and Palestinian
Massacre
Despite criticism, Trump Administration announced the opening of the US Embassy in
Jerusalem on May 14, this year.
The same day witnessed a ceremony attended by Netanyahu and the administration of
President Trump who buried the peace process and the two-state solution, killing any hope in the minds of the
people of the Middle East as a whole with the possibility of peace in the region.
On the same day, Israeli security forces shot and killed at least 58 Palestinians
and wounded more than 2700 during mass protests along the Gaza border.
Donald Trump tweeted, "A great day for Israel", as he delivered on his promise to
move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Trump
who had already vowed to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and had nominated
an ambassador in David Friedman who was supportive of settlers by pledging that the Palestinians would no
longer have a platform at the UN when he becomes president on January 20, had said, last year, "We cannot
continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in
the U.S the beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.) Stay strong Israel, January
20th is fast approaching."
Besides, Trump's strong backing of the NATO-like alliance by the Saudi Arabia -- the
Sunni-countries against Iran and accusing Tehran of promoting terrorism and motivating religious extremism
among the Muslims and Christians, Jews and Hindus show his clear links with Tel Aviv.
Nonetheless, President Trump's Israeli connections were undoubtedly proved on May
14, this year, when he implemented his decision of December 6, 2018 by officially recognizing Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel, and reversed nearly seven decades of American foreign policy and set in motion a plan to
move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to the fiercely contested Holy City.
In this regard, Trump had stated, last year, "Today we finally acknowledge the
obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel's capital This is nothing more or less than recognition of reality. It is
also the right thing to do. It's something that has to be done."
America's Western allies who had disavowed Trump's move, which reversed decades of
US neutrality on the status of Jerusalem have again denounced Trump's move.
Over the US Embassy move, perennial killings of the Palestinians, strong reaction
was seen in the Islamic World in particular and the Western World in general.
The European Union's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, called on Israel to
respect the principle of proportionality in the use of force and show restraint, UN Secretary-General Antonio
Guterres issued a similar appeal.
President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Mahmoud Abbas, furious
over the embassy ceremony, stated that he would not accept any peace deal proposed by the Trump administration.
He also urged the international community to condemn the massacres carried out by Israeli troops in Gaza, and
officials of the PLO said that the Palestinians would file a war crimes complaint against Israel in the
International Criminal Court over settlement construction.
Egypt, a key Israeli ally, condemned the killings of Palestinian protesters, while
the UN human rights chief, Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, decried the shocking killing of dozens.
Turkey recalled its ambassador to the United States, saying it "disregarded the
legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" and would "not serve peace, security and stability in the region."
It also recalled its ambassador to Israel after a massacre of Palestinians on the Gaza border. South Africa, a
fervent supporter of the Palestinians, also recalled its ambassador for consultations.
Muslim leaders called on May 18, 2018 for an international force to be deployed to
protect Palestinians after hundreds of protesters were shot dead by Israeli forces on the Gaza border.
At a special summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) held in
Istanbul on May 18, this year, following the call of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to address the
Israeli-Palestinian crisis in Gaz. The OIC has condemned the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem as
part of the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Israeli state, and decried the deaths of more than 60
Palestinians. Earlier, Erdoğan stated that Israel will never be permitted to "steal" Jerusalem.
The OIC leaders also pledged to take appropriate political and economic measures
against countries that followed the United States in moving their Israel embassies to contested Jerusalem from
Tel Aviv. It said that the violence should be put on the agenda of the U.N. Security Council and General
Assembly, and called on the United Nations to investigate the killings.
The summit was also attended by Jordan's King Abdullah, a US close ally whose
Hashemite dynasty is custodian of Muslim sites in Jerusalem. Abdullah stated: "The U.S. decision five months
ago to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital had weakened the pillars of peace and deepened the despair that
leads to violence."
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani called on Muslim countries "to totally cut their
relations with the Zionist regime [Israel] and also to revise their trade and economic ties with America".
Trump's Israeli connections could also be judged from the unrealistic statement of
Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UNO, who told an emergency meeting of the Security Council that Israel
had acted with restraint. She dismissed suggestions that the violence was related to the opening of the US
Embassy in Jerusalem.
In condemnation of Trump's unilateral step to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem, besides protests and rallies which were held in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza,
thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters held demonstrations in other Islamic countries such as Iran, Turkey,
Pakistan etc. where the protesters burnt American and Israeli flags. Even in Jordan, protesters near the
heavily-defended US Embassy in Amman chanted: "America is the head of the snake. No U.S. Embassy on Jordanian
soil."
Hamas leader Ismail Haniya have stated the US decision on recognising Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel and transfer of the American Embassy to Jerusalem are a war declaration against
Palestinians.
At present, savage crimes committed by the US-backed Israeli forces against the
Palestinians continue unabated.
Undoubtedly, angry elements within the Islamic countries, especially the pro-Arab
states may react against America and its interests in the form of terrorism and other violent actions.
Unquestionably, the US president's move on Jerusalem will create new risks for all of Washington's allies in
the Middle East, as the decision will offer extremist groups a valuable opportunity to capitalise on anti-US
sentiment and direct such anger towards regimes which are close to the US and non-confrontational towards
Israel.
Notably, Akayed Ullah, a 27-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant with a pipe bomb
strapped to his body set off an explosion at one of New York's busiest commuter hubs on December 11, 2017,
leaving five people injured. According to the US media, the suspect told investigators that he detonated a
crude bomb after he spotted a holiday display and did it in the name of ISIS to avenge the deaths of Muslims
around the world, law enforcement officials said. The concerned American officials stated that there is no
evidence that Ullah, an electrician, had any direct contact with the ISIS. But, he said "his anger over U.S.
bombings in ISIS-controlled territory and recent Israeli actions in Gaza
,
fueled his desire to carry out
a suicide bombing."
Now, we can witness that
terrorism-related attacks in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, Europe, America and elsewhere in the world
have, rapidly, been increasing.
Mossad is playing a key role in terror assaults, as Israel will prefer a nuclear
war between Russia and the US-led West to avoid the two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
Atomic war could also erupt between Pakistan and India, as New Delhi also avoids solution of the Kashmir issue.
While fanatic leaders are in power in the US, India and Israel, their connivance may culminate into 'clash of
civilizations', particularly between the Muslim and the Christians worlds.
We can conclude that terrorism has entered the dangerous phase and Trump's Israeli
connections have undoubtedly been proved.
It is the right hour that loyalist Americans, non-Zionist Jews and peace-loving
citizens of every other religious community should play their positive role for global peace by stopping the
division of the international community on religious and cultural lines.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs
Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations
A picture taken on May 16, 2018 shows a general view of the meeting
of the permanent delegates of Arab League during extra-ordinary emergency session held at the
League's headquarters in the Egyptian capital Cairo. (AFP Photo) Palestinian Foreign Minister
Riyad al-Maliki suggested on Thursday that Arab countries should recall their ambassadors to
the United States in response to Washington moving its Israel embassy to Jerusalem.
"There is no harm in Arab states collectively recalling their ambassadors in Washington to
their capitals for consultations," Maliki said in live televised remarks at the Arab League in
Cairo.
The United States opened its new Israel embassy in Jerusalem on Monday in a controversial
move to the holy city from Tel Aviv that has brought wide condemnation. Israeli soldiers killed
more than 60 Palestinians who protested in the Gaza Strip while the embassy opened.
Turkey was the first country to withdraw its ambassador to Washington after the Israeli
bloodshed, which came on the same day the embassy move took place. Turkish envoy Serdar
Kılıç arrived back in Ankara on Wednesday afternoon.
Maliki also said members of the Arab League, whose foreign ministers gathered in Cairo on
Thursday for an extraordinary meeting to discuss the issue, should summon U.S. ambassadors "to
remind them of the Arab rejection of the U.S. embassy's transfer to Jerusalem."
He said Arab states had agreed at previous summit meetings that they would cut ties with any
country that moves its embassy to Jerusalem.
Lebanon's delegation said its foreign ministry had sent a letter to the International
Criminal Court demanding it "undertake measures" to hold to account those responsible for the
killings of Palestinians. It did not specify what those measures should be.
It was unclear what the response would be to Maliki's suggestion. Several Arab countries
such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia enjoy strong ties with the administration of President Donald
Trump.
The United States sought to further choke off funding sources for Iranian-backed Hezbollah
on Thursday, sanctioning one of its financiers and its representative to Iran, as well as five
entities based in Europe, West Africa and the Middle East.
It imposed sanctions on Hezbollah's financier, Mohammad Ibrahim Bazzi, and its
representative to Iran, Abdallah Safi Al-Din, the Treasury Department said in a statement.
The department said it had also blacklisted Belgian energy services conglomerate Global
Trading Group; Gambia-based petroleum and petroleum products company Euro African Group; and
Lebanon-based Africa Middle East Investment Holding, Premier Investment Group SAL Offshore and
import-export group Car Escort Services.
"The savage and depraved acts of one of Hezbollah's most prominent financiers cannot be
tolerated," U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.
"This administration will expose and disrupt Hezbollah and Iranian terror networks at every
turn, including those with ties to the Central Bank of Iran," he said.
The sanctions are among a slew of new and additional ones aimed at Iran and Hezbollah since
U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal last week.
In one of the biggest moves aimed at tightening the noose on Iran's overseas operations and
its elite revolutionary guards, the U.S. Treasury sanctioned Iran's central bank governor,
Valiollah Seif, earlier this week.
On Wednesday, the United States, backed by Gulf States, imposed additional sanctions on
Hezbollah's top two leaders, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Naim Qassem
"... Iran's hopes that Europe will develop a spine and will reject the American overtures, joined by China and Russia, is perhaps too optimistic as banks will be reluctant to lend money for Iranian projects and foreign companies will be unlikely to risk entering into anything but very short-term contracts with the Iranian government for much needed infrastructure improvement. ..."
"... Even though it was Israel and Saudi Arabia that were driving the rejection of the Iran deal, it was the United states that had the economic, military and political muscle to take the steps necessary to disrupt an international agreement that had other major signatories and the endorsement of the UN Security Council. ..."
"... The alternative view is quite different, asserting that Washington's blow against Iran will ultimately be a Pyrrhic victory for Donald Trump as the blatant interference in what was a universally accepted largely successful treaty in which Iran was fully compliant will produce a global backlash against American interests. US military power and economic might give it considerable leverage to protect itself against any number of adversaries, but its huge and ultimately unsustainable budget deficits and debt make it potentially vulnerable. It is therefore likely that the first counterstrokes against Trump's vision of America First will be to accelerate steps directed against the use of the US dollar as the world's principal reserve currency. ..."
I am in Iran speaking at a conference on the future of the Middle East. The timing for the
meeting is particularly appropriate due to the recent American withdrawal from the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which limited the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for
suspension of sanctions. Initial discussions with Iranians revealed that they are less
pessimistic about the development than are the Americans and Europeans present, believing as
they do that the situation can somehow be reversed either by Congressional refusal to endorse
the Trump decision or by rejection of the demands being made by the White House that all
parties who were also signatories to the agreement (Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany)
should also withdraw or themselves face secondary sanctions.
The Iranians concede that the move by President Donald Trump will bring with it additional
economic suffering and will also likely upset the delicate political balancing act prevailing
in their country, with President Hassan Rouhani being blamed by conservatives for having
entered into the agreement in the first place. It was an agreement regarding which the
president had expended considerable political equity, and he has also been accused of
exaggerating its benefits, having claimed some months ago that all sanctions had been lifted,
which was not the case. The stagnant state of Iran's economy has produced considerable unrest
in recent months and it is anticipated that more will be on the way as the economy continues to
decline.
Iran's hopes that Europe will develop a spine and will reject the American overtures,
joined by China and Russia, is perhaps too optimistic as banks will be reluctant to lend money
for Iranian projects and foreign companies will be unlikely to risk entering into anything but
very short-term contracts with the Iranian government for much needed infrastructure
improvement.
The major debate taking place is over where one goes from here. There are two distinct
schools of thought, one of which basically asks whether continuation of what is essentially a
unipolar world, supported by US power, in which the United States continues to be able to
assert its vision of world global good order. This has been defined by Washington as a mixture
of expansion of liberal democracy plus more-or-less free trade.
Even though it was Israel and Saudi Arabia that were driving the rejection of the Iran
deal, it was the United states that had the economic, military and political muscle to take the
steps necessary to disrupt an international agreement that had other major signatories and the
endorsement of the UN Security Council.
The alternative view is quite different, asserting that Washington's blow against Iran
will ultimately be a Pyrrhic victory for Donald Trump as the blatant interference in what was a
universally accepted largely successful treaty in which Iran was fully compliant will produce a
global backlash against American interests. US military power and economic might give it
considerable leverage to protect itself against any number of adversaries, but its huge and
ultimately unsustainable budget deficits and debt make it potentially vulnerable. It is
therefore likely that the first counterstrokes against Trump's vision of America First will be
to accelerate steps directed against the use of the US dollar as the world's principal reserve
currency.
There have already been moves in that direction, but they have succeeded in going only so
far before being marginalized. This time they might stick because there is a large and growing
consensus that America has finally gone too far in its role as global bully. One keen observer
opines that the shift to a multipolar polity has now become inevitable due to American
insensitivity and political blindness. The economic shifts that will, by some judgements, sink
the US economy in five to ten years and lead to the rise of competing economic centers in
countries like Russia and Brazil. It will be the beginning of an era in which Washington no
longer will have either the resources or the will to attempt to maintain some form of global
hegemony.
No surprisingly, the participants at the multinational conference I am attending would
welcome the day when an interventionist "leader of the free world" America ceases to be. Many
Americans would also welcome it, though without the economic disruption.
The larger problem with Thiessen's "analysis" is that it fails to grasp that North Korea's
government won't accept the "offer" Trump is making because accepting it means giving up the
one thing that does more to guarantee the regime's security than any promise that the U.S.
could ever make. Trump talked about giving Kim "very strong protections" if he agreed to get
rid of the nuclear weapons, but there are no protections that the U.S. could offer that would
be any stronger than the ones he currently possesses. Kim is coming to the summit as the leader
of a nuclear-weapons state conducting talks at the highest level with the global superpower,
and he isn't going to agree to give up that status in exchange for obviously worthless promises
from Donald Trump. The more that the Trump administration and its boosters delude themselves
into thinking that they have North Korea on the defensive, the worse the summit will go for the
U.S. and its allies.
" The more that the Trump administration and its boosters delude themselves into thinking
that they have North Korea on the defensive, the worse the summit will go for the U.S. and
its allies."
This summit can really only go one way. Trump, ever the fool, will swagger in, offer
nothing, bluster, and in the end be handed his hat. I don't think there's anyway to spin this
as anything other than the poop storm that it is. No Nobel is Trump's future. Sad.
"giving up the one thing that does more to guarantee the regime's security than any promise
that the U.S. could ever make"
It could be argued at this point that nuclear proliferation in a world of unipolar
aggression might well be stabilizing not only whichever regimes the US decides to destabilize
on a given day, but also the international order and even peace. Certainly, China's modest
arsenal of minimum means of reprisal and Russia's outsized arsenal matching US folly warhead
for warhead and warhead for interceptor demonstrate that US impunitivism is not even deterred
by that. But Iraq was attacked precisely because Bush and his cronies were certain Saddam had
no effective WMD deterrent – no nukes, everything else a desirable post-hoc
justification.
Trump has the EU "cornered", and only fools will believe that this is to the benefit of
the world, or even the US – unless the EU finally recognizes the magnitude of its
"ally" problem, and their captive populations elect politicians that, for good or ill, will
break with the US.
Trump has zero leverage over Iran and North Korea, not only because he is already
committed to acts of aggression including all-out economical warfare and soon naval blockade,
but also because both nations – and their backers in China and Russia – have long
realized that any possible "appeasement" on their part will have as much impact on US conduct
as EU "consultations" or South Korean "coordination" – now with a US theater commander
as "ambassador". The Moon government has relegated itself to the bleachers as the welfare of
South Korea is at stake because, just like the EU3, it does not dare question the unilateral
"alliance" it has acquiesced to over decades.
We live in the age of a nation unhinged. But Guatemala, Paraguay and Romania are following
from ahead, demonstrating that the US might be acting unilaterally, but not alone, and this
"coalition of the unseemly eager" is, in terms of outcomes, no different from posturing
collaborators in Germany, France and the UK, or the hapless hostages in South Korea.
Surely, Thiessen and Trump have the world outnumbered and surrounded. What could possibly
go wrong, with leaders of such sparkling brilliance in charge?
The most pathetic display here is the establishment biparty published opinion applauding
Trump for pursuing the purest expression of Godfather Diplomacy, turned into farce. America's
sickening fascination with and glorification of organized crime and racketeering aside
– prosperity gospel wins – it is quite obvious that we cannot make "offers they
cannot refuse" by putting a horse's ass on a pillow.
America's sickening fascination with and glorification of organized crime and
racketeering aside – prosperity gospel wins – it is quite obvious that we cannot
make "offers they cannot refuse" by putting a horse's ass on a pillow.
Actually b., that was a horse's head on a pillow in "The Godfather." Were you
thinking of Trump or Bolton when you wrote that?
The biggest obstacle Donald Trump is
going to face in his upcoming negotiations with Kim Jong-un, is not Kim's unwillingness to abandon his
nuclear weapons program, but resistance from powerful elements in the foreign policy establishment who will
do everything they can to scuttle the agreement. We've already seen an example of this just this week when
US nuclear bombers were included in the US-Korea joint military drills that are currently underway in the
south. The B-52′s were clearly added to the massive "Max Thunder" exercises to provoke the DPRK leadership,
increase tensions, and convince Kim that it was pointless to trust Washington. The move was bitterly
criticized in North Korea's state media which summed up the situation like this:
"At a time when the DPRK-U.S. summit
is approaching, the U.S. has launched the largest ever drill involving B-52 strategic nuclear bomber,
F-22 Raptor stealth fighters and other nuclear strategic assets. This is an extremely provocative and
ill-boding act going against the trend for peace and security on the Korean peninsula .The extremely
adventurous 2018 Max Thunder joint air combat exercises are aimed at precision strike on key strategic
objects of the DPRK and the seizure of the air control together with the U.S ."
The North's assessment is entirely
correct. The drills are a simulation of a preemptive attack on North Korea that would annihilate the
military, level Pyongyang and "decapitate" the leadership. They are a deliberate provocation designed to
poison the atmosphere prior to the June 12 summit in Singapore. They're also a clear violation of the
Panmunjom Declaration which affirms the mutual commitment of the North and South "to completely cease all
hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, air and sea, that are the source of
military tension and conflict." (Panmunjom Declaration)
What we'd like to know is whether Trump
was consulted about the drills? Did he give the go-ahead? Was it his decision to tweak Kim's nose after Kim
had just made a number of conciliatory gestures including the total banning of nuclear weapons and ballistic
missiles tests, the returning of three US prisoners to US custody, and meeting with leaders in the south in
order to end hostilities and normalize relations? Is Trump responsible for this diplomatic disaster?
Of course not. Trump's objectives are
completely clear. He wants to win the Nobel Prize and he wants to be recognized as a foreign policy genius,
both of which are within his grasp if he persuades Kim to ditch his nukes. Trump does not want to provoke
Kim who, so far, has acted in good faith. He wants to cut a deal with him. The exercises represent the
interests of some other constituency, some deeper faction within the national security state who have a
stake in the outcome of future negotiations. They want the talks to fail so they can preserve the status
quo. They want a divided Korea that "languishes in a permanent state of colonial dependency". That works
just fine for them, which is why the military drills were not postponed or cancelled. It's also why John
Bolton has been making incendiary comments about the "Libya model", and why the media has been fueling
public pessimism while misrepresenting US position. According to many media reports, the North will be
expected to 'totally decommission its nuclear weapons, missiles and biochemical weapons' without any
immediate compensation.
That's not the deal. That's never been
the deal. No one on the North Korean side ever said that Washington was going to get something for nothing.
And it's not going to happen either. Kim is looking for a tradeoff, a decommissioning of his nuclear weapons
in exchange for basic security guarantees. That's the deal.
So who's spreading all these false rumors
and what is their objective? Here's more from North Korea's state media:
"The U.S. is miscalculating the
magnanimity of the DPRK as signs of weakness and trying to embellish and advertise as if these are the
product of its sanctions and pressure.
The U.S. is trumpeting as if it would
offer economic compensation and benefit in case we abandon nukes. But we have never had any expectation
of U.S. support in carrying out our economic construction and will not make such a deal in future .
If the Trump administration takes an
approach to the DPRK-U.S. summit with sincerity for improved DPRK-U.S. relations, it will receive a
deserved response from us. However, if the U.S. is trying to drive us into a corner to force our
unilateral nuclear abandonment, we will no longer be interested in such dialogue and cannot but
reconsider our proceeding to the DPRK-U.S. summit." (End of statement)
The North doesn't want Washington's
money or its economic inducements. The North wants assurances that the US will not attack it in the future.
That's it. That's what Kim wants. He wants an end to the hostilities so he can move ahead with a regional
economic-integration plan that will draw the two Koreas closer together, end the North's isolation,
strengthen the North's economy, and pave the way for prosperity. In other words, Kim is offering to give up
his nuclear weapons to (essentially) get Washington off its back and out of its hair.
None of this has anything to do with
Trump's absurd "maximum pressure" campaign, which had no impact on Kim's decision at all. The North is not
motivated by Trump's hysterical threats of "total destruction", but by a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
emerge from its long-term seclusion and become an active participant in an ambitious economic integration
plan that will link North and South Korea to the rest of Asia via massive infrastructure and energy
projects. The only catch to this proposal, is that the DPRK must abandon its nuclear weapons program and
agree to resolve its issues with Seoul. In other words, Kim's eagerness to denuclearize is not an attempt to
placate Washington, but an effort to meet the minimal requirements of his economic partners in Beijing,
Moscow and Seoul.
The United States is not central to the
critical economic-political developments on the peninsula, in fact, the region is making a concerted effort
to sever its ties with Washington by creating a giant free trade zone that will connect the region through "
large trilateral infrastructural and energy projects," to Japan, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Europe.
Check this out from the Kremlin website:
"The Korean Government has recently
created the Northern Economic Cooperation Committee This has completed the creation of a management
system that will make Korea the leader in the development of the Far East. The Committee is tasked with
strengthening economic cooperation with Northeast Asian and Eurasian countries. In the future,
cooperation between the Committee and Russia's Far Eastern Federal District and the Ministry for the
Development of the Russian Far East will play a key role in the development of the Far East.
Next year, we will create a
Korean-Russian Regional Cooperation Forum. It should bolster contacts between regional governments in
Korea and the Russian Far East. Cooperation channels between regional economic communities and small and
medium-sized businesses will greatly expand contacts between people and promote practical cooperation ..
The North Korean nuclear and missile
ambitions are the biggest threat to the development of the huge potential of the Korean Peninsula and the
Russian Far East. This is why we have come to the conclusion that this problem must be settled as soon as
possible." (Kremlin website)
See what's going on? Kim has been asked
to choose between prosperity or nukes, and he has wisely chosen prosperity. He has decided to participate in
a common economic space that allows commerce to flourish without the bulk of the profits to be siphoned off
by the voracious western corporations. Is it any wonder why powerful members of the foreign policy
establishment want to torpedo the plan?
The integration plan is not some
pie-in-the-sky apparition, but a broad and detailed economic blueprint for regional development; power
plants, highways, high-speed rail, and pipeline corridors. It's the whole nine yards. Here's more from The
South China Morning Post:
"President Moon Jae-in gave the
North's leader Kim Jong-un a USB drive containing a "New Economic Map of the Korean Peninsula" at the
fortified border village of Panmunjom on April 27. The initiative included three economic belts – one
connecting the west coast of the peninsula to China, making the region a centre of logistics; one
connecting the east coast to Russia for energy cooperation and one on the current border to promote
tourism.
"The new economic map includes
railway links between the two Koreas and China's northeast stretching all the way to Europe ."
"The plan would have a huge impact on China's northeastern region as it would transform the region as a
centre of logistics in East Asia, which could function as a driving force for the rapid economic growth
of the region .A railway connection would bring a myriad of investments from overseas and would help the
economy take off."
Yet observers added that the
initiatives were dependent on Kim accepting Seoul's definition of denuclearisation – namely the complete,
verifiable and irreversible dismantling of the North's nuclear programme." (The South China Morning Post)
Kim must denuclearize in order to take
advantage of this unprecedented opportunity, which is why he is eager to make hefty concessions to Trump
while getting very little in return. Think about it: Trump gets the nukes and the Nobel Prize while Kim gets
a lousy piece of paper with Washington's guarantees for security. That's a great deal for Trump but not a
very good deal for Kim. Even so, Kim is prepared to cooperate in order to meet his obligations and move
forward with an economic plan that will strengthen his economy and improve the lives of his people. He's
making the right choice.
Some of Trump's deep state opponents
probably think that they can derail Kim's plans by sabotaging the June 12th Summit. But that's not entirely
true. Kim does not need to reach an agreement with Trump, he merely has to convince his main trading
partner, Beijing, that he's made a sincere effort that was rejected by an unreasonable and tyrannical
Washington. If Kim proves that he's willing to go the extra mile for peace– by offering to decommission his
nuclear arsenal– then Beijing is going to reward his behavior by easing the sanctions and restoring the
DPRK's economic lifeline. Bottom line: Kim is going to win one way or another.
In my opinion, the cat-n-mouse game Kim
is playing with Trump is a bit of a ruse because, in truth, Kim is going to have to give up his nukes
whether he makes a deal with Trump or not. As we said earlier, Moscow, Beijing and Seoul have all made
denuclearization a basic requirement for participation in their economic integration plan, so it's a done
deal. Kim is going to have to abandon his nuclear weapons. The fact is, Russia and China don't want the
smaller, surrounding nations to have nukes any more than the US wants Mexico, Canada or Cuba to have them.
It dramatically impacts regional security.
Finally, it wouldn't surprise me if
Washington's deep state powerbrokers are more concerned about the proposed regional free trade zone, then
they are about the North's nuclear weapons. In order for the US to be a major player in the most populous
and prosperous region in the world, it must implement its "pivot to Asia" strategy that controls China's
explosive growth and prevents the emergence of an economic or military rival. The so called "Putin Plan" for
vast economic integration is a direct threat to Washington's dream of maintaining its dominant position in
the global economy. If successfully implemented, the Putin Plan will greatly accelerate the pace of imperial
decline.
North Korea has been trying to cut a peace deal for decades, but our Deep State blocks all such efforts. I
documented the wasteful and aggressive efforts of US Army generals to thwart peace in a series of articles.
This was the latest:
The MIC will be under tremendous amount of pressure from the American people if it didn't create phony and
perceived enemies by propaganda! The MIC knows that if it didn't do that the military budget will erode over
time meaning less money in the MIC pockets!
So far, I don't see any indication that Washington knows how to deal with this threat.
America
pivots away from Atlantacist doctrine.
America turns away from finance capitalism (state sponsored usury) and resurrects the "American System"
of Peshine Smith and Henry Clay. The American System is internal growth using Industrial Capitalism, where
Treasury Money (not corporate bank credit) channels into the commons and industry.
In other words, America resurrects Constitutional Money and Industry. This type of economy was at the
birth of the U.S., especially in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania colonies.
America can make all it needs internally, it doesn't need Atlantacist "ship-borne" movement of minerals
and goods. America is a continental country like Russia with everything it needs.
Island countries like U.K. need "Atlantacist" doctrine to control the world. BIZWOG (Britain and Israel
World Government) is the core of Atlantacism, not the U.S.
Oligarchs in America who benefit from the Atlantacist system will have to be ejected by force. A good
parasite makes its host think said parasite is beneficial.
I suppose Kim understand quite well that giving away his atomic bombs and missiles is the beginning of his
end like Saddam and Ghadaffi.
In the good old days deposed dictators went to their south of France mansions and died in their beds.
The USA changed this custom.
This change does have repercussions.
A USA at crossroads, dominating the world or not, causes much uncertainty in the world.
The same kind of thing happened back during the Cuban Missile Crisis: elements of the government attempted
to provoke the Soviets into attacking American reconnaissance aircraft so they'd have an excuse to fire back
and invade.
Bolton's comments about "Libya" were a transparent attempt to scuttle the deal. He knew that the N.
Korean leadership had watched the tapes of Qaddafi being killed; N. Korea directly stated that Libya was the
reason for them developing nukes, so Bolton knew how the comments would be taken. He was hoping to sneak
them by unnoticed. Meanwhile, neocons like William Krystal say "we need to be willing to walk away from
negotiations." That's what they are hoping for.
I think the author might be saying that Kim might cut out Trump from all de-nuke talks and
instead go around him.
In this case, Kim would ignore Trump and the US altogether and turn his nukes over to China. China and
Russia would give security guarantees to N Korea which is worth a million times more than a US guarantee and
China and Russia have a clear incentive to back it up.
Meanwhile the US and especially Trump would look bad. Trump would be viewed as having a Nobel prize
within his grasp but bungling it at the goal line while letting China and Russia steal his thunder.
The US, if they tried any funny business, would look really bad. What could they do amyway?
Ironically, it could actually be Kim that gets the Nobel prize instead. Lol if it goes down that way.
Great article.
As per usual, msm misrepresents reality of Nth Korea's reaction to military drills: no mention of the added
full compliment of strategic air force. Failure to properly explain the meaning of "Libyia solution". No
wonder the Nth questions the competence & good faith of the Sth.
I believe its time for China-Russia etc to come out of the shadows: how can the Nth agree to discarding its
nuclear shield without security guarantees from its friends ? That the US can't be trusted with its enemies
-- OR its friends is obvious to all but the self-interested & the fanatic.
Here, no doubt is the problem as the rulers of the USA see it.
[Kim] wants an end to the hostilities so he can move ahead with a regional economic-integration plan
that will draw the two Koreas closer together, end the North's isolation, strengthen the North's economy,
and pave the way for prosperity.
None of that must be allowed to happen unless it's under the authority of our jealous commercial and
political G-ds. It's essentially the big reason for all US involvement in foreign wars since 1898 if not
earlier. Probably the big reason for the Lincoln's War of Northern Bankers Against Southern Planters as
well.
What was needed to make the world safe for peace, [the old liberals] argued, was to implement economic
freedom, free trade and goodwill among the nations, and popular government. I want to stress the
importance of both of these requirements: free trade at home and in international relations, and
democracy.
The fateful error of our age has consisted in the fact that it dropped the first of these
requirements, namely free trade, and emphasized only the second one, political democracy.
In doing
so, people ignored the fact that democracy cannot be permanently maintained when free enterprise, free
trade, and economic freedom do not exist.
I would also add that people ignored the fact that peace cannot be permanently maintained when free
enterprise, free trade, and economic freedom do not exist and I believe that's the point Mises was making.
Neither can peace be maintained when we allow ignorant crackpots to pilot the ship, and that's what "we've"
been doing since the institution of the so called "democratic republic."
Also, I'm not a huge fan of democracy, especially for a large state, and there should be no large states
especially world government. All states claim a monopoly on force and all inevitably lead to political and
economic slavery. They are not compatible with either freedom or peace.
Oops, I should have read further before posting my comment, above.
Mike already made the point and is spot
on, here
He has decided to participate in a common economic space that allows commerce to flourish without the
bulk of the profits to be siphoned off by the voracious western corporations. Is it any wonder why
powerful members of the foreign policy establishment want to torpedo the plan?
The same kind of thing happened back during the Cuban Missile Crisis: elements of the government
attempted to provoke the Soviets into attacking American reconnaissance aircraft so they'd have an excuse
to fire back and invade.
True, and there is a pattern.
" this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue
of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or
not entirely the truth.
If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask
questions, and searching questions "
Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Time
Mr. Rothbard was an American Jew and an historian of the very highest caliber.
"So far, I don't see any indication that Washington knows how to deal with this threat."
Sure they do: They plan to act like the proverbial chess-playing pigeon, wings-a-flapping, knocking down
all the pieces, and shitting all over the board.
They will keep emphasizing the grave threat the Norks pose to the American people, they will ratchet up
sanctions on the nations that "prop up" the Nork regime by trade (though they will continue to be lenient to
South Korea as long as it buys US arms), they will start locking those other nations out of SWIFT, etc., and
ultimately they will strike to decapitate the Norks, even if they have to go it alone. They are banking on
the belief that the Chinese and South Koreans will stand down in the face of all of our awesomeness.
It's not the
Libya Plan
, it's the
Chile Plan
. Trump promises Kim he can be
Dictator for
Life
, like Putin and Trump if he has his druthers and Xi too, if he promises to drop his
Nuke Program
.
This is where the world is headed. The
Post Carbon World
is to be divvied up into
Fiefdoms
run
by
Oligarch Tyrants
and they all belong to the
Consortium
known as
The Worldwide Oligarch
Network
. A
Confederacy
of
Oligarchic Fiefdoms
.
In otherwords, a giant
Global Plantation
of sorts.
Here's yah julip, Massa Hawkins, all minty & frosty, jus like you like it!!
Get accustomed to saying that or something akin to it because it's coming to a theater near you in the
not-too-distant future.
See what's going on? Kim has been asked to choose between prosperity or nukes, and he has wisely
chosen prosperity. He has decided to participate in a common economic space that allows commerce to
flourish without the bulk of the profits to be siphoned off by the voracious western corporations. Is it
any wonder why powerful members of the foreign policy establishment want to torpedo the plan?
Stop with this nonsense. Yes, you're correct, Kim doesn't want that prosperity siphoned off by
Western
Corporations
. Why? Because he and his cronies will be doing the siphoning, thank you very much. Let's
not paint this tyrant as a
Goody Two Shoes
, because he's not.
Fyi, my criticism of Kim doesn't mean I agree with threatening North Korea or that I agree with how the
Western Foreign Policy Establishment
has treated North Korea historically. What it means is, there
are no
Good Guys
in this equation. They're ALL
Bad Guys
.
The biggest obstacle Donald Trump is going to face in his upcoming negotiations with Kim Jong-un, is not
Kim's unwillingness to abandon his nuclear weapons program, but resistance from powerful elements in the
foreign policy establishment of China who will use Trump's desire for a foriegn policy success to weaken the
trade agreement so China can continue deindustrialising Ameraica and the rest of the West .
Kim put Trump in the land of the promised, then went back on his word to get Trump to concede on trade,
and of course Trump is doing just that. The deep state will sell out the long term interests of their
country in the name of security consideration. Politicians want to get that foreign policy coup, which the
North Koreans are perennially dangling. They Koreans will never give up the nukes that China effectively
gave them unless the Chinese order them to, and that will only happen isTrump completely sells out the US on
trade. The US would not dare attack North Korea and risk Chinese military intervention AGAIN. China is
holding all the cards unless Trump just refuses to play diplomatic dupe to decepticon Korea (north and south
for South Korea also wants access to the Western market) . Korean diplomacy basically consists of giving
America false hope. The best thing is would be to leave North Koreato stew in their own juice, and impose
tariffs on China, Japan and South Korea too. They are all aggressor states.
How courteous is the Japanese;
He always says, "Excuse it, please."
He climbs into his neighbor's garden,
And smiles, and says, "I beg your pardon";
He bows and grins a friendly grin,
And calls his hungry family in;
He grins, and bows a friendly bow;
"So sorry, this my garden now."
Trump is a puppet of the Zionists who are the controllers of every facet of the U.S. gov and these
warmongers want the America people kept in a world of continual hysteria and war to further the Zionist goal
of a NWO.
The zionist warmongers created the wars in the mideast by Israels attack on 911 and blaming it
on the muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq and thus started the bombing and invasion of these countries and then
the zionists included Syria and followed their plan of regime change in 7 countries , all for the greater
Israeli goal and their NWO goal.
If anyone doubts that Israel and their zionist dual citizens control the U.S. gov , just remember they
did 911 and got away with it.
Assuming all of this isn't merely "drama queening" for the nobel prize gambit. And I have my suspicions that
it is.
An article that posits as major contention a Nobel peace prize for this president is not going to
taken seriously by me.
As for the joint exercises -- and the President's ignorance, that's a very hard sell. No sale at all. At
this juncture that President Moon Jae-in did not put a halt of a postponement on the matter leaves his
decision making in doubt. Certainly there are those in S. Korea and the US who prefer to maintain the status
quo. But neither President Trump nor President Moon get to cry foul play by their subordinates on this
question.
The US has shrifted North Korea before on the question of disarmament.
This all smells like Kabuki theater of sorts. My subordinates made me do it in this case does not wok for
me. -- laugh. Given the lean on the use of force, I suspect that the admin wanted to make a show of force to
the point and if I buy any this -- it backfired.
Yeah the Deep State. Isn't it ridiculous, even Trumps own advisers are sidetracking him. Trump and the
Chinese president should make
a grand bargain
. Denuclearize Korea, help them unify make a 100 mile
wide demilitarized zone against the Chinese border and reduce and keep US forces well south of the current
DMZ or get them out completely. Let the Koreans, mostly the South pay, for the unification.
Think about it: Trump gets the nukes and the Nobel Prize while Kim gets a lousy piece of paper with
Washington's guarantees for security. That's a great deal for Trump but not a very good deal for Kim.
I'm sure there's something missing from your formula, Mike. In order for this deal to make sense from a
N. Korean perspective, they would have to have been extended security guarantees by China, Russia, or
perhaps both. Washington's promises aren't worth jack. Go ask Iran. Hell, go ask Libya.
Bolton is doing his job, being the neocon mouthpiece. His bosses figured out that in order for NK to denuke,
the US might have to demilitarize in S.Korea altogether, while China will reap the benefit of modernizing
NK. Neocons need to constraint China as much as possible. They do not accept a multi-polar world.
Trump again shows himself as the weak minded fool controlled by neocons. He is blaming China for this
fall out, instead of his own generals for staging the unnecessary military exercises and John Bolton for his
maniacal zeal to create trouble the world over.
China who will use Trump's desire for a foreign policy success to weaken the trade agreement so China
can continue deindustrialising Ameraica and the rest of the West.
Any kind of trade agreement can be reneged upon at any time; so, extorting concessions on trade cannot be
a long-term strategy. China isn't "deindustrialising Ameraica and the rest of the West" – the West is doing
it all to itself; and it doesn't really affect all Western countries: the industry in South Korea, Germany,
and Taiwan is humming along just fine. Within Europe for example the common currency has done much more
damage in this regard than the Chinese.
It is clear that China doesn't see trade with the U.S. as the foundation of future prosperity, but
instead focuses on trade with
everyone else
, particularly in Eurasia and Africa; kind of like a
reverse Monroe doctrine. As part of that strategy, they want to push the U.S. out of Korea, and they are
probably quite prepared to cut their losses if the Americans choose to respond by severing financial and
trade relations. It is very clear that the U.S. are unable and unwilling to engage in honest dealings with
anyone anyway.
In order for this deal to make sense from a N. Korean perspective, they would have to have been
extended security guarantees by China, Russia, or perhaps both. Washington's promises aren't worth jack.
Precisely, and they likely already have obtained those guarantees (whatever
they
may be worth).
The North Koreans (in coordination with China and Russia) are trying to trade their nukes for a complete
U.S. withdrawal from South Korea.
convince Kim that it was pointless to trust Washington.
Because Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, and just
about everything else the US has done was not enough. If anyone is stupid enough to trust Washington, they
deserve what's coming to them.
It's possible that Kim's own military might force him to pull out of this de-nuke proposal. They'd be giving
up their one major deterrent in return for promises of riches which may never be delivered. Their fears of
being double-crossed are grounded in reality. Also, a Korea that's unified may not be desired by other
countries. It might become too much of a regional power and want to ease the US out. The calculation may be
that it's best to continue to see it divided and at loggerheads with each other. What's good for the Koreans
may not be considered good for other interested parties.
The biggest obstacle Trump will face is non-trustworthiness of the US. One agreement with the NK was already
reached more than 10 years ago, and the US pulled out of it under Bush Jr. Now the US pulled out of the Iran
deal. Basically, the US consistently demonstrates that it is useless to come to any agreements with it, as
it cannot be trusted to abide by them. That's yet another example that no enemy did as much damage to the US
as its own governments (all of them).
Ol' Ben commented to the effect that scum floats to the top in politics and bad government. He should
have added that "bad government" is a redundancy, since all of them are all bad too.
The best guarantee of security, of course, is to have a nuclear deterrent. A US promise not to attack would
be a poor substitute. America's main concern is that NK not sell arms to Iran or Syria, thereby menacing
Israel. If Kim formally agrees to that, maybe we can make a deal. It's largely up to China, since we don't
want to fight them in order to get rid of Kim.
Bolton's role may well be to scare Kim. He's pretty scary.
In general the bad guys are telling Trump to bargain away the MAGA agenda in return for traditional
Republican goals, e.g. tax cuts for the rich and anything that is good for Israel, such as an NK that can't
sell WMD to Iran. Since Trump is all too willing to go along. The RINOs and the Big Donors always win
because money talks louder than votes, or that's the way professional politicians insist on looking at it.
Beautifully done Mike W! Your writing is so clear and compact. The question remains as to how far the US
will go to stop the peace and prosperity process from unfolding in Korea? Are the neocons crazy enough to
attack N. Korea? We can only stay tuned
"Welcome, President Trump, to the infuriating, indecipherable game of North Korean nuclear diplomacy,"
says CNN's Stephen Collinson. An "unexpected series of threats" has "threatened to nix next month's
planned summit in Singapore between Trump and North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un". Kim lashed out at
US-South Korea military drills, cancelled a high-level meeting with South Korean officials, and warned
that there was "little point" in the US summit if the White House was going to require its nuclear
arsenal to be dismantled "up front".
Korean diplomacy is underrated As Mearshimer says, following the treaty of "Kang-wah (February 1876),
which opened three Korean ports to Japan . Neither Japan nor Russia was able to gain the upper hand in
Korea, mainly because Korean policymakers skillfully played the two great powers off against each other ".
Eventually the Russia-Japan war resulted and you could make an argument that WW1 (and even 2) stemmed from
the Russian deterrent being removed from the international equation in 1905.
China proved to the US it would not stand for North Korea being crushed, and the US would not dare test
that again. In 2000, China openly threatened the US mainland with a nuclear strike in any war over Taiwan
declaring independence.
China isn't "deindustrialising Ameraica and the rest of the West" – the West is doing it all to
itself; and it doesn't really affect all Western countries: the industry in South Korea, Germany, and
Taiwan
China is deindustrialising the West , and Germany is deindustrialsing Europe while being deindustrialize
itself by China . The only difference is that the process started later in Germany and there is more
resistance. The EU single market is a barrier to non EU trade and is about creating a Germany dominated
area. the capital goods China uses are bought from Germany in a great many cases.
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are happy to have the North Korean nuke menace ,
North Korean nuclear distraction has long had unwelcome ramifications way beyond military policy.
Repeatedly since the Clinton era, it has cramped Washington's style on international trade, for instance.
And trade, of course, is absolutely central to the new administration's program.
It is fair to say that all the more important East Asian nations have a vested interest in
exaggerating the North Korean threat. The more terrifying North Korea is made to appear, the more
desperately Washington will seek out advice and help from China, Japan, and South Korea. That tends to
ensure that trade talks with these mercantilist nations are consigned to the backburner.
Moreover at times of tension, Pentagon officials inevitably take charge. As the East Asians have
gleefully realized for generations, the Pentagon is a remarkably soft touch on trade, and in return for
the merest hortatory support for its military objectives will pull the rug from under the most carefully
conceived plans drawn up elsewhere in Washington to get East Asia to open up.,/b>
The business class of the West love the returns they get in China, they are not going to switch to
investing in the West, but rather will wait out the era of Trump, whereupon the investing in China will
resume apace. It won't be possible to slow the growth of China down and so America will be eclipsed. The
military won't be much use then, because China will have bigger and better toys.
Thee is a logical hole in the article that I was going to leave alone -- but as yet no one else noted it, I
will.
The article pushes some press for a nobel peace prize *that really bugs me -- I voted and have
defended this president, even being called a moral reprobate and utterly unchristian in doing so.
Despite the press for this so called prize. The author never states what the president contributed to the
peace process the than the president's contend of "massive pressure." But in this the article athe cleanly
indicates no such pressure had any effect. If the pressure failed, I am unclear why thee is any talk at all
about nobel awards.
This president has done one monumental shift in our North Korean policy -- open and direct talks including
both heads of state and staff. While long over due and laudable -- one of the jobs of the white house is
manage policy to our advantage that taps down on the use of force. It doesn't take a genius IQ to figure out
direct talks is a key step in that process. And as such requires no special recognition. I took a look at
why President Roosevelt received a novel peace prize -- and if that is the model neither Presidents on the
this or the previous administration should be so honored.
If they have removed the bombers, it's a double fault. The response should have been.
We conducted these exercises routinely as preparation for the unfortunate worst case scenario. And while
we are disappointed our routine has been misinterpreted -- It is our intention to proceed forward in peace
negotiations.
North Korea's sudden nuclear and ICBM twin leap is a function of how useful China finds it to have Trump
asking them for help. North Korea does nothing on its own account.
The smart money wants to be in China
that is where the big returns are, so business is waiting out Trump. Subordinating the well being of the
nation's population to profit is called economic rationality. The alternative is called fascism. Trump does
not have the popular support to go against economic rationality.
Toys don't win wars, people do. In Afghanistan, the US and NATO troops with all their fancy toys are scared
to stick their noses out of the bases, whereas Taliban with medieval mindset and automatic rifles roam the
country freely.
China is deindustrialising the West The business class of the West love the returns they get in
China, they are not going to switch to investing in the West
So whose fault is it – China's, or the Western capitalists? Pick one.
Germany is deindustrialsing Europe while being deindustrialized itself by China. The EU single
market is a barrier to non EU trade and is about creating a Germany dominated area. the capital goods
China uses are bought from Germany in a great many cases.
The EU common market as such wasn't a problem; as long as each European country had its own currency that
was allowed to float, the trade imbalance problem was mitigated. It was the Euro, which was foisted on
Germany by the French as a price for their consent to German reunification, that caused the trade imbalances
within Europe to explode.
But with or without the Euro, Germany's manufacturing sector will survive and thrive. China's labour cost
advantage over Germany will vanish, just like Japan's did. Just wait and see.
Cannon fodder wins wars. The first born tend to be cleverer and less likely to fight because they get and
inherit the best of everything (including first place in the womb).. There are a lot of big families in
Afghanistan. Many young men of the burgeoning population are second sons and are thus reckless. The Taliban
roam and die freely, but there are a lot of them growing up and stepping into the place of the dead,.
the Trump/Kim meeting was not instituted by the USG. China, Russia, and SK have all been in negotiation with
Kim, and they all realize that the USG word is essentially worthless. I suspect Kim has agreed with his
neighbors to de-nuclearize in return for some robust security agreements along with the opening of trade in
the region. The U.S. will need to think hard and long about doing anything to disrupt what is essentially a
regional policy shift. I think Trump has been invited along on the ride just to stroke his and the USG's
sense of self importance. The world is changing, and the future lies in the east. Unfortunately, too many of
those behind the curtain controlling USG foreign policy are too blinded by their arrogance and hubris to
realize that, and instead of welcoming a peaceful multi-centered world, will continue on their chosen path
of aggression, demands and sanctions until we become the isolated one.
Since President Moon Jae-in has been working in this matte with North Korea for more than twenty yeas, I
find it hard to believe he intends to allow an opportunity to slip by based on training routine exercises.
Trump was elected to punish both, so a lot of Americans apparently blame both.
The EU common market as such wasn't a problem; as long as each European country had its own
currency that was allowed to float, the trade imbalance problem was mitigated.
At the cost of throwing people out a job, which only worked when people knew things would eventually get
better. Things are not going to get better for the lower orders of West, they are good and getting better
for the financial elite and China.
But with or without the Euro, Germany's manufacturing sector will survive and thrive. China's
labour cost advantage over Germany will vanish, just like Japan's did. Just wait and see
.
China is 10 times larger than Japan, hence the economies of scale are probably going to become more
salient than labour costs (there is a new factory complex in China making laptops that has a bigger
workforce than the British Army). German
business
are going to do well out of China's rise. American
business have no objection to China making everything and America being supreme in financial services.
Unfortunately the country would become weaker than China while a substantial part of the population became
increasingly disgusted with their lot in life (in real terms worse of than their parents). The majority
ethnic population and state institutions must object to a policy that creates ever increasing numbers of
unemployed and ignores state power for the profit of a minority. Therefore the people (there a
lot
of
them) and the deep state are diverging from the business community–increasingly seen as an fifth column with
interest in destroying the country as a nation-state. But nation states are a thing with emergent properties
not found in their parts. Hence untrammeled capitalism with money sloshing around the world wrecking states
and the people who make up nations is a fundamentally unstable system that leads to ethnic nationalism and
militarism. The deep nation-state is nothing you can put your finger on. but at bay it will turn on the
business elite and try to wrest control from them.
Meanwhile, neocons like William Krystal say "we need to be willing to walk away from negotiations."
That's what they are hoping for.
Sorry but the Jew's trash talking days are over. There is NO there
there!
The Jew is losing his power. Truth is starting to gain strength. The world's attitude is turning away
from Jew coercion, through their control of the US government.
Jew power is a function of US government power. And US power is losing out, all around the world.
Trump's overbearing, tuff talking sing-song, is losing its steam. Bolton's big mouth has complicated the
NKorea nuke deal. He illustrates to the world, the dishonesty of the US foreign policy under Jew control.
The Israeli embassy deal was a total embarrassment. Innocent blood was flowing as Jarrad and Ivanka were
speaking their hollow words. Gaza innocence won the day.
Europe is fighting to preserve the Iran nuke deal. They are passing laws to protect their businesses from
US sanctions. China and Russia are stepping up with deals to counter Trump's Jew favoring sanctions.
The world does not revolve around the US any more. The US elites still did not realize that – they
degenerated too much after 1991. However, some of the US vassals are even more deluded than the US elites.
Grown up Europeans (like Germany, France, and even the UK) are learning, judging by their refusal to follow
the US lead on the Iranian deal, which is totally illegal from the point of view of the international law
(when there was one, before it was repeatedly trampled by the US). But the pathetic inconsequential poodles,
like Poland, Ukraine, and Baltic vaudeville states, refuse to learn. More fools them.
China is deindustrialising the West , and Germany is deindustrialsing Europe while being
deindustrialize itself by China . The only difference is that the process started later in Germany and
there is more resistance. The EU single market is a barrier to non EU trade and is about creating a
Germany dominated area. the capital goods China uses are bought from Germany in a great many cases.
How is China deindustrializing Germany if the EU is a barrier to non EU trade? You don't see many US,
Japanese, or Chinese goods in Europe.
Trump's objectives are completely clear. He wants to win the Nobel Prize and he wants to be recognized
as a foreign policy genius
Trumps chances of being recognized as any kind of genius by intelligent people are slim and none.
That's not the deal. That's never been the deal. No one on the North Korean side ever said that
Washington was going to get something for nothing. And it's not going to happen either. Kim is looking
for a tradeoff, a decommissioning of his nuclear weapons in exchange for basic security guarantees.
That's the deal.
If Kim has any intelligence at all he will demand full denuclearization of the Korean peninsula (South
Korea has had US nuclear weapons stationed there for decades) and removal of all US military personnel and
material.
US guarantees are worthless.
North Korea's demands are pretty clear: a formal end to the Korean War and a peace treaty with the US, and
the removal of the US military from the Korean peninsula.
These demands are supported by China and many South Koreans. They're opposed by Japan and some South
Korean conservatives. I don't think your notion that China, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan are all
aligned on the North Korea issue is true.
If the US wanted to satisfy most of the parties here, and satisfy the isolationists and anti-foreign
policy adventurers that supported Trump, then obviously the US would agree to North Korea's demands. This
would also, by the way, satisfy Russia. You would only upset Japan and some South Korean hardliners.
So why doesn't the US make a deal that agrees to NK's demands, satisfies most of the parties involved and
many Trump supporters and Americans? Clearly Trump, being an astute negotiator and businessman with an
instinct for what people like and is popular, is inclined towards such a deal. Obviously what's holding the
US back from such a deal are American foreign policy hawks and the deep state, who want to maintain the US
military presence globally.
Kim's laughing his ass off. Americans are so stoopid. What makes anyone think NK will go out of it's way to
get along with the US? Why would they? Kim's doing just fine and he has Trump as jester to amuse him. I'm
sure he's enjoying the hell out of this.
Trump's fans really thought he had the Nobel sewed up. That's really funny. What's funnier is they think
he's helping them.
All of these morons ripe for milking. I should have become a preacher and had an easy, rich life.
"If the US wanted to satisfy most of the parties here, and satisfy the isolationists and anti-foreign policy
adventurers that supported Trump, then obviously the US would agree to North Korea's demands. This would
also, by the way, satisfy Russia. You would only upset Japan and some South Korean hardliners."
As someone
who supports this admin and the agenda that was advanced during the campaign, you description is fa afield
from why I voted. I am not an isolationist, though the county could use some minding its own affairs for a
time. Nor was my vote premised on being anti-foreign policy. In fact, I have never head of anyone being
anti-foreign policy. A policy less reliant on the use of force as its main thrust was and is the issue.
,
Trump acts as a bully. That might work in some cases, but probably not in NK case...
Notable quotes:
"... North Korea wants a step-by-step approach, each concession by Pyongyang to be met by a U.S. concession. And Bolton sitting beside Trump, and across the table from Kim Jong Un in Shanghai, may be inhibiting. ..."
"... If we expected Kim to commit at Singapore to Bolton's demand for "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization," and a swift follow-through, we were deluding ourselves. ..."
After Pyongyang railed this week that the
U.S.-South Korean Max Thunder military drills were a rehearsal for an invasion of the North, and imperiled
the Singapore summit, the Pentagon dialed them back.
The B-52 exercises alongside F-22 stealth
fighters were canceled.
But Pyongyang had other objections.
Sunday, NSC adviser John Bolton spoke of
a "Libyan model" for the North's disarmament, referring to Moammar Gadhafi's surrender of all his weapons of
mass destruction in 2004. The U.S. was invited into Libya to pick them up and cart
them off, whereupon sanctions were lifted.
As Libya was subsequently attacked by
NATO and Gadhafi lynched, North Korea denounced Bolton and all this talk of the "Libyan model" of unilateral
disarmament.
North Korea wants a step-by-step
approach, each concession by Pyongyang to be met by a U.S. concession. And Bolton sitting beside Trump, and
across the table from Kim Jong Un in Shanghai, may be inhibiting.
What was predictable and predicted has
come to pass.
If we expected Kim to commit at Singapore
to Bolton's demand for "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization," and a swift follow-through,
we were deluding ourselves.
At Singapore, both sides will have
demands, and both will have to offer concessions, if there is to be a deal.
What does Kim Jong Un want?
An end to U.S. and South Korean military
exercises and sanctions on the North, trade and investment, U.S. recognition of his regime, a peace treaty,
and the eventual removal of U.S. bases and troops.
He is likely to offer an end to the
testing of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, no transfer of nuclear weapons or strategic missiles to
third powers, a drawdown of troops on the DMZ, and the opening of North Korea's borders to trade and travel.
As for his nuclear weapons and the
facilities to produce them, these are Kim's crown jewels. These brought him to the attention of the world
and the Americans to the table. These are why President Trump is flying 10,000 miles to meet and talk with
him.
And, unlike Gadhafi, Kim is not going to
give them up.
Assuming the summit comes off June 12,
this is the reality Trump will face in Singapore: a North Korea willing to halt the testing of nukes and
ICBMs and to engage diplomatically and economically.
As for having Americans come into his
country, pick up his nuclear weapons, remove them and begin intrusive inspections to ensure he has neither
nuclear bombs nor the means to produce, deliver or hide them, that would be tantamount to a surrender by
Kim.
Trump is not going to get that. And if
he adopts a Bolton policy of "all or nothing," he is likely to get nothing at all.
Yet, thanks to Trump's threats and
refusal to accept a "frozen conflict" on the Korean peninsula, the makings of a real deal are present, if
Trump does not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
For there is nothing North Korea is
likely to demand that cannot be granted, as long as the security of South Korea is assured to the degree
that it can be assured, while living alongside a nuclear-armed North.
Hence, when Kim cavils or balks in
Singapore, as he almost surely will, at any demand for a pre-emptive surrender of his nuclear arsenal, Trump
should have a fallback position.
If we cannot have everything we want,
what can we live with?
Moreover, while we are running a risk
today, an intransigent North Korea that walks out would be running a risk as well.
ORDER IT NOW
A collapse in talks between Kim and the
United States and Kim and South Korea would raise the possibility that he and his Chinese patrons could face
an East Asia Cold War where South Korea and Japan also have acquired nuclear weapons and the means to
deliver them.
In the last analysis, the United States
should be willing to accept both the concessions to the North that the South is willing to make and the
risks from the North that the South is willing to take.
For, ultimately, they are the one who
are going to have to live on the same peninsula with Kim and his nukes.
Trump ran on a foreign policy that may
fairly be described as a Trump Doctrine: In the post-post-Cold War era, the United States will start looking
out for America first.
This does not mean isolationism or the
abandonment of our allies. It does mean a review and reassessment of all the guarantees we have issued to go
to war on behalf of other countries, and the eventual transfer of responsibility for the defense of our
friends over to our friends.
In the future, the U.S. will stop
futilely imploring allies to do more for their own defense and will begin telling them that their defense is
primarily their own responsibility. Our allies must cease to be our dependents.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a
new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America
Forever."
"... The illiterate orange Chump was a known front goy of the jewish mafia in New York for years. It's not surprising that he's dancing to Sheldon Adelsons tune and acquiescing to zionist commands. In a few months deplorable goyims will probably have to bleed in the Persian gulf for the chosen ones. Made your bed, now lie in it... ..."
"... It's apparent to me that Kushner & Ivanka is being groomed for the Imperial Throne post-2024, or 2020 if Trump loses the midterms. IMO, the Two-State solution is no longer a viable option as long the US and UK continues to exists, which they will in the foreseeable future. The only viable solution is a one state solution where the Palestinians are given full rights. ..."
"... We all knew that Kushner is a hyper-Zionist. However, what bothers me is how many other people are incapable of seeing the immorality of such an attitude. ..."
"... Jared's insanely dishonest and triumphalist Victory Speech/ Gloatfest was entirely predictable ..."
The illiterate orange Chump was a known front goy of the jewish mafia in New York for years.
It's not surprising that he's dancing to Sheldon Adelsons tune and acquiescing to zionist
commands. In a few months deplorable goyims will probably have to bleed in the Persian gulf
for the chosen ones. Made your bed, now lie in it...
It's apparent to me that Kushner & Ivanka is being groomed for the Imperial Throne
post-2024, or 2020 if Trump loses the midterms. IMO, the Two-State solution is no longer a
viable option as long the US and UK continues to exists, which they will in the foreseeable
future. The only viable solution is a one state solution where the Palestinians are given
full rights.
We all knew that Kushner is a hyper-Zionist. However, what bothers me is how many other
people are incapable of seeing the immorality of such an attitude.
The attitude of the Israelis vis a vis Palestinians is strikingly similar to that of the
Ukrainians vs. East Ukrainians or Russians: Kill them all, for they are not human beings.
It has been unimaginable to me that I would see this much damage to the US led Empire in my
lifetime. The damage to the US on every level is astonishing from this move and the reneging
on the JCPOA. People are suffering, but people suffer under any scenario. The US has killed
people every single day for the past 73+ years and it is time they stopped. The more damage
Trump does the better.
from Hurriyet, Turkey US has lost its status as mediator in Middle East peace process with embassy move:
Erdoğan
The U.S. has lost its status as a potential mediator in the Middle East peace process with
its decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan said on May 14.
"[The U.S. decision to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem] is unfortunate. We
cannot help but feel like we are living through the dark times prior to World War II,"
Erdoğan said at an event at the Chatham House think tank in London.
Deputy Prime Minister Bekir Bozdağ also said on May 14 that Washington "shares
responsibility" with Israel for the "massacre" along the Gaza border that left at least 37
Palestinians dead as a result of Israeli fire.
" The U.S. administration is just as responsible as the Israeli government for this
massacre ," Bozdağ wrote on Twitter, saying the incidents were caused by "unjust
and unlawful decisions" as the United States moves its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem. . .
here
I seldom have issues getting onto
Murray's site with IE8. Murray's two entries for today point out the choice of terms Big
Lie media use to continue its Big Lie: "If you look through the Google search of News this
time for "clashes" [instead of massacre], you discover that the western and Israeli media
peculiarly have precisely the same preference for this entirely inappropriate word. That,
again, is fascinating." Concluding his first entry, Craig intones this important point: "In
order to help redress the terrible agony of the Palestinians, we must first effect a
change in our own system of elite exploitation of the people at home . [My Emphasis] His
second entry deals with how the group "Labour Friends of Israel" is no more than a
stenographer for Big Lie Zionist propaganda, demanding that Labour immediately cut its ties
to this obviously racist, demented, genocidal organization.
Garrie provides a small collection of recent tweets and statements by Erdogan and Turkish
government, which is following me in calling Zionists acts Genocide. The Turks have vowed to
send aid to Gaza; but in light of recent history, they'll need to send their entire Navy and
provide it with 100% air cover. Erdogan should never have entered into a rapprochement with
the Zionists or their scheme along with the Outlaw US Empire to overthrow Assad.
Trump's family applauds massacre? What about coward Trump appearing on a giant screen like
Big Brother in 1984???
I hardly see Trump's name equated with this depravity in Jerusalem and Gaza in any post.
Don't be afraid to speak it: TRUMP IS A ZIONIST. The fish rots from the head (of the
family)! Trump has become the mangod of Zionism. He's a blowhard sleaze who slept his way and
bragged about his exploits while others had to send their children to war. He's everything
dumb Americans deserve and Zionists dreamed of.
He's bullying and threatening European companies not to do business with Iran as he'll
bully and threaten Palestinians to sign on to a grand swindle. He'll squeeze them dry to get
his deal and cares less they're already impoverished. He's exactly what Zionists wanted for
President. Trump is stomping on the last hope for justice Palestinians are bravely keeping
alive. What a tawdry, disgraceful bargain and means to an end some Trump supporters here
bought into, and now the usual periodic lip service on Israel's acts; such blatant hypocrisy.
Arrgh.
Yasser Fathi, freelance photographer From Gaza who took this iconic photo, was shot today
in the stomach while wearing a bulletproof PRESS vest covering #Gaza. This is how Israeli
forces are responding to press and photographers at #GreatMarchReturn protesting
#USEmbassyJerusalem
Ian@5 and Augustin L@9
I don't have a link, but its on record that the reason S. Africa abstained from voting in the
UN Libya debacle was because Mbheki had been threatened with color revolution if he voted
against it. Word has it that the warning came directly from Hillary. Also, one of these
unmentionable (in this case Danish) banks predictions for 2018 was color revolution in S.
Africa.
I am not sure that Cyril Ramaphosa is it, or even, for that matter, that he is in charge.
It would seem so for now, but wait. The ANC still has a lot of depth. If he starts to move
away from China, that will be a dead giveaway.
I am always fascinated by how all over the world, politicians make it to their posts by
proclaiming change of whatever sorts, and once they "get into power" they start behaving.
Mandela was no different. The only remnant of the Freedom Charter is a monument somewhere in
Soweto...
I liked Zuma, warts and all. But the glaringly obvious truth is that it makes almost fuckall
difference who is president here, on the larger scale of things. They all seem to be
subservient to forces much greater than themselves, and end up looking and behaving like
spokespeople for the elite, while "championing" socialist causes that rarely come to
fruition.
However, this whole diplomatic slap for Israel gives me cause to believe that the ANC roots
still have plenty sway. God knows somebody needed to say something, and I think S. Africa
holds good sway with the rest of Southern Africa. But I don't doubt for a second that our
punishment will be slow and painful.
This US "Embassy" is really just a few offices in a long-existing US Consulate building.
The US hasn't even picked a location for the planned real Embassy building.
But yeah, one can bet that every signal of every sort coming from any foreigners in Israel
can be precisely monitored and recorded. In fact, through Unit 8200 and Operation Talpiot,
the Israeli Secret Intelligence Services likely have their digital fingers in every bit of
internet-capable equipment everywhere on earth.
Can you say "kill switch?" I think that may be one of the reasons Israel (really the
supra-national bankster cabal) get to do whatever they want, wherever they want.
Add in the "Samson Option" of nuclear weapons ready to take out capital cities globally
and good old fashioned Roy Cohn blackmail evidence and much of the news of the world comes
into focus.
Jared's insanely dishonest and triumphalist Victory Speech/ Gloatfest was entirely
predictable from the instant Trump announced the (illegal & offensively stupid)
relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. He knew exactly what he was doing because he knows
that if you give Zionists an inch, they'll take a mile.
Now the whole world knows and can see what Trump wanted everyone to know and see. i.e. The
bloodthirsty "Israelis" are completely, utterly insane. Trump gave them enough rope to hang
themselves and they almost killed each other in the scramble to be first to shove their heads
in the noose. It's a bit worse for "Israel" than Trump could have imagined because he
couldn't have known that "The most moral army in the world" would in the middle of a
Slaughter and Maim-fest when the time came to gloat about their 'victory' in Jerusalem.
Has anyone here pointed out how absent discussion of this situation is at the UN?
There was no meeting of the Security Council after last weeks Israel attack and I have not
heard of any....anyone else. It confirms my opinion of the bought circus that the UN has
unfortunately been corrupted to.
Geo-political conversation now consists of expelling ambassadors. The last I heard there
were two....any others with human morals?
And some call this civilization.
psychohistorian , May 14, 2018 8:52:12 PM |
78George Lane , May 14, 2018 8:58:18 PM |
79
@78, psychohistorian, yes certainly, and of course also it seems after the nausea-inducing
Nikki Haley vetoed the declaration condemning yet another concerted brutal massacre of
Palestinaians after the first week of the protests, the UN has been totally silent. As you
say another example of the "international community" being a euphemism for "US-led hegemonic
opinion".
I've come to much the same conclusion as you. I guess one could have called me a "never
HRCer" during the primaries and into the election. I saw her as "more of the same" in what
was clearly becoming what I call "The Election of Rejection." But even more so, I saw her as
the most dangerous candidate in my lifetime with her threats against Russia (in addition to a
long and bloody record, claiming that hacking is an act of war worthy of a military response,
and calls to "obliterate" Iran terrified me).
At least Trump made some (often contradictory) claims to work with Russia and end "regime
change" wars. But about the time of the Conventions, I started to look more deeply into
Trump's history, and realized that he was clearly wholly beholden to the supra-national
bankster cabal that Circe refers to as "the Rothschilds."
The creator was a Trump supporter, who didn't start to see through the facade until after
the election. He's gotten a lot of grief from "fans" who are still Trumpsters, but though I
don't share much of his ideology, I greatly admire his integrity for following the facts
where they lead.
Please take a half hour to watch it. If you want more published evidence, I can provide a
great deal.
Hillary wouldn't have been any different. The problem isn't any particular
candidate/President, it's the system itself.
See Ian @93.
Jackrabbit , May 14,
2018 10:28:22 PM |
96OJS , May 14, 2018 10:35:17 PM |
97
" ..."The War Prayer" was written in 1905, and is believed to be a response to both the
Spanish–American War and the subsequent Philippine–American War.[1] It was left
unpublished by Mark Twain at his death in April 1910, largely due to pressure from his
family, who feared that the story would be considered sacrilegious.....
The War Prayer. by Mark Twain
Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle -- be Thou
near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved
firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with
our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead;
help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain;
help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts
of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with
their little children to wander unfriended in the wastes of their desolated land in rags and
hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in
spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it --
For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their
bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white
snow with the blood of their wounded feet!
We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the
ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and
contrite hearts. Amen.
bankster cabal that Circe refers to as "the Rothschilds.
I never made such a statement. Now that's not to say that I don't firmly believe that
certain forces mostly Zionist helped to push Trump over the edge because Trump was even more
aligned with the Zionist agenda than Hillary, regarding Iran and Jerusalem, and more
vulnerable to blackmail and bribery. Although, I also agree with Jackrabbit on this:
Hillary wouldn't have been any different. The problem isn't any particular
candidate/President, it's the system itself. and Ian 93. The system is rigged by
Zionists. Unfortunately, Americans either don't care or they're too stupid to see it.
A whole lot of their treasure (human and taxes) is spent on Zionism's geopolitical agenda.
To add insult to that injury, Trump cut taxes permanently for the wealthiest Americans; so
who's left to pay for the close to a trillion investment in the military?
From Aljazeera: "Turkey has recalled its ambassadors to Israel and the United States
following the killing of dozens of Palestinian protesters by Israeli forces...."
The Hill: "Turkey is recalling its ambassadors to the United States and Israel following
the official inauguration of the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, CNN and other news outlets
reported."
Fox news: "...while violence and deadly protests erupt Gaza...."; "The Turkish government
has recalled its ambassadors to the U.S. and Israel for 'consultations,' ."
Times of Israel: "Turkey on Monday recalled its ambassadors to Israel and the United
States in protest of the Israeli military's deadly response to riots...."
Sputnik News: "In response to Israel's ongoing violent suppression of Palestinian
protesters in Gaza,Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has recalled his ."
Israel National News: "Turkey has recalled its ambassadors to Israel and the United States
for consultations because of the violence in Gaza ."
Rocks in sling shots
VS
an Air Force, Navy, Army (of worthless coward terrorists), tank and mortar shelling, live
hollow-point bullets that MAXIMIZE victim's injuries when they enter the flesh and tumble
around before exiting with a massive area of impact when compared to its entry point,
"tear-gas" (one that induces bloody eyes, virulent vommiting, extreme panic due to gasping
for air as a consequence, living in the world's largest outdoor prison, and being subject to
constant home raids and brutal torture, incarceration -- for just the simplest infractions,
non-stop physical and psychological intimidation...and most of this going on for 70+
existence of this psychopathic-led and followed (for the most part, it seems as there is
little objection heard from these chosen wannabes) devotees to a lunatic cult of
death-worshippers and practitioners.
Beg your pardon?....When will Israel finally pay for its genocide against humanity?!?!
Better yet when will humanity awaken from its trance to finally hold this Iraeli regime
accountable for its CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY??? When will Israel be made to pay for
reparations in its crimes and blatant slaughter of unarmed peoples who want their human
rights respected and their properties given back?
Not anytime soon, I suspect, as the world at large is largely silent, distracted, and
impervious to what is REALLY happening in this Israeli genocide!
What's next will the disgusting IDF terrorists resort to executing babies in
incubators...despicable excuse for and an excrement to humanity these "people" are!
Now the whole world knows and can see what Trump wanted everyone to know and see. i.e. The
bloodthirsty "Israelis" are completely, utterly insane. Trump gave them enough rope to hang
themselves and they almost killed each other in the scramble to be first to shove their
heads in the noose.
He just handed them Jerusalem and compared himself to Truman in how momentous an act on
behalf of Zionism's advancement this is! There is no ulterior interpretation possible. And no
not every opinion is valid. You rightly singled out A P's comment regarding Hillary as being
nonsense. So forgive me, but this comment was just too outrageously false to let it
slide.
Turkey also recalled its Ambassador from Israel AND from the USA. With the indication that it
is US that is enabler, and has lost every pretense of being a mediator in the conflict.
I have a feeling that something is afoot. There will be an attempt to take Gaza away from
Israel, the question is only who would be actors. Gaza can be taken away from Israel, as it
has borders with Israel, and no Israeli authority on the ground. Israel controls illegally
its maritime border. So, if anyone wants to address the problem assymetrically, this may be
the way. Then find a way to reconstruct, redevelop Gaza. But for this, Israel will have to be
put in its place, and the situation not worth US ratcheting up the drumbeat of additional
war.
"The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those
that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave
impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be
no special hurry."
The video is not about an international conspiracy but it comes close. As I noted, there
may well be such a conspiracy. Trump's family and business connections make for interesting
reading.
Emails that Hillary released include correspondence with the Rothschilds. Why is that not
mentioned? Wikileaks has them.
Presidents are a lightening rod for criticism and many of Trump's fans will have an
emotional, knee-jerk reaction to harsh criticism that is leveled at him. It seems to me that
it would be more effective to show that the election was a farce. We've all been had.
So I have found a China Net reference to an upcoming meeting of the UN Security Council but
they wanted Flash player and I don't do Flash player so don't know more
The 1st link I am providing
from ChinaNet has this caption below it
"
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (R, Front) and U.S. President Donald Trump's daughter
Ivanka (L, Front) attend the inauguration ceremony of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, on
May 14, 2018. The inauguration ceremony of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem started on
Monday afternoon, as Israeli and U.S. officials gathered in the city amidst deadly clashes in
the Gaza Strip. (Xinhua/JINI)
"
The 2nd link I am providing
from ChinaNet has this caption below it
"
U.S. President Donald Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner speaks during the
inauguration ceremony of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, on May 14, 2018. The inauguration
ceremony of the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem started on Monday afternoon, as Israeli and
U.S. officials gathered in the city amidst deadly clashes in the Gaza Strip.
(Xinhua/JINI)
"
I wish to also state that as compares the settler-state of Israel to the settler-state of
Canada, Canada has achieved what Israel can only drool and dream of. 'Our object is to
continue until there is not a single Indian that has not been absorbed into the body politic
of Canada and there is no more 'Indian question', that is the whole purpose of our
legislation.' - Indian Affairs Canada
Circe's attacks on Trump have always been over-the-top but when criticism of Zionist
influence devolves into claims of his being a Rothschild puppet then he has gone too far.
This is a small step from anti-jewish, 'Protocol of Zion' hysteria which could discredit
MoA as anti-semetic.
Why not stop criticism against Israel too? That is also antisemitic? Stop this nonsense
claims.
Top Israeli MP: Army Has Enough Bullets for Everyone in Gaza
Strategic Affairs Minister calls Gazans 'Nazis,' says deaths don't mean anything
.....Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan repeatedly referred to the protesters killed in
Gaza as "Nazis," saying that there were no demonstrations, just "Nazi anger." He later added
that the number killed doesn't mean anything because they're just Nazis anyhow.
Likud MP Avi Dichter, the chair of the defense committee, went on to dismiss concerns in
an interview of his own. Dichter insisted that protests in Gaza pose no danger, because "the
IDF has enough bullets for anyone," and open-fire regulations to shoot people allowing the
military to deal with it....
Perimtr , May 15, 2018 4:13:05 AM |
118Yeah, Right , May 15, 2018 4:35:05 AM |
119
Interesting news that the Palestinians have decided to refer the issue of Israeli settlements
in the West Bank to the International Criminal Court for prosecution as a war crime.
I know that the PLO has previously threatened to refer Israel to the ICC, but usually the
threats have to do with allegations of unlawful killings during one of the IDF's many, many
instances of "mowing the lawn". And, of course, in every instance the Palestinians have
stepped away under US pressure.
But they really should persevere in this case, not just because the illegality of Israeli
settlements is such an open-and-shut case, but also because once the court does rule that
this is a war crime (and, again, no int'l court could possibly find otherwise) then the
guilty persons are.... well.... every single Israeli gov't minister from June 1967 to the
present day.
Each and every one of them are complicit in this crime. From top to bottom, from mewling
left to far, far right.
All of 'em, because if they were a gov't minister then they voted to support the
committing of this ongoing war crime.
I think the PLO should see this through. Lodge the complaint, and neither back down nor
allow the Prosecutor to wriggle off the hook.
Coz' the Israeli leadership past and present are damn well guilty of a war crime. Each.
And. Every. One. Of. Them.
That is the (European descent) Israeli stupid propaganda that Palestinians can be compared
to Red Indians and Israel is a " settler " country
like the US.
You must have built walls around you and be blind to what is going on to believe that. Or
you live in the US countryside and don't notice much of the world anyway.
Palestinians sometimes called Arab Israeli are some 50 percent of "Greater Israel" and
people with the same language and culture inhabit all the countries surrounding the "settler
state". These people some Israelis pretend to colonize invented script, law, algebra, they
also knew that the world was not flat. They also know how to remember history.
To try to impose a European "settler" narrative in an environment like this is an exercise
in futility.
Israel has become a pet project of US billionaires and evangelicals.
Palestinians trying to storm the border are acting in desperation.
Trump will offer the Palestinians some type of deal after this. Same strategy he attempts
with Iran.
Trump's Family Applauds Zionist Massacre Of Palestinians In Gaza
indeed, the optics are fucking creepy as hell. dig a little and they get even creepier .
in my waking dream of billowing black smoke and blood draining head shots, I christen the
blond dryad, the poster girl for Levantine murder, Lady Gaza.
Posted by: Christian Chuba | May 15, 2018 7:24:30 AM | 128
Probably in Hebrew. You can count on English speaking media in countries with their own
languages to be government propaganda of some sort.
That does not mean they cannot be revealing to read, it is always interesting to read what
propaganda thinks it is supposed to do. It is very likely far from any truth though.
Israel at this stage has short term tactics but no long term strategy.
srael celebrates its 70th birthday in May with the opening of the U.S. Embassy in
Jerusalem. Yet the country is grappling with an existential crisis -- one that doesn't
involve Iranian nukes or Palestinian protests. Spurred by the high cost of living, low
salaries, and political and demographic trends, Israelis are leaving the country in droves,
trying to build their lives elsewhere, mostly in the United States. Many of these young
Israelis are moving to big cities, and yet, even in these often expensive places, they see
more opportunities to advance.
The available data is telling, analysts say. Between 2006 and 2016, more than 87,000
Israelis became U.S. citizens or legalized permanent residents, according to the most
recent data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. That's up from 66,000 between
1995 and 2005. These figures take into account only those who took the legal route (many
Israelis, analysts say, arrive on temporary tourist, student or work visas, then stay). And
in addition to the Israelis now living stateside, according to the country's Ministry of
Immigrant Absorption, hundreds of thousands have moved to Europe, Canada and elsewhere.
...
The country's brain drain isn't new. For years, many of its most talented scholars and
researchers moved to the U.S., where the salaries are far higher and there are more jobs at
top-tier universities. One report by Dan Ben-David, an economist at Tel Aviv University,
found that the emigration rate of Israeli researchers was the highest in the Western world.
Recently, however, the exodus has expanded to include average young people, many of whom
say there's simply no future in Israel.
The Saudi Arabian government on Tuesday said it opposed the US decision to relocate its
Israel embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
"The kingdom rejects the American administration's decision to transfer its embassy to
Jerusalem," the council of ministers said in a state carried by state-run Saudi Press
Agency.
"This step represents a significant prejudice against the rights of the Palestinian
people which have been guaranteed by international resolutions," it said.
So either Kushner did not have Saudi buy-in or things have become too toxic for Saudi
Arabia.
In this modern era, it should be very difficult to impose and maintain an expanding
(religious, ethnic) apartheid state without anyone noticing. Worse, is that it has the full
backing and support of the USA and most of its citizenry.
Any event, such as the current one, which upsets the "world order" which includes the US
as the world hegemon, in this matter including control over Israel/Palestine, is a good
thing. The alternative is continued US financial and military control of the world, which is
a bad thing. Omelettes can't be made w/o breaking eggs.
People are dying for their countries in many places, that's how history is made,
unfortunately. In this case it hopefully will include some local MENA initiatives to take
some responsibility for the continuing and worsening situation in Palestine. We've already
seen signs from Turkey and perhaps there will be more.
The US reign over Palestine has been a disaster and change is needed, and if the current
sacrifices contribute to meaningful change, it's a good thing.
Questionable but interesting. "Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant
bully.
To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again." Trump really believe like a typical bully.
In case of tough resistance he folds and appologize. Otherwise he tries to press opooneent into complete submission.
Notable quotes:
"... The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. ..."
"... Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy. ..."
"... Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah. ..."
"... Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the executive branch. ..."
"... Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street. ..."
"... Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear program. ..."
"... Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so. ..."
"... China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no longer a threat to US security. ..."
"... "Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday, Tillerson dropped this truth bomb: "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom." Woof. ..."
For some time, critics of President Trump's policies have attributed them to a mental
disorder; uncontrolled manic-depression, narcissus bullying and other pathologies. The question
of Trump's mental health raises a deeper question: why do his pathologies take a specific
political direction? Moreover, Trump's decisions have a political history and background, and
follow from a logic and belief in the reason and logic of imperial power.
We will examine the reason why Trump has embraced three strategic decisions which have
world-historic consequences, namely: Trump's reneging the nuclear accord with Iran ;Trump's
declaration of a trade war with China; and Trump's meeting with North Korea.
In brief we will explore the political reasons for his decisions; what he expects to gain;
and what is his game plan if he fails to secure his expected outcome and his adversaries take
reprisals.
Trump's Strategic Framework
The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more
intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a
corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity
or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and
further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In
other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's
policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives
would undermine US imperial rule.
Reasons Why Trump Broke the Peace Accord with Iran
Trump broke the accord with Iran because the original agreement was based on retaining US
sanctions against Iran; the total dismantling of its nuclear program and calling into question
Iran's limited role on behalf of possible allies in the Middle East.
Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged
Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets.
Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes
that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon
(Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense
strategy.
Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change,
reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the
Shah.
The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle
East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US,
dubbed 'the Lobby'.
Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented
power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power
to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the
executive branch.
Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and
adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street.
Trump's submission to Zionist power reinforces and even dictates his decision to break the
peace accord with Iran and his willingness to pressure. France, Germany, the UK and Russia to
sacrifice billion-dollar trade agreements with Iran and to pursue a policy of pressuring
Teheran to accept part of Trump's agenda of unilateral disarmament and isolation. Trump
believes he can force the EU multi-nationals to disobey their governments and abide by
sanctions.
Reasons for Trump's Trade War with China
Prior to Trump's presidency, especially under President Obama, the US launched a trade war
and 'military pivot' to China. Obama proposed the Trans-Pacific Pact to exclude China and
directed an air and naval armada to the South China Sea. Obama established a high-powered
surveillance system in South Korea and supported war exercises on North Korea's border. Trump's
policy deepened and radicalized Obama's policies.
Trump extended Obama's bellicose policy toward North Korea, demanding the de-nuclearization
of its defense program. President Kim of North Korea and President Moon of South Korea reached
an agreement to open negotiations toward a peace accord ending nearly 60 years of
hostility.
However, President Trump joined the conversation on the presumption that North Korea's peace
overtures were due to his threats of war and intimidation. He insisted that any peace
settlement and end of economic sanctions would only be achieved by unilateral nuclear
disarmament, the maintenance of US forces on the peninsula and supervision by US approved
inspectors.
Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that
military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear
program.
Trump slapped a trade tariff on over $100 billion dollars of Chinese exports in order to
reduce its trade imbalance by $200 billion over two years. He demanded China unilaterally end
industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations) and China's compliance
monitored quarterly by the US. Trump demanded that China not retaliate with tariffs or restrictions or face bigger
sanctions. Trump threatened to respond to any reciprocal tariff by Beijing, with greater tariffs, and
restrictions on Chinese goods and services.
Trump's goals seek to convert North Korea into a military satellite encroaching on China's
northern border; and a trade war that drives China into an economic crisis. Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and
dominate the Asian and world economy.
Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes
that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance
Washington's quest for uncontested world domination.
Trump's Ten Erroneous Thesis
Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed! Breaking the nuclear agreement and imposing harsh
sanctions has isolated Trump from his European and Asian allies. His military intervention will
inflame a regional war that would destroy the Saudi oil fields. He will force Iran to pursue a
nuclear shield against US-Israeli aggression and lead to a prolonged, costly and ultimately
losing war.
Trump's policies will unify all Iranians, liberals and nationalist, and undermine US
collaborators. The entire Muslim world will unify forces and carry the conflict throughout
Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Tel Aviv's bombing [of Iran] will lead to counter-attacks
in Israel.
Oil prices will skyrocket, financial markets will collapse, industries will go bankrupt.
Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic
destruction.
Trump's trade war with China will lead to the disruption of the supply chain which sustains
the US economy and especially the 500 US multi-nationals who depend on the Chinese economy for
exports to the US. China will increase domestic consumption, diversify its markets and trading
partners and reinforce its military alliance with Russia. China has greater resilience and
capacity to overcome short-term disruption and regain its dominant role as a global economic
power house.
Wall Street will suffer a catastrophic financial collapse and send the US into a world
depression.
Trump's negotiations with North Korea will go nowhere as long as he demands unilateral
nuclear disarmament, US military control over the peninsula and political isolation from
China.
Kim will insist on the end of sanctions, and a mutual defense treaty with China. Kim will
offer to end nuclear testing but not nuclear weapons. After Trump's reneged on the Iran deal,
Kim will recognize that agreements with the US are not trustworthy.
Conclusion
Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his
assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think
his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war
with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its
companies to be frozen out of the Iran market.
Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production
sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have
links with five continents. Trump cannot dominate North Korea and force it to sacrifice its
sovereignty on the basis of empty economic promises to lift sanctions. Trump is heading for
defeats on all counts. But he may take the American people into the nuclear abyss in the
process.
Epilogue
Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate,
in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman'
tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or
face the worst from the President? I don't think so.
Nixon unlike Trump was not led by the nose by Israel. Nixon unlike Trump was not led by
pro-nuclear war advisers. Nixon in contrast to Trump opened the US to trade with China and
signed nuclear reduction agreements with Russia. Nixon successfully promoted peaceful
co-existence.
"Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic
destruction."
indeed they will, and sadly it well deserved after the last 20yrs off US terrorism.
the US hubris will soon meet karma, and we all know karma is a bitch..
You didn't have to be genius to see this coming. In fact, NK played Trump as
expected. Anything else would have been gross negligence by their diplomatic
negotiators. Getting Trump to speculate about a prospective Nobel (for himself) for bringing nuclear
peace to the Pacific was baiting the hook nicely.
The US is now dealing from a position of weakness. Let's see what NK can extract in terms of
keeping their weapons and gaining economic assistance in return for getting the meetings back
on track.
This theory is the opposite of what I suppose is the right explanation, the explanation also
given by prof Laslo Maracs, UVA Amsterdam, that Trump and his rich friends understand that
the USA can to longer control the world, conquering the rest of the world totally out of the
question.
The end of the British empire began before 1914, when the twe fleet standard had to lowered
to one fleet.
Obama had to do something similar, the USA capability of fighting two wars at the time was
lowered to one and half.
What half a war accomplishes we see in Syria.
In the thirties the British, some of them, knew quite well they could no longer defend their
empire, at the time this meant controlling the Meditarranean and the Far East.
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
The British guarantees to Poland and countries bordering on the Med lighted the fuse to the
powder keg that had been standing for a long time.
Churchill won, the British thought, and some of them think it still, WWII.
But shortly after WWII some British understood 'we won the war, but lost the peace'.
I still have the idea that Trump has no intention of losing the peace, but time will tell.
I suppose Trump just is buying time against Deep State and Netanyahu.
The fool Netanyahu is happy with having got Jerusalem, he does not see the cost in increased
hatred among Muslims, and Israel having won the Eurovision Song Festival.
Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant
bully.
To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again.
However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure,
which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more
apposite slogan.
Wall Street collapsing will not cause a world depression, but will reflect the very real
depression that will arise from huge disruptions to the US supply chain and energy costs and
the knock-on effect that will have on the global economy.
A strike on Iran won't by itself be enough to cripple the US economy, but the loss of a
single aircraft carrier might be enough of a pull on a thread that unravels the magical
mantle of military force that currently holds the empire together and keeps the vassal-states
in line to cause things to go pear-shaped quickly.
Nobody can accuse Donald of not being obedient executioner of tasks given by his Masters.
You don't have to be dark skinned to reside in Masters quarters, orange haired and white is
ok too..
Overall a good analysis, but as far as his support of Israel is concerned, his family
connections with the most ultra-Zionist factions should not be overlooked.
Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and
dominate the Asian and world economy.
On what basis does the author say that? Trump is smart enough to know that China is
growing as an economic and military power, not declining.
A fairly poorly (and likely hastily) written article.
Trump is under the control of Zionists just as is the U.S. gov with Zionist dual citizens in
control of every facet and has been since 1913 when the Zionists created the FED and the IRS.
Trump is like the Roman emperor Caligula and is a Trojan Horse for the Zionist agenda of a
NWO and is continuing the tradition of the U.S. gov breaking its word about everything, just
ask the native American Indians.
The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing. The agreement
had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified. Our "allies" in Europe and
Asia knew that and their reaction has not been nearly as negative as the author of this
column has claimed.
I continue to admire President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi of China. WHY? .because
RESULTS matter more than opinions on internet websites, T.V., or in printed publications.
N. Korea has stopped performing ICBM or nuke tests, a less extremist regime change "coup"
took place in Saudi Arabia, financing/ weapons flows / intelligence to Syrian terrorists has
dried up with resulting collapse of ISIS, Iran is threatening to release the names of
European & American politicians who previously made millions / billions off the Iran nuke
deal if it is dropped, Harvey Weinstein, Allison Mack, and "Weiner" were untouchable before
Trump, the list just goes on and continues to get bigger.
A major reason for admiration of Putin is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) can't stop
demonizing him. So of course I'm logically led to believe that he is mostly a good guy since
the MSM has proven itself repeatedly to distort the Truth. Putin also largely ended the
oligarchs power, doubled Russian citizens income, used an tiny Russian military in Syria to
gradually reverse ISIS expansion there, improved Russia's internal manufacturing,
agricultural, mining, and technological research/ development, intellectually crushed
international debate opponents repeated using only logic and facts (You should watch the
videos!), built / rebuilt over 10 thousand churches, has patriotic Muslims (Crimea) fighting
for Russia in Syria, etc. etc.
Xi of China has pretty impressive creditials but this post is
overly long anyway.
RESULTS COUNT MORE THAN WORDS!
Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.
• Agree: CalDre
I like your frankness. Every countries is into this at different degree, with ZUS the
apex. But been leading in most tech area currently & lazy to produce any useful things,
ZUS is very unhappy that their esponage net result is negative, hence the continuous
whining.
When tide reverse with China leading in most tech, ZUS will complaint about complex patent
system as been flawed in exploitating & suppressing of weaker country innovation, juz as
it did for WTO & Globalization now.
Of course any moronic comments about only China is espionaging US IPR & rise purely due
to US FDI & Tech transfer will resonate CalDre into high chime.
Well, he is not meeting with North Korea either, since Kim didn't chicken out, and is not
that stupid as to offer his head on the plate! Bolton made sure of that.
Hastily written article cobbled by bits of public info here & there without deep
analysis.
1. Today NK declared they have indefinitely terminate all high level exchange with SK. If
Trumps insisted on another Libya & Iraq defank & ending model advocate by Bolton,
meeting with Trumps will be cancelled. Trumps needs the Korea peace credit to get his Nobel
Prize, so as to booster his coming Nov election win. Kim has baited Trumps to put him in
tight corner now, hence WH still insisting to go ahead prepare for the meeting.
If venue does changed to Beijing from Trumps' choice of Spore (Kim's cargo plane can't fly
his limousine so far, also a risk of him as Spore is US vassal), we will see Kim has K.O.
Trumps in another round. Kim will get to keep its nuke weapon until USM remove its Korea
present, clear all sanctions, with UNSC guaranteed its safety. If Trumps has the meeting
cancelled, then China can roll out its own play book as unchallenged leader in solving Korea
crisis. Either way, Trumps will lost influence to China.
2. Trade war with China has exposed ZUS deep weakness in its brinkmanship when china
retaliated with no compromise. Four most senior trade & treasury secs scrambled 10,000
miles to Beijing to seek detente, but return empty handed in 2 days with their ridiculous
demands in hubris. Still China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no
longer a threat to US security.
Btw, this author has wrongly written about the $100B trade tariff, its only $50B so far.
Another additional $100B is only a empty threat ZUS dare not release to avoid China
retaliation.
3. JCPOA cancelling is godsend move.
First, EU with Germany & France having huge investments in Iran is crying loud that they
have to be free from been ZUS vassal. If they caved in to ZUS sanction threat, then EU bosses – Macron & Merkel will
face revolt from Europe business sector. China & Russia will be happy to pick up whatever
investments in fire sales.
If EU decided to rebel & chart its own destiny with a little spine, then ZUS has lost
its tight clutch over EU. EU has juz announced to trade Iran oil in Euro, hasten
de-dollarization. The geopolitical game is changing tide. In either way of EU decision, China
& Russia win.
Now Iran will continue to enjoy free trades with everyone except ZUS that it dislike most,
& win moral high ground in international standing by keeping to JCPOA.
ZUS has juz ordered Trumps to shoot its own foot. It pay the high price of losing every
credibility in international agreement, forced EU into seeking independency, have EU trade in
Euro, with Iran, China & Russia all smiling.
Of course, but I just wanted to make a point not write a book or even a PhD thesis. thanks
for the supplementary material though. Your comments about oil are spot on as you know. The wars were about smashing some real
competition.
Somebody has to shovel the BS occasionally, to keep the smell down here. I guess it's my
turn today, sigh.
The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing.
Then the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and many of the major European
countries must also be lying when they say that Iran is fully complying with the JCPOA.
The agreement had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified.
The United Nations Security Council endorsed the JCPOA; see UNSC resolution 2231.
According to the UN treaty, UNSC resolutions are automatically the law of the land,
even in the USA -- no Senate ratification needed.
Have you ever made a comment that was other than your mere and clearly biased opinion? Try
it sometime; it would be interesting to see what evidence you provide to support such
transparently erroneous ideas.
Trump's only strategy is to do what Israel orders him to do. The Neocon Jews and their friends including the Jew In Chief of
the White House Jared Kushner are running the show. You can easily see this in ... Niki Haley's presentation before the UN including
walking out before the Palestinian Rep had a chance to speak.
Trump is up to his arms in shady deals with Jewish financiers of his properties and they
will get what they want from him politically. It's Israel against the world and the US is
nothing more than their war whore. More people will die for this strategy that comes from
formerly Tel Aviv and now from the Magic Jewish Capital called Jerusalem.
New York City's Hip Hop station Hot 97's morning show, "Ebro in the Morning," dedicated an
entire segment to yesterday's demonstration in Gaza where the two blasted Israel and
President Donald Trump http://pic.twitter.com/43XIqhKFWZ
-- Gigi Hadid (@GiGiHadid) May 15, 2018
Hadid posted screen shots of Al Jazeera's coverage alongside an image of the Nakba with text
written by a relative,
"Almost One Million Palestinians were violently forced out of their country and never allowed
back to Palestine. The Hadid family was amongst them and they fled in fear to Syria where
they became refugees."
Why are these important? Because they have millions of followers on social media .because
their audience and followers are the coming voter and leadership force .for better or worse
..and for Israel its the 'worse'.
Gigi Hadid for instance has 9 million followers on twitter.
Giuliani: Mueller's team told Trump's lawyers they can't indict a president
This true. BUT ..'if' any criminal wrong doing by Trump before he was president is revealed in the
course of the Russia investigation he can be indicted for that after he is out of office. IN ADDITION ..'if' any criminal wrong doing is revealed in Trump's businesses then any
persons involved in it within his businesses including his sons or daughter can be indicted. And now, as they have no presidential protection.
imo .this is what Trump is most afraid of ..some criminal business like money laundering
being exposed. not that Mueller will find Russian election collusion.
"Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday,
Tillerson dropped this truth bomb:
"If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative
realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway
to relinquishing our freedom."
Woof.
..
Why is this important? Because the graduating class of VMI selects its speakers so that
tells you where the minds of the elite military schools are on Trumpism.
n that Cohen tries to stay clear of anything outside his expertise, Russian history and
geopolitics. Several times I've heard him fondly reminisce about being raised in Kentucky. So
he may not be a complete Upper West Side liberal.
Writing objectively, Mr. Anon noted: "Being a pizza deliveryman is probably more dangerous
than most every military MOS."
Hi Mr. Anon,
Thanks for your satiric-service including recognition of often brave pizza
deliverymen!
I have a true work experience to share.
In late-Autumn, 2001, as a dual-Business Manager & Emergency Spill Response Supervisor
for Pa. E.M.A. Haz-Mat Certified Teem Environmental, Inc., one afternoon, the excitable
company-owner called a mandatory meeting for all personnel.
Addressing supervisors & (very skilled) Field Technicians, the rather timid owner
ordered, "Starting today & through the weekend, TEEM is contracted to perform potential
sarin gas terror attack responses within NYC subways & tunnels! So everybody better keep
their pagers on when you go home & be immediately prepared to respond to sarin gas
attacks!"
A dear friend & late-coworker, Warren Hill, became uncomfortable with the assignment
and sensibly spoke up, "Uh, what the fuck? Do we get extra military pay for dealing with the
crazy Taliban while we ain't armed with nothin' but V.O.C. & Hnu meters, Personal
Protection Equipment?"
Unused to having to deal with reasonable employee-challenges, the TEEM owner lost it,
screamed, What's wrong with you, Warren?!! Can't you read the advertisement painted on our
E.R.V., "TEEM Environmental responds to all incidents involving US D.O.T. Hazardous
Materials! Get on the ball, would 'ya, Warren!"
Upon reflection, I stuck neck-out, came to Warren's aid, and opined, "But the Haz-Mat
customers who have signed our company 'Emergency Spill Response Agreements' are not known to
pose secondary-life threatening hazards after initial accidental discharges happened."
"Bah , Just keep your pager on, Chuck!" replied our civilian Commander Stassi.
P.S.: For anyone interested, attached below is my "wordy" 2015 article that delivers an
example of how civilian private-company employees fought in the War Against (White Powder)
Anthrax terror threats.
Cases where the "perp(S)" never caught, an open case, and to this day, I suppose either
Federal or State governments cut lots-of-checks, payable to private Emergency Spill Response
companie$, for their services.
"... Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage that she would rather ignore. ..."
The Trump administration's Iran obsession would almost be comical if it didn't have such a dangerous distorting effect on our
foreign policy. Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly
about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage
that she would rather ignore. Whether she is busy whitewashing Saudi coalition crimes in Yemen or running interference for Israel
after it massacres over 60 people, Haley's m.o. is to change the subject.
Haley also risibly
claimed that Israel was acting with restraint yesterday:
"No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today
suggest they would be much less restrained," she said.
The ambassador's claim is absurd on its face, and it is an insult to the dozens of democratic states around the world that do
not behave this way. Haley also ignores that there are no other states in the world that keep millions of people trapped in a blockaded
enclave as Israel does with the inhabitants of Gaza. Not only would the vast majority of democratic governments not act as Israel's
government has acted over the last few weeks, but none would have any need to confront massive protests from a population that has
been deliberately starved and impoverished for more than a decade. The excessively violent response to the Gaza protests calls attention
to the cruel policy of collective punishment imposed on all of the people living in Gaza, and there is no excuse for either of them.
"... In fact, "Intelligence" is simply another word for "information" and in ages gone by the term was used in that way by authorities like Clausewitz or Jomini. ..."
"... Like any labor of scholarship involving the study of human beings by human beings, the work is nearly always conducted with incomplete and ambiguous information as a basis for the analysis. ..."
"Were we right or were we wrong?" This
was Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet's central question in his 2004 talk to the faculty
and students of his alma mater, Georgetown University. What he was talking about, of course, was the
critical political issue of whether or not the Intelligence Community (IC) of which he was the titular head
"got it right" in telling the American people and their government that Iraq was a clear danger to the
United States, as opposed to being a threat to regional states, and if that danger was substantial enough
to serve as a justifiable basis for war, invasion and occupation. In Tenet's address there was much of
self-protection and an implicit warning that neither he nor the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would
accept to be "scapegoated" in a search for the roots of misadventure in Iraq. His words establish a claim
to blamelessness for the CIA and the larger Intelligence Community in the decisions leading up to the Iraq
campaign and a related claim to have done as well as could fairly have been expected. In other words, he
wished to be thought innocent in this matter. Is that reasonable? Is it fair to expect American citizens
and officials to believe that the Intelligence Community did its work well in helping the government of the
United States to make sound decisions about Iraq? This is an important question, because if they did not,
then why were their judgments so flawed in spite of the incredible amounts of taxpayer money lavished on
the agencies of the IC? Why should so much money have been lavished on these agencies if they could do no
better?
In spite of the importance of this
question, impatience with the performance of the intelligence people ought to be somewhat dependent on the
outcome of a national debate as to what should be expected of the process labeled "intelligence." Reporters
sometimes ask rhetorically if decisions should really be made on the basis of intelligence. At first
hearing questions like this seem to be both naïve and nonsensical since it is obvious that information is
the stuff that decisions must be founded on. Nevertheless, decipherment of these statements leads to an
understanding that those who say things like this think that "intelligence" is a form of thinking both
esoteric and obscure, a dark art, separate and distinct from the normal way of knowing things and subject
to acceptance or rejection by special rules of perception. In other words, they think that it is something
like astrology, to be judged by its own "rules."
In fact, "Intelligence" is simply
another word for "information" and in ages gone by the term was used in that way by authorities like
Clausewitz or Jomini. There is nothing mystical or mysterious about the process by which information or
"intelligence" is collected, collated, analyzed and disseminated. "Intelligence" is scholarship conducted
in the service of the state. The great bulk of the information used as data in this scholarship comes out
of the huge archival files of the major agencies supplemented by daily "feedings" of; diplomatic chit-chat,
aerial and satellite reconnaissance, intercepts of communications and hopefully the products of espionage
(clandestine HUMINT). Like any labor of scholarship involving the study of human beings by human beings,
the work is nearly always conducted with incomplete and ambiguous information as a basis for the analysis.
This natural phenomenon is aggravated
by the desire of the studied group to hide something, usually, that which is under study. When George Tenet
said before his Georgetown audience that "We never get things altogether right in the Intelligence
business, nor altogether wrong," he was correct but his statement was irrelevant to a discussion of the
utility of the intelligence process since the quality of the analytic product depends on many variables,
among them; good information and the quality of the minds brought to bear on the imperfect information. It
is both trite and a truism that "intelligence is an art and not a science." What this means is that human
beings may succeed or they may fail in making judgments based on less than complete data and that the
skill, intelligence and experience of those involved is the most important factor in determining the
outcome. To say that "Intelligence" is a flawed process is simply meaningless in a discussion of the
effectiveness of the state in making decisions. If the "Intelligence Community" as it now exists were
abolished, some other group would have to assume the burden of performing the same functions for the
benefit of the state. What would they be called? Perhaps it might be, "The Agency for Special Planning?"
The issue of the effectiveness and
efficiency of the existing Intelligence Community is a separate but linked question from that of knowing
whether or not the elected or appointed officials of the Bush Administration may have intruded themselves
inappropriately into the deliberations of the Intelligence Community in a way that led to distortions in
the estimates of Iraq's significance that were presented to the president and the Congress. It is widely
believed now that this occurred but that is not the subject of this essay.
The question under examination here is
simple. Premise: "The Intelligence Community produced poor quality intelligence on Iraq." Therefore, one
asks – Are there imbedded structural defects in the present United States Intelligence Community that
contributed either directly or indirectly to the production of estimates that were unsound and which failed
the nation? And, moreover, are there characteristics in the present intelligence community of the United
States which now prevent and will prevent it from "reforming" itself? It is clear that the inability of the
Intelligence Community to forecast or estimate Iraq's true condition was a major failure. Why did this
happen, and how can the defects in the "community" be repaired? What "limits" are there in the psychology
and structure of the government that may prevent "repair" of the system?
ORDER IT NOW
The author's conclusion after a working
lifetime of studying the flaws in the system from within the community and from the evidence of continuing
contacts with old colleagues and new friends in the intelligence agencies is that there are a multitude of
problems in the intelligence forces of the United states and that most of them have grown up over a very
long time, are now "built into" the system and are unlikely to be resolved without outside intervention by
the Congress of the United States. It is impossible to consider them all but a few of the most important
are so intractable as to be worth discussing here:
-Leadership. There is a natural
tendency in the general public to believe that the upper levels of the Intelligence Community are filled
with learned, avuncular and sensitive people somehow reminiscent of "George Smiley," the wonderful British
spy and spymaster whose presence fills the earlier novels of John Le Carre. The character, "Smiley" is
wise, sadly pessimistic, a profound student of mankind and devoted to his "people." He has a deeply
empathic nature, is widely read, speaks several languages and is so dedicated to his craft and its ethic
that he fears nothing and will take any risk either to protect his own "people" or to "launch" operations
that, if they fail may destroy him. What a marvelous conception this man is!
There are people like that in the
leadership of US Intelligence. There are a few, but there once were many more and they are fewer all the
time. In fact, the "system" works in such a way that people like "Smiley" are feared and distrusted by the
bureaucratic politicians who really run the intelligence agencies. What are really to be found in the upper
echelons of the "community" are either people who early in their government service became specialized in
the generalized management of organizations (often after early substantive analytic work) or others who
were "staff " of some kind, (budgetary planners, lawyers. liaison staff, etc.) The Directors of the various
agencies are naturally attracted to such people because they are focused on the administrative functions of
the agencies and the protection of their ultimate superior, the Director. This makes them a kind of
"insurance policy " for the directors of the agencies.
The old veterans of the intelligence
trade often make a distinction between "real intelligence officers" and "managers." "Real intelligence
officers" are those who are known to be qualified and capable of the difficult work of analysis and field
collection of information and who are known to have the moral character required to stand up to the
pressure that is present in every political administration to make the "reality" presented by the
"Intelligence Community" conform to the " reality" envisioned by the policy of the administration in power.
The "managers" are essentially courtiers grouped about the throne of whichever baron of the Intelligence
Community they may serve. The "managers" functions center on liaison with the other barons, lobbying the
Congress for money and "protection" of the boss (the Director of their agency). Such people as the
"managers" are easily recognized by the directors of the agencies as very valuable to their career survival
in the stylized "dance" conducted around Washington by the various parts of the United States Government
but they are not well suited to leading "real intelligence officers" to feats of brilliant analysis or
imaginative collection operations because they are always in a "defensive crouch" fearing that the "real
intelligence officers" will cause trouble for them or "the boss" through disagreement with the "picture"
desired by the administration of the day or in Human Intelligence (HUMINT) operations (espionage) gone bad
which result in publicity that could be damaging to the "managers'" careers. Incredibly, these are the
people who tend to be promoted to "line" command "at the top" in the collection, and analytic functions of
the agencies over the heads of the "real intelligence officers."
This pattern of rule by the
"managerial" class is now so well established in the intelligence agencies that it is simply expected that
senior jobs which control large parts of the agencies in the analytic and HUMINT collection fields will be
held by "managers" as opposed to "real intelligence officers." This tendency is so firmly rooted now that
the author has often heard very senior "real intelligence officers" described as "just an analyst," or
"just an operator" in the context of a selection board picking someone for a high level leadership job in
the very field in which the "real intelligence officer" is an authority respected throughout the
government.
This tendency is perpetuated and
reinforced by a process of "mirror-imaging" in personnel selections in which the ever-growing number of
"managers" who are in senior leadership position simply select others like them in the next generation for
the top jobs. This results in a leadership cadre in the Intelligence Community which is more and more
hostile to the risks demanded as the price of real success in collection and analysis and more and more
favorable to the self indulgence of a focus on the "turf battles and budget wars" endemic to Washington and
at the same time less and less driven by the desire to do good intelligence work. The personnel management
disaster described above is ultimately the responsibility of the directors of the agencies that make up the
Intelligence Community. If they wanted to have a different focus in their agencies, there would be a
different focus. There have been many fine and devoted heads of the various American intelligence agencies,
but all too often the directors themselves are members of the "managerial class" within the Intelligence
Community or simply politically selected party functionaries. All too often directors see themselves as
"travelers" on a journey to yet further heights within the government and therefore not "decisively
committed" to the work of their people. For many directors, the "managerial class" within their agencies is
a natural ally in controlling the "wilder impulses" of the "real intelligence officers" in the
organization.
ORDER IT NOW
-Risk Aversion. One of the most trite
and tedious of the many things said in the national media and in the U.S. Congress about the failures of
the Intelligence Community in Iraq and with regard to so many issues is that "HUMINT (espionage in this
context) must be improved!" Repetition of this thought has become obligatory in any "serious" discussion of
security issues but in fact, no one has done much to improve US espionage capabilities. This would be
amusing in its inanity if the underlying phenomenon were not so serious. In fact, the media and the
Congress are largely responsible for creating the operating environment in which the wreck of once
formidable American espionage capabilities became inevitable. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the
public and its representatives convinced themselves that the intelligence services were somehow the enemies
of the American people. The FBI COINTELPRO program aimed at Director Hoover's personal list of enemies and
the Nixon Administration's meditations (the Houston Plan) on the possibility of effectively combining all
U.S. counterintelligence groups into one force contributed to that idea. The Houston Plan was never
approved or implemented but the concept itself was enough to "trigger" demand for congressional
investigations into the "misdeeds" of U.S. counterintelligence groups.
Rather inevitably the "witch hunt"
spread to include U.S. clandestine intelligence. The "Church Committee" in the US Senate resulted. Up until
that time it was generally believed in the population of the United States that the intelligence services
were filled with honorable people trying to protect the country, but the spirit of that age disagreed and a
barrage of "literature" and films spread the idea that career intelligence officers were amoral
opportunists animated by a kind of nihilistic sadism. "The Three Days of the Condor," "The Bourne
Identity," and similar rubbish which portrayed a universe unfamiliar to anyone who had ever worked in
intelligence filled people's heads with the idea that the clandestine services were to be tolerated but
only just barely tolerated and that they must be closely watched and restricted. American espionage
capabilities began to decline from that time and the process has not yet been reversed.
A mass of regulations were enacted in
those and following years which tied the hands of the clandestine services so effectively that they have
never recovered. Several categories of people were placed "off limits" as possibilities for recruitment as
foreign agents (for example, reporters, professors, employees of American companies) without regard for the
fact that these very people have inherent access to people and information often needed to carry out
effective intelligence work. The rationale seemed to be that some kinds of people needed to be "protected"
from the "dirty" business of espionage. The same kind of "thinking" has caused the clandestine services to
rely far too much on "liaison" relationships with foreign intelligence services as a substitute for
conducting American run espionage against difficult targets. The reason? Disclosure of foreign operations
does not entail the career risk for the "managers" that the failure of an American operation would bring.
The creation of this kind of operating
environment served as a powerful "enabling" mechanism for the not so gradual assumption of power in the
intelligence agencies by the "managerial class." In an atmosphere dominated by fear of violation of
legislated restrictions on behavior and the use of clandestine funds, it was only natural that the
directors of the agencies would look to those who had little interest in driving forward the limits of
accomplishment and every interest in "limiting the damage" and "preventing surprises" for themselves and
"the boss." This has resulted in a degree of control over operations by lawyers and financial officers that
is suffocating to the ability of skilled operatives to mount the kind of potentially rewarding but risky
operations that would be needed, for example, to penetrate "Al-Qa'ida." Clandestine operations are
inherently dangerous. It follows that if they are evaluated by people who "know the cost of everything but
the value of nothing," they will inevitably be disapproved before execution if the risks are considerable.
Those in Congress who wrote the rules used as excuses to disapprove these operations will then "bleat"
pitifully about the need for "better HUMINT" the next time a disaster occurs.
Analysis by Committee. Much the same
phenomena exist on the analytic "side" of the intelligence business. Brilliant people from the best schools
"sign up" for a career in intelligence work from a sense of patriotism, intellectual curiosity, and a
desire to "make a difference" in the world. What typically happens to them after that is that they are
"eaten alive" by bureaucracies utterly controlled by the "managerial" mentality. Young analysts are called
on to write papers that demand a fresh look, hard work and an undying devotion to the truth. The draft
papers they write are not their property and these papers should not be subject to the vanities of "pride
of authorship" so common in other works of scholarship, but neither should they be treated with a lack of
respect for the views of the analysts and the creativity that the authors bring to the task. Too often, the
"editing by committee" system that prevails results in papers that are not only irrelevant to the security
needs of the nation but are actually misleading because of their lack of intellectual honesty.
In the "managerial" world, nothing
matters so much as "staying in step" with the consensus in the various agencies of the intelligence world
as well as making sure that analysis does not deny the political leadership of the country an intellectual
"platform" from which they can proclaim their vision of the future. The "mere" belief of the analysts
counts for little in the judgment of the "managers" when weighed against the career destroying effect of
disapproval or disfavor from on high.
As a result analysis is "ironed out"
in a "layer cake" system of committees at ever-higher layers of bureaucracy. These committees are made up
of supervisors at the appropriate layer and they "take care" to insure that the interests of the various
parties within an agency are protected in the text that goes forward to the next higher layer and that
untoward results are avoided. When this process is ended, what is typically produced is a stereotypical
example of the "lowest common denominator," not something on which the country should "hang its hat" in
making decisions affecting the national fate, and certainly. Such papers are inevitably reflective of the
kind of "group think" that grows up in any highly integrated and hierarchical bureaucracy that controls the
career long expectations of its inhabitants. In other words, an individual analyst has no chance whatever
of having his or her views expressed at the national level unless a large and self-serving group of
careerists approve them and find them not to be threatening to their collective view of what serves the
group's perceived best interest in terms of its relations with the rest of the intelligence community and
the sitting government.
ORDER IT NOW
The rule of the "managerial class" in
the intelligence community ensures the permanence of this "system." The ruling group will reproduce itself
through "mirror imaging"
ad infinitum
and will be maintained in position through the perceived
self-interest of the kind of people who typically become directors of the major intelligence agencies. This
is not to say that there have not been brave, courageous and creative directors of the major intelligence
agencies. The author has had the honor of serving under several. It was a pleasure and they know who they
are, but the sad truth, known to all who have served for extended periods in intelligence is that most
directors are part of the problem. The truth is that intelligence is an art best practiced by gifted
eccentrics, people widely and deeply educated, favored by nature and training with intuition beyond the
average and who care more for the truth than anything else. Such people consistently will follow their
"nose" and their instincts on a trail of information like bloodhounds until they arrive at a truth that
matters to the people of the United States. In the espionage field of endeavor, the function of managers is
to be "enablers," to make workable the environment in which gifted case officers can break through the
manifold barriers that will enable the penetration of groups that threaten the lives of our people. What
must be avoided is the selection of managers who instinctively feel that their function is to "hold back"
the operators and analysts in order to preserve "peace" within the bureaucracy.
Domination of the Intelligence
Function by the Executive Branch: All the intelligence agencies are parts of the Executive Branch. The CIA
is a separate organization within the Executive Branch and directly subordinated to the president. The
Defense Intelligence Agency is part of the Defense Department as is the National Security Agency. The State
Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) is obviously part of that department. All these groups
are deeply imbedded within these "ministries" of government in a constitutional system which ensures that
the authority of the political party that controls the white House will control the intelligence agencies
as well. This means that the temptation that will always be presented to politicians to attempt to shape"
both information collection and the analysis of that information to their taste is likely to be
overwhelming.
In most American administrations, the
most senior authorities (generally elected) are wise enough to know that without sound and objective
judgments from the intelligence agencies, the information upon which they base decisions is worthless. The
reason one creates separate information gathering and analysis systems under the rubric of "intelligence"
is that there is an inherent "conflict of interest" in any system that allows policy decision makers to be
the same people who judge what the reality is upon which such decisions are based. Decision makers can
always choose to decide policy questions based on their own view of the world, but it is intuitively
obvious that this is not the best way to insure good decisions. For this reasons the most senior
authorities generally restrain their subordinates on the policy side of government and prevent excessive
interference with the process of judging information.
The danger is that the wisdom of that
attitude is not universally appreciated and in some government past, present or future, policy officials
may choose to drive the intelligence people supporting their deliberations towards judgments unsupported by
convincing and dependable evidence. If one doubts the seriousness of the possible consequences of such a
"cattle drive" one need only consider such historical examples of misadventure as the US strategic
obsession with the likelihood of a Japanese first strike on the Philippines in 1941. This led the US
Government to focus attention of its analytic force in that direction so firmly that Japanese preparations
for an attack in Hawaii were completely missed. Another example would be the obsession with the
"inevitability" of victory that influenced intelligence to "miss" completely enemy preparations for the Tet
Offensive of 1968 in spite of the mass of information available that indicated something really "big" on
the way. In both cases the results of policy or strategic thinking having been allowed to "intrude" on
analysis were simply catastrophic. Strong leadership by "real intelligence officers" can help to prevent
such disasters. The "dissent" taken by the State Department in the October 2002 NIE on Iraq may well have
been an example of the survival of such leadership.
How can this be prevented? This
problem exists across the world in every country where serious foreign policy and military issues must be
considered and decisions on policy and strategy made on the basis of a systematic consideration of
available data. In every country there is the problem of trying to insure that the judgments of the
information or intelligence people are untainted by external pressures. There have been various methods and
structures adopted to deal with this danger to the national security. In some places external "think tanks"
are used to "test" the result of internal analysis. In others countries, reliance is placed on the
competitive analysis of two or more intelligence agencies, often one military and the other civilian.
In Israel, within the Directorate of
Military Intelligence there exists something called the "Devil's Advocate" a name borrowed from the process
of canonization within the Catholic Church in which a cleric is appointed to oppose the sainthood of one
who has been presented for consideration for that honor. In the Israeli "Devil's Advocate" section, the
officers so employed have the job of opposing the analysis accepted by the government and of preventing the
acceptance of institutional "group think" as the basis for decisions. For the senior Israeli officers who
serve in the "Devil's Advocate" section it is understood that opposition to the judgments of the rest of
the intelligence community will have a career price and that the officers who do this work should look
forward to a fruitful life in retirement from the army soon after their service in this job. Nevertheless,
they perform a vital; perhaps "priceless" is not too strong a word, service for their country. None of
these devices seem altogether suitable for the United States as a "safeguard" against overwhelming pressure
to bring their analysis into conformity with policy. The sheer scale of the institutions involved in
American life dictate modification of the methods used in smaller governments. Some approach that combines
the better features of these institutional "fixes" would probably be appropriate.
Can the "Intelligence Community" change
itself to eliminate the problems discussed above?
It cannot.
The United States "Intelligence
Community" is a "mature bureaucracy," a group of institutions that have reached a stable equilibrium in
their internal politics and in their relationships
I guess Lang is talking about what he refers to as the "Borg". His biggest problem is that he is one of
them, as this long disinformation article shows.
How can you even pretend there were "intelligence
failures" after these guys murdered the Kennedy's and pulled off the 9/11 new Pearl Harbor.
As usual, Lang is just laying a smoke screen for his war criminal Masonic brothers.
Of course Iran is a danger to the USA.
In 1953 there was the CIA coup, that ended democratic Iran, and brought the USA puppet shah in power.
In 1979 Muslim clerics had the audacity to send the puppet away, and put themselves in power.
Since then they, with success, resisted the USA yoke.
Right now Assad is a danger to the USA, he's still alive, and, with help of Russia, and some help of
Erdogan, in power.
Both regimes undermine USA prestige in the world.
Fascinating stuff, thanks. One of the best articles I've read on Unz, in fact, and that's saying quite a
lot because there's been a lot of great stuff here over the past few years.
Mr. Lang hasn't appreciated my pending questions about his first two columns here at Unz Review, but I have
a couple more, one substantive, the other editorial.
1. What does Mr. Lang specifically advocate, if
anything?
He urges Congress to revamp a bureaucracy. But he says that when Congress addressed that bureaucracy in
the mid-1970s as part of the post-Vietnam "'witch hunt'" it "tied the hands of the clandestine services so
effectively that they have never recovered." (He seems to see himself as one of those so bound. But that's
not made clear in the context of anything between 1968 (Tet) and the circa 2002 warmongering against Iraq.)
So if a Congressman during a hearing were to ask Mr. Lang how his work had been hampered before he
retired, and for his specific recommendations going forward, what would he say?
This is an interesting critique of the current state of the intelligence community. The author's contention
that the system has devolved into a bureaucratic muddle under the thrall of the executive branch seems
accurate but:
The disregard for the Church Committee and pining for the days of the gifted operator being
free from pesky managerial control seems misplaced. I know most Americans have a limited sense of history
and memory but, for example, look at the blowback from the Mossadegh coup, the bad intelligence we received
from Gehlen about the Soviets, MK ULTRA, Robert Parry's revelation that members of the intelligence
community interfered with Carter's attempt to negotiate the release of the hostages held by the mullahs.
There are many more such examples. I am not so sure that the "good ol days" were that great. Also, is it
even true that the Executive branch is in control(does the tail wag the dog)?
Interesting analysis – apparently reflecting imperial institutions bureaucratized to the point of
calcification, like an alzheimers brain. I wonder if by extension the senior ranks of the military in
general have become inhabited by risk-averse careerists? Can this explain at least partly its lack of
success in warmaking since Vietnam?
Lang is what we draft soldiers use to call "Lifers"; people who define their life by their love of guns and
bombs etc. Reading him daily over the years brings to mind Kissinger's denigration of military men's
intelligence or Hitler's comment that Generals don't understand economics. Not intelligence in the sense of
IQ ( I have learned a lot from him; smarter than me no doubt). Rather intelligence in the sense of not
being able to see reality through the lens of their love of shoot 'em up bang bang.
For example, he really would have us believe that there is something wrong with "Intelligence". They make
mistakes. Not the reality that they provide the rational for the wars he is so proud to have been a part
of. He is proud of his killing deeds in Vietnam, which was largely the result of what: failed intelligence
in the Gulf of Tonkin? He is proud of the role he played in the killing Kaddafi's baby daughter. Was this
the result of failed intelligence about terrorism? Come on Pat your are like the Robert Duval character in
Apocalypse Now who "loved the smell of Napalm in the morning." Intelligence has not failed the likes of
you. It provides the rational for you to do what is you live to do – killing. You spent your adult life
killing or being responsible for killing people whose only crime was to be sitting on oil.
When you were doing your killing in Vietnaum, draftees like me were saying "hell no I won't go". There was
a saying at the time: "What if someone gave a war and no one showed up". If people like you would stop
showing up we would not have troops stationed in 125 countries in the world today. Guys like you show up
because you love the shit and you could care less about the accuracy of Intelligence. Intelligence is the
opium of the people. It gives them a reason to pay people like you to act out your childhood fantasies
about war.
Repectually!
@ heros-
thank you, saved me a bunch of snarking at the author
.
as for the article itself, I rarely don't finish articles and comment on them, but the sophistry is so wide
and deep, it was impossible to finish
.
the author -as does the korporate/lapdog media- makes a number of presumptions which are not supported by
current reality (which is -in fact- the reason for their role as gatekeepers) firstly, AS IF we had a
system which makes decisions based on facts, the greatest good for the greatest number, and -you know-
reality
we do not
.
what we have imposed upon us, is a PURPOSEFULLY corrupted and broken system which is used by the 1% to
enforce their will all the 'fact finding', 'research', etc, etc, etc, is so much window dressing and
bullshit to justify doing what they want to do and has NOTHING to do with what eggheads, pontificators,
pundits, academics, etc have researched, experimented on, or theorized
.
repeat: it is ALL bullshit to make the insane decisions FOR the 1% seem like the only choice we have
Oh Americans! One thing about brits that I like is tbat they never hesitated talking about their empire or
imperial interests. But all americans seem to have have blinkers (set by their imperial hubris or genuine
belief that their country stands for the good) even supposedly intellectuals cannot escape it. Taleb calls
them intellectual yet idiot, l suppose Lang is one of them.
The intelligence community, while apparently giving useful tactical-level information
sometimes
, is
now, from what I seen, just a propaganda tool. Look at the Skripal farce. The IC of the "five eyes"
confirmed Russia was behind trying to kill the Skripals by smearing his door handle with nerve agent (so
ludicrous it's like something out of
A Fish Called Wanda
). Or Russian collusion and the Steele
dossier and golden showers. Or Clapper as head of the NGA in 2003 claiming they had satellite photographic
proof Saddam was moving WMD's. Or Assad's "chemical attacks on his own people". What's worse is that the IC
hucksters (not IC, per se, just those pitching the wares) no longer even bother putting on an elaborate dog
and pony show, show & tell, and holding vials of inert anthrax at the U.N. Pretty soon we won't even need
the IC middleman, though I'm sure the six-figure contractors, who now make up the bulk of the IC, will
still be collecting the big bucks for "protecting America".
What is truth?," asked an exasperated Pontus Pilate after being badgered by a certain (((group))) to
take action and put a certain innocent God-man to death. Somethings never change.
Mr. Lang created a false dichotomy which basically is reduced to No True Scotsman
fallacy written from the position of the true Scotsman. There are no true Scotsmen.
Things are much simpler. It all comes down to integrity which is a question of morality. Mr. George Slam
Dunk Tenet produced what he was asked to produce. There was a war to be had and he had to do his job and
show that he was a team player and he did it. This was not an issue of bad intelligence or that somebody
made a mistake. If anybody had integrity there in CIA he would refuse and be ready to resign. I haven't
heard of anybody resigning or being fired prior to war in 2003. The additional dimension was a fear of
physical threat. Mr. George Slam Dunk Tenet had attacks of anxiety fearing that he or his family would be
hit while driving around Washington DC on business or with his family. Was it because there was something
wrong with Mr. Tenet psychologically or was the idea planted in his mind by somebody who had enough
credibility to make Mr. Tenet believe it? If the latter it shows that in Washington DC thing are done not
differently than in some third wold capitol.
From the TV adaptation of Smiley's People, spoken by George Smiley as portrayed by Alec Guinness (49:30):
In my time, Peter Guillam, I've seen Whitehall shirts go up and come down again. I've listened to all the
excellent arguments for doing nothing and reaped the consequent frightful harvest. I've watched people hop
up and down and call it progress. I've seen good men go to the wall and the idiots get promoted with
dazzling regularity. All I'm left with is me. And the thirty odds years of Cold War without the option.
Oh, SUCH nonsense. What hope is there of a sensible attempt to alter the disastrous course Western foreign
policy is taking if anyone can read a stunning piece of analysis like that and come up with such a reply?
The author has a valid point regarding "groupthink" in the intelligence services but his descriptions of
the alternatives don't seem to hold much water. It's not like even it its glory days American HUMINT was
anywhere near up to, say, Soviet standards.
as for the article itself, I rarely don't finish articles and comment on them, but the sophistry is so
wide and deep, it was impossible to finish
But nevertheless you feel entitled to judge an author
whose article you haven't even read? At what point did you decide it was sophistry pure and simple?
The purpose of the Iraq war was to reunite Iran and Iraq as a bulwark against Israel. The goal was
achieved. The resurgent Iran we are seeing today is the fruit of the Iraq war.
Watch what is happening
rather than what the talking heads are saying. And keep your friends close and enemies closer.
If you listen closely you can hear the knashing of teeth in Israel that big brother stopped re-arranging
the chess pieces in the M.E. after he installed a Iran allied shia (Nouri Al-Maliki) as leader of Iraq.
. Intelligence Pact
It seems that, as Blitzer contends, Washington and Tel Aviv made a deliberate effort in the mid-1950s to
put an end to these covert operations against one another. Most observers assign responsibility for this to
top CIA official James Angleton .. Sharing information on Arab countries may have been one example of this.
Another may have been assistance in getting nuclear weapons for Israel. According to Seymour Hersh,
"sources close to" Angleton told former New York Times reporter Tad Szulc that the CIA helped the Israelis
obtain technical nuclear information in the late 1950s. "This fits in with something I had been told by a
high-level CIA official," Seymour Hersh added in 1978, "that Angleton, then in charge of CIA liaison with
Israeli intelligence, gave the Israelis similar technical information in the mid-1960s." [19] During this
period, enriched uranium was vanishing from an American atomic energy company with close ties to the
Israeli government. [20] ..
A similar pattern of cooperation between US and Israeli intelligence agencies exists in the area of
military procurement. "Israelis were caught in the Pentagon with unauthorized documents," one US official
told former Congressman Paul Findley, "sometimes scooping up the contents of 'inboxes' on desk tops." This
official recalled that a number of Israelis were very quietly asked to leave the US as a result of such
activities; no formal charges were ever filed against them. Several US officials told Findley that the
Israelis would submit orders for military items they were not supposed to have or even to know about --
using top-secret code numbers and sometimes precise specifications. Presumably they obtained the
information from friendly executive branch contacts, but no official efforts were undertaken to discover
the sources of the leaks. [22] ..
@leander
.
1. it appears you are guilty of the 'sin' you accuse me of: my post SAID why I thought it was sophistry (as
well as in agreement with heros analysis) in short, because IT DENIES OBVIOUS REALITY
the author prattles on AS IF 'intelligence'/information that is gleaned by spooks or WHOEVER, actually
matters in what decisions our 1% superiors make on our 99% behalf (but NOT for our 99% benefit)
.
2. don't be such an authoritarian tool: FORGET about what the 1% SAY is what guides their decisions, etc,
LOOK AT WHO BENEFITS, you scared, shorn, sheeple again, in short, as they EXPLICITLY STATED in the
bulldozing run up to the eye-rack-eee war part 1, they 'fixed the intelligence' around the ALREADY MADE
DECISION TO ATTACK for the greedy reasons of Empire, NOT because sad damn who's sane was our
hitler-of-the-month ™
*snort*
it is difficult to take such propaganda victims as yourself seriously; you are stuck on the superficial
layer of what Empire presents as 'reality', and don't see (or even GUESS) that there is a man behind the
curtain pulling the levers to bedazzle you
.
bread and circuses, kampers, bread and circuses
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
Pity the English. They have been slaves of a racist-supremacist, foreign sect ever since Cromwell let the
sect back in the country. Time for Americans to again free themselves from the "city of london" sect.
The
goy and the golem: James Angleton and the rise of Israel
.. "Angleton was was a leading architect of America's strategic relationship with Israel that endures
and dominates the region to this day," Jefferson Morley writes in The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA
Spymaster James Jesus Angleton. More than any other man, the longtime chief of U.S. counterintelligence
made possible Israel's shift "from an embattled settler state into a strategic ally of the world's greatest
superpower."
Angleton did so chiefly by burying any effort in the U.S. intelligence establishment to question
Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons in the 1960s. "Angleton's loyalty to Israel betrayed U.S. policy on
an epic scale," Morley writes. "Instead of supporting U.S. nuclear security policy, he ignored it." ..
My first contact with CIA was while visiting the remote Mojave Airport in California in the early 1980s
during a motorcycle trip to Death Valley. While there I noticed numerous Boeing 707 airline sized planes
parked off a faraway field in the distance. There must have been at least twenty five or thirty of these
airline size planes just sitting in isolation from the rest of the planes at the airport.
At first, I
thought the planes were merely being mothballed (stored) there until I saw one of them start to move.
Curious, I remember asking one of the workers at the airport about who owned the large planes and was told
that no one really knew but it was referred to as the "spook airline" because the planes and their use were
shrouded in absolute secrecy. Nobody knew who piloted the planeseither because their pilots arrived at the
airport either in smaller executive size planes or in vans that went without stopping directly up to the
planes after entering the airport property.
it was only later that I discovered these planes belonged to Air America, the "the CIA airline" and were
apparently used to ferry large numbers of mostly mercenary soldiers to areas the CIA was interested in at
the time. I also learned that the Mojave Airport was only one of several other similar such bases of Air
America operation. A friend described laughingly described Air America as the "Coup Airline" because of the
CIA's propensity for the overthrowing of unfriendly governments.
About this same time, I also started reading more and more articles about the fact that our elected
representatives, even at the highest levels, didn't actually fully know what the CIA was up to because of
the CIA's so-called, ultra secret "black budgets" which allowed it to operate without any sort of control
from our elected representatives below the Presidental level who claimed they didn't want to know about
these "black" activities out of fear of getting blamed once the activities arising out of them became
known.
I also started reading about rumors that parts of the CIA had become essentially self-funding using
illicit activities like drug running and arms sales to avoid any sort of even marginal budget control by
even the President of the US. The CIA's own airline would, of course, provide the ideal transportation
vehicle to facilitate such activities.
Essentially this meant that a significant part of the CIA had been allowed to essentially go rogue
without any sort of real supervision whatsoever. Unfortunately, The Mossad, would have been more than happy
to step in and provide this oversight using friendly Zionists already embedded within the agency.
There are those who now claim that parts of the CIA are hotbeds of Israeli controlled spying activities
operating specifically within its unsupervised "black budgets".
State department leader Dean Acheson warned this would happen in the mid-1940′s when plans started being
made to turn the wartime OSS into the CIA. I have always thought his opinion might have been formed by his
secret wartime access to the Venona Transcripts which extensively detailed how intelligence agencies in
both the US and the UK had become hotbeds of Communist spying activities. (Sort of like the Israelis and
the CIA today. )
Read about Acheson's very prescient criticism here
I would earnestly recommend that you go to the Colonel's site, SST, and read, from the beginning long ago,
his articles analysing the defects of Western foreign policy and what leads to those defects. You will find
there the most powerful and informed thinking on this subject that there is.
I myself don't really belong
here because I'm a tooth and nail Deplorable as well as a foreigner. But so what? We both know that what
our respective elites are doing is wrong. We both know that there has to be some other way. If we don't
seek out balanced and considered analysis then we might as well run off and join those many dissidents for
whom dissidence is merely a hobby, or those many others for whom it merely offers occasion for dispute.
So, these inner problem's within every major intel agency can be basically summed up in just four
word's ..Beware the jews within.
Now back to my soon to be finished one page book that will sum up
everything false we were told or taught regarding WWII in all it's many areas .."The Complete Untold Truth
about, WWII" .
"Them Germans was Correct!" The End.
Best one page book length expose' one can obtain in the vast search for real fact based Truth, of which
international jewry so hate's for one to learn of eh.
Get rid of the intelligence agencies.
If Jewsa needs info about a region, country, even itself, ask Russia, China. Answers will be intelligent,
diplomatic, accurate, and relevant.
Billions saved can go to help, real help not bombs, countries
destroyed for Israel and impoverished by Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, ilk.
I asked at what precise part of his piece you smelt sophistry. Maybe I have lost my ability in reading
comprehension of your language. Could well be? Apparent from being more generally not too fond of
sloganeering.
a number of presumptions which are not supported by current reality
Just look at how during the reign of Chabad Rabbi Dov Zakiem appointed as Head of Pentagon $$$ controls
etc What began as a mention to tv reporters a day prior to 9/11 event's of somehow pentagon cannot account
for a Missing $2.3-TRILLION!!! Has as of last date I read any new revelations of that missing cash, morphed
into almost $9.5-TRILLION missing!!! And that last amount was like several month's ago.
What a
Cohencidence eh? And just think what new and worse swindle scams Israel and it's mossad wonderkins can
come up with to do next with so large an amount of Black Budget ready cash available?
Yes Yes I know that several hasbara clown's and tribal member's will say no such stolen cash ever goes
to 100% innocent Israel and it's equally innocent jewry aka "The World's Biggest and Only Victim's that
ever matter".
But daily now another 10,000 folks in America awaken to fact that research proves beyond all doubt that
virtually Every evil and bad and immoral and unethical type issue or event since 3,500 yr's ago has More
jewdeo fingerprint's all over it than any other cause period.
And once red pilled and awakened to such real truth's .None are able to return to their former asleep
position even if they wished to No amount of jewish hasbara propagandas will ever be able to undo real
truth once that cats been let out of the bag so to speak.
Mossad/Israel state moto:.."By Deception(lies!) You Shall Cause War's" .Indeed they do eh.
The author is right as far as he goes but he ignores the CIA/Wall Street complex that was established by
Allen Dulles – that complex is at the very core of the US Deep State.
That complex is held together from the top; notice that only the very connected are put in charge of the
CIA and connected means very tied into Wall Street.
The CIA, in spite of their low period in the 1970′s, has been very effective in controlling the US media.
Note how the Brennan secret team created a trap that the democrats walked right into.
And note how they have the FBI taking the fall while the CIA continues to operate in the shadows.
I like the author; he brings some sanity but he is still a creature of US supremacism.
He doesn't like me; he has blocked me from commenting at his site.
But I still hope he speaks out as far as he goes.
It is helpful to learn the point of view of the knightly orders, which, as in the middle ages, constitute a
parasitic class indoctrinated to see nothing but the stylized ethical set pieces proper to their order.
Here are a few things Lang cannot acknowledge without jeopardizing his identity:
Impunity. Doesn't show up in the list of CIA flaws, but it's staring him in the face, right there in
black and white: the Central Intelligence Agency Act, the Rogers/Huston get-out-of-jail-free card, the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the operational files exemption, the political questions doctrine,
and lots of secret law and regulations. Under municipal law (strictly speaking, it doesn't meet minimal
legal standards, it's administrative red tape,) CIA can get away with anything. So they are institutionally
criminal. This is a sore point, frantically repressed. Even vague recollections of old movies are enough to
trigger the traditional posturing of honor-based chivalric cultures.
Operations. Beltway courtiers are constrained to discuss CIA's intelligence function in isolation from
its overwhelmingly dominant, and inherently criminal, clandestine operations function. In reality, all
analysts are paid to do is complain about NCS crime. Then when their next criminal racket gets caught, NCS
trots out some analysts to say, 'We at CIA warned about this.' CIA operations includes gun-running,
drug-dealing, human trafficking and pedophile blackmail, murder, torture, coercive interference, and
aggression by armed bands and irregulars. Intelligence is not CIA's business.
Rule of law. Lang, in the context of the USG going to war, writes, "If the "Intelligence Community" as
it now exists were abolished, some other group would have to assume the burden of performing the same
functions." Right. That other group would be the duly constituted authority under US supreme law, the UN
Security Council, which the intelligence community devoted most of their efforts to subverting with foreign
corrupt practices and fabricated war propaganda. It's not like CIA got stuck with this job, they usurped
it.
Having had my comments deleted and been blocked several times on SST, I can tell anyone who would listen to
not listen to your advice and waste hours poring over that myopic blog. Myopic, because anytime someone
writes an interesting comment that contradicts any of Lang's masonic beliefs, Lang gets nasty. Even
TwistedGenius has had to dance around a snarling Lang because he crossed some secret line.
Sure, Lang was
right about a lot of things from 2003-2007. But he was also often wrong and no one ever dared to call him
on it.
Once again, I will point out Lang's complete failure to deviate from the narrative on things like all
these gun-grabbing "mass shootings". As I recall Lang was even very wishy washy about the second amendment,
offering to sell his guns in a government gun grab. So he lies to us about about what his masonic brethren
are up to on this front.
But of course the biggest void in his analysis is the JQ. He attends barmitzfa's, purim, and who knows
what other kind of cabal rituals. He cannot deal with the JQ because he is borg, and he knows what kind of
punishment would await him. And angry jews crying for blood revenge aren't any where near as bad as when
the masonic brotherhood turns on you.
Agree but I think it is much more than a smoke Screen and preparation for war.
The 527 paid slave drivers and their bureaucrats and military (called the USA) has become a permanent false
flag operation. The 9/11 advisory explained:
1. slave drivers have been ordered to spy on slaves,
2. slave drivers have been ordered to silence all slave protests and objections,
3. slave drivers have been ordered to study the slaves like rats in cage,
4. slave drivers have been ordered to deprive the slaves until production is sufficient to satisfy the
Pharaohs.
5. slave drivers have been ordered to keep the USA dark, slaves are not allowed to know or learn anything
they don't pay for.
6. Slaves are expected to listen to Pharaoh produced, media distributed propaganda at least 12 hours per
day.
Americans now live in fear of the Bastards from the Dark Side Kingdom of Lies.
The problem is how to save America from the USA. The USA is milking our cattle, selling our eggs,
fencing us in with costly schooling and licenses to be eligible to get work, spying on our thoughts,
destroying our earning platforms, price and ticket gating our access to information, bottling and selling
to us, our once free water and air, and generally putting Americans at risk to attack from the global
outside and famine blight from the inside.
From reader comments: If I had my way, I would bring back the draft with NO college
deferments. In fact, the sons and daughters of politicians would get called up first. Service in
the IDF doesn't count. ... ... "Yes, but expand that. Mandate that we first enlist, train, and promptly deploy any children and
grandchildren of all members of Congress, members of the President's Cabinet, federal judges, Federal Reserve Board of Governors,
and the CEOs/CFOs/CIOs etc. of military companies (including Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and their ilk). "
This is a very large "sinecure"
At a deeper level, military forces are agents/enforcers for the elite. Its primary role is the providing expansion and the
defense of the interests of the ruling elite against external and internal enemies. Without addressing the dominant social
interests in the state, a focus on shringking the military budget is quite inadequate.
I don't have a problem with 4% of GDP, but I have a big problem with what we're getting for
our money.
A quarter million for a four-star general is fine, if the general is any good (almost none
of them are by design). In theory a general is equivalent to a division manager in a Fortune
500 company, but COs in the US military have amazingly little power. They're not even free to
hire and fire their own subordinates in most cases. So our senior officers are really paid
generously to pretend they are great military commanders.
The average SAT score at West Point is only 1340 these days. Prior to the Vietnam War I
believe West Point was academically competitive with Ivy League schools, or at least that's
what Class of '68 veteran John T. Reed states.
The Naval Academy is 1322 and the Air Force Academy is 1370.
These aren't bad scores, but clearly these officers aren't elite academically.
The enlisted personnel seem adequate in quality thanks to the AFQT, other than women of
course. They're overpaid compared to what is available for them in the private sector.
The pension system, in addition to being overly generous, has perverse incentives. As any
service-member approaches that magical 20 year mark, any kind of independent thinking must
disappear (which the military already does so much to eliminate). Want your fat pension?
Better shut up and emulate your COs in every way possible. It should just be replaced with a
Thrift Savings Plan (gov't equivalent of a 401k).
One sixth of the force consists of women. Every last one of them subtracts from the
efficacy of the military.
One sixth of personnel are officers, which is far too many officers.
Then you have all the unnecessary EO officers, JAGs, and other political commissars.
I don't have an issue with the various recreational perks in the armed forces as they
contribute to espirit de corps. The private sector could use more of this, honestly.
The GI Bill is also politically objectionable as we should not be giving money to The
Enemy (colleges in this case).
This is the price a mercantile republic pays for an all volunteer fighting force.
When you have less than 5% of the population serving in the military and commitments all
over the globe, then you need to be prepared to pay for those professional services (yes, the
military is a profession like any other). If you're prepared to go back to a draft force, then we can start talking about changes to
the pay and benefit system.
Personally, I think service of some kind, be it military or community, ought to be a
requirement to vote. Service guarantees citizenship.
Maybe you can help me on the following ancillary matter? F.y.i., Mighty John Bolton passed on an opportunity to fight LBJ's atrocious war against
communism, in Vietnam. As PreZident Trump's present Iranophobe-warmongering N.S.A. Adviser, I tried (but failed)
to determine how much pay & "bennies" Bolton now gets from the bottomless Executive
Branch feeding trough.
Same scam, different tactics. 40 years ago we lived in Annapolis, MD in the lowest tier of a then – New housing
development concept. Our cramped townhouses were on the scrabble outer ring.
The most lavish houses were in the inner-ring, on a divided boulevard, extensively
landscaped and maintained. At least 3/4 of those homes were owned by "Double-Dippers"–
military retirees collecting military retirement pay while employed as civil servants in
Federal gov, with defense contractor consulting on the side.
"Thank you for your service,"– in cash, if you please.
I do not mind community service, but I object to military service and I do not want to
vote. Voting gives legitimacy to a system that I oppose. I was born in the geographical area
now ruled by the government of the United States of America. Perhaps, LT Dan, you would be in
favor of a status such as non-citizen resident. I was born in this area by a quirk of fate,
not any choice on my part. I do not usually agree with US government policy, nor do I want
the US government to represent me or "protect" me. It would be just for me to pay less taxes
since I do not desire and would gladly refuse most of the "services" the government provides,
especially those noted in the above article.
Neither me, my father, my grandfather, nor my great grandmother served in the US Military,
but one of the large defense contractors put bread on the table for four generations of my
family. My 90-year old grandmother is still collecting my grandfather's pension from that
firm and he's been dead for 30 years!
US is rich and the debt is high. Both can be true at the same time. But taxes are relatively low so if there is a
government debt crisis paying down the debt would just involve raising taxes. Just look at GDP per capita US which is very
high up there so I don't see how anyone can argue the US is not a very rich country.
Despite many problems, the US has many advantages like half the world's Ashkenazim who are very good at creating
unbeatable new companies .etc., etc., etc .
Thanks for the laughs. You must be of the Maven-Krugman school of debt. You're all wrong, and it's obviously beyond your
understanding that though you can fool almost all of the goyim almost all of the time, you can't fool all of us all the time.
AEN, thank you for your fine input, but I suspect you're throwing pearls to swine who
don't even want to understand.
Even worse, when they claim that debt is good, they conveniently leave out the part about
who it's good for.
We dumb goyim have repeatedly proven ourselves to be pretty easy marks, but some of us
have a clue as to who's paying for it all, and its good to know that a few know who that
would be, so thanks again.
That was a jolting eye-catcher. So this general still receives a six-figure pension
check!? I've often marveled at the moral fiber exhibited by these gilded peacocks, who, when
faced with supporting criminal actions by their government, such as invading countries who've
done us no harm, click their heels and proceed. Instead of taking an instant retirement,
knowing their pensions are secure.
You would still be required to pay some kind of lease or tax for the land which you
occupy, but would otherwise be left alone. You would also be subject to the criminal laws of
the jurisdiction you occupied. You would also pay taxes for any consumption that requires use
of infrastructure or interstate commerce.
The United States is large enough that such an arrangement is still possible.
" US spends 4% of GDP on the military versus 2% in China, France, UK. That's high but
considering how rich the US is, not unbearable. Weak article "
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Every productive dollar that's ever existed has been flushed down the MIC rathole. The
whole "budget "is an elaborate ruse to conceal the chains that bind you.
10's of trillions disappear with gleeful approval on a regular basis.
Mr. Girard, buon giorno. You must be my elder. In '68 I was paid $96 plus $26 combat pay
while in Nam.
Yea, things are out of control. Unfortunately, the store clerk you ran into the other day is
representative of how the majority of "we the people" think. Hence, don't expect change
anytime soon.
I have been a fan of yours for sometime now. Mostly at NEO, sometimes art Rense. I recently
began accessing UNZ and was pleased to see your name in the list of contributors. Sadly I
don't predict improvement in the majorities attitude. But, you do fine work, dom't quit just
yet. As long as we can keep the internet affordable reality may trickle down. I believe the
net is the reason the "fake news" moniker had to be. Sort if like "conspiracy theory". Same
party owns both copyrights.
Keep your head up.
Joseph
Foreign entanglements, searching for monsters to destroy, acting as the world police
– this is the main problem.
Yooge problems for sure, but playing Sugar Daddy to Izzie-land is the biggest one of all
in terms of dollars as well as moral capital, and it probably dwarfs welfare subsidies to
"defense" corporations.
When I joined the U.S. Army in 1965 my starting pay was slightly less than 100 dollars per
month. Soldiers then were said to be "in the service". Today they are "in the military".
Later in life I realized that I had been "in the service" of evil. Still later I learned that
the love of money is the root of evil.
The American Dollar Dies in New York – a Satire from Uganda:
JS, Since Rumsfeld admitted, the day before 911 when he helped murder 30 forensic
accountants plus a handful of Naval Investigators, you are 1 of the few I ever heard mention
the stolen money. Since the Clinton administration up to 2016 the number is now $21
$Trillions, from just 2 departments.
BB, I personally know a couple who are around seventy, very healthy and active, who have
parlayed multiple pension-qualifying careers between them in the armed forces, postal
service, teaching, and county government, into astounding lifestyles. Harley motorcycle,
Winnebago, big house, weekend cottage, cruises, the whole shebang.
They're very nice people, part of the local Puerto Rican ascendancy, first generation
descendants of the Puerto Ricans recruited by the now defunct local steel mills back in the
1950s.
I'm sure it can be said they worked for what they got, but, still . . . you gotta wonder
what's going on.
Military spending has one virtue, it is constitutional as it fulfills one duty of the
FedGov, one it has often shirked, defend the country.
Giraldi can whine all he likes, but the DOD is not an entitlement program, nor does the
Pentagon get all it wants. It never has gotten all it wants, no matter how much Giraldi
whines to the contrary.
I've never seen such a warped and delusional understanding of the voracious, insatiable,
wasteful and corrupt National Security State presented so succinctly
P.S. I have a feeling that War Machine accounts have written Quatermaster a lot of checks
over the years. I.e., he knows what side his bread is buttered on.
anon, tell it like it is. Everyone should also know the debt servce cost to our budget is
the interest Americans pay. What's 2% of 20 trillions? 40 billions? IDK l, but it's alot.
Well that's the federal reserve *a private corp.) income estimate for the yeat, which the
share holders, all 6 of them, pay no income tax.
Since the Clinton administration up to 2016 the number is now $21 $Trillions, from just
2 departments.
Can you explain to me how that even works, technically? E.g. the DoD is supposed to have
"stolen" a lot more money than its entire regular budget – how could they even lay
their hands on such sums? What accounts did that money sit in before it was siphoned off,
without anyone noticing?
The US military are the equivalent of the Roman Empire's honestiores, or upper classes. As
well as the benefits accruing from service, they had special legal treatment, like being
exempt from judicial torture. So Arthur Lichte merely gets part of his pension docked for
raping a woman. Nothing to see here , mate, move along. Even someone like Chelsea ( " They
call her Natasha, but she looks like Elsie" ) Manning spends a mere 7 years in prison and
gets the Defence Department to pay for "gender reassignment".
The point about judicial torture is important as America has recently revived the practice.
Would Assange be waterboarded if they got hold of him ? Would he have met a fatal "accident"
in custody?
Who knows ? But don't you even think about doing that to an American serviceman, even one as
degenerate as Manning.
That wasn't a response. It was just name calling. So if you aren't convinced by my
rebuttal it's certainly not because you had more intelligent analysis.
You use a lot of figures but not the appropriate statistics. What do big aggregate numbers
like 200k in debt per family really mean?
I look at the percentage of tax revenue v. GDP compared to other first world countries. US
is actually on the low side by this measure. That means it's possible to raise taxes and only
moderately harm the economic growth engine. And no one has addressed the advantages the US
economy has in particular having half of the world's Ashkenazim.
Rumsfeld admitted, the day before 911 when he helped murder 30 forensic accountants plus
a handful of Naval Investigators,
Thanks, it's nice to know that there are others who are wide awake. Trouble is, even those
who have a clue can't even imagine the .0001% of it, I'm sure.
What accounts did that money sit in before it was siphoned off, without anyone
noticing?
We'll probably never know. The system is not exactly designed for transparency, and
besides, guess where the missile, errr, "plane" hit the Penta-graft?
Wouldn't it be fun to ask Rummy the Smirking Dummy that question?
I bet this swinish character could provide a bit of insight with a little Nuremberg or Abu
Ghraib style info gathering as well, and here's a partial rap sheet
Dov S. Zakheim was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief
Financial Officer for the Department of Defense on May 4, 2001. Dr. Zakheim has previously
served in a number of key positions in government and private business.
Most recently, he
was corporate vice president of System Planning Corp., a technology, research and analysis
firm based in Arlington, Va. He also served as chief executive officer of SPC International
Corp., a subsidiary specializing in political, military and economic consulting. During the
2000 presidential campaign, he served as a senior foreign policy advisor to then-Governor
Bush.
From 1985 until March 1987, Dr. Zakheim was Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Planning and Resources in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy). In that
capacity, he played an active role in the Department's system acquisition and strategic
planning processes. Dr. Zakheim held a variety of other DoD posts from 1981 to 1985.
Earlier, he was employed by the National Security and International Affairs Division of the
Congressional Budget Office.
Dr. Zakheim has been a participant on a number of government, corporate, non-profit and
charitable boards.
The United States military is a giant jobs program, Giraldi!
So what of it! Who cares. Conjure up those dollars out of thin air and let the troops have
some loot. Did the Founding Fathers warn us about large standing armies in their writings and
actions? Yes.
Did the Founding Fathers know that a large standing army would require a concentrated form
of governmental power to collect the loot to pay for that army? Yes.
Did we just pass the 800 year anniversary of the Magna Carta? Yes. Was the Magna Carta
about standing armies and concentrated government power, among other things?
Were the Founding Fathers somewhat ungrateful to the British Empire for its efforts in the
French and Indian War? Yes.
Would the Founding Fathers be surprised to find a Jew billionaire named Shelly Adelson
controlling the use of the US military in the Middle East and West Asia? The cynical and
smart ones wouldn't be surprised at all.
The GOP has the War budget and the US military and the Democrats have the public schools
and many other government workers. The GOP always promises to spend more loot on the War
budget and the US military and the Democrats always promise to spend more money on the public
schools and other government programs.
Giraldi has written a CLUNKER of a blog post, folks!
Giraldi should write about mass immigration, monetary extremism and the impossibility of
paying for the retirement of the baby boomers.
Mass Immigration: DEMOGRAPHY
Monetary Policy: DEBT
Baby Boomers: NATION WRECKERS
The American Empire is soon to go belly up in a manner similar to the upcoming demise of
treasonous rat John McCain.
The WASP /JEW ruling class of the American Empire knows this. A pleasant consolation is
that China, Japan and Europe are just as badly bankrupt as the American Empire is.
Raise the federal funds rate to 10 percent and implode the American Empire. Young people
must no longer be saddled with massive unpayable debt and the unpayable retirement of the
baby boomers. Pull the plug on the baby boomers now, and let the young people have a
future.
The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans will implode also. Use the nuclear deterrent and
offshore balancing to keep global peace.
Giraldi can whine all he likes, but the DOD is not an entitlement program, nor does the
Pentagon get all it wants.
If it isn't an entitlement program, then what would one look like? Do you know the meaning
of "sinecure?"
You can whine about Giraldi all you want but he's right and yer wrong, and thank G-d that
the Pantygon doesn't get all it wants. Can you explain whether it should and why?
PS: Read the comments regarding disabilities and retirement bennies and then get back to
us.
You really don't want affirmative action nurses looking after anymore than those Bombay
specials that the VA hires as doctors. It's not a perk, it's just free.
The VA is a train wreck because of these people. No one wants to say squat because you
have to point a finger at all the AA hires and that would get you labeled as a racist.
And oh they are paid, very, very well. The average RN makes over a $100k at the VA. I know
private sector nurses who went to work for the VA because of the pay and bennies. Plus you
can't get fired.
You do realize that "waterboarding" is part and parcel of SERE school in the military and
has been for a very long time. It's where the Pentagon/CIA got idea of applying to a bunch of
sand monkeys.
Anyone who is special ops gets waterboarded so are fighter pilots and the like. The MSM
always neglects this fact.
Dov Zakheim is a nasty Neo-Conservative Jew rat, that is widely known. Zakheim was one of the
Neo-Conservative rats who helped to drag the US military into the Iraq War debacle. Seems
Neo-Conservative rat boy Dov Zakheim also made himself a wealthy rat through his connections
to the WASP / JEW ruling class of the American Empire.
But,
Let's not forget nasty Neo-Conservative Jew rat Michael Chertoff and his pal General
Michael Hayden. Baby boomers Chertoff and Hayden have made out like bandits from their involvement in the
Deep State of the American Empire. I say the baby boomers are an evil generation of nation wreckers. Tweets from 2015:
At least half of our military bills should be sent to Israel. Practically all of our wars
these days are on their behalf. The other half should be paid by a war tax. All those who
support going to "necessary" wars overseas for "humanitarian" reasons or other will pay into
this tax, starting with the neocons and the media (not just mainstream liberal media but many
right wing neocon mouthpieces like National Review, Breitbart, DailyCaller).
Last but not least, any elected official who votes for or calls for war with any nation,
from Trump to Pence, Nikki Haley, John McCain, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo et al. should fork
out 100% of their salaries to pay for the war until it ends.
What evidence is there that the trade discussion is based on China reducing treasury
holdings rather than counter-tariffs on US agricultural goods and potentially in a number of
other areas like education services (blocking Chinese families from sending kids to lower
ranked US colleges)?
America's Republican politicians complain that "entitlements," by which they mean
pensions and medical care, are leading the country to bankruptcy even as they fatten the
spending on the Pentagon, which now takes 12 percent of the overall budget.
The US military budget should be $100 billion .do what you can.
"Despite many problems, the US has many advantages like half the world's Ashkenazim who
are very good at creating unbeatable new companies. Just look at how the half the 40 riches
entrepreneurs under 40 in the US according to Forbes are Jewish. Jews are producing so much
innovation in the US that it offsets a lot of the problems like military spending at 4% of
GDP and less productive sub-populations."
Average daily volume in the Treasury market is $500 billion, and the Federal Reserve
System is authorized to create unlimited quantities of currency to purchase Treasuries (and
other gov't securities) in any case.
This isn't the financial weapon of mass destruction people think it is.
The Chinese themselves know this, which is why they stopped adding to their position and
have gradually reduced it.
A more effective strategy would be to focus financial firepower where the Federal Reserve
isn't authorized to operate, such as the commercial paper market. Probably Congress itself
would then act, but if you can buy enough seats for hard money dweebs you might be able to
cause serious trouble.
I'm sure the Roman Empire had some version of waterboarding.
The Roman Army's form of punishment was known as decimation , a word now
commonly used by semi-literates to torture knowledgeable historians, philologists, and
wordsmiths, including not a few Baby Boomers , who apparently know a lot more than
you, and who also are smart enough to blame the guilty -- and not an entire generation -- for
the misdeeds or evil gains of a relatively few assholes.
But I know subtle nuance like that must be difficult to understand for those who can paint
-- or splatter -- only with a very broad brush.
As if remotely possible to do so, Realist recommended:
"The US military budget should be $100 billion .do what you can."
Hi (Sur)Realist,
A question. Above, who would meaningfully tell that to the ZUS Defense Department, Joint Chiefs of
Staff, & the military contractors? Sheldon Adelson? Netanyahu? Take heart! I trust Peter Aus will appear & bring your do-gooder passion into
practical reality. Thanks, nevertheless!
You make my point for me.
As I said, Judicial Torture was used on humiliores, and, indeed, in European Inquisitorial
Systems until the late C18th and early C19th.
A person or entity whose liabilities outweigh its assets, is not rich.
This is more true when the entity, like the US Fed Gov, has vastly more liabilities than
physical assets, let alone readily marketable assets.
The fed gov has promised to pay more each year than it has recently taken in as revenue,
and more than it has any realistic hope of generating anytime soon.
The fed gov is in hock more than 20 trillion in the books right now, and over 100 trillion
projected forward.
Yeah the fed gov is rich.
Looking at average and median private-household net worth will not make the picture much
rosier.
Commissaries, gyms, and hair salons on bases in the USA must end.
Pay the soldiers well, but have them live and try to get by in the same economy and world
as their employers -- WE THE TAXPAYERS.
Also, require soldiers to live off base and pay their own housing (boosting their cash pay
accordingly) OR start counting their housing as taxable income as it would be for the rest of
us mere TAXPAYERS.
Evil baby boomers in Europe, England and the United States have been protected by the
monetary extremism of the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve
Bank.
It is now time to financially liquidate the evil baby boomer generation. If the Federal
Reserve Bank raised the federal funds rate to 10 percent, and the ECB and BoE raised interest
rates similarly, the baby boomers in the USA, England and most of Europe would be financially
busted. The baby boomers have been the generation that benefited the most from the monetary
extremism of the last few decades, and especially since 2008.
The federal funds rate went over 20 percent in 1981, 10 percent now would wipe out the
asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate. Do it.
The baby boomers are an evil generation of nation-wreckers. Bill Clinton and George W Bush
are prime examples of evil globalizer baby boomers.
Tough shit that you don't like his tone. We don't like being systematically ripped off and
told it's patriotic.
We should start either taxing the military employees' housing allowance OR require them to
buy their own housing off-base. I'd be fine with increasing cash salary to make up for it.
Let's get an honest number on what their salaries really are and then debate whether they get
paid enough.
And by all means let's reform and reduce officer pensions. End this last-three-years
calculation and require more than 20 years "service" to get half or more of one's salary as
pension. They are desk jobs and they can and should work at least, say, THIRTY years before
being able to retire st that level of pension and work elsewhere.
Military is a wasteful fraudulent untrustworthy bureaucracy like any other in the fed gov
-- or worse because they get a free pass from a lot of people.
The oil and gas resources alone owned by the federal government are worth some $200
trillion. Then there's the fact that the taxing authority of the federal government makes any fiscal
deficit a matter of choice to begin with.
Am fairly sure you know about Donald Rumsfeld early political career, including his
special assignment as an ambitious congressman, & on behalf of the A.Z.C.
If not, below I link ZUS Defense Secretary "Shit Happens" treasonous letter to Robert F.
Kennedy.
And we need Russian equipment to get into space these days, apparently. That would be troublesome even if Russia were an ally, as perhaps they should be.
It's worse when our gov chooses to slander, threaten, sanction, and encircle the country
on whom we are relying.
Imagine China refusing to sell us what we need AND Russia refusing to let us use or buy
its space equipment.
For that matter, there's so much demand for oil and natural gas in India and China --
likely to keep increasing, too -- Russia eventually may be able to say "we will sell to
anyone EXCEPT companies and facilities in the USA, and anyone caught reselling to the USA
will join them on the blacklist." If Iran and, say, Venezuela or Nigeria did the same, watch
out.
Deliberate dishonest distraction. Whether the DOD got as much as it wanted, it gets much
more than our actual defense requires, and the people on the gravy train know it.
The fact that defense is a specifically enumerated duty and power of the fed government,
has nothing to do with the proper amount to spend on that function.
Money spent attacking countries that are not attacking us here in the USA, are not
preparing for imminent attack on us here in the USA, and are not aiding those who are
attacking or preparing to imminently attack us here in the USA is NOT part of that legitimate
constitutional function.
Same with money spent defending Israel or Saudi Arabia, helping the saudis kill Yemenis in
Yemen, helping islamists or anyone else overthrow the gov of Syria, etc.
Same with money spent defending (or controlling) Germany, France, South Korea, Japan,
etc.
Calling that "whining" is not an argument. It suggests that you lack an honest, logical
argument on this issue.
The threat is the Mexicans we have allowed in, not any credible military threat from
Mexico's armed forces.
Our military should be posted on the entire southern border with orders to kill all
invaders who do not heed warnings to turn back. Add a minefield, barbed wire fencing where
absent, and armed drones.
The clothing allowance is for purchase, upkeep, and repair of uniforms. There is a
bureaucratic mindset of having things clearly laid out which guarantees a lot of this
spending, especially when the time preferences of new enlistees bears out the wisdom of
having a specially set aside and clearly labeled clothing allowance. Many good critics with
detailed grievamces skip over the governmental addiction to trying to solve reality with
longer and longer rulebooks.
Radical Center proposed: "Russia eventually may be able to say "we will sell to anyone
EXCEPT companies and facilities in the USA, and anyone caught reselling to the USA will join
them on the blacklist."
Hi Radical Center,
Speaking with utmost respect for your typical sound-thought, have you ever approached the
issue from the Globalist's (ideal) "Radical Center" perspective where the planet's economic
& military Superpowers decide how crude oil & natural gas sale & distribution is
done?
Radical Center opined: "Our military should be posted on the entire southern border with
orders to kill all invaders who do not heed warnings to turn back."
Hi Radical Center,
The biggest problem I have with the solution (above) is your having used, in error, the
words, "Our military."
Were that the actual case, Jewish Lobbies, billionaire ZUS Jews, Congress, & PreZident
Trump would be very pissed at Mr. Giraldi's for provocatively having the gall to use the
description, "American military" in his article title.
Thanks again, Radical Center. By increment, you are getting there! So please simply
consider dropping the word "Our"?
Like one of the Maven Shama's "old grey mares, "That ain't what it used to be."
There are two standards one for enlisted personnel and the other for officers. During the
Grenada situation some enlisted personnel and officers were caught attempting to ship
captured AK-47 rifles back to the states. The enlisted personnel got "hard time" in
Leavenworth while the officers got "letters of reprimand". Double standard, indeed.
I might have made the military a career, but the disparities in both facilities and treatment
of officers vs. enlisted was a real turn-off. I completed my enlistment honorably and
returned to civilian life.
It is my humble opinion (and personal observation) that the commissioned officer rank
structure where there is concern for the enlisted troops ends with the rank of colonel. The
general staff is more akin to political office than it is to serving in the military and
taking care of their military subordinates.
As to "pay and allowances", when I was active duty (1969-1971) it was not much. In fact, at
the time, those of us in uniform were looked down upon and blamed for the prosecution of the
Vietnam conflict. Not only that, legislated job programs that were supposed to go to us
Vietnam veterans never materialized.
Yes, the all-volunteer forced made it necessary to increase "pay and allowances" to
relatively attractive levels.
If I had my way, I would bring back the draft with NO college deferments. In fact, the sons
and daughters of politicians would get called up first. Service in the IDF doesn't count.
You are correct. The rest of the world that falls under the USA "defense umbrella" can
afford extravagant social programs as they do not pay for their defense. In fact, WE are
required to pay rent on foreign bases in which to place our troops.
If I had my way, all foreign troop deployments would stop. Those countries requesting our
"protection" would have to pay for it.
Seems to me, that was one of President Trump's campaign promises–making foreign
countries pay for their defense.
You sir are an American hating leftist. The military, until the left decided it was the
government's job to provide cradel to grave care for everyone accounted for more than 75
percent of the federal budget. To complain that the military consumes 12 of the budget while
Medicaid consumes 50 percent is a straw man. Having been an infantry man I can tell you that
anyone who can do 20 or 30 years deserves a life long pension. Being a man is hard on the
body.
He's currently a court bailiff, a patronage job here, earning maybe in the low $30s. Plus,
his 20-year Army pension, plus his 20+-year postal service pension. He's a high school grad.
His wife is fully retired with a 20-year Army pension, and a teacher's pension with about 20
years in.
I'll take a wild guess their retirement income is no less than $100,000 a year in my very
low-cost area.
A go-figure sort of deal. Not just double-dipping. More than that, as you and other folks
here have said. It's a mentality, a mind-set. For some of the worst of those high-salary
government folks, there are only three types of Americans: Bill Gates and other billionaires,
government workers, and Americans who are too stupid to find a corporate or government milch
cow.
You're right, of course. These days I try to always write and say "the US government"
rather than "OUR government." I should have done the same with "US military."
Mandate that we first enlist, train, and promptly deploy any children and grandchildren of
all members of Congress, members of the President's Cabinet, federal judges, Federal Reserve
Board of Governors, and the CEOs/CFOs/CIOs etc. of military companies (including Northrup
Grumman, Boeing, and their ilk).
Looks like US military belong to the privileged class like it was in late Roman empire
Notable quotes:
"... This why career servicemen love the military, they are making 2-3 times more than comparable civilians, and they know it! Read my article if you are confused. Then many of these "retirees" leave at age 40 with nice retirement, then get a regular federal job, and put in for every minor ache and pain and get a thousand or more dollars each month in VA tax free "disability" pay. Sleep Apnea (aka snoring) is a popular disability to claim worth up to 50%. Some get 100% disability but you wouldn't know it if you met them, and still work for Uncle Sam full time! The LA Times reported that after Senator John McCain announced he was fit to run for President, he was getting military retirement, 100% tax free VA disability, his Senator pay and social security retirement! ..."
"... For me the pay and benefits aren't the core problem. We are paying to destabilize the world, kill US citizens, kill civilians, increase terror all for wars that don't benefit the American citizenry as a whole in any way. ..."
Today's United States has 2,083,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen on active duty
plus reserves. Now that the military is an all-volunteer rather than a conscript force, it is
understandable that pay and benefits should be close to or equivalent to civilian pay scales.
Currently, a sergeant first class with 10 years in service gets paid $3968 a month. A captain
with ten years gets $6271. That amounts to $47,616 and $75,252 a year respectively plus
healthcare, food, housing, cost of living increases and bonuses to include combat pay.
Though there are several options for retirement, generally speaking a soldier, sailor Marine
or airman can retire after 20 years with half of his or her final "high three" pay as a
pension, which means an 18-year-old who enlists right out of high school will be 38 and if he
or she makes sergeant first class (E-7) he or she will be collecting $2338 a month or more for
a rest of his or her life adjusted for cost of living,
Many Americans would be astonished at the pensions that general officers and admirals
receive, particularly since 80% of them also land in "retirement" generously remunerated
positions with defense contractors either in active positions soliciting new contracts from
their former peers or sitting on boards. General David Petraeus, whom
The Nation describes as the "general who lost two wars," pulls in a pension of $220,000
even though he was forced to resign as CIA Director due to passing classified information to
his mistress. He is also chairman of a New York City based company KKR Global, which is part of
a private equity firm Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts. He reportedly is paid in six figures plus
bonuses for "oversee[ing] the institute's thought leadership platform focused on geopolitical
and macro-economic trends, as well as environmental, social, and governance issues."
It apparently is difficult to take money away from general and flag officers. An Air Force
four-star general named Arthur Lichte was reduced in
rank to a two-star in 2017 after he was found guilty of having raped a lower ranking woman
officer. His pension went down from $216,000 to $156,000 due to the reduction. Normally,
however, America's 1,000 general and flag officers can look forward to comfortable
retirements.
But on top of that rather generous bit of cash there are the considerable other benefits, as
the old recruiting sergeants would put it, the "bennies." Military retirees can receive full
tuition and expenses at a college or technical school if they choose to go back to school. This
is why one sees so many ads for online universities on television – they are trolling for
soldier dollars knowing that it's free money. The retiree will also have access to heavily
subsidized medical care for him or herself plus family. The medical care is a significant bonus
under the Tricare system, which describes itself on its website as "the gold standard for
medical coverage, [that] is government managed health insurance." A friend who is retired
recently had a hip replacement operation that would have cost $39,000 for only a few hundred
dollars through Tricare.
What is significant is that even enlisted military personnel can start a second career on
top of their pension, given that many of them are still in their thirties. Some that have
security clearances can jump into highly paid jobs with defense contractors immediately while
others also find places in the bureaucracy with the Department of Homeland Security. Working
for the government twice is called "double dipping."
Some would argue that military personnel deserve what they get because the jobs are by their
very nature dangerous, sometimes fatal. Indeed, the number of maimed and PTSD-afflicted
soldiers returning from the endless wars is a national tragedy and caring for them should be a
top priority. But the truth is that only a very small fraction, by some estimates far less than
20% of Army and Marine personnel in so-called "combat arms," ever are in danger. Air Force and
Navy personnel rarely experience combat at all apart from bombing targets far below or
launching cruise missiles against Syrians. It is true that given the volatile nature of war
against insurgents in places like Afghanistan many soldiers in support roles can come under
fire, but it is far from normal and most men and women in service never experience a gun fired
in anger.
Some numbers-crunchers in the Pentagon have already raised the alarm that the current pay,
benefits and retirement levels for military personnel is unsustainable if the United States
continues its worldwide mission against terrorists and allegedly rogue regimes. And it is also
unsustainable if the U.S. seeks to return to a constitutional arrangement whereby the nation is
actually defended by its military, not subordinated to it and being bankrupted by its
costs.
Wait, so this is a lefty Democrat blog now, where The Nation is cited favorably?
Our men in uniform, particularly the grunts, make sacrifices that the others don't make.
Sure, some officers are corrupt and the military manages to manufacture demand for its
expensive products, but this article goes way too far.
Captains with just eight years in service rake in over $100,000 a year with nothing more than
a four-year degree in history! Senior enlisted can also make over $100,000 a year with a high
school diploma, plus free family health care and zero contributions to retirement. After just
four years of service, a married GI is making more than the average American college graduate
with 20 years of work experience! I wrote about this several years ago for those who still
fall for the draft era "poor GI myth".
Note our military spends billions of dollars on recruiting ads, but never mentions high
pay. If they did, Congress may end the annual pay boost and lines would form at recruiting
stations. Even most "experts" and reporters are confused because military lobbyists use the
inflated ECI index (which includes increased health care and workers comp costs) rather than
just wages, and pretend housing and food allowances are not income. Even the average military
pilot earns twice a much as the average airline pilot, based on facts not Pentagon spin
stories.
This why career servicemen love the military, they are making 2-3 times more than
comparable civilians, and they know it! Read my article if you are confused. Then many of
these "retirees" leave at age 40 with nice retirement, then get a regular federal job, and
put in for every minor ache and pain and get a thousand or more dollars each month in VA tax
free "disability" pay. Sleep Apnea (aka snoring) is a popular disability to claim worth up to
50%. Some get 100% disability but you wouldn't know it if you met them, and still work for
Uncle Sam full time! The LA Times reported that after Senator John McCain announced he was
fit to run for President, he was getting military retirement, 100% tax free VA disability,
his Senator pay and social security retirement!
Now before some ignorant servicemen whine about those serving in combat zones or deployed
on ships, note that fewer than 10% of GIs ever serve in a real combat zone, not the fake ones
like Bahrain. They rate their pay, but not those working soft office jobs in Hawaii or San
Diego or Florida. Keep in mind that we have a volunteer force, and our military must constant
prune the career force since far too many want to stay in as long as possible. No one leaves
because of poor pay, but because of political BS.
I usually share your disdain for The Nation magazine. But in the vein of stopped
clock correctness twice a day even it can sometimes be correct, witness its editor Steve
Cohen's completely admirable efforts to lend sanity and substance to America's Russian
foreign policy!
I've seen articles decrying that first-year married privates are eligible for food stamps.
Because their housing, medical, and the cost of living differential are not "income". They're
living on more than twice the reported income. So yeah, they have arranged the pay precisely
so that they are not subject to any income tax, and are in some cases eligible for food
stamps.
They have rec vehicles they can check out, boats and four-wheelers, snowmobiles and etc.,
special parks and land reservations, scenic cabins they can stay at with trifling fees or are
free. Ours has a golf course that must be staggering for upkeep. Gyms, facilities for parties
and events – stuff you'd pay a lot for in the private sector. The subsidized shopping
is still there, but is not the huge discount it was at one time, at the bases in this
state.
The state gives them all kinds of benefits like instant residency for hunting and fishing.
The stores give them discounts. Military appreciation days.
And frankly it isn't your STEM people, business and tech fields going into the military.
Their next best alternatives are a pittance by comparison. For who you are getting, the
quality of recruit, this is well paid.
I don't mind that so much as having three times the size we need to defend our borders,
which is what we should be doing and no more. Foreign entanglements, searching for monsters
to destroy, acting as the world police – this is the main problem.
4% of GDP, is it? Not sure about that but I do know it's 30% of federal tax revenue.
Military spending is about $1 trillion, if you include
all the various categories , per annum; whereas Federal receipts are about $3.3 trillion
per annum.
So about 30% of all Federal tax receipts – 30% of the money stolen from me at
gunpoint, which forces me to labor for months every year without pay – goes to corrupt
contractors, murderers and war criminals to oppress and murder people and destroy property
throughout the world in service to the Evil Empire, including, of course, Jew supremacist
Israel.
So since you think it's so "bearable", you Evil Empire supporter, why don't you kindly
give me back my 1 month of stolen labor every year to pay for your beloved Evil Empire's
perpetual Campaign of Death, Oppression and Destruction?
Clearly is if you look at your debt to GDP and deficit.
Interesting because the US has its history as part of the English tradition of no standing
armies, militias, all possible due to the favourable geography of having a strip of water, or
moat as Shakespeare put it, to deter potential invaders. The US military really is a WWII and
Cold War creation. That the US seems to be the only nation not have benefited from the end of
the cold war dividend in reduced military spending is an impressive feat by lobbyists and
neocon ideologues.
For me the pay and benefits aren't the core problem. We are paying to destabilize the
world, kill US citizens, kill civilians, increase terror all for wars that don't benefit the
American citizenry as a whole in any way. At one time they might have been for
corporations now they are for Israel.
You're spot on. By the Late Roman Empire, society was divided into 2 groups – the
humiliores ( lower classes ) and the honestiores ( upper classes ). Soldiers belonged to the
latter group, and most historians consider that the common soldier never had a higher status
in any society.
History doesn't repeat itself exactly, but modern day America has largely followed the Roman
route. Certainly, the sheer cost of the Roman Military was a factor in the decline and fall
of the Roman Empire.
The Roman soldier had a much more dangerous period of military service than the risk averse
modern American military. Roman veterans certainly earned their benefits.
What is the real "defense burden" (the percentage of our GDP spent on the military) sans
bullshit accounting tricks and "reclassification" of expenses.
For example, if we used accounting methods as used in some of the more efficient, less
bloated military establishments of our allies, what would be the actual cost to our economy
of our defense spending?
For all we know, military expenditures may actually be back to Reagan Cold War percentage
levels, or slightly more.
Article didn't mention the dependency allowance. I looked on military websites to find the
amount but you have to be registered military to find the amount
There is a clothing allowance, why? And the military is heavily affirmative action
Hispanic black and female I live near a big VA. Twice a day hundreds of VA employees drive
right past my house. Almost all are black. I drive through the VA often. Most everyone I see
is black except for the Indian immigrant Drs.
California vets get some kind of no down payment low interest mortgage. When they retire
they can get a loan for $50,000 to use for setting up a business or buying rental
property.
Our men in uniform, particularly the grunts, make sacrifices that the others don't
make.
Based on my experience as a young kid, and observations as an old fart, I call BS on that
unless "sacrifice" has acquired a new meaning on the street that I'm unaware of.
US spends 4% of GDP on the military versus 2% in China, France, UK. That's high but
considering how rich the US is, not unbearable. Weak article.
The US is rich? Living on borrowed, stolen and extorted money and we're rich? The US has
become a huge third world strip mall republic, complete with an overstuffed and parasitic
military, and you think we're rich?The whole murderous,mendacious, thieving, and morally and
financially bankrupt enterprise is poor by any significant measure, so your "reasoning" is
what's weak.
Rank 'Ol Rummie spoke the truth once and it happened one day before the towers were
pulled.
Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
"The adversary is closer to home; it's the Pentagon bureaucracy "
- Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 10, 2001
PS: For those who don't know where the missile, err, "plane" hit the Pentagon on 9/11, do
a tad of research and tell me, with a straight face, that it was some coincidence.
Federal Debt $20 trillion, Accumulated Balance of Trade Deficit since 1990 $12 trillion (
unadjusted for inflation ). That's not even including State and Local Debt, never mind
Private Debt.
The only thing preventing complete bankruptcy is that the Dollar is the World's Reserve
Currency- for now. Once China and others start dumping US Treasury Bonds, that will be
over.
Two of my friends own motorcycle dealerships in San Antonio. Gee. I wonder how they can
sell so many, compared to dealers in towns without major military bases
We spend more than the next ten nations, COMBINED. To "defend ourselves" from goat herders
that can't afford passports or air tickets. 800 bases scattered across the planet. But,
thinking about it, folks like somalians have been invading the US OH. WAIT! Federal refugee
programs have been importing somalis. NEVER MIND.
We fight them there so we can bring them here and put them on welfare/food stamps? Makes
perfect sense.
I was in the field and in a number of firefights during my year in Vietnam, 69 – 70,
and I find the idea of some store or VA clerk thanking me for my service offensive as all get
out because I know these well meaning strangers, who owe me nothing at all, are being played
for fools to serve the interests of America's worst enemy, Israel and its American fifth
column. I'm also disgusted by this new breed of soldier who's less any sort of manly patriot
than a skin-headed, "muh brothers, muh mission" wind-up martinet who mistakes the vain
daintiness of pumping iron as well as technical superiority's easy targets for manliness. As
for the Pentagon, it's the mother of all bureaucracies whose leaders but for the costumes are
no more warriors than the time-serving hacks in any other bloated bureaucracy, who couldn't
care less, as the facts make clear, about sending young Americans to die and be maimed so the
sons of their Israeli masters need not.
I used to feel smug after jumping from the US military to banking in the knowledge that my
starting pay was several multiples of my military pay and even outstripped that of the JCS
heads who I served under.
Somewhere along the way, probably in the 2000s during the so-called War for Talent,
Federal civilian and military pay got a significant uptick well in excess of what the KSAs
(Knowledge, Skills, & Abilities) of these folks as measured by OPM and DoD, and there has
been no looking back.
Giraldi might be right that the troops are overpaid, but that is just the tip of the
iceberg that is the Military Industrial Security Academic Complex.
Defense spending is allegedly 3.6% of GDP ($700B / $19,000B) but is actually over 5% if you
factor in the hidden Defense spending. VA benefits, over $100B, nuclear arsenal covered under
Dept of Energy (my favorite) over $30B, Defense portion of debt service over $100B, and other
places that I'd have to dig up.
Defense spending is over 30% of the budget, the low ball 15% is only if you include social
security and medicare which you should not because that is covered by dedicated payroll
taxes. If payroll taxes were eliminated, those programs would go away but the budget deficit
would not be impacted. This is a trick that defense consultants play to make Defense spending
look smaller.
Defense spending is over 50% if you also discount our annual debt service, this is why the
$1.3T featured $600B for domestic vs $700B for Defense.
I thought that singling out military pay was a tad mean spirited. Capping pensions that
disproportionately benefit Generals who then go onto consulting jobs for Defense contractors
and get paid positions on FOX might be a good idea but I didn't like the tone of this
column.
No serious person who says they care about budget deficits can approach them without
looking at Defense Spending.
- Chris Chuba
One of the disturbing actions of the soldier worshipping conservatives is the Wounded Warrior
scam which uses crippled and deformed GIs in ads aimed at the heartstrings of the American
public. The fact that so many soldiers are returning from useless wars in dire condition
should be the responsibility of the Department of Defense (War) and its Government which is
responsible for the mayhem and violence in so many parts of the world not a subject for
organized begging which often preys on the suffering of the young.
Re; Mr. Giraldi's brave & unspoken words: "(ZUS military) Pay and benefits are way out of
control"
With a long history of planning & implementation, below, presstv explains how radical
"citizens" were headhunted & placed in control as to when & how our hallowed ZUS
troop commanders do their Jewish job assignments.
US is rich and the debt is high. Both can be true at the same time. But taxes are
relatively low so if there is a government debt crisis paying down the debt would just
involve raising taxes. Just look at GDP per capita US which is very high up there so I don't
see how anyone can argue the US is not a very rich country.
Despite many problems, the US has many advantages like half the world's Ashkenazim who are
very good at creating unbeatable new companies. Just look at how the half the 40 riches
entrepreneurs under 40 in the US according to Forbes are Jewish. Jews are producing so much
innovation in the US that it offsets a lot of the problems like military spending at 4% of
GDP and less productive sub-populations.
Good article, Phil. I served in the 1970s, tail end of Vietnam Stateside, and never heard a
shot fired in anger. I am grateful for the G. I. benefits I received.
No institution in a representative democracy ought to be above measured criticism. I have
a relative who volunteers at the local VA clinic, and there's some sketchy evidence that some
patients with very good group health insurance benefits are working the system and getting VA
treatment to avoid co-pays.
I personally found David Hackworth's criticism of the American military fairly persuasive.
Deep bureaucratization, tunnel vision, advancing officers for their inoffensiveness and
favor-currying chops, the whole mess.
Plus add the big three already mentioned by some folks above. (1) America's armed forces
are a Petri dish for social engineering, (2) corruption, (3) the political mafia-zation of
America's armed forces so that it's acting as a White House-directed quasi-mercenary
"enforcer" for corporate interests and various other sovereign interests.
"An Air Force four-star general named Arthur Lichte was reduced in rank to a two-star in 2017
after he was found guilty of having raped a lower ranking woman officer".
You say he was ***reduced in rank*** for raping a female subordinate?
Why wasn't he given 50 lashes, a dishonourable discharge, and a prison sentence? Even a
random civilian would get the prison sentence for rape. And for such a senior officer to
commit a crime like that is, of course far, far worse.
Israel and their ziocons control every facet of the U.S. gov and have used the U.S. army as a
proxy army of Israel to fight and die for Israel in the ME while they sit it out in their
ivory towers in Tel Aviv and New York City and London.
To add to the tragedy millions of civilians have been killed in these wars for Israel in
Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Syria and Yemen and various other places through out the
ME, and all of this carnage for Israel.
Just like the Roman empire where the rulers paraded their conquering armies through Rome ,
Trump wants to parade his Israeli proxy armies through D.C. and take their review as a
Caligula. Trump is a puppet of the zionists and Netanyahu and his controllers the ROTHCHILDS
ie the RED SHIELD which is dripping with Americans blood.
Orwell was right, the wars never end in OCEANIA and we have become Oceania, and all
because of our zionist masters.
That was a very good article with lots of facts that I was unaware regarding the various
forms of compensation. I have not been in the miltary. I will tell you that I have seen how
things work on the procurement end, and that is the real shitshow, moneywise. The amount of
wasted money in personnel involved in trying to micromanage a contractor, the "generation" of
paperwork that must weigh 10X vehicle max-gross-weight in order to sign off on it, and other
things, ruin the job for the technician or engineer in any company making stuff for the US
military.
(BTW, that last sentence of mine brought up the only one (little tiny) thing that I didn't
like about the article. You KEEP USING "his and her", "he and she", etc. Enough of that crap,
please, Mr. Giraldi. Unz is one of a number of place on-line on which one doesn't have to be
PC. He can write as he pleases. The rest of your English is very professional,
so why this?).
Anyway, great article, just the facts and honest opinion without any hyperbole. Regarding
your very last paragraph, BTW, it's not just that the army is so costly, but if America ever
had to defend itself from one of the countries we buy parts from, cough, China , cough, cough,
that'll be a laugh. We are operating on borrowed money, as Jack S (#16) stated, AND foreign
supply lines. We're number 1! Yeah!
Among the lots of good comments on the thread so far, yours is kind of an outlier, to put
it nicely. No, you cannot be both rich and in debt (6 – 7 X more than your yearly
income) at the same time. . There are perhaps different definitions of broke that people
or families may use for themselves.
1) Out of spending cash – got assets, but awaiting more income before any spending
can resume. That's not too bad – it just shows lack of foresight or bad luck.
2) Broke even – got some assets, but owe the same amount – income is about the
same as expenditures expected. There are lots like this – they need to buckle down, but
will probably be OK.
3) Flat broke – can't borrow anymore due to bad payment history, even to friends and
family – not enough income to pay expenditures or even on this.
4) Broke like the US Feral Government – borrowing 1/3 of the money for the
$4,000,000,000,000 budget each year, as only 2/3 can be collected via personal
income/corporate income/excise/etc. taxes (just look near the back of the IRS 1040
instructions – they're not hiding this stuff). Total debt of $20,000,000,000,000 is 5 X
the budget each year and 6-7 X the income collected yearly. It is > 100 % of the total
GDP. There is no coming out of this hole without financial pain for almost everyone but those
with a Challenger or other large/medium-cabin business jet with precious metals stashed on an
island or S. American/Oriental country with a runway on your compound with armed guards.
"some"? Har-Dee-Har-Har. What percentage of people who separate from the military claim a
"service related disability"? With that designation they not only get the retirement benefit
bump but also set-asides for government jobs and contracts as well. Based on the number of
service related disability claims by veterans, the United States must have the most
physically fragile fighting force on the planet.
And in this age of stupid perpetual wars, every "disabled veteran" is assumed have been
shot up in the Middle East when if fact it's more likely they tripped on the steps on the way
back from lunch at Fort Leavenworth. That erroneous assumption of a combat related disability
is great for milking benefits from a sympathetic public.
And there's more. Sleep apnea claims as a service related disability by veterans have
exploded. Same with PTSD.
The web is saturated with advice on how to game the military disability system.
A vet I knew laughed as he told me he got a disability award for his knee. Only that
injury came from playing too much basketball at his U.S. base. Another "disabled veteran" I
know does Cross Fit to stay in shape. His most dangerous deployment was to southern Europe
where he met his wife. And yes, he advertises his disability on his business web site and
does qualify for government contract set-asides.
Too bad for the taxpayers though. Since the military has been sanctified by the powerful
Pentagon/MSM "Warrior-Hero" propaganda engine, challenging out of control military benefits
is a political and social third rail.
The web is saturated with advice on how to game the military disability system.
A vet I knew laughed as he told me he got a disability award for his knee. Only that
injury came from playing too much basketball at his U.S. base. Another "disabled veteran" I
know does Cross Fit to stay in shape. His most dangerous deployment was to southern Europe
where he met his wife. And yes, he advertises his disability on his business web site and
does qualify for government contract set-asides.
Too bad for the taxpayers though. Since the military has been sanctified by the powerful
Pentagon/MSM "Warrior-Hero" propaganda engine, challenging out of control military benefits
is a political and social third rail.
"... Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage that she would rather ignore. ..."
The Trump administration's Iran obsession would almost be comical if it didn't have such a dangerous distorting effect on our
foreign policy. Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly
about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage
that she would rather ignore. Whether she is busy whitewashing Saudi coalition crimes in Yemen or running interference for Israel
after it massacres over 60 people, Haley's m.o. is to change the subject.
Haley also risibly
claimed that Israel was acting with restraint yesterday:
"No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today
suggest they would be much less restrained," she said.
The ambassador's claim is absurd on its face, and it is an insult to the dozens of democratic states around the world that do
not behave this way. Haley also ignores that there are no other states in the world that keep millions of people trapped in a blockaded
enclave as Israel does with the inhabitants of Gaza. Not only would the vast majority of democratic governments not act as Israel's
government has acted over the last few weeks, but none would have any need to confront massive protests from a population that has
been deliberately starved and impoverished for more than a decade. The excessively violent response to the Gaza protests calls attention
to the cruel policy of collective punishment imposed on all of the people living in Gaza, and there is no excuse for either of them.
"... I'd say the Saudis and the petrodollar are the main reason for the US trying to keep Iran poor and on the defensive. The Iranians will never accept American control over the Mideast oil supply, while the Saudis have signed on as long as we provide military protection. If the US ever allows the petrodollar to fail, its economy will crumble. That won't be allowed to happen without a fight. ..."
"... this creates an opening for a presidential campaign based on the slogan "no more Jewish wars." ..."
"... The Israelis and their American Jewish bros and worldwide Jewry assume that on averages, Iranians will be smarter and have a better work ethic than any Arabs, which means that if left alone. Iran could come to dominate the Moslem Middle East. And that easily could lead to Israel being made little more than a tiny dot wit nukes the US backs to the hilt. ..."
Why did the Cockatoo-in-Chief renege on the Iran deal deeply prized by Russia, China,
France, Germany, England, and the European Union? Why did he deliberately damage relations with
Europe and cost American workers many thousands of jobs at Boeing among others? Why do all of
this to hurt a country that poses no danger to the United States?
Israel.
Israel, Israel. Israel. Israel.
Always Israel.
If Iran were a threat to the existence of Israel, things would be different. If Muslims
conquered the Jews, they would presumably treat them as badly as Israelis, and very likely
worse. It would be ugly in the extreme. To prevent this, use of the American military would be
justified.
But Iran does not threaten the existence of Israel. It does threaten Israel's dominance in
the Mid-East. Iran is far larger and more populous than Israel, strategically located, and has
vast amounts of oil. It is a large market for many European products. By contrast, Israel is
small and has nothing anyone needs or wants. Left to itself, Iran would become the dominant
regional power. It moves fast in that direction now with burgeoning trade with Europe in, among
many other things, airliners. With economic influence comes political influence.
Consequently Israel does not want Iran to prosper. If it can, Israel will use the American
military to prevent this prospering. It will destroy America's relations with the rest of the
world to prevent it. It is doing so.
As thinking people know, the twaddle about the Iranian's development of an atomic bomb is
just that–twaddle. The Europeans know this, which is why they are not alarmed. The US
government know it, since the intelligence agencies have repeatedly said that Iran does not
have a program aimed at producing a nuclear weapon.
But: Whenever the American government, or those controlling it, wants to drive the US into a
war, it invents a frightening danger and warns of it over and over and over until a poorly
educated public believes it: The Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq's WMD, the Iranian bomb. It's
a frightening world, Washington tells us. Things go bump in the night. Boo.
Where does Trump fit into this? Although his supporters offer him as a masterly statesman,
biographies, which few read, show him to be profoundly ignorant, incoherent, narcissistic,
weak, and easily manipulated. He loves attention and craves praise. He is also corrupt. As a
businessman he danced just this side of the law in many shady real-estate deals. All of this is
documented, but few will read of it.
Some will say that this isn't true. Go back and look at the things he said during the
campaign, the positions he was going to take before he was modified. He astonished people who
worked in his White House not just by his lack of knowledge but his lack of interest in
learning. We are ruled by a histrionic dwarf.
But, in a country with no checks and balances on presidential power, foreign policy is what
he says it is, and America attacks whoever he wants it to attack.
So why did he ditch the Iran deal? There is of course anti-Jewish posting on the web to the
effect that the Jews are manipulating the government to go to destroy Iran for the benefit of
Israel. This doesn't hold water, or only a little water. Surveys have shown that American Jews
favor the Iran deal more than do other Americans. This probably is because they are more
attentive and better informed than the notoriously clueless US public. (e.g. JStreet
and
WashPost. ) But while "the Jews" didn't sink the Iran deal, a comparatively small number of
Israel-firsters did. These are the Neocons, warlike and heavily Jewish, plus the Jewish lobby
AIPAC plus a few Jewish billionaires. Collectively they determine American foreign policy, and
not for the benefit of America–which, again, has nothing to gain and much to lose by
being manipulated into a war that does not matter to America.
Members of AIPAC are often accused of dual loyalty. I don't think so, though it is the best
we can hope for. They should recuse themselves, though of course they will not.
The assertion that America should fight only wars in the America interest will be called,
sigh, anti-Semitism. It is not. Yes, there exists in some quarters an obsessive, grinding
hatred of Jews. Historically this hostility has been common if not universal and has led to
brutal pogroms. But it has nothing to do with war against Iran. The desire for America to have
an independent foreign policy hardly suggests a Cossack mentality. There is no reason to let
Israel and a small set of Israeli patriots in New York force policies much to the harm of the
United States.
But this is not at all unlikely. In Washington–where I worked in journalism for
decades–fear of Jews is so great that no one dares say what a great many are thinking. It
gets ridiculous. I remember many years back interviewing in the Pentagon the general who headed
the armor command, whose name I forget. In such interviews there is usually a babysitter
present, often a major from public affairs, who tries to manage spin.
The general and I were chatting about tanks, in which we both had a technical interest. He
commented that the Merkava, a home-brew Israel tank, was reasonably good but not in a class
with the American M1. As inflammatory comments go, this was truly lame. Yet when I left, the
babysitter came charging down the corridor to assure me that the general was not insulting the
Israeli tank, the general didn't mean, and the major hoped I wouldn't think etc. It's that
crazy.
Whether Trump believes what he says about Iran's imaginary lunge for a Bomb is not clear. In
Washington it is routine to lie about this or that dreadful danger so as to herd the
deplorables toward a desired folly–but is Trump herding or herded? He is clueless about
things military and appears to have no grasp of technology. Geography is not his strong suit,
as witness his invention of a country called "Nambia." Netanyahu and the Neocons outclass him
by a wide margin and apparently drive him like a truck.
If Trump were an American President, he would tell the Israelis to fight their own wars with
their own military. Is he? Watch.
Fred Reed is a retired news weasel and part-time sociopath living in Mexico with his
wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs.
If there's a column to be written that reflects the elite consensus of Western Europe and its
sneering attitude towards the United States, Fred Reed is sure to write it. That is unless
he's writing a column reflecting the elite consensus of Mexico City. He'll do that one too.
This hard-hitting, well-written article seems to have issued from a different pen than the
one you usually wield. I'm not criticizing the other Fred as I enjoy reading his columns
irrespective of my agreeing with what he may have said or left unsaid. But generally, the guy
who writes under the pen name Fred is a little more circumspect in discussing IsraelFirsters,
or so it seems to me. If I'm mistaken I'm sure the clamoring commenters will correct me by
showing how this piece too, is just a backhanded Zionist ploy to lull me into letting my
guard down etc.
If Iran were a threat to the existence of Israel, things would be different. If Muslims
conquered the Jews, they would presumably treat them as badly as Israelis, and very likely
worse. It would be ugly in the extreme. To prevent this, use of the American military would
be justified.
Why is that? I thought you had gotten over the Policeman of the World syndrome, Fred.
Fred wrote that were the situation reversed the Muslims would treat the Jews even worse than
the Jews treat them but where does he draw this presumption from? Iran is said to have the
largest population of Jews in the ME outside of Israel and they even have representation in
the Iranian parliament. Many of them are highly critical of Israel and don't consider it to
be the real deal.
There have always been Jews living in the ME when the power equation was reversed and yet
they stayed and they survived. Prior to the unrestrained violence of the Jews in the Nakba
relations appeared to be quite cordial.
The Israelis are always looking for enemies to fight, and Iran, as a large country with a
decent sized military and deeply Islamic government, is a possible threat, but I don't think
Israel is the main reason most American leaders are for keeping pressure on Iran . I'd say
the Saudis and the petrodollar are the main reason for the US trying to keep Iran poor and on
the defensive. The Iranians will never accept American control over the Mideast oil supply,
while the Saudis have signed on as long as we provide military protection. If the US ever
allows the petrodollar to fail, its economy will crumble. That won't be allowed to happen
without a fight.
Nice try, but the Saudi lobby doesn't run the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the
government. You know perfectly well (((who))) does:
" I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or
the government. I just care that we get to keep running them."
Trump's backing out of the Iran deal has raised the price of oil by 'escalating middle East
tensions'. Saudis who sell oil are profiting, and they are barely-hidden good friends of the
Israelis. Russians who sell beaucoup oil are profiting, and they are, despite what Unz's Saker-Faker
says, good friends of the Israelis
Trump's buddies in US shale oil debt, are profiting and getting a bail-out, and they and
Trump are good friends of the Israelis
The US petro-dollar is profiting and getting an extra boost of life, as higher-price
oil-sales by Saudis and others get recycled into US dollars
Iran which sells oil is profiting, and they too may be ultimately in the game with the
Israelis, 'the best enemy money can buy', like the old Soviet Union was for the US the UK
economist Antony Sutton proving half a century ago that the 'Cold War' was a scam
Win – win – win, it seems – oil buyers such as Europe being the 'losers'
– with some common soldiers and people, cannon fodder, being dead in the middle East,
to make it all look legit
Iran stuck rigorously to the agreement despite its humiliating and provocative nature. WTF does only Iran have to comply to
this intrusive inspection on nuclear power? To appease Israel of course that doesn't lose any sleep over Iran's nuclear
energy...
It would be extremely politically correct and would be excoriated, of course, but this
creates an opening for a presidential campaign based on the slogan "no more Jewish wars." ...
Why do all of this to hurt a country that poses no danger to the United States?
Israel.
Israel, Israel. Israel. Israel.
Always Israel.
Money.
Money.Money.Money.Money
Always Money.
Trump, King of the Deal, is looking forward to the 120+billion, Jimmy Carter took from
Iran, earning interest in our vaults. Prediction: Trump reverses: rewrites the deal; keeps
their Money, pleases us all.
Surveys have shown that American Jews favor the Iran deal more than do other
Americans.
Maybe, but they're also not calling attention to the skullduggery and machinations of
AIPAC, Bibi and and Likud party in trying to get another war started. Jews favoring the deal
aren't going to rock the boat with their fellow Jews who are against it.
Trump is just Bibi's pawn like I feared he would be. I'm still in shock that Fred had the cajones to criticize Bibi and Israel and call them
out for the hostilities and looming war with Iran . I figured he might try to pin it all on
the alt-right just like the alt-right is the only thing standing in the way of racial amity
between white and mestizo and a black-brown utopia in America.
Its been fascinating how in the latest propaganda campaign that Iran's nuclear weapons
program has suddenly become real. Before, while this deal was being negotiated, almost all
the world's intelligence agencies agreed that Iran was not producing nuclear weapons. Only
the Israelis disagreed. The war-war-war-and-more-endless-war factions of the American deep
state said Iran was making nuclear weapons, but even then the official intelligence estimates
said they were not.
There is a lot of very slippery language around this. Before the deal, America and
especially the pro-war media, had a way of talking about "Iran's nuclear program". This was a
reference to Iran's legal and permitted civilian nuclear program, but done in a scary and
threatening way that made the audience assume that it was about Iran's nuclear weapons, which
is was not. Now, Trump takes this even further and rants and yells about "Iran's nuclear
research" as if that was the same thing as a program producing nuclear weapons, which of
course it is not.
Trump is destroying America standing in the world and tearing apart the trans-Atlantic
alliance all over a mythical nuclear weapons program that the Ayatollah had banned as being
"un-Islamic" and which all the world's intelligence agencies agreed that Iran did not
possess.
Technically, Trump and Bibi are both Sheldon Adleson's pawns, as the casino owner
finances the campaigns of both.
Adelson's money comes from productive Americans, as do the billion$ funneled to Israel
from the US government. Thus do we finance our own destruction. Irony is hell, ain't it?
You said it "he's an actor" Trumps a slime ball and he has a long record to prove it, as
far as the N.Korea deal goes it will be a no go, because no matter how much Kim offers it
will never be enough, and lets not even get into the fiscal mess with Trump only making it
worse, for that too within its own time will straighten itself out, but not to our liking I'm
sure.!!!
But while "the Jews" didn't sink the Iran deal, a comparatively small number of
Israel-firsters did.
Fair enough, Fred; but then, where are the voices of the rest of them ? You're not
suggesting that "comparatively small number" of them are controlling the whole discussion,
are you?
Unless we hear a clear protest from 'the rest of them' in the near future, I would rather
posit that, in spite of their recorded support for the deal, they will tacitly acquiesce to
Trump's actions to help build the 'greater Israel.'
It may be that Trump knows quite well that Kennedy was killed two weeks after he threatened
Israel not to sell them arms any more, if they continued developing their atomic bomb.
Avner Cohen,'Israel and the Bomb', New York 1998
An interesting aspect of the book is that this period of two weeks has been more or less
buried.
The author refers to common hatred of Jews, expressed in pogroms. I would give the quote but
am unable to copy because of all the fancy software. But use your 'find in page' for
"pogrom". Note that the word is Russian, meaning something like excessive violence.
That the author is talking off the top of his head is forgivable. We are most of us
carrying the same load of crap. But it would be good to see the level of scholarship here at
Unz equal to that at the Dailystormer, from where I get this quote:
In actual fact, the idea of pogroms in the Russian Empire, in which "thousands of Jews
were slaughtered" has been utterly debunked. They've been debunked not by an obscure "Far
Right" think-tank, but by Professor John Klier – a widely respected scholar and
non-Jewish former head of the British Association for Jewish Studies who published his
findings in a number of volumes via Cambridge University Press (I summarize Klier's
findings here). Among Klier's findings, the most important of which can be found in
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82 (2011) was that the vast majority of pogrom
narratives were developed and disseminated by a single Prussian Rabbi – Yizhak
Rülf.
According to Klier, Rülf specialized in "sensationalized accounts of mass
rape." These accounts would then be disseminated in the Western media with the help of
Jewish journalists, and used by groups like the British-based Russo-Jewish Committee to
push for Western government 'action' against the Tsar.
Despite contemporary British
government investigations which revealed that no rapes had occurred and perhaps only one or
two murders had been committed throughout the Russian Empire, and because most of the
general public will never hear about the research of Professor Klier, the myth of thousands
of massacred Jews in eastern pogroms remains in the popular consciousness, and is obviously
still very deeply embedded in the Jewish folk memory.
Cannot see why:
- EU is becoming irrelevant
- the USA must continue wars
On the contrary, the USA must stop spending huge sums on wars that just cost money.
Both the USA and the EU are pretty much autarcic, EU trade with non EU countries is just some
5% of gross EU income.
Do not know the figure for the USA, but it must be in the same order of magnitude.
The dollar indeed is a huge problem, but what will happen if the USA no longer pays interest
on and amortization of loans ?
Not much, I suppose.
A country cannot go bankrupt.
Maybe China would have the biggest problem, the Chinese regime fails in making Chinese
consume, they save.
If export is no longer possible, huge unemployment will result.
Fred is correct that Israel does not want Iran to prosper, which means that Israel would have
finagled a plan to have the US destroy Iran even if Iran had not tinkered with nukes. It has
to do with Arab vs. Indo-European. The Israelis and their American Jewish bros and worldwide
Jewry assume that on averages, Iranians will be smarter and have a better work ethic than any
Arabs, which means that if left alone. Iran could come to dominate the Moslem Middle East.
And that easily could lead to Israel being made little more than a tiny dot wit nukes the US
backs to the hilt.
Jews know that Arabs are like them Semitic, and the core-deep culture says to ally with 1
Arab nation is better for Jews. So Saudi Arabia is in. The Saudis would do virtually anything in order to be the top dog of the Moslem world,
because then Saudis would destroy all political power tied to Shiites, and steal all oil
wells controlled by Shiites, giving nearly 100% of it to Sunni Arabs.
The Jewish plan is to enable various Mohammedans to slaughter one another, which means
they cannot be focused on Israel, and to use the US to supply the money and manpower to jump
start every move and play it out.
JFK was murdered because he went against the Deep State, and that includes his desire to
stop Israel from illegally developing nukes.
Jews began their war against the Kennedys because of Joe, who realized the machinations of
various Brit Elites and American WASP Elites and Jews to make certain there would be a WW2.
And, as makes perfect sense going back to the very beginning of WASP culture, the desires of
Jews and WASP Elites were a perfect match.
If a nuclear device is "lit off" in an American or European city, it will have Israel's
fingerprints all over it. Israel is desperate to keep the American money spigot running, as
well as sabotaging the Palestinian "peace process" that the world wants it to take
seriously.
In fact, if a nuclear device is "lit off" anywhere in the world, it will have come from
Israel's secret nuclear "stockpile".
The "power outage" in Atlanta was a convenient excuse for Israel to perform a logistical
"sleight of hand", as an Israeli plane was allowed to land and take off during the "power
outage" without receiving customs clearance or inspection. This is one of many Israeli
companies that possesses a "special exemption" granted by the U S government that frees it
from customs inspections. Just maybe another one of Israel's nukes was just being
pre-positioned, getting ready for "the big one". As most Americans are tired of all of the
foreign wars being fought for Israel's benefit, another "incident" on American soil would be
enough to galvanize the American public, once again, (just like WTC 9-11) to support another
war for Israel's benefit. Israel's "samson option" is a real threat to "light one off" in a
European or American city, if Israel's interests are not taken seriously.
Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as they are already
distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them as most of them
are not in Israel, proper. No delivery systems are needed as Israel's nukes are already "in
place". Look for another "false flag" operation with the blame being put on Iran or Syria.
You can bet that some Iranian or Syrian passports will be found in the rubble.
Israel also threatens to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities. Talk about total
INSANITY; the so-called "Samson Option" is it.
As an aside, American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has
not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International
Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel
does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American "foreign aid". This
prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their "agents of a foreign
government" with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its "American
Israel Political Action Committee" (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of
American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks"
infecting the U S government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship
must be strictly prohibited. Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said
foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of
American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should never be allowed
to serve in any American governmental capacity.
When Netanyahu addressed both houses of congress, it was sickening to see our politicians
slobber all over themselves to PROVE that they were unconditional supporters of Israel just
who the hell do they work for? Certainly not for the interests of the American people and the
United States they should renounce their United States citizenship and be deported to
Israel
Mr. Reed is quite wrong when he says this (but hardly surprising):
"If Iran were a threat to the existence of Israel, things would be different. If Muslims
conquered the Jews, they would presumably treat them as badly as Israelis, and very likely
worse. It would be ugly in the extreme. To prevent this, use of the American military would
be justified."
Perhaps he needs to brush up on ME history:
For the record:
In 638 CE Palestine fell to the Muslims under Caliph Omar. To this day, many Jews refer to
the arrival of the Muslims as a "liberation" for Omar gave them unfettered access to
Jerusalem, which they had been denied under the Christian Byzantines. Omar was equally
generous to the Christians. "Never in the sorry story of conquest up to that day, and rarely
since, were such noble and generous sentiments displayed by a conqueror as those extended to
Jerusalem by Omar." (Report by Sir William Fitzgerald on the Local Administration of
Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Government Printer, 1945, p.4)
In 1187, Saladin liberated Jerusalem from the brutal Crusaders and invited the Jews they had
expelled to return and practice their faith freely. (It is easy to understand why Palestine's
indigenous Arab Jews were among Zionism's most ardent opponents.)
To quote Israeli Rabbi Menachem Froman, chief rabbi of the West Bank settlement of Tekoa, and
a champion of inter-religious reconciliation: "[E]very Jew who learns the writings of the
great sages – who, at the head of them all stands Maimonides – knows that our
great thinkers wrote in the Arabic language, lived in Islamic states and participated with
the great Muslim thinkers in the effort to explain the words of God, according to the paths
of the sages and amidst the difficult bloody battles that we have had since the beginning of
Zionism with the Muslims." We know that the war between the Jews and the Muslims is the work
of the cursed devil. We know that Islam is named after peace." (Haaretz, September 18,
2006)
the 'petrodollar' / Federal Reserve Note / fiat debt slavery for the planet, is the
weapon with which the Fiend menaces mankind.
There really isn't a petrodollar basis for the US economy. The edifice upon which the US
economy is built is more of a consumer-dollar + welfare dollar + MI-complex dollar. Each of
which has some share of a "petrodollar" component.
"The Jewish plan is to enable various Mohammedans to slaughter one another, which means
they cannot be focused on Israel."
– This is known as Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel. A blueprint for the ongoing
slaughter. So Jewishly "most moral."
Oded Yinon, "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties," Association of Arab-American
University Graduates, Inc. Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982, Special Document No. 1, ISBN
0-937694-56-8
"The Schutzstaffel (literally "Protection Squadron") was a major paramilitary organization
under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP) The two main constituent groups were the
Allgemeine SS (General SS) and Waffen-SS (Armed SS). The Allgemeine SS was responsible for
enforcing the racial policy of Nazi Germany and general policing, whereas the
Waffen-SS consisted of combat units within Nazi Germany's military. A third component of the
SS, the SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV), ran the concentration camps and extermination
camps. Additional subdivisions of the SS included the Gestapo and the Sicherheitsdienst (SD)
organizations. They were tasked with the detection of actual or potential enemies of the Nazi
state, the neutralization of any opposition, policing the German people for their commitment
to Nazi ideology, and providing domestic and foreign intelligence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel
– Sounds like Mossad and the "most moral" IDF.
Warsaw Ghetto: "On January 18, 1943 the Germans suddenly entered the Warsaw Ghetto Within
hours, some 600 Jews were shot and 5,000 others removed from their residences. The Germans
expected no resistance, but the action was brought to a halt by hundreds of insurgents armed
with handguns and Molotov cocktails.
I remember taking an immigration law class in law school. The question of dual citizenship came up, specifically as to when it began. Not surprisingly, it began when
Israel became a nation so that jews could hold citizenship
in both countries with impunity.
It was just another facet of the old practice of felons fleeing the United States before
being prosecuted for their crimes by boarding an el al flight to israel. That ruse has been
done many times especially for the rabbis who bugger or otherwise molest the children under
their charge.
Hamas is a creation of Israels mossad just like ISIS aka AL CIADA which creation is shared
by the U.S. and Israel and Britain ie the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6.
As usual, it's both. Foreign Influencer #1 and Foreign Influencer #2 are terrified of Iran
for a number of reasons. Frankly, if we ditch them both and ally with Iran we'd have more
influence in the region. JK, Iran needs us far less than the other two. Anyway, go figure,
our "friends" play us like a fiddle and get their problems solved.
"President Trump said Tuesday that the United States will withdraw from the landmark Iran
nuclear agreement and re-impose sanctions on Tehran, a decision that angered allies who fear
the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the heart of the Middle East.
Declaring that "the decaying and the rotten structure" of the 2015 agreement does not block
Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Trump said during a speech at the White House that "the
Iran deal is defective at its core."
"The United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed
Iran or another war in the Middle East," Obama said." USA Today
---------------
IMO Israel achieved a major victory today when the mentally limited US president, a man who
cannot deal with complex phenomena, was herded by; the Israelis, their American Zionist allies
and the chickenhawks now surrounding him across the goal line to withdrawal of the US from
JCPOA.
The imperialists (neocon faction) are SURE that Europe and Russia will kneel before the
throne of Trump the First in his City on the Hill.
The Israelis want the phantom menace of antisemitism crushed. The turn of Iran, Syria and
Lebanon has now come for a "cleansing." They want the Iranians made into a pastoral people who
have no foreign policy at all.
I am told that Israeli electronic counter-measure units started a massive jamming effort
against air defense assets in Syria three days ago. Israeli ground forces on the Golan Front
have been placed on high alert. IMO a false flag attack on Israel is likely. pl
"... Several years ago Putin made a speech at the UN in favor of upholding International Law I thought at the time this "diplomatic statesmanship" was going to be Putin's way of bring Russia back into equal power with the Europeans and the US. Some have wondered and been asking about Putin not being as aggressive as he could be in defending Syria and Iran. Putin's holding off on tough talk/action could be amassing more power in the end. Putin comes off as the voice of sanity..exactly what the Europeans want to hear and see. ..."
Several years ago Putin made a speech at the UN in favor of upholding International Law I
thought at the time this "diplomatic statesmanship" was going to be Putin's way of bring
Russia back into equal power with the Europeans and the US. Some have wondered and been
asking about Putin not being as aggressive as he could be in defending Syria and Iran.
Putin's holding off on tough talk/action could be amassing more power in the end. Putin comes
off as the voice of sanity..exactly what the Europeans want to hear and see.
As Europe turns away from the US they turn to Putin.
If anyone remembers all the Jew rags making fun of "old Europe" during the Iraq war run up
and urging that the US break with them as outdated relics no longer needed in the new modern
age -- this is what it was all about -- separating the US from its traditional allies who
were not as subservient to Israel as the US. So .now we are down to the Jew plan Europe and
sanity vr the US Orange Clown and his allies of midget Nazi Israel, Saudi and the UAE.
Germany begs Russia to pick up the torch that US has dropped
"Germany's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, who has a history of expressing anti Russian
rhetoric relevant to Russia's presence in Syria as well as an alleged cyber attack on the
German Foreign Ministry which Maas says that he 'has to assume stemmed from Russia', has
turned an about face. He has traveled, for the first time, to Moscow to discuss international
diplomacy, the Iran nuclear deal, peace talks on Ukraine, and Syria.
Maas met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, where he encouraged Russia to
leverage its influence with Iran to help spur the Middle Eastern state in remaining committed
to the nuclear deal, which Trump abandoned earlier in the week.
Germany's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, who has a history of expressing anti Russian
rhetoric relevant to Russia's presence in Syria as well as an alleged cyber attack on the
German Foreign Ministry which Maas says that he 'has to assume stemmed from Russia', has
turned an about face. He has traveled, for the first time, to Moscow to discuss international
diplomacy, the Iran nuclear deal, peace talks on Ukraine, and Syria.
Maas met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, where he encouraged Russia to
leverage its influence with Iran to help spur the Middle Eastern state in remaining committed
to the nuclear deal, which Trump abandoned earlier in the week.
Maas then declared that Germany was interested in bringing back the peace talks on the
Ukraine, together with other European partners. Maas also pointed out that the Syrian
conflict can't be settled without Russia, before contributing a wreath to the tomb of the
unknown soldier, which is a dedication to Russian soliders who died fighting the Germans in
WW2.
Deutsche Welle reports:
Germany's top diplomat Heiko Maas and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov both called
for the nuclear deal with Iran to be upheld on Thursday, during Maas' first official visit
to Russia. The appeal marks a rare moment of unity between Moscow and Berlin just days
after US walked out on the 2015 accord.
In Moscow, Maas urged Russia to influence Tehran and make it stick to the deal, which
aims to limit Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. The German foreign minister also
said he was seeking details from the US on its plans for future sanctions against Iran
US President Donald Trump has shrugged off pressure from allies to keep the deal in place
and called the accord "defective at its core." However, leaders of the UK, France, and
Germany all contacted Iranian President Hasan Rouhani in the attempt to salvage the
accord.
Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel called Rouhani on Thursday to reaffirm Germany's
commitment to the deal "as long as Iran continues to fulfil its obligations," said Merkel's
spokesman Steffen Seibert. Merkel also said she was ready to negotiate about Iran's
ballistic missiles and involvement in Syria and Yemen.
Angela Merkel is also set to visit Russia next week.
Visiting Moscow on Thursday, Germany's top diplomat Maas suggested reviving the peace
talks between Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia on the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
Lavrov responded by saying Russia was "ready to consider" this offer.
Maas also called for "honest dialogue" with Moscow and for Russia to be included in
global diplomacy, despite its differences with Berlin. Maas admitted that the conflict in
Syria "cannot be solved without Russia."
The German diplomat also laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow,
which is dedicated to the Soviet soldiers killed during World War II.
Also in a bid to get Russia to assume a leadership position relative to preserving the
nuclear deal, and by extension, the European economy, Merkel got on the phone with Russian
President Vladimir Putin, where he mutually voiced his concern over Trump's action, and
where Merkel also came forward about the situation in Syria.
TASS reports:
BERLIN, May 11. /TASS/. Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Peter Altmaier
has confirmed that he will visit Moscow at the beginning of the next week, he said in an
interview with German radio station Deutschlandfunk released on Friday.
"I will follow my colleague [German Foreign Minister Heiko] Maas, who attended
negotiations in Moscow yesterday. I will be there on Monday and Tuesday, and Chancellor
[Angela Merkel will visit Sochi -- TASS] during the week," Altmaier said.
"... Suppose there were no Russia in Syria, what would have happened? Libya would have been the fate. Most likely US would have recognized Golan Ht as Israel's. Oil harvesting companies would become more visible. Lebanon would have been in flames. Nothing else in ME. Some more terror attacks in EU may be. ..."
"... The real purpose of the Donald's missile-rattling is nothing more than helping Bibi Netanyahu keep his coalition of right wing religious and settler parties (Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu and the Jewish Home) together, thereby maintaining his slim 61-vote majority in the 120-seat Knesset. ..."
"... Netanyahu's malefic political glue is the utterly false claim that Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel because it is hell-bent on getting the bomb. ..."
"... As a matter of record, of course, Netanyahu has been saying this since the early 1990s and he has always been wrong because there were never any facts or logic to support his blatant fear-mongering. ..."
There have been major developments this week, all of them bad, including Putin re-nominating
Medvedev as his Prime Minister, and Bibi Netanyahu invited to Moscow to the Victory Day Parade
in spite of him bombing Syria, a Russian ally, just on the eve of his visit. Once in Moscow,
Netanyahu compared Iran to, what else, Nazi
Germany . How original and profound indeed! Then he proceeded to order the bombing of Syria
for a second time , while still in
Moscow. But then, what can we expect from a self-worshiping narcissist who finds it appropriate
to serve
food to the Japanese Prime Minister in a specially made shoe ? The man is clearly batshit
crazy (which in no way makes him less evil or dangerous). But it is the Russian reaction which
is so totally disgusting: nothing, absolutely nothing. Unlike others, I have clearly said
that it is not the Russian responsibility to "protect" Syria (or Iran) from the Israelis. But
there is no doubt in my mind that Netanyahu has just publicly thumbed his nose at Putin and
that Putin took it. For all my respect for Putin, this time he allowed Netanyahu to treat him
just like Trump treated Macron. Except that in the case of Putin, he was so treated in his own
capital. That makes it even worse.
[Interestingly, while whining about "Nazi Iran" Netanyahu did say something truly profound
and true. He said " an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges, one has
to push back against it before it is too late". That is indeed exactly what most people
across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice is
completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is becoming
"too late" and that the consequences for our collective cowardice -- most of us are absolutely
terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords - will cost us all a
terrible price.]
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the US does
not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral agreement. But being the
megalomaniac that he is, and not to mention the spineless lackey of the Israel Lobby, Trump
ignored all that and thereby created further tensions between the US and the rest of the world
whom the US will now blackmail and bully to try to force it to support the US in its rabid
subservience to Israel. As for the Israelis, their "sophisticated" "strategy" is primitive to
the extreme: first get Trump to create maximal tensions with Iran, then attack the Iranians in
Syria as visibly and arrogantly as possible, bait the Iranians into a retaliation, then bellow
"OI VEY!!!" with your loudest voice, mention the Holocaust once or twice, toss in a "6 million
people" figure, and get the US to attack Syria.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I
sure can't think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs (and
cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?
Nonetheless, it appears undeniable that the Zionists have enough power to simultaneously
force not one, but two (supposed) superpowers to cave into their demands. Not only that, they
have the power to do that while also putting these two superpowers on a collision course
against each other. At the very least, this shows two things: the United States has completely
lost its sovereignty and is now an Israeli protectorate. As for Russia, well, she is doing
comparatively better, but the full re-sovereignization the Russian people have voted for when
they gave their overwhelming support to Putin will not happen. A comment I read on a Russian
chat put it: "Путин кинул
народ -- мы не за
Медведева
голосовали" or " Putin betrayed
the people -- we did not vote for Medvedev ". I am not sure that "betrayed the people" is
fair, but the fact that he has disappointed a lot of people is, I think, simply undeniable.
It is still way too early to reach any conclusions at this point, and there are still way
too many unknown variables, but I will admit that I am very worried and that for the first time
in 4 years I am having major doubts about a fundamental policy decision by Putin. I sure hope
that I am wrong. We will find out relatively soon. I just hope that this will not be in the
form of a major war.
Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly, for some years now, questioned Putin's apparent
willingness to bend over backwards to placate his "partners" in the West.
PCR has maintained consistently that the West can not be trusted, that Russia's attempts
at accommodation are taken as signs of weakness, acting only to embolden the West in its
continuing vicious assaults.
Of course, Russia is playing for time: hoping that over time the strategic tables will
increasing tip in its own & China's etc favour.
However, I suspect Saker & PCR are right: further submission will only lead to ever more
vicious attacks. This is made all the worse by China's unwillingness to assert itself
internationally as the 2nd largest economic power. (As if it can't see the US strategy, via
tariffs etc to retard, if not destroy its future economic development)
One might have a tiny mite of hope that the West might ultimately act sanely. However, with
the Zionists now pulling all the strings sanity is over & out.
Netanyahu is regarded in Washington, and perhaps also Moscow, as almost Churchillian for his
efforts to protect Israel and by extension the region and the US.
Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with
ICBM's?
I've been waiting to hear your take, Saker, since things are very bad indeed. I did not like
what I saw happen on May 9th. Here is my very abbreviated take on it.
Bibi knows that he's pulled Trump fully into the Israeli orbit. He as much as told Putin
he would attack Syria and dared him to do anything about it. If Putin responded with force,
that would provide Israel and America with all the provocation they need to go all-in against
Syria, Iran, and Russia, which is what the Ziocons were hoping to accomplish anyway. Putin,
seeing all this and being the better man, can only sit back and take it. For now.
Bibi pissed in Putin's face and nobody could do a thing about it. But the whole world saw
what happened and nobody with half a brain is on the side of the Israelis. I'm no longer
upset that Putin didn't respond. He has admirable restraint and patience. The very hand of
God Himself will move against the Israelis for all their crimes and treachery, and Putin will
still be one of His chief instruments.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension.
I sure can't think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs
(and cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?
Yes I can, Saker, you live among them.
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the
US does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral
agreement
.
See Club Orlov http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/ 5/10 regarding the
120+ billion of Iranian money we hold in dollars the dead broke US gets to keep by pulling
out of the deal.
Good call.
That is why we follow you Saker.
It is the responsability of the american men to rebel and fix this goverment.
Im from cuba and the worst part here is that we have been delivered to be control and saked
by people that we took the lunch from them when we where kids,in the school yard.
Agree. Putin seems to have rolled over and is crying uncle. Sad. Perhaps he is waiting
until his new weapons are fully stockpiled before he makes any serious attempts to defend --
ultimately -- himself and his nation.
Without Russia putting some brakes on the Empire's unopposed oppressions, there is little
hope for truth, justice, etc. in the world. There is no attempt to print the truth in
national publications (that has been going on for a long time), and increasingly, little
attempt to hide the fact that they are not printing the truth. The masses, instead of
rebelling against obvious lies, seem to have internalized doublethink and do not have any
significant impulse to rise up and defend their own interests. The propaganda is too thick,
too strong, and too unopposed. Things look grim.
Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with
ICBM's?
I think that would be a good check of Israel's power that could stabilize the ME and
return to the path of development that existed there still till early 1980s when the process
of destabilization began which was a part of the Yinon plan. If Israel remains the absolutely
dominant power people in ME countries will be allowed to live in Hobbesian chaotic world only
where they will be encouraged to engage in ethnic and sectarian fighting forever.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond
comprehension.
Why not? Israel has been successfully expanding its territory, and getting two superpowers
to cave into its demands (Saker's own words). That is pretty admirable in my book. This is certainly worth of both respect and admiration, even if one otherwise wishes to
see Israel burn in a sea of atomic fire.
Anyhow, there's no reason for Russia to care. Increased American tensions with Iran will
raise the price of oil. Also a reminder that the Kremlin couldn't care less about American
murders of Russian mercenaries. So in what world will they concern themselves with
Iranian ones.
A comment I read on a Russian chat put it: "Путин
кинул народ -- мы
не за
Медведева
голосовали" or "Putin betrayed
the people -- we did not vote for Medvedev".
Ah yes, the сирийские
братушки ("Syrian brothers"). Perhaps Western
Russophiles consider them such, but few Russians do.
So The Saker is correct, Putin did not betray "his" people. (Well, he did, but that
happened in 2014, not now).
I'm no longer upset that Putin didn't respond. He has admirable restraint and patience.
The very hand of God Himself will move against the Israelis for all their crimes and
treachery, and Putin will still be one of His chief instruments.
This is your wishful thinking talking. You are still upset with Putin and you should be.
May 9 parade with Netanyahu and bombing in Syria really looked very bad. To me it signified
Putin's capitulation. At least it is the end game and Russia realized she was outplayed as
she is apparently not ready to go all the way with the nuclear blackmail. Putin will stay put
waiting for the stupid World Cup while Netanyahu will be escalating or some face saving
measure will be found for Russia to withdraw from Syria or Russia will be invited to be a
part of occupational government there.
Chinese looking from afar probably are disappointed but they never trusted Russian corrupt
elite staying the course.
Suppose there were no Russia in Syria, what would have happened? Libya would have been the fate. Most likely US would have recognized Golan Ht as Israel's.
Oil harvesting companies would become more visible. Lebanon would have been in flames.
Nothing else in ME. Some more terror attacks in EU may be.
But would these have changed the internal dynamics within US ? No It would not. US would
still be going down the path it has been and that path would still be what it is today at
home and abroad.
Social anarchy, takeover of Democrats by non-whites , takeover of GOP by religious
militant and bipartisan tax cutting for pro big business will continue unhindered . Is it
good? No. But good for the destruction of the country. That is good .
ME without USA would then look like no different until Russia also faces the same fate that
has happened to Wiemar Germany and Egyptian/ Persian in the historical past.
on another note after seeing shabas putin next to netanyahu holding picture of a commie
terrorist commissar let me say Saker the "ukronazis" have the stalinist russians pegged right
thank God they left Russia some hope for a jew free state
Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly, for some years now, questioned Putin's apparent
willingness to bend over backwards to placate his "partners" in the West.
The problem isn't bending over backward .it's bending over forward.
Netanyahu is regarded in Washington, and perhaps also Moscow, as almost Churchillian for
his efforts to protect Israel and by extension the region and the US.
"With Sharon's backing, terrible things were done. I am no vegetarian, and I supported
and even participated in some of the assassination operations Israel carried out. But we are
speaking here about mass killing for killing's sake, to sow chaos and alarm, among civilians,
too. Since when do we send donkeys carrying bombs to blow up in marketplaces?"
-- Mossad officer, quoted in Ronen Bergman's Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of
Israel's Targeted Assassinations
[Interestingly, while whining about "Nazi Iran" Netanyahu did say something truly
profound and true. He said "an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges,
one has to push back against it before it is too late". That is indeed exactly what most
people across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice
is completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is
becoming "too late" and that the consequences for our collective cowardice -- most of us
are absolutely terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords - will
cost us all a terrible price.]
Add to that the Jews' other genocidal favorites; diversity, multiculturalism, open
borders, and anti-nationalism-fur-de-goyim.
Of course, Saker and his fellow cucked "Russian nationalists" don't add them, which
is part of the reason that I'm indifferent to Russian nationalists anymore.
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the
US does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral
agreement.
Let's just say I'm not taking flatheads' word on this one.
In the meantime, I want to refocus on the Skripal case.
Only took you like a thousand words to get around to the point; congratulations.
This is made all the worse by China's unwillingness to assert itself internationally as
the 2nd largest economic power. (As if it can't see the US strategy, via tariffs etc to
retard, if not destroy its future economic development)
In reality the US strategy is now to be a bit less than a total globalist-run whorehouse.
Which will probably be changed back with the next new president. China's main concern will be
internal stability and security for the foreseeable future.
One indeed can admire how a few thousand jews wield such power.
I consider the rest of jewry as their victims.
But then, why not admire Hitler, he was on his own.
In both cases, disaster struck.
Jews still do not see that the present situation in the USA resembles the Weimar
Republic.
Henry Ford knew this quite well 'in the end most Jewish enterprises fail through
overconfidence'.
Possibly the first time was when they were, as is asserted, implicated in the murder of the
Roman emperor.
Rome twice sent big armies to Palestine.
If Rome also invented Christianity to undermine them, it remains an interesting theory.
I am inclined to agree with you Putin is smarter and would not/cannot fall for the bait. I
believe history will confirm that he will save the human race from total annihilation that we
possibly face in months/years to come. I was hoping that Trump would also be a force for good
but my view is changing as each day passes. I do not understand the subservient position that
the US takes with Israel. Yes there is an aggressive Zionist faction who control America and
yes nobody dares speak out against them but there must come a time when enough is enough.
Unfortunately if Trump meant it when he said he would drain the swamp he has been prevented
from doing so.
I wouldn't be too hard on Putin. I have a whacked theory that the Jews see the control of the
USA slipping. 9-11 was a huge screw up and more and more people know. They had talked of
moving to India or China but I don't think that will work. Neither will allow the same stunts
they have pulled around Whites. I think the psychopathic Jews are breed to be a parasite on
the White Man and it will never work elsewhere. So they're fucked. What can they do? Well if
you're a psychopath then the best thing to do would be to start a China/Russia vs. USA nuke
war and while this goes on nuke the Europeans, Arabs and maybe a little germ warfare thrown
in for good measure. You sit in the middle and hunker down then start over.
Now this may be completely crazy but psychopaths are crazy by most peoples definition and
the above is perfectly logical. Maybe Putin doesn't think of it in directly these terms like
I laid out but he can't help but notice that these animals are off, a lot. The Jews position
gets worse every single day. They will have no luck at all disarming the Americans and the
internet, despite their censorship, can;t be completely closed down. Their media platform is
failing. No one believes what they say.
We should get rid of the Jews. Peacefully if we can but by any means necessary. Jewish
populations upon moving into another territory are in no way distinguishable from a tribe of
psychopaths over the long term. No one wants to live with psychopaths.
Mr Saker,
I agree with your first part of the article and if I may add, Putin is a corrupt capitalist
much like his brother in the US, Trump! They do love wealth and power so much that they both
are prime targets for corruption by the wealthy Z's. Now that they both have become pawns and
subservient to a third party, the Z's are dancing in street for taking control of the 2
superpowers! The one point that I'd disagree with is about your concerns of the 2 super
powers having to come closer to a potential military conflict! Since a third party has taken
control of the two superpowers the 2 countries are NOT allowed to challenge each other
militarily because there's zero or even less than zero benefits for the real people who are
in charge!
It was a real stab in the back for our allies and that's really hard to see.
I definitely see yours and the Saker's arguments in making this point, however,
personally, it all looks to me like act 1 of a bigger play. Like Trump, Putin seems to make
his concessions up front, but there must, by necessity be a payback concession somewhere down
the road; if their allowed survival itself isn't the original concession already.
The nature of the understanding between Russia and Israel, which has not been covered
anywhere in the news, must ultimately not be so difficult to determine for journalists
investigating it, if such journalists actually existed.
None of them has any interest in covering this, however, because: the west can't deviate
from the onslaught of Russian vilification; Russia, doesn't want to show its vulnerabilities
and Israel doesn't want to show its power.
But I suspect some of this will come to light as the next phase of operations against
Iran.
The mere threat of a military attack from the White House is madness because it arises
from blatant lies that have absolutely nothing to do with US national security. Nor, for
that matter, the security of any other country in the region, including Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
The real purpose of the Donald's missile-rattling is nothing more than helping Bibi
Netanyahu keep his coalition of right wing religious and settler parties (Likud, United
Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu and the Jewish Home) together, thereby maintaining his slim
61-vote majority in the 120-seat Knesset.
Netanyahu's malefic political glue is the utterly false claim that Iran is an
"existential threat" to Israel because it is hell-bent on getting the bomb.
But that's where the whopper comes in. It amounts to the ridiculous postulate that Iran
is so fiendishly evil that if it is involved in the nuclear fuel cycle in any way, shape or
form -- presumably even just operating a uranium mine -- it is only a matter of months
before it will have a bomb.
As a matter of record, of course, Netanyahu has been saying this since the early 1990s
and he has always been wrong because there were never any facts or logic to support his
blatant fear-mongering.
But maybe this will blow the top on the economic fiction that's been going on since at
leads Greenspan:
And that gets us to the madness at the other end of the Acela Corridor. On a day in
which there was no good news whatsoever -- except that defense spending will go ever higher
making the impending yield shock even worse -- the stock market rose by another 1%.
There is no mystery as to why, however. Honest price discovery and the discounting of
real world information was totally destroyed by the Fed's monetary central planners years
ago.
The only thing the casino discounts today is the trading points on the hourly, daily and
weekly stock charts, and the presumption that both the fiscal and central banking branches
of the state stand ready to "stimulate" whenever a serious breach occurs on the charts.
Nothing could be more mistaken -- and for reasons we will amplify upon in Part 2.
But the spoiler alert is this: The private sector is now swamped under record and
unsustainable debt in both the household and business sectors. By succumbing to the most
incendiary Deep State meme of all -- the Iranian Nuke lie -- the Donald has now made a
public debt catastrophe an absolute certainty.
It looks like a smackdown following the announcement of the superweapons. My thought on
Putin's gloating show was why not keep these weaponse developments secret. Once the
toothpaste is out of the tube you can't push it back in. One explanation may be that Putin
thought he was in charge up to that point, but may have found out differently. I don't know
if Russia has a Rothschild central bank. But agreed, it certainly looks bad. Plus Israel has
hit Syria again. It all looks very bad.
Don't be ridiculous,. Most of us would trust Iran with nukes even if they wanted them,
which they do not, before the Zionist terrorist state. As the Saker said. "How anybody can
respect, never mind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I sure can't think
of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomaniacal thugs (and cowards) than
the Israelis. "
ussia's objectives in Syria are not identical
to their own? Are they not students of history?
I can only imagine the negotiations that went on in Russia among Netanyahu and company and
the Russian government. I'm certain that Russia made assurances that it would not provide
S-300 systems. What did Netanyahu have to pay for that? Perhaps assurances that he would stop
pushing the Americans to bomb Syrian positions? I don't know. You have an imagination. Think
of what Putin wants that Netanyahu could provide.
I congratulate Mr Roberts for his courage.
"We must take it on faith alone."
I also agree with all his references to Israel. I loathe people who demand acts of faith (or
self induced stupidity)
Russia has a national, sovereign, bank , led by a very competent economist, Elvira
Nabiulina.
However, Russia's economy is not a match to its military status. Russia's entire GDP is
lower than South Korea's, and is only slightly over twice the Pentagon's budget.
I think this is one of the reasons why President Putin must tread carefully: Russia's
economy and internal stability are very vulnerable to external economic and financial
pressure.
I am a supporter of the Resistance. I support resistance to American hegmony, the idea of a unipolar world with the rest of
the nations following American dictates. I support resistance by American citizens against the ideas of American exceptionalism,
ongoing foreign belligerence that benefits only the Military Industrial Complex and a certain "shitty little country in the Levant".
I support resistance to the Zionist State, the ongoing crimes perpetrated by the Zionists against both the indigenous Palestinians
in their own nation and against their neighboring Arab countries. I support American resistance to the stranglehold that supporters
of Israel enjoy on the political system in the US.
Therefore, I support actors such as China and Russia in that they are cooperating to balance the unbridled hubris and exceptionalism
of my country, providing a balance, a multi-polar future. Iran has become a lynchpin in this geopolitical competition, being positioned
smack in the middle of a horizontal (OBOR/BRI initiative) and vertical (Russia's energy cooperation ideas) axis of the future.
I support Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (Hizbollah) in their desire to remain independent, complete nations while supporting
the Palestinians and fighting against the Zionists.
I am not so naive, however, to imagine that all the components of the resistance have similar goals in specific areas, in this
case the Syrian situation. It is more than curious to see people saying that Putin "sold out" Syria and Iran. Do you not consider
that Putin is acting for the benefit of the Russian nation and Russian interests, and not for the benefit of the rest of the resistance
and their program? Do you not realize that without the Russian action in support of the Assad administration, he would certainly
have lost his nation, a nation that would currently be a destabilized basket case, a series of fragments falling under control
of various Sunnite head choppers, Kurdish militias, and government remnants?
It is important to consider the objectives of the resistance players in Syria, both short- and long-term. Russia's objectives
in Syria have been to keep the nation united and integrated, under the control of the current legitimate government until democratic
elections can be held at some future date. Russia wants to prevent a radical Sunni movement from threatening its southern flank,
sending activists to radicalize the Sunni populations in its Caucasus region. Another more recent objective of Russia in this
long-term goal is to keep the Americans out of Syria as much as possible, hoping that the cessation of military action and the
return of Syrian government control will lead to removal of all US troops.
The Russian goals do NOT include the destruction of the Zionist State, the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, or the emancipation
of the Palestinian people. It is very important to keep this in mind.
The goals of the providers of the boots on the ground that saved the Syrian government, namely Hizbollah, Iran, and the Iraqi
Shiite militias, extend beyond the scope of the Russian goals, at least as far as long-term targets are concerned. These players
certainly share the Russian goals of shoring up the Assad regime, destroying the Daesh forces, both mercenary and local, and returning
Syria to the stable ally that it was. There are more goals for these forces, though, and these goals are clear for all to see.
Hizbollah wants the return of all Lebanese territory to Lebanon. Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria want the return of the Golan Heights
to Syrian control. They rightfully see the stabilization of the situation in Syria, the massing of their forces, hardened, battle
tested forces, as an excellent opportunity to engage Israel and take back territory.
They realize that the Syrian air defenses are much improved, and although Israel is still able to attack Syrian targets with
impunity, there is more risk.
They have made plans and accumulated missiles, accurate, precision missiles that will be able to attack Israeli military positions
in the Golan Heights, for example, the IDF electronic surveillance / EW positions on Mt. Hermon. These provide the Israelis with
direct line-of-sight to most of the Damascus Plain. What would happen if Syria/Iran/Hizbollah used a precision missile strike
to take out the Israeli's eyes, as well as the AD jammers and other equipment? All of these players also want a fair and just
solution for the Palestinian people, the recovery of their ability to determine their own future on terms that are acceptable
to them. I support these goals. I am not Putin.
Remember, an escalation in military action between the Israelis and the Syrian/Iranian/Hizbollah forces in southern Syria will
be viewed by Russia as a greater risk for its own troops, and a greater chance that the US will interfere more forcefully in the
country. The Russians want to avoid this. Do I like this? Of course not. Keep in mind my own views, and the forces of the resistance
that I said that I support. Do I feel that the Russians sold out thier allies? No way. Do you really think that the generals of
the IRGC and Hassan Nasrallah are unaware of the fact that R
All of these events are CIA/Mossad/MI6. All of them.
From 9/11 to mass shootings, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, white supremecists and even
Antifa, all funded, trained by the state, with our tax dollars.
Fighting wars: The United States has been fighting wars nonstop since its military invaded
Afghanistan in October 2001. That's almost 17 years of invasions, occupations, air campaigns,
drone strikes, special operations raids, naval air and missile attacks, and so much else,
from the Philippines to Pakistan, Afghanistan to Syria, Libya to Niger isn't fighting
unending wars across thousands of miles of the planet for almost 17 years without end, while
making the president into a global assassin, just a tad extreme?
Of course it is. But despite the title of the article, I can't help but notice that most
of it concentrates on the 16 of those 17 years that happen to have occurred before the Trump
"caliphate". But why should Tom Englehardt be expected to get such trivial details correct?
After all, Tom turned out to be wrong when he ominously warned us about the dangers of Trump
getting us into another Korean war.
Tom's own words from July 9th, 2017 haven't aged well
If hostilities broke out and spiraled out of control, as they might, countless people
could die, nuclear weapons could indeed be used for the first time since 1945, and parts of
Asia could be ravaged (including possibly areas of Japan). What a second Korean War might
mean, in other words, is almost beyond imagining.
the officials he appointed went to work to transform the very refugees we had such a
hand in creating into terrifying bogeymen, potentially the most dangerous and extreme
people on the planet, and then turned to the task of ensuring that none of them would ever
arrive in this country. Doesn't that seem like an extreme set of acts and responses?
No, Tom. It seems like normal behavior from people who aren't ethnomasochists. I'm not
some kind of -phobic with an irrational fear if I want my descendants to not live in a
wartorn country they may eventually end up suffering a total genocide at the hands of these
"widows and orphans" (read: military-aged males who think European lands are up for grabs and
will be theirs in the future).
You see, the normal person who voted for Trump wanted what his surface-level politics
during the campaign trail were about. Not the stuff he's actually been doing which no one
voted for (yes, democracy is a bad system with no accountability,) but the stuff he talked
about. The end to this neoliberal insanity which you support most of. If you really cared so
much about the environment, you wouldn't be for mass migration. If you really cared about
minimizing conflict, you wouldn't be for mass migration since migration is the same as war in
its effects and eventual outcome.
It is not some arbitrary preference that I want a territory maintained for my kind and not
invaded by unending migration of alien peoples whom we are poked, prodded, pressured, coerced
and forced to miscegenate ourselves out of existence with by social engineers bent on a
European genocide, which they are beginning to get louder and louder with their intent on
with each passing year and the constant gloating that they think "in the future, there won't
BE any white people! and that's a good thing!"
The reason we care more about these terrorist attacks on our soil is that we expect them
to do as they do in their own countries, but the glaring fact is the people doing this in our
countries aren't us, and never will be us. They are interlopers we didn't invite in; they
were invited in from the top down with no consent.
Speaking of which, people own weapons in the US because they can and because they don't
trust their government. Given what that government has done for the last 50+ years, why
should they? People in other countries would do the same were they not such totalitarian
nightmare states crushing down on their native population, like in Britain. Speaking of
bogeymen by the way, you want to pin this all on Trump when the material conditions for much
of what you wring your hands about existed well before he even announced his run. Criticize
the fact that he isn't doing what he was elected to do. Don't try to concoct some lame duck
grand narrative that he caused all of these problems, because he didn't.
The reason America is becoming "extreme" is because it's no longer a real, solvent
country. No longer a nation–a coherent people with real, concrete commonalities. It is
many people vying for power and handouts and patronage, many of whom share nothing in common
at all. I share no peoplehood with Africans, Arabs, Mestizos and a host of others who've been
flooded in over the last several decades and have transformed the country into something it
manifestly as per the census data was not just decades back.
I share no peoplehood with Africans, Arabs, Mestizos and a host of others who've been
flooded in over the last several decades and have transformed the country into something it
manifestly as per the census data was not just decades back.
I'm willing to bet you share a lot more personhood with those people you listed than the
people who "own" your country. BTW, the people who "own" your country most likely hate your
guts, and consider you expendable if you ever get in their way.
" This subject came to my mind recently thanks to a story I noticed about another extreme
wedding slaughter "
Better late than never.
How long it is ago that a Malaysian president spoke to mainly western diplomats, and asked
the question 'who are the terrorists, those who, at 17 km height push buttons in
B-52′s, or those who give their lives on the ground ?', I do not remember.
The diplomats left during the speech.
UN expert on human rights De Zaya's wanted, suppose he does not live any more, Great
Britain and the USA persecuted for bombing German cities in WWII, just killing women,
children and old men.
Dresden is the best known example, alas it is not known that even small towns as Anklam were
bombed.
And then, when began all this ?
Churchill saw the genocide in what is N Afghanistan as a necessary act.
And of course the Muslim religion was to blame.
Winston Churchill, 'The Story of the Malakand Field Force', 1898, 2004, New York
Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007,
Chalford – Stroud
The last book also describes this genocide, but one of the most bloody massacres described is
against the Sikh army.
I'd like to thank Unz for this brief comic relief on their site. Sometimes the affairs in the
world seem too much and a good laugh every now and then is necessary. For example Bashir
Al-Assad killing his own people on a regular basis was hysterical!! Imagine him getting Sarin
gas from ISIS depots paid for by Israel and the United States just so he could get the same
United States to bomb him! That's like saying Obama was a weak president for NOT attacking
Syria when he was merely informed as to who was REALLY not killing Syrian civilians because,
as Putin proved, Assad didn't have those weapons. What was really funny was that America does
not have extremists in charge so when we kill civilians it must be an accident!
"Its national security budget is larger than those of the next eight countries combined "
My favourite statistic is to compare the increase in the formal US "defence" budget ($80
billion) for this year with the total Russian defence budget ($46 billion).
I couldn't agree more, Your comment sums up how a lot of people are feeling. No wonder
Nationalist or Nationalist inspired parties and leaders are emerging all over the European
world, We are waking up and beginning to take our own side
I just cannot believe that you Americans descend to squabbling about who is more virtuous
– Nero or Caligula.
Mr Putin showed that he understands the system perfectly. First he said that he sees no
point in talking to European leaders, since they all take their orders from Washington. Then
he further explained that presidents come and presidents go, but the policies remain exactly
the same.
It's a shame that so few Americans understand their own political system as well as Mr
Putin does.
"However, one thing is, almost by definition, obvious. We are not a nation of extreme acts or
extreme killers. Quite the opposite".
The USA is admirably positioned for security: it controls most of a large isolated
continent, with only Canada and Mexico as immediate neighbours and vast oceans to the sides.
As Jules Jusserand, French Ambassador to the US, remarked in 1910:
"The United States was blessed among nations. On the north, she had a weak neighbour; on
the south, another weak neighbour; on the east, fish; and on the west, fish".
Long before that, Abraham Lincoln said more or less the same thing:
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify
against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush
us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the
treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a
commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge,
in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be
expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from
abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation
of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide".
- Abraham Lincoln; The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume
I, "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum,of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838), p.
109.
So it is surprising to find out that the USA has been at war for 93% of its existence.
That means Americans have experienced peace during only 21 years out of 239.
That's rather odd, isn't it, for a country with impregnable natural borders whom no one
has even tried to attack?
"Yes, we make mistakes. Yes, we sometimes kill. Yes, we sometimes even kill the innocent,
however mistakenly".
A very rough estimate suggests that, since 1950, the US government through its armed
forces has killed at the very least 10 million Asians alone. Three million in Korea, the same
in Vietnam and its neighbours, and the same in Iraq. That's without even considering the
dozens of other nations the USA has attacked (and with which, legally, it is still at war
since no peace treaties were ever concluded).
I recently discovered UNZ.COM and was delighted to have found a site with good intelligently
written articles, then I read this utter crap and now I'm wondering
We here in the United States are, of course, eternally shocked by their extremism, their
willingness to kill the innocent without compunction, particularly in the case of Islamist
groups, from the 9/11 attacks to ISIS's more recent slaughters.
Tom appears to be another lackey for Zionism, ready to keep telling lies about those evil
Moozies that supposedly attacked the USA on 9/11, when anyone who still has brain cells left
knows that 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag with help from traitors in the WH,
the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and NSA. With generous assistance from the Lying MSM.
Take your CIA pres releases elsewhere Mr. Tom, we no longer wish to hear your lies in
support of endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel realizing its YINON plan to stretch
Israel from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates and from Turkey to Arabia.
Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"
The nonsense that Assad's army deliberately poisons its own people with chemical weapons
is a well-known false-flag. How could he control his Syrian army if that went on? It is
absolutely ridiculous.
As for 9/11, it was an inside job – with many Israeli "students" laying the
explosives in the THREE buildings at night over a period of months. The fact that no one
lived in them and that a Bush company was responsible for security is all you need to know.
Naturally, there were no Israeli victims – a statistical impossibility if they were not
forewarned.
The most thoroughly amoral, vicious ruling group in the region is the House of Saud. And the
US and the Israelis are both deep into bed with the Saudis.
"Only to those who do not know that many people live in deserts"
People do not "live in deserts" rather they live in settlements which are located in the
desert.
They do not just go out into the blazing sand and throw down blankets and buckets, and
then start "Living in the desert".
And they do not hold bonafide "wedding parties" out in the desert, under the relentless
burning sun, rather they hold their wedding parties in settlements which are located in thte
desert with a modicum of human comforts.
Look friend myself being world traveler, I have been to north africa on more than one
occasion, and I know wtf I am talking about.
AJM "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro jazz artisit.
Where are the Scripals? How are they feeling these days? (68 days and counting), Are they alive ?
Notable quotes:
"... To clarify: Sergei Skripal has been suspected of playing a role in concocting the fake "Steele dossier" that helped launch the Russiagate NARRATIVE. ..."
"... The "dossier" was also used by Comey's FBI to obtain FISA warrants to monitor Trump campaign communications. (The NSA had intercepts all along but Comey's FBI needed a "provenance.") ..."
"... Like the Hound of the Baskervilles, the absence of questions in the British media speaks volumes. "The truth is the first casualty in a war." ..."
In the meantime, I want to refocus on the Skripal case. There is one outright bizarre thing
which I initially dismissed, but which really is becoming disturbing: the fact that the Brits
are apparently holding Sergei and Iulia Skripal incommunicado. In other words, they have been
kidnapped.
There was this one single telephone call between Iulia Skripal and her sister, Victoria, in
which Iulia said that she was okay (she was clearly trying to reassure Victoria) but it was
clear that she could not speak freely. Furthermore, when Victoria mentioned that she would want
to visit Iulia, the latter reply 'nobody will give you a visa'. After that – full
silence. The Russian consulate has been making countless requests to
have a visit, but all that the Brits have done since is have Scotland
Yard post a letter which was evidently not written by Iulia and which said " I have
access to friends and family, and I have been made aware of my specific contacts at the Russian
Embassy who have kindly offered me their assistance in any way they can. At the moment I do not
wish to avail myself of their services, but, if I change my mind I know how to contact them
". What friends?! What family?! Nonsense!
Her sister tried to contact her many times through various channels, including official
ones, and then in total despair, she posted the following message on Facebook:
" My darling sister, Yulia! You are not communicating with us, and we don't know
anything about you and Sergey Victorivich. I know that I have no right to interfere in your
affairs without asking your permission, but I worry too much. I worry about you and your dad.
I also worry about Nuar. [Nuar is Yulia Skrial's dog, whom she left to stay at a kennel
center, while she was traveling to the UK.] He is now at the dog hotel, and they want to get
paid. We have to decide something what to do with him. I am ready to take him and to take
care of him until you come back home. Besides Nuar, I am concerned about your apartment and
your car. Nothing has been decided about their safety and maintenance. We can help with all
that, but I need your power of attorney in my or my sister Lena's name. If you think that all
of these is important, draw up a power of attorney form in a Russian consulate in any
country. If you won't do that, we will understand and won't interfere in your
affairs.
Vika "
No reply ever came.
I just entered the following query into Google: "
Skripal ". April 10 th has an entry saying that she was released from the
hospital. That is the most recent one I have found. I looked on Wikipedia , the
same thing, there is nothing at all.
I have to admit that when I first heard the Russian complaints I figured that this was no
big deal. I thought " the Brits told the Skripals that Putin tried to poison them, they are
probably afraid, and possibly still sick from whatever it is which made them sick, but the
Brits would never outright kidnap two foreign citizens, and most definitely not in such a
public way ".
I am not so sure anymore.
First, let's get the obvious one out of the way: the fear for the security of the Skripals.
That is utter nonsense. The Brits can organize a meeting between а Russian diplomat in
the UK at a highly protected UK facility, with tanks, SAS Teams on the standby, helicopters in
the air, bombers, etc. That Russian diplomat could speak to them through bullet-proof glass and
a phone. And, since the Russians are all so dangerous, he can be searched for weapons. All
which the Skripals need to do is to tell him/her "thank you, your services are not needed".
Conversation over. But the Brits refuse even that.
But let's say that the Skripals are so totally terrified of the evil Russians, that they
categorically refuse. Even by video-conference. It would be traumatic for them, right?
Okay.
What about a press conference then?
Even more disturbing is that, at least to my knowledge, nobody in the western corporate
media is asking for an interview with them. Snowden can safely speak from Russia and address
even large conferences, but the Skripals can't speak to anybody at all?
But here is the worst part of this: it has been two months already since the Skripals are
held in total secrecy by the UK authorities. Two months, that is 60 days. Ask any specialist on
interrogation or any psychologist what kind of effect 60 days of "specialized treatment" can do
to a person.
I am not dismissing the Russian statements about "kidnapping" anymore. What I see is this:
on substance, the Skripal false flag has crashed and burned, just like MH17 or the Douma
chemical attack, but unlike MH17 or Douma, the Skripals are two witnesses whose testimony has
the potential to result in a gigantic scandal, not just for the May government, but for all
those spineless Europeans who showed "solidarity" with Britain. In other words, the Skripals
will probably never be allowed to speak freely: they must either be killed or totally
brainwashed or disappeared. Any other option would result in a scandal of planetary
magnitude.
I can't pretend like my heart goes out to Sergei Skripal: the man was an officer who gave an
oath and who then betrayed his country to the British (he was a British agent, not a Russian
one as the press writes). Those holding him today are his former bosses. But Iulia? She is
completely innocent and as of April 5 th (when she called her sister Victoria), she
was clearly in good health and with a clear mind. Now she has been disappeared and I don't know
which is worse, the fact that she might never reappear or that she might one day reappear
following months of British "counseling". As for her father, he paid for his betrayal and he
too deserves a better fate than being poisoned, used and then disappeared.
In the big scheme of things (the Zionists war against our entire planet), two individuals
like Sergei and Iulia Skripal might not matter. But I think that the least we can do is to
remember them and their plight.
This also begs the question of what kind of society we live in. I am not shocked by the fact
that the British state would resort to such methods (they have always used them). I am shocked
that in a so-called western "democracy" with freedom, pluralism and "European values" (whatever
that means) the Brits could get away with this.
How about some "solidarity" with the Skripals – you, Europeans?!
As noted on this site some three weeks ago, former British ambassador Craig Murray suggested
some time ago that Sergei and Yulia Skripal were most likely murdered by Western secret
services in order to keep the "Russiagate" fiction (somewhat) alive.
Sergei cannot win – even if he was NOT involved in Russiagate, murdering him creates
flexibility to hang the story on him without contradiction. Yulia is icing on the cake
– "Surely Her Majesty's Government wouldn't murder a pretty girl like Yulia!"
Rather bizarrely, it appears appears that all premises connected with the Skripals are to
be demolished, purely to protect the public, you understand.
To clarify: Sergei Skripal has been suspected of playing a role in concocting the fake
"Steele dossier" that helped launch the Russiagate NARRATIVE.
The "dossier" was also used by Comey's FBI to obtain FISA warrants to monitor Trump
campaign communications. (The NSA had intercepts all along but Comey's FBI needed a
"provenance.")
Whether Skripal was actually involved in inventing the dossier or not, his absence will be
used to milk the narrative afloat a little longer.
Like the Hound of the Baskervilles, the absence of questions in the British media speaks
volumes. "The truth is the first casualty in a war."
Russia should request a third party for instance a well known British public figure as an
intermediary to contact Skripals on behalf of Russia. The UK wil not be able to claim that
such figure will put undue pressure on the Skripals and would be forced to either facilitate
contact or be exposed as actually kidnapping the Skripals.
Potential intermediaries Corbyn, Galloway, UN representative, Tulsi Gabbard. There are
numerous candidates.
In other words, the Skripals will probably never be allowed to speak freely: they must
either be killed or totally brainwashed or disappeared. Any other option would result in a
scandal of planetary magnitude.
That certainly explains why Britain did not kill them with Novichok.
The British are working hard on new super-secret identities for the Scripals. They are so
secret that even the Scripals would not be allowed to know them. Technically, the British
could tell the Scripals their new identities, but then they would have to kill them, in order
to keep them secret.
It is clear that every person including The Saker who write about the Skripals and Russian
affairs do not have the in-depth knowledge of John Helmer the longest serving independent
western journalist in Moscow. In this post by John Helmer dated 23/03/2018
he writes about the British Court of Protection's findings.
Below are two excerpts (in parenthesis his comments) but I implore you to read the whole
article as well as other postings on the potential appointments in Putins new government.
"British High Court Justice David Williams has issued the first court adjudication of
evidence presented by the British Government of what happened to Sergei Skripal and Yulia
Skripal when they succumbed to poisoning in Salisbury on March 4. Following three days of
closed-door hearings this week in London, the judge issued a ruling for publication
yesterday."
"Representing the Skripals, Vikram Sachdeva QC told the judge "that in this case at present
it did not appear practicable or appropriate to seek the views of others who might be
interested in the welfare of Mr Skripal (his mother perhaps) or Ms Skripal (perhaps a
fiancé).
" the Skripals are two witnesses whose testimony has the potential to result in a gigantic
scandal, not just for the May government, but for all those spineless Europeans who showed
"solidarity" with Britain . "
Based on recent history, one can safely bet that there will be no scandal.
The bombing of the Lockerbie plane was an evil crime that took 270 innocent lives, and was
attributed by the official UK/US intelligence centres to the former Libyan government under
late President Gaddafi.
When this government came under NATO attack in 2011, its foreign minister Moussa Koussa
defected and sought refuge in London. He had previously been head of Libyan secret services
for 15 years (!!!), and as such, would have organised and supervised the Lockerbie "terror"
attack.
What did the UK/US governments do with him? Send him to trial at the Hague? Of course not.
He was sent to a safe heaven somewhere in the NATO proxy EAU.
Nobody cares about the victims of false flag attacks, quite the contrary: the less
investigations, the more efficient the false flag.
"... In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. ..."
"... Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you." ..."
"... John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his office. ..."
In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting
intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons].
...
Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International
Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a
warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words.
"Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president
of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."
Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave
the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to
retaliate against you."
There was a pause.
"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."
José Bustani successfully negotiated to get OPCW inspectors back into Iraq. They
would have found nothing. That would have contradicted the U.S. propaganda campaign to wage war
on Iraq. When Bustani did not leave voluntarily, the U.S. threatened to cut the OPCW's budget
and "convinced" other countries in the executive council to kick
him out .
John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his
office.
The U.S. administration, the neoconservatives and the media are running
a remake (recommended) of the propaganda campaign they had launched to wage war on Iraq.
This time the target is Iran:
As with Iraq, it's easier for Bolton and Netanyahu to achieve that goal if they discredit the
current system of international inspections. Bolton has called the inspection efforts
established by the Iran nuclear deal "fatally inadequate" and declared that "the
International Atomic Energy Agency" is "likely missing significant Iranian [nuclear]
facilities." In his 2015 speech to Congress attacking the Iran deal, Netanyahu insisted that
"Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with
them."
Anyone who counters their propaganda must go. Bolton, who demands to
bomb Iran , is back in charge. One of his natural targets is the IAEA which certifies that
Iran sticks to the nuclear deal. It seems that Bolton
succeeds with his machinations:
The chief of inspections at the U.N. nuclear watchdog has resigned suddenly, the agency said
on Friday without giving a reason.
The departure of Tero Varjoranta comes at a sensitive time, three days after the United
States announced it was quitting world powers' nuclear accord with Iran, raising questions as
to whether Tehran will continue to comply with it.
Varjoranta, a Finn, had been a deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy
Agency and head of its Department of Safeguards, which verifies countries' compliance with
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, since October 2013.
Another
casualty is the State Department bureaucrat who certified Iran's compliance with the
nuclear deal:
One of the State Department's top experts on nuclear proliferation resigned this week after
President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, in what
officials and analysts say is part of a worrying brain drain from public service generally
over the past 18 months.
Richard Johnson, a career civil servant who served as acting assistant coordinator in
State's Office of Iran Nuclear Implementation, had been involved in talks with countries that
sought to salvage the deal in recent weeks, including Britain, France, and Germany -- an
effort that ultimately failed.
...
The office Johnson led has gone from seven full-time staffers to none since Trump's
inauguration.
The man who launched the war on Iraq now gets
awards . Netanyahoo is
agitating for war on Iran just like he agitated
for war on Iraq. Shady groups of
nutty "experts"peddle
policy papers for 'regime change'. U.S. "allies" are put under pressure. With their
willingness to "compromise" they actually further the prospect of
war . When they
insist on sticking to international rules malign
actors prepare
measures to break their resistance. All that is still just a "shaping operation", a
preparation of the battlefield of public opinion. This buildup towards the war will likely take
a year or two.
What is still needed is an event that pushes the U.S. public into war fever. The U.S.
typically uses false-flag incidents - the Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Maine, the
Anthrax murders - to create a psychological pseudo-rationale for war. An Israel lobbyist
begs for
one to launch war on Iran.
One wonders when and how a new 9/11 like incident, or another Anthrax scare, will take
place. It will be the surest sign that the countdown to war on Iran has started.
Posted by b on May 12, 2018 at 06:35 AM | Permalink
John Bolton's a man? Does a coward who instigated others to fight get to be called a man?
Likewise Cheney Bush Clinton Obama Trump Bibi etc etc etc.
Easy to be ruthless when others take the risks and pay the costs.
isn't the same unity throughout the powers that be, particularly in the mainstream media,
that there was when Bush was President. Trump through the hatred he generates theoughout the
'upper crust', makes it hard for many deep staters to get on board a war drive he would lead.
And as you said, b, Trump needs a real or false flag, one with many casualties, and
something that won't fall apart from lack of evidence and a few days of rational scrutiny.
Sounds like a job for the Saudi mercenaries, Al Qaeda or ISIS.
People in high places are leaving due to team Trump threats.
Receiving mail from team trump employed black cube is no small thing. Kudos to you b for
sticking with it.
Two thoughts on US going to war with Iran. 10 It will destroy the US or certainly the US
empire and hegemony. 2) Iran needs plenty of help and respect during and after as they will
destroy the US. Not physically, but they will destroy US power.
The question we all want to know is, did Trump appoint lunatic Bolton entirely of his own
volition, or was he forced to appoint this psychopath? The reach of the US deep state seems
to be limitless. A curious thing happened the other day when someone in the US administration
announced that America would no longer be funding the white helmets propaganda outfit. Over
here in the UK parliament an opposition member of parliament was practically foaming at the
mouth with rage and demanded of prime minister Mrs May that the UK would be continuing to
fund the white helmets. When she assured him that the UK was fully behind the white helmets
and that funding would remain in place, there was a cheer from around the house. I'm amazed
that Bolton allowed the administration to cut off funding when even the UK idiots in
parliament want to fund the propaganda arm of the head choppers.
I am just curious to know how much influence John Bolton can exercise as National Security
Advisor: is his position part of the President's Executive Office and does he (Bolton, that
is) have a department to answer to him and a budget? Is his position any more secure than,
say, Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State?
The more that Trump is pushed into a corner by investigations of various scandals, the more
he needs something to distract from them. A war in a far-off country would be the perfect
thing to get people rallying around the President.
Jen @9:
From what I understand, Pompeo is much higher on the food chain. The SoS is in the line of
succession; advisors are not. I believe the position is just a single individual with closer
access to the POTUS.
I said it many times before, and I can safely repeat it again, there wont be a hot war with
Iran. Entire NATO couldnt defeat Iran, and US would go alone (maybe Israel would piggyback
few shots). It would end as catastrophe for US and de-facto end as the main superpower.
Pentagon (and even CIA) are many things, but suicidally stupid isnt one of them, neither is
Trump, or even Nutjobyahoo.
What we will see is more sanctions (to try to create civil unrest) and another "color
revolution" endeavor, and it will fail too.
Trump coopted by the neo-cons? Exactly what lever would they have on Trumpty Dumbdy that
isn't already public knowledge? Misogyny, Philandering?... already tried that pussy-grabbing
Stormy front. Financial improprieties? That Trump Inc. was/is a serial bankrupt corporation,
even screwing low-income students and any building contractor it could?... Old news. That
Trumpty Dumbdy is too stupid to read the full documentation presented to him, that he can't
write/deliver a coherent, logical line of thought?... obvious from well before the day he
officially declared his candidacy.
Trump (and his real estate "empire") was and is a product of the Rothschild cabal, and he
was deliberately foisted on the US electorate to be the only one in the country Killary could
beat... OOPS!
So we are now seeing Plan-B, where Trumpty is manipulated and browbeaten to shed the few
shreds of intelligence and decency he still possessed. All the Deep State/Rothschild-enablers
have to do is appeal to Trumpty's fragile ego, or Melania's emotional jags, and they are in
control.
But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS
openly attack Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show the likely course of events where the
Zionists are allowed to carry on with the Yinon Plan. Syria is the line in the sand, despite
Erdogan trying to play the US off Russia for historical gotcha gains. Don't forget, Erdogan
owes his life to Putin, who ensured the US coup failed by targeting the rogue Turk jets
tasked with shooting Erdogan's plane down... I'd bet the Turk pilots were told that if they
even turned on their targeting systems, they would be shot down... self preservation is a
strong deterrent.
Israel/Saudi on their own cannot withstand even Syria, Hizbolla and Iran directly, even if
the russian military only backstopped the Syrian alliance. Ahe US public won't tolerate
another Iraq debacle, as zero body bags landing at Edwards AFB is the limit. Let alone that
Iran would be Iraq on steroids especially for the several 1,000 in the western Syria caldron.
It's a big caldron right now, but with Russian-manned mobile S-400's/etc. protecting all
Syrian, Iranian and possibly Iraqi airspace, those soldiers/mercenaries are sitting ducks
after the first bomb lands in Iran.
Apologies if following musings are a bit disjointed.
American chronic hostility towards Iran, and long standing American economic and
informational and low-level war gainst Iran, has an insane, out-of-touch with reality,
ideological/mythological tinge/component to it. I won't try a broad psycho-analysis, or
assemble many possible reasons why that might be.
But among those possible components there is a long standing implacable totalitarian bent
to US power wielders, reflected in their ordained geo-political communications in the United
States. The American economic sanctions and continuously variously hostile policy towards
Cuba over more than half a century is an example. The former 'brothel dof the Caribbean' was
apparently fine for the US, and the death squad ridden countries of Central America are quite
acceptable, but Cuba out of the capitalist orbit? Cuba as attempting a different ideology,
and approach: terrible recalcitrant. The very demon of the hemisphere.
In his revelatory book The Praetorian Guard, former CIA John Stockwell noted that as he
was growing up, basically nobody questioned the prevailing American ideology and system. Real
searching basic debate was absent. Within the context of a culture where freedom of speech is
technically prioritized, lauded as an ideal, somehow self-censorship and discussion is
limited to within-the-box of convention, thus discussion as scripted theatre, propaganda,
dominated overwhelmingly.
No real debate, but what was repeated ad infinitum were messianic messages'we swear
allegiance to the flag', we're number one, we're the free world, we're the good guys.
After the JFK coup d'etat, basically everything in American media became an exercise in
controlling all political discourse and trying like crazy to make sure pretense prevailed.
This was if anything accentuated after the 9/11 false flag treasonous mind-f**k.
There was also a deadly military doctrine adopted by the US after WW2, when segments of US
power decided to go for global military domination, basically permanent war and war
preparation. The cliche is that the first casualty of war is truth, but in the case of the
United States, doubly so, as that train had already left the station.
The United States is a kind of astonishingly cautionary historical example of the deranged
trajectory that dishonesty, pretense and censorship as normalized and dominant will ensure.
So many natural advantages, but the external manifestation of the US became mass murder and
subterfuge; internal problems of the US are festering, metastisizing, and tens of millions of
Americans are deeply demoralized, anxiety ridden, emotion-related
drug-medication-dependent.
Back to Iran. A few years ago while driving in the evening I turned on the car radio and
the first words I heard from a (Jewish) talk show host on a Toronto station was the question:
Do you think the Americans have the balls to nuke Iran? Really bizzarre sick question that
apparently could be sent out glibly and sefely into the Canadian political discussion
universe as an intellectual feat. And on numerous occasions for many years it has been
commonplace in Canadian mass media to depict Iran in a hostile, negative light. And as German
writer Udo Ulfkotte bravely told us before his untimely death, the CIA also influences and
controls and thus contaminates much of European mass media communication.
So the American insanity and dishonesty and war mongering is playing itself out on a broad
stage, (witness the truly crazy pathetic British government's behaviour of late) and crazy
people do crazy things, so yah, Iran is still in the crosshairs. But there is a kind of
desperate, fading, dated quality to the American obsession with 'evil Iran', and lies and
make-believe and insanity cannot escape colliding with reality. The collision can make a
helluva a mess, but at some point hopefully the pendulum swings towards a reassertion of
sanity and decency and honesty.
How many times will Americans shoot themselves in the foot for Israel and fairy tales?
"But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS
openly attack Iran"
It appears Putin and Russia have decided to sit all this out. While Putin was enjoying the
Victory Parade with Netanyahu,,, Netanyahu was bombing his ally Syria. Putin was all smiles
and so far all we hear is crickets.
Putin will sell his S-400 systems to anyone that wants them EXCEPT Syria and all they want
is the S-300.
I don't know what's going on but as far as Russia is concerned I wouldn't bank on their
helping Iran.
China? China can be purchased like cloths on a rack.
No,,, I think it's pretty open right now for the US to attack Iran. Whether it can survive
a war with Iran is doubtful,,, but that's never stopped them before.
Yes "take out" as I defined not through occupation/invasion but fighter jet strikes and/or
from sea. That wont take more than 1 day for 3 top Nato nations.
I wonder what is going through the minds of Kim and the South Korean leadership. It is
obvious that the US is not agreement capable. What sort of guarantees can the US provide.
Even if China and Russia provide guarantees it may not be enough. Kim sees that if a deal is
made, then the crippling sanctions could be reimposed or remain. Kim and his sister are not
stupid.
Neocons and Bolton are Trotskyites. Permanent Revolutionists
The ruling elite never really knew how dumb people were until the internet and social
media. With the help of Trumps supporter and Facebook investor Thiel and his company Palintir
and Facebook to help them figure out all the data they collected, they know they can make the
cattle believe anything without making it believable to anyone with an IQ under 120
The few that figure it out without being members of the cult are isolated and
inconsequential.
Plato told us what he hoped would happen. Leo Straus who is the godfather of the neocons
emphasized Platos Noble Lie which is behind all of todays fake news/history . Plato was
heavily influenced by Irans Zoroastrianism
I believe elements behind the reformation in the 16th century and Sabbateans from the 17th
century, Frankists , Freemasons and Jesuits from the 18 th century and Zionists , and
Martinists and Marxists from the 19th century joined forces to create a NWO that is a
Luciferian cult of Global Synachrists
The neocons are the latest manifestation of the Synarchists, and unfortunately for the
world this means global terror much like the Rothschild back Trotsky hoped to accomplish
in
the 20th century before being thwarted by Stalin. It also means the end of Religion as
Neocons corrupt Protestant Christianity, in US and Across the Atlantic while CIA controlled
Jesuit Pope Francis destroys Catholicism. Zionism and the Holocaust wiped out Torah believers
and the GWOT and neocons are proceeding to destroy Islam after corrupting it with Islamism
with help from the Saudi Arabias corrupt Wahhabism which has spread Islamic extremism along
with US and Israel
For those who believe the US can be destroyed, you are in denial. There is no stopping the
US/Israel//British/EU alliance. The only hope is that once the perpetual revolution is over
that the philosopher kings described by Plato will be merciful. Unfortunately, given many of
them are neo-malthusians who think most of humanity are worthless consumers of Gaias precious
resources, i am not optimistic
However you would define war US (Israel) and Iran is at war footing for decades, nothing new
here, so I would not panic here that Bolton would do something.
It cannot be more clear that as much as Trump is a flaccid clown of ignorance and
belligerence to cover up his tax evasion crimes from Muller, Bolton plays role of barking
poodle that all, did not get anything done what global oligarchic interests tell him or he
will be put down.
And Please do not compare Iran to Iraq especially after two Iraqi wars, Iran is in
position to cause major damage to global oligarchic interests and hence there will be no
escalation despite fire and fury rhetoric as it was in NK case, it is all about reintegration
of Iranian oligarchy to global oligarchic country club and what we witness is negotiating of
condition of selling out Iranians to neoliberal globalists and by that advance a step in
isolating Russia to achieve the same purpose, surrender to globalism.
Also I do not see Netanyahu welcoming hundreds of Iranian missiles landing in Tel Aviv as
Saddam only shot few Soviet museum item at Israel and back then all hit their however random
targets. There would be no random targets this time so there would be death and vital damage,
not to mention that Israel could loose Golan Height in the process. Also there is no way in
hell for US to invade Iran, or gather 600k troops as it was in 1991 for one quarter Iran size
Iraq.
I know that spreading fear brings clicks but here on this blog we know better than
that.
Don't underestimate Trump. He came to office on an audacious promise to drain The Swamp. It's
a very specialized task. It was never going to be easy and I'm quite certain that he went in
knowing that his first misjudgment would probably be his last. I don't know how to drain The
Swamp but if Trump thinks he can then I do too. I've been pleasantly surprised at his ability
to engage with senior officials on the World Stage and appear Presidential. Compared with
bumbling fools like Ronny Raygun, Jimmy Carter and Dubya, Trump leaves them for dead in the
"100% on the ball" stakes. Whilst I'm waiting, with fingers crossed, I console myself with
the following thoughts:
1. Hillary would have been worse.
2. The non-people he wants to neutralise are the worst bunch of scum and arseholes on the
planet.
3. Since he's the only person with a Swamp plan, we shouldn't be too picky about his timing
and tactics.
4. Trump is an extremely clever individual.
thanks b... and thanks for the Atlantic article from peter beinart... i thought it was a good
article.. here's a quote from it "More than 60 percent of Republicans, according to a March
Pew Research Poll, think the United States was right to invade Iraq. George W. Bush's
approval rating among Republicans, according to a January CNN poll, is 76 percent." and "It's
rare to see non-Americans on political talk shows. That matters because non-Americans
overwhelmingly think pulling out of the Iran deal is nuts. And non-Americans are more likely
to raise fundamental questions about American nuclear policy -- like why America isn't
pushing for inspections of Israel's nuclear program, and why America keeps demanding that
other nations denuclearize while building ever more nuclear weapons of its own."
then you can read @20 Robert Snefjella post - thanks robert - and note the radio interview
from toronto..
sorry to say, but this 'neo-con' term is a quick term to describe so much of what looks
like the koolaid american citizens drink regularly.. and there is plenty of it to go around
in canada too..
americans by and large look like a nation of idiots, spoon fed everything they know..
i tend to agree with harrys view @13... colour revolution will continue.. but unlike
harry, i do believe the bombs will fall and we will enter some type of ww3 scenario.. the
usa-israel are too much led by the neo con koolaid to step away from any of their ongoing
insanity.. i just can't see the insanity stopping with rational, reasonable people having a
say.. so, maybe i don't fully agree with harry other then in the short term..
I agree with your assessment that Trump is a very clever individual - when it comes to
manipulating the media and distracting from his words and actions, but I disagree with every
other assertion you have made and find that he has filled his administration with grifters
and con artists that rival the days of Grant or Harding.
And if you have grown up in America under DACA and are about to be deported or are losing
your health insurance coverage because key provisions of ACA have been overturned, just try
reciting "Hillary would have been worse!"
Utter nonsense. The US and Israel are coward bullies. They will pounce when the odds are
good, but they are quite rational about when they are not. There have been endless threats
and sabre rattling by the US and Israel against Iran for decades, but they never followed
through. They will most certainly not do so now, when the relative military position of Iran
is better than ever. And this "crying wolf" article will join the the countless others
written before on the junkpile of historical falsification...
There is a strong delusion that maintains its satanic grip on the "leadership" in DC.
The depiction of Mordor in Tolkien's "Fellowship of the Rings" series is very fitting in
describing the present pure evil and absolute darkness of those who plan for war and
destruction in the secret chambers in the upper echelons of our society.
What will stop the madness, death, and destruction that has rained down and continues to
rain down on so many millions of hapless men, women, and children in the Middle East and
abroad? Will it take a few US cities completely destroyed and hundreds of thousands of
Americans vaporized before the insanity of US Empire is stopped?
I pray for peace for the sake of my children and grandchildren. I pray for a "great
awakening" amongst the nations of the world to demand an end to the evil US/Zionist madness
before it is too late.
Any US attack on Iran will be by air, not ground. Though special ops will be inserted in the
Afghan border provinces (where the last protests were the largest, fertile ground for
insurgents).
Missiles of all kinds will fall on the regime, the military, the Quds, the militias.
And it will be huge, maybe the largest, heaviest attack ever. Once the air defenses are
down, bombers will cover the major infrastructure sites with the heaviest bombing since
Belgrade and Nam.
Only when the UNSC convenes, probably, no sooner than five or six days, will the attack
slow or cease.
Iran will have been set back a few decades. That is the soft goal. The harder goal will be
the insurgency and destabilization of the regime and final regime change.
It will take nothing special for this attack to happen. Trump has already made up his
mind.
When it will happen is when the US and Israel feel they can suppress the Hezbollah missile
threat. Until they have a workable plan for that, not much can happen on a large scale.
But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the
sights of the Hegemon.
Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day, but nato cannot invade,
occupy it in my opinion.
Rubbish.
I assume you're referring to countries other than the United States. In which case, you do
know that Germany has about half-a-dozen airworthy attack aircraft, the Royal Navy and
France's aircraft carriers would require just about every ship in the other European navies
to protect them and part of the reason the British and French begged the United States to
intervene in Libya was because they'd run out of PGMs.
Give the European NATO countries a couple of years to build up their forces and force
projection skills and European NATO might be in a position to bomb Iran, but as soon as they
started building up their forces in the Gulf States, Iran could go to the UNSC to demand that
this obvious aggression should be stopped and when FUKUS veto any resolution, Iran has carte
blanche to launch preemptive strikes across the Persian Gulf. End of European NATO's war on
Iran
And after the Iraq fiasco, I suspect the only country that would go to war without a UNSC
resolution is the United States. Germany would almost certainly decide to sit it out, France
most probably would and the UK would probably also sit it out.
Finally, even if the top 3 NATO countries did try to get away with a limited air attack,
the best response for Iran would be to sink every ship in the Persian Gulf and go on doing so
until the United States invades and becomes bogged down in a quagmire far worse than Iraq or
Afghanistan.
I have to agree with those who say a direct attack on Iran is imminent. Sure, some would love
this to happen whether Yahoo or Bolton but for now will be happy to apply the "squeeze" of
sanctions, ostracism/propaganda. The goal seems to have been to destroy and if not that, then
to set the countries back ... under the thumb as it were.
Yes, the US with some assistance could rip Iran's military apart but not take over the
country. A majority are somewhat satisfied with the theocratic setup. They know the history
with the US/West. And how would Iran react? Long range attacks on Israel or much
closer-to-home attacks on the Gulf States and the Saudis as well as blocking at Hormuz?
Saddam lobbed a few Scuds at Israel and Riyadh but didn't have much. Iran has more and better
missile tech ... which TPTB are going after now ... while Yahoo still pushes "nuclear
programs" since he knows (like Iraq) there are no real weapons there.
The US will do everything possible to reimpose sanctions. Hence gaining control of the IAEA
and inspection process. This is designed to offer the Europeans a face saving way to back
down and submit to US will regarding sanctions. It will probably succeed. Europe, whether it
likes it or not, is playing good cop in the game.
War, as in an actual US attack in Iran itself, is pretty much out if the question. A false
flag designed to be blamed on Iran and big enough to warrant a war will be placed under
enormous scrutiny. Not by the US MSM, of course, but by the rest of the world and the
alternative media.
The fact is, before anyone can attack Iran, they have to win in Syria and it doesn't look
like they are going to.
As far as sanctions, Iran's best bet may be to give the EU 3 weeks to prove its intent to
confront the US (which is unlikely) Then Iran can resume its civilian nuclear development at
the fastest possible pace, with the offer to discontinue once the US returns to the
JCPOA.
Peter Beinart, the author of the "As with Iraq" piece above, gets all wound up in the details
of nuclear inspections and forgets that in 2003 he supported the misbegotten Iraq invasion
and war because a (supposed) peaceful aftermath would help the people of Iraq, and so the
people who oppose the war were wrong.
The truth is that liberalism has to try to harness American military power for its purposes
because American tanks and bombs are often the only things that bring evil to heel.
Opposing this war might have helped liberals retain their purity, but it would have done
nothing for the people suffering under Saddam. If liberals are betrayed a second time in
the Gulf, hawkish liberalism may well go into temporary eclipse. But one day we, and they,
will need it again. . . here
That's akin to the position that Trump has taken on Iran.
In this effort, we stand in total solidarity with the Iranian regime's longest-suffering
victims: its own people. The citizens of Iran have paid a heavy price for the violence and
extremism of their leaders. The Iranian people long to -- and they just are longing, to
reclaim their country's proud history, its culture, its civilization, its cooperation with
its neighbors. . . here
Old Microbiologist , May 12, 2018 11:12:51 AM |
38
IMHO what we are seeing are the last ditch efforts of a failing nation. Russia isn't sitting
it out but is taking a wait and see attitude. The same for China. All the bluster and twitter
tweets in the world mean nothing until someone actually does something. Israel managed to
shoot off a massive strike which at best was 50% effective. This was against "old" Pantsir
S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is
holding it back keeping the ECM signature still secret until it is absolutely necessary.
Russia cannot fight the US or Israel in Syria. They simply doesn't have the forces present.
But, what they can do is push gently and make the FUKUS+I over-commit. Don't forget that the
US is working at a current $22 Trillion of debt and these debacles are going to burn money
faster than they can print. In the mean time Russia/China are creating an alternate economic
system to bypass the petrodollar and especially the SWIFT banking. That is in place and
perhaps we will see more countries deciding to bail on the dollar and join the growing crowd.
The US has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for sovereignty and has so far reneged
on every treaty. This means that the US is at best an unreliable partner. The South Koreans
have wised up seeing that the US is very willing to sacrifice the entire peninsula and every
soul living there to kill off the DPNK. That should scare the bejeezus out of every nation
friendly to the US anywhere in the world. They are losing friends so fast now it is scary.
This only forces the inevitable and the US is going to have to bet the farm to try and keep
the hegemony alive. It won't work and the US has the worst record of war fighting imaginable.
They can't beat the goat-herders in Afghanistan for example over a span of now 17 years.
Fighting a real military such as Iran would be impossible and especially if China throws in
her weight. Iran is very important to China and to a lesser extent Russia as well. There is
no danger of the US or NATO winning there. However, this could break the bank if it goes
south. So, what we are seeing is an existential threat to the US in the form of rebellion
against the dollar. Finally, we are seeing countries that have the weight of forces (nuclear)
with serious resistance. It is for this reason we are not seeing a counter-attack against
Israel. As Napoleon said "Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of
destroying himself".
The two FUKUS mass missile attacks on Syria, as well as Israel's latest jab, were a test of
the Russian systems and general Syrian ability to interdict said missiles. If the missiles
can't get through even at such short range, it is obvious Israeli/FUKUS aircraft can't
either. Attempting the same "air war" stunt in Iran will just give the US MIC a big boost
replacing virtually every piece of hardware sent over Iran airspace.
Again, the US soldiers/mercenaries currently in eastern Syria are in a caldron-in-making.
They can no longer count on escaping via land transport through Iraq or Turkey, and without
any air support/transport, they are trapped. Does anyone think the US public will tolerate
the Deep State sacrificing about 5,000 soldiers/mercenaries immediately after the bombing of
Iran starts? The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not
well-received at home, so the potential for another Vietnam?
Iran will not be the turkey-shoot Iraq was, Saddam was still under the delusion Rumsfeld's
handshake gave him immunity from Deep State/Zionist machinations. Iran's leadership is under
no such delusion, remembering the admitted 1953 CIA overthrow of democratically elected
Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah.
Putin and Assad know time is on their side, and the longer they can delay a major
FUKUS/Israeli/Saudi offensive, the better prepared they are and the less effect Zionist
propaganda has worldwide. The IDF murdering unarmed Palestinians using a Gandhiesque tactic
of showing how venal Nuttyyahoo's regime is... like Britain in India... there is no way to
make this slaughter seem justified, and attempting to keep it out of the public consciousness
has not worked.
"But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the
sights of the Hegemon."
That would be 'former Hegemon'.
The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad,
campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be
low.
While everyone is watching Iran and Syria, the most important developments are those taking
place in Korea, where some sort of peace agreement seems inevitable. And where anything short
of war will mean an immense strengthening of the positions of Russia and China.Not least
because Japan and Taiwan will be forced to adjust to the new reality.
In Korea... and in western Europe.
This is where the worst cracks in the US hegemonic facade are beginning to show: the logic of
Eurasia and the illogic of Atlanticism are inescapable. The western european economies,
including Germany's, France's and (the weakest link of all?) Italy's are dying for access to
the eastern markets. Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with
Russia, which has been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran
deal seems to be the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
Those who rave against Putin's 'betrayal' understand nothing. It is necessary to lower the
tension internationally in order for the tectonic movements, which are already well advanced,
to settle.
Bolton and the warmongers depend on perpetuating war but all the momentum, internationally,
is against war. The propaganda which has been their main weapon, is failing, their
credibility is rapidly declining.
Outside Israel, the rump of the Saud family court which supports the Riyadh regime and the
degenerated dregs of NATO trotskyism-inhabited by elderly, aethereal creatures who live in
the Academy and know nothing of the world- the only people who want war are the speculators.
And they are just as happy to have peace, anything that excites the market.
Those who claim that Iran could be defeated in a couple of days are, presumably, talking of
nuclear weapons. Do they really believe that such an attack would not be deterred by Iran's
allies?
Trump is "clever", not intelligent. He is the personification of "bullshit baffles brains"
methodology. Indications are he is marginally literate, as all info briefs have to be a
couple pages at most and point form. It is obvious he has no patience to work through the
finer details of complex situations, simply taking the position of whatever of his advisers
can spread the BS in the most eloquent or forceful way.
But mostly whatever panders to his ego. Make Trumpty think he is being "the decider" (like
Gerge W. Stupid) or that he is being the "tough guy" and he'll sign or say anything.
@ 33, It took NATO 73 days to bring Serbia down, and in the end it required trickery
(promising Milosovich he can stay then color revolutionizing him out)
Serbia did not have the means to close the straights of Hormuz. Nor did it have a missile
arsenal that could strike at several regional US bases. Nor could it destroy Saudi and
Kuwaiti oil refineries. Nor did Serbia have several thousand US ground troops in easy
reach.
Serbia also had the misfortune of being attacked during the weakest point in Russian
history since the 1600s. Russia is quite certain to help Iran because it has a strong
interest in Iran repelling a US attack. Even if you believe Russia is 100% cynical, they will
have an enormously strong reason to see the US bogged down for a decade and bled white.
The Pentagon is aware of all of this and they aren't idiots. The fact is, the US was in a
much better position to attack Iran in 2006 or 7, and they still didn't do it, because it was
a terrible idea even back then. They will not do it now when it is a much worse idea.
Simply put, if attacking Iran were so easy, they would have done it a long, long time
ago.
Now, attempts to destabilize and possibly preach rebellion to Iran's minorities, that they
will do (without much success) But open war is a line they won't cross.
@38 -- "This was against "old" Pantsir S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has
seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is holding it back keeping the ECM signature still
secret until it is absolutely necessary."
My reading is the S-300 has a range that would cover commercial airports in Tel-Aviv and
it is probably too much risk for Putin to deliver these to Damascus in case an 'event' occurs
and a civilian jet goes down. In any case, some suggest there are more effective equipment
solutions for Syrian defense/response. Of course, in the wryly Russian way, Israeli
destruction of "old" Pantsir S-1 systems simply opens up the rational and legal opportunity
to provide a whole lot of 'new' updated replacement Pantsir S-1 systems. Background:
https://sputniknews.com/military/201804171063644024-pantsir-top-facts/
I think that the UN has always been mostly a circus court for empire....make it look like US
is benevolent.
So now when the fig leaf comes off in public people are aghast. Empire only works like
empire and when the wheels start to come off, the whole facade is exposed for the dog and
pony show it has always been.
Will this be enough to change the world of global private finance? Iran, remember, refuses
to become a member of the Western banking/elite cabal.
So just why might Trump be directed to attack Iran in his regular pompous manner. Is this
a religious war we are fighting for Israel?
NO!!! It is all about the continuation of the Western form of social organization that has
as its core religion the God of Mammon. Those at MoA who read me know that the God of Mammon
that I write about have the tenets of private finance and property along with the rules of
inheritance which has resulted in the elite of the past few centuries.
I continue to posit that all that is happening relates to that issue and the struggles
around it not discussed in public for whatever reasons.
But carry on educating me and others about all the proxy shit going down and its relevance
to how our society works....or doesn't........I want evolution and I want it this
morning!!!!!!!
The coming "war on Iran" will be an excuse for all kinds of mischief. Some possibilities:
>> seizing western Iraq further isolate Syria by blocking Iran-Syria land route
>> attack and occupation of Lebanon to clear Hezbollah and allow for Israeli land grab up to Litani river (a goal previously
expressed)
>> new round of terror attacks (from new/re-branded groups) focused on
Syria, Iranian, and Russian interests (with a few attacks on the West to muddy the
waters) The psychological part of a war of attrition
>> intensified Ukraine-Russian frictions full court press
>> ISIS expansion into Central Asia accelerate what has already begun
>> Shut down of North Stream and Turk Stream expect the 'cage match' with "recividist nations" to get nasty
Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as well as
hoped? Or perhaps it is that they've figured out that there's nothing to do. SOHR, opposed to
the Syrians, but with good telephone connections in Syria, has now come up with a list of a
handful of Iranian dead. So I suppose a few Iranian camps were actually hit. But the only
actual videoed strikes were against Syrians. It's what you'd call a nothing-burger, much like
the 102 missile strike.
And this is the launch of a campaign against Iran?? Strange way of showing it. In my view,
the US and Israel are so boxed in by their constraints, that it's very difficult to act
decisively. No casualties, so no overflights of Syria, let alone Iran. No interruption of
Gulf oil exports, as the Gulfies wouldn't like it. Gulf emirates not to be overturned. I'm
sure I can think of some more....
@40 -- "The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not well-received at
home, so the potential for another Vietnam?"
More likely an unlearned repeat of 'rhyming' history with Trump playing Jimmy Carter and
the "5,000 soldiers/mercenaries" playing the suckers (in summer heat). How's the Big 'D'
going to negotiate that deal over the mid-terms?
But that was Democrat 'smart' -- perhaps this re-mix will be closer an up-scaled rerun of
Reagan's Iran–Contra scandal? Who's playing Oliver North?
Another great post. Thank you. Implied I think in your musings is, 'What will people
remember of the U.S.' in a hundred years? The 20th century popular music. Blues, Jazz, Rock
'n Roll, and Country & Western for starters.
When have UNSC ever done to stop aggression by the same states that commit the
aggression?
The topic wouldnt even raised in the UNSC.
Of course Iran wont start a "preemptive" war. Not atleast since that will be a suicide
mission for themselves.
Russia wont do anything then (us attack on iran), just look how they treated previous US
wars, everytime people have said the same that RUssia will help and repel an attack, it have
never happend and will never happen.
At 51...uh, you do realize Russia has an expeditionary force that is actually fighting and
keeping Syria alive as we post, right? Perhaps they are not fighting as much as you would
like, but they are fighting and Syria continues to exist because of it. As regards Iran, if
Iran falls the Syria falls and Russian bases will be gone. Fortunately for all, that won't
happen.
It is difficult to say what kind of scope the false flag would need to be to rally public
opinion at home for an Iranian incursion. In many ways, pre-9/11, the antiwar movement was
much stronger as was shown by the rallies against leading up to the Iraqi invasion. And yet
this couldn't forestall it.
OTOH, independent media has come a long way in its reach and so cries of "false flag" have
already been sounded, and, by and large, I believe America is fatigued with the ME. It is
doubly ironic that dems like Schumer have been crying foul against DJT for playing soft with
NoKo. I know that the current dem/lib establishment has thrown its antiwar credentials out
the window, in favor of color revolutions, freedom, and LGBTQUIOGDTFBJK rights to fornicate
in public spaces, but, my god, I would never have imagined the globalists to be THAT stupid
in their disregard for basic human needs the world over for soverignty and national
pride.
People have touched on it before, but is this whole current theater just an old money vs.
new money second showing? The return of the repressed, with the globalist/neolib model being
rundowned and usurped by nationalist oligarchs? It would seem the DJT has chosen to err to
the old money side to the betterment of the world. And I, for one, as an American would
rather have my elites localized so we would actually have access to their asses when we
decide to put a pitchfork up them. It is very difficult to get past TSA with weaponized
peasant tools.
Israel's a bit late there then. The disturbances were at the beginning of the year.
They're over now. The effect of the sanctions will be to swing people behind the regime, for
the moment, at any rate.
No thats wrong too, Russia is not on a mission to save Syrians state, they are in Syria
due takfiri threat. Nothing else, as we all see proof of past days...
As for your other statment, I am well sure that Syria have fallen long long before Iran
(if they ever do that).
@52 Lysander. I agree (btw never mind anon's trolling attempts). Simply put, the road to
Tehran goes through Damascus and last I checked the Jasmine City was doing fine ;) If
US/KSA/IL attempts a hot war on Iran it will only precipitate its fall..
Am reminded of the 3 Stooges, whenever I read about these warmongers, like " Bombs Away"
Bolton. Moe tells a group of people, "We will fight till the last drop of.....", then points
to Curly and finishes, "....your blood!" These bastards love war, but never are at the front
line, fighting and dying along side our best. They sit at their plush offices and conference
halls in the best hotels, sipping champagne and eating the best foods, making six or seven
figure incomes. While our brothers, neighbors, fathers, sons, uncles die overseas, or come
back a mental mess, and get crapped on by out government. What these no good for nothing rat
bastards need is to experience the hell they unleash upon us and the rest of the world.
i read this line a lot, from all spheres, and it always perplexes me. to be
fatigued you'd have to be overwhelmed, inundated, and i'd wager that the ME and what's
going on there hardly crosses the vast majority of minds in more than a peripheral way, you
know, like beyond certain key words they hear on tv.
one thing's for sure though, the ME is most definitely fatigued with America!
Looks like there might not be a Coalition Of The Willing in any anti-Iran military operation.
Quite the opposite, it's a further lessening of US world hegemony.
. . .Cartoon of Trump giving the middle finger Goodbye,
Europe! in Der Spiegel.
Why are commentators assuming that, *if* the US does launch a war of aggression against Iran,
it will do so in tandem with its NATO allies--and the UK, France, and Germany in particular?
It is doubtful that these allies will even abide by the new US economic sanctions imposed
upon Iran. Why think that they will be willing, or even politically able, to follow the US
orders for war?
b is right that the neocons are setting up a replay of the 2001-2003 Iraq propaganda
campaign. But the global and domestic conditions that enabled the success of that campaign no
longer hold. The US is far weaker now than then; Iran is more powerful and unified than Iraq
ever was; NATO countries have hundreds of billions of dollars of trade contracts in place or
projected with Iran; Russia and China are far stronger. It just doesn't add up.
I suppose what I was trying to say is that the narrative TPTB have spun over the last
twenty years has gone beyond the realm of convoluted to the average American and now has
completely unwound into chaos. It was only three years ago that we were being told about the
surging threat of ISIS to Americans. Well...that didn't last long...and now they are back to
Iran which the west knows very little about and really doesn't care to. Us Americans like the
good guy/bad guy fight. But if you can't drum up a good enough backstory for the black hats,
I'm afraid that the average American will simply change the channel.
That being said...a compelling backstory isn't really needed for pyschopaths to wage their
war anyway.
Several here ave wondered what kind of false flag could motivate the populace in NA and the
EU to support an attack on Iran. May I propose one?
First stage - Israel (using the EW cover from AlTanf) bombs the Iranian nuclear plant.
Radiation release threatens tens of thousands.
Second stage - Supposed 'Iranian' counter-attack sets oil tankers ablaze (For maximum PR
effect do not sink them) in the Hormuz straights closing the gulf to shipments of Gulf
sourced oil. Oil prices temporarily spike to over $200 a barrel,
Europe's supply of oil is cut drastically, industries world-wide are paralysed and the US
(secure with its' supply sourced outside the gulf)is free to ride to the rescue - all while
RUSSIA (and China) have NO LEGITIMATE REASON to oppose the aggression.
bevin 41 The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad,
campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be
low.
Yes, the US Army is demonstrably weak especially for any foreign invasion.
Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with Russia, which has
been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran deal seems to be
the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
And also China's BRI -- coming up June 28-- -- The China Germany BRI Summit 2018
As the first and third largest exporters globally, China and Germany will prove crucial
drivers of trade along the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road.
Together these form the Belt and Road Initiative, a landmark shift in the global economic
order that will touch over 65 countries across four continents.
The China Germany BRI Summit 2018 will dispel myths on what the Belt and Road Initiative
means for the world, tackle the challenges for global financial institutions and
corporations looking to leverage the initiative, and identify the enormous opportunities in
M&A, capital markets and trade finance. here .
@ Anon 64 Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing
Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.
Posted by: Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM |
73
@ Anon 64 Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing
Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.
Posted by: Don Bacon | May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM |
73 /div
The extremely complex entanglement of Germany with (roughly) the NATO/EU alliance on the
one hand and Russia/China on the other is a prime reason why I do not believe that Germany
(which is by far the biggest economy in the EU) will be able to be strong armed or enticed
into signing up with another Zionist driven US war of aggression with a country as major as
Iran.
Re the possibility of a "united front" of western powers confronting Iran, the truth is that
no one knows for certain at this point how it this will play out.
We have to remember the deafening silence of the western media during the obvious
Skripjal-Ghouta fakery, so there's a good chance the US/Israel axis will again have a
relatively free hand to concoct any number of escalating false flags, not all of which will
stick, but some probably will. So that is a cause for concern re any future "coalition".
As for enforcing the sanctions, I've seen people argue both ways - that this is a bridge
too far for Europe, and accepting it will both do too much economic damage and make Europe
appear too obviously as US toadies; and OTOH, Europe will be blackmailed into knuckling under
when confronted with illegal US fines and secondary sanctions.
> Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as
well as hoped?
This is all that needs to be noted about the absurdity of even the idea that the US regime
is capable of attacking Iran.
This delusion appears to be the same type thinking as the "Generals Always Fight the
Previous War" saying.
The days of the Israeli regime flying at will over countries bombing at will are over. And
the days of the US regime parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of a country and
leisurely taking out its air defense network are long gone.
Russian air defense and electronic warfare tech are now being shown to be significantly
superior to US regime offensive capabilities in real world combat. So much so that the most
common reaction has been to try to rationalize the fact with crazy conspiracy theories about
behind the scenes wink and nod agreements between the US regime and Russia.
Trump foolishly trying to attack Iran to distract from his political problems would end up
as the first modern US regime leader who lost an aircraft carrier and ten dollar gas
prices.
Israeli's were cowering in their sewers while their junk air defense network repeatedly
failed to defend against a minor Syrian retaliatory barrage while Syrians in Damascus were
cheering on their rooftops as their Russian air defense network knocked Israeli missiles from
the sky.
Syria smacking down the Israeli regime is going to have Trump's military advisors sitting
him down and giving him a hard dose of reality about the Israeli/Saudi/Neocon delusions about
attacking Iran.
Pompeo(US) and Zarif(Iran) are currently making the diplomatic rounds, the former looking for
a new & improved plan, and the latter emphasizing that the US never adhered to the old
plan and united opposition to sanctions is in everyon'e best interest.
from the Iran statement:
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has not only made explicit and official statements against
the agreement in violation of its provisions, but has in practice also failed to implement
U.S. practical – and not merely formal commitments under the JCPOA. The Islamic
Republic of Iran has recorded these violations in numerous letters to the Joint Commission
convened under the JCPOA, outlining the current U.S. Administration's bad faith and
continuous violations of the accord. Thus Mr. Trump's latest action is not a new
development but simply means the end of the obstructionist presence of the United States as
a participant in the JCPOA. . .
here
The apparent US line now, as before, is to "change the regime's malign behavior" which is
ridiculous and thus doomed.
@ MISchi 69: There have been Russian-operated S-400's in Syria for years. Even the US
propaganda rags admit it is significant in reducing FUKUS attacks. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34976537
So just because Russia isn't giving the SAA S-300's doesn't mean Syria has no protection.
The fact the updated S-200s and Pantsirs are doing the job reasonably well will give FUKUS
and Israeli/Saudi military planners pause. Note that the cowardly Israeli jets attack from
Lebanese or Jordanian airspace.
And Nuttyyahoo merely crashed the Victory Day festivities, and Putin is too gracious a
host to kick Nutty out. But the body language between them was obvious, Putin was not happy
to see Nutty trying to capitalize on Putin's good manners.
@ Ian 77 According to Reuters it is.
Reuters doesn't take comments so I'm telling you (and others), if you don't mind, because you
are misleading people with something that isn't true.
As much as Bolton and his ilk would love to attack Iran, I have to disagree that a
full-fledged war is likely. USrael will ratchet up tensions all they can, hoping that Iran
will take the bait and actually respond, but the only way an actual war MAY be fought is with
a massive false flag attack. However, it took a massive false flag attack to allow the
neocons to invade Iraq, so said black op would have to be on that magnitude. Here's the thing
though, the neocons seem to be getting worse at false flags and more over the world ain't
buying them like they used to.
Sure you can get your European lackeys to sign up to a few sanctions, but will anyone
actually support the utter tanking of the world economy? Because that will be the end result
of war with Iran and behind closed doors everyone knows this. Look up the Millennial War
Games simulation that pitted the US against Iran. And how did that $200 million exercise turn
out? The US had to "refloat" its fleet in order to win. Using older Chinese anti- ship
missiles the Iranians decimated US naval assets. The US hasn't developed counter measures
against these while the Iranians have undoubtedly improved on these missiles. No matter what
happens to its ground forces and population centers, shipping in the Persian Gulf will be
shut down. That one action will raise the price of oil to over $200 a barrel overnight,
possibly much higher. And with that the global economy will be left in tatters. Too many of
the world's leaders understand this completely and simply will not go along with the US and
line up against Iran like they did with Iraq.
no, Netanyahu was invited. I read about it a week before the parade. Lavrov always says that
you don't need to negotiate with your friends, but you do with your enemies. Hence the
invite.
Like the Godfather said in the eponymous movie "Keep your friends close but your enemies
closer."
UKs military is of course far stronger than Iran,
we will see renewed sanctions against Iran and EU will be onboard and have already mentioned
they "need" to pressure Iran more.
The attacks on Iran will be only financial, not military, is my guess. The big news in the
military sector is often on cyber attacks. Cyber will be a "new military front."
Financial is akin to cyber. No shooting. The military experts don't discuss financial, I
guess because the U.S. is the only country capable of it, controlling world finance as it
does. But a full-on sanctions regime on another small country like Iran could do a lot of
damage and hurt a lot of people, as it did in Iraq previously. Sort of like what the U.S. did
to Japan to precipitate the war in the Pacific, except Iran's reactions must be much more
limited.
So the big question is Europe, and if it is able to legislate any significant
counter-sanction laws that would encourage Iran-Europe business. France looks good on this,
Germany is more significant.
I do wish people would stop calling themselves Anon. It's very difficult to know which is
which. It's easy enough to anonymise yourself with a distinctive handle. Maybe b should ban
it as a handle.
Many years ago I got to hear Sir Edmond Hillary speak to the assembled students at my
school, just a few years after his amazing climbing feat. No multimedia or lasers pointers or
cheesy-brand tee-shirt cannons, ... just an electric performance by an incredible man that
shaped my life, one foot at a time.
Several decades later, I watched SEH demonstrate Simple Green soap at REI. So incredibly
sad. I'll never forget either presentation. The Man in the Moon had become another Soapy
Salesman.
At the same time I first heard SEH speak, my father, an international businessman, brought
home a Buddhist monk exchange student from Asia for the holiday. It was spellbinding to meet
a bright and well-off monk, who knew all this amazing arcane reality, that we call the Wheel.
It shaped my entire approach to the summit.
Several decades later, in fact, just recently, I watched a performance by a Tibetan monk
troupe, after which they essentially begged for sponsors for the remaining exiled monks now
starving in India by the 1000s. They are dying out, like the 1,000s, the 10,000s of
aboriginal valley cultures that once walked the Earth.
Soapy Sales and Starving Monks, who only decades ago were both sitting on Top of the
World. Kind of like everyone's experience, even John Bolton's, former UN ambassador, now a
sleazy salesman-demonstrator for Death Inc, too proud to sell soap, or to busker for alms.
He's pathetic.
So let me bring it on home.
A student of mine is a senior monk in Asia. His charge is to free the spirits of the just
dead. Not the two monks chanting and incense and sprinkling with flower petal water in front
of a cherished photo. No, he blesses the *dying*, the human roadkills from the reckless
Chinese Escalades bombing through SEAsian commute traffic, the black and blue herion addicts
with the needle still in their arm, bright red blood bubbling out of their noses, the raped,
strangled, discarded and bloating young girls, dumped in the nearest rice paddy ditch.
He gets those calls. He never talks about his work, never shows the horror pictures or
trashes the perps. He sends selfies, pics of meals, flowers and temples. So I asked him,
doesn't this bother you at night, the carnal evil, the rape, the murder? Don't you wanna see
justice done?
He said simply, we're all going to die, many of us soon, we have very little time away
from the Wheel. We should spend every precious second of free time uplifting those who are
below us, the poor, the infirm, the feeble, the indentured, the slave, ...because we're all
gonna die as beggars some day. We should hold faith with the beggars.
Bolton is a sick fuck, in a pantheon of sick fucks. Why squander a nanosecond meditating
on any of them? They are nothingness, the void. MoA seems to have a fascination with evil and
death, and making Death's bit players into pop-idols. Selling a different brand of soap, I
guess.
Closing Hormuz would likely be the Iranian response to a sustained bombing campaign. A
single strike on a nuclear facility could elicit a missile strike on the attacking party (US,
Isreal or both.) Or it could involve multiple attacks on vulnerable US troops in Iraq and
Syria. Iran has several rungs in its escalation ladder. It doesn't have to jump to the top
one all at once.
Of course financial sanctions are the main, if not the only, US war-winning tactic
available today. Mainly the control of the VISA and SWIFT exchange systems. But I'm not
financially knowledgeable. It was one reason that Iran signed in 2015. I remember well, about
10 years ago, the husband of an Iranian student arriving with $20K (?) sewn into his
overcoat, to pay for his wife's studies.
However, the US has used this tactic so often now, that people must be looking to ways of
getting round the problem. I'm not quite sure how much success they may have had. People talk
about Russia-China erecting a parallel to the SWIFT system. I hope this does happen, though
it must be expensive. Non-US allies need it.
@lLaguerre: Russia already has set up its version of SWIFT. As has China, as well as both
agreeing to transactions in rubles/yuan first for petroleum, then recently for all other
trade, to bypass the US$ SWIFT system. The US gets a "cut", every time a corporation/country
converts from local currency to US$, then again when that same US$ cash is converted to the
currency of the second trading partner. To avoid this, non-US countries keep US$ reserves to
trade between themselves. This scam was set up at Bretton Woods after WW2 when the US economy
was the only economy/industrial-base left unscathed.
"In 2017, the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, said at a meeting with
President Vladimir Putin that Russia is ready for disconnection from SWIFT."
Because of their large inertia, these things, when they get moving, cannot be stopped and
proceed to the inevitable. The ziocons have pushed the boulder and it's starting to roll.
That is what a lot of panicky people said in 2013, that Obama's invasion of Syria was
inevitable because Assad was gassing his people in Ghouta. It didn't happen. As it turned
out, the "massive momemtum" was in the Zionist propangda, hoping to sucker the U.S. into the
Middle East again.
i think swift and bis are linked in with imf.. unfortunately i don't know how it all works,
but russias central bank is part of imf.. the way imf is set up favours the developed
countries over the developing countries.. they have some other tricks to keep control over it
too, but i do believe it is tricky navigating moving away from it all, which is why the
financial system is the first line of action to put other countries deemed out of line - into
line.. some have tried to get the imf to change without success which is why i believe brics
was working towards an alternative.. of course the b in brics went thru a type of regime
change under a different facade and i am not sure where they are at with that at this moment
in time...
Julian Assange
@JulianAssange
There is something very odd about the Joseph Mifsud story and the role of the UK in the 2016
US presidential election:
(thread)
5:07 PM · Mar 22, 2018
DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016,
Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set
Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel
assets
@MISchi: Israel may have been "invited", but only as a standard diplomatic courtesy, not as a
"guest of honour" as the MSM and Hasbara would have us beleive. The US was probably invited
too... and didn't have the grace to show up? The US and EU were for sure in 2014, but
"boycotted" it over the US coup in Ukraine. Nuttyyahoo was just looking for MSM cover for the
illegal bombing he knew was going to happen, making it look like Putin was "in on it".
I'd guess Putin is simply giving Nutty all the rope Nutty needs to hang himself in the
court of world public opinion. When I see an official statement from Putin (or any Russian
senior official) saying Putin gave any approval of Israel's past and present illegal
incursions in Syria, let alone the illegal occupation of the Golan, I'll believe Nutty being
at the Victory Parade was some sort of endorsement by Putin of Nutty's insanity.
I agree with Lysander's logic. Iran will not be attacked in the "normal" manner; it will be
asymmetrical. The performance of not-so antiquated air defenses in Syria are the big game
changer as Iran has those and its own S-300 version. Plus all those big stationary targets.
Plus, I figure Bolton has a target on his back, as do other neocons--you don't murder over a
million without creating some enemies. I see lots of bluster to foment as much chaos as
possible to accentuate the asymmetrical impact. But as for an actual military assault, Bolton
and company are a decade plus too late.
To negate the potential effect of another Operation Northwoods, I think it wise to pull up
those old pdf docs and spread them around the world via social media--a move I'm frankly
surprised has yet to be made--along with some additional contemporary context.
@james: The Russian central bank is a member of the IMF/World Bank/BIS/SWIFT system as are
nearly every other central bank in the world. Not being "in" this club severely restricts the
ability to do international trade. Russia and China are quietly spearheading the move to
conduct international trade in local currencies, outside the US$-reserve-currency scam
(sorry, system). Both Russia and China have set up alternative systems, which along with the
SCO/AIIB offer participating countries a way to side-set US economic terrorism and sanctions.
The Rothschilds may have managed to stall the BRICS for now, but that won't last long.
I wonder what is the Hebrew for the word
Gleiwitz?
The Gleiwitz incident (German: Überfall auf den Sender Gleiwitz ; Polish : Prowokacja
gliwicka ) was a covert Nazi German attack on the German radio station Sender
Gleiwitz on the night of 31 August 1939 (today Gliwice , Poland), widely regarded as a deceitful
false flag operation
staged along with some two dozen similar German incidents on the eve of the invasion of Poland leading up to
World
War II in Europe .
The Israeli missiles launched yesterday (Wednesday/Thursday) against Iranian military forces
in Syria were real. My old "friend" TTG did an excellent job of documenting the timeline of the
attack/retaliation (
see here ) in his latest twisted post. But it was a trumped up attack. A pretext for
hitting Iranian forces. Iran did not initiate this action. Israel claims it was retaliating
against an unprovoked Iranian missile/rocket strike in the Golan Heights. Israel had been
planning this strike for several days. How do I know? I received the following message from a
military buddy monitoring the situation last Monday. He wrote:
Looks like Israel is getting froggy. They're stepping up their non-kinetic ops against
Syrian AND Russian tech...jamming the shit out of certain air defense systems.
Could be gearing up for a strike package, could just be trying to degrade the battle space
air picture to support another objective or conceal a capability they're testing. Hard to tell
at this point.
Now we know. They were prepping their strike against Iranian targets. I understand why
Israel is terrified of having Iranian military personnel and equipment based in Syria. But
launching weak-ass preemptive strikes, like Israel did yesterday, does nothing more than to
arouse the furor of those unjustly attacked. Iran understands that revenge is a dish best
served cold. They are not going to rush out and start thowing blind haymakers. They will hurt
Israel and will make it count.
It is not a mere coincidence that Israel's bombing barrage came on the heels of Donald
Trump's announcement that the United States was withdrawing from Obama's Iran deal. This was
coordinated fully with Israel, who in turn decided to hit Iranian targets inside Syria. It was
designed specifically to feed the meme that Iran is a rogue state.
But there is irony in this action. Israel used a ploy that Hitler's Nazi Germany wielded.
Hitler and the Wehrmacht were keen on coming up with a casus belli for war against Poland. I
grant you that the Nazi invasion of Poland is in another league from what Israel did in Syria
against Iranians. But we should not ignore the possibility that Israel's unprovoked attacks are
likely to spawn future retaliation by the Iranians. When that happens Israeli leaders will be
under pressure to punch back. That means we will be traveling the road of tit-for-tat, which
usually winds up in Escalation City and full blown war.
Former Ambassador Chas. W Freeman, one of the most astute observers and analysts of the
region, gave a talk on "A Middle East with No Master" on 10 May 2018.
He concluded his talk by listing four broad observations:
First, religion is back as a driver of history.
Second, the rising powers that Middle Eastern countries seek to engage in their
affairs (referring to China and India) are unlikely to meet their expectations .
Third, with the exception of the United States, external powers have all declined to
associate themselves with Israel's, Saudi Arabia's, and the United Arab Emirates'
hysteria about Iran.
Finally, there is a very real danger that the low intensity conflict now underway
between Israel and Iran in Syria and the Gulf Arabs' proxy wars with Iran could escalate
into a major war .....But, having delegated U.S. policy toward Iran to Israel and the
Gulf Arabs, the United States is in no position to decide that question, or very much
else.
My favorite insightful bit was these two paragraphs:
In the absence of strategy, a desire to sustain relationships in the region by supporting
clients' actions drives U.S. policy. The clients themselves have moved beyond
relationship-driven diplomacy and are into transactionalism. The extent to which the U.S.
now follows, rather than leads, its client states in the region is reflected in the Trump
administration's obeisance to Israeli and Saudi hostility to Iran and the "JCPOA."
Meanwhile, minimal commitments of force accompanied by deft diplomacy have enabled
Russia to exploit the Syrian tragedy to become the most sought-after external actor in
the region's affairs. Turkey, once outside the region and Russia's NATO enemy, is again
part of the Middle East, this time cooperating with Russia there more often than not.
Egypt, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are all cultivating ties with Moscow. Their
objective is to correct over-reliance on the United States by diluting it.
-----------------
I think this is a succinct overview of the power evolving power dynamics. I personally
think transactionalism is a better approach anyway if one is really looking after one's
self interest. I am glad to see these Middle Eastern countries get out from under the
"mastery" of the US and focus more on their destinies.
OTOH... Starting with the title, I found my self irritated with how paternalistic and
neo-colonial the underlying assumptions of the talk are. Though of course this is not
surprising considering the audience and the nature of the Borg's exceptionalist beliefs.
Treating the Middle East with such paternalistic and neo-colonialist attitudes was bound
to backfire eventually. Now that China and Russia can offer other options, some of them
will be preferable.
I agree with you. Russia and China are slowly but surely supplanting the US in the ME,
and much of the rest of the world.
I think Russia is very conscious of the danger of the US, under its present
leadership, lashing out with its military in a desperate bid to hold on to its previous
status. That is why it is moving so carefully in the ME. Perhaps, that is also the reason
why Putin seems to be cultivating Netanyahu (knowing that Israel practically controls US
external policies).
Yes, that makes sense. Since Putin isn't getting anywhere in dealing directly with the
US due to TDS and related anti-Russia hysteria, going to the "source" (Israel) is an
excellent strategy. Another example of Putin's mastery of the art of strategic
diplomacy.
I have been pondering the related S-300 dance. At one level there is likely a concern
over escalation, and in contrast with Pax Americana, Putin is much more cautious about
arming his allies. But I wonder if the focus on this one particular weapon is a bit of a
red herring, and is providing cover for other types of weapons help the Russians don't
want to talk about. Maybe some of the weapons geeks here would have a better idea of what
that might be.
IIRC, Chas Freeman was Obama's original choice for appointment as National Security
Advisor, but caved to opposition to him by the Neocons and AIPAC. What might the
counterfactual history have been?
IDF electronic surveillance / EW positions on Mt. Hermon have direct line-of-sight to
most of the Damascus Plain. They would be mad as hornets if Iran had used some kind of
precision missiles earlier this week to take out the AD jammers or any other related
equipment. Reports said Grad or Fajr were used against Israel, but that doesn't make
sense. Neither is accurate enough.
Israel is paranoid about the existence of Syrian or Iranian precision missiles.
The FUKUS strike targeted Syrian sites involved in development of their own precision
missiles - not the bogus Syrian CW development sites cover story. The Iranian
sites and equipment Israel is worried about are - my guess - mobile crews with newer,
more accurate Iranian missiles. Their Mt. Hermon surveillance complex sites are sitting
ducks - they can't put Patriots everywhere. At the same time, Israel is continuing with
its slow-bleed Syrian AD destruction. Israel has to have total air dominance when they
attack Lebanon or Syria again. That's the only way they know how toare willing to fight.
Sources? Like Reuters, Heraatz, al Arabyia, SANA or FARS? They don't seem to jabber much
about air defense or ELINT/EW strategy, equipment or tactics. The only assertions I could
cite from them are: 1) All attacks are 100% successful and meet all objectives (or are
complete failures), 2) All air defense responses take out most of the incoming threats
(or don't), and ELINT/EW means 100% successful eavesdropping and effective jammers (or
else both are utterly useless against the newest toys).
I doubt that any Iranian attacks happened. If any Iranian attack did happen, which is far
from certain, they would have gone for unguided Scuds because that was what was
available.
Israel doesn't have air dominance - all the missiles were fired from Lebanon.
Israel ...has to have... this condition before they'll ever attempt any
'preemptive preventative' ground assault/land grab. Even if/when they ever manage to
assassinate Assad, the IDF armor won't roll into Lebanon or Syria with their troops
without owning the airspace first. Until then: head-chopper proxies got the job.
SCUDs? I'm confused, Laguerre. I'm not talking about Iran attacking from Iran, but IRCG
missile crews in southern Syria firing into Israel. They surely didn't haul unguided,
liquid-fueled SCUDs to Syria.
This is after/in addition to earlier Syrian artillery striking what was described as
an "Israeli forward outpost on Al Shaykh mountain" . I'm reading that as
the Arab name for Mt. Hermon , and the 'forward outpost' as the electronic
surveillance site(s).
The SAA responded to subsequent Israeli counter-attacks with MRLS volleys at
Israeli-backed head-choppers crossing UNDOF into Syria, but those volleys would have been
useless for hitting Israeli ELINT equipment/positions.
That's where either Iran (or Syria) were also firing precision-guided ballistic
missiles, and that's what I think really set the Israelis off. Until then, both sides
were just trading fire over some botched head-chopper op on Khan Arnabeh. After that,
Israel unleashed its suicide drones and cruise missiles at (what they claim were)
'Iranian sites'. I'm guessing those were where the ballistic missiles targeting Israeli
ELINT sites came from.
By SCUDs I meant generically cheap unguided missiles which are always available in the
Middle East, even if something more technologically advanced is not at hand. As the
Houthis have, for example.
"But it was a trumped up attack. A pretext for hitting Iranian forces. Iran did not
initiate this action. Israel claims it was retaliating against an unprovoked Iranian
missile/rocket strike in the Golan Heights. "
The thing is, beside Israel's claim of "hitting Iranian targets" there is no proof to
back this up. I am inclined to rather take Mr Fadel's word here, cynically sarcastic as
it is:
I entirely agree with that. How many Iranian targets were actually hit? Were any? All the
details talk of the targets being Syrian, by their location or other details.
It looks to me as though these strikes were never intended to accomplish anything
substantive. This and other recent actions seem more like probing to see what works and
what doesn't. The dismal reported performance of the recent US strikes in Syria has to
have everyone wondering how much the balance of defense to offense has changed. So they
are trying things, anlyzing the outcomes, and trying other things. This may be
preparation for something big, but for now all I see is a frantic need to measure the
capabilities of the different sides. The actual attacks so far wouldn't have accomplished
anything much on the ground even if they had been fully successful.
Elijah Magnier says the Israelis are extra pissy because they just found out that Iran
has been running 'pieces' to the Palestinians with low vis drones. He goes to say that
Syria firing ballistic missiles into the Golan is a major escalation. One implication is
that this time they fired at military installations, next time they could go after
civilians.
I'm waiting for Netanyahu to say that fragments from the 'Iranian' missiles intercepted
by Iron Dome had traces of Sarin that matched Syria's stockpiles, uranium isotopes
identical to those found at Parchin and Hassan Nasrallah's fingerprints.
I wonder if there is anything he could say that FOX would start to question before
pounding the lectern. Of course they also have the same blind trust in anyone from the
Pentagon or CIA.
no references except memory- Nasser asked the UN observers to leave, Egyptian airforce
buzzed Dimona, other than that only thing UAR did was to mobilize and close the red sea
port of Eilat , they did not initiate hostilities ,
Have the Israelis or the Americans released any satellite photos showing all those
smashed-to-pieces Iranian bases? So far all I have seen is a single video taken from an
Israeli drone as it made its death-dive onto an abandoned Syrian Pantsir-S1.
It took the Americans less than a day to release photos of the sites they struck in
their recent missile attack. Surely they have had enough time to collect all the photos
they need to do a damage-assessment.
Not abandoned. It had shot all its missiles and was traveling to a recharge depot. The
driver (Lt Colonel Ayham Habib) died on the spot and copilot (1st Lt. Ali Essa Mustafa)
later in hospital.
Having its radar shut off it was not trackable, yet the drone had locked it before (when
it was firing with radar on) and was visually following it.
Twitter user Walid says there was a misunderstanding with another AA operator (another
Pantsir?) about providing cover when this one was defenseless.
Anyway, the astounding statements of Israeli military (depleted Iranian force - months
back of timeline in build-up of Iranian infrastructure - blahblah) are crap.
My take is that Netanyahu had pressed Putin in that a powerful anti-Iranian action was
unavoidable, and had been told something like "Iranians not my business, my 'red line'
are Russian servicemen and Assad's life and palace".
Bibi expected the usual stroll through AD, killing some Syrians, hitting some
Iranian/Hezbollah depots, coordinated Jihadists hopelessly attacking SAA checkpoints,
back home for early breakfast.
Now they are in panic. SAA didn't just defended but retaliated! the much famed Iron Dome
exposed as not-so-invulnerable! WTF...?
Israel can't afford having civilians in shelters all the time, it's a blow to the sense
of military superiority that they had to rebuild after 2006 debâcle against
Hezbollah.
That's why the boasting and bragging: "we destroyed The Iranian Threat, hence we need no
more attacking at the moment". IKR?
If more attacks come soon, I am wrong. ATM I agree with some Syrian commentators: the
Rules of Engagement are changed, Golan is now free game, Israel should adjust its plans
to that for the immediate future.
I think you raised a very important question: why? I studied this question as much as
I could. The best answer to the question "why" is in history. Before WWI, in Germany was
the situation the way that most money bags and other very influential people were strong
supporters of Zionism and harshly suppressed any dissenting opinion. the famous German
Rabbi Felix Goldmann, life-long figther against anti-semitism and nazism, therefore felt
so threatened by Zionists and their collaborators, that he published his most important
heritage, as I see it, not under his own name, but the anonymous label of an
"Anti-zionist committee" in Berlin 1913. His most important insight, as I see it, was
that the racist German and European stream of thought and Zionism, that later developed
into German Nazism, shared the same ugly root: racism. A couple of years ago I translated
a couple of sentences by Rabbi Goldmann into english. Quote begin:
If the "racial" moment has acquired a meaning in which nothing counts of everything
else, merits, virtues, striving and disposition, if the Jew is outlawed, if you want to
depress him into a pariah position, so it is a success, the national belief, the
chauvinistic racial madness of our times, has won in diligent work.
And this chauvinist, national racist madness is the theoretical basis, the spiritual
soil of Zionism! That's where it borrowed the specific features of it's being and it's
effectiveness! Even the utterance of this undeniable and undisputed fact contains the
most damning criticism of this pseudo messianic movement. With all clarity the
consequences must be imagined of what it must mean for the nature and manifestations of
Zionism that it grew up on the same marsh soil as the racial anti-Semitism, this scourge,
which we Jews are suffering under so horrible. And it's always the same water, may it now
be called Aryan anti-Semitic, or may it now be colored Jewish-national that comes from
the same poisoned wells, and no staining of the world can make it a healthy drink.
If you stand on the position that the national hate speech and racial anti-Semitism is
a crime against culture – and who would not – you must also condemn it's
brother in Jewish garb, the national Zionism, because it's results will be as pernicious
as those.
Quoet end.
I think that the most convincing answer to your question: why. Nazism and Zionism both
come from the ugly tree of racism, the typical hubris of that, and while the Nazist
branch of that school of thinking largely died with the German defeat in WWII, another
branch of the same school of thinking, Zionism, sadly, still thrives, and it never went
away from the ideological basics of racism, on what Zionism was founded on.
The booklet from Rabbi Felix Goldmann, which he published in the name of an
Anti-zionist comitee in Berlin, is transcripted here.
Russian presidential aide, Vladimir Kozhin, has just announced that Russia is not
delivering any S-300 AD missiles to Syria. (
http://tinyurl.com/yd4uddk6 ).
Coming after Netanyahu's visit, this indicates that Russia continues to play a neutral
role in the ME. It remains to be seen whether Russia obtained any assurances from
Netanyahu not to carry out any further attacks on Syria. It is possible that N used the
threat of US involvement to push Russia into this posture.
As I said earlier (on another thread), I think Russia wants to prevent the US from
moving into the ME (and providing its support and backing to the Saudis in their efforts
to use the Jihadis to dominate the ME).
From a political point of view, I would not characterise the Russian position as
"neutral", but as "complicated". It's what I would expect of Russia navigating the
complexities of the Middle East, with a state of limited power.
It's improbable that Russia will let Asad die. That would be totally against Russian
interests, as it would let loose the Jihadis on the Muslim territories in Russia,
preventing which may be the major motive in Russian policy. But it will also be Russian
policy to avoid World War 3. So a lot of havering is going on. They've done this before,
not fully supporting Asad, withdrawing Russian troops.
Personally I think Russian policy is pretty subtle, though others may disagree.
They've succeeded so far.
I generally agree with you re Russian interests -- avoid drawing the US into the ME (WW3
comes much higher on the escalation ladder!), and having Asad remain in control of Syria.
By "neutral" I was referring to their stance with respect to the Israel vs. Syria/Iran
tussle. I think they have got Israel to promise to not try and dethrone Asad. But that
agreement doesn't cover Iran in Syria. If Asad lets Iran (or Hizbullah) threaten Israel
from Syria, the Russians will not stop Israel from responding.
The policy itself is pretty simple; however, its execution is, as you say,
complicated.
Russia has twice sent clear signals to Israel to back off from its plan to destroy Syria,
Lebanon and then Iran.
Russia offered Lebanon a military cooperation package to enhance the Lebanese
military's capabilities. That would have indirectly supported Hizballah's capabilities
and made it more difficult for Israel to attack Lebanon.
Then the Russian offer of S-300's to Syria.
If the latter has been postponed again, it is disappointing.
If Russia thinks these little maneuvers are going to prevent Netanyahu from escalating
against Syria and Lebanon - and eventually Iran - they are very much mistaken.
Granted, Putin has to move cautiously. He doesn't want a war between Russia and Israel
and neither does Israel.
But the best outcome he can hope for with this sort of dithering is that it merely
delays the in my view inevitable time when Russia is going to have confront Israel in
Syria militarily.
"By "neutral" I was referring to their stance with respect to the Israel vs. Syria/Iran
tussle. I think they have got Israel to promise to not try and dethrone Asad."
In February the Russians put troops into Damascus in order to prevent a decapitation
strike. We're supposed to believe that the Israelis are of good faith?
Why Is Israel Behaving Like Hitler's Germany? by Publius Tacitus. 11 May 2018.
This is a specious comparison at best. False Flags are not unique to the Third Reich
and the Gleiwitz Incident was to provide long term political cover for the invasion and
occupation of a Sovereign State. The accusation against Iran for its almost certainly
mythical attack on the Golan Heights is simply a public relations convenience to cover a
tactical manoeuvre.
This said the parallels between N@zi Ideology and Jewish Belief are blatantly obvious
and have been noted numerous times, most famously and effectively by George Steiner in
his novel The Portage to San Cristobal of AH.
In this alternative history The Fuhrer has escaped the Berlin Bunker and sought refuge
in the jungles of the Amazon Basin where he is tracked down by a team of Jewish N@zi
hunters. Here due to the exigencies of the situation (it looks increasingly unlikely that
any of them will live to reach safety) the team decide to try him for his crimes and
appoint a native to judge his guilt or innocence. Steiner writes AH's defence brilliantly
but most devastatingly by his final observation. "Should you not honour me who have
made Zion a reality?"
It is a measure of the unsettling nature of the ideas in the book that Steiner himself
(he is Jewish) has been accused of anti-Semitism.
Supposedly the White House is not interested in attacking Iran militarily, but intends
to try to stir up Iranian opposition to the ruling government.
All I can say is: Good luck with that. Iran's population does not consider its form of
government to be "oppressive". While a lot of the population probably thinks its
government could do better - DUH! what population doesn't? - they aren't going to
overthrow it as a favor to the US.
And Israel certainly isn't going to go along with some lame effort to get the Iranians
to overthrow their own government. Israel wants a US military solution to Iran.
Period.
SSG;s 'white paper' is likely some variation of this plan:
<● The U.S. should introduce a resolution in the UN Security Council
calling for free and fair elections in Iran to be help immediately.
These elections must be monitored by the UN and include U.S. observers.
Russia and China are likely to veto such a resolution, of course. The UN
Security Council must be put on notice that any veto of this motion
will be regarded as the end of its legitimacy as a venue for addressing
the world's problems. If they fail us this time, a new organization
should be built by free nations to fulfill the purposes the United
Nations was meant to achieve.
● The U.S. Treasury Department should place immediate sanctions on
regime leaders and place any monies seized in a fund held in trust for a
Free Iranian Government. Corrupt officials have stolen the people's
wealth. The United States should lead an international effort to recover
as much of that money as possible. The funds can represent a first
foundation for the success of their new government.
● The United States should consider the establishment of a safe zone
in or near Iran, perhaps in the Kurdish region of Iran or northern Iraq.
Here regime opponents can gather and receive training in how to replace
their government, including lessons in statecraft, diplomacy, and
constitution-drafting.
● The President should consider a partial revocation of the travel
ban on Iranian nationals. Regime opponents who wish to come to the
United States to receive training in preparation for the replacement of
the corrupt regime should be welcome. This will show the truth of the
President's word that the United States is only opposed to the regime,
but has solidarity with the people of Iran.
● Finally, we endorse this call to instate new sanctions on Iran, reinstate
sanctions on the Iranian regime, or to refuse to continue to waive such sanctions. New
sanctions should target the regime specifically, taking care not to add to the suffering
of the people.
None of these guarantee success, and all come with major risks
associated. But absent U.S. leadership is meaningful concrete ways, the
regime will kill and imprison the protesters and another opportunity for
peace will have been lost. That will make the world less safe for
Americans and all others. The time for action is now.>
Alexander Mercouris weighs in on Israel's reasons for attacking Syria.
Explaining Israel's Syrian strike: Israel tries to reverse shift in military
balance
Latest Israeli strike primarily intended to defeat Syria's increasingly effective air
defence system; not targeted at Iran
http://theduran.com/israeli...
He believes the goal is mostly to redress the strategic balance. I think that's only a
small part of it. In my view the strike is just one more in the Israel game of escalating
military attacks on Syria until Syria responds sufficiently to enable Israel to entice
the US to attack Syria in a full-scale air campaign.
Israel has been engaging in this pattern since the first couple years of the Syrian
conflict. Israel repeatedly fired into Syria in alleged response to artillery and rocket
attacks into its territory - no doubt fired by ihadists under Israel's support. But
Assad's forces never returned fire until Russia entered the conflict. Now Syria is
willing to fire back, but Russia is only involved peripherally by utilizing their
superior radar systems integrated into the Syrian AD system.
Mercouris refers to this piece by Eric Zuess, which analyzes who is lying about who
started the attack - and concludes that Israel is likely the one who initiated the
situation.
Which side is lying about Israel's missile attack on Syria?
Analysis of reports show Israel's attack was 'pre-emptive' and unprovoked
http://theduran.com/which-l...
I agree. The proof is not irrefutable but there is reason to believe Israel started
it. And the reason remains the same: start a war between the US/Israel and Syria.
Russia doesn't want a war with the US or Israel over Syria. Neither the US nor Israel
wants a war with Russia over Syria. But Israel does want a war between the US and Syria,
as well as between Israel/the US and Hizballah.
These attacks are yet another attempt to get that going. And they will continue until
Russia is forced to engage Israel militarily over Syria.
Do any of you have any good references that address the issue of whether the Six-Day War
in June 1967 was also an unprovoked attack by Israel on an Arab state?
It's well established that Egypt had announced a blockade of Israel's access to the Red
Sea (international waters) via the Straits of Tiran. Israel has characterized this as an
act of war. So I think it is safe to say that Israel's attack was "provoked" - whether it
was legal under international law I don't know.
Israel Deceived the World in 1967, and Paid the Price for It in 1973
Israel pretended to be the victim during the Six-Day War, and succeeded in
deceiving the world. But it failed to prepare properly for the Yom Kippur War, fearing it
would be blamed for starting the next war
https://www.haaretz.com/isr...
I think it is generally conceded now that Israel launched a "preemptive" war in 1967
but that Egypt was not really intending to attack Israel, which makes the war a lot less
"preemptive" and more "premeditated and opportunistic" for Israel.
Bibi feels empowered with orange top in the white house but what is the goal?
Does Israel hope to use Iran as a pretext to significantly degrade the SAA now that
the Jihadists are mostly routed? Does bibi just think he can take cheap shots at Iran? Is
this perhaps a message to Russia or an attempt to create a rift between Russia and her
allies (Iran and Syria). Russia had done a lot in Syria but i wouldn't call Russia a
particularly good ally. Has Donald promised Bibi backing if Iran retaliates?
I also wonder why Bib is pulling this. There are lot of possibilities and it might
just be multi factorial.
Alaric,
I've posted before; Probably next year (unfinished business in Syria) the SAA &
Hezbollah are going to try to take the Golan Hts back. My latest evidence for this is
Bashar Jaffar (Syrian UN Amb) listing the areas the Syrian govt was going to re-take. The
last item on the list was the Golan Hts. The prospect of this battle frightens the IDF:
Battle from tidewater in Lebanon to the Jordanian border, Hezbollah, SAA, Iraqi Shia
militia & Iranian mercs (Afghani Shia). The IDF does not want to fight that battle
w/o air superiority.
Bibi also has a problem with the police. Any of the four corruption charges could take
him out of office. If he's convicted of a couple, or the fourth charge, he could go to
jail.
I'm starting to see Moscow's viewpoint: If Syria was supplied with S300, the Israelis
would go crazy to knock out those missile batteries. No telling how far they'd escalate.
Also Russia does not want that Arab attack to go in against the Golan Hts: There is a
danger of huge escalation.
From my point of view, the interesting thing about the Golan Hights is they are part of
Syria. I just watched a BBC host tie himself in knots trying to characterize the missile
strikes launched at Israeli positions in the Golan as aggression, while acknowledging
that Israel has invaded and is occupying that part of Syria.
Fighting for the Golan strikes me as a classic double bind for the western news media
- the more they cover it, the more they will be forced to either condemn Israel's
occupation of the Golan or admit that we in the west don't actually respect international
law.
I see zero likelihood that Syria will try to retake the Golan. It would merely be playing
into Israel and US hands, and result in both Israel and the US attacking Syria. Not even
Russia could prevent the US and Israel from starting a full-scale war with Syria without
risking WWIII - and certainly not if Assad is to blame for starting it. Therefore Russia
would never allow Assad to do this. And Iran can't do it without Assad and Russia's
blessing.
Russia is trying to contain Netanyahu's ambitions but it's not going to work. Israel
will continue to escalate until they are forced by military means to stop. Russia is
hoping it won't have to be the one to force Israel to stop, but I'm afraid that is a
forlorn hope. Syria will not be up to the task.
Richard,
Ever since Elijah Magnier mentioned the projected attack, I've been watching for evidence
to back up his thesis. I've seen 4 or 5 facts to support the thesis. A couple are: The
Syrians units trained by Hezbollah have been moved up to the border, the Afghani mercs.
have been housed in a camp near Damascus (for refitting?). Israel has attacked that
camp.
So it's not just Syria but also Hezbollah & all it's missiles.
I think there is a lot of screaming going on behind closed doors; Russia does not want
this operation to go in. I think Assad is up for it, especially given the list recited by
Amb. Jaffar. Hezbollah won't let Syria fight alone & besides they know they are #1 on
Israel's hate list. I can see how they think that if it's a fight between the Arabs (Sy,
Hezb, Afghani mercs & Iraqi Shia militia) with Iran much in background but not overt,
against Israel, the US might not intervene...
If the attack goes in, I'd expect the IDF to hold a line somewhere in the Golan.
Positional warfare could be bad for Israel though; steady production of body bags. Also,
if Hezbollah is in all the way, misille-ing Tel Aviv is probably also a game changer.
it is exceedingly rare for me to say, "Get a grip." 999 times out of 1000 it is said to
me. But...
The Russian Ministry of Defense has this to say,"MOSCOW, May 9. /TASS/. Between the
hours of 01:45 and 03:45 on May 10 the Israeli Armed Forces on the pretext of retaliation
for an attack against Israeli positions in the area of Golan heights by armed groups
dealt strikes against Syrian territory. Participating in the air raid were 28 Israeli
planes F-15 and F-16, which fired more than 60 air-to-surface missiles on different parts
of Syria. Also Israel launched more than ten tactical surface-to-surface missiles. The
attacks were against the deployment sites of Iranian armed groups and also Syrian air
defenses in the area of Damascus and in southern Syria. Syria's air defenses downed more
than half of the Israeli missiles. The damage caused to Iranian armed groups and also
Syria's military and civilian infrastructures are being specified."
The Israeli Ministry of Defense says this, ""We hit almost the entire Iranian
infrastructure in Syria. They must understand that if it rains here, it will pour there."
I am reminded of Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs.
They do go on to say, "I hope we have managed to end the new chapter of dealing with the
Iranian extremism for now." I daresay they do.
We have a model for how the United States would like to deal with the Middle East:
Raqqa. Igor Konashenkov, spokesman for the Russian Defence Ministry, said: "Raqqa has
inherited the fate of Dresden in 1945, wiped off the face of the Earth by Anglo-American
bombardments." From Wikipedia, "Around 80% of Raqqa had been left "uninhabitable" after
the battle, according to the UN". All that's missing is the radioactivity.
But there will be no nuclear conflict, and I hope and believe no new Raqqa's. The only
possible nuclear conflict in the world today was a first strike by the United States
against North Korea. President Trump has been maneuvered by the North Koreans and the
Chinese into a mental state where he dreams of a Nobel Peace Prize and has forgotten
about "Fire, fury, and, frankly, force." His base is chanting "Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize,"
not "Fire and Fury, Fire and Fury."
As a radio amateur always been fascinated by Gleiwitz b/c it's a wooden radio tower. from
wiki "The historic Gliwice Radio Tower in 2012. It is the tallest wooden structure in
Europe." Of course, for us, the U.S. has had its share of false flags and planned false
flags- Operation Northwoods for one, easily found on wikipedia. As for Israel, there is
no shortage, "the Lavon affair," for one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
The most heinous thing a human can do
is eat another human. Fear of cannibalism along with the other two great taboos, incest and inter-family
violence, are the bedrocks of human culture. Without these taboos there is no human civilization, yet
zombie cannibals are everywhere, from the most popular TV shows in the US and Europe to the most played
PC games. Everywhere we look there is a zombie dragging his feet looking for human prey. The ubiquitous
nature of this meme of semi-human creatures that survive only by breaking the most fundamental of human
taboos is a clear indicator of a collective cultural pathology.
Humans must not only kill and eat
plants and animals to survive, we must make sure they keep coming back so they can be killed and eaten
again and again. Life needs death; we must kill to live, and eventually we all wind up as someone else's
food. This paradox lies at the core of the world's religions and mythologies and the fear/repulsion of
eating other humans is the keystone of our culture, without it we turn on ourselves and self-annihilation
ensues. The zombie meme is a modern myth pointing to a deep fear of self-destruction.
The great psychologist and mystic Carl
Jung was asked if a myth could be equated to a collective dream and he answered this way, "A myth is the
product of an unconscious process in a particular social group, at a particular time, at a particular
place. This unconscious process can naturally be equated with a dream. Hence anyone who 'mythologizes,'
that is, tells myths, is speaking out of this dream."
If a person had a recurring nightmare
that she was eating her family it would be a clear symptom of a profound psychological disturbance.
Cultures don't dream, but they do tell stories and those stories can tell us much about the state of the
collective psyche.
Many of the themes in our popular
culture are conscious story telling devices with the definite purpose of social engineering/control, but
others seem to just emerge from the collective unconscious like the stuff of dreams. The zombie meme is
clearly of the latter variety. It's pointing to a fear that something has broken in our culture and what
awaits us is a collective psychotic break of apocalyptic proportions.
Exposure to the general public helps in understanding this I think. Go to a mall, watch Mark Dice
videos online. People are astonishingly stupid. Staggeringly stupid.
I'm so stupid I never even heard of Mark Dice and despite the idea that I have an extremely high CI
(Curiosity Index) I am not even tempted to have such a desire. Anyway, I'm constantly amazed at how stupid
we humans can be, yet remarkably, we stumble along. It baffles the bl
**
p outta me.
And that would just be "too terrible to contemplate" wouldn't it?
The man who launched the war on Iraq now gets
awards . Netanyahoo is
agitating for war on Iran just like he agitated
for war on Iraq. Shady groups of
nutty "experts"peddle
policy papers for 'regime change'. U.S. "allies" are put under pressure. With their
willingness to "compromise" they actually further the prospect of
war . When they
insist on sticking to international rules malign
actors prepare
measures to break their resistance. All that is still just a "shaping operation", a
preparation of the battlefield of public opinion. This buildup towards the war will likely take
a year or two.
What is still needed is an event that pushes the U.S. public into war fever. The U.S.
typically uses false-flag incidents - the Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Maine, the
Anthrax murders - to create a psychological pseudo-rationale for war. An Israel lobbyist
begs for
one to launch war on Iran.
One wonders when and how a new 9/11 like incident, or another Anthrax scare, will take
place. It will be the surest sign that the countdown to war on Iran has started.
Posted by b on May 12, 2018 at 06:35 AM | Permalink
Because of their large inertia, these things, when they get moving, cannot be stopped and
proceed to the inevitable. The ziocons have pushed the boulder and it's starting to roll.
It is starting to be frightening now.
The United States is a terrorist state by any measure.
A terrorist state not even in the control of its own population
It is inflicting financial terrorism across the planet.
It is exerting extortion, greed and tribute on behalf of an occupying power in the western
portion of Palestine.
Bombing and destroying any nation standing in the way of that terrorist nation's expansion
and occupation.
When are the world's nations finally going to get together and refuse US imposed vassalege
fronting for these occupiers.
And when will they start standing up for their own populations and people everywhere?
must be faced down and stopped or their is no free world and no future of one.
Careful what you wish for. The continued war making that the U.S. is engaged in today, just
may include getting bit in that place where the sun don't shine. The country is overextended
militarily, hasn't the ability to defend all theaters, and contrary to what some assume, the
anti-war thinking is growing. Lessons learned from Viet-Nam, not what one may think.
There isn't the same unity throughout the powers that be, particularly in the mainstream
media, that there was when Bush was President. Trump through the hatred he generates
theoughout the 'upper crust', makes it hard for many deep staters to get on board a war drive
he would lead.
And as you said, b, Trump needs a real or false flag, one with many casualties, and
something that won't fall apart from lack of evidence and a few days of rational scrutiny.
Sounds like a job for the Saudi mercenaries, Al Qaeda or ISIS.
People in high places are leaving due to team Trump threats.
Receiving mail from team trump employed black cube is no small thing. Kudos to you b for
sticking with it.
Two thoughts on US going to war with Iran. 10 It will destroy the US or certainly the US
empire and hegemony. 2) Iran needs plenty of help and respect during and after as they will
destroy the US. Not physically, but they will destroy US power.
What do those ziocons have in their hands that lets them get away with it over
and over again?
Posted by: Gesine Hammerling , May 12, 2018 8:04:24 AM |
6
What do those ziocons have in their hands that lets them get away with it over and over
again?
Posted by: Gesine Hammerling | May 12, 2018 8:04:24 AM |
6 /div
The question we all want to know is, did Trump appoint lunatic Bolton entirely of his own
volition, or was he forced to appoint this psychopath? The reach of the US deep state seems
to be limitless. A curious thing happened the other day when someone in the US administration
announced that America would no longer be funding the white helmets propaganda outfit. Over
here in the UK parliament an opposition member of parliament was practically foaming at the
mouth with rage and demanded of prime minister Mrs May that the UK would be continuing to
fund the white helmets. When she assured him that the UK was fully behind the white helmets
and that funding would remain in place, there was a cheer from around the house. I'm amazed
that Bolton allowed the administration to cut off funding when even the UK idiots in
parliament want to fund the propaganda arm of the head choppers.
I am just curious to know how much influence John Bolton can exercise as National Security
Advisor: is his position part of the President's Executive Office and does he (Bolton, that
is) have a department to answer to him and a budget? Is his position any more secure than,
say, Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State?
The more that Trump is pushed into a corner by investigations of various scandals, the more
he needs something to distract from them. A war in a far-off country would be the perfect
thing to get people rallying around the President.
Jen @9:
From what I understand, Pompeo is much higher on the food chain. The SoS is in the line of
succession; advisors are not. I believe the position is just a single individual with closer
access to the POTUS.
I said it many times before, and I can safely repeat it again, there wont be a hot war with
Iran. Entire NATO couldnt defeat Iran, and US would go alone (maybe Israel would piggyback
few shots). It would end as catastrophe for US and de-facto end as the main superpower.
Pentagon (and even CIA) are many things, but suicidally stupid isnt one of them, neither is
Trump, or even Nutjobyahoo.
What we will see is more sanctions (to try to create civil unrest) and another "color
revolution" endeavor, and it will fail too.
Trump coopted by the neo-cons? Exactly what lever would they have on Trumpty Dumbdy that
isn't already public knowledge? Misogyny, Philandering?... already tried that pussy-grabbing
Stormy front. Financial improprieties? That Trump Inc. was/is a serial bankrupt corporation,
even screwing low-income students and any building contractor it could?... Old news. That
Trumpty Dumbdy is too stupid to read the full documentation presented to him, that he can't
write/deliver a coherent, logical line of thought?... obvious from well before the day he
officially declared his candidacy.
Trump (and his real estate "empire") was and is a product of the Rothschild cabal, and he
was deliberately foisted on the US electorate to be the only one in the country Killary could
beat... OOPS!
So we are now seeing Plan-B, where Trumpty is manipulated and browbeaten to shed the few
shreds of intelligence and decency he still possessed. All the Deep State/Rothschild-enablers
have to do is appeal to Trumpty's fragile ego, or Melania's emotional jags, and they are in
control.
But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS
openly attack Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show the likely course of events where the
Zionists are allowed to carry on with the Yinon Plan. Syria is the line in the sand, despite
Erdogan trying to play the US off Russia for historical gotcha gains. Don't forget, Erdogan
owes his life to Putin, who ensured the US coup failed by targeting the rogue Turk jets
tasked with shooting Erdogan's plane down... I'd bet the Turk pilots were told that if they
even turned on their targeting systems, they would be shot down... self preservation is a
strong deterrent.
Israel/Saudi on their own cannot withstand even Syria, Hizbolla and Iran directly, even if
the russian military only backstopped the Syrian alliance. Ahe US public won't tolerate
another Iraq debacle, as zero body bags landing at Edwards AFB is the limit. Let alone that
Iran would be Iraq on steroids especially for the several 1,000 in the western Syria caldron.
It's a big caldron right now, but with Russian-manned mobile S-400's/etc. protecting all
Syrian, Iranian and possibly Iraqi airspace, those soldiers/mercenaries are sitting ducks
after the first bomb lands in Iran.
Apologies if following musings are a bit disjointed.
American chronic hostility towards Iran, and long standing American economic and
informational and low-level war gainst Iran, has an insane, out-of-touch with reality,
ideological/mythological tinge/component to it. I won't try a broad psycho-analysis, or
assemble many possible reasons why that might be.
But among those possible components there is a long standing implacable totalitarian bent
to US power wielders, reflected in their ordained geo-political communications in the United
States. The American economic sanctions and continuously variously hostile policy towards
Cuba over more than half a century is an example. The former 'brothel dof the Caribbean' was
apparently fine for the US, and the death squad ridden countries of Central America are quite
acceptable, but Cuba out of the capitalist orbit? Cuba as attempting a different ideology,
and approach: terrible recalcitrant. The very demon of the hemisphere.
In his revelatory book The Praetorian Guard, former CIA John Stockwell noted that as he
was growing up, basically nobody questioned the prevailing American ideology and system. Real
searching basic debate was absent. Within the context of a culture where freedom of speech is
technically prioritized, lauded as an ideal, somehow self-censorship and discussion is
limited to within-the-box of convention, thus discussion as scripted theatre, propaganda,
dominated overwhelmingly.
No real debate, but what was repeated ad infinitum were messianic messages'we swear
allegiance to the flag', we're number one, we're the free world, we're the good guys.
After the JFK coup d'etat, basically everything in American media became an exercise in
controlling all political discourse and trying like crazy to make sure pretense prevailed.
This was if anything accentuated after the 9/11 false flag treasonous mind-f**k.
There was also a deadly military doctrine adopted by the US after WW2, when segments of US
power decided to go for global military domination, basically permanent war and war
preparation. The cliche is that the first casualty of war is truth, but in the case of the
United States, doubly so, as that train had already left the station.
The United States is a kind of astonishingly cautionary historical example of the deranged
trajectory that dishonesty, pretense and censorship as normalized and dominant will ensure.
So many natural advantages, but the external manifestation of the US became mass murder and
subterfuge; internal problems of the US are festering, metastisizing, and tens of millions of
Americans are deeply demoralized, anxiety ridden, emotion-related
drug-medication-dependent.
Back to Iran. A few years ago while driving in the evening I turned on the car radio and
the first words I heard from a (Jewish) talk show host on a Toronto station was the question:
Do you think the Americans have the balls to nuke Iran? Really bizzarre sick question that
apparently could be sent out glibly and sefely into the Canadian political discussion
universe as an intellectual feat. And on numerous occasions for many years it has been
commonplace in Canadian mass media to depict Iran in a hostile, negative light. And as German
writer Udo Ulfkotte bravely told us before his untimely death, the CIA also influences and
controls and thus contaminates much of European mass media communication.
So the American insanity and dishonesty and war mongering is playing itself out on a broad
stage, (witness the truly crazy pathetic British government's behaviour of late) and crazy
people do crazy things, so yah, Iran is still in the crosshairs. But there is a kind of
desperate, fading, dated quality to the American obsession with 'evil Iran', and lies and
make-believe and insanity cannot escape colliding with reality. The collision can make a
helluva a mess, but at some point hopefully the pendulum swings towards a reassertion of
sanity and decency and honesty.
How many times will Americans shoot themselves in the foot for Israel and fairy tales?
"But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS
openly attack Iran"
It appears Putin and Russia have decided to sit all this out. While Putin was enjoying the
Victory Parade with Netanyahu,,, Netanyahu was bombing his ally Syria. Putin was all smiles
and so far all we hear is crickets.
Putin will sell his S-400 systems to anyone that wants them EXCEPT Syria and all they want
is the S-300.
I don't know what's going on but as far as Russia is concerned I wouldn't bank on their
helping Iran.
China? China can be purchased like cloths on a rack.
No,,, I think it's pretty open right now for the US to attack Iran. Whether it can survive
a war with Iran is doubtful,,, but that's never stopped them before.
Yes "take out" as I defined not through occupation/invasion but fighter jet strikes and/or
from sea. That wont take more than 1 day for 3 top Nato nations.
I wonder what is going through the minds of Kim and the South Korean leadership. It is
obvious that the US is not agreement capable. What sort of guarantees can the US provide.
Even if China and Russia provide guarantees it may not be enough. Kim sees that if a deal is
made, then the crippling sanctions could be reimposed or remain. Kim and his sister are not
stupid.
Neocons and Bolton are Trotskyites. Permanent Revolutionists
The ruling elite never really knew how dumb people were until the internet and social
media. With the help of Trumps supporter and Facebook investor Thiel and his company Palintir
and Facebook to help them figure out all the data they collected, they know they can make the
cattle believe anything without making it believable to anyone with an IQ under 120
The few that figure it out without being members of the cult are isolated and
inconsequential.
Plato told us what he hoped would happen. Leo Straus who is the godfather of the neocons
emphasized Platos Noble Lie which is behind all of todays fake news/history . Plato was
heavily influenced by Irans Zoroastrianism
I believe elements behind the reformation in the 16th century and Sabbateans from the 17th
century, Frankists , Freemasons and Jesuits from the 18 th century and Zionists , and
Martinists and Marxists from the 19th century joined forces to create a NWO that is a
Luciferian cult of Global Synachrists
The neocons are the latest manifestation of the Synarchists, and unfortunately for the
world this means global terror much like the Rothschild back Trotsky hoped to accomplish
in
the 20th century before being thwarted by Stalin. It also means the end of Religion as
Neocons corrupt Protestant Christianity, in US and Across the Atlantic while CIA controlled
Jesuit Pope Francis destroys Catholicism. Zionism and the Holocaust wiped out Torah believers
and the GWOT and neocons are proceeding to destroy Islam after corrupting it with Islamism
with help from the Saudi Arabias corrupt Wahhabism which has spread Islamic extremism along
with US and Israel
For those who believe the US can be destroyed, you are in denial. There is no stopping the
US/Israel//British/EU alliance. The only hope is that once the perpetual revolution is over
that the philosopher kings described by Plato will be merciful. Unfortunately, given many of
them are neo-malthusians who think most of humanity are worthless consumers of Gaias precious
resources, i am not optimistic
However you would define war US (Israel) and Iran is at war footing for decades, nothing new
here, so I would not panic here that Bolton would do something.
It cannot be more clear that as much as Trump is a flaccid clown of ignorance and
belligerence to cover up his tax evasion crimes from Muller, Bolton plays role of barking
poodle that all, did not get anything done what global oligarchic interests tell him or he
will be put down.
And Please do not compare Iran to Iraq especially after two Iraqi wars, Iran is in
position to cause major damage to global oligarchic interests and hence there will be no
escalation despite fire and fury rhetoric as it was in NK case, it is all about reintegration
of Iranian oligarchy to global oligarchic country club and what we witness is negotiating of
condition of selling out Iranians to neoliberal globalists and by that advance a step in
isolating Russia to achieve the same purpose, surrender to globalism.
Also I do not see Netanyahu welcoming hundreds of Iranian missiles landing in Tel Aviv as
Saddam only shot few Soviet museum item at Israel and back then all hit their however random
targets. There would be no random targets this time so there would be death and vital damage,
not to mention that Israel could loose Golan Height in the process. Also there is no way in
hell for US to invade Iran, or gather 600k troops as it was in 1991 for one quarter Iran size
Iraq.
I know that spreading fear brings clicks but here on this blog we know better than
that.
Don't underestimate Trump. He came to office on an audacious promise to drain The Swamp. It's
a very specialised task. It was never going to be easy and I'm quite certain that he went in
knowing that his first misjudgement would probably be his last. I don't know how to drain The
Swamp but if Trump thinks he can then I do too. I've been pleasantly surprised at his ability
to engage with senior officials on the World Stage and appear Presidential. Compared with
bumbling fools like Ronny Raygun, Jimmy Carter and Dubya, Trump leaves them for dead in the
"100% on the ball" stakes. Whilst I'm waiting, with fingers crossed, I console myself with
the following thoughts:
1. Hillary would have been worse.
2. The non-people he wants to neutralise are the worst bunch of scum and arseholes on the
planet.
3. Since he's the only person with a Swamp plan, we shouldn't be too picky about his timing
and tactics.
4. Trump is an extremely clever individual.
thanks b... and thanks for the atlantic article from peter beinart... i thought it was a good
article.. here's a quote from it "More than 60 percent of Republicans, according to a March
Pew Research Poll, think the United States was right to invade Iraq. George W. Bush's
approval rating among Republicans, according to a January CNN poll, is 76 percent." and "It's
rare to see non-Americans on political talk shows. That matters because non-Americans
overwhelmingly think pulling out of the Iran deal is nuts. And non-Americans are more likely
to raise fundamental questions about American nuclear policy -- like why America isn't
pushing for inspections of Israel's nuclear program, and why America keeps demanding that
other nations denuclearize while building ever more nuclear weapons of its own."
then you can read @20 Robert Snefjella post - thanks robert - and note the radio interview
from toronto..
sorry to say, but this 'neo-con' term is a quick term to describe so much of what looks
like the koolaid american citizens drink regularly.. and there is plenty of it to go around
in canada too..
americans by and large look like a nation of idiots, spoon fed everything they know..
i tend to agree with harrys view @13... colour revolution will continue.. but unlike
harry, i do believe the bombs will fall and we will enter some type of ww3 scenario.. the
usa-israel are too much led by the neo con koolaid to step away from any of their ongoing
insanity.. i just can't see the insanity stopping with rational, reasonable people having a
say.. so, maybe i don't fully agree with harry other then in the short term..
I agree with your assessment that Trump is a very clever individual - when it comes to
manipulating the media and distracting from his words and actions, but I disagree with every
other assertion you have made and find that he has filled his administration with grifters
and con artists that rival the days of Grant or Harding.
And if you have grown up in America under DACA and are about to be deported or are losing
your health insurance coverage because key provisions of ACA have been overturned, just try
reciting "Hillary would have been worse!"
Utter nonsense. The US and Israel are coward bullies. They will pounce when the odds are
good, but they are quite rational about when they are not. There have been endless threats
and sabre rattling by the US and Israel against Iran for decades, but they never followed
through. They will most certainly not do so now, when the relative military position of Iran
is better than ever. And this "crying wolf" article will join the the countless others
written before on the junkpile of historical falsification...
There is a strong delusion that maintains its satanic grip on the "leadership" in DC.
The depiction of Mordor in Tolkien's "Fellowship of the Rings" series is very fitting in
describing the present pure evil and absolute darkness of those who plan for war and
destruction in the secret chambers in the upper echelons of our society.
What will stop the madness, death, and destruction that has rained down and continues to
rain down on so many millions of hapless men, women, and children in the Middle East and
abroad? Will it take a few US cities completely destroyed and hundreds of thousands of
Americans vaporized before the insanity of US Empire is stopped?
I pray for peace for the sake of my children and grandchildren. I pray for a "great
awakening" amongst the nations of the world to demand an end to the evil US/Zionist madness
before it is too late.
Any US attack on Iran will be by air, not ground. Though special ops will be inserted in the
Afghan border provinces (where the last protests were the largest, fertile ground for
insurgents).
Missiles of all kinds will fall on the regime, the military, the Quds, the militias.
And it will be huge, maybe the largest, heaviest attack ever. Once the air defenses are
down, bombers will cover the major infrastructure sites with the heaviest bombing since
Belgrade and Nam.
Only when the UNSC convenes, probably, no sooner than five or six days, will the attack
slow or cease.
Iran will have been set back a few decades. That is the soft goal. The harder goal will be
the insurgency and destabilization of the regime and final regime change.
It will take nothing special for this attack to happen. Trump has already made up his
mind.
When it will happen is when the US and Israel feel they can suppress the Hezbollah missile
threat. Until they have a workable plan for that, not much can happen on a large scale.
But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the
sights of the Hegemon.
Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day, but nato cannot invade,
occupy it in my opinion.
Rubbish.
I assume you're referring to countries other than the United States. In which case, you do
know that Germany has about half-a-dozen airworthy attack aircraft, the Royal Navy and
France's aircraft carriers would require just about every ship in the other European navies
to protect them and part of the reason the British and French begged the United States to
intervene in Libya was because they'd run out of PGMs.
Give the European NATO countries a couple of years to build up their forces and force
projection skills and European NATO might be in a position to bomb Iran, but as soon as they
started building up their forces in the Gulf States, Iran could go to the UNSC to demand that
this obvious aggression should be stopped and when FUKUS veto any resolution, Iran has carte
blanche to launch preemptive strikes across the Persian Gulf. End of European NATO's war on
Iran
And after the Iraq fiasco, I suspect the only country that would go to war without a UNSC
resolution is the United States. Germany would almost certainly decide to sit it out, France
most probably would and the UK would probably also sit it out.
Finally, even if the top 3 NATO countries did try to get away with a limited air attack,
the best response for Iran would be to sink every ship in the Persian Gulf and go on doing so
until the United States invades and becomes bogged down in a quagmire far worse than Iraq or
Afghanistan.
I have to agree with those who say a direct attack on Iran is imminent. Sure, some would love
this to happen whether Yahoo or Bolton but for now will be happy to apply the "squeeze" of
sanctions, ostracism/propaganda. The goal seems to have been to destroy and if not that, then
to set the countries back ... under the thumb as it were.
Yes, the US with some assistance could rip Iran's military apart but not take over the
country. A majority are somewhat satisfied with the theocratic setup. They know the history
with the US/West. And how would Iran react? Long range attacks on Israel or much
closer-to-home attacks on the Gulf States and the Saudis as well as blocking at Hormuz?
Saddam lobbed a few Scuds at Israel and Riyadh but didn't have much. Iran has more and better
missile tech ... which TPTB are going after now ... while Yahoo still pushes "nuclear
programs" since he knows (like Iraq) there are no real weapons there.
The US will do everything possible to reimpose sanctions. Hence gaining control of the IAEA
and inspection process. This is designed to offer the Europeans a face saving way to back
down and submit to US will regarding sanctions. It will probably succeed. Europe, whether it
likes it or not, is playing good cop in the game.
War, as in an actual US attack in Iran itself, is pretty much out if the question. A false
flag designed to be blamed on Iran and big enough to warrant a war will be placed under
enormous scrutiny. Not by the US MSM, of course, but by the rest of the world and the
alternative media.
The fact is, before anyone can attack Iran, they have to win in Syria and it doesn't look
like they are going to.
As far as sanctions, Iran's best bet may be to give the EU 3 weeks to prove its intent to
confront the US (which is unlikely) Then Iran can resume its civilian nuclear development at
the fastest possible pace, with the offer to discontinue once the US returns to the
JCPOA.
Peter Beinart, the author of the "As with Iraq" piece above, gets all wound up in the details
of nuclear inspections and forgets that in 2003 he supported the misbegotten Iraq invasion
and war because a (supposed) peaceful aftermath would help the people of Iraq, and so the
people who oppose the war were wrong.
The truth is that liberalism has to try to harness American military power for its purposes
because American tanks and bombs are often the only things that bring evil to heel.
Opposing this war might have helped liberals retain their purity, but it would have done
nothing for the people suffering under Saddam. If liberals are betrayed a second time in
the Gulf, hawkish liberalism may well go into temporary eclipse. But one day we, and they,
will need it again. . . here
That's akin to the position that Trump has taken on Iran.
In this effort, we stand in total solidarity with the Iranian regime's longest-suffering
victims: its own people. The citizens of Iran have paid a heavy price for the violence and
extremism of their leaders. The Iranian people long to -- and they just are longing, to
reclaim their country's proud history, its culture, its civilization, its cooperation with
its neighbors. . . here
Old Microbiologist , May 12, 2018 11:12:51 AM |
38
IMHO what we are seeing are the last ditch efforts of a failing nation. Russia isn't sitting
it out but is taking a wait and see attitude. The same for China. All the bluster and twitter
tweets in the world mean nothing until someone actually does something. Israel managed to
shoot off a massive strike which at best was 50% effective. This was against "old" Pantsir
S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is
holding it back keeping the ECM signature still secret until it is absolutely necessary.
Russia cannot fight the US or Israel in Syria. They simply doesn't have the forces present.
But, what they can do is push gently and make the FUKUS+I over-commit. Don't forget that the
US is working at a current $22 Trillion of debt and these debacles are going to burn money
faster than they can print. In the mean time Russia/China are creating an alternate economic
system to bypass the petrodollar and especially the SWIFT banking. That is in place and
perhaps we will see more countries deciding to bail on the dollar and join the growing crowd.
The US has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for sovereignty and has so far reneged
on every treaty. This means that the US is at best an unreliable partner. The South Koreans
have wised up seeing that the US is very willing to sacrifice the entire peninsula and every
soul living there to kill off the DPNK. That should scare the bejeezus out of every nation
friendly to the US anywhere in the world. They are losing friends so fast now it is scary.
This only forces the inevitable and the US is going to have to bet the farm to try and keep
the hegemony alive. It won't work and the US has the worst record of war fighting imaginable.
They can't beat the goat-herders in Afghanistan for example over a span of now 17 years.
Fighting a real military such as Iran would be impossible and especially if China throws in
her weight. Iran is very important to China and to a lesser extent Russia as well. There is
no danger of the US or NATO winning there. However, this could break the bank if it goes
south. So, what we are seeing is an existential threat to the US in the form of rebellion
against the dollar. Finally, we are seeing countries that have the weight of forces (nuclear)
with serious resistance. It is for this reason we are not seeing a counter-attack against
Israel. As Napoleon said "Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of
destroying himself".
The two FUKUS mass missile attacks on Syria, as well as Israel's latest jab, were a test of
the Russian systems and general Syrian ability to interdict said missiles. If the missiles
can't get through even at such short range, it is obvious Israeli/FUKUS aircraft can't
either. Attempting the same "air war" stunt in Iran will just give the US MIC a big boost
replacing virtually every piece of hardware sent over Iran airspace.
Again, the US soldiers/mercenaries currently in eastern Syria are in a caldron-in-making.
They can no longer count on escaping via land transport through Iraq or Turkey, and without
any air support/transport, they are trapped. Does anyone think the US public will tolerate
the Deep State sacrificing about 5,000 soldiers/mercenaries immediately after the bombing of
Iran starts? The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not
well-received at home, so the potential for another Vietnam?
Iran will not be the turkey-shoot Iraq was, Saddam was still under the delusion Rumsfeld's
handshake gave him immunity from Deep State/Zionist machinations. Iran's leadership is under
no such delusion, remembering the admitted 1953 CIA overthrow of democratically elected
Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah.
Putin and Assad know time is on their side, and the longer they can delay a major
FUKUS/Israeli/Saudi offensive, the better prepared they are and the less effect Zionist
propaganda has worldwide. The IDF murdering unarmed Palestinians using a Gandhiesque tactic
of showing how venal Nuttyyahoo's regime is... like Britain in India... there is no way to
make this slaughter seem justified, and attempting to keep it out of the public consciousness
has not worked.
"But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the
sights of the Hegemon."
That would be 'former Hegemon'.
The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad,
campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be
low.
While everyone is watching Iran and Syria, the most important developments are those taking
place in Korea, where some sort of peace agreement seems inevitable. And where anything short
of war will mean an immense strengthening of the positions of Russia and China.Not least
because Japan and Taiwan will be forced to adjust to the new reality.
In Korea... and in western Europe.
This is where the worst cracks in the US hegemonic facade are beginning to show: the logic of
Eurasia and the illogic of Atlanticism are inescapable. The western european economies,
including Germany's, France's and (the weakest link of all?) Italy's are dying for access to
the eastern markets. Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with
Russia, which has been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran
deal seems to be the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
Those who rave against Putin's 'betrayal' understand nothing. It is necessary to lower the
tension internationally in order for the tectonic movements, which are already well advanced,
to settle.
Bolton and the warmongers depend on perpetuating war but all the momentum, internationally,
is against war. The propaganda which has been their main weapon, is failing, their
credibility is rapidly declining.
Outside Israel, the rump of the Saud family court which supports the Riyadh regime and the
degenerated dregs of NATO trotskyism-inhabited by elderly, aethereal creatures who live in
the Academy and know nothing of the world- the only people who want war are the speculators.
And they are just as happy to have peace, anything that excites the market.
Those who claim that Iran could be defeated in a couple of days are, presumably, talking of
nuclear weapons. Do they really believe that such an attack would not be deterred by Iran's
allies?
Trump is "clever", not intelligent. He is the personification of "bullshit baffles brains"
methodology. Indications are he is marginally literate, as all info briefs have to be a
couple pages at most and point form. It is obvious he has no patience to work through the
finer details of complex situations, simply taking the position of whatever of his advisers
can spread the BS in the most eloquent or forceful way.
But mostly whatever panders to his ego. Make Trumpty think he is being "the decider" (like
Gerge W. Stupid) or that he is being the "tough guy" and he'll sign or say anything.
@ 33, It took NATO 73 days to bring Serbia down, and in the end it required trickery
(promising Milosovich he can stay then color revolutionizing him out)
Serbia did not have the means to close the straights of Hormuz. Nor did it have a missile
arsenal that could strike at several regional US bases. Nor could it destroy Saudi and
Kuwaiti oil refineries. Nor did Serbia have several thousand US ground troops in easy
reach.
Serbia also had the misfortune of being attacked during the weakest point in Russian
history since the 1600s. Russia is quite certain to help Iran because it has a strong
interest in Iran repelling a US attack. Even if you believe Russia is 100% cynical, they will
have an enormously strong reason to see the US bogged down for a decade and bled white.
The Pentagon is aware of all of this and they aren't idiots. The fact is, the US was in a
much better position to attack Iran in 2006 or 7, and they still didn't do it, because it was
a terrible idea even back then. They will not do it now when it is a much worse idea.
Simply put, if attacking Iran were so easy, they would have done it a long, long time
ago.
Now, attempts to destabilize and possibly preach rebellion to Iran's minorities, that they
will do (without much success) But open war is a line they won't cross.
@38 -- "This was against "old" Pantsir S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has
seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is holding it back keeping the ECM signature still
secret until it is absolutely necessary."
My reading is the S-300 has a range that would cover commercial airports in Tel-Aviv and
it is probably too much risk for Putin to deliver these to Damascus in case an 'event' occurs
and a civilian jet goes down. In any case, some suggest there are more effective equipment
solutions for Syrian defense/response. Of course, in the wryly Russian way, Israeli
destruction of "old" Pantsir S-1 systems simply opens up the rational and legal opportunity
to provide a whole lot of 'new' updated replacement Pantsir S-1 systems. Background:
https://sputniknews.com/military/201804171063644024-pantsir-top-facts/
I think that the UN has always been mostly a circus court for empire....make it look like US
is benevolent.
So now when the fig leaf comes off in public people are aghast. Empire only works like
empire and when the wheels start to come off, the whole facade is exposed for the dog and
pony show it has always been.
Will this be enough to change the world of global private finance? Iran, remember, refuses
to become a member of the Western banking/elite cabal.
So just why might Trump be directed to attack Iran in his regular pompous manner. Is this
a religious war we are fighting for Israel?
NO!!! It is all about the continuation of the Western form of social organization that has
as its core religion the God of Mammon. Those at MoA who read me know that the God of Mammon
that I write about have the tenets of private finance and property along with the rules of
inheritance which has resulted in the elite of the past few centuries.
I continue to posit that all that is happening relates to that issue and the struggles
around it not discussed in public for whatever reasons.
But carry on educating me and others about all the proxy shit going down and its relevance
to how our society works....or doesn't........I want evolution and I want it this
morning!!!!!!!
The coming "war on Iran" will be an excuse for all kinds of mischief. Some possibilities:
>> seizing western Iraq further isolate Syria by blocking Iran-Syria land route
>> attack and occupation of Lebanon to clear Hezbollah and allow for Israeli land grab up to Litani river (a goal previously
expressed)
>> new round of terror attacks (from new/re-branded groups) focused on
Syria, Iranian, and Russian interests (with a few attacks on the West to muddy the
waters) The psychological part of a war of attrition
>> intensified Ukraine-Russian frictions full court press
>> ISIS expansion into Central Asia accelerate what has already begun
>> Shut down of North Stream and Turk Stream expect the 'cage match' with "recividist nations" to get nasty
Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as well as
hoped? Or perhaps it is that they've figured out that there's nothing to do. SOHR, opposed to
the Syrians, but with good telephone connections in Syria, has now come up with a list of a
handful of Iranian dead. So I suppose a few Iranian camps were actually hit. But the only
actual videoed strikes were against Syrians. It's what you'd call a nothing-burger, much like
the 102 missile strike.
And this is the launch of a campaign against Iran?? Strange way of showing it. In my view,
the US and Israel are so boxed in by their constraints, that it's very difficult to act
decisively. No casualties, so no overflights of Syria, let alone Iran. No interruption of
Gulf oil exports, as the Gulfies wouldn't like it. Gulf emirates not to be overturned. I'm
sure I can think of some more....
@40 -- "The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not well-received at
home, so the potential for another Vietnam?"
More likely an unlearned repeat of 'rhyming' history with Trump playing Jimmy Carter and
the "5,000 soldiers/mercenaries" playing the suckers (in summer heat). How's the Big 'D'
going to negotiate that deal over the mid-terms?
But that was Democrat 'smart' -- perhaps this re-mix will be closer an up-scaled rerun of
Reagan's Iran–Contra scandal? Who's playing Oliver North?
Another great post. Thank you. Implied I think in your musings is, 'What will people
remember of the U.S.' in a hundred years? The 20th century popular music. Blues, Jazz, Rock
'n Roll, and Country & Western for starters.
When have UNSC ever done to stop aggression by the same states that commit the
aggression?
The topic wouldnt even raised in the UNSC.
Of course Iran wont start a "preemptive" war. Not atleast since that will be a suicide
mission for themselves.
Russia wont do anything then (us attack on iran), just look how they treated previous US
wars, everytime people have said the same that RUssia will help and repel an attack, it have
never happend and will never happen.
At 51...uh, you do realize Russia has an expeditionary force that is actually fighting and
keeping Syria alive as we post, right? Perhaps they are not fighting as much as you would
like, but they are fighting and Syria continues to exist because of it. As regards Iran, if
Iran falls the Syria falls and Russian bases will be gone. Fortunately for all, that won't
happen.
It is difficult to say what kind of scope the false flag would need to be to rally public
opinion at home for an Iranian incursion. In many ways, pre-9/11, the antiwar movement was
much stronger as was shown by the rallies against leading up to the Iraqi invasion. And yet
this couldn't forestall it.
OTOH, independent media has come a long way in its reach and so cries of "false flag" have
already been sounded, and, by and large, I believe America is fatigued with the ME. It is
doubly ironic that dems like Schumer have been crying foul against DJT for playing soft with
NoKo. I know that the current dem/lib establishment has thrown its antiwar credentials out
the window, in favor of color revolutions, freedom, and LGBTQUIOGDTFBJK rights to fornicate
in public spaces, but, my god, I would never have imagined the globalists to be THAT stupid
in their disregard for basic human needs the world over for soverignty and national
pride.
People have touched on it before, but is this whole current theater just an old money vs.
new money second showing? The return of the repressed, with the globalist/neolib model being
rundowned and usurped by nationalist oligarchs? It would seem the DJT has chosen to err to
the old money side to the betterment of the world. And I, for one, as an American would
rather have my elites localized so we would actually have access to their asses when we
decide to put a pitchfork up them. It is very difficult to get past TSA with weaponized
peasant tools.
Israel's a bit late there then. The disturbances were at the beginning of the year.
They're over now. The effect of the sanctions will be to swing people behind the regime, for
the moment, at any rate.
No thats wrong too, Russia is not on a mission to save Syrians state, they are in Syria
due takfiri threat. Nothing else, as we all see proof of past days...
As for your other statment, I am well sure that Syria have fallen long long before Iran
(if they ever do that).
@52 Lysander. I agree (btw never mind anon's trolling attempts). Simply put, the road to
Tehran goes through Damascus and last I checked the Jasmine City was doing fine ;) If
US/KSA/IL attempts a hot war on Iran it will only precipitate its fall..
Am reminded of the 3 Stooges, whenever I read about these warmongers, like " Bombs Away"
Bolton. Moe tells a group of people, "We will fight till the last drop of.....", then points
to Curly and finishes, "....your blood!" These bastards love war, but never are at the front
line, fighting and dying along side our best. They sit at their plush offices and conference
halls in the best hotels, sipping champagne and eating the best foods, making six or seven
figure incomes. While our brothers, neighbors, fathers, sons, uncles die overseas, or come
back a mental mess, and get crapped on by out government. What these no good for nothing rat
bastards need is to experience the hell they unleash upon us and the rest of the world.
i read this line a lot, from all spheres, and it always perplexes me. to be
fatigued you'd have to be overwhelmed, inundated, and i'd wager that the ME and what's
going on there hardly crosses the vast majority of minds in more than a peripheral way, you
know, like beyond certain key words they hear on tv.
one thing's for sure though, the ME is most definitely fatigued with America!
Looks like there might not be a Coalition Of The Willing in any anti-Iran military operation.
Quite the opposite, it's a further lessening of US world hegemony.
. . .Cartoon of Trump giving the middle finger Goodbye,
Europe! in Der Spiegel.
Why are commentators assuming that, *if* the US does launch a war of aggression against Iran,
it will do so in tandem with its NATO allies--and the UK, France, and Germany in particular?
It is doubtful that these allies will even abide by the new US economic sanctions imposed
upon Iran. Why think that they will be willing, or even politically able, to follow the US
orders for war?
b is right that the neocons are setting up a replay of the 2001-2003 Iraq propaganda
campaign. But the global and domestic conditions that enabled the success of that campaign no
longer hold. The US is far weaker now than then; Iran is more powerful and unified than Iraq
ever was; NATO countries have hundreds of billions of dollars of trade contracts in place or
projected with Iran; Russia and China are far stronger. It just doesn't add up.
I suppose what I was trying to say is that the narrative TPTB have spun over the last
twenty years has gone beyond the realm of convoluted to the average American and now has
completely unwound into chaos. It was only three years ago that we were being told about the
surging threat of ISIS to Americans. Well...that didn't last long...and now they are back to
Iran which the west knows very little about and really doesn't care to. Us Americans like the
good guy/bad guy fight. But if you can't drum up a good enough backstory for the black hats,
I'm afraid that the average American will simply change the channel.
That being said...a compelling backstory isn't really needed for pyschopaths to wage their
war anyway.
Several here ave wondered what kind of false flag could motivate the populace in NA and the
EU to support an attack on Iran. May I propose one?
First stage - Israel (using the EW cover from AlTanf) bombs the Iranian nuclear plant.
Radiation release threatens tens of thousands.
Second stage - Supposed 'Iranian' counter-attack sets oil tankers ablaze (For maximum PR
effect do not sink them) in the Hormuz straights closing the gulf to shipments of Gulf
sourced oil. Oil prices temporarily spike to over $200 a barrel,
Europe's supply of oil is cut drastically, industries world-wide are paralysed and the US
(secure with its' supply sourced outside the gulf)is free to ride to the rescue - all while
RUSSIA (and China) have NO LEGITIMATE REASON to oppose the aggression.
bevin 41 The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad,
campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be
low.
Yes, the US Army is demonstrably weak especially for any foreign invasion.
Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with Russia, which has
been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran deal seems to be
the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
And also China's BRI -- coming up June 28-- -- The China Germany BRI Summit 2018
As the first and third largest exporters globally, China and Germany will prove crucial
drivers of trade along the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road.
Together these form the Belt and Road Initiative, a landmark shift in the global economic
order that will touch over 65 countries across four continents.
The China Germany BRI Summit 2018 will dispel myths on what the Belt and Road Initiative
means for the world, tackle the challenges for global financial institutions and
corporations looking to leverage the initiative, and identify the enormous opportunities in
M&A, capital markets and trade finance. here .
@ Anon 64 Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing
Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.
The extremely complex entanglement of Germany with (roughly) the NATO/EU alliance on the
one hand and Russia/China on the other is a prime reason why I do not believe that Germany
(which is by far the biggest economy in the EU) will be able to be strong armed or enticed
into signing up with another Zionist driven US war of aggression with a country as major as
Iran.
Re the possibility of a "united front" of western powers confronting Iran, the truth is that
no one knows for certain at this point how it this will play out.
We have to remember the deafening silence of the western media during the obvious
Skripjal-Ghouta fakery, so there's a good chance the US/Israel axis will again have a
relatively free hand to concoct any number of escalating false flags, not all of which will
stick, but some probably will. So that is a cause for concern re any future "coalition".
As for enforcing the sanctions, I've seen people argue both ways - that this is a bridge
too far for Europe, and accepting it will both do too much economic damage and make Europe
appear too obviously as US toadies; and OTOH, Europe will be blackmailed into knuckling under
when confronted with illegal US fines and secondary sanctions.
> Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as
well as hoped?
This is all that needs to be noted about the absurdity of even the idea that the US regime
is capable of attacking Iran.
This delusion appears to be the same type thinking as the "Generals Always Fight the
Previous War" saying.
The days of the Israeli regime flying at will over countries bombing at will are over. And
the days of the US regime parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of a country and
leisurely taking out its air defense network are long gone.
Russian air defense and electronic warfare tech are now being shown to be significantly
superior to US regime offensive capabilities in real world combat. So much so that the most
common reaction has been to try to rationalize the fact with crazy conspiracy theories about
behind the scenes wink and nod agreements between the US regime and Russia.
Trump foolishly trying to attack Iran to distract from his political problems would end up
as the first modern US regime leader who lost an aircraft carrier and ten dollar gas
prices.
Israeli's were cowering in their sewers while their junk air defense network repeatedly
failed to defend against a minor Syrian retaliatory barrage while Syrians in Damascus were
cheering on their rooftops as their Russian air defense network knocked Israeli missiles from
the sky.
Syria smacking down the Israeli regime is going to have Trump's military advisors sitting
him down and giving him a hard dose of reality about the Israeli/Saudi/Neocon delusions about
attacking Iran.
Pompeo(US) and Zarif(Iran) are currently making the diplomatic rounds, the former looking for
a new & improved plan, and the latter emphasizing that the US never adhered to the old
plan and united opposition to sanctions is in everyon'e best interest.
from the Iran statement:
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has not only made explicit and official statements against
the agreement in violation of its provisions, but has in practice also failed to implement
U.S. practical – and not merely formal commitments under the JCPOA. The Islamic
Republic of Iran has recorded these violations in numerous letters to the Joint Commission
convened under the JCPOA, outlining the current U.S. Administration's bad faith and
continuous violations of the accord. Thus Mr. Trump's latest action is not a new
development but simply means the end of the obstructionist presence of the United States as
a participant in the JCPOA. . .
here
The apparent US line now, as before, is to "change the regime's malign behavior" which is
ridiculous and thus doomed.
@ MISchi 69: There have been Russian-operated S-400's in Syria for years. Even the US
propaganda rags admit it is significant in reducing FUKUS attacks. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34976537
So just because Russia isn't giving the SAA S-300's doesn't mean Syria has no protection.
The fact the updated S-200s and Pantsirs are doing the job reasonably well will give FUKUS
and Israeli/Saudi military planners pause. Note that the cowardly Israeli jets attack from
Lebanese or Jordanian airspace.
And Nuttyyahoo merely crashed the Victory Day festivities, and Putin is too gracious a
host to kick Nutty out. But the body language between them was obvious, Putin was not happy
to see Nutty trying to capitalize on Putin's good manners.
@ Ian 77 According to Reuters it is.
Reuters doesn't take comments so I'm telling you (and others), if you don't mind, because you
are misleading people with something that isn't true.
As much as Bolton and his ilk would love to attack Iran, I have to disagree that a
full-fledged war is likely. USrael will ratchet up tensions all they can, hoping that Iran
will take the bait and actually respond, but the only way an actual war MAY be fought is with
a massive false flag attack. However, it took a massive false flag attack to allow the
neocons to invade Iraq, so said black op would have to be on that magnitude. Here's the thing
though, the neocons seem to be getting worse at false flags and more over the world ain't
buying them like they used to.
Sure you can get your European lackeys to sign up to a few sanctions, but will anyone
actually support the utter tanking of the world economy? Because that will be the end result
of war with Iran and behind closed doors everyone knows this. Look up the Millennial War
Games simulation that pitted the US against Iran. And how did that $200 million exercise turn
out? The US had to "refloat" its fleet in order to win. Using older Chinese anti- ship
missiles the Iranians decimated US naval assets. The US hasn't developed counter measures
against these while the Iranians have undoubtedly improved on these missiles. No matter what
happens to its ground forces and population centers, shipping in the Persian Gulf will be
shut down. That one action will raise the price of oil to over $200 a barrel overnight,
possibly much higher. And with that the global economy will be left in tatters. Too many of
the world's leaders understand this completely and simply will not go along with the US and
line up against Iran like they did with Iraq.
no, Netanyahu was invited. I read about it a week before the parade. Lavrov always says that
you don't need to negotiate with your friends, but you do with your enemies. Hence the
invite.
Like the Godfather said in the eponymous movie "Keep your friends close but your enemies
closer."
UKs military is of course far stronger than Iran,
we will see renewed sanctions against Iran and EU will be onboard and have already mentioned
they "need" to pressure Iran more.
The attacks on Iran will be only financial, not military, is my guess. The big news in the
military sector is often on cyber attacks. Cyber will be a "new military front."
Financial is akin to cyber. No shooting. The military experts don't discuss financial, I
guess because the U.S. is the only country capable of it, controlling world finance as it
does. But a full-on sanctions regime on another small country like Iran could do a lot of
damage and hurt a lot of people, as it did in Iraq previously. Sort of like what the U.S. did
to Japan to precipitate the war in the Pacific, except Iran's reactions must be much more
limited.
So the big question is Europe, and if it is able to legislate any significant
counter-sanction laws that would encourage Iran-Europe business. France looks good on this,
Germany is more significant.
I do wish people would stop calling themselves Anon. It's very difficult to know which is
which. It's easy enough to anonymise yourself with a distinctive handle. Maybe b should ban
it as a handle.
Many years ago I got to hear Sir Edmond Hillary speak to the assembled students at my
school, just a few years after his amazing climbing feat. No multimedia or lasers pointers or
cheesy-brand tee-shirt cannons, ... just an electric performance by an incredible man that
shaped my life, one foot at a time.
Several decades later, I watched SEH demonstrate Simple Green soap at REI. So incredibly
sad. I'll never forget either presentation. The Man in the Moon had become another Soapy
Salesman.
At the same time I first heard SEH speak, my father, an international businessman, brought
home a Buddhist monk exchange student from Asia for the holiday. It was spellbinding to meet
a bright and well-off monk, who knew all this amazing arcane reality, that we call the Wheel.
It shaped my entire approach to the summit.
Several decades later, in fact, just recently, I watched a performance by a Tibetan monk
troupe, after which they essentially begged for sponsors for the remaining exiled monks now
starving in India by the 1000s. They are dying out, like the 1,000s, the 10,000s of
aboriginal valley cultures that once walked the Earth.
Soapy Sales and Starving Monks, who only decades ago were both sitting on Top of the
World. Kind of like everyone's experience, even John Bolton's, former UN ambassador, now a
sleazy salesman-demonstrator for Death Inc, too proud to sell soap, or to busker for alms.
He's pathetic.
So let me bring it on home.
A student of mine is a senior monk in Asia. His charge is to free the spirits of the just
dead. Not the two monks chanting and incense and sprinkling with flower petal water in front
of a cherished photo. No, he blesses the *dying*, the human roadkills from the reckless
Chinese Escalades bombing through SEAsian commute traffic, the black and blue herion addicts
with the needle still in their arm, bright red blood bubbling out of their noses, the raped,
strangled, discarded and bloating young girls, dumped in the nearest rice paddy ditch.
He gets those calls. He never talks about his work, never shows the horror pictures or
trashes the perps. He sends selfies, pics of meals, flowers and temples. So I asked him,
doesn't this bother you at night, the carnal evil, the rape, the murder? Don't you wanna see
justice done?
He said simply, we're all going to die, many of us soon, we have very little time away
from the Wheel. We should spend every precious second of free time uplifting those who are
below us, the poor, the infirm, the feeble, the indentured, the slave, ...because we're all
gonna die as beggars some day. We should hold faith with the beggars.
Bolton is a sick fuck, in a pantheon of sick fucks. Why squander a nanosecond meditating
on any of them? They are nothingness, the void. MoA seems to have a fascination with evil and
death, and making Death's bit players into pop-idols. Selling a different brand of soap, I
guess.
Closing Hormuz would likely be the Iranian response to a sustained bombing campaign. A
single strike on a nuclear facility could elicit a missile strike on the attacking party (US,
Isreal or both.) Or it could involve multiple attacks on vulnerable US troops in Iraq and
Syria. Iran has several rungs in its escalation ladder. It doesn't have to jump to the top
one all at once.
Of course financial sanctions are the main, if not the only, US war-winning tactic
available today. Mainly the control of the VISA and SWIFT exchange systems. But I'm not
financially knowledgeable. It was one reason that Iran signed in 2015. I remember well, about
10 years ago, the husband of an Iranian student arriving with $20K (?) sewn into his
overcoat, to pay for his wife's studies.
However, the US has used this tactic so often now, that people must be looking to ways of
getting round the problem. I'm not quite sure how much success they may have had. People talk
about Russia-China erecting a parallel to the SWIFT system. I hope this does happen, though
it must be expensive. Non-US allies need it.
@lLaguerre: Russia already has set up its version of SWIFT. As has China, as well as both
agreeing to transactions in rubles/yuan first for petroleum, then recently for all other
trade, to bypass the US$ SWIFT system. The US gets a "cut", every time a corporation/country
converts from local currency to US$, then again when that same US$ cash is converted to the
currency of the second trading partner. To avoid this, non-US countries keep US$ reserves to
trade between themselves. This scam was set up at Bretton Woods after WW2 when the US economy
was the only economy/industrial-base left unscathed.
"In 2017, the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, said at a meeting with
President Vladimir Putin that Russia is ready for disconnection from SWIFT."
Because of their large inertia, these things, when they get moving, cannot be stopped and
proceed to the inevitable. The ziocons have pushed the boulder and it's starting to roll.
That is what a lot of panicky people said in 2013, that Obama's invasion of Syria was
inevitable because Assad was gassing his people in Ghouta. It didn't happen. As it turned
out, the "massive momemtum" was in the Zionist propangda, hoping to sucker the U.S. into the
Middle East again.
i think swift and bis are linked in with imf.. unfortunately i don't know how it all works,
but russias central bank is part of imf.. the way imf is set up favours the developed
countries over the developing countries.. they have some other tricks to keep control over it
too, but i do believe it is tricky navigating moving away from it all, which is why the
financial system is the first line of action to put other countries deemed out of line - into
line.. some have tried to get the imf to change without success which is why i believe brics
was working towards an alternative.. of course the b in brics went thru a type of regime
change under a different facade and i am not sure where they are at with that at this moment
in time...
Julian Assange
@JulianAssange
There is something very odd about the Joseph Mifsud story and the role of the UK in the 2016
US presidential election:
(thread)
5:07 PM · Mar 22, 2018
DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016,
Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set
Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel
assets
@MISchi: Israel may have been "invited", but only as a standard diplomatic courtesy, not as a
"guest of honour" as the MSM and Hasbara would have us believe. The US was probably invited
too... and didn't have the grace to show up? The US and EU were for sure in 2014, but
"boycotted" it over the US coup in Ukraine. Nuttyyahoo was just looking for MSM cover for the
illegal bombing he knew was going to happen, making it look like Putin was "in on it".
I'd guess Putin is simply giving Nutty all the rope Nutty needs to hang himself in the
court of world public opinion. When I see an official statement from Putin (or any Russian
senior official) saying Putin gave any approval of Israel's past and present illegal
incursions in Syria, let alone the illegal occupation of the Golan, I'll believe Nutty being
at the Victory Parade was some sort of endorsement by Putin of Nutty's insanity.
I agree with Lysander's logic. Iran will not be attacked in the "normal" manner; it will be
asymmetrical. The performance of not-so antiquated air defenses in Syria are the big game
changer as Iran has those and its own S-300 version. Plus all those big stationary targets.
Plus, I figure Bolton has a target on his back, as do other neocons--you don't murder over a
million without creating some enemies. I see lots of bluster to foment as much chaos as
possible to accentuate the asymmetrical impact. But as for an actual military assault, Bolton
and company are a decade plus too late.
To negate the potential effect of another Operation Northwoods, I think it wise to pull up
those old pdf docs and spread them around the world via social media--a move I'm frankly
surprised has yet to be made--along with some additional contemporary context.
@james: The Russian central bank is a member of the IMF/World Bank/BIS/SWIFT system as are
nearly every other central bank in the world. Not being "in" this club severely restricts the
ability to do international trade. Russia and China are quietly spearheading the move to
conduct international trade in local currencies, outside the US$-reserve-currency scam
(sorry, system). Both Russia and China have set up alternative systems, which along with the
SCO/AIIB offer participating countries a way to side-set US economic terrorism and sanctions.
The Rothschilds may have managed to stall the BRICS for now, but that won't last long.
"... Oh, if a revelation came out that Israel was responsible for a false flag that suckered the Americans into an Iranian quagmire, I have no doubt that the neocons will do everything they can think of to forestall or stop a heavy backlash from the U.S. public. I doubt those efforts will work, however. ..."
"... For one thing, the truth can't be stopped. The Internet samizdat is very strong these days, which is why Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. are all on such a desperate censorship spree. ..."
(False flag intended to sucker the U.S. into attacking Iran): Supposed 'Iranian'
counter-attack sets oil tankers ablaze (For maximum PR effect do not sink them) in the Hormuz
straights closing the gulf to shipments of Gulf sourced oil. Oil prices temporarily spike to
over $200 a barrel,
That would be truly ruthless and depraved, and may actually work. However, there's a major
risk: what if it became widely known that Israel was responsible for the false flag and the
resulting permanent economic downturn caused by the counterattack by Iran? The backlash from
the U.S. public will be immense, and could well be fatal for all Jewish influence in the
U.S.
Again, it is only one of many such scenarios... the point being that war is a lot closer than
many sane people may imagine. And as the original comment(70) indicated, such scenarios
eliminate the possibility of Russia or china intervening to defend Iran - an idea that is
almost always assumed in conversations about future geo-political events.
The summary is this:. Many false flag scenarios exist that separate Russia and China from
Iran and make a western attack on Iran likely. Rruthless, yes. Depraved, yes. Likely, yes.
Look up the Millennial War Games simulation that pitted the US against Iran. And how did that
$200 million exercise turn out? The US had to "refloat" its fleet in order to win. [..] Posted
by: Don Wiscacho | May 12, 2018 2:29:47 PM | 82
Simulations show what the assumptions imply. However, the war of Israel with Hezbollah did
not make much sense except as a simulation with actual weapons and actual troops. Several
prepositions were tested:
1. Hezbollah (Iran) can retaliate using missiles. Note: the missiles used by Hezbollah were
not particularly effective, but as the proof of concept they did a good job, Iran (and
Hezbollah re-armed after that war) has better stuff.
2. Missiles can damage and perhaps destroy naval vessels. Hezbollah made a single shot at
IDF warship, it had to be towed back to base.
3. But the capacity to launch the missiles can be destroyed from the air. Negative.
4. Barring that, we can send the Marines. Negative.
At the time, I assumed that Hezbollah got their military doctrine from Iran, so Iran
presumably practices what it teaches. More recently, Iranian or Iranian trained troops did not
perform as well as Hezbollah in Syria, but the latter were clearly not top-of-the-line, and
there was not that many of the former. In any case, the capacity to stop traffic in Hormuz is
the Iran's equivalent of nukes, MAED (mutually assured economic destruction). Actually, it is
much better than nukes, if you demonstrate "good cause" you may get decent post-conflict
settlement. Rather that inflicting mayhem -- counterproductive -- you close the straights, put
forth righteous conditions to open them, and wait until the other sides regrets.
I think the point of the official congressional investigation that would follow is to
prevent that from happening. Lol
Oh, if a revelation came out that Israel was responsible for a false flag that suckered
the Americans into an Iranian quagmire, I have no doubt that the neocons will do everything
they can think of to forestall or stop a heavy backlash from the U.S. public. I doubt those
efforts will work, however.
For one thing, the truth can't be stopped. The Internet samizdat is very strong these
days, which is why Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. are all on such a desperate censorship
spree.
And secondly, because the economic downturn will be nearly permanent, everyone will be
constantly reminded that they were suckered into it, and of whose fault all this was -- and the
fury will be immense. I doubt the Jewish dominance in the U.S. would survive. As Israel is
totally dependent on U.S. support, the Zionist state will also probably disappear. That is the
risk of an Israeli false flag.
Perhaps Admiral "Fox" Fallon's memory will live on.
Ten years ago an Esquire interview of Fallon, the CENTCOM chief, was published -- (extract)
. . . And in spite of recent war spasms aimed at Iran from this sclerotic administration,
Fallon is in no hurry to pick up any campaign medals for Iran. And therein lies the rub for
the hard-liners led by Cheney. Army General David Petraeus, commanding America's forces in
Iraq, may say, "You cannot win in Iraq solely in Iraq," but Fox Fallon is Petraeus's boss,
and he is the commander of United States Central Command, and Fallon doesn't extend
Petraeus's logic to mean war against Iran.
So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to
World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as
this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to
Fallon–and apparently Fallon alone–to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last
fall: "This constant drumbeat of conflict . . . is not helpful and not useful. I expect that
there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our
utmost to create different conditions." . . here
In Syria, US and Israel went up against Russian systems. The strength of the Russian systems is
layered defence, networked units with target sharing and radar immune to current US jamming
tech.
Does Iran have all of this? Their systems are home grown and Iran's scientists and engineers
are good, they do not have the database background and experiance Russia inherited from the
Soviet Union. I guess Trump's US and Israel will be keen to give it a test run.
The principal advantage Iran has, is its targets for its mobile missile launchers of 40,000 US
troops on half a dozen bases on the western Gulf shore fifty or less miles away. Plus ships at
sea. Also ballistic missiles from underground missile bases. Can't miss.
By Andrew J. Bacevich, Buddhika Jayamaha, Danny Sjursen, Gregory Daddis, Jason Dempsey,
Sarah Kreps
In March, Harper's Magazine convened a panel of former soldiers at the United States
Military Academy at West Point, New York. The participants, almost all of whom saw combat in
Iraq or Afghanistan, were asked to reflect on the country's involvement in the Middle East.
This Forum is based on that panel, which was held before an audience of cadets and officers,
and on a private discussion that followed.
"... In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. ..."
"... Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you." ..."
"... John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his office. ..."
In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting
intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons].
...
Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International
Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a
warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words.
"Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president
of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."
Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave
the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to
retaliate against you."
There was a pause.
"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."
José Bustani successfully negotiated to get OPCW inspectors back into Iraq. They
would have found nothing. That would have contradicted the U.S. propaganda campaign to wage war
on Iraq. When Bustani did not leave voluntarily, the U.S. threatened to cut the OPCW's budget
and "convinced" other countries in the executive council to kick
him out .
John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his
office.
The U.S. administration, the neoconservatives and the media are running
a remake (recommended) of the propaganda campaign they had launched to wage war on Iraq.
This time the target is Iran:
As with Iraq, it's easier for Bolton and Netanyahu to achieve that goal if they discredit the
current system of international inspections. Bolton has called the inspection efforts
established by the Iran nuclear deal "fatally inadequate" and declared that "the
International Atomic Energy Agency" is "likely missing significant Iranian [nuclear]
facilities." In his 2015 speech to Congress attacking the Iran deal, Netanyahu insisted that
"Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with
them."
Anyone who counters their propaganda must go. Bolton, who demands to
bomb Iran , is back in charge. One of his natural targets is the IAEA which certifies that
Iran sticks to the nuclear deal. It seems that Bolton
succeeds with his machinations:
The chief of inspections at the U.N. nuclear watchdog has resigned suddenly, the agency said
on Friday without giving a reason.
The departure of Tero Varjoranta comes at a sensitive time, three days after the United
States announced it was quitting world powers' nuclear accord with Iran, raising questions as
to whether Tehran will continue to comply with it.
Varjoranta, a Finn, had been a deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy
Agency and head of its Department of Safeguards, which verifies countries' compliance with
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, since October 2013.
Another
casualty is the State Department bureaucrat who certified Iran's compliance with the
nuclear deal:
One of the State Department's top experts on nuclear proliferation resigned this week after
President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, in what
officials and analysts say is part of a worrying brain drain from public service generally
over the past 18 months.
Richard Johnson, a career civil servant who served as acting assistant coordinator in
State's Office of Iran Nuclear Implementation, had been involved in talks with countries that
sought to salvage the deal in recent weeks, including Britain, France, and Germany -- an
effort that ultimately failed.
...
The office Johnson led has gone from seven full-time staffers to none since Trump's
inauguration.
The man who launched the war on Iraq now gets
awards . Netanyahoo is
agitating for war on Iran just like he agitated
for war on Iraq. Shady groups of
nutty "experts"peddle
policy papers for 'regime change'. U.S. "allies" are put under pressure. With their
willingness to "compromise" they actually further the prospect of
war . When they
insist on sticking to international rules malign
actors prepare
measures to break their resistance. All that is still just a "shaping operation", a
preparation of the battlefield of public opinion. This buildup towards the war will likely take
a year or two.
What is still needed is an event that pushes the U.S. public into war fever. The U.S.
typically uses false-flag incidents - the Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Maine, the
Anthrax murders - to create a psychological pseudo-rationale for war. An Israel lobbyist
begs for
one to launch war on Iran.
One wonders when and how a new 9/11 like incident, or another Anthrax scare, will take
place. It will be the surest sign that the countdown to war on Iran has started.
Posted by b on May 12, 2018 at 06:35 AM | Permalink
John Bolton's a man? Does a coward who instigated others to fight get to be called a man?
Likewise Cheney Bush Clinton Obama Trump Bibi etc etc etc.
Easy to be ruthless when others take the risks and pay the costs.
isn't the same unity throughout the powers that be, particularly in the mainstream media,
that there was when Bush was President. Trump through the hatred he generates theoughout the
'upper crust', makes it hard for many deep staters to get on board a war drive he would lead.
And as you said, b, Trump needs a real or false flag, one with many casualties, and
something that won't fall apart from lack of evidence and a few days of rational scrutiny.
Sounds like a job for the Saudi mercenaries, Al Qaeda or ISIS.
People in high places are leaving due to team Trump threats.
Receiving mail from team trump employed black cube is no small thing. Kudos to you b for
sticking with it.
Two thoughts on US going to war with Iran. 10 It will destroy the US or certainly the US
empire and hegemony. 2) Iran needs plenty of help and respect during and after as they will
destroy the US. Not physically, but they will destroy US power.
The question we all want to know is, did Trump appoint lunatic Bolton entirely of his own
volition, or was he forced to appoint this psychopath? The reach of the US deep state seems
to be limitless. A curious thing happened the other day when someone in the US administration
announced that America would no longer be funding the white helmets propaganda outfit. Over
here in the UK parliament an opposition member of parliament was practically foaming at the
mouth with rage and demanded of prime minister Mrs May that the UK would be continuing to
fund the white helmets. When she assured him that the UK was fully behind the white helmets
and that funding would remain in place, there was a cheer from around the house. I'm amazed
that Bolton allowed the administration to cut off funding when even the UK idiots in
parliament want to fund the propaganda arm of the head choppers.
I am just curious to know how much influence John Bolton can exercise as National Security
Advisor: is his position part of the President's Executive Office and does he (Bolton, that
is) have a department to answer to him and a budget? Is his position any more secure than,
say, Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State?
The more that Trump is pushed into a corner by investigations of various scandals, the more
he needs something to distract from them. A war in a far-off country would be the perfect
thing to get people rallying around the President.
Jen @9:
From what I understand, Pompeo is much higher on the food chain. The SoS is in the line of
succession; advisors are not. I believe the position is just a single individual with closer
access to the POTUS.
I said it many times before, and I can safely repeat it again, there wont be a hot war with
Iran. Entire NATO couldnt defeat Iran, and US would go alone (maybe Israel would piggyback
few shots). It would end as catastrophe for US and de-facto end as the main superpower.
Pentagon (and even CIA) are many things, but suicidally stupid isnt one of them, neither is
Trump, or even Nutjobyahoo.
What we will see is more sanctions (to try to create civil unrest) and another "color
revolution" endeavor, and it will fail too.
Trump coopted by the neo-cons? Exactly what lever would they have on Trumpty Dumbdy that
isn't already public knowledge? Misogyny, Philandering?... already tried that pussy-grabbing
Stormy front. Financial improprieties? That Trump Inc. was/is a serial bankrupt corporation,
even screwing low-income students and any building contractor it could?... Old news. That
Trumpty Dumbdy is too stupid to read the full documentation presented to him, that he can't
write/deliver a coherent, logical line of thought?... obvious from well before the day he
officially declared his candidacy.
Trump (and his real estate "empire") was and is a product of the Rothschild cabal, and he
was deliberately foisted on the US electorate to be the only one in the country Killary could
beat... OOPS!
So we are now seeing Plan-B, where Trumpty is manipulated and browbeaten to shed the few
shreds of intelligence and decency he still possessed. All the Deep State/Rothschild-enablers
have to do is appeal to Trumpty's fragile ego, or Melania's emotional jags, and they are in
control.
But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS
openly attack Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show the likely course of events where the
Zionists are allowed to carry on with the Yinon Plan. Syria is the line in the sand, despite
Erdogan trying to play the US off Russia for historical gotcha gains. Don't forget, Erdogan
owes his life to Putin, who ensured the US coup failed by targeting the rogue Turk jets
tasked with shooting Erdogan's plane down... I'd bet the Turk pilots were told that if they
even turned on their targeting systems, they would be shot down... self preservation is a
strong deterrent.
Israel/Saudi on their own cannot withstand even Syria, Hizbolla and Iran directly, even if
the russian military only backstopped the Syrian alliance. Ahe US public won't tolerate
another Iraq debacle, as zero body bags landing at Edwards AFB is the limit. Let alone that
Iran would be Iraq on steroids especially for the several 1,000 in the western Syria caldron.
It's a big caldron right now, but with Russian-manned mobile S-400's/etc. protecting all
Syrian, Iranian and possibly Iraqi airspace, those soldiers/mercenaries are sitting ducks
after the first bomb lands in Iran.
Apologies if following musings are a bit disjointed.
American chronic hostility towards Iran, and long standing American economic and
informational and low-level war gainst Iran, has an insane, out-of-touch with reality,
ideological/mythological tinge/component to it. I won't try a broad psycho-analysis, or
assemble many possible reasons why that might be.
But among those possible components there is a long standing implacable totalitarian bent
to US power wielders, reflected in their ordained geo-political communications in the United
States. The American economic sanctions and continuously variously hostile policy towards
Cuba over more than half a century is an example. The former 'brothel dof the Caribbean' was
apparently fine for the US, and the death squad ridden countries of Central America are quite
acceptable, but Cuba out of the capitalist orbit? Cuba as attempting a different ideology,
and approach: terrible recalcitrant. The very demon of the hemisphere.
In his revelatory book The Praetorian Guard, former CIA John Stockwell noted that as he
was growing up, basically nobody questioned the prevailing American ideology and system. Real
searching basic debate was absent. Within the context of a culture where freedom of speech is
technically prioritized, lauded as an ideal, somehow self-censorship and discussion is
limited to within-the-box of convention, thus discussion as scripted theatre, propaganda,
dominated overwhelmingly.
No real debate, but what was repeated ad infinitum were messianic messages'we swear
allegiance to the flag', we're number one, we're the free world, we're the good guys.
After the JFK coup d'etat, basically everything in American media became an exercise in
controlling all political discourse and trying like crazy to make sure pretense prevailed.
This was if anything accentuated after the 9/11 false flag treasonous mind-f**k.
There was also a deadly military doctrine adopted by the US after WW2, when segments of US
power decided to go for global military domination, basically permanent war and war
preparation. The cliche is that the first casualty of war is truth, but in the case of the
United States, doubly so, as that train had already left the station.
The United States is a kind of astonishingly cautionary historical example of the deranged
trajectory that dishonesty, pretense and censorship as normalized and dominant will ensure.
So many natural advantages, but the external manifestation of the US became mass murder and
subterfuge; internal problems of the US are festering, metastisizing, and tens of millions of
Americans are deeply demoralized, anxiety ridden, emotion-related
drug-medication-dependent.
Back to Iran. A few years ago while driving in the evening I turned on the car radio and
the first words I heard from a (Jewish) talk show host on a Toronto station was the question:
Do you think the Americans have the balls to nuke Iran? Really bizzarre sick question that
apparently could be sent out glibly and sefely into the Canadian political discussion
universe as an intellectual feat. And on numerous occasions for many years it has been
commonplace in Canadian mass media to depict Iran in a hostile, negative light. And as German
writer Udo Ulfkotte bravely told us before his untimely death, the CIA also influences and
controls and thus contaminates much of European mass media communication.
So the American insanity and dishonesty and war mongering is playing itself out on a broad
stage, (witness the truly crazy pathetic British government's behaviour of late) and crazy
people do crazy things, so yah, Iran is still in the crosshairs. But there is a kind of
desperate, fading, dated quality to the American obsession with 'evil Iran', and lies and
make-believe and insanity cannot escape colliding with reality. The collision can make a
helluva a mess, but at some point hopefully the pendulum swings towards a reassertion of
sanity and decency and honesty.
How many times will Americans shoot themselves in the foot for Israel and fairy tales?
"But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS
openly attack Iran"
It appears Putin and Russia have decided to sit all this out. While Putin was enjoying the
Victory Parade with Netanyahu,,, Netanyahu was bombing his ally Syria. Putin was all smiles
and so far all we hear is crickets.
Putin will sell his S-400 systems to anyone that wants them EXCEPT Syria and all they want
is the S-300.
I don't know what's going on but as far as Russia is concerned I wouldn't bank on their
helping Iran.
China? China can be purchased like cloths on a rack.
No,,, I think it's pretty open right now for the US to attack Iran. Whether it can survive
a war with Iran is doubtful,,, but that's never stopped them before.
Yes "take out" as I defined not through occupation/invasion but fighter jet strikes and/or
from sea. That wont take more than 1 day for 3 top Nato nations.
I wonder what is going through the minds of Kim and the South Korean leadership. It is
obvious that the US is not agreement capable. What sort of guarantees can the US provide.
Even if China and Russia provide guarantees it may not be enough. Kim sees that if a deal is
made, then the crippling sanctions could be reimposed or remain. Kim and his sister are not
stupid.
Neocons and Bolton are Trotskyites. Permanent Revolutionists
The ruling elite never really knew how dumb people were until the internet and social
media. With the help of Trumps supporter and Facebook investor Thiel and his company Palintir
and Facebook to help them figure out all the data they collected, they know they can make the
cattle believe anything without making it believable to anyone with an IQ under 120
The few that figure it out without being members of the cult are isolated and
inconsequential.
Plato told us what he hoped would happen. Leo Straus who is the godfather of the neocons
emphasized Platos Noble Lie which is behind all of todays fake news/history . Plato was
heavily influenced by Irans Zoroastrianism
I believe elements behind the reformation in the 16th century and Sabbateans from the 17th
century, Frankists , Freemasons and Jesuits from the 18 th century and Zionists , and
Martinists and Marxists from the 19th century joined forces to create a NWO that is a
Luciferian cult of Global Synachrists
The neocons are the latest manifestation of the Synarchists, and unfortunately for the
world this means global terror much like the Rothschild back Trotsky hoped to accomplish
in
the 20th century before being thwarted by Stalin. It also means the end of Religion as
Neocons corrupt Protestant Christianity, in US and Across the Atlantic while CIA controlled
Jesuit Pope Francis destroys Catholicism. Zionism and the Holocaust wiped out Torah believers
and the GWOT and neocons are proceeding to destroy Islam after corrupting it with Islamism
with help from the Saudi Arabias corrupt Wahhabism which has spread Islamic extremism along
with US and Israel
For those who believe the US can be destroyed, you are in denial. There is no stopping the
US/Israel//British/EU alliance. The only hope is that once the perpetual revolution is over
that the philosopher kings described by Plato will be merciful. Unfortunately, given many of
them are neo-malthusians who think most of humanity are worthless consumers of Gaias precious
resources, i am not optimistic
However you would define war US (Israel) and Iran is at war footing for decades, nothing new
here, so I would not panic here that Bolton would do something.
It cannot be more clear that as much as Trump is a flaccid clown of ignorance and
belligerence to cover up his tax evasion crimes from Muller, Bolton plays role of barking
poodle that all, did not get anything done what global oligarchic interests tell him or he
will be put down.
And Please do not compare Iran to Iraq especially after two Iraqi wars, Iran is in
position to cause major damage to global oligarchic interests and hence there will be no
escalation despite fire and fury rhetoric as it was in NK case, it is all about reintegration
of Iranian oligarchy to global oligarchic country club and what we witness is negotiating of
condition of selling out Iranians to neoliberal globalists and by that advance a step in
isolating Russia to achieve the same purpose, surrender to globalism.
Also I do not see Netanyahu welcoming hundreds of Iranian missiles landing in Tel Aviv as
Saddam only shot few Soviet museum item at Israel and back then all hit their however random
targets. There would be no random targets this time so there would be death and vital damage,
not to mention that Israel could loose Golan Height in the process. Also there is no way in
hell for US to invade Iran, or gather 600k troops as it was in 1991 for one quarter Iran size
Iraq.
I know that spreading fear brings clicks but here on this blog we know better than
that.
Don't underestimate Trump. He came to office on an audacious promise to drain The Swamp. It's
a very specialized task. It was never going to be easy and I'm quite certain that he went in
knowing that his first misjudgment would probably be his last. I don't know how to drain The
Swamp but if Trump thinks he can then I do too. I've been pleasantly surprised at his ability
to engage with senior officials on the World Stage and appear Presidential. Compared with
bumbling fools like Ronny Raygun, Jimmy Carter and Dubya, Trump leaves them for dead in the
"100% on the ball" stakes. Whilst I'm waiting, with fingers crossed, I console myself with
the following thoughts:
1. Hillary would have been worse.
2. The non-people he wants to neutralise are the worst bunch of scum and arseholes on the
planet.
3. Since he's the only person with a Swamp plan, we shouldn't be too picky about his timing
and tactics.
4. Trump is an extremely clever individual.
thanks b... and thanks for the Atlantic article from peter beinart... i thought it was a good
article.. here's a quote from it "More than 60 percent of Republicans, according to a March
Pew Research Poll, think the United States was right to invade Iraq. George W. Bush's
approval rating among Republicans, according to a January CNN poll, is 76 percent." and "It's
rare to see non-Americans on political talk shows. That matters because non-Americans
overwhelmingly think pulling out of the Iran deal is nuts. And non-Americans are more likely
to raise fundamental questions about American nuclear policy -- like why America isn't
pushing for inspections of Israel's nuclear program, and why America keeps demanding that
other nations denuclearize while building ever more nuclear weapons of its own."
then you can read @20 Robert Snefjella post - thanks robert - and note the radio interview
from toronto..
sorry to say, but this 'neo-con' term is a quick term to describe so much of what looks
like the koolaid american citizens drink regularly.. and there is plenty of it to go around
in canada too..
americans by and large look like a nation of idiots, spoon fed everything they know..
i tend to agree with harrys view @13... colour revolution will continue.. but unlike
harry, i do believe the bombs will fall and we will enter some type of ww3 scenario.. the
usa-israel are too much led by the neo con koolaid to step away from any of their ongoing
insanity.. i just can't see the insanity stopping with rational, reasonable people having a
say.. so, maybe i don't fully agree with harry other then in the short term..
I agree with your assessment that Trump is a very clever individual - when it comes to
manipulating the media and distracting from his words and actions, but I disagree with every
other assertion you have made and find that he has filled his administration with grifters
and con artists that rival the days of Grant or Harding.
And if you have grown up in America under DACA and are about to be deported or are losing
your health insurance coverage because key provisions of ACA have been overturned, just try
reciting "Hillary would have been worse!"
Utter nonsense. The US and Israel are coward bullies. They will pounce when the odds are
good, but they are quite rational about when they are not. There have been endless threats
and sabre rattling by the US and Israel against Iran for decades, but they never followed
through. They will most certainly not do so now, when the relative military position of Iran
is better than ever. And this "crying wolf" article will join the the countless others
written before on the junkpile of historical falsification...
There is a strong delusion that maintains its satanic grip on the "leadership" in DC.
The depiction of Mordor in Tolkien's "Fellowship of the Rings" series is very fitting in
describing the present pure evil and absolute darkness of those who plan for war and
destruction in the secret chambers in the upper echelons of our society.
What will stop the madness, death, and destruction that has rained down and continues to
rain down on so many millions of hapless men, women, and children in the Middle East and
abroad? Will it take a few US cities completely destroyed and hundreds of thousands of
Americans vaporized before the insanity of US Empire is stopped?
I pray for peace for the sake of my children and grandchildren. I pray for a "great
awakening" amongst the nations of the world to demand an end to the evil US/Zionist madness
before it is too late.
Any US attack on Iran will be by air, not ground. Though special ops will be inserted in the
Afghan border provinces (where the last protests were the largest, fertile ground for
insurgents).
Missiles of all kinds will fall on the regime, the military, the Quds, the militias.
And it will be huge, maybe the largest, heaviest attack ever. Once the air defenses are
down, bombers will cover the major infrastructure sites with the heaviest bombing since
Belgrade and Nam.
Only when the UNSC convenes, probably, no sooner than five or six days, will the attack
slow or cease.
Iran will have been set back a few decades. That is the soft goal. The harder goal will be
the insurgency and destabilization of the regime and final regime change.
It will take nothing special for this attack to happen. Trump has already made up his
mind.
When it will happen is when the US and Israel feel they can suppress the Hezbollah missile
threat. Until they have a workable plan for that, not much can happen on a large scale.
But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the
sights of the Hegemon.
Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day, but nato cannot invade,
occupy it in my opinion.
Rubbish.
I assume you're referring to countries other than the United States. In which case, you do
know that Germany has about half-a-dozen airworthy attack aircraft, the Royal Navy and
France's aircraft carriers would require just about every ship in the other European navies
to protect them and part of the reason the British and French begged the United States to
intervene in Libya was because they'd run out of PGMs.
Give the European NATO countries a couple of years to build up their forces and force
projection skills and European NATO might be in a position to bomb Iran, but as soon as they
started building up their forces in the Gulf States, Iran could go to the UNSC to demand that
this obvious aggression should be stopped and when FUKUS veto any resolution, Iran has carte
blanche to launch preemptive strikes across the Persian Gulf. End of European NATO's war on
Iran
And after the Iraq fiasco, I suspect the only country that would go to war without a UNSC
resolution is the United States. Germany would almost certainly decide to sit it out, France
most probably would and the UK would probably also sit it out.
Finally, even if the top 3 NATO countries did try to get away with a limited air attack,
the best response for Iran would be to sink every ship in the Persian Gulf and go on doing so
until the United States invades and becomes bogged down in a quagmire far worse than Iraq or
Afghanistan.
I have to agree with those who say a direct attack on Iran is imminent. Sure, some would love
this to happen whether Yahoo or Bolton but for now will be happy to apply the "squeeze" of
sanctions, ostracism/propaganda. The goal seems to have been to destroy and if not that, then
to set the countries back ... under the thumb as it were.
Yes, the US with some assistance could rip Iran's military apart but not take over the
country. A majority are somewhat satisfied with the theocratic setup. They know the history
with the US/West. And how would Iran react? Long range attacks on Israel or much
closer-to-home attacks on the Gulf States and the Saudis as well as blocking at Hormuz?
Saddam lobbed a few Scuds at Israel and Riyadh but didn't have much. Iran has more and better
missile tech ... which TPTB are going after now ... while Yahoo still pushes "nuclear
programs" since he knows (like Iraq) there are no real weapons there.
The US will do everything possible to reimpose sanctions. Hence gaining control of the IAEA
and inspection process. This is designed to offer the Europeans a face saving way to back
down and submit to US will regarding sanctions. It will probably succeed. Europe, whether it
likes it or not, is playing good cop in the game.
War, as in an actual US attack in Iran itself, is pretty much out if the question. A false
flag designed to be blamed on Iran and big enough to warrant a war will be placed under
enormous scrutiny. Not by the US MSM, of course, but by the rest of the world and the
alternative media.
The fact is, before anyone can attack Iran, they have to win in Syria and it doesn't look
like they are going to.
As far as sanctions, Iran's best bet may be to give the EU 3 weeks to prove its intent to
confront the US (which is unlikely) Then Iran can resume its civilian nuclear development at
the fastest possible pace, with the offer to discontinue once the US returns to the
JCPOA.
Peter Beinart, the author of the "As with Iraq" piece above, gets all wound up in the details
of nuclear inspections and forgets that in 2003 he supported the misbegotten Iraq invasion
and war because a (supposed) peaceful aftermath would help the people of Iraq, and so the
people who oppose the war were wrong.
The truth is that liberalism has to try to harness American military power for its purposes
because American tanks and bombs are often the only things that bring evil to heel.
Opposing this war might have helped liberals retain their purity, but it would have done
nothing for the people suffering under Saddam. If liberals are betrayed a second time in
the Gulf, hawkish liberalism may well go into temporary eclipse. But one day we, and they,
will need it again. . . here
That's akin to the position that Trump has taken on Iran.
In this effort, we stand in total solidarity with the Iranian regime's longest-suffering
victims: its own people. The citizens of Iran have paid a heavy price for the violence and
extremism of their leaders. The Iranian people long to -- and they just are longing, to
reclaim their country's proud history, its culture, its civilization, its cooperation with
its neighbors. . . here
Old Microbiologist , May 12, 2018 11:12:51 AM |
38
IMHO what we are seeing are the last ditch efforts of a failing nation. Russia isn't sitting
it out but is taking a wait and see attitude. The same for China. All the bluster and twitter
tweets in the world mean nothing until someone actually does something. Israel managed to
shoot off a massive strike which at best was 50% effective. This was against "old" Pantsir
S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is
holding it back keeping the ECM signature still secret until it is absolutely necessary.
Russia cannot fight the US or Israel in Syria. They simply doesn't have the forces present.
But, what they can do is push gently and make the FUKUS+I over-commit. Don't forget that the
US is working at a current $22 Trillion of debt and these debacles are going to burn money
faster than they can print. In the mean time Russia/China are creating an alternate economic
system to bypass the petrodollar and especially the SWIFT banking. That is in place and
perhaps we will see more countries deciding to bail on the dollar and join the growing crowd.
The US has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for sovereignty and has so far reneged
on every treaty. This means that the US is at best an unreliable partner. The South Koreans
have wised up seeing that the US is very willing to sacrifice the entire peninsula and every
soul living there to kill off the DPNK. That should scare the bejeezus out of every nation
friendly to the US anywhere in the world. They are losing friends so fast now it is scary.
This only forces the inevitable and the US is going to have to bet the farm to try and keep
the hegemony alive. It won't work and the US has the worst record of war fighting imaginable.
They can't beat the goat-herders in Afghanistan for example over a span of now 17 years.
Fighting a real military such as Iran would be impossible and especially if China throws in
her weight. Iran is very important to China and to a lesser extent Russia as well. There is
no danger of the US or NATO winning there. However, this could break the bank if it goes
south. So, what we are seeing is an existential threat to the US in the form of rebellion
against the dollar. Finally, we are seeing countries that have the weight of forces (nuclear)
with serious resistance. It is for this reason we are not seeing a counter-attack against
Israel. As Napoleon said "Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of
destroying himself".
The two FUKUS mass missile attacks on Syria, as well as Israel's latest jab, were a test of
the Russian systems and general Syrian ability to interdict said missiles. If the missiles
can't get through even at such short range, it is obvious Israeli/FUKUS aircraft can't
either. Attempting the same "air war" stunt in Iran will just give the US MIC a big boost
replacing virtually every piece of hardware sent over Iran airspace.
Again, the US soldiers/mercenaries currently in eastern Syria are in a caldron-in-making.
They can no longer count on escaping via land transport through Iraq or Turkey, and without
any air support/transport, they are trapped. Does anyone think the US public will tolerate
the Deep State sacrificing about 5,000 soldiers/mercenaries immediately after the bombing of
Iran starts? The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not
well-received at home, so the potential for another Vietnam?
Iran will not be the turkey-shoot Iraq was, Saddam was still under the delusion Rumsfeld's
handshake gave him immunity from Deep State/Zionist machinations. Iran's leadership is under
no such delusion, remembering the admitted 1953 CIA overthrow of democratically elected
Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah.
Putin and Assad know time is on their side, and the longer they can delay a major
FUKUS/Israeli/Saudi offensive, the better prepared they are and the less effect Zionist
propaganda has worldwide. The IDF murdering unarmed Palestinians using a Gandhiesque tactic
of showing how venal Nuttyyahoo's regime is... like Britain in India... there is no way to
make this slaughter seem justified, and attempting to keep it out of the public consciousness
has not worked.
"But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the
sights of the Hegemon."
That would be 'former Hegemon'.
The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad,
campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be
low.
While everyone is watching Iran and Syria, the most important developments are those taking
place in Korea, where some sort of peace agreement seems inevitable. And where anything short
of war will mean an immense strengthening of the positions of Russia and China.Not least
because Japan and Taiwan will be forced to adjust to the new reality.
In Korea... and in western Europe.
This is where the worst cracks in the US hegemonic facade are beginning to show: the logic of
Eurasia and the illogic of Atlanticism are inescapable. The western european economies,
including Germany's, France's and (the weakest link of all?) Italy's are dying for access to
the eastern markets. Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with
Russia, which has been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran
deal seems to be the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
Those who rave against Putin's 'betrayal' understand nothing. It is necessary to lower the
tension internationally in order for the tectonic movements, which are already well advanced,
to settle.
Bolton and the warmongers depend on perpetuating war but all the momentum, internationally,
is against war. The propaganda which has been their main weapon, is failing, their
credibility is rapidly declining.
Outside Israel, the rump of the Saud family court which supports the Riyadh regime and the
degenerated dregs of NATO trotskyism-inhabited by elderly, aethereal creatures who live in
the Academy and know nothing of the world- the only people who want war are the speculators.
And they are just as happy to have peace, anything that excites the market.
Those who claim that Iran could be defeated in a couple of days are, presumably, talking of
nuclear weapons. Do they really believe that such an attack would not be deterred by Iran's
allies?
Trump is "clever", not intelligent. He is the personification of "bullshit baffles brains"
methodology. Indications are he is marginally literate, as all info briefs have to be a
couple pages at most and point form. It is obvious he has no patience to work through the
finer details of complex situations, simply taking the position of whatever of his advisers
can spread the BS in the most eloquent or forceful way.
But mostly whatever panders to his ego. Make Trumpty think he is being "the decider" (like
Gerge W. Stupid) or that he is being the "tough guy" and he'll sign or say anything.
@ 33, It took NATO 73 days to bring Serbia down, and in the end it required trickery
(promising Milosovich he can stay then color revolutionizing him out)
Serbia did not have the means to close the straights of Hormuz. Nor did it have a missile
arsenal that could strike at several regional US bases. Nor could it destroy Saudi and
Kuwaiti oil refineries. Nor did Serbia have several thousand US ground troops in easy
reach.
Serbia also had the misfortune of being attacked during the weakest point in Russian
history since the 1600s. Russia is quite certain to help Iran because it has a strong
interest in Iran repelling a US attack. Even if you believe Russia is 100% cynical, they will
have an enormously strong reason to see the US bogged down for a decade and bled white.
The Pentagon is aware of all of this and they aren't idiots. The fact is, the US was in a
much better position to attack Iran in 2006 or 7, and they still didn't do it, because it was
a terrible idea even back then. They will not do it now when it is a much worse idea.
Simply put, if attacking Iran were so easy, they would have done it a long, long time
ago.
Now, attempts to destabilize and possibly preach rebellion to Iran's minorities, that they
will do (without much success) But open war is a line they won't cross.
@38 -- "This was against "old" Pantsir S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has
seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is holding it back keeping the ECM signature still
secret until it is absolutely necessary."
My reading is the S-300 has a range that would cover commercial airports in Tel-Aviv and
it is probably too much risk for Putin to deliver these to Damascus in case an 'event' occurs
and a civilian jet goes down. In any case, some suggest there are more effective equipment
solutions for Syrian defense/response. Of course, in the wryly Russian way, Israeli
destruction of "old" Pantsir S-1 systems simply opens up the rational and legal opportunity
to provide a whole lot of 'new' updated replacement Pantsir S-1 systems. Background:
https://sputniknews.com/military/201804171063644024-pantsir-top-facts/
I think that the UN has always been mostly a circus court for empire....make it look like US
is benevolent.
So now when the fig leaf comes off in public people are aghast. Empire only works like
empire and when the wheels start to come off, the whole facade is exposed for the dog and
pony show it has always been.
Will this be enough to change the world of global private finance? Iran, remember, refuses
to become a member of the Western banking/elite cabal.
So just why might Trump be directed to attack Iran in his regular pompous manner. Is this
a religious war we are fighting for Israel?
NO!!! It is all about the continuation of the Western form of social organization that has
as its core religion the God of Mammon. Those at MoA who read me know that the God of Mammon
that I write about have the tenets of private finance and property along with the rules of
inheritance which has resulted in the elite of the past few centuries.
I continue to posit that all that is happening relates to that issue and the struggles
around it not discussed in public for whatever reasons.
But carry on educating me and others about all the proxy shit going down and its relevance
to how our society works....or doesn't........I want evolution and I want it this
morning!!!!!!!
The coming "war on Iran" will be an excuse for all kinds of mischief. Some possibilities:
>> seizing western Iraq further isolate Syria by blocking Iran-Syria land route
>> attack and occupation of Lebanon to clear Hezbollah and allow for Israeli land grab up to Litani river (a goal previously
expressed)
>> new round of terror attacks (from new/re-branded groups) focused on
Syria, Iranian, and Russian interests (with a few attacks on the West to muddy the
waters) The psychological part of a war of attrition
>> intensified Ukraine-Russian frictions full court press
>> ISIS expansion into Central Asia accelerate what has already begun
>> Shut down of North Stream and Turk Stream expect the 'cage match' with "recividist nations" to get nasty
Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as well as
hoped? Or perhaps it is that they've figured out that there's nothing to do. SOHR, opposed to
the Syrians, but with good telephone connections in Syria, has now come up with a list of a
handful of Iranian dead. So I suppose a few Iranian camps were actually hit. But the only
actual videoed strikes were against Syrians. It's what you'd call a nothing-burger, much like
the 102 missile strike.
And this is the launch of a campaign against Iran?? Strange way of showing it. In my view,
the US and Israel are so boxed in by their constraints, that it's very difficult to act
decisively. No casualties, so no overflights of Syria, let alone Iran. No interruption of
Gulf oil exports, as the Gulfies wouldn't like it. Gulf emirates not to be overturned. I'm
sure I can think of some more....
@40 -- "The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not well-received at
home, so the potential for another Vietnam?"
More likely an unlearned repeat of 'rhyming' history with Trump playing Jimmy Carter and
the "5,000 soldiers/mercenaries" playing the suckers (in summer heat). How's the Big 'D'
going to negotiate that deal over the mid-terms?
But that was Democrat 'smart' -- perhaps this re-mix will be closer an up-scaled rerun of
Reagan's Iran–Contra scandal? Who's playing Oliver North?
Another great post. Thank you. Implied I think in your musings is, 'What will people
remember of the U.S.' in a hundred years? The 20th century popular music. Blues, Jazz, Rock
'n Roll, and Country & Western for starters.
When have UNSC ever done to stop aggression by the same states that commit the
aggression?
The topic wouldnt even raised in the UNSC.
Of course Iran wont start a "preemptive" war. Not atleast since that will be a suicide
mission for themselves.
Russia wont do anything then (us attack on iran), just look how they treated previous US
wars, everytime people have said the same that RUssia will help and repel an attack, it have
never happend and will never happen.
At 51...uh, you do realize Russia has an expeditionary force that is actually fighting and
keeping Syria alive as we post, right? Perhaps they are not fighting as much as you would
like, but they are fighting and Syria continues to exist because of it. As regards Iran, if
Iran falls the Syria falls and Russian bases will be gone. Fortunately for all, that won't
happen.
It is difficult to say what kind of scope the false flag would need to be to rally public
opinion at home for an Iranian incursion. In many ways, pre-9/11, the antiwar movement was
much stronger as was shown by the rallies against leading up to the Iraqi invasion. And yet
this couldn't forestall it.
OTOH, independent media has come a long way in its reach and so cries of "false flag" have
already been sounded, and, by and large, I believe America is fatigued with the ME. It is
doubly ironic that dems like Schumer have been crying foul against DJT for playing soft with
NoKo. I know that the current dem/lib establishment has thrown its antiwar credentials out
the window, in favor of color revolutions, freedom, and LGBTQUIOGDTFBJK rights to fornicate
in public spaces, but, my god, I would never have imagined the globalists to be THAT stupid
in their disregard for basic human needs the world over for soverignty and national
pride.
People have touched on it before, but is this whole current theater just an old money vs.
new money second showing? The return of the repressed, with the globalist/neolib model being
rundowned and usurped by nationalist oligarchs? It would seem the DJT has chosen to err to
the old money side to the betterment of the world. And I, for one, as an American would
rather have my elites localized so we would actually have access to their asses when we
decide to put a pitchfork up them. It is very difficult to get past TSA with weaponized
peasant tools.
Israel's a bit late there then. The disturbances were at the beginning of the year.
They're over now. The effect of the sanctions will be to swing people behind the regime, for
the moment, at any rate.
No thats wrong too, Russia is not on a mission to save Syrians state, they are in Syria
due takfiri threat. Nothing else, as we all see proof of past days...
As for your other statment, I am well sure that Syria have fallen long long before Iran
(if they ever do that).
@52 Lysander. I agree (btw never mind anon's trolling attempts). Simply put, the road to
Tehran goes through Damascus and last I checked the Jasmine City was doing fine ;) If
US/KSA/IL attempts a hot war on Iran it will only precipitate its fall..
Am reminded of the 3 Stooges, whenever I read about these warmongers, like " Bombs Away"
Bolton. Moe tells a group of people, "We will fight till the last drop of.....", then points
to Curly and finishes, "....your blood!" These bastards love war, but never are at the front
line, fighting and dying along side our best. They sit at their plush offices and conference
halls in the best hotels, sipping champagne and eating the best foods, making six or seven
figure incomes. While our brothers, neighbors, fathers, sons, uncles die overseas, or come
back a mental mess, and get crapped on by out government. What these no good for nothing rat
bastards need is to experience the hell they unleash upon us and the rest of the world.
i read this line a lot, from all spheres, and it always perplexes me. to be
fatigued you'd have to be overwhelmed, inundated, and i'd wager that the ME and what's
going on there hardly crosses the vast majority of minds in more than a peripheral way, you
know, like beyond certain key words they hear on tv.
one thing's for sure though, the ME is most definitely fatigued with America!
Looks like there might not be a Coalition Of The Willing in any anti-Iran military operation.
Quite the opposite, it's a further lessening of US world hegemony.
. . .Cartoon of Trump giving the middle finger Goodbye,
Europe! in Der Spiegel.
Why are commentators assuming that, *if* the US does launch a war of aggression against Iran,
it will do so in tandem with its NATO allies--and the UK, France, and Germany in particular?
It is doubtful that these allies will even abide by the new US economic sanctions imposed
upon Iran. Why think that they will be willing, or even politically able, to follow the US
orders for war?
b is right that the neocons are setting up a replay of the 2001-2003 Iraq propaganda
campaign. But the global and domestic conditions that enabled the success of that campaign no
longer hold. The US is far weaker now than then; Iran is more powerful and unified than Iraq
ever was; NATO countries have hundreds of billions of dollars of trade contracts in place or
projected with Iran; Russia and China are far stronger. It just doesn't add up.
I suppose what I was trying to say is that the narrative TPTB have spun over the last
twenty years has gone beyond the realm of convoluted to the average American and now has
completely unwound into chaos. It was only three years ago that we were being told about the
surging threat of ISIS to Americans. Well...that didn't last long...and now they are back to
Iran which the west knows very little about and really doesn't care to. Us Americans like the
good guy/bad guy fight. But if you can't drum up a good enough backstory for the black hats,
I'm afraid that the average American will simply change the channel.
That being said...a compelling backstory isn't really needed for pyschopaths to wage their
war anyway.
Several here ave wondered what kind of false flag could motivate the populace in NA and the
EU to support an attack on Iran. May I propose one?
First stage - Israel (using the EW cover from AlTanf) bombs the Iranian nuclear plant.
Radiation release threatens tens of thousands.
Second stage - Supposed 'Iranian' counter-attack sets oil tankers ablaze (For maximum PR
effect do not sink them) in the Hormuz straights closing the gulf to shipments of Gulf
sourced oil. Oil prices temporarily spike to over $200 a barrel,
Europe's supply of oil is cut drastically, industries world-wide are paralysed and the US
(secure with its' supply sourced outside the gulf)is free to ride to the rescue - all while
RUSSIA (and China) have NO LEGITIMATE REASON to oppose the aggression.
bevin 41 The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad,
campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be
low.
Yes, the US Army is demonstrably weak especially for any foreign invasion.
Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with Russia, which has
been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran deal seems to be
the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
And also China's BRI -- coming up June 28-- -- The China Germany BRI Summit 2018
As the first and third largest exporters globally, China and Germany will prove crucial
drivers of trade along the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road.
Together these form the Belt and Road Initiative, a landmark shift in the global economic
order that will touch over 65 countries across four continents.
The China Germany BRI Summit 2018 will dispel myths on what the Belt and Road Initiative
means for the world, tackle the challenges for global financial institutions and
corporations looking to leverage the initiative, and identify the enormous opportunities in
M&A, capital markets and trade finance. here .
@ Anon 64 Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing
Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.
Posted by: Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM |
73
@ Anon 64 Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing
Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.
Posted by: Don Bacon | May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM |
73 /div
The extremely complex entanglement of Germany with (roughly) the NATO/EU alliance on the
one hand and Russia/China on the other is a prime reason why I do not believe that Germany
(which is by far the biggest economy in the EU) will be able to be strong armed or enticed
into signing up with another Zionist driven US war of aggression with a country as major as
Iran.
Re the possibility of a "united front" of western powers confronting Iran, the truth is that
no one knows for certain at this point how it this will play out.
We have to remember the deafening silence of the western media during the obvious
Skripjal-Ghouta fakery, so there's a good chance the US/Israel axis will again have a
relatively free hand to concoct any number of escalating false flags, not all of which will
stick, but some probably will. So that is a cause for concern re any future "coalition".
As for enforcing the sanctions, I've seen people argue both ways - that this is a bridge
too far for Europe, and accepting it will both do too much economic damage and make Europe
appear too obviously as US toadies; and OTOH, Europe will be blackmailed into knuckling under
when confronted with illegal US fines and secondary sanctions.
> Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as
well as hoped?
This is all that needs to be noted about the absurdity of even the idea that the US regime
is capable of attacking Iran.
This delusion appears to be the same type thinking as the "Generals Always Fight the
Previous War" saying.
The days of the Israeli regime flying at will over countries bombing at will are over. And
the days of the US regime parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of a country and
leisurely taking out its air defense network are long gone.
Russian air defense and electronic warfare tech are now being shown to be significantly
superior to US regime offensive capabilities in real world combat. So much so that the most
common reaction has been to try to rationalize the fact with crazy conspiracy theories about
behind the scenes wink and nod agreements between the US regime and Russia.
Trump foolishly trying to attack Iran to distract from his political problems would end up
as the first modern US regime leader who lost an aircraft carrier and ten dollar gas
prices.
Israeli's were cowering in their sewers while their junk air defense network repeatedly
failed to defend against a minor Syrian retaliatory barrage while Syrians in Damascus were
cheering on their rooftops as their Russian air defense network knocked Israeli missiles from
the sky.
Syria smacking down the Israeli regime is going to have Trump's military advisors sitting
him down and giving him a hard dose of reality about the Israeli/Saudi/Neocon delusions about
attacking Iran.
Pompeo(US) and Zarif(Iran) are currently making the diplomatic rounds, the former looking for
a new & improved plan, and the latter emphasizing that the US never adhered to the old
plan and united opposition to sanctions is in everyon'e best interest.
from the Iran statement:
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has not only made explicit and official statements against
the agreement in violation of its provisions, but has in practice also failed to implement
U.S. practical – and not merely formal commitments under the JCPOA. The Islamic
Republic of Iran has recorded these violations in numerous letters to the Joint Commission
convened under the JCPOA, outlining the current U.S. Administration's bad faith and
continuous violations of the accord. Thus Mr. Trump's latest action is not a new
development but simply means the end of the obstructionist presence of the United States as
a participant in the JCPOA. . .
here
The apparent US line now, as before, is to "change the regime's malign behavior" which is
ridiculous and thus doomed.
@ MISchi 69: There have been Russian-operated S-400's in Syria for years. Even the US
propaganda rags admit it is significant in reducing FUKUS attacks. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34976537
So just because Russia isn't giving the SAA S-300's doesn't mean Syria has no protection.
The fact the updated S-200s and Pantsirs are doing the job reasonably well will give FUKUS
and Israeli/Saudi military planners pause. Note that the cowardly Israeli jets attack from
Lebanese or Jordanian airspace.
And Nuttyyahoo merely crashed the Victory Day festivities, and Putin is too gracious a
host to kick Nutty out. But the body language between them was obvious, Putin was not happy
to see Nutty trying to capitalize on Putin's good manners.
@ Ian 77 According to Reuters it is.
Reuters doesn't take comments so I'm telling you (and others), if you don't mind, because you
are misleading people with something that isn't true.
As much as Bolton and his ilk would love to attack Iran, I have to disagree that a
full-fledged war is likely. USrael will ratchet up tensions all they can, hoping that Iran
will take the bait and actually respond, but the only way an actual war MAY be fought is with
a massive false flag attack. However, it took a massive false flag attack to allow the
neocons to invade Iraq, so said black op would have to be on that magnitude. Here's the thing
though, the neocons seem to be getting worse at false flags and more over the world ain't
buying them like they used to.
Sure you can get your European lackeys to sign up to a few sanctions, but will anyone
actually support the utter tanking of the world economy? Because that will be the end result
of war with Iran and behind closed doors everyone knows this. Look up the Millennial War
Games simulation that pitted the US against Iran. And how did that $200 million exercise turn
out? The US had to "refloat" its fleet in order to win. Using older Chinese anti- ship
missiles the Iranians decimated US naval assets. The US hasn't developed counter measures
against these while the Iranians have undoubtedly improved on these missiles. No matter what
happens to its ground forces and population centers, shipping in the Persian Gulf will be
shut down. That one action will raise the price of oil to over $200 a barrel overnight,
possibly much higher. And with that the global economy will be left in tatters. Too many of
the world's leaders understand this completely and simply will not go along with the US and
line up against Iran like they did with Iraq.
no, Netanyahu was invited. I read about it a week before the parade. Lavrov always says that
you don't need to negotiate with your friends, but you do with your enemies. Hence the
invite.
Like the Godfather said in the eponymous movie "Keep your friends close but your enemies
closer."
UKs military is of course far stronger than Iran,
we will see renewed sanctions against Iran and EU will be onboard and have already mentioned
they "need" to pressure Iran more.
The attacks on Iran will be only financial, not military, is my guess. The big news in the
military sector is often on cyber attacks. Cyber will be a "new military front."
Financial is akin to cyber. No shooting. The military experts don't discuss financial, I
guess because the U.S. is the only country capable of it, controlling world finance as it
does. But a full-on sanctions regime on another small country like Iran could do a lot of
damage and hurt a lot of people, as it did in Iraq previously. Sort of like what the U.S. did
to Japan to precipitate the war in the Pacific, except Iran's reactions must be much more
limited.
So the big question is Europe, and if it is able to legislate any significant
counter-sanction laws that would encourage Iran-Europe business. France looks good on this,
Germany is more significant.
I do wish people would stop calling themselves Anon. It's very difficult to know which is
which. It's easy enough to anonymise yourself with a distinctive handle. Maybe b should ban
it as a handle.
Many years ago I got to hear Sir Edmond Hillary speak to the assembled students at my
school, just a few years after his amazing climbing feat. No multimedia or lasers pointers or
cheesy-brand tee-shirt cannons, ... just an electric performance by an incredible man that
shaped my life, one foot at a time.
Several decades later, I watched SEH demonstrate Simple Green soap at REI. So incredibly
sad. I'll never forget either presentation. The Man in the Moon had become another Soapy
Salesman.
At the same time I first heard SEH speak, my father, an international businessman, brought
home a Buddhist monk exchange student from Asia for the holiday. It was spellbinding to meet
a bright and well-off monk, who knew all this amazing arcane reality, that we call the Wheel.
It shaped my entire approach to the summit.
Several decades later, in fact, just recently, I watched a performance by a Tibetan monk
troupe, after which they essentially begged for sponsors for the remaining exiled monks now
starving in India by the 1000s. They are dying out, like the 1,000s, the 10,000s of
aboriginal valley cultures that once walked the Earth.
Soapy Sales and Starving Monks, who only decades ago were both sitting on Top of the
World. Kind of like everyone's experience, even John Bolton's, former UN ambassador, now a
sleazy salesman-demonstrator for Death Inc, too proud to sell soap, or to busker for alms.
He's pathetic.
So let me bring it on home.
A student of mine is a senior monk in Asia. His charge is to free the spirits of the just
dead. Not the two monks chanting and incense and sprinkling with flower petal water in front
of a cherished photo. No, he blesses the *dying*, the human roadkills from the reckless
Chinese Escalades bombing through SEAsian commute traffic, the black and blue herion addicts
with the needle still in their arm, bright red blood bubbling out of their noses, the raped,
strangled, discarded and bloating young girls, dumped in the nearest rice paddy ditch.
He gets those calls. He never talks about his work, never shows the horror pictures or
trashes the perps. He sends selfies, pics of meals, flowers and temples. So I asked him,
doesn't this bother you at night, the carnal evil, the rape, the murder? Don't you wanna see
justice done?
He said simply, we're all going to die, many of us soon, we have very little time away
from the Wheel. We should spend every precious second of free time uplifting those who are
below us, the poor, the infirm, the feeble, the indentured, the slave, ...because we're all
gonna die as beggars some day. We should hold faith with the beggars.
Bolton is a sick fuck, in a pantheon of sick fucks. Why squander a nanosecond meditating
on any of them? They are nothingness, the void. MoA seems to have a fascination with evil and
death, and making Death's bit players into pop-idols. Selling a different brand of soap, I
guess.
Closing Hormuz would likely be the Iranian response to a sustained bombing campaign. A
single strike on a nuclear facility could elicit a missile strike on the attacking party (US,
Isreal or both.) Or it could involve multiple attacks on vulnerable US troops in Iraq and
Syria. Iran has several rungs in its escalation ladder. It doesn't have to jump to the top
one all at once.
Of course financial sanctions are the main, if not the only, US war-winning tactic
available today. Mainly the control of the VISA and SWIFT exchange systems. But I'm not
financially knowledgeable. It was one reason that Iran signed in 2015. I remember well, about
10 years ago, the husband of an Iranian student arriving with $20K (?) sewn into his
overcoat, to pay for his wife's studies.
However, the US has used this tactic so often now, that people must be looking to ways of
getting round the problem. I'm not quite sure how much success they may have had. People talk
about Russia-China erecting a parallel to the SWIFT system. I hope this does happen, though
it must be expensive. Non-US allies need it.
@lLaguerre: Russia already has set up its version of SWIFT. As has China, as well as both
agreeing to transactions in rubles/yuan first for petroleum, then recently for all other
trade, to bypass the US$ SWIFT system. The US gets a "cut", every time a corporation/country
converts from local currency to US$, then again when that same US$ cash is converted to the
currency of the second trading partner. To avoid this, non-US countries keep US$ reserves to
trade between themselves. This scam was set up at Bretton Woods after WW2 when the US economy
was the only economy/industrial-base left unscathed.
"In 2017, the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, said at a meeting with
President Vladimir Putin that Russia is ready for disconnection from SWIFT."
Because of their large inertia, these things, when they get moving, cannot be stopped and
proceed to the inevitable. The ziocons have pushed the boulder and it's starting to roll.
That is what a lot of panicky people said in 2013, that Obama's invasion of Syria was
inevitable because Assad was gassing his people in Ghouta. It didn't happen. As it turned
out, the "massive momemtum" was in the Zionist propangda, hoping to sucker the U.S. into the
Middle East again.
i think swift and bis are linked in with imf.. unfortunately i don't know how it all works,
but russias central bank is part of imf.. the way imf is set up favours the developed
countries over the developing countries.. they have some other tricks to keep control over it
too, but i do believe it is tricky navigating moving away from it all, which is why the
financial system is the first line of action to put other countries deemed out of line - into
line.. some have tried to get the imf to change without success which is why i believe brics
was working towards an alternative.. of course the b in brics went thru a type of regime
change under a different facade and i am not sure where they are at with that at this moment
in time...
Julian Assange
@JulianAssange
There is something very odd about the Joseph Mifsud story and the role of the UK in the 2016
US presidential election:
(thread)
5:07 PM · Mar 22, 2018
DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016,
Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set
Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel
assets
@MISchi: Israel may have been "invited", but only as a standard diplomatic courtesy, not as a
"guest of honour" as the MSM and Hasbara would have us beleive. The US was probably invited
too... and didn't have the grace to show up? The US and EU were for sure in 2014, but
"boycotted" it over the US coup in Ukraine. Nuttyyahoo was just looking for MSM cover for the
illegal bombing he knew was going to happen, making it look like Putin was "in on it".
I'd guess Putin is simply giving Nutty all the rope Nutty needs to hang himself in the
court of world public opinion. When I see an official statement from Putin (or any Russian
senior official) saying Putin gave any approval of Israel's past and present illegal
incursions in Syria, let alone the illegal occupation of the Golan, I'll believe Nutty being
at the Victory Parade was some sort of endorsement by Putin of Nutty's insanity.
I agree with Lysander's logic. Iran will not be attacked in the "normal" manner; it will be
asymmetrical. The performance of not-so antiquated air defenses in Syria are the big game
changer as Iran has those and its own S-300 version. Plus all those big stationary targets.
Plus, I figure Bolton has a target on his back, as do other neocons--you don't murder over a
million without creating some enemies. I see lots of bluster to foment as much chaos as
possible to accentuate the asymmetrical impact. But as for an actual military assault, Bolton
and company are a decade plus too late.
To negate the potential effect of another Operation Northwoods, I think it wise to pull up
those old pdf docs and spread them around the world via social media--a move I'm frankly
surprised has yet to be made--along with some additional contemporary context.
@james: The Russian central bank is a member of the IMF/World Bank/BIS/SWIFT system as are
nearly every other central bank in the world. Not being "in" this club severely restricts the
ability to do international trade. Russia and China are quietly spearheading the move to
conduct international trade in local currencies, outside the US$-reserve-currency scam
(sorry, system). Both Russia and China have set up alternative systems, which along with the
SCO/AIIB offer participating countries a way to side-set US economic terrorism and sanctions.
The Rothschilds may have managed to stall the BRICS for now, but that won't last long.
It is unclear to what extent Israel is given unfairly favorable treatment and to what extent it is the most useful
allies (along with KSA) of f the USA in the middle East securing energy supplies to the according to Carter doctrine,
Notable quotes:
"... The latest outrage against the First Amendment comes from South Carolina, the home state of the arch-Zionist poseur and United Nations Ambassador extraordinary Nikki Haley. A new hate speech law was inserted in the state's recently approved annual budget. ..."
"... The legislation borrows from the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which proscribes speech that "demonizes" or applies "double standards" to Israel "by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" as anti-Semitic. ..."
"... While the State Department definition is a guideline, the South Carolina's specific inclusion of it in legislation makes explicit that criticism of Israel as hate speech can be subject to criminal penalties. It also is binding on all the states universities and educational institutions. ..."
"... The law was promoted by Alan Clemmons, a Mormon legislator who has led numerous delegations to Israel and who has been described as "Israel's biggest supporter in a U.S. state legislature." ..."
"... Normally foreign governments have what is referred to as sovereign immunity which prevents their being sued, but that all changed in the U.S. with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) of 2016, which permitted individual lawsuits in any federal court involving any government's alleged participation in international acts of "terrorism." This has resulted in a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against Iran, the Palestinians and also Saudi Arabia. Many of the lawsuits have Israeli citizens as plaintiffs, suing in American courts. ..."
"... Indeed, it is far more plausible that Israel was involved in 9/11 than was Iran. Israel operated a massive spying operation directed against Arabs in the U.S. and several of its intelligence officers were seen in Jersey City to be filming themselves while dancing and cavorting in delight as the twin towers went down, suggesting some prior knowledge. ..."
"... But, of course, no one would be allowed to sue Israel in an American court. The 9/11 Commission failed to examine the case against Israel even though it allegedly sought to compile a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding" the attacks, but it did investigate the possible ties to Iran. It found the only evidence of any Iranian support to consist of certain 9/11 hijackers travelling through Iran on their way to Afghanistan without having their passports stamped. ..."
"... Israel is a fiscal off-shore through passage for decanting public funds to private hands, a physical vault to hold assets, reinsert assets into the global financial system. ..."
"... As imprecise as can be, but to popularize the situation: the before Castro, Cuba Mafia save haven. ..."
"... This is partly the explanation of "military capitalism" deployed rather recently in insider circles to capture an existing situation where the US is left to prop up it's financial make believe using military show of. That is partly why "war" is so publicly discussed, actions are leaked, this contrary to what real war requires, deep stealth. ..."
"... American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority of American "foreign aid". ..."
"... There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks" infecting the U S government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship only reinforces "split loyalty"–NOT upholding the interests of the United States, and must be strictly prohibited. ..."
"... Those holding dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship should not be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity. ..."
Time to question the loyalty of some legislators and judges
I have a number of times
discussed
how the U.S. and other governments have legislated and otherwise promoted Jewish and
Israeli interests in ways that most people would find unacceptable if they were aware of what exactly has
been going on. Here in the United States, special Medicare coverage and immigration status have been
granted, often concealed in other legislation, to benefit holocaust survivors and Russian Jews seeking to
emigrate. State legislatures and the U.S. Congress have meanwhile been working hard to pass legislation
that blocks and even criminalizes the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) protests
against Israeli behavior while universities have been banning anti-Israel demonstrators and groups on
campus because they apparently are offensive to the sensitivities of some Jewish students.
The latest outrage against the First
Amendment comes from South Carolina, the home state of the arch-Zionist poseur and United Nations
Ambassador extraordinary Nikki Haley. A new
hate speech law
was inserted in the state's recently approved annual budget.
The legislation borrows
from the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which proscribes speech that "demonizes" or
applies "double standards" to Israel "by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other
democratic nation" as anti-Semitic.
While the State Department definition
is a guideline, the South Carolina's specific inclusion of it in legislation makes explicit that
criticism of Israel as hate speech can be subject to criminal penalties. It also is binding on all the
states universities and educational institutions.
The law was promoted by Alan Clemmons,
a Mormon legislator who has led numerous delegations to Israel and who has been described as "Israel's
biggest supporter in a U.S. state legislature."
Supporters of the Bill of Rights have
been universally opposed to the bill, but pro-Israel groups have praised the initiative and are expecting
a "new wave" of legislation all across the United States blocking any criticism of the self-described
Jewish State. The Brandeis Center has
enthused
"This bill gives South Carolina the
tools to protect Jewish students' and all South Carolina students' right to a learning environment free
of unlawful discrimination. We are hoping this momentous step will result in another national wave to,
once and for all, begin defeating rising anti-Semitism."
Other states will undoubtedly follow
the South Carolina lead, so it would appear that any criticism of Israel will become illegal in the
public square if the many friends of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have their way. And they generally
do get what they want from the federal level all the way down to the states and local communities, so be
prepared.
Israel also is regularly exploiting
the American legal system to punish countries that it has defined as its enemies. Its government
sponsored lawfare organization called Shurat Hadin has initiated a number of lawsuits in U.S. courts to
punish Palestinians and Iranians. Ironically, it is currently seeking to demonstrate that Hamas is
committing
war crimes in Gaza
, where Israel has been using army snipers to kill unarmed demonstrators.
Other lawsuits filed on behalf of
mostly Jewish Americans in U.S. courts seeking compensation from Iranians and Palestinians are also
pending, with the tribunals in Manhattan particularly prone to being sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Last
week, at the Federal Court for the Southern District of Manhattan, Judge George Daniels
issued a default judgment
relating to his 2011 determination that Iran and Hezbollah materially and
directly supported al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to the hundreds
of family members of victims who are named in the case. The judge ordered Iran to pay $6 billion in
compensation – "$12,500,000 per spouse, $8,500,000 per parent, $8,500,000 per child, and $4,250,000 per
sibling" to the families and estates of the deceased. A 4.96 annual interest rate will also be applied to
the amount, starting from September 11, 2001 to the date of the judgement."
Normally foreign governments have
what is referred to as sovereign immunity which prevents their being sued, but that all changed in the
U.S.
with the passage of
the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) of 2016, which permitted
individual lawsuits in any federal court involving any government's alleged participation in
international acts of "terrorism." This has resulted in a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against
Iran, the Palestinians and also Saudi Arabia. Many of the lawsuits have Israeli citizens as plaintiffs,
suing in American courts.
Though the lawsuit claimed, and Judge
Daniels agreed, that Tehran had supported the 9/11 hijackers with training and other assistance, most
authorities would question that judgement. Many would consider it to be ludicrous as Iranian Shi'ites
were considered to be kill-on-sight heretics by al-Qaeda. The idea that Iran was somehow involved in 9/11
is in reality a ridiculous Israel Lobby contrivance that
was first floated
in 2015 by ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, a renowned Zionist stooge and conspiracy
theorist who is viewed by many as not completely in possession of all his marbles.
Indeed, it is far more plausible that
Israel was involved in 9/11 than was Iran. Israel operated a massive spying operation directed against
Arabs in the U.S. and several of its intelligence officers were seen in Jersey City to be filming
themselves while dancing and cavorting in delight as the twin towers went down, suggesting some prior
knowledge.
But, of course, no one would be
allowed to sue Israel in an American court.
The 9/11 Commission
failed to examine the case against Israel even though it allegedly sought to
compile a "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding" the attacks, but it did
investigate the possible ties to Iran. It found the only evidence of any Iranian support to consist of
certain 9/11 hijackers travelling through Iran on their way to Afghanistan without having their passports
stamped.
In his Farewell Address President
George Washington
warned that
" a passionate attachment of one
nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the
illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of
the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite
nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions;
by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and
a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to
ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to
betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity;
gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public
opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption,
or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly
alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot."
If one believes that deference to
the special foreign interest of one powerful and wealthy segment of the population is appropriate in a
democracy then I suppose the Jewish/Israeli pander has to be considered acceptable. I happen to believe
that, as our first president so clearly articulated, it is not, particularly as much of the concession
that Jews are somehow to be treated differently than the rest of the community due to their alleged
victimhood contributes to a criticism-free ride for an Israel which is eagerly seeking a new war in the
Middle East. It would be a war that the United States would inevitably get pulled into by Israel's
friends in Congress and the media. It would also be catastrophic for all parties involved and it all
starts with the belief that Israel should somehow be protected and its enemies punished while also being
exempt from being made accountable for its actions.
It's more than time to question, it's time to prosecute. If Alan Clemmons, or any other legislator, has
gone to Israel, with any assistance from Israel financial or otherwise, then Clemmons (and others) have
taken a bribe. Failure to prosecute, just as failure to enforce current immigration laws, is the road to
anarchy.
As for Judge Daniels, I guess I could cut him some slack, given it's a default judgment, but that goes
out the door if he was the judge that certified the case going forward in the first place. There is no
prima facie evidence of Iran's involvement in 9/11, and therefore, false statements made in the statement
of claim are a perversion of justice. A judge is supposed to rule on facts, not conjecture.
75 years ago, people hid Jews to protect them from imprisonment and possible death by European-led
jailers. Now in 2018, people are hiding Europeans to protect them from imprisonment and possible death
by Jewish-led jailers
89-year-old Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel is right now being hunted by German police at the behest of Jewish
groups, because she did not show up at prison a few days ago, to serve a two-year-jail sentence for
questioning the official narrative of the Jewish killings in World War II It is recognised by Jews and
others that at her age, the long jailing may kill her
The 'International Auschwitz Committee' says German police should use 'high pressure' to find this
elderly woman and imprison her, even though it may kill her
And yet Jews who speak like this claim they do not understand why people develop antipathy to Jews
It is in fact the International Auschwitz Committee which is 'inciting anti-semitism', as they inspire
Germans to hide elderly people from Jews 'like Anne Frank was hidden from Germans'
However much Ursula Haverbeck might be in error in her historical opinions, this is appalling and
shocking treatment of a grandmotherly woman soon to be 90 years of age sending her very possibly to
death for her ideas regarding an era to which she is a living personal witness (Haverbeck was born in
1928, and will turn age 90 this 8 November)
This reminds of the case of a World War II Jewish witness, a rabbi's son, who was with the Russian
advance troops who liberated places like Auschwitz,
Joseph Ginzburg – Joseph G Burg, direct interrogator of Auschwitz and other camp survivors
The
fiercely anti-Nazi and very Jewish Burg, said the Holocaust was an exaggeration, a fraud fabricated by
Zionists, he wrote books on this, & had many of those books burned by the modern West German government
tho the old Bonn regime never had the stomach to jail rabbi's son Joseph Ginzburg (1908-90), despite his
holocaust denial
OT but since it seems Israel first stooge Insane McCain is finally going to meet Satan.
What I want to know is, has anybody announced how they intend to handle all the people who want to
piss on his grave? Will there be a lottery, will there be those "take a number" machines, will it be
first come first served or will there be some kind of contest, like writing an essay?
On the day of Sept 11, when I still, of course, believed the Muslim terror attack story, I said to my
wife 'just Israel benefits'.
I simply could not see how these Muslim attacks benefitted Muslims.
No idea, at the time, as Anatol Lieven also did not have at the end of the month, his article 'New Cold
War' in the then still independent Guardian, that these attacks would be used to justify wars on
Afghanistan and Iraq.
It was 2004 when Hollings made his famous speech, promising war to AIPAC for the jewish vote, 'that is
politics'.
I'm convinced the neocons will not pull this off
this time
. After many years of war a passive
public may be catching on. I expect the price of oil to jolt upwards this afternoon. When people begin
asking why the answers need to be that our "ally" Israel keeps threatening war if they don't get their
way and Trump doesn't tear up the P5+1 treaty.
A 90 year old woman must "serve a two-year-jail sentence for questioning the official narrative of the
Jewish killings in World War II "
This is surreal. Liberal democracy (what's left of it) down the rabbit hole. Imprisonment as a
consequence of
questioning
history ? Yes, I know, Germany has its sensitivities, but should
historical guilt excuse a vicious assault on core values & a vulnerable individual ?
No context to the article that matters. Lost in deviations.
The real issue: any transaction to and from Israel makes some Jewish and elite non Jewish Americans
accessory. Israel is a fiscal off-shore through passage for decanting public funds to private hands, a
physical vault to hold assets, reinsert assets into the global financial system.
As imprecise as can be, but to popularize the situation: the before Castro, Cuba Mafia save haven.
One must realize that when the dollar, as is happening looses part of it's reserve status(currently
under way, partly global transactions start escaping the dollar accountability, thus leaving a smaller
margin of cooking the books), there need to be a trustworthy insertion point into the Yuan, any digital
currency, international financial markets, currency speculation for the elites of the West, evasion of
embargos for the exeptionals.
This is partly
the explanation of "military capitalism"
deployed rather recently in insider
circles to capture an existing situation where the US is left to prop up it's financial make believe
using military show of. That is partly why "war" is so publicly discussed, actions are leaked, this
contrary to what real war requires, deep stealth.
Israel is a Swiss knife for corporate international billionaires, no billionaires no Israel.
Would the JASTA act open the way for litigation against Israel's involvement in 9/11? Of course, there
would have to be a change in venue because the southern district of Manhattan is kind of evil's
homecourt.
Might be just the right crack in the absurdity, to investigate, prosecute and sentence the
perpetrators. I mean if they can go after a ninety year old woman, why not a geriatric Jerome Hauser, Dov
Zakheim, etc?
Just spit-balling here, I'll go back to my observational pessimism
American "foreign aid" is prohibited from being given to any country that has not signed the "Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty" or refuses to abide by "International Atomic Energy Agency" (IAEA) guidelines
regarding its nuclear devices. Guess what?? Israel does not abide by EITHER and still gets the majority
of American "foreign aid".
This prohibition also applies to countries that do not register their "agents
of a foreign government" with the U S State Department. Guess what?? Israel (again) with its "American
Israel Political Action Committee" (AIPAC) still gets "foreign aid" in contravention of American law..
There are forty or so congressmen, senators and thousands of high-level policy "wonks" infecting the U S
government who hold "dual citizenship" with Israel. Such dual citizenship only reinforces "split
loyalty"–NOT upholding the interests of the United States, and must be strictly prohibited.
Those holding
dual citizenship must be required to renounce said foreign citizenship. Refusal to do so should result in
immediate deportation with loss of American citizenship. Present and former holders of dual citizenship
should not be allowed to serve in any American governmental capacity.
The American Presidents Johnson and Nixon were satisfied with the Israeli explanation that they would not
be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the mid east. Successive administrations accept this
declaration and are not interested in forcing them to join the IAEA.
Fair enough too given the history of their persecution and the massive contributions of Jewish
brainpower to America's bomb project and many prior and subsequent, scientific, medical, legal and
industrial efforts.
I hope not. There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
Thanks to Giraldi and all
the commenters here who want to see our government function on our behalf. Right now it's riddled with
treason. Despite large majorities of both parties consistently identifying money as corrupting our
politics, bribery became normalized in part so that Jewish politics could prosper. Now we no longer even
expect our representative to pretend.
He says he "didn't think it was going to become, you know, the 7-year devastating conflict that it became."
That is apparent. Libya was already descending into the F-UK-US "Mission Accomplished" with NATO bombers warming
up to finish the job. Perhaps Max's dad had assured him that Syria would follow the same pattern his emails with
Hillary Clinton show he had helped plan and define in Libya.
BTW: Has he ever addressed his father's role in the destruction of the once most prosperous country on the
African continent? I haven't read or heard anything from Max on Syd Blumenthal's pre-Qaddafi "removal"
explanation that Libya had to be destroyed to:
Steal their nationalized oil.
Confiscate the hundreds of tons of gold and silver Libya held.
Prevent Libya from establishing a gold-backed currency and pan-African development bank to compete with the
US petro-dollar and IMF, and lift Africa out of neo-colonial subservience.
Yeah. Max was "pretty quiet on Libya and not really - didn't really make any coherent statements on that
either."
That newspaper that Max publicly maligned and quit ("grandstanding" as he now says) "had taken an
anti-imperialist agenda." Did that paper ever reject any articles Max wrote defending "the Syrian revolution"? I
didn't think so. Who had "an agenda"? Because it sure sounds like it was Max who was so focused on his new book
release and two upcoming book tours that at the least he abandoned journalistic values. Or did he fear that
"being associated" with a paper that also published articles critical of "the revolution" could hurt book sales?
After all, he thought it was all going to be over soon anyway.
It would also be nice for Max to explain why, once he changed his position on Syria after Russia had helped
turn the tide, he, Ben and Rania scrubbed all their anti-Syrian/pro-"rebel" posts from the internet without
explanation. How Orwellian.
Syria isn't the only topic Blumenthal wrote lies about. Him, his cohort mentioned here, and many other
presstitutes destroyed their credibility to the point where no deed no matter how valorous can regain it for
them--By their actions, they committed journalistic suicide.
It appears greed yet again trumped integrity.
It's always for
A Few Dollars More.
My only concern is that if this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind and talking about it
does that discourage anyone else from doing the same?
They should apologise to those they maligned. But is a vilificatory focus on the insufficiency of their
repentance really helping the anti-imperialist cause?
Blumenthal, and his vocal support for the Palestinian people deserves kudos. If he has
changed his stance on the Syrian debacle, good. I don't know too many people who are always
prescient enough to get everything right from the get-go, so, even without an apology, he deserves credit for
finally getting it right.
I became familiar with Max Blumenthal through Democracy Now. His position on Syria was inexplicably appalling,
but at least he had the decency to eventually call them out:
b. I'm genuinely honored that you chose to post a comment of mine. Thank you. And thank you for correcting my
errors in spelling Al Akhbar and Ben Norton's actual surname.
Once I catch up on the "news," I'll be back to check comments.
I was a follower of Max before the 2011 turmoil. I thought he was OK. He knew what was going around in
Palestine and I was pretty sure he was an advocate for the better. I dont know what to think anymore. What is
right and what is wrong. Can someone enlighten me :-(
Thank you for putting down what most of us who have been following The Arab spring since Tunisia
know about those 3 turncoats aka Triumvirate.
@ Anon #5
Speak for yourself. Those who do follow the ME knew and realised what was the goal back in Dara'a in
February 2011. It has started since 1980's and Assad didn't want to be another b---h of the US. Colin Powell
thought he could sway him with threats back in 2003 and then Robert Ford - so called Ambassador went on with
his task when he got the job in Damascus together with Eric Chevallier who was MAN enough to realise what was
happening.
Posted by: Daniel | May 9, 2018 5:10:21 PM | 9
(Thanks to b for the recognition)
I agree with b. Your comment was thorough, well-articulated and verifiable.
...and flushed out some Moral Equivalence ideologues of the Thomas L Friedman variety.
Black Agenda Report of course has got it right since day one since Blacks more than any other group know not to
trust Western establishment narratives and discourses on human rights and humanitarian intervention. Their
articles on Libya from 2011 are but one proof of this.
Margaret Kimberley's latest on Trump and Israel is
excellent as always:
here.
Oh please! The first attack on Max Blumenthal was embarrassing enough. Moon of Alabama is very fortunate to
have gained as much respect as it has; it's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive
tripe. By the way I'm also offended by the fact that someone presumed to edit my Nom de Comment
"nationofbloodthirstysheep" when I made what I think was a useful comment on the Gulf of Scripal Incident. If I
had wanted to post under the name" nation of sheep" I would have done so.
Max Blumenthal's support for the Palestians, especially those in Gaza, has been solid. As we all know Gaza is
led by the Muslim Brotherhood. As we all should know is that it was the MB in Syria that began war against the
Syrian government. It took about a year for Islamists mercenaries to arrive and begin to dominate the
opposition to Assad's government. Of course, the Saudis and Qatar were financing the MB forces from the
beginning.
I noticed that many westerners who were involved in Palestinian's struggle for their rights
immediately backed the MB in Syria in the first year of the Syrian war. Recall how they came out and supported
the MB when they seized the Yarmouk refugee camp in opposition to the Syrian government. Many good hearted, but
absurdly naive, youthful people who supported the Palestians, came out and attacked Assad.
Max is one of those people. He is young and hopefully is capable of reform. We should accept his apology.
I wasn't aware of Max Blumenthal saying "Alternet Grayzone is the only progressive outlet questioning the main
line". I always prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and respect how these writers have changed their
minds and are sticking to it, but this statement leaves a bad taste in the mouth, considering the outlets that
have been questioning it since the beginning. Perhaps he meant "mainstream-alternative progressive outlets", or
"foundation-funded independent outlets". Thanks b and Daniel for the background of which I was not aware.
it is one thing for them to be wrong and another for them to never acknowledge
it.. it is kinda like bush 2 and his war on iraq... no acknowledgement and as obama used to say, instead of
accountability we just have to move on.. bullshit.. these folks would do well to acknowledge when they are
wrong.. i don't know that any of them have..
This all sounds childish to me. Fixation on the degree of sincerity of an apology is for the playground.
They had a view they changed their view from new evidence or by reflection or both. They may have done some
harm by simply being human as we all can and do regularly, we humans being human and all.
These people fully acknowledged their error and were suitably contrite. One should bear in mind the fog of
propaganda surrounding the so-called Arab spring; CIA Isis recruiters were very active in the pro-Palestinian
movements. I actually knew some young people on the streets of Oakland and Berkeley who had been convinced that
the Wahhabi Takfiris were a persecuted minority and were nearly swept away.
Let's be quite clear about this, even if it means going off-message. The Ba'thist regime is not very nice, but
it's a million times better than a jihadi regime in Damascus. It's why Asad has retained the support of
Syrians.
The Syrian students I know have been asked to repay their scholarships. Up to 300k euros. They can't
and so are forced to remain refugees. Even the Alawites. It's not improbable that Asad will forgive them in the
end, but suicides are in prospect. They could cope if it weren't for the war.
The war is going well, but hard on those conscripted. I wonder whether it isn't really a volunteer army now,
after all the deaths. The hardened army is very small, but enough to knock off Ghouta, and enough to put a big
hole in Idlib, some time ago. my opinion is that Idlib won't resist and will collapse, but we'll have to see.
While these three did get it wrong about Syria and may not have given the best explanations of what changed
their minds, they actually come off as pretty contrite, more than I thought they would be capable of. The
podcast is useful for exposing how the Syria issue has crippled the bds movement in North America and the role
of gulf state money in that process. I look forward to what they have to say about the particularly insidious
role of IS Trotskyism in destroying the anti-war movement in the anglophone world. Its fine to score points
against these people for their very real past mistakes, but from an organizing point of view, what matters more
is to understand the situation we're in now, and they are contributing. With formerly reliable outlets like
Counterpunch getting worse on this issue with every passing day, it seems odd to be attacking those who have
rectified their mistakes.
@24
"it seems odd to be attacking those who have rectified their mistakes. "
I certainly hope that it is just "odd". I would hate to have to think that the attacks were due to their
relative effectiveness and the expanded reach of what they have to say. It's sad to consider that in the best
case envy might be a motivation. The worst case is unthinkable.
Been a student of US History and its Empire since 1960s--50+ years--and I'm being told integrity no longer
matters. Can someone tell me when the USA lost its integrity regarding its own basic law and the UN Charter it
helped create, how hard it is to discover that fact, and why it matters? In our Orwellian Age, just how
important is one's credibility, and why should we trust someone who sold hers/his for
A Few Dollars More
?
Perhaps their heretofore "expanded reach" was dependent on their message of the moment's
usefulness to the existing power structure and their willingness to sing on cue? It wouldn't be the first time
political capital earned for good cause has been spent in favor of the enemy. Liberal "performative contrition"
is meaningless. If those three have done it once, they'll do it again. They are now of no service to the people
except as examples, and absolutely replaceable.
It's obvious you're trolling or shilling. Move on to your next assignment please.
Thanks Daniel for your comment and to B who elevated it to a full post. Daniel's comment should serve as an
inspiration to the rest of us!
While attacking Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and Rania Khalek for their failure
to apologise to people they had previously slandered on their podcast show may seem poor form, I think that
what Daniel says and B adds is relevant information to consider "going forward", as the cliche goes, when next
the trio cover another or a new Middle Eastern issue, or even revisit the situation in Syria if that should
change. Will Blumenthal et al stand steadfast in their opinion or will they revert to supporting the forces
trying to topple Assad if they sniff that the tide is turning against the SAA and its allies?
@29 jen.. i agree... it is worth reading daniels comment @163 in 'trump ends the nuclear deal' thread as well
as @156 george lanes initial comments to this post of daniels too..
i usually try not to judge people by their family connections but blumenthal's dad is such a noxious neoliberal
asshole it's hard to believe the apple could have fallen
that
far from the tree.
a lot of the so
called "left" is also infected with the "every revolution is good cuz leaders are teh suck amirite?!?!?"
disease. whether it's - as a great article i recently saw suggests - the residue of marxism or just teen angst
writ large, they just assume any leader that isn't a 100% pinkwashed socialist-feminist-____ist should be
overthrown by the "wisdom of the masses". too bad they fail to see the hands of the "elite" behind every
protest and youtube meme.
this also explains the reflexive stupidity that oozes from western mouths every time putin is mentioned
(because high approval ratings and legit election wins don't count if it's backwards gay-hating slavs).
while he and the others do write about israel, that falls into the "so you want a damn cookie?" category.
opposing israel is opposing every foul part of human nature (especially historical european tendencies)
distilled in one arid shithole of a colony pretending to be a country. his hissy fits about gilad atzmon aren't
exactly profiles in courage either and offer a glimpse of the "third way" mentality he seems to have inherited
from his father.
@14
BAR is indeed great. they have morals and convictions and they actually stick to them consistently. freedom
rider is especially good and her recent piece on israel is as good or better than anything on mondoweiss or EI.
extra fun historical context:
the inhabitants of what is now called the GCC or gulf states or whatever were one of the heaviest users of
african slaves during the slave trade. this included the barbary pirates that the US marines were basically
created to destroy when they committed the dreadful sin of kidnapping
white
people from the southern
beaches of europe. that's where the marine song comes from and the "shores of tripoli" and etc. so the marines
have basically been killing muslims for hundreds of years.
as for why the arabian peninsula has so few black folks compared to the west: they castrated all the males.
oddly, one slave helped the moors conquer spain (the term "moors" being that time's "muzzies").
UserFriendly @2:
. . . If this is the reception people can expect for changing their mind . . .
Journos, pols, and other public figures that take
strategic positions
as it is convenient to them are
deplorable.
Anyone that was honestly wrong would be contrite.
= = = =
Richard C @3:
. . . Is a vilification focus . . . Really helping
Yes it is, especially for those taking
strategic positions
.
= = = =
Anon @5:
All have been wrong some time . . .
Morons, trolls, and opportunists are right as often as a broken clock.
= = = =
NOBTS @14:
. . . It's very foolish to squander people's patience with this vindictive tripe
I guess you have no family or friends among the millions dead injured and displaced.
= = = =
Babyl-on @20:
They had a view they changed their view . . . being human and all
Not good enough Babyl-on. As a long time patron of the bar I think you should see that more clearly than
others.
= = = =
Peter Gose @24:
. . . They actually come off as pretty contrite . . . And they are contributing
I always feel that it is best to explain your mistakes and not simply apologize. Very instructive and
restores confidence. And if they were "burned" by being misinformed, they should be / would be vindictive
toward those that misled them.
@27
So... it suits the existing power structure that these people should be speaking relatively truthfully at this
point? If that's the case then I suppose the majority of Moon of Alabama's followers ( I contributed €50 by the
way) would be in the same boat. The only way I can see this working out for the ruling elite is if being on the
right side i.e. the left side, is totally marginal and pathetic, so thoroughly divided and conquered as to be
irrelevant.
I read Max's book Goliath recently. It's very damning of the rightward turn of the Israeli govt AND the Israeli
people. People in the US are nowhere near as xenophobic as a majority of Israelis are now. I admit I had not
paid much attention to support he would have had for the "Syrian rebels." But the point is to be made and it
would be interesting to know of his thoughts on his father's actions with respect to Libya. Maybe Max realizes
he's late to the party and is having a me too moment.
somebody 34
The Team Obama love affair with MB was obvious. I thought it interesting that the Egypt military put a stop to
their plans once they achieved power there. They were useful for the initial protest violence in Syria until
more support could arrive.
In a future piece, I will address what Trotsky stood for and
use that criteria to differentiate among the various groups that call themselves Trotskyist today.
Bruce @37, this is true. The proud Trotskyists at the WSWS are consistently anti-war and have called out
several socialist organizations for being pro-NATO intervention in Libya and Syria. I find their philosophical
positions woefully reductive and uninteresting (one of them told me once that both "analytic" and "continental"
philosophy are "non-sense" and that the only true philosophy is Marxism-Leninism-Trotskyism, and also that the
Frankfurt school is the root of the perversion of Marxist philosophy), but nonetheless they do extremely
admirable and important work in reporting on the ground in places like Amazon distribution centers or
interviewing immigrant families terrorized by ICE. They have been speaking out loudly on Google censorship as
well, which is laudable.
On this topic of pro-intervention leftists, see Whitney Webb's response to the open
letter signed by Chomsky, Judith Butler, and others, calling for the humanitarian US military to save Rojava
and "increase support for the SDF":
here.
It now appears as though a war may have broken out between Syria and Israel. Israel claims that
"Iran" attacked it at the Syria/Israel border at the Golan Heights. See NOW (Syrian) News :
Notwithstanding Israel's attack on Syria, minutes ago, it should be noted, IMHO, that Max Blumenthal is simply
a "Limited Hangout". And in it for a "Few Dollars More". h/t Karlof1
So the Likudniks, who most resemble the Israelites from the first eight or nine books of the Torah, violent,
deceitful, putting the Philistines to the sword, taking their land and cattle and enslaving their women and
children, always falling away from the Commandments but always forgiven by YHWH, are building another brick BS
box to add to the structure that will, if the dual-citizens that stand atop our Imperial government have their
way, lead to some kind of "war on Iran."
I wonder what it feels like to get vaporized in a nuclear explosion... Expect it won't hurt for long -- less
painful than having to watch as the Fokkers who own us slow-walk all of us into economic and environmental
collapse, maybe quick-stepping now toward an answer to that neocon-naive question, "What good are all these
wonderful weapons for if we never USE them?" C;mon, all you Revelation Believers and Armageddonists, GET IT
OVER ALREADY, WILL YOU? THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING US!
I long ago rejected the notion that there will be some kind of retribution in some kind of "afterlife" where
the people who are bast@rds and sh!ts in this life have to atone, somehow. Anyone who might be a candidate for
eternity in the fiery lake obviously shares that disbelief. Fork 'em, if only we could reach them and stop them
somehow...
oh and let me aim a quote from pat lang - "Any sort of incident or provocation will be accepted by the US as
causus belli." that is indeed how low the usa has sunk to...
Sigh. You'd think that the left, whose only real power comes from solidarity, would be natural coalition
builders, but they aren't. I feel like all I ever see is ideological purity tests and an eagerness to shun and
expel people over differences rather than try and reach people where they are and work to change their views to
match your own. It just gets me so depressed because the right does not have this problem at all; the bible
thumpers showed up en mass for the pussy grabber. I'll just add this to my list of reasons not to procreate and
to commit suicide before the climate change shit hits the fan.
am i the only idiot here who thinks the idea of iran lobbing some missiles into israel from the golan heights
is like an oversized pack of lies? maybe i should take out a regular subscription to the times of israel to get
the '''real'''news..
This makes no sense at all. I can't even tell what we are supposed to be getting so angry about. Is it that
these three people sound insufficiently repentant? Is it their tone of voice we are judging? Or is it that they
took too long to reach their current positions? Personally I couldn't care less, as long as today they're
pushing the conversation in a positive direction. And I don't think there are many people out there
communicating more effectively than Blumenthal and Norton.
For JTMcPhee @44 regarding those "Revelation Believers and Armageddonists" who tipped the Electoral College
scales in the U.S., giving the world
All-About-Him
instead of
You-Know-Her
: sort of like a choice
between Genghis Khan and Atilla the Hun (or Hen).
Left Behind by Jesus
Jesus loves the rich, you know
Ask them, they will tell you so
Help the poor? Why that's a crime!
Best to work them overtime
Off the books, though, lest they say
That you owe them extra pay
Jesus loves those tax cuts, too
Just for some, though, not for you
See a poor kid that's a clerk?
Send him to Iraq to work
Jesus loves the army, see?
Just the place for you and me
Not the rich, though, they don't serve
What a thought! What perfect nerve!
If you think this life's a pain
Wait till Jesus comes again
Then on Armageddon Day
He will take the rich away
Sure, you thought that you'd go, too,
Not that you'd get one last screw
Just like your retirement
That the rich already spent
Jesus with the winners goes
Losers, though, just get the hose
What on earth would make you think
That your lord's shit doesn't stink?
After all he left you here
With the rich, so never fear
They'll upon your poor life piss
In the next life and in this
Jesus loves the rich, so there!
Don't complain it isn't fair
Jesus said to help themselves
Then he'd help them stock their shelves
So they did and he did, too
What has this to do with you?
Jesus loves the rich just fine
Why'd you think he pours their wine?
Jesus votes Republican
Ask them: they'll say "He's the One!"
Still a few loose coins around
That the rich have not yet found
Gotta go now, never mind
If you end up left behind
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2006
This "solidarity" concept is stupid. There are people who call
themselves "leftists" who demand loyalty to Hillary. Um, no, we cannot have "solidarity" with Soros' minions.
We never needed "solidarity" to begin with. No significant social movement ever really depended on
"solidarity". We must think for ourselves, not just follow the party line.
@38 Wow, even the WSWS Trotskyists buy into that right wing shit about the Frankfurt School now? Man, that
'cultural marxism' conspiracy theory is so virulent even some Marxists believe it...
The only surprising thing here is how many pro trolls jumped in the defense of the spent trio. The three have
been used up, sacrificed by their owners and there is no going back. Most of the usual good commenters here
understand this well - credibility is a bit like virginity - one can go onto an operating table to regain it,
but it is never the same.
When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many
regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some
important moment. Internet is full of such.
@38, Massinissa, yes they got a bit angry when I made that connection with right-wing libertarians and their
Cultural Marxism argument about the Frankfurt school being the source of the downfall of Western civilization.
To be fair, they would reject that whole argument as well, but they nonetheless hold the Frankfurt school to be
a perversion of Marxist thinking to be rejected entirely, with no usefulness or value whatsoever.
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and
blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper
apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off
everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists.
I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it
indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am
really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?
>>> blues
, May 9, 2018 9:00:48 PM | 52
Clinton? left? LOL Thats the best laugh I've had in awhile. I meant the actual left.
/~~~~~~~~~~
As I think further about all this, why do I give a fuck about these intramural cat fights among journalists and
blogers. We the consumers are not in the least interested in your petty emotional bruises over improper
apologies. This crap goes on day after day in the press - journalists carping at one another and pissing off
everyone they subject to it. The Intercept practically has a section devoted to fights with other journalists.
I want reporting, the reporting I have seen from those who are sullied here is of high quality nothing in it
indicates duplicity of any kind instead it shows almost encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and issues. I am
really not interested in the complete moral biography of each and every journalist, are you?
When will the ordinary people understand, like the smart commenters here, that many regime agents pose as
anti-regime activists and journalists, to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment. Internet is
full of such.
Then ask: Is it really the case that "....many regime agents pose as anti-regime activists and journalists,
to be sacrificed by their creators at some important moment"? Is that the case, or is it not? Because if it is,
in fact, the case, then we must address it. I mean, it would be kind of stupid to just ignore that, right?
Well I have seen it several times with my own eyes. So as one of "we the consumers" I cannot just go and
dismiss it as a "cat fight".
I remember the first time Trump attacked Syrian forces was over a chocolate cake with chines president. Could
this be the same treatment or a reply by Putin if he gave a green light to Syria they can reply in kind inside
Israel, while Nuty is the guest of honor in Moscow?
@kooshy
The ayrian government is not controlled by putin. They can choose to respond any way thry want to for the
ongoing aggression and zionist invasion they dont need a "green light" from mosow you only need tosee how rt is
covering the news to understand that russia has nothing to do with thi a
I don't assume a commenter is controlled opposition "until they
prove otherwise". But for anyone named "Hal Turner" (the FBI's honeypot blogger), I have severe doubts to begin
with.
What you say is true, sorry to say. One reason why it is true is that there has not been
a viable American political left for at least a half century now and probably longer. There were some stirrings
of legitimate left politics in a few of the civil rights groups (certainly not all) in the early 1960s, and for
a long time the Black Panthers represented by far the healthiest left movement in the US since the 1920s-30s.
But the mass potential for a real socialist politics came to an end, I think, with the assassination of King,
and the local pockets of black nationalist resistance were bombed or shot or disappeared by FBI and police
forces over the next decade. The remaining Vietnam anti-war movement was largely useless. Many of them are
today the aging equestrians of the professional liberal #Resistance.
Occupy had some promise but was easily dissipated. The Democratic primaries demonstrated that a moderate
social democrat could outearn corporate PAC financed tools via aattracting a huge number of small donations
from people earning between 35K-100K (which is a *relatively* piss poor class of people, politically speaking).
Some of this momentum carried over into socialist party gains and electoral victories in 2018, and in some
states motivated a younger social democratic ("progressive" I suppose they call themselves) insurgency against
Democratic Party empty suits. How lasting and successfull this development will prove to be is uncertain. My
hope is that the 2020 Democratic primary season is much more destructive for internal party structure than that
of 2016 was; ideally the party itself would implode, ceasing to exist altogether or remade entirely on an
explicitly socialist, or at least social democratic platform, the #Resistance crew jumping over to the
Republicans.
Just go away. You are not going to fool anybody round here into taking you seriously with such
comically C-grade troll phrases as "return to relevance" and "such a divisive post."
From Ben Norton via the link given by b above ("this episode"):
"We have been criticized, mostly by people who I think have been somewhat unfair, but I think there are
valid criticisms, in that early on in the conflict we were kind of knee jerk response supportive of the
opposition out of the idea that this is like some progressive revolution against an evil authoritarian regime
etc., you know believing a lot of those talking points which we now know are significantly more complex, if not
just flat out false."
First, thanks to many MoA barflies for the kind words. I am far more often than not impressed with the
knowledge and analytical abilities of those Bernhard has attracted to this site no doubt attracted by those
same qualities in b. I have learned, and continue to learn much from y'all. So getting props from people I
admire is really quite touching.
Most of the criticisms seem to be along the lines of 'we should not
criticize people who change their minds lest we scare off others."
Of course we should encourage everyone to cut through the propaganda in every way we can. We are all
swimming 24/7 in a 360 degree ocean of PR/Propaganda of a sort that Bernays and Goebbels could have only
dreamt. I have no doubt that right this moment I hold some disinformation that was deliberately fed to me, and
I hope that I am appreciative when someone else helps to lift a veil for me.
In fact, I have no doubt that some propaganda is designed for people like myself (and others here at MoA and
elsewhere), whom the propagandists know are aware of their work, and so we are on the lookout for it. I'll
return to that thought.
And when one has a breakthrough as profound as making a 180 degree turn on an issue so great as a war, I
absolutely agree that we should welcome that person with warmth and love.
But I also believe we should be skeptical of EVERY journalist/opinion maker who has a substantial platform.
For in all but the rarest of cases, the fact of having a substantial platform means having a substantial
financial backing. Not all financial backing is dubious of course, but I think we all agree that critical
thinking should always be engaged.
So, how should a journalist with a large following who is also a significant opinion maker handle reversing
directions on a war? Should that person scrub all previous work from the internet, and just start writing the
opposite?
Or should that person help others to have a similar epiphany (most especially those readers who had bought
the product this journalist had been selling for the previous 5 years)? In teaching there is a method termed
"guided discovery," whereby the teacher lays out a path for the students to use their own minds to come to the
correct conclusion. I can think of no better time to use this method than when one is actually having that very
same "discovery" process, or had just had it.
Max could have written articles revealing one piece of false propaganda after the other as he now says he
and his cohorts did privately amongst themselves. Today, they complain that "leftists/progressives" attack them
as "Assad apologists" and such. We all know that the first response to a new viewpoint that is opposite of one
already deeply held is almost always rejection. And when the person presenting this new information had for
years actually helped instill in the audience the opposite view, it's only normal for people to become suspect
of the journalist's motives.
But that's not the path Max, (and Ben and Rania) chose. Was this a case of being a poor teacher, or
something else possibly something a bit more sinister?
Let's consider other things in Max's record. ,
In an earlier comment, I described the disinformation in Max's book, "The 51 Day War" and in his
characterization of fellow Jewish writer, Gilad Atzmon. At the least, as a journalist, Max should know better
than to spread such incorrect and dangerous ideas.
And we cannot ignore that Max was amongst the first to blame a youtube video for the attack at the US
Embassy Mission that killed Ambassador Stevens, his aid and later, two former Navy Seals (read: mercenaries).
He wrote this even before the Obama Administration officially made that claim. How'd he know? And when his
daddy sent Hillary Max's OpEd (and again Max's daddy had worked with Hillary Clinton in understanding why Libya
had to be destroyed, and how to do that), Hillary wrote back,
Another author Max vociferously and wrongly labels an "anti-Semite" and liar is Allison Weir. Everyone
should read her in depth study of the origins of the Jewish State of Israel in the Levant, "Against Their
Better Judgement" and frequent her website, ifamericansknew.org.
BTW: It was Max who coined the JSIL term for Israel which I frequently use. We can be critical of a source
and still appreciative of useful and true information from that source. Even Controlled Opposition must reveal
some true information not found in MSM in order to build the trust that allows them to then feed disinformation
into our minds.
Check out this
4 minute video
to
see clearly how Max duplicitously slanders this good woman:
So, back to my earlier question, "what would a propaganda designed for people who already know the MSM is
propaganda look like?" I think I may have provided at least one answer.
¿When the Kent State Cambodian War protesters were shot in the back by the Natiinal Guard?
¿When Billy Graham exorted 'Bomb the Gooks for Jesus!' at the Lincoln Memorial during those protests, and
Time Magazine called him 'America's Preacher' while recently released tapes show Graham telling Nixon to nuke
Hanoi??
¿When thr Hells Angels beat that guy to death at Altamont while the Stones were pleased to introduce
themselves?
I actually earned a degree in journalism, even though I went to an undistinguished university and was
persecuted by the head of the department. I could never support myself as a journalist because unlike Max
Blumenthal, I didn't have the resources to travel to other countries and just do journalism. I had to do
something else to support myself. Nevertheless, I knew what was up in Syria the minute I saw that al Jazeera
had started churning out anti-Assad propaganda: this was early in 2011, while Libya was still in turmoil. There
is no excuse for anyone not to have paid attention to Libya--Thierry Meyssan barely escaped with his life after
NATO put out an order to kill him! And there is no excuse for anyone to have seen Syria as anything else than
an aggression by the U.S., NATO, the GCC and Israel. This is not about some naive kid (and Max Blumenthal is
neither young nor naive) falling for romantic propaganda: it is about the son of a highly placed CIA employee
who himself claims to be a journalist, and who was the closest advisor to Secretary of State Clinton on the
Middle East. As Sidney Blumenthal's son, Max had the best education, a hell of a lot of exposure to the deep
state, and is independently wealthy. With these privileges, why wasn't it him who was in Turkey reporting on
the U.S., NATO and the World Health Organization sending weapons and terrorists into Syria? Why was it Serena
Shim, someone that Turkey, with the nod of the CIA, could murder with impunity? And what is Blumenthal
reporting on right now? Nothing that will risk his neck or his reputation, God forbid. Taking risks is for
people like Shim, who lost her life, like Wassim Issa, who just lost both legs, like Vanessa Beeley, who has
had her name dragged through the mud by FBI agent Sibel Edmonds and the entire British media establishment.
The really funny thing here is you folks are ripping Blumenberg a new a**hole for "changing his mind" when you
guys are so wrong about Syria. Blumenstock and his friends were closer to the truth
before
their
conversion. That's right, the story you guys believe about Assad being a bit of a hard a** but a relatively
benign dictator is pure fantasy.
The Syrian Ba'athist regime is renowned for its savage brutality against even suspected dissenters. How you
people can explain away the well documented record of this violence says something about your echo chamber
state of mind. And yes the Syrian government and its Russian patron target civilian areas and hospitals. Again,
this is credibly documented. You are buying into a propaganda narrative. Vanessa Beeley, for example, is a
Ba'athist stenographer who is not telling the whole story. Before you all start hollering, and throwing
furniture let me ask how many Syrians post here? Right.
Nothing I can say will convince anyone to change their mind and that's okay because who am I and, besides,
everyone here has the internet and knows how to use search. If you are brave or not completely brainwashed yet
start with this article (you don't have to agree with everything in it) to get a sense of where your chosen
narrative is at its weakest.
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-debate-over-syria-has-reached-a-dead-end/
Have fun!
I wonder if Syria were to regain the Golan Heights of Syria and then blitzkreig beyond in a New 7 Day War,
all the way to Haifa and beyond, whether the same Rabbinicals and Evangelicals who worship Zionism would defend
Syria's right to 'the spoils of war' and then turn a blind eye as Syria blockades Haifa into a concentration
camp the way Isreal has turned Gaza into one? Would they talk about Syrians being the New Chosen of Jaweh?
Would they throw away their yarmulkels, and wear black and white Hezbullah scarves, just to be among the
victors? Would Netanyahu be treated in the press like Arafat was treated, as a loser?
I tend to give thanks for small miracles, given the dire straights the world of journalism is in. Blessed are
those who repent and at least max, Rhania and Ben appear to have sincerely repented the error of their early
days, and max, in particular, has done some truly great work, exposing the Chemical false Flags and the White
helmets for what they were and are. Sure, he and others stood on the shoulders of some braver and more
perceptive souls such as Sharmine Narwani, Vanessa Beely and Eva Bartlett, among the very - so very - few who
dared question the dominant narrative starting in 2011.
I also think that perhaps people don't realize just
how difficult it was to be a western journalist/reporter and have any kind of career back in 2011/2012 while
questioning the dominant narrative. Very very few did in the west, if truth be said. yes, there were Syrian
connected reporters and opinionators like the Syrian perspective, MOA and a few, all too few, others. But one
could count the English reporters of truth on one finger. Not just Syria, but also Libya and probably even
Egypt. So, not everyone is super-brave from the get-go. not everyone has the analytic skills and integrity of
"b", but then b is not stuck with writing for the Guardian, is he? And he and Ziad fadel hand Sharwani and
those few others we heard from, many times did not earn their living from writing geopolitic (I think I need to
add The Saker to the list. I believe I discovered him only in 2013 or so).
So, if some who first wandered in the desert got some kahunas later, it's definitely better than never. IMO,
it's kind of small minded to excoriate those who failed to see the full picture back as it was happening. Me, I
see the glass as half full rather than half empty, and as I sit here i can only wish for more converts to the
truth. Say Monbiot of The Guardian? now, that would be nice, wouldn't it?
I also would like to remind people just how caught up so many western liberals were in the spectacle of the
Arab Spring (that wasn't much in the end, and we should think long and hard about why that was so). We - as in
many of us - projected our wishes upon the Arab millennials and students, but little did we do - as in any of
us - to research the sad, tragic realities in their own countries. The dependence of Egypt on tourism for
example all but doomed their spring to another long Winter. We, who have jobs and/or comfortable positions
somewhere and/or comfortable enough retirement that allows some to post here (and post well and thoughtfully
for many, which takes time and is definitely a luxury), how could we even imagine what it means to have so
little that to lose that meager income from tourists is a catastrophe? In the end the majority of the Egyptians
went for bread and butter or Sisi would not have prevailed (please don't read this as defense of the Sisi
regime. It's just me trying to understand why the revolution in Egypt did not succeed). But all this happened
back in 2011 to 2013, and Syria seemed like one more exclamation mark on some elusive "Arab Spring". Of course,
it was no such thing but I only knew that from reading far more widely than most people do, and I wasn't a
journalist trying to eke out a living either. As commenters we have the luxury of writing as we see fit,
without fear of being fired. Anonymously too, most of us. But for reporters out in the open, I reckon it must
have been a little harder.
Actually, I am trying to work up a little piece on the mysterious - and not so mysterious - reasons Syria
became such a red line for writers of all kinds, that to cross it back in 2012-2015 meant vitriol in the
mailbox and who knows what else. Sure it became easier in 2015 once the Russians stepped in, but I am trying to
figure out why that was the case. What was so special about 2016, other than that was the year the russians
really helped turn things around? and it was election season in the US too. Still, I am struglgling to wrap
arms around this strange conundrum of why Syria?
Finally, speaking about red lines and daniel's comment. Gilad Atzmon is the most obvious case of a red line
those who write in the open cannot cross. No matter how pro-palestinians and/or anti-zionists they are. Gilad
is a lithmus test and has been for quite a while now. Just another somewhat strange phenomenon, and snother
occasion for yet another piece (which I will write under still another name - for good reason. After all, the
mere mention of the name Atzmon could be enough to get one kicked out of "polite' society....and I do like the
free food and drinks served in those societies - now and then....).
This is not only suspiciously vindictive, it's a bore. Isn't there something more pernicious to explore than
Max Blumenthal's lack of perfection? 1) The implication that he changes his positions for financial gain is
laughable. If Max is trying to sell out, he's going about it all wrong. 2) He's under no obligation to explain
his father's actions. 3) You seem to be implying that he was quiet about Libya because of his father's
involvement. Isn't that what you're supposed to do if you have a conflict of interest? 4) You don't like the
name "Moderate Rebels?" Dude your writing for a website called "Moon Over Alabama" Let's just agree to judge on
content rather than title.
Assad's opposition has turned him into a hero, not us. He is a veritable paladin next to the Jihadi
headchoppers that would take over if he fell.
And how has regime-change ever helped anyway? Toppling Saddam was a disaster for USA in terms of
international standing, financial cost, and the end result (increased Iranian influence). Libya after Qaddafi
is a nightmare where ISIS conducts slave auctions. Afghanistan's 18-year war is a quagmire of dumbfuckery so
profound that it is only talked about in hushed terms when reauthorizations are needed. In Ukraine, the West
'won' a money pit.
@73 daniel. your question "what would a propaganda designed for
people who already know the MSM is propaganda look like?" - the intercept?
@76 diana.. good post.. thanks..
@80 merlin.. thanks for your post.. i am still conflicted on the arab spring.. on the one hand it seemed
like a natural occurrence.. on the other hand it seems like the powers that be were waiting to take advantage
of it too, especially in the case of syria...i suppose we could give max, ben and rania a pass based on the
general view that the arab spring was upon the middle east and everyone knew what a brutal dictator assad was..
i think a few folks woke up during the ukraine shakedown 2014, and they might have got to thinking that indeed
the yinon plan was still on track or that general clarks comments which i quote here were indeed relevant.. "As
I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a
chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed
as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq,
then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
that arab spring thing seemed like good cover for any number of tricks, not to mention regime change.. i
have a hard time buying into the thought that someone who is supposed to cultivate critical thinking would
overlook this myself.. maybe investigative reporters are supposed to skip the critical thinking class? i don't
buy that myself.. i relate more to diana's comment @76 and think that it is fair to criticize max and any other
number of public journalists, or bloggers.. i do it with other posters here and i get it when folks do it with
b, as a few have here on this thread, even if i don't agree with them in this instance..
thanks to the many commentators here that continue to give me greater insight to overcome the blind spots
that i carry around without being fully or even partly aware of them.. it's ongoing..
I agree with your assertions about the paid shills of our
world....they are paid to get out in front of trains not of their creation and start a parade.
Your posting has brought a new "class" of trolls to MoA. Maybe we can open some of their minds and they will
quit their day jobs.
Although par for the course for most people, your short sightedness, your disregard for factual evidence and
your sheer inability for critical evaluation is exasperating.
It is because of people like you that offer sustenance to a predatory and exploitative elite that we find
ourselves in the bind we are in.
People like you have completely bought into the narrative of the ostensible benevolence of presumably
democratic governments. People like you have completely been sold on the desirability of the centralization of
power. People like you have gladly waded into the self defeating fable of the righteousness of centralized
education.
It is people like you that happily cheer-on our elites as they gradually divest society of their labor and
their wealth by lowering interest rates artificially.
It is people like you that merrily support our elites as they progressively reveal themselves to be mere
enforcers for predatory financial interests
It is people like you that rejoice in the orgy of government profligacy that gradually weighs down the
creativity, the productivity and the mere right to existence of individuals the world over.
It is people like you that revel in the self declared virtue of transnational political entities that, time
and again, are caught abetting and often, colluding with retrograde, sanguinary individuals the world over.
You are a deluded soul. Either that, or you have an agenda.
I know how hard it is for people to change their views, my self included. Sure you could say Max and Co. should
have known better but what does that say about 99% of journalists on this planet who still firmly sticks with
and probably believes the official NATO propaganda narrative?
I think having an article and debating this is
both helpful and informative. However resorting to name calling like "turncoats" implies playing for a team.
Tribalism and partisan hackery is something we should avoid at all costs. I've been accused of being a Putin
lover and Assad lover by those who cling to the NATO narrative. The truth is I think both as assholes but I
also understand the position they are in.
Is the Baath regime ideal? Fuck no. Would a Muslim brotherhood Regime be better? Highly doubtful. Would
Al-Nusra or and ISIS Regime bet better? WTF? are you kidding me?? There is no black and white here, but some
are much more gray that others. Same goes for journalists and people, none of us are without flaws. But the
ability to change your mind and correct course is a good property especially in a journalist. This "no true
Scotsman" mentality is a luxury we can't really afford in the fight against the onslaught of corporate pro WAR
media.
Serious tribalism here, quite ugly to see, no criticism is allowed.
People that are wrong must apologize lol,
I mean get off your high horse.
Also attacking Blumenthal, Khalek, Norton, its like a teenager trying to pick a fight with a bodybuilder,
and those who play with fire is going to be burnt himself by the same smearing.
Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are.
Democracy Now, pleeeeease the white wash agency for USA exceptionalism and other crimes against
humanity. Next you'll be quoting the Guardian. Reposting content from either of these two is like passing round
used toilet paper for another try.
I can understand the alround eagerness to condemn. It's a standard pattern of putting the bar very high for
others. It's as people have to demonstrate how good they are themselves by condemning others. Julian Assange is
far from perfect as well but he has done a huge service.
I think it was perfectly normal for a progressives to support the demonstrations and rebellion against Assad.
This fit in with the Arab Spring and there was a legitimate aspiration for more democracy. There was also a
violent component from the start , and there were strong exhortations to avoid all negotiations and avoid all
compromise because Assad certainly was going to fall. It's to Max Blumenthal's credit that he caught on to the
component which was there from the start and which quickly started to dominate: the intent , mostly from
outside, to destroy or degrade the state. I think Blumenthal has done very good work on many fronts and I
respect him.
I do not appreciate how he bashes people who have not caught on. It does not necessarily get
easier over time to change your mind. The amount of propaganda on the issue has also increased. Once you're on
the outside it's easy, but it is also easy to underestimate how hard it is to change your mind from the inside.
I understood the nature of the conflict from the start. Therefore I'm much smarter than Blumenthal. He
should listen to me.
I can believe that Blumenthal is obfuscating his change of mind. But I've known about his change of mind for
a long time from interviews so I never even noticed the obfuscation.
It's not pretty. Ok. So it's not pretty.
Fantastic piece by Daniel, it's nice to see that some people have some standards. Both Norton and Blumenthal
have lied about various issues, not just Syria, though the way Max, Ben and Rania all changed positions at the
same time on Syria is highly shady. Same with the deletion without explanation of their past work on Syria,
Libya etc. Max has helped his war profiteer, Clinton employee father sell lies on various issues, we should't
be grateful that he(or they) rebranded on Syria after he already did so much damage. We should be skeptical as
to why.
@ Anon who wrote: "Attacking people that is on your own side, also shows how misguided these blogposts are."
Unless you want to replace global private finance with totally sovereign finance you are not on my side. Are
you on my side Anon? Do you think Max B is on my side ?
Take your obfuscating BS to some other blog you come in and say is misguided.
As C @ 91 says, the fact that Max Blumenthal et al experienced their Damascene moment (cough, cough) at about
the same time is suspicious in itself. The timing of that moment too, with the Russian entry into the Syrian
war in September 2015 and the turnabout in Syria's fortunes that started soon after, must also be considered.
One might almost have guessed that Blumenthal, Norton and Khalek were planning and co-ordinating their move
together, and looking for the right moment.
They must surely know that they are playing the role of gatekeepers in demarcating how far dissent from the
official narrative about Syria is allowed to go. The fact that some commenters here have taken their contrition
at face value and question or criticise others who have reservations about the depth of the trio's actions
demonstrates the power of that role, and why some of us might be justified in doubting their motives for acting
the way they have.
Until Max Blumenthal does something that truly threatens the powers that be, like Thierry Meyssan and Serena
Shim, I will regard him as another Sibel Edmonds--a government infiltrator posing as a dissident. By the way,
if anyone wants to know what really happened at the beginning of the invasion of Syria, read Thierry Meyssan's
writings from Libya and Damascus at the time: "John McCain, conductor of the Arab Spring" is amazing. So is
another one Thierry published on Voltaire, The rebirth of the Syrian Arab Army
https://www.voltairenet.org/article190703.html
This pissing contest comes off very much like the scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" in which members of
the People's Front of Judea badmouth the Judean People's Front. The ultimate insult was to call anyone with a
different opinion a "SPLITTER!" From my point of view, Max, Ben and Rania have their hearts in the right place.
(Has no one heard their saber-like takes on Ukraine?) They are not the enemy. In "Brian's" time, it was Rome,
and in our time it is the Western Empire. Let's all keep that in mind.
I agree with many posters here that the criticism of "prodigal children" of anti-imperialism should be
measured. This is a political cause, and we are not assembling an elite force that can smash most entrenched
enemies. Instead, we should strive to analyze the reality, spread the word and convert.
And we have to accept
that we differ on many issues, and very often we differ with our own past position. Back when the issue was
Kosovo intervention, I though that this is good idea. Now I know that "Beware the Greeks when they bring gifts
[Trojan Horse, for those deficient in classics]" should get another corollary "beware imperialists when they
care about human rights".
And it is not just vicarious imperialists or people who maintain civil relationship with members of Hamas
who may wrongly generalize. Assuming that Muslim Brotherhood is always and everywhere a force of evil violates
the good principle "location, location, location". Like Marxism, MB ideology has gamut of different trends, and
it is a bit to its credit that in Syria it did such a miserable job, being outplayed by Salafist -- they do not
do a good job as a warrior cult, they are actually too normal for that.
If moonofalabama has searchable archive, I was posting that it is immensely
speculative that Trump is a lesser evil than Clinton, in particular, his consistent praise of Bolton puts under
question mark all reasonable fragments of sentences that one could collect from his tweets and speeches.
Domestically, the guy is a wrecking ball, internationally -- it is still a bit open issue, I hope for malignity
mellowed by ineptitude, I mean, the outcome leave a chance for recovery. Then again, Clinton is much less smart
than some think her to be, so the grounds for opposing her more than Trump were illusionary.
I meant to add to my previous post (92) that requiring absolute ideological purity has been deadly to the left
ever since the left began. It is one of the main reasons why a broad-based leftwing movement has never taken
hold and lasted. A pox on these sectarian ideological squabbles. If the left wants to win, it must put them
aside once and for all.
Those who argue for leniency for Blumenthal and the others would have us overlook the MANY betrayals of other
so-called progressives. Such betrayals are too frequent to be just a matter of 'bad apples' or 'bad judgement'.
These "turncoats" take
strategic positions
on issues to advance their career. Hillary, the "progressive
that gets things done", and Obama, the "community organizer", are two notable examples. Another would be
Bernie's 'sheepdog' betrayal of his Movement - even after it was clear that Hillary and the DNC had conspired
against him. Such people slyly conflate progressive ideals with divisive identity politics. By throwing off the
moral core of progressivism they advance the interests of TPTB. Their many loyal sycophants and apologists rush
to defend the indefensible and try their best to muddy waters BUT WE KNOW THE GAME by now so fuck off! You
can't piss down our backs and tell us it raining anymore.
'Progressive' pundits and journalists that become useful idiots instead of watchdogs are even worse because
they claim to be truth-tellers. You don't get to lead the next parade after you've led people over a cliff.
"... Iran will largely stick to the nuclear deal if the EU effectively defends it and does not hinder Iranian deals with European companies. If the EU fails to do so the nuclear agreement will be null and void. Iran will leave the deal. The neoliberal Rouhani government that agreed to the deal will fall and the conservatives will be back. They will defend Iran's sovereignty at all costs. ..."
"... U.S. credibility has been seriously damaged. Its soft power is gone. Its hard power has shown to be inadequate in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Iran has not only new allies but gained in the Middle East because of U.S., Israeli and Saudi stupidity. The wars on Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen have all strengthened Iran's position while it largely kept largely out of them. ..."
"... The U.S. position in Afghanistan is hopeless. ..."
"... There are some people in the Trump administration who will want to wage war on Iran. The Bush administration also had such plans. But any war gaming of a campaign against Iran ended badly for the U.S. and its allied states. The Gulf countries are extremely vulnerable. Their oil output could be shut down within days. That situation has not changed. The U.S. is now in a worse strategic position than it was after the invasion of Iraq. As long as somewhat sane people lead the Pentagon they will urge the White House not to launch such an endeavor. ..."
"... If EU had any sense, it would threaten total trade war against the US if they ever touched any EU firm over the Iran sanctions. The US has no legal basis for this, and it's time to make them pay for it - not only at UN and WTO levels, but by leveling economic sanctions against the USA as well. ..."
"... Trump is a neocon, no doubt about that, we must stop hoping/supporting this dangerous man. ..."
"... This deal was not a treaty with advice and consent by the Senate according to the Constitution. As long as some presidents ignore the Constitution and make agreements on their own with other countries, they shouldn't be surprised when other presidents nullify them. (Bush-43 did the same thing on Iraq withdrawal as Obama did with Iran nuclear.) ..."
"... Participation of the U.S. in this plan of action is now canceled, and U.S. sanctions on Iran will be enhanced. There will be no United Nations sanctions, and probably the other parties to the agreement will adhere to the plan's strictures while increasing ties with Iran. The Trump withdrawal in fact clarifies the U.S. position which was dismissive of the plan anyhow, with the U.S. not adhering to its terms under the new president. ..."
"... This change may not hurt Iran much, as other parties to the plan continue to adhere to it and compensate for the U.S. withdrawal by using foreign currencies in Iran trade, etc. The price of oil is increasing and there is increased demand for it. Iran's ties with Russia, China and India are stronger than ever, and the latter two are in great need of petroleum. The change also reduces U.S. influence in Europe and elsewhere, which is not a bad thing because it reduces U.S. world hegemony. ..."
"... Immediately after the Trump comedy, Netanyahu took the stage and babbled about nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles being developed in Iran for the use with nuclear warheads. Just poor coincidents: There was a general alarm on the Golan heights. When will the bombers take off? ..."
"... It needs clarifying - how can this be a 'withdrawal'? More like reneging on the agreement. Agreement incapable indeed. It's getting time for the world to unify and sanction the US, until it reforms its behaviour. Why not? ..."
"... Trump even made up that Iran supports al Qaeda, did you hear that?! Amazing, along with the fact that Iran wont be allowed to have ballistic missiles apparently. Its all pre-war Iraq 2003 again. ..."
"... The level of the American Presidency has been declining for years. It is entirely in the gutter now, the Moron in Chief, has hardly any vocabulary and what he has is used to express blatant lies. What a disgrace... ..."
"... I do not think that Trump is, ideologically-speaking, a neocon. I would not credit Trump with possessing any consistently held principles or views informing either his domestic or foreign policy decisions. He is an avaricious showman and so is unstable and yet at the same time easily manipulable. But it doesn't really matter what Trump "believes" at the end of the day as he is for better or/and worse not the one really in charge of policy and hasn't been, quite clearly, for at least a year. (He sometimes forgets this when tweeting but is always quite easily reminded afterwards.) Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Trump. ..."
"... My point is just that Trump has no grand vision of US foreign or domestic policy but rather a knack for identifying and exploiting the excluded rhetorical middle whereever it appears ..."
"... By the way, anybody who thinks that HRC if elected would not have pursued effectively the same course of action toward Iran has not been paying attention. It was not only plain as day that HRC while campaigning had to situate herself on the side of Obama's deal against Trump's bombastic denunciations of it for obvious political reasons. But the apparent "partisan" divide over the Iran deal was always only that. HRC was going to "distrust and verify" and always counted on Bibi coming through for her like he did for Trump. Neither SA nor Israel liked the Iran deal, and so the Iran deal was never going to last under HRC either, for SA and Israel are her base. I say this all lest the dangerous and self-defeating idiocy of Trump's withdrawal from the deal be misconstrued as a partisan issue or failing. In truth, the Iran deal was never meant to last in the first place. If you think it was, then I would propose you are still underestimating the sway that SA and Israel and their US arms sellers exercise over US foreign policy. ..."
"... There won't be any large war against Iran as this will lead to $ 200 oil price and possible break up of NATO. ..."
"... It will destroy the EU economically and put it at the mercy of Russia. It will put the world economy into depression too. ..."
"... Just listened to Trump's speech pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. Sounded like something written by Bolton with help from Netanyahoo. ..."
"... Ruhani and his smiling FM are toast!!! They still claiming Iran will abide by the deal simply because the Europeans say so. They'll be hit with another stick soon by the EU. The EU is merely an extension of the US. They don't move without approval from Washington. Like Victoria Nuland will say, "f*ck the EU". Ruhani poured concrete into Arak nuclear plant on some flimsy promises from Obama. The "reformist" camp in Iran are politically DEAD now. ..."
"... First and foremost, IMO, this decision is not Trump's, his corporate masters tell him what he is to do. The empire's decisions are made by the so-called " deep state", which is nothing more than an alliance formed by global industries bent on global hegemony. ..."
"... the masochistic streak in EU is quite deep. They lived through delicious pain of multibillion fines imposed on their companies for whimsically identified sanction violations. Not imposing sanctions but tolerating such fine would be as bad as breaking the agreement with Iran. But doing something about it may require a positive action rather than vetoes than can be imposed by few holdouts. ..."
"... My prediction is that the EU will fold soon under US pressure. Russia/China will go back to using Iran as bargaining chip in dealing with the West. ..."
"... The US empire is a withering empire in decline. How easy do folks forget the centrifugal forces of history, and that as all empires, especially ones constructed based on artificiality, are doomed. This decision by Trump only hastens the disintegration of the US global footprint. Whether the US ruling class wants to admit it or not, we live in a transitional age that is in the shadows of the American empire. ..."
"... Given the current composition of Trump's foreign/defense policy team, it seems likely that the goal is an actual attack upon Iran. The warmongers are riding high in the saddle. One can only hope that our European allies make it clear that they will not support such an action, and that the U.S. and Israel will be on their own. ..."
"... To all those who claim that the United States is either currently or soon will be bankrupt, please stop. The U.S. government is not like a family or a privately owned business. That is because it controls its own currency and can create as much currency as it wants at any time it wants. Hence, bankruptcy is a logical impossibility. ..."
"... Not too big of a deal for Iran so long as China, Russia and some EU states ignore the sanctions. Seems like more of a ploy to get US voters on a war footing. I suspect the immediate objective is war in Syria by exaggerating the presence of Iranian forces there. With ISIS in Syria not a credible threat to get support for more many Americans will easily be led to believe Iran is a credible threat to Israel and the region. ..."
"... Thank you, it's the sort of reality that needs to be said. We, none of us, know what is going on within the very high level domain of politics; we don't have access. However, we can gather a great deal of general information and determine some broad ideas of outcomes. Never mind trying to be more manly than those in charge and declaring how you would take this action, shoot that plane, bomb this city. Step back and look at this broad playing field and consider what can be done while keep the body count to a minimum. Indeed, the USA is a zombie country (dead but doesn't know it yet). Yes, Israel is a little hole in the ground (you know, barrel full of fish sort of thing). ..."
"... I firmly believe that in an informal way Putin/Xi are working in the background to hold what they can together, let the US stumble on in it's death spiral and limit the damage as much as possible. If that means appearing to bend the knee so be it; the alternative is annihilation. ..."
Trump Ends The Nuclear Deal With Iran - What's Next?
With a very belligerent speech Trump nixed the nuclear deal with Iran. He also lied a lot in it. Neither is a surprise.
The United States only keeps agreements as long as they are to its short term advantage - just ask native Americans. One
can never count on the U.S. to keep its word.
Trump will re-impose U.S. sanctions on Iran because:
The nuclear deal was negotiated by the Obama administration and thus must be bad;
Israel wants to keep Iran as the boogeyman;
the Zionists and right wing nuts in the U.S. want the U.S. to attack Iran;
MAGA - Trump needs Iran as enemy of the Gulf states to sell more U.S. weapons.
Three European countries, Britain, France and Germany, were naive enough to think they could prevent this. The EU3 offered
the U.S. to put additional sanctions on Iran for other pretended reason - ballistic missiles and the Iranian engagement
in Syria. I was disgusted when I first read of the plan. It was obvious from the beginning that it would only discredit
these countries AND fail.
Luckily Italy and some eastern European countries
shot the effort down at the EU level. They were not willing to sacrifice their credibility over the issue. The nuclear
agreement was signed and should be followed by all sides. They pointed out that there was no guarantee from Trump that
any additional European effort would change his view.
Over the last weeks some last EU3 attempts to influence Trump were made. They were
in vain :
On Friday, Pompeo organized a conference call with his three European counterparts. Sources who were briefed on the call
told me Pompeo thanked the E3 for the efforts they had made since January to come up with a formula that will convince
Trump not to pull out of the nuclear deal -- but made it clear the President wants to take a different direction.
...
After Trump's statement, the European powers want to issue a joint statement which will make it clear they are
staying in the Iran deal in an attempt to prevent its collapse.
The sanctions Trump will reintroduce are not just limiting U.S. dealings with Iran, but will also penalize other countries.
That will lead to a flurry of protective measures as at least some of those other countries
will limit their exposure to U.S. rules and may even introduce counter sanctions:
"We are working on plans to protect the interests of European companies" Maja Kocijancic, EU spokeswoman for foreign
affairs, told reporters in Brussel.
Iran will largely stick to the nuclear deal if the EU effectively defends it and does not hinder Iranian deals with
European companies. If the EU fails to do so the nuclear agreement will be null and void. Iran will leave the deal. The
neoliberal Rouhani government that agreed to the deal will fall and the conservatives will be back. They will defend Iran's
sovereignty at all costs.
The U.S. seems to believe it can go back to the same position Obama had build up in the years before the nuclear deal.
Iran was under UN sanctions and all countries, including China and Russia, held them up. The Iranian economy was in serious
trouble. It needed to negotiate a way out. That situation will not come back.
U.S. credibility has been seriously damaged. Its soft power is gone. Its hard power has shown to be inadequate in Afghanistan,
Iraq and Syria.
China and Russia are both making huge deals with Iran and are now
effectively
its protectors . While they have no common ideology all three oppose a globalized world under exclusive "western" rules.
They have the economic power, the population and resources to do so. Neither the U.S. nor Europe has come to terms with
that.
Iran has not only new allies but gained in the Middle East because of U.S., Israeli and Saudi stupidity. The wars on
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen have all strengthened Iran's position while it largely kept largely out of them.
The recent
election in Lebanon went well for the 'resistance' camp. Within Lebanon Hizbullah can no longer be challenged. The upcoming
elections in Iraq will result in another Iran-friendly government. The Syrian army is winning the war waged against the
country. The U.S. position in Afghanistan is hopeless. Saudi Arabia is now in a fight with the UAE over the war on Yemen.
The GCC spat with Qatar is still unsolved.
While Israel wants to keep Iran as a boogeyman to divert attention from its genocidal campaign against Palestinians,
it does not want a large war. Hizbullah in Lebanon has enough missiles to make modern life in Israel untenable. A war on
Iran could easily end up with Tel Aviv in flames.
There are some people in the Trump administration who will want to wage war on Iran. The Bush administration also had
such plans. But any war gaming of a campaign against Iran ended badly for the U.S. and its allied states. The Gulf countries
are extremely vulnerable. Their oil output could be shut down within days. That situation has not changed. The U.S. is
now in a worse strategic position than it was after the invasion of Iraq. As long as somewhat sane people lead the Pentagon
they will urge the White House not to launch such an endeavor.
The U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal is a huge mistake. Defense Secretary Mattis spoke against it. Will Trump make
an even bigger mistake despite the opinion of his military advisors? Will he wage war on Iran?
Ground operations on Iran mean immediate military intervention from China and Russia, neither of whom can afford to let
the US take over that country - for strategic geographic and economic reasons. That was already clear to me back in 2003
when that idiot Perle stated he wanted to send the troops to Tehran; it's even more obvious now, after all that
happened in Syria.
If EU had any sense, it would threaten total trade war against the US if they ever touched any EU firm
over the Iran sanctions. The US has no legal basis for this, and it's time to make them pay for it - not only at UN and
WTO levels, but by leveling economic sanctions against the USA as well.
Congrats to the dimwitted MAGAClowns. Your dumb god emperor is nothing more than a humiliated little poodle for the Israeli and Saudi regimes. Europe, Russia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and China all just became a single unified block against the increasingly irrelevant
American empire.
Jesus, the speech was filled with so many lies and innuedos and pure psychological disinformation tropes I had to write
down every one not to forget them.. Speech was sounding as something Netanyahu had written for Trump. Which of course
its all about, Israel. Lets see if the phony EU states stand against US sanctions or if they like the pathetic media, already paint Iran
as the new enemy.
Trump is a neocon, no doubt about that, we must stop hoping/supporting this dangerous man.
I watched the first minute or so of Trump's speech. Links every evil in the world to Iran. Big mistake for US. More than
just a nail in the coffin of the US empire.
The nuclear deal, for the United States, was an agreement by the previous president on a "plan of action" regarding restrictions
on Iran's nuclear activities. This deal was not a treaty with advice and consent by the Senate according to the Constitution.
As long as some presidents ignore the Constitution and make agreements on their own with other countries, they shouldn't
be surprised when other presidents nullify them. (Bush-43 did the same thing on Iraq withdrawal as Obama did with Iran
nuclear.)
Participation of the U.S. in this plan of action is now canceled, and U.S. sanctions on Iran will be enhanced.
There will be no United Nations sanctions, and probably the other parties to the agreement will adhere to the plan's
strictures while increasing ties with Iran. The Trump withdrawal in fact clarifies the U.S. position which was dismissive
of the plan anyhow, with the U.S. not adhering to its terms under the new president.
This change may not hurt Iran much, as other parties to the plan continue to adhere to it and compensate for the
U.S. withdrawal by using foreign currencies in Iran trade, etc. The price of oil is increasing and there is increased
demand for it. Iran's ties with Russia, China and India are stronger than ever, and the latter two are in great need
of petroleum. The change also reduces U.S. influence in Europe and elsewhere, which is not a bad thing because it reduces
U.S. world hegemony.
Immediately after the Trump comedy, Netanyahu took the stage and babbled about nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles
being developed in Iran for the use with nuclear warheads. Just poor coincidents: There was a general alarm on the Golan
heights. When will the bombers take off?
It needs clarifying - how can this be a 'withdrawal'? More like reneging on the agreement. Agreement incapable indeed.
It's getting time for the world to unify and sanction the US, until it reforms its behaviour. Why not?
Trump even made up that Iran supports al Qaeda, did you hear that?! Amazing, along with the fact that Iran wont be allowed
to have ballistic missiles apparently. Its all pre-war Iraq 2003 again.
I agree that Iranian strength has greatly increased and that US sanctions are counter productive. I also agree that an
attack on Iran would likely be suicidal for Israel and another chance to show US impotence. I don't see it happening.
My understanding is that Trump doesn't want to continue with the 90 day recertification process instituted by Congress.
I think he is looking for something more permanent similar to Korea.
It reminds me of the US paying lip service to the Paris Accords but showing no real interest in effectively taking
on climate change.
Thanks for the posting b.
Is the pot boiling yet? All the burners are on high so there is little excuse at this point. What inane event will trigger escalation further you ask. Take your pick of many. My favorite is for all the multi-polar
world supporters to stop buying US Treasuries......I think we are building to that if we don't go the "conventional"
war route.
This decision with Iran will hasten the use of China as a financial "center" globally and the trickle we see now could
become a flood.....my hope and projection
The Brits, the the Australians after Australia became a federation, never signed treaties to be broken.
B speaks of broken treaties rather than genocide which occurred in most nations Europeans of the day invaded.
In the ability to make and break treaties the US stands out, and has done so since its earliest days.
NZ - another
Brit colony signed a treaty with the Maori's and largely held to it as far as I know.
The level of the American Presidency has been declining for years. It is entirely in the gutter now, the Moron in Chief,
has hardly any vocabulary and what he has is used to express blatant lies. What a disgrace...
I think it is an entirely
defining moment for the EU's credibility now; if they abandon Iran the will loose a lot of goodwill and credibility around
the world and jeopardize the whole European project, the trade war with the US has been in the making for a long time,
the US wants to break the EU. Basically if the EU yields, it could very well disintegrate.
Lets take a trade war
with them, if China and Russia does likewise, US economy is dead in the water. And so what, oh it will hurt, but the
US will be bankrupt (it is already, they have not noticed).
Also, cant we stop this "Iran will attack if attacked by Israel, US" or even "Russia and China will attack US, Israel
if they attack Iran".
Look at how West hit Syria. And nothing happened, it will be the same with Iran if Israel/US do anything
militarily
against them. Stop fooling yourself (you who have these irrational fantasies).
Well, it seems the fuck occupying the white house has just assured the 'mandate of heaven' has moved on. Iran must be
placed under the Russian and Chinese nuclear umbrella. Period.
Always a good sign when a war criminal named "mad dog" is the voice of reason. Just saw trump's (probably written by kristol, frum or one of the israel firsters they share a brain with) speech
and almost facepalmed myself into a coma. Between the 2nd grade vocabulary scare words ("lunatic!", "chaos!", etc) and
his strategy of "let's write what the saudis do but then change it to 'iran' for my speech" it was like my intelligence
was being roasted by don rickles and dave chapelle.
i hope - against the evidence - that trump is just using the "play insane to get your way" technique nixon made popular
with his false nuke alerts and such. he acted batshit stupid about korea and they have united in their hatred of the
round eyed psychopaths who would see then all reduced to ash to wage a pathetic "war" on china. maybe he's just that
great at failing.
the next big thing might be whether the s-300s (-400s?) russia keeps teasing actually end up in syria and/or lebanon.
Russia knows the road to Moscow runs through Tehran and hopefully any mild hint of a threat of an attack will be a bridge
too far.
I believe you are splitting hairs. Western nations interaction with native cultures has always been about naked force.
Your inability to understand that the west, itself, has never relinquished this position except when retreating from
open violent rebellion, shows that you, too, have a fixation with the US as a boogeyman. This will not serve us well
when the US is brought to heel and then we shall wonder why the fundamental problems of globalism and neoliberalism have
not subsided.
The history of the US in their treatment of natives was a very UNIQUE situation on a frontier much different than
N. Africa or SE Asian colonies.
Guys, i told you that Russia is getting owned by the sanctions and is waving the white flag. You did not believe that. But now Benjamin Netanyahu is a guest of honour for Russia's V Day, Medvedev was confirmed for PM, and even the Saker
himself admits that "things look pretty bleak to me."
Trump's approach of threatening others with huge consequences worked. It worked with N Korea, it worked with the China
trade war, and it worked with Russia. Now he will do the same with Iran.
Trump's approach of threatening others with huge consequences worked. It worked with N Korea, it worked with the
China trade war, and it worked with Russia. Now he will do the same with Iran.
^^This is very true, maybe the ONLY reason in fact that define his foreign policy actions.
I do not think that Trump is, ideologically-speaking, a neocon. I would not credit Trump with possessing any consistently
held principles or views informing either his domestic or foreign policy decisions. He is an avaricious showman and so
is unstable and yet at the same time easily manipulable. But it doesn't really matter what Trump "believes" at the end
of the day as he is for better or/and worse not the one really in charge of policy and hasn't been, quite clearly, for
at least a year. (He sometimes forgets this when tweeting but is always quite easily reminded afterwards.) Don't get
me wrong, I am not defending Trump.
I do not at all believe of Trump what some believed of Obama, that he really
*wants* so much to do the right thing but just can't, because X or Y. That is all bullshit of course. My point is just
that Trump has no grand vision of US foreign or domestic policy but rather a knack for identifying and exploiting the
excluded rhetorical middle whereever it appears (as he did in the Republican primaries) while launching witty and insightful
broadsides against his many enemies. He will be allowed to enrich the already rich and his family and friends (as all
US presidents do), and will be given one or two symbolic foreign policy achievements to sell to his base before the 2020
elections, but any chance there was of him intentionally or accidentally stalling or redirecting the longstanding big
picture plan of Israel, SA, and the US for the Middle East has been self-evidently contained for quite some time now.
Not that he very deeply cares.
Why does everyone assume that "war with Iran" means war IN Iran and the Persian Gulf?
It is more likely to be an excuse for remaining in Syria and fighting Iranian forces there. At least at first. And
possibly (probably!) expanding the fight to Lebanon.
Why does everyone assume that Israel will be forever cowered by Hez missiles?
Israel has complained about Iranian upgrades of Hez missiles. Israel is not likely to allow themselves to be checkmated.
At some point (very soon, in all probability) Israel will bite the bullet and attack Hez in Lebanon.
Iran is joining the EAEU, uses barter deals with Russia already, and will have an opportunity to fast track SCO membership.
If handled correctly, Iran can prosper from turning toward Eurasian development. Russia has already involved in the nuclear
energy sector, the gas and oil exporting for Iran. Iran may not be able to access Western technology under new sanctions,
but almost everything is available from China and Russia any way.
Meanwhile, they really need to clean up the corruption. No government can survive when the populace knows corruption
is rampant. Notice Brazil, Argentina, South Africa for example. It has crippled the BRICS badly as a force for sovereignty
and multi-polarity.
Israel has complained about Iranian upgrades of Hez missiles. Israel is not likely to allow themselves to be checkmated.
At some point (very soon, in all probability) Israel will bite the bullet and attack Hez in Lebanon.
Why do you use israeli propaganda to justify attacks on Lebanon? HEzbollah missiles, if there are any, are for protection.
Look at how west hit Syria. And nothing happened, it will be the same with Iran. . .
1. It seems
clear that the hit on Syria was a US/Russia arranged show. That's why "nothing happened."
2. Iran always strikes
back, and would have no reason not to especially since it's so easy to do, with all the lucrative western targets in
the Gulf area especially. This is why the US has not and will not attack Iran, because it is not weak country like other
US targets.
By the way, anybody who thinks that HRC if elected would not have pursued effectively the same course of action toward
Iran has not been paying attention. It was not only plain as day that HRC while campaigning had to situate herself on
the side of Obama's deal against Trump's bombastic denunciations of it for obvious political reasons. But the apparent
"partisan" divide over the Iran deal was always only that. HRC was going to "distrust and verify" and always counted
on Bibi coming through for her like he did for Trump. Neither SA nor Israel liked the Iran deal, and so the Iran deal
was never going to last under HRC either, for SA and Israel are her base. I say this all lest the dangerous and self-defeating
idiocy of Trump's withdrawal from the deal be misconstrued as a partisan issue or failing. In truth, the Iran deal was
never meant to last in the first place. If you think it was, then I would propose you are still underestimating the sway
that SA and Israel and their US arms sellers exercise over US foreign policy.
"The Iranian economy was in serious trouble. It needed to negotiate a way out. That situation will not come back"
This is the key question. Why do you think that situation will not come back? The Iranian economy is already under
immense pressure and sanctions have yet to come into effect.
There won't be any large war against Iran as this will lead to $ 200 oil price and possible break up of NATO. Europeans are against the breaking of the JCPOA not because they like Iran, or not even the 25 billion $ in trade,
but precisely because the possibility of such war. It will destroy the EU economically and put it at the mercy of Russia. It will put the world economy into depression too.
It was only a matter of time that the deal would be nixed. For starters, the Iranian deal was never ratified by Congress,
so it was rather easy for Trump to walk away from it. Depending on how desperate Israel and Saudi Arabia is, we could
see attacks on Iran soon.
Clueless Joe @1:
I highly doubt China will bleed for Iran. Political, financial and clandestine support is all China and Russia will
offer.
"While Israel wants to keep Iran as a boogeyman to divert attention from its genocidal campaign against Palestinians,
it does not want a large war. Hizbullah in Lebanon has enough missiles to make modern life in Israel untenable. A war
on Iran could easily end up with Tel Aviv in flames."
Netanyahu also wants a distraction from the criminal investigations he is facing. The Israelis have also arranged
for US troops to be based in Israel, who are prepared to defend Israel (according to their US commander), so Netanyahu
has nothing to lose in getting the US to attack Iran. He could even arrange a false flag against the US troops in Israel,
to be blamed on the 'super secret super deadly weapons' Iran has smuggled into Syria (according to Netanyahu).
Just listened to Trump's speech pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. Sounded like something written by Bolton with help
from Netanyahoo. Looks like Trump is going to lead us into WWIII very rapidly now. What a complete failure as a human
being he is! Our work as lovers of peace is really cut out for us now. The world is plunging deeper into crisis with
increasing speed. One cannot help wishing those responsible for this nightmare would just disappear, but that is not
going to happen. We are left with trying to help the almost possible to happen, giving peace a chance in a world careening
into war...........
Kim would be crazy to make a deal with Trump now, and so would China. If the major powers decide to appease the Empire,
it will be a classic mistake, leading to WWIII nuclear. Only if Russia and China stand up to the US with conventional
forces, will there be a chance that nuclear Armageddon can be avoided. Iran should be considered the red line to be defended
at all costs in this resistance to Empire; anything less will be suicidal.
I would go farther and say that Syria should also be defended at all costs. With the rapidly escalating pressure from
the Empire, there will be no way to buy time in hopes the resistance will strengthen, and the Empire will weaken. The
Empire realizes that this is their last best chance to achieve total global domination, and is pushing it's potential
victims to either respond or be driven into a weakened stance, and then conquered.
Ruhani and his smiling FM are toast!!! They still claiming Iran will abide by the deal simply because the Europeans
say so. They'll be hit with another stick soon by the EU. The EU is merely an extension of the US. They don't move without
approval from Washington. Like Victoria Nuland will say, "f*ck the EU". Ruhani poured concrete into Arak nuclear
plant on some flimsy promises from Obama. The "reformist" camp in Iran are politically DEAD now.
This is the final warning for Kim. So it means war at all fronts. This year I guess.
Thanks b, good article. An excerpt:
" They pointed out that there was no guarantee from Trump that any additional European effort would change his view."
First and foremost, IMO, this decision is not Trump's, his corporate masters tell him what he is to do. The empire's
decisions are made by the so-called " deep state", which is nothing more than an alliance formed by global industries
bent on global hegemony.
Capturing "market share" is what they do, and they do it by any means necessary.
DT is just the latest version of the empire's puppets.
Even if Kim makes a deal with Trump, nothing can happen to North Korea without China's consent. Remember that North
Korea have a defense treaty with China.
You seem blind to the importance of honoring agreements It is why the US can never be trusted. The point here is
that the US throughout its history has rarely honored agreements.
You are talking about two instances in US history that could not be more different. One is the end of the Iranian
deal, which is the result of a different US administration and by the complete and utter infiltration of gloablist and
zionist interest. Furthermore, Iran has allies to back it up. The second instance was renegging on land treaties with
a native population with its back against the wall, NO ALLIES, and no hope. It was pure and utter western exploitation.
Unfettered and "wild," and so was given the name. The latter instance is what any western power would have and has done
in the past given the right set of circumstances. It is one instance where the stars aligned for American industry and
yet people think our nature and identity is forever stained by this occurrence. I say, "fuck that guilt and fuck that
reminder."
Are the same architects or descendents of these in DJT's war cabinet right now? Is that how they are so similar?
But enough...it was a digression to begin with, especially since further in his post b alludes to his disgust with
the EU in this issue.
Not totally, the masochistic streak in EU is quite deep. They lived through delicious pain of multibillion fines imposed
on their companies for whimsically identified sanction violations. Not imposing sanctions but tolerating such fine would
be as bad as breaking the agreement with Iran. But doing something about it may require a positive action rather than
vetoes than can be imposed by few holdouts.
I seriously doubt if there would be any holdouts against empowering the offices responsible for the external trade
of EU, say, imposing levy on imports from USA to reimburse American fines related to agreement with Iran -- the American
exporters may collect the lost revenue from US Treasury engorged with fines. Would POTUS be inclined to escalate, American
companies would squeel like hogs led to slaughter. Probably there are also other ways to immunize companies from American
threats. But would Macron, May and Merkle go for it? Or would they sing together (sorry for crappy translatio) "With
a whip, with a stick, torment my corrupted body".
It's just sad to see Iran's fate being determined by whether the EU keeps holds on to the deal or not. My prediction
is that the EU will fold soon under US pressure. Russia/China will go back to using Iran as bargaining chip in dealing
with the West.
The US empire is a withering empire in decline. How easy do folks forget the centrifugal forces of history, and that
as all empires, especially ones constructed based on artificiality, are doomed. This decision by Trump only hastens the
disintegration of the US global footprint. Whether the US ruling class wants to admit it or not, we live in a transitional
age that is in the shadows of the American empire.
Wealth and industry have steadily shifted to the east, and with it, power. The "West" is mired in debt and decline
and is but a twilight of its former self. The danger here is that when you have a ruling class that's apoplectic & a
"leader" so unstable, they just might bring the entire house crashing down as they know nothing else and certainly don't
know how to deal with diminishing power- the vainglorious and power hungry never do.
Unfortunately, I'm reminded of Fermi's paradox. Perhaps humanity only reaches a certain point and no more. We shall
find out.
Given the current composition of Trump's foreign/defense policy team, it seems likely that the goal is an actual
attack upon Iran. The warmongers are riding high in the saddle. One can only hope that our European allies make it clear
that they will not support such an action, and that the U.S. and Israel will be on their own.
China and Russia don't need to intervene militarily in Iran. All they need to do is to keep resupplying Iran, and the
U.S., if it invades, will be caught in a hopeless quagmire.
It is hard to make sense of what Trump is up to if we do not know all that is included in the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action aka 'Iran deal' of July 14, 2015. THE public text deals with ending Iran's nuclear program, further inspections
in return for the lifting of sanctions. It was bad deal for Iran overall, and no sooner was it ratified the US refused
to lift sanctions indicating it wants ballistic missiles eliminated as well.. But apparently there were secret clauses
negotiated between the US and Iran in time just before ratification, the content which no one knows. Since the Iran deal
however, US and Iranian troops, present in all parts of the middle east have not had any military confrontation.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article201027.html
In this article Messyan also claims that there is some credence to Israeli claims that it sees itself threatened
by Iranian military bases in souther Syria.
For those here blaming Putin for not doing anything against Israeli attacks on Syria, what exactly do you expect him
to do? This is a fight between Israel and Iran. Besides, most Israelis are Russian citizens so why should Russia help
Syria or Iran Iran against their own. People also forget that a lot of Russian Oligarchs have their second home in Israel. These are the moneymen Putin
wouldn't dare go against. It's just business. get use to it.
To all those who claim that the United States is either currently or soon will be bankrupt, please stop. The U.S. government
is not like a family or a privately owned business. That is because it controls its own currency and can create as much
currency as it wants at any time it wants. Hence, bankruptcy is a logical impossibility. And don't think that foreign
nations and private individuals relish such a scenario either. Should it come to pass that the U.S. cranks up the printing
presses, the value of the dollar will fall, as will the value of all dollar denominated holdings. We're talking about
many hundreds of billions (probably trillions) of dollars of investment losses. Anyone who thinks that China wants to
absorb a massive pounding on the U.S. government debt it holds is nuts.
Putin is not some guardian angel. He is the leader of a foreign state with multiple and complexly interrelated interests,
foreign and domestic. He is not going to act unless the sum of these interests compel him to do so; that is, he is not
going to act except in such a case where the repercussions of his *not-acting* clearly outweigh the possible harms of
his doing so. And by the way thank God for that.
Putin has just stated that the time is right to decouple the Russian economy from the US dollar. He also said that Russia
will continue to diversify its foreign exchange reserves in order to restore Russian economic sovereignty. Does this
mean that the EU will now be able to pay for the gas it buys from Russia in Euros rather than USD? The US has gone to war to prevent this in other states eg Iraq, Libya.
The "presses" along with credits on computer terminals have been running at break neck speed for at least 20 years
as $1.5 billion each day is spent by the DOD on war machines alone. While logic indicates that it should, this exorbitant spending apparently hasn't had any effect on inflation.
The US can spend like mad on bombs, but not on anything for the good of the common people. And if any other country attempts to do anything for the benefit of their common people, well they get "corrected".
Jackrabbit is what I suspected all along; a NEOCON sleeper! From day one I wrote again and again that Trump is a ZIONIST,
FIRST and driving the PNAC agenda - next stop war with Iran and regime change and that's why he was trolling me on every
thread.
__________________
I'm surprised (actually, not so much with still lingering Trump deluded diehards) that no one brought up the fact
that Israel is on a hyped high alert right now which leads me to suspect one thing and one thing only -- a false flag
attack could eventually be launched to pin blame on Iran and just what Ziocon Trump and his master Netanyahoo need to
move the Europeans in the planned direction. Trump and Netanyahoo are that dirty.
Not too big of a deal for Iran so long as China, Russia and some EU states ignore the sanctions. Seems like more of a
ploy to get US voters on a war footing. I suspect the immediate objective is war in Syria by exaggerating the presence
of Iranian forces there. With ISIS in Syria not a credible threat to get support for more many Americans will easily
be led to believe Iran is a credible threat to Israel and the region.
June is a favorite month to initiate wars for Israel. Bilderbergers meeting June 7-10. World Cup in Russia starts
June 14 . I imagine fireworks around or even before then. Now if Israel gets attacked by Syria or Iran in Syria, or maybe a false flag if they dont, they could blame Iran and
launch attacks on Iran with US support. Could happen. Every President has to deliver his shadow masters a new war or
two. Trump has yet to deliver.
@fast freddy (92) You bring up a good point. The U.S. government never seems to run short of funds for "defense" purposes.
They simply create as much money as is needed. Taxes never enter the discussion. And yet, despite the expansion of the
money supply, inflation is nowhere in sight. That is because the demand for goods and services has not approached the
capacity to produce them. The big lie is that funding of government projects can only come from taxes. Wrong! Money for
non-military purposes can be created in just the same way, yet we never hear the end of how tax revenues are insufficient.
Poor little children and their families are simply going to have to do without the niceties that the wealthy enjoy. This
dynamic is well explained by Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).
Thank you, it's the sort of reality that needs to be said. We, none of us, know what is going on within the very high
level domain of politics; we don't have access. However, we can gather a great deal of general information and determine
some broad ideas of outcomes. Never mind trying to be more manly than those in charge and declaring how you would take
this action, shoot that plane, bomb this city. Step back and look at this broad playing field and consider what can be
done while keep the body count to a minimum. Indeed, the USA is a zombie country (dead but doesn't know it yet). Yes,
Israel is a little hole in the ground (you know, barrel full of fish sort of thing).
Yet, the US being a soulless
zombie makes it exceedingly dangerous. So, Putin/Xi take military action, what is the outcome; be honest. The US and
Israel panic, millions die.
It truly is a miserable decision to let so many suffer right now but honestly what is
the alternative.
I firmly believe that in an informal way Putin/Xi are working in the background to hold what they
can together, let the US stumble on in it's death spiral and limit the damage as much as possible. If that means appearing
to bend the knee so be it; the alternative is annihilation.
"... There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies. ..."
"... The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness. ..."
"... a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ..."
"... In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. ..."
"... The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. ..."
"... There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. ..."
"... No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. ..."
"... The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse? ..."
"... In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. ..."
"... "In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution". ..."
"... This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? ..."
"... One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?" ..."
"... The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. ..."
I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated
their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves "communists" in the United
States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual
counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear
opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.
The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics
of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).
Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of "permanent revolution" into the hope that every minority uprising
in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream
media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf
of the alleged revolution.
A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled "Revolution and counterrevolution
in Syria" indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna,
writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.
McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group
of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by "beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out". The
source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism
sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.
But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime,
on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly,
he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow
of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners
who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism
is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable
evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness.
This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible
to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of
Iran and Russia.
"Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact,
been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of
the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported
to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking
to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ", according
to McKenna.
Whose "ideological lynchpin"? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was
not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight
against Islamic extremism.
Neither Russia nor Iran "framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric" but in terms of the fight
against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.
In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow,
is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies.
The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the
last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights.
There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse
Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance
between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.
It is remarkable that McKenna's long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once
(aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians
as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government "used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the
revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both
implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators)."
No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants
to.
Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less
than twenty-two times !
And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel's de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions,
both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing
billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups,
McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.
Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin.
Assad is likened to Stalin several times.
This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.
This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And
even on this pet subject, something is wrong.
The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution
ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might
turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?
Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is
very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in
one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people's democracy. Has this ever
happened?
For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil
it out of meanness.
In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western
powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify
the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence
and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution
turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save "the revolution" from
its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.
Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be "modernized" without
a strong rule.
McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization
and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support
the progressive development of newly independent countries.
If Bashar's father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna's eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.
"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced
forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded
to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo
of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished
people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution".
This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has
been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more
a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?
McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between
the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain,
or any other advanced capitalist country?"
One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs
in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin
to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?"
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions.
They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to
align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological
alibi for permanent war.
For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go
home and mind their own business.
"... There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies. ..."
"... The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness. ..."
"... a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ..."
"... In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. ..."
"... The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. ..."
"... There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. ..."
"... No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. ..."
"... The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse? ..."
"... In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. ..."
"... "In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution". ..."
"... This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? ..."
"... One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?" ..."
"... The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. ..."
I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated
their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves "communists" in the United
States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual
counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear
opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.
The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics
of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).
Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of "permanent revolution" into the hope that every minority uprising
in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream
media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf
of the alleged revolution.
A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled "Revolution and counterrevolution
in Syria" indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna,
writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.
McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group
of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by "beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out". The
source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism
sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.
But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime,
on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly,
he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow
of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners
who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism
is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable
evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness.
This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible
to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of
Iran and Russia.
"Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact,
been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of
the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported
to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking
to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ", according
to McKenna.
Whose "ideological lynchpin"? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was
not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight
against Islamic extremism.
Neither Russia nor Iran "framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric" but in terms of the fight
against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.
In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow,
is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies.
The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the
last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights.
There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse
Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance
between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.
It is remarkable that McKenna's long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once
(aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians
as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government "used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the
revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both
implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators)."
No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants
to.
Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less
than twenty-two times !
And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel's de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions,
both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing
billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups,
McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.
Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin.
Assad is likened to Stalin several times.
This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.
This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And
even on this pet subject, something is wrong.
The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution
ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might
turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?
Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is
very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in
one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people's democracy. Has this ever
happened?
For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil
it out of meanness.
In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western
powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify
the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence
and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution
turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save "the revolution" from
its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.
Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be "modernized" without
a strong rule.
McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization
and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support
the progressive development of newly independent countries.
If Bashar's father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna's eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.
"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced
forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded
to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo
of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished
people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution".
This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has
been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more
a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?
McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between
the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain,
or any other advanced capitalist country?"
One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs
in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin
to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?"
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions.
They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to
align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological
alibi for permanent war.
For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go
home and mind their own business.
The Ministry of Defence has revealed for the first time –
seemingly accidentally – that British drones are firing thermobaric weapons in Syria. The
disclosure comes in an Freedom
of Information (FoI) response to Drone Wars detailing the use of Reaper drones over the
previous three months.
In the response, officials give a breakdown of the type of Hellfire missiles fired, stating
that 19 AGM-114N4 and 44 AGM-114R2 had been used. The 'N' version of the missile uses a Metal
Augmented Charge (MAC) warhead that contains a thermobaric explosive fill using aluminium with
the explosive mixture. When the warhead detonates, the aluminium mixture is dispersed and
rapidly burns. The sustained high pressure explosion is extremely damaging, creating a powerful
shock wave and vacuum. Anyone in the vicinity is likely to die from internal organ damage.
Thermobaric weapons, sometimes called 'vacuum' weapons have been condemned by human rights
groups and, as the Times
reported in 2008 , "the weapons are so controversial that MoD weapons and legal experts
spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without breaking international
law." The 'debate' came to an end when a 'Yes Minister' solution was offered – they
"redefined" the weapon as an 'enhanced blast missile'.
Weapons are intended to be harmful against the proper targets! This is used against
specific 'enclosed' targets. It's actually intended to increase lethality in a closely
defined area such as single floor of a target building or a particular building in a
compound. So, the intention behind its use is to minimize collateral damage and civcas.
Accuracy (hits what you aim at) and precision (with the right intended effect).
"The resultant sustained high pressure is extremely damaging, creating a vacuum which
sucks everything in and anyone in the vicinity is likely to die from asphyxiation before
the pressure shreds their internal organs."
Obviously it takes seconds if not minutes to die from asphyxiation. The pressure wave
takes place in milliseconds. It does not create a "vacuum which sucks everything in"
although it may be powerful enough to create a wake in which there is an instantaneous,
partial vacuum. This would be followed by another shock, so bodies will be kicked in one
direction and then the other.The disruption of internal organs by blast shock will be the
main mode of lethality.
The 'vacuum' myth has been around since thermobarics started being used, as Mark Gubrud
rightly says its the positive phase does the damage. AFAIK there is only one good study
http://fotkica.com/UploadsN/26096_525776119_ADFHealth_4_1_03-06.pdf
Lung damage is the killer.
We have actually known about the UK use of these weapons for some time The MoD, by the
way, does not believe that there is such a thing as a 'thermobaric' weapon -- as far as
they are concerned it's purely a marketing term with no real meaning. Which is
convenient.
This is not the only thermobaric weapon being used out there, though these days they are
cloaked with terms like 'enhanced blast'.
"... In January 2007, Keane and scholar Frederick W. Kagan released a policy paper, entitled "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" ..."
"... General Keane is a close associate of the Kagans, Victoria Nuland, Petraeus and the like. He has consistently pressed in policy circles for aggressive foreign policy ventures including the Iraq "Surge" that helped secure the Baghdad area from Iraqi insurgents. In fact the security situation markedly improved across Iraq because Petraeus was smart enough to encourage the work that had been done by Green Berets and junior USMC people in encouraging the Sunni Arabs to abandon support of the jihadi guerrillas. ..."
"... To help the FUKUS forces hold this enclave indefinitely, he repeated the notion that the Sunni majority countries in the region should contribute armed forces to the Sunni Enclave. ..."
"... DJT has recently said much the same thing. This raises the possibility to me that his "thinking" on this matter originates with the arch neocons and their favorite vehicle the Institute for the Study of War, a Kagan operation through and through. ..."
"... Repeatedly defeated by the Houthis and the rump of the Yemeni Army the Saudi have resorted to employing African and other mercenaries against the Yemenis as well as pursuing a savage campaign of aerial bombing against Yemeni civilians. Perhaps they were inspired to do this by the courses of study of RSAF officers at the US Air Force "University" at Montgomery, Alabama. the Strategic Bombing theories of Douhet are still much admired there. ..."
"... He said that a war is coming in which Iran, Hizbullah and the Syrian government will fight Israel and that the US must be in a position in Syria to defend Israel when that happens. Thus it is revealed that the source of Keane's (and now DJT's) thinking is simply Israel's obsession with the hostility of the Gentile World to include all those Muslims surrounding them. In other words, Keane's neocon pitch is based on Zionist fear. ..."
"... Missile strikes against the fictional chemical weapons target set in Syria. The gullibility involved in that is impressive ..."
Neocon Jack Keane wants a permanent US presence in Syria
Keane
"Keane retired from military service in 2003. He now works as a national security analyst for Fox News. He has served an advisory
role in the management of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.
In January
2007, Keane and scholar Frederick W. Kagan released a policy paper, entitled "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq",[7]
through the American Enterprise Institute that called for bringing security by putting around 30,000 additional American troops
there for a period of at least 18 months. In part convinced by this paper, President George W. Bush ordered on January 10, 2007,
the deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, most of whom would be deployed to Baghdad, this deployment has been nicknamed
the 2007 "surge".
wiki on Keane
--------------
I watched this man hold forth this morning on Varney and Company a business and politics show hosted by Stuart Varney a fervently
American immigrant from England who apparently never saw a jingo he didn't like.
General Keane is a close associate of the Kagans, Victoria Nuland, Petraeus and the like. He has consistently pressed in policy
circles for aggressive foreign policy ventures including the Iraq "Surge" that helped secure the Baghdad area from Iraqi insurgents.
In fact the security situation markedly improved across Iraq because Petraeus was smart enough to encourage the work that had been
done by Green Berets and junior USMC people in encouraging the Sunni Arabs to abandon support of the jihadi guerrillas.
On Varney's show today Keane pushed for a US policy in Syria that would establish a "security zone" in Syria east of the Euphrates
and in the Kurdish areas east of Manbij. He was clear that he believes that this "security zone" should be held indefinitely, in
other words, permanently.
He said that such a zone would prevent the western expansion of Iran through northern Iraq and then Syria westward to the Mediterranean
thus completing the dreaded Shia Crescent. The fact that the Iraqi sovereign government might object to such Iranian expansion did
not seem to occur to him. Perhaps he has taken note of the condemnation by that Shia Arab dominated government of the FUKUS missile
strikes in Syria.
To help the FUKUS forces hold this enclave indefinitely, he repeated the notion that the Sunni majority countries in the region
should contribute armed forces to the Sunni Enclave.
DJT has recently said much the same thing. This raises the possibility to me
that his "thinking" on this matter originates with the arch neocons and their favorite vehicle the Institute for the Study of War,
a Kagan operation through and through.
Well, pilgrims, I am here to tell you that the Sunni Arab countries are not going to do that,
Apart from Jordan's small but competent forces, the rest have no armed forces capable of doing anything but oppress civilian populations.
Saudi Arabia's indefensible war against the people of Yemen is a perfect example of the military ineptitude of the Sunni Arab states.
Repeatedly defeated by the Houthis and the rump of the Yemeni Army the Saudi have resorted to employing African and other mercenaries
against the Yemenis as well as pursuing a savage campaign of aerial bombing against Yemeni civilians. Perhaps they were inspired
to do this by the courses of study of RSAF officers at the US Air Force "University" at Montgomery, Alabama. the Strategic Bombing
theories of Douhet are still much admired there.
Toward the end of his discourse this morning, Keane, came to the crux of his argument. He said that a war is coming in which
Iran, Hizbullah and the Syrian government will fight Israel and that the US must be in a position in Syria to defend Israel when
that happens. Thus it is revealed that the source of Keane's (and now DJT's) thinking is simply Israel's obsession with the hostility
of the Gentile World to include all those Muslims surrounding them. In other words, Keane's neocon pitch is based on Zionist fear.
Keane several times repeated a line to the effect that no US combat brigades or regiments would be committed to the Sunni Enclave.
To believe this magical thinking is to believe that no real fighting would eventually have to be done.
I have seen a poll today that indicates that 61% of the American people approve of the FUKUS missile strikes against the fictional
chemical weapons target set in Syria. The gullibility involved in that is impressive. pl
"...61% of the American people approve of the FUKUS missile strikes against the fictional chemical weapons target set..."
Not very surprising, considering the level of knowledge and interest among the US public about foreign affairs. It is the level
of gullibility that is worrying (since it allows public figures and the media to manipulate public opinion). This can lead the
US into all sorts of problems, which it can no longer adequately handle.
General Ali, IMO, it's not that the US population is not interested in foreign affairs, especially their own country'. There are
zillions of colleges and universities in this country full of students majoring in international relations, foreign affairs, but
unfortunately, they are deliberately kept in dark. My observation is, the ruling elite, the borg doesn't trust this people, with
the truth, with both sides of stories and views, with honest alternative rebuttals and opinions and facts. Our media, the fourth
state in here is not giving us choice to come to an intellectual opinion on our foreign affairs. I
It is both really. Only a small percentage of Americans take an interest in foreign affairs, history, and geography or for that
matter any continuing education. The indifference is there on a large scale along with a powerful propaganda system.
I agree with you but I am most angry with our MSM for Parroting whatever the Pentagon or State Dept says without any skepticism.
While they weren't perfect, in the 70's we at least had a press corps that skeptical of the govt. The vaunted 'fourth estate',
considered another check and balance on govt power. Now I blush to say this in public. The earth swallowed them up.
The current crop in the MSM are either lazy and incompetent or former govt employees still flak'ing for the govt. Regarding
the first group, I have no idea what they were taught in Journalism classes, it doesn't resemble Journalism.
Our love affair with Israel is gonna destroy our nation. And we did it voluntarily. Just as we voluntarily dismantled and shipped
our industrial base overseas. We're done. Put a fork in us.
That is just a euphemism for the fact that Israel, through its lobby in the US, controls the policies of the country. What
Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban say should happen is more important than what anyone in the US government wants.
There's more to it than the money of Adelson and Saban and the Saudi and Gulf sheikhs. There's a lot of money floating around
from many different sources for political influence operations.
What makes the zionist influence different is what Col. Lang noted, that key elements in the US policy making gene pool are
fervent believers in Manifest Destiny. And that Destiny includes ensuring the dominance of Israel in the Middle East. This belief
is akin to a religious belief. And it has permeated through the body politic.
The first note of dissonance on a national platform was Trump during the last GOP primary. Of course there is Ron Paul and
Pat Buchanan but they are dismissed as fringe elements. It is fascinating that on the left there is no one offering a critique
on a national level. Yes, there are a few like Kucinich. In this context it is remarkable that Trump has placed neocons in the
top foreign policy positions.
Rocket Man, on the other hand provides an interesting contrast. He pushed ahead despite the threats and developed a nuke capability.
Now he is being fêted as he's willing to trade his weapons but not his technological capability.
This is why I keep repeating the litany "liberals are not the left", liberals have kept the gates to any mainstream presence securely
shut on the left until they badly underestimated Sanders in 2016. They won't make that mistake again and are fighting the left
more aggressively in the primaries than they fight the GOP in the general.
No, no, no. You are completely underestimating the role of Protestant Churches (e.g. Seven Day Adventists) in this. They bear
major responsibility in hijacking the Secular Enlightenment State and perverting it to their misguided religious cause. Neo Salafis
are not the only religious fools in the world.
After 9/11, there were a few days where people started to question the cost our foreign policy was having. That was obviously
quickly shut down, but I am saddened to say that it may take more tragedy, a intellectual revolution of sorts if you will, before
that fork gets extricated. The challenge is that the mental training people get in this country through the public schools is
criminal at best, and contrived at worst.
I have seen a poll today that indicates that 61% of the American people approve of the FUKUS missile strikes against the fictional
chemical weapons target set in Syria. The gullibility involved in that is impressive.
This is testimony to the efficacy of coordinated, corporate media propaganda. It reflects well on Americans trust in their
Press, the corporate arm of that Press deserves no such trust, but that I'm afraid will be a painful lesson when Americans do
learn it.
Me too! And I don't care if they don't know where Syria is, or if they bother to follow current FP events. I appreciate every
anti-war poll or vote or sentiment, no matter the knowledge or intelligence level or political or religious affiliation.
Never trust polls the questions they ask can have many meanings to get a desired answer and besides aren't these the same people
that picked Hilary Clinton the Transgendered Obama to win the Presiduncee!
Funny how they used an illegal attack under international and disregard all precepts of it and UN Charter and Articles for
their own self aggrandizement to "allegedly liberate" the Syrian people against their own wishes from the Syrian legitimately
elected government. Seems the US media Adage "we tell you what you think so be quiet" sounds like it harkens to the days of the
bolsheviks and fascists trying to control the people's thoughts. This is truly sad times we are in when the MIC is so bent on
controlling everything to further their own objectives in staying relevant before the people demand an end to this type of "Tyranny
of the Masses" , yet we all have this to protect a slim and minute possibility of Israel losing it's dominance of being the only
Nuclear armed Nation in the region forcong them to negotiate with words and not rhetoric and weapons of mass destruction.
Why can no one learn that having a old fashioned "Detente" is necessary to keep all parties honest and respectful of one another.
We also shouldn't overlook the deregulation of US media ownership rules. This was done ~15 years ago under FCC Chairman Michael
Powell (son of Colin), and it concentrated the control of TV stations, radio stations and newspapers into a relatively small number
of hands. That in turn reduced the number of audible voices and facilitated the propagandizing of the population. This did not
happen by accident.
Apparently the situation is still too restrictive for the owners, and we can look forward to greater concentration of ownership
and consequently even greater misinformation in the future:
https://www.tvtechnology.co...
Forgive me for beating the point to death, but just about every American was I knew practically orgasmic with delight during the
initial stages of the War on Iraq.
That ecstasy quickly cooled off.
Forgive me if I wish to trot out Aesop's fable of the wolf and the lamb once more.
"I have seen a poll today that indicates that 61% of the American people approve of the FUKUS missile strikes against the fictional
chemical weapons target set in Syria. The gullibility involved in that is impressive. pl "
This is the reason I have no special affinity for Democracy. When the average IQ is 100 then 50% of the people are below what
I consider even a minimum for a functioning government. Add the tribal politics and individuals with high IQ's believing everything
the Corporate/Government media says makes the situation even more despondent.
India is a democracy. China is not. Which country would you choose if your company asked you to transfer? No brainer. In fact,
it's an insult to even mention India in the same sentence as China whens it comes to material benefits it has brought to its citizens
the last 40 years all thanks to the United States "democracy" or Republic.
Mexico is a democracy. All of Central America is a democracy. Has it helped? No, democracy opens up a government to bribery
at a massive and decentralize scale that is all but unaccountable. One gets caught, another moves in.
Do I know of a better system? If he's your guy, yea.
And the truth is we don't have any form of democratic representation on many issues. The majority of the American public has
been against Free Trade and its devastating effects on communities throughout this country on every poll I have seen since the
80's. Didn't make a damn difference. Trump will crow a little bit about tariffs but at the end of the day I am willing to bet
anybody even money that our trade deficits will not improve significantly, if at all, and the manufacturing base at 12,700,000
million jobs from a high around 19,700,000 at the end of the last century will not improve in any significant way.
Add an additional 40,000,000 million people + to the population since that time and it doesn't take a genius to see things
don't add up. Even in my local Walmart most of the cash register jobs are being replaced by self-checkout lines. That's the only
way I choose to checkout but from a social engineering point of view it doesn't make sense except for the shareholders.
We are being carried along on top of one of our beautiful bubbles that our financial institutions are so superb in producing.
The Greater Fool Theory is in full effect right now. Just a matter of time before this next bubble burst and the consequences
of this next recession will be the exposure of the fundamental rot at the structure of our economy for the bottom 80%. The 20%
will probably be able to ride it out like they always do but in my opinion the country will continue to degrade in areas normally
not focused on. Such as infrastructure, rental units vs ownership, average age of vehicles, criminal incarceration rates, homeless
population increase, lack of medical care, etc. This process will continue to spread across the country community by community
turning large sections of our land into a Third World country .
There are many areas of the country I consider Third World today. 50% of the former city called Detroit. I had a retail sample
request from a customer to ship a sample of luxury vinyl tile to them. UPS wanted $80.00 to ship the sample because the address
was located in a high crime area of Detroit. I declined to send the sample.
I lived in Santiago, Chile and I didn't see much difference between their poor and our poor. The biggest difference I noticed
at the time(1994) was we had a much more vibrant middle class.
"Mexico is a democracy. All of Central America is a democracy. Has it helped? No, democracy opens up a government to bribery at
a massive and decentralized scale that is all but unaccountable. One gets caught, another moves in.
Do I know of a better system? If he's your guy, yea."
--
What you describe is "representative" democracy, which is indeed designed to be hijacked by bribery. The proper counter-measure
is direct democracy. The one country that practices it to a meaningful extent - Switzerland - is well-governed and prosperous.
E.g. their government wanted to buy the F35 - the people brought a motion and defeated it, and that was that.
Just like the wines of France, and the beers of Germany whose quality is rooted in the soil of those places, Westminster Democracy
can only be practiced in the soil of England or England-derived countries (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand).
No body else will succeed or has succeeded, for they are not English - they lack the culture of the English which made it possible.
I tend to believe with Plato in The Republic that democracy is not necessarily the best form of political arrangement. "Democracy
is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" Churchill dixit. Plato
prefers aristocracy, but I suppose not the absolutist European type.
Plato also stated that slaves must learn to enjoy their lot as slaves that was required of them for the Just City to exist and
to endure.
I think, however, that your position, as a theoretical possibility, can be discussed. But such an order cannot have Liberty
- even in principle, in my opinion.
Likewise, looking at the Western Neo-paganism, I wonder if they are not indeed pinning for social and political organization
of Pleistocene.
The justification of Tyranny by Muslim Doctors of Religion was the prevention of Chaos (License); since in their world view
as well as their historical experience Liberty did not exist.
My background is native Peruvian, Sir. Before the westerners invaded us, we had kings -Incas- who, despite not being perfect,
had their subjects' well being into higher esteem than anything we have gotten afterwards -democracy or not. In reading The Republic,
I couldn't help identifying the characteristics of these aristocratic elites with those of our ancient rulers.
"Apart from Jordan's small but competent forces, the rest have no armed forces capable of doing anything but oppress civilian
populations."
Oof. Nailed it, Col.. This, right here, is widely known--maybe not amongst the general public but certainly amongst the Arabs
themselves and by almost anyone who has had any experience whatsoever in the ME. I remember reading a study, years ago, something
to the effect that--generally--an O-6 in an Arab military has as much power and authority as an E-3 in any western army. They're
mostly jumped up police forces or toy armies. Much in the same way Americans will derisively refer to police as "pigs," average
Arabs will often refer to their armies (jaysh) as "djaysh" a play on words using the word for chicken (djej).
Though as with anything coming out of Hair Furor's mouth, it's hard to tell if this is the usual three-card monte grift or
a legitimate plan. Though, it's improbable to see such a plan coming to fruition--particularly given his statement the other day
that none of the Arab states receiving US military aid wouldn't "last a week without our protection." I'm more inclined to believe
that this is likely a play to get the khaleejis to underwrite our (mis)adventures instead of dipping into US coffers.
Once Bolton et al. come to grips with the patently fantastical nature of these plans, how long will it take them to realize that
there is only one Sunni majority country in the region willing & able to relieve the US military presence in NE Syria? If they
really do want out and want to keep Assad & Iran out, it has to be Turkey. This would of course be very bad news for the Kurds,
but then it seems to me a happy ending for them was always equally fantastical.
More likely in the short term, in my view, is that Gulf money & some nominal force will be forthcoming, the latter being sold
as 'replacing' US troops, which will remain. If Erdogan wins power on June 24th I'd expect him to ratchet up the pressure on the
US presence in all sorts of ways, together with Iran. And Iraq, who recently bombed ISIS in Syria seemingly without coordinating
with the US. For its part, Russia would surely be happy to permit some limited additional Turkish occupation of N Syria (not the
oil fields) in order to eject the US & end the war - Assad would just have to live with it. Molotov–Ribbentrop pact?
After the SAA liberates Idlib, it will be able to retake its land in the east, except in the north, where a lot of negotiation
will be required. When the SAA moves east, the US better be ready to turn over the oil fields and other land it is illegally occupying,
or some unfortunate things will probably happen. Did you see the videos of all the young men recently liberated in E. Ghouta and
Douma chanting that they want to join the Army and get revenge on the terrorists?
What about a Trump-Assad meeting after the Trump-Kim meeting? Some sort of direct negotiation between Trump and Assad might
be a face-saving solution for all. What Trump needs now is a good face-saving option that will allow him to withdraw from Syria
without being called a coward by the MSM and the neocons. How about a US-brokered and guaranteed Syria-Israel Nonagression Treaty?
Hafiz Assad tried to do one of those about thirty years ago but failed. Maybe the time is ripe now. And Trump has called Kim a
lot worse things than "animal," so previous anti-Assad rhetoric should be no stumbling block.
IMO, strategically, balance of force speaking, for some states in the region (Iran, Iraq, Syria) Kurds have a balance of power
value, meaning they will not allow Kurds to become too powerful to become independent, but at the same time they will not allow
Turks to eliminate the Kurds.
Shortly after General Keane retired he founded, or co-founded, a firm titled "Keane Advisors LLC".
I visited its web site on 2008-09-15, and found it described its interests as:
"Business Focus Private Equity : M&A : Advisory Services : Real Estate".
("M&A", of course, means "Mergers and Acquisitions".)
How applicable is Gen. Keane's no doubt outstanding Army career to such a field?
On the other hand,
there are a lot of fervent supporters of Israel both in finance and real estate,
making it quite easy for them to, as they say, "reward our friends."
As well as that, he has been, and may still be
Chairman of the Board at the Institute for the Study of War.
Does anyone know what his compensation is in that capacity?
Beyond that, according to
http://www.bloomberg.com/re...
Keane has most extensive positions in the business world,
including, like General Petraeus, a connection with KKR.
The following is from the Bloomberg web page:
Dr. John M. Keane, also known as Jack, Ph.D.,
is a Senior Partner at SCP Partners since 2009 and also serves as a Venture Partner.
Dr. Keane serves as a National Security Analyst at ABC News, Inc.
He serves as an Advisor to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at URS Corporation.
He has been the President at GSI, LLC since 2004.
He co-founded Keane Advisors, LLC and served as its Senior Managing Director.
He served as Managing Director of Keane Advisors, LLC (consulting) from 2005 to 2009.
He served as a Senior Advisor at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. ( now KKR & Co. L.P.).
He served as the Chief Executive Officer at W.R. Grace & Co.
Dr. Keane serves as the Chairman of W.R.
Grave & Co. He has been Executive Chairman and Director of AM
General LLC since October 26, 2016. Dr. Keane has been a Director of
General Dynamics Corporation since February 2004. He serves as a
Director of CDC Real Estate Opportunity Fund I, L.P., MacAndrews &
Forbes and George C. Marshall Foundation. He served as a Director of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company since October 21, 2003. He serves as
a Member of Advisory Board at Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
He served as a Member of Board of Managers of Allied Security Holdings LLC
at AlliedBarton Security Services LLC since March 2005. He served as a
Director at International Battery, Inc. He is Chairman of the Knollwood
Foundation.
He is a Member of Department of Defense Policy Board and the Council on Foreign Relations.
He serves as the Chairman of the board of Institute for the Study of War.
He is a Member of Advisory Council of U.S. Department of Defense and
American Corporate Partners. He is on the Board of Trustees of George C.
Marshall Foundation and sits on the board of Fordham University and
Center for Strategic Budgetary Assessments. He served as a Director of
MetLife, Inc. since October 21, 2003 until April 28, 2015. Dr. Keane
served as a Director at Cyalume Technologies Holdings, Inc. from
December 2008 to March 2011. He served as a Director at FedBid, Inc. He
served as an Independent Director at M&F Worldwide Corp. from
September 2008 to December 21, 2011. He served as a Trustee of The Rand
Corporation. Dr. Keane served as a Director of Scientific Games
Corporation since April 23, 2014 until April 29, 2014. He served as a
Member of Corporate Advisory Board at MCPc Incorporated. He served as
Member of the Board of Advisors at Whitney, Bradley & Brown, Inc.
What I don't see, and really want to see, are projections - and yes, I know predicting is hard, especially about the future *(TM)(c)
Yogi Berra*. Even our township board has to go through a 20-year projection from time to time. But I never see the Keanes of this
world spelling out, in detail, where their wonderous schemes will drop us even a few years ahead.
I'd love to make Gen. Keane and his neocons spell it out for us bumpkins. Kaplan et al are saying that if we put in another
X number of our military in Y country this will stabilize the politics of that country. But they never map it out - how is that
going to be accomplished? Show your work! What are your assumptions? Did you factor in population growth? The effects of continuing
desertification on crop yields? Are you counting on oil revenue to fund things? What happens to oil prices when Europe, China
and the U.S. essentially go all-electric from solar, wind, and nuclear in coming years? If automation and robotics will dominate
Western economies what happens in the ME? What happens to these countries if / when unemployment reaches 30%? 50%?
Maybe we don't get details from these people because they don't have any, that they operate based on fact-free, wholly imaginary
assumptions. If so, we do indeed live in 'interesting times'.
Interesting, that. From the Heart of Darkness, if that's not too kind a way to refer to English TV, just the tiniest squeak
of dissent. Heard it after Racqa too, from the BBC itself. And there I was, thinking that when our TV got disciplined after the
Kelly affair Mr Blair and Mr Campbell had knocked the fight out of them for good.
There's more. A more careful squeak this time but it's there. Channel 4's been chasing after Russian bots - .
At the end Ian mentions his wake up call and recognizing how much we were being lied to was going after Iraq as a response to
9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with it. That was my experience also. It made zero sense that a Baathist secular government was
at the heart of the attack.
What's not to like (from a neocon perspective)? Enough competent US troops to hold Russian and SAA forces at bay, and Saudi troops/contractors
to act as death squads if the population gets too restive.
General FB Ali can through some light on this.....In my opinion the manpower will come from ever- ready mercenary army of Pakistan.
The "Arab Nato" headed by an Retired Pakistan General was formed for this very purpose!
I agree about the Arabs, especially the Saudis and Kuwaitis. Except for hiring mercenaries to do their dirty work, they are quite
unable to undertake any such task.
I am out of touch with the current Pakistani scene. However, my impression is that the Pakistani troops being sent to Saudi
Arabia are strictly for defence of their territory, and cannot be used in any foreign ventures. Of course, that could put them
into confrontations with the Houthis in the latter's attacks on Saudi territory.
The best option is a Syria without Assad, committed to a future without Iranian or Russian influence. This is not a Pollyanna-like
prescription; there are substantial obstacles in the way, not least those we have encountered in Iraq. It is not easy to shepherd
a nation from tyranny towards a pathway to democracy. Only such a Syria can guarantee an end to Iranian interference, to the transshipment
of weapons for Hezbollah, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction of the kind we saw used at Douma (Iran has been
instrumental in Syria's chemical weapons program for many years). And most importantly, only such a Syria can disenfranchise the
Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates that have found a foothold by exploiting the Syrian people's desperation.
Meanwhile Gen. Mattis is defending the JCPOA
https://news.antiwar.com/20... So he might as well write his resignation letter now, or perhaps that is old fashioned in the
age of being fired by tweet. As time goes by, our core area of competency is managing public opinion.
When Syria cleans out enough rebel pockets they will eventually take back their oil fields. If they have S300 systems and assemble
their forces they will be able to defeat any force that is located their bar none. Whenever the SAA and allies have been able
to concentrate their forces they have always won decisively. Gen Keane who disparages the SAA as being a shell of an army, entirely
dependent on Hezbollah and Iran, will see them slice through that area like a hot knife through butter.
Our response will be to successfully demonize the Syrians for regaining control of their own territory, to portray that as
Iran taking the oil. How dare a country regain their own territory and use their resources to rebuild their own war ravaged nation?
Again our core area of competency is managing U.S. public opinion.
When Syria and Russia defeated all "Jihadists"..........the time for USA "Security Zone" will come...............remember the
"Litani Line" in Lebanon..........
The hypocrisy is especially evident in Washington's approach to Saudi
Arabia and other Middle East 'allies.' President Donald Trump poses for photos with
ceremonial swordsmen on his arrival to Murabba Palace, as the guest of King Salman bin
Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, Saturday evening, May 20, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
(Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead) American leaders like to portray the United
States as an exemplar of ethical conduct in the international system. The reality is far
different, and it has been for decades. Throughout the Cold War, the United States embraced extremely repressive
rulers , including the Shah of Iran, Nicaragua's Somoza family, Taiwan's Chiang Kai-shek,
and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, all the while portraying them as noble members of the "Free World."
Such blatant hypocrisy and double standards continue today regarding both Washington's own
dubious behavior and the U.S. attitude toward the behavior of favored allies and friends.
The gap between professed values and actual policy is especially evident in the Middle East.
U.S. officials routinely excoriate Syria and Iran, not only for their external behavior, but
for manifestations of domestic abuse and repression. Some of those criticisms are valid. Both
Bashar al-Assad's regime and Iran's clerical government are guilty of serious international
misconduct and human-rights violations. But the credibility of Washington's expressions of
outrage is vitiated when those same officials remain silent, or even excuse, equally serious --
and in some cases, more egregious -- abuses that the United States and its allies commit.
Following the Syrian regime's alleged use of chemical weapons in early April, President
Trump painted Assad as an exceptionally vile enemy. He immediately issued a tweet describing
the Syrian leader as "an animal" who gassed his own people. In his subsequent
address to the American people announcing punitive air and missile strikes , Trump charged
that the incident confirmed "a pattern of chemical weapons use by that very terrible regime.
The evil and despicable attack left mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain
and gasping for air. These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead."
The president also blasted Russia and Iran for their longstanding sponsorship of Assad. "To
Iran and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of
innocent men, women and children?"
TAC 's Daniel Larison provided an apt
response to that question. "Trump should know the answer, since he just hosted one of the
chief architects of the war on Yemen that the U.S. has backed to the hilt for the last three
years. Britain welcomed the Saudi crown prince earlier on, and France just hosted him in the
last few days. All three have been arming and supporting the Saudis and their allies in Yemen
no matter how many atrocities they commit."
Indeed, the United States has been an outright accomplice in those atrocities, which among
other tragic effects, has led to a
cholera epidemic in Yemen. The U.S. military
refuels Saudi coalition warplanes and
provides intelligence to assist them in their attacks on Yemen -- attacks that have
exhibited total indifference about civilian casualties. A recent revelation implicates
Washington in even more atrocious conduct. Evidence has emerged that Saudi forces have employed
white phosphorous munitions, and that the United States supplied those foul weapons that
inflict horrible burns on their victims. For U.S. leaders to criticize Syria for using chemical
weapons in light of such behavior may reach a new level of hypocrisy.
Washington's double standard also is evident regarding the international conduct of another
U.S. ally: Turkey. U.S. officials reacted with
a vitriolic denunciation of Russia's annexation of Crimea, but the reaction was -- and
remains -- very different regarding Ankara's invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the occupation of
that country's northern territory. Washington's criticism was tepid even at the beginning, and
it has become more so with the passage of time. Indeed, there is greater U.S. pressure on the
government of Cyprus to accept a peace settlement that would recognize the legitimacy of the
puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus that Ankara established (and has populated with
settlers from the Turkish mainland) and countenance the continued presence of Turkish troops.
Although the United States initially imposed mild sanctions on Turkey for invading and
occupying its neighbor, they were
soon lifted . Sanctions imposed against Russia are stronger, and there is little prospect
that they will be lifted, or even eased, in the foreseeable future.
Washington's criticism of Turkey's repeated military incursions into northern Iraq and
northern Syria likewise have been barely audible. That has been the case even though the
targets in Syria are Kurdish forces that aided the United States and its allies in their war
against ISIS.
The flagrant U.S. double standard also is apparent in the disparate assessments of the
domestic conduct of Iran and such U.S. allies as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. UN Ambassador Nikki
Haley verbally eviscerates Tehran at every opportunity for repressing its population. When
anti-government demonstrations erupted in several Iranian cities earlier this year, Haley was
quick to embrace their cause. "The Iranian regime's contempt for the rights of its people has
been widely documented for many years,"
she stated during a Security Council session. Haley added that the United States stood
"unapologetically with those in Iran who seek freedom for themselves, prosperity for their
families, and dignity for their nation."
Iran certainly does not resemble a Western-style democracy, but its political system is
vastly more open than either Egypt's or Saudi Arabia's. Although the clerical Guardian Council
excludes any candidate for office that it deems unacceptable, competing elections take place
between individuals with often sharply contrasting views. President Hassan Rouhani won a new
electoral mandate over a decidedly more hardline opponent in the May 2017 presidential
election. Compared to some U.S. allies in the Middle East, Iran resembles a Jeffersonian
democracy.
The Saudi royal family does not tolerate even a hint of domestic opposition. People have
been imprisoned or beheaded merely for daring to criticize the regime. Saudi Arabia's overall
human-rights record is easily one of the worst in the world, as Human Rights Watch
and
Amnesty International have documented. It is a measure of just how stifling the system is
that the government finally allowing women to drive is considered a radical reform. A similar
suffocating
miasma of repression exists in Egypt, where President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has
imprisoned thousands of political opponents, executed hundreds, and wins rigged elections
by
absurd margins reminiscent of those in Soviet satellite countries during the Cold War.
Yet, President Trump and other U.S. officials express little criticism of those brutal,
autocratic allies. Trump's demeanor during his state visit to Riyadh last year bordered on
fawning. Washington approves multi-billion-dollar arms deals for both Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
despite their legendary human-rights abuses. As noted, the United States even continues to
assist Saudi Arabia in its atrocity-ridden military intervention in Yemen.
There may be plausible geo-strategic reasons for persisting in such double standards. Iran,
for example, has been openly hostile to the United States and its policy objectives since the
fall of the Shah. It is not illogical for Washington to be intent on countering the influence
of Tehran and its Syrian ally, even if that requires making common cause with other repressive
regimes in the region. But U.S. leaders need to be candid with the American people and
acknowledge that their decisions are based on cold calculations of national interest, not
ethical considerations. They should at least spare us their pontificating and the pretense that
they care about the rights or welfare of Middle Eastern populations. Washington's policies
indicate otherwise.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute
and a contributing editor at The American Conservative , is the author or coauthor of
10 books on international affairs, including Perilous Partners: The Benefits and Pitfalls
of America's Alliances with Authoritarian Regime. MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
"Evidence has emerged that Saudi forces have employed white phosphorous munitions, and
that the United States supplied those foul weapons that inflict horrible burns on their
victims. For U.S. leaders to criticize Syria for using chemical weapons in light of such
behavior may reach a new level of hypocrisy."
Gah! I am so ashamed of having voted for this man. I really thought he was going to get us
out of there. I can't believe he's selling the Saudis white phosphorus bombs at the same time
he's justifying missile strikes against Syria because of "alleged" use of chemical
weapons.
"I can't believe he's selling the Saudis white phosphorus bombs at the same time he's
justifying missile strikes against Syria because of "alleged" use of chemical weapons."
You don't have anything to be ashamed about. One can be disappointed that the candidate of
their choice by hook or by crook has gone astray. But those are his choices. And those
choices are to the delight of those we opposed in the election. I suspect that if we sold WP,
it's a sale that took place long before the election.
I thought he would reduce our footprint as well. In fact, I suspected he was going to less
with less. Other states are entitled to work out their issues with one another. As a nation
we have some shame to bear, but Pres. Trump is far down the least.
The author torpedoes his own argument when he says "there may be plausible geo-strategic
reasons for persisting in such double standards. Precisely! Ultimately, all the author wants
is that US politicians spare Americans their pontificating and the pretence that they care
about the rights or welfare of populations. In other words, he has no quibble with the
foreign policy, he just wants US politicians to be open about what they're doing.
"Iran, for example, has been openly hostile to the United States and its policy objectives
since the fall of the Shah."
Iran has been openly hostile to the US since Eisenhower engineered the fall of Mosaddegh,
and for good reasons. The Shah and his torturers fit right in with MbS and al-Siri, or the
Bush/Tenet CIA and its Haspels.
"Evidence has emerged that Saudi forces have employed white phosphorous munitions, and
that the United States supplied those foul weapons "
Talk about burying the lede along with the bodies.
"A wolf, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him,
but to find some plea to justify to the Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed
him: "Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me."
"Indeed," bleated the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born."
Then said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture."
"No, good sir," replied the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass."
Again said the Wolf, "You drink of my well."
"No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both
food and drink to me."
Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless,
even though you refute every one of my imputations."
Moral: The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny."
**************************
For a few more years, the US will have absolute power over other people and we will use that
power in an absolutely corrupt way at the behest of our overlords in Riyadh and Jerusalem.
When retribution finally comes our way, no one will shed a tear for us.
You really do have virtually none left in your long march to empire.
It has been almost nothing but lies and manipulation for decades.
Yes, you still have subservient countries like Britain or France who parrot your stuff,
but that's only because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing so.
You cannot be both a decent country and a world empire, and almost everyone in the world
outside the United States understands that.
Great article in my opinion. I disagree with the comment of Michael Kenny: I don't think the
author just wants the U.S. politicians to stop lyinf and to start to admit that they -U.S.
politicians and the other U.S. people with power- do what they do because of their interests.
I think the author wants to denounce the fact that all the ethical arguments presented by
those with power -not only in the U.S., by the way- are "necessary lies".
How necessary lies? Simple: no president, or ruller, can face his polity's people to say
that they are going to war on economics or political interests; the only way to justify, I
would dare to say emotionaly more than morally, all the horrors of war, is with the excuse of
the "Greater Good". To do evil is justified if it is done in order to check a bigger evil",
so to speak.
But obvoisully, no one accepts all the spenditures of war "just to do good".
And I think the author points to another, maybe more profound matter: it is like the tale
of the lier shepperd who, when the wolf was really coming, no one believed him, and well, the
tale didn´t end too well for the shepperd; but I will leave it as an open end.
Now the other countries arround the world are also interets´guided, and therefore
can be considered schemers aswell. The problem is that even schemers need to be able to feel
trust, or common action becomes immpossible.
Good article, but a bit off-base on the criticism of Turkey's annexation of northern Cyprus.
As you may or may not recall, in 1974 the Greek military junta planned to annex all of Cyprus
to Greece, which would have violated the treaty then in force and brought northern Cyprus,
which was predominantly inhabited by Turks, under Greek rule. Turkey responded accordingly by
taking northern Cyprus. Greece and Turkey have had a long history of conflict; it is a
mistake to make a simple good guys vs bad guys story out of it. I know it was a long time
ago, but history is important.
"... A McClatchy journalist investigated further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was disinformation. ..."
"... Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma. ..."
"... The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation. ..."
"... Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them, anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them. ..."
"... No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered. ..."
"... Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation. ..."
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
"... 1984, anyone? ..."
"... The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and other sites is just so stupid its painful. ..."
"... Presumably the Skripals touch the cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW can't even get the amounts of the chemical right. ..."
"... Biggest problem with the world today is lazy insouciant citizens. ..."
"... One very important point Lavrov made was the anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction of humanity; ..."
"... while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter envisioned. ..."
"... Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation. ..."
"... Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™. ..."
"... Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar. ..."
"... And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™ apparatus. ..."
"... Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls' school. ..."
"... In the Guardian I only read the comments, never the article. Here, I read both. That is the difference between propaganda and good reporting. ..."
The Grauniad is slipping deeper into the disinformation business:
Revealed: UK's push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance is the headline of a page one piece
which reveals exactly nothing. There is no secret lifted and no one was discomforted by a
questioning journalist.
Like other such pieces it uses disinformation to accuse Russia of spreading such.
The main 'revelation' is stenographed from a British government official. Some quotes from
the usual anti-Russian propagandists were added. Dubious or false 'western' government claims
are held up as truth. That Russia does not endorse them is proof for Russian mischievousness
and its 'disinformation'.
The opener:
The UK will use a series of international summits this year to call for a comprehensive
strategy to combat Russian disinformation and urge a rethink over traditional diplomatic
dialogue with Moscow, following the Kremlin's aggressive campaign of denials over the use of
chemical weapons in the UK and Syria.
...
"The foreign secretary regards Russia's response to Douma and Salisbury as a turning point
and thinks there is international support to do more," a Whitehall official said. "The areas
the UK are most likely to pursue are countering Russian disinformation and finding a
mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons."
There is a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons. It is the
Chemical Weapon Convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
It was the British government which at first
rejected the use of these instruments during the Skripal incident:
Early involvement of the OPCW, as demanded by Russia, was resisted by the British
government. Only on March 14, ten days after the incident happened and two days after Prime
Minister Theresa may had made accusations against Russia, did the British government invite
the OPCW. Only on March 19, 15 days after the incident happen did the OPCW technical team
arrive and took blood samples.
Now back to the Guardian disinformation:
In making its case to foreign ministries, the UK is arguing that Russian denials over
Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common
understanding of the truth , but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide
western electorates and sow doubt.
A 'common understanding of the truth' is an interesting term. What is the truth? Whatever
the British government claims? It accused Russia of the Skripal incident a mere eight days
after it happened. Now, two month later, it admits that it
does not know who poisoned the Skripals:
Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to identify the individual or
individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security
adviser has disclosed.
Do the Brits know where the alleged Novichok poison came from? Unless they produced it
themselves they likely have no idea. The Czech Republic just admitted that it
made small doses of a Novichok nerve agent for testing purposes. Others did too.
Back to the Guardian :
British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia's record of mendacity is not a personal
trait of Putin's, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy
ineffective.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin
– she had more than 40 in a year – to say he lived in a different world.
No, Merkel never said that. An Obama administration flunky planted that
in the New York Times :
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking
with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call
said. "In another world," she said.
When that claim was made in March 2014 we were immediately suspicious
of it:
This does not sound like typically Merkel but rather strange for her. I doubt that she said
that the way the "people briefed on the call" told it to the Times stenographer. It is rather
an attempt to discredit Merkel and to make it more difficult for her to find a solution with
Russia outside of U.S. control.
A day later the German government
denied (ger) that Merkel ever said such (my translation):
The chancellery is unhappy about the report in the New York Times. Merkel by no means meant
to express that Putin behaved irrational. In fact she told Obama that Putin has a different
perspective about the Crimea [than Obama has].
A McClatchy journalist investigated
further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was
disinformation.
That disinformation, spread by the Obama administration but immediately exposed as false, is
now held up as proof by Patrick Wintour, the Diplomatic editor of the Guardian , that
Russia uses disinformation and that Putin is a naughty man.
The British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson
wants journalists to enter the UK reserve forces to help with the creation of
propaganda:
He said army recruitment should be about "looking to different people who maybe think, as a
journalist: 'What are my skills in terms of how are they relevant to the armed forces?'
Patrick Wintour seems to be a qualified candidate.
Or maybe he should join the NATO for Information Warfare the Atlantic Council wants to
create to further disinform about those damned Russkies:
What we need now is a cross-border defense alliance against disinformation -- call it
Communications NATO. Such an alliance is, in fact, nearly as important as its military
counterpart.
Like the Guardian piece above writer of the NATO propaganda lobby Atlantic Council
makes claims of Russian disinformation that do not hold up to the slightest test:
By pinning the Novichok nerve agent on Sweden or the Czech Republic, or blaming the UK for
the nerve gas attack in Syria, the Kremlin sows confusion among our populations and makes us
lose trust in our institutions.
Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that
several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in
Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma.
The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny.
Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation.
The bigger aim behind all these activities, demanding a myriad of new organizations to
propagandize against Russia, is to introduce a strict control over information within 'western'
societies.
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation.
That scheme will be used against anyone who deviates from the ordered norm. You dislike that
pipeline in your backyard? You must be falling for
Russian trolls or maybe you yourself are an agent of a foreign power. Social Security? The
Russians like that. It is a disinformation thing. You better forget about it.
Excellent article, in an ongoing run of great journalism.
I am curious - have you read this? https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
It purports to be a book by an American military man intimately familiar with the covert ops
portion of the US government. The internal Kafka-esque dynamics described certainly feel
true.
One of the reasons newspapers are getting worse is the economics. They aren't really viable
anymore. Their future is as some form of government sanctioned oligopoly. Two national papers
-- a "left" and a "right" -- and then a handful of regional papers. All spouting the same
neoliberal, neoconservative chicanery.
Genuine journalist Matt Taibbi warned of this sort of branding of disparate views as enemy a
month ago. He was also correct. Evil and insidious. The enemy of a free society.
Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning
of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as
they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA
will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them,
anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them.
I agree that it's difficult to see how the drive to renew the Cold War is going to be
stopped. I presume that, with the exception of certain NeoCon circles, there isn't a desire
for Hot War. Certainly not in the British sources you quote. Britain wouldn't want Hot War
with Russia. It's all a question of going to the limit for internal consumption. Do a 1984,
in order to keep the population in-line.
thanks b... i can't understand how any intelligent thinking person would read the guardian,
let alone something like the huff post, and etc. etc... why? the propaganda money that pays
for the white helmets, certainly goes to these outlets as well..
the uk have gone completely nuts! i guess it comes with reading the guardian, although, in
fairness, all british media seems very skewed - sky news, bbc, and etc. etc.
it does appear as though Patrick Wintour is on Gavin Williamson's propaganda
bandwagon/payroll already... in reading the comments and articles at craig murrays site, i
have become more familiar with just how crazy things are in the uk.. his latest article
freedom no
more sums it up well... throw the uk msm in the trash can... it is for all intensive
purposes, done..
Meanwhile, OPCW chief Uzumcu seems to have been pranked again, this time by his own staff
(this is how I interpret it):
He claimed that the amount of Novichok found was about 100 g and therefore more than
research laboratories would produce, i.e. this was weaponized Novichok.
Q: What is our reaction to the Guardian article on a "comprehensive strategy" to "deepen
the alliance against Russia" to be pursued by the UK Government at international forums?
A: Judging by the publication, the main current challenge for Whitehall is to preserve
the anti-Russian coalition that the Conservatives tried to build after the Salisbury
incident. This task is challenging indeed. The "fusion doctrine" promoted by the national
security apparatus has led to the Western bloc taking hasty decisions that, as life has
shown, were not based on any facts.
No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the
US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political
justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of
Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was
built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of
Russian responsibility) have been shattered.
Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian
logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to
see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting
countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation.
Hmmm... My reply to c1ue went sideways it seems. Yes, The late Mr. Prouty's book's the real
deal and the website hosting his very rare book is a rare gem itself. Click the JFK at page
top left to be transported to that sites archive of writings about his murder. The very important essay by
Prouty's there too.
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is
his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."
This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be
defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of
historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs
of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection
between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present
reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do. What b points out is
something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly
rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes
b's analysis uniquely indispensable.
Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime,
"whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to
understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted
contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does
this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"
Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no
essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.
The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and
other sites is just so stupid its painful. This implies that the Skripals both closed the
door together and then went off on their day spreading the stuff everywhere, yet no one else
was contaminated (apart from the fantasy policeman).
Presumably the Skripals touch the
cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected
as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance
of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the
chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW
can't even get the amounts of the chemical right.
The problem is,,, most know it's all BS but find it 'easier' to believe or at most ignore, as
then there is no responsibility to 'do something'. Biggest problem with the world today is
lazy insouciant citizens. (Yes,,, I'm a PCR reader) :))
Did you catch the Lavrov interview I linked to on previous Yemen thread? As you might
imagine, the verbiage used is quite similar. One very important point Lavrov made was the
anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction
of humanity; and that while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the
rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of
forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter
envisioned.
"I cannot sufficiently express my outrage that Leeds City Council feels it is right to ban
a meeting with very distinguished speakers, because it is questioning the government and
establishment line on Syria. Freedom of speech really is dead."
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation. _______________________________________
Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and
including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™.
This isn't a new insight, but it's worth repeating. It struck me anew while I was
listening to a couple of UK "journalists" hectoring OPCW Representative Shulgin, and
directing scurrilous and provocative innuendo disguised as "questions" to Mr. Shulgin and the
Syrian witnesses testifying during his presentation.
It flashed upon me that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the Perpetual Big
Liars must eventually abandon, much less confess, their heinous mendacity. Just as B points
out, there are no countervailing facts, evidence, rebuttals, theories, or explanations
that can't be countered with further iterations of Big Lies, however offensively incredible
and absurd.
Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or
technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech
Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought
off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar.
And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy
arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have
been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly
independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™
apparatus.
Even as the Big Liars reach a point of diminishing returns, they respond with more of the
same. I wish I were more confident that this reprehensible practice will eventually fail due
to the excess of malignant hubris; I'm not holding my breath.
Is Putin capitulating? Pro US Alexei Kudrin could join new government to negotiate "end of
sanctions" with the West.
Former finance minister Alexei Kudrin will be brought back to "mend fences with the West"
in order to revive Russia's economy. Kudrin has repeatedly said that unless Russia makes her
political system more democratic and ends its confrontation with Europe and the United
States, she will not be able to achieve economic growth. Russia's fifth-columnists were
exalted: "If Kudrin joined the administration or government, it would indicate that they have
agreed on a certain agenda of change, including in foreign policy, because without change in
foreign policy, reforms are simply impossible in Russia," said Yevgeny Gontmakher . . . who
works with a civil society organization set up by Mr. Kudrin. "It would be a powerful
message, because Kudrin is the only one in the top echelons with whom they will talk in the
west and towards whom there is a certain trust."
Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington
Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill
Clinton in charge of a girls' school.
It would mark Putin's de facto collapse as a leader. We
shall know very soon. Either way, if anyone wondered what the approach to Russia would be
from Bolton and Pompeo, we now know: they will play very hard ball with Putin, regardless of
what he does (or doesn't do), and with carefree readiness to risk an eventual snap.
Certainly looks like @ 18 is a fine example of what b is presenting.
A good way to extract one's self from the propaganda is to refuse using whatever meme the
disinformation uses, e.g. that Sergei Skripal was a double agent -- that is not a known, only
a convenient suggestion.
Military intelligence is far better described as military
information needed for some project or mission. Not surreptitious cloak and dagger spying.
This is not to say Sergei Scripal was a British spy for which he was convicted, stripped of
rank and career and exiled through a spy swap. To continue using Sergei Scripal was a double
agent only repeats and verifies the disinformation meme and all the framing that goes with
it. Find some alternative to what MSM produces that does not embed truthiness to their
efforts.
I realize it's from one of the biggest propaganda organs in the world... take this New
York Times report of the OPCW's retraction with a 100 grams -- 100mg? -- of salt:
Kudrin is a neoliberal and as such is an
enemy of humanity and will never again be allowed to hold a position of power within Russia's
government. Let him emigrate to the West like his fellow parasites and teach junk economics
at some likeminded university.
"... The leak, and the cover up, shows the "collaboration between the media and the intelligence community in building up Russiagate," ..."
"... The report also states that Clapper "subsequently acknowledged discussing the dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic." ..."
Former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, who landed a job at CNN in
August 2017 after leaving the government, leaked information to CNN's Jake Tapper regarding the
infamous Steele dossier and its salacious allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump -
then denied his actions to Congress under oath.
The leak, and the cover up, shows the
"collaboration between the media and the intelligence community in building up Russiagate," Max
Blumenthal, a journalist and bestselling author, told Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear.
... ... ...
The report also states that Clapper "subsequently acknowledged discussing the dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper and
admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic."
Blumenthal explained that the dossier was the catalyst for the Russiagate scandal.
"I think this should be a bigger scandal than it is," he told hosts Brian Becker and John Kiriakou.
"... Inside the Tent gatekeepers have relentlessly attacked those brave individuals who have questioned the official narratives, but its these individuals- smeared as 'crackpots' and 'conspiracy theorists' who the public are turning to for their analysis. ..."
"... After the lies told about Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya people no longer tamely accept what the NeoCon Establishment tells us. ..."
"... We're at an 'Emperor's New Clothes' moment in British politics where more and more people have found the courage to say out loud 'The Emperor has no clothes!'. ..."
"... The elite have been lying to us and they know that we know they've been lying. The question is: what are we going to do about it?" ..."
"Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased
coverage, the British haven't bought it. Literally or metaphorically. Inside the Tent
gatekeepers have relentlessly attacked those brave individuals who have questioned the official
narratives, but its these individuals- smeared as 'crackpots' and 'conspiracy theorists' who
the public are turning to for their analysis.
Compare the number of retweets the former UK
Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray gets when he publishes on the Skripal case, with those
who try and denigrate him. My own Twitter following has increased by several thousands since
early March.
Citizen Halo got a big boost in followers after she was smeared by The Times.
After the lies told about Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya people no longer tamely accept what the NeoCon Establishment tells us.
We're at an 'Emperor's New Clothes' moment in British politics
where more and more people have found the courage to say out loud 'The Emperor has no
clothes!'.
The elite have been lying to us and they know that we know they've been lying. The
question is: what are we going to do about it?"
"... You know the rest: Libya sunk in chaos, but the neocolonial hyenas didn't care that much. They just started a race for country's resources on behalf of their beloved corporate monsters. ..."
A top member of the cabal made some statements proving one more time his level of commitment to
execute the sinister plan. John Bolton spoke to "Face the Nation" and said that the US will
seek the 'Libya model':
" We're looking at the Libya model of 2003, 2004 ... " and " One thing that Libya did
that led us to overcome our skepticism was that they allowed American and British observers
into all their nuclear related sites ... "
Let us translate and expand the latest phrase:
Once we "overcome our skepticism", meaning "make sure that our next target gives up its nukes,
or, has no nukes", then "we are free to invade". Apparently, that's the 'Libya model'. Of
course, we all know now what happened to Libya.
As Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, told to Sharmini
Peries and the RealNews
:
If I were Kim Jong-un I would not be very happy about that. After all, that ended in " we
came, we saw, and he died " - I believe it was the way Secretary Clinton in her
warmongering stance characterized it.
Looking at what Libya has been made to turn into without Gaddafi there, and with the removal of
Gaddafi the way we did, I'd be very alarmed if I were North Korea, if that was the proposition
I was looking at, coming from the Secretary of State and the President of the United
States.
It appears that Bolton indirectly certifies the position supported by many, that the US and
allies invade a targeted country after they make sure that it has given up its nuclear arsenal.
It seems that the warmongering cabal understands the relations with other nations only in terms
of power and level of losses in case of war.
Recall that the Western
hypocrites eventually decided that puppet Gaddafi should change role and become
again the 'bad guy' in his last 'permformance' . You know the rest: Libya sunk in chaos, but
the neocolonial hyenas didn't care that much. They just started a race
for country's resources on behalf of their beloved corporate monsters.
"... I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find the answers to my own questions. ..."
@ anon with the Niki Haley approval rating of 63% etc.
I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported
result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the
data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do
they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find
the answers to my own questions.
The current geo-political world is exposing all sorts of folks that support what I call the
God of Mammon narrative and their associated moral failings. As a species it is way past time
that we confront the centuries old assumptions that make up our "social contract"...such as it
is/is not.
The Netanyahoo circus is not the underlying friction in our world. The underlying friction
in our world is about debt, global/local investment and the cost of doing business including
geo-political stability. We have enough food to feed everyone but there are distribution
problems because of greed and social control desires. The same is true for housing, health
care, education, etc. Our current social contract precludes everyone from having all those
things because our social contract says that in the Western world all the tools of finance
shall be owned/controlled privately. And furthermore that social contract (didn't you sign it?)
says that there are these rules called laws that give not only "ownership" but that ownership
in perpetuity through other rules/laws of inheritance to individuals/families.
IMO, if we want to change the world for the better or ever to save our asses we need to
confront the underlying social contract that none ever discuss openly.
Your assessment of Nikki Haley as a 'mental lightweight' is likely right. However zionists
probably like that in their manchurian candidates. See this thread from the saker... note her
zionist righthand man, jon lerner...
"In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands
out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence
combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is
our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who surfaced in the news lately after she
unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House
suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't
get confused."
For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley for president,
a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah Palin. Indeed,
the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very cerebral or much
given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are reflexively
aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both are
passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley
regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the
Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.
Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on
a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which
are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her
speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah
Goldberg. "
"
Anonymous on April 26, 2018 · at 2:24 pm EST/EDT
One might be inclined to dismiss Haley as another sarah palin, not too bright. This shows she
might become relevant as a zionist manchurian candidate. They already seem to be grooming her.
See the article below about her key aide, jonlerner
Zionists may prefer not-too-bright frontmen because they can be more easily controlled,
think georgewbush, ronaldreagan, donaldtrump etc someone who is too bright might think
themselves out of their control e.g. billclinton started off strongly proisrael, but by the end
he becoming more savvy about israel his wifes political ambitions may have shorted that,
" 5 Things To Know About Nikki Haley's Jewish Right-Hand Man Jon Lerner
Nathan Guttman December 11, 2017
He holds a senior position in the Trump administration and has made a name for himself as
one of the most successful political consultants, yet Jon Lerner, manages to steer clear from
the spotlight. Currently serving as America's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, under
Nikki Haley, Lerner, 49, was recently described in a New York Magazine article as "the No. 1
person [Haley] listens to," and with speculations that Haley's political ambition could lead
her all the way to the White House, Lerner is the man to follow.
Here are a few facts about Jon Lerner:
He May Pave Haley's Road to the White House
The New York Magazine reported that Lerner "has a long-term plan for Haley, and he is there
to make sure nothing derails it." This long term plan began back in South Carolina when Lerner
managed Haley's 2010 successful gubernatorial race and maintained its momentum when she entered
the Trump administration as top United Nations representative. Lerner was appointed deputy
ambassador but stayed behind to run Haley's Washington office.
senator Jim DeMint, [described] Lerner as having "a very good strategic mind."
"Where I follow my gut, Jon relies on facts and the statistics he finds in his polling,"
Haley wrote in her 2012 autobiography "
Reply
Anonymous on April 30, 2018 · at 4:41 am EST/EDT
nikki haley is the most popular active politician in america, with 63% approval, trump 39% (
obama is top 66%) in one poll. perhaps this shows the ongoing crumbling of american democracy,
the principled design of its fundamental institutions (like the elections, the press, the
supremecourt etc) being massively gamed in reality by the minions of the 1%.., sad !!
"... disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has... ..."
"... The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. ..."
"... I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that - at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests. ..."
"... IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero. ..."
"... Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire. ..."
Not that there was much doubt who was behind it, but two days after "enemy" warplanes
attacked a Syrian military base near Hama on Sunday, killing at least 11 Iranians and dozens of others, and nobody had yet "claimed
responsibility" the attack, US officials
told
NBC that it was indeed Israeli F-15 fighter jets that struck the base,
NBC News
reported .
Ominously, the officials said Israel appears to be preparing for open warfare with Iran and is seeking U.S. help and support .
"On the list of the potentials for most likely live hostility around the world, the battle between Israel and Iran in Syria is
at the top of the list right now," said one senior U.S. official.
The US officials
told
NBC that Israeli F-15s hit Hama after Iran delivered weapons to a base that houses Iran's 47th Brigade, including surface-to-air
missiles. In addition to killing two dozen troops, including officers, the strike wounded three dozen others. The report adds that
the U.S. officials believe the shipments were intended for Iranian ground forces that would attack Israel.
Meanwhile, as we reported yesterday, the Syrian army said early on Monday that "enemy" rockets struck military bases belonging
to Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime. According to several outlets, the strikes targeted the 47th Brigade base in the southern
Hama district, a military facility in northwestern Hama and a facility north of the Aleppo International Airport.
Meanwhile, Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Tuesday that Israel on Tuesday morning had four problems, one more than
the day before: "Iran, Iran, Iran and hypocrisy." The comment came one day after Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu "revealed" a cache
of documents the Mossad stole from Iran detailing the country's nuclear program, which however critics said were i) old and ii) not
indicative of Iran's current plans.
"This is the same Iran that cracks down on freedom of expression and on minorities. The same Iran that tried to develop nuclear
weapons and entered the [nuclear] deal for economic benefits," Lieberman said.
"The same Iran is trying to hide its weapons while everyone ignores it. The state of Israel cannot ignore Iran's threats, Iran,
whose senior officials promise to wipe out Israel," he said. "They are trying to harm us, and we'll have a response.
Iran's Defense Minister Amir Khatami threatened Israel on Tuesday, saying it should stop its "dangerous behavior" and vowing that
the "Iranian response will be surprising and you will regret it." Khatami's remarks came Following Netanyahu's speech which Khatami
described as Israeli "provocative actions," and two days after the strikes in Syria.
* * *
Meanwhile, in a potential hint at the upcoming conflict,
Haaretz writes that two and a half weeks after the bombing in which seven members of Iran's Revolutionary Guards were killed
at the T4 base in Syria, Israel is bracing for an Iranian retaliation for the Syrian strikes (and if one isn't forthcoming, well
that's what false flags are for).
As Haaretz writes, the Iranians' response, despite their frequent threats of revenge, is being postponed, screwing up Iran's war
planning. It's also possible that as time passes, Tehran is becoming more aware of the possible complex consequences of any action.
Still, the working assumption of Israeli defense officials remains that such a response is highly probable.
The Iranians appear to have many options. Revenge could come on the Syrian border, from the Lebanese border via Hezbollah,
directly from Iran by the launch of long-range missiles, or against an Israeli target abroad. In past decades Iran and Hezbollah
took part, separately and together, in two attacks in Argentina, a suicide attack in Bulgaria and attempts to strike at Israeli
diplomats and tourists in countries including India, Thailand and Azerbaijan.
In any case, Lebanon seems all but out of bounds until the country's May 6 parliamentary elections, and amid Hezbollah's fear
of being portrayed as an Iranian puppet. The firing of missiles from Iran would exacerbate the claims about Tehran's missile project
a moment before a possible U.S. decision on May 12 to abandon the nuclear agreement. Also, a strike at a target far from the Middle
East would require long preparation.
* * *
For now, an Israeli war with Iran in Syria is far from inevitable: the clash of intentions is clear: Iran is establishing itself
militarily in Syria and Israel has declared that it will prevent that by force. The question, of course, is whether this unstable
equilibrium will devolve into a lethal escalation, or if it will somehow be resolved through peaceful negotiation. Unfortunately,
in the context of recent events, and the upcoming breakdown of the Iran nuclear deal, the former is looking like the most likely
outcome.
disgusting how anti-war pre-president trump becomes military pandering trumpanyahoo after election...his handlers, knowing
he will need them in the near future, set him to constantly stroke the military every opportunity he has...
The Western globalist billionaires and elites are ultimately responsible for any aggression coming from Israel. If they
can conquer and control Iran and take over its oil and gas reserves, risking the fate of the millions of people in Iran, Syria
and in Israel, then the losses to them will be incidental. The Western-globalist-Zio-hawk Axis no doubt feels it has to act
now against Iran in case everything settles down in the ME with the Syrian war cooling off. Any expansion of Israeli turf or getting
control of resources to the north would be stymied with further waiting and allowing both Syrian and Iranian defense systems to
be further fortified. The Israelis appear to be completely confident that if they can instigate a war with Iran that it will be
backed by the US, the UK, France and other NATO nations.
That confidence could only come from the Western elites running things. However, after their last fizzled false-flag poison-gas
attack in Syria, the support by many NATO nations for more Axis aggression may not be that solid. So what does the Israeli tough
talk and threats mean at this time? Perhaps it means that Israel is in the process of concocting a massive and much more sophisticated
false-flag attack, like the taking out of a US war ship and blaming Iran for starting the war.
Remember Five points:
Isreal will fight to the very last American Soldiers Death.
The Zionist screams in Pain as he Stikes you.
The Yinon Plan.
Operation TALPIOT.
Qatari Pipeline Petro Dollar Vs. Russia / China Petro Yaun.
One bright aspect is the Anti-Isreal / Jew Zionist movement is gaining steam. More & more Individuals are speaking openly against
Israel's War Crimes, False Flag involvements, The Yinon Plan along with Pro Zionist immigrantion policy of migrating Muslim's
& Arabs to the EU & US without fear of retribution. Pro migration policy which supports territory boarder expansion via the Yinon
Plan & ethnic cleansing & migration of Arabs & Muslim's.
Not to mention the Billions in US foreign aid, AIPAC, ZioNeoConFascist NGO's & dual Israeli Citizen's which hold Political
Office in CONgress. Which must be outlawed.
As people become more disillusioned with Trump I think it's worthwhile to spend a moment to take stock of what happened in th
2016 election.
1) The US President is the primary determinant of US foreign and military power. The President is much weaker when addressing
domestic policy / internal affairs. Any small, paranoid nation with ambitious plans in its neighborhood would want ensure that
they have the President's ear ( or his balls). Too much at stake to take chances. And political influence is even easier when
you've developed close relation with an oil-rich ally (Saudis) with deep pockets.
2) US democracy is money-driven and no real populist stands much of a chance.
3) Despite a groundswell of discontent on both the left and the right, here were only two populists that ran in the election
(note: I'm not counting Rand Paul's because he didn't make an outright populist appeal - he merely spoke in a sensible way.
4) When Obama was President, he was kept in line by the "Birthers". Trump is kept in line by the allegation of Russian interference.
5) "Never Trump-ers" were mainly Jewish (AFAIK) and almost certainly pro-Israel. The Never Trump campaign began in earnest
with Kagan's Op-Ed in February 2016 ( some might date it to Bloomberg's public statement in January 2016 that neither Sanders
or Trump could be allowed to win).
6) AFAIK Pro-Israel oligarchs (like Saban, Soros, Bloomberg) are big donors to Democratic Party. Hillarry and DNC are known
to have colluded against 'sheep-dog' Sanders. Wouldn't Hillary just as easily collide FOR Trump (the Cinton's And Trump's are
known to have had close ties - and their daughters are still close).
I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that -
at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests.
IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and
thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero.
Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will
naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire.
I should point out that "kept in line" (point #4) appears to be a convenience needed to excuse the faux populist's betrayals.
Both Obama and Trump seem more than willing to do as they are told.
And don't bother citing Obama's Iran deal as "proof" that Obama was independent. IMO That deal was made simply to buy time
because regime-change in Syria was taking longer than expected. It is foolish to think that Obama did everything the establishment
wanted but refused IN THAT ONE MATTER.
After seven years of utter devastation and bloodletting, a consensus has emerged among all
the belligerents of the Syrian war to de-escalate the conflict, except Israel which wants to
further escalate the conflict because it has been the only beneficiary of the carnage in
Syria.
Over the years, Israel has not only provided medical aid and material support to the
militant groups battling the Syrian government – particularly to various factions of the
Free Syria Army (FSA) and al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate al-Nusra Front in Daraa and Quneitra
bordering the Israel-occupied Golan Heights – but Israel's air force has virtually played
the role of the air force of the Syrian jihadists and has conducted more than 100 airstrikes in
Syria and Lebanon during the seven-year conflict.
Washington's interest in the Syrian proxy war is mainly about ensuring Israel's regional
security. The United States Defense Intelligence Agency's
declassified report of 2012 clearly spelled out the imminent rise of a Salafist
principality in northeastern Syria (Raqqa and Deir al-Zor) in the event of an outbreak of a
civil war in Syria.
Under pressure from the Zionist lobby in Washington, however, the Obama administration
deliberately suppressed the report and also overlooked the view in general that a proxy war in
Syria will give birth to radical Islamic jihadists.
The hawks in Washington were fully aware of the consequences of their actions in Syria, but
they kept pursuing the ill-fated policy of nurturing militants in the training camps located in
the border regions of Turkey and Jordan to weaken the anti-Zionist Syrian government.
The single biggest threat to Israel's regional security was posed by the Shi'a resistance
axis, which is comprised of Iran, the Assad administration in Syria and their Lebanon-based
surrogate, Hezbollah. During the course of 2006 Lebanon War, Hezbollah fired hundreds of
rockets into northern Israel and Israel's defense community realized for the first time the
nature of threat that Hezbollah and its patrons posed to Israel's regional security.
Those were only unguided rockets but it was a wakeup call for Israel's military strategists
that what will happen if Iran passed the guided missile technology to Hezbollah whose area of
operations lies very close to the northern borders of Israel.
In a momentous announcement at an event in Ohio on March 29, however, Donald Trump said,
"We're knocking the hell out of ISIS. We'll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the
other people take care of it now."
What lends credence to the statement that the Trump administration will soon be pulling
2,000 US troops out of Syria – mostly Special Forces assisting the Kurdish-led Syrian
Democratic Forces – is that President Trump has recently sacked the National Security
Advisor Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.
McMaster represented the institutional logic of the deep state in the Trump administration
and was instrumental in advising Donald Trump to escalate the conflicts in Afghanistan and
Syria. He had advised President Trump to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan from
8,400 to 15,000. And in Syria, he was in favor of the Pentagon's policy of training and arming
30,000 Kurdish border guards to patrol Syria's northern border with Turkey.
Both the decisions have spectacularly backfired on the Trump administration. The decision to
train and arm 30,000 Kurdish border guards had infuriated the Erdogan administration to the
extent that Turkey mounted Operation Olive Branch in the Kurdish-held enclave of Afrin in
Syria's northwest on January 20.
After capturing Afrin on March 18, the Turkish armed forces and their Free Syria Army
proxies have now cast their eyes further east on Manbij, where the US Special Forces are
closely cooperating with the Kurdish YPG militia, in line with the long-held Turkish military
doctrine of denying the Kurds any Syrian territory west of River Euphrates.
It bears mentioning that unlike dyed-in-the-wool globalists and "liberal interventionists,"
like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who cannot look past beyond the tunnel vision of
political establishments, it appears that the protectionist Donald Trump not only follows news
from conservative mainstream outlets, like the Fox News, but he has also been familiar with
alternative news perspectives, such as Breitbart's, no matter how racist and xenophobic.
Thus, Donald Trump is fully aware that the conflict in Syria is a proxy war initiated by the
Western political establishments and their regional Middle Eastern allies against the Syrian
government. He is also mindful of the fact that militants have been funded, trained and armed
in the training camps located in Turkey's border regions to the north of Syria and in Jordan's
border regions to the south of Syria.
According to the last year's March 31
article for the New York Times by Michael Gordon, the US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley
and the recently sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had stated on the record that
defeating the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq was the top priority of the Trump administration
and the fate of Bashar al-Assad was of least concern to the new administration.
Under the previous Obama administration, the evident policy in Syria was regime change. The
Trump administration, however, looks at the crisis in Syria from an entirely different
perspective because Donald Trump regards Islamic jihadists as a much bigger threat to the
security of the US than Barack Obama.
In order to allay the concerns of Washington's traditional allies in the Middle East, the
Trump administration conducted a cruise missile strike on al-Shayrat airfield in Homs
governorate on April 6 last year after the alleged chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun.
But that isolated incident was nothing more than a show of force to bring home the point that
the newly elected Donald Trump is an assertive and powerful president.
More significantly, Karen De Young and Liz Sly made another startling revelation in the last
year's
March 4 article for the Washington Post: "Trump has said repeatedly that the US and Russia
should cooperate against the Islamic State, and he has indicated that the future of
Russia-backed Assad is of less concern to him."
Mindful of the Trump administration's lack of commitment in the Syrian proxy war, Israel's
air force conducted an airstrike on Tiyas (T4) airbase in Homs on April 9 in which seven
Iranian military personnel were killed. The Israeli airstrike took place after the alleged
chemical weapons attack in Douma on April 7 in order to convince the reluctant Trump
administration that it can order another strike in Syria without the fear of reprisal from
Assad's backer Russia.
Despite scant evidence as to the use of chemical weapons or the party responsible for it,
Donald Trump, under pressure from Israel's lobby in Washington, eventually ordered another
cruise missiles strike in Syria on April 14 in collaboration with Theresa May's government in
the UK and Emmanuel Macron's administration in France.
What defies explanation for the April 14 strikes against a scientific research facility in
the Barzeh district of Damascus and two alleged chemical weapons storage facilities in Homs is
the fact that Donald Trump had already announced that the process of withdrawal of US troops
from Syria must begin before the midterm US elections slated for November. If the Trump
administration is to retain the Republican majority in the Congress, it will have to show
something tangible to its voters, particularly in Syria.
The fact that out of 105 total cruise missiles deployed in the April 14 strikes in Syria, 85
were launched by the US, 12 by France and 8 by the UK aircrafts shows that the strikes were
once again nothing more than a show of force by a "powerful and assertive" US president who
regards the interests of his European allies as his own, particularly when he has given a May
12 deadline to his European allies to "improve and strengthen" the Iran nuclear deal, otherwise
he has threatened to walk out of the pact in order to please Israel's lobby in Washington.
Finally, the Trump administration will eventually realize at its own risk that placating the
Zionist lobby is unlikely if not impossible because Israel has conducted another missile strike
in Aleppo and Hama on Sunday (April 29) in which 26 people, including many Iranians, have been
killed and 60 others wounded.
According to NBC , the blast at the Brigade 47 base in Hama which serves as a warehouse for
surface-to-air missiles was so severe that it caused 2.6 magnitude earthquake and shockwaves
were felt as far away as Lebanon and Turkey. This seems like a last-ditch attempt by Israel to
further escalate the conflict and to force the Trump administration to abandon its plans of
withdrawing US troops from Syria.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused
on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism
.
Still we are talking about dismissing a lot of financial benefit, I suspect that even Pres
Macron hedged his press for a better deal while keeping what's in place considered that
potential loss.
" The missiles under development do not in any way threaten the United States and they
were not in any event part of the agreement and should not be considered a deal breaker."
They already tried this argument when those tests were conducted and failed. It's clear as
day, such tests are not on the table. Not with this agreement.
"But who will tell him? Will it be John Bolton or Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo? I doubt it."
That is how his previous advisers were caught in a double bind. They supported action in
Syria, but not Iran. Yet taking action in Syria was part of taking action against Iran. It
appears they got squeezed by their own agenda.
I've been Bolton watching .he's fired and replaced almost everyone on Trump's in house
security council and is now firing the homeland security team members.
Trump , besides being mobbed up with Russian Jewish mafia in his personal business, is now
fully Zionized and Neoconned in the WH. He's also sweating blood over what may come out of
Cohen so he's in the perfect enraged and unbalanced mental state to unload his frustrations
by pushing the button on whoever the Jew Fifth Column and Neo psychos tell him to.
Given the choice between decimating Iran with another ME war and the complete collapse of
the US ..I am praying for a 1920′s like total meltdown of WS and the whole financial
system.
That seems to me to be the only possible event other than a bloody revolution that would
bring our corrupt and unreformable government to a screeching halt.
Yep people would suffer some but tough shit .maybe, just maybe they would wake and realize
IT'S THE CORRUPTION STUPID .both foreign and domestic.
Breaking the Iran deal is the only pre-election promise that Trump is going to keep. Not that
Trump necessarily knew it or planned it. Trump could be stopped if there was an opposition in
this respect. Trump's decision will approved by Democrats. People in American, including the
whole Congress are too afraid to say anything positive and constructive about Iran just as
they are too afraid to object to monolithic anti Putin's Russia narrative that was
constructed in last 18 months.
Everything that took place since the election seems to be a part of the Deep State
maneuvering to get Trump exactly to this point. Bombing Syria, conflict with Russia and
attack against Iran is the only place where Trump can get fully bi-partisan consensus.
A pity PG published before hearing the latest whether Netanyshu's news is true or false
– not that he could have anticipated it.
I had just come across a circular current affairs email from a former very senior
Australian public servant with interests in Foreign Affairs and Treasury matters. I have done
my best to extract the relevant parts to paste below. To save time you could go straight to
"Netanyahu". I would be interested in your or PG's analysis. It seems unlikely that the
documents would all be fake but if some have been "adjusted" you might find yourself
searching for the fake as a needle in a haystack.
Israel's Discovery of Secret Iranian Nuclear Policy
It is difficult to understate the importance of Israel's "discovery" that, after in 2005
Iran signed a deal with the US (under Obama) and major European countries, it did not in fact
comply with the agreed restrictions on its nuclear activity in return for the lifting of
sanctions which included considerable US dollar "reserves". The press conference by Israel PM
Netanyahu and initial reactions from Trump are reported in the attached Trump on Iran. This
report appeared in my inbox at about 10 am this morning but was not mentioned on "our" ABC's
lunch time news. Another one for CEO Michelle Guthrie to explain.
Israeli PM Netanyahu told the press conference in Jerusalem that "After signing the
nuclear deal in 2015, Iran intensified its efforts to hide its secret files," he said. "In
2017 Iran moved its nuclear weapons files to a highly secret location in Tehran."It is
amazing that Mossad was able to penetrate the Iranian hiding place and then smuggle the
55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs back to Israel. Netanyahu rightly describes Israel's
ability to acquire the archive as marking "a massive intelligence coup".
The "atomic archive" was compiled by Iran with the express purpose of preserving its
secretive nuclear weapons plan known as Project Amad, which aimed to "design, produce and
test five warheads, each with a 10 kiloton TNT yield, for integration on a missile. "That is
like five Hiroshima bombs to be put on ballistic missiles," asserted Netanyahu.
Netanyahu outlined Project Amad as containing five key elements described by the Times of
Israel thusly: "Designing
[I lost something here]
Trump Proclaims Netanyahu Announcement on Iran Shows 'I've Been 100% Right'
6621
President Donald Trump listens during a news conference with German Chancellor Angela
Merkel in the East Room of the White House, Friday, April 27, 2018, in Washington. (AP
Photo/Evan Vucci)
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
by MICHELLE MOONS30 Apr 2018Washington, DC2,238
From a White House Rose Garden podium this afternoon, President Donald Trump declared that
he has been "100 percent right" on continued Iran nuclear development and brand new evidence
from the Israeli Prime Minister proves that.
Moments before President Trump and Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari held a joint press
conference in the White House Rose Garden on Monday afternoon, Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu took to televisionairwaves.
Netanyahu announced that he was in possession of intelligence that proves Tehran has been
running a secret nuclear weapons development program (see report below on what Netanyahu
said).
President Trump was asked about Netanyahu's announcement moments later during the joint
press conference. He was also asked if he had made a decision on whether to pull out of the
Iranian nuclear deal and if Trump does decide to pull out, does it send the wrong message to
North Korea regarding a potential nuclear deal there.
"No, I think it sends the right message," remarked Trump. "In seven years that deal will
have expired and Iran is free to go ahead and create nuclear weapons. That's not acceptable.
Seven years is tomorrow."
"If anything it's proven right, what Israel has done today with the news conference and
Prime Minister Netanyahu just gave a very I got to see a little bit of it," said Trump. "That
is just not an acceptable situation."
"I've been saying that's happening," said Trump. "They're not sitting back idly they're
setting off missiles which they say are for television purposes. I don't think so."
"We'll see what happens," said Trump who remarked that many have said they believe they
know what he's going to do, hinting that they believe he is going to pull out of the Iran
nuclear deal. A decision on whether to pull out will be made on or before May 12.
"That doesn't mean we won't negotiate a real agreement," President Trump assured. He added
that the current agreement "wasn't approved by too many people and it's a horrible agreement
for the United States, including the fact, Mr. President [Buhari], that we gave Iran 150
billion dollars and 1.8 billion in cash. Nigeria would like some of that."
"You know what we got? We got nothing," Trump said of the Iran deal.
Trump concluded, "I think if anything, what's happening today and what's happened over the
last little while and what we've learned has really shown that I've been 100 percent
right."
Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana
Read More Stories About:
Big Government, Breitbart Jerusalem, Middle East, Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump, Iran,
iran deal, Iran Nuclear Deal, Israel, nuclear weapons
Bottom of Form
Watch: Netanyahu – 100,000 Secret Files Prove Iran 'Lied Big Time' About Nukes
4242
by AARON KLEIN30 Apr 201811,417
TEL AVIV -- In a dramatic press conference in Jerusalem aimed at the international
community, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday unveiled a cache of secret
files he says were obtained from inside a hidden Iranian site and clearly demonstrate that
Tehran maintained a secret nuclear weapons program despite declarations to the contrary.
Netanyahu explained that the structure of the U.S.-led international nuclear agreement was in
part based on deceptive Iranian descriptions of its previous nuclear work. He said Iran's
failure to disclose its secret program while misleading the world shows the nuclear deal is
"based on lies based on Iranian deception."
The Israeli leader presented evidence that Iran continued research for a nuclear weapons
program even after signing the 2015 nuclear deal.
"Iran's leaders repeatedly deny ever pursuing nuclear weapons," Netanyahu began. "Tonight
I'm here to tell you one thing: Iran lied."
"After signing the nuclear deal in 2015, Iran intensified its efforts to hide its secret
files," he said. "In 2017 Iran moved its nuclear weapons files to a highly secret location in
Tehran."
Netanyahu said the secret nuclear files prove the following:
Iran lied about never having a secret nuclear program. Second, even after the deal it
continued to expand its nuclear program for future use. Third, Iran lied by not coming clean
to the IAEA. Finally, the nuclear deal is based on lies based on Iranian deception.
The prime minister's speech was based on 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs that
Netanyahu said were smuggled out of an "atomic archive" painstakingly preserving Iran's
secretive nuclear program so that the country would have the option of restarting its nuclear
weapons activities after the nuclear deal expires or in the case of Tehran prematurely
bolting the agreement. Israel's ability to acquire the archive marks a massive intelligence
coup for the Jewish state.
"Iran lied. Big time," Netanyahu said of the half-ton of material obtained by Israel.
The trove, Netanyahu added, contains "incriminating documents, incriminating charts,
incriminating presentations, incriminating blueprints, incriminating photos, incriminating
videos and more."
He said Israel shared the material with the U.S., and that "the United States can vouch
for its authenticity."
The "atomic archive" was compiled by Iran with the express purpose of preserving its
secretive nuclear weapons plan known as Project Amad, which aimed to "design, produce and
test five warheads, each with a 10 kiloton TNT yield, for integration on a missile."
"That is like five Hiroshima bombs to be put on ballistic missiles," asserted
Netanyahu.
Netanyahu outlined Project Amad as containing five key elements described by the Times of
Israel thusly: "Designing nuclear weapons, developing nuclear cores, building nuclear
implosion systems, preparing nuclear tests and integrating nuclear warheads on missiles."
Netanyahu said that in 2003, Iran shut down the version of Project Amad that existed at
the time and instead divided its nuclear program into both covert and overt components.
Besides archiving the material for future use, Netanyahu said Iran continued to research
nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu called on President Donald Trump to "do the right thing" as the May 12 deadline
to recertify the nuclear agreement approaches.
"The right thing for the United States. The right thing for Israel. And the right thing
for the peace of the world," he concluded.
Well, Trump's trumpeting that he was 100% correct about Iran after Netanyahu's latest lies
about Iran could go in one of two ways:
1. Despite knowing that Netanyahu is lying through his teeth about Iran's nuclear
aspirations (while avoiding any mention of Israel's own stolen nukes), Trump could use this
as a fig leaf and choose to pull out of the Iran deal. The timing of this coincides with Iran
dropping the dollar, the same thing Ghadaffy and Saddam did before getting destroyed.
Interestingly, Russia and China may drop the dollar too. It is unlikely that they will pull
out of the deal. The UK and France might, but Germany probably won't as its interests lie
with Russia. So, even if the US pulls out of the deal, Iran still wins, and Israel/US become
increasingly isolated.
2. Trump is just blowing smoke and won't pull out of the deal, or maybe, congress won't
let him. Constitutionally, the Iran deal is a treaty, and I believe congress (Israeli
territory) has a say in it – but they have not really been upholding the Constitution,
so that may not matter. But, assuming he does not tear up the deal, Iran still wins.
So, either way the wind blows, it really doesn't matter to Iran. We are a has-been
power.
Meanwhile, Israel is poking the Russian bear in Syria by striking at an Iranian depot there,
killing many. Whether Russia provided S-300 systems to Syria or not, Iran is likely to
provide their own version of the S-300. Israel's days may be numbered. War clouds darken the
skies.
"The strategy of dragging the US into a regional conflagration couldn't be more
clear."
Israel: like a brain tumor or brain parasite, it degenerates its host's reasoning capacity to
the point where the host loses all concept of its own personal interests.
Renewed sanctions may or may not shut defiant Asian bankers out of the American market but
they sure as hell would shut American banks out of the Asian market. The message would be
clear: anyone doing business with an American bank would be subject to arbitrary actions of
the US government.
Big elephant in the room, is Russia's indulgence of Israel, letting the Israelis kill
Iranians and others in Syria, as they just did despite Vladimir Putin's empty 'warning' to
Netanyahu Putin who refuses to give Syria Russia's advanced missile defences that would block
Israeli attacks on his alleged 'ally'
A sentiment amongst Arabs & MidEast Muslims is that you cannot trust the white or
European governments, they may help you in part out of self-interest (e.g., Russia in Syria),
but they seem to always cut a deal with Israel
V. Putin always chummy with 'Putin's Rabbi' Berel Lazar of the Mossad-tied Chabad Jewish
religious cult, Putin a 'Russo-Zionist' who has Unz's 'The Saker' Andrei Raevsky distracting
from Putin's deep Israeli ties
But then there is Netanyahu's powerful new presentation re Iran
Those who argue that the withdrawal of the U.S. from JCPOA will be countered by the
continued cooperation of the other signatories to the agreement are, one might
unfortunately note, somewhat delusional. The U.S. has tremendous leverage in financial
markets.
Probably Trump will fuck over China on the Korean Peninsula and EU on Iran.
The Bolshevik MSM will blame it on nationalism as it leads to the collapse of the dollar,
as the rest of the world stops bowing to US treachery and criminality (yes, sanctions are war
crimes).
This will lead to a move for a global currency or the like.
Trump is being set up for failure. He was a buffoon (Orangutan) to begin with, not very
bright, far too egotistical and morally depraved, a perfect Shabbath goy for the
((bankers).
Iran's clear intent to build nukes, threaten Israel and control militarily and via a Shite
theocracy centered in Teheran, a vast swathe of the Middle East and Western Asia is a good
thing?
Netanyahu/IDF has the prescience, balls and military to destroy the Mullahs dream and the
sooner he does it the better for the world.
Any American that doesn't want to fight and die for the glory of Apartheid Israel is a
neo-Nazi anti-Semite!
We should be glad to see our sons and daughters getting killed for Israel's regional
expansion plans and not complain when gasoline goes to $10 a gallon, after all, it's for our
friend and ally Israel that we suffer this minor inconvenience.
Everyone knows that his Imperial Majesty Netanyhau needs a to expand the invasion of Syria
with the carpet-bombing of Iran, to help keep Bibi our of prison for corruption, fraud and
perjury.
Look how prescient Bibi was in regards to our invasion of Iraq!
FLASHBACK: Netanyahu Said Iraq War Would Benefit The Middle East
"If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous
positive reverberations on the region the test and the great opportunity and challenge is
not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also transform that society and thereby
begin too the process of democratizing the Arab world."
The pressure on Iran MIGHT be a backdoor incentive to stop sharing ANYTHING with North Korea,
ever again. No nuclear fuel, no triggers, no missiles. War with either is simply unthinkable
and tipping over governments leaving only rubble, dangerous rubble this time with either, is
NOT an option.
Israel can pretty much HAVE Syria, I guess, but we aren't going to send the troops and
Bibi is going to have to handle Iran at his own peril. Our interest, our TRUE further
interest with Iran at this point with the UN sitting on them is to deprive North Korea of any
further tech. Hence, the "noise" over the deal with Iran. Hope so, anyway.
You are working for a paycheck, don't just phone it in. Be convincing. E.F.F.O.R.T. Use
assorted words that indicate a sprightly, bright mind, not a poor home-office worker. Come
on.
I'm 99.999% sure that he's lying, I saw a brief clip of him and his lips were moving.
It would be a wonderful day for peace in the ME if Iran had not 5 but 10 nukes ready to
launch. I doubt that they'd be launched but they would serve as an excellent deterrent to
Nuttenyahoo's murderous insanity.
How many with knowledge of arabic, and knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program, will get
the opportunity to investigate if this is not a massive fraud ?
I suppose months will be needed to investigate.
And even is there is such an investigation, and the conclusion would be fraud, who would dare
to say so, and who would believe it ?
I did not see that Netanyahu invited anyone to investigate.
Putin is weak. Put pressure on him and he folds. Any people who trusts an outsider are
stupid–sadly, Arabs, in particular, and Muslim, in general, keep doing this over and
over again. Insanity? Dumb Arabs got snookered by Lawrence of "Arabia"/Britain into fighting
Turkish Muslims. Now those Arabs are "enjoying" life under the American jackboot.
This is not a regional conflagration, as the USA Civil War was not, as the Spanish Civil
war was not, as the Korean civil war was not, as the Saudi Yemen conflict is not.
Netanyahu/IDF has the prescience, balls and military to destroy the Mullahs dream and
the sooner he does it the better for the world.
Oh yeah? Then why doesn't he?
You know why? Because the Israelis are scared shitless of the Iranians. Think about
it: they can't even handle Hezbollah! They're not going to try their luck with Iran. Oh no!
Here's what they're going to do (or at least try to do): they're gonna try and get their big,
dumb Washington golem to attack Iran for them.
Now, let's see what Russia and China do. They've already successfully blocked USreal's
attempt at overthrowing the Syrian government. Are they gonna sit back and let them go after
Iran? Somehow I doubt it.
How many with knowledge of arabic, and knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program
Farsi, not Arabic. These are Persians, man.
I suppose months will be needed to investigate.
I don't think so.
The IAEA verification programme is still on.
They (the IAEA) can emit an official statement RIGHT THIS EVENING.
Tell Nethanyahoo to STFU and get out of here and re-affirm compliance under the
treaty.
NOBODY is forbidding Iran to keep reams of paper with concentric circles (apparently drawn
by someone who believes he thinks this should look like) on it in safes – or PowerPoint
presentations on CDs for that matter.
Do they have an undeclared stash of HEU somewhere? No? Then end of story.
As one informed observer has noted, "a train wreck is probably coming, with very
damaging consequences that are hard to predict."
You know, I agree with Giraldi's basic premise that the JPCOA is a good idea–at any
rate, it would be a good idea if Washington were under saner management.
But the way things are going these days, I say: bring it on! Let Chump go ahead and
unilaterally cancel the agreement. Either: a.) this will cause a huge rift within NATO; or
b.) all the Euro-muppets will finally see who it is that really runs their continent and
revolt against their own Quisling rulers.
The U.S. and Israel are also expressing concern about Iranian ballistic missile
capability. Again, ballistic missiles would appear to be a weapon that Israel alone seeks
to monopolize in its neighborhood because it seeks to regard itself as uniquely threatened,
that is, always the victim.
Don't those crazy mullahs realize who the real victims are here? You know, I think
Iran needs to start building some Holocaust memorials!
The U.S. has tremendous leverage in financial markets. If it chooses to sanction Iran
over its missiles while also re-introducing the old sanctions relating to the nuclear
developments, it would be a brave European or Asian banker who would risk being blocked out
of the American market by lending money or selling certain prohibited goods to the
Iranians.
Which means what? It means that Iran, off limits to USraels' various puppet-states, falls
ever deeper into the Chinese orbit, thereby strengthening the new Eurasian system that is
forming. Again: bring it on!
You put some relatively coherent comments on this site once in a while, but "knowledge of
arabic" to understand documents and CDs from Iran? WTF is wrong with you, man!
Exactly! Phil is a good man, put in years working for US intelligence, the US government,
the US military perhaps (I forget). He is unable to make the jump that is necessary. Council
for the National Interest indeed! Phil, make the jump. Realize and accept that the US is
history, the population is brainwashed and your trying to edumacate them will result in
bupkis! Then start supporting the powers that will bring down the US (China, Russia, Iran,
Syria, Iraq, etc), because they are the ones that will get to Israel and its fifth column.
The parasite has taken over the host; the host must die in order to eradicate the
parasite.
It's absolutely imperitive for the "Resistance" that US withdraws from the nuclear accord,
for it to win.
It's the golden chance for the human race to rid itself of the Anglo-Wahabi-Zionist scum. The
evil empire needs controlled wars, the Resistance needs full blown war. Unless that happens,
elites will maintain their grip over the socio-economical factors. This scum has infected the
institutions so deep, nothing short of a full blown war will accomplish this. It's harsh
sure, but ain't truth always is ?
"Big elephant in the room, is Russia's indulgence of Israel"
There is no elephant in the room. Russia is in Syria because Putin was invited by his
friend and war criminal, The King of Israel. Russia is playing the bad/good cop role.
Only a fool can't see that.
"A sentiment amongst Arabs & MidEast Muslims is that you cannot trust the white or
European governments"
If the Arabs themselves are in bed with European and American governments, I don't believe
that is correct to say that "sentiment" exist.
Maybe among some young honest Arabs, who are irrelevant.
Even The House Saud, the "protector of Islam's holiest sites" is in the bed with the
enemies of Arabs/Islam. She has always been. Today, only those we are willingly blind, can't
see it.
The House of Saud is as much Muslim as American Presidents are Christians. or Tony Blair
is a Christian.
Again, only naîve readers take "The Saker" seriously.
The man is not only a bad writer but a very bad propagandist. Same standard of Propaganda
than MSM.
Paul Craig Roberts is more intelligent and a better writer than "The Saker", but he is so
obssessed with the tree that he refuses to see the forest.
PCR is a religious man. Sometimes beliefs impede you to see the reality.
The Mullahs have been working with the NorKs on nukes. The Iranians started violating the
agreement before the ink was dry on the parchment. Anyone that truly believes the Iranians
gave up their efforts to get nukes is a hot prospect to buy the Brooklyn bridge.
Russia is in Syria because Putin was invited by his friend and war criminal, The King of
Israel. Russia is playing the bad/good cop role.
Only a fool can't see that.
So the US gave Iran $150 billion and $1.5 billion in cash and Nigeria would like some of
that. A lot of places would like some of that including the deplorables in the US. If it was
a waste and a fraud to give it to Iran why repeat the scenario with Nigeria or an of the 140
plus contries/states/ nations seeking a US handout?
Trump will pull out of the nuclear agreement with Iran because this is what Netanyahu and the
ziocons who control the U.S. gov want and the Zionists have controlled the U.S. gov for over
100 years and this control has given us wars and debt and destruction both here in America
and around the world.
If anyone doubts that Israel controls the U.S. gov , just remember that Israel did 911 and
got away with it.
Jews are religious psychopaths and so are Moslems. Why exactly is it better to have the
former, rather than the latter, be the big dog in the Middle East?
For all their other faults, I don't recall Moslems in the West trying to take over the
media, entertainment industry, education and financial systems and government in order to
undermine and ultimately destroy the host nation and advance their own race.
Strange how many people believe that France is pursuant of her own national interest in
spite of Macron being a zio-bankster puppet. France has been infected by Zionists ever since
de Gaulle had to resign and is therefore as untrustworthy as the USA or the UK.
The French simply play the role the globalist mafia assigns them at any given moment.
Just remember Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan .. have never attacked America, probably never
will, unless provoked to do so, which is exactly what we are doing now.
Who has attacked America? Israel, Saudis, Pakis, our allies and traitors within our own
"government". Let that sink in. That is who our "government" is now. Allied with the enemy.
Traitors, every one of them that kiss Israels ass, sell the Saudis billions in weaponry, send
billions in taxpayer foreign aid.
9/11, Lavon affair, USS Liberty, JFK assassination, Las Vegas Massacre, many more that we
still don't know of because they control the media.
The Israelis and traitors are cooking up a false flag right now as we speak to justify war
with Iran. The provocations don't seem to be working fast enough
It is, on the contrary, an American interest not to have another nuclear proliferator in
the Middle East in addition to Israel, which Washington has never dared to confront on the
issue.
Mr. Giraldi, thanks again for another great article. However, I'm proud to say for the
first time I am able to correct you on something. It is not true that Washington has never
stood up to Israel on it's obtaining nuclear weapons. In point of fact John F Kennedy stood
up to them on it and demanded that the international community be able to inspect Dimona.
This was such an acrimonious issue between Kennedy and David Bin-Gurion that it ultimately
resulted in the latter retiring from office:
Shortly after our president's untimely death the Israelis stole hundreds of pounds of
enriched uranium from Apollo, Pennsylvania, probably deliberately transferred to them in fact
by NUMEC:
Today, more is publicly known about the NUMEC affair than ever before. In 2009 The FBI
released a detailed statement that was made in 1980 by a former NUMEC employee who said he
started work at Apollo in February 1965 and was fired in October 1978 by the present owner,
Babcock and Wilcox, Inc., for job abandonment following an alleged job-related illness. The
former employee said he encountered armed strangers on the uranium plant's loading dock one
night in early 1965. He said they were loading what appeared to be canisters of HEU onto a
truck in racks that he had not seen before. He also saw a shipping manifest that said the
material was heading to a ship bound for Israel on the Zim-Israel shipping line. He said
that a NUMEC manager later threatened him to keep his mouth shut about what he had seen.
From the mid 1980s through 2009, the FBI also declassified some of its other reports from
the 1960s and into the early 1970s. Those reports indicated that Zalman Shapiro, throughout
the time he headed NUMEC, collaborated with a number of Israeli officials.
Kennedy's death marks the end of an era when Washington (sometimes) acted independently of
Israel. From November 22, 1963 onward every US president has happily cooperated with Israel
in foreign affairs.
But then again I'm sure you know all of this history. I wonder though how many people have
pondered its implications.
" Even the generals in the Pentagon favor continuing it [the JCPOA] as do U.S. close
allies Germany, France and Britain. The ability of Israel and its Lobby to dominate U.S.
foreign policy formulation in certain areas is thereby exposed for what it is: sheer
manipulation of our system of government by a small group dedicated to the interests of a
foreign government using money and the political access that money buys to achieve that
objective."
Israel has no right to comment on Iran's nuclear activities as the Jewish state is not
party to a non-proliferation agreement. Netanyahu and Israel "are in no position to accuse
Iran of anything, they're not part of the nuclear deal, they're not even a member of the
[Nuclear Proliferation Treaty]," Hamed Mousavi, Professor of political science at the
University of Tehran, told RT.
"And we have to remember that Israel is the only regime in the region that actually has
nuclear weapons," he concluded.
I implore all readers to spread the word for people to do a minimal amount of research
about these people that threaten the very existence of the biosphere on Earth (such a lovely
little blue planet), the best place to start is " The Controversy " by
Douglas Reed
You can find it online by using a search engine using those tags.
Protect your identity.
Avoid google.
Russia & Israel are Birds of a Feather as far as I'm concerned. They both make
EVERYTHING about them. It's ALL about them. Always. How they're a People . A Proud
People with a Proud Heritage . Blah blah blah blah ..ad nauseum.
Both of them also play the Victim Card in perpetuity and as cover for their
Predations .
It's telling that NO ONE, whether it be The Mainstream Media or The Alternative
Media , investigates the Nexus between Israel & Russia. Afterall, Israel is
comprised of more than few Soviet/Russian Jews and Putin is very concerned about
Russians in the Diaspora .
In December 2016, Kiev voted for UN Resolution 2334, demanding that Israel cease
"settlement activity," which led to a short crisis between Jerusalem and Kiev, but things
are now back on track.
Israel, however, must balance its relations with Ukraine with Jerusalem's close
relations with Moscow.
Only an idiot thinks that Iran is honest. Only an idiot thinks that Iran has peaceful
intentions. And only an idiot thinks that Iran under the mullahs is a better place for its
citizens than Iran under the Shah.
Iran has been attacking other countries and groups for decades. Do you people not remember
the hostages? Attacking tankers in the gulf? Funding the Beirut barracks attack?
If you want to whine about how bad America and Israel are, you need to find a "victim"
that isn't a bloodthirsty gang of Farsi terrorists.
Had to laugh. This has been clear for as long as the US Government has made treaties with the
Native Nations.
"They and others also have noted that U.S. exit from the agreement will mean that other
nations will negotiate with Washington with the understanding that a legal commitment entered
into by the President of the United States cannot be trusted after he is out of office."
For all the people who are warning me how the evil foreign Zionazis run America, let's look
how your fearless leader Bibi got his start. Recruited at MIT, immediate big job with BCG,
the Mormon spooks' slush fund, then prompt, inexplicable Obama-style preferment by DCI Bush
and NOCmeister Schultz, then up like a rocket.
"Netanyahu was spotted at MIT in 1973 and the grooming began there when he was in his
early twenties. After graduating, he received a high paying job at Boston Consulting. His
boss was Ira Magaziner (CFR). But he quit the job in 1979, returned to Israel, starting
selling furniture at the Rim company, then organized an anti-terror convention. Inexplicably,
the CFR sent a team of their biggest guns including George Bush Sr, Richard Perle and George
Shultz to this unknown 27 year old's get-together. Once the convention was over, Netanyahu
returned to work selling home furniture for three years until 1982, when Washington
Ambassador Moshe Arens invited him to be his deputy. He claimed the choice was indirectly
made by those who came to his convention and "were impressed with his performance." That
means Bush and Shultz pressed Arens to bring Bibi to Washington. From there, they pushed his
career higher. In 1985, Shultz chaired another anti-terror convention in Washington
supposedly organized by Netanyahu. By the time Bibi was UN Ambassador, Schultz visited him
every time he was in New York, and that was often."
So don't gimme this Jew business. Netanyahu is CIA's homonculus. Israel will cease to
exist the instant they quit doing CIA's dirty work. CIA says jump and Israel says how high.
The whole US government says how high. This all comes back to your National Command
Authority, which is CIA.
Whatever the nature of the political rule in Iran, there's a signed multilateral
agreement.
Whatever you believe the intentions of the Iranians are, civilised people judge actions using
evidence, not alleged intentions, notwithstanding that regarding intentions, I'd trust an
Iranian over an Israeli any time.
As for the "land bridge" to the Mediterranean, we common sense people call that a road and we
believe roads are good for trade and therefore for peace.
Mr. Giraldi,
I generally like Your work.
Let's look at this logically though.
North Korea is not launching missiles overs Japanese waters or doing nuclear testing. Is it a
coincidence that this happened under Trump's short time in office. Ditto for the Syrian and
Iraq terrorists being de-funded, weapons shipments being stopped, and satellite /drone / etc
military info sources canceled with their forces then being crushed? Ditto for the massive
governmental changes in Saudi Arabia? Ditto for FAIRER trade agreements with China. Ditto for
unemployment rates for AfroAmericans being the lowest in decades? .ON and ON..
So why assume that because French president ..Macaroni.., who is a former Rothchild banker,
has any integrity in his opinions about Iran?
The poor Iranians, like the North Koreans, Syrians, and Iraqis, have suffered enough. My
assumption here is that the Iranian people will one day idolize Donald Trump, for saving them
from their oppressors. These oppressors include their own religious hierarchy, the
international bankers, the globalists, the Obama's, the Bushes, the Clinton's, and other
pychopathic and narrissitic power hungry predators. Of course Trump, is just the tip of the
spear. We know that components of the military, intelligence services, and other powerful
forces are openly and secretly supporting this movement toward transformation.
And only an idiot thinks that Iran under the mullahs is a better place for its citizens
than Iran under the Shah.
I'll add ..
And only an idiot thinks that Iran under the Shah was a better place for its citizens
than Iran would have been under Mossadeq had the CIA not murdered him to reseat the
Shah.
Are The Koch Brothers and The Mercers Jewish? They have no qualms about destroying the
Biosphere and they are Trump Supporters . I know Stephen Miller is Jewish and
he's one of two people to miraculously survive Trump's Stalinesque Purges .
If you're a Trump Supporter , you're an Israel Supporter and a Zionist
Supporter and you're an enemy of the Palestinians and the imminent war with Iran
is your doing by virtue of your support.
With notable objectivity, Johnny Smoggins wrote:
"For all their other faults, I don't recall Moslems in the West trying to take over the media
in order to undermine and ultimately destroy the host nation and advance their own race."
Hi Johnny Smoggins,
Bingo! A totalitarian control-priority (characteristic) is media takeover.
America's mighty Jewish Corporate Media had the advantage of an expert "blueprint" to
follow, & of course, unlimited financial means & devotional will to do it.
Please consider perusing "Protocols of Zion," in particular
[MORE] # 12, (published in
Russia, 1905), & linked below?
Libya's & anti-Zionist Colonel Qaddafi wrote a "Green Book" designed to help direct
Islamic nations in developing society's based upon Allah's "Protocols," the Quran.*
Soon after Qaddafi's barbaric murder, no one here @ U.R. requires reminder of how ZUS
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, boasted about the evil deed in a now famous "sound
bite"?
Thanks, Smoggins!
*. For those interested, Cynthia McKinney has written valuable articles on the
late-Qaddafi's humane social engineering plans.
Forgive me had I misidentified the works as "Green Book"? Likely U.R. commenter "Talha" knows
more & better than I.
I am not so sure about that. It was never voted on in the affirmative with a 2/3 Senate
vote. They had a goofy vote where it only could be undone by a 2/3 Senate vote. Every treaty
we seem to have done (like NAFTA) has never followed the Constitution for treaties. They
pretend it is something else and only a simply majority in Congress is needed.
Would the American people "forgive" him for whatever those sins were/are?
In 50 years, what would be remembered most about Trump, that he diddled little boys on
some Russsian Jewish oligarch's yacht, or that he gave the green light to US men & women
to be diddled by zionist Jews and their shabbas goy to destroy Iran for the benefit of
Israel, after which those same zionist Jews will pull the plug on Wall Street, abandon the
USA if not actively set out to destroy it, as zionists and banksters move on to better
opportunities.
We've seen this play before, quite a few times and over millennia, and the ending was
always the same: the state that hosted Jews ended up destroyed by those Jews, and those Jews
benefited and moved on to plow fresh fields.
" "By the rivers of Babylon, we wept as we remembered Zion If I forget thee, O
Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill. The do-er of all these shall never falter,"
Hier said, the words taken from the Biblical Psalm 137. . . .
Hier . . . believed to be the first rabbi to speak at a presidential inauguration since
1985. . . .
has known the parents of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner for decades. . . . have also been
generous donors to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. . . ."
Hier did not recite the ending verses of Ps. 137:
Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us. Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
Our latest grandchild is not yet 3 months old.
Susan Rice's mushroom cloud imagery was phantasmagorical and calculated to induce
fear.
Biblical images conjured by "seizing your infants and dashing them agains the rocks," and
"slaying the first-born of Egyptians" and "slaying the ten sons of Haman and 75 000 innocent
Persian" may or may not be mythical; it is certain that these scenes form a central part of
Jewish religious celebration.
It is equally certain that Jews in Israel target Palestinian children, TODAY, to maim them
or to kill them
Ronen Bergman has written and spoken of Israel's use of assassination "more than any other
nation," to "change history."
At what point must we see a pattern and take it seriously?
When do Christians run out of cheeks and turn, instead, to ensuring a safe future for
their "posterity?"
Isn't that what United States founding documents promised, and isn't that why we spend so
much of our treasure and energy -- to ensure that OUR posterity -- our grandchildren -- can
grow up free of fear of having their brains dashed against the rocks in service to a
psychopathic god?
Your comment is gibberish , in the context of my comment, and it makes me doubt
that you are a real, individual person.
You have no idea what I do or don't support, above and beyond my belief that the more
people who know about the 2500 years of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud adherents
objectives and methods, the better off the world will be.
I encourage you to read " The Controversy ", by Douglas Reed , and
thereby educate yourself.
If you are real person, please explain your gibberish, and/or refrain from commenting on
my comments, in the future.
BTW: though I see no relevance to my comment, whatsoever, I am no particular supporter of
the current POTUS, beyond the fact that he won the contest as fairly as it is won, according
the way the actual system works; that is definitely NOT to say that I support or
believe in said system. And I will say that at the time I believed he was less bad than his
cheating opponent in the general election, and I have not changed that belief.
Who cares? Atomic bomb technology is 70 years old and any physics graduate student could
probably produce a functional uranium bomb design. The sooner the Iranians have a bomb the
sooner Adolph Netanyahu will have to stop crying about attacking Iran or do it and bring
about a war that might end Israel for good.
Interestingly, Russia and China may drop the dollar too. It is unlikely that they will
pull out of the deal.
The alternative for a world Reserve Currency would be the Euro. The Euro block is about
the same size economically as the US, it doesn't run big trade deficits and it's a large oil
importer (i.e. Saudi Dollar balances could be replaced with Euro balances).
Problem that the Saudis don't have a choice in the matter – the US forces them to
hold Dollars, and the Chinese won't accept the reality that the Yuan is insufficiently traded
to make it a world currency.
So the Russians alone could switch to Euros (require payment for their oil and gas in
Euros) which would encourage the Europeans to reduce their Dollar balances. Europeans would
in fact need a dual system – reserve Dollars for ME (non-Iranian) oil and reserve Euros
for Russian oil and gas.
This would already be bad for the US financial system, and much worse if third party
countries followed the Russian lead.
What? $20,000 for that 2005 Kia? Oh, Bibi, you giveaway artist you! It's worth waaaaaaaay
more than that? How about $50,000? Or a $million? No amount is too much for Congress to give
YOU, sweet Bibi McCree!
The U.S. and Israel are also expressing concern about Iranian ballistic missile
capability. Again, ballistic missiles would appear to be a weapon that Israel alone seeks
to monopolize in its neighborhood because it seeks to regard itself as uniquely threatened,
that is, always the victim. It is an argument that sells well in the U.S. Congress and in
the media, which has apparently also obtained traction in the White House. It is
nevertheless a fake argument contrived by the Israelis.
Exactly. Israel wants to stop what is unstoppable–other nations' in the region
desire for technological modernization. This modernization means, inevitably, better armed
forces and this Israel doesn't like. In fact, Israel BSed so many people for such a long time
that now her actual legitimate security concerns are simply drowned in the flood of
Israel-inspired threat inflation and other BS she "sells" in the US.
Could God the Almighty smash this despicable cockroach Jeffrey Feltman? http://www.voltairenet.org/article200978.html
"After the vain attempt in 2004 by Secretary of State Colin Powell to transform the Arab
League into a regional tribunal, Western aggression began with the assassination of Lebanese
ex-Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, in 2005. The US ambassador in Beïrut at that time,
Jeffrey Feltman – who probably organised this crime himself – immediately accused
Presidents Bachar el-Assad. yet false witnesses were unmasked, and the accusation
collapsed.
13 years later, Jeffrey Feltman is the number 2 of the United Nations, and the business at
hand is the alleged chemical attack on the Ghouta. The main suspect is, as usual, President
el-Assad."
– Who is Jeffrey Feltman? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_D._Feltman
"Jeffrey Feltman was born to Jewish parents in Greenville, Ohio, in 1959 Feltman served in
the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv from 1995–98 He served in Embassy Tel Aviv as Ambassador
Martin Indyk's Special Assistant on Peace Process issues from 2000-01. He then moved to the
U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem "
-- Jeffrey Feltman is a ziocon arsonist, a dangerous member of the Fifth Column of
Israel-firsters in the US. Feltman is a bloody slanderer, a criminal.
This is a verbose article that tries to be too clever by half. It is all old news.
The whole reason for the JCPOA agreement was that we already knew Iran was developing
nuclear weapons. All Netanyahu (proved) is that Iran lied about it.
Anyone who believes that Iran won't continue to pursue nuclear weaponization regardless of
what deals it signs is naive in the extreme. It can can only be made more difficult.
Anyone want to speculate that Israel has already smuggled a nuke into Iran and is
perfectly happy to let Iran believe it?
Don't misunderstand me. I am not supporting Shiite hegemony. Just observing.
I'm under no illusions about Moslems, friend. I want neither in the West at all. But too
many Whites, mostly stupid Christ cuck types, act as apologists for the Jews and Israelis and
allow them to get away with far too much.
It would be great if Bibi had enough prescience to bring up his son to become a decent
human being.
Enjoy:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/09/middleeast/israel-netanyahu-son-strip-club-recording-intl/index.html
"In the tape, Yair Netanyahu, now 26, can be heard demanding money from Ori Maimon -- the son
of Kobi Maimon, an Israeli gas tycoon.
"My father did a good deal for you, brother," Yair is heard telling Ori. "We fought in the
Knesset for it, brother," Yair then continues saying. "My father battled for it, I
remember."
That's when Yair asks Ori for a little over $100.
"You are crying over 400 shekels," Yair taunts Ori. "My father sorted your father out with 20
billion dollars and you are crying over 400 shekels?" he adds, laughing.
The 400 shekels was "for the whore," Yair says.
Later, Roman Abramov, another friend of Yair, who joined the two at the strip club, tells the
men, "This conversation should not get out. God save us. God, if this gets out, it will be
hell."
A while later again, Yair asks: "Speaking of whores, what is open at this hour?"
If Putin is weak, who is strong? Show me anybody else in this entire damn world with guts
enough to resist the US gang?
Putin and Russia have been under pressure for at least 10 years and so far haven't folded.
All Putin is doing is trying to protect the Russian people from the worst of it. After all,
he is the President of Russia, not Iran or Syria, and his prime responsibility is to the
citizens of Russia.
The full court press for war on Iran has taken place today (4/30). The Zionist controlled
cable networks had Bibi Nut-n-yahoo on wall to wall coverage. Of course Trump followed the
Zionist party line like the good NY Real Estate guy he is and ate all the tripe that
Nut'n-yahoo made up (with the Mossad imprimatur) to convince the public to follow the Zionist
party line. I hope there is much push back but I have my doubts.
annamaria discussed the rather obscure activities of "cockroach," Jeffrey Feltman.
Hi annamaria,
Below is Jewish Corporate Media, Fox News Division's, brief interview with Israeli
Ambassador to the ZUS on JCOPA.
Please annamaria, for sake of "Continuing Education," watch this stilted discussion in
correspondence with Protocols of Zion, # 12, which I linked within comment 72?
Israel wants the U.S. to destroy Iran. We all get that. So the easy understanding regarding
Trump's behavior is that he is an Israeli. America First was a lie. I don't believe Trump is
an idiot or a mad man. But a case can be made. It's possible that Trump is controlled and is
not really commander of U.S. forces. If this is so and he does not tell us about it he is a
coward. Any way I turn it Trump is an idiot, a mad man, a coward or a Jew.
I'm a deplorable. That doesn't change. Trump gave us an identity and Clinton gave us our
name. Trump beat down the door. God bless him. But once he was inside he was all alone. We
deplorables desperately need leadership. Trump ain't it.
Only an idiot thinks that Israel is honest. With two liars lying constantly, who to
believe? Maybe it is best to tune both of them out and stay out of it..
" . . . it is a major foreign policy objective of the Israeli government and its
powerful U.S. lobby."
This was almost too painfully humorous to continue.
why was it painfully humorous, because it's (obviously!) true?
Germany as well as Denmark supported attacking Syria
other than tepid words about Assad being 'held to account', or made to 'atone', when has
Germany ever suggested it would 'green light or 'pull the trigger for an 'attack' on
Syria?
Wonder which Jew wrote this speech for Trump? Gotta get more vomit bags.
President Donald Trump Proclaims May Jewish History Month
May 1, 2018 By JTA
(JTA) -- President Donald Trump proclaimed May Jewish Heritage Month.
In his statement issued by the White House on Monday, Trump said that "Jewish Americans
have helped guide the moral character of our Nation."
President George W. Bush first proclaimed May Jewish Heritage Month in 2006, and it has
been proclaimed annually by the sitting president ever since.
The statement also said: "They have maintained a strong commitment to engage deeply in
American society while also preserving their historic values and traditions. Their passion
for social justice and showing kindness to strangers is rooted in the beliefs that God
created all people in his image and that we all deserve dignity and peace."
He added that: "Through their actions, they have made the world a better place."
Trump also wrote that the "contributions of the Jewish people to American society are
innumerable, strengthening our Nation and making it more prosperous," noting that Jewish
Americans have served in all levels of government and served in the U.S. military, as well as
contributed to the arts and established philanthropic and volunteer networks. He also noted
the Nobel prizes won by Jewish Americans
"Ronen Bergman has written and spoken of Israel's use of assassination "more than any
other nation," to "change history.""
And then the Jews spread the rumors of the existence of a secret cult- that works and has
been working for centuries assassinating dissidents and leaders . They live in Iraq and Iran
They smoke Hashish and they assassinate after being duped by the mixture of the religion and
the smoke.
Big elephant in the room, is Russia's indulgence of Israel,
It may be that Putin's fall back position, in the event that Israel is successful in
dragging the US into Iran, is to let the US further its own demise. He knows the Jews are
destroyers of nations and they will destroy the US eventually.
Iran's clear intent to build nukes, threaten Israel and control militarily and via a
Shite theocracy centered in Teheran, a vast swathe of the Middle East and Western Asia is a
good thing?
Yes! Of course it's a good thing, when you consider the alternative.
Iran didn't attack our Navy ship in a cowardly and treacherous act of war, now did
they?
Iran didn't send its Mossad to film the WTC being attacked with planes full of terrified
American men, women and children, or start dancing in wild celebration when the planes
exploded into the towers, slaughtering all those Americans horrifically. It was Israelis who
did that, knowing those attacks were going to happen, and not warning us Americans, because
they wanted us to get slaughtered, and cheered about it, as the flames were still burning
Americans and people were dropping from the towers to their horrible deaths.
Israel gets billions upon billions of dollars of largess from the American people, and
that's how they repay our generosity, by laughing at our slaughtered citizens?
I honestly don't know of any Iranians who would have laughed at 9/11, even considering all
the evils that the ZUSA has perpetrated on Iran over the decades (always on Israel's behalf
of course)
So yes, absofuckinglutely, I'd prefer Iran to have nukes and hegemony if anyone in the
Middle East is to have them/it. Certainly more so than fanatical, murderous, criminal,
treacherous, cowardly Israel.
Bibi belongs at the end of a rope, not lecturing the rest of the planet on his pretexts
(lies) for more wars.
We have created a world where A and master of A can have 1000 to 100 of nukes, where these
psychopaths can threaten with nuclear bombs but Iran or Syria can't have nukes.
This is accecpted as normal by not only the very psychopaths like Netanyahu or Yalom or B'lom
or S 'lom or Kagan-Kristol- Kushner-Kaplan-Kruthammer but by the folks going around
nonchalantly their daily businesses in local cafe, offices,restaurant,hotel,street
shows,school debates,town hall meetings , water fountain discussions in offices and during
breaks from works.
These same sob also say how Muslim imposed dhimmitudes on the rest of non Muslims and how
they treated their conquered citizen . One of their favorites is this – Church or
Synagogue or teh Temple couldn't be higher than the Mosque in the vicinity. This they use to
justify abominable attitude to Muslims which then transform into pre-conscious hatred and
animosity to the Arabs/Palestine/Iran.
So the US gave Iran $150 billion and $1.5 billion in cash
Typical example of falling for the pundit media.
The US did not GIVE Iran any money.
The money came from Iran's US 'frozen funds' .Obama 'released' their money, it was not US
money.
(Jabotinsky–for those who don't know–was a radical Zionist who fought with the
Irgun terrorist group against the Brits, and it was he who first came up with the 'Greater
Israel' plan that the Netanyahoos have dedicated themselves to ever since.)
Bibi's older brother Yonatan was a commander of an elite IDF commando unit which
successfully staged a raid at Entebbe, Unganda in 1976. Yonatan probably was the
heir-apparent, but alas, he was killed during the raid, so Bibi had to fill in.
Nice try, hasba-rat! Now go peddle your Noam-Chomsky nonsense elsewhere
Can they survive without supporting each and every Jewish agenda? Can they make money
unless they wet their toes in the cesspool operated ,maintained,and enriched by the Jewish
monetary system of control?
Israel Charged With Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines
By Donald Neff
It was 12 years ago, on March 14, 1983, that the commandant of the Marine Corps sent a
highly unusual letter to the secretary of defense expressing frustration and anger at Israel.
General R.H. Barrow charged that Israeli troops were deliberately threatening the lives of
Marines serving as peacekeepers in Lebanon. There was, he wrote, a systematic pattern of
harassment by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) that was resulting in "life-threatening situations,
replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and
country."
[MORE]
Barrow's letter added: "It is inconceivable to me why Americans serving in peacekeeping roles
must be harassed, endangered by an ally It is evident to me, and the opinion of the U.S.
commanders afloat and ashore, that the incidents between the Marines and the IDF are timed,
orchestrated, and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes."1
Israel's motives were less obtuse than the diplomatic general pretended. It was widely
believed then, and now, that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, one of Israel's most
Machiavellian politician-generals, was creating the incidents deliberately in an effort to
convince Washington that the two forces had to coordinate their actions in order to avoid
such tensions. This, of course, would have been taken by the Arabs as proof that the Marines
were not really in Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers but as allies of the Israelis, a
perception that would have obvious advantages for Israel.2
Barrow's extraordinary letter was indicative of the frustrations and miseries the Marines
suffered during their posting to Lebanon starting on Aug. 25, 1982, as a result of Israel's
invasion 11 weeks earlier. Initially a U.S. unit of 800 men was sent to Beirut harbor as part
of a multinational force to monitor the evacuation of PLO guerrillas from Beirut.
The Marines, President Reagan announced, "in no case would stay longer than 30 days."3 This
turned out to be only partly true. They did withdraw on Sept. 10, but a reinforced unit of
1,200 was rushed back 15 days later after the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps at
Sabra and Shatila that accompanied the Israeli seizure of West Beirut. The U.S. forces
remained until Feb. 26, 1984.4
During their-year-and-a-half posting in Lebanon, the Marines suffered 268 killed.5 The
casualties started within a week of the return of the Marines in September 1982. On the 30th,
a U.S.-made cluster bomb left behind by the Israelis exploded, killing Corporal David Reagan
and wounding three other Marines.6
Corporal Reagan's death represented the dangers of the new mission of the Marines in
Lebanon. While their first brief stay had been to separate Israeli forces from Palestinian
fighters evacuating West Beirut, their new mission was as part of a multinational force sent
to prevent Israeli troops from attacking the Palestinian civilians left defenseless there
after the withdrawal of PLO forces. As President Reagan said: "For this multinational force
to succeed, it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut."7
"Incidents are timed, orchestrated, and executed for Israeli political
purposes."
Israel's siege of Beirut during the summer of 1982 had been brutal and bloody, reaching a
peak of horror on Aug. 12, quickly known as Black Thursday. On that day, Sharon's forces
launched at dawn a massive artillery barrage that lasted for 11 straight hours and was
accompanied by saturation air bombardment.8 As many as 500 persons, mainly Lebanese and
Palestinian civilians, were killed.9
On top of the bombardment came the massacres the next month at Sabra and Shatila, where
Sharon's troops allowed Lebanese Maronite killers to enter the camps filled with defenseless
civilians. The massacres sickened the international community and pressure from Western
capitals finally forced Israel to withdraw from Beirut in late September. Troops from
Britain, France, Italy and the United States were interposed between the Israeli army and
Beirut, with U.S. Marines deployed in the most sensitive area south of Beirut at the
International Airport, directly between Israeli troops and West Beirut.
It was at the airport that the Marines would suffer their Calvary over the next year.
Starting in January 1983, small Israeli units began probing the Marine lines. At first the
effort appeared aimed at discovering the extent of Marine determination to resist
penetration. The lines proved solid and the Marines' determination strong. Israeli troops
were politely but firmly turned away. Soon the incidents escalated, with both sides pointing
loaded weapons at each other but no firing taking place. Tensions were high enough by late
January that a special meeting between U.S. and Israeli officers was held in Beirut to try to
agree on precise boundaries beyond which the IDF would not penetrate.10
No Stranger to the Marines
However, on Feb. 2 a unit of three Israeli tanks, led by Israeli Lt. Col. Rafi Landsberg,
tried to pass through Marine/Lebanese Army lines at Rayan University Library in south
Lebanon. By this time, Landsberg was no stranger to the Marines. Since the beginning of
January he had been leading small Israeli units in probes against the Marine lines, although
such units would normally have a commander no higher than a sergeant or lieutenant. The
suspicion grew that Sharon's troops were deliberately provoking the Marines and Landsberg was
there to see that things did not get out of hand. The Israeli tactics were aimed more at
forcing a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy than merely probing lines.
In the Feb. 2 incident, the checkpoint was commanded by Marine Capt. Charles Johnson,
who firmly refused permission for Landsberg to advance. When two of the Israeli tanks ignored
his warning to halt, Johnson leaped on Landsberg's tank with pistol drawn and demanded
Landsberg and his tanks withdraw. They did.11
Landsberg and the Israeli embassy in Washington tried to laugh off the incident, implying
that Johnson was a trigger-happy John Wayne type and that the media were exaggerating a
routine event. Landsberg even went so far as to claim that he smelled alcohol on Johnson's
breath and that drunkenness must have clouded his reason. Marines were infuriated because
Johnson was well known as a teetotaler. Americans flocked to Johnson's side. He received
hundreds of letters from school children, former Marines and from Commandant Barrow.12 It was
a losing battle for the Israelis and Landsberg soon dropped from sight.
But the incidents did not stop. These now included "helicopter harassment," by which
U.S.-made helicopters with glaring spotlights were flown by the Israelis over Marine
positions at night, illuminating Marine outposts and exposing them to potential attack. As
reports of these incidents piled up, Gen. Barrow received a letter on March 12 from a U.S.
Army major stationed in Lebanon with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization
(UNTSO). The letter described a systematic pattern of Israeli attacks and provocations
against UNTSO troops, including instances in which U.S. officers were singled out for
"near-miss" shootings, abuse and detention.13 That same day two Marine patrols were
challenged and cursed by Israeli soldiers.1
Two days later Barrow wrote his letter to Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, who
endorsed it and sent it along to the State Department. High-level meetings were arranged and
the incidents abated, perhaps largely because by this time Ariel Sharon had been fired as
defense minister. He had been found by an Israeli commission to have had "personal
responsibility" for the Sabra and Shatila massacres.15
Despite the bad taste left from the clashes with the Israelis, in fact no Marines had been
killed in the incidents and their lines had been secure up to the end of winter in 1983. Then
Islamic guerrillas, backed by Iran, became active. On the night of April 17, 1983, an unknown
sniper fired a shot that went through the trousers of a Marine sentry but did not harm him.
For the first time, the Marines returned fire.16
The next day, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up by a massive bomb, with the loss of
63 lives. Among the 17 Americans killed were CIA Mideast specialists, including Robert C.
Ames, the agency's top Middle East expert.17
Disaffected former Israeli Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky later claimed that Israel
had advance information about the bombing plan but had decided not to inform the United
States, a claim denied by Israel.18 The Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Veteran correspondent John Cooley considered the attack "the day [Iranian leader Ayatollah]
Khomeini's offensive against America in Lebanon began in earnest." 19
Still, it was not until four months later, on Aug. 28, that Marines came under direct fire by
rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at International Airport. They returned fire
with M-16 rifles and M-60 machine guns. The firefight resumed the next day with Marines
firing 155mm artillery, 81mm mortars and rockets from Cobra helicopter gunships against Shi'i
Muslim positions. Two Marines were killed and 14 wounded in the exchange, the first
casualties in actual combat since the Marines had landed the previous year.20
From this time on, the combat involvement of the Marines grew. Their actions were
generally seen as siding with Israel against Muslims, slowly changing the status of the
Marines as neutral peacekeepers to opponents of the Muslims.21 Israel could hardly have
wished for more. The polarization meant that increasingly the conflict was being perceived in
terms of the U.S., Israel and Lebanon's Christians against Iran, Islam and Lebanon's Shi'i
Muslims.
Accelerating the Conflict
Israel accelerated the building conflict on Sept. 3, 1993 by unilaterally withdrawing
its troops southward, leaving the Marines exposed behind their thin lines at the airport. The
United States had asked the Israeli government to delay its withdrawal until the Marines
could be replaced by units of the Lebanese army, but Israel refused.22 The result was as
feared. Heavy fighting immediately broke out between the Christian Lebanese Forces and the
pro-Syrian Druze units, both seeking to occupy positions evacuated by Israel, while the
Marines were left in the crossfire. 23On Sept. 5, two Marines were killed and three wounded
as fighting escalated between Christian and Muslim militias.24
In an ill-considered effort to subdue the combat, the Sixth Fleet frigate Bowen fired several
five-inch naval guns, hitting Druze artillery positions in the Chouf Mountains that were
firing into the Marine compound at Beirut airport.25 It was the first time U.S. ships had
fired into Lebanon, dramatically raising the level of combat. But the Marines' exposed
location on the flat terrain of the airport left them in an impossible position. On Sept. 12,
three more Marines were wounded. 26
On Sept. 13, President Reagan authorized what was called aggressive self-defense for the
Marines, including air and naval strikes.27 Five days later the United States essentially
joined the war against the Muslims when four U.S. warships unleashed the heaviest naval
bombardment since Vietnam into Syrian and Druze positions in eastern Lebanon in support of
the Lebanese Christians.28 The bombardment lasted for three days and was personally ordered
by National Security Council director Robert McFarlane, a Marine Corps officer detailed to
the White House who was in Lebanon at the time and was also a strong supporter of Israel and
its Lebanese Maronite Christian allies. McFarlane issued the order despite the fact that the
Marine commander at the airport, Colonel Timothy Geraghty, strenuously argued against it
because, in the words of correspondent Thomas L. Friedman, "he knew that it would make his
soldiers party to what was now clearly an intra-Lebanese fight, and that the Lebanese Muslims
would not retaliate against the Navy's ships at sea but against the Marines on shore." 29
By now, the Marines were under daily attack and Muslims were charging they were no longer
neutral.30 At the same time the battleship USS New Jersey, with 16-inch guns, arrived off
Lebanon, increasing the number of U.S. warships offshore to 14. Similarly, the Marine
contingent at Beirut airport was increased from 1,200 to 1,600.31
A Tragic Climax
The fight now was truly joined between the Shi'i Muslims and the Marines, who were
essentially pinned down in their airport bunkers and under orders not to take offensive
actions. The tragic climax of their predicament came on Oct. 23, when a Muslim guerrilla
drove a truck past guards at the Marine airport compound and detonated an explosive with the
force of 12,000 pounds of dynamite under a building housing Marines and other U.S. personnel.
Almost simultaneously, a car-bomb exploded at the French compound in Beirut. Casualties were
241 Americans and 58 French troops killed. The bombings were the work of Hezbollah, made up
of Shi'i Muslim guerrillas supported by Iran.32
America's agony increased on Dec. 3, when two carrier planes were downed by Syrian missiles
during heavy U.S. air raids on eastern Lebanon.33On the same day, eight Marines were killed
in fighting with Muslim militiamen around the Beirut airport.34
By the start of 1984, an all-out Shi'i Muslim campaign to rid Lebanon of all Americans was
underway. The highly respected president of the American University of Beirut, Dr. Malcolm
Kerr, a distinguished scholar of the Arab world, was gunned down on Jan. 18 outside his
office by Islamic militants aligned with Iran.35
On Feb. 5, Reagan made one of his stand-tall speeches by saying that "the situation in
Lebanon is difficult, frustrating and dangerous. But this is no reason to turn our backs on
friends and to cut and run."36
The next day Professor Frank Regier, a U.S. citizen teaching at AUB, was kidnapped by Muslim
radicals.37 Regier's kidnapping was the beginning of a series of kidnappings of Americans in
Beirut that would hound the Reagan and later the Bush administrations for years and lead to
the eventual expulsion of nearly all Americans from Lebanon where they had prospered for more
than a century. Even today Americans still are prohibited from traveling to Lebanon.
The day after Regier's kidnapping, on Feb. 7, 1984, Reagan suddenly reversed himself and
announced that all U.S. Marines would shortly be "redeployed." The next day the battleship
USS New Jersey fired 290 rounds of one-ton shells from its 16-inch guns into Lebanon as a
final act of U.S. frustration.38 Reagan's "redeployment" was completed by Feb. 26, when the
last of the Marines retreated from Lebanon.
The mission of the Marines had been a humiliating failure -- not because they failed in their
duty but because the political backbone in Washington was lacking. The Marines had arrived in
1982 with all sides welcoming them. They left in 1984 despised by many and the object of
attacks by Muslims. Even relations with Israel were strained, if not in Washington where a
sympathetic Congress granted increased aid to the Jewish state to compensate it for the costs
of its bungled invasion, then between the Marines and Israeli troops who had confronted each
other in a realpolitik battlefield that was beyond their competence or understanding. The
Marine experience in Lebanon did not contribute toward a favorable impression of Israel among
many Americans, especially since the Marines would not have been in Lebanon except for
Israel's unprovoked invasion.
This negative result is perhaps one reason a number of Israelis and their supporters today
oppose sending U.S. peacekeepers to the Golan Heights as part of a possible Israeli-Syrian
peace treaty. A repeat of the 1982-84 experience would certainly not be in Israel's interests
at a time when its supporters are seeking to have a budget-conscious Congress continue
unprecedented amounts of aid to Israel.
1. I thought it was a great line -- a funny turn of phrase.
2. You might want to keep my comments in the context they are delivered.
3. Removing the comments from their context and asking what they mean -- doesn't make any
sense to me. My comments are about the issue of whether the Europeans would be on board
breaking the agreement. I have been one who contended that would not be inclined to forego
the financial loss. But when France, Germany, Denmark, and Great Britain joined or supported
the faux chem use response. It suggested that the quid pro quo was in and supports Dr.
Giraldi's position that the Europeans are not as tied to the financial gains as I might
think.
4. Caveat: Pres Macron's press here suggests they may not have to choose. Which bolsters
the position that the money matters. time will tell.
Your comments about atonement and what not are in some other field and as far as I can
tell well off the mark. .
Oh, here we go again.. the old CIA did it meme the jooos are innocent, innocent I tell
you!
I've heard them all ..the US uses Israel to 'colonize' Palestine, the Israel Palestine
fight is the evil white man's fault for holocausting the jews, the US uses Israel to 'expand
its empire', the WASP are controlling the Jews ad nausea.
Re: Strike on Hama & Alleppo:
There is unsubstantiated report that Israeli F-15 flying over Jordan via Eastern route whilst
blending in with US coalition forces:
Here's how #Israel attacked
#Syria on
29/4/2018 using the Coalition fly zones against the #SAA
Israel after many attempts to penetrate the Syrian airspace from the west, they're now
using the east, which is poorly covered by radars, where they can blend within the
Coalition jets pic.twitter.com/hKr5IEZaj6
Just when I thought it was safe to turn on the radio . there was Danielle Pletka. (Today's
"Washington Journal" on CSPAN.) Didn't you post some background on her, or was it someone
else? (I'm just hoping there's an antidote )
A judge in the US has issued a default judgement requiring Iran to pay more than $6bn to
victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed almost 3,000 people, court filings
show.
Monday's ruling in the case – Thomas Burnett, Sr et al v. The Islamic Republic of Iran
et al – finds "the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and
The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran" liable for the deaths of more than 1,000
people as a result of the September 11 attacks, Judge George B Daniels of the Southern
District Court of New York wrot
Iran is ordered to pay "$12,500,000 per spouse, $8,500,000 per parent, $8,500,000 per child,
and $4,250,000 per sibling" to the families and estates of the deceased, court filings say.
How does the anti Iran narrative work? Each and every lever has been joined just like it
would be in a jungle by the poachers and in a Chicago street by the Latino gangs . Then they
call it a democracy with rule of law reigning supreme .
Reporters are commenting on the effect that a broken Iran deal would have on Kim's/Moon's
NK/SK deal. So the neocon equation seems to result in Trump breaking the JCPOA, Kim getting
wiggly and US finds a way to declare everyone liars and trash NK deal while Iran patiently
tries to wait it out. You think SK will stand for it? Japan? China?
I can't imagine that the prospect of Lebanese artillery and rockets raining down on Israel
plays well in Tel Aviv. If Israel thinks it can push the boundaries out by striking some
Iranian targets claiming them as nuclear facilities and get away with it, as usual, rhetoric
from Tehran is escalating. h/t Karlof1 @ 24.
Logically speaking, if the R+6 loses R, the result of negotiations with Beebs, they may
have nothing to lose and choose the good death in battle inflicting a hopefully mortal wound
on Israel. IDF using their border fence as a penny arcade shooting gallery is generally
condemned, so what does the world owe Israel at this point, is the question?
Reading this thread, I'm not sure I agree that the full might of the ziocon coalition
would be unleashed at Israel's request. h/t Red Ryder @ 42.
US generals lack the balls to go all out and jump the 82d ABN and 1st Marines into Tahrir
Square. Airstrikes will never replace closing with and destroying the enemy, let alone
implementing an effective occupation.
If you think Afghanistan is bad, well... We deplorables have enough business here at home,
so sending our sons and daughters to die on behalf of the wormwood elites will play poorly,
especially in the recruiting centers.
The long range view may include Iran activating assets it has overseas, which imho could
be far more destructive than the Tsarnaev Bros, as western cities offer many opportunities
for mayhem. That is what should make the USGOV nervous.
"... trump is indeed a bimbo on a string if he goes with the 24/7 liars and deceivers.. ..."
"... It seems that Trump deliberately plays his naivetee as a strength, as a deliberate anti-politician ploy, with his base. ..."
"... Possibly Trump is more useful to Netanyahoo as a simpleton politically than a conventional politician would be. Thus he might favor "winning" in the Korean deal to keep Trump in office and avoid another Obama type and return to a JCPOA deal. ..."
"... Israel cannot steal the Litani Delta on which its survival depends while Iran supplies Hezbollah. Israel must have that water now. Now. This is now a bar fight and anything could and will happen. ..."
"... Israeli law relating to Israel going to war was changed on 30 April 2018. Instead of requiring approval of the Knesset, it now just requires Netanyahu and the Israeli Defense Minister (appointed by one B.N.) to agree. ..."
"... The only way Israel wins a war with Iran is by a preemptive nuclear attack that decimates the country and kills millions. So either Israel doesn't really want a war with Iran, or it does. If it does, then it is looking for an excuse to nuke the country. ..."
"... I need hardly point out that the discovery of "proof" that Iran was developing its own nuclear weapon with intent to use against Israel would be cited earnestly by the Times, Guardian, and Post as somewhat excusing Israel's otherwise excessive obliteration of an entire people and civilization, which would doubtless be condemned in one or two editorials and then forgotten. Most Americans could be easily moved to support a decimating nuclear strike against Iran. What's anybody else gonna do about it? ..."
"... I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and Trump are faux populists that - at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests. ..."
"... IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero. ..."
"... Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of government. Perhaps any Empire will naturally gravitate to such a compromised government? Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire. ..."
"... If Israel and its basement gimp want a war with Iran, what is Putin supposed to do? He can't very well go to war with either without risking the annihilation of the planet and he knows this very well. And, being rational, he won't go to war with either. ..."
"... It is not his fault that Israel and its basement gimp gorge themselves unceasingly on destruction and carnage. He and Russia are not the hero of some Louis L'Amour pulp western for Chrissakes. One thing he might do is extend anti-ballistic protection to Iran, perhaps in partnership with China. ..."
"... "Israeli jets are rumored to have wrongly identified themselves as coalition planes when hitting that Iranian/Syrian depot the other day, flying along the coalition corridor going through Jordan and W. Iraq. If true, that's an insane move..." ..."
"... re Israeli jets masking as coalition; That was pretty sneaky, I wonder if they cleared that with the US or maybe Pompeo? I could not understand why Russia/Syria defenses didn't respond, thank you. ..."
"... The only Israeli game plan that makes sense is if Iran can be suckered into a war that costs it Hezbollah and most of the Syrian Army. Then Syria will splinter, Lebanon will disintegrate and Russia will be in an untenable position to stay. ..."
"... remember after Iran they will come for Russia and Russia knows it. Better to fight in someone else's yard than your own, always. ..."
"... "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation. ..."
"... The Israeli militaristic policy towards its neighbours started in 1948, according to Avi Shlaim's Iron Wall . Initially it was much disputed, and the first raids were unofficial. But militarism gained place in the government, and now rules everywhere. But it's reached its limit. There's nowhere to go. ..."
"... US statements supporting the territorial integrity of Syria "are only words" that serve as cover for "plans to partition Syria," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Saturday, after a meeting with Turkish and Iranian officials in Moscow. Lavrov had also warned earlier this year about Western plans to partition Syria. ..."
"... The US and its allies intend to occupy the eastern part of Syria and partition the country, in order to "use the Sunnis in East Syria and West Iraq to form a barricade to stop any Iranian influence and cut off supplies to Hezbollah." ..."
"... Indeed, everyone thinks Carter is the oh so cuddly Uncle Jimmy, but the Carter doctrine is what started the whole modern ME mess. The Neo-conservatives that followed after with their "New American Century" just wrote implementation plans for what Carter laid out. ..."
"... I suggest this new item by Alastair Crooke and then this article he links to get a handle on the nuances within Great Game III, which I've called the Hybrid Third World War between the Outlaw US Empire's seeking Full Spectrum Dominance and the rising Multinational Alliance's core members China, Russia and Iran. ..."
thanks b... good pic at the bottom that sums it up well..
lets get on to the reality... israel has nuclear weapons and it is okay - in spite of the
constant lying and control of usa congress, not to mention uk, france, canada and etc.
etc.... iran is clean, but the fearmongers need to continue on with their lies and
deception... the choice is obvious here... trump is indeed a bimbo on a string if he goes
with the 24/7 liars and deceivers..
Ah yes, Big Lie Nation and its Big Lie media are at it yet again. Since Nutty's lies and
disinformation were so easy to expose, will we see any similar outing by any English language
media--or German, French, Italian, Spanish--other than Sputnik, RT, Moon of Alabama
and a few others? Or will Big Lie Media simply allow what remains of its credibility to sink
further beneath the waves? Which one of them will be first to call out the leading Zionist
for his serial prevarications and tag him for the deliberate slow motion massacre of Gaza
Palestinians? Does it take courage to do that, or the exercising of proper journalism?
On the semi-related issue of Korea, IMO Moon and Kim together with China and Russia will
move ahead with establishing peace in Korea and present Trump with a fait accompli regardless
if he continues the longstanding tradition of the Outlaw US Empire in reneging on complying
with treaties its signed. Unless it chooses war, there's no way the Empire will be able to
continue to garrison Korea with its troops--they will be evicted as part of the penultimate
peace treaty between South and North.
As I wrote yesterday, Nutty's clearly very desperate to expose himself as nakedly as he
did. With luck, some good will come of it.
It seems that Trump deliberately plays his naivetee as a strength, as a deliberate
anti-politician ploy, with his base. The key difference at this time in dealings with North
Korea and Iran appears to be Netanyahoo. If Netanyahoo were parading forth his tired-out old
BS re Iran--but aiming it at North Korea--how would Trump respond? I suspect he would be as
stubbornly bent on defeating the Korea deal versus "winning it."
I doubt the base distinguishes much between the two re "axis of evil."
Possibly Trump is more useful to Netanyahoo as a simpleton politically than a conventional
politician would be. Thus he might favor "winning" in the Korean deal to keep Trump in office
and avoid another Obama type and return to a JCPOA deal.
This, then, again related to upcoming midterms which the Dems seem bent on losing.
The sad thing about all of this is we, the public cannot do jack shit about Israel: they can
brazenly kill Palestinian demonstrators with impunity; the snipers regularly kill dozens of
Palestinian demonstrators on a weekly basis in the ongoing 'Right of Return' march. What does
Washington do? Pompeo says "Israel has a right to defend itself". Israel fires missiles into
Syria killing loads of people. Not even makes the evening news. All we can do is read shitty,
depressing articles like this one day after day, week after week, year after year–and
not a fucking thing will change for the better. In fact, Iran is next to be wiped off the map
just like Iraq. What are you doing to do about it? You can't do a fucking thing about it.
I get so fucking sick of it all. What is the use of reading the news when it is all so
depressing and Washington and Israel just keep winning and winning and winning. They commit
war crimes, kill millions, and nobody can do a fucking thing about it. Really fucking
depressing :-((((((((((((((((
@6 relating to and feeling your anger--we can keep analyzing and informing, we can at the
least spread an alternative view to Establishment Bullshit and Crime. Whatever Trump is, no
matter how inadequate, his emergence signals a huge desire for CHANGE. It is happening.
the sniper kills are ritual. The israelis are not Jews. They are European descended, jewish converted askenazis and the
state of israel is nothing more than a modern day land grab in Palestine, much like the
medieval crusades. The lovely empathetic emotive little Khazars will not last as long as the 168 years of the
original crusades at this rate.
The eternal victims the little Khazars bleat and whine incessantly about their treatment
from Germany in WW2 will receive compensations and dolphin nuke submarines until 2070
and they have turned Gaza into the largest genocide camp in the world?
ALL FUNDED AND SUPPORTED BY AMERICA & ITS EUROPEAN ACOLYTES
In the post-truth, post-reality world of the globalist ruling class, the content of one's
statements is inconsequential. All that matters if the EFFECT of the statement.
Ominously, the officials said Israel appears to be preparing for open warfare with Iran and
is seeking U.S. help and support. "On the list of the potentials for most likely live
hostility around the world, the battle between Israel and Iran in Syria is at the top of the
list right now," said one senior U.S. official.
Here's a scenario:
Israel gives Putin a Syrian victory in exchange for not interfering with Israel/US war
with Iran.
Putin sees that US war with Iran will only harm US, and therefore helps Russia.
Putin tells Assad that Russian protection depends on Syrian non-intervention with US war
on Iran.
Israel and Putin and Bolton/Trump all happy. Assad and Iran and Hezbollah not happy.
Putin weakens US by capitulating to their insanity, improves his and Russia's Western
image, maintains his friendly ties re with Israel.
Iran and Hezbollah get sold out. Assad gets politically sold out, as his populace will
demand response to Israel aggression. But the big player out of the loop here in China.
Just finished reading the fascinating
Michael Hudson interview I linked to on previous thread; but since we're discussing Jews
and their religion in a tangential manner, I think it appropriate to post here since the
history Hudson explains is 100% key to the ongoing pain us humans feel and inflict. My
apologies in advance, but it will take this long excerpt to explain what I mean:
"Tribes: When does the concept of a general debt cancellation disappear historically?
"Michael: I guess in about the second or third century AD it was downplayed in the Bible.
After Jesus died, you had, first of all, St Paul taking over, and basically Christianity was
created by one of the most evil men in history, the anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria. He
gained power by murdering his rivals, the Nestorians, by convening a congress of bishops and
killing his enemies. Cyril was really the Stalin figure of Christianity, killing everybody
who was an enemy, organizing pogroms against the Jews in Alexandria where he ruled.
"It was Cyril that really introduced into Christianity the idea of the Trinity. That's
what the whole fight was about in the third and fourth centuries AD. Was Jesus a human, was
he a god? And essentially you had the Isis-Osiris figure from Egypt, put into Christianity.
The Christians were still trying to drive the Jews out of Christianity. And Cyril knew the
one thing the Jewish population was not going to accept would be the Isis figure and the
Mariolatry that the church became. And as soon as the Christian church became the
establishment rulership church, the last thing it wanted in the West was debt
cancellation.
"You had a continuation of the original Christianity in the Greek Orthodox Church, or the
Orthodox Church, all the way through Byzantium. And in my book And Forgive Them Their Debts,
the last two chapters are on the Byzantine echo of the original debt cancellations, where one
ruler after another would cancel the debts. And they gave very explicit reason for it: if we
don't cancel the debts, we're not going to be able to field an army, we're not going to be
able to collect taxes, because the oligarchy is going to take over. They were very explicit,
with references to the Bible, references to the jubilee year. So you had Christianity survive
in the Byzantine Empire. But in the West it ended in Margaret Thatcher. And Father
Coughlin.
"Tribes: He was the '30s figure here in the States.
"Michael: Yes: anti-Semite, right-wing, pro-war, anti-labor. So the irony is that you have
the people who call themselves fundamentalist Christians being against everything that Jesus
was fighting for, and everything that original Christianity was all about."
Hudson says debt forgiveness was one of the central tenets of Judaism: "... if you
take the Bible literally, it's the fight in almost all of the early books of the Old
Testament, the Jewish Bible, all about the fight over indebtedness and debt
cancellation."
Looks like I'll be purchasing Hudson's book as he's essentially unveiling a whole new,
potentially revolutionary, historical interpretation.
Iran dumped the petrodollar recently.
Iran is vital player in OBOR.
Iran is the most important square on the board for the Great Game.
Any war with Iran with bring in both Russia and China.
Iran has nukes bought on the black market during the collapse of the USSR,I've
seen the CIA reports.
Only a suicidal idiot would attack Iran. Israel cannot steal the Litani Delta on which its survival depends while Iran
supplies Hezbollah. Israel must have that water now. Now.
This is now a bar fight and anything could and will happen.
@ deschutes 6 Washington and Israel just keep winning and winning and winning.
I guess I missed it. Where are they winning?
--Iraq, nope.
--Syria, no, big loss.
--Lebanon, they lost there
--more losses for the US in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Libya, Somalia.....
So where?
13 - Hudson has done a lot of research on debt cancellation and the Jubilee. It's scattered
throughout the bible. Fascinating work on his part. Of course some Jews and Christians are
prone to cherry-pick the "good book".
Israeli law relating to Israel going to war was changed on 30 April 2018. Instead of
requiring approval of the Knesset, it now just requires Netanyahu and the Israeli Defense
Minister (appointed by one B.N.) to agree.
The Israelis have also stated that if the Iranian
forces in Syria attack Israel, Israel will attack Iran. So all that needs happen for WWIII is
for Israel's pet ISIS stooges to fire a few mortars into the occupied Golan (*), which Israel
will deem to have been fired by Iranians in Syria, and boom! The rest of the world will then
be left to sort out the mess (US troops are now stationed at key points in Israel, and thus
likely to be hit in any Iranian response to Israel's attack).
* - in the past, these same terrorists have fired mortars into the Occupied Golan whenever
the SAA has taken them on. This resulted in Israel deeming them to have been fired by the
SAA, 'justifying' Israel's subsequent attacks on the SAA forces attacking ISIS.
A few too many seem to believe the Zionist state immune from massive retaliation if it were
to attack Iran. IMO, Zion would suffer catastrophic losses to its most vital infrastructure
thanks to Zionist and Outlaw US Empire targeting of same elsewhere thus rendering such
targets fair game. Attacking Iran would be a colossal mistake, but Nutty seems to think it
would be genius.
@ karlof1 with the Michale Hudson link....thanks!!
Here is the quote that I really like from that interview
" Michael: No. You asked what is the fight about? The fight is whether the state will be taken
over, essentially to be an extension of Wall Street if you do not have government planning.
Every economy is planned. Ever since the Neolithic (era), you've had to have (a form of)
planning. If you don't have a public authority doing the planning, then the financial
authority becomes the planners. So globalism is in the financial interest –Wall Street
and the City of London, doing the planning, not governments. They will do the planning in
their own interest. So neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at large,and
to make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were under
feudalism. "
karlof1, please email me as I would like to read the book as well and maybe we can share a
copy.
And yes, it is relevant to Netanyahoo and his ongoing passel of lies because humanity has
been told and been living these lives for centuries...it is time to stop this shit and grow
up/evolve
It would be too, too, bad if Iran were to precipitously target Israeli civilians--or even
worse, US troops in theater-- in such a heinous and spectacular way as to merit a decisive
nuclear response from Israel, don't you think? The only way Israel wins a war with Iran is by
a preemptive nuclear attack that decimates the country and kills millions. So either Israel
doesn't really want a war with Iran, or it does. If it does, then it is looking for an excuse
to nuke the country.
I need hardly point out that the discovery of "proof" that Iran was developing its own
nuclear weapon with intent to use against Israel would be cited earnestly by the Times,
Guardian, and Post as somewhat excusing Israel's otherwise excessive obliteration of an
entire people and civilization, which would doubtless be condemned in one or two editorials
and then forgotten. Most Americans could be easily moved to support a decimating nuclear
strike against Iran. What's anybody else gonna do about it?
As people become more disillusioned with Trump I think it's worthwhile to spend a moment to
take stock of what happened in th 2016 election.
1) The US President is the primary determinant of US foreign and military power. The
President is much weaker when addressing domestic policy / internal affairs. Any small, paranoid nation with ambitious plans in its neighborhood would want ensure that
they have the President's ear ( or his balls). Too much at stake to take chances. And political influence is even easier when you've developed close relation with an
oil-rich ally (Saudis) with deep pockets.
2) US democracy is money-driven and no real populist stands much of a chance.
3) Despite a groundswell of discontent on both the left and the right, here were only two
populists that ran in the election (note: I'm not counting Rand Paul's because he didn't make
an outright populist appeal - he merely spoke in a sensible way.
4) When Obama was President, he was kept in line by the "Birthers". Trump is kept in line
by the allegation of Russian interference.
5) "Never Trump-ers" were mainly Jewish (AFAIK) and almost certainly pro-Israel. The Never
Trump campaign began in earnest with Kagan's Op-Ed in February 2016 ( some might date it to
Bloomberg's public statement in January 2016 that neither Sanders or Trump could be allowed
to win).
6) AFAIK Pro-Israel oligarchs (like Saban, Soros, Bloomberg) are big donors to Democratic
Party. Hillarry and DNC are known to have colluded against 'sheep-dog' Sanders. Wouldn't
Hillary just as easily collide FOR Trump (the Cinton's And Trump's are known to have had
close ties - and their daughters are still close).
I'm sure I'm missing some of the many "dots" but it logic suggests that both Obama and
Trump are faux populists that - at least in foreign policy (where Presidential powers are
greatest) - are greatly influenced by foreign(albeit "allied") interests.
IMO Apologists for the faux populists also play an important part. They respond
voraciously to the "crazy opposition" and thereby keep alive faith in the faux hero.
Faux populist leaders seem to be a natural fit for our inverted totalitarian form of
government. Perhaps any Empire will naturally gravitate to such a compromised government?
Funny thing is, most Americans would say that USA is NOT an Empire.
@20 yonatan.. good point which bears remembering..
@27 mother of g... debkafile... israel run disinfo site..
@31 jr.. it is not just what happened in the 2016.. it is what is ongoing and really
nothing has much changed.. well, maybe it has changed slightly in that americans might just
be coming to realize how it doesn't matter who is in power.. the same financial interests
behind the scene are calling the shots - as you note..
I should point out that "kept in line" (point #4) appears to be a convenience needed to
excuse the faux populist's betrayals.
Both Obama and Trump seem more than willing to do as they are told.
And don't bother citing Obama's Iran deal as "proof" that Obama was independent. IMO That
deal was made simply to buy time because regime-change in Syria was taking longer than
expected. It is foolish to think that Obama did everything the establishment wanted but
refused IN THAT ONE MATTER.
Consider what Russia has accomplished regarding its international standing by standing by its
allies, keeping its word, honoring treaties, refusing to be baited into wars of words or
actual wars.
There is no way Russia will allow its ME standing to be reduced in the world's eyes by
standing by while the West attacks Iran.
Afghanistan, Syria and Iran were the first countries
Stalin signed treaties with after WW2, Putin will not let Iran go down.
I also think the reason Israel is trying to get a war going right now is because BiBi
suspects Putin doesn't want the Soccer games to be sanctioned. But games or no, Russia will
stand by Iran.
I can't quite see that the situation has changed that much from all the previous attempts by
Netanyahu to get the US to attack Iran. Israel needs the US to do the attack. They can't do
it themselves. Now that b has shown that Netanyahu has nothing new, the only new elements are
Jared having the ear of Trump (no doubt also warhawks in office), and Netanyahu's closeness
to being prosecuted.
However, Trump's history as a war president is not good for what Netanyahu wants. Two big
bangs with no consequences, and that attack in Yemen, are all that Trump and the military
have been able to agree. It's difficult to know who played the largest roles in those
decisions. Giving Trump a bang that would please him is obviously significant, but who held
back from a deeper engagement? In the case of the 59 Tomahawks, it was said to be the
military holding him back. I have to say that I suspect that it was also Trump himself. Big
mouth, little action, as they say. Real war could seriously harm Trump's lifestyle. I can't
see it. A bang is fine as long as there are no consequences
If Israel and its basement gimp want a war with Iran, what is Putin supposed to do? He
can't very well go to war with either without risking the annihilation of the planet and he
knows this very well. And, being rational, he won't go to war with either.
It is not his
fault that Israel and its basement gimp gorge themselves unceasingly on destruction and
carnage. He and Russia are not the hero of some Louis L'Amour pulp western for Chrissakes.
One thing he might do is extend anti-ballistic protection to Iran, perhaps in partnership
with China.
The only way that Israel and its basement gimp can be definitely turned from Iran is if it
becomes clear that to go against Iran is to go against Russia and China. Israel would still
in that case be willing to throw its basement gimp into the fight, but the US generals would
in that scenario (I trust) simply refuse to engage.
"Israeli jets are rumored to have wrongly identified themselves as coalition planes when
hitting that Iranian/Syrian depot the other day, flying along the coalition corridor going
through Jordan and W. Iraq. If true, that's an insane move..."
Ha! Just wait until these "coalition" jets "accidentally" strike Russian interests. Who
knows what opportunities could present themselves in the ensuing chaos?
Posted by: Clueless Joe | May 1, 2018 4:18:55 PM | 38 re Israeli jets masking as coalition;
That was pretty sneaky, I wonder if they cleared that with the US or maybe Pompeo? I could
not understand why Russia/Syria defenses didn't respond, thank you.
For all those here running their various scenarios, never forget that Russia is in the ME,
not as visitor, but as the dominant SuperPower with roots deep in some of the region's
nations (via USSR history). It is also the number one petroleum producer and number one
natural gas pipeline country. It also is a major arms supplier in the region.
Israel cannot abide any of this. So to think there is a "deal" between Russia/Putin and Israel/Bibi is ludicrous. They are
mortal rivals for the turf of the ME and its markets and nexus for trade of major
comodities. Russia bought its place with blood and bone in Syria.
It has two bases in Syria and will be there for 50 more years. Russia now has a Eastern Mediterranean fleet, not just some overflow of the Black Sea
Fleet. Russia is one of three Super Powers. Israel is a flea (even with 350 nukes) compared to
Russia. Unless Israel can convince the US to destroy Russia directly, it will lose the rivalry for
hegemony over the ME.
The only Israeli game plan that makes sense is if Iran can be suckered into a war that
costs it Hezbollah and most of the Syrian Army. Then Syria will splinter, Lebanon will disintegrate and Russia will be in an untenable
position to stay.
So, from Russian strategic position it now holds, no war on a large scale is allowable.
Russia can manage Turkey and Kurds, Syria and US bases, Israel and Hezbollah, and all the
leftover ISIS and AQ insurgencies. Therefore, Russia/Putin will shape things to keep things as they are which will lead to
political solutions that Russia can manage. Russia will be the most benign hegemon, influential and accommodating. It has done
remarkable things in 2.5 years of war.
We will see what the next round of Astana talks brings to Syria. But, for certain, Russia is not going to give anything to Israel. Russia needs Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah to deal with CENTCOM, the Arabs, Israel and
NATO. Now, think of some scenarios that make sense if you will.
Posted by: WJ | May 1, 2018 4:22:28 PM | 39
Thank you; I understand your reasoning, but remember after Iran they will come for Russia and
Russia knows it. Better to fight in someone else's yard than your own, always.
Plus I think Mad dog Mattis is not Bibi's pal nor is he or the Pentagon up for a war with
Iran nor Russia.
"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in
their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen
in to a simultaneous translation.
"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama
replied, according to the French interpreter. Reuters.
Israel cannot afford a war with Iran, the postage stamp size state of Israel has most of its
population and vital infrastructure within the metropolitan area of Tel Aviv including its
only International airport Ben Gurion.
Theoretically Hezbollah alone could turn Tel Aviv into
rubble with a thousand missiles per square mile. Then add missiles from Syria and Iran. As for
Israels gas rigs and warships, Hezbollah have the Chinese C-802 sea skimming missiles. Israel
could disappear if they are not careful. Better for them to say, why don't you [US] and him
[Iran] fight and leave us out of it?
@ 6: A lot of us out here feel your pain, but, just stay informed as best you can, share your
information with whomever you can, and support like minded sites and individuals.
You might wanna' read post 38 on the previous thread by Kalen. Interesting post.
If Nikki Haley was supposedly voted most likable US politician hence I suggest, lock the US
insane asylum and throw out the key, since now anything will be blabbermouthed and nothing of
substance will really happen except some unwitting crisis actors will die, a fact of inhumane
cruelty of imperial rulers.
Where are dire warnings from Russia about severe consequences if Syria attacked.
Russians lost credibility of their threats which is even worse if they have never made
them.
I do not know what it would take for people to see what cruel charade all this is, what
would it take for people to realize that it is all Roman type of theater of wilderness and
pain and we are audience and targets of this propaganda of fear of global nuke war and
destruction that they want us to believe is behind all this cruel soap opera.
There will be no global war since there are no fundamental conflicts within global elites
despite what propaganda from all sides claims and that including b, trying to make sense of
utter unadulterated nonsense of MSM, for those establishment people in west who are already
in it are not idiots but rational people who do that immoral, opportunist job for money
knowing what they lie about, knowing that there is no danger of global nuke catastrophe
whatsoever, otherwise they would act more sober like it was during Cold War.
However, there is logic in this madness, namely to forcefully align nations with
discredited ruling elites who attempt to take role of saviors, when no other method of
control over population works any more and policies of deliberated destruction of welfare and
civil society, openly provoked mass unrest or revolution and instigated natural growth of
working class movements in self defense. Warmongering was classical ploy against discontented
population used many times in history and nor mere speculation.
Spreading of fear of global anihilation among populations is the ultimate objective of
this unheard of verbal and acting belligerence on world stage, which upon examination of
basic socioeconomic facts especially soundness and calm of global financial system indicates
mood of world peace and love among oligarchic elites who have a good thing going while
sheeple are orderly dying of starvation and fear.
But I guess even on this quite brainy blog people are more interested in menacing tabloid
surrealism than boring naked truth. Otherwise, b would not have much to write about in his
devastating reports on masive MSM lying, with implicit hope that one day may be NYT writes
some truth.
It ain's gonna happen b , their business is lies yours it seems is to skillfully debunk
them, these are ironically two sides of the same coin of unsubstantiated hope of making any
difference anymore.
Posted by: ben | May 1, 2018 4:54:29 PM | 46
I understand your reasoning, but I don't believe the global elites are in sync; I do believe
that they are jockeying for position to try and eat each other's lunch.
Just because no blood is split at Davos or any other of their Kool Kids gatherings doesn't
mean they are united in plan or policy. Absolutely, minions are not of any importance to
them, but neither do they value each other. Think of the globalists worldview as you would
that of a shark tank.
These are all very good points. However, what nags at my perhaps paranoid soul are the
possibilities opened up by just two of them:
A. Unless Israel can convince the US to destroy Russia directly, it will lose the rivalry
for hegemony over the ME.
B. The only Israeli game plan that makes sense is if Iran can be suckered into a war that
costs it Hezbollah and most of the Syrian Army.
"A" gives Israel a very strong incentive to orchestrate some kind of direct engagement
between Russia and the U.S. If Israel's hegemony over the ME really is at stake, then is the
risk of WWIII a big enough *dis*incentive to prevent the orchestration of a hot conflict
between US and Russia? I am not so sure.
"B" strikes me as true. But any war costing Iran Hezbollah and most of the Syrian army is
going to be a war that pretty much destroys Israel as well. No? And yet Israel *does* seem to
be suckering Iran into hot war, in the hopes that the U.S. will be forced to come to Israel's
defense.
But in *this* scenario, you now have the U.S. running into war on behalf of Israel against
Iran--and this is *precisely* the kind of large-scale war Russia does not want to
"allow."
I certainly hope you are right and I just *am* being paranoid. But I worry sometimes that
some of the more knowledgeable and experienced analysts and strategists on this site assume
that something like a basic rationality of self-interest informs all of the relevant state
actors in play here, as it (theoretically) should. But in the case of Israel and the U.S.,
I'm not sure this is a safe assumption to make. (Not saying it's your assumption; just trying
to explain myself.)
Iran has just announced it will "surprise" Israel. My first thought was might Iran grant dual
Iranian citizenship to all of the Palestinians in Gaza and demand Iran be able to negotiate
on their behalf? Sigh, probably not.
Iran's FM Zarif gave an important talk at CFR recently, in which he promoted the importance
of dialog. He also mentioned hegemony:
And something which is most important to realize: the era of hegemonic influence is long
gone. I'm not talking about the United States. The United States did try, after the Cold
War, all the way -- I mean, first Iraq War, you remember, new world order, then new
American century, all of that -- didn't work.
I'm talking about our region. Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia can be the
hegemons of the
region. That's a fact. We need to realize and appreciate this fact, however heartbreaking
it may be. None of us can become this new hegemon. . . here
It might also be worthwhile to discuss again what Israel's objectives really are. obviously
there's a degree where Netanyahu's obsession with Iran is irrational, and he's faced with
prosecution. Though the prosecution problem could be solved by another attack on Gaza.
Evidently the original aim of an attack on Iran was to reduce it to confusion, in the
Libyan style. And to cut Iranian support for Hizbullah. But, you know, Hizbullah now have a
stack of missiles, enough to reduce Israel to a queue of people at Lod airport waiting for
their flight out.
Invading Syria by land, as Mother of God suggests, is out, as although the initial
invasion would succeed, Israel would be left in a worse situation than today, because they
would have an open border, easily crossed by Jihadis.
The Israeli militaristic policy towards its neighbours started in 1948, according to Avi
Shlaim's Iron Wall . Initially it was much disputed, and the first raids were
unofficial. But militarism gained place in the government, and now rules everywhere. But it's
reached its limit. There's nowhere to go.
What will an American attack on Iran, on behalf of Israel, achieve? The answer is nothing.
Unless you believe the Iranian exiles in the States, who are feeding constantly the idea into
Washington, that the Iranian regime is about to fall. That's wrong. The Iranian regime is
actually popular. They're a populist regime. But the Iranian exiles still believe in their
aristocratic divine right to rule.
Bibi is playing the end game for Israel. He is grinding the last of the Palestinians out and
will drive them to Lebanon and Syria. That is the 'something big going on' that many have
mentioned.
This is the Ashkenazi move to ethnically cleanse Israel - to finally expel Palestinians
under the cover of some Syrian/Iran sideshow. Israel military will seize all essential
environmental resources under hezbolah control and secure its agricultural needs in a greater
Israel. And they will claim they have now created an enduring peace, that we can all stay
asleep and all will be good forever after.
Always ask: what is the highest goal in Israel's self interest and purity of the Jewish
state is likely up there alongside absolute dominance.
The most successful US policy in recent years against its enemies has been sanctions, not
military action. Because, of course, the US controls the financial networks, and a country
excluded will suffer, which led to Obama's agreement with Iran.
Netanyahu wanting war with Iran is old-fashioned, and pointless.
#42 red ryder has it essentially correct in assessing Russia's strategic and local mid-east
views, interests and strategies.
"....So, from Russian strategic position it now holds, no war on a large scale is
allowable. Russia can manage Turkey and Kurds, Syria and US bases, Israel and Hezbollah, and
all the leftover ISIS and AQ insurgencies... But,for certain, Russia is not going to give
anything to Israel. Russia needs Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah to deal with CENTCOM, the
Arabs, Israel and NATO..."
Russia basically wants business with all these nations, including even Israel; it does not
want to provoke wars but to settle things by negotiations and making deals, that's why Putin
again and again has stressed international laws, agreements (like the nuclear deal with Iran)
and respect for sovereignty, etc etc.....& also for example moving Turkey more into its
orbit and farther out from Nato's influence using all the carrots (and sticks) of a very
resource-rich economic super-power that also undoubtedly has some of the best defensive and
offensive weapons in the world.
US policy in the long run is a loser, it has outsourced much of its manufacturing base,
its middle class and lower classes are suffering, and worst of all for the world its foreign
policy relies almost entirely on using the big stick method, everything from the 'soft power'
of economic sanctions, currency manipulations, withdrawal of foreign aid, right up to
internal subversion, regime change, armed attacks, invasion and occupation.
@52
FM Zarif also, at CFR, addressed the Iran economy and unemployment.
You see, our economic indicators are very good: 8 percent growth. Eight percent growth in
today's world is one of the best. Between 700(,000) and 900,000 new jobs every year -- even
here that would be a good figure.
From 45 percent inflation to single-digit inflation last year -- these are good numbers,
but every year 1.2 million people enter the job market in Iran. We can only produce 900
(sic) new jobs. Three hundred thousand people --
HADLEY: Nine hundred thousand.
ZARIF: Nine hundred thousand new jobs. Three hundred thousand people are added to the pool
of unemployed every year. That creates discontent, disappointment. People expected -- in
spite of all these good numbers, people expected more, because -- and here we get to the
failure of the international community -- people expected the international community to
perform in the same manner we performed under the nuclear deal.
We had 11 reports of the IAEA saying that Iran performed. But since President Trump came to
office, not a single license has been issued, not a single OFAC license, in 16 months. So
the United States is already in violation. And people say, what happened? What happened to
all the promises that engagement with the international community would produce economic
dividends? And that leads to resentment.
It seems like the latest twist in the IFUKUS zio-startegy will be to cut off Iran (by
mainting a foothold East Syria & West Iraq) and using these areas to partition Syria and
to continue attacking Iranin/Syrian assets in Syria (possibly in Iran proper if all else
fails) provoking Iran and thereby dragging FUKUS into another conflict. All of this ongoing
domestic sideshow (Trump war is Deep State) will be used to distract people in the US from
these foreign provocations
The days of ISIS controlling territory and terrorizing the people of Syria are coming to an
end," State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said on Tuesday
...
This is intriguing, because the only remaining IS presence is near the Iraqi border,
with a pocket south of Damascus currently being cleared out by Syrian government
forces
...
Nauert also said the US will ensure there is a "strong and lasting footprint" in Syria
so that IS cannot return and the liberated populations "are not exploited by the Assad
regime or its Iranian supporters."
... US statements supporting the territorial integrity of Syria "are only words" that serve as
cover for "plans to partition Syria," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on
Saturday, after a meeting with Turkish and Iranian officials in Moscow. Lavrov had also
warned earlier this year about Western plans to partition Syria.
The US and its allies intend to occupy the eastern part of Syria and partition the
country, in order to "use the Sunnis in East Syria and West Iraq to form a barricade to
stop any Iranian influence and cut off supplies to Hezbollah."
Washington's objectives are aligned with the axis between Israel and Saudi Arabia,
Maloof added, with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu hoping the US will fight Iran for
Israel.
"They will go alone if they have to and drag the US into it," Maloof told RT.
"We're getting sucked into another war."
... "ISIS is a sideshow. The real US targets are the Syrian government and its Russian and
Iranian backers," Jatras said. "The stage is being set for a confrontation with
Iran, in which Syria is simply one theater."
"The reference to Christians is simply cynical. It is intended to make Americans
think we give a damn about Syria's Christians , despite seven years of arming and
funding jihadists for whom Christians are prime targets for murder and enslavement," Jatras
explained.
Outlaw US Empire Zionists did their utmost to make the Yinon Plan reality and failed. Next
to that Empire and its twin UK the Zionist state is a global pariah far worse than South
Africa. Its behavior is such that no amount of political cover by the Empire and its vassals
can save it from its fate, which eventually will be similar to South Africa's.
The only real
remaining question: How many more will die to forestall the death of the artificial state of
Israel and return of Palestine. I don't begrudge Hebrews a place within their natural
surround; Zionists, however, don't belong anywhere; their thought--and those sharing it--must
become extinct as there's no room on this planet for their kind.
Why does everyone assume that Israel or US would wage a traditional war against Iran?
Much more effective to attack Hez in Lebanon, isn't it? Instead of waiting for a barrage from Hez, strike them first under the catch-all excuse:
"Israel has a right to defend itself."
Taking southern Lebanon and continuing to destabilize Syria is a better strategy than
attacking Iran directly I think. Also, I think Bibi &crew have convinced themselves that Israel has to expand or have
pliable neighbors as a strategic necessity.
The US plan to partition Syria is dead. We're just waiting for the US to admit it. Trump
was right in wanting to withdraw from Syria. Even the Rojavan Kurds, under US constraint, are ready to make a deal with Asad.
@Don Bacon | May 1, 2018 4:59:59 PM | 47 Indeed, everyone thinks Carter is the oh so cuddly Uncle Jimmy, but the Carter doctrine is
what started the whole modern ME mess. The Neo-conservatives that followed after with their
"New American Century" just wrote implementation plans for what Carter laid out.
But can you believe Trump.After the latest missile attack ( or just before), b wrote a post that noted that Before
the *first* missile attack one year ago, Trump was saying that he had no interest in Syria.
It appeared (back then) that Trump was ready to leave Syria. Of course, that didn't
happen.
.
Can Iran afford simply not to respond at all to such a concerted attack upon Hezbollah in
Lebanon and/or Syria?
I am doubtful that it can. The consequence would simply be Israel's gaining readier access to
attack Iran directly. From the Israeli point of view, a non-destroyed Iran is simply an Iran
that will patiently go about rebuilding and refunding Hezbollah in whatever area it has been
forced to retreat to. Perhaps the cycle will just adjust and then repeat itself again. But I
think Israel feels that it's time to act decisively to secure or forever lose its hold on the
ME is fast narrowing.
The isolation of and threat of war against Iran could just be a way of trying to leverage
Russia to compromise on Syria. It doesn't look like the US or Israel has any way of attacking
Iranian interests on a large scale without risking serious casualities and lasting political
repercussions at home or abroad.
Israel needs only to be sufficiently bitch-slapped during one of its constant incursions
into Lebanese and Syrian airspace to stop its nonsensical escalation. The best hope for peace
would undoubtedly be for Syria to down a few Israeli F-16s or F-35s.
from a Newsweel article quoting Michael Eisenstadt, director of military and security studies
at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank with close ties to the Israeli
military--
Eisenstadt, who has closely studied Soleimani's tactics, says he expects the Iranian
military leader will press ahead with his strategy to turn Syria into a missile platform
against Israel.
The role of the estimated 2,000 Iranian troops now in Syria, he adds, is to
set up the military infrastructure for that endeavor, including factories to produce
sophisticated GPS-guided missiles with increased accuracy to hit high-value military and
economic targets in Israel.
Once this has been accomplished, he said, Soleimani will turn
these bases over to Hezbollah and allied Shiite militias. "The goal is to surround Israel
on almost every side with proxies equipped with rockets to be able to bombard Israel,"
Eisenstadt says. "He wants to do in Syria what he did for Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a
lesser extent, for Hamas in Gaza." . . here
Thank you for this. Note that the Iranian strategy of ballistic countermeasures against
Israeli land targets is premised in part on the assumption of Israel's continued domination
of the region's airspace. A robust Syrian air defense--which would have to include a full
array of strategically located S-300s--would mitigate the need for Iran to target Israel
ballistically from Syria.
I suggest this
new item by Alastair Crooke and then this article he
links to get a handle on the nuances within Great Game III, which I've called the Hybrid
Third World War between the Outlaw US Empire's seeking Full Spectrum Dominance and the rising
Multinational Alliance's core members China, Russia and Iran.
Within this Game, the Zionist
state actually has next to no role to play -- it's essentially inconsequential except for its
exceptional genocidal racism. Within this new Great Game, which is the more important
player--Saudi Arabia or the Zionist state? Saudi Arabia, of course, until it no longer has
hydrocarbons to export; then, neither will matter much. And here I must allude to Hudson's
essay I linked to as much of this Game is about the future form of finance and the role its
allowed.
Admittedly, there's a lot to digest reading all these essays on top of continuing to be
informed of the Now. IMO, as things now stand, the Outlaw US Empire will lose Great Game III
unless it drastically changes its direction, which is currently unlikely until 2020, and is
in no way a sure thing then. Hudson's adamant that the 2008 meltdown was never recovered from
in the West and that its ripe for another episode. Perhaps knowing it's impotent is why
promoting Chaos seems to be the #1 goal of Imperial policy as only it wins in the short run,
although some understand its downside--losing in the long run.
No, what I mean is that war on Iran is out of date. It won't achieve what
Netanyahu wants. It would only consolidate Islamo-nationalism in Iran. From what I understand of Iranian opinion, it's quite complicated, but it's certain that a
US attack on Iran would consolidate opinion behind the government, rather than weakening
it.
It looks to me that the nature of land combat is changing because of the advances in missile
propulsion and targeting technology. Notice the last offensive the US made was with missiles,
aircraft not invited. Iran especially (and Hez) has few piloted air assets, and lots of
missiles. So it's sort of a MAD situation. You send me some destruction and you'll get some
in return.
This revolution is being fought by the big aircraft manufacturers, of course, the Boeings and
Lockheeds, they're making a mint on F-35, but there's a shortage of pilots and who needs them
anyhow when a less expensive missile can do the same job maybe better.
Wars can't (usually) be won without boots on the ground. Troops in boots have to occupy the
country and subdue the locals who don't want foreigners in their country. Just like we would
feel. It took the mighty(?)
US Army four years just to subdue Baghdad fifteen years ago.
Currently the US Army is having recruiting problems because 71% of youth 17-24 are
ineligible, can't qualify. Too fat, mostly. They say they don't change the standards, which
is correct, they just issue waivers.
These guys are going to subdue Persians in their
homeland, people who died by the tens of thousands resisting US-supported Iraq not so long
ago, with Iraq using US- and German-supplied chemical weapons? . . . Fuggedaboutit! . . . And
Israelis wouldn't fare any better, methinks.
"... Mossad operatives broke into the [Tehran warehouse building] one night last January
[2016], removed the original documents and smuggled them back to Israel the same night, the
official [speaking on conditions of anonymity] said ..."
Did they remember to leave their passports (with the personal details stolen from other
people's passports) behind? If no fake passports were found, then that's one indication that Israel is lying as is
also the anonymity of the senior Israeli official telling the story.
Posted by: WJ | May 1, 2018 6:46:49 PM | 75
re the much delayed s-300's
There is a very recent video interview of Assad in which he says the s-300s have arrived.
The Russians said they were considering selling the s-300s to Syria. Then I saw an article
that said Russia was going to give them (for free) to Syria. If you think about it; if some
s-300s are currently Russian and if they are being "given" to Syria, then both stories; that
Russia is considering selling them and Russia gave them for free are true. Tricky rascals
those Russians:)
- One also has to keep in mind that Netanjahu (and his wife Sarah) is involved in a
corruption lawsuit. No wonder, he wants to distract the people from his legal troubles.
Take note the Mueller is about to make another move against Trump. The Deep State must be
ready for their next attack in the ME--Iran, perhaps, this time. Where's that carrier group
that left for those parts a couple of weeks ago?
@13 / 78 karlof1... thanks very much for the links to michael hudson, alastair crooke and the
bruno maraces articles...
they were all good for different reasons, but although hudson is being criticized for
glossing over some of his talking points, i think the main thrust of his article is very
worthwhile for others to read! the quote to end his article is quite good "The question is,
who do you want to run the economy? The 1% and the financial sector, or the 99% through
politics? The fight has to be in the political sphere, because there's no other sphere that
the financial interests cannot crush you on."
it seems to me that the usa has worked hard to bad mouth or get rid of government and the
concept of government being involved in anything.. of course everything has to be run by a
'private corp' - ie corporations must run everything.. they call them oligarchs when talking
about russia, lol - but they are corporations when they are in the usa.. slight rant..
another quote i especially liked from hudson.. "They call themselves free marketers, but
they realize that you cannot have neoliberalism unless you're willing to murder and
assassinate everyone who promotes an alternative." that sounds about right...
@ 84 juliania.. aside from your comments on hudsons characterization of st paul "the
anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria" further down hudson basically does the same with father
coughlin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin..
he gets the anti-semite tag as well.. i don't know much about either characters, so it's
mostly greek to me, but i do find some of hudsons views especially appealing - debt
forgiveness being central to the whole article as i read it...
it is interesting my own view on how money is so central to the world and how often times
i am incapable of avoiding the observation of the disproportionate number of jewish people in
banking.. i guess that makes me anti-semite too, but i don't think of myself that way.. i
think the obsession with money is killing the planet.. i don't care who is responsible for
keeping it going, it is killing us...
Just so long as you remember that most of the strongest and most moving condemnations of
greed and money in the ancient and (today) western world are also Jewish--i.e. Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Micah, the Gospels, Letter of James, etc.
The history of Jewish banking after the fall or Rome is inextricable from cultural
anti-judaism of Christian west and east and de facto marginalization/ghettoization of Jews
from most aspects of social life. The Jewish lending of money on interest to gentiles was
both necessary for early mercantilist trade and yet usury was prohibited by the church. So
Jewish money lenders were essential to and yet ostracized within European economies for
centuries. Now Christianity has itself long given up on the tradition teaching against usury
of course.
"... Israel is annoying everyone in the Syrian theater. Note well that the scale of impact is in the "annoying" range. Kind of like the "bluster" of the US but even more constrained by forces on the ground all around it. ..."
"... No one in the region believes that Russia or Iran have failed at anything. Observers simply hope they have the good fortune to see the revenge, knowing that they may never know how Iran counters - if in fact it ever does. ..."
"... Russia is working to move the final resolution of Syria into political methods rather than military - this is very important to keep in mind with all appraisals of the situation. It's time to repeat that Russia is working for peace, not to win battles. The two efforts are very different, and create different tactics. ..."
"... I echo that feeling. The explosions in Hama and Aleppo, for which there still remains no official report, have kicked up rampant speculation and many strange comments on this site. ..."
"... The idea that Russia is all bluster, has no clue what's going on, has abandoned Syria, or that the whole Russian exercise is due to Putin "begging to be admitted in the Western Club," flies in the face of facts on the ground. ..."
"... Putin is where he says he is. He was already part of the club (G8) and he left because the club was filled with jackasses. Putin is forming his own club, with Xi. ..."
Thanks to posters for links to
Garrie on a possible "white hat" false flag and to
Magnier for a plum-rich storytelling of how Israel is on the losing end of a shift in the
balance of power, something that as yet it cannot admit to itself.
Israel is annoying everyone in the Syrian theater. Note well that the scale of impact
is in the "annoying" range. Kind of like the "bluster" of the US but even more constrained by
forces on the ground all around it.
I'm astonished that anyone would think that Putin doesn't understand the US or what is
going on in the Syria theater. Russian commanders are in constant contact with all forces
that bear on the situation, including those of the US, and Israel. And Putin has spelled out
on numerous occasions - in interviews, from the Valdai Club, from his remarks directly to
journalists and his people - what the empire is doing.
No one has lost face in this latest event, except Israel with Netanyahu's inane
presentation, currently being called out as empty by Europeans.
No one in the region believes that Russia or Iran have failed at anything. Observers
simply hope they have the good fortune to see the revenge, knowing that they may never know
how Iran counters - if in fact it ever does.
Russia is working to move the final resolution of Syria into political methods rather
than military - this is very important to keep in mind with all appraisals of the situation.
It's time to repeat that Russia is working for peace, not to win battles. The two efforts are
very different, and create different tactics.
With each situation that Russia confronts, from military attacks to diplomatic property
seizures, Russia looks for the peace dividend. Armchair punters are watching one horse race,
while Russia is looking decades down the road and asking what it takes to create stability
that endures, out of each situation.
Yes, some don't appreciate the giant step that Putin took moving into Syria to oppose The
Leader Of The Free World™ with its president Obama threatening that Russians would soon
be going home in body-bags.
But Russia survived and endured, and made a major point that
right can win over might.
The strategy was brave and the tactics were revolutionary,
including the busing of combatants away from combat. Credit where credit is due, Putin is a
winner at home and abroad, as in Syria (and Crimea, BTW).
"I'm astonished that anyone would think that Putin doesn't understand the US or what is
going on in the Syria theater." Posted by: Grieved | Apr 30, 2018 9:24:11 PM | 107
I echo that feeling. The explosions in Hama and Aleppo, for which there still remains
no official report, have kicked up rampant speculation and many strange comments on this
site.
The idea that Russia is all bluster, has no clue what's going on, has abandoned Syria,
or that the whole Russian exercise is due to Putin "begging to be admitted in the Western
Club," flies in the face of facts on the ground.
Putin is where he says he is. He was already part of the club (G8) and he left because
the club was filled with jackasses. Putin is forming his own club, with Xi.
Saturday's White House Correspondents' Association dinner, billed as a celebration of the
First Amendment and a tribute to journalists who "speak truth to power," has to be the worst
advertisement in memory for our national press corps.
Comedian Michelle Wolf, the guest speaker, recited one filthy joke after another at the
expense of President Trump and his people, using words that would have gotten her kicked out of
school not so long ago.
Media critic Howard Kurtz said he had "never seen a performance like that," adding that Wolf
"was not only nasty but dropping F-bombs on live television." Some of her stuff was grungier
than that.
The anti-Trump media at the black-tie dinner laughed and whooped it up, and occasionally
"oohed" as Wolf went too far even for them, lending confirmation to Trump's depiction of who
and what they are.
While the journalistic elite at the black-tie dinner was reveling in the raw sewage served
up by Wolf, Trump had just wrapped up a rally in Michigan.
The contrast between the two assemblies could not have been more stark. We are truly two
Americas now.
"Why would I want to be stuck in a room with a bunch of fake-news liberals who hate me?"
said Trump in an email to supporters, adding that he would much rather "spend the evening with
my favorite deplorables who love our movement and love America."
"... Demonization of North Korea was the first victim of the summit: the South Koreans saw that the much besmirched Kim was quite a worldly guy, even with a very slight trace of Swiss German in his speech. Women's diplomacy also played a role: Kim's sister, Kim Yo Jong, made the first contact with the President of the South during her visit to the Olympics. Kim's wife, a well-known actress, became friends with Moon's wife. This North Korean ruler is a regular guy, they say today in Seoul. ..."
"... But a sharp-sighted observer of The Guardian had noticed that it won't be easy for Trump to do his usual bellicose sabre-rattling after the peaceful meeting of the two Korean leaders. He has been trapped. "If Trump tries to play hardball with Kim, he risks looking like a warmonger and a bully whose policies are inimical to Korean interests, north and south. Intentionally of otherwise, Moon, a lifelong advocate of detente with personal connections to North Korea, has spiked Trump's guns." ..."
"... Actually, there is not much of reason for the Trump-Kim summit. Trump can take his troops home, and let the Koreans to settle their relations as they find fit. If the Russians and the Chinese did it, so can the Americans, too. The world, including Korea, is fully grown up and it can live without American tutelage. ..."
"... There was an agreement for the nuclear disarmament of North Korea, and the US reneged on it all right. There is an agreement for the denuclearisation of Iran, and now the US President intends to renege on it, too. ..."
"... However, if the US withdraws its troops and agrees to denuclearisation of the peninsula, and if this withdrawal will be "complete, verifiable and irreversible", there is a room for some play. North Korea would like to be treated as a responsible member of the nuclear club, on a par with England and France; it may cease nuclear tests and allow observers or suchlike. ..."
There is no doubt that the people of Korea, of the North and the South, want peaceful
reunification and the prosperity of their country. But so far the US has prevented it. The US
deep state preferred to have its military bases in South Korea with its nuclear weapons aimed
not only at Pyongyang, but also at Beijing and Vladivostok. Last year, the US brought in its
THAAD missile defence system to South Korea, directly threatening the North, Russia, and
China.
The Americans outlined the goal of the talks as they see it – the nuclear disarmament
of North Korea. This is all that interests them. A North Korea without nuclear weapons is
always vulnerable to a volley of Tomahawks, as in Syria. But Kim is not that simple. Instead of
"nuclear disarmament of North Korea," he proposed "the liberation of the Korean peninsula from
nuclear weapons" – and, importantly, these words were repeated by the president of the
South.
The liberation of the peninsula from nuclear weapons means, first of all, the removal of
American bases and occupation forces, and the banning of American ships capable of carrying
nuclear weapons from entering Korean ports. And then, without the invaders being present, the
two independent Koreas will agree on their own terms. This, roughly, is the logic of Kim
– and Moon accepted it, uttering the cherished words "the liberation of the peninsula"
instead of "the elimination of the North Korean nuclear program."
Russia as an original member of the nuclear club has traditionally supported the idea of
nuclear disarmament of all non-member countries. But it does not actively insist
on it, if only because India, Pakistan and Israel are among the new nuclear powers, and the
last not only did not sign the non-proliferation treaty, but also does not agree with any
control over its nuclear weaponry. Under these conditions, it makes no sense to insist on the
nuclear disarmament of North Korea. But, let us repeat, Russia is for disarmament. If this
disarmament brings about the elimination of US bases in South Korea, this can only be
welcomed.
The summit in the DMZ (demilitarized zone) has already had an effect. We have no doubt that
the North is short of freedom, but in the South, there is certainly freedom of speech, isn't
there?
It turned out that in South Korea until this very day no one had seen or heard Kim, the
North Korean president, on a video or in live broadcast. The Independent , a British
quality newspaper,
reported :
Until the meeting, many South Koreans had never actually heard Kim Jong-un speak. The
leader is usually seen only in heavily edited footage, and accessing more videos of him can
land people in jail. "I can't believe I'm listening to the voice of Kim Jong Un. Someone I
have only seen as a jpeg is speaking now," South Korean Lee Yeon-su wrote on Twitter. It is a
dramatic change for South Koreans, who under the National Security Act are banned on threat
of jail from accessing media considered pro-North Korean.
Internet resources "sympathetic to North Korea" or, worse, praising North Korea, are banned
there; and accessing such sites, or listening to Pyongyang Radio can send a South Korean to
prison for several years. A good word about the northern neighbour can earn you a long stretch
in jail under the Law on Combating Terrorism.(The law also provides for the death penalty, but
it has not been used for the last ten years.) Anti-communist propaganda in the South is part of
the school curriculum, part of the news program, part of everyday life.
After the summit, the surprised South Koreans wrote in their social media that the bloody
tyrant from the North looked like a teddy bear, small, plump and cute.
And he speaks the same language as they do. And he eats buckwheat noodles, which they
love.
ORDER IT NOW
Demonization of North Korea was the first victim of the summit: the South Koreans saw
that the much besmirched Kim was quite a worldly guy, even with a very slight trace of Swiss
German in his speech. Women's diplomacy also played a role: Kim's sister, Kim Yo Jong, made the
first contact with the President of the South during her visit to the Olympics. Kim's wife, a
well-known actress, became friends with Moon's wife. This North Korean ruler is a regular guy,
they say today in Seoul.
At the NATO headquarters there was a lot of teeth gnashing and demands not to relax the
sanctions, or rather to add some more sanctions. The Western mainstream media keeps saying that
this summit had been just a preparation for the real main thing, for the meeting of Kim and
Trump. But a sharp-sighted observer of The
Guardian had noticed that it won't be easy for Trump to do his usual bellicose
sabre-rattling after the peaceful meeting of the two Korean leaders. He has been trapped. "If
Trump tries to play hardball with Kim, he risks looking like a warmonger and a bully whose
policies are inimical to Korean interests, north and south. Intentionally of otherwise, Moon, a
lifelong advocate of detente with personal connections to North Korea, has spiked Trump's
guns."
Actually, there is not much of reason for the Trump-Kim summit. Trump can take his
troops home, and let the Koreans to settle their relations as they find fit. If the Russians
and the Chinese did it, so can the Americans, too. The world, including Korea, is fully grown
up and it can live without American tutelage.
It won't be easy sailing. The US wants to keep its fingers in, and demands "complete,
verifiable and irreversible" disarmament of North Korea. But Kim knows what had happened to
countries and leaders that trusted the US promises and disarmed. Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein
disarmed, and were brutally killed. Russia disarmed in 1991 only to find itself being treated
as irrelevant. The US walked out of treaties made in the Soviet days without as much as "by
your leave". Non-nuclear North Korea would already be bombed, as it was in 1950-1953. Nothing
indicates that Kim is a suicidal maniac or a new Gorbachev.
There was an agreement for the nuclear disarmament of North Korea, and the US reneged on
it all right. There is an agreement for the denuclearisation of Iran, and now the US President
intends to renege on it, too.
However, if the US withdraws its troops and agrees to denuclearisation of the peninsula,
and if this withdrawal will be "complete, verifiable and irreversible", there is a room for
some play. North Korea would like to be treated as a responsible member of the nuclear club, on
a par with England and France; it may cease nuclear tests and allow observers or
suchlike.
Israel, this important power behind the Capitol Hill, bears a strong animosity against North
Korea, for North Korea has been instrumental in providing missile technology to the Axis of
Resistance.
The Russians are not going to great lengths for the sake of North Korea. The relations
between two neighbours are cool, mutual trade is small. Russia will probably follow China's
line regarding Korea. The Chinese would like to see a more obedient North Korea, but they are
used to fierce Korean independence by now. They apparently agreed to Kim's steps during recent
Kim's meeting with President Xi.
In such a happy, happy day for Korea, I do not want to think about possible complications.
For the first time in years, light has appeared in the gloomy skies of Korea, divided in 1945,
and never reunited, unlike Vietnam and Germany. Maybe now it's Korea's turn?
"... A week or two ago I read that China was going to help Iran develop nukes if the agreement were eliminated. ..."
"... Appointed by Trump. State Dep is anti Russia whereas Trump is anti Iran. Every US president has to start a war. Would not be American if a president failed at starting a new war. ..."
Iranian officials denounced Netanyahu. And a state-run news agency in Iran said he is
"famous for ridiculous shows." For more on all this, William Brangham is back.
William Brangham:
So, does Israel's presentation today add to our understanding of Iran's nuclear ambitions,
and what does this mean for the Iran deal going forward?
For that, I'm joined now by physicist and former arms control inspector David Albright. He's
currently president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Welcome back to the "NewsHour."
David Albright! The half-bright Iran foe, in person, on PBS for an opinion. And he
provides it. Is the Israel claim real?
Is it real? The Israelis make it clear that the U.S. will vouch for it. The U.S. has the
complete set. So I would start by assuming it is real. And the Israelis are quite capable
of getting into Tehran.
It's pretty remarkable what they did to get into a warehouse and remove that much
information and get it out of Iran, so it's quite an intelligence coup.
And it is a -- Israelis make it clear, it's a huge amount of information. It surprised them
how wide and deep the Iranian nuclear weapons program, just how many things they didn't
know about, I mean, is a constant message today from the Israelis. . .
here
he was right there in the lead up to the war in afganistan and iraq... what is not to trust
about him? LOL>
"In 2001 Albright prepared an analysis, for CNN, of documents found in an abandoned Al
Qaeda safe house in Kabul believed to have been used by Abu Khabbab, who they described as
"Osama bin Laden's top chemical and biological weapons commander."[1] Albright confirmed the
abandoned documents included plans for a nuclear bomb, and extensive training notes on the
handling of radiological material." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Albright
A few more golden oldies to add to b's collection. Little known fact. They created web site
bookmarks so I would have a good way to keep track of Bibi's bulls**t. Keep up the good fight
b.
...and trips to Israel and other perks. On the other hand, if any Congress member who
gives a slight little anti-Israel (i.e. anti-Semitic) peep will become an ex-Congressmember.
It's happened, with highly-financed opposition to a deviant's transgression at the next
biannual election. One example is Cynthia McKinney (links broken....
Forced To Sign Loyalty To Israel - Cynthia McKinney (2014)
A week or two ago I read that China was going to help Iran develop nukes if the agreement
were eliminated. I think they should just provide them a couple and that Iran should aim
a couple of missiles at the Israeli nuclear power plants. This would tighten up the recta of
the Israelis and a Fukushima-like problem might lead to an emigration. Israel, as the tail
wagging the yankee dog, seems to be a significant threat to our survival. By seeming to
provide retrospective justification to the excesses, it is accomplishing the impossible by
making unalloyed evil seem justified by subsequent history.
@122 "which are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally
employed."
Appointed by Trump. State Dep is anti Russia whereas Trump is anti Iran. Every US
president has to start a war. Would not be American if a president failed at starting a new
war.
"... Those who argue that the withdrawal of the U.S. from JCPOA will be countered by the continued cooperation of the other signatories to the agreement are, one might unfortunately note, somewhat delusional. The U.S. has tremendous leverage in financial markets. ..."
"... The United States could force the entire JCPOA quid pro quo agreement to collapse, and that might be precisely what the White House intends to do. ..."
"... Add into the equation the clearly expressed and oft-times repeated Israeli intention to begin a war with Iran, starting in Syria, sooner rather than later, a disaster for American foreign policy is developing that might well make Iraq and Afghanistan look like cake walks. Iran will surely strike back in response either to the termination of the JCPOA or to Israeli bombing of its militiamen and surrogates in Syria. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
The analysis of the recent exchanges
between French President Emmanuel Macron and President Donald Trump suggest that Washington is most likely
about to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement with Iran that was
signed by the U.S. and five other governments in July 2015. The decision will likely be made public before
the deadline on re-ratifying the agreement, which is May 12
th
. As one informed observer
has noted
, "a train wreck is probably coming, with very damaging consequences that are hard to predict."
Macron was polite, both in his meeting
with Trump and during his speech before Congress, not hammering on the unimaginable awfulness of the White
House decision while also offering an alternative, i.e. cooperation with the United States to improve the
nuclear agreement while also supporting the principle that it is worth saving. Whether that subtle nudge,
coupled with a pledge that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon, will be enough to change minds either in
Congress or the White House is questionable as the unfortunate truth is that going to war with Iran is
popular among the policy makers and media for the usual reason: it is a major foreign policy objective of
the Israeli government and its powerful U.S. lobby.
Iran has been vilified for decades in the
American media and it rarely gets a fair hearing anywhere, even when its behavior has not been particularly
objectionable. Currently, it is regularly demonized by the Israelis and their supporters over its apparent
plan to create an arc of Shi'a states extending through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, a so-called "land bridge"
to the Mediterranean Sea. What that would accomplish exactly has never really been made clear and it assumes
that the Syrians and Iraqis would happily surrender their sovereignty to further the project.
The Iranians for their part have made it
clear that no modification of the agreement is possible. They note, correctly, that the JCPOA was not a
bilateral commitment made between Tehran and Washington. It also included as signatories Russia, China,
France, Britain and the European Union and was ratified by the United Nations (P5+1). They and others also
have noted that U.S. exit from the agreement will mean that other nations will negotiate with Washington
with the understanding that a legal commitment entered into by the President of the United States cannot be
trusted after he is out of office.
Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to
eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and
reduce by two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years. For the next 15 years, Iran will only
enrich uranium up to non-weapons level of 3.67%. Iran also pledged not to build any new heavy-water
facilities and to limit uranium-enrichment activities for research and medical purposes to a plant using old
technology centrifuges for a period of 10 years. To guarantee compliance with the agreement, Iran accepted
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) proposal that it have highly intrusive access by a team of
unannounced inspectors of all the country's nuclear facilities. In return, Iran was to receive relief from
U.S., European Union, and United Nations Security Council sanctions, an aspect of the agreement that the
United States has never fully complied with.
Trump's objection to the agreement is
that it is a "bad deal" that virtually guarantees that Iran will have a nuclear weapon somewhere down the
road. There is, however, no factual basis for that claim and that it is being made at all is largely
reflective of Israeli and Israel Lobby propaganda. It is, on the contrary, an American interest not to have
another nuclear proliferator in the Middle East in addition to Israel, which Washington has never dared to
confront on the issue. The JCPOA agreement guarantees that Iran will not work to develop a weapon for at
least ten years which is a considerable benefit considering that Tehran, if it had chosen to initiate such a
program, could easily have had breakout capability in one year.
The U.S. and Israel are also expressing
concern about Iranian ballistic missile capability. Again, ballistic missiles would appear to be a weapon
that Israel alone seeks to monopolize in its neighborhood because it seeks to regard itself as uniquely
threatened, that is, always the victim. It is an argument that sells well in the U.S. Congress and in the
media, which has apparently also obtained traction in the White House. It is nevertheless a fake argument
contrived by the Israelis. The missiles under development do not in any way threaten the United States and
they were not in any event part of the agreement and should not be considered a deal breaker.
Ironically, the JCPOA is approved of by
most Americans because it prevents the development of yet another potentially hostile nuclear armed power in
a volatile part of the world. American Jews, in fact, support it more than other Americans, according to
opinion polls. Even the generals in the Pentagon favor continuing it as do U.S. close allies Germany, France
and Britain. The ability of Israel and its Lobby to dominate U.S. foreign policy formulation in certain
areas is thereby exposed for what it is: sheer manipulation of our system of government by a small group
dedicated to the interests of a foreign government using money and the political access that money buys to
achieve that objective.
Those who argue that the withdrawal
of the U.S. from JCPOA will be countered by the continued cooperation of the other signatories to the
agreement are, one might unfortunately note, somewhat delusional. The U.S. has tremendous leverage in
financial markets.
If it chooses to sanction Iran over its missiles while also re-introducing the old
sanctions relating to the nuclear developments, it would be a brave European or Asian banker who would risk
being blocked out of the American market by lending money or selling certain prohibited goods to the
Iranians.
The United States could force the entire JCPOA quid pro quo agreement to collapse, and
that might be precisely what the White House intends to do.
Add into the equation the clearly
expressed and oft-times repeated
Israeli intention
to begin a war with Iran, starting in Syria, sooner rather than later, a disaster for
American foreign policy is developing that might well make Iraq and Afghanistan look like cake walks. Iran
will surely strike back in response either to the termination of the JCPOA or to Israeli bombing of its
militiamen and surrogates in Syria.
America forces in the region will surely be sucked into the
conflict by Israel and will wind up taking the fall. Someone should tell Donald Trump that there are real
world consequences for breaking agreements and rattling sabers. But who will tell him? Will it be John
Bolton or Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo? I doubt it.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is
Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation
that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
[email protected].
I am beginning to think the astonishing real capitulation of South Korean Government to North Korea demands
and Trump's acquiescence in this is a prelude to the war on Iran. Now Netanyahu has announced the casus
belli. Israel plots its wars and never fights a war on two fronts. hope I am wrong.
"... I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find the answers to my own questions. ..."
@ anon with the Niki Haley approval rating of 63% etc.
I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported
result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the
data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do
they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find
the answers to my own questions.
The current geo-political world is exposing all sorts of folks that support what I call the
God of Mammon narrative and their associated moral failings. As a species it is way past time
that we confront the centuries old assumptions that make up our "social contract"...such as it
is/is not.
The Netanyahoo circus is not the underlying friction in our world. The underlying friction
in our world is about debt, global/local investment and the cost of doing business including
geo-political stability. We have enough food to feed everyone but there are distribution
problems because of greed and social control desires. The same is true for housing, health
care, education, etc. Our current social contract precludes everyone from having all those
things because our social contract says that in the Western world all the tools of finance
shall be owned/controlled privately. And furthermore that social contract (didn't you sign it?)
says that there are these rules called laws that give not only "ownership" but that ownership
in perpetuity through other rules/laws of inheritance to individuals/families.
IMO, if we want to change the world for the better or ever to save our asses we need to
confront the underlying social contract that none ever discuss openly.
Your assessment of Nikki Haley as a 'mental lightweight' is likely right. However zionists
probably like that in their manchurian candidates. See this thread from the saker... note her
zionist righthand man, jon lerner...
"In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands
out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence
combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is
our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who surfaced in the news lately after she
unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House
suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't
get confused."
For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley for president,
a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah Palin. Indeed,
the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very cerebral or much
given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are reflexively
aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both are
passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley
regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the
Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.
Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on
a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which
are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her
speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah
Goldberg. "
"
Anonymous on April 26, 2018 · at 2:24 pm EST/EDT
One might be inclined to dismiss Haley as another sarah palin, not too bright. This shows she
might become relevant as a zionist manchurian candidate. They already seem to be grooming her.
See the article below about her key aide, jonlerner
Zionists may prefer not-too-bright frontmen because they can be more easily controlled,
think georgewbush, ronaldreagan, donaldtrump etc someone who is too bright might think
themselves out of their control e.g. billclinton started off strongly proisrael, but by the end
he becoming more savvy about israel his wifes political ambitions may have shorted that,
" 5 Things To Know About Nikki Haley's Jewish Right-Hand Man Jon Lerner
Nathan Guttman December 11, 2017
He holds a senior position in the Trump administration and has made a name for himself as
one of the most successful political consultants, yet Jon Lerner, manages to steer clear from
the spotlight. Currently serving as America's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, under
Nikki Haley, Lerner, 49, was recently described in a New York Magazine article as "the No. 1
person [Haley] listens to," and with speculations that Haley's political ambition could lead
her all the way to the White House, Lerner is the man to follow.
Here are a few facts about Jon Lerner:
He May Pave Haley's Road to the White House
The New York Magazine reported that Lerner "has a long-term plan for Haley, and he is there
to make sure nothing derails it." This long term plan began back in South Carolina when Lerner
managed Haley's 2010 successful gubernatorial race and maintained its momentum when she entered
the Trump administration as top United Nations representative. Lerner was appointed deputy
ambassador but stayed behind to run Haley's Washington office.
senator Jim DeMint, [described] Lerner as having "a very good strategic mind."
"Where I follow my gut, Jon relies on facts and the statistics he finds in his polling,"
Haley wrote in her 2012 autobiography "
Reply
Anonymous on April 30, 2018 · at 4:41 am EST/EDT
nikki haley is the most popular active politician in america, with 63% approval, trump 39% (
obama is top 66%) in one poll. perhaps this shows the ongoing crumbling of american democracy,
the principled design of its fundamental institutions (like the elections, the press, the
supremecourt etc) being massively gamed in reality by the minions of the 1%.., sad !!
If Nikki Haley was supposedly voted most likable US politician hence I suggest, lock the US
insane asylum and throw out the key, since now anything will be blabbermouthed and nothing of
substance will really happen except some unwitting crisis actors will die, a fact of inhumane
cruelty of imperial rulers.
Where are dire warnings from Russia about severe consequences if Syria attacked.
Russians lost credibility of their threats which is even worse if they have never made
them.
I do not know what it would take for people to see what cruel charade all this is, what
would it take for people to realize that it is all Roman type of theater of wilderness and
pain and we are audience and targets of this propaganda of fear of global nuke war and
destruction that they want us to believe is behind all this cruel soap opera.
There will be no global war since there are no fundamental conflicts within global elites
despite what propaganda from all sides claims and that including b, trying to make sense of
utter unadulterated nonsense of MSM, for those establishment people in west who are already
in it are not idiots but rational people who do that immoral, opportunist job for money
knowing what they lie about, knowing that there is no danger of global nuke catastrophe
whatsoever, otherwise they would act more sober like it was during Cold War.
However, there is logic in this madness, namely to forcefully align nations with
discredited ruling elites who attempt to take role of saviors, when no other method of
control over population works any more and policies of deliberated destruction of welfare and
civil society, openly provoked mass unrest or revolution and instigated natural growth of
working class movements in self defense. Warmongering was classical ploy against discontented
population used many times in history and nor mere speculation.
Spreading of fear of global anihilation among populations is the ultimate objective of
this unheard of verbal and acting belligerence on world stage, which upon examination of
basic socioeconomic facts especially soundness and calm of global financial system indicates
mood of world peace and love among oligarchic elites who have a good thing going while
sheeple are orderly dying of starvation and fear.
But I guess even on this quite brainy blog people are more interested in menacing tabloid
surrealism than boring naked truth. Otherwise, b would not have much to write about in his
devastating reports on masive MSM lying, with implicit hope that one day may be NYT writes
some truth.
It ain's gonna happen b , their business is lies yo
Recall it is Mike Pompeo who has been responsible for the effort to stop CIA support for
ISIS, on directions from Donald J. Trump and the Pentagon faction which essentially
controls the White House.
Mike Pompeo was President of Sentry International, an oilfield equipment company and
close partner of Koch Industries. Also recall the recent meeting between the heads of the
FSB and SVR, Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin, received by Pompeo, then director of
the CIA, and Dan Coats, director of National Intelligence.
Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin Secretly Received in the United States
In hindsight this meeting appears to have been a strategy session conducted by extremely
important high level individuals from Russia with their 'partners' in the United
States.
The meeting occurred immediately before the firing of Rex Tillerson, an agent of the
UK-Rothchild 'Octopus,' which effectively controls Exxon-Mobil (the Rockefellers sold their
interest several years ago) of which Tillerson was formerly head. Tillerson, who once ran
the foreign policies of multiple countries dominated by Exxon-Mobil including Qatar, was
said to have been caught red-handed by the NSA under James Kelly, of assisting the UK
conspiracy to launch a chemical false flag attack in Eastern Ghouta, the discovery of which
led to Tillerson's unceremonious dismissal by Donald Trump via Twitter, a truly
unprecedented way to fire a US Secretary of State.
Embedded in the news story (link below) is a video claimed to be of one of the bombs dropped during the attack described in the
news story.
I have no way of knowing yet how many bombs were dropped in all nor what they were exactly. The report of the attack registering
2.6 on the Richter scale suggests that at least one hit was something VERY big. I am inclined to believe that this blast
in the video is entirely independent of the earth-shaking explosion.
The explosion in the video is obviously of a uranium-based warhead. The brilliant white flash is NOT a nuclear (fission or
fusion) flash (no mushroom shaped up-draft), and it is followed immediately by a scattering of equally brilliant white sparks
and leaves a major fire burning. The sparks are bits of the warhead (which is actually made of a uranium-based alloy -- at least
95% uranium) designed to shatter upon ignition in order to give access to air (oxygen) to all the metal mass of the warhead, thus
enabling it all to burn simultaneously (i.e. within a few seconds of the initial ignition) and create maximum heat/destruction.
The smaller the pieces, the better they burn in such an explosion.
When the uranium is ignited, it burns at +/- 6,000°C. creating heat on par with a nuclear explosion (but without that horribly
inconvenient mushroom-shaped cloud). This one looks like a thermobaric bomb (a reworked up-graded, "enhanced", uraniumized version
of the "daisy cutter" first used in Vietnam).
Visible near the end of the (brief) video are other, small explosions, which could be of the same magnitude but much farther
away or which could be the result of other weapons near the same site but of much smaller power.
This bomb appears to be similar to those used in southern Lebanon in 2006. The United Nations Environmental Program's post-conflict
assessment unit found that those warheads had been made of low enriched uranium.
Noteworthy, and in contradiction to the official version of an attack on arms depots, is the lack of any cascade of explosions
that such an attack would trigger among the arms in the depot. After the invasion of Iraq, there was an attack on a United States
arms depot, and it was recorded on a fair number of videos, some quite good, all, as far as I know, long since flushed down the
memory hole. The noise of the depot's arms exploding was unmistakable, and there were major firey elements flying everywhere from
those secondary explosions. There is none of that here.
Iranian missiles destroyed in 'bunker busting' Syria strikes: Report
#SyriaWar
No news site is perfect -- much less infallible. However, Middle East Eye I have found to be one of the more reliable. Hence,
I am inclined to take seriously anything that they publish, even when it does not seem to make sense to me.
R.J.P.
From the resistance , Apr 30, 2018 6:28:00 PM |
80
The fire-station in Homs 35km away from the strike main point was also targeted in a clear intend to avoid fire-fighters going
to suffocate the huge fires in the aftermath, which is a despicable act much in line with Israel usual behavior.
Also, by attacking the "Zainabydoun Brigade", where the young died soldiers belonged, Israel is clearly trying to provoke the
Shia sector of the resitance, and especially Hezbollah,in the verge of the Lebanese Parlimentary Elections to be hold 6th May,
where hezbollah could well consolidate, more if needed, its role as one of the main political forces in Lebanon with which Israel
and the US will find it more difficult to continue labelling it as a terrorist organization...
The strike on the Aleppo targets (only some civilian buildings were hit, either there was a glitch or they simply didn't care
what they hit) seems to have been carried out by Israeli aircraft releasing glide bombs from turkish (and/or US) controlled air
space, similar to the 2007 warehouse attack.
As for the Hama strike, it seems that for the first time ballistic missiles instead of cruise missiles were used. These are
more challenging targets than subsonic cruise missiles because of their high speed (The Scud for instance reaches Mach 5 / 1.7
km/s).
The "Pantsir", the most modern short range AD system in Syrian service is suitable for targets up to a speed of Mach 3 / 1
km/s. A new high speed missile for the system should enable it for target speeds of several km/s, but it is only scheduled to
become available in 2019.
The most modern medium range system is the "Buk" which is able to combat targets with a speed of up to 1.2 km/s in the M2 version.
The M3 version gets up to 3 km/s but it is only available since 2016 and therefore not likely to be in Syrian service.
Syria does not have modern long range air defense systems with ABM capability like S300/S400. Note that because of the target
speed the range of an AD system is lower against ballistic missiles, S-400 with its standard 48N6DM missile has a range of 240
km against aircraft, but only 60 km against ballistic missiles. Therefore the Russian S-400 system in Khmeimim was not in a position
to do anything against the strike.
So the current capabilities of Syrian AD against ballistic missile threats don't look too good - the S-300 really is needed.
Canthama at SyrPers provides this from the SAA's FB:
Canthama: "I believe this an important statement from the folks of the SAA FB (not official SAA but with ex SAA and with deep
connections to the SAA leadership).
"It confirms some of the info we shared early today, limited damaged, but it brings hints of a possible attack from the ground
and not long distance missiles, that would explain the lack of SyAAD activity. Worth following this info."
SAA FB:"We had a long post regarding last night and we were asked to put it on hold for the time being. We can however say
that almost all the speculations and analysis that are circulating social media are false.
"A storage depot was hit by GBU-39B glide bombs not coming from the sea or South/West; the attack is highly suspected to be
ground launched but we cannot confirm this.
"The type of ammunition targeted was insignificant, grad rockets and several other domestic munition; there was no sophisticated
weaponry whatsoever; also, the level of attack was insignificant as well.
"What created the huge explosions was the fact that one of the major storage depots caught fire and exploded which resulted
in what you saw.
"No side publicly claimed responsibility for the attack but that doesn't mean the Syrian command isn't aware of the side and
the intention.
"Finally, and this message is to those in non-official military media; in cases of foreign aggression no one should be spreading
any sort of information that they aren't sure of, rather they should wait an official statement or only stick to the aftermath
in their reports, rather than jumping into spreading rumors and analysis-based reports then calling it news.
"For the time being, we cannot answer more than what's written here but perhaps soon we can have a long explanation posted."
Canthama
recommends this piece by Adam Garrie which I too find interesting. However, Garrie's incorrect about the lack of fatalities;
Canthama specifically posted these four--Captain Fadi Othman, Lt Hassan Zuhair, Suleiman Mohsen Al Malhami, Yahya Mohammed Alsaleem--out
of an initial 13 reported KIA.
@karlof1 85 the [GB-39B glide bomb] attack is highly suspected to be ground launched but we cannot confirm this.
Mar 10, 2015
Boeing, Saab Unveil Ground Launched SDB
The system essentially sticks a GBU-39B small diameter bomb, widely used by the US military and a number of international customers,
on the front of a M26 rocket. The M26 is set to be demilitarized by 2018 under a set of cluster munitions treaties, meaning
the GLSDB program would essentially be recycling an item that countries were planning to stockpile or scrap.
The weapon is designed to be launched out of a multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), used by a number of US allies already,
avoiding the need to design a new launch system. That MLRS can hold six weapons per pod, with two pods per vehicle. . .
here
"I'm still in shook Putin didn't place 300s in Syria long, long ago"
Shocked? Lol
Israel ordered Putin not to sell the S-300 to Syria 7 years ago. It is a well known info. "Western Partners" demanded that
Russia never sells anything like that to Syria. Russia also complied with US sanctions against Iran and refused to sell them the
S-300 until the JCPOA was signed. Even now, Russia offers the S-400 to Turkey and Saudi Arabia but not to Iran.
Not only that, but there is an agreement between Putin and Netanyahu where Russia allows Israel to bomb targets in Syria without
any retaliation. You see, Putin is begging to be admitted in the Western Club, as an equal. This is why he is doing those things.
But they still don't want him, as they want full control over Russia. They do not recognize "equals". What he wants is that several
different oligarhies carve up the world between themselves (multipolar world), and so that his group can control Russia and the
surrounding areas (its sphere of influence). What they want is only one oligarchy to rule them all (unipolar world).
Syria is just a chip for Putin in that game to be part of the NWO.
"... It's getting harder and harder to tell what's really going on. Sites like this are useful, but can only read between the lines: they simply do not have the resources to independently uncover and vet primary sources of information. More the pity that our establishment news organizations are totally corrupt and have no credibility. That's a bigger loss than one might at first realize. ..."
This is an absolutely stunning breaking interview of the Syrian independent member of
parliament Fares Shehabi by the BBC hardtalk program. The MSM typically try to aggressively
browbeat non-western interviewees that they disagree with. Unfortunately, most of the
interviewees either get cowed or they get emotional and angry.
Fares Shehabi instead is factually and rationally aggressive, fact by fact,
counter-argument by counter-argument, not allowing the BBC interviewer to shut him up. It is
a model of how to deal with the MSM.
The MSM have already managed to get the interview wiped off youtube. but it is still
available here
It's getting harder and harder to tell what's really going on. Sites like this are useful, but can only read between the
lines: they simply do not have the resources to independently
uncover and vet primary sources of information. More the pity that our establishment news
organizations are totally corrupt and have no credibility. That's a bigger loss than one
might at first realize.
That said, it's interesting that Israel seems to be going real crazy now and not acting as
it usually does through its proxies in Washington. I posit two possible interpretations,
based on what I would expect as blowback from Trump's latest Syrian missile strike.
1. The US strike really was successful, Russian air defenses are impotent against US
weaponry, and Israel and the US elites feel that it's now open season on Israel and Iran etc.
Open skies, blast away!
2. The US strike was a failure, and Russian air defenses are potentially totally changing
the game. Israel and US elites are going nuts and determined to strike hard and fast before
the window of opportunity closes, and because they are just in general pissed off at having
been defied ('how dare they defend themselves from our holy humanitarian missile strike?').
Israel is determined to build momentum for war before the military option becomes untenable.
Even if Russian air defenses really are that good, the West can still prevail in the middle
east through overwhelming massed attacks... for now...
Note that my thinking posits that our elites will go crazy regardless of what happens -
which fits with past experience, but is not perhaps what Karl Popper would have called
"falsifiable."
From the resistance , Apr 30, 2018 3:58:55 PM |
47
By the huge ammount of trolls totally blocking comments at RT English ( and I suppose at any
other media )with thousands of botted likes under their comments to rise them to the top of
view, I would say they are preparing something big, since I have not seen this level of
trolling ( which implies having RT news about this topic blocked for comments as if a DDOS
attack would be happening in fact ) since the beginning of the Syrian war at some MSM where I
started commenting supporting Syria.
Re: trolls at RT commenting commenting and liking troll comments to many thousands.
I have seen this before so its not a new thing, I wonder who initiate this, most likely
western states spy orgs.
With Russia neutralized by upcoming football World championship due to Putin's love for large
sport events, there are preparation of something similar to Sochi events (EuroMaydan color
revolution in Ukraine)
Notable quotes:
"... This can all be easily followed all the way back to before the Iranian nuclear deal and a policy paper out of Brookings on how to set up Iran for war. Basically, it states make a deal with Iran then prove that although the West did its best, Iran broke the deal in whatever manner. Appears they have all the actors lined up. Now it begins. The war of words then war. Like we haven't seen this before. ..."
"... I'd missed this: US-led jets bombed pro-Assad forces advancing on Deir Ezzor: Report http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-jets-bomb-pro-government-fighters-syria-operation-1276052674 International law anyone? Its dead in the west. ..."
"... doesn't make sense ...FUKUS does war on Iran, Iran closes the Gulf ...oil goes to 200/ barrel ....US does a superb imitation of a Dead Fly. ..."
"... Looks to me like Trump is groveling before the Saudis for keeping the petrodollar. ..."
"... Putin who sees only the reality that the US remains both enviably rich and powerful cannot understand how unstable and dangerous it has become. ..."
Netanyahoo To Again Cry Wolf - But Something Bigger Is Up
(Updated)
Updated below
---
U.S. President Trump wants to end the nuclear agreement (pdf) with Iran
and wants to eliminated Iranian forces in Syria which support the Syrian government. Something
is being prepared to make that happen.
Last week General Joseph Votel, commander of CENTCOM - the U.S. military command for the
Middle East, was in Israel. It was the first ever visit of a CENTCOM commander to Israel which
usually works with the European command EUCOM.
Yesterday former CIA director and now Secretary of State Pompeo visited Israel. A few hours
later Israel bombed two ammunition depots in Syria which are supposedly related to Iran. This
was a clear attempt to provoke Iran into some reaction.
The Israeli defense minister Lieberman just visited Washington DC and only today came back
to Israel.
Now the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahoo loudly announced that he will
hold a press conference to present a "huge amount of new
and dramatic information on the Iranian nuclear program". He will allege that Iran cheats on
the nuclear agreement (JCPOA).
Netanyahoo is a notorious liar and warmonger. In September 2002 he lied (vid)
to the U.S. congress:
There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing
towards the development of nuclear weapons – no question whatsoever"
Only yesterday he
promoted a false story that claimed Arabs in Israel had disrupted a minuted of silence for
some people killed in a flash flood.
The IAEA
says that Iran is in full compliance with the JCPOA. If there were any serious intelligence
about any Iranian deviation from the nuclear agreement it would be presented to the IAEA and
the six signature powers of the agreement. The IAEA would investigate and report back. If Iran
cheated it would be put back under serious international sanctions. That Netanyahoo wants to
present something publicly makes it very likely that he has nothing of relevance.
We
hear that the documents he is said to present were compiled
by one Christopher Steele and assembled with the help of one Sergej Skripal and his MI6 handler
[redacted]. They will show that Iran attempts to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger .
This new comedy stunt by Netanyahoo is tightly coordinated with the Trump administration.
Trump's national security advisor John Bolton
has worked with the Zionists since early 2000 to push for a war on Iran:
During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of
Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other
relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly
dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S.
strike against Iran.
Behind Trump, Netanyahoo and Bolton is one financier, the militant Zionist and casino
magnate Sheldon Adelson. He financed Trump's and Netanyahoo's election campaigns and the
various think tanks that create anti-Iranian propaganda and paid Bolton.
Trump wants to leave the nuclear agreement but the other signers, China, Russia, the UK,
France and Germany want to keep it up. Just leaving the JCPOA without cause will increase doubt
over any agreement the U.S. wants to make on other issues. The allegations Netanyahoo will put
forward, no matter how ridiculous they may be, could give Trump some excuse to put new
sanctions on Iran without actually leaving the agreement.
But even that does not explain all the recent meetings and visits by the various Israeli and
U.S. officials. French soldiers and mercenaries from the UAE have entered north-east-Syria. What
for? The Saudis are on board with any operation against Iran.
Something big is up and we do not know yet what it might be.
---
Update
That was lame. Netanyahoo just finished his show (vid). He claimed that Israel got
access to an Iranian archive of its former nuclear program dating from 1999 to 2003. In 2007 a
U.S. National Intelligence Estimate found
that Iran stopped all nuclear weapon research in 2003 after the U.S. had destroyed Iran's then
arch-enemy Iraq. In 2011 the IAEA reported
in detail of Iran's former "structured program". It agreed that it had stopped in 2003.
All that Netanyahoo now claims to have acquired is old and known stuff. He refers to an AMAD
plan Iran had as if that was some new intelligence. But the IAEA documented AMAD and its
development in 2011 (PDF, Annex, page 5). He uses the archive documents of known former
programs to declare that Iran has cheated and is not trustworthy. He says that gives Trump
reason to disavow the nuclear agreement the U.S. and others had signed with Iran. That is
bullshit.
I had expected better from him. Some well forged documents or something more dramatic. This
was just nonsense.
My feeling is that this was a diversion from an upcoming military(?) operation against Iran
or its assets in Lebanon, Syria or Iraq.
Absolutely correct b. Something's cooking and it won't take long for the world to find out
what it was.
Also, when responding to the Iranian threats to re-start their nuclear program, Mr Trump
appears to have an answer pretty resolute i.e "They won't be starting anything, you can bank
on that"
One more thing I like to add. If Mr Trump withdraws US from the deal which is also
endorsed by the UNSC, US will loose to IRAN in the war that follows-up.
OH no! not the yellow cake saga again. Well, if they can get away with the Syrian chemical
weapons attack that the white helmets can fix with a hose pipe, then anything goes. It looks
as though the Skripal affair has lots more secrets to reveal. This story just keeps on giving
and giving, although if you looked for it in MSM you wouldn't find anything on it. I don't
understand why the missile defense system doesn't appear to activate for the Iranian
contingent in Syria. Is it because this was a surprise attack and the Syrians?Russians were
caught off guard, or are the Iranians left to fend for themselves as far as air bombardment
is concerned? I get the feeling that the West is probing and poking the bear a bit at a time
with a stick to get a reaction. They may well be sorry what they wish for.
Doesn't look like fake anti-establishment, swamp-drainer, poseur Trump has given himself ANY
leeway...
with which he might counter or to move away from the numerous neocon nut cases hell-bent
for WW3 whom he has permanently invited to his war cabinet golden shower party.
Netanyahu is probably the most dangerous leader in this world, the raw lying and propaganda,
its heinous. Not to mention this sick lunatic in Israel have some 300 nukes already
themselves, IN SECRET!
Now he have come up with fake documents, trying to justify a war!
Same jewish state that whine about antisemitism, this people are not sane...
Hopefully west dont accept this blatant sicko, because as usual, its not Israel that want
to wage the war, no, the war must be fought by
goyim europeans and especially americans.
With ugly pack of morons as Trump, POmpeo, Bolton, it doesnt look good.
This war hysteria just come weeks after the illegal and dangerous bombing of Syria.
Netanyahu clarly is a psychopath.
What is going on with those s300s? Russia needs to give Syria/Iran the means to defend
themselves from these repeated acts of Israeli aggression. It should not be so easy for
Israel to take out Iranian forces.
The only way to kick the legs out of Iran in a manner that Israel cares about which would
also hurt Assad would be to destroy Hezbollah. The only chance of doing that would be to go
full war crime mode and use the most vicious thermobaric or possibly tactical nuclear
weapons.
If we did that or enabled the Israelis to do that then we will have reached total
depravity. At this point I believe the U.S. public is okay with bombing anyone as long as
U.S. lives are not lost. If the Israelis do it we cheer, if we do it then it shows the rest
of the world who is boss.
This can all be easily followed all the way back to before the Iranian nuclear deal and a
policy paper out of Brookings on how to set up Iran for war. Basically, it states make a deal
with Iran then prove that although the West did its best, Iran broke the deal in whatever
manner. Appears they have all the actors lined up. Now it begins. The war of words then war.
Like we haven't seen this before.
Nuttyyahoo is dangerous BECAUSE he is thoroughly enabled by the FUKUS, but especially the US
in EVERY way - politically, monetarily, morally, and and he is promoted on every television
network and mainstream media outlet.
Trump has become increasingly dangerous because he has surrounded himself with Pompeo,
Bolton, Nikki Haley, Nuttyyahoo...
US/UK/Israel are not even trying for convincing narratives now.
Sounds like F-35 was used to hit the ammo dumps in Syria. Maybe the zionists figure they have
F35 bugs ironed out and its time to put it to work against Iran.
Actually Iran has a long-time investment in uranium mines in Namibia, from the Shah's time,
and Ahmadinejad even visited Niger in Apr 2013 while that country was looking to diversify
its uranium sales away from the French Areva. There's nothing "secret" about any of this,
uranium is a fuel for reactors.
...
What I like about this story is that, even though smearing Iran doesn't make any sense,
narratives that don't make sense are 'normal' for that bloodthirsty experiment in social
engineering known as "Israel". One wonders whether, if the "Israelis" are serious about
attacking Iran, then shouldn't they be encouraged to give it a try, just to see what
happens?
If they're not worried about blowback from Iran and Hezbollah, why should anyone else lose
any sleep over it?
When Medvedev was President of Russia he said in an interview (with Zacharia) on a US network
that ab attack on Iran would create an "unimaginable refugee catastrophe". Ironically (or
Russian-ly), he didn't say for whom it would be catastrophic...
Also, there was actually never any evidence of a nuclear weapons research program prior to
2003 either. The IAEA has specifically gone on record stating in 2009 that it has "no
concrete proof that this is or has been a nuclear weapons program in Iran". Gareth Porter has
written more about the 2003 allegations and Israel's later attempts to undermine the NIE by
insisting that there was evidence of "continued" nuclear weapons work. The worst that the
IAEA could ever say it actually found in Iran, were "fragmented and incomplete feasibility
studies" that were "relevant to" nukes -- none of which is in any way a violation of the NPT
which actually ENCOURAGES the sharing of technology "relevant to" nuclear weapons including
data from nuclear test explosions.
Wow! The anti-corruption probe into Nuttyyahoo's activities must be coming close to arresting
him; so, to avoid arrest, he must start an actual war of aggression. Only problem is the
Zionists like their Outlaw allies are incapable of actually defeating anyone they might
attack.
What the Zionists are scared to death of is becoming irrelevant; their Airstrip 1
existence no longer of any value to the Imperialist Empires that created the Zionist state
for their own geopolitical machinations. Is there any real reason to militarily attack the
Zionists beyond reclaiming Golan? If Lebanon becomes strong enough--I'd argue it's
already--then a simple containment policy coupled with the international BDS movement will be
more than enough to facilitate internal political change within the Apartheid State over
time--containment will take several years to work as it did on South Africa. Zionist racism
has destabilized itself. Talk about a state ripe for being Color Revolutionized. Those are
the reasons for the easily seen and rebutted lies of a very desperate politico wanting very
much to avoid prison for crimes he committed against his own nation, not the many War Crimes
against others.
B.: I had expected better from him. Some well forged documents or something more dramatic.
This was just nonsense.
______________________________________________
This is another example of a trend I've been on about lately. You're quite right; the
quality of the Western/ME hegemony's Big Lies is deteriorating markedly before our eyes. But
only the minority who are willing and able to keep their eyes wide open seem to notice.
It's hard to tell if the proliferation of weak and incredible fabrications is based on the
Big Liars' belief that the public is, or has become, so benighted and bamboozled that they'll
swallow anything, or if it's an indication that they are running on empty. But, whether it's
due to hubris or degenerate incompetence, it indeed looks as if they aren't even
trying any more.
Then again, as you also point out, Bibi's anticlimactic histrionics are on a par with his
comical September, 2012 performance at the UN, where he produced that cartoon drawing of a
"bomb" in order to flog the typically mendacious and hysterical claim that the noble,
harmless State of Israel was in imminent danger of destruction from the "Iranian bomb".
It's one thing when zealous Hasbarists, amateur or professional, troll/spam Internet
comments boards with their rigidly fatuous, fantastic, Zionist Israel-serving talking points.
One expects unsophisticated, fully-indoctrinated True Believers to spew rote talking points
and dogma that insult the intelligence of anyone outside the Zionist Hive Mind.
But the fact that Israel's leaders and authorities shamelessly rely on such childish props
to sell their genocidal policies and actions suggests both hubris and abiding contempt for
the rest of the world.
It's hard to believe that Bibi and his allies and supporters don't know that they're
insulting the rest of the world's intelligence. I think there's a word for this. Chutzpah,
maybe?
This is an absolutely stunning breaking interview of the Syrian independent member of
parliament Fares Shehabi by the BBC hardtalk program. The MSM typically try to aggressively
browbeat non-western interviewees that they disagree with. Unfortunately, most of the
interviewees either get cowed or they get emotional and angry.
Fares Shehabi instead is factually and rationally aggressive, fact by fact,
counter-argument by counter-argument, not allowing the BBC interviewer to shut him up. It is
a model of how to deal with the MSM.
The MSM have already managed to get the interview wiped off youtube. but it is still
available here
@Peter AU 1 16 Sounds like F-35 was used to hit the ammo dumps in Syria
What's your reason for saying this. We established at the previous threat that GBU-39 glide
bombs were used. They are a stand-off weapon and I believe that the F-35 is incapable of
carrying them.
"unhinged" = arrogance turns into stupidity? The latest in the continuing Net-job
droning on and on "war with Iran" might not go as well as he expects, given resistance to
withdrawal from the JCPOA. A more easily applied application of "arrogance turns into
stupidity" is the White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend roasting Press Sec Sanders.
James Woods' response did it nicely at "low class trash." More of this sort of thing will
indeed be "a gift" to the Republicans in the upcoming elections.
Israel will not risk Jews so they will stick to launching air strikes from Lebanon. All of
the characters will be happy to use another mercenary army of goys to attack the Syrian gov
and it's allies. Especially attractive might be to use these to buttress the SDF to hold onto
eastern Syria or to attack Turk aligned forces.
unfortunately the majority only read headlines. In a world where evidence matters not,
details of Bibi Nuttuyahoo's claim 1999-2003 is a side show. Bibi is setting the stage for his managing director, D. J. Trump, to "honourably" withdraw
from the JCPOA on May 12 and to pressure the other signatories.
There are somethings larger - I do hope someone (Russia or China) will grant Iran their
nuclear umbrella. And Kim, do make a note to self. The Anglo-Zionists are deep in pretexts to coverup:
the black swan flying under heavy wings with $230 trillion global debt must be brought
down. Not nearly enough in the ESF.
Revelations on the recent 100 missiles hoax to retaliate for the 'chemical attack' that
was not. Can't disappear Robert Fisk's expose - he is widely read..
Christoper Steele's Case on the dock wherein he will be deposed. Oh wait, where is he
in hiding with the Skripals?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
@ 8, re Russia delivery of S-300s to Syria. Don't count on it as Israel's and Russia's
militaries "have an arrangement to avoid aerial conflict over Syria." Last week Russia's
Ambassador to Israel made that clear.
Looks to me like Trump is groveling before the Saudis for keeping the petrodollar. Hence he
is walking out of the Iran deal despite its geopolitical risk, and trying to show some
fireworks in Syria. What's the half life of this show? More, or less than Trump's average
ejaculation time?
I've no doubt that for a lot of people the question of F-35 usage anywhere near a combat zone
is a so-what issue, but for those of us who have struggled for years to bring some truth
about this fault-filled much-delayed program through the fog of corruption, it's important to
maintain that the current fleet of expensive pre-production F-35 prototypes is truly
worthless.
@ 8, re Russia delivery of S-300s to Syria. Don't count on it as Israel's and Russia's
militaries "have an arrangement to avoid aerial conflict over Syria." Last week Russia's
Ambassador to Israel made that clear.
Uh, that is the reason Russia should use S300. Then, there wouldnt be any "aerial
conflict" over Syrian sovereign airspace to begin with.
@ frances 48 US&Co . . will hit Iran before the football playoffs
And how might they "hit Iran?" Do you mean hit the country itself with a military attack?
I think the World Cup is playing a big role in the decision making as you have said. There
is a lot at stake: investments already made and international exposure also. I can't wait for
it to be finished so we can get back to war !! (sarc)
Israel could start its assassination program, carry out sabotage, airstrikes, there is no
limit to the sick regime and the sick western media acceptance of the same unhinged behavior
by Israel.
the hero of hebrew history above is a great man did obaama not give him 30 billion in war
arms.
did germany not give him 5 free dolphin class submarines for samson option.
does german public funds pay compensation cover amounting to a trillion euros by the year
2070.
the man is a god he can drop and fire depleted uraniun ,drop dialed down nuke bombs kill
president,primeminister sell usa top secret files to china and russia via operation talpiot
can he not listen and blackmail the world.
who else can kill gaza semites by the 10s of thousands and then call critic anti-semite
this man benji is a king maker bow down for you are not fit to lick his precious fingers
Russia began its Syria intervention with an S-400 deployed in Latakia and has introduced
several more since, one being in
Sept 2017 . Syria also has the BUK-M2E AA system and the Pantsir to go with its older and
upgraded S-200 systems along with who knows what else. Just what was off loaded from Russian
supply vessels under the cover of smoke last week (don't know if such veiling's continuing)?
My guess is more AA systems of the type causing Zionists on both sides of Atlantic to
freakout.
As for the Zionists attacking Iranian military bases, those Iran uses in Syria are
joint-use with Syria regardless of what's said by Zionists; so, any such attack will need to
be aimed at Iran proper. The consequences for the region would be horrible--particularly for
Zionists and Saudis: Dimona would be leveled as would Saudi oil infrastructure. The fallout
and other pollution would be appalling. If the Zionists want to keep their skin, they'll
arrest Nutty before he gets his get-out-of-jail war started.
Zionists know they've lost and are contained and constrained, so they're moving into
desperation mode. Too bad they lack the courage to put a pistol to their head and pull the
trigger.
I have trouble in believing that Trump will really attack Iran, just because of some new fake
evidence from Netanyahu. N's been trying this forever. The basic point is that Trump's electorate don't want real war, with American deaths. So
far, it's been like that, 102 missiles following 59 Tomahawks, and no effect.
Trump is dumb enough, Pompeo, Bolton, Trump, I mean you cant get worse, these are the most
sick hawks and Trump have already showed that he could attack states illegally Syria, with no
proof whatsoever. Stop hoping on Trump.
Israel is in a position to attack, but not to defend. Israel's problem is not Iran but the
Palestinians. John Helmer seems to think that
Russia has decided on electronic warfare , that would be reason for panic as Israel's
(and US) stuff is completely dependent on electronics.
There were a number of reasons for the Balfour Declaration, but one of the major ones was
defense of the Suez Canal, vital for communications to India. The Turks had already attacked
the canal twice by 1917. The Brits wanted a local group on the spot that would help to defend
the canal. A Jewish settlement filled the bill.
@Cyrus | Apr 30, 2018 2:20:01 PM | 20
As background knowledge that most overlook, Iran is one of the top sources for uranium ore,
unfortunately it is contaminated with molybdenum making it almost useless for high grading.
That is a primary reason for their investment in uranium in Africa.
There is nothing new about Netanyahu's nonsense-as everyone seems to realise: the only
justification for his party and his particular brand of fascism is the belief that there can
be no peace for Jewish people generally, and Israelis in particular until all potential
opponents have been wiped out or terrorised into slavery. And he has managed to convince most
Israelis of this-something which means that in moral and political, and probably clinical
terms too, they are insane- beyond the reach of reason.
What is new and makes the situation very dangerous is that the US is going along with this
for the ride. It has run out of ideas on how to deal with the gathering storm of consequences
from eighty years of arrogance and careless neglect of the inevitable fall out from its self
indulgent policies. And Trump, under constant pressure from the idiots running the Deep
State, has no conception of the implications of the little games that he is playing and
encouraging others (see Netanyahu above) to play. In his mind he is starring in an extempore
version of the Godfather.
Way down at the bottom of things worth mentioning is the fact that the UK government is in an
even bigger crisis. It is clearly doomed unless the world ends first, which is something it
is happy to consider. May and her allies (who include the Blairite Labour party and almost
all the political class including the SNP and the Liberals) will (as the recent attacks in
Syria showed) go along with Trump whatever happens, which means that the other 'eyes' the
White Commonwealth of Canada, Australia etc will do the same.
This is the problem with empires in decline, they become suicidal. And having reconciled
themselves with death they lose any inhibitions.
Poor old Putin just doesn't understand that: for years it has been clearer and clearer that
Russia and China were rational, legalistic and diplomatic while the 'west' reverted to its
barbaric ways, defying rules, breaking treaties, laughing at international law, drunken
berserkers running amok employing the weapons that they have been accumulating for decades
because fearing that the end is near they fear nothing else. The future holds no hope for
them.
Putin who sees only the reality that the US remains both enviably rich and powerful cannot
understand how unstable and dangerous it has become.
As to China, nothing surprises its leadership any more which is why it spends all day lifting
weights and eating high protein foods, ready to defend itself and studiously avoiding
involvement.
I'm still in shook Putin didn't place 300s in Syria long, long ago. He really can be behind
the curve at times. How could have thought the Empire would not grow more brazen in
aggression?
Here is a well thought out thread that analyses Bibi's claims. Including that Israel probably
hacked into the IAEA systems to get some of the data, in particular a photo of the 'new'
storage site.
Here is former Sweden foreign minister Carl Bildt, in a tweet immediately after
Netanyahu's remarks: "Nothing really new in @netanyahu Iran speech. Confirms that Iran closed
down nuclear weapons program in 2003. Continued technology efforts. In principle all of this
well known. No allegation that Iran cheats on 2015 nuclear deal."
No, for the money. The simple fact is that AIPAC and Israel have an iron grip on each and
every member of the US Congress. It's been established that Israel rules, and Congressmembers
get "contributions" and trips to Israel and other perks. On the other hand, if any Congress
member who gives a slight little anti-Israel (i.e. anti-Semitic) peep will become an
ex-Congressmember. It's happened, with highly-financed opposition to a deviant's
transgression at the next biannual election. One example is Cynthia McKinney (links broken.
@52 I don't understand that argument, Don.
The Russians can unload any S-300 delivery at Tartus. There is zero chance that the
Israelis will bomb them while they remain inside a Russian military base.
And those missiles can stay there while the Russians train up the Syrians in their use.
Again, attacking while they remain inside Tartus is a no-go. And the S-300's are road-mobile. They can be driven out of Tartus to their eventual
operational deployment, which means that they leave the protection of Tartus only when they
are capable of defending themselves.
Or, in short: Israeli plans are predicated on taking out those missiles before they can be
made operational. But they can be made operational while they are still inside a Russian
military base protected by S-400 defences, and by the time they leave that protection the
Syrians are already able to shoot down any attackers.
It is hard to lose money on a bet that the US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals will double
down on stupid. The US heaps one disaster on top of another, it causes the suffering and death of
millions, and Americans don't shed a tear.
If Nikki Haley was supposedly voted most likable US politician hence I suggest, lock the US
insane asylum and throw out the key, since now anything will be blabbermouthed and nothing of
substance will really happen except some unwitting crisis actors will die, a fact of inhumane
cruelty of imperial rulers.
Where are dire warnings from Russia about severe consequences if Syria attacked.
Russians lost credibility of their threats which is even worse if they have never made
them.
I do not know what it would take for people to see what cruel charade all this is, what
would it take for people to realize that it is all Roman type of theater of wilderness and
pain and we are audience and targets of this propaganda of fear of global nuke war and
destruction that they want us to believe is behind all this cruel soap opera.
There will be no global war since there are no fundamental conflicts within global elites
despite what propaganda from all sides claims and that including b, trying to make sense of
utter unadulterated nonsense of MSM, for those establishment people in west who are already
in it are not idiots but rational people who do that immoral, opportunist job for money
knowing what they lie about, knowing that there is no danger of global nuke catastrophe
whatsoever, otherwise they would act more sober like it was during Cold War.
However, there is logic in this madness, namely to forcefully align nations with
discredited ruling elites who attempt to take role of saviors, when no other method of
control over population works any more and policies of deliberated destruction of welfare and
civil society, openly provoked mass unrest or revolution and instigated natural growth of
working class movements in self defense. Warmongering was classical ploy against discontented
population used many times in history and nor mere speculation.
Spreading of fear of global anihilation among populations is the ultimate objective of
this unheard of verbal and acting belligerence on world stage, which upon examination of
basic socioeconomic facts especially soundness and calm of global financial system indicates
mood of world peace and love among oligarchic elites who have a good thing going while
sheeple are orderly dying of starvation and fear.
But I guess even on this quite brainy blog people are more interested in menacing tabloid
surrealism than boring naked truth. Otherwise, b would not have much to write about in his
devastating reports on masive MSM lying, with implicit hope that one day may be NYT writes
some truth.
It ain's gonna happen b , their business is lies yo
"... Today, Theresa May is claiming -astonishingly – that the UK attack on Syria is "to deter chemical weapons attacks in Syria and the UK". I don't think the motive for a Skripal false flag could be more starkly demonstrated. ..."
"... It is also worth noting that the most ardent supporters of this military action, outside Saudi Arabia and Israel, are the Blairites in the UK and the Clinton Democrats in the USA. The self-described "centrists" are actually the unhinged extremists in today's politics. ..."
"... This attack on Syria is, beyond doubt, a huge success for the machinations of Mohammed Bin Salman. Please do read my post of 8 March which sets out the background to his agenda, and I believe is essential to why we find our nations in military action again today. Despite the fact the vast majority of the people do not want this ..."
March 4 2018 Sergei and Yulia Skripal are attacked with a nerve agent in Salisbury
March 6 2018 Boris Johnson
blames Russia and calls Russia "a malign force"
March 7 2018 Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia arrives in
London for an official visit
March 13 2018 Valeri Gerasimov, Russian Chief of General Staff,
states that Russia has intelligence a fake chemical attack is planned against civilians
in Syria as a pretext for US bombing of Damascus, and that Russia will respond
militarily.
March 19 2018 Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia arrives
in Washington for an official visit
April 8 2018 Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia arrives
in Paris for an official visit
April 8 2018 Saudi funded jihadist groups Jaysh
al Islam and Tahrir al-Sham and UK funded
jihadist "rescue group" The White Helmets claim a chemical weapons attack occurred in
their enclave of Douma the previous day – just before its agreed handover to the Syrian
army – and blame the Syrian government.
April 11 2018 Saudi Arabia pledges
support for attack on Syria
April 14 2018 US/UK/French attack on Syria begins.
I have always denied the UK's claim that only Russia had a motive to attack the Skripals. To
denigrate Russia internationally by a false flag attack pinning the blame on Russia, always
seemed to me more likely than for the Russians to do that to themselves. And from the start I
pointed to the conflict in Syria as a likely motive. That puts Saudi Arabia (and its client
jihadists), Saudi Arabia's close ally Israel, the UK and the USA all in the frame in having a
powerful motive in inculcating anti-Russian sentiment prior to planned conflict with Russia in
Syria. Any of them could have attacked the Skripals.
Today, Theresa May
is claiming -astonishingly – that the UK attack on Syria is "to deter chemical
weapons attacks in Syria and the UK". I don't think the motive for a Skripal false flag could
be more starkly demonstrated.
We do not yet know how many children and other civilians have died so far in what the media
always pretend are magically "pinpoint" attacks on Syria. Denying the "collateral damage" is
part of the neo-con playbook. The danger is that they will not stop but continue to push,
testing how far they can go in weakening Syrian government forces to promote their jihadist
allies on the ground, before they spark a real Russian reaction. That way madness lies.
It is also worth noting that the most ardent supporters of this military action, outside
Saudi Arabia and Israel, are the Blairites in the UK and the Clinton Democrats in the USA. The
self-described "centrists" are actually the unhinged extremists in today's politics.
This attack on Syria is, beyond doubt, a huge success for the machinations of Mohammed
Bin Salman. Please do read my post of 8 March which sets
out the background to his agenda, and I believe is essential to why we find our nations in
military action again today. Despite the fact the vast majority of the people do not want
this
Recall it is Mike Pompeo who has been responsible for the effort to stop CIA support for
ISIS, on directions from Donald J. Trump and the Pentagon faction which essentially
controls the White House.
Mike Pompeo was President of Sentry International, an oilfield equipment company and
close partner of Koch Industries. Also recall the recent meeting between the heads of the
FSB and SVR, Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin, received by Pompeo, then director of
the CIA, and Dan Coats, director of National Intelligence.
Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin Secretly Received in the United States
In hindsight this meeting appears to have been a strategy session conducted by extremely
important high level individuals from Russia with their 'partners' in the United
States.
The meeting occurred immediately before the firing of Rex Tillerson, an agent of the
UK-Rothchild 'Octopus,' which effectively controls Exxon-Mobil (the Rockefellers sold their
interest several years ago) of which Tillerson was formerly head. Tillerson, who once ran
the foreign policies of multiple countries dominated by Exxon-Mobil including Qatar, was
said to have been caught red-handed by the NSA under James Kelly, of assisting the UK
conspiracy to launch a chemical false flag attack in Eastern Ghouta, the discovery of which
led to Tillerson's unceremonious dismissal by Donald Trump via Twitter, a truly
unprecedented way to fire a US Secretary of State.
The lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), naming WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange as co-conspirators
with Russia and the Trump campaign in a criminal effort to steal the 2016 US presidential election, is a frontal assault on democratic
rights. It tramples on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of the press and freedom of speech as
fundamental rights.
Neither the Democratic Party lawsuit nor the media commentaries on it acknowledge that WikiLeaks is engaged in journalism, not
espionage; that its work consists of publishing material supplied to it by whistleblowers seeking to expose the crimes of governments,
giant corporations and other powerful organizations; and that this courageous campaign of exposure has made both the website and
its founder and publisher the targets of state repression all over the world.
Assange himself has been effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past six years, since he fled there
to escape efforts by the British, Swedish and American governments to engineer his extradition to the United States, where a secret
grand jury has reportedly indicted him on espionage and treason charges that could bring the death penalty. Since the end of March,
the Ecuadorian government, responding to increasing pressure from US and British imperialism, has cut off all outside communication
with him.
The reason for the indictment and persecution of Assange is that WikiLeaks published secret military documents, supplied by whistleblower
Chelsea Manning, revealing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables embarrassing to the US State Department
because they detailed US attempts to manipulate and subvert governments around the world.
The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a 66-page complaint that reeks of McCarthyism, with overtones of the Wisconsin
senator's demagogy about "a conspiracy so vast" when he was spearheading the anticommunist witch hunts more than 70 years ago. After
detailing a long list of supposed conspirators, ranging from the Russian government and its military intelligence agency GRU to the
Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the complaint declares: "The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery:
the campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win
the Presidency."
"... Mr Rouhani said in a live broadcast on state television that: "I am telling those in the White House that if they do not live up to their commitments, the Iranian government will firmly react." ..."
"... The Iranian leader did not say what this reaction would be, but the Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said at the weekend that it was "highly unlikely" that Iran would remain in the agreement – to which Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain are also signatories – if the US pulled out. ..."
The White House sounds as if it has already decided to exit the agreement, which Mr Trump
persistently denounced before and after his election as "the worst deal in the world".
But he has put forward no alternative to what was successfully negotiated by President
Barack Obama in 2015 other than a series of demands with which Iran is unlikely to comply, and
appear designed to put the blame for the US action on Iran.
US officials admit that Iran has so far abided by the terms of the 2015 accord.
A more openly confrontational posture by the US towards Iran would achieve very little,
unless Washington replaces the attempt to achieve its ends by diplomacy with sustained military
action. Iran is already on the winning side in the wars that have raged in Iraq since 2003 and
in Syria since 2011.
It is closely allied to the Iraqi and Syrian governments and to reverse the balance of power
in the region, the US would have revert to sustained military intervention on the scale of the
Iraq War, something Mr Trump has always opposed.
Iran may have already decided that the deal cannot be saved. Iranian president Hassan
Rouhani warned Mr Trump on Tuesday that the US must stay within its terms which Tehran signed
with other great powers or face "severe consequences".
Mr Rouhani said in a live broadcast on state television that: "I am telling those in the
White House that if they do not live up to their commitments, the Iranian government will
firmly react."
The Iranian leader did not say what this reaction would be, but the Iranian foreign
minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said at the weekend that it was "highly unlikely" that Iran would
remain in the agreement – to which Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain are also
signatories – if the US pulled out.
He added that Iran might immediately begin enriching uranium, but it would not develop a
nuclear device.
European leaders are trying to save the deal which Mr Trump has denounced as full of
"terrible flaws", but this will prove difficult without radical concessions which Iran has
rejected. These include stopping Iran's ballistic missile programme, extending the terminal
date of the agreement, and more intrusive inspections by nuclear inspectors.
ORDER IT NOW
No decision in Washington is final until it is announced by Mr Trump himself – and
often not even then – but the promotion of officials with a record of hostility to the
agreement suggests that it cannot be rescued. Mr Trump has said publicly that he sacked his
secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, because he wanted to stay with the Iran agreement negotiated
by President Obama.
His replacement, Mike Pompeo, is a long-term foe of the accord, once claiming that 2,000
bombing sorties would be enough to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability. "This is not an
insurmountable task for the coalition forces," he said.
President Emanuel Macron is in Washington on a state visit, trying to save the agreement by
making it more palatable to the White House. He will be followed in the US at the end of the
week by the German chancellor Angela Merkel, while Theresa May will probably express her views
by telephone.
All three leaders will try to reconcile Mr Trump to not leaving the accord and their
arguments will revolve around supplementary sanctions and other measures targeting the Iranian
ballistic missile programme and Iran's allies abroad such as Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The European leaders' mission may not be entirely hopeless: in confrontations over Syria and
North Korea, Mr Trump's belligerent rhetoric has been followed by more carefully calculated
action.
His opening stance is normally bombastic and uncompromising in order to intimidate the other
side into making concessions. It does not necessarily have to be taken at face value. But this
periodic moderation may not come into play in the case of Iran, towards which he has been
uncompromisingly hostile, claiming that it is the hidden power behind "terrorist" activity in
the Middle East.
The White House is in a position to hurt Iran economically by re-imposing economic
sanctions, not that these were ever really lifted after 2015, but US political options are more
limited. It may talk about regime change in Tehran, but is not in a position to do much about
it.
There is a further US weakness: the US, often prompted by Israel, and Saudi Arabia, has a
track record of underestimating the extent to which Iran, as the largest Shia Muslim power,
plays a leading role in a coalition of states – Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – because
of the predominant influence of the Shia in these countries. It is very difficult to defeat
Iran there – the northern tier of the Middle East – but it is in this region that
the US has chosen over the years to try to roll back Iranian influence.
The balance of power between Iran and its enemies is going to be difficult to shift whatever
Mr Trump decides about the fate of the Iran nuclear deal.
The White House is in a position to hurt Iran economically by re-imposing economic
sanctions, not that these were ever really lifted after 2015
The White house is only in a position to hurt Iran to the extent that the subordinate
countries of the US sphere are willing to continue to roll over and allow the US to bully and
manipulate them, and their companies, into compliance with unilateral US sanctions targeting
Iran. As such, this will represent another opportunity for the countries of the US sphere to
break away somewhat from their subservience to Washington, and from the insidious
manipulation by the Israel lobbies that tirelessly influence their own governments towards
confrontation with Iran.
Whether the poodle governments are willing or able to take such a step towards standing on
their national hind legs again, remains to be seen.
The balance of power between Iran and its enemies is going to be difficult to shift
whatever Mr Trump decides about the fate of the Iran nuclear deal.
Though why it would be in Britain's, or any European country's, or even the US's interests
to reduce Iranian weight in the region is far from clear. Iran has long been the better side
in the ME, as compared with the Gulf sunni despots or the Israeli thugs.
It can prove a slippery slope for Iran to renegotiate the deal. Next president might have 2
incentives to double down on Iran and ask for more concessions including dismantling of army,
navy,demobilization of Hizbollah, transfer of the bases/territories in Iraq /Lebanon/Syria to
US or UK or Israel. It can ask for Iranian oil's ownership -sales and acceptance of 3 rd junk
American arms. This attitude will endear the president to warmongering FOX CNN WSJ MSNBC and
also to other .
Withdrawing from the deal will impact negatively the negotiations with North Korea. Trump is
stuck between his bombasting declarations against Iran and his desire of solving the nuclear
issue with North Korea
My opinion is that Trump for now can only make dramatic threats to Iran and remain in the
deal.
Withdrawing from the deal will impact negatively the negotiations with North Korea.
Maybe, but maybe not. My impression is that NK involvement in these talks is probably
driven by Chinese pressure – specifically the Chinese adherence to the latest rounds of
draconian UN sanctions. In that case, it seems unlikely new evidence of US untrustworthiness
will change anything, given the wider US track record in Libya and elsewhere. It's hardly as
though the NKs aren't fully aware of US perfidy and military aggression, after all.
Mr Cockburn starts off with major, although common, error, which is that there is a conflict
between
the U.S. and Iran. That simply is not true.
First, the U.S. has no Iranian policy. What it does have is an Israeli plan, pushed by
traitors such as John Bolton and fools like Lindsey Graham, and hundreds for extremely
dedicated Israeli supporters throughout our government.
Second, the U.S. congress is a joke. Most of the world laughs at the foolishness and
corruption and cowardice of our "Parliment of Fowles," or congress of whores, bought and sold
by hundreds of lobbyists with cash to make their arguments cogent.
The U.S. is crippled by a flawed system and will eventually go the way of all flesh.
in confrontations over Syria and North Korea, Mr Trump's belligerent rhetoric has been
followed by more carefully calculated action.
Carefully calculated to. . . increase the war effort, including greatly increased aerial
bombing of Afghanistan, that poor tribal country on the other side of the planet, and a
reversal of a Syria pull-out coupled with senseless missile attacks.
And Iran is in a higher category, the arch-enemy of Israel (and thus the US) and Iran's
support of "terrorist" (Hezbollah) activity in the Middle East which is why the US has had a
consistent (excepting the puppet Shah) anti-Iran policy for fifty years. Why change it?
Especially now when Iran is a big winner in Syria and Israel is a big loser (along with the
US).
I did not vote for Trump to make Israel great but to make America great. He is betraying a
large segment of his base. His options are very limited. Contrary to what Pompeo says, his
military options, if exercised, would lead to America losing at least half its planes and
half its ships. The American military know this and as a result are opposed to any military
attack. They would do everything they could to prevent such an attack. After their very poor
performance regarding the missile attack on Syria they would be even more adamantly opposed.
Trump really has no alternative to the current agreement. If he is stupid enough to break
this agreement, how can he expect the North Koreans to take him at his word.
Iran does not need the so-called "West". She can get everything she needs from Russia and
China.
So, Pompeo thinks 2000 airstrikes will solve the problem? I regularly read about US fighter
aircraft falling out of the sky or being out of service for maintenance issues. Time for
China to invade Taiwan? Or Russia to settle Ukraine permanently?
And does Hezbollah just idly stand by, holding 1000′s of missiles against Israel?
What does Iraq (mostly Shia) do? Allow their nation to be used for bombing? Or bases?
And the Gulf? Can the global economy survive $100 a barrel oil? Can the US afford total
control and sweeping of this huge waterway?
The big question now is, do the EU poodles show some courage?
All of which lead me to believe that China has guaranteed that it will intervene in full
force, should outside forces launch an attack on North Korea. And that North Korea believes
them – after all, exactly that scenario played out in 1950.
This, along with Chinese economic pressure, has pushed the North Koreans to agree to
de-nuclearization talks.
Trump betrayal of his voters is as staggering as Obama betrayal. May even more so.
Notable quotes:
"... It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him. ..."
"... North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them. ..."
"... Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson. ..."
"... Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020. ..."
It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief
diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite
and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with
the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so
dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him.
Pompeo also
said this weekend that he didn't think North Korea would care if the U.S. withdrew from the
agreement:
"I don't think Kim Jong Un is staring at the Iran deal and saying, 'Oh goodness, if they
get out of that deal, I won't talk to the Americans anymore,'" Pompeo told reporters
traveling on his plane en route from Saudi Arabia to Israel. "There are higher priorities,
things that he is more concerned about than whether or not the Americans stay in the
[agreement]."
It is obvious that North Korea has bigger concerns than U.S. adherence to the JCPOA, but it
doesn't follow that they won't take U.S. withdrawal as another sign that negotiating with
Washington is pointless. North Korea already has other reasons to doubt U.S. trustworthiness.
John Bolton's
endorsement of using negotiations with Libya as a model couldn't be more tone-deaf, since
North Korean officials frequently cite the overthrow and death of Gaddafi as a cautionary tale
of what happens when a government makes a deal with the U.S. It is possible that North Korea
won't put much stock in what happens to the JCPOA one way or another for a very different
reason: unlike Iran, North Korea has no intention of making significant concessions, and it is
engaged in talks with the U.S. to get as much as it can out of the fact that it is now a
full-fledged nuclear weapons state.
North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons
anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are
right to keep them.
Our involvement in international "diplomacy", already weird, embarrassing, and destabilizing
because of Trump's random behavior, now seems to be spinning out of control. Pompeo's
recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and
sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson.
Wake me up when any senior member of this government turns out to be something other than
crooked, stupid, vulgar, incompetent, or some kind of foreign agent. We voted for Trump
hoping for a radical re-dedication to American interests. Instead, as Pompeo's current
trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East
crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
November 2018 is already slated to be a Republican bloodbath, in great part because our
government, the Congress in particular, is serving foreign interests and Wall Street instead
of America. And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless,
staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020.
CitizenOne April 23, 2018 at 11:23 pm I dug this up based on the article which is pertinent.
It is the basis for propaganda in WWI:
We do not want war.
The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
The enemy is the face of the devil.
We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
Our cause is sacred.
All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
So let's translate this into modern language.
We do not want war. Translation: "We want War"
The opposite party alone is guilty of war. Translation: We are guilty of Preemptive War"
The enemy is the face of the devil. Translation: "We demonize the enemy as the Devil. The
enemy is the Devil (Putin)"
We defend a noble cause, not our own interest. Translation: "We are in it purely for our
self interest. Oil, Gas, Mineral resources, Mining, Banking etc. We are in it for our own
interest"
The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary. Translation: "Our
actions are our own of our own volition. We create and hide atrocities and cruelties by us and
exemplify and magnify cruelties by our enemy"
The enemy uses forbidden weapons. Translation: We can attack our enemies at will because
they have weapons of mass dwstruction"
We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous. Translation: "Our weapons are
superior"
Artists and intellectuals back our cause. Translation: "The Liberals back our cause for
War"
Our cause is sacred. Translation: "The Conservatives back our cause for War"
All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors. Translation: "Everyone who doubts the main
stream propaganda is a Traitor"
Donald Trump beware, there is a band of oligarchs waiting to pin you as a Traitor for
doubting the propaganda.
I say keep on keeping on with your attacks on the intelligence agencies who have signed onto
and have in fact created all of the fake news against our newly appointed enemy in Russia that
seeks to create a new yet old enemy by resurrecting the old Cold War and turn it into a new
Cold war. They should be shuttered and discredited for their lies which have seduced the
Congress on both sides of the aisle to sanction Russia and enact laws preventing the President
from refusing the compulsions of the Congress to engage in acts of war with an unproven enemy.
Perhaps there is a Russian Bear like the one predicted by Reagan with his "Bear in the Woods"
campaign created by the Reagan conservatives.
"... ( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different programs. Wikipedia ) ..."
"... nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ..."
The latest hot topic in the Russian media. Russian politicians are talking about it. Historical precedent and behavior of Western
media suggests that they are. The Saker Fri, Apr 22, 2016 |
52,080
195 MORE: Politics A major topic in the Russian media is
mystification with how Putin is portrayed in the Western media.
Wildly popular at home, and seen as a decent, modest, an admirable person, and Russians don't understand how there can be such
a disconnect with Western impressions.
Recently, leading Russian commentators and politicians have been suggesting that this can only be explained by a deliberate campaign
to defame Putin, by governments or other groups.
The day before another member of Putin's inner circle, Vyasheslav Volodin,
made similar remarks , telling foreign journalists "an attack on Putin is an attack on Russia." The logic, they argue, is that
by defaming the leader of a country, you weaken his power domestically by undermining popular support for him, and internationally,
by rallying popular opinion to support policies against that country. The ultimate goal, they argue, is to weaken the country itself.
They also talk about regime change. They argue that if one looks at the facts, that there is evidence of ongoing character assassination
which cannot be explained by a vague popular zeitgeist in the West, but is more likely the result of a dedicated effort to introduce
this defamation into the news flow.
Newsweek has been one of the most virulent Putin-bashers for years
The issue of manipulation of news by intelligence services has been in the news recently with revelations that the CIA and German
Secret Service (GSS) have long-running programs to influence how media executives and top journalists convey and interpret the news,
including direct cash payments. Here are some examples they point to:
Portraying him as a scheming dictator trying to rebuild a repressive empire.
Claiming he personally ordered the murder of a number of journalists, and personally ordered a KGB defector to be murdered
with radiation poisoning.
Frequently citing unsubstantiated rumors he is having an affair with a famous gymnast.
Allegations that he has stashed away billions for his personal benefit, without providing evidence.
Recent article in Newsweek claiming he leads a luxurious and lazy lifestyle, sleeping late.
Recent article in NYT focusing on a supposed personal arrogance.
Hillary Clinton mentioning in speech after speech that he is a bad guy, a bully, that one must confront him forcefully.
Mis-quoting him on his regret about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Articles about a supposed super-luxury villa built for him in southern Russia.
The over-the top headlines in the western media (they were worst of all in Germany) portraying him personally responsible
for murdering the victims of MH17.
And soft stuff - magazine covers making him look sinister, monstrous, etc.
RI sat down with The Saker , a leading analyst
of Russia in international affairs, and asked him what he thinks:
-----------------------------------
So, is there any credence to this line of thinking, or is this conspiracy theorists running wild?
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the US is waging a major psyop war against Russia, although not a shooting war, for
now, and that what we are seeing is a targeted campaign to discredit Putin and achieve "regime change" in Russia or, should that
fail, at the very least "regime weakening" and "Russia weakening".
And the Economist has been the very worst of them all...
So this is a US government program?
Yes, Putin is absolutely hated by certain factions in the US government two main reasons:
1. He partially, but not fully, restored Russia's sovereignty which under Gorbachev and Yeltsin had been totally lost Russia then
was a US colony like Ukraine is today and,
2. He dared to openly defy the USA and its civilizational model.
a free and sovereign Russia is perceived by the US "deep state" as an existential threat which has to be crushed. this is a full-scale
political assault on Russia and Putin personally.
So what the Russians are saying, that the constant personal attacks against Putin in the global media are partly the result
of deliberate efforts by US intelligence services, basically, planted stories
Yes, absolutely
It seems like "Operation Mockingbird" all over again Are you aware of other instances aimed at Putin?
( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually
exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975
which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different
programs. Wikipedia )
Yes, of course. Since this defamation has very little traction with the Russian public Putin's popularity is higher than ever
before .., there is an organized campaign to convince them that Putin is "selling out" Novorussia, that he is a puppet of oligarchs
who are making deals with Ukrainian oligarchs to back-stab the Novorussian resistance
So far, Putin's policies in the Ukraine have enjoyed very strong support from the Russian people who still oppose an overt military
intervention
but if Kiev attacks Novorussia again - which appears very likely - and if such an attack is successful - which is less likely
but always possible - then Putin will be blamed for having given the Ukrainians the time to regroup and reorganize.
Warm and fuzzy...
So you are saying that if the Ukrainian military strengthens its position enough to deliver a serious blow to the East Ukrainians,
the US can use this as a method to strike at Putin's support base
Yes, that's right ... t here are a lot of "fake patriots" in Russia and abroad who will reject any negotiated solution and who
will present any compromise as a "betrayal". They are the "useful idiots" used by western special services to smear and undermine
Putin.
Is it limited to government special ops, or are there other groups who might have an interest in doing this?
Yes, well here is something that most people in the west don't appreciate there is a major behind-the scenes struggle among Russian
elites between what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (basically, those who support Putin) and what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists"
(those whom Putin refers to as the "5th column).
The western media talks about this as the struggle between Russian liberals and conservatives, reformers and reactionaries,
right?
Well its sort of like that, but not exactly
The former see Russia's future in the Russian North and East and want to turn Russia towards Asia, Latin America and the rest
of the world, while the latter want Russia to become part of the "North Atlantic" power configuration.
The Atlantic Integrationists are now too weak to openly challenge Putin - whose real power base is his immense popular support
- but they are quietly sabotaging his efforts to reform Russia while supporting anti-Putin campaigns.
Regarding the revelations of CIA activities in Germany, do you think this is going on in other countries, in the US?
I am sure that this is happening in most countries worldwide. The very nature of the modern corporate media is such that it makes
journalists corrupt.
As the French philosopher Alain Soral says " nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ". There are, of
course, a few exceptions, but by and large this is true.
This is not to say that most journalists are on the take. In the West this is mostly done in a more subtle way - by making it
clear which ideas do or do not pass the editorial control, by lavishly rewarding those journalists who 'get it' and by quietly turning
away those who don't.
If a journalist or reporter commits the crime of "crimethink" he or she will be sidelined and soon out of work.
There is no real pluralism in the West where the boundaries of what can be said or not are very strictly fixed.
Ok, but is it like what has been revealed in Germany, similar specific operational programs in France, the UK, Italy, Latin
America, etc.
Yes, one has to assume so – it is in their interests to have them and there is no reason for them not to.
As for the CIA, it de-facto controls enough of the corporate media to "set the tone". As somebody who in the past used to read
the Soviet press for a living, I can sincerely say that it was far more honest and more pluralistic than the press in the USA or
EU today.
Joseph Goebbels or Edward Bernays could not have imagined the degree of sophistication of modern propaganda machines.
If the US is doing it, can't one assume other governments are too? Are the Russians doing it against western leaders?
I think that all governments try to do that kind of stuff. However, what makes the US so unique it a combination of truly phenomenal
arrogance and multi-billion dollar budgets.
The US "deep state" owns the western corporate media which is by far the most powerful media on the planet. Most governments can
only do that inside their own country ... to smear a political opponent or discredit a public figure, but they simply do not have
the resources to mount an international strategic psyop campaign. This is something only the US can do.
So foreign governments are at a great disadvantage in this arena vis-a-vis the US?
Excellent. Another point to grasp is that the Banksters do not want a true capitalism, where inefficiency fails, & competition
trims profits.
They want what we now have in the West : a crony corporatist state, where ever fewer giant globalist multinationals dominate both
commerce & countries, pay no taxes, to the benefit of their CEOs , shareholders & their banksters.
In short, effectively, a Fascism.
Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr. See where those "Atlantic Integrationists" came from.
Russia today is the only power standing up to the world oligarchy. If Russia falls then we will all be living as slaves behind
a barb wired fence, with chips under our skin, etc. etc.
Yes, and Russia has actually been making efforts to keep the dollar afloat, because they know the US hegemons will get even
nastier of their precious dollar becomes worthless. Their goal isn't to integrate Ukraine into the EU. They want to create a failed
state on Russia's border, and also hopefully engage them militarily in Syria and in places like Chechnya.
I've heard tell...Russia's central banking institution does not belong to the state. Does this sound familiar? I do not believe
that the international banking system give two turds about the affairs of Russia, unless...Russia moves to control it's own central
bank, then there would be real war.
Bankers have no allegiance except to money
It is headed by Chicago-school wannabes who follow the dictates of a banking system aimed at preversving the US banks at the
expense of their onw country's economy.
Nabuliana (sp ?), the head of the Russian CB, knows she is on borrowed time but still keep favoring the US over Russia.
What is it they also say about dying Empires. The US did not retain Empire status for long, when you look at Russia and China,
they are just a toddler on the block?
Very interesting perspective.
I'm very curious to hear western comments on Russian conspiracy theories that Fed already owns Russia and current straggle is
a straggle for independence. It seems wild but for people who view Federal Reserve Bank as a direct enemy of humanity it doesn't
seem very far-fetched.
WHEN PUTIN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT of Russia in 2000, Russia was bankrupt. The nation owed $16.6 billion to the Rothschild-run
International Monetary Fund while its foreign debt to the Rothschild-controlled Paris & London Club Of Creditors was over 36 billion
dollars.
But Putin took advantage of the current boom in world oil prices by redirecting a portion of the profits of Russia's largest
oil producer Gazprom so as to pay off the country's debt. The continual surge in oil prices greatly accelerated Russia's capacity
to restore financial sovereignty.
By 2006 Putin had paid off Russia's debt to the Rothschilds. Russia's financial dependence on the Mafia financiers was now
over. I doubt they've gotten another hold since then.
You need to understand that President Putin's divorce is a private matter. In the Anglo World they stick their nose into these
private matters but in Russia they do not. Who knows; there have been people who got divorced so the spouse would not cop it in
the event of big problems. They even got married again later on. The Anglo World is also dumb, always behaving as if the removal
of ONE man would cure something, e.g. Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad - nah. Or take Myanmar; if only the lady (whose name I cannot spell)
would rule the country, everything would be fine. Nah - she's extremely racist and will not utter the name of one tribe 'Rohingyas'.
There is definitely a campaign against Russia and President Putin. For Germany it's the
Atlantik-Brücke which steers the press, in Australia the Australia-American Leadership Dialogue, something else in the other
countries, just like the late Brian Crozier masqueraded as a journalist but was CIA funded. The campaign needs to be ignored although
it is really peculiar that Bush Sr. was fine as CIA chief, and Putin as KGB officer was not. I'ts just the usual American double
standards.
(I think) .... Putin's divorce is not yours to wonder about or criticise.
'Sides, he said, at his last Q&A, he gets on better with his ex now than he did when he was married. That should be good enough
for you.
I THINK the time has come for RUSSIA to play HARDBALL with teh us gov and cia, nsa. etc...
and that is to OPENLY , REPEATEDLY -- RIGHT AT THE LEVEL OF UN AND INTERNATIONAL FORUMS - RIGHT INTO any ''talks" between EU/WEST/
and relations with other nations
always INCLUDE , INSERT -- part of discussions -- teh CIA/US GOV /ENTITIES
attempts against russia.
MAKE IT very prominent that it can NOT be ignored no matter what the USA TRIES...
in order to puit FRONT AND CENTER in the world the attention on THE CIA.
don't let it remain ''incidental" topic to ''major issues"
rather -- make it A CENTRAL topic in every instance and keep throwing t at the USA so that all international meetings ALWAYS
bring up
\
USA/CIA - USA,/CIA -- sabotage -- oh yet again another CIA operation in macedonia, oh another one in cnetral asia...etc....
let us remember --
2 cia emplyed ''pschiatrist/psychologists" who took care of the ''methodology" of CIA TORTURE are right now being sued in a
US court that is forced to open hearings -- on the suit by former tortured detainees...
the PORTUGUESE AMERICAN woman - SOUSA -- is ordered to appear in an ITALIAN COURT to face her charges for conspiracy to kidnap,
rendition , torture the arab/italian citizen
more and more will come, that is inevitable and the CIA ought to be BROUGHT BEYOND just ''topic of discussion" --but as the
DEEP STATE that it is -- out into the open -- calling out, searchng out its operatives, officers, policy makers, amerifcan officials
-- that' sort of thing...and the only way to do that is make it a WORLD GLOBAL CAUSE TO BRING UP in all matters of international
governance and relations -- in press conferences...assemblies, treaties, etc...
I just want to point out that German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing to go to war with Russia. The
western media now has to combat the anti-war tendencies they propagated onto Germans ever since the end of WW2. If you read the
comments on all these anti-Putin propaganda articles, you can tell that Germans hate their own media for doing so.
Hey, I`m from Germany (Stuttgart), and i can definitely say, that we Germans hate our media and get the informations we need
from the Internet. Angela Merkel do what Obama says to her and we can do nothing. if we go to the street and make a Demonstration
they say we are nazi or the media say nothing. many People (the old People) in Germany hate Putin and belive the lies from the
media, but we, the young people dont belive the lies. We love Putin and wish Angela Merkel will be a little bit like Putin.
I'm also German (Lahr, Schwartzwald) and totally agree. NEVER watch German TV. It is like for imbeciles. Cooking, singing,
festivals everything to keep us from thinking for ourselves. I also get all my info from sites like this one and many others.
Love Putin and think Ouma Merkel sold out to the US.
Sounds like American tv. But without all the series about serial killers, violence and perversion. What they have done to us
and our collective psyche here is sick, and demonic.
but this is not just a problem IN america -- germane TV as some of our friends here have said - getng shallower -- IS A PART
of the ''influence" of american ''way\" ..
to bring up mostly and primarily shallow past-times...that takes up LIFE HOURS...when you really count it,,,
ONE shallow pastime after another...the WORST imo,,,apart from these silly ''reality shows\" (which ARE copied throughout the
world unfortunately in that desire to be ''more american" -- even in CHINA ) -
are these ''game shows" -- trivia shows..that used to be just CHILD'S play n the backyard and really is where they OUGHT to
stay so children can be children...
but NATIONAL CULTURE? trivia shows? give me a BREAK!
but that's exactly what americana brings to societies..the HIGHLIGHTING AND GLORIFICATION OF SILLINESS and SHALLOWNESS as a
NATIONAL ETHOS.
and a sure-fire way of turning out , reshaping and ''winning hearts and minds" by making them exposed - without choice really
-- to ''the only games in town"
SILLY LITTLE GAMES that 'TRAIN the mind to become STUPID".
this - THIS is the great TRIUMPH of the american society over the world. where everything -- even WAR -- is now ''entertainment"
- to be ''packaged" - promoted sold, and switched around like cotton candy by the powers that be...and deeper critical thought
-- or honest simplicity of thought and discourse is ''NOT ALLOWED".
"... The entire Liberal narratives around Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin are actually political reconstructions of the "Yellow Peril" stereotype of the evil Asian who schemes to conquer the west, a viscous racist caricature straight out of the old dime magazine pulps. ..."
"... Originally Putin was depicted by liberals as merely a fiendish Asian criminal mastermind. After he finally started responding to the endless provocations, he became the terrible Fu Manchu, leader of a secret society of assassins, always plotting to destroy the west. Next to him is Alexander Dugin, a diabolical eastern sorcerer and leader of a fanatical sect. ..."
"... These sterotypes are 100% racist, and of the kind of brutal American "Yellow Peril" racism that justified both the mass internments of the Japanese in concentration camps and the nuclear genocide of two civilian cities. ..."
The entire Liberal narratives around Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin are actually
political reconstructions of the "Yellow Peril" stereotype of the evil Asian who schemes to
conquer the west, a viscous racist caricature straight out of the old dime magazine
pulps.
Originally Putin was depicted by liberals as merely a fiendish Asian criminal
mastermind. After he finally started responding to the endless provocations, he became the
terrible Fu Manchu, leader of a secret society of assassins, always plotting to destroy the
west. Next to him is Alexander Dugin, a diabolical eastern sorcerer and leader of a fanatical
sect.
Now (straight out of a Fu Manchu plotline) Putin is supposedly plotting to install his
puppet as president of the United States.
These sterotypes are 100% racist, and of the kind of brutal American "Yellow Peril"
racism that justified both the mass internments of the Japanese in concentration camps and
the nuclear genocide of two civilian cities.
I was unable to post this earlier, your site would not accept it somehow, so trying again
now:
> The oil agenda I discovered and experienced was to supply Iraq oil to Israel. The
players were the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration, their favorite Iraqi -- Dr
Ahmed Chalabi and the Israeli government. One of the motives was because Israel was paying a
huge premium for its oil imports and this premium had just started in the late1990s. The
agenda called for the reopening of the old Kirkuk to Haifa pipeline and its significant
expansion. When this pipeline plan became unattainable in the 2nd half of 2003 then Chalabi
took other actions to get inexpensive Iraqi oil to Israel.
> A much more credible explanation for intentionally destroying the Syrian export pipeline
than what Secretary Rumsfeld told the NY Times was found in the British press. The Guardian,
a London newspaper, quoted a retired CIA agent just after the Syria pipeline attack. "It has
long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving the Bush administration and
the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply.
Rebuilding the old Kirkuk to Haifa
pipeline would transform economic power in the region, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's
energy crisis at a stroke."
please read full details...
so only now does anyone realize the motive was to give iraq oil to israel
again we see israel/aipac/zionists rule usa govt, making war against iraq/libya/syria for
benefit of israel
Trump betrayal of his voters is as staggering as Obama betrayal. May even more so.
Notable quotes:
"... It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him. ..."
"... North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them. ..."
"... Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson. ..."
"... Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020. ..."
It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief
diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite
and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with
the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so
dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him.
Pompeo also
said this weekend that he didn't think North Korea would care if the U.S. withdrew from the
agreement:
"I don't think Kim Jong Un is staring at the Iran deal and saying, 'Oh goodness, if they
get out of that deal, I won't talk to the Americans anymore,'" Pompeo told reporters
traveling on his plane en route from Saudi Arabia to Israel. "There are higher priorities,
things that he is more concerned about than whether or not the Americans stay in the
[agreement]."
It is obvious that North Korea has bigger concerns than U.S. adherence to the JCPOA, but it
doesn't follow that they won't take U.S. withdrawal as another sign that negotiating with
Washington is pointless. North Korea already has other reasons to doubt U.S. trustworthiness.
John Bolton's
endorsement of using negotiations with Libya as a model couldn't be more tone-deaf, since
North Korean officials frequently cite the overthrow and death of Gaddafi as a cautionary tale
of what happens when a government makes a deal with the U.S. It is possible that North Korea
won't put much stock in what happens to the JCPOA one way or another for a very different
reason: unlike Iran, North Korea has no intention of making significant concessions, and it is
engaged in talks with the U.S. to get as much as it can out of the fact that it is now a
full-fledged nuclear weapons state.
North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons
anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are
right to keep them.
Our involvement in international "diplomacy", already weird, embarrassing, and destabilizing
because of Trump's random behavior, now seems to be spinning out of control. Pompeo's
recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and
sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson.
Wake me up when any senior member of this government turns out to be something other than
crooked, stupid, vulgar, incompetent, or some kind of foreign agent. We voted for Trump
hoping for a radical re-dedication to American interests. Instead, as Pompeo's current
trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East
crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
November 2018 is already slated to be a Republican bloodbath, in great part because our
government, the Congress in particular, is serving foreign interests and Wall Street instead
of America. And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless,
staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020.
This week saw an horrendous massacre of up to 50 women and children at a wedding party in
Yemen, carried out by the US, British and French-backed Saudi air force.
Two wedding halls in Hajjah Province were obliterated in the air strikes. Body parts were
strewn among the debris in a hellish scene.
Among the carnage, a little boy was found by civilian rescuers clinging
desperately to the body of his dead father. He refused to let go of his father's bloodied
corpse, clinging to the hope that his parent was still alive.
There was hardly any coverage of the slaughter in Western news media.
Yet the incident was nothing other than a massacre of civilians by Saudi warplanes, armed
and fueled by the US, Britain and France. A war crime.
Abominably, the Hajjah bombing was just one of many such war crimes committed by the
Western-backed Saudi regime on Yemen over the past three years.
Contrast that Western media indifference to Yemen's suffering with the saturated coverage
given to an unverifiable, and as it turns out, fabricated incident in Syria over an alleged
chemical-weapons attack in Douma on April 7.
Videos of dubious provenance were played over and over on Western media purporting to show
children suffering from chemical exposure in Syria. Strangely, the pitiful scene of the Yemeni
wedding hall massacre and the little boy among the carnage gained negligible Western media
coverage.
A week after the Douma incident, on April 14, after much hysterical condemnation of the
Syrian government and its Russia ally, US President Donald Trump and his British and French
counterparts ordered a barrage of missile strikes on Syria in what was supposed to be revenge
for the alleged atrocity in Douma.
Trump, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron made anguished statements about "human suffering" in
Syria. On Yemen, they say nothing.
This week, Russian authorities facilitated testimonies by families from Douma at the Hague
headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. British and American
officials decried it as Russian "theatrics" without even bothering to listen to the
testimonies.
Children who had previously appeared in dubious videos released by the militants in Douma,
testified that they were orchestrated unwittingly for a propaganda video on April 7 purporting
to show chemical weapons had been used. It turns out that no chemical weapons were used. Medics
in Douma confirmed that too.
The Douma incident was undoubtedly a false flag. There was no chemical-weapons attack. It
was a brazen fiction amplified by Western media.
Shamefully, Western media this week have blatantly dropped the Douma "story" probably in
light of the evidence emerging about the false flag.
But based on that stunt, the US, France and Britain launched over 100 missiles on Syria. The
US-led air strikes were based on a lie. The strikes were therefore a grave violation of
international law. A war crime.
The Western media in their reckless, hysterical coverage of the Douma incident alleging a
chemical-weapon attack thus stand accused of complicity in the subsequent criminal US-led air
strikes.
But where is the Western media coverage and outcry over a real atrocity which happened this
week in Yemen? Like many other real atrocities that have occurred in Yemen from Western-backed
Saudi air strikes, the Western media act as conduits for covering up the crimes by omitting to
report on the horror.
Another distorted priority in Western media was the massive coverage given to an incident
this week in Toronto where some deranged individual killed 10 pedestrians with a van. A
terrible crime in Toronto no doubt. But nothing on the scale of dozens of women and children
being butchered in Yemen by US, British and French-backed Saudi warplanes.
The near-complete absence of reporting on the barbarity inflicted in Yemen with the support
of Western governments is an example of how Western media operate like propaganda services.
No wonder that Western governments get away with such crimes in Yemen and elsewhere when the
news media in those countries are shamefully derelict in reporting on the crimes of Western
governments, and holding the latter to account.
To accuse Western media of being derelict is perhaps too generous a criticism. They are in
fact complicit in war crimes by their deliberate distortion and omission.
Their complicity is compounded by their arrogance in proclaiming to be "independent,
professional journalism". It is sickening when Western media outlets continually boast about
their "excellence in journalism". Celebrity self-inflated journalists like Christiane Amanpour
at CNN or Stephen Sackur at the BBC talk about "digging for truth and understanding" and "hard
talking".
Why isn't Amanpour digging for "truth and understanding" in the blood-soaked rubble of
Yemen; why isn't Sackur hard-talking to Western foreign ministers about their crimes in Yemen
and Syria, like he rudely tried to do recently with Russia's Sergei Lavrov? They don't because
they are vastly overpaid propaganda artists in the service of imperial power.
These people, like the news organizations they work for, are vile charlatans. The Western
media are propaganda cleaners for their criminal governments. This week's distortion about a
false flag in Syria and the horror in Yemen is the proof.
"... I'll also post another great article (up above) on "color revolutions" and "hybrid wars". It might surprise you at how easy it is for outside parties, who want to overthrow a government, go about doing it nowadays. They can't just walk in. They need a reason. The color revolutions and these new hybrid-type wars do the trick. Please read it. ..."
Bashar al-Assad was a mild-mannered ophthalmologist living in London
with his British-born wife. When his rash elder brother Basil was killed in a car crash, Bashar
was compelled to return to Syria and become the nominal political leader after the death of his
very tough, ruthless father, Hafez al-Assad. Bashar's main role was mediating between powerful
factions in Damascus and trying to modernize his nation (while managing the police state
inherited from his father).
In 2011, the U.S., Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia ignited an uprising in Syria using often
fanatical jihadists. The shy, retiring Bashar was forced to become war leader in a ruthless
civil conflict as his nation disintegrated.
President Trump, whose B-52 bombers are ravaging Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen calls Assad
a 'monster.' Some of his relatives are indeed ruthless. But very many Syrians think of Assad as
their nation's only hope of returning to normalcy.
Abe , April 21, 2018 at 5:51 pm
The conflict in Syria has never been a "civil war", and the anti-government forces are
almost entirely Israel-Saudi-U.S. Axis-supported terrorist mercenaries, not "rebels".
Terrorist groups were set loose on Syria in early 2011, when the U.S. and its "allies"
launched a "dirty war" dressed up by the media as a popular "revolution".
Armed terrorists infiltrated Syria and staged attacks against Syrian civilians and
security forces during March 17-18, 2011 demonstrations in Daraa, a city in southwestern
Syria, just north of the border with Israel's "good neighbor" Jordan.
In Daraa in 2011, as in Ukrainian capitol Kiev in February 2014, roof top snipers targeted
both police and demonstrators.
The U.S. continues to train terrorist fighters at a base in the Jordanian town of Safawi,
close to Daraa. CIA-trained terrorists cross into Syria from Jordan along the 320-kilometer
(198-mile) shared border. Most fight with Al-Qaeda affiliates while the rest join the ranks
of the ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
The so-called "humanitarian mandate" paraded by the US and its "allies" is sustained by
false flag attacks: killing civilians in a "regime change" campaign to break the legitimacy
of governments in the Middle East that refuse to abide by the diktats of Washington and its
"allies".
backwardsevolution , April 21, 2018 at 5:29 pm
This is a great article on "color revolutions" and "hybrid wars". The author says:
"Here's how it works. Pre-planned destabilizing forces, a combination of foreign citizens
and domestic so-called 'opposition', even if they are not officially affiliated with a
political party, either hijack legitimate protests or engineer their own conditions for one,
and then provoke the government into responding with force. The goal is to delegitimize the
state domestically and internationally, and weaken it to the point where an urban guerrilla
offensive eventually topples it.
Even if it fails to overthrow the authorities, the resultant destabilization spreads
throughout the region and creates a favorable strategic environment for US foreign policy,
such as a pretext for regional military deployment. There are also scenarios where it can be
used to create a secessionist movement within the targeted state, in which case it markets
itself to certain ethnic, religious, or regional groups in order to gain supposed
'legitimacy'. [ ]
The idea to keep in mind is that Color Revolutions aren't spontaneous, but are engineered
destabilization movements with concrete geopolitical goals. [ ]
Also remember that there is a distinction between legitimate protests and Color
Revolutions, but the US is dangerously blurring the line between the two in order to hide its
strategic intent and gain a certain plausible deniability over its involvement. When foreign
NGOs and internationally affiliated opposition members are involved, that's usually a red
flag, as well as statements in support of the movement from the US State Department or local
American embassy.
If a protest seems to support American strategic interests, more often than not, it
actually does, and the US has some kind of direct or indirect role in bringing it about, even
if 9 out of 10 of the participants don't realize this. Always be alert, and if you keep in
mind that the US has weaponized Color Revolutions and engineers them for geopolitical
purposes, then you'll be more fully prepared to counter this new type of weapon."
Hybrid wars -- you take a peaceful protest (maybe citizens complaining about prices being
too high), you put your stooges into the crowd and on a few rooftops with sniper rifles.
Shots are fired into the crowd, maybe a few innocent people are shot and killed. The citizens
look around and see the government soldiers standing on the periphery. Thinking they had
taken the shots, they start to maybe throw some rocks or bricks at the soldiers. The soldiers
and government are paralyzed. Do they shoot at the protesters, at their own citizens? Maybe
one soldier, fearing for his life, does shoot a citizen, and then the fun begins.
The goal is to create chaos, have the citizens think their own government initially fired
into the crowd and killed some innocent people. This gives the Western government, who wanted
to overthrow the country's leader anyway, an excuse to go in. Of course, the NGO's have
already been in the country engineering this whole event.
This isn't the exact article I read before (it was longer), but it will do.
Dave P. , April 21, 2018 at 7:55 pm
Backwardsevolution -- It seems like they are starting something -- may be another color
revolution -- in Hungary right now, with all these protests. Orban's party just won the
parliamentary election resoundingly with 67% of the vote. And EU started threatening Hungary
with some sort of sanctions a few days ago. And now for the last two or three days we are
seeing these protests.
We have to remember that only in big cities like Budapest or Moscow in those countries,
all sort of West's NGO's, including Soros's have bought some followers, along with the West,s
intelligence agencies, to start these demonstrations in the beginning stage. I think they are
kind of sending the signal to the Austrian Government too to line up behind EU, US or else. I
don't think the West will let Orban govern Hungary unless he follows their line.
Jim DiEugenio April 21, 2018 at 5:00 pm
Looks to me like the Arab Spring was incubated by some of our NGO's
Thomas Gilroy's comment overlooks the brief mention by Mr Margolis of the role of Western
interventionism and particularly the CIA in the "Arab Spring" movements of Syria and the
Middle East. There are numerous articles on the Internet about this for anyone who doesn't
care to regurgitate the US Establishment narrative but wants to dig deeper. Ahmed Bensaada
has written a book, "Arab Spring: Made in the USA". We don't live in Syria, therefore we have
to rely on media sources for information. The Establishment has even cooked up a term for
questioning their dominant story, "Alt". 21st Century Wire journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva
Bartlett have first-hand knowledge of several years in Syria of what has been called a "Civil
War" but is a proxy war for Israel and for multinational corporations' profits.
Delia Ruhe, April 21, 2018 at 2:16 pm
Good to hear from Eric Margolis again after having lost touch with his work a few years
ago. I'm now reminded of how much I've missed his voice. He's one of those (to me, a lefty)
rare conservatives who believes that people should not be propagandized by their government
and its MSM stenographers, and that evidence, facts, and truth are the essence of journalism.
He also doesn't get hysterical about liberalism – or what passes for it in the US.
In the rest of the West, "liberal" means something quite different than what it does in
the US, where Democrats become "left" when Republicans do a lurch farther "right." So it's
always amusing to hear American conservatives attack liberals as "godless" socialists and
communists and enemies of the sacred free market instead of the lynch-pin that keeps the
political spectrum fastened to the centre of the liberal democratic system, orbited by
several varieties of leftism and several varieties of rightism. In reality, there hasn't been
a "left" in American politics since Eugene Debs. Even FDR wasn't a lefty; he was a welfare
capitalist who practiced the right relation of public and private spheres -- which is far
more than you can say about those lunatics who follow Grover Norquist and have devoted their
careers to dragging a moribund government into the bathroom and drowning it in the
bathtub.
Smart conservatives avoid all this misapprehension and the hysterics that go with it.
Margolis is one of these – and we need more like him.
backwardsevolution, April 21, 2018 at 4:59 pm
Thomas – ever since reading your post, I've been searching for a very interesting
article you might want to read (I'll keep searching for it). This article states that the war
in Syria DID NOT start because of the three boys writing graffiti on a wall, but started in a
smallish town in Syria before that event even happened. The reporter had gone to talk to the
religious leader who oversaw the town. This religious leader said that the day before the
uprising, some outsiders had come into the town, and that it was these outsiders who were
instrumental in firing shots from rooftops (just like in Ukraine) in order to start a riot.
It was a great article. I'll try to find it.
I'll also post another great article (up above) on "color revolutions" and "hybrid
wars". It might surprise you at how easy it is for outside parties, who want to overthrow a
government, go about doing it nowadays. They can't just walk in. They need a reason. The
color revolutions and these new hybrid-type wars do the trick. Please read it.
Marko, April 21, 2018 at 9:09 pm
I suspect this article by Steven Sahiounie is the one you're referring to :
The day before Deraa: How the war broke out in Syria
Marko – that's the article! I couldn't get to it with your link, but you gave me the
name of the article, and so I found it. As soon as I saw the picture, I knew that that was
the article. It's been awhile since I read it, so I hope I didn't do it too much
injustice.
Here's the link that works for me:
Great article, was on Lew Rockwell's site this morning. Doesn't really talk about Assad's
control after his autocrat father, which seems a change from the hardline elder, but like the
"autocrat" demonization of Putin uses the past to shape present public perception. I read
that after Macron got France to take part in the F.UK.US strike, Assad voluntarily
relinquished the French Legion of Honor award bestowed to Syria by DeGaulle, rather than
Syria being ordered to give it back.
It does appear that Britain's participation via Mrs. Mayhem (thanks to another CN
commenter, sorry i can't name but great.sobriquet!) harkens back to the colonial Great Powers
conflicts of WWI and defeat of the Ottoman Empire, and as we know Britain had a large hand in
creation of the state of Israel.
mike k, April 21, 2018 at 1:41 pm
Anyone in the way of US oil grabs is demonized. The American public just eats it up; it
gives them a guilt free ticket to vent their taste for violence. The victims of that violence
are just some dark skinned natives who don't count, and probably had it coming for defying
Uncle Sam. Like in Yemen now. Americans love to be in on a genocide, always have. You can
count on us to cheer on the bullies, especially when they are waving the red white and blue.
It just makes you feel good to be the toughest guys on the block. Go-git-em! Our brave
(hired) heroes will take care of those damn gooks!
JIm DiEugenio, April 21, 2018 at 12:48 pm
Eric is on the right track on this. I was unaware until I read a book called The Devil's
Game that the British had tried to undermine any pan Arabist, secular movements in the Middle
East. And that policy extended back to the twenties. The Brits actually backed the Muslim
Brotherhood. The idea behind this was that it would be easier to negotiate with royal
families in the area for petroleum deals. And BP was a major company in the field.That policy
was picked up on by John Foster Dulles when Nasser recognized China and refused to join the
Baghdad Pact. Dulles then decided to back Saudi Arabia against Nasser's pan Arabist
movement.
This is why Israel does not really seem to oppose what is happening to Syria, a secular
state that Nasser tried to form a union with. The more fundamentalist the Middle East
becomes, the less choice the USA has except to ally itself with Israel no matter what the
country does. In fact, it was Israel that backed the formation of Hamas in order to outflank
Fatah and make the Palestinians seem more part of the Arab terrorist movement.
Berna, April 24, 2018 at 12:00 pm
Anon- "Israel is the sole US motive behind the Syria fiasco;" That is a highly simplistic,
narrow, and uneducated viewpoint. It does not take into account that Israel's actions are
almost completely predictable as it will do whatever it feels is militarily necessary whether
or not the US approves. The US is not in Syria on Israel's account. US policy is and has been
since the beginning of the Cold War to oppose Russian influence anywhere in the world, from
Vietnam to Nicaragua to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria. Meanwhile, Israel and Russia
have very strong relations. Russia is Israel's primary source of oil. The two countries have
a visa free agreement and a free trade agreement.
Gen Dao April 22, 2018 at 2:02 am Mr. Margolis, thank you very much for this helpful
article. In future articles I wonder if you might not want touch on points such as the
below:
* Bashar Assad's father was truly a ruthless strongman, but it should not be forgotten that
during almost his entire time as president (and continuing up to the present) the Muslim
Brotherhood declared war on the secular Ba'athist government and engaged in an armed struggle
to overthrow the Syrian government and establish Sharia law instead. If the armed Muslim
Brotherhood had declared war on the US government and even gone so far as to capture a whole US
city, how differently from Assad Sr. do you think US presidents would have acted?
* On blogs I have several times encountered the claim from leftist former political
prisoners in Syria that Syria does not torture leftist political prisoners but only suspected
Muslim Brotherhood members and other jihadists, i.e., militants who are trying to overthrow the
Syrian government using violence. Have you researched this point?
* It's important to remember that Bashar Assad's government did respond to many of the
popular political demands made in March and April of 2011, before the demos were completely
taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Syria. Several draconian security laws
were repealed by parliament, and in 2012 a new democratic Syrian constitution was passed. I
wonder how many NYT or WaPo reporters or State Dept. "specialists" have even read this new
constitution, which can be found online? How many other Middle Eastern constitutions can even
compare with it?
* Moreover, the Ba'athists in Syria have always been much more responsive to minority points
of view than most Middle Eastern governments. The Assads are themselves members of a minority
Shia school of Islam and have been constantly demonized by Sunni theologians in Saudi Arabia
and the gulf states, so the Assads have been comparatively careful about protecting minority
rights and maintaining multicultural and multifaith dialog. Hence the strong support for Assad
shown by Syrian Christians, for example. This is almost never mentioned by the western MSM.
* Another fact hidden under the cone of silence imposed by the western MSM is that the
present president (Assad) and the parliament of Syria were elected under democratic conditions
observed by international election observers under the new constitution in 2014. Assad won his
race for president against two opponents. Therefore Assad and the current Syrian parliament are
the legitimate government of Syria. The next elections will be held in 2021, so if belligerent
western nations professing to respect democracy are interested in "regime change," they will
have to wait until 2021, when the Syrian people will indeed make that decision themselves.
Demanding an arbitrary change in the Syrian government before then is equal to negating the
2014 elections and demanding illegal interference in the domestic affairs of Syria, aka
neo-colonialism. The parallel with the US-supported anti-democratic coup in Ukraine in 2014 is
striking.
PJB , April 21, 2018 at 5:19 pm
A friend of mine has a relative who worked with Bashar al-Assad during his opthalmology
training in the UK. I asked what his relative thought of Assad's personality. The answer: a
normal guy and "certainly not a psychopath".
In the YouTube clip below there is a speech of Assad's, 10 months into the Syrian war, to
a crowd that could number a million in Damascus is Churchillian in scope and style. He does
come across as a mild-mannered doctor, thrust by fate into leading his nation against foreign
backed head-chopping fanatics. As a result, the enthusiasm of the crowd dwarfs anything any
Western politician could receive from supporters.
The speech is subtitled and worth listening to. You'd never ever see it in the Western
mainstream media.
backwardsevolution , April 21, 2018 at 9:07 pm
PJB – thanks for posting that. I like Assad. As you say, he was thrust into being
the leader of Syria. I watched a video where a western reporter was saying to Assad something
like, "But you kill people in your prisons," to which Assad replied, "Yes, that is what is
done here, that is the Arab way of dealing with criminals and terrorists." He wasn't
condoning it, but just stating that that is way things are done there. He couldn't change it
if he tried, as he too has his own lords and nobles (the religious leaders/his political
enemies) who would stab him in the back.
ranney , April 21, 2018 at 5:12 pm
I wondered when someone would mention that the US sent prisoners to Syria to be tortured
before we decided that Syria was a monster. This was common information a few years ago, but
now not mentioned.
Also not mentioned is the help that Syria gave to the US in attempting to accommodate
Iraqi refugees during our war against "Al Quaeda". I recall stories about that because the
refugees were complaining that there was no work and living places were hard to find. I
imagine that's is true but it seemed to me that Assad was doing his best to try to help,
although the situation was indeed chaotic.
A while back there was an article and an interview with Assad's wife, who seemed to me to
be a lovely person, well educated and genuinely loving of her husband who we can all
understand has been learning his job of state craft on the fly, not having been trained for
it (unlike his brother) and who never wanted it anyway. This article is no longer referred to
or the fact that Assad's wife is a beautiful, modern well educated British woman.
Articles about Assad in the States do not mention the fact that Assad has offered the rebels
safe passage to Turkey or to the Kurds or somewhere (I'm rather vague about that) and has
been actively providing the evacuated citizens of Douma with food, clothing, medicine and
everything else that he can do to help.
I note that there are no calls in this country for contributions to help the refugee
citizens of Douma (or any other city in Syria), and I have seen no calls from the UN to
donate either. I wonder why??
"... There is no "Western consensus" in support of "rewriting" the deal. Germany has no interest in revising the agreement, and has said so explicitly. If the U.S. and France cook up some other agreement between themselves, none of the other parties will respect its terms. If one or two parties to the agreement can go back and "rewrite" the parts they don't like whenever they want, none of the other parties will see any reason to abide by its requirements. Thinking that the U.S. can "rewrite" a deal and that the other side simply has to go along with it is as arrogant as it is stupid. ..."
"... Iran isn't going to agree to make additional concessions when the other parties have no intention of offering them anything more, and Iran already gave up as much as it was prepared to concede the first time. ..."
The Wall Street Journal editors make
a ludicrous argument in favor of a "revised" deal with Iran:
This is a major advance, and it offers hope that the U.S. and France, Britain and Germany
can agree on a revised pact. Contrary to common misunderstanding, Iran, Russia and China
wouldn't have to agree to these changes. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal
is known, isn't a treaty. Mr. Obama never submitted it for Senate approval because he knew it
would be defeated. The deal is essentially a set of assurances agreed to at the United
Nations that lack the force of U.S. law.
The JCPOA was endorsed by a U.N. Security Council resolution (UNSCR
2231), so all member states are obliged to respect the deal as it was written. The deal wasn't
a treaty, but that doesn't give the U.S. license to violate it or arbitrarily change it after
the fact. Indeed, every attempt to "rewrite" an agreement once it has already been made is a
violation that makes U.S. promises seem worthless.
There is no "Western consensus" in support of "rewriting" the deal. Germany has
no interest in revising the agreement, and has said so explicitly. If the U.S. and France
cook up some other agreement between themselves, none of the other parties will respect its
terms. If one or two parties to the agreement can go back and "rewrite" the parts they don't
like whenever they want, none of the other parties will see any reason to abide by its
requirements. Thinking that the U.S. can "rewrite" a deal and that the other side simply has to
go along with it is as arrogant as it is stupid.
Iran would have to agree to any changes because Iran would be the one implementing those
changes, and their government has
said many times in no uncertain terms that this isn't going to happen. The reason for this
should be obvious: Iran isn't going to agree to make additional concessions when the other
parties have no intention of offering them anything more, and Iran already gave up as much as
it was prepared to concede the first time. Iran isn't going to give up more when they are under
less pressure and have more international support. Besides, if they accepted a "rewrite" of the
deal now, it would just be a matter of time until the U.S. came back with another "rewrite" and
then another after that.
"Rewriting" the requirements of an agreement made in good faith is a dishonest and treacherous way to deal with other
governments. Other governments can see that for what it is, and they will know that the U.S. can't be trusted to keep its end of
a bargain. All of this talk about a "new deal" is just a bit of kabuki to distract from the fact that the U.S. is about to
renege on its international commitments for no good reason. Hawks are desperate to spread blame around for their reckless
scrapping of a working nonproliferation agreement, but everyone can see through this. When the deal falls apart, the Trump
administration and its hawkish allies will be the only ones responsible.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal is known, isn't a treaty. Mr. Obama
never submitted it for Senate approval because he knew it would be defeated.
By that standard (ratified by 2/3 vote in Senate) most of our trade treaties are not
treaties. They're passed by the normal legislative process. (TPP would have been an example;
NAFTA was passed that way, too.)
Of course, given the rabid AIPAC-inspired hatred of Iran, I'm not saying the JCPOA would
have passed that way, either.
" a violation that makes U.S. promises seem worthless."
Russia has defined the US as a nation who cannot be negotiated with because its promises
are meaningless. They have a word for it which goes beyond "untrustworthy," and means someone
who makes promises with no intention of keeping them even at the time they are made.
More and more nations will reach the same conclusion.
By that standard (ratified by 2/3 vote in Senate) most of our trade treaties are not
treaties. They're passed by the normal legislative process. (TPP would have been an
example; NAFTA was passed that way, too.)
Of course, given the rabid AIPAC-inspired hatred of Iran, I'm not saying the JCPOA would
have passed that way, either.
Not sure what the debate is they aren't treaties by strict Constitutional standards.
Treaties are passed without ratification just like wars are entered without a Declaration of
War.
Maybe the outcome of all this is that foreign leaders who want solid agreements will try
to get real treaties from the US government instead of convincing the US to do some
extra-Constitutional measure that they think should be treated like a treaty when it
isn't.
And that would be a good thing, from a conservative perspective.
Don't you understand, all international agreements are bound by U.S. law because all of the
nations of the earth must bow down to us.
We are such an egotistic, narcissistic people. We will get our comeuppance when we least
expect it. I keep hoping for us to wake up but I hope in vain.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board thinks like a sleazy lawyer – what a surprise.
The honor of thieves – and I would not count on Germany maintaining its "splendid
isolation" either.
Back in the day, Schroeder pretended to oppose Bush's Iraq invasion for electoral gain,
while carefully pretending any of the actual options he had to work against it. The options
included using Germany's then-membership in the USNC to unilaterally invoke UN Resolution 377
to force a meeting of the UN General Assembly, with the goal of pass a resolution opposing
and disavowing the planned invasion of Iraq. Other, smaller and less powerful countries
without much affliction of "Western values and civilization" were trying to organize such a
step outside the USNC, and US "diplomats" spent a lot of effort making threats to coerce the
more vulnerable nations that participated into dropping out.
Today, Merkel declares that Germany "supports" the repeated illegal bombing of Syria, and
has little to say regarding the Turkish and US invasions and Israeli acts of aggression.
Should we consider Israel, undeclared nuclear state, or India, non-signatory to the NPT?
Or the failure of the US and Russia to follow the example set by China and settle for minimum
means of reprisal even in the face of US forward based missile defense designed to neutralize
any deterrent of a "reasonable" size and number?
Should we consider Iraq, Libya, Yemen – those crimes of aggression perpetrated by
"the West"?
Nobody can look at the historic record, and with a straight face claim that the US and its
various "allies" and hanger-ons and co-belligerents have any standing with respect to the
conduct of Iran. Neither Trump nor Macron believes for a moment that the "new deal" is the
objective of all this "diplomacy". The only ones fooled are the dupes that take these
contortions at face value, and believe that either "leader" is acting in good faith.
Don't you understand, all international agreements are bound by U.S. law because all of
the nations of the earth must bow down to us.
All international agreements are based on legal processes established by the existence of
nations as sovereign entities operating on their own principles, through
self-determination.
This is recognized and established in the UN Charter, by the way.
In effect, it practically means the US needs to acknowledge Iranian law, and Iran needs to
acknowledge American law.
Globalists who have wanted to act outside this framework have been the arrogant ones, in
different ways and different forms, over the decades.
Again, can't Iran Leader just visit Trump at his hotel during one of weekends and enjoy the
best tasting chocolate ever? Or better yet, deliver a Boeing plane to the Iran/Trump summit
where Trump takes all the credit for the jobs? Maybe Iran can state how big Trump's hands
are. (or Something)
Really I can't tell if Trump is really against the Iran deal or just wants a couple
Iranian concessions (or complements on his golfing game) to not back out of the deal. Trump
loves to talk loudly and do very little. (It is a very weird way to be a dove.)
I can only surmise that Trump's plan is to destroy America's standing as the indispensable
party, and instead make us the poison pill. I really do think if the US walks back from this
we will see the rest of the world open the doors to Iran further to make up the shortfall. It
would be the only way to save the deal and encourage Iran to uphold it end of the deal.
This of course would push the US to implement trade sanctions against the EU, Russia, and
China. Further isolating the US as the rest of the world turns its back on us.
The ethnic cleansing of Cherokees and the seizure of the Black Hills from the Sioux after
gold was discovered there are just two of the more notorious examples.
The US violated treaties with impunity because the Native Americans were powerless. Today
the US is a client state of the Saudis and Israelis, and it violates international law in the
Middle East at their behest for the same reason – because it can.
When it comes to nations or people, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts
absolutely.
Our elites get away with whatever they can, and there is no law beyond, whatever cane be
done, will be done.
Since international trade is conducted in US dollars, which are backed by the full faith
and power of the US military, there is little junior partners can do other than to obey to
avoid punishing economic sanctions, or at worst election interference, regime change, covert
military action and ultimately open war.
France, always a rival of Britain, senses Brexit weakness and an opportunity to cosy up to
the US to its own advantage in the globalist system. As an international bankster, this fits
Macron's own elitist agenda well.
Note to readers : Looks like Eric is writing a satire, but this is not immeduatly
obvious...
Notable quotes:
"... Trump must stick to the nuclear treaty with Iran or possibly face a new Mideast war; that it's essential for the US to join the Paris climate accord; and that the US must resume its role of multilateral world engagement. ..."
"... I think I figured it out but just to be sure: this is a parody, right? Macron is presiding over an ailing French economy; to distract from it, he has now made himself a war criminal by illegally attacking Syria. In doing so, he has been suicidally reckless with France's few naval assets, which could (and frankly, should) have been sunk at a moment's notice. ..."
After delivering kisses and hugs, Macron then went before the US Congress and threw down the
gauntlet. He told America's legislators tough truths they were not used to hearing in the Trump
era. Namely: that the right's political and economic nationalism is stupid and toxic; that
Trump must stick to the nuclear treaty with Iran or possibly face a new Mideast war; that
it's essential for the US to join the Paris climate accord; and that the US must resume its
role of multilateral world engagement.
... ... ...
That is, at least until the abrasive nature of French politics, labor wars, and financial
hanky panky derail his meteoric rise. No one yet understands where Macron came from or who is
really behind him. The French Rothschilds, for whom Macron used to work as a banker, are the
most obvious suspects. But we don't really know for sure.
I think I figured it out but just to be sure: this is a parody, right? Macron is
presiding over an ailing French economy; to distract from it, he has now made himself a war
criminal by illegally attacking Syria. In doing so, he has been suicidally reckless with
France's few naval assets, which could (and frankly, should) have been sunk at a moment's
notice.
He went to Washington where he was supposed to deliver the "tough message" that
Trump better not think about destroying the Iran nuclear deal. Instead, this big child turned
like a leaf in the presence of his master, and is now firmly on the jew-approved,
anti-Iranian track.
The only problem with that of course is that that track leads to war, and more
specifically a war of such proportions that the resulting refugee flows will wreck Europe,
including the country for which Macron was supposed to be responsible–and that is the
good outcome, if China and Russia would interdict an attack on Iran we'd be pretty close to
going nuclear.
The French people will need to rid themselves of this Zionist scum before these
catastrophes come to pass.
Macron is Blair with a shinier suit, his antics on foreign policy can't hide the deep seated
problems in France from a stagnant economy, the leading indicators in France are
deteriorating, to a low level civil war between immigrants and the French. He is like a
vision from a discredited and bygone age. Macron was un danser at Rothschild, he seeks to
sell further US involvement in Syria to Trump.
The only thing Macron got right was keeping the nuclear deal with Iran. The rest was just the
usual globalist, one world mumbo jumbo. Macron can man up and send thousands of French troops
to Syria if he feels so strongly in a Western presence there.
Here was Europe – and much of Asia – telling Trump to stop acting like a
petulant, amateur monarch and start acting like the president of the United States.
On the contrary, Macron was imploring Trump to betray his base and serve the interests of
Israel and the world's elites.
Macron and Merkel are both trying to destroy their own people and remake their nations by
welcoming a mass influx of Afro-Islamic invaders. At minimum they should be met with boos,
jeers and bullhorns wherever they go. At most their people should working towards another
Bastille day for them and other traitors complete with guillotines.
"... Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit." ..."
"... This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag? Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever, and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian person it is all available and beneficial.' ..."
"... 'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.' ..."
"... this seems to me clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people, and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt. ..."
"... No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk. ..."
"... A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time. ..."
"... Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now. ..."
"... I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump. ..."
"... Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar. ..."
"... Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay". Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority? ..."
"... No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI. ..."
"... Comey was part of the cabal to bring Trump down....pure and simple.. ..."
"... Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally attract the dimwitted among us? ..."
"... Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes, smart enough. ..."
"... Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test. ..."
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy (to quote James Comey liberally). He was interviewed tonight (Thursday, 26 April 2018) by Bret Baier on the Fox
6pm news show and it was shocking. Why? Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he
may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit."
I want to direct you to look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier.
This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout.
Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer
don't cha know.
So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not
sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.
Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose panties
were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan)
that there was:
. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount
and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia and
the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of
the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every
resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding
of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.
Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag?
Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters?
Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go
for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress.
But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information contained
in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating on stealing
the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.
Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details
about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even
a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"
Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came from
a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that he took
that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.
There was a time when I respected James Comey. No longer. Trump called him a liar today. I think President Trump has it right.
Comey is a liar. What is shocking to me is that someone who is supposedly so smart can be so downright stupid. His interview above
seals that fact for me.
"He concedes that it came from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence
concerns, says that he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports."
As I have noted in earlier exchanges on these matters, in the press conference where he responded to the British request for
his extradition, the man Steele et al framed over the death of Alexander Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, made the following claim
about what his supposed victim really thought of people like the man Comey appears so happy to believe:
'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It
is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri
Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic.
In the appearance on Russian primetime television where Litvinenko's father embraced Lugovoi, in addition to making the quite
implausible claim that Goldfarb had assassinated his son, he made the to my mind not implausible suggestion that the figure who
he was, in his turn, framing, was working for the CIA.
In the Q&A at the press conference, Lugovoi's supposed partner-in-crime, Dmitri Kovtun, made a claim parallel to Lugovoi's,
about British law enforcement, clearly referring to the supposed plot to assassinate Berezovsky with a 'poison pen', which back
in 2003 MI6 had used to frustrate Russian attempts to have the oligarch extradited.
(In this, I think it likely that the Russian Prosecutor-General's Office are quite correct to claim that Goldfarb and Litvinenko
played crucial roles.)
According to Kovtun:
'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain
you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever,
and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian
person it is all available and beneficial.'
Also in the Q&A, Lugovoi returned to his earlier claim about Litvinenko's contempt for people like Steele:
'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine
what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.'
(For the press conference, follow the link INQ001886 on the 'Evidence page' on the archived website of the inquiry presided
over by Sir Robert Owen, which is at
http://webarchive.nationala... .)
Whether or not Litvinenko made the remarks attributed to him – and I think it most likely that he did – this seems to me
clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people,
and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt.
As it happens, the type to which Steele, and also our embarrassment of a Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, patently belongs
– the worst kind of superannuated Oxbridge student politician – is one with which I have quite extensive knowledge, which even
if I had not followed the antics of Steele and Owen, would strongly incline me to think that Lugovoi's judgments were accurate.
No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk.
If people take a 'retard' seriously, then the natural inference is that they are themselves 'retards.'
I have largely lost count of the number of the people in the United States who appear to have taken Steele seriously. But it
seems clear that your intelligence, foreign affairs and law enforcement bureaucracies are as infested by 'retards' as are ours.
The notion of Putin as the sinister puppet master, pulling the 'strings' which caused people to vote for 'Leave' in the Brexit
campaign, or to support Trump, has always been BS.
A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are
still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours
we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time.
Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested
in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now.
I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have
mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would
have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related
to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never
pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump.
This is the nature of
people in power - they don't care what you think about what they said, so they say anything they want as long as it isn't something
so absurd as to make them look like fools directly - in the minds of the rest of the fools listening to them as if what they said
really mattered.
Parsing what these people say is a complete waste of time. What matters is what did they DO and what were the consequences
to the rest of us.
Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to
plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar.
Yes! But i think you really should have said highly convenient credulity. That is why an intelligence agency employs a man like
Steele. That is the key competancy they saw when recruiting. That "flexibility" with the truth is such an asset in the civil service.
I dont believe all players were idiots. I believe they were "fooled" like John Scarlett was fooled about WMD.
The criminal laws in the United States are broad and far-reaching enough that an aggressive prosecutor will always have a pretext
to bring charges against anyone. This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment want punished are punished.
At the same time, because everybody and anybody can be made into a criminal whenever convenient, the converse is that violating
the law is considered blameless, praiseworthy even, when doing so aligns with consensus establishment goals.
This does not mean that a shadowy cabal have secret meeting and take a ballot on whom we will persecute today. Rather, it refers
to people of influence and authority, and prosecutors, being, depending on how you look at it, glorified or perhaps degraded politicians,
are exquisitely sensitive to such things.
I deal with attorneys on a weekly basis. The percentage of them which are simply unqualified to wake up in the morning and charge
people for advice is mind boggling.
I am giggling still after reading your comments about our little Jimmy C. I watched the interview yesterday and came away feeling
that somehow I must be losing my marbles, so to speak, because I just could not make myself believe that this person had reached
the level of authority in our government that he had reached before deservedly being fired at last.
When the whole Clinton email situation was at its peak in the news cycle, I finally decided that Jimmy was a prime example
of the Peter Principle. He had reached his level of incompetence. But after watching the interview yesterday, I decided that he
had reached that level of incompetence long before becoming the Director of the FBI. Perhaps all the really intelligent, competent
people just didn't want to go into some sort of bureaucratic swampy environment that taking a management position would mean.
Maybe they all just kept pushing him up the ladder to keep him from going out into the field to do the real work of the FBI. Who
knows? One person--I forget who it was--did call him a malignant narcissist. And that he is. So, I hope he ends up in a federal
prison with his fellow malignant narcissists, though they tend more to violence than he does. I pity his daughters. They have
no hope of growing up to live rational lives.
I then thought the round table discussion afterward was a bit surreal. It's not that I thought the people weren't stating good
points. It was just that I thought they would all be laughing so hard and holding their sides and rolling on the floor laughing
at him.
God save our country if there are many more like Jimmy in high positions. I will have to pray extra hard at church this Sunday.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay".
Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority?
Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus giving him "attorney client
privilege". That being the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General
tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee". Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay"? Serve
as the official leaker of FBI documents? Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus
giving him "attorney client privilege". That would be the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
It seems that there is more than meets the eye here. It is becoming more evident that the allegations of the Trump campaign colluding
with the Russian government was actually a cover for the far more insidious collusion of top officials in the Obama administration
including possibly Obama himself to use the resources and capabilities of the federal government to destroy a major party presidential
candidate from the opposing party.
Clapper once again being accused of lying to Congress and being a leaker of classified information. Brennan sure looks very
concerned. Let's see if the rule of law applies to high officials in government. I'm not holding my breath.
Those terms are not mutually exclusive. He looks like both a liar and fool to many of us.
Not surprisingly, there are many great political cartoons to be found on Comey over the past couple of years. It was hard to
limit myself to sharing 3 of them, but I didn't want to end up in the spam bin.
are any Americans in cahoots with the foreign intelligence of an adversary nation
Since when does the Director of the FBI get to decide American foreign policy and does he really understand the principles
of democracy? Donald Trump was clear throughout his campaign that he wanted better relations with Russia so the people who elected
him however flawed the process had an expectation that there would be better relations with Russia. People in the executive might
disagree with this as a policy but in a democracy they should not actively frustrate the will of the people; Trump should call
on anybody who has done so to resign as a matter of principle.
Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally
attract the dimwitted among us?
Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from
that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After
I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes,
smart enough.
It reminded me of similar awkward interviews here, from Mr Blair in the distant past to Boris Johnson's recent DW interview:
enough ingenuity to convince the most of us and too few of the unconvinced to matter. After all for such people, or I'd guess
in the environment Mr Comey has so far prospered in, there's no call for cast iron explanations. The plausible, as long as it
has some colour of reason, will carry the day.
Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging
by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine
Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test.
PT, I vaguely, very, very vaguely (not much) followed up on Fred's book alert on Comey and his book. I stumbled across a young
man's review (as old lady), whose name I had never heard before. Touched old chords somehow. Not sure if I may link here to--of
all possible places--Rolling Stone? And Garrett M. Graff, that is: James Comey's 'A Higher Loyalty' Is a Study in Contradictions,
Inside and Out. The former FBI director's memoir is about life, leadership and undoing all of the above
"... The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal, and the same would be true of any occupying force provided by U.S. clients. Instead of looking for a substitute occupation force or maintaining one of our own, the U.S. should accept that controlling any part of Syria is not worth the costs and risks that go along with it. ..."
The Trump administration is struggling to assemble a coalition of Arab military forces to
replace U.S. troops battling Islamic State militants in eastern Syria, a roadblock that could
indefinitely delay President Trump's goal of pulling American forces out of the country, U.S.
officials said.
Allies in the region are deeply skeptical about sending their troops -- and many are even
reluctant to contribute funds -- to help stabilize cities and towns liberated from Islamic
State, according to senior U.S. officials, if the United States intends to pull out, as Trump
has threatened.
It comes as no surprise that these governments have no interest in taking Trump up on this
offer. Each of them has other more pressing concerns than policing parts of Syria, some have no
interest in opposing the Syrian government, all of them are ill-equipped for the task at hand,
and it would be a terrible mistake to invite these governments to occupy Syrian territory in
any case. That doesn't mean that the U.S. has to keep its forces in Syria, but it should remind
us how useless our clients are to the U.S.
The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal, and the same would be true of any
occupying force provided by U.S. clients. Instead of looking for a substitute occupation force
or maintaining one of our own, the U.S. should accept that controlling any part of Syria is not
worth the costs and risks that go along with it. The U.S. has no business fighting in
Syria, and it has no authority to keep its forces there, so a complete withdrawal from Syria is
the only appropriate and legal course of action open to the U.S.
"... However the declining U.S. with massive debt, a hollowed out manufacturing capability, an unsustainable health care model and a Ponzi scheme financial engineering Levithan that generates nothing of actual tangible value is still a very dangerous animal. ..."
"... Because it still has only superior capability, it's War Machine. And the big danger to the planet is the parasitic and deluded Power Elite franchise in Washington that militarizes EVERY element of foreign policy activity. The U.S. response to concerted and coordinated economic activity by China and its Eurasian partners can only be war-mongering. Because other than that, the U.S. will have no other leverage. ..."
Remove the North Korea crisis from Asia and the Trump administration has the needed
bandwidth to contain Beijing's aspirations.
Fat chance. China will continue with its BRI and AIIB initiatives. It will continue to
lash-up with Russia and its EAEU to create a pan-Eurasian economic architecture in which the
U.S. is largely economically irrelevant. Especially when hard asset pricing is decoupled from
the dollar.
And China now has a huge supply of highly trained (many in the U.S.) scientists and
engineers. Russia and Europe also have highly skilled technologists making Eurasia
self-sufficient in both natural resources and technology development.
The U.S. will be eventually shut out. Because dealing with the Global Cop Gorilla in any
context is more trouble than it's worth.
However the declining U.S. with massive debt, a hollowed out manufacturing capability, an
unsustainable health care model and a Ponzi scheme financial engineering Levithan that
generates nothing of actual tangible value is still a very dangerous animal.
Because it still has only superior capability, it's War Machine. And the big danger to the
planet is the parasitic and deluded Power Elite franchise in Washington that militarizes
EVERY element of foreign policy activity. The U.S. response to concerted and coordinated
economic activity by China and its Eurasian partners can only be war-mongering. Because other
than that, the U.S. will have no other leverage.
The U.S. driven into the ditch by the Power Elite Parasites and Neocon War-mongers will
get its clocked cleaned in the next 10 years no matter what. North Korea is merely background
noise.
If you ever wanted a condensed example of the kind of blithe solipsism and wish-thinking that
passes for thinking among our "international relations" "scholars", I don't think you could
do much worse than this silly paragraph:
In many respects, nothing should scare China more, as America, and specifically the
Trump administration, has never been fully capable of taking on the challenges presented by
Beijing thanks to Pyongyang and its growing nuclear arsenal. China has taken full advantage
of Washington's wandering eye, putting itself in position to dominate the South China Sea,
further subjugate Taiwan, and try to develop a stronger position in the East China
Sea.
All you saps who think that China's greater prominence might be a consequence of its
culture, its history, its recent extraordinary economic growth -- wrong! Turns out it all
hangs on North Korea and its mighty Brooklyn-size GDP! And that means .
Remove the North Korea crisis from Asia and the Trump administration has the needed
bandwidth to contain Beijing's aspirations.
All this, and daffodils will cover the meadows again, once Pyonyang comes around, gets its
mind right. Simple!
It should surprise absolutely nobody that the guy who wrote this inanity is behind "The
National Interest", which daily publishes all kinds of sophistry generally aimed at getting
Americans to wade into the "crisis" du jour . Sooner or later Trump will be a bad
memory, but Kazianis and his ilk will still be there, as firmly embedded in the Beltway veins
as any tick.
"... "Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU." ..."
"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of
aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world."
In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism,"
invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home
to the New World Order.
"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are
the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it."
His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron
seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday.
For the world he celebrates is receding into history.
The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment
to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its
own defense.
Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits,
and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU.
Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States
from which China is exempt.
As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the
scores of billions we have plunged into it?
"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de
Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits,
Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic methods
and means to preserve their national homes?
And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive
nationalisms that deny our history."
Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration
how the Americans acquired all that land?
General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought
for six years to sever America's ties to the nation under which he was born.
How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas
from Mexico, and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?
Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went
about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive
British, French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker
indigenous tribes?
Was it not nationalism that broke up the USSR into 15 nations?
Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West
Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive
nationalism?
Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the
"suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence from the Russian Federation.
"Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron.
Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now 194 members of the U.N., rather than the
original 50. Is this a problem?
"Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism
and democracy in the face of ill winds."
Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and
tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd
will forever control.
But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a
multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe
means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
And they will not go gently into that good night.
In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming
madness of open borders. Name of the game: dispossessing the deplorables of the country they
love.
With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost
all of them from third-world countries that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is
foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into what Teddy
Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left
will have a lock on the presidency.
With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of
altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.
For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is
extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and 16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will
come to resemble San Francisco.
End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a
despised establishment, never happens again.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
Let's remember, it was nationalism that led German, Japan and Italy into the two world wars.
Like everything, nationalism is not absolutely good or absolutely bad.
European nationalism that led them to colonize other weaker countries was not a good
thing. Nationalism that led the colonized countries to fight for independence was a good
thing.
The current rising of nationalism is not a good thing because it is often bound up with
white nationalism, a belief that the non-whites are inferior people undeserving of care and
happiness.
While I understand the anxiety of White people for losing their power of dominance,
multiculturalism is a future that can't be rolled back no matter how much they long for the
past white homogeneity. Because technology that made our world smaller and flatter can't be
uninvented.
I agree the West can't absorb all the immigrants who want to find new life in the West.
The solution is not to shun the immigrants and pretend they don't exist. The solution is to
acknowledge their suffering and their need for a stable home and help them build that at
their home countries.
Biologically, it is known that our genes get stronger with more diversity, that community
gets weaker with too much in breeding. So is our strength as a people, culturally,
philosophically, spiritually and creatively.
Another nice notion on the mis/abuse of the world nationalism from Mr. Buchanan. From a
Central European perspective, however Macron's alleged multilateralism as presented in
Washington is just a pretence peddled for the media – teaming up with Angela Merkel
(more specifically, with Germany's economic strength), Macron pretty much insists on reining
in the rebellious Visegrad 4 politically, without the slightest interest in reaching a
mutually beneficial compromise with them.
Pat points to Macron's globalist trade babble to Congress answers:
"Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade
deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU."
President Trump's economic nationalist/fair trade agenda can fix this problem.
It strikes me that both France and Germany have large enough populations, economies and
technical know-how to produce effective modern fighting forces. Second, given the size of EU,
it is clear that the EU, if it could get its act together, would be capable of projecting
force in the world on an equal playing field with the United States.
The European Leaders appeals to Trump to pursue European interests in American foreign
policy are simply pathetic. If Europe has foreign interests, they will only be able to
protect and insure them if they retake their sovereignty and independence on the world
stage.
Europe can, and I suspect Europe will, because their problem is not just Trump and whether
he is impeached or re-elected, it is that European interests are being held hostage to the
American Electorate, which can and will return a Cowboy to the Presidency long after Trump is
gone.
I don't see how, given the developments with the Iran Deal, as well as other frictions,
that the NATO alliance can remain standing. None of the above reflections are particularly
ideological, and it seems impossible that Merkel and Macron couldn't entertain such
thoughts.
Europe can, and inevitably will, declare independence from the Americans, and I see NATO
unraveling and a new dawn of European "multilateralism" taking its place.
Nationalism and Multiculturalism cannot coexist separately, they're in tendsion as we all try
to balance the scales.
Without the benefit of nationalism, the Koreas would not have done what they just did. My
own "ethnic people" are the minority of 1.2 million Hungarians who live in Romania, who have
lived there for centuries and will not leave their homeland except many of them do, like my
parents did, and many of my other relatives and friends–the number was 1.5 million not
too long ago, and I was estimating 1.8, but man, we are dwindling. Only 1.2 million! That
shocks me. Nationalism keeps us alive. But if that's all we had, then the Romanians would be
totally nationalistic too, and they will forcefully seek to curtail minority rights,
language, culture, and slowly choke us out. That's the nationalist philosophy on
minorities.
That's your philosophy, and you're saying what will happen here is liberals will slowly
turn the country into San Francisco. You make the same error as my friend in another thread.
You cannot compare a city and its politics to a province or a country, or to any territory
that contains vast farmlands.
Pat, you are saying that it's possible for the entire Byzantine Empire to take on the
precise political complexion of the walled city of Constantinople. That city cannot feed
itself, it's not a self-contained social or political entity.
The roiling cities of San Francisco/Bay Area and glorious Constantinople are and were
completely and totally dependent on the countryside, and thus, on the politics the rurals
tend to practice. The rurals need to feel the effects of city politics too.
No city anywhere is self-contained, and most cities are more liberal than their
hinterlands, so should we do away with cities?
You can see it as symbiotic or some kind of yin and yang tension, however you prefer. But
one is good and the other is evil? I don't buy that.
I'm pretty sure I should say ALL cities are more liberal then the surrounding countrysides
which feed them. After all, the city is really just the most commonly known major local
market, which the villages eventually form organically. One village in particular stands out,
and the neighbors start flocking more and more to its market, some decide to move there and
contribute even more to the good energy, and voila, the first city is soon born.
Then it takes on pride, and starts thinking it's superior to the "rubes." It isn't. I was
lucky enough to get my foundations in a village, I know its incredible efficiency and
_conservative_ values and lifestyle, but trust me, there's plenty of drunkenness and scandal,
even among the sainted rubes who raised me.
Keep slapping down the cities, Pat, but don't exaggerate the threat, no self-supporting
society on Earth could live the way those freaks live in San Francisco, or Constantinople,
that's a fact.
My apologies, I know I go on a little long sometimes:
I am an American now, and America is my "us," I don't have mixed political allegiances,
just cultural ones. I don't live in my original homeland anymore. The choice to leave wasn't
mine, though.
If I had a choice to leave my country of origin, the land I was raised in and find
familiar–and I have been in America since age twelve, so I do see it as home and very
familiar–I would be daunted. Speaking as an average American adult, I know that moving
to another English-speaking and equally advanced country is complicated enough for the
average American. Imagine uprooting and going to a foreign land whose language you don't know
yet, where everything is a lot more expensive. Try getting a job there. Let's say you have no
college degree. Try it. I wouldn't want to.
Immigrants are tough as nails, I'm sorry to say. You have no chance against them,
actually. You cannot even conceive of the willpower and trials by fire. Most people quite
understandably can't fathom it, unless they actually try it or see it with their own
eyes.
A few thoughts on our disastrous trillion-dollar military:
It is unnecessary. It does not defend the United States. The last time it did so was in
1945. The United States has no military enemies. No nation has anything even close to the
forces necessary to invade America, and probably none the desire. A fifth of the budget would
suffice for any real needs.
"Our boys" are not noble warriors protecting democracy, rescuing maidens, and righting
wrongs. They are, like all soldiers, obedient and amoral killers. Pilots bombing Iraq or Syria
know they are killing civilians. They do not care. If ordered to bomb Switzerland, they would
do it. This is the nature of all armies. Glamorizing this most reprehensible trades is just a
means of usefully stimulating the pack instinct which we often call patriotism.
The militarily is America's worst enemy. It does enormous damage to the United
States while providing almost no benefit. Start with the war on Vietnam that cost hugely in
money and lives, ours and theirs, with no benefit. Iraq: high cost, no benefit. Afghanistan:
High cost, no benefit. Syria: High cost, no benefit.
The costs in lives and money do not include the staggering cost of weapons that do nothing
for America or Americans. Do you, the reader, believe that you are safer because of the F-35?
Do a dozen aircraft carriers improve the lives of your children? Will the B-21, an unbelievably
expensive new thermonuclear bomber, make your streets safer? Then add the bleeding of
engineering talent better spent on advancing America's economic competitiveness. The country
has many crying needs, falls behind China, but money and talent go to the military.
We cannot escape from the soldiers. The armed forces have embedded themselves so deeply into
the country that they have almost become the country. America is little more than a funding
mechanism for what clumsily may be called the military-industrial-intelligence-media-Israeli
complex. Some of these entities belong to the military (NSA). Some depend on it
(Lockheed-Martin). Some use it to their own ends (Israel), but the military is the central
infection from which the other symptoms flow. Congress? A storefront, a subcommittee of the
Knesset or, as P. J. O'Rourke put it, a parliament of whores. Factories, jobs, contracts, towns
depend on military spending. If the Second Marine Division folded, Jacksonville NC would dry up
and blow away. So would dozens of other towns. Without military spending, California's economy
would crash. Universities depend on military research funding.
The military has achieved its current autonomy by degrees, unnoticed. The Pentagon learned
much in Vietnam, not about fighting wars, which it still cannot do well, but about managing its
real enemy, the public. The media, which savaged the war on Vietnam, are now firmly controlled
by the corporations that own them. Thus we do not see photos of the horrors committed by
American aircraft bombing cities. While the existence of phenomenally expensive weapons like
the B-21 is not quite suppressed, coverage is so slight that most Americans have never heard of
it. This the Complex learned from the F-35 debacle. And of course Congress, thoroughly bought
and wanting jobs in its districts, allows no serious opposition to anything military. Neither
Congress nor the media point out the extent to which military expenditure dominates the
economy, draining resources from civilian needs.
Why does the military not win wars? In part because winning is not in the interest of the
Pentagon and those who feed on it. Wars generate profitable contracts for all manner of
supplies and equipment. Either winning or losing ends the gravy train. For example, the war on
Afghanistan of almost two decades has become an entitlement program for the arms industry,
accomplishing nothing, killing countless peasants, and lacking purpose other than maintaining
an unneeded empire and funneling money to the Complex.
How did the Complex free itself from civilian control? The crucial step in depriving the
public of influence was the neutering of the constitutional requirement that wars be declared
by Congress. The military thus became the private army of the President and those who control
him. Then came the All Volunteer Army, which ended inconvenience to or mutilation of the
children of people of importance, leaving the body bags to be filled by deplorables from
Memphis or Appalachia or Mexico. America's wars then became air wars and finally drone wars,
reducing casualties to very few. The public, both ignorant and uninvolved, became
acquiescent.
As I write, we wait to see whether Trump, and those behind him, will put America deeper into
the Mid-East and perhaps war with Russia. If he does, we will read about it the next day in the
newspapers. It will be expensive, dangerous, and of no benefit to anyone but the arms industry
and Israel.
Despite the asphyxiating economic presence, the military keeps aloof from America. This too
serves the purposes of the Complex, further preventing attention by the public to what is not
its business. In the days of conscription there was a familiarity with the armed services.
Young men from most social classes wore the uniform however ruefully and told of their
experiences. Not now. The career military have always tended to keep to themselves, to
socialize with each other as the police do. Now the isolation is almost hermetic. You can spend
years in Washington or New York and never meet a colonel. Military society with its
authoritarianism, its uniforms and its uniform government-issue outlook is not compatible with
civil society. To the cultivated, military officers seem simple-minded, conformist and well,
weird.
ORDER IT NOW
Add it all up and you see that the citizenry has no say–none–over the Complex,
which is autonomous and out of control. If the Complex wants war with Russia or China, we will
have-war with Russia or China. Ask people whether they would prefer a naval base in
Qatar–which most have never heard of, either the base or the country–or decent
heath care. Then ask them which they have.
The military destroys America and there is nothing–nothing at all–that you can
do about it.
Further, the Complex drives foreign policy, and in directions of no benefit to America or
Americans. For example, the contrived fury against Russia. Why this? Russia presents no danger
to America or anyone else. The Complex makes foreign policy for its own ends, not ours.
A rising Asia is challenging the America military Empire. The tide runs against the Complex.
North Korea faced Washington down and became a nuclear power. The Crimea went back irrevocably
to Russia. East Ukraine does the same. Iran got its treaty and becomes part of the world order.
In the South China Sea, China ignores the US, which once was supreme in all the seas. The war
against Afghanistan heads for its third decade and the war on Syria seems to have failed. Other
things go badly for the Empire. The dollar is under siege as reserve currency. China grows
economically, advances rapidly in technology and, doubtless terrifying to Washington, tries to
integrate Asia and Europe into a vast economic bloc. The Complex beats the war drums as its
fingers loosen on the world's collective throat.
Washington desperately needs to stop the rollback of American power, stop the erosion of the
dollar, block the economic integration of Eurasia and Latin America, keep Russia from trading
amicably with Europe. It will do anything to maintain its grip. All of its remote wars in
far-off savage lands, of no importance to America or Americans, are to this purpose. A
militarized America threatens Russia, threatens China, threatens Iran, threatens North Korea,
threatens Venezuela, expands NATO, on and on.
America has been hijacked.
Fred Reed is a retired news weasel and part-time sociopath living in Mexico with his
wife and three sueless but agreeable street dogs. (Republished from
Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative) ← Herding
Hamsters and Other Cosmic Refle...
Fred, a bit harsh in places. Having served for twenty-four years, '76-'00, active &
reserve, I can say with certainty that the men & women who comprise the armed forces are
a more complex & nuanced group than your brief description of them as "obedient and
amoral killers." The number that are amoral killers is probably about the same as those whose
main motivation for joining is patriotism, i.e. relatively small.
That said, I get what you're saying. The problem is that nature abhors a vacuum. If
America brings the troops home, closes all the bases and "raises the drawbridge" the various
bad-actors of the world will proceed to aggress against their neighbors much more so than
they already do. Would be an interesting experiment, though, for America to cease being the
world's policeman. I suspect that the rest of the so-called free world would be begging us to
resume the role almost immediately.
Sad to say, the principle "bad actor" in the world today, and the one committing the most
aggression, is the United States itself. The United States generates the most instability and
is the country that threatens world peace the most. I half expect to see the U.S. try to
torpedo the Korean peace talks, just to be able to maintain troops on the Korean
peninsula.
Fred's had two good articles in a row and his conclusion is spot on: the United States has
been hijacked.
because certain countries/people within the reach of "various bad-actors of the world"
would pay the price.Heavy price.
There is that prevalent mantra here about Russia/China being forces of good. Yeah ..
I've used the analogy here several times:
US is like Tywin Lannister. Russia Rose Bolton, China Slavers Bay.
Neither that good, but, definitely prefer the first.
We live in strange times. Back in 50s/60s, the Anglo-Right represented militarism &
empire while Jewish Left represented anti-war & peace with USSR. Today, the Real Right
oppose war & support peace while Jewish 'left' call for more empire, intervention, &
new cold war.
Sirs,y
I worked as an electrical inspector for the DCMA under contractors to the DCMA. I worked for
2 years in Iraq and 6 in Afghanistan. I meet and worked many honorable and competent military
people; I also had the misfortune to meet a great many who were not so good. Unfortunately,
the people that can't make in the military are sent over to the contractors who hire them
because of the old boys network and the vets perf. These are the worst.; if you are a
civilian working under LOGCAP without the military service you WILL NEVER get advancement .
The slugs from the military get all the gravy jobs and it is AA run wild. The ethnics stick
together and the dumb white guys who believe in merit end up in the crappy jobs doing all the
work and not getting any credit and the first to be laid off.
Not only that the LOGCAP program brinsg in Balkans and Indians to cut Americans out of
jobs. Indians make about 700 USD a month 4 times what they would make at home. Balkans,
around 4K 3 times what the make at home. These guys worm their way in and never leave; so
your average American contract employee shows up and he is getting screwed from the get
go.
The story I was told if you get 100K the contractor get 200-250K
Fred, you'd best look out the window to see who's at the door for the next few weeks. You may
have written too much truth for the military-industrial-intelligence-media-Israeli complex to
tolerate. Mossad has a few idle operatives in Mexico. Don't get too high-profile. They kill
people for a lot less.
The U.S. military is basically the right-wing/Republican version of the social welfare
state:
[...] Welfare's last stand Long in retreat in the US, the welfare state found a haven in an unlikely place –
the military, where it thrived for decades
[...]
– https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-us-military-became-a-welfare-state
Listen to Jennifer Mittelstadt explain the term "military welfare state" on The
Strategy Bridge's podcast :
[...]
America's all-volunteer army took shape in the 1970s, in the wake of widespread opposition
to the draft. Abandoning compulsory conscription, it wrestled with how to attract and
retain soldiers -- a task made more difficult by the military's plummeting prestige after
Vietnam. The army solved the problem, Jennifer Mittelstadt shows, by promising to take care
of its own -- the more than ten million Americans who volunteered for active duty after
1973 and their families. While the United States dismantled its civilian welfare system in
the 1980s and 1990s, army benefits continued to expand.
Yet not everyone was pleased by programs that, in their view, encouraged dependency,
infantilized soldiers, and feminized the institution. Fighting to outsource and privatize
the army's "socialist" system and to reinforce "self-reliance" among American soldiers,
opponents rolled back some of the military welfare state's signature achievements, even as
a new era of war began.
Right now, since unemployment is so low, recruiters have a harder time finding qualified
candidates:
Trump Wants To Beef Up The Military, But Recruiters Are Having Trouble Finding People
(HBO)
Booming military benefits
The cost of military pay raises and benefits programs, which have increased almost 90 percent
since 2001, have become the fastest-growing part of the Pentagon's budget and now account for
more than a quarter of all defense spending. Here is a look at the types of compensation
provided to active-duty troops and retirees, how those costs have grown and where they are
headed. – https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/national/booming-military-benefits/200/
OMG Yet another nitpicking, mean-spirited, petty, big-mouth,, intellectually bone-lazy
commenter. Do you actually carefully read and ponder what is written? Is your attention span
longer than a few minutes? Do you have any respect for an author–or for yourself? Has
it occurred to you that the author's main points are on the whole absolutely correct and even
self-evident? If you're going to take the trouble to critique, how about doing it with
intellectual and moral integrity, with some degree of thoroughness and, frankly, coherent
thought? Are you even capable of it? Wouldn't it have been better for you to exercise some
self-control and keep silent?
I'd suggest you read a little outside of what American MSM wants you to believe.
Russia is, as Fred has said, of no danger to anybody. I would add – to anybody who
leaves her alone.
As with poking a bear; if you leave it alone, it ignores you. Start hitting it, it rips you
to bits. Same analogy.
As to Ukraine, everyone now who still has 2 brain cells synapsing is aware that Ukraine was a
US organised, backed and paid for coup d'etat. IN fact, Putin gets a huge amount of crap from
many Alt-Med sites and commentators for NOT going in with tanks and levelling Kiev to the
ground, which she could have done in 1.5 days flat. Including tea breaks.
Russia has nothing to do with Moldova.
Georgia, with some encouragement from a few CIA types had an insane President, who launched
an unprovoked attack on South Ossetia, and fired on and killed Russian peacekeepers at 2 a.m.
one morning. Many in Georgia were being air-bombed. A young girl there visiting from America
with her aunt was rescued – by Russian soldiers. She tried to thank them on US tv, and
was cut off by the anchor!! Once the situation in Georgia had been resolved with the Georgian
troops returned to base, Russia left. Something America has never, ever, done. Where ever it
goes, it stays, like brown sticky stuff on your shoe.
So get your facts straight. Remember, Putin made a small comment that the Empire appears to
have overlooked. You should never, he said, corner anyone. Read up about what a cornered rat
did to him, and what he learned from it.
The Empire is pushing and pushing and pushing. Putin has warned and warned and warned.
Russia is no danger to anyone who leaves her alone – something the Ruling Regime of the
Fascist Empire of America seems unable to grasp.
Even assuming Vladimir Putin has such designs (I'm skeptical that he wants more ethnic
minority headaches than he has already), why is any of this the business of the United
States?
Fine job stating the obvious Fred. I mean that as a compliment. It is the obvious that is
most likely to be overlooked by my countrymen.
It's the foggy bottom. The District of Corruption. The seat of the Anglo/Zio Empire that
is the most dangerous enemy of the people of earth. The good news – the empire is in
steep decline. The bad news – it will reach peak madness just before it dies.
The US military just got an unneeded 10% budget boost because of spin that its budget was
cut, while it has increased each year. The only cuts were to the big increases demanded. The
Pentagon also lies and says that every military readiness issue is not caused by
incompetence, but a lack of money.
Watch the idiotic responses by Fox News propagandists when former Republican Congressmen
David Stockman recently informed them that the Pentagon budget should be slashed, not
increased.
Totally agree. The US is seen in most of the world as the bully of the nations, not the
policeman, even in the EU (don't be fooled by our leaders, we don't control them).
OMG, that "news" video. Not only do these "journalists" babble like first-graders –
they have even unlearned to present facial expressions appropriate for sentient human beings.
Turn off the sound and it's like watching "Finding Nemo".
No Isreal could'nt take over the Mid-East if we weren't around, they would either get
along with their neighbors or cease to exist,the world gained nothing in Korea except the
thousands and millions slaughtered,the world gained nothing with our false flag to get us
into Nam except for the thousands and millions slaughtered and then it was on to
Afghanistan,Yemen Syria,yes your right the world would be a safer place without out endless
wars, and if we can't fine one we create one, the Mid-East is more than proof of that, and
you know I don't know of any country or countries who are crying for us to be the policeman,
when we lack the capability to even control the whores in congress>>>
How did the Complex free itself from civilian control? The crucial step in depriving
the public of influence was the neutering of the constitutional requirement that wars be
declared by Congress . The military thus became the private army of the President and
those who control him.
If I'd come upon this paragraph first, I'd have thought I was reading an article by
Ron Paul . However,
most Americans don't want to hear the old boring stuff about "muh Constitution", right, so
they will never understand this.
Good column, Mr. Reed. About the only thing I see missing is the American elites' use of
the US military as a grand social experiment, which will make these forces not so effective
in a real war with a serious enemy. Being the big bully of the world will work out fine until
the first knock-out punch, or the money runs out. The latter will probably happen first
– (see peak neocon here and here .)
LOTS of ad hominem directed at Fred in these comments, without even the slightest refutation
whatsoever at the content of his article. There is clearly a strong emotional need to believe
that the US military is "a global force for good" among many commenters, since there shouting
down of Fred is emotional and without evidence of where he has made an error in his thinking.
And to the first commenter who thinks people of earth who would be begging to have the US
military back in their homelands should it ever leave: you have obviously never met a person
who is not from America. There is really nothing else I can say to such an insane, immature,
deliberately stupid remark. God help you. No country on earth wants the US military in it. If
any sizeable portion of the brainwashed, two-digit IQ, blaspheming american "christian"
population ever wakes up to the scam, it could be over in an election cycle, but it's
probably impossible. The crushing weight of universal propoganda and perfectly orchestrated
identity politics is just too much.
On a personal level, I have met many men who work for the war profiteers, some at fairly
influential levels. They are pure, straight evil; filled with more explosive anger and hate
than anyone you've ever met. They are as bad as bad gets. Trust me. To this day, I have never
met people like them.
That aeon article was stupid. The first half summarized the (prescient, in my view as a
one-and-done army officer) worry that adding all these social welfare bennies would turn the
army into a bunch of single mothers, which it did, and undermine readiness. The second half,
which I guess was the overall point of the article, was whining about how "boo hoo the
military is getting its bennies privatized, how are we going to care for all these single
mothers?"
Another hit-and-run one post wonder. Fred Reed's columns seem to be literally filled with
you deranged sockpuppets. One post and then poof -- you're gone, never to be seen
again. Quite interesting.
Roger Stone said that he has known John Bolton since the Reagan years. Stone claims Bolton is
not a neocon warmonger but a guy who is a staunch believer in the old doctrine of peace
through strength. Interesting as Stone despises neocons. Bolton went to Yale undergrad and
Yale Law. Haley has a degree in accounting from Clemson, a mediocre land grant public
university in South Carolina.
Ok, you all, I have a personal story about John Bolton that I'm gonna drop here. This story
comes from someone who used to live next door to John Bolton in Bethesda (or Chevy Chase?).
Bolton's former (and current?) neighbor is a Harvard-trained medical doctor and a liberal
Jewish guy. He has two daughters who are now grown. One is now a veterinarian in North
Potomac. Anyway, his daughters were like 10 and 12-years old when they would water Bolton's
plants when he was away on travel. One time when Bolton was traveling he asked the older girl
to water his plants and he'd pay her $25. She agreed. Then a few days later she had something
come up and would not be able to do it and asked her younger sister if she could take care of
it she could have the full $25. The younger sister agreed. After Bolton returned from his
trip the younger sister went over to Bolton and explained what happened and that she, not her
older sister, had taken care and watered his plants. Bolton told her that he was not going to
pay her because the agreement was strictly between him and her older sister. That was last
interaction they had with Bolton. End of story.
The scary thing about all this is pax-americana is slowly dying. Recent economic figures
coming out of the west show this. All recent gains have nothing in common with industrial
output. Profits are all related to the stock market grandest Ponzi scheme in the history of
western man.
The US does need $ Trillions in debt to pay for 1) ME wars, 2) stock market speculation 3)
keep the US "consumer" afloat and 4) cover endless government and trade deficits.
However, there is a problem. It only works in a ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy)
environment where borrowing is almost free (i.e. it can be almost unlimited), and the FED has
been working hard on providing it.
Paying interest on this debt is something that can't happen -- although in fact the
impossible does seem to be happening. Interest rates have recently run up to 3%, which is
very bad news in this environment.
Monster leverage in places like the NASDAQ can't accept higher rates, the government can't
pay market interest rates on its debt, and over-borrowed consumers only took loans because of
low monthly payments, so what gives?
Probably credit worthiness (counter-party risk) in a replay of 2008.
When the thing goes into reverse, the FED will once again flood the banks with money (QE
Infinity) but this time it's going to be more obvious than ever that the money doesn't
represent anything real -- and my guess -- for what it's worth -- is that the US dollar will
finally risk its credibility (i.e. a 10% increase in the money supply = a 10% fall in the
dollar) and US Reserve Currency status is gone.
"In February 2013, guarded by its well-paid ISIS mercenaries, New Jersey-based Genie
Energy was granted an oil exploration permit in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights of
southern Syria.
[...]
Genie Energy's strategic advisory board includes Royal Dutch/Shell owner Lord Jacob
Rothschild, former US Vice-President Dick Cheney, Newscorp (Fox News & Wall Street
Journal) Chairman Rupert Murdoch, former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, former US
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, former CIA Director & Dyncorp insider James Woolsey
& former Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu.
[...]
"A leaked CIA document from 1983 reveals the Rothschild plan for Syria. The document,
written by CIA officer Graham Fuller, argues that the West should, "bring real muscle to bear
against Syria" by toppling then-Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, replacing him with a
pro-banker puppet, and cutting Syria's weapons supply line from Russia."
"This would then pave the way for a City of London-controlled oil & gas pipeline which
would originate in Qatar."
"The pipeline is to run north through Bahrain, Saudi Arabia & Jordan before crossing
Syria and entering Turkey on its way to Europe. Such a huge volume of gas would help the
bankers end Russia's Gazprom stranglehold on natural gas imports into Europe."
[...]
Even before 1983, Western intelligence agencies had backed Syria's Muslim Brotherhood in a
clandestine war to remove the elder Assad.
[...]
"With Genie Oil drilling in the occupied Golan and the race to build a City of
London-controlled pipeline continuing apace, one can be sure that despite the upper hand
which Assad and his Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah backers have gained in the Syrian war of
late, Rothschild and his minions will be serving up more pretexts to keep a war-weary
President Trump fighting for their empire in Syria."
"It's up the the American people to back the President's urge to leave by making it loud
and clear that its time for the US to get out of Syria, and out from under the thumb of the
City of London banksters."
Looks like the US might be giving Israel a green light on going to Iran.
from Jerusalem Post-- Mattis, receiving Liberman, warns of 'likely' conflict between Israel and Iran
"I can see how it might start, but I am not sure when or where," the secretary told
lawmakers.
WASHINGTON -- Direct conflict between Israeli and Iranian forces is increasingly likely in
Syria as Tehran pursues a permanent military presence there, US Secretary of Defense James
Mattis warned on Thursday.
Addressing a congressional panel before hosting his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Liberman, at
the Pentagon, Mattis said it was "very likely" from his perspective, "because Iran continues
to do its proxy work there through Hezbollah." . .
here
and from DOD: Readout of Secretary Mattis' Meeting with Israeli Minister of Defense Avigdor
Lieberman
Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis met today with Israeli Minister of Defense Avigdor
Lieberman to discuss mutual security issues, including Iranian malign influence and
destabilizing affects in the region.
Secretary Mattis and Minister Lieberman reaffirmed their commitment to the U.S. - Israeli
defense relationship and qualitative military edge, as well as the United States' unwavering
commitment to Israel's security. . .
here
Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 27, 2018 9:37:59 AM |
102Don Bacon , Apr 27, 2018 10:26:57 AM |
103
Mattis mentioned Iran twice in his Senate testimony yesterday, coupled with North Korea, with
a return to those pesky Iran "nuclear ambitions." The US has had a lengthy war on "terror" so
how about a war on "ambitions." Any excuse for war will do.
> Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that undermine
and threaten regional and global stability.
> While recent events have given rise to a sense of positive movement, North Korea's
nuclear provocations threaten regional and global peace and have garnered universal
condemnation by the United Nations. Iran's nuclear ambitions also remain an unresolved
concern. . . here
If Merkel refers to a total cessation of Iran's nuclear program, then she's technically
correct. Except, the deal wasn't made to attain that outcome as Iran was not going to
relinquish its rights under the NPT. And just what are "the problems with Iran" Merkel
alludes to? Iran's helping to defeat NATO's terrorists within Iraq and Syria? Insisting the
Outlaw US Empire obey International Law and abandon its illegal incursion into Syria? Trying
to awaken the real International Community to the massive crime being committed daily in
Yemen and the longstanding ongoing crime against Palestinian peoples by Zionists? Seems to me
those are Merkel's problems, not a problem with Iran.
Merkel is a symbol for Germany in this regard, a puppet to american interest, add to that
the sucking up o israel and the result
is a vassal neocon-zionist warbent regime.
Will Germany be part of another conflict of war, this time with Iran? Crazy state (no offense
to germans, this is the illogical behaviour by all of eu which of course not will follow
Germany and thus US in its new warmongering).
Back during Obama's attempts to portray Iran as having a nuclear weapons program, one poll taken of US citizens found seventy-one
percent believed Iran not only had a nuclear weapons program, but that Iran actually had nuclear weapons.
CNN Poll: American believe Iran has nuclear weapons
I just watched the movie "Beirut" last night, currently in some theaters. Premise was a State Department diplomat (Jon Hamm) living
in Beirut in the 1970's has his wife killed during a terrorist incident involving a Palestinian boy living with the diplomat and
his wife. Ten years later, after the Lebanese civil war but before the Israeli invasion, a CIA friend of his (Mark Pelligrino) is
kidnapped and the former diplomat who is now a lawyer doing labor negotiations is brought in to negotiate his release.
The movie is well done and well acted. The villains are the terrorists, the PLO, and the US government types in charge of the
negotiations who try to hamstring the lawyer for reasons which are developed. The Israelis get rough treatment, trying to convince
the US types to allow the CIA agent to be killed so the US will give the Israelis the green light to invade Lebanon (which, of course,
they eventually did.)
One may quibble with the representation of Beirut and the various factions and historical accuracy of the movie, but as a spy
thriller it mostly works. I'd recommend seeing it.
I went to see it mostly because Rosamund Pike plays the diplomat's CIA "handler" - and she's drop dead gorgeous as well as an
Oscar-nominated actress (for "Gone Girl", which I also recommend.) It's worth seeing the movie for her alone.
"Beirut" is a stupid, cheap, disgusting Israeli propaganda movie, filmed in Morocco, only meant to denigrate Lebanon and the Lebanese.
You only have to look at some posts on Lebanese social media to see how most Lebanese talk about this Zionist fabrication thru
and thru. No one in his right mind will see this crookedly contrived balderdash.
Roger Stone said that he has known John Bolton since the Reagan years. Stone claims Bolton is
not a neocon warmonger but a guy who is a staunch believer in the old doctrine of peace
through strength. Interesting as Stone despises neocons. Bolton went to Yale undergrad and
Yale Law. Haley has a degree in accounting from Clemson, a mediocre land grant public
university in South Carolina.
Ok, you all, I have a personal story about John Bolton that I'm gonna drop here. This story
comes from someone who used to live next door to John Bolton in Bethesda (or Chevy Chase?).
Bolton's former (and current?) neighbor is a Harvard-trained medical doctor and a liberal
Jewish guy. He has two daughters who are now grown. One is now a veterinarian in North
Potomac. Anyway, his daughters were like 10 and 12-years old when they would water Bolton's
plants when he was away on travel. One time when Bolton was traveling he asked the older girl
to water his plants and he'd pay her $25. She agreed. Then a few days later she had something
come up and would not be able to do it and asked her younger sister if she could take care of
it she could have the full $25. The younger sister agreed. After Bolton returned from his
trip the younger sister went over to Bolton and explained what happened and that she, not her
older sister, had taken care and watered his plants. Bolton told her that he was not going to
pay her because the agreement was strictly between him and her older sister. That was last
interaction they had with Bolton. End of story.
"... Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. ..."
"... She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his U.N. appointment at least. ..."
"... Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican. ..."
"... She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections. ..."
"... Ask Mike Pence. She's Pence's pick. Pence wants a fellow Ziocon stooge at the UN instead of pro Assad Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a higher caste. ..."
"... Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl." ..."
"... Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the exception. ..."
"... Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton. ..."
"... "Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. " ..."
"... Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on his team. He sees himself in her, y'know. ..."
"... The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran) and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets. ..."
I have noticed Haley's awfulness from the beginning, which I see is now 15 months. Awful
though Bolton is, one feels that he has some knowledge that might even make him pull back
from Armageddon (maybe, not sure).
But Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. Notice how, in the alleged chemical
attacks, she takes no thought or action at all to ascertain truth, but she outdoes herself
trumpeting the harm caused, and the children suffering.
As if the fact that children are suffering somehow proves guilt. I can't imagine anything
so ignorant.
She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see
this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State
and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his
U.N. appointment at least.
Never dismiss the fool, for he wards no fear, no blame and and no trust. He sees no worth
or value and can be swayed by the most trivial things. He seeks no reward but an emotional
gratification. While these sound of a foe easily defeated the truth is oft the opposite for
your threat and presence are fallen on the senseless. If you must fight a fool you must give
him room and let hubris and frailty fight your war, otherwise, you must be swift, with out
mercy and be able to ward the madness that will ensue.
I don't know who penned that but I think it's profound.
Nikki Haley's yappings are just the barking of a dog.
She has no agency. If she sounds 'scary', it's only because she is owned by Zionist
globalist supremacists. If they ordered her to shut up and be nice to Russia and Iran, she
will obey.
She has no mind of her own. Same with Bolton the Dolton.
And she's different from Samantha Power, how? Under Obomba
Or John Bolton under Bush the Lesser?
Seems to be a tradition in the making of putting the most arrogant, rude, least
diplomatic, and aggressive person possible in the position of ambassador to the UN.
Has anybody ELSE been steady, three administrations, non-stop PUKING? Makes it clear, if
nothing else, our "humanitarian" face has peeled off, revealing the brain-eating zombie
underneath.
When you confront staunch Israel supporters with the isolation of Israel in the world, as can
be seen at UN voting, the answer is that this is because of the anti Israel Muslim bloc in
the UN.
The weird thing about jews is that with all their cleverness they're unable to see
reality.
Israel is right, the rest of the world is wrong.
Now even if this were the case, any sensible person would take reality into
consideration.
Not so idiots as Netanyahu.
When the next jewish catastrophe has happened, jews again will see how how they are the
eternal innocent victims, if then jews still will exist, as a nuclear world war is likely to
kill any human being world wide.
Already around 1953 a USA diplomat said that Israel should behave as a small ME country, in
stead of the head of an international group.
They still do not understand.
Once (Bolton) was kind of an anomaly, because, after all, it WAS Bush the Lesser.
But Nobel Peace Prize-sporting Obomba, puts in Power.
Now we got Haley.
Maybe TWICE is a co-inkydink, but this is absurd! Fucking EVERYBODY blows us away
diplomatically! Who is worse? N. Korea does some wicked TWEETS, but their diplomats are
circumspect. Ours are visibly RABID.
One of these days, someone is gonna put us out of their misery, and suck though it will,
it will be highly deserved! Afterward, perhaps humans can progress once the USA is a giant
smoking crater. Or at least D.C. Has ANYONE ever begged for it THIS bad? Ever?
Nikki Haley is THE mouthpiece of the Zionist aggressive occupation regime. She serves its
interests and acts to the detriment of the American people that have to carry the can for the
partisanship with this rogue Zionist state. President Trump should sack her before she
challenges him in the next presidential race. Haley will have the backing of the
trigger-happy Ziocon establishment and the Zionist billionaires.
Together with John Bolton, they seem like the perfect "Doomsday Couple" to bring the U.S.
down. Perhaps they are the last true believers in Zionism, the Jewish racist ideology,
although both are not Jewish. It's not surprising that Jewish and American exceptionalism are
similar in their racist beliefs.
Haley's behavior is hyperbolic, arrogant, and extremely dangerous to the reputation of the
U. S. but it seems as if she acts according to the slogan: Freely you live, if you haven't a
reputation to lose. But under the borderline Trump administration even a "un-American"
behavior, it benefits the Zionist regime, seems acceptable.
So far, all so-called chemical weapons attacks by the al-Asad government were false flag
attacks carried out either by al-Nusra, ISIS or al-Qaida terrorist organizations or by the
"White Helmets" themselves that are a so-called a terrorist affiliate organization, disguised
as paramedics, to draw the U. S. directly into the Syrian conflict.
Under Obama, they failed, and Trump made some symbolic bombings to pacify the
trigger-happy Zionist lobby. How mentally deranged Haley seems, shows her arrogant statement:
"We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its people."
With which "civilized world" should Russia take sides? Does Haley mean the U. S. or the
Zionist occupation regime? The first one has slaughtered millions of people in endless wars,
the later has been subjugated another people for over 50 years and destroyed its existence.
This "civilized world" and its values are for the garbage dump.
Despite his twitter manticism, Trump was still a kind of common sense that can
differentiate between the good for America in contrast to the good for Israel for the sake of
the American people.
Noeconservatives arguably don't have enough appeal for them to get the presidency.
Unfortunately, they can still have clout as evidenced by Haley in her role and how the likes
of MSNBC and CNN uncritically praise her.
Well if she does make it to POTUS we have historical equivalence. The Dying days of the Roman
western Empire. in the mid 4th century BC. Roman Empire at this stage had two imperial
cities. one situated in ROME being hounded by the Goths and the other one in the East
Byzantium present day Istanbul. The point is in the western dying Imperial days they put as
emperor a child well Haley becomes POTUS one could only say History repeating itself. The
scary thing about all this is pax-americana is slowly dying. Recent economic figures coming
out of the west show this. All recent gains have nothing in common with industrial output.
Profits are all related to the stockmarket grandest ponzi scheme in the history of western
man.
Latest events from the Skripal imbroglio to Douma all show signs of desperation .
BY DECEPTION YOU MAY WAGE WAR.
Note the three countries that illegally bombed Syria on the sad nite of April 13th 2018 were
the exact ring leaders to the total destruction of the highest standard of living of the
African continent.
RINSE ,LATHER ,REPEAT.
Post Scriptum: It is sad and scary to see that from 1999 to this day not withstanding all the
lies that NATO and FUKUS have spewed to the world and have been exposed as such we the
sheeple can fall for the same trap.
THE WEST HAS ENTERED INTO THE WORLD OF ZOMBIES .
Critical thinking gets labelled as enemies of the state. Boy Goebbels must be so envious of
recent events.
How Orwellian our western society has become.
Another very good article by Philip Giraldi. If the US wasn't dominated by foreign agents and
roving gangs of ziocon lobbyists, Giraldi would be widely respected, considered 'mainstream',
and known to millions. But powerful forces are determined to prevent this.
What we get instead are empty suits reading scripts.
We live in an era where political extremism (aggressive war is a prime example of
extremism) has been declared 'centrist' and 'moderate'. Advocates of non-intervention are
labeled 'fringe'.
Political illusions happen. They happen by design.
Fortunately, Giraldi demonstrates a commendable ability to separate US interests from
contrived foreign agendas. This is not often done. And he does it well.
For revealing this, Giraldi and a few other daring intellectuals have been defamed as 'far
right'. Their sin? Telling the truth (to the best of their ability) about Zio-American
malfeasance in American life and on the world stage.
Their quiet exile from the corridors of political power shows how debased and unmoored our
culture has become. Giraldi's diminished status is the end-product of targeted censorship,
economic sabotage, and strategic defamation. This phenomena affects us all.
What do we get instead?–delusional sell-outs like John McCain, Lindsey Graham,
Hillary Clinton and Nikki Haley. Frauds all, including the journalists who adore them. The
corruption in America is wide and deep.
Washington's queer political values are hopelessly under the thrall of liberal
interventionists, ne0con militarists, televised war barkers, and deep state vampires. These
amoral extremists have become America's political 'establishment'.
Trump notwithstanding, the Swamp, the alphabet government agencies, the two Parties, the
major lobbies, donors, and NGOs (and of course, Big Media) are what rules America.
Average, non-organized voters have no political influence.
But it is our mainstream news and entertainment media that ultimately earns the most
responsibility for Zio-Washington's trigger-happy embrace of aggressive militarism in all
policies and instances that could affect Israel (which is virtually everything.)
This Zionist 'value' opens a very big door.
This commitment is a recipe for endless strife and intervention. Yet our media supports
it. Continuously and uniformly.
And the chief beneficiary is (you guessed it).
Incredibly, Washington spends far more time agonizing over borders and security in the
far-away shitholes (pardon the expression) than on our own southern border. Who dreamt up
this ridiculous scheme?
This level of corrupt insanity did not happen by accident.
Incredibly, if enough empty suits and talking heads repeat a myth or falsehood enough
times, it becomes 'true'. Voila! The magic of TV.
Political hallucinations and bizarre double standards become very real. Very 'true'.
The problem with being arrogant when you are on top of the world is that you are remembered
and reviled when you get knocked down a peg. The guys in the dock at Nuremburg learned that
at the end of a rope. She'll never face that sort of justice, though, because we can't lose,
right?
The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has diplomats
that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in
protecting the environment.
But I disagree, Mr. Giraldi! Their is coherence in State policy, that is to serve the
State of Israel.
Nutty Nikki is idiotic, vindictive, hateful and very bellicose and would not hesitate to
use our kids and tax dollars to support Apartheid Israel, and is loved by multi-billionaire
Sheldon Adelson, which means she will be the next POTUS.
Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a
number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In
other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican.
She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to
go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections.
When is Trump going to prosecute Soros for conspiracy to interfere with the U.S. and other
countries?
The lack of progress on immigration can, maybe, be explained as Trump faces fierce
resistance, but Bolton, Haley, and Pompeo are unforced/forced errors, that will make it
nearly immposible for him to keep his promise of ending these stupid wars.
Better than Hillary, but more than a little disappointing.
Haley has too many skeletons in her closet to run for president. While running for SC
governorship rumors of her affair with conservative blogger Will Folks surfaced. She tried to
deny it of course, claiming to be "completely faithful" to her husband of 13 years, then Will
Folks shared text messages and frequent, lengthy middle of the night phone calls between
them, some as long as 180 minutes, all after 10pm (hey she had to put the kids to bed first):
In his latest book, Michael Wolffe claimed that Nikki Haley had an affair with Trump,
which Haley dismissed as "disgusting", one wonders if Trump took that as a compliment.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Haley is sleeping with her current "advisor" at the UN
(paid for by taxpayers btw) Jon Lerner, who she has also kindly shared with Mike Pence, one
hopes only the advising part, not the bed, but who knows.
Something tells me she's sleeping with Netanyahu as well. She sure loves her Jewish
men.
"Ambassadors" are supposed to make peace, but Trump who claimed he wanted to end all foreign
wars end up with an ambassador to the World who only wants to make wars, with everybody! She
even wanted Trump to send troops to Venezuela! Anytime Trump is within 10 ft of this mad
woman, he's talking about bombing somebody.
Was there ever any evidence that Trump considered Tulsi for Amb. to UN? Wasn't that just
goofy talk from Tulsi's fans?
I doubt she would have wanted it, anyway. Not exactly a step up, being appointed to a
position from which you could be summarily dismissed .. as opposed to an elected official
with a definite term and, other than pressure from the DNC – which she has handily
bucked – freedom to express independent views.
She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew
to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a
higher caste.
I keep wondering why Trump has not fired that know-nothing. He's not been afraid to fire
people for far less offenses against his Admin. I suspect that the Israel Lobby will not let
him, and made him hire her in the first place. She used to be a "Never-Trumper," after all.
In an otherwise fine piece, I wish that Giraldi would have opined as to why she's still
there.
Haley is a stupid, opportunistic woman who simply goes where the money is, and that is by
doing the bidding of the Zionists in USA and Israel. The author even points out that her
mentor is Zionist asswipe from the National Review Johah Goldberg's wife! She comes across as
such a stupid woman that she perhaps doesn't realize she's being brainwashed and used as a UN
mouthpiece of advance the Zionist Israeli agenda.
Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs;
easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit
sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy.
Well, what I'm trying to say, very sadly, is that this insufferable douchebag wench will
most likely be your next president
Does a purportedly high IQ protect one from stupidity?
High IQ signals intelligence, but not wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience, and being able
to apply your high IQ to learn from those experiences. Many high IQ people in fact lack
practical wisdom a.k.a. common sense
No doubt, it's hard especially for an ally (like me) to get under Philip Giraldi's
thick-skin, but I am compelled to try now.
Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured
in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl."
Indeed, she could become President of ZUS as could Oprah Winfrey. All originate from
Jewish Central Casting, selection.
In closing, linked below is some homegrown CENSORSHIP originating from "The Land of Milk
& Honey."
Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the
match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are
way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the
exception.
to show disdain for the UN by sending yet another cartoon Exceptionalist;
factional carveups: to give the neoTrotsykites a position that they think is
meaningful;
to keep Haley out of domestic politics and too busy to properly prepare the ground
for a presidential candidacy.
There are probably others – note that none of them has anything to do with diplomacy
or international relations (except as a repudiation of the concepts).
Neither are effective at all: under both Bolton and now Haley (and "RicePower") the
US has had to increase the baksheesh it distributes around the world in order to buy
compliance and diplomatic support – they have, as a group been unable to slow the
decline of US prestige.
So the 'operational' side of things is a wash.
Bolton's preternaturally unpersuasive, because he's a grotesque parody of a human
being.
And there's where it gets interesting: there is upside risk to Haley if she were
able to Clintonise herself – by which I mean behave more like Bill , not more
like Hillary. If she was more 'aw-shucks', she would get more done (frankly I don't think
that's her aim, because like all politicians she's interested in doing things for herself,
not for her current boss).
Haley could be far more persuasive/effective because in her best moments she's quite
personable (plus she's still very pretty when she turns on the charm, which is always
a plus).
The downside is that her 'best' moments are very few and far between – she spends
most of her time with that particularly waspish hate-face so common among formerly-pretty
women who realise that their best years are behind them.
Frankly, the notion that she's a plausible presidential candidate is laughable: when the
US does eventually elect a female president, the successful candidate will be whiter than the
whitest Pilgrim.
It is beyond farcical to believe that the Republican voter base would elect a 'dusky'
woman for the highest national office: bear in mind that Haley would be repudiated ex
ante by Democrats because she's on the wrong side, and US presidential politics is almost
entirely decided by base-mobilisation.
Deep down Haley probably realises this, and that will also be a source of rancour.
How exactly are these neocon Israel apologists created, vetted, accepted?
It must be some weird ceremony that would make La Cosa Nostra look like
a Ladies Garden Club invitation.
By the way, 3,000 Palestinians weren't shot at the latest dustup.
Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and
naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton.
If she ever ascends to the throne in D.C. her "conservatism" will consist of militant
philo-semitism while being liberal on social policy and a warhawk on foreign policy. Hannity
will gush joyfully over her.
"Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs;
easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit
sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. "
Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on
his team. He sees himself in her, y'know.
To keep the bluff going, the US can't afford to push the button. End of story.
The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They
voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran)
and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets.
Power in the US is held by a rabid crowd of Zionist who control Congress and the media,
and THEY DECIDE what happens along the lines of "Israel First".
So your question should be, "To keep the bluff going, can Israel afford to push the (US)
button?"
The answer could well be Yes.
1) Syria and Iran would be destroyed giving Israel undisputed dominance of the Middle
East.
2) The US would be plunged into chaos and the COG (Continuity of Government) legislation
installed by Reagan would come into play. This is basically an Emergency Dictatorship run
from bunkers around the US, that the Zionists tried for on 9/11 (and failed to get) but would
certainly achieve under this new scenario.
With totalitarian control of the United States, the Zionist Neo-Bolsheviks could do what
they wanted with the remains of the US population, and who cares if 100 million Goys die in a
nuclear exchange with Russia/China (which would also conveniently be in ruins).
"... So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views if she were to become the neocon dream president. ..."
"... Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris, but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong ..."
She's clearly aiming for the Oval Office and would be the dream occupant for neocons
The musical chairs playing out among the senior officials that make up the President Donald
Trump White House team would be amusing to watch but for the genuine damage that it is doing to
the United States. The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has
diplomats that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in
protecting the environment. It also means that well-funded and disciplined lobbies and pressure
groups are having a field day, befuddling ignorant administrators with their "fact sheets" and
successfully promoting policies that benefit no one but themselves.
In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands
out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence
combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is
our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley , who surfaced in the news lately after
she unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House
suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't
get confused." This ignited a firestorm among the Trump haters, lauding Haley as a strong
and self-confident woman for standing up to the White House male bullies while also suggesting
that the hapless Administration had not bothered to inform one of its senior diplomats of a
policy change. It also produced a flurry of Haley for higher office tweets based on what was
described as her "brilliant riposte " to the president.
One over-the-top
bit of effusion from a former Haley aide even suggested that her "deft rebuttal" emphasizes
her qualities, enthusing that "What distinguishes her from the star-struck sycophants in the
White House is that she understands the intersection of strong leadership and public service,
where great things happen" and placing her on what is being promoted as the short list of
future presidential candidates.
For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley
for president, a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah
Palin. Indeed, the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very
cerebral or much given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are
reflexively aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both
are passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley
regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the
Murdoch media as well as in the
opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.
The greater
problem right now is that Nikki Haley is America's face to the international community, even
more than the Secretary of State. She has used her bully pulpit to do just that, i.e. bully,
and she is ugly America personified, having apparently decided that something called American
Exceptionalism gives her license to say and do whatever she wants at the United Nations. In her
mind, the United States can do what it wants globally because it has a God-given right to do
so, a viewpoint that doesn't go down well with many countries that believe that they have a
legal and moral right to be left alone and remain exempt from America's all too frequent
military interventions.
Nikki Haley sees things differently, however. During her 15 months at the United Nations she
has been instrumental in cutting funding for programs that she disapproves of and has
repeatedly threatened military action against countries that disagree with U.S. policies. Most
recently, in the wake of the U.S. cruise missile attack against Syria, she announced that the
action was potentially only the first step. She declared that Washington was "locked and
loaded," prepared to exercise more lethal military options if Syria and its Russian and Iranian
supporters did not cease and desist from the use of chemical weapons. Ironically, the cruise
missile attack was carried out even though the White House had no clue as to what had actually
happened and it now turns out that the entire story, spread by the terrorist groups in Syria
and their mouthpieces,
has begun to unravel . Will Nikki Haley apologize? I would suspect that if she doesn't do
confusion she doesn't do apologies either.
Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on
a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which
are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her
speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah
Goldberg. Unfortunately, being a neocon mouthpiece makes her particularly dangerous as she is
holding a position where she can do bad things. She has been shooting from the lip since she
assumed office with only minimal vetting by the Trump Administration, and, as in the recent
imbroglio over her "confusion," it is never quite clear whether she is speaking for herself or
for the White House.
Haley has her own foreign policy. She has
declared that Russia "is not, will not be our friend" and has lately described the Russians
as having their hands covered with the blood of Syrian children. From the start of her time at
the U.N., Haley has made it clear that she is neoconservatism personified and she has done
nothing since to change that impression. In December 2017 she warned the U.N. that she was
"taking names" and threatened retaliation against any country that was so "disrespectful" as to
dare to vote against Washington's disastrous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital,
which she also helped to bring about.
As governor of South Carolina, Haley first became identified as an unquestioning supporter of Israel through her
signing of a bill punishing supporters of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level. Immediately
upon taking office at the United Nations she complained that "nowhere has the U.N.'s failure
been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel" and
vowed that the "days of Israel bashing are over." On a recent visit to Israel, she was feted
and
honored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She was also greeted by rounds of
applause and cheering when she spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, saying "When I come to AIPAC I am with friends."
Nikki
Haley's embrace of Israeli points of view is unrelenting and serves no American interest. If
she were a recruited agent of influence for the Israeli Mossad she could not be more
cooperative than she apparently is voluntarily. In February 2017, she blocked the appointment
of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United
Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a
congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: "Is it this administration's
position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual
of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?" Haley
responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking every Palestinian.
Haley is particularly highly critical of both Syria and Iran, reflecting the Israeli bias.
She has repeatedly said that
regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority, even when the White House was
saying something different. She has elaborated on an Administration warning that it had "identified
potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime"
by tweeting " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who
support him killing his own people." At one point, Haley warned "We
need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its own people."
At various U.N. meetings, though Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of
institutional bias towards Israel, she has never addressed the issue that Israel's treatment of
the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled against it. Her
description of Israel as a "close ally" is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to actual
American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at
least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. Nor has she spoken up about
the more recent shooting of three thousand unarmed Gazan demonstrators by Israeli Army
sharpshooters, which is a war crime.
Haley's hardline on Syria reflects the Israeli bias, and her consistent hostility to Russia
is a neoconservative position. A White House warning that it had "identified
potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime led to a
Haley elaboration in a tweet that " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on
Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people." Earlier, on April 12, 2017 after
Russia blocked a draft U.N. resolution intended to condemn the alleged Khan Shaykhun chemical
attack, which subsequently turned out to be a false flag, Haley said , "We
need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its own people."
Haley is particularly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of the
unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli and neocon viewpoints. She claimed on
April 20, 2017 during her first session as president of the U.N. Security Council, that Iran
and Hezbollah had "conducted terrorist acts" for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the
more serious terrorism support engaged in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She
stated in June 2017 that
the Security Council's praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that has engaged in
"illicit missile launches," "support for terrorist groups," and "arms smuggling," while
"stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve." All are perspectives that
might easily be challenged.
So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the
neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch
supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the
rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views
if she were to become the neocon dream president.
Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for
the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris,
but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong , one
suspects that Haley's assertion that she does not do confusion is only the beginning if she
succeeds in her apparent quest for the highest office in the land. Worse than John Bolton?
Absolutely.
Watergate was the ultimate leftist deep state fake news story. Wash Post reporter
Bernstein out to avenge his communist parents' persecution by the Sen Nixon in the 50s.
CIA operatives Bradlee and his mentee Bob Woodward staged a coup.
Watch how unethical "the boys" are in their pursuit of the truth in the '76 movie version
of Watergate, "All the President's Men."
You are partially correct. There is more to the story. Mark Felt was "deep throat" and was
expecting to be appointed FBI director. When Nixon chose L. Patrick Gray as FBI director
instead of Mark Felt, all bets were off and he went after Nixon. The rest is history
This is a fairly good discussion. But only because it's on television. Otherwise,
information and chatter of this quality is commonplace on the internet or any area that's
free of Jewish censorship. My recent dinner with James Petras was more informative. (But
maybe I'm just boasting).
But Sachs (Jewish) does pull a fast one, claiming that the destabilization of Syria is due
to US and Saudi meddling. Ok. He's mostly right on that. But there's more. And surely Sachs
know it.
Sachs leaves out Israel in this discussion even though Israel has actually attacked and
bombed Syrian positions inside Syria at least three times over the past seven years.
'
Zionists worldwide have been trying to get Assad overthrown for decades. Israel and Syria
are, in fact, still in a technical state of war since Israel seized Syrian territory in 1967
during the Six Day War.
In June of that year (just before the USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli forces) the
Jewish State preemptively invaded Syria. Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights and
intends to keep the Golan.
Plus, since Israel basically dictates Washington's official policies in the Mideast, it is
Israel–every bit as much as either occupied Washington or subservient Saudi
Arabia–that is probably most responsible for the anti-Assad chaos and carnage inside
Syria.
This manufactured Syrian 'civil war' that has cost no less than 500,000 lives and the
displacement of millions.
Sachs–like all loyal Zions–purposefully deflected attention away from Israel
in this discussion, even though he knew better. In effect, Sachs deceived. He lied for
Israel.
" ..Israel has actually attacked and bombed Syrian positions inside Syria at least three
times over the past seven years." LOL. Try, in the last seven weeks!
Sure, Israel is most responsible. But as for Sachs, since this point was already discussed
under Pat Lang's article, I'll just quote myself.
Okay, Sachs has corpses in his closet. But, IMO, take gold where you find it . limited
hangout or not.
If your adversary speaks some truth, that doesn't make it a lie. Plus, you're not going
to get every angle covered n every clip. The fact that he called out US covert
fomentation of regime-change in Syria [on major network TV!!!] makes this golden.
I agree. Sachs nor anyone on TV will mention that Israel is driving all of this. I thought
the reveal of the operation name was good, Timber Sycamore. I'm hopefully using this 5 minute
interview to wake up a friend or two who actually still believe "the news" (MSM).
I was listening to an older interview, below, from 2008 with Daryl Bradford Smith and Texe
Marrs as they discuss the worldwide scourge that is zionism. I know you're well versed in it
Mark but I'd recommend UR readers give it a listen. It explains how long this has been going
on and details many atrocities.
In the interview, it mentions that Neocon Michael Ledeen wants to use the US to destroy
Syria. The term "mission accomplished" fits here. Just a continuation of the PNAC plan.
Apparently Trump is backtracking on the US Troop pullout from Syria, or he was lying in
the first place when he made that announcement:
the head of the US military's Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, arrived in Israel to
reassure the head of the National Security Council, the IDF Chief of Staff and other senior
defense officials that Americans have no "immediate plans" to leave Syria , and will
continue supporting Tel Aviv's means of maintaining security and stability on its
border
"... Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. ..."
"... She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his U.N. appointment at least. ..."
"... Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican. ..."
"... She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections. ..."
"... Ask Mike Pence. She's Pence's pick. Pence wants a fellow Ziocon stooge at the UN instead of pro Assad Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a higher caste. ..."
"... Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl." ..."
"... Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the exception. ..."
"... Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton. ..."
"... "Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. " ..."
"... Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on his team. He sees himself in her, y'know. ..."
"... The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran) and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets. ..."
I have noticed Haley's awfulness from the beginning, which I see is now 15 months. Awful
though Bolton is, one feels that he has some knowledge that might even make him pull back
from Armageddon (maybe, not sure).
But Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. Notice how, in the alleged chemical
attacks, she takes no thought or action at all to ascertain truth, but she outdoes herself
trumpeting the harm caused, and the children suffering.
As if the fact that children are suffering somehow proves guilt. I can't imagine anything
so ignorant.
She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see
this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State
and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his
U.N. appointment at least.
Never dismiss the fool, for he wards no fear, no blame and and no trust. He sees no worth
or value and can be swayed by the most trivial things. He seeks no reward but an emotional
gratification. While these sound of a foe easily defeated the truth is oft the opposite for
your threat and presence are fallen on the senseless. If you must fight a fool you must give
him room and let hubris and frailty fight your war, otherwise, you must be swift, with out
mercy and be able to ward the madness that will ensue.
I don't know who penned that but I think it's profound.
Nikki Haley's yappings are just the barking of a dog.
She has no agency. If she sounds 'scary', it's only because she is owned by Zionist
globalist supremacists. If they ordered her to shut up and be nice to Russia and Iran, she
will obey.
She has no mind of her own. Same with Bolton the Dolton.
And she's different from Samantha Power, how? Under Obomba
Or John Bolton under Bush the Lesser?
Seems to be a tradition in the making of putting the most arrogant, rude, least
diplomatic, and aggressive person possible in the position of ambassador to the UN.
Has anybody ELSE been steady, three administrations, non-stop PUKING? Makes it clear, if
nothing else, our "humanitarian" face has peeled off, revealing the brain-eating zombie
underneath.
When you confront staunch Israel supporters with the isolation of Israel in the world, as can
be seen at UN voting, the answer is that this is because of the anti Israel Muslim bloc in
the UN.
The weird thing about jews is that with all their cleverness they're unable to see
reality.
Israel is right, the rest of the world is wrong.
Now even if this were the case, any sensible person would take reality into
consideration.
Not so idiots as Netanyahu.
When the next jewish catastrophe has happened, jews again will see how how they are the
eternal innocent victims, if then jews still will exist, as a nuclear world war is likely to
kill any human being world wide.
Already around 1953 a USA diplomat said that Israel should behave as a small ME country, in
stead of the head of an international group.
They still do not understand.
Once (Bolton) was kind of an anomaly, because, after all, it WAS Bush the Lesser.
But Nobel Peace Prize-sporting Obomba, puts in Power.
Now we got Haley.
Maybe TWICE is a co-inkydink, but this is absurd! Fucking EVERYBODY blows us away
diplomatically! Who is worse? N. Korea does some wicked TWEETS, but their diplomats are
circumspect. Ours are visibly RABID.
One of these days, someone is gonna put us out of their misery, and suck though it will,
it will be highly deserved! Afterward, perhaps humans can progress once the USA is a giant
smoking crater. Or at least D.C. Has ANYONE ever begged for it THIS bad? Ever?
Nikki Haley is THE mouthpiece of the Zionist aggressive occupation regime. She serves its
interests and acts to the detriment of the American people that have to carry the can for the
partisanship with this rogue Zionist state. President Trump should sack her before she
challenges him in the next presidential race. Haley will have the backing of the
trigger-happy Ziocon establishment and the Zionist billionaires.
Together with John Bolton, they seem like the perfect "Doomsday Couple" to bring the U.S.
down. Perhaps they are the last true believers in Zionism, the Jewish racist ideology,
although both are not Jewish. It's not surprising that Jewish and American exceptionalism are
similar in their racist beliefs.
Haley's behavior is hyperbolic, arrogant, and extremely dangerous to the reputation of the
U. S. but it seems as if she acts according to the slogan: Freely you live, if you haven't a
reputation to lose. But under the borderline Trump administration even a "un-American"
behavior, it benefits the Zionist regime, seems acceptable.
So far, all so-called chemical weapons attacks by the al-Asad government were false flag
attacks carried out either by al-Nusra, ISIS or al-Qaida terrorist organizations or by the
"White Helmets" themselves that are a so-called a terrorist affiliate organization, disguised
as paramedics, to draw the U. S. directly into the Syrian conflict.
Under Obama, they failed, and Trump made some symbolic bombings to pacify the
trigger-happy Zionist lobby. How mentally deranged Haley seems, shows her arrogant statement:
"We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its people."
With which "civilized world" should Russia take sides? Does Haley mean the U. S. or the
Zionist occupation regime? The first one has slaughtered millions of people in endless wars,
the later has been subjugated another people for over 50 years and destroyed its existence.
This "civilized world" and its values are for the garbage dump.
Despite his twitter manticism, Trump was still a kind of common sense that can
differentiate between the good for America in contrast to the good for Israel for the sake of
the American people.
Noeconservatives arguably don't have enough appeal for them to get the presidency.
Unfortunately, they can still have clout as evidenced by Haley in her role and how the likes
of MSNBC and CNN uncritically praise her.
Well if she does make it to POTUS we have historical equivalence. The Dying days of the Roman
western Empire. in the mid 4th century BC. Roman Empire at this stage had two imperial
cities. one situated in ROME being hounded by the Goths and the other one in the East
Byzantium present day Istanbul. The point is in the western dying Imperial days they put as
emperor a child well Haley becomes POTUS one could only say History repeating itself. The
scary thing about all this is pax-americana is slowly dying. Recent economic figures coming
out of the west show this. All recent gains have nothing in common with industrial output.
Profits are all related to the stockmarket grandest ponzi scheme in the history of western
man.
Latest events from the Skripal imbroglio to Douma all show signs of desperation .
BY DECEPTION YOU MAY WAGE WAR.
Note the three countries that illegally bombed Syria on the sad nite of April 13th 2018 were
the exact ring leaders to the total destruction of the highest standard of living of the
African continent.
RINSE ,LATHER ,REPEAT.
Post Scriptum: It is sad and scary to see that from 1999 to this day not withstanding all the
lies that NATO and FUKUS have spewed to the world and have been exposed as such we the
sheeple can fall for the same trap.
THE WEST HAS ENTERED INTO THE WORLD OF ZOMBIES .
Critical thinking gets labelled as enemies of the state. Boy Goebbels must be so envious of
recent events.
How Orwellian our western society has become.
Another very good article by Philip Giraldi. If the US wasn't dominated by foreign agents and
roving gangs of ziocon lobbyists, Giraldi would be widely respected, considered 'mainstream',
and known to millions. But powerful forces are determined to prevent this.
What we get instead are empty suits reading scripts.
We live in an era where political extremism (aggressive war is a prime example of
extremism) has been declared 'centrist' and 'moderate'. Advocates of non-intervention are
labeled 'fringe'.
Political illusions happen. They happen by design.
Fortunately, Giraldi demonstrates a commendable ability to separate US interests from
contrived foreign agendas. This is not often done. And he does it well.
For revealing this, Giraldi and a few other daring intellectuals have been defamed as 'far
right'. Their sin? Telling the truth (to the best of their ability) about Zio-American
malfeasance in American life and on the world stage.
Their quiet exile from the corridors of political power shows how debased and unmoored our
culture has become. Giraldi's diminished status is the end-product of targeted censorship,
economic sabotage, and strategic defamation. This phenomena affects us all.
What do we get instead?–delusional sell-outs like John McCain, Lindsey Graham,
Hillary Clinton and Nikki Haley. Frauds all, including the journalists who adore them. The
corruption in America is wide and deep.
Washington's queer political values are hopelessly under the thrall of liberal
interventionists, ne0con militarists, televised war barkers, and deep state vampires. These
amoral extremists have become America's political 'establishment'.
Trump notwithstanding, the Swamp, the alphabet government agencies, the two Parties, the
major lobbies, donors, and NGOs (and of course, Big Media) are what rules America.
Average, non-organized voters have no political influence.
But it is our mainstream news and entertainment media that ultimately earns the most
responsibility for Zio-Washington's trigger-happy embrace of aggressive militarism in all
policies and instances that could affect Israel (which is virtually everything.)
This Zionist 'value' opens a very big door.
This commitment is a recipe for endless strife and intervention. Yet our media supports
it. Continuously and uniformly.
And the chief beneficiary is (you guessed it).
Incredibly, Washington spends far more time agonizing over borders and security in the
far-away shitholes (pardon the expression) than on our own southern border. Who dreamt up
this ridiculous scheme?
This level of corrupt insanity did not happen by accident.
Incredibly, if enough empty suits and talking heads repeat a myth or falsehood enough
times, it becomes 'true'. Voila! The magic of TV.
Political hallucinations and bizarre double standards become very real. Very 'true'.
The problem with being arrogant when you are on top of the world is that you are remembered
and reviled when you get knocked down a peg. The guys in the dock at Nuremburg learned that
at the end of a rope. She'll never face that sort of justice, though, because we can't lose,
right?
The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has diplomats
that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in
protecting the environment.
But I disagree, Mr. Giraldi! Their is coherence in State policy, that is to serve the
State of Israel.
Nutty Nikki is idiotic, vindictive, hateful and very bellicose and would not hesitate to
use our kids and tax dollars to support Apartheid Israel, and is loved by multi-billionaire
Sheldon Adelson, which means she will be the next POTUS.
Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a
number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In
other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican.
She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to
go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections.
When is Trump going to prosecute Soros for conspiracy to interfere with the U.S. and other
countries?
The lack of progress on immigration can, maybe, be explained as Trump faces fierce
resistance, but Bolton, Haley, and Pompeo are unforced/forced errors, that will make it
nearly immposible for him to keep his promise of ending these stupid wars.
Better than Hillary, but more than a little disappointing.
Haley has too many skeletons in her closet to run for president. While running for SC
governorship rumors of her affair with conservative blogger Will Folks surfaced. She tried to
deny it of course, claiming to be "completely faithful" to her husband of 13 years, then Will
Folks shared text messages and frequent, lengthy middle of the night phone calls between
them, some as long as 180 minutes, all after 10pm (hey she had to put the kids to bed first):
In his latest book, Michael Wolffe claimed that Nikki Haley had an affair with Trump,
which Haley dismissed as "disgusting", one wonders if Trump took that as a compliment.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Haley is sleeping with her current "advisor" at the UN
(paid for by taxpayers btw) Jon Lerner, who she has also kindly shared with Mike Pence, one
hopes only the advising part, not the bed, but who knows.
Something tells me she's sleeping with Netanyahu as well. She sure loves her Jewish
men.
"Ambassadors" are supposed to make peace, but Trump who claimed he wanted to end all foreign
wars end up with an ambassador to the World who only wants to make wars, with everybody! She
even wanted Trump to send troops to Venezuela! Anytime Trump is within 10 ft of this mad
woman, he's talking about bombing somebody.
Was there ever any evidence that Trump considered Tulsi for Amb. to UN? Wasn't that just
goofy talk from Tulsi's fans?
I doubt she would have wanted it, anyway. Not exactly a step up, being appointed to a
position from which you could be summarily dismissed .. as opposed to an elected official
with a definite term and, other than pressure from the DNC – which she has handily
bucked – freedom to express independent views.
She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew
to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a
higher caste.
I keep wondering why Trump has not fired that know-nothing. He's not been afraid to fire
people for far less offenses against his Admin. I suspect that the Israel Lobby will not let
him, and made him hire her in the first place. She used to be a "Never-Trumper," after all.
In an otherwise fine piece, I wish that Giraldi would have opined as to why she's still
there.
Haley is a stupid, opportunistic woman who simply goes where the money is, and that is by
doing the bidding of the Zionists in USA and Israel. The author even points out that her
mentor is Zionist asswipe from the National Review Johah Goldberg's wife! She comes across as
such a stupid woman that she perhaps doesn't realize she's being brainwashed and used as a UN
mouthpiece of advance the Zionist Israeli agenda.
Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs;
easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit
sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy.
Well, what I'm trying to say, very sadly, is that this insufferable douchebag wench will
most likely be your next president
Does a purportedly high IQ protect one from stupidity?
High IQ signals intelligence, but not wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience, and being able
to apply your high IQ to learn from those experiences. Many high IQ people in fact lack
practical wisdom a.k.a. common sense
No doubt, it's hard especially for an ally (like me) to get under Philip Giraldi's
thick-skin, but I am compelled to try now.
Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured
in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl."
Indeed, she could become President of ZUS as could Oprah Winfrey. All originate from
Jewish Central Casting, selection.
In closing, linked below is some homegrown CENSORSHIP originating from "The Land of Milk
& Honey."
Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the
match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are
way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the
exception.
to show disdain for the UN by sending yet another cartoon Exceptionalist;
factional carveups: to give the neoTrotsykites a position that they think is
meaningful;
to keep Haley out of domestic politics and too busy to properly prepare the ground
for a presidential candidacy.
There are probably others – note that none of them has anything to do with diplomacy
or international relations (except as a repudiation of the concepts).
Neither are effective at all: under both Bolton and now Haley (and "RicePower") the
US has had to increase the baksheesh it distributes around the world in order to buy
compliance and diplomatic support – they have, as a group been unable to slow the
decline of US prestige.
So the 'operational' side of things is a wash.
Bolton's preternaturally unpersuasive, because he's a grotesque parody of a human
being.
And there's where it gets interesting: there is upside risk to Haley if she were
able to Clintonise herself – by which I mean behave more like Bill , not more
like Hillary. If she was more 'aw-shucks', she would get more done (frankly I don't think
that's her aim, because like all politicians she's interested in doing things for herself,
not for her current boss).
Haley could be far more persuasive/effective because in her best moments she's quite
personable (plus she's still very pretty when she turns on the charm, which is always
a plus).
The downside is that her 'best' moments are very few and far between – she spends
most of her time with that particularly waspish hate-face so common among formerly-pretty
women who realise that their best years are behind them.
Frankly, the notion that she's a plausible presidential candidate is laughable: when the
US does eventually elect a female president, the successful candidate will be whiter than the
whitest Pilgrim.
It is beyond farcical to believe that the Republican voter base would elect a 'dusky'
woman for the highest national office: bear in mind that Haley would be repudiated ex
ante by Democrats because she's on the wrong side, and US presidential politics is almost
entirely decided by base-mobilisation.
Deep down Haley probably realises this, and that will also be a source of rancour.
How exactly are these neocon Israel apologists created, vetted, accepted?
It must be some weird ceremony that would make La Cosa Nostra look like
a Ladies Garden Club invitation.
By the way, 3,000 Palestinians weren't shot at the latest dustup.
Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and
naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton.
If she ever ascends to the throne in D.C. her "conservatism" will consist of militant
philo-semitism while being liberal on social policy and a warhawk on foreign policy. Hannity
will gush joyfully over her.
"Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs;
easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit
sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. "
Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on
his team. He sees himself in her, y'know.
To keep the bluff going, the US can't afford to push the button. End of story.
The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They
voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran)
and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets.
Power in the US is held by a rabid crowd of Zionist who control Congress and the media,
and THEY DECIDE what happens along the lines of "Israel First".
So your question should be, "To keep the bluff going, can Israel afford to push the (US)
button?"
The answer could well be Yes.
1) Syria and Iran would be destroyed giving Israel undisputed dominance of the Middle
East.
2) The US would be plunged into chaos and the COG (Continuity of Government) legislation
installed by Reagan would come into play. This is basically an Emergency Dictatorship run
from bunkers around the US, that the Zionists tried for on 9/11 (and failed to get) but would
certainly achieve under this new scenario.
With totalitarian control of the United States, the Zionist Neo-Bolsheviks could do what
they wanted with the remains of the US population, and who cares if 100 million Goys die in a
nuclear exchange with Russia/China (which would also conveniently be in ruins).
...President Barack Obama, who had run a quasi-antiwar liberal campaign for the White House, had embraced the assassination program
and had decreed, "the CIA gets what it wants." Intelligence budgets were maintaining the steep upward curve that had started in 2001,
and while all agencies were benefiting, none had done as well as the CIA At just under $15 billion, the agency's budget had climbed
by 56 percent just since 2004.
Decades earlier, Richard Helms, the CIA director for whom the event was named, would customarily
refer to the defense contractors who pressured him to spend his budget on their wares as "those bastards." Such disdain for commerce
in the world of spooks was now long gone, as demonstrated by the corporate sponsorship of the tables jammed into the Grand Ballroom
that evening. The executives, many of whom had passed through the revolving door from government service, were there to rub shoulders
with old friends and current partners. "It was totally garish," one attendee told me afterward. "It seemed like every arms manufacturer
in the country had taken a table. Everyone was doing business, right and left."
In the decade since 9/11, the CIA had been regularly blighted by scandal-revelations of torture, renditions, secret "black site"
prisons, bogus intelligence justifying the invasion of Iraq, ignored signs of the impending 9/11 attacks-but such unwholesome realities
found no echo in this comradely gathering. Even George Tenet, the CIA director who had presided over all of the aforementioned scandals,
was greeted with heartfelt affection by erstwhile colleagues as he, along with almost every other living former CIA director, stood
to be introduced by Master of Ceremonies John McLaughlin, a former deputy director himself deeply complicit in the Iraq fiasco. Each,
with the exception of Stansfield Turner (still bitterly resented for downsizing the agency post-Vietnam), received ringing applause,
but none more than the night's honoree, former CIA director and then-current secretary of defense Robert M. Gates.
Although Gates had left the CIA eighteen years before, he was very much the father figure of the institution and a mentor to the
intelligence chieftains, active and retired, who cheered him so fervently that night at the Ritz-Carlton. He had climbed through
the ranks of the national security bureaucracy with a ruthless determination all too evident to those around him. Ray McGovern, his
supervisor in his first agency post, as an analyst with the intelligence directorate's soviet foreign policy branch, recalls writing
in an efficiency report that the young man's "evident and all-consuming ambition is a disruptive influence in the branch." There
had come a brief check on his rise to power when his involvement in the Iran-Contra imbroglio cratered an initial attempt to win
confirmation as CIA director, but success came a few years later, in 1991, despite vehement protests from former colleagues over
his persistent willingness to sacrifice analytic objectivity to the political convenience of his masters.
Gates's successful 1991 confirmation as CIA chief owed much, so colleagues assessed, to diligent work behind the scenes on the
part of the Senate Intelligence Committee's staff director, George Tenet. In 1993, Tenet moved on to be director for intelligence
programs on the Clinton White House national security staff, in which capacity he came to know and esteem John Brennan, a midlevel
and hitherto undistinguished CIA analyst assigned to brief White House staffers. Tenet liked Brennan so much that when he himself
moved to the CIA as deputy director in 1995, he had the briefer appointed station chief in Riyadh, an important position normally
reserved for someone with actual operational experience. In this sensitive post Brennan worked tirelessly to avoid irritating his
Saudi hosts, showing reluctance, for example, to press them for Osama bin Laden's biographical details when asked to do so by the
bin Laden unit back at headquarters.
Brennan returned to Washington in 1999 under Tenet's patronage, initially as his chief of staff and then as CIA executive director,
and by 2003 he had transitioned to the burgeoning field of intelligence fusion bureaucracy. The notion that the way to avert miscommunication
between intelligence bureaucracies was to create yet more layers of bureaucracy was popular in Washington in the aftermath of 9/11.
One concrete expression of this trend was the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, known as T-TIC and then renamed the National Counter
Terrorism Center a year later. Brennan was the first head of T-TIC, distinguishing himself in catering to the abiding paranoia of
the times. On one occasion, notorious within the community, he circulated an urgent report that al-Qaeda was encrypting targeting
information for terrorist attacks in the broadcasts of the al-Jazeera TV network, thereby generating an "orange" alert and the cancellation
of dozens of international flights. The initiative was greeted with malicious amusement over at the CIA's own Counterterrorism Center,
whose chief at the time, José Rodríguez, later opined that Brennan had been trying to build up his profile with higher authority.
"Brennan was a major factor in keeping [the al-Jazeera/al-Qaeda story] alive. We thought it was ridiculous," he told a reporter.
"My own view is he saw this, he took this, as a way to have relevance, to take something to the White House." Tellingly, an Obama
White House spokesman later excused Brennan's behavior on the grounds that though he had circulated the report, he hadn't believed
it himself.
Exiting government service in 2005, Brennan spent the next three years heading The Analysis Corporation, an obscure but profitable
intelligence contractor engaged in preparing terrorist watch lists for the government, work for which he was paid $763,000 in 2008.
Among the useful relationships he had cultivated over the years was well-connected Democrat Anthony Lake, a former national security
adviser to Bill Clinton, who recommended him to presidential candidate Barack Obama. Meeting for the first time shortly after Obama's
election victory, the pair bonded immediately, with Obama "finishing Brennan's sentences," by one account. Among their points of
wholehearted agreement was the merit of a surgical approach to terrorist threats, the "need to target the metastasizing disease without
destroying the surrounding tissue," as Brennan put it, for which drones and their Hellfire missiles seemed the ideal tools. Obama
was initially balked in his desire to make Brennan CIA director because of the latter's all-too-close association with the agency's
torture program, so instead the new president made him his assistant for counterterrorism and homeland security, with an office down
the hall from the Oval Office. Two years into the administration, everyone in the Ritz-Carlton ballroom knew that the bulky Irishman
was the most powerful man in U.S. intelligence as the custodian of the president's kill list, on which the chief executive and former
constitutional law professor insisted on reserving the last word, making his final selections for execution at regularly scheduled
Tuesday afternoon meetings. "You know, our president has his brutal side," a CIA source cognizant of Obama's involvement observed
to me at the time.
Now, along with the other six hundred diners at the Helms dinner, Brennan listened attentively as Gates rose to accept the coveted
award for "exemplary service to the nation and the Central Intelligence Agency." After paying due tribute to previous honorees as
well as his pride in being part of the CIA "family," Gates spoke movingly of a recent and particularly tragic instance of CIA sacrifice,
the seven men and women killed by a suicide bomber at an agency base, Forward Operating Base Chapman, in Khost, Afghanistan, in 2009.
All present bowed their heads in silent tribute.
Gates then moved on to a more upbeat topic. When first he arrived at the Pentagon in 2007, he said, he had found deep-rooted resistance
to "new technology" among "flyboys with silk scarves" still wedded to venerable traditions of fighter-plane combat. But all that,
he informed his rapt audience, had changed. Factories were working "day and night, day and night," to turn out the vital weapons
for the fight against terrorism. "So from now on," he concluded, his voice rising, "the watchword is: drones, baby, drones!"
"... So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views if she were to become the neocon dream president. ..."
"... Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris, but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong ..."
She's clearly aiming for the Oval Office and would be the dream occupant for neocons
The musical chairs playing out among the senior officials that make up the President Donald
Trump White House team would be amusing to watch but for the genuine damage that it is doing to
the United States. The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has
diplomats that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in
protecting the environment. It also means that well-funded and disciplined lobbies and pressure
groups are having a field day, befuddling ignorant administrators with their "fact sheets" and
successfully promoting policies that benefit no one but themselves.
In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands
out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence
combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is
our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley , who surfaced in the news lately after
she unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House
suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't
get confused." This ignited a firestorm among the Trump haters, lauding Haley as a strong
and self-confident woman for standing up to the White House male bullies while also suggesting
that the hapless Administration had not bothered to inform one of its senior diplomats of a
policy change. It also produced a flurry of Haley for higher office tweets based on what was
described as her "brilliant riposte " to the president.
One over-the-top
bit of effusion from a former Haley aide even suggested that her "deft rebuttal" emphasizes
her qualities, enthusing that "What distinguishes her from the star-struck sycophants in the
White House is that she understands the intersection of strong leadership and public service,
where great things happen" and placing her on what is being promoted as the short list of
future presidential candidates.
For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley
for president, a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah
Palin. Indeed, the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very
cerebral or much given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are
reflexively aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both
are passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley
regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the
Murdoch media as well as in the
opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.
The greater
problem right now is that Nikki Haley is America's face to the international community, even
more than the Secretary of State. She has used her bully pulpit to do just that, i.e. bully,
and she is ugly America personified, having apparently decided that something called American
Exceptionalism gives her license to say and do whatever she wants at the United Nations. In her
mind, the United States can do what it wants globally because it has a God-given right to do
so, a viewpoint that doesn't go down well with many countries that believe that they have a
legal and moral right to be left alone and remain exempt from America's all too frequent
military interventions.
Nikki Haley sees things differently, however. During her 15 months at the United Nations she
has been instrumental in cutting funding for programs that she disapproves of and has
repeatedly threatened military action against countries that disagree with U.S. policies. Most
recently, in the wake of the U.S. cruise missile attack against Syria, she announced that the
action was potentially only the first step. She declared that Washington was "locked and
loaded," prepared to exercise more lethal military options if Syria and its Russian and Iranian
supporters did not cease and desist from the use of chemical weapons. Ironically, the cruise
missile attack was carried out even though the White House had no clue as to what had actually
happened and it now turns out that the entire story, spread by the terrorist groups in Syria
and their mouthpieces,
has begun to unravel . Will Nikki Haley apologize? I would suspect that if she doesn't do
confusion she doesn't do apologies either.
Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on
a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which
are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her
speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah
Goldberg. Unfortunately, being a neocon mouthpiece makes her particularly dangerous as she is
holding a position where she can do bad things. She has been shooting from the lip since she
assumed office with only minimal vetting by the Trump Administration, and, as in the recent
imbroglio over her "confusion," it is never quite clear whether she is speaking for herself or
for the White House.
Haley has her own foreign policy. She has
declared that Russia "is not, will not be our friend" and has lately described the Russians
as having their hands covered with the blood of Syrian children. From the start of her time at
the U.N., Haley has made it clear that she is neoconservatism personified and she has done
nothing since to change that impression. In December 2017 she warned the U.N. that she was
"taking names" and threatened retaliation against any country that was so "disrespectful" as to
dare to vote against Washington's disastrous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital,
which she also helped to bring about.
As governor of South Carolina, Haley first became identified as an unquestioning supporter of Israel through her
signing of a bill punishing supporters of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level. Immediately
upon taking office at the United Nations she complained that "nowhere has the U.N.'s failure
been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel" and
vowed that the "days of Israel bashing are over." On a recent visit to Israel, she was feted
and
honored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She was also greeted by rounds of
applause and cheering when she spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, saying "When I come to AIPAC I am with friends."
Nikki
Haley's embrace of Israeli points of view is unrelenting and serves no American interest. If
she were a recruited agent of influence for the Israeli Mossad she could not be more
cooperative than she apparently is voluntarily. In February 2017, she blocked the appointment
of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United
Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a
congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: "Is it this administration's
position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual
of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?" Haley
responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking every Palestinian.
Haley is particularly highly critical of both Syria and Iran, reflecting the Israeli bias.
She has repeatedly said that
regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority, even when the White House was
saying something different. She has elaborated on an Administration warning that it had "identified
potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime"
by tweeting " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who
support him killing his own people." At one point, Haley warned "We
need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its own people."
At various U.N. meetings, though Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of
institutional bias towards Israel, she has never addressed the issue that Israel's treatment of
the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled against it. Her
description of Israel as a "close ally" is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to actual
American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at
least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. Nor has she spoken up about
the more recent shooting of three thousand unarmed Gazan demonstrators by Israeli Army
sharpshooters, which is a war crime.
Haley's hardline on Syria reflects the Israeli bias, and her consistent hostility to Russia
is a neoconservative position. A White House warning that it had "identified
potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime led to a
Haley elaboration in a tweet that " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on
Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people." Earlier, on April 12, 2017 after
Russia blocked a draft U.N. resolution intended to condemn the alleged Khan Shaykhun chemical
attack, which subsequently turned out to be a false flag, Haley said , "We
need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its own people."
Haley is particularly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of the
unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli and neocon viewpoints. She claimed on
April 20, 2017 during her first session as president of the U.N. Security Council, that Iran
and Hezbollah had "conducted terrorist acts" for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the
more serious terrorism support engaged in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She
stated in June 2017 that
the Security Council's praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that has engaged in
"illicit missile launches," "support for terrorist groups," and "arms smuggling," while
"stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve." All are perspectives that
might easily be challenged.
So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the
neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch
supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the
rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views
if she were to become the neocon dream president.
Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for
the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris,
but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong , one
suspects that Haley's assertion that she does not do confusion is only the beginning if she
succeeds in her apparent quest for the highest office in the land. Worse than John Bolton?
Absolutely.
I challenge anyone to name a modern war prosecuted by the US government and its allies that did not involve at its root the direct
fabrication of blatant lies on enormous levels, both as a casus belli and also to manipulate public opinion in favor of
hostilities.
The clandestine activity represented by these *provocations* isn't even good spycraft. The Skripal case and the latest use
of chlorine gas in Syria are risible, clumsy, amateur attempts to wangle the empire into war that the callowest rube could see
through. And yet, it's working its magic on the media. The politicians, suborned by the war machine, give unanimous bipartisan
assent.
Saddam's WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., etc. And now a ridiculous false flag attack in Syria. Did it take place at all? But the
narrative is all. The press in the USA is more effectively controlled and conformist than in Germany in the late 1930s and nobody
goes around beating up journalists or sending them to a KZ. The Syrian Gov't is winning the civil war, things are going well but
what Assad really needs is to have the crap bombed out of his military by Uncle Sam. What transparent bullshit.
Trump shouda put that McMahon wrestling lady in the propaganda department,
shes pretty good at convincing 50 year old adults that wrestling is real.
Americans just aren't buying what these idiots are trying to sell us with these chemical
attacks by the brutal dicktaters.
I'm honestly confused by the stupidity lately, either Trump is a genius or he is the dumbest
person on the planet.
The totally insane actions of these morons lately is waking people up in massive numbers, is he
doing it intentionally? Like a call for help or something? Trying to show us who is really
behind all this this crap? (Israel)
Because if he isn't, thats exactly what its doing.
I'm as irritated as anybody by Brit-chauvinism, but their eminent contribution to the
technical and philosophical foundations of modern society – from Newton and Bacon
through Locke, Smith, and Burke to Maxwell, Whitehead, and Turing – is undeniable.
Great post. The Zionist Israelis are the shit and scum of planet Earth. You cannot get any
worse than Avigdor Lieberman, Ariel Sharon (now dead thank god!), Bibi Netanyahu, etc. The
Zionists are very much like the CIA: they work secretly, scheming and planning their ugly
machinations in the shadows for selfish gain.
But seriously, Israel is arguably the most vile, hate consumed, parasitical, shithole
'country' that ever existed! Look at how it is such a massive parasite on the US taxpayer and
US government: over 2 billion in 'aid' every year, and rising! Why!? Why does Israel get this
American foreign aid, the largest foreign recipient by far, with not so much as a question
from congress?
Because fucking AIPAC has every congressman by the balls! If they don't have their tongue
deeply wedged up the collective Zionist asshole–the zionists donate massively in the
next election cycle to an obedient pro-zionist candidate to replace said thinking, reasonable
congressman. These are the facts!
Oh, and make sure to watch the youtube videos on illegal Israeli settlers in Hebron.
Fucking outrageous: these Zionist settlers make white slave holders during the Old South era
look like saints! They terrorize Palestinians, literally throwing shit, urine, vomit, molotov
cocktails, rocks, burning tires, anything that causes harm at the Arab homes. And they do it
with a sick fucked up kind of satisfaction as the IDF soldiers look on and couldn't give a
shit. And what does the US government do about this? Nothing! Not a goddamned thing is done;
in fact they provide the weapons to kill off the Palestinians. And don't forget the fucking
asshole CAT corporation, making millions selling those giant tank bulldozers to the Israeli
zionists to bulldoze Arab homes, olive trees, roads, and people! If I ever run into a CAT
employee I'm gonna kick his fucking ass!
But when [Lang] bristles that "I confess that I was unaware that this is a forum for people
who hate America," I won't be getting my hopes up too high.
That does sound like something parroted by Slumlord Hannity and other Fox News
types. What is America? Land? People? Government? If I don't like the government and its
policies (purchased by moneyed interests and non-Americans) am I an "America hater"? I lived
all my life in America. I have close relatives and immediate family who fought in wars and
immediate family buried at Arlington. How does one qualify as an America hater? Not to
genuflect to the military and their illegal and gravely immoral wars and actions? To disagree
with the neocon/neolib policies and policymakers? Policies which run counter to Christian
morality and natural law? If so then I'm an America hater in good standing.
I dislike the policies of my government as much as you appear to dislike the policies of
yours. So we're on the parallel tracks there. But it's possible to do that and still be a
patriot. That's democracy.
Democracy's not working at present, certainly not in my country and maybe not quite as
expected for all those Americans patriots who voted anti-neocon. But it's still a good idea,
democracy, wouldn't you agree?
why did the Russians allow Israel so much freedom in Syria..from the start of their Syrian
project?
I could never understand that..it seemed/seems so obviously contradictory and
counter-productive. And why is Putin ever so conscious to 'compromise' with Israel - in
Israel's favor no less..all the time?
Oh my! these things make no sense in modern reality, nor in historical perspective. the
Khazars have no reason to love Russia/Russians..indeed have every reason to hate them, and
desire to eliminate Russia/Russians. and it seems clear the 1917 Revolution turned into a
Khazar revenge for the destruction of old Khazaria with Russian collusion..not to mention the
German invasion the intent of which surely was to destroy Russia, bring whatever remaining
Russian rump to its knees in perpetual servitude..the Russian 'Fatherland' forever under rape
of its resources by the global capitalists
But this is not something I tear my hair out at the roots over. I think Putin is a fine
politician and a very smart man.. But he is still a politician. and as per the way
politicians operate, and the way Jews handle politicians and politics globally, the way Putin
behaves relative to Israel suggests the Zionists have something on him that is serious enough
to discipline his behavior in their favor..in Israels favor
Putin has no reason at all, as a real Russian patriot, charged with the protection of the
collective Russian interest, to be as conscientious, solicitous, of Israeli interest as he
is. that he is is not a good sign at all. from afar I would like to trust Putin, revere him
as the current savior of the world, but cant go all the way with him. I dearly appreciate the
fact that he appears bent on prevention of ww3. that is a globally commendable fact, one I am
sure the world appreciates
but that Russian/Israeli-Jewish thing is rather unseemly and very concerning
Why expand the war that they are winning into a bigger war that is less likely of
victory?
The Izzies have learned that their planes are no longer safe attacking from Syrian airspace,
the S-300 mean that the Izzies will no longer be safe attacking Syria from Lebanese
airspace.
From what I have read of him President Putin is a strategist as well as a Patriot.
There are still some shrinking pockets of rebellion in Syria, then there is the Turkish
acquisition of Northern Syria to unwind, slowly slowly catchee monkee.
-- Here is the terrorist camp in Turkey, run by a British officer James le Mesurier:
"James le Mesurier founded both Mayday Rescue and the White Helmets after "retiring" from the
British Army and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Mayday Rescue's annual budget is $35
million, with the funds coming from USAID, the UK Conflict Security and Stability Fund, and
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To date, an estimated 3,000 recruits have been through the
Mayday Rescue training programs and deployed into 120 different locations in rebel-held parts
of Syria."
-- Here is another dishonorable British officer, Paul Tilley:
"Tilley ran British government
communications during the Libya invasion, working directly out of 10 Downing Street. In
November 2014, soon after le Mesurier was founding Mayday Rescue and the White Helmets,
Tilley "retired" from the British service to found the strategic communications firm.
Incostrat provides the social media and other communications services for Mayday and
the White Helmets."
– Any Qs about le Mesurier' and Tilley' devotion to militant Islamists and fanatical
Israelis when good money is paid for the devotion??
I can think of two other important questions, what is the point of lying? and who exactly do
they think they are fooling?
Firstly it is worth saying that both sides are likely to exaggerate the effectiveness of
their systems, deliberately or otherwise. Let us start with the US claim of 100%
effectiveness of their weapons system and 0% of the Syrian/Russian systems, this is plainly
nonsense. Even with no air defences at all a certain number of malfunctions would be expected
to happen. The Syrian/Russian claims are also likely to be wrong, many of the claimed
intercepts were just as likely to be malfunctions.
So what is the point of lying?
First off, a reputation for unreliability is bad for sales, pure and simple. Nobody is
going to be enthusiastic about spending large amounts of money on stuff that doesn't work
very well, this would apply equally to both sides.
Secondly, the appetite of the general public for war in general and superpower
confrontation in particular is going to be somewhat diminished if it is perceived that the
other side is technologically equal or even superior. This factor is logically going to be
more important to the side likely to initiate conflict.
So who do they think they are fooling?
Potential customers for weapons systems are usually not going to be naive enough to take
the manufacturers claims at face value, they are likely to employ their own experts to assess
the various claims. They will not be completely immune to deception of course.
Each other. Neither side would want their opponents to have the best information
available, for obvious reasons. It is notable that both sides appear to have declined to
fully commit their latest equipment, the Russians in particular. It is likely that both sides
have reasonably good intelligence on what happened, neither side is likely to be fooled
easily.
The general public are the most obvious targets of deception and the most easily fooled.
It is one thing to risk a superpower conflict when your population in general is confident
that you have a clear technological edge and are likely to escape the worst. It would be
quite another matter to get the public on board if they believed they were up against a more
or less equal opponent and were likely to get thoroughly nuked. Once again this logic applies
far more strongly to the side likely to initiate a conflict for they are the ones who must
manufacture consent. For this reason it would appear that the Russians have somewhat less
motivation to lie than their US counterparts.
They lie because they can and after lying their pathetic lives away they are not even
aware that they are lying. Hilary can fall down the steps in front of hundreds of cameras and
lie that she did not fall. Joe Biden can lie to a reporter that he graduated number one in
his law class and totally ignore the school records that he graduated in the bottom of his
law class.
"... The "attack" on Syria had two purposes: a saving of face, and a disposal of old ordnance. ..."
"... I suspect that only Israel had any real interest in saving the face of their hired boogeyman. Trump being a flunky of Israeli, he did what he had to do. ..."
At the same time it is clear that there was an understanding between the governments to
insure that Russian red lines were not crossed. The evidence for the Douma gas attack is
non-existent. The film evidence has now been thoroughly de-bunked as part of the information
operations (propaganda) of the White Helmets scheme funded by the Saudis and largely conducted
by the UK info warriors of 77 Regiment. It seems clear that US DoD was not privy to that IO
project and for that Reason SECDEF Mattis was blind-sided by the deception. The struck targets
(successful or not) have long been known to the US IC as facilities of the former Syrian
Government chemical warfare programs. The Russians were told to stay out of those areas and so
a reasonable compromise was made with a president easily fooled by social media and under heavy
pressure by a population equally easy to deceive.
Nevertheless, most of the missiles failed and that failure must be dealt with.
Col. Pat Lang at his best -- explaining how military systems and strategies work.
But Lang wrote: "It seems clear that US DoD was not privy to that IO project and for
that Reason SECDEF Mattis was blind-sided by the deception."
That would not have happened if Mattis -- and Trump -- included Phil Giraldi and Unz
forum, as well as Lang's own SST in their daily intelligence diet.
Phil Giraldi exposed the White Helmets almost a year ago --
and for Eva Bartlett's on-the-scenes coverage of White Helmets activities in Syria.
The Corbett Report can be found on the Unz Forum. Corbett painstakingly deconstructed a
Guardian hit-piece on Beeley, Bartlett and Tim Anderson, reproducing the emails in which the
Guardian journo accused those independent correspondents of collusion with a Russian
propaganda effort
Unz Forum also hosts the Jimmy Dore show which amplified a corporate-media interviews of
Jeffrey Sachs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk
, who told (what is presumably) a large audience that US has been engaged in the deliberate
destabilization of Syria and killing of Syrian citizens since at least 2012, (and that it
should STOP!);
False flags, needed, on both sides. In the West that means catching of-handed the media,
all media, all alternative media, by infusing lies, firehosing bloat, short attention span
snippets to decoy and on, nothing yet invented to the rescue. That seems to work still, since
the public still baits the flying dung, a given, and the scribes and editors, the graphically
endowed complying.
Military back and forth, "arena" sports, pro-wresling, nothing more, nothing much. The
better teams can as well play video games to see who "wins". War is essentially obsolete,
makes the superstructures of the war machines on all sides obsolete. The main reason is
environmental toxicity which blows back with a vengeance, war having no impact on population
numbers, war having an impact on migration numbers and directions though. The migration
effects of local wasteland wars seems to be interpreted by dumb elites globally as
desirable(herding and how to herd large numbers of humanoids), a learning experiment. Our
guess, in the long term, an unefficient weapon.
The information interchanges, essentially deciding on the rules of the local experiment,
of the major players, open up views on how a global elite can function. For now in the early
stages, but since global rule is unavoidable, an encouraging phenomenon.
The back country, our "gens de rien", our "deplorables" yet do not, will never, understand
what is driving their sorry asses. The middle class of "shepherd dogs" tow the line of the de
facto power, no independent thinking to be expected. The internet is as obfuscating as the
printed press and TV ever was. Give or take, seventy percent of it ignorance of
writer-editors, thirty percent of incapacitation to see anything but career and individual
interests in the short term.
Technology(hard and soft, as they go together) has been wrestled from the hands of
independent players, the major example being Asssange, who had an impact on the exact
granular outliers, where it matters, and has been put aside silently by the ones, the only
ones that should be grateful and could have had an impact on using chaos of the masses,
globally, to counter the dummer, short-term policies of the elites, and pressure for faster
and cleaner global rule. The middle class as a whole sucks up to power, they have done so
always historically.
In all, the world goes well, the Chinese are ahead, the Russians and most independant
power nuclei(Iran, Brasil(fell of the wagon), Turkey, most of Asia), now align themselves
regarding systemic thinking. Nationalism of course is dead most local elites know this, even
in the US, and probably Putin, the overt advertising to the Russians just a decoy. Sunny
Islam has no rational stategy, and in the short term, bets everything on breeding.
Consumerism(dead man walking), has truly dumbed down the masses globally, regarless of
other factors. It has been the biggest success of capitalism Western style. Again the world
goes well for having global rule act more decisively, where it matters, to step up local
experiments into global strategy, in the long term.
The main problem to be addressed, since it affects all other burning issues, as ecological
toxicity, and on, by reinforcing these positive tendencies. One single person less, has at
least a fifty percent larger impact than any other measure of redress on survival of the
human race per individual. The local experiments of global attitudes hopefully are a start to
smarter elites behaviour. Our elites have failed for a long time now, anything progress has
been a detour to decay and sludge, and timeliness is pressing.
I think you mean 77th Brigade (a propaganda and psi ops unit).
The 77th Regiment were the East Middlesex -- and were disbanded in 1881.
BTW, the 77th Brigade takes its number from the Chindits -- Orde Wingate's Indian Army
special operations unit, who carried out deep penetration raids against the Japanese in
Burma.
Wingate was a rather fanatical Zionist and helped set-up the Haganah, the precedecessors
of the IDF.
My inclination has been to believe the Russian side from quite early on, mostly on the basis
that the claimed US targeting spread simply doesn't seem credible. To aim 76 missiles and
guided bombs at the Barzeh "complex" seems ludicrous overkill, for a small group of basically
civilian buildings that once were part of the chemical weapons program but according to
recent OPCW inspections are no longer in use as such. The spread suggested by the Russians,
on the other hand, seems much more credible for a punitive strike, especially if you assume
the US did not expect Syrian only defences to work effectively and thus did not plan for much
redundancy.
As this becomes more widely accepted, it makes the US action in Syria much less of a
defeat for Russia (because they had to stand by and watch their ally get pummelled) and much
closer to something that is actually a win for Russia and an embarrassment for the US. It all
helps to push the credibility of Russian air defences to still higher levels.
If the Russian government goes through with the suggested plan to deliver the promised
S300 systems to Syria in response, then this will have been a major defeat for those behind
this shameful incident and this shameful war -- primarily the Israelis and US Israeli lobby,
along with the Saudis. Doing so would be the absolute best way to make those behind the
attack grind their teeth in frustration, so hopefully Russia will go through with it this
time rather than coming to some "compromise" with Israel.
At some point, Russia needs to end the impunity Israel has to strike at Syria at will, and
to declare an exclusion zone over the whole of Syria for all un-invited foreign air forces
(ideally this would include a deal with Lebanon to allow that country also to exclude Israeli
air operations from its own airspace). The need to rebuild Syria is endlessly hampered by
regular attacks and the threat of them. Once the recovery of territory on the ground is
complete or nearly so, the best way to do this would seem to be to first make the Syrian air
defences, backed up by Russian forces in extremis, strong enough for the task. Then to
authorise the Syrians to retaliate to Israeli strikes on a tit for tat basis with missile
attacks on Israeli territory. Then to announce a full exclusion of US and other intruding air
forces, perhaps in conjunction with an offensive to recover territories in the east after
Idlib has been settled.
Imo this is what the Russians need to do if they are to bring the Syrian matter to a
successful conclusion, but it will mean some more tense confrontations with the various US
sphere forces.
Mr. Lang sounds like Mr. Buchanan in his latest piece published here: someone who considers
himself dissident, but who thoughtlessly accepts that his Uncle Sam is the good guy.
The article, especially this paragraph
"The US has been committed to global war for seventeen years. This has been a special kind
of war waged against Islamist guerrillas and terrorists worldwide. Such a war often demands
equipment quite different from that used against states, especially a peer state. In that
context relatively scarce funds have not been devoted to product improvement on things like
TLAM (Tomahawk). Instead the funds available have been devoted to UAVs (drones) and the
incredible costs of large ground forces in the absence of conscription. The Obama
Administration liked to use the armed forces but did not think of them with anything like the
high priority it gave to its social programs. The resulting sequester of defense funding
played a role in the decline of US equipment efficacy against that of the Russians. There
will be a change in that funding."
begs some questions:
1. Does Mr. Lang support the attack on the alleged "Syrian government chemical warfare
connected sites"? He sounds like he does. But why?
2. Does Mr. Lang support US military conscription? He sounds like he does. But why?
3. Does Mr. Lang believe that more money should be spent on US military equipment like
Tomahawk missiles for use against the government forces of Syria and Russia? He sounds like
he does. But why?
I also wonder why Mr. Unz sees this new author as "interesting, important, and
controversial," with a "perspectiv[e] largely excluded from the American mainstream
media."
and for Eva Bartlett's on-the-scenes coverage of White Helmets activities in Syria.
Is the Trump Administration/DoS trying to gaslight us?
US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert yesterday: we "are very grateful for all
the work the White Helmets continue to do.. on behalf of the US government and coalition
forces.. I just exchanged emails with them the other day peoples bills are still being
paid..'
Maybe there is another possibility.
Merely speculating.
Mr. Trump claims he sent 100 plus missiles to impress whoever he needs to impress. They are
satisfied. He looks tough.But he sends in only 20.
The Russians claim he sent in 100 and they nullified 2/3. They look good.
If 2/3 of 100 were nullified, should there not be more random craters with missile remnants
or duds recovered by the Syrians?
Why would you want our missiles to work against the Russians? This debacle has given us at
least another six months of relative peace. The SAA can now continue clearing out jihadist in
the East. FUKUS won't try again after making some adjustments to harden the electronics, but
that will take some time. The only other option would be an overwhelming attack, winning
through sheer numbers, but in that case the Russians will certainly counterattack, & I
don't think CENTCOM wants to find out first hand how effective Russian offensive missiles
systems are.
Note: If I were to guess, the Tomahawk attack was almost completely neutralized. It was
the B-1, firing at relatively close range, that scored the hit on the "chemical weapons
complex." This is why the Russians are sending the S-300 to Damascus.
If Russia declared Syria an exclusion zone Israel would call that bluff within
weeks.
Presumably it wouldn't be a bluff, and presumably the need for it not to be a bluff is why
the Russians haven't done it yet.
In that theater of operations the Israelis would absolutely massacre the Russian
presence and any reinforcements. Israel would easily take apart any integrated air defense
system and accompanying ground units the Russians could employ by combined commando raid,
ground incursion and air/missile strikes.
This appears to be pure fantasy.
Regardless, Israel isn't going to go to war with Russia merely to defend its freedom to
attack Syria any time it wants. For all the wailing by Israel advocates, it just isn't that
important to them. So long as they can get away with it, they'll do it. When they are forced
to stop, they'll stop.
I believe if Israel sees its existence threatened it will act decisively.
Israel's existence is not meaningfully threatened by the loss of their ability to launch
illegal attacks on Syria at will. The idea that it is, is a lie put about by the Israel lobby
to rationalise and justify its actions.
Is the Trump Administration/DoS trying to gaslight us?
LOL. Why, yes, now that you mention it. Quelle surprise , eh?
The "attack" on Syria had two purposes: a saving of face, and a disposal of old
ordnance.
I suspect that only Israel had any real interest in saving the face of their hired
boogeyman. Trump being a flunky of Israeli, he did what he had to do.
Old ordnance or semi-0ld, revenue must be generated for the MI-complex. The bigger it
grows, the more maintenance it requires. Disposal of old weaponry is just a form of cashflow.
The wealthy and powerful insist on remaining wealthy and powerful. Your money is required to
maintain that wealth and power. You will surrender your money to the powerful, or you will
die. A simple equation.
New air defense systems will soon be delivered to Damascus
the Syrian Defense Ministry "analyzed in detail" the results of the missile attack of
the United States and its allies.
"Based on it, a number of changes have already been introduced into the air defense
system of the country, which will further increase its reliability ," Rudskoy said.
While the air defense systems were not named, it is widely believed to be the S-300
system.
The latest Syria bombing: tactically irrelevant, it showed the foundation of the
F.UK.US-Israel empire, air power, ineffective and was a major strategic defeat.
"... But even before that there was the first Iraq war in 1991, justified in part by the story of Iraqi soldiers reportedly dumping babies out of incubators to die in a Kuwaiti hospital. The 15-year-old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador cleverly lied to a set-up congressional committee. The Christian Science Monitor ..."
Official Washington and those associated with it have misrepresented the facts numerous
times in the service of military actions that might not otherwise have taken place. In the
Middle East, these interventions have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Arab civilians,
brought chaos to Iraq and Libya, and led to the expulsion of a million Christians from
communities where they have lived since biblical times.
The most famous of these episodes, of course, was the U.S. government's assurance to the
world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which formed the basis for the 2003
U.S. invasion of Iraq. The government also insisted Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda, bolstering the
call to war. Of course neither was true.
But even before that there was the first Iraq war in 1991, justified in part by the story of
Iraqi soldiers reportedly dumping babies out of incubators to die in a Kuwaiti hospital. The
15-year-old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador cleverly lied to a set-up congressional
committee. The Christian Science Monitor
detailed this bizarre episode in 2002.
There were also the lies about the Iraqi army being
poised to invade Saudi Arabia. That was the ostensible reason for the U.S. sending troops
to Kuwait -- to defend Saudi Arabia. Writing in the the Los
Angeles Times in 2003, Independent Institute fellow Victor Marshall pointed out that
neither the CIA nor the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi
Arabia as probable, and said the administration's Iraqi troop estimates were "grossly
exaggerated." In fact, the administration's claim that it had aerial photographs proving its
assertions was never verified because, as we later learned, the photos never existed. The
Christian
Science Monitor also reported on this in 2002 ahead of the second Iraq war.
America attacked Iraq in 1991, bombing and destroying that nation's irrigation, sanitation,
and electricity plants. (See here regarding Washington's knowledge of and
planning for the horrific mass contamination of Iraqi drinking water.) Then we blockaded
reconstruction supplies for nine years while some half-million children died of disease and
starvation. We blamed it all on Saddam, although we controlled Iraq's money flows through the
UN food-for-oil program. Fortunately, we have a rare admission by Madeleine Albright on 60
Minutes about what was done.
Before that, there was the Kosovo war when America attacked Serbia on the basis of
lies that 100,000 Kosovans had been
massacred by Serbs in suppressing their civil war. This led to massive American bombing,
brutally
destroying much of that nation's civilian infrastructure and factories, including most of
the bridges in the country, and all but one of those over the Danube River. The Americans
imposed peace, then expelled most Serbs out of their former province. Subsequently there was
the mass destruction of hundreds of ancient Christian churches and the creation of a European
enclave now filled with Saudi money that sponsors Wahhabi education, with its rote memorization
of the Koran and its 13th-century hatred of Christians.
More recently there was the British, French, and American attack on Libya in response to
lies that Moammar Gaddafi was planning to massacre civilians in Benghazi. The U.S. destroyed
his armed forces and helped to overthrow him. Widespread looting of his weaponry subsequently
filled black markets in Asia and Africa and contributed to the ability of Boko Haram terrorists to sow chaos in
Nigeria and parts of Northern Africa. Masses of African refugees have been flooding Western
Europe ever since, traveling through Libya. Some of those weapons also made their way into the
hands of the Islamic State, which overran parts of Iraq and Syria.
Most recently we had cable news inundating us with stories of a new poison gas attack in
Syria. The "news" came from rebel sources. TheAmerican Conservative
has published a detailed analysis by former arms inspector Scott Ritter questioning the
evidence, or lack of it, that the Assad regime initiated the attack. The former British
ambassador to Syria also cast doubts on the poison gas attack and its sources from rebel
organizations.
It doesn't make sense that Assad would use poison gas just as Trump was saying that he
wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. It does make sense for the rebels to have staged a
set up to get America to stay and attack Assad. This happened before in the summer of 2014 when
President Obama nearly went to war over similar accusations. Only after asking Congress to vote
on the matter did he decide against the attack because Congress wasn't interested. Some
congressmen's mail was running 100-to-one against bombing. It was a welcome reminder of why
Washington doesn't want actual votes on starting wars: because most Americans don't want more
Washington wars.
After all the hundreds of thousands of innocents abroad killed by America and the human
misery caused because of clever U.S. and foreign manipulations, one would think we might pause
before attacking Syria and running the risk of killing Russians who are advising the Syrians.
That could ignite an entirely new kind of war with a nuclear-armed Russia -- all without
congressional approval.
Obama, whose policies were predicated on the view that Assad must go, seemed to think
Syrians would live happily after in some magically sprouting democracy. To believe this one
would have to ignore the prior examples of Iraq and Libya. Nor do these war party advocates
seem in the least concerned about the 10 percent of Syria's population who are Christians, many
of whom would surely by massacred after any overthrow of Assad.
Further, the so-called Free Syrian
Army is a hodgepodge of rebel groups that include many Islamist radicals. With funding from
fundamentalist Saudis and Turkey, they took over from more liberal forces early on. It's worth
noting also that Turkey provided the black market for ISIS to sell Syria's captured oil.
Going back a hundred years there were the clever British lies that helped coax America into
joining the Allies in World War I. England controlled the trans-Atlantic cables and most of our
"news" about the war. That intervention resulted in the Treaty of Versailles instead of a
compromise peace between Germany and England/France that would have prevented the wreckage of
Europe out of which came the rise of communism and Nazism.
For an analysis of the risks of accidental nuclear war, see my 2017 January
Publisher's Report , in which I once wrote about how Osama bin Laden's ultimate aim was to
get Russia and America to destroy each other. It still could happen, triggered by false
atrocity stories, cable TV's 24-hour hyping of any and every threat, and Washington's
propensity to believe lies -- and sometimes perpetrate them -- to promote wars.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative .
Lies can be fun, especially the ones I tell myself, and they're also a lot of fun to
discover, just like your lies. The worst bummer, however, is that the lies we tell each other
very quickly do get tiresome and repetitive, if not downright frustrating:
"Oh My God, It's Still The Same Lies. That Makes It Worse."
Apparently–and this is tragic–it looks like we're just too selfish to come up
with new ones: Say what, you want me to lie the country into war in some fascinating novel
way, just for your entertainment? I don't think so. It's easier to stick to the routine, and
I'm lazy, so I'll just do as you do, I'll keep telling you the same old lies, which explains
why you are bored as well–meanwhile, I spend my quality time investigating all the ways
I hide things from myself.
Wars are little more than armed robberies on an industrial scale.
Wars are begun, to take what belongs to someone else.
The sheer magnitude of a crime transforms it into heroic achievement – at least, in
historical perspective, for the winners, as long as they retain power. In the long run, the
consequences are malignantly pernicious.
The United States isn't being manipulated into war.
The only manipulation is of American public opinion- fortunately for the War Party,i.e. the
US government, there's enough blind nationalism & tribal loyalty on both sides of the
political divide for their propaganda to (usually) succeed.
Look at any public figure. Their salary is less than $190K. BUT, They are worth $10 Million
or more. That is why we go to war. Foreign influence (Saudi and Israel) as well as the
Military Industrial Complex. (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, )Our Leaders are paid off!
Now that the war profiteering classes and their retainee camp followers are running into the
problem that more and more citizens are prepared to doubt, if not outright dismiss – if
just on principle – their claims and anonymous trickyleaks regarding "secret evidence"
and elusive "proof", the Democratic Party has become an eager handmaiden to the neolibcon con
of projecting all that justified and overdue doubt and dissent – distrust to
unaccountable power – and the citizens' frustration with their corrupt representative
and dysfunctional institutions – on, you know it Russia!
So now that we stop accepting government claims by default – something no reasonable
citizen should ever do, on principle – we are denounced as "gullible" –
projection at its best – and as "useful idiots" of some Kremlin mirage that happens to
be a mirror image of our own government's betrayals at its worst. Once dissent has been
"discredited" by claiming it could not possible have any other cause except uninformed and
misled voters – see the published responses to Sanders and Trump supporters – and
could, of course, not have any merit, the next step is to make sure that our "democracy" is
safeguarded even more against "populists" – those that speak truth to power, not those
that lie blatantly to claim power for themselves – and the unruly mob in the streets
that questions the establishment, the wholly owned elites, and the oligarchic owners of our
very own autocratic franchise.
That is the progression – from being lied into war, whether we believe the BS or
not, to being denounced as useful idiots or traitors if we dare to doubt the BS we are being
fed, to being disenfranchised under the pretext of protecting the franchise.
The biggest obstacle to establishing a precedents under international law to obtain UN
General Assembly consensus for intervention in the inner affairs of a nation- in response
crimes committed by the government of that nation – is the US, because the US has acted
as a rogue nation for decades, and has eroded the international order to the point where the
"allied" governments of Germany and other EU states think nothing of "supporting" those acts
of aggression, and post-colonial wannabe powers like the UK and France have joined the US
"coalition of the willing". That "international order" will fall unless the US finally leads
by example and commits itself to uphold the UN Charter – and its own Constitution
– in letter and spirit. Until then, there is nothing we can do to help those that
suffer under the yoke of what are, under our current international order, legitimate
governments of sovereign nation.
The US cannot assert and pursue primacy and unipolar super-sovereignty over every other
nation on this planet and at the same time claim to uphold the principles of sovereign
states, and nobody will be able to redefine or constrain the rule of sovereign states within
the existing international order as long as what little order we have claim to is being set
aside and ignored wholesale by any nation that can get away with it, with the US and the
so-called "West" in the lead.
We cannot lie our way to life, liberty and justice, not for ourselves, and certainly not
on behalf of others, especially if we do not hesitate at all to make those we claim to help
and "protect" pay the ultimate price for our acts of aggression. These are indeed the most
dishonest and offensive words in the English language: "We are from the US government, and we
are here to help." The "responsibility to protect" is nothing but another attempt to address
the necessity to pretend.
"because most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
I wish this was true. But I doubt it. The citizens must be held partially responsible for our
era of permanent war.
" most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
Actually, most Americans don't care, really. Oh, you ask one if he likes war, and he will
say, "No". But ask him if Uncle Joe should lose his job at Boeing, and what will he say?
Wars are, of course, a jobs program on a massive scale. And if some dark-skinned civilians
die, Americans aren't concerned.
My own theory of hawkishness is that voters are much more comfortable with putting
national defense in the hands of someone far more hawkish then themselves, than in the hands
of someone slightly less hawkish.
See, for example, how people who theoretically wan lower taxes, smaller government, and a
balanced budget, keep electing GOP leadership that always attacks their Democratic opponents
on gutting defense spending (even when defense spending has been going up), and always
equates larger DOD budgets with more "security" for Americans.
Until voters are willing to accept a US President saying "bad stuff happens in other parts
of the world – we can't control everything" we'll keep getting more and more wars.
"because most Americans don't want more Washington wars."
I wish this was true. But I doubt it. The citizens must be held partially responsible for our
era of permanent war."
I've found my elderly mother is very enthusiastic about our overseas wars. I believe it is
because she somehow projects America's ability to bully the rest of the world onto herself.
She is a small woman and she recently purchased a pickup. She raves about how she can
tailgate people and they will get out of her way.
" my elderly mother is a small woman and she recently purchased a pickup. She raves about how
she can tailgate people and they will get out of her way."
What a great country! Where else do you have elderly drivers with poor eyesight and slow
reflexes trying to navigate 5000 pound trucks while harassing other drivers at 50mph?
"Where else do you have elderly drivers with poor eyesight and slow reflexes trying to
navigate 5000 pound trucks while harassing other drivers at 50mph?"
I can say from experience and the related stories of others, one very recent and sad
--
cyclists don't stand a chance.
-- -- -- -- -- -
"Until voters are willing to accept a US President saying "bad stuff happens in other
parts of the world – we can't control everything" we'll keep getting more and more
wars."
World gone wrong when we agree -- things must be really be SNAFU.
Echoing Professor Nerd & balconesfault & Kent. It's certainly true that Lockheed
Martin, the Israel lobby, our Saudi "friends", et al have a ton of influence, and use
it for ends that I'd call malign. But for at least the last 20 years we've been living in a
world in which it's effortless to find information contrary to the latest war marketing PR
campaign. When Bush the Lesser was getting ready for his war, did any of his
hysterical claims last even a week before it was discredited? But off to war we went.
It'd be nice if we could blame all of our lousy decisions on those wily Zionists and Arabs
and Russians, but the causes seem to lie a little closer to home .
Trump shouda put that McMahon wrestling lady in the propaganda department,
shes pretty good at convincing 50 year old adults that wrestling is real.
Americans just aren't buying what these idiots are trying to sell us with these chemical
attacks by the brutal dicktaters.
I'm honestly confused by the stupidity lately, either Trump is a genius or he is the dumbest
person on the planet.
The totally insane actions of these morons lately is waking people up in massive numbers, is he
doing it intentionally? Like a call for help or something? Trying to show us who is really
behind all this this crap? (Israel)
Because if he isn't, thats exactly what its doing.
"A very senior civilian colleague in DIA once asked me why sophisticated weapons so often
malfunction or are otherwise defeated. I told her that it was simply a fact of life that in
actual warfare "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong." She resolutely stated that this should
not be. "The manufacturers guarantee that they will work as advertised," she insisted. "
Another reason we can't win wars and we get into wars we shouldn't. Senior officials that
naive and uninformed about warfare.
Lockheed Martin got $35.2 billion from taxpayers last year. That's more than many
federal agencies.
Of Lockheed Martin's $51 billion in sales last year, nearly 70 percent, or $35.2
billion, came from sales to the U.S. government. It's a colossal figure, hard to
comprehend.
Boeing is in second place with annual sales of $26.5 billion in 2016, a year in which
the top five defense contractors -- including General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop
Grumman -- had total sales of nearly $110 billion to the U.S. government, according to
federal procurement data. The five biggest defense contractors took in more money from the
U.S. government than the next 30 companies combined.
But no one can touch Lockheed, the manufacturer of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The
company is so big that some have likened it to a government agency and have quipped that
Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed's chief executive, is as powerful as a Cabinet secretary -- or
higher. When she gives her annual state of the company speeches, flanked by a pair of flags
-- one American, one with the company logo -- she looks, well, presidential.
In 2013, Marine Corps Gen. Jim Mattis, now the secretary of defense, told Congress, "If
you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition."
Analysts say that to make the Lockheed-Martin Marietta merger successful, the new
company will have to slash thousands of jobs.
" This merger can't create more revenue. It can only pay off through reduced
costs , and that means people" will be laid off, said Robert D. Paulson, who heads the
aerospace industry practice for the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. in Los Angeles.
--
Norman Augustine was the focus of the article and head of the merged companies who was
expected to wield the "scalpel" in order make the merger financially viable.
Over the years I'd done some research on Augustine, so when I saw a video of Augustine
schmoozing with George W. Bush at the Cosmos Club celebrating Bush's inauguration early in
2001, I thought, Uh oh, the game's afoot.
Cutting staff simply was not producing the revenue stream Lockheed Martin needed to
support lavish lifestyles that even LM weapons sellers enjoyed, particularly when their major
clients were based in TelAviv, requiring visits of 5 to 8 months' duration.
"... I agree Trump is an Israeli Flunky, but he likes Missile Strikes, so I think the Missile Strike, his second on Syria, was as much his idea as it was Israel's. It makes for great Optics. It makes Trump, in his Twisted Mind at least, look Big & Strong throwing Rocks at Toddlers in their Playpens. ..."
I suspect that only Israel had any real interest in saving the face of their hired
boogeyman. Trump being a flunky of Israeli, he did what he had to do.
I agree Trump is an Israeli Flunky, but he likes Missile Strikes, so I think the
Missile Strike, his second on Syria, was as much his idea as it was Israel's. It makes for
great Optics. It makes Trump, in his Twisted Mind at least, look Big & Strong throwing
Rocks at Toddlers in their Playpens.
Some of you do not understand the degree of compartmentation in government. It is nothing
like a monolith. The WHs are largely funded by USAID which is part of State Department, and
administered by the UK. There is no particular reason why Mattis would know much about it. It
is possible that Trump doesn't know much about it.
If Mattis didn't know about it, then he should have done and likewise with Trump.
Ignorance of the hard facts by either of these men is scarcely believable and even if true
would be totally inexcuseable.
"Lange didn't support the strike but he saw it as the best of a lot of bad options."
Better than the option of allowing a real investigation?
At the crucial moment, Lang published the following on his website. More than likely it
was seen by Mattis:
An appeal to James Mattis
I beseech you, sir, to consider the possibility that the supposed chlorine gas attack at
Douma, Syria may have been a carefully constructed propaganda fraud on the part of the
rebels encircled in Douma. Such a fraud would have as its purpose the elicitation of
exactly the kind of response that we are seeing in the Western media. The rebels have been
defeated in East Gouta Their fighters and families are being evacuated to Turkish occupied
Jarabulus by air-conditioned bus. How would it benefit the Syrian government to make such
an attack in this situation?
I hope that you will determine the exact facts of what occurred at Douma before any
action is taken.
I recommend that you send someone competent to Syria to make an on the ground
investigation.
If Mattis didn't know about it, then he should have done and likewise with Trump.
Ignorance of the hard facts by either of these men is scarcely believable and even if true
would be totally inexcuseable.
It were wise to consider that Mattis' access to information might be being impeded –
actively and/or passively – by the NeoCon bitter enders installed during the previous
administrations, people who believe that it is their job to do so. (We have been seeing this
very thing from the bitter enders at the FBI and the "Justice" departments in their plotting
against the new administration, yes? So you have an example of that right in front of your
eyes.)
With that understanding, and given Col. Lang's likely experience of this sort of
obstruction by hostile underlings, his appeal to Mattis might be seen as an admonition to dig
a little deeper, & to press his underlings about their truthfulness. So, Mattis could
indeed be misinformed, and precisely because of the compartmentalization that you accede.
Hence the letter going hand in hand with his worries about active and/or passive obstruction
in access to vital information, or the existence of contrary intelligence and
interpretation.
Paul has made reclaiming Congress' role in matters of war one of his signature issues.
Pompeo testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't think the president
needs Congressional authorization to order attacks on other states. Trump's nominee thinks that
the president can start wars on his own authority, so Paul should be voting against his
nomination for that reason alone. Voting to confirm Pompeo is an effective endorsement of the
very illegal and unauthorized warfare that Paul normally condemns.
"Instead, Paul will get nothing except widespread derision for caving to pressure. "
Depressing. I thought he'd have more guts. Perhaps he's keeping his ammunition dry for
some important purpose, and maybe the White House IOU he now holds has value. We'll see.
I have disliked Sen. Paul ever since the British Petroleum disaster, when he bemoaned that
making BP pay for damages was "anti-business" as if seafood fisheries, motels, and
restaurants were not businesses too.
As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election,
a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down
the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.
The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why
the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the
case dormant. -
Washington Times
The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy
Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under
oath - on multiple occasions."
McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not
put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming
under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry
McAuliffe.
" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call
the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption
investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption
investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally
in control like it appears they were from this call ."
Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases
during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama
administration .
As the
Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not
identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod ,
who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate
deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton
Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. -
Washington Times
"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a
validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation
was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a
high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."
The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as
Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau
was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was
totally unfair."
Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG
Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive
order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.
" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of
himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the
travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to
defend the ban."
The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely
Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.
"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who
worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle
deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent
of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."
Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and
former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted
in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal
defense fund
it's a wonder there's anything left of this country at all.
spiritually, there isn't
just as morally, the ZUSA is a dead husk. This country has absolutely zero credibility or
standing in the world anymore. All they've got is a military they can use to menace and bully
the rest of the planet into submission. Which is a specialty of the Clintons.
It's wasn't just the Branch Dravidians who were burned alive (no doubt to the cackling of
the war hag), or just Gadhafi who was murdered by her sub-human orcs, but this man also had
his country illegally bombed and was dragged off to a mock kangaroo court until he was given
a chance to speak, whereupon he humiliated his tormentors
the reason I post this image of the hag is to remind readers of what the alternative to Trump
actually was.
Fred likes to fulminate over all things Trump (and us Deplorables – calling us 'gas
station louts, and much worse ; ), for his own dubious agenda (biological warfare ; ), but
the fact remains that even as Trump adopts all the traits of a neocon war pig, and always has
been an egotistical and superficial man, he's still a gazillion times to the n'th power
preferable to the gorgon war hag.
For all of Trump's many foibles and failings, he isn't the root cause of all the things
Fred is lambasting in this article. Rather it's the ((deepstate)) that Trump has made a
devil's bargain with, which does not change with presidents. If we're ever to prevent the
looming war with Russia, then it would behoove us to look behind the curtain at the fiend
pulling the levers. Talking about Trump, as if he's the cause of it all, is like being
enthralled over the theatrics of the wizard of Oz.
This is all about hamster herding, as neoliberalism in is crisis both domestically and
internationally.
Notable quotes:
"... Whoever wrote Trump's speech for him -- he obviously cannot put together two sentences with dependent clauses without wandering onto the far shores of incoherence -- worked the moral-outrage pump hard. The gas attack, by whomever made, killed, eeek, squeak, seventy civilians and little children. More hamster-herding: git along little furry dogies. On many days in the Mid-East, the United States has killed more civilians than all the gas attacks real or invented in the entire war. The pilots, unprincipled as are all military men, know they are doing it, and don't care. They get paid for their humanitarianism. By us. ..."
"... Assad had won his war and had no need of gassing a few civilians. He would have to know that it would give Washington a pretext for an attack. Which it did. Is Assad so foolish? ..."
"... Similarly with the poisoning of what's-his-spy and his daughter. Russia had nothing to gain and a great deal to lose, as we have seen. It is one thing to believe Mr. Putin capable of bad things. To believe him stupid is quite another. Note that Theresa May became hysterical before it was established that Russia did it, which has still not been established. The orchestrated expulsion of Russian diplomats by all the vassal states, also before anything definitive had been determined, was just too cute. ..."
"... Who had anything to gain by the gaseous adventurism Answer: The American Empire -- not America, not Americans -- and Israel. Both are desperate to keep Syria from surviving. Note that Washington has a history of lying the country into wars. The Maine in 1898, the Gulf of Tonkin, the imaginary WMD in Gulf I. Plus ca change, plus ca doesn't. ..."
"... Because the Empire's hegemony over the Mid-East, Asia, and the world weakens. The Empire totters. Syria is at the heart of the looming demise. ..."
"... If -- when -- America leaves, Pakistan will become an economic client state of China, without a shot being fired. Afghanistan will quickly follow as China invests in its minerals. This is why Washington cannot leave. ..."
"... Washington's approach to hegemony is military, relying on bombing and economic sanctions. This requires huge military expenditures that cripple the domestic economy and produces countless countries that would break with America if they could. By contrast, China's approach is economic, smarter and much cheaper. ..."
"... "Get ready Russia, missiles will be coming at Syria, nice and new and 'smart'!" This is not adult language. It is the taunting of a twelve-year-old. Nya hnya nya! Yet it is classic Trump. This man has absolute power to launch wars whose consequences we will have to bear. Is this not splendid? ..."
"... The strangest thing with Syria is how obsessed the Empire is with destroying it. Various reasons are given such as Israel, gas pipelines, and containing Iran. At the end of the day I think it's primarily psychological. The Empire is outraged that the Assman dares to resist. ..."
"... As to "hamster herding", include "media herding", consenting and dissenting alike. The main reasons for the latter are "bread" writing, and real "believes" of ignorance. Seems the layer, includes second tier politicians, "public intellectuals" alike. A case of "garbage in, garbage out" and a secondary condition of individual middle class jockeying. ..."
"... As to the choice of what can be called "military capitalism" of the US, it has no longer any other options, contrary to Russia and China. Give or take a single percentage point or two, there must be some insiders that fully understand that the global system of economics is now running into the wall, there is no solution to that. Neither is there a venue-way for China, or Russia, economically, outside of global consent. They might have a few cycles more of trade, cleaning the plate, which they choose to do, what looks admirable in the short term to many, but ultimately will equally grind to a standstill. ..."
"... the elites depend on the loot provided by enormous military budgets, and sanctions they can work around .Historically, empires are rarely allowed to shrink until the home country is completely bankrupt. ..."
Only three weapons of mass destruction exist: Nuclear explosives, artillery, and aerial
bombing. Think Dresden, Hiroshima, Guernica, Falluja.
Two: Whoever wrote Trump's speech for him -- he obviously cannot put together two
sentences with dependent clauses without wandering onto the far shores of incoherence -- worked
the moral-outrage pump hard. The gas attack, by whomever made, killed, eeek, squeak, seventy
civilians and little children. More hamster-herding: git along little furry dogies. On many
days in the Mid-East, the United States has killed more civilians than all the gas attacks real
or invented in the entire war. The pilots, unprincipled as are all military men, know they are
doing it, and don't care. They get paid for their humanitarianism. By us.
Three: Something smells. The use of toxins, either by Assad in Syria or by Russia in West
Pakistan -- England, I meant, England -- makes no sense. Assad had won his war and had no
need of gassing a few civilians. He would have to know that it would give Washington a pretext
for an attack. Which it did. Is Assad so foolish?
Similarly with the poisoning of what's-his-spy and his daughter. Russia had nothing to
gain and a great deal to lose, as we have seen. It is one thing to believe Mr. Putin capable of
bad things. To believe him stupid is quite another. Note that Theresa May became hysterical
before it was established that Russia did it, which has still not been established. The
orchestrated expulsion of Russian diplomats by all the vassal states, also before anything
definitive had been determined, was just too cute.
Hamster herding.
Four: Who had anything to gain by the gaseous adventurism Answer: The American Empire --
not America, not Americans -- and Israel. Both are desperate to keep Syria from surviving. Note
that Washington has a history of lying the country into wars. The Maine in 1898, the Gulf of
Tonkin, the imaginary WMD in Gulf I. Plus ca change, plus ca doesn't.
Five: Syria is of no importance, at all, to America or Americans. It has nothing America
wants or needs. It poses no danger to America. It is somewhere else. This lack of vital
interest to America it shares with North Korea, Afghanistan, the Ukraine, the Crimea, the South
China Sea, and all the other places where the Empire looks for war. Then why does Washington
risk nuclear war by accident with Russia, which also poses no danger to America?
Because the Empire's hegemony over the Mid-East, Asia, and the world weakens. The Empire
totters. Syria is at the heart of the looming demise.
Things go badly, Empire-wise. Start with the war on Afghanistan, now creeping toward its
third decade, and neighboring Pakistan. China invests heavily in infrastructure in Pakistan:
The Karakoram Highway, the Karachi reactors, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, the IP
pipeline, Guadar. If -- when -- America leaves, Pakistan will become an economic client
state of China, without a shot being fired. Afghanistan will quickly follow as China invests in
its minerals. This is why Washington cannot leave.
Afghanistan borders Iran, which Washington maintains as an enemy at the behest of Israel.
Iran borders Iraq, wrecked by the United States and sharing a religion with Iran. Without the
threat of American military power, it could easily align itself with Iran and Asia. In Syria,
Assad seems to have won unless the Empire doubles or triples down. Thus the contrived gassing
of children and Trump's missile attack. Turkey balances between east and west, and could easily
decide that Asia is the future.
The Empire totters, wounded and dangerous.
Six: Washington's approach to hegemony is military, relying on bombing and economic
sanctions. This requires huge military expenditures that cripple the domestic economy and
produces countless countries that would break with America if they could. By contrast, China's
approach is economic, smarter and much cheaper. It is China's Belt and Road Initiative to
integrate all of Eurasia into one huge trading block, excluding guess who, that has the Empire
in a panic. How do you bomb a trade agreement?
Seven: Russia and China have adult leadership. Putin and Xi are stable, intelligent, and
competent. Their interests are not Washington's and they will do whatever is in the interest of
their countries, but they are not stupid, ignorant, weak, juvenile, or crazy. By contrast,
Trump is a loon, ignorant of practically everything, mentally chaotic, and easily modified.
"Get ready Russia, missiles will be coming at Syria, nice and new and 'smart'!" This is
not adult language. It is the taunting of a twelve-year-old. Nya hnya nya! Yet it is
classic Trump. This man has absolute power to launch wars whose consequences we will have to
bear. Is this not splendid?
At this stage in the game I'm not one to ramble about "3D Chess", but I get the sense that
Trump's tweeting was intended to warn Putin and thus deescalate. Of course on the flip
side we have (uncomfirmed) reports that Trump and his bloodthirsty NSC chair Fox Bolton were
arguing for a bigger attack than the generals would agree to.
If nothing else it's quite clear that any effort to withdraw from Syria simply immediately
results in a false flag attack. Even if chemical weapons were as awful as is supposed (I
agree with Mr. Reed), that doesn't make it relevant to American interests.
The strangest thing with Syria is how obsessed the Empire is with destroying it.
Various reasons are given such as Israel, gas pipelines, and containing Iran. At the end of
the day I think it's primarily psychological. The Empire is outraged that the Assman dares to
resist. `
"Note that Washington has a history of lying the country into wars. The Maine in 1898 ..":
add the War of 1812. In fact, presumably add all other American wars until, I suppose, WWII.
And even then the US severely provoked Japan, though it seems to me that the blame for the
war was Japan's: even the perfidious Yanks couldn't force her to behave with such reckless
idiocy in the Pacific.
Re: "It serves nicely, however, to alarm publics with minds of low voltage."
In 1958, I still believed that there was a significant intellectual difference between the
American bourgeosie and the cattle one sees peering between the slats of large trucks as they
contentedly munch hay on their way to the abattoir.
That was owing to the public's colossal ignorance of its history, its predatory character,
and its total faith in the national myths of manifest destiny, etc.
The percentage of gas casualties who died as a result of their wound was much lower than
for injuries inflected by other means (shell splinters, explosives, bullets). Taking
countermeasures against chemical attacks is possible. To be effective, gas usually has to be
delivered by the ton, usually by artillery. Nerve gas is much deadlier, but also very tricky
to use.
Not advocating gas warfare, but it's not a death ray.
In the whole of the Unz sphere, the only article that makes sense of Syria pot-shots, by
adhering to a necessary global scope.
Irrelevant. Trump is a punching bag, that is as much as Obama was a surfboard, these
figureheads are actors, better or worse. Putin, Xi, do matter, Putin harnessed a streamlined
decision making nucleus out of chaos internally, it again gave meaning to the mention of
"Russia". Xi probably does matter, we do not know, neither of us were able to observe one or
the other. What matters is that there is rational coherence in both systems, China and
Russia. Because of infighting, the West looks ridiculously bloated, and stumbling.
As to "hamster herding", include "media herding", consenting and dissenting alike. The
main reasons for the latter are "bread" writing, and real "believes" of ignorance. Seems the
layer, includes second tier politicians, "public intellectuals" alike. A case of "garbage in,
garbage out" and a secondary condition of individual middle class jockeying.
As to the choice of what can be called "military capitalism" of the US, it has no
longer any other options, contrary to Russia and China. Give or take a single percentage
point or two, there must be some insiders that fully understand that the global system of
economics is now running into the wall, there is no solution to that. Neither is there a
venue-way for China, or Russia, economically, outside of global consent. They might have a
few cycles more of trade, cleaning the plate, which they choose to do, what looks admirable
in the short term to many, but ultimately will equally grind to a standstill.
Our take,
globally, there is some consensus about above, in minimal, stealthy cycles, and the
situation in Syria today is to be seen as a proverbial napkin sketch of the architect of
project global government. Putin was degraded in his status, his error, to propagate
nationalistic posing on the world scene, was offensive to the project of world rule. He got
away with a warning and loss of face.
There was, and is, to be seen some experimenting with method (stealth outside the public
view), timeliness and international consent. That is hopeful, if one can get from a pot-shot,
and not firing back, to addressing the real problems of the world, all and every, only
solvable by global consent, and in a timely manner, Syria must be seen as a hopeful
experiment of "global collegiate" ruling.
If "real" war, not policing, "real" major shifts of riches, from finite, generational
elites to abhorrent masses of commoners and ridiculous attitudes middle classes, results, we
humbly retract. The crest of the wave will have an undercurrent: even worse conditions
applied to the number of human under-classes, even temporarily more wastelands created, but
adhering to collegiate global consent, and sold to the masses as a prime Hollywood style
production. That is what the elites seem to strive for.
The important element is they seem to grasp, as only sub-group of humanity, that they are
condemned to one another, the "chevalier seul" attitudes are projections to the public.
Indeed, the people want it very much But the elites depend on the loot provided by
enormous military budgets, and sanctions they can work around .Historically, empires are
rarely allowed to shrink until the home country is completely bankrupt.
The fact that 99.9% of neocons are chickenhawks and never experienced the level of sufferings
the wat inflicts on people is defining chanracteristic of all US neocons. Especially female
neocon -- a unique US breed.
Notable quotes:
"... At the core of the American philosophy is voluntarism, the justification of action based purely and simply on the will. ..."
"... The clearest and perhaps the best expression of American voluntarism come of age was expressed by Karl Rove during the George W. Bush administration, as reported by Ron Suskind in New York Times Magazine ..."
"... We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. ..."
"... The point of the voluntarist order is to act, to impose one's will on global reality by any means necessary. The truth is not something to be understood, or grasped, still less something that should condition one's own actions and limit them in any way. Truth is reducible to whatever is useful for imposing one's will. ..."
"... For America's voluntarist order, whether these events as described are true in the objective sense is of no more importance than whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You will recall that, just prior to the Iraq invasion, the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah some 83 times in order to oblige him to confess a nonexistent connection between Saddam's Iraq, al-Qaeda, and chemical weaponry. That is voluntarism in action right there. "We're an empire now and we create our own reality." It was not a one-off. It is now the norm to make sure the facts are fixed to match the desired policy. ..."
"... Voluntarism is the fruit of an anti-civilization, and of a technological way of knowing, as the great Canadian philosopher George Grant put it, that bears a striking resemblance to what C.S. Lewis described in his pre- Nineteen Eighty-Four ..."
At the core of the American philosophy is voluntarism, the justification of action based
purely and simply on the will. The distinguishing characteristic of voluntarism is that it
gives pride of place to the will as such, to the will as power, the will abstracted from
everything else, but especially abstracted from the good. The notion of the good is necessarily
inclusive of the whole, of all sides. Concern exclusively for oneself goes by a different
name.
The clearest and perhaps the best expression of American voluntarism come of age was
expressed by Karl Rove during the George W. Bush administration, as reported by Ron Suskind in
New York Times Magazine on October 17, 2004:
We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities,
which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
This oft-quoted statement is naively assumed to have been the expression of a single moment
in American politics, rather than a summation of its ethos by one of its shrewder and more
self-aware practitioners. The point of the voluntarist order is to act, to impose one's will on
global reality by any means necessary. The truth is not something to be understood, or grasped,
still less something that should condition one's own actions and limit them in any way. Truth
is reducible to whatever is useful for imposing one's will.
We can see this voluntarism at work among our forebears. The Skripal affair in Britain led
to almost immediate action -- the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats from the United States
alone -- well before the facts of this dubious incident, which has led to zero deaths, could be
established. Indeed, when the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, suggested first
establishing what had happened and only then acting, he was widely accused of weakness. When
one is "history's actor," action mustn't be delayed. That, after all, is the whole point.
The suffering of innocents should always concern us. But in Syria, the facts regarding who
is the guilty party, including in this latest case of a gas attack in Douma, are very far from
having been established. What's more, though reputable investigators such as Hans Blix and
MIT's Theodore Postol have cast serious
doubt on the reliability of the evidence linking such attacks to Assad's government,
official accounts in the U.S. proceed as if there is not the slightest controversy about the
matter.
For America's voluntarist order, whether these events as described are true in the objective
sense is of no more importance than whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You
will recall that, just prior to the Iraq invasion, the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah some 83
times in order to oblige him to
confess a nonexistent connection between Saddam's Iraq, al-Qaeda, and chemical weaponry.
That is voluntarism in action right there. "We're an empire now and we create our own reality."
It was not a one-off. It is now the norm to make sure the facts are fixed
to match the desired policy.
Voluntarism is the fruit of an anti-civilization, and of a technological way of knowing, as
the great Canadian philosopher George Grant put it, that bears a striking resemblance to what
C.S. Lewis described in his pre- Nineteen Eighty-Four anti-utopia That Hideous
Strength . In that novel, the institution called N.I.C.E., like the U.S. foreign policy
establishment today, is essentially a voluntarist bureaucracy run by men without culture,
trained in technical sciences and sociology-like "disciplines" and "law" understood in a purely
formalistic sense, who assume human affairs are understandable as aggregates of facts without
value. Such "men without chests" (Lewis's phrase) live in a world where the good and the true
have forever been severed of their mutually defining link. The resulting, essentially
irrational world they inhabit is one that has only one logic left: that of will and power.
It is an American empire where we create our own reality, the mirror image of ourselves, and
it is indeed precisely hideous. If the builders of empire continue to get their way, it may all
soon enough come to a violent and ignominious end. Historians, if they still exist, will marvel
at our folly.
Paul Grenier, an essayist and translator who writes regularly on
political-philosophical issues, is founder of the Simone Weil Center for Political
Philosophy.
For another outstanding account of 'a technological way of knowing', check out Jacques
Ellul's 'The Technological Society'.
Not only was this incident fabricated, it was known the preparations were known in
advance. I remember reading an article two weeks before Douma about the preparations for the
fabrication. Felix Somary was quite right in writing in July 1914 that "the information
available to insiders, and precisely the most highly placed among them, is all to often
misleading" (quoted in Jim Rickards "The Road to Ruin").
Volunteerism, voluntarism, the mysterious workings of the "will," we're famous for all of it,
but this is not so uniquely American, Rove's comment reminds me of something that Tolstoy
might put in Napoleon's mouth, actually. Pride, plus the tunnel-vision typical of
technocrats, academics, specialists
Karl Rove is a man without a chest–a "chickenhawk," a proud and willful man puffed
up on ignorance and willpower, wrecking the world–and nothing more than that, unless he
wills it to be.
Volunteerism is two things, Power to the Ladies Who Lunch, and we don't have to pay for a
social safety net because somebody else will provide it voluntarily for free.
It has no larger meaning, and no role in foreign policy.
The foreign policy described here is just Smedley Butler's "racket" using US foreign
policy and forces for private ends.
Paul has made reclaiming Congress' role in matters of war one of his signature issues.
Pompeo testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't think the president
needs Congressional authorization to order attacks on other states. Trump's nominee thinks that
the president can start wars on his own authority, so Paul should be voting against his
nomination for that reason alone. Voting to confirm Pompeo is an effective endorsement of the
very illegal and unauthorized warfare that Paul normally condemns.
"Instead, Paul will get nothing except widespread derision for caving to pressure. "
Depressing. I thought he'd have more guts. Perhaps he's keeping his ammunition dry for
some important purpose, and maybe the White House IOU he now holds has value. We'll see.
I have disliked Sen. Paul ever since the British Petroleum disaster, when he bemoaned that
making BP pay for damages was "anti-business" as if seafood fisheries, motels, and
restaurants were not businesses too.
"... Last week, after a series of controversial prime-time episodes of "Tucker Carlson Tonight," which questioned whether it is in America's best national security interest to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria; what the ultimate end-game looks like, considering the post-coup mess America's made of Libya and Iraq; and if the recent alleged chemical warfare assault on children was actually the work of Assad or even if it happened -- Tucker Carlson was M.I.A. from his own show Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights. ..."
"... I hear Tucker Carlson is MIA in the USA. Has he been Arkanicided? ..."
"... He recently did an interview totally challenging the permanent state spin on world affairs. As much as I detest the conservatives I absolutely value his honesty and calm tenacity. ..."
We're nearing apocalypse if I'm out here carrying water for Fox News' Tucker Carlson, who is
hopefully not being water-boarded as I type this.
Last week, after a series of controversial prime-time episodes of "Tucker Carlson Tonight,"
which questioned whether it is in America's best national security interest to overthrow Bashar
al-Assad in Syria; what the ultimate end-game looks like, considering the post-coup mess
America's made of Libya and Iraq; and if the recent alleged chemical warfare assault on
children was actually the work of Assad or even if it happened -- Tucker Carlson was M.I.A.
from his own show Wednesday, Thursday and Friday nights.
Tucker Carlson has a tweet up from four hours ago, saying that he will be back on Fox News
tonight, after three days off.
Posted by: lysias | Apr 23, 2018 4:13:07 PM | 123
Let's see if he continues to entertain any truth on Syria. One of the most outstanding
pieces of MSM busting work there recently. Thought he was on the edge of getting Ben Swann'd
on the back of that effort, or maybe even some threatened with some mild waterboarding.
Thanks for the Carla Ortiz post b. She is a great and brave reporter.
I hear Tucker Carlson is MIA in the USA. Has he been Arkanicided?
He recently did an interview totally challenging the permanent state spin on world affairs.
As much as I detest the conservatives I absolutely value his honesty and calm tenacity.
Syria civil war is the result of a attempt to stage a color revolution in the country,
exploiting temporary economic difficulties, mistakes by Assad government, overpopulation and lack
of water. Money were supplied mostly by the USA and Saudi.
Empire does creates its own reality. Syria is a nice example of the reality that the US empire creates...
Notable quotes:
"... To start this conflict and then keep its fires burning the US and its Satellites have spent billions of dollars. It's curious that the New York Times has recently uncovered the criminal role that the CIA played in the Syrian war, reporting that members of the Obama administration have told them that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring the absolute majority of overseas unannounced overseas wars, to keep the role played in them by Washington a secret. At times the US and Saudi Arabia would share their intelligence, while in some cases Riyadh just hand out large sums of money to CIA operatives, without asking any questions. ..."
"... Back in 2013 the CIA and Riyadh have agreed on launching an operation under the code name the Timber Sycamore that is aimed at toppling Syria's elected officials through the continuous training and supported provided to all sorts of radical militants. ..."
"... And again, h/t Jacob Freeze, more Imperial Scurvy: 'Syria Will Stain Obama's Legacy Forever; The arc of history is long, but it won't ever judge the president's Syria policy kindly', David Greenberg, foreignpolicy.com , Dec. 29, 2016, accompanied by the obligatory photos of the White Helmuts 'saving' wee chirren. ..."
"... In fact many Syrians did not want civil war -- understandably enough since the human and material costs would be devastating. Second, large numbers of Syrians who had no fondness for Assad had even greater reason to fear what might come after him: very likely some combination of radical jihadi forces. Indeed, victorious jihadis might likely then have gone on to wage an internecine power struggle among themselves, just like the civil war among the Afghan mujahideen after the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1988; it all but destroyed the country." ..."
"... "The world has learned that any state that does not accept the U.S.-designed order in the Middle East by definition becomes a "rogue regime" -- hence losing any sovereign rights on the international scene. And Washington's policies have all along been heavily driven by Israel's own regional agenda. It's a bitter pill then: acceptance of Assad's remaining in power until the international order can eventually craft some new political process that offers more representative government there ." (blink, blink) ..."
"... "We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising." ..."
"... To Hasan, the Syrian State's position on the political spectrum is unrelated to its goals: overcoming sectarian and other divisions in the Arab world, safeguarding Syria's political independence, and achieving economic sovereignty. Nor does it matter that Damascus is engaged in a struggle against (to use Hasan's own words) "rapacious U.S. foreign policy", "Saudi-inspired extremism" and "Israeli opportunism" -- in other words, the aggression of conservative and reactionary forces that are more powerful individually to say nothing of collectively than the Syrian State by many orders of magnitude. To the Mahatma, all of these considerations are irrelevant, and all that matters in the evaluation of Assad's political orientation is whether the methods Damascus has used to defend the gains it has made in the direction of asserting its right to equality and sovereignty are methods that that are suitable to a State in periods of stability, normalcy and safety. It's as if what Hasan deplores about a war cabinet, for example, is not the war that made the war cabinet necessary, but the very fact that a war cabinet was created in response to it, as if carrying on in the regular manner could somehow make the war go away." ..."
"... Gowans added a bit more reality on Hasan's 'diatribe' today with: ' Meet Syria's real mass murderers' ..."
"... Related, of course: William Blum's ' Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List' (since WW II) Spoiler alert: it's a long list ..."
The Worthy: According to RT : Jeffrey Sachs ,
economist, UN special adviser, and Colombia University professor told MSNBC's Morning Joe
program that the current situation in Syria is a "US mistake that started seven years
ago."
Those seven years have been a "disaster," he said, recalling a covert CIA operation
called 'Operation: Timber Sycamore. ' The US "started a war to overthrow a
regime."
"This is what I would call the 'Permanent State.' This is the CIA, this is the Pentagon
wanting to keep Iran and Russia out of Syria, but we have no way to do that. And so we have
made a proxy war in Syria.
"And so, what I would plead to President Trump is: Get out, like your instinct told you
Get out. We've done enough damage in seven years," he said."
'Operation Timber Sycamore And Washington's Secret War On Syria; To start this conflict and
then keep its fires burning the US and its Satellites have spent billions of dollars' by Martin
Berger: DIA Docs: West Wants A "Salafist Principality In Eastern Syria" By Robert
Barsocchini , mintpressnews.com
In part:
"To start this conflict and then keep its fires burning the US and its Satellites have spent
billions of dollars. It's curious that the New York Times has recently
uncovered the criminal role that the CIA played in the Syrian war, reporting that members
of the Obama administration have told them that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring the absolute
majority of overseas unannounced overseas wars, to keep the role played in them by Washington a
secret. At times the US and Saudi Arabia would share their intelligence, while in some cases
Riyadh just hand out large sums of money to CIA operatives, without asking any questions.
Back in 2013 the CIA and Riyadh have agreed on launching an operation under the code name
the Timber Sycamore that is aimed at toppling Syria's elected officials through the continuous
training and supported provided to all sorts of radical militants. Under the deal the Saudis
contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the CIA takes the lead in training the
rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missile. Moreover, Turkey, Jordan and Qatar
have all been involved in this criminal design, even though exact amounts of money that the
above mentioned states handed over to the CIA will always remain a secret. Still, the New York
Times states that Saudi Arabia has been the major sponsor throughout all this time, allocating
billions of dollars in a bid to bring down the government of Bashar al-Assad."
More from the internal NYT 'U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels',
NYTimes.com , Jan. 23, 2016
"WASHINGTON -- When President Obama secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to
begin arming
Syria s embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to
help pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the C.I.A. has relied on for decades
for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Since then, the C.I.A. and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for
the rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore.
By the summer of 2012, a freewheeling feel had taken hold along Turkey's border with Syria
as the gulf nations funneled cash and weapons to rebel groups -- even some that American
officials were concerned had ties to radical groups like Al Qaeda.
The C.I.A. was mostly on the sidelines during this period, authorized by the White House
under the Timber Sycamore training program to deliver nonlethal aid to the rebels but not
weapons. In late 2012, according to two former senior American officials, David H. Petraeus,
then the C.I.A. director, delivered a stern lecture to intelligence officials of several gulf
nations at a meeting near the Dead Sea in Jordan. He chastised them for sending arms into Syria
without coordinating with one another or with C.I.A. officers in Jordan and Turkey.
Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the C.I.A. to begin directly arming and
training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal
assistance. Under the new arrangement, the C.I.A. took the lead in training, while Saudi
Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons,
including TOW anti-tank missiles."
And again, h/t Jacob Freeze, more Imperial Scurvy: 'Syria Will Stain Obama's Legacy Forever;
The arc of history is long, but it won't ever judge the president's Syria policy kindly', David
Greenberg, foreignpolicy.com
, Dec. 29, 2016, accompanied by the obligatory photos of the White Helmuts 'saving' wee
chirren.
Self-explanantory in the main, but:
"Since the Syrian uprising began in 2011, Americans have regarded the carnage there as
essentially a humanitarian disaster. For Obama, contemplating his legacy, the awful death and
destruction that Syria has suffered -- the 400,000 deaths, the wholesale wasting of civilian
neighborhoods, the wanton use of sarin gas and chlorine gas and barrel bombs, the untold
atrocities -- has raised the old question of how future generations will judge an American
president's passivity or ineffectuality in the face of mass slaughter."
Here Barsocchini features some of the docs that are hard to read on the pdfs: 'DIA Docs:
West Wants A "Salafist Principality In Eastern Syria" , Robert Barsocchini , 26 May, 2015,
Countercurrents.org, (plus he helpfully adds a few related definitions, and more history re:
the Sauds.
Clearly this is the Scurvy : Graham E.
Fuller 's 'What is the U.S. Fighting for in Syria?, ( former senior CIA official),
April 18, consortiumnews.com, and he did he did face some strong objections in the comments,
but not enough, imo, as did Sybil Edmonds' hits on Bartlett and Beeley even as he got some of
it right, of course. A few bits:
"The power struggle between the Assad regime and the array of diverse insurgents has
oscillated over seven years. Initially, when the government faced the first outbreak of
domestic insurgency in 2011 , it appeared that he might not last long in the evolving Arab
Spring. But he proved resilient."
[wd here: Ah, the CIA-George Soros, anti-Communist Otpor- sponsored Arab Spring
; have you forgotten your roots, dude?]
"He was willing to strike back ruthlessly at the early uprisings and nip them in the bud. He
was aided by the fact that the Syrian population was itself highly ambivalent about any
collapse of his government. As regional regimes went it was unquestionably autocratic but not
more brutal than usual in the region -- at least not until early insurgent forces challenged
the regime's existence and Damascus began to show real teeth.
In fact many Syrians did not want civil war -- understandably enough since the human and
material costs would be devastating. Second, large numbers of Syrians who had no fondness for
Assad had even greater reason to fear what might come after him: very likely some combination
of radical jihadi forces. Indeed, victorious jihadis might likely then have gone on to wage an
internecine power struggle among themselves, just like the civil war among the Afghan
mujahideen after the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1988; it all but destroyed the
country."
"The world has learned that any state that does not accept the U.S.-designed order in the
Middle East by definition becomes a "rogue regime" -- hence losing any sovereign rights on the
international scene. And Washington's policies have all along been heavily driven by Israel's
own regional agenda. It's a bitter pill then: acceptance of Assad's remaining in power until
the international order can eventually craft some new political process that offers more
representative government there ." (blink, blink)
Worthy from
Caitlin Johnstone , the Worthy: ' America's Long History of Trying to Determine Who Rules
Syria' , April 12, 2018, consortiumnews.com; some excerpts:
" The 2006 William Roebuck Cable
A December 13, 2006 cable published by WikiLeaks reveals
how five years prior to the beginning of the violence, the US government (USG) was seeking out
weaknesses of the Assad government which could be exploited to undermine it. William Roebuck,
an official at the US embassy in Damascus, said this in his summary of the cable:
"We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both
perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and
entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from
the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment
of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that
the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising."
(She links to more information on that at
Truthout.org , Oct. 9)
" The 1986 CIA Memo
A CIA
document declassified last year exposed a plot to overthrow the Syrian government by
provoking sectarian tensions all the way back in 1986. Here are
a few juicy excerpts : [wd here: I'll provide a couple]
"We believe that a renewal of communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis could inspire
Sunnis in the military to turn against the regime."
"Sunni dissidence has been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the
early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain–keeping alive the potential for minor
incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence Excessive government force in
quelling such disturbances might be seen by Sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against
all Sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other Sunni groups."
"Mistaking the new protests as a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the government
would step up its use of force and launch violent attacks on a broad spectrum of Sunni
community leaders as well as on those engaged in protests. Regime efforts to restore order
would founder if government violence against protestors inspired broad-based communal violence
between Alawis and Sunnis."
Rebutting the Scurvy and Topsy-Turvey : On April 21, the good Stephen Gowans
deconstructed some creepiness at the Intercept in his ' Mehdi Hasan, beautiful soul,
and his diatribe against the consequential Left'
"If it wasn't already clear, The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan, wants us to know he's a
beautiful soul. In an April 19
diatribe against "Bashar al Assad apologists," Hasan professes his distaste for war crimes,
torture, and dictatorship, no matter the source, but devotes particular attention to the
violence and restrictions on political and civil liberties attributable to the Syrian
president. Assad, Hasan concludes, "is a war criminal even if he didn't gas civilians," and
leftists should stop defending him. The journalist, who once worked for the Qatari monarchy's mouthpiece Al
Jazeera , then proceeds to recite a litany of charges against Assad, some undeniable, some
unproved or unprovable. One gets the impression that he's peeved that the latest chemical
weapons allegations against the Syrian government, ridiculously thin to begin with, and now
largely demolished by
Robert Fisk's reporting , have failed to stick." [snip]
" Hasan has turned the distinction between goals and methods on its head . In Hasan's view,
leftists are defined not by what they're trying to achieve, but by the methods they use.
Torture, dictatorship, abridgement of civil liberties, warfare that produces collateral
civilian casualties -- all these things, according to Hasan, are signs of a contra-left
political orientation. Thus, he argues, with illogic, that "Bashar al-Assad is not an
anti-imperialist of any kind, nor is he a secular bulwark against jihadism; he is a mass
murderer, plain and simple ." The illogic is evident in the false dichotomy that lies at the
center of his argument. Mass murderer (if indeed Assad can be so characterized) does not
exclude anti-imperialist and secular bulwark against jihadism; but in Hasan's world, mass
murderer and secular anti-imperialist are mutually exclusive. They are so to Hasan, because he
has transfigured Leftism into the concept of avoiding all choices that have potentially awful
consequences.
The beautiful soul retreats from the political struggles of the real world into impotent
moral posturing, where no choices are ever made, because the consequences of all choices are
awful to one degree or another. Success, then, in any political struggle is transformed from
acting on the world to change it into avoiding any step that might have terrible consequences
-- a recipe for impotence, paralysis and failure. To the beautiful soul, the only leftist
political movement that is worthy of support is the one that fails, never the one that comes to
power and implements its political program and fights to overcome opposition to it.
To Hasan, the Syrian State's position on the political spectrum is unrelated to its goals:
overcoming sectarian and other divisions in the Arab world, safeguarding Syria's political
independence, and achieving economic sovereignty. Nor does it matter that Damascus is engaged
in a struggle against (to use Hasan's own words) "rapacious U.S. foreign policy",
"Saudi-inspired extremism" and "Israeli opportunism" -- in other words, the aggression of
conservative and reactionary forces that are more powerful individually to say nothing of
collectively than the Syrian State by many orders of magnitude. To the Mahatma, all of these
considerations are irrelevant, and all that matters in the evaluation of Assad's political
orientation is whether the methods Damascus has used to defend the gains it has made in the
direction of asserting its right to equality and sovereignty are methods that that are suitable
to a State in periods of stability, normalcy and safety. It's as if what Hasan deplores about a
war cabinet, for example, is not the war that made the war cabinet necessary, but the very fact
that a war cabinet was created in response to it, as if carrying on in the regular manner could
somehow make the war go away." [snip]
"So, faced with these enormous challenges, what should Assad do? Whatever it is, Hasan can't
say. The best The Intercept writer can do is demand: "Is it the only way you know how
to oppose" US, Saudi and Israeli aggression? Well, it does, indeed, appear to be the only way
the Syrian government knows how to resist forces many times stronger than itself. But if not
this way, then what way? "Should we shoot balloons at the opposition?" Assad once asked another
beautiful soul."
Gowans added a
bit more reality on Hasan's 'diatribe' today with: ' Meet Syria's real mass
murderers'
Related, of course: William
Blum's ' Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List' (since WW II) Spoiler
alert: it's a long list, and ends:
"Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?
The central rivalry of Muslim Mideast is Saudi v Iran.
Here is the rivalry at its highest level.
In Tampa, Florida, former Saudi Ambassador to the United States and Director General of
Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency Prince Turki al Faisal debated Ambassador Hossein Mousavian,
a former spokesman for Iran's nuclear negotiators and chairman of the foreign policy committee
of Iran's National Security Council.
The lively discussion touched on each country's view of its security environment and the
broader issues affecting the Iran-Saudi relationship.
Very, very, very touching video of a child's testimony on the atrocities
of ISIS in Deir Ezzor. He is one brave boy. Syria I am sure is full of brave children by
now.
The interviewer does a great job with the child, as well. Unlike White Helmets that goad and
egg on rehearsed responses, when they are not forcibly picking up children and moving them to
point B where they douse them with water from a hose and then are quickly lifted into the arms
of another man and taken to point C where they are promptly left alone and afraid as the camera
man films their tears of confusion.
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better
than Toynbee, fersher.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism
has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups
and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming
at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will
further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues,"
in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history
with fake history.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so
propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent
in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes,
Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism
now practice it ten-fold.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are
incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries
arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing
remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
"... Yeah. Sociopath. Gives me the shivers. Bill is the same, but conceals it better. I mean, WTF, the guy had state troopers bringing him any pussy he spotted on his lunch break. ..."
Yeah. Sociopath. Gives me the shivers. Bill is the same, but conceals it better. I mean,
WTF, the guy had state troopers bringing him any pussy he spotted on his lunch break.
Jesus,
the rejects this country brings to the White House it's a wonder there's anything left of
this country at all.
IMHO the negotiations for the East Qalamoun pocket were critical since it overlooks
the the M5 Hiway between Damascus and Homs. But even more importantly the Syrian Air
Defenses will be much better when early warning radars are set up on the peaks there.
There is at least one suggestion that only part of the FSA in East Qalamoun will be
evacuated, and the remainder will be inducted into a pro-Assad NDF:
In no way MSM will drop "Russiagate" theme. They are way too invested in it. Douma attack changes nothing at all, contary to
the author claims.
Notable quotes:
"... the Russian Conspiracy Theory -- rammed down the throats of everyone around the globe since Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States -- has finally been laid to rest. ..."
"... Russia may or may not act, but it is rather unlikely that they will -- at least in the short term -- as the full combined might of the West is still an overwhelming force that no one nation can contend with. Russia knows this, and they are not stupid. But this is not to say that things cannot, nor will not, change in the future. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the chatter of Russian collusion, via the corrupt and dying MSM has petered out, as even those suffering from an extreme case of brainwashing find it hard to comprehend how a puppet can so easily slap its master across the face and get away with it. ..."
"... If President Trump was truly a puppet of Vladimir Putin -- or at least once was -- then parties in the know would have promptly released the evidence, destroying Trump in the process. The reason why it hasn't happened is simply because the evidence doesn't exist. ..."
"... Hilariously, it is the MSM who cry wolf about fake news and conspiracy theories, while at the same time, pushing their own half-truths, fake news and conspiracy theories. ..."
"... It is sad to see how far the "guardians of the truth" have fallen and how decadent the MSM has become. They are so greedy and corrupt that they have pushed us towards a path that places the West on the precipice of war with a global, nuclear power. ..."
"... The Demorats need impeachment to fire up their base and get their cash. They filed a lawsuit to generate propaganda points for the MSM to wallow in. ..."
"... The Main Stain Media are still pushing the Russia Narrative every chance they get, as a side show now, a little jab here a little jab there not really attached to anything. ..."
But the Russian Conspiracy Theory -- rammed down the throats of everyone around the globe
since Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States -- has finally been laid
to rest.
With a resounding boom as the missiles landed in Syria, the hopes and dreams of the MSM
proving that President Trump is simply a Russian puppet were shattered in one swift tactical
strike.These strikes came at a great risk, as they hit key Syrian assets -- assets that President
Putin and his Russian forces vowed to protect. Acting together
with its joint allies , Britain and France, the United States struck out against Syria for
what the Western Intelligence community claims were chemical attacks against the Syrian
civilian population, orchestrated by its own government.
Whether or not these claims are true is debatable (and highly suspect) but regardless, the
chips have fallen, and we are now in a precarious position as the West once again plunges
itself, ham-fisted, back into the cold war era.
Russian leaders have vowed that there will be consequences for these acts against an ally
they have sworn to protect. Yet to this date, no retaliation has seemed to occur.
Russia may or may not act, but it is rather unlikely that they will -- at least in the short
term -- as the full combined might of the West is still an overwhelming force that no one
nation can contend with. Russia knows this, and they are not stupid. But this is not to say
that things cannot, nor will not, change in the future.
Still, this has come at a cost. Russia has once again been forced into further isolation, as
its Western peers condemn their actions and threaten them with even more trade sanctions.
Pushed to the point of desperation, who knows what actions they will take in the coming
years?
Meanwhile, the chatter of Russian collusion, via the corrupt and dying MSM has petered out,
as even those suffering from an extreme case of brainwashing find it hard to comprehend how a
puppet can so easily slap its master across the face and get away with it.
If President Trump was truly a puppet of Vladimir Putin -- or at least once was -- then
parties in the know would have promptly released the evidence, destroying Trump in the process.
The reason why it hasn't happened is simply because the evidence doesn't exist.
Hilariously, it is the MSM who cry wolf about fake news and conspiracy theories, while at
the same time, pushing their own half-truths, fake news and conspiracy theories.
It is sad to see how far the "guardians of the truth" have fallen and how decadent the MSM
has become. They are so greedy and corrupt that they have pushed us towards a path that places
the West on the precipice of war with a global, nuclear power.
The final nail in the Russian collusion coffin has been put in place, but at what cost?
A dumb article: The Russians have not vowed anything. As Lavrov has stated publicly, "there will be consequences" is a
factual observation, not a vow to revenge anything. Revenge does not help. It is not the way Putin thinks -- Putin thinks in
terms of interests and the trade off between risks/costs and benefits.
"With 4 indictments, 2 guilty pleas, not sure how anyone thinks it's over. AS for the Syria attack. . . "
Four indictments that have NOTHING to do with Trump colluding with Russia and are SOLEY upon the people indicted. Two
guilty pleas for "lying" which your side is advocating that lying is no longer an issue we should care about.
AS FOR SYRIA: Interesting you put the Syria strike on Putin when it was obviously led by Britain and France or are we now
to believe they along with Trump are Putin puppets too? However, you do seem to be FINALLY admitting your "NGO"'s are nothing
but state sponsored shams intent on manipulating the world wide masses to believe their propaganda. After all it was YOUR
people who claimed there was a supposed chemical attack and demanded retaliation.
Keep spinning in circles, as the dog who chases his tail is in a world all of his own making.
Reaper • Sat, 04/21/2018 - 09:58 Permalink
BS. The neo-cons know the strike was deliberately ineffective. The Demorats need impeachment to fire up their base and
get their cash. They filed a lawsuit to generate propaganda points for the MSM to wallow in.
JailBanksters • Sat, 04/21/2018 - 09:59 Permalink
The Main Stain Media are still pushing the Russia Narrative every chance they get, as a side show now, a little jab
here a little jab there not really attached to anything.
We haven't seen anything like this since the Russians were accused of hacking the Federal Election, over to you Bob.
Well that's right Jim, and now for something completely different.
"... This popular question completely misses the point. The US attack on Syria is a clear and indisputable war crime against a sovereign country regardless of whether Syria used a chemical weapon in driving the Washington supported terrorists from Douma. ..."
"... It is unlikely that the UN Security Council will condemn Washington, which pays 25% of the UN's budget. Moreover, the Security Council is loaded up with Washington's vassals, and they will not vote to censure their liegelord. ..."
"... Putin is wasting his time taking the matter to the Security Council, unless his purpose is to prove that every Western institution is completely corrupt. ..."
"... During the entirety of the Cold War no US ambassador to the UN spoke aggressively and disrespectfully to the Soviet representative as Nikki Haley speaks to the Russian ambassador. During the Cold War no American president would have tolerated Nikki Haley. The crazed bitch would have instantly been fired. ..."
"... Until Washington is effectively resisted, Washington's European vassals, the UN Security Council and the OPCW will stand with Washington. ..."
Many, including Russia's President Putin, have asked why the US launched an illegal attack on Syria prior to the chemical weapons
inspectors examining the site of the alleged chemical attack.
This popular question completely misses the point. The US attack on Syria is a clear and indisputable war crime against a
sovereign country regardless of whether Syria used a chemical weapon in driving the Washington supported terrorists from Douma.
No one acted to stop Washington's war crime. Some of Washington's vassals, such as Germany and Italy, refused to participate in Washington's
war crime, but no one attempted to block it. The impotent UN Security Council, to which Russia is wasting its time appealing, the
EU, NATO, Russia and China themselves did nothing to stop Washington's Nazi era war crime.
Russia said that if Washington's attack harmed its citizens, there would be military consequences, but Russia did not protect
its ally Syria from the attack.
Perhaps it doesn't matter as Washington's attack was carefully conducted so as to have no effect except to serve as a face-saver
for Trump. Apparently no one was killed and no damage was done to anything real except to a facility in which anti-venom for snake
bites was being produced.
On the other hand, it does matter, because of the perception that the American presstitutes have created that it was a great victory
for America over the evil Syrian government and the evil Russian government that supports them. This perception, which the presstitutes
have created with their fake news, justifies the war crime and will lead to more attacks on Syria.
It is unlikely that the UN Security Council will condemn Washington, which pays 25% of the UN's budget. Moreover, the Security
Council is loaded up with Washington's vassals, and they will not vote to censure their liegelord.
Putin is wasting his time taking the matter to the Security Council, unless his purpose is to prove that every Western institution
is completely corrupt. As most informed people already know this, I don't understand the point of proving the known. Putin should
read Eric Zuesse's article before he puts too much faith in the UN.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/04/17/how-us-has-virtually-destroyed-un.html
As I have written on a number of occasions, I admire Putin's Christian character of sidestepping the beatings he continuously
takes from Washington in order to save the world from the massive deaths of a world war. The problem is that by turning the other
cheek, Putin encourages more aggression from Washington. Putin is dealing with neoconservative psychopaths. He is not dealing with
common sense.
During the entirety of the Cold War no US ambassador to the UN spoke aggressively and disrespectfully to the Soviet representative
as Nikki Haley speaks to the Russian ambassador. During the Cold War no American president would have tolerated Nikki Haley. The
crazed bitch would have instantly been fired.
The Russian government is captured by delusion if the Russians believe that the US government, in which Nikki Haley is Trump's
choice to be America's spokesperson to the world, in which the crazed neoconservative war monger John Bolton is a principal influence
over US military and foreign policy, and in which the President himself is under threat of indictment for wanting to normalize relations
with Russia, has any prospect of avoiding war.
The best chance of preventing the oncoming war is Russian-Chinese-Iranian unity and a defeat for American arms in a regional context
not worth the Washington psychopaths launching of nuclear weapons. Until Washington is effectively resisted, Washington's European
vassals, the UN Security Council and the OPCW will stand with Washington. Once Washington experiences a defeat, NATO will dissolve
and with this dissolution Washington's ability to threaten other countries will lose its cover and evaporate.
"... Overall, my impression is that a huge amount of the American populace is entirely disengaged from what's going on because all of it is too upsetting of the accustomed comfortable lifestyle. ..."
"... There's no sense of how random and stupid (and increasing) violence connects to neocon policies over the past 20 plus years or so. The problems leading potentially to very serious war conflict are demonized away in terms of black vs. white terms, America always the righteous. ..."
Just back from a road trip in America where I uncharacteristically watched TV in the
evenings. My main impression = appalled at the intellectual decline and I kept saying to
myself, "If anyone wants to know why we're stupid, here (TV) is the reason."
Interestingly, what I formerly could not stand, FOX news, showed some dignity and
intelligence over what appears to be unraveling in the cover-up of what is now "FBI-gate"
versus the old and worn-out Russia-gate stuff. I was amused at FOX news' presentation of the
latest DNC lawsuit as more hopeless apologizing for Clinton's loss, and a development which
could backfire into disclosure finally, and much more focus on what Clinton was up to with
the DNC maligning of Sanders, plus the politicizing of the intelligence agencies, as with
Comey, Brennan, and Clapper.
As to Americans generally, a lot of good people, nice and helpful if they can just relax
into ordinary relating as with services and restaurants. In meeting with relatives, obvious
MSM propaganda layering their opinions. I was struck for example that the homeless problem
could be dismissed because some homeless didn't want to take advantage of housing help
offered (the specifics of that not offered, nor am I aware of what's meant here). The
tendency is to dismiss the troubling into simplification, and get back to what feels good as
soon as possible. But this is completely normal human behavior in my 5 decades or so of
watching political developments.
Overall, my impression is that a huge amount of the American populace is entirely
disengaged from what's going on because all of it is too upsetting of the accustomed
comfortable lifestyle.
There's no sense of how random and stupid (and increasing) violence connects to neocon
policies over the past 20 plus years or so. The problems leading potentially to very serious
war conflict are demonized away in terms of black vs. white terms, America always the
righteous.
I do feel, however, that alternative media, such as via MoA here, are very helpful to
growing awareness, particularly among young people. I am eager to see new independent
political parties, committed to serving the people, but not yet aware of any of these coming
about. I would also echo pyschohistorian and others from the previous thread to ask b to be
the leader/organizer via emails, should there come a time when this site is attacked and
taken out somehow.
Thank you, b, and commenters here for this energetic and hopeful community.
Thanks for that snapshot description. One of the signs of an empire that is failing is the
increasing disconnect (and cynicism) between the rulers and the ruled - no matter what the
system of government may be. Your description provides a graphic picture of that
disconnection.
In another vein, Media again posits the SAA as going against the rebel controlled areas in
the south. I believe that the SAA will instead consolidate areas around Homs and southern
Hama then focus on Deir Ezzour and the cross-river attacks from the US protected eastern
shore of the Euphrates.. This action will take us through to mid-June. At that point I
anticipate some kind of incidents having to do with the Idlib pocket.
To he contrary, all of the Pearl Harbor hearings were meant to protect Marshall and Stark,
and use Kimmel and Short as scapegoats. As such, all of them were cover ups.
In order to find someone who was willing to lay the USA fleet ready for destruction in the
mouse trap Pearl Harbour FDR had to jump 50 promotion places. Kimmel sent the three essential
aircraft carriers on exercise shortly before the attack. So, in my opinion, Kimmel knew quite
well what was coming.
What the hearings were meant for I do not know, as I'm not a mind reader. In any case,
there was no cover up: Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, A
critical examination of the foreign policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath',
Caldwell, Idaho, 1953 The introduction of the book makes clear how to suppress the truth.
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials
is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former
FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel
"connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally
Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.
With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber.
Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By
most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks
the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to
the alleged perps.
This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of
this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal
referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally
"referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream
media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate
and much less welcome "FBI-gate."
As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with
total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other
big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal
referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many
alternative websites.
The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first
paragraph of the
letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high
authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the
potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude
is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus
exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.
Stonewalling
Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and
the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for
key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several
committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely
to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that
a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)
The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee
requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the
committees are unaware.
Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who
misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and
his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots
to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said
."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and
their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of
oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.
And Nothing Matters More Than the Media
The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of
Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted
headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an
article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded
fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served
.
Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a
lead
article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting
the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going
to torch him.'" [sic]
Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity
What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety
of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have
been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with
taking such major liberties with the law.
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities
directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind
that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which
point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not
prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to
win.
But she lost.
Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A
Higher Loyalty" -- which
amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a
Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his
recent article
, "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning
passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an
environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making
her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight
than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the
polls."
The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the
next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally
referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very
tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very
tall body that houses an outsized ego.
I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to
understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are
several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish
to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A weird country, the USA.
Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where,
in my opinion, the truth was unearthed.
At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed.
Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!
The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the
Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and
apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning
constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law,
but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have
had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.
Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with
alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17
with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that
actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news
service.
The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where
Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western
intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.
Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required
for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the
Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind
closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not
moving east.)
Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually
exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er,
nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to
uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a
workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high
level yoga or of squaring a circle.
On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best
– nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the
primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies
conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.
Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded.
Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President
! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the
whole way!
As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too
psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.
And that will come especially from the mainstream media
I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please
refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that
the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered
up, as usual.
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything
they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.
There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the
dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will
cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving
Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him
NOT TO DO!
We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a
Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out
Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the
fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind
supporters.
Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air
waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the
weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep
state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy
pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller
and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing
the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still
busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff
Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump
to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with
Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is
clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their
foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US
history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in
November.
But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff
Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like
Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused
himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.
" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are
he certainly knows the enemies by now."
He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John
Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says
enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.
Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees
shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as
though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting
everybody during his campaign.
So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.
" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".
Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a
lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to
accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned
monetary holdings.
Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all
of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which
then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed
masses.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
musician.
BTW Jeff Sessions is a fraternal brother of Pence (a member of the same club, same
[recently deceased] guru) and is no friend of Trump.
That would explain why Sessions reclused himself from the start, and refused to appoint a
special council to investigate the Clintons. He's in on this with Pence.
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce
extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now
the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country
down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released.
Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or
Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against
Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor.
Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's
true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could
be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was
revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.
John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is
also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his
deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.
What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably
American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very
determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop
Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose
cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought
up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it,
pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey
was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades
around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "
[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past
that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]
During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller
supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan
Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored
the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs
Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations
that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links
Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain.
Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US
intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American
freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to
have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am
flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress
upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
There has been some former high flyers going to jail recently. Sarkozy is facing a hard
time at the moment. If it can happen to a former president of France it can happen to
Hillary.
Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On
the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but
there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some
of my thoughts on the matter:
Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical
emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is
very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.
(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his
cups.
(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that
the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has
conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)
(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed
bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into
Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting
president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant
universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton,
successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the
CIA org chart.
Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational
fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just
that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these
dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and
that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.
And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at
the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique,
they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners
when left unchallenged.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz
artist.
We, along with the US, France and Gulf states have supported, armed and trained "rebels"
in Syria the whole time. We've had, as have others, special forces operating inside
Syria
So, there would never be rebellions against totalitarian dictators if it weren't for the CIA
and MI6.
I don't buy this. It's very convenient if you're an anti-war person who doesn't want to
face an ethical dilemma. But it's not real.
It's no wonder the Outlaw US Empire desires radical modification of the current Syrian
Constitution as it contains this remarkable passage:
"The Syrian Arab role has increased on the regional and international levels over the past
decades, which has led to achieving human and national aspirations and achievements in all
fields and domains. Syria has occupied an important political position as it is the
beating heart of Arabism, the forefront of confrontation with the Zionist enemy and the
bedrock of resistance against colonial hegemony on the Arab world and its capabilities and
wealth . The long struggle and sacrifices of our people for the sake of its independence,
progress and national unity has paved the way for building the strong state and promoting
cohesion between the people and their Syrian Arab army which is the main guarantor and
protector of the homeland's sovereignty, security, stability and territorial integrity; thus,
forming the solid foundation of the people's struggle for liberating all occupied
territories."
Perhaps the entire passage ought to be bolded, but I chose to emphasize just that part.
Last year, Assad made a speech emphasizing the need to continue to advance the philosophy of
Pan Arabism, and his orations highlighting the goal to recover all Syrian lands show
his constitutional adherence to what he swore to uphold. Clearly, his convictions give him
courage, and that courage is replicated by most of Syria's citizenry and its SAA.
Angela Merkel is not stupid - things are way worth than that.
She's got a PhD in physical chemistry, and what's rather mind-boggling in that context is the
fact that her husband Joachim Sauer is a professor of chemistry and one of the worlds
foremost experts in surface chemistry.
In the 2000s this guy was in the top 30 list of the worlds most extinguished chemists - let
that sink in for a second.
The couple Merkel/Sauer knows exactly how to evaluate that so-called evidence, yet... - as I
said the situation is way worse as generally anticipated.
"... The "Russian" attack in Salisbury is supposed to negate the "not our war" argument, particularly as a British policeman was unwell for a while. Precisely what is meant to negate the "why on earth are we entering armed confrontation with a nuclear power" argument, I do not know. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia has naturally offered facilities to support the UK, US and France in their attempt to turn the military tide in Syria in favor of the Saudi sponsored jihadists whom Assad had come close to defeating. That the Skripal and Douma incidents were preceded by extremely intense diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia, Washington, Paris and London this year, with multiple top level visits between capitals, is presumably supposed to be coincidence. ..."
"... The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security Council authorisation, any such action is illegal in any event. It is worth noting that the many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid, fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza. ..."
"... Hence the destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false "we have 48 hours to prevent the massacre of the population of Benghazi" narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated "crisis" is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way. ..."
I'm going to post a comment by another user posted yesterday as he said it far more
eloquently than I could
R Reddington InterestedReader2 1d ago
Your just another armchair warrior.
So you think going to war is a good idea well you first then and don't forget your flack
jacket and rifle.
The media onslaught has moved past the attack in Salisbury by a "weapon of mass
destruction" (quoting Theresa May) which could only be Russian, except that was untrue, and
was extremely deadly, except that was untrue too. It now focuses on an attack by chemical
weapons in Douma which "could only be" by the Russian-backed Assad regime, except there is
no evidence of that either, and indeed neutral verified evidence from Douma is
non-existent. The combination of the two events is supposed to have the British population
revved up by jingoism, and indeed does have Tony Blair and assorted Tories revved up, to
attack Syria and potentially to enter conflict with Russia in Syria.
The "Russian" attack in Salisbury is supposed to negate the "not our war" argument,
particularly as a British policeman was unwell for a while. Precisely what is meant to
negate the "why on earth are we entering armed confrontation with a nuclear power"
argument, I do not know.
Saudi Arabia has naturally offered facilities to support the UK, US and France in their
attempt to turn the military tide in Syria in favor of the Saudi sponsored jihadists whom
Assad had come close to defeating. That the Skripal and Douma incidents were preceded by
extremely intense diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia, Washington, Paris and London
this year, with multiple top level visits between capitals, is presumably supposed to be
coincidence.
I am not a fan of Assad any more than I was a fan of Saddam Hussein. But the public now
understand that wars for regime change in Muslim lands have disastrous effects in dead and
maimed adults and children and in destroyed infrastructure; our attacks unleash huge
refugee waves and directly cause terrorist attacks here at home. There is no purpose in a
military attack on Syria other than to attempt to help the jihadists overthrow Assad. There
is a reckless disregard for evidence base on the pretexts for all this. Indeed, the more
the evidence is scrutinised, the dodgier it seems. Finally there is a massive difference
between mainstream media narrative around these events and a deeply sceptical public, as
shown in social media and in comments sections of corporate media websites.
The notion that Britain will take part in military action against Syria with neither
investigation of the evidence nor a parliamentary vote is worrying indeed. Without Security
Council authorisation, any such action is illegal in any event. It is worth noting that the
many commentators who attempt to portray Russia's veto of a Syria resolution as invalid,
fail to note that last week, in two separate 14 against 1 votes, the USA vetoed security
council resolutions condemning Israeli killings of unarmed demonstrators in Gaza.
The lesson the neo-cons learnt from the Iraq war is not that it was disastrous. It was
only disastrous for the dead and maimed Iraqis, our own dead and maimed servicemen, and
those whose country was returned to medievalism. It was a great success for the neo-cons,
they made loads of money on armaments and oil. The lesson the neo-cons learned was not to
give the public in the West any time to mount and organise opposition. Hence the
destruction of Libya was predicated on an entirely false "we have 48 hours to prevent the
massacre of the population of Benghazi" narrative. Similarly this latest orchestrated
"crisis" is being followed through into military action at a blistering pace, as the four
horsemen sweep by, scything down reason and justice on the way.
Orwell certainly chose his words well when he called the UK 'Airstrip One' in his book 1984.
The UK government, the US neocons yapping little poodle. All cheered on by our always on
message main stream media.
Syria is surrounded by wealthy gulf countries, many of whom frequently buy weapons from the
US and UK. They have the money, the firepower, and the space to not only house fleeing
refugees, but also bomb Assad back to the stone age. They haven't, because they lack
testicular fortitude and are always looking west for solutions.
The US, UK and France act like they own the world. Iran vs Iraq, the creation of Israel, and
Saudi Arabia, Sykes-Picot - western countries played a major part in all of this. In the
absence of evidence, it's about time we kept out of it.
A classified U.S. State Department cable signed by Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton reported that Saudi donors
were a major support for Sunni militant
forces globally, and some American officials worried that rebels being supported had ties to
Al Qaeda.[14]
Notable quotes:
"... Read more at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore ..."
Timber Sycamore 20/04/2018 Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and
training program run by the United StatesCentral Intelligence Agency
(CIA) and supported by various Arab intelligence services, most notably that of Saudi Arabia . Launched in
2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to rebel forces fighting Syrian
President Bashar
al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War . According to U.S.
officials, the program has trained thousands of rebels. President Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to
begin arming Syria's embattled rebels in 2013. [3] However,
the CIA had been facilitating the flow of arms from Libya to Syria "for more than a year" beforehand in
collaboration with "the UK ( United Kingdom ), Saudi Arabia and
Qatar ."
The program's existence was suspected after the U.S. Federal Business Opportunities website
publicly solicited contract bids to ship tons of weaponry from Eastern Europe to Taşucu , Turkey and
Aqaba , Jordan. One
unintended consequence of the program has been to flood the Middle East's black market with
weapons including assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. The U.S. delivered
weapons via Ramstein – supposedly in breach
of German laws.
In July 2017, U.S. officials stated that Timber Sycamore would be phased out, with funds
possibly redirected to fighting the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL), or to offering rebel forces defensive capabilities.
... ... ...
According to American officials, the program has been highly effective, training and equipping thousands of U.S.-backed
fighters to make substantial battlefield gains.[2][19]
American officials state that the program began to lose effectiveness after
Russia intervened militarily in the
Syrian Civil War.[19]David Ignatius, writing in The Washington Post, remarked
that while the CIA program ultimately failed in its objective of removing Assad from power, it was hardly "bootless": "The
program pumped many hundreds of millions of dollars to many dozens of militia groups. One knowledgeable official estimates that
the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years."[8]
... ... ...
U.S.-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's
al-Nusra Front, and some of the U.S.
supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when
the program was first proposed.[10]
... ... ...
The program remains classified,[14][10]
and many details about the program remain unknown, including the total amount of support, the range of weapons transferred, the
depth of training provided, the types of U.S. trainers involved, and the exact rebel groups being supported.[18]
However, The Canberra Times
reported that two thousand tons of Soviet era weapons were delivered to Aqaba as recently as April 2016.
Trump strangely immature twits on Douma attack disqualify his as a statesman.
Notable quotes:
"... the strike has been definitely an act of aggression against a sovereign state despite an objection of a permanent SC member, namely Russia. ..."
"... Now the gates of hell are open, international law has been demolished, and this happened because Putin agreed to accommodate Trump's strike, said Ivashov. ..."
"... I'd consider that a good conclusion of the fictional chemical weapons story. The story has fallen to pieces altogether, anyway. The poisoning of Skripal ended with the old spy in good health; with Boris Johnson being caught lying; with [the chemical weapons control body] OPCW refusing to connect Skripal's poison to Moscow; and with Brits keeping Miss Skripal incommunicado under duress, away from her fiancé and the rest of her family, a clear sign of a collapsing story. ..."
"... The Syrian part of this story collapsed as well, after Robert Fisk , one of the very best British Middle East observers (next to David Hirst) visited Douma and delivered a report straight from the donkey's mouth, i.e. as told by a doctor of the clinic videoed by the White Helmets. ..."
"... The Russians actually located some people who are seen in the video, and they say it was staged. ..."
"... An interesting bit of data, proving that preparations for the strike were carried out before the alleged attack, has been published by the Cyprus banking community blog. They say the British air base of Akrotiri on Cyprus had its perimeter urgently strengthened (by the British company Agility) on April 5, that is before the alleged Douma gas attack ..."
"... The OPCW could dispel the mist around both cases, that of Skripal and that of Douma, but do not hold your breath. It appears that OPCW is as integrated into the machinery of the Masters of Discourse as any other international body. Refusal of OPCW to allow Russia to take part in Skripal investigation, despite the clear requirement of its own charter, makes its conclusion doubtful, at best. ..."
"... While inability of OPCW inspectors to enter Douma despite all efforts of Damascus and Russians to facilitate their entry tells us they are not eager to investigate; like they weren't eager to enter Khan Sheykhun last year. ..."
"... please! Trump validated an obvious false flag – again – and launched the strikes before any kind of investigation could have challenged it – again. He's no "hero". He's a weak man at best . Please don't insult real heroes and real bravery. ..."
"... if somebody looks like an idiot, behaves like an imbecile, speaks like a stupid asshat it's very likely you are dealing with an idiot. Stupid bringing boltons and haleys to his circus just had some unforeseen by idiot consequencies. ..."
... Let us face it: Putin did not stop the strike and he didn't make the offender pay a
price for this breach of the Law of Nations.
... ... ...
What is worse, Trump's strike destroyed what was left of the international law structure
established by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. These three giants created the UN and its
Security Council in order to avoid such eventualities by forbidding aggression, and the
strike has been definitely an act of aggression against a sovereign state despite an objection
of a permanent SC member, namely Russia.
Now the gates of hell are open, international law has been demolished, and this happened
because Putin agreed to accommodate Trump's strike, said Ivashov.
... ... ...
The Russian military experts here in Moscow told me that out of a hundred missiles fired by
the US and their allies, only one or two were modern cruise missiles ("nice and smart") and
they destroyed the research institute in Barzeh. (It was not a "chemical weapons centre", just
a chemical research institute; it's destruction was a copy-paste of Bill Clinton's bombing of
the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan over a similar pretext.)
All other missiles were old and at the end of their service; they had to be utilised
somehow, and so they were. A few of them might have been downed by Syrian anti-aircraft fire,
others fell without inflicting much damage.
The Russian experts who were in contact with the US military told me that the US military
used this occasion for retraining and refreshing reserve pilots; what they call "a milk run".
This combination of old missiles and less experienced pilots helped to lower the efficiency of
the strike. And both sides, the Russians and the Americans, admitted that the deconfliction
line was operative all the time, to avoid eventualities.
I'd consider that a good conclusion of the fictional chemical weapons story. The story
has fallen to pieces altogether, anyway. The poisoning of Skripal ended with the old spy in
good health; with Boris Johnson being caught lying; with [the chemical weapons control body]
OPCW refusing to connect Skripal's poison to Moscow; and with Brits keeping Miss Skripal
incommunicado under duress, away from her fiancé and the rest of her family, a clear
sign of a collapsing story. Hopefully, Jeremy Corbyn will be able to use May's debacle for
his political advantage.
The Syrian part of this story collapsed as well, after
Robert Fisk , one of the very best British Middle East observers (next to David Hirst)
visited Douma and delivered a report straight from the donkey's mouth, i.e. as told by a doctor
of the clinic videoed by the White Helmets. He said:
"There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at
night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the
basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here [to the clinic]
suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a "White Helmet", shouted
"Gas!", and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was
filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not
gas poisoning."
The Russians actually located some people who are seen in the video, and they say it was
staged. (Western media says they were threatened into saying what they said). I have more
trust in Fisk's report, than in the Russian one, but that may be my own prejudice. Anyway, both
versions are not mutually exclusive, they do not contradict each other, but they undermine the
fake story that provided the cue for the strike.
An interesting bit of data, proving that preparations for the strike were carried out
before the alleged attack, has been published by the Cyprus banking community blog. They say
the British air base of Akrotiri on Cyprus had its perimeter urgently strengthened (by the
British company Agility) on April 5, that is before the alleged Douma gas attack . The
second British air base, Dhekelia, carried out similar works on April 12, a week later, before
the decision to strike had been adopted by the British government. The Dhekelia works were done
with great speed and urgency, and road-constructing equipment had to be taken from the nearby
villages of Xylotympou and Ormideia. The payment to the local workers had been routed via HSBC
bank in Hong Kong, they say. And indeed these bases (forcibly retained by Britain) were used
for the strike on Syria.
The OPCW could dispel the mist around both cases, that of Skripal and that of Douma, but
do not hold your breath. It appears that OPCW is as integrated into the machinery of the
Masters of Discourse as any other international body. Refusal of OPCW to allow Russia to take
part in Skripal investigation, despite the clear requirement of its own charter, makes its
conclusion doubtful, at best.
While inability of OPCW inspectors to enter Douma despite all efforts of Damascus and
Russians to facilitate their entry tells us they are not eager to investigate; like they
weren't eager to enter Khan Sheykhun last year.
Meanwhile, the Western media and the Jihadi groups on the ground are busy to create a new
web of lies instead of the old one. Now they say the Fisk report is suspicious because he was
allowed in by the Russians. We can learn of their attitudes from the following twit
"Salih @Salih90119797 Apr 17 More
Replying to @Elizrael
We salute Israel in spite their crimes in Palestine we hope they'll continue their strikes
every part of Syria; Iran regime should comedown"
These "Islamic rebels" are actually Israel's stooges rather than warriors of the Prophet.
Anyway, people who manufactured these beautiful and complicated simulacra, are still around,
and doubtless they will prepare a new one, if it will be necessary. In my view, the two
presidents have made heroic efforts at saving their countries and mankind from destruction;
both risked their good names, their positions, their reputatiosn to go that far. Trump
minimized the bombing, Putin minimized the response.
Both have made some mistakes. Mr Putin made his big mistake when he gave Israel carte
blanche to bomb Syria whenever she feels like it. Israeli strikes (and there were more than a
hundred of them last year) created the air of permissiveness and that allowed Trump to follow
in Israel's footsteps. If Israel bombs Syria, and Russians do not react, why can't Trump? It
appears unfair for the US to be bested by its satellite. If you permit Tom to grab your
girlfriend's pussy without a single objection, you must be expect that Dick and Harry will try
to repeat this feat. Israel created the precedent, the US used it.
I asked Senator Alexey Pushkov, the head of the foreign relations committee, whether he
doesn't think it was a mistake, in hindsight. He justified the policy saying that Russia came
to Syria in order to fight jihadi groups, ISIS, Al Qaeda et al, not Israel. Russia is friendly
to Israel, Iran and Turkey, and it does not want to sort out local disagreements. Pushkov
stressed that Russia always censured Israeli raids on Syria, though it didn't act against them.
As a matter of fact, if Russia criticized Israel, it was done very, very quietly. The only time
this condemnation was made public, happened just now, when the Israeli strike occurred in a
very tense moment.
Mr Trump made a mistake when he fired the missiles instead of firing Mueller. But anyway,
thank you, Mr Trump, for limiting the damage. Try to complete the withdrawal from Syria, while
at it.
What is worse, Trump's strike destroyed what was left of the international law structure
established by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.
That was accomplished by Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Gerhard Schroeder when they bombed
Kosovo without an SC resolution – simultaneously transforming NATO from a defensive
pact to an instrument of US imperialism.
The truth can't be hidden any more the army can't just run amuck at will. Trump and Putin are
playing the long game they don't want war they can make more money elsewhere. It's a new day
thank God.
General (Ret) Leonid Ivashov, an important Russian military observer
I would avoid, despite his high public profile, Ivashov as entirely reliable contemporary
military observer. At least I would be very cautious when referencing him. He has his moments
but many of his "predictions", not to speak of advice, were not exactly prescient, to put it
mildly. Paradoxically, it was his consistently grim, almost to the point of being apocalyptic
view of Russia all long that I simply stopped paying attention to him. obviously, reality
turned out to be much different. In the end, him "cooperating" with Dugin is not exactly a
good sign.
This would be too good a result even for the best, latest, and most update systems. The
unimpressive outcome of the attack can be explained easier by Trump's decision to minimise
the damage, as indeed the Israeli military says.
Anything Israel's military says on this issue is irrelevant and, as always, driven by
purely ideological and political considerations. Here is a taste:
Israel's worst nightmare is competent and properly armed Syrian Air Defense and this is
precisely where it is going right now in the area. Per best–subsonic TLAMs of any
variety represent with appropriate targeting within integrated system easy targets for
something like S1s, which were created from the inception as anti-TLAM systems. Recent IAF
strike in Syria (about couple weeks ago) was to prevent deployment of Iranian TOR-M1 in
Syria. So, Israelis' opinions on this issue can not absolutely, especially having IDF
"stellar" record of bluster and boasting, be taken seriously. Here is an opinion of high
ranking US military-intelligence officer which is rather revealing.
Kosovo was Blair's first real taste of bombing the innocents and how he liked it. It was
hardly surprising to see the veteran warmonger popping up yet again after the Douma hoax and
as always he was calling for bombs as the solution. It's always bombs with Blair and it seems
he just can't help himself. Which ever side Blair is backing is certain to be the side which
is wholly in the wrong. This is the trusted Blair principle and with its 100% record of
success, it will save hours of research trying to get a handle on just where the real blame
lies in any given crisis. Interestingly, you could substitute the US for Blair and you would
get the same result.
The main question is whether this Russian fight aversion will encourage the Americans to
carry out a future strike, or whether Trump will rein in his adversaries.
Any potential future strikes will diminish Russian fight aversion. Previous Russian
restraint was commendable and useful but that part of the conflict is over now. Too many
people "in charge" never experienced – or even contemplated – real, personal,
consequences for their actions. This will have to change.
In my view, the two presidents have made heroic efforts at saving their countries and
mankind from destruction; both risked their good names, their positions, their reputatiosn
to go that far. Trump minimized the bombing, Putin minimized the response.
Nigga please! Trump validated an obvious false flag – again – and launched
the strikes before any kind of investigation could have challenged it – again. He's no
"hero". He's a weak man at best . Please don't insult real heroes and real
bravery.
Well, I don't know how you can be certain that it isn't Putin. Those writing the script
might well choose Putin or create another monster to play the role. Putin has been called the
new Hitler by the well known democrat and war criminal: Hillary Clinton; and by the clown
pretending to be a man and British foreign secretary : BoJo. But I'm not sure that Russia
will play the role of Germany. It may well be China. In that case, Hitler will be the Chinese
"dictator"
It will be the "whites" against the yellow peril. The MSM and Hollywood, will of course
"educate" the masses about this new danger for western "democracy" and "values".. I dare
predict that even Russia will be on board
That's unfair competition. Putin is a normal human being, clearly superior in every way
compared to intellectually handicapped nonentities like Trump, Merkel, Macron, May, etc. The
West needs Nixons, De Gaulles, and Kohls to stand a chance.
Suicidal policies of the US have achieved almost impossible: an alliance between Russia
and China. Russian poet Alexandr Blok wrote more than 100 years ago the poem "Scythians".
Here is a relevant part of it (translated by Alex Miller):
We shall abandon Europe and her charm.
We shall resort to Scythian craft and guile.
Swift to the woods and forests we shall swarm,
And then look back, and smile our slit-eyed smile.
Away to the Urals, all! Quick, leave the land,
And clear the field for trial by blood and sword,
Where steel machines that have no soul must stand
And face the fury of the Mongol horde.
But we ourselves, henceforth, we shall not serve
As henchmen holding up the trusty shield.
We'll keep our distance and, slit-eyed, observe
The deadly conflict raging on the field.
We shall not stir, even though the frenzied Huns
Plunder the corpses of the slain in battle, drive
Their cattle into shrines, burn cities down,
And roast their white-skinned fellow men alive
Normally I enjoy Israel Shamir's reporting. However, in this piece he writes as a military
analyst, which he is not.
On the one hand there is nothing to be gained by using satire to describe the recent
strike on Syria. There is nothing funny about it politically or militarily.
Next, it has already been reported on other sites that the Syrian military hardware used
to deflect the large majority of US missiles has been heavily upgraded to support better
responses even when using rather dated missile technology.
Israel Shamir has also recently written in other pieces that Putin has little liking for
Isreal's Netanayu and that in all of the meetings the two had, the Israeli prime minister
received very little to nothing as Putin ignored his requests.
It has also been reported that Syria will receive the upgraded S-300 missile systems. And
it is expected they will be moved into the hands of Syrian troops rather quickly.
In terms of US hardware, there is really no such thing as "old" as much of the hardware is
junk in any case. Since the Vietnam Conflict, US military suppliers have attained a very well
deserved reputation for producing low quality weaponry with only a few exceptions
withstanding (ie: F-16). In fact, all of the recent, major US military systems that have been
placed into operations or trial-testing have proven to be less than adequate for their
tasks.
Finally, quite a number of military analysts have already demonstrated that Russian
missile technology is, at the minimum, ten years in advance of similar US technology. Right
now there is no contest.
The Russians know how to build exceptional equipment at a fraction of the cost that the US
spends on similar equipment. And they will continue to do so.
This is the single reason that the US did not go for the throat in this recent attack as
foolish as it was. What we have now is similar to the US Army facing the Wehrmacht in WWII;
there was no contest between the two as German soldiers and their equipment were far and away
the best in the world at the time. This time however, the US will not be able to count on
overwhelming numerical superiority and its manufacturing prowess to subdue a well armed
adversary since it has lost both a long time ago
This article is a lot of useless verbiage focusing on the kabuki theater by which the masses
need to be distracted.
The reason for this madness has nothing to do with any of the reasons stated. My best
guess is that It has to do with the global ponzi scheme that is the US dollar. Trump goes
along with it because he has been counseled that this is necessary to prevent a global
economic collapse. Same for France and Britain. This discredits the conspiracy theory that
the global elite want a collapse.
What amazes me is that Russia knows what the real reason for this insanity is, but they
also stick to the prescribed talking points. As do the author and most of the commenters
The reason (for Putting being in bed with Israel and generally doing nothing) could be
something as simple as Russia's recognition that it is in no position to take on the
US-Israel combine. Why resist when you fear getting your nose bloodied?
I suspect that if Putin could turn the clock back, he would do so and rewrite his March 1
speech to refrain from bragging about weaponry and abilities that he himself does not seem to
believe in. He is normally a man of very few words, invariably polite in the old nineteenth
century style. So what got into him on March 1?
Yes but those psychopaths don't mind And they don't mind reminding Putin " you don't want
WW3 .Do you ?"
then those psychopaths use the rational thinking on the part of Putin as an endorsement of
their cunning treacherous anti human anti citizen anti civilizatioanl activities .
Well, Trump lost me. He is too much like his enemies. The Deplorables are in desperate need
of leadership. But none of that matters with regard to Syria. What matters is Imperial
aggression, having been blunted, must finally be stopped at Damascus. And this must be done
without provoking a nuclear war. Putin has made much progress toward this end. If he is
successful he will get full credit. Trump will get none.
Playing rope a dope is painful and makes a fighter appear weak. The Anglo/Zio Empire is in
steep decline. Time favors Putin.
Israel is NOT on good terms with Russia. Israel, along with Saudi Arabia, France, Briton
and the United States, is AT WAR with Russia. The difference is the Israelis must keep their
options open. When the U.S. is just another big country in the Americas Russia will be the
arbiter of peace in the region. Israel may have to come to terms with the Palestinians and
may have to give up claims on Lebanon and Syria.
Now, with the neocon madman, Bolton, on board, we will watch our MIIC storm Syria and
confront Russia so that manipulating-Israel can keep Syria's Golan heights which it now
occupies. The true Endgame, of course, is not Syria but IRAN. THE Neocons hold grudges longer
than any.
I agree, civilization-wise Russia is a lot more West than East. The only difference is,
over many centuries Russians learned to live peacefully side-by-side with Muslims and
Buddhists, who represent the Eastern civilization.
That's why I called the alliance between Russia and China almost impossible. It is quite
unnatural. The only driving force for it is the US policy of provoking both Russia and China
at the same time. The US and its obedient vassals in the EU succeeded in building high level
of distrust in Russia, so that ordinary people (not oligarchs, but looks like Putin got a
taste for being popular among the real people, not just the most successful thieves) consider
China a lot more trustworthy than the West. While there is certain level of respect for the
US in Russia, maybe because its bullying is naively straightforward, a large chunk of the
population simply despises spineless, subservient, and utterly hypocritical Europe. I left
Russia in 1991. Back then this was unthinkable. Things changed.
A few years ago Pat Buchanan rightly wrote that Obama administration made sure that when
the US needs Russia as a counterbalance against China, Russia won't be there for them. Trump
faithfully continues this suicidal policy. China has money (enough to finance Russian
projects, projects in Asia and Africa, and seriously undermine the US dollar by introducing
oil futures trading in yuans at the same time), whereas Russia has weapons. Both have very
determined people (as quite a few events in Syria clearly showed). Bottom line is, the US
with all its sidekicks stands no chance against Russia or China separately, and even less
chance against both of them together. I am sure that, being unnatural, the alliance between
Russia and China won't live long after the downfall of the US from its position in the world.
But the way things stand now, it will certainly last until that downfall.
Personally, I am not sure that Pax Sinica is going to be any better than Pax Americana,
but history shows that all dominant Empires eventually lose that position. In the last 20-30
years the US elites did everything to speed up the demise of this particular Empire.
This is the 4th round of jousting in Syria by my count
1) September 17, 2016 – US warplanes "accidentally" hit Syrian airbase right after
cease-fire
2) April 7, 2017 – Trump fires Tomahawks at airbase to punish Assaf for chemical
weapons
30 February 7, 2018 – US decimated pro-regime and Russian mercenary forces
3) April 13, 2018 – UK/US/ France fire missiles to punish Assad for chemical
weapons
This latest one had the makings of beginning a bigger war but through back channels they
both backed down. To their credit, neither military wants to get in to a direct conflict.
"A few years ago Pat Buchanan rightly wrote that Obama administration made sure that when
the US needs Russia as a counterbalance against China, Russia won't be there for them. Trump
faithfully continues this suicidal policy"
One can not dismiss "stupidity" as an explanation. To be an American president one needs
only strong voice, presentation skills and to be ready to serve american"national interest"
which is of course private interests of different groups being the "Israel national interest"
and MIC the most important ones. They're interlinked.
That said, I don't believe those who really have power in the USA and tell the President
what to do, are stupid. So this apparent "US policy of provoking both Russia and China at the
same time" seems to me unconvincing. We do not have enough information to know what is really
going on.
The division between East and West is an artificial one. Of course "west" is not christian
any more. And I don"t know if we can say that "west" was really christian once.
Anyway, Christianity wouldn't have existed without the "East". The Greek Miracle is a Myth.
Plato wouldn't have existed without the "East".
"Personally, I am not sure that Pax Sinica is going to be any better than Pax
Americana"
Well, historically Chinese empire seems to be less aggressive than any other empire we know
of.
They are not interested in civilizing the barbarians But maybe that isn't true anymore.
Empires, like people, do change.
Grudge ?
I fear the hatred among Muslims against Israel and the USA is greatly underestimated.
Maybe Norman Finkelstein understands, in speeches he explained why Israeli jews are of the
opinion that there never can be peace between them and surrounding Muslims, because of what
the zionists did, and still do, to Palestinians.
Therefore, I suspect, the Israeli plans, to a large extent already executed, to destabilise
the whole Middle East.
Putin therefore is their big enemy.
Now Germany is about to buy USA Predators, I predict more terrorist acts in Germany
If Trump hasn't been skinned yet by the neocons in Washington, it's because he
judiciously brought into his camp the worst warmongers, John Bolton and Nikki Haley as
human shields in the case of a neocon attack: nobody can accuse a man whose security
adviser is Bolton and the UN ambassador is Haley of being soft on Putin. Now they can't
voice their indignation. As they say in the army, it's better to have them inside the tent
pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
if somebody looks like an idiot, behaves like an imbecile, speaks like a stupid asshat
it's very likely you are dealing with an idiot. Stupid bringing boltons and haleys to his
circus just had some unforeseen by idiot consequencies.
As for Putin – it's pure shame, even have no desire to speak about his slick policy.
He's surely not an idiot, but his goals more and more differ from mine.
I hope this praise of Trump is a rhetorical device. The US has committed to law that is
immutable by Congress, which says the US must refrain from use or threat of force (UN Charter
Article 2(4).) "But we used armed force in a feckless, half-assed way" doesn't cut it.
What this sissy fight tells us is that the memory of JFK has taught Trump to choose his
options from the menu – bomb this or that or the other thing. Bitch about the menu, ask
for other options, like peace, and CIA will kill you. As such, Trump is irrelevant to US
conduct. He does what CIA will let him do. US policy continues unchanged.
I disagree in presenting the aggression on Syria as a fight between Trump and Putin.
This aggression against Syria is a terrorist act made by coward and criminal people
throwing bombs and running away. (If they are real christians, they should realized that they
have committed a mortal sin). Yet, on the positive side, it has showned that neither Trump
nor Putin want a real war and the Apocalypse.
Russia in not fighting the Empire because the Empire is managed by the Devil but because
the Empire want to bring Russia to mercy. Russia has no choice; Russia has to fight to avoid
"de passer sous le joug".
The Chinese are dealers and traders, the Empire is their biggest customers, they dont want to
kill their customers as long as they can do business with him. That is probably the rationale
to avoid them being dragged into a conflictual situation.
Both Russia and China are not driven against the Empire by idelogy, only Iran is, and when
Iran is fighting against the Empire, Iran is figthing the Devil.
Russia is involved in the Middle-East crisis almost by accident. The 2 Chechnya wars gave
Russia some real allergy to the terrorists and Tartus is also an important outpost on the
Mediterranean Sea.
The Middle-East crisis is driven by Israel and the Zionists and as long as the zionists
are running the Empire, the crisis will go on. They want to reduce all the Arabs in the
Middle-East to the state of the Palestinians in Gaza. The victims are the people of Syria,
Lybia, Irak, the Yemen and Lebanon and the US, the UK and France do not care.
The US with theirs Europeans dominions are fighting there on behalf the Zionists.
Only a major worldwide economic crisis could bring down the Empire, bring peace to the
Middle-East and push the Israelis to an other migration.
Jatras an excellent commentator who has long experience in DC as a senate advisor and US
diplomat asks the questions that this silly article by Yoda Shamir fails to ask
' The question remains: will the US peacefully relinquish its position as the sole
arbiter of authority, legality, and morality in a unipolar world in favor of a multipolar
order where Russia's and China's legitimate interests and spheres of influence are
respected? Or will we continue to risk plunging mankind into a global conflict?..'
Jatras also gives a great 35 thousand foot overview of the events of recent days and some
of what is being discussed going forward in terms of Syria
And oh yes he does address only tangentially the entire thesis of the silly Yoda Shamir
article here
' There was even some speculation that the whole thing was a charade worked out in
cooperation with the Russians.
Even if true (and it's unlikely) the mere fact that Trump would have to engage in
such a ruse speaks volumes about the weakness of his position.
"Whatever Trump says, America is not coming out of Syria," writes Patrick Buchanan. "We
are going deeper in. Trump's commitment to extricate us from these bankrupting and
blood-soaked Middle East wars and to seek a new rapprochement with Russia is
"inoperative"..'
So much for Yoda Shamir's joustfest
comparing these two articles is a prime example why Jatras is a respected commentator
' 3. Russia is in reality militarily weak and tottering economically. Very plausible,
very plausible indeed. Putin's March 1st boastful speech then makes perfect sense as the
desperate bluff of the desperate leader of a desperate state '
Yet another koolaid addict popping up out of nowhere here on Unz and spreading manure
lavishly
' Another friend who has spoken with military commanders in the CENTCOM AOR told me:
All of the knowledgeable aircraft commanders are usually scared shitless about
the prospect of a legitimate air-to-air skirmish with a SU-30 or any Russian air
superiority fighter '
And this about Russian air defense capability
' Any air defense engineer with a security clearance that isn't lying through his teeth
will admit that Russia's air defense technology surpassed us in the 1950′s and we've
never been able to catch up. The systems thy have in place surrounding Moscow make our
Patriot 3′s look like fucking nerf guns '
' I wrote a piece for the Unz Review yesterday. You can see it over there. There were
over a hundred comments. Most of them were favorable, but some were just awful '
The Russians are predestined to fight 'the West'
Instinctively they have always known this
Rationally they have always tried to explain it away
War and Peace can be read as a coming of age story of the Russian Nation
Somehow the Russian Elite is more susceptible to the lure of 'the West' than the Russian
commoner
The commoner knows in her gut that 'the West' is her mortal enemy
No doubt that Russia will eventually go all the way against 'the West'
Dragging her feet is just the way Russia always has behaved in existential conflicts
When Napoleon and Hitler came knocking on her door she behaved no different
This time it is different though
I sense that Russia will want to finish this conflict for good
I expect they will go full Carthago on 'the West', erasing them from history
Russian leaders do seem remarkably sensible, especially when viewed from a western country
where hysteria is the norm.
It is because of this sensibility I fear the worst. The mass-delusion gripping the Western
political class disconnects them from reality, I can't see this ending well. I would not be
surprised if a Western politician announced: "We need to destroy the world in order to save
it"
Once the Russian Leaders realize the extent of Western delusion the sensible thing to do
might be wiping them out for good.
The only problem with this solution would be that I would be wiped out as well.
The nature of power is evil. It's not about "Jewish power". It's about Power.
Agree completely
Also would say that the whole Israel wagging the US dog is not realistic either
Look rationally at the Empire structure we see the vassals like EU and Nato states plus
Japan South Korea, Taiwan etc always falling obediently in line
Just today Assad called France a 'Slave' and sent back his silly French Legion of
Honor award that they gave him in 2001
Slave just about nicely sums it up
Yet Israel is able to operate with more freedom than the galley slaves why is that ?
It's because Israel is the most valuable of the empire's properties an unassailable
fortress in the most geopolitically important region
One could argue that the power of the US Jewish lobby is the thing that let's Israel
exercise the kind of independence that the slaves cannot
I have no truck with calling Israel out on its crimes against the Palestinians that has to
stop but Israeli society is much smarter and realistic than koolaidland US
I hope it won't come to that, as I live in the US. The hysteria is scary, though. Here it
is fuelled by sore losers, Killary and her handlers: she and most of them are guilty of so
many crimes (real criminal offenses that put normal people to jail for many years) that they
need a distraction. MIC also wants justification for even more money thrown into its maw.
Their greed and the perfidy of various self-proclaimed liberals endanger us all.
Yet Israel is able to operate with more freedom than the galley slaves why is that ?
It's because Israel is the most valuable of the empire's properties an unassailable
fortress in the most geopolitically important region
One could argue that the power of the US Jewish lobby is the thing that let's Israel
exercise the kind of independence that the slaves cannot
In fact quite the opposite. Little Israel controls half a continent (North America) in the
same way that little (Imperial) Britain controlled the Indian sub-continent. When Great
Britain lost India (the Jewel in the Crown) its power was gone, and when Israel loses the US
(its Jewel in the Crown) it's power is also gone.
"... Saying that the U.S. has been trying to "solve problems in the Middle East" is like saying that the German Third Reich was trying to fix things for the people of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Soviet Russia. ..."
The U.S. invasion of Iraq, which led to the premature death of more than a million Iraqis
and displaced millions more while devastating Iraqi infrastructure, blowing up civil society
and government, and tipping Iraq into ethnic and sectarian strife that helped give rise to
the mass-homicidal Islamic State.
The U.S.-led destruction of Libya, also turned into a chaotic, jihadist Hell hole by
Superpower and its Western allies.
U.S. funding and equipping of its arch-reactionary ally Saudi Arabia's sadistic
crucifixion of Yemen, home now to one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in recent
history.
Continued U.S. backing and equipping of Israel's openly racist and murderous apartheid
state and its sadistic torture of the Palestinian people.
The ongoing criminal and bloody U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
Continued U.S. backing and support of despotic and arch-reactionary regimes across the
region: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Jordan, Djibouti, Turkey,
Morocco, and Kuwait.
U.S. support of the epic Civil War in Syria (with a staggering death toll over 500,000
since 2011), consistent with Washington's longstanding desire to remove the Baathist Party
from power in Damascus.
+ Washington's long "twilight war" with Iran ever since the Iranian Revolution of
1979.
I could go on. Saying that the U.S. has been trying to "solve problems in the Middle
East" is like saying that the German Third Reich was trying to fix things for the people of
Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Soviet Russia.
It's like saying that Richard Speck was trying to help increase the demand for nurses in
Chicago in the summer of 1966.
Also consider:
+ Lying about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction and purported connection to al
Qaeda and 9/11 so as to justify a mass-murderous and arch-criminal U.S. invasion of
Mesopotamia?
+ Backing Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other miserably despotic regimes around the
world?
+ Ordering targeted assassinations and running a drone war program that Noam Chomsky
rightly called "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times"?
+ Handing U.S. domestic policy over to the nation's financial and corporate oligarchy in
cold defiance of majority-progressive U.S. public opinion?
+ Enlisting the Department of Homeland Security in the surveillance, infiltration, and
dismantlement of the Occupy Movement?
+ Bailing out the reckless and parasitic financial institutions that crashed the national
and global economy while leaving the majority of U.S. people to struggle without lifejackets
in the Great Recession?
+ Freezing Single Payer advocates (the people championing the health insurance solution
favored by most of the population) out of the health insurance reform process and passing a
health insurance bill only the big insurance and drug companies could love?
+ Cashing in on your years of service to the U.S. oligarchy by taking giant speaking fees
and book contracts after years in the White House?
Ultimately Trump is a typical playground bully, he's a bullshitter, a blowhard. All talk.
Trump was the same with Kim, and is the same with Putin and Assad.
Like all bullies underneath he is a coward, he threatens Putin with ridiculous teenager
Tweet threats, but as soon as Putin but back Trump backpeddles.
Unsurprising to see the likes of CNN and MSNBC siding with Haley. Trump should've dumped
her awhile back. Contrary to the CNN/MSNBC spin, she has been an embarrassment for the US at
the UN. Upon her UN appointment, it was thought that Haley couldn't be worse than Samantha
Power.
During his presidential bid, Trump spoke of bringing in competent non-establishment types.
The case for Jim Jatras as UN ambassador:
As noted, Tulsi Gabbard would've been a good selection as well.
The US didn't challenge Russia's more updated missile defense system in Syria shielding
Russian forces. It's not like Washington can control everything.
Through their anti-Syrian proxies, the US has a roughly 30% control of Syria. A few days
before the most recent alleged Syrian government chemical attack, Trump said he wanted out of
Syria. I believe he was either duped into bombing, or knows that the chemical weapon claim is
in the very suspect/outright BS ranges of probality.
I've just stumbled on this absolute gem, from the New York Times, 17/1/2003:
"Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S.
government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi
defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show
(1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja [a 1988 chemical attack on Kurdish
villages that killed 5000 civilians], and
(2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a
fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its
diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."
In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix accused the US
and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in
order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Blix said, "I have my detractors in
Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things
in the media."
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial
Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
Your article appears to apportion blame solely to Assad and you don't even attempt to address
the opposition in Syria. Nobody seriously questions that the Syrian governments war has
killed many thousands and thousands of civilians. How can you not refer to the international
jihad and the make up of these fighters, as well as the sieges they laid on villages, town
and cities and the cruelty they inflicted upon the people?
The Syrian Arab Army is a composite of Sunni, Shia, Christians, and different ethnicity's,
what convinces you that they have in any way wantonly killed civilians? The soldiers have
family all over Syria, plus no mention of the 300,000+ civilians that have been liberated
from Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta in the last several months.
I find this article very bizarre indeed. The most simple explanation for the disaster in
Syria is that a sovereign state protected its national interest from an international
contingent of mercenaries. There are Moroccans and Chechnyans, Uighurs and Brits, Saudis as
well as Syrians in this armed army. What other options did a state such as Syria have when
fighting against ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Nusra and 'The Army of Islam', Jaysh Al-Islam? All have
which have direct connections to our major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I can not find any reference at all to the enemy in
this article. It's written as if the 8 year war has simply been an extermination war against
civilians and completely out of context with reality.
Freedland recently put this argument on Newsnight.
It is flawed to the point of dishonesty.
He talks of removing assets as if the process was being conducted under laboratory
conditions. There are ten nations enmeshed in a warzone with numerous factions under no one's
control. It is magical thinking that cannot be achieved and will only result in rapid,
uncontrolled escalation. The idea that there will be no collateral damage is laughable and I
regret to suggest that it is deliberately misleading.
Moreover, in engaging Assad when he is on the brink of victory, the Syrian Civil War will
be extended. The Syrian people will then pay the price.
Should Assad subsequently fall - and that is the actual aim of intervention - then Syria
will become another anarchic wasteland ruled over by fundamentalist warlords. The spiral of
migration will be renewed bringing loons wrapped in the dispossessed to our own streets.
Worse, the militants next stop will be Lebanon and then Israel will be directly involved.
Freedland advocates acting against Assad without even attempting to predict the consequences.
At the very least I would expect the usual misdirection 'of course this time we must have a
plan for rebuilding Syria', secure in the knowledge that by that time there will be another
crisis and Syria can be left in entropy.
No good can come from military intervention. The satisfaction of commentators that the
right thing has been done is an irrelevance. The right thing is always just public relations.
Every bit of ruthless geopolitics has to have a casus belli to make the killing all righteous
and unavoidable. It has always been thus. For resources to be expended on this kind of scale
there has to be a rock solid bit of bankable realpolitik. In this case its the struggle for
regional hegemony between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Syria can either be part of a supply chain
selling Sunni gas/oil to Europe or Shi'a gas/oil to Europe. This is about killing Syrians for
the glory of Saudi Arabia. You can see why there has to be a casus belli because thats not
something that can be sold. We know the proceeds will go unmentioned into offshore havens and
the London property market. Britain would derive no geopolitical benefit as a whole. The
benefits would accrue only to a kleptocracy who think they have a right to use our country as
a loan shark's leg-breaker.
It is therefore my contention that Freedland is promoting an immoral act that will have
serious consequences without offering any serious improvement in the situation. This is
arguably the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missile crisis and an analysis that
advocates pouring oil on the flames is either ridiculously stupid or calculatedly
duplicitous.
"Up to" 13,000 "opponents" killed over five years during a period of war. I'm assuming that
number of "opponents" includes a large number of out and out terrorists who have thrown the
country into chaos.
The UK andcFrance bares a heavy responsibility for the current situation in Syria. The
cavalier attitude that the ConDems took to international law during the Arab spring
encouraged the Saudi s and their proxies to distablise the recognised Govt. Assad is no
paragon of virtue, but prior to the insurgency steps were in place to make the country a
better place for its citizens, and whilst its true poltical dissent was not allowed, people
could live their lives and go about their business in safety.
An unusual triple alliance is emerging from the Syrian war, one that could alter the balance
of power in the Middle East, unhinge the NATO alliance, and complicate the Trump
administration's designs on Iran. It might also lead to yet another double cross of one of the
region's largest ethnic groups, the Kurds.
However, the "troika alliance" -- Turkey, Russia and Iran -- consists of three countries
that don't much like one another, have different goals, and whose policies are driven by a
combination of geo-global goals and internal politics. In short, "fragile and complicated"
doesn't even begin to describe it.
How the triad might be affected by the joint U.S., French and British attack on Syria is
unclear, but in the long run the alliance will likely survive the uptick of hostilities.
But common ground was what came out of the April 4 meeting between Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Meeting
in Ankara, the parties pledged to support the "territorial integrity" of Syria, find a
diplomatic end to the war, and to begin a reconstruction of a Syria devastated by seven years
of war. While Russia and Turkey explicitly backed the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, Iran was
quiet on that issue, preferring a regional solution without
"foreign plans."
"Common ground," however, doesn't mean the members of the "troika" are on the same page.
Turkey's interests are both internal and external. The Turkish Army is currently conducting
two military operations in northern Syria, Olive Branch and Euphrates Shield, aimed at driving
the mainly Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) out of land that borders Turkey. But those
operations are also deeply entwined with Turkish politics.
Erdogan's internal support has been eroded by a number of factors: exhaustion with the
ongoing state of emergency imposed following the 2016 attempted coup, a
shaky economy , and a precipitous fall in the value of the Turkish pound. Rather than
waiting for 2019, Erdogan called for snap elections this past week and beating up on the Kurds
is always popular with right-wing Turkish nationalists. Erdogan needs all the votes he can get
to imlement his newly minted executive presidency that will give him virtually one-man
rule.
To be part of the alliance, however, Erdogan has had to modify his goal of getting rid of
Syrian President Bashar Assad and to agree -- at this point, anyhow -- to eventually withdraw
from areas in northern Syria seized by the Turkish Army.
Russia and Iran have called for turning over the regions conquered by the Turks to the
Syrian Army.
Moscow's goals are to keep a foothold in the Middle East with its only base, Tartus, and to
aid its long-time ally, Syria. The Russians are not deeply committed to Assad personally, but
they want a friendly government in Damascus. They also want to destroy al-Qaeda and the Islamic
State, which have caused Moscow considerable trouble in the Caucasus.
Russia also wouldn't mind driving a wedge between Ankara and NATO. After the U.S., Turkey
has NATO's second largest army. NATO broke a 1989 agreement not to recruit former members of
the Russian-dominated Warsaw Pact into NATO as a quid pro quo for the Soviets withdrawing from
Eastern Europe. But since the Yugoslav War in 1999 the alliance has marched right up to the
borders of Russia. The 2008 war with Georgia and 2014 seizure of the Crimea were largely a
reaction to what Moscow sees as an encirclement strategy by its adversaries.
Turkey has been at
odds with its NATO allies around a dispute between Greece and Cyprus over sea-based
oil and gas resources , and it recently charged two
Greek soldiers who violated the Turkish border with espionage. Erdogan is also angry that
European Union countries refuse to extradite Turkish soldiers and civilians who he claims
helped engineer the 2016 coup against him. While most NATO countries condemned Moscow for the
recent attack on two Russians in Britain, the
Turks pointedly did not .
Turkish relations with Russia have an
economic side as well. Ankara want a natural gas pipeline from Russia, has broken ground on
a $20 billion Russian nuclear reactor, and just shelled out $2.5 billion for Russia's S-400
anti-aircraft system.
The Russians do not support Erdogan's war on the Kurds and have lobbied for
the inclusion of Kurdish delegations in negotiations over the future of Syria. But Moscow
clearly gave the Turks a green light to attack the Kurdish city of Afrin last month, driving
out the YPG that had liberated it from the Islamic State and Turkish-backed al-Qaeda groups. A
number of Kurds charge that Moscow has betrayed
them .
The question now is, will the Russians stand aside if the Turkish forces move further into
Syria and attack the city of Manbij, where the Kurds are allied with U.S. and French forces?
And will Erdogan's hostility to the Kurds lead to an
armed clash among three NATO members?
Such a clash seems unlikely, although the Turks have been giving flamethrower speeches over
the past several weeks. "Those who cooperate with terrorists organizations [the YPG] will be
targeted by Turkey," says Turkish Deputy Prime Minister
Bekir Bozdag said in a pointed reference to France's support for the Kurds. Threatening the
French is one thing, picking a fight with the U.S. military quite another.
Of course, if President Trump pulls U.S. forces out of Syria, it will be tempting for Turkey
to move in. While the "troika alliance" has agreed to Syrian "sovereignty," that won't stop
Ankara from meddling in Kurdish affairs. The Turks are already appointing governors and mayors
for the areas in Syria they have occupied.
Iran's major concern in Syria is maintaining a buffer between itself and a very aggressive
alliance of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia, which seems to be in the preliminary stages of
planning a war against the second-largest country in the Middle East.
Iran is not at all the threat it has been pumped up to be. Its military is miniscule and
talk of a so-called "Shiite crescent" -- Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon -- is pretty much a
western invention (although the term was dreamed up by the King of Jordan).
Tehran has been weakened by crippling sanctions and faces the possibility that Washington
will withdraw from the nuclear accord and re-impose yet more sanctions. The appointment of
National Security Advisor John Bolton, who openly calls for regime change in Iran, has to have
sent a chill down the spines of the Iranians. What Tehran needs most of all is allies who will
shield it from the enmity of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia. In this regard, Turkey and
Russia could be helpful.
Iran has modified its original goals in Syria of a Shiite-dominated regime by agreeing to a
"non-sectarian character" for a post-war Syria. Erdogan has also given up on his desire for a
Sunni-dominated government in Damascus.
War with Iran would be catastrophic, an unwinnable conflict that could destabilize the
Middle East even more than it is now. It would, however, drive up the price of oil, currently
running at around $66 a barrel. Saudi Arabia needs to sell its oil for at least $100 a barrel,
or it will very quickly run of money. The on-going quagmire of the Yemen war, the need to
diversify the economy, and the growing clamor by young Saudis -- 70 percent of the population
-- for jobs requires lots of money, and the current trends in oil pricing are not going to
cover the bills.
War and oil make for
odd bedfellows . While the Saudis are doing their best to overthrow the Assad regime and
fuel the extremists fighting the Russians, Riyadh is wooing Moscow to sign onto to a long-term
OPEC agreement to control oil supplies. That probably won't happen -- the Russians are fine
with oil at $50 to $60 a barrel -- and are wary of agreements that would restrict their right
to develop new oil and gas resources. The Saudi's jihad on the Iranians has a desperate edge to
it, as well it might. The greatest threat to the Kingdom has always come from within.
The rocks and shoals that can wreck alliances in the Middle East are too numerous to count,
and the "troika" is riven with contradictions and conflicting interests. But the war in Syria
looks as if it is coming to some kind of resolution, and at this point Iran, Russia and Turkey
seem to be the only actors who have a script that goes beyond lobbing cruise missiles at
people.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly
chemical and biological weapons. As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a
secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war
with Iran. Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry,
still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms. They included viruses
such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The USA provided $1.5 billion worth of Pathogenic, toxigenic and other biological research
materials were exported to Iraq; 1985-89.
1) US based company, Alcolac International exported mustard gas to Iraq; 1987-88.
2) Almost 150 foreign companies supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program; 1975-
3) US directly attacked Iran by hitting Iran's oil platforms; 1987.
4) US directly attacked Iran's navy in unproportioned and unreasonable war; 1988.
5) US shot down Iranian civilian airliner in the Iranian territory; 1988.
This is the equivalent of a pathological paedophile giving a sermon against child abuse
when the US preaches its corrupt moral practices regarding Syria!!!
As much bad as Assad did, nothing is more worse than the killings on civilians done my the
"freedom fighters". Why is it for us Syria so important? How come other countries are not
getting involved in a Iraq 2.0 just the same warmongers who want to test their new toys...
USA, France and us... fighting a fight that costs us so much, plus the Brexit, plus the
eventual payment afterwards , I really do not understand. What the frick are we doing in
Middle East? Is there a English colony that we have forgotten? Or a France colony or even a
USA colony? This strikes me as a fight for either resources or for influence or for pleasing
the master Israel. I am clear of how this White Helmets operate , Eva Bartlett told us, and
do not forget that there are plenty of vids on the whole internet of how they operate "Lights
camera action" actors.
This post by Just in Thyme has just been mode rated:
"As the British government release shedloads of crocodile tears over their paid for White
Helmet video footage, and moan like spiteful children how they want to bomb more people, let
look at some other inconvenient facts.
The Yemeni Ministry of Human Rights announced on March 25 that the Saudi-led war had left
600,000 civilians dead and injured since March 2015. The United Nations says a record 22.2
million Yemenis are in need of food aid, including 8.4 million threatened by severe hunger.
Meanwhile the Saudis shovel their bits of silver into the empty coffers of the NATO
warmongers.
Who said money cannot buy influence, Its was the UK that backed Britain backed Saudi
Arabia's election to the United Nations top human right's body as part of a vote trading deal
– despite the Gulf State's appalling abuse record. Secret cables reportedly show that
Britain approached Saudi Arabia about the trade ahead of the 2013 election for membership of
the Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The Saudi regime has executed 135 people since January on
charges ranging from murder to witchcraft.
The lynch mob government, we all voted for, and this is what democracy is really all
about???"
In an age of fake news and endless propaganda it's very difficult these days to see the woods
from the trees... The words butcher and thug are easily thrown around in the Syrian civil
war.
It appears some people have short memories as it wasn't that long ago when we were witnessing
the alternative world of Islamic State in Syria. Head choppers running amok and anyone
suspected of being gay being chucked off tall buildings. Women being flogged to death for
trumped up charges of adultery. Kids having their hands cut off for stealing apples.
To make matters worse these sadistic psychopaths were armed and driving around in vehicles
supplied by the West... It had developed into a living hell for many as the death cult of
Isis took hold.
I remember the so called thug Putin saying someone had to take on these terrorists...
The West were reluctant to do the dirty work required... So it came down to Russia to get
boots on the ground to help defeat Islamic State.
Why does the UK supply the terror supporters of the Arabian Peninsula with weapons while
fighting and vilifying Assad? This is real hypocrisy. Yemenis suffer horrendously from Saudi
attacks, the UK's close friends. Assad always guaranteed religious freedom and Syrians
enjoyed much more freedom than any of the Middle Eastern countries.
What's actually is disconcerting is the fact that mainline media have taken the alleged
chemical attack as a fact. They don't have their reporters on the ground or even Western
military personnel in the area. But a claim and some unauthenticated videos from headchoppers
are taken as a fact. A fact which is not allowed to be tested or critiqued. Does it mean they
just want more bombs and missiles to hammer Syria and any reason/justification would do?
Unsurprising to see the likes of CNN and MSNBC siding with Haley. Trump should've dumped
her awhile back. Contrary to the CNN/MSNBC spin, she has been an embarrassment for the US at
the UN. Upon her UN appointment, it was thought that Haley couldn't be worse than Samantha
Power.
During his presidential bid, Trump spoke of bringing in competent non-establishment types.
The case for Jim Jatras as UN ambassador:
As noted, Tulsi Gabbard would've been a good selection as well.
The US didn't challenge Russia's more updated missile defense system in Syria shielding
Russian forces. It's not like Washington can control everything.
Through their anti-Syrian proxies, the US has a roughly 30% control of Syria. A few days
before the most recent alleged Syrian government chemical attack, Trump said he wanted out of
Syria. I believe he was either duped into bombing, or knows that the chemical weapon claim is
in the very suspect/outright BS ranges of probality.
"... British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called 'national interest' abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organizations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain's global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain's imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world. ..."
"... But whereas Sharif Hussein was a follower of orthodox Sunni Islam, Ibn Saud adhered to the radical doctrine of Wahhabism, which Winston Churchill was moved to describe as " bloodthirsty ..."
"... British support for the mujahideen, married to the huge support provided by Washington, was indispensable in the eventual success of these self-styled 'holy warriors' in taking control of a country that had embraced modernity and turning it into a failed state mired in religious oppression, brutality, backwardness and poverty. ..."
"... Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. Military, financial and diplomatic backing was given to Islamist forces which, while forcing a Soviet withdrawal, soon organized themselves into terrorist networks ready to strike Western targets. ..."
"... Islamic resistance ..."
"... We trust the Western leaders are prepared for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan rebellion were to succeed. ..."
"... Manchester, England is home to the largest Libyan community in Britain, and there is strong evidence to suggest that when the Libyan uprising broke out MI6 facilitated the ability of Libyan Islamists in Britain to travel to Libya to participate in the fighting. Among them was Salman Abedi, who it is thought received military training in the country before being allowed to return to the UK thereafter. ..."
"... This brings us on to Syria and, as with Libya, the question of how so many British Muslims have been able to travel from the UK to Syria via Turkey to take part in the anti-Assad insurgency since 2011? It also brings into sharp focus a policy that has veered between the ludicrous and the reckless. ..."
"... As for the recklessness of Britain's actions in Syria, look no further than the country's recent participation in the illegal missile strikes that were carried out in conjunction with the US and France, justified on the basis of as yet unproven allegations that Syrian government forces had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Douma, just outside Damascus. The only beneficiaries of such actions by the Western powers are Salafi-jihadist groups such as ISIS (whom it was later reported took advantage of the missile strike to mount a short-lived offensive), Al-Nusra and Jaysh al-Islam. ..."
"... The latter of those groups, Jaysh al-Islam, is a Saudi proxy. It was the dominant group in Douma and throughout Eastern Ghouta until the district's liberation by the Syrian Army and its allies with Russian support. ..."
Britain's strategic relationship with radical Islam goes back decades and continues to this
day. There is no more foul a stench than the stench of hypocrisy, and there is no more foul a
hypocrisy than the British government painting Bashar al-Assad as a monster when in truth he
and the Syrian people have been grappling with a twin-headed monster in the shape of
Salafi-jihadi terror and Western imperialism. Both are committed to destroying Syria as an
independent, non-sectarian state, and both are inextricably linked.
Author and journalist Mark Curtis charts in detail
the contours of this history in his book 'Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical
Islam':
" British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called
'national interest' abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including
terrorist organizations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes
trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments
have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain's global power in the face of
increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will
and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain's
imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world. "
As far back as the First World War, when the Middle East began to assume strategic
importance in the capitals of Western imperial and colonial powers, the British ruling class
went out of its way to identify and recruit loyal local proxies in pursuit of its regional
objectives. Britain's relationship with the Arab tribal chief, Ibn Saud, who would go on to
establish Saudi Arabia in the early 1930s, began in 1915 with the Darin Pact, demarcating the
territory then controlled by Saud as a British protectorate.
The following year, the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans erupted. Begun and inspired by
Saud's fierce rival, Sharif Hussein, head of the Hashemite Arab tribe, the revolt was heavily
bankrolled and supported by the British – a period immortalized in the exploits of
British military agent T E Lawrence, known to the world as Lawrence of Arabia.
But whereas Sharif Hussein was a follower of orthodox Sunni Islam, Ibn Saud adhered to the
radical doctrine of Wahhabism, which Winston Churchill was moved to describe as "
bloodthirsty " and " intolerant ." Regardless, when it came to its imperial
interests there was no tiger upon whose back the British ruling class was not willing to ride
during this period, and which, as events have proved, it has not been willing to ride
since.
The most egregious example of this policy, one that continues to have ramifications today,
was the support provided by the UK to the Afghan mujahideen in the late 1970s and 1980s. The
insurgency's objective was the overthrow of Kabul's secular and left-leaning government, whose
crime in the eyes of the Islamist insurgency's US and UK sponsors was that it had embraced the
social and economic model of Moscow rather than Washington during the first Cold War.
British support for the mujahideen, married to the huge support provided by Washington, was
indispensable in the eventual success of these self-styled 'holy warriors' in taking control of
a country that had embraced modernity and turning it into a failed state mired in religious
oppression, brutality, backwardness and poverty.
Mark Curtis again:
" Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the
resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. Military, financial and diplomatic
backing was given to Islamist forces which, while forcing a Soviet withdrawal, soon organized
themselves into terrorist networks ready to strike Western targets. "
While Washington's primary role in channeling military and financial support to the Afghan
mujahideen, known as
Operation Cyclone , may until have succeeded in overshadowing London's role in this dirty
war, declassified British government cabinet papers which were made public in 2010 and
reported in the UK media make grim reading.
They reveal that three weeks after Soviet forces arrived in Afghanistan at the request of
the Afghan government in Kabul, struggling to deal with an insurgency that had broken out in
the countryside, the Thatcher government was planning to supply military aid to the "
Islamic resistance ." A confidential government memo provides a chilling insight into
the insanity that passed for official policy: " We trust the Western leaders are prepared
for the enormous beneficial possibilities that could just possibly open up if the Afghan
rebellion were to succeed. "
It will be recalled that out of the ensuing collapse of Afghanistan emerged the Taliban,
under whose rule the country was turned into a vast militant jihadist school and training camp.
Many of the most notorious Islamist terrorists began their careers there, fighting the Soviets
and then later broadening out their activities to other parts of the region and wider world. In
this regard, Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda loom large.
Other notorious names from the world of Salafi-jihadism for whom Afghanistan proved
indispensable include the Jordanian Abu al-Zarqawi, who founded Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during
the US-UK occupation, an organization that would over time morph into ISIS.
Abdelhakim Belhaj and other Libyan Islamists cut their jihadist teeth in Afghanistan in the
1980s. Returning to Libya, they formed the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group (LIFG) in the eastern city of Benghazi. Though the group may have been
disbanded in 2010, having failed to topple Gaddafi despite repeated attempts to assassinate the
Libyan leader with, it's been
claimed , the support of Britain's MI6, former members of the LIFG, including Belhaj, were
important actors in the 2011 Libyan uprising.
By way of a reminder, the uprising in Libya started in Benghazi and would not have succeeded
without the air support it received from NATO. Britain's then prime minister, David Cameron,
was key in pushing for that air support and the sanction of the UN under the auspices of
Security Council Resolution 1973. Though protecting civilians was central in wording of this
UNSC resolution, it was shamefully distorted to justify regime change, culminating in Gaddafi's
murder by the 'rebels.'
Staying with the LIFG, in the wake of the Manchester suicide-bomb attack in May 2017, which
left 23 people dead and 500 injured, the fact that the bomber, a young Libyan by the name of
Salman Abedi, was the son of a former member of the LIFG, did not receive anything like the
media attention it should have at the time.
Manchester, England is home to the largest Libyan community in Britain, and there is strong
evidence to suggest that when the Libyan uprising broke out MI6 facilitated the ability of
Libyan Islamists in Britain to travel to Libya to participate in the fighting. Among them was
Salman Abedi, who it is thought received military training in the country before being allowed
to return to the UK thereafter.
This brings us on to Syria and, as with Libya, the question of how so
many British Muslims have been able to travel from the UK to Syria via Turkey to take part
in the anti-Assad insurgency since 2011? It also brings into sharp focus a policy that has
veered between the ludicrous and the reckless.
Emblematic of the former was ex-prime minister David Cameron's
claim , which he made during a 2015 Commons debate over whether the Royal Air Force should
engage in air strikes against ISIS in Syria, that fighting as part of the Syrian were 70,000
moderates.
As for the recklessness of Britain's actions in Syria, look no further than the country's
recent participation in the illegal missile strikes that were carried out in conjunction with
the US and France, justified on the basis of as yet unproven allegations that Syrian government
forces had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Douma, just outside Damascus. The only
beneficiaries of such actions by the Western powers are Salafi-jihadist groups such as ISIS
(whom it was later
reported took advantage of the missile strike to mount a short-lived offensive), Al-Nusra
and Jaysh al-Islam.
The latter of those groups, Jaysh al-Islam, is a Saudi proxy. It was the dominant group in
Douma and throughout Eastern Ghouta until the district's liberation by the Syrian Army and its
allies with Russian support.
Given the deep and longstanding ties between London and Riyadh; given the fact,
reported towards the end of 2017, that British military personnel were embedded in a
training role with Saudi forces in Yemen; given the news that a British special forces sergeant was
killed in northern Syria at the end of March this year while embedded with the Kurds, revealing
for the first time that British troops were operating in the country on the ground –
given all that, the question of who else British special forces and military personnel may be
embedded with in Syria is legitimate.
In the context of the British state's long and sordid history when it comes to riding the
back of radical Islam in pursuit of its strategic objectives, readers will doubtless draw their
own conclusions.
John Wight has written for newspapers and websites across the world, including the
Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and
Foreign Policy Journal. He is also a regular commentator on RT and BBC Radio. John is currently
working on a book exploring the role of the West in the Arab Spring. You can follow him on
Twitter @JohnWight1
Iran doesn't want to escalate the situation and give Trump any leverage on Iran deal. Iran
wants to deprive any moral political or legal supports from EU to USA on this. Trump pulls
out. Rest remains same. This will give Iran moral political and legal authorities to pursue
its nuclear program with China and Russia.
This will have domino effects on other areas of these 3 countries -- how to conduct
business internationally.
So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran. Trump is happy. His base angry.
His enemies can't go after him for few hours or days . Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley
has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a demented rat.
At Sec. St. nomination hearing, Pompeo bragged that "we had killed a couple of hundred
Russian contractors." As a former civilian contractor in a war zone, I note that he just put
a target on the forehead of every American contractor working in a war zone. It is now open
season on them. Who will have blood on their hands?
In response to a caller's concern, Oklahoma congressman Steve Russell told the C Span
Washington Journal audience this morning that there was "no danger from a chemical plume"
after missiles struck Syrian chemical plants "because the attack was designed to burn up" the
fumes.
Russell explained that while "Nazis used chemicals in the holocaust." and Russians
deliberately target hospitals and schools with barrel bombs, "no other nation takes as much
care to prevent harm to civilians" as the USA.
Trump is a typical business tycoon: a clueless moron. Pence is just a weasel. Weasels are
carnivores, but small ones: sometimes they eat, sometimes they get eaten. I hope Pence gets
eaten.
The biggest damage from the strikes on Syria was to the credibility of the US, French and
Airstrip One governments. In the days of dubya at least some effort was put into the false
flags.
Great article, except the USA did not "acquire the Philippine Islands", it invaded! The
Syrian disaster is best explained by a Columbia University professor, who was mistakenly
booked on MSNBC, as Jimmy Dore explains:
"... Such people, then and now, fervently believe in the Manifest Destiny of the United States as mankind's best hope of a utopian future and concomitantly in the responsibility of the United States to lead mankind toward that future. Neocons believe that inside every Iraqi, Filipino or Syrian there is an American waiting to be freed from the bonds of tradition, local culture and general backwardness. ..."
"... Local rulers must be removed as the principal obstacle to popular emulation of Western and especially American culture and political forms. In the run up to the invasion of Iraq I was often told by leading neocon figures that the Muslims and particularly the Iraqis had no culture worth keeping and that once we had created new facts, (a Karl Rove quote) these people would quickly abandon their old ways and beliefs as they sought to become something like Americans. ..."
"... This notion has one major flaw. It is not necessarily correct. Often the natives are willing to fight you long and hard to retain their own ways. In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War the US acquired the Philippine Islands and sought to make the islands American in all things. The result was a terrible war against Filipino nationalists who did not want to follow the example of the "shining city on a hill." No, the "poor fools" wanted to go their own way in their own way. The same thing happened in Iraq after 2003. The Iraqis rejected occupation and American "reform" of their country and a long and bloody war ensued. ..."
"... I am told that the old neocon crew argued as hard as possible for a disabling massive air and missile campaign intended to destroy the Syrian government's ability to fight the mostly jihadi rebels. John Bolton, General (ret.) Jack Keane and many other neocons argued strongly for this campaign as a way to reverse the outcome of the civil war. James Mattis managed to obtain President Trump's approval for a much more limited and largely symbolic strike but Trump was clearly inclined to the neocon side of the argument. What will happen next time? ..."
"... Paul Wolfowitz infamously told the US Senate "we chose to use the fear of nuclear weapons because we knew that would sell." ..."
"... The current US is rather like a cross country trip in bad weather. The vehicle is bogged down in deep mud, giving the driver and occupants two options 1) Look out the windows and say, "We're bogged down in deep mud. What are we going to do?" 2) Refuse to look out the windows and say, "There's something wrong with this vehicle. Can we fix the engine?" ..."
"... Well clearly the US's European satrapies don't share directly in the US updated Manifest Destiny idea, but the US sphere elites in general are fully indoctrinated in the universalist ideology of internationalist social-liberalism and "democracy"-uber-alles (where "democracy" – whether in Republican, constitutional monarchic or other form – is in reality a kind of managed gerrymander to keep the established and US-favoured elites safely in control and ensure "populists" are excluded by any means necessary), and sees itself as on a mission to promote the spread of US style liberal (managed) "democracy" throughout the world (except where it's currently inconvenient to push it too hard for reasons of temporary expedience, such as in places like Saudi Arabia). ..."
"... The current breed of opportunists operating without any kind of responsibility makes the international corps of political whores-in-charge. These politicians look at the Blairs (a $100 million fortune) and Cheney & Bush (both getting richer with every day) and they know that the opportunisms, however criminal, will be rewarded by the "deciders." The incompetent and sycophantic politicians in the EU/UK governments have zero regards for their citizenry. We can be absolutely sure that there are no idealists among the leading UK politicians in power. ..."
"... Short answer, F,UK were the world's leading imperial powers before WWII and seek to leverage American military and financial power to restore some degree of imperial power. The Atlantic Charter and the UN Charter were bitter pills for the old empires. France sought to override the UN Charter by force in Vietnam and Algeria, but lacked the wherewithall. Britain, France, and Israel sought to override it by force in the 1956 Suez Crisis until Daddy Ike told them that it wasn't cool. The umbrella of American power is their best remaining means of re-establishing imperial power. It puts the onus on the US for violations of international law, but promises them some restoration of imperial power in MENA. ..."
"... "Making the world safe for democracy" was the sales pitch for preserving the F, UK empires long before there was Israel. That effort was driven largely by American Blue Blood bankers who had risky investments in the UK war effort. American Jews were suspected of loyalty to the Kaiser because they loathed the Russian Tsar. ..."
In 2004 I published an article in the journal, Middle East Policy that was entitled
"Drinking the Koolaid." The article reviewed the process by which the neocon element in the
Bush Administration seized control of the process of policy formation and drove the United
States in the direction of invasion of Iraq and the destruction of the apparatus of the Iraqi
state. They did this through manipulation of the collective mental image Americans had of Iraq
and the supposed menace posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Not all the people who
participated in this process were neocon in their allegiance but there were enough of them in
the Bush Administration to dominate the process. Neoconism as it has evolved in American
politics is a close approximation of the imperialist political faction that existed in the time
of President William McKinley and the Spanish-American War. Barbara Tuchman described this
faction well in "The Proud Tower."
Such people, then and now, fervently believe in the Manifest Destiny of the United States as
mankind's best hope of a utopian future and concomitantly in the responsibility of the United
States to lead mankind toward that future. Neocons believe that inside every Iraqi, Filipino or
Syrian there is an American waiting to be freed from the bonds of tradition, local culture and
general backwardness. For people with this mindset the explanation for the continuance of old
ways lies in the oppressive and exploitative nature of rulers who block the "progress" that is
needed. The solution for the imperialists and neocons is simple. Local rulers must be removed
as the principal obstacle to popular emulation of Western and especially American culture and
political forms. In the run up to the invasion of Iraq I was often told by leading neocon
figures that the Muslims and particularly the Iraqis had no culture worth keeping and that once
we had created new facts, (a Karl Rove quote) these people would quickly abandon their old ways
and beliefs as they sought to become something like Americans.
This notion has one major flaw.
It is not necessarily correct. Often the natives are willing to fight you long and hard to
retain their own ways. In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War the US acquired the
Philippine Islands and sought to make the islands American in all things. The result was a
terrible war against Filipino nationalists who did not want to follow the example of the
"shining city on a hill." No, the "poor fools" wanted to go their own way in their own way. The
same thing happened in Iraq after 2003. The Iraqis rejected occupation and American "reform" of
their country and a long and bloody war ensued.
The neocons believe so strongly that America must lead the world and mankind forward that
they accept the idea that the achievement of human progress justifies any means needed to
advance that goal. In the case of the Iraq invasion the American people were lectured endlessly
about the bestialities of Saddam's government. The bestialities were impressive but the
constant media display of these horrors was not enough to persuade the American people to
accept war. From the bestialities meme the neocons moved on to the WMD meme. The Iraqi
government had a nuclear weapons program before the First Gulf War but that program had been
thoroughly destroyed in the inspection regime that followed Iraq's defeat and surrender. This
was widely known in the US government because US intelligence agencies had cooperated fully
with the international inspectors in Iraq and in fact had sent the inspectors to a long list of
locations at which the inspectors destroyed the program. I was instrumental in that
process.
After 9/11 the US government knew without any doubt that the Iraqi government did not have a
nuclear weapons program, but that mattered not at all to the neocons. As Paul Wolfowitz
infamously told the US Senate "we chose to use the fear of nuclear weapons because we knew that
would sell." Once that decision was made an endless parade of administration shills appeared on
television hyping the supposed menace of Iraqi nuclear weapons. Vice President Cheney and
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were merely the most elevated in position of the many
vendors of the image of the "mushroom shaped cloud."
And now we have the case of Syria and its supposed chemical weapons and attacks. After the
putative East Gouta chemical attack of 2013, an OPCW program removed all the chemical weapons
to be found in Syria and stated its belief that there were no more in the country. In April of
2017 the US-Russian de-confliction process was used to reach agreement on a Syrian Air Force
strike in the area of Khan Sheikoon in southern Idlib Province. This was a conventional weapons
attack and the USAF had an unarmed reconnaissance drone in the area to watch the strike go in
against a storage area. The rebel run media in the area then claimed the government had
attacked with the nerve gas Sarin, but no proof was ever offered except film clips broadcast on
social media. Some of the film clips from the scene were ludicrous. Municipal public health
people were filmed at the supposed scene standing around what was said to be a bomb crater from
the "sarin attack." Two public health men were filmed sitting on the lip of the crater with
their feet in the hole. If there had been sarin residue in the hole they would have quickly
succumbed to the gas. No impartial inspection of the site was ever done, but the Khan Sheikoon
"gas attack" has become through endless repetition a "given" in the lore of the "constant
Syrian government gas attacks against their own civilians."
On the 4th of April it is claimed that the Syrian Government, then in the process of
capturing the town of Douma caused chlorine gas to be dropped on the town killing and wounding
many. Chlorine is not much of a war gas. It is usually thought of as an industrial chemical, so
evidently to make the story more potent it is now suggested that perhaps sarin was also
used.
No proof that such an attack occurred has been made public. None! The Syrian and Russian
governments state that they want the site inspected. On the 15th of April US Senator Angus King
(I) of Maine told Jake Tapper on SOTU that as of that date the US Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence had not been given any proof by the IC or Trump Administration that such an attack
had occurred. "They have asserted that it did" he said.
The US, France and the UK struck Syria with over a hundred cruise missiles in retaliation
for this supposed attack but the Administration has not yet provided any proof that the Syrian
attack took place.
I am told that the old neocon crew argued as hard as possible for a disabling massive
air and missile campaign intended to destroy the Syrian government's ability to fight the
mostly jihadi rebels. John Bolton, General (ret.) Jack Keane and many other neocons argued
strongly for this campaign as a way to reverse the outcome of the civil war. James Mattis
managed to obtain President Trump's approval for a much more limited and largely symbolic
strike but Trump was clearly inclined to the neocon side of the argument. What will happen next
time?
Colonel W. Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and
U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets). He served in the Department of Defense both as a
serving officer and then as a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service for many
years
The most important part of this article on neocons and their policies is what was never
mentioned: Israel. While superficially the neocons may claim they believe in the Manifest
Destiny of the United States to impose American democracy on other cultures, the truth is
that below the superficial is a deep and unquestioning obedience to further Zionist policies
and the promotion of Israel über alles. Syria is a prime example of this and any article
on U.S. policies regarding regime change or bombing Syria that leaves out a mention of
Israeli influence is all foreplay and nothing else and just about as satisfying.
I understand your point, but Col. Lang's statement of acquired is correct. The USA
"acquired" the Phillipine islands as a result of the treaty ending the Spanish-American war.
There was a following military occupation and war against nationalist rebels, but that
doesn't make his wording incorrect.
The neocons have a right to their opinion and their desired world order, just like anyone
else. What they DO NOT have, is the right to perpetrate WARS OF AGRESSION, which include both
War Crimes an Crimes Against Humanity under its purview, to reach those goals. Under our
Constitution and system of government ONLY Congress is legally authorized to declare war on
another nation. Congress has NOT declared war on the sovereign nation of Syria, there is no
self defense issue here and such an attack has not been approved by the United Nations so, IT
IS NOT UP TO THE PRESIDENT AND SOME GROUP OF HIS ADVISORS.
Those in the military have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution. You are not obligated to
obey obviously criminal orders, in fact you are obligated to defend against all those
violating our Constitution. By God, do your duty.
Where is Congress? They should be making sure that these criminals do not exercise authority
that is reserved to Congress. By not preventing these crimes the military and Congress become
accomplices and accessories to the most heinous crime defined by mankind WAR OF
AGRESSION.
Any and all those in authority who ordered past attacks and or order future attacks are
guilty of WAGING AGGRESSIVE WAR. Any one who assisted in any way are accomplices, and/or
accessories to the crimes and are equally guilty and subject to arrest and prosecution
without time limit. The excuse of following orders will not be accepted.
If the neocons actually carry out the criminal act of "a disabling massive air and missile
campaign intended to destroy the Syrian government's ability to fight the mostly jihadi
rebels," don't be surprised if the Russians and Chinese vaporize the United States.
I have to wonder why, with the known facts of this 2013 attack in the public domain, our
'other IC' never goes there except with the most vague allusions. Here is the 2013 attack in
known detail:
I'm no fan of 'Realpolitik', let the chips fall as they should. In fact, the reality of
2013 should inform us of the reality of 2018, and where to bring the pressure to pop the
abscess – before the abscess becomes WWIII
Great to see Colonel Lang added to the list of Unz writers. His direct expertise and
experience in ME military and intel matters are unsurpassed, and as someone who has been
intentionally excluded from the mainstream media because of his determination to express
inconvenient truths that the powerful would prefer remain unsaid, he fits perfectly into the
Unz mission statement: "A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial
Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media."
After the putative East Gouta chemical attack of 2013, an OPCW program removed all the
chemical weapons to be found in Syria and stated its belief that there were no more in the
country.
Let's recall whilst considering this point that the OPCW is not some anti-American
bureaucracy uninfluenced by US power. Here is what happened to an OPCW leader who crossed the
US neocons:
"We can't accept your management style," Bolton told Bustani in 2002, as Bustani
recounted to The Intercept.
"You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision
by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you," he reportedly continued. After a
pause, Bolton reportedly said, "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New
York."
Bustani was taken aback by Bolton's directness, but did not back down, according to The
Intercept.
Bustani eventually was forced to step down after the US convinced its allies in the
organization to rally against him, according to The Times. He was forced out by a stunning
vote of 48 to 7 and 43 abstentions.
If the OPCW appears to be cooperating suspiciously with US objectives on an issue, that's
credible. The contrary, not so much.
On that note, let's also recall that the OPCW inspected one of the main targets of the
recent US action, claimed by the US and its collaborators to be an active chemical weapons
site, the Barzeh research centre, in 2017:
He said it's "totally incorrect" that chemical weapons were being developed there. "The
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) visited here and didn't report
anything wrong with this place."
.
CBS News looked into the OPCW report from Barzeh and it noted the Syrians had delayed the
visit for security concerns, but didn't find any red flags.
I have long been a fan of Colonel Lang's stand against the current neocon policy in the
Middle East. Here I find the most authoritative account of the thinking behind the Syrian
disaster I have seen.
I am still puzzled by the support given by our European and UK politicians to this
destructive policy. Is it merely a matter of catching the crumbs from the neocon's table? Our
politicians surely can't think they're exceptional too. Though in a way one hopes they might
be – I no longer believe that those politicians represent the thinking of the great
mass of people in Europe and the UK.
Lang spelled that out in "Drinking the Koolaid," the 2004 article mentioned in the first
sentence.
He wrote:
" . . .single-minded intensity in pursuing his goals was nothing new for [Douglas]
Feith. In July 1996, he had been a principal author of a study prepared for Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This paper advocated abrogation of the Oslo accords and the
launch of a new regional balance-of-power scheme based on American-Israeli military
dominance with a subsidiary military role for Turkey and Jordan . The study was
produced by the "Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies" (IASPS), a
Jerusalem-based Likud-party-linked think tank, and was called "A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm." In it, Feith and company wrote,
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by
weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own
right -- as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."
The study-group leader was Richard Perle . Other members of the team included
Charles Fairbanks Jr., a longtime friend of Paul Wolfowitz since their student days
together at the University of Chicago; and David Wurmser , an American Enterprise
Institute Middle East fellow, and his wife, Meyrav Wurmser , who headed the
Washington, DC office of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Her boss in
that group was a retired Israeli intelligence officer, Yigal Carmon.
On July 8, 1996, Richard Perle presented the "Clean Break" document to Netanyahu, who was
visiting Washington. Two days later, the Israeli prime minister unveiled the document as
his own regional foreign-policy design in a speech before a joint session of the U.S.
Congress.
Regulars on Unz forum regularly mention "A Clean Break," but noting the "regional
balance-of-power scheme based on American-Israeli military dominance with a subsidiary
military role for Turkey and Jordan, " and given the amount of money and military aid US
taxpayers provide to Israel, why is this group hiring, training and arming "moderate rebels"
to "foil Syria's regional ambitions" rather than carrying out the mission
themselves?
Also, and based on comments by US Congressman Steven Russell (R-OK) (among others) in
appearances on C Span, where praise is lavished on Jordan's king Abdullah, it appears Jordan
is still on board the aging ship Clean Break , tho Turkey is threatening mutiny.
The same actors -- including the sociopathic Michael Ledeen– of this neocon cabal
have been reading the same script from the run-up to war with Iraq
to the fulfillment of their obsession with attacking Iran:
Notice that fifteen years on, the neocon criminal gang has added new, younger members,
i.e. Richard Goldberg and Michaela Dodge. Goldberg is fanatically pro-Israel from his Jewish
day school primary school to his anti-BDS activities in Illinois government and anti-Iran
achievements in US senate.
Disagree because Jimmy Dore made a mistake in heaping so much praise on Sache without
knowing who he was. In my opinion, Jeffrey Sachs's appearance on MSNBC is a smokescreen, political cover to
exonerate the Deep State, banister predators and Israel firsters from complicity in the
destruction of Syria. Sachs was a leading actor, together with George Soros, Paul Wolfowitz and Jonathan Bush,
brother-in-law of the late, sainted Barbara Bush, in the Rape of Russia in the Yeltsin
years.
Our southern neighbors are the largest threat to the US than any Middle Eastern State.
I will continue to contend to drop the label "neoconservative" because it is inaccurate.
What we have are those who desire intervention for political and mercantilism *economic"
ambitions -- interventionists.
-- -- -- -- -- -- –
" I was often told by leading neocon figures that the Muslims and particularly the Iraqis
had no culture worth keeping and that once we had created new facts, (a Karl Rove quote)
these people would quickly abandon their old ways and beliefs as they sought to become
something like Americans. This notion has one major flaw. It is not necessarily correct.
Often the natives are willing to fight you long and hard to retain their own ways. In the
aftermath of the Spanish-American War the US acquired the Philippine Islands and sought to
make the islands American in all things."
I am unclear why you are equivocating here. It is entirely incorrect as demonstrated
throughout the region repeatedly.
True. I love Col. Lang's blog and have followed it for years now. He's really good at
military strategy, and–as a ME specialist–is very helpful in analyzing and
predicting events in Syria, Iraq, etc. But the main thing that's missing at his blog ('Sic
Semper Tyrannis') is any analysis of Israel's role in this. There's no mention of the Oded
Yinon plan, or the Clean Break memo, or the 'Pearl Harbor-type event' paper. And while Lang
is very good at pointing out the absurdity of Washington's statements relative to reality,
he's not so good at untangling propaganda from what really motivates the highest-level
people who are behind all of this . Hint: it's not 'democracy promotion'.
I wonder if the neocons have any idea about forward.
Their forward for me is just world domination, that what Franklin Roosevelt already tried,
but what failed miserably. In 1946 the Soros then, Bernard Baruch, in vain pleaded for a world government, that is,
the USA governing the world.
Stalin and Mao tse Tung had other ideas.
We now have Putin, the Chinese government, India, Iran, IS, the other BRICS countries, I
think the majority of Muslims, most S and Middle American countries, with other ideas.
Even on German sites debate exists on the continuing USA occupation.
Soros' conflict with Hungary is there for anyone to see.
Fool Macron states that the EU must have more power, to destroy increasing
nationalism.
He does not see that with more EU power nationalism rises.
Shortly before the Brexit referendum someone in Britain said 'they even interfere with vacuum
cleaners'.
You're just wasting your nerves, and time. Just looking at what is done rather than what is
being said, I see the world geopolitically moving in a splendid direction, with practically
enlightened leaders in the major three countries. I see a false flag that had cost no lives,
Syria becoming invincible to both NATO and Israel – a dream come true, I also see
Russia firmly establishing itself on the Med for a first time, a forging of peace between the
two Koreas after 60 years. All those are results to which the White House under Trump
crucially contributes. (*)
In the rest of the world, we can see improvement in the living conditions in most parts of
the world unparalleled in history.
The biggest problem are the European & American chattering and fear-mongering classes,
imperialists and anti-imperialists alike. Surprisingly, they look like two sides of a same
coin. On his website, Mr. Patrick Lang speaks about Mr. Trump, his president, in the most
pejorative terms, while he has the highest praises for Collin Powell, who steadily and
with a pronounced servility served the neocons. It was exactly Mr. Lang that, by serving
Collin Powell, assisted the neocon dominance in the White House, and, among else, the Iraq
disaster. Our greatest enemy demons are those inside ourselves.
(*) Trump's critics want to have their cake and eat it: Trump is wrong because of his
stupendous warmongering, and by being such "a moron" as to be disastrous for his mad
plans. Occam's Razor applied to those two extraordinary observations points to the solid
likelihood they are illusions. Illusion-making would be consistent with what I know about DJT
personally anda fine a tit-for-tat to what the msm do to him. When surrounded by open mouths
of beasts, throw them a bone or two.
The most important part of this article on neocons and their policies is what was never
mentioned: Israel.
Yeah, one has to willfully ignore the overwhelming historical evidence of the perfidious
Jewish cabal dragging TR and his "conscripts" by the nose up San Juan Hill.
If the Neocons would follow the example of (atheist or perhaps actual demon worshipping,
socialist/Marxist, drug addict, bisexual) Jones and his main female inner circle and its
largely black male inner circle of enforcers and also drink the kool-aid and die, then we'd
be happy they were making a batch.
Trump has made a complete mess of this and "next time" thus inevitably means something
much more solid. He has dug himself deeper into the Russiagate hole and there's only one
way out. Since Putin is totally bogged down in Syria, there's no hurry on "next time". All
Putin can do is sit and wait for it to happen. Trump will probably have to act before the
midterms.
I think this whole charade served another purpose. And Nikki Haley's comments added to it
("we will never be friends with Russia and will we smack Russia whenever we want"). It
allowed the Russians to start thinking the unthinkable. Unleashing the nuclear genie and
using MAD to end the madness. I believe it will create a ramping up of nuclear forces in
Russia. I don't believe the option was really on the table until the false flag and the
completely irrational and unhinged response from the West. Preceded by the other ludicrous
Skripal affair which the U.S. and other Western countries accepted as true and evicted
Russian officials based on it. I think in the final hours before the missile strikes of last
Friday it was a somber mood among Russian military planners and there was a a begrudging
willingness to consider the unthinkable nuclear option. Now I think it is fully on the table
and Russian planners will start thinking and visualizing about scenarios and will make its
future use more real and thus much easier to undertake. In fact, merely thinking about and
visualizing about scenarios will create an excitement which will animate their future
decision. If the Punjabi Clemson accounting major, Nimrata Randhawa, is correct and will not
be friends with Russia and smack them whenever "we" want, you'd better get right with God and
live your final days virtuously because the end of the world as we
know it is at hand.
Regarding Barzah/Barzeh, here is the actual OPCW document dated 23 March 2018 referring to
the November 2017 inspection:
In accordance with paragraph 11 of Council decision EC-83/DEC.5, the second round of
inspections at the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities of the SSRC was concluded on 22 November
2017. The results of the inspections were reported as an addendum (EC-87/DG.15/Add.1, dated
28 February 2018) to the report entitled "Status of Implementation of Executive Council
Decision EC-83/DEC.5 (dated 11 November 2016)" (EC-87/DG.15, dated 23 February 2018).
The analysis of samples taken during the inspections did not indicate the presence of
scheduled chemicals in the samples, and the inspection team did not observe any activities
inconsistent with obligations under the Convention during the second round of inspections
at the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities
Interestingly, this document is not particularly easy to find, for some (no doubt
innocent) reason it has not (yet?) been included among the list of "Progress Reports" on the
OPCW site:
Such people, then and now, fervently believe in the Manifest Destiny of the United
States as mankind's best hope of a utopian future and concomitantly in the responsibility
of the United States to lead mankind toward that future. Neocons believe that inside every
Iraqi, Filipino or Syrian there is an American waiting to be freed from the bonds of
tradition, local culture and general backwardness.
So the Neocons want to better the lives of Iraqis, Filipinos and Syrians by "introducing"
them to the American way of life?? – Such kind and well meaning people.
The current US is rather like a cross country trip in bad weather. The vehicle is bogged
down in deep mud, giving the driver and occupants two options 1) Look out the windows and
say, "We're bogged down in deep mud. What are we going to do?" 2) Refuse to look out the
windows and say, "There's something wrong with this vehicle. Can we fix the engine?"
The US as a society, isn't going anywhere until it can face reality, and have an open and
frank public debate about the Israeli/Zionist subversion of US institutions.
Your view is a common myth. Why do people assume the Philippines belonged to Spain, who
could give it away? Anyway, by the time the American Army arrived, there was an established
Filipino government and a large regular army that was running the nation. Just a few tiny
pockets of Spanish troops remained waiting for rescue. After the Americans saved them, they
attacked and invaded the Philippines, fighting the regular Army for over a year until it was
destroyed, then the resulting insurgency. The US military conquered the Philippines beginning
with the bloody "Battle of Manila".
The fact is that Israel and the dual citizen ziocons aka neocons control the U.S. gov and
proof of this is that Israel did the attack on the WTC on 911 and got away with it, and also
did the attack on the USS LIBERTY and got away with that, and numerous other subversive
things that would take a book to document, and got away with it all.
Lang may have been loosely paraphrasing here. The version I'm familiar with is:
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government
bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of
mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon
transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.
The Zionist Entity, the great albatross around America's neck.
In a way it was fine that W. Patrick Lang did not mention the Zionist Entity by name. It's
smart not to mention it all the time as it can be like 'beating a dead horse' among other
things . Not mentioning it directly and just saying Neocon deflects the accusation of the
anti-'S' label but in a subtle manner associates Zionism with Neocons, which can be a more
persuasive way to make the point without screaming, like me (lol), that it's the same
thing.
" administration shills appeared on television hyping the supposed menace of Iraqi nuclear
weapons. Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "
I propose that international politics would be greatly clarified if we were to place a
'CFR' next to the name of every member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
I'm very glad to see Colonel Pat Lang writing for the Unz review.
His own website–Sic Semper Tyrannis– is one of the best, most informative sites
on the internet.
It is "must read" for anyone who wants to follow national security issues, Syria, Ukraine and
beyond.
Lang doesn't mince words or pull his punches. And his analysis is never short of
brilliant.
This is really a great addition for the Unz Review. Good work, Ron and a hearty "Welcome" to Colonel Lang!
"This is what you get when you have too much Jewish influence over opinion. Friedlander
says "regime change never works," but obviously it does, sometimes, like in Japan and
Germany after WWII. "
WWII actions against Japan and Germany were not "regime changes" that "worked," they were
total wars of destruction, conquest and genocide of the German people, in the case of
Germany, which lost ~10 of its pop. while Japan lost ~5%.
Japan has recovered, to a certain extent, probably because Japan's adversary was not Jews.
Germany is still a fully occupied and de-culturalized state. Witness, for example, the
Thompson article where Hindemann is compelled to discuss "Nazis" totally out of context.
"I was often told by leading neocon figures that the Muslims and particularly the Iraqis had
no culture worth keeping and that once we had created new facts, (a Karl Rove quote) these
people would quickly abandon their old ways and beliefs as they sought to become something
like Americans. This notion has one major flaw. It is not necessarily correct."
Only the meanest culture -free bastards can get away with this as a policy statement . It
is millions times worse when someone condones it by saying " It is not necessarily
correct"
That argument rests on assumptions that I consider ugly, a-historical, and
counterproductive. What was done to Germany and Japan -- and to the former Ottoman empire as well as Iran --
from ~1907 'til today, was precipitated by some of the world's greatest psychopaths. They are
still at large. THAT is the problem, not "HBD."
One of the reasons Tom Friedman supplied for his support to Iraq war among many similar
excuses, was the support Saddam offered to the suicide bombers. One of the reason the terrorist one day may think is the support given by the Zionists to
the bombers attacker gentile politicians .
Come to think of it, I mostly agree with this comment: Col. Lang conflated American
operating principle of "Manifest Destiny" with the zionist / neoconservative ideology
(psychopathology).
imo the process is more subtle: Manifest Destiny/Anglos and zionist/neoconservatives share
mythological roots in Abrahamism, which posits that the "chosen" have a lock on truth,
morality and god, and that they have the right and obligation to destroy anyone who fails to
subscribe to that truth and their overlordship of it -- Evangelical Christians and Anglicans
hold this concept fast.
The zionist twist on this is twofold: First, Jews believe they are the ordained by god to
be in charge; Jews have been chosen by god to "teach the world ethics, to drag the rest of
the world kicking and screaming to behave morally." http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/96037069.html
Apparently, some Jews really believe this.
Second, but the larger zionist agenda is to establish Jews as a hegemonic if not global
imperial power from a base in Israel, and they are using USA treasure, political and military
power as its tool to achieve what are, ultimately, Jewish goals.
To be sure, US policymakers, elites, and tens of thousands of ordinary citizens willingly
and/or unwittingly subscribe to a similar predatory and dominating agenda. But if (when?)
Jewish zionists achieve their goals, US will be discarded like toilet paper.
It's useful to recognize that the early leaders of the zionist movement -- Herzl, Nordau,
Pinsker and others -- recognized early on that Jews needed the support of a major power to
achieve their goals, and solicited that support from the German kaiser, the Ottoman sultan,
and the British.
When Chaim Weizmann's activities to gain British support were successful, the same zionist
Jews who had earlier petitioned Germany and Ottoman turned violently against those
same powers and brought about their destruction. Germany's destruction was maneuvered in
short order; the destruction of the Ottoman empire successor states has taken longer.
there are plenty of interventionists on the press for democracy and "capitalism" as cause
for stabilizing regions that are not Jews or all that active in Zionists policies.
The desire to regime change in North Korea and parts of Africa are not all that beneficial
to Zionist ambitions. I am not all convinced that Israel is a democracy. But it's clear that
neither Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan are going to raving democratic capitalist states –
every. Muslim faith precludes such a system. even if said states did embrace democracy --
there is no evidence and would in all likelihood not reflect what exists in the US. Because
what exists in the US is founded on a particular history and environment and inter-relational
dynamics.
The grand narrative they advance would be attractive as policy even minus the existence of
Israel.
-- Cutting off nonsense at the pass: I do think Israel has a right to exist. –
Ah, you want me to propagandize for your preferred positions. You want me to scream every
day that the JEWS did it. You are supposed to be able to read between the lines and understand
the truth of things. You are more of sa simpleton than I had thought. You should stay off my
blog.
There was neither regime change nor unconditional surrender in Japan.
Germany was destroyed, physically and politically.
Indoctrination of the Germans with their guilt for two world wars, and the murder of six
million jews, goes on to this day.
But even this indoctrination is crumbling.
Many Germans do not see how the country they live in, that should just have a defensive army,
cooperates in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
Many Germans see how the poor jews who survived the holocaust treat the Palestinians.
Germany now is going to buy Predators:
Okay, Sachs has corpses in his closet. And yes, Dore is dopey. (Sachs has been on MSNBC
many times. It was no mistake.) But, IMO, take gold where you find it . limited hangout or
not.
If your adversary speaks some truth, that doesn't make it a lie. Plus, you're not going to
get every angle covered n every clip. The fact that he called out US covert fomentation of
regime-change in Syria makes this golden.
Here's the clip without Jimmy Dore's interruptions, only 5 min.
If you split the difference between two extremes, you end up pleasing no one and being
attacked by both sides. Democracy is a flower that smells sweet and ends up in the pipe of
every crackpot loon in history. In this world, facts and reality matter. Ideology is the
shortcut that retards use to move the masses towards easy solutions that make life hard.
Blood and religion form bonds. Ideas just make the stupid angry and the smart embrace
theories and abandon reliable methods. New ideas can be beneficial or they can be fair, they
rarely can be both. Without winners there are no losers. Unless you benefit from work, there
is no incentive to do it.
There are no simple solutions. There are no complex problems. Problems can always be
simplified by division and parsing. Solutions can only be simplified to avoid the hard facts
and avoid actually solving them.
What has any of this have to do with the subject? These are the things you need to bring to
the table.
Discussing this issue will lead to nothing but overly emotional hype and obfuscation. Using
the above can stop the endless appeals to emotionalism that carries the masses away from
facts.
I'll say to you what I say to others. I beat up the Zionists both here and in Israel all
the time but I am not going to say that all Jews are responsible for the ills of the world.
As for the neocons their agenda is much larger than just Zionism.
I am still puzzled by the support given by our European and UK politicians to this
destructive policy. Is it merely a matter of catching the crumbs from the neocon's table?
Our politicians surely can't think they're exceptional too.
Well clearly the US's European satrapies don't share directly in the US updated Manifest
Destiny idea, but the US sphere elites in general are fully indoctrinated in the universalist
ideology of internationalist social-liberalism and "democracy"-uber-alles (where "democracy"
– whether in Republican, constitutional monarchic or other form – is in reality a
kind of managed gerrymander to keep the established and US-favoured elites safely in control
and ensure "populists" are excluded by any means necessary), and sees itself as on a mission
to promote the spread of US style liberal (managed) "democracy" throughout the world (except
where it's currently inconvenient to push it too hard for reasons of temporary expedience,
such as in places like Saudi Arabia). There might well be a psychological component akin to
Stockholm Syndrome, whereby people like Blair, Macron etc see the power of the US and the US exceptionalist ideology over their countries, know they are subordinate to it, and seek to
internalise a wider version of it for themselves so that they can tell themselves that when
they are serving Washington's objectives and profiting handsomely thereby, they are actually
doing it for their own noble ideals.
Then of course, human beings being human, there are also other self-serving motivations
underlying the idealist pretext – collaboration for personal gain with the
jewish/Israeli lobby that is hugely powerful in the UK and Europe as well as in the US,
military-industrial types wanting to boost the status and budgets of the military, etc. These
are the real motivations, as opposed to the legitimising pretext that is the supposedly noble
ideal of American exceptionalism or internationalist social liberalism.
Lately the British regime's enthusiasm for the interventionist project seems to be greater
even than that of the US regime, for instance.
The American Empire is facing a historical junction: does become a mercenary putative
force for Zionist Israel or Will the USA priorize its own NATIONAL interests over Israeli.
The prize of becoming a Zionist surrogate will mean the progressive deterioration of the
American empeirein the Middle East, and the world. America faces severe national debt,
decaying infrastructure, and internal social fragmentation. On the other hand Israel is
poised to become the ENERGY hub for the European, African, Asian economies,without Israeli
OIL supply lines all those economies will be paralyzed. Furthermore American blind,almost
irrational support for Israel will mean more dangerous terrorists attacks and more
frequent..The Trump presidency is in fact a Neocon presidency, the democratic decision making
(war) process is dead, and this Syrian war means that it doesn't matter whom iselected
president ultimately AIPAC, Israel, make the final decisions.
I don't know if anyone outside US believes so called "theoretical background"of the neocons
that they think US is the pinnacle of the human civilization that they want to export their
model to the other places in the world, etc. This is so absurdly stupid is that it is hard to
believe anyone would buy it. All of what they do just talks volumes about what they care for:
money and power; the rest, as can be understood from their lousy "philosophy", are just
details.
I also think that their affection to Israel is fake. People in the power positions do not
have such dispositions. I am sure there is some genuine idiots among US political class who
buys what they actually say but most of them just ride the tide while it is useful for them.
I am sure that once Israel loses its usefulness for the ones who actually wield power inside
US political class, Israel would also be trashed just like Arab countries they destroyed.
Don't assume US neocons are calling all the shots. It was Sarkozy (goaded by Zionist
Bernard Henri Levy) took the lead to attack Libya. And at least some believe London is still
the core of Imperialist aggression.
Yesterday, for the first time, a Russian general pierced this lie on RT when he stated
that there was proof that the UK was behind the well-orchestrated and completely staged
"gas attacks" in Douma.
Yes, you read that right, he said the UK. Not the US, not Israel, not Saudi Arabia, but
the UK. Those of you familiar with my writing know that I am constantly pointing my finger
at the City of London for the lies, deception, and wars which dominate the headlines of
their propaganda rags."
"Is it merely a matter of catching the crumbs from the neocon's table? "
-- Correct. The current breed of opportunists operating without any kind of responsibility
makes the international corps of political whores-in-charge. These politicians look at the Blairs (a $100 million fortune) and Cheney & Bush (both getting richer with every day)
and they know that the opportunisms, however criminal, will be rewarded by the "deciders."
The incompetent and sycophantic politicians in the EU/UK governments have zero regards for
their citizenry. We can be absolutely sure that there are no idealists among the leading UK
politicians in power.
To believe that American ruling class (which is heavily zionized) has any idealistic
motivations instead of a rabid drive for money and power is an illusion. The majority of the
US politicians are committed to the criminal enterprises, whether local or global, when the
enterprises promise a gesheft, which is the only criterion.
OK.
I understand the basic thing you are saying in #69. I don't get your bit about HBD being the reason regime change won't work wrt Arabs.
WHY will regime change "not work w/ Arabs" ? Is it because Arab states have fewer and less
complex political structures and institutions? That surely does not apply to Iran, but then
Iran is not Arab (tho many Arabs are in the Iranian population. Thus, Iran is already a more
complex culture than USA/Europe is willing to be).
I cannot buy the notion that Arabs as Arabs are biologically capable of lesser
civilizational attainment -- different, maybe, but it takes an exceptionalist to claim that
civilization A is superior to civilization B, for solely biological reasons.
Reading the Wikipedia article on Timber Sycamore, I'm struck by the significance of Sachs'
omission; TS is a US program, but the overall effort it's a part of is more of a Sunni Arab
project than an American one. Saudi Arabia is providing more money and weapons, Jordan is
hosting the effort, Qatar gives money, etc; it's a US-backed Sunni program.
I'm talking about the moral component; I think our Zionist interventionist policies are
stupid, not in American interests, and really only serve Zionist interests. but it's not
really "our" mess, as Sachs states, so much as a Sunni/Zionist mess.
Glad you made that distinction, between zionists and neocons.
Zionism is just about the most complex -ism on the planet.
Neocons are just what they say they are: Trotskyites in Beltway drag. Trotskyites
dominated the Jerusalem Conference in 1979 when GWOT was birthed; G H W Bush did doula
duty.
I wonder what the linkage is between Jabotinsky and Trotsky? Both are revolutionaries,
both advocate violence. Jabotinsky picked up on that change in Jewish behavior from
petitioning from a posture of subservience– shtadlones – to demanding,
with arrogance; Netanyahu is his worthy acolyte.
Neocons have some genuine psychopaths among them -- the world would be a better place if
an ice axe were wielded in Ledeen's vicinity.
It's consistent with what Ronen Bergman told Brian Williams http://www.nbcnews.com/video/rock-center/46318982#46318982 "Israel has long used assassination against its enemies, "hoping that by taking out
individuals, they can alter, change the course of history,"
It would be really nice if it were possible to "put this tired, tattered old straw man to
bed", but it is not likely to happen. The radical Zionists immediately use criticism of
Israel to conflate criticism of Zionism with anti-Semitism. This is made far easier for them
by the confusion around "Jewishness" that is deliberately (and conveniently, for their
purposes) cultivated; is being a Jew a racial thing, a religious thing, a cultural thing
regardless of the individual Jew's adherence to and practice of the tenets of Judaism? This
ambiguity opens the door for claims that criticisms of the excesses of radical Zionism are at
root leveled against all Jews regardless of their actual beliefs, political behaviors,
and their self-perception regarding their roles in the life of the nation. Of course, true
anti-Semites do in fact hold all Jews responsible for the actions of rabid Zionists, so
everybody "wins".
Except for real flesh and blood Jews, who are individuals with their own agency. My oldest
friend is a Jew, I work with Jews, I make classical music with Jews. So I will never buy the
blanket condemnation of Jews qua Jews. Do I wish that more American Jews would
distance themselves from and be more critical of the "professional Jews" who are in
leadership roles at radical Zionist organizations? Yes, but I have some sympathy for why this
does not happen. As a historically disparaged minority, albeit with some reasons for that
status, the reluctance is self-enforcing; there is a disincentive to talk smack on your
"community" for fear of the ostracism, and reputational and career damage that might follow
(there is no reasoning with one-issue fanatics, after all).
Look at how blacks who lodge criticism of the behaviors of some in their community
make out. Not too well, even when the criticisms are justified, and the ills perpetuated by
these criticized behaviors work to the detriment not only of individual blacks, but also to
the perception of blacks in general in the wider society.
So I think that Col. Lang is justified in his refusal to tar all Jews with the sins and
excesses of some portion of that community. This seems to me to be intellectually and morally
correct. Certainly it serves to help put the criticisms of NeoConservatism out there while
yet insulating him to a degree from the blanket charges of anti-Semitism. And indeed, the
NeoCons are not strictly radical Zionists, and some among them have other motivations
behind their actions.
Short answer, F,UK were the world's leading imperial powers before WWII and seek to
leverage American military and financial power to restore some degree of imperial power. The
Atlantic Charter and the UN Charter were bitter pills for the old empires. France sought to
override the UN Charter by force in Vietnam and Algeria, but lacked the wherewithall.
Britain, France, and Israel sought to override it by force in the 1956 Suez Crisis until
Daddy Ike told them that it wasn't cool. The umbrella of American power is their best
remaining means of re-establishing imperial power. It puts the onus on the US for violations
of international law, but promises them some restoration of imperial power in MENA.
Looking at the parade of toads that have occupied the White House in recent years, I have
more and more respect for Eisenhower's balls in the 1956 crisis. Such a move by an American
President seems unimaginable today.
Neocon-run Twitter took out Red Elephants account.
Twitter bans Red Elephants but lets CNN have many accounts. Twitter favors Official
Lies of the Conspiratorial Deep State against Speculative Dissent of Free
Thinkers. PC is War against ASK SPEECH. We are not supposed to ASK questions of the Globalist
Power.
According to Rules of Political Correctness, ASK SPEECH is not FREE SPEECH. Don't you dare
ASK Questions. Just accept the Answers provided by Ministry of Propaganda or MSM that
colludes with Deep State of NSA, CIA, FBI, Wall Street, and Hollywood. PC says we should
Ass-kiss than Ask Questions.
World is divided between Askingers and Ass-Kissers. Those who ask questions of the power
and those who ass-kiss the power. Unsurprisingly, most people in power got there by
ass-kissing and being ass-kissed. We must ASK WHY.
"Making the world safe for democracy" was the sales pitch for preserving the F, UK empires
long before there was Israel. That effort was driven largely by American Blue Blood bankers
who had risky investments in the UK war effort. American Jews were suspected of loyalty to
the Kaiser because they loathed the Russian Tsar.
Hillary Mann Leverett, (looking very sharp), Michael Patrick Flanagan, Don DeBar.
CrossTalk on US Foreign Policy: Aggressive Posture
"It doesn't matter who the president is. It doesn't matter which party controls the White
House. One can easily ask the following question: Is Trump's time in office serving George W.
Bush's third term or Barack Obama's third term? The neocons are firmly in the saddle."
It is much better to view this issue in ideological terms as neocons and neoliberalas and
remnant of paleoconservatives and News Dealers.
Notable quotes:
"... Jews are a powerful voice but they are, by and large, not in the decision-making seat. Why do you absolve Trump, Haley, Pence, Bolton, etc.? Maybe they are "brainwashed" by the Jews? Well maybe the Jews are "brainwashed" too? ..."
Today, America's Big Jews and Little Jews bear responsibility for this sad situation
– end of story.
That is simply ignorant and racist. Most of the Senate is not Jews, the President is not a
Jew, the Secretary of Defense is not a Jew, and the vast majority of general aren't Jews. Yet
they are all going along with this "bomb Syria" thing, with a few exceptions – one of
them being Bernie Sanders, a Jew.
Jews are a powerful voice but they are, by and large, not in the decision-making seat.
Why do you absolve Trump, Haley, Pence, Bolton, etc.? Maybe they are "brainwashed" by the
Jews? Well maybe the Jews are "brainwashed" too?
I don't see how you get to selectively blame one group and absolve others except via
ignorant, counterproductive and stupid racism.
By the way, Jerry Brown is a huge advocate of open borders and a primary contributor to
it. Is he a Jew too?
It's fair and honorable to point out the Jewish role in these affairs, but it is just as
unfair and dishonorable to not only ignore, but try to bury, the non-Jewish role in these
affairs.
I agree with "think peace" – but the non-Jews Trump, Pence, Ryan, Haley, Pompeo,
etc. are anything but peaceful. I don't see any Jewish guns to their head, so they are 100%
responsible for their own actions. Why do you excuse them? Hmmm?
The Zioncons have got Trump by the balls through their pitbull Robert Mueller and poodle Rod
Rosenstein. I despise Alan Dershowitz as he is a major Zionist but I agree with him when he
said Jeff Sessions needs to unrecuse himself, fire Mueller and Rosenstein. Trump's hands are
tied. If he fires any of these 3 clowns, both the DNC and GOP will immediately try to impeach
him. It's time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, unrecuse himself, fire the pitbull and the
poodle, and start immediate investigation into Mueller, Rosenstein and their collusion with
Clinton on Uranium One.
I was one of Jeff Sessions' biggest supporters, complained loudly when Trump wanted to
fire him. Now I wish I hadn't. Trump was right and should've fired him. He's easily the
weakest, most worthless AG. The biggest case is swirling around him threatening to kill off
everything that Trump wanted to do, and he's doing absolutely nothing to help the man who
hired him.
According to Wikipedia's article on him, Larry Silverstein built 7 World Trade Center,
then in January 2001 bought the entire WTC complex from the Port Authority of NY & NJ,
then "After a protracted dispute with insurers over the amount of coverage available for
rebuilding World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, a series of court decisions determined
that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable and settlements were reached with the insurers in
2007.[21]" It says nothing about his receipt of funds from the collapse of #7, which was
surely a controlled demolition that he ordered, so that he had to have known in advance and
planned for the 9/11 attacks -- on the taller buildings, 1 & 2. But foreknowledge doesn't
necessarily mean that he planned the 9/11 attacks, nor that he financed them -- far less that
the Mossad did the attacks.
If the 19 fanatical Sunnis who did 9/11 did it, and some people (such as here) think that
Israel financed them, or ordered them, then people can believe anything, but mere
foreknowledge doesn't necessarily mean causation. All of the actual evidence, thus far
released, indicates that the Sauds, working with George W. Bush, planned the attacks, but
that Bush demanded deniability and therefore instructed Condoleezza Rice not to let George
Tenet in during the final days to tell him the details so that action to prevent it would be
able to be taken.
If you google just the three words (no quotation-marks) "zuesse sauds 9/11″ you can
see the articles, which link through to the base evidence, all of which implicates the Sauds,
and none of which implicates Israel (though my linked article on Israel as the hypothesis
does discuss and demolish 'evidence' that Israel did it).
Sir, You are shredding your own credibility here. The more anyone looks into the lead up
to 9/11 and the events following, the more one has to conclude that Israel was behind it.
Sure, there were others who played minor roles but you can only see things as you say you do
by selectively excluding certain incriminating facts because taken all together, Israel did
it.
A cursory understanding of physics reveals the truth of the statement in that short video
clip that if one building was wired for demolition, all three were. This was a large, costly
and sophisticated undertaking so who had access? Who supervised the security of the
buildings? How many of the names one comes across suddenly abandoned homes and businesses and
returned to Israel after the event? Who was able to quash earlier, more accurate reports and
organise the media chorus of the fake narrative in time for the evening news broadcasts? The
list is long indeed, I have listed but a small fraction of indicators that Israel did indeed
do it.
Did you make this up while on the toilet or while keyboarding your UNZ BS?
W was the one NOT in the loop. Too dumb to trust. The yehudi Saudis do what they are
told.
The evidence implicating the Sauds would consist of lies. Like the 'evidence' implicating
Assad to chemical attacks if such even occur.
Few Saudis and 9-11: Wolfowitz al Saud, Zelikow al Saud, Feith al Saud, Wurmsers al Saud,
Libby al Saud, Zakheim al Saud, Chertoff al Saud. Just a very few.
UUUge mistake, Jimmy Dore; you should have done some homework before you elevated Jeffrey
Sachs to truth-teller status. Spend a few minutes with The Saker -- William Engdah interview:
http://thesaker.is/the-rape-of-russia-saker-blog-exclusive-interview/
Sache is not trustworthy.
Sachs worked closely w/ Soros to plunder USSR/ FSU. His job now is to establish
Jews/Israel/banker class, Deep State of which he's a part, and think tankers as absolutely
innocent of any complicity in the destruction of Syria. He's most likely in it up to his
eyeballs.
"Harvey" Oswald didn't shoot anyone -- his denial was perfectly plausible, and his murder
at Ruby's hands was a desperate stopgap measure to shut him up before he started naming his
handlers who had framed him. Badly.
They never planned to let "Harvey" survive to see an actual trial, because of the lack of
evidence against him, and therefore the evidence of a high-level conspiracy would then be so
obvious.
No trial, no test of the evidence against him.
"Harvey" was exactly what he claimed to be -- he was the patsy.
"... The Russians have clearly prepared for such an attack ever since the Shayrat strike the very powerful Russian radars in Syria are capable of tracking any flying object and the Syrian SAM batteries are networked into that system and are fed that radar data in real time ..."
"... As for the Pantsir yes this point defense system is the perfect tool to shoot down cruise missiles it is the successor of the Tor SAM system that was designed specifically to shoot down T-hawks ..."
"... The older SAMs did not perform badly according to the Russian MoD assessment the S125 is a 1950s era system that the Serbs used to down two F117s and an F16 much more difficult targets than a T-hawk ..."
If taken at face value, one detail that stands out is that the Russians' original boast
that the missile attack was thwarted by "old Soviet-era air defense" is not true. 47 of the
71 intercepts they claim were done by modern Pantsir and Buk systems that Syria purchased
around 2010. The older systems had noticeably worse performance than the modern systems.
The other interesting tidbit there is that the Russian General claims that "the survey of
this and other facilities revealed neither this number of ammunition fragments nor the
corresponding number of craters". In other words, as FB states above, that even though 25
missiles hypothetically got through in the attacks on Barzeh and Djaramani, the damage on the
ground does not correspond to that many missiles.
' I don't believe that "the fix was in" because the runways of major military airports
were targeted. There was no guarantee that the Pantsir and Buk's would be as effective as
they were. I don't see Putin happily agreeing to have those airport runways put out of
commission. a bit of deconfliction, yes, a total charade, no '
I agree with this on the basis of sound logic. There is no way that we can know the facts
about what kind of communuication and coordination [if any] took place behind the scenes. But
we have a lot of inconsistencies in the US narrative first we were told that eight targets
were going to be hit then, post facto, it was just three.
One of the sites the Barzeh research center in Damascus area was supposedly hit 76 times
this on an area of about one acre [half a hectare...5,000 square meters]. Looking at high
quality pictures of the site after the attack it is clear that adjacent buildings only meters
from the targeted site are undamaged as are light poles surrounding the whole complex as well
as stands of pine trees again only meters away
The idea that 76 450kg high explosive warheads detonated here is visibly absurd and is
quite easy to analyze technically using accepted and authoritative engineering methods for
explosive effects
I consider it proven beyond doubt that there is no chance whatsoever that 76 missiles hit
that site I doubt it would even be one tenth of that
And it is also logical to ask why would you even launch 76 missiles on a one acre complex
that has three buildings a single T-hawk can take out a building or even a ship as seen on
the pentagon show off video below
The answer is obvious of course no military professional would send 76 missiles on one
small target that is simply bullshit
So that brings us to the next logical question if they did not send 76 missiles at Barzeh
where did they go ?
Well that's what makes the story of airfields targeted but the missiles intercepted
believable
Let's remember we are dealing with Proven Liars here everybody knows that recetly
Phil Giraldi had an article here titled 'Liars Lying About Everything '
The few pictures I've seen of interception attempts were all too high in the sky to be
targetting a TLAM or a Storm Shadow which are ground following missiles. They need to fly
high enough to avoid power lines but that's it. (Apparently in Iraq 1, hitting power lines
was the main mechanism by which they and most lost US Marine Corps helicopters were destroyed
).
The professional military people knew what was at stake in limiting the damage engendered by
the war crime engaged in to placate the neocon power structure. Since armageddon was at
stake, even according to Mattis's own statements, he apparently was able to rein Trump in to
some degree, according to this contribution and more clearly from some other reports. We now
also have increasing proof that the "chemical weapons" thing was a provocation, though the
yankee regime's worldwide propaganda wurlitzer keeps playing the same nihilist song. I agree
with others who have concluded that if Mattis is eliminated, that is when we will have to
worry. Presumably, for now, since the normal secrecy is combined with a laudable profound
survival instinct, the military will keep a lid on any investigations this generates. If not,
as Whitney has indicated, we are in deep shit.
What exactly do you know about the flight characteristics of cruise missiles ?
Over on the other thread you first tried to argue that the Barzeh site I discussed in my technical
analysis was not the site of the missile strike
Then when I provided a sat image released by the pentagon and published in newspapers
around the world confirming definitively that the site I analyzed in my original
comment was indeed the site of the missile strike you said this
' I didn't say it was a fake picture. I said it was a demolition site. The same site
being demolished as a conjecture. The best alternative at the moment is that the
payloads were not 450 kg '
I then pointed out to you the physical fact of flight that removing 450 kg from the
nose of a winged cruise missile would shift its center of gravity in the aft direction and
make the missile unflyable
Not being able to argue with the laws of physics you then suggested that the 450 kg
warhead was replaced by an equal weight with less explosive power since we had already
established that the lack of damage to nearby structures was inconsistent with 76 claimed
T-hawk hits on that small site
At which point I mentioned that your statements were on a level with the Prince Charles
infamous 'tampon' phone call hence your new nickname Tampon Phil
Now here you are again just asking for more punishment
You may also wish to consult a topographical map of
Syria to see some of the mountains that these cruise missiles would have to fly over to
reach those inland targets
You will note the north to south mountain chain along the coast including the
Anti-Lebanese Mountains that rise to 10,000 ft
My discussion of the T-hawk technical characteristics in that link above includes such
crucial parameter as wing loading and thrust to weight ratio which determine this flight
vehicle's climb rate and turn rate
' The few pictures I've seen of interception attempts were all too high in the sky to be
targetting a TLAM or a Storm Shadow which are ground following missiles.
They need to fly high enough to avoid power lines but that's it '
And how do they get over those mountains Tampon Phil ?
Are they ground following there too ?
And also please let us know the scaling method you used to determine the height of those
missiles from photos that would be helpful
Yes there is no question that the US would have targeted Syrian airfields apparently a few
did get through at one airfield but the others were fully rejected
Laymen who know nothing about aircraft or missiles do not understand the complexities and
detail involved they simply accept the brochure 'information' presented on wikipedia and such
about the capabilities of such flight vehicles
This does not shed any light on a fascinating and important subject important because now
we have had some air combat between US and Nato airpower [Ship, sub and air launched cruise
missiles vs. Russian air defenses]
Clearly the Russians won there was not a single death on the Syrian side the US did
destroy a few buildings most notably the Barzeh research center in the Damascus area
We can tell the Russians won this round because the US is claiming completely ridiculous
stuff that they launched 76 T-hawks with a combined TNT tonnage of nearly 40 tons yet little
pine shrubs standing 20 feet away are completely intact
I mean how stupid ?
Clearly the US is claiming such a high number of attacks on the three buildings that they
did hit because they failed to hit those airfields and we know that they failed to hit those
airfields because if they did we would have satellite imagery being boastfully released
You can tell as much by the information that is withheld as you can by the information
they give out
Now for some basic technical facts cruise missiles are not hard to shoot down once they
are spotted but the hard part is spotting them because they are small and thus do not bounce
back strong radar reflections
They can fly close to terrain although this is not always the case as I have
explained previously and depends on the ingress route and the type of terrain along that
flight path ie if it is required to fly over mountainous terrain it must fly quite high
In 1999 the Serbs shot down a number T-hawks with their 1950s era Soviet equipment here is
the remains of one T-hawk airframe in the Belgrade Aviation Museum
Once spotted on radar the T-hawks and similar subsonic cruise missiles are sitting ducks
they have no means of evading missile shots either from an air to air missile launched
from a fighter jet or a surface to air missile launched from an air defense battery
A fighter jet relies on a radar warning receiver to alert the crew that it has been
targeted by a missile shot and the crew can instantly commence evasive maneuver which is
basically going into a steep banked turn so as to break radar lock and evade the missile
shot
Cruise missiles have no such RWR and it would be pointless to equipment with such since
they have very poor turning performance
This is due to their very high wing loading which is the ratio of wing area to aircraft
weight a T-hawk weighs about 3,000 lb but has a wing area of only about 10 square feet for a
wing loading of 300 lb/ft^2
That is about three times as high as a passenger jet's wing loading and as much as five
times higher than a fighter jet
Think of wing loading and how it relates to maneuverability by considering a person
carrying a backpack if that person is running and they need to change course having that
extra weight on their back will not let them zigzag like a runner carrying no weight
The same is true for climb performance think of carrying 100 lb in your backpack and
climbing up a set of stairs
The physical laws of flight performance are based on Newtonian Mechanics and cannot be
argued with
The thrust to weight ratio of a cruise missile is about comparable to that of a passenger
jet the thrust of the T-hawks Williams turbofan engine is about 700 lb against a weight of
3,000 lb that is less than 0.25 thrust to weight
A powerful fighter like an F15 will have a thrust to weight ratio of close to unity or
even above ie it's engine thrust is actually equal to or greater than its weight and the
airplane can thus climb straight up like a rocket
So the key in defending against subsonic cruise missiles which fly at about the same speed
as passenger jet, about 500 mph [800 km/hr] is to pick them up on radar
The Russians have clearly prepared for such an attack ever since the Shayrat strike
the very powerful Russian radars in Syria are capable of tracking any flying object and the
Syrian SAM batteries are networked into that system and are fed that radar data in real
time
We also saw in some of those missile intercept videos near the Damascus airport that
Syrian jets were taking off and landing this is because the jets would use their onboard
radar to find the cruise missiles and data link that info back to the SAM batteries
A fighter is easily capable of taking down a cruise missile with an AA shot also but this
all comes down to pilot skill and training something which the SyAAF may not be dealing with
on a regular basis considering their focus on the fight against ground targets in Jihadist
areas
As for the Pantsir yes this point defense system is the
perfect tool to shoot down cruise missiles it is the successor of the Tor SAM system that was designed
specifically to shoot down T-hawks
The older SAMs did not perform badly according to the Russian MoD assessment the S125
is a 1950s era system that the Serbs used to down two F117s and an F16 much more difficult
targets than a T-hawk
The S200 is a huge missile with a 350 km range exceeded only by the latest S400 long range
missile introduced into service only a couple of years ago
It flies extremely fast 2,500 m/s which is about Mach 8 it is even faster than the new
S400 missiles which fly at 2,000 m/s by comparison the USN Raytheon SM6 air defense missile
used on Aegis missile ships flies only at M3.5 about 1,000 m/s
The high speed of the S200 is actually its disadvantage against a slow moving target like
a cruise missile the laws of physics tell us that the faster the vehicle is flying, the
larger its turn radius will be thus the big S200 is not going to do well against cruise
missiles this is not surprising
Overall the Russian MoD version of events is certainly way more credible than the US
version which is full of holes
Looks like it was all about Turkey. "Turkey seems to me to be the swing state here. You cannot isolate Russia without Turkey.
Not only do they uncork themselves form the Black Sea , there will be no NATO fodder with
casualties that no one cares about. Turkey is a big chunk of NATO. This is to sy nothing
about trade. Sanction sound nice and dandy in the US, but in Turkey it wrecks their
economy."
Notable quotes:
"... Suffice it to say, that the information from these US-funded organizations is invariably unreliable. Their sole task is to create a justification for more carnage. ..."
"... In fact, the appointments of warhawks John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to the national security team, suggests that Trump may be planning a major escalation in the near future. The president has aligned himself with a Zionist right-wing fringe who see the conflict as a proxy-war with Iran that must be won in order to establish US-Israeli regional hegemony and maintain a stranglehold on vital resources and pipeline corridors. Trump's missile attack is just a minor skirmish in that much larger war. ..."
"... I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second. ..."
"... I don't believe that "the fix was in" because the runways of major military airports were targeted. There was no guarantee that the Pantsir and Buk's would be as effective as they were. ..."
"... If Trump gets in trouble for a fake missile attack in response to a fake chemical weapons attack that made use of non-existent WMD, then what can I say? ..."
"... Regardless of Trump's ignorance, who still believes in presidents having real power by status of function alone, Obama never mattered neither, the pot-shots were a worthy experiment on how to apply global rule, by global consensus ..."
"... "Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth." ..."
"... Yes, I base my opinion of Trump's loyalties on exactly that. It started with his appointment of Nikki Haley and all the Trumpeteers on ZH chanting "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Just seeing the way his choices of neocons and Goldman Sachs thieves for his inner circle were being defended by people who claimed to have voted for him kept me from defending Trump. ..."
"... Turkey seems to me to be the swing state here. You cannot isolate Russia without Turkey. Not only do they uncork themselves form the Black Sea , there will be no NATO fodder with casualties that no one cares about. Turkey is a big chunk of NATO. This is to sy nothing about trade. Sanction sound nice and dandy in the US, but in Turkey it wrecks their economy. ..."
"... Seems to me that Trump is trying to walk a tightrope here he likely knows the 'chemical' attack is a false flag and his response was designed to appease the zios without actually causing much damage ..."
In short, the attacks accomplished nothing except, perhaps, to temporarily mollify the
warmongering western media and their bloodthirsty puppetmasters in the foreign policy
establishment.
The fact that Trump felt compelled to launch the attacks before the chemical weapons
inspectors from the OPCW had even touched down in Damascus, shows that Washington is not
interested in providing justifications for its criminal aggression. Similar to claims of Russia
hacking the 2016 US elections or the alleged use of toxic nerve agent in the Skripal incident,
the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad was based on the thin gruel of uncorroborated
allegations by jihadist-linked organizations on the ground whose long history of staging
provocative incidents to foment a crisis is part of the public record. We're not going to waste
our time on that nonsense here. Suffice it to say, that the information from these
US-funded organizations is invariably unreliable. Their sole task is to create a justification
for more carnage.
... ... ...
Some readers will remember that Trump tacitly revealed his motivation for the attacks in a
tweat he delivered just days before the incident. Here's what he said on April 11:
"Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia
Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama.
Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No
Collusion, so they go crazy!" The Real Donald Trump
What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin. It's Mueller, the bigwig
Dems and the media that are fomenting this Russphobic hysteria and trying to destroy Trump. And
that's what precipitated the 'wag the dog' scenario that unfolded on April 14th. Trump was
trying to get his enemies off his back by incinerating a few empty buildings in Syria. And, it
almost worked, but now information is beginning to leak-out that could be damaging to both
Trump and his chief lieutenants.
... ... ...
...how does one explain this tidbit from RT:
"Before we took the action, the United States communicated with the Russian Federation to
reduce the danger of any Russian or civilian casualties," (US Ambassador to Russia) Jon
Huntsman said, claiming that "all the targets were linked with the Assad regime's illegal
chemical weapons program."
The US ambassador to Russia said that the US strikes were coordinated with Russia to avoid
a great power confrontation." (RT)
Military analyst Publius Tacitus is even more explicit in a post at Colonel Pat Lang's
website, Sic Semper Tyrannis. He says:
"Russia was told where we were going to strike. Russia in turn warned the Syrians. Both
the Syrians and the Russians evacuated key personnel and equipment from the target sites. Any
claim by the United States that we caused devastating damage or destroyed essential
capabilities is total fantasy." (Trump's big Flop in Syria", Publius Tacitus, Sic semper
Tyrannis)
... ... ...
In any event, we can see that the April 14 missile attacks were largely a symbolic
muscle-flexing exercise that was aimed at pacifying Trump's domestic rivals rather than
punishing Assad for crimes he never committed. (It is worth mentioning that there have been
many credible reports that the US used banned substances in its siege of Raqqa last year.) The
fact that Putin limited his response to a perfunctory denunciation, suggests that Trump
achieved his objectives. (In other words, he avoided WW3) Here's part of what Putin said:
"Russia condemns in the strongest possible terms the attack against Syria, where Russian
military personnel are assisting the legitimate government in its counterterrorism
efforts.
Through its actions, the US makes the already catastrophic humanitarian situation in Syria
even worse and brings suffering to civilians. In fact, the US panders to the terrorists who
have been tormenting the Syrian people for seven years, leading to a wave of refugees fleeing
this country and the region.
The current escalation around Syria is destructive for the entire system of international
relations." (Kremlin, RU)
Putin is right. Washington's support for the Sunni extremists in Syria has prolonged the war
and turned the country into a smoldering wastelands. Unfortunately, it does not look like the
US is going to throw in the towel anytime soon. In fact, the appointments of warhawks John
Bolton and Mike Pompeo to the national security team, suggests that Trump may be planning a
major escalation in the near future. The president has aligned himself with a Zionist
right-wing fringe who see the conflict as a proxy-war with Iran that must be won in order to
establish US-Israeli regional hegemony and maintain a stranglehold on vital resources and
pipeline corridors. Trump's missile attack is just a minor skirmish in that much larger
war.
Prof Emeritus Steve Cohen essentially concurs with your analysis. Tonight Cohen expressed
concern that the national drumbeat against Trump essentially checkmates any efforts to repair
US-Russian relations.
As an aside, UR readers are referred to Robert Fisk's very recent report in the UK
Independent that the purported Syrian gas attack actually arose from artillery-induced
asphyxiation in underground tunnels.
I don't believe that "the fix was in" because the runways of major military airports were
targeted. There was no guarantee that the Pantsir and Buk's would be as effective as they
were. I don't see Putin happily agreeing to have those airport runways put out of commission.
a bit of deconfliction, yes, a total charade, no. This could have quite easily escalated
Why fiasco ?
The effectiveness of anything can only be judged by knowing what the objective was.
Those who want Syria, or/and Assad attacked, most of them, have the idea that something was
done.
Difficult for USA propaganda media to state that Trump did nothing.
Then there now is the fact that Syrian systems are quite capable of resisting missile
attacks.
Possibly Israel will think twice before launching another attack.
So in my opinion, what Trump did is possibly a great success.
If Trump gets in trouble for a fake missile attack in response to a fake chemical weapons
attack that made use of non-existent WMD, then what can I say? It's really Trump himself more
than the neocons who's to blame. His refusal to grow a pair and stand up to Washington will
ultimately be his downfall.
What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin. It's Mueller, the
bigwig Dems and the media that are fomenting this Russphobic hysteria and trying to destroy
Trump. And that's what precipitated the 'wag the dog' scenario that unfolded on April
14th.
It's long past time for Trump to fire Mueller. The fake 'RussiaGate' investigation is over
and didn't find anything actionable. How much longer is Trump going to allow this little
fishing expedition to go on?
Trump was trying to get his enemies off his back by incinerating a few empty buildings
in Syria. And, it almost worked, but now information is beginning to leak-out that could be
damaging to both Trump and his chief lieutenants.
As a candidate, Trump never hesitated to call out the BS in DC. But if, as president, he
goes along with this kabuki-theater, then he deserves what he gets.
Regardless of Trump's ignorance, who still believes in presidents having real power by status
of function alone, Obama never mattered neither, the pot-shots were a worthy experiment on
how to apply global rule, by global consensus. Next to it, Gaza comes to mind, even the South
African government of "natives" see the potential for Boers containment as inspired by Gaza.
Pot-shots, latter Russia moves, Chinese containment attitudes:
By experimenting, science progresses, the science of governing, the size of experiments,
containment, all these goodies that matter and can make for advancements in efficiently,
ruling the human mess into survival. Building data, in a few years, resulting into something
of predictability in a global context, over longer periods of time. More of this dipping into
the chest of tools.
The element to be accented: local experiments, global intent.
"Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and
Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth."
Yes, I base my opinion of Trump's loyalties on exactly that. It started with his
appointment of Nikki Haley and all the Trumpeteers on ZH chanting "keep your friends close
and your enemies closer". Just seeing the way his choices of neocons and Goldman Sachs
thieves for his inner circle were being defended by people who claimed to have voted for him
kept me from defending Trump.
I figured that he was getting support from a pool of neocons and that made him one of
them.
The missile attacks confirmed Israels control over the U.S. gov which was proven by the fact
that Israel did 911 and got away with killing some 3000 Americans. Israel and her ziocons
control the U.S. gov lock stock and gun barrel and are destroying America.
Assad has never used gas attacks on the Syrian people , these attacks were perpetrated by
the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 and NATOs Operation Gladio, these people are satanist war
mongers straight from HELL.
God bless Assad and Syria and Putin and Russia for standing against these satanic forces
that are HELL bent on destroying Syria.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people
believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987)
Turkey seems to me to be the swing state here. You cannot isolate Russia without Turkey.
Not only do they uncork themselves form the Black Sea , there will be no NATO fodder with
casualties that no one cares about. Turkey is a big chunk of NATO. This is to sy nothing
about trade. Sanction sound nice and dandy in the US, but in Turkey it wrecks their
economy.
What a bunch of shite. It just shows that Mike Whitney and his fans have no idea of what
is actually going on behind the scenes, and continue to glom on to the MSM shrieks of Mueller
and Russia, Russia, Russia.
If you believe this had anything whatsoever to do with Mueller then you're a chump and
clearly don't even deserve to be enlightened. I would suggest turning off the CNN, but you're
already infected.
Mueller has been cock-blocked and Trump is in command. The revelations to come from the IG
Report and more are going to be delicious. There will be much wailing and gnashing of
teeth.
The point was to send a message to Assad that the US and it's allies are able and willing to
take action should he try to cross the red line drawn around Saudi Arabia. Once the war winds
down and the Syrian state starts regrouping and rebuilding there's naturally going to be a
payback time against the regional actors who poured so many resources into trying to demolish
the Syrian state. This means Saudi Arabia which is vulnerable in a number of ways. SA is a
huge customer and spends billions in the US and allied countries and is thus under the US
umbrella of protection as a valuable ally. There's bound to be a lot of nervousness in Riyadh
right now so the US must demonstrate a willingness to act militarily to them.
So he's brought NATO to the table regarding funding, is about to solve the greatest
crisis/threat to the world by bringing NK to the table re; Denuclearization, and has plans to
solve the ME situation (which you clearly know nothing about) using the GCC.
Yet he's a feckless, nutless POS.
You seem to be somewhat lacking in judgement. Beyond redemption with your TDS. A crazed
loon.
Did you miss the first part of the IG's report? Do you realize what's to come? Nah, it's
all Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense with your ilk.
Keep it up – you keep us amused with your ignorant thrashing about.
You raise points of doubt and effectively deal with them yourself. Putin would have been
very unlikely to have been involved in any detailed negotiations over targets. These would
have been dealt with by his military commanders. If airfields were targeted then it would
appear details were indeed known to the Syrian defenders. This goes some of the way to
explain the abysmal success rate of the US missiles in this fiasco as Mike Whitney and many
others rightly call it. So a hoax it certainly was and one to compare with the hoax gas
attack in Eastern Ghouta.
Trump is in the pockets of the Zionists, and has become a Zionist because the one thing he
understands is which side his bread is buttered on. To make sense of anything we do in the ME, you only need to ask one question: "What does
Israel want."
It just seems like a very dangerous ploy for a meaningless reward (the natural resources
Syria and strategic importance of Syria are very modest).
Maybe true, except for the fact that Syria, under Assad's leadership serves as a
convenient land route over which sophisticated weapons produced in Iran are delivered to
Hezbollah defense forces in Lebanon. In my opinion, this is the primary reason behind current
US and Israeli efforts being made to destroy Assad. The bottom line is that Israel has been
attacking it's weak neighbors for such a long time, until they simply find it impossible to
live with the reality of being unable to invade Lebanon on the slightest pretext. In addition
and more ominous, Hezbollah's leader Hassan Rouhani has publically stated that Hezbollah
defense forces may eventually extend their protection to the Palestinian people held captive
in the Gaza Strip
This is what tomfoolery looks like- when "I love mah Generals" and you allow them to
"lead the way."
At the same time we have a "three-pete" of the absolutely idiotic accusations that Assad used
chem-WMDs on his own civilians. Everyone that uses the internet can ferret out the truth.
This isn't ten years ago. This is 2018. Doesn't Intel realize how immature they appear? I'm
not only mad as hell, I'm SO disappointed in just how stupid the Government of the United
States appears to anyone with half a brain.
I'm ashamed of the Country I thought I loved.
I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend
Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second.
Seems to me that Trump is trying to walk a tightrope here he likely knows the 'chemical'
attack is a false flag and his response was designed to appease the zios without actually
causing much damage
Iran doesn't want to escalate the situation and give Trump any leverage on Iran deal. Iran
wants to deprive any moral political or legal supports from EU to USA on this.
Trump pulls out. Rest remains same. This will give Iran moral political and legal
authorities to pursue its nuclear program with China and Russia . This will have domino
effects on other areas of these 3 countries – how to conduct business internationally.
So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran. Trump is happy. His base angry. His
enemies can't go after him for few hours or days . Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a
demented rat.
Why are many commenters so excited? Everything is appropriate: fake missile strike in
response to fake chemical weapons use.
That's a good way to put it. Just wish Trump had exercised more restraint in his tweet, he
should not have called Assad a "monster". The real monsters are right here in the US, the
Israel Lobby and the Deep State led by Rod Rosenstein the fucking weasel, and the biggest
monster of them all is right there in the White House with him, Mike Pence, the one who hired
Rosenstein, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton. Pence the Ziocon has been working hard to
subvert Trump since Day 1. He wants to be president.
Judging from German press, Germany really looks like a US colony, not even vassal state.
Notable quotes:
"... She was promoted over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party. ..."
"... Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. ..."
"... Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon brainwashing. ..."
The most interesting aspect of this false response to a false flag attack is the non
participation by Germany. Turkey has one foot in both camps. Germany will be next to turn.
Time is working against Imperial Washington.
Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and
her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party -- she herself lacked both
the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself. She was promoted
over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling
allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party.
Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of
the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on
Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. At the same
time, the "ultra-right" (i.e. common sense) party "Alternative fuer Deutschland" is forever
mired in ridiculous infighting, which regularly escalates just ahead of elections -- funny
how that is. Must be those meddling Russians.
Long story short, hell will freeze over before Merkel decides herself what is for
breakfast, never mind for policy. I wish we could clone Putin and import him.
Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her
party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor. German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of Soros-Neocon
brainwashing.
There is no other explanation for people who are committing slow self-extermination as a
distinct ethnos. Same with the French electorate: they had a chance to elect a true French
patriot and instead chose another globalist weirdo poodle.
Merkel's party has no majority – actually her party's share of the vote is at
historic lows with less than one third (traditionally it was 45-50%). She has moved that
formerly conservative party to the left by co-opting green and welfare agendas of the
competing parties. The other formerly strong party, the Social Democrats, have been reduced
to a status of auxiliaries in an eternal "grand coalition". In spite of infighting, the new
"right-wing" AfD came in third in the last elections.
But of course, as you say, the people's failure to get rid of her is due in large measure
to relentless media brainwashing, they swallow the refugee nonsense because it is
subliminally suggested that it atones for the "holocaust" etc. I don't read a single German
newspaper anymore, the manure is just too depressing.
Militarily subsidised by Nato, Germany spends next to nothing on its own defence and is
keeping wages down even more than usual by importing immigrants, thereby aiding its
deindustrialising of the rest of the EU. Russia is declining in national power compared to
Germany by getting into silly pissing contests with America. Adolf Hitler always said it
would be necessary to sacrifice millions of Germans to make Germany Great. He would approve
of Merkel.
What keeps German wages down, in real terms, is the Euro, not the migrants.
You are correct on the neglect of the armed forces. I have griped about it often, but I
have recently changed my tune. If the forces were indeed up to snuff, this would only cause
the U.S. to "ask" for their deployment in their many endless idiotic wars. Letting the troops
degrade to some sort of war museum on wheels is a sly way of getting out of that –
can't deploy in the short term, sorry, no spark plugs, but will be more than happy to go
along for the next war so I now see this as one of the few things Merkel got right.
"Philip May, husband of the UK prime minister, works for a company that is the largest
shareholder in arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, whose share price has soared since the recent
airstrikes in Syria.
The company, Capital Group, is also the second-largest shareholder in Lockheed Martin -- a US
military arms firm that supplies weapons systems, aircraft and logistical support. Its shares
have also rocketed since the missile strikes last week. . . ."
We have got it: Philip Owen believes religiously in the words of Theresa May, Boris
Johnson, and Gavin Willaimson. And, of course, Blair is a paragon of honesty for Philip
Owen.
What are you doing here, on the Unz Review? -- This is not a ziocon stink-tank source of
(dis)information, and this is not the ziocons-controlled MSM's presstitutes' haven.
You make yourself ridiculous by parroting the MSM "wisdom." Your frustration over the
impending defeat of "moderate" terrorists in Syria affects your reason and amplifies your
rabid hatred of Russia. Don't expect any sympathy for your "victimhood" on this site.
"Porton Down is just one of the Pentagon-funded military laboratories in 25 countries
across the world, where the US Army produces and tests man-made viruses, bacteria and toxins
in direct violation of the UN convention . These US bio-laboratories are funded by the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program–
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union
countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
The Pentagon-funded military facilities are not under the direct control of the host state as
the US military and civilian personnel is working under diplomatic cover. The local
governments are prohibited from public disclosure of sensitive information about the foreign
military program running on their own territory."
– All statements in this article are sourced, unlike the pronouncement of the miserable
puppets Blair, May, Johnson, and Willaimson.
Trump is a typical business tycoon: a clueless moron. Pence is just a weasel. Weasels are
carnivores, but small ones: sometimes they eat, sometimes they get eaten. I hope Pence gets
eaten.
In response to a caller's concern, Oklahoma congressman Steve Russell told the C Span
Washington Journal audience this morning that there was "no danger from a chemical plume"
after missiles struck Syrian chemical plants "because the attack was designed to burn up" the
fumes.
Russell explained that while "Nazis used chemicals in the holocaust." and Russians
deliberately target hospitals and schools with barrel bombs, "no other nation takes as much
care to prevent harm to civilians" as the USA.
The Corrupt U.S. Congress Cheers as the War Industry Steals Billions from the People's
Coffers !
Christian Sorensen | April 13, 2018
"Missile Production Capacity
In February, Newsbud reported on the war industry increasing its capacity to produce
Hellfire missiles.
Capacity to produce other missile types is expanding as well.
On 6 March 2018, BAE Systems received close to $13.7 million to help increase production
capacity of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). With its headquarters in
London, BAE Systems links the U.K. war industry to the United States, effectively
underpinning the 'special relationship' between the two countries.
On 19 March 2018, Raytheon received roughly $7.8 million to improve the production
capacity of AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles. Steps Raytheon might take to increase missile
production include adding more equipment, altering staffing levels, and upgrading its
facilities.
The war industry has been operating at full steam for the past seventeen years. Now, these
contracts tell us, the boardrooms of prominent war industry giants believe there is reason to
produce more Hellfire, APKWS, and Sidewinder missiles. Is it war with Iran? A bigger
offensive against President Assad's forces in Syria? Conflict in Korea?
The U.S. war industry is expecting more sustained, high-tempo hostilities in the near
future. You've been warned."
Iran doesn't want to escalate the situation and give Trump any leverage on Iran deal. Iran
wants to deprive any moral political or legal supports from EU to USA on this. Trump pulls
out. Rest remains same. This will give Iran moral political and legal authorities to pursue
its nuclear program with China and Russia.
This will have domino effects on other areas of these 3 countries -- how to conduct
business internationally.
So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran. Trump is happy. His base angry.
His enemies can't go after him for few hours or days . Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley
has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a demented rat.
At Sec. St. nomination hearing, Pompeo bragged that "we had killed a couple of hundred
Russian contractors." As a former civilian contractor in a war zone, I note that he just put
a target on the forehead of every American contractor working in a war zone. It is now open
season on them. Who will have blood on their hands?
"... "She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's all." ..."
Confused!!! How dare Larry Kudlow suggest Nikki got confused!!!
>White House press secretary Sarah Sanders insisted more sanctions were merely under
consideration. On Tuesday, top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Haley "got ahead
of the curve."
"She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There
might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at
Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had
sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's
all."
Haley, speaking for the first time since the White House dialed back her claims, rejected
the idea that she was confused.
"With all due respect, I don't get confused," Haley said in a statement read by Fox News'
Dana Perino and confirmed by CBS News Tuesday.
#111 and #144. Saud Arabia already have "troops" in Syria, Jaysh al-Islam and the rest of their inbred motley crew. That's
the problem. If that happens, poor Kurds, stuck between rock and a hard place. My bet is that 70% of Saudi troops would defect
to ISIS in no time!
An excellent summary of the whole Syrian war right up to the present, should open the minds
of friends, family and colleagues still partially under the MSM propaganda spell but starting
to realise the truth not what they've been told.
IRGC-controlled Syrian militia declares jihad against US forces in Syria
Syrian militia led by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared jihad on April
6 against US and allied forces in Syria. Since 2017, the US has twice come into direct
contact with the group. The IRGC is likely to boost its military support to the group as it
explores avenues to drive the US out of Syria.
The Baqir Brigade (AKA Liwa al Baqir or Liwa al Imam al Baqir) published on its social
media page a statement with the Baqqara Tribe, to which its members belong. The tribe claims
descent from the fifth Shiite Imam, Muḥammad al Baqir, the brigade's namesake. The
group's open declaration features a militia logo that is a replication of the rising hand and
AK-47 in the official logo of the IRGC and militias under its control. . .
The US military units in Syria are not in a contiguous force. Vulnerable US "bases" in Syria
are small spread-out outposts, totaling (they say) 2,000 troops plus probably several thousand
contractors . . .(latest report on Iraq and Syria (combined)
here .)
"... The simple fact is that Syria [government] controls the majority of the populated part of the country, and gaining more every day. The US can do nothing about it on a lasting basis. That's clear and pretty convincing. ..."
"... The French "explanation" for a chemical attack (Assad's ostensible need to create negative PR for himself by sadistically punishing people who did not leave town on the Idlib Express) is literally the only theory true believers can come up with. ..."
"... Almost as funny as the Pentagon's "all 100+ missiles we fired successfully hit their targets" and then showing pictures of the sites with barely any debris visible and no large craters. ..."
Myself, I don't find anything convincing about the FUBAR administration you describe.
Certainly it is not a government fit to go to another war (not having won a war in fifty years,
not for lack of trying).
The simple fact is that Syria [government] controls the majority of the populated
part of the country, and gaining more every day. The US can do nothing about it on a lasting
basis. That's clear and pretty convincing.
The French "explanation" for a chemical attack (Assad's ostensible need to create negative
PR for himself by sadistically punishing people who did not leave town on the Idlib
Express) is literally the only theory true believers can come up with.
Because killing and
punishing Syrians who chose not to collaborate with the forces fighting the state totally
makes sense....if you desperately need a gas attack story to keep your narrative from
unraveling.
Almost as funny as the Pentagon's "all 100+ missiles we fired successfully hit
their targets" and then showing pictures of the sites with barely any debris visible and no
large craters. Must have been brand new super duper nano missiles or something. Sadly the
average dimwit will believe it because for him the "news" is a proxy for thinking. Besides(
everybody knows the "news" is never wrong.
On a side note I would add that 3-4 years ago when Ukraine was boiling, much of the
discussion by concerned people focused on countries outside of the US, and the damage caused by
the US. The US, in this context, was largely regarded as an evil but coherent entity.
But that coherence has now come more and more into question. Discussion shifted gradually,
as the US made more and more mistakes and lost battle after battle in so many theaters, and
revealed itself as a failing actor. And in the last year or two there's much more discussion
about the US itself, largely trying to pierce the obscurity of how that country is actually run
and by whom. This shift was already happening, and Trump of course added to the
fascination.
I was glad to see that gradual shift. To me it indicated the war itself was won, while many
battles were yet to be fought. I think it's true that Russia, China, Iran and others are
increasingly concerned with curtailing the damage that the US can still inflict. Every day they
increase in actual, effective power, and the US decreases in that power. Yesterday's battle
will be fought differently tomorrow, because the balance of that power will have shifted again
by then.
Syria has been an enormously useful magnifying glass to show us so much about the relative
power balances of many nations. And even as the US lashes out in its death throes, it is
increasingly cornered and stymied. The same is true of Israel. It's reaching the point - if not
already there - that every move made by the US will result in clear damage to itself, with no
gain, and no damage to its targets.
The other side has had sufficient time to wargame countless contingencies, and think them
through and make preparations for them. Increasingly, it gets to choose what damage to allow
and what to stop, because the costs of every action have now been calculated - and the passage
of time reduces the costs too, so the equation constantly updates.
This is true outside of Syria also, in all theaters and on many planes of
activity.
The US Deep State doesn't want to "conquer" any country. Then they'd have to pay the bill
for the destruction they caused... think an actual Marshall Plan, not the Iraq and Afghan
Debacles. It is not trying to "win". It is trying to destroy those countries' ability to
function outside the iron-fist influence of the IMF/BIS/etc. banks/economy.
... ... ..
As for US operations in Syria being handed off "to others", i.e. to Prince's latest
iteration of Blackwater/Xi/Academia, the last we heard of Erik was trying to sell a budget
airforce/drone system to countries in Africa. What a joke.
Not going to happen in Syria,
because Russia, Iran, Hezbolla and Syria would have no qualms about directly assaulting
Prince's Kurd/Arab/Wahabbist mercenaries... Eric may be a self-serving parasite, but he's not
stupid enough to directly take on the Russian military, or even the SAA for that matter.
Especially with no NATO air cover...
Killary is not around to unilaterally impose a Libya-style
no-fly-zone.
Trumpty Dumbdy is trapped, just trying to convince his base that he really is getting the US
out of being Israel's and the Rothschilds' bitch, but that is not a potential reality.
It would
involve dismantling the FED and cutting off the yearly $multi-billion military aid tap to
Israel. I doubt he is smart or informed enough to comprehend the situation he is in. Any sane,
intelligent person would walk away and tell the Zionist/Rothschild/Deep State to find another
patsy.
Trump's actions have not matched his election rhetoric. Just like faux populist Obama. Obama also "caved" to pressure, and
even set himself up for failure by emphasing "bipartisanship".
That is how the political mechanism of faux populism works.
Obama: Change you can believe in
Trump: Make America Great Again
Obama: Most transparent administration ever
Trump: Drain the Swamp
Obama: Deceiver: "Man of Peace" engaging in covert ops
Trump: Distractor: twitter, personal vendettas
Weakened by claims of unpatriotic inclinations:
Obama: Birthers (led by Trump who was close to Clinton's) - "Muslim socialist"!
Trump: Russia influence (pushed by 'NeverTrump' Clinton loyalists) - Putin's bitch!
I know b is not fond of us posting content from other blogs but the Saker has just put up
a must-read interview with a personal favorite author of mine, F. William Engdhal, entitled
"The rape of Russia". Very informative, it documents the strategies put in place during the
Yeltsin years to plunder the assets of the new CIS. Enjoy!
After collapse of the USSR the mount of infometion that has flown to the West is staggering.
KGB might be then most open of intelleigence services in this sense. multiple defector probably
created a very complete picture of the organization and its methods.
July 2, 1996
A NOTE ON KGB STYLE
Wayne Lambridge
The KGB like any enduring institution has a style, its own way of doing things. When we
seek to understand the service and its officers, we should perhaps pay attention to how they
do business as well as to what kind of business they do. This article is intended to raise
the subject for discussion, to present largely one man's opinion. It is far from a definitive
study.
By way of indicating something about KGB style, consider the implications for the
organization as a whole of a communication system that carries one tenth or less as much
traffic -- both electric and by pouch -- as its American equivalent. The KGB sends very few
cables and its dispatches are infrequent. For maximum security, they are pouched on
undeveloped microfilm, which is recovered and printed when the dispatch reaches its
destination. Although Moscow headquarters does excellent and prompt printing, both exposure
and development are sometimes haphazard in the field. Ten years ago, they were downright
unreadable at times. Now, the quality is generally better. Volume, however, does not seem to
have risen much.
The prints of the developed films are seen by the Rezident (the KGB Chief of Station) and
by the case officer concerned. In large Rezidentury (KGB Stations) some intermediate may also
read the traffic, but that is by no means always the case. The Rezident keeps a file --
sometimes in the form of notes or perhaps as copies of pertinent cables and dispatches -- for
reference. The case officer keeps all his files in a briefcase or a notebook. Calling them
"files" is perhaps misleading. It is better to say that the KGB officer keeps a movable
In-Box. When a document leaves that box it is either returned to the Rezident or destroyed
and the fact of destruction recorded. The case file is really in the case officer's head. The
excellent memory that KGB officers often display concerning the details of their operations
may well be traceable to the necessity of remembering the vital information on each operation
that they cannot look up anywhere. Of course, when a new case officer replaces an old one,
especially if the latter has been unable to brief his successor fully, complications may
ensue. Illness, car accidents and PNG'ing have led to real chaos in some KGB operations when
a harassed new man has tried to tie down the broken threads of a departed colleague's dropped
contacts.
Although the amount of paper that he sees is small, the KGB case officer is held strictiy
accountable for each sheet of it. When he destroys a document, a notation to that effect is
included on a record. Even his scrap paper may bear a serial number and have to be accounted
for. At the Moscow headquarters each document is sewn into the file by the senior officer
directly responsible for the case. A special record of all documents in the file is kept by
the case officer and its accuracy is regularly verified by the case officer's supervisor.
Safe storage areas are locked and sealed with wax each night.
The ritual of sewing in the documents is often regarded as a waste of time by senior case
officers in Moscow. Nevertheless, they would not dream of delegating the job. It seems to
have a symbolic significance as an embodiment of both their authority and their
responsibility.
The KGB case officer is his own intel assistant. At headquarters he does his own traces,
gets his own documents from the archives and handcarries his own messages. Not too long ago,
he also often wrote or typed his own dispatches. Even now he may write his own telegrams and
personally take them and dispatches to his supervisor for review. In the field he is, if
anything, even more responsible for doing everything connected with his operation except for
technical surveillance and the like where he must call on experts.
The field case officer under official cover often works at his cover job about as much as
do his colleagues who do not have intelligence responsibilities. This obligation is usually
not as demanding on the case officer's time as it might first appear because KGB cover slots
are usually selected so that cover duties complement intelligence tasks to a substantial
degree. By contrast, other KGB officers have virtually no serious cover responsibilities and
rely on the all-embracing security system of the Soviet colony to protect their true
affiliation. In either case, the 'KGB officer is not expected to spend much time on the
administrative or reporting aspects of his intelligence job. Within the limitations of his
cover assignment, he is supposed to be out on the street, making contacts, working agents and
performing other intelligence tasks, reporting only the highlights and the most crucial
information back to headquarters.
In developing new sources, he will usually bring things along to the point where
recruitment or some other substantial development is clearly foreseeable before asking for
traces from headquarters or getting approval to go ahead with his plan. Local informers and
support agents are sometimes picked up without reference to headquarters at all, except
perhaps after the fact of recruitment. The KGB officer must account with some precision,
however, for his operational expenditures and is usually quite limited in what he can spend
for development prior to coming up with a concrete proposal for recruiting a source.
Once an agent is recruited or is established as a source, headquarters' control and
demands for accountability are exacting, though never voluminous. For a recruited source with
significant access, a senior officer, such as a branch chief or his deputy is specifically
charged with responsibility for the case. Moscow's concern to insure that information is
really coming from the source as described by the case officer and that the source is bona
fide is very considerable. Somewhat by contrast, Moscow's requirements (outside of S&T
operations) sometimes seem quite general, apparently leaving it up to the case officer and
source to report what seems to them most important. On the other hand, reporting is expected
to be factual and documentary, if possible. Sometimes the KGB seems obsessed with documents
as the only reliable sources. Speculation is not usually encouraged.
In such a system of extreme compartmentation and vertical lines of communication and
authority, the advisory role of staffs and other elements not within the chain of command is
small. The First Chief Directorate, the foreign intelligence arm of the KGB, has a
counterintelligence unit, for example, that actually takes over a case from the regular chain
of command in the event that the agent appears to be doubled, compromised or in danger of
compromise. The field case officer may remain the same, but in Moscow the Counterintelligence
Service assumes full authority for directing the case. Deception and some types of complex
political action operations often appear to be run directly by the headquarters element,
Department A, that prepares the operation in Moscow. In such cases, of course, local assets
of a Rezidentura may well be employed in support, but the operations are frequently run by
specialists.
The typical KGB officer, trained in an environment where political agitation is part of
daily fare, sees political action and propaganda as part of his regular routine. There are
numerous examples of Soviet officers around the world who seem to concentrate almost
exclusively on pushing the Soviet line on the issues of the day with whatever contacts they
meet. To them the political approach is not something apart from spotting, developing,
assessing, recruiting and agent handling. It is integral to that effort. Some do it crudely,
some ineffectively, some with great skill. The point is that in almost all cases, it is a
part of the operation.
In addition to politics, KGB recruiting and training of staff personnel emphasizes
operational and area knowledge and experience from bottom to top. The main sources for new
KGB officers are the institutes of International Affairs and Eastern Languages in Moscow.
These institutions, which are better compared to the U.S. service academies than to other
organizations of higher learning in America, prepare young Soviet citizens for careers abroad
not only in the intelligence services, but for the foreign service, the Ministry of Foreign
Trade, Radio Moscow, etc. Assignment of a student after graduation is worked out among the
various consuming organizations. The students are under what amounts to military discipline
and are required to accept the assignment given them. Few students, see much difference among
the organizations these days except for differences in pay, length and location of overseas
service and other practical matters.
In the course of their education the students learn two or three foreign languages well
and study the history and culture of the area in which they specialize in considerable
detail, although current politics is likely tobe a much weaker course than history. Access to
native sources is still circumscribed. A substantial number of students go for a year or more
as exchange students or as trainees with Soviet organizations working abroad. As a result,
they often end up knowing the area, its language, its politics, customs, police systems,
local geography and so on very well. Although the old-style Soviet intelligence officer who
was raised in the shadow if not the institutions of the Komintern and could recruit agents
through appeals to an international revolutionary ideology are long since past, the newest
generation of Soviet intelligence officers can be quite effective by trading on their precise
knowledge of target personalities and the problems and frustrations of the countries in which
they operate.
A KGB officer is ranked in his service by two systems. He progresses up the ladder from
junior lieutenant to senior lieutenant and so on up to colonel and general. At the same time,
he is classified as a junior case officer, case officer or senior case officer and then as he
progresses further by his position, such as Rezident, which he may hold. His pay depends on
his ranking in both hierarchies and there is no necessary coincidence between where he stands
in one and where he stands in the other. The operational designations are based on his
experience and performance as an operator. His formal rank is largely based on length of
service up through major or lieutenant colonel. The chain of command is designated through
the operational positions rather than formal rank. For example, a major of State Security
from some other part of the KGB might be transferred into the First Chief Directorate under
the designation of junior case officer and find himself subordinate to a senior lieutenant
who had attained the position of case officer.
The phenomenon of marked disparity between formal rank and operational designation was
probably more common during the period of considerable expansion of the First Chief
Directorate's personnel ten and more years ago than it is today. At that time officers from
other branches of the service were being brought into the First Chief Directorate more
frequently than they are now. Nevertheless, the emphasis on operational experience and
operational ability continues to be a marked element of the KGB style. The top officers in
the service, for example, usually involve themselves directly in operations. They meet and
develop agent candidates, they recruit and they handle agents.
In part this is a consequence of the strongly operational orientation of the KGB as a
whole. A direct involvement in operations comes naturally to almost everyone in the
organization. This operational orientation is manifest also in the concentration of
relatively few cases per case officer. Generally, one man may handle four or five agents or
targets under development. He is not expected to spread his range of intelligence activities
further, although he may well be encouraged to develop a large circle of casual contacts from
whom a relatively small number of serious targets may be selected.
From the foregoing one can see that the typical KGB officer is a man who sees himself in a
strict vertical chain of command. He expects to do everything necessary for his operation
without much outside help, except in technical matters. Depending upon circumstances, the
case officer may be closely guided by the Rezident in a particular operation, but he is not
supposed to discuss it with anyone else. (Gossip and shop-talk are endemic, however, in part
to overcome the excessive official compartmentation.) Although the case officer is held
strictly to account for the results of his actions, he is not expected to report on
day-to-day developments to headquarters and in fact the capacity of his communications system
is far too limited to permit him to do so. He is street-oriented in the concept of his job
and does not put in a lot of time at the desk writing reports, reading guidance from
headquarters or maintaining his files. When he has a problem he takes it up with his boss and
he is generally not expected to have many problems. He is supposed to know the difference
between what he really needs consultation about and what he ought to be able to handle on his
own.
His boss in turn has the responsibility of not only guiding the case officers that work
for him, but of ensuring that vital information pertinent to the work of one case officer but
acquired through another is made available. In both operational guidance and information
sharing, the role of the Rezident is crucial. There is virtually no lateral distribution of
communications and an extreme emphasis on compartmentation. Although the rigid
compartmentation of the system is probably a major vulnerability, superiors both in the field
and headquarters are usually able to keep up with each case because they are not overwhelmed
with paper. Relatively primitive (in terms of capacity) communications equipment and the
custom that each officer prepare his own reports and keep them brief make it possible for
such reports as do get written to be read all the way up the chain of command. The general in
command of the First Chief Directorate has been reported on several occasions as reading all
the incoming traffic. Much of the outgoing traffic is also signed personally by him.
The strictness of the chain of command and the limited amount of communications place a
great weight of responsibility on each Rezident and on each case officer. As with all Soviet
officials, KGB case officers have a norm to fulfill for the year and are usually called to
account for their activities during part of the annual home leave in the Soviet Union. In a
system like that, if something goes wrong, someone must be found to have been responsible.
This can encourage an extreme of caution, particularly when the relations between case
officer and the Rezident are not of the best or when the headquarters desk officer is not
cooperative and understanding of the problems in the field.
Although we are accustomed to think of Soviet organizations as highly impersonal, in the
KGB personalities and the private connections of individual officers are often crucial to the
success or failure of an operation -- or a career. In many ways, the KGB is an organization
made to order for the man who wants to claim all the glory for himself and put all the
mistakes on the backs of his subordinates. Family connections or other personal contacts have
special significance in this sort of an organization because they can provide a secure and
effective second channel for communication in a system in which there is otherwise only one
narrow route watched over by jealous monitors for all the messages an officer may want to
send.
The emphasis on the role of the individual in the organization also has its advantages, of
course. A capable officer, particularly one from an influential family, working under a
Rezident who knows his business and will accept responsibility is likely to find himself in a
stimulating work environment that may compensate very well for shortcomings of the service or
the Soviet system as a whole that might otherwise disturb him.
While the KGB style as outlined above is in many ways admirably suited to running
operations, it appears to have limitations in the way it makes use of the product of its
operations and in evaluating whether the operations themselves are really worthwhile. There
are enough instances on record to permit the generalization that in political matters
especially Moscow is often reluctant to receive bad news. The ambitious case officer may find
himself frustrated by pressure to conform, either from his Rezident or from Moscow, when he
tries to report things as he sees them. To a large degree this is probably an inevitable
manifestation of the extreme isolation from the outside world in which the Soviet policy
makers live and their lack of exposure to unwelcome information. In addition, the emphasis on
operations as such and the overall environment of the KGB, which is predominantly an internal
security, criminal investigation, and antisubversive organization, probably discourages the
kind of critical intellect by whom frank reporting, regardless of its content, is most
prized.
This last consideration, the emphasis on an investigative, operational style at the
expense of analytical curiosity, may well be the source of considerable tension within the
First Chief Directorate today. Bigoted and inflexible ultimate consumers are problems enough.
But also the older generation of KGB officers, including many of today's Rezidenty, was
largely trained in war time and internal security operations. Their juniors, speaking
broadly, are more academically inclined, more tempted to discourse on their theories, more
interested in foreign societies and politics per se and less dedicated to fulfilling the
obligations of the party and the state. They are often perceptive and realistic about
developments not only abroad, but also in their own country. Bearing in mind the importance
of personal relations and the dependence of juniors on seniors in the rigid chain of command,
the signs we see these days of tension and cynicism among these younger officers should not
be surprising.
As they rise in the KGB, we may see some organizational changes over time. If these
changes preserve the laconic style of communication while at the same time do away with some
of the most cumbersome and archaic aspects of the communications and records keeping systems,
the KGB could become an even more formidable institution than it is today. The problem of
encouraging intelligence analysis and imaginative, critical thinking is a problem for Soviet
society as a whole. As a part of that society, the KGB shares the problem, but probably not
in greater degree than other Soviet institutions and possibly less than many.
Judgments about the influence the KGB style has on KGB officers as individuals, about the
implications for KGB operations of the way they do business, about the relevance of the style
to Western operations against Soviet targets, and about many other related matters lead us
beyond the scope of this note which, as stated in the introductory paragraph, hopes only to
raise an interesting topic for further comment. If this piece succeeds in making the point
that KGB organizational style is important to Western intelligence and that we should concern
ourselves with it more than we have, it will have served its purpose.
- and this is the passage that caught my attention:-
"One reason for the Russian message to Washington about the intended target was to ensure
that any CIA asset or informant who had managed to work his way into the jihadist leadership
was forewarned not to attend the meeting. I was told that the Russians passed the warning
directly to the CIA. "They were playing the game right," the senior adviser said."
We know that Syrian Intelligence had penetrated many Jihadist groups. It is therefore
likely that Western Intelligence agents had done the same.
Could the existence of such "assets" or "informants" account for the frequent reports that
there are Western Special Forces embedded with the Jihadis?
Could that also account for the fact that if those Western "assets" are in place then
neither the Syrians nor the Russians would wish to expose them when they are found amongst
groups of defeated or surrendered Jihadists? That would account for the frequent complaints
on the more partisan pro-Syrian websites that the Russians keep passing up the chance of a
propaganda victory by putting such "assets" on public display when found.
The whole question of Western support for the Jihadists in Syria is a vexed one. For my
part I believe that we went further than merely hoping they'd unseat Assad. We were
instrumental in supplying arms, training, and indeed foreign Juhadists. We did this on the
transparent pretext that we were helping "moderate" rebels. We ourselves were therefore
largely responsible for the death and destruction visited on the Syrian people.
But, for all the claims made, I've seen no proof put forward that we went further than
that and were directing or assisting the Jihadist onslaught. Nor that we were doing this
indirectly through mercenaries and the like. This is in contrast to our activities in the
Ukraine, where it was clear that Western forces of one sort or another were directing or
assisting the Ukrainian forces.
Perhaps there's been no proof put forward because it simply didn't happen in Syria. Those
claimed "embedded" Western Forces were merely intelligence "assets" of the type Sy Hersh
refers to. Is this a reasonable conclusion to come to on the basis of what is known of our
involvement in the Syrian conflict?
"I believe that we went further than merely hoping they'd unseat Assad."
There was a credible interview of an ISIS commander sometime last year, he stated that
they had direct guidance and on-the ground advisors from many countries, implied US, UK, and
Israel at least were supplying things like maps, satellite data and other information about
their opponents. He spoke of a fully equipped, modern command center.
In addition there is US news about training, arming and paying these attackers. The US has
supplied false end user certificates for literally tons of armaments and munitions bought
from eastern European countries that have ramped up factories to produce AK-47s, ammunition
and more. The EUCs state that the destination for the weapons is US however they are passed
on to rebel forces.
I believe "we" went further than merely hoping too.
Oh there is proof all right. Guys like this
African American "muslim" , a "former comedian" who was on some sort of embedded mission
in Aleppo. His cover was of a religious "journalist". Take away the beard and the "bio" and
he's clearly a spec ops guy. During Aleppo's "fall"(liberation) he was filming himself in the
location where days later, piles of massacred locals were found after the jihadis were bussed
away. Sorry no link maybe someone can help me out.
The Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva has been investigating a massive covert
weapons shipment network linking eastern Europe and the Caucasus region (Azerbaijan in
particular) to Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, apparently supervised by the CIA and other
Western intel agencies. Weapons and equipment from eastern European countries were being
flown under diplomatic cover by the state Azerbaijani airline company Silk Way Airlines to
the Middle East and then forwarded on to jihadi groups in Syria and Iraq.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-28/journalist-interrogated-fired-story-linking-cia-and-syria-weapons-flights
More information from Bulgarian newspaper Trud (Gaytandzhieva's employer before she was
fired) including copies of documents about the Silk Way Airlines "diplomatic" flights between
Europe and the Middle East in which weaponry - some of it heavy weaponry - was flown to Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf oil sheikhdom sponsors of the jihadis in Syria. These documents
implicate not only the US but also several EU countries including Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany
and Sweden.
If Gaytanzhieva sounds familiar to some MoA barflies, that's because she's the one who
tweeted about Vil Mirzayanov's million-dollar home in Colorado in a recent MoA post on the
Skripal poisoning incident.
Thanks. The information in your penultimate paragraph is near as dammit certain. Also
Israeli assistance, though the report from a UN observer was of an observation made at a
distance. Also there's a lot of murky stuff about MI6 or their pals doing propaganda work
though I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom of that. If it wasn't Obama romancing, then his
admission that they "didn't throw a bunch of airstrikes" at ISIS when they were going into
Iraq, and that that was to put pressure on the then Iraqi government, is further proof that
we weren't interested in saving the local populations from atrocities but were using ISIS for
our own purposes. I suppose my intense disillusionment with Obama stems from the realisation
then that he'd swallowed the Brzezinski nonsense and had bought into the Grand Chessboard;
and tough luck on the pawns. That was when for me he ceased to be the mouthy, ineffectual but
well intentioned loser and became the standard model Drone King. Welcome to the world of the
neocon psychos, Mr President.
So there's all that. As you say, we did go further than "merely hoping".
But where's the proof for the pre-penultimate paragraph? Are the Syrians now showing
journalists round the remnants of the command centre? Are the more credible pro-Syrian
journalists giving us chapter and verse? Do we not undercut our true statement that we've
visited mayhem on the Syrians by advancing that further unproved statement that our forces
fought with the Jihadis?
Maybe it'll come out later, but nothing solid's come out yet and there's been time for it.
That's why I put in my query. Maybe we should put up or shut up on that one.
By the way, "we" means just that. We voted the bastards in, after all.
"... Actually, there is nothing like "American policies" in the Trump era. The Washington Post carried two reports this week underlining the utter confusion within the Trump administration. Even the president is not necessarily the last word. ..."
"... One of these two astonishing reports titled Trump a reluctant hawk has battled his top aides on Russia and lost (here) narrates shocking details on how the former NSA in the White House HR McMaster simply hoodwinked a bumbling Trump into approving the proposal to expel 60 Russian diplomats from the US last month: ..."
"... The second WaPo report (here) narrates how even the famous Nikki Haley can no longer pretend to be Trump's authoritative voice. ..."
Actually, there is nothing like "American policies" in the Trump era. The Washington Post carried two reports this week underlining
the utter confusion within the Trump administration. Even the president is not necessarily the last word.
One of these two astonishing reports titled
Trump a reluctant hawk has battled his top aides on Russia and lost (here) narrates shocking details on how the former NSA in
the White House HR McMaster simply hoodwinked a bumbling Trump into approving the proposal to expel 60 Russian diplomats from the
US last month:
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials said. To his shock and dismay, France and
Germany were each expelling only four Russian officials The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would
largely equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the media as taking by far the toughest
stance on Russia
Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the expulsions. "There were curse words,"
the official said, "a lot of curse words."
The
second WaPo report (here) narrates how even the famous Nikki Haley can no longer pretend to be Trump's authoritative voice.
I'm reminded of Roman Emperor Caligula (AD 37-41). He had a favorite horse by name Incitatus whom he once planned to designate
as Roman consul. Caligula used to hold parties for friends in the steed's grand stables. In a fit of exuberant joy, he once named
Incitatus a Minister of State.
The Trump presidency has not quite reached that point yet, but bizarre things are happening in the Washington Beltway – like in
Caligula's decadent Rome in decline and fall. India will be well advised to keep distance.
"... "She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's all." ..."
Confused!!! How dare Larry Kudlow suggest Nikki got confused!!!
>White House press secretary Sarah Sanders insisted more sanctions were merely under
consideration. On Tuesday, top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Haley "got ahead
of the curve."
"She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There
might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at
Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had
sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's
all."
Haley, speaking for the first time since the White House dialed back her claims, rejected
the idea that she was confused.
"With all due respect, I don't get confused," Haley said in a statement read by Fox News'
Dana Perino and confirmed by CBS News Tuesday.
I've posted the following deep in the previous thread, so here for those who missed
it:
As to the OPCW making "political decisions", The Intercept had an
interesting piece by Mehdi Hasan recently, about a certain John Bolton.
In 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had penned a letter to [OPCW head
José] Bustani, thanking him for his "very impressive" work. By March 2002, however,
Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International
Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a
warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words.
"Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice
president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."
Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the
organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to
retaliate against you."
There was a pause.
"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."
Looks like Iran is Carnage for Bolton and neocon fellow travelers in Trump administration
such as Haley and Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... In that vein, it is Bolton who merits historical comparison: to Cato the Elder, a conservative-yet-eccentric Roman statesman who, according to Plutarch, would often and invariably call for the destruction of Carthage, even though the Carthaginian threat was neither imminent nor apparent. Eventually, Cato's words wended their way into the ears of power and hundreds of thousands of Carthaginians were pointlessly slaughtered. According to the Greek historian Polybius, Scipio Aemilianus, the young Roman General who led the attack, at seeing the carnage of a great people, "shed tears and wept openly." ..."
"... Michael Shindler is an Advocate with Young Voices and a writer living in Washington, D.C. Follow him @MichaelShindler . ..."
Last week, John Bolton ascended to the office of National Security Advisor, following in the
hurried footsteps of Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Two peculiar characteristics set Bolton
apart from most folks in D.C.: an unabashedly luxurious
mustache and an unmatched penchant for unjustified preemptive violence.
At the University of Chicago in 2009, Bolton warned
, "Unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran's program, Iran will have
nuclear weapons in the very near future." Thankfully, Israel didn't take Bolton's advice and,
as most predicted, Iran never lived up to his expectations. Similarly, in a 2015 op-ed in the
New York Times , Bolton opined ,
"The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will
sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure . Time is terribly short,
but a strike can still succeed." Three short months later, a non-proliferation deal wherein
Iran agreed to a 98 percent reduction in its enriched uranium stockpile and a 15-year pause in
the development of key weapons infrastructure was negotiated.
More recently in February, Bolton advised in
the Wall Street Journal that "Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea,
we should not wait until the very last minute . It is perfectly legitimate for the United
States to respond to the current 'necessity' posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking
first."
By this point Bolton's record of calling for war in every possible situation had lost the
ability to shock. Still, the Founding Fathers would probably be appalled.
A comparatively irenic vision pervades the philosophy of the founders. James Wilson, in his
Lectures on Law, wrote that when a nation
"is under an obligation to preserve itself and its members; it has a right to do everything"
that it can "without injuring others." In Federalist 4, John Jay
advised that the American people ought to support steps that would "put and keep them in
such a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress and discourage it." And in
his Farewell Address, George Washington asserted that the United States should be "always
guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."
A preemptive nuclear strike justified on the flimsy basis of "gaps in U.S. intelligence"
hardly seems concordant with such military restraint and "exalted justice." And lest it be
thought these ideals were mere lofty notions, consider how, as American history proceeded, they
became enshrined in American diplomacy.
In 1837, Canadian rebels sailing aboard the Caroline fled to an island in the
Niagara River with the help of a few American citizens. British forces boarded their ship,
killed an American member of the crew, and then set the Caroline ablaze before forcing
it over Niagara Falls. Enraged, American and Canadian raiders destroyed a British ship. Several
attacks followed until the crisis was at last ended in 1842 by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. In
the aftermath, the Caroline test was established, which stipulates that an attack made in
self-defense is justifiable only when, in the words of Daniel Webster, the necessity is
"instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This
principle remains the international standard, though some like Bolton think it's outdated.
With the Caroline test in mind, Bolton wrote while
arguing in favor of a preemptive strike against North Korea, "The case against preemption rests
on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile
times." In other words, Bolton believes that we can no longer afford to wait for the situation
to be "instant" and "overwhelming," and makes an offense out of abstaining from immediate
preemptive action, regardless of the potential costs involved.
Relatedly, one of Bolton's most colorful jabs at President Obama involved likening him to
Æthelred the Unready, a medieval Anglo-Saxon king remembered for his tragic
indecisiveness. Yet given the costs of groundless preemption, indecisiveness is often a midwife
to careful contemplation and peace. Had Prime Minister Netanyahu or Obama been persuaded by
Bolton's retrospectively warrantless calls for preemption in Iran, tragedy would have
followed.
In that vein, it is Bolton who merits historical comparison: to Cato the Elder, a
conservative-yet-eccentric Roman statesman who, according to Plutarch, would often and
invariably call for the destruction of Carthage, even though the Carthaginian threat was
neither imminent nor apparent. Eventually, Cato's words wended their way into the ears of power
and hundreds of thousands of Carthaginians were pointlessly slaughtered. According to the
Greek historian Polybius, Scipio Aemilianus, the young Roman General who led the attack, at
seeing the carnage of a great people, "shed tears and wept openly."
In order that we never find ourselves standing alongside Scipio knee-deep in unjustly spilt
blood, Bolton should reconsider whether the flimsy merits of rash preemption truly outweigh the
durable wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the lessons of history.
Michael Shindler is an Advocate with Young Voices and a writer living in Washington,
D.C. Follow him @MichaelShindler .
During the 1969 Vietnam War draft lottery, Bolton drew number 185. (Draft numbers
corresponded to birth dates.) As a result of the Johnson and Nixon administrations' decisions
to rely largely on the draft rather than on the reserve forces, joining a Guard or Reserve
unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War. Before graduating from Yale in 1970,
Bolton enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard rather than wait to find out if his draft
number would be called. (The highest number called to military service was 195.) He saw
active duty for 18 weeks of training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, from July to November
1970.
After serving in the National Guard for four years, he served in the United States Army
Reserve until the end of his enlistment two years later.[1]
He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast
Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton
discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in
Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that
opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no
great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to
take it away from."
Why is it that the US leads the world in production of chicken-hawks? Even these mangy
ex-colonial countries like the UK and France do not have as many chicken-hawks as we do.
Comparing Obama to Athelred is absurd. Athelred's problem was not that he was indecisive, but
rather that he refused to listen to advice from anyone (the moniker "Unready" actually meant
"Uncounseled" in Old English) and that he was extremely impulsive and deeply bigoted. Hence
he ordered a general massacre of the Danes in England. Luckily it was only carried out in a
limited region, unluckily the victims included the King of Denmark's sister and her children,
leading to an open blood feud war, and also cost Aethelred any support he might have had from
his wife's kinsman, the Duke of Normandy. If anyone is a good match for old Aethelred, it's
Donald Trump.
One interesting thing is that Trump is apparently hard at work pushing and pushing and
pushing China to take Russia's side more forcefully. China ususally don't support Russia in UNSC.
Most often Russia stands alone with Iran.
What we are observing is a slow collapse of The US-centered global neoliberal empire.
Neoliberalism like Bolshevism before it is a self-defeating ideology that eats the flesh of
society on which it parasites.
In a way Trump election is sign of this crisis, as well as attempt of some part of the US
elite for find a way out of the current crisis, which started in 2008 with the collapse of
neoliberal ideology.
You
and the Atomic Bomb ," which he wrote two months after the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, George Orwell coined the term "cold war" to describe the new epoch that he saw
emerging after the fall of Nazi Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union and the United States.
He predicted that the bomb would "put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging
indefinitely a 'peace that is no peace.'" It was this very scenario that he depicted in his
dystopian novel 1984 , which
drew on James Burnham's Managerial Revolution and features Eurasia, Oceania and
Eastasia in a permanent standoff several decades after an atomic war. Any actual conflicts or
skirmishes take place in borderlands that are located well away from the three main empires.
This cold peace was pretty much what obtained after 1945 in international affairs. The two
superpowers, the Soviet Union and United States, avoided direct conflict. Instead, they used
proxy powers and national liberation movements, mostly located in the Third World, to try and
shift the correlation of forces, as the Kremlin used to call it, in their favor, whenever and
wherever they could. The territory under their direct control was off limits -- the United
States did not intervene during uprisings in the eastern bloc in East Germany, Hungary or
Poland. The Kremlin confined itself to helping to fund communist parties in France and Italy,
and to supporting the peace movement clandestinely. The peril of an atomic exchange was so
immense that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States went to war over flashpoints such
as Cuba and Berlin. What Orwell did not anticipate was that one side, the Soviet Union, would
collapse completely, leaving the other as Mr. Big.
... ... ...
The war in Iraq was a fiasco. Afghanistan is a quagmire. In America, terms such as "regime
change" have fallen into disrepute. The West has lost its confidence. Populists are looking for
a way to escape the iron cage of modernity. The era of Reagan and Thatcher proclaiming the
verity of the free market and the expansion of freedom seems almost as remote as the scientific
laws of history that Marxists once propounded.
... ... ...
...President Donald Trump explained that he seeks to curb a new arms race that is "getting
out of control," but also boasted that "we will never allow anybody to have anything even close
to what we have." Already Trump has vastly expanded the American military budget, raising
outlays to $700 billion for the fiscal year 2019. Trump, in a decision first approved by
President Barack Obama, intends to devote $1 trillion to modernizing the American nuclear force
over the next three decades.
... ... ...
With his combination of bluff and bombast, Trump could stumble into a calamitous two-front
war in Asia and the Middle East.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.
Virginia Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) was one lawmaker who opposed Trump's strike on Syria --
noting that only Congress has the power to authorize the use of force except in cases of
self-defense. "President Trump's decision to launch airstrikes against the Syrian government
without Congress's approval is illegal and -- absent a broader strategy -- it's reckless,"
Kaine said in a statement. "Today, it's a strike on Syria -- what's going to stop him from
bombing Iran or North Korea next? The last thing Congress should be doing is giving this
president a blank check to wage war against anyone, anywhere."
Michigan Republican Congressman Justin Amash agreed. "These offensive strikes against Syria
are unconstitutional, illegal, and reckless," Amash said in a tweet . "The next
speaker of the House must reclaim congressional war powers as prescribed in Article I of the
Constitution. @SpeakerRyan has completely abdicated one of his most important
responsibilities."
... ... ...
International Law
Trump's strike on Syria is a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter
-- to which the United States is a party -- according to a number of legal experts. "This
military action is illegal," Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's
National Security Project,
said in a statement . "In the face of constitutional law barring hostile use of force
without congressional authorization, and international law forbidding unilateral use of force
except in self-defense, President Trump has unilaterally launched strikes against a country
that has not attacked us -- and without any authorization from Congress. Doing so violates some
of the most important legal constraints on the use of force."
...the Russian government has reacted with fury to the Trump's strike on Syria -- and is
promising there will be consequences. "The worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings
have been left unheard," Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said in a
statement. "A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We
warned that such actions will not be left without consequences. All responsibility for them
rests with Washington, London and Paris. Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and
inadmissible. The U.S. – the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons –
has no moral right to blame other countries."
Iran's Reaction
Iran, which also has forces engaged in Syria, condemned the allied attack. "The attack is the
blatant violation of international laws, as well as ignoring the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Syria," Bahram Qasemi, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said . "No doubt the US and its allies that are
engaged a military intervention in Syria without any substantiated document and before any final
report of the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and have supposed
themselves as the world police and judge, are responsible for regional and international
repercussions of the adventure, and should be held accountable."
... ... ...
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest . You can follow
him on Twitter:@davemajumdar.
A response from the Russians will probably be that the Syrians and other countries are
supplied with high-quality S300 rockets. Then the US can probably only very limited
countries raid and kill people without being in danger of being shot down.
Don't underestimate the US because we don't use maximum force. There's a reason for
that. We're trying to avoid a wider conflict with Russia and believe me, I don't think they
want it either. Right now, Russia has the upper hand because no Russians in this attack
were killed and no chemical weapons themselves, only the facilities where they make them
were destroyed. This was a waste in my opinion. And if we're afraid of a wider conflict,
then we shouldn't have been there in the first place. I was not gung ho on this
venture.
No, I do not underestimate the Americans. But you are unwise if you underestimate the
Russians. But no matter who is stronger. In any case, a war between you and Russia would
lead to the end of the world. No nation would become immediately. This was the order and it
was not corrected! Mankind has been lucky again.ergeben, result! The nuclear weapons are
detonated. A life on earth is at this huge potential, a spring to 100 mega tons, no longer
possible. Hiroshima had 16 kilos of tons. A mosquito against an elephant. There are no
winners. Therefore, such a confrontation must never be repeated again. Get your men back. I
hope the world woke up this day. If only one rocket had hit a Russian unit, the Russians
would have to fire back immediately. This was the order and it was not corrected! Mankind
has been lucky again.
It really boils down to control of warfare. Nobody at the top (you know who you are)
wants chemical weapons anymore, since they now have so many new toys to play with, so the
objective is to make chemical manufacturing too expensive to use.
On another note, it's been fun watching the bold play and takeover leading to the
divvying up of Syria. This is but another step in the process of forming the New Middle
East. Turkey as the role model for Muslim Democracy.
This whole thing looks like a very carefully orchestrated exit strategy by Trump and his
allies. Just ten days ago Trump announced that U.S forces will be leaving Syria and froze
the funds to be spent in Syria. This obviously must have made hawks in D.C and London very
nervous because leaving Syria in this way would look like loss of prestige for U.S and
allies. So this fake chemical weapons attack was planned and opportunity was given for
Trump and Theresa May to look tough ! Now U.S can leave Syria and Trump can still look like
a tough guy ! The Russians probably don't mind because they will be happy by the departure
of American forces from the Syrian region.
It is amazing how many Americans trolls there are here. These degenerates are wilfully
blind to the mendacity of the most potent evil on earth... America. This evil empire lied
about Iraq's WMDs and attacked it, resulting in 100's of thousands of deaths, but its
degenerate apologists shed nary a tear for the evil of their kind. A pox on all of you.
If Russia decides to let it go, then there should be minimal consequences. If Russia
decides to retaliate militarily in some way, shape or form, then there will be massive
consequences.
"... It also says a great deal about our media that one of the greatest living British journalists is employed only by The Independent, a newspaper which has become extremely marginal, while other genuine greats like Jon Pilger, with a fantastic pedigree, do not have access to UK mainstream media at all. 60,000 people on average are reading my journalism here every day, but no mainstream outlet will carry it. ..."
Robert Fisk is one of the very few excellent investigative journalists still employed in the
UK. He is twice winner of the British
Press Awards ' Journalist of the Year prize, and seven time winner of the British Press
Awards' Foreign Correspondent of the Year. He is extremely smart and knows the Middle East very
well. He has just made his way – not accompanied by Russian or Syrian government
officials – to Douma and this is what he reports.
If you care to search for Robert Fisk on twitter, the attacks on his reputation and
integrity at this very moment from achieve nothing neo-con trolls and media lackeys are
astonishing. He is in Douma – they are at their desks.
--- Audio link deleted ---
It also says a great deal about our media that one of the greatest living British
journalists is employed only by The Independent, a newspaper which has become extremely
marginal, while other genuine greats like Jon Pilger, with a fantastic pedigree, do not have
access to UK mainstream media at all. 60,000 people on average are reading my journalism here
every day, but no mainstream outlet will carry it.
* is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to
Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to
2010.https://www.craigmurray.org.uk
Now the color revolution against Trump just does not make any sense. We got to the point
where Trump=Hillary. Muller should embrace and kiss Trump and go home... Nobody care if Trump is impeached anymore.
Donald Trump's far-right loyal fans must be really pissed off right now after permanently
switching himself to pro-war mode with that evil,
warmongering triplet in charge and the second bombing against Syria. Even worse,
this time he has done it together with Theresa May and the neoliberal globalist Emmanuel
Macron.
We can tell that by watching the mind-blowing reactions of one of his most fanatic alt-right
media supporters: Alex Jones. Jones nearly cried(!) in front of the camera, feeling betrayed
from his 'anti-establishment', 'anti-interventionist' idol and declared that he won't support
Trump anymore. Well, what did you expect, Alex? expect, Alex?
A
year before the 2016 US national elections, the blog already warned that Trump is a pure
product of the neoliberal barbarism , stating that the rhetoric of extreme cynicism
used by Trump goes back to the Thatcherian cynicism and the division of people between
"capable" and "useless".
Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders. Right after the elections, we supported that the US
establishment gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in
power, against the only candidate that the same establishment identified as a real threat:
Bernie Sanders.
The only hope that has been left, was to resist against starting a war with Russia, as the US
deep state (and Hillary of course) wanted. Well, it was proven to be only a hope too. Last
year, Trump bombed Syria under the same pretext resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war
disaster. Despite the fact that the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational
level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the targeted airport was
operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep
state that he is prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of
confrontation with Russia. Indeed, a year later, Trump already built a pro-war team that
includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish triplet.
And then, Donnie ordered a second airstrike against Syria, together with his neo-colonial
friends.
It seems that neither this strike was a serious attempt against the Syrian army and its allies.
Yet, Donnie probably won't dare to escalate tension in the Syrian battlefield before the next
US national elections. That's because many of his supporters are already pissed off with him
and therefore, he wants to go with good chances for a second term.
Although we really hope that we are are wrong this time, we guess that, surrounded by all these
warmongering hawks, Donnie, in a potential second term, will be pushed to open another war
front in Syria and probably in Iran, defying the Russians and the consequent danger for a
WWIII.
Poor Alex et al: we told you about Trump from the beginning. You didn't listen ...
I've posted the following deep in the previous thread, so here for those who missed
it:
As to the OPCW making "political decisions", The Intercept had an
interesting piece by Mehdi Hasan recently, about a certain John Bolton.
In 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had penned a letter to [OPCW head
José] Bustani, thanking him for his "very impressive" work. By March 2002, however,
Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International
Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a
warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words.
"Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice
president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."
Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the
organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to
retaliate against you."
There was a pause.
"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."
Trump became a despicable warmonger. That true. And undisputable after the recent attack on
Syria ("operation Stormy Daniels"). But was it War Party that coerced him or were other processes
involved?
The main weakness of Buchanan hypothecs is that it is unclear wether Trump was coerced by War
Party, or he was "Republican Obama" from the very beginning performing classic "bait and switch"
operation on gullible electorate (as in "change we can believe in") . The second hypothesis is
now strong then the fist and supported by more fact. just look at the "troika" of
Haley-Bolton-Pompeo -- all three were voluntarily selected by the President and all three are
rabid neocons. So it looks liek no or little coercion from the War Party was necessary.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must proceed as it will." ..."
"... Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election. ..."
"... We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of nonexistent WMDs. ..."
"... The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands. ..."
"... As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post ..."
April
16, 2018, 9:55 PM "Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should
withdraw from Syria.' We convinced him it was necessary to stay."
Thus boasted French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday, adding, "We convinced him it was
necessary to stay for the long term."
Is the U.S. indeed in the Syrian Civil War "for the long term"?
If so, who made that fateful decision for this republic?
U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley confirmed Sunday there would be no drawdown of the 2,000 U.S.
troops in Syria, until three objectives were reached. We must fully defeat ISIS, ensure
chemical weapons will not again be used by Bashar al-Assad and maintain the ability to watch
Iran.
Translation: whatever Trump says, America is not coming out of Syria. We are going deeper
in. Trump's commitment to extricate us from these bankrupting and blood-soaked Middle East wars
and to seek a new rapprochement with Russia is "inoperative."
The War Party that Trump routed in the primaries is capturing and crafting his foreign
policy. Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial page fairly blossomed with war
plans:
The better U.S. strategy is to turn Syria into the Ayatollah's Vietnam. Only when Russia
and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an
end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based
enclaves.
Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran until they cannot stand the
pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want.
But suppose that, as in our Civil War of 1861-1865, the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, and
the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949, Assad and his Russian, Iranian, and Shiite militia allies
go all out to win and reunite the nation.
Suppose they choose to fight to consolidate the victory they have won after seven years of
war. Where do we find the troops to take back the territory our rebels lost? Or do we just bomb
mercilessly?
The British and French say they will back us in future attacks if chemical weapons are used,
but they are not plunging into Syria.
Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal.
British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must
proceed as it will."
The Journal 's op-ed page Monday was turned over to former U.S. ambassador to Syria
Ryan Crocker and Brookings Institute senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon: "Next time the U.S. could
up the ante, going after military command and control, political leadership, and perhaps even
Assad himself. The U.S. could also pledge to take out much of his air force. Targets within
Iran should not be off limits."
And when did Congress authorize U.S. acts of war against Syria, its air force, or political
leadership? When did Congress authorize the killing of the president of Syria whose country has
not attacked us?
Can the U.S. also attack Iran and kill the ayatollah without consulting Congress?
Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want
any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into
becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man,
opposed his election.
We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is
a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of
nonexistent WMDs.
The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal
strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army,
they will yield to our demands.
But where is the evidence for this?
What reason is there to believe these forces will surrender what they have paid in blood to
win? And if they choose to fight and widen the war to the larger Middle East, are we prepared
for that?
As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce
lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post on Sunday dismissed this as
"fatalistic" and "misguided." We have a vital interest, says the Post , in preventing
Iran from establishing a "land corridor" across Syria.
Yet consider how Iran acquired this "land corridor." The Shiites in 1979 overthrew a shah
our CIA installed in 1953. The Shiites control Iraq because President Bush invaded and
overthrew Saddam and his Sunni Baath Party, disbanded his Sunni-led army, and let the Shiite
majority take control of the country. The Shiites are dominant in Lebanon because they rose up
and ran out the Israelis, who invaded in 1982 to run out the PLO.
How many American dead will it take to reverse this history?
How long will we have to stay in the Middle East to assure the permanent hegemony of Sunni
over Shiite?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
"... Given that a key function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty. Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth that does not serve his objectives. ..."
"... The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the package. ..."
"... The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that he will lash out in destructive ways . ..."
"... But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. ..."
"... Pompeo did not rise so quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear. ..."
This week John Bolton assumes the job of national security adviser. Given that a key
function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and
most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard
to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty.
Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy
that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth
that does not serve his objectives. Bolton's objectives are characterized by never meeting
a war or prospective war he didn't like. He still avows that the Iraq War -- with all the costs
and chaos it has caused, from thousands of American deaths to the birth of the group that we
now know as ISIS -- was a good idea. That someone with this perspective has been entrusted with
the job Bolton now has is a glaring example of how there often is no accountability in
Washington for gross policy malpractice.
Appointments as national security adviser are not subject to Senate confirmation. If they
were, it would be appropriate for the Senate to react as it did the last time Bolton came
before that body as a nominee for a job that does require confirmation. In 2005 the Senate
turned down his nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. The Senate review brought to
light some of the uglier aspects of Bolton's conduct in his previous job as an undersecretary
of state. President George W. Bush gave him a recess appointment to the U.N. job, but
fortunately that meant there was a time limit to the destruction Bolton could wreak in that
position.
The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important
foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated
Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of
Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one
of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package
deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the
package.
The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently
has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during
the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that
he will lash out in destructive ways . The copious commentary during the fifteen
months of the Trump presidency about having "adults in the room" to restrain the worst urges of
an inexperienced and impulsive president speaks to an important truth. Whether adult
supervision of this sort succeeds or fails depends on the collective impact of all of the
president's senior subordinates. To the extent any one subordinate is especially influential in
this regard on foreign policy, it probably is the national security adviser who is best
positioned either to accentuate or to restrain Trump's impulses. Having Bolton in that job
makes the restraining ability of the secretary of state all the more important.
But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to
restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what
Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were
too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. P
Pompeo's winning of favor with Trump, during what reportedly has been lots of face time with
him at the White House during the past year, has a similar dynamic. Pompeo did not rise so
quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to
where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he
needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear.
Senators hold up confirmation of nominees, and sometimes vote against them, for all kinds of
reasons unrelated to the resumé of the nominee. It would be proper for them to vote
against a nominee for secretary of state partly because of who the national security adviser
is, given that both of them are in service to an unstable president.
There are other reasons to consider Pompeo and Bolton in tandem. In several respects they
are two hazardous peas in a pod. On North Korea, Bolton's bellicose posture is matched by
Pompeo's statements about seeking ways to
"separate" Kim Jong Un from his nuclear weapons , suggesting a priority to regime change
over keeping a volatile situation on the Korean peninsula from blowing up. Both Pompeo and
Bolton, along with Trump, have sworn eternal hostility to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), the multilateral agreement that closed all possible paths to an Iranian nuclear
weapon. Neither man bothers to explain how destruction of the agreement, which would free Iran
to produce as much fissile material as it wants and would end the intrusive international
inspections of the Iranian program, could possibly
"... Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. ..."
"... Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely (albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south western Syria. ..."
The US media outlet Politico has published claims based on internal White House leaks, which report that the
controversial US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, is the author of Trump's anti-JCPOA and broader
anti-Iran policies, which were conveyed in his speech form the White House, yesterday evening.
Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the
anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. Her role as US Ambassador has been far more public than that of most of
her predecessors. Many, including myself, suspect that Haley who has no previous foreign policy experience, is
using her position at the UN to promote a future entry into elected politics at a Federal level.
According to Politico, in July of this year, Trump grudgingly certified the JCPOA under advice from
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis. However, at the time, Haley was
said to have volunteered to author an argument which could be employed in the future, which would attempt to
justify a US de-certification of the JCPOA.
"At a mid-day meeting in the Oval Office in late July, U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley came to President
Donald Trump with an offer.
Trump had grudgingly declared Tehran in compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal earlier in the month,
at the urging of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Trump hated the
deal. But the two men pushed him to certify it, arguing in part that he lacked a strong case for declaring
Iran in violation. A refusal to do so would have looked rash, they said, convincing Trump sign off for
another 90 days.
Haley, in that July meeting, which also included National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Vice
President Mike Pence, asked the president to let her make the case for decertification
'Let me lay a foundation for it', she said, according a source familiar with the proceedings. The
president agreed.
Haley would become the administration's most vocal public proponent of decertification -- and Trump's
favorite internal voice on Iran -- further boosting her standing with the president at a time when she is seen
as a potential successor to Tillerson, whose tense relationship with Trump has burst into the open in recent
days.
A month after her talk with Trump, Haley flew to Vienna to visit the headquarters of the International
Atomic Energy Association, where she pressed officials about Iranian compliance with the deal. Soon after,
she delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., airing her "doubts and
concerns" about the agreement.
Haley's role was described by a half-dozen administration officials who took part in the Iran policy
review. While many of the president's cabinet members, aides, and advisers work to restrain his impulses,
when it came to Iran deal Haley did the opposite -- channeling what many Democrats and even some Republicans
consider the president's destructive instincts into policy".
The story from Politico which also argues that arch neo-con John Bolton pushed for a full withdrawal from
the JCPOA from his position outside of the White House, follows may well known trends. This helps explain why
Mattis recently stated that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and why Rex Tilleron's State Department has
officially said the same.
Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a
number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have
been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria
for the foreseeable future.
She has also echoed Donald Trump's aggressive statements about North Korea, whereas Rex Tillerson has often
repeated his view that the US does not and should not seek regime change in Pyongyang and instead will continue
to pursue a diplomatic process.
Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely
(albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south
western Syria.
At one point, Rex Tillerson was said to have privately
reprimanded Haley
for inventing her own foreign policy without consulting her superiors at the State
Department. However, it seems that in respect of Iran, Trump has overruled Tillerson and allowed Haley to take
charge.
Haley later told journalists that she was offered the position of Secretary of State but turned it down,
before being offered the position of Ambassador to the UN. Haley further attested that she sent Trump a list of
demands that she never expected to be agreed upon, as a precondition for accepting her current position.
Haley who has long been seen as a rogue figure in the Trump administration and one who is widely exceeding
her authority, is apparently doing so with Donald Trump's approval.
With rumours swirling that Rex Tillerson planned on resigning, even before it emerged that he allegedly
called Trump a "fucking moron", there is now an increased possibility that a hyper-neo-con, might soon become
the chief foreign policy maker in a Trump administration that was elected on the basis of opposing the neo-con
ideology.
With many Trump administration officials coming and going in short order, there is a very worrying
possibility that Nikki Haley's role will only be enhanced in future months. This is dangerous not only for the
United States, but for the wider world. Haley's inexperience is only matched by her zeal for bellicose measures
against countries which have not done any harm to the American people. Such a person should not be anywhere
near power, but it seems as though she has Trump's ear, far more than the vastly more mature Tillerson and
Mattis.
"... And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal. ..."
SPEAKER: What is your view as to whether America should withdraw unilaterally from the Iran nuclear agreement?
MIKE POMPEO: I want to fix this deal. That's the objective. I think that's in the best interest of the United States
of America.
SPEAKER: But if the agreement cannot be changed. My question is pretty simple. We're running very close to a deadline
on certification.
MIKE POMPEO:And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level
best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal.
SHARMINI PERIES: Pompeo is a member of the Tea Party movement, and is generally viewed as a pro-war hardliner who has previously
vowed to cancel the Iran agreement ...
... ... ...
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, let's just take the issue of Iran, for starters. There he said at the hearing that he would not try to get
out of the Iran nuclear deal, that he wants a better deal. But in the past he's talked about getting out of the Iran nuclear deal.
And not only that he said that regime change is the only way to deal with Iran. And as CIA director he also downplayed the CIA's
assessment that Iran was complying with the deal although at the hearing he said he has no reason to deny that Iran is complying.
So he says very different things and in different places. But I think his actions and his statements in the past speak louder than
the words at the hearing, which were quite deceptive, and he's trying to win over Democrats. So he was evasive on some of the issues
that he has been very clear about in the past, such as striking Iran, North Korea, and certainly he was open about the president's
right to bomb Syria.
... ... ...
SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Now, speaking of Syria and the tensions that are arising with Russia over the chemical attack that Russia
now says, and in fact Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, is on record saying they have information that some one else, some other
country, initiated this attack in Syria. This is really a heightening the tension between Russia and the United States. So let me
go to you on this, Phyllis, first, and then we'll go back to Medea. But your take on this rising tension between U.S. And Russia?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: This is a very, very dangerous moment, when we have Trump, with all of his own proclivities towards war and against
diplomacy, surrounding himself by what looks like a clear war cabinet. The danger of escalation in Syria is very serious. It could
lead to a direct clash between the two most powerful nuclear weapon states in the world, the United States and Russia. You have completely
opposite claims emerging from Washington and Moscow, with the U.S. claiming that they know, even though they also agree that they
don't have information, but they know that chemical weapons were used as they were used by the regime in Syria. They seem to know
a lot for a government that admits it doesn't know anything yet.
The Russians, on the other hand, have variously said that another country might be involved. Another Russian diplomat has said
that there was no chemical attack at all. So for myself, I don't actually believe any of these claims by any of the governments.
I'm waiting to hear what the report is of the team that's on its way to D ouma right now, the town outside of Damascus where the
alleged chemical weapons attack occurred. The team of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. That's the the internationally
acknowledged, internationally credible team that will be determining whether or not chemicals were used, what chemicals were used
if there were any, who was affected, what delivery systems, et cetera. They are not mandated to determine who fired or who gave the
orders to fire. That's a much more political question that will come back to the Security Council and may stall there, we don't know.
But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago. So I think that we need to do everything
possible to ramp down this level of rhetoric. When the U.S. continues to talk about the inevitability of new strikes against Syria,
knowing that this is a direct violation of both, again, international law and U.S. domestic law and threatens the possibility of
retaliation against U.S. troops in the region, U.S. warships in the Mediterranean, U.S. warplanes in the skies, and, most importantly,
threatens the possibility, the likelihood, of killing more Syrian civilians. We are facing a very, very urgent crisis even before
we get to the possibility of serious escalation.
So this is something that Congress needs to take very seriously. And unfortunately in what we've seen in the Pompeo hearing there
was simply not enough, not enough pushing for this candidate to be the supposed leader of diplomacy in the United States, to push
him on the necessity not of saying well, we hoped that we could have a diplomatic solution, but if not well then nothing is off the
table. That's not OK. That's not acceptable to the U.S. chief diplomat. And we are simply not hearing enough pressure to make that
position known.
... ... ...
But I was going to put it in the context of remember that we have Bolton as the national security adviser, who did not have to
have a confirmation hearing. This is why somebody like Jeff Merkley, a senator from Massachusetts, came out and said he will not
vote for Pompeo because he recognizes it as part of this larger cabinet, that this is a war cabinet, and therefore a vote for Pompeo
is a vote for war. So I would say continue the fight not to get a confirmation for Mike Pompeo.
SHARMINI PERIES: Phyllis, is that even possible?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Absolutely. And it's crucial. This is exactly what we need to be focusing on right now. The way the votes come
down, it's very, very tight. There are at least, at least one Republican, Rand Paul, who has said he will vote against Pompeo. It
looks like McCain will not be there because of his illness. That cuts out two votes. So it's certainly a possibility. But it's going
to take an enormous amount of work. Enormous numbers of phone calls and visits and protests and threats of not voting back those
members of Congress who, who would go ahead and vote for this person as being the new head of diplomacy. This is as urgent as it
gets.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Phyllis. I thank you so much for joining us. Phyllis is with the Institute for Policy Studies New
Internationalism Project. And Medea Benjamin, thank you so much for joining us. And Medea's from Code Pink. Thank you both.
Nonsense lead . The regime change trope is totally bi-partisan as yesterdays air strikes clearly indicate. Pompeo etal like
most American federal government officialdom are now lackeys and on the payrolls of the MIC , CIA, and banksters. There is no
Iran nuclear deal , Trump is right about that . Iran has moved under Russia's nuclear umbrella as North Korea is now under China's,
making the rush to develop nukes unnecessary at the present time. Obombers treaty was/is a worthless face saving effort, after
the destruction of Libya.. Trump increasing represents the wishes of the duopoly, not the electorate, his latest terror attack
on Syria bumped his popularity 5% across Americas, knocking down the looming Stormy scandal perhaps...
Phyllis: "But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago."
We do know, because we listen daily to the other side of the story too. There was NO Chemical attack . The White Helmets
filmed the deception.
These two Workers of the Douma Hospital's Emergency room, are eyewitnesses of the Lie that was sold by the Western MSM,
which is a tool of the Deep State:
-Syrian Eyewitnesses Reveal How Douma Provocation Was Made- (Published by Sputnik, on Apr 13, 2018)
Arguing for a right-wing Congress to overturn decades of executive war making "privilege" is a bit of a lost cause at this
point. Pompeo is the latest iteration in a long line of those at the State Department who have ditched diplomacy in favor of war.
gustave courbet > novychelovek
Consistent theme in caricatures of other nations/groups relates to their inherent "otherness." Be it Clapper's comment
about Russians being "genetically driven" to "co-opt," or Kim Jong-un's reputation as a madman, or Iran's fundamentalist world
view, they have in common the tendency to project a fundamentally irrational disposition on one's adversaries.
In reality, most governments, be they pseudo-democratic, theocratic, etc are motivated by pragmatic self-interest. In Iran's
case, they can use history to compare non-nuclear states to nuclear powers in regards to US bellicosity and see a clear
pattern.
Aug 6, 2015 -- Jim Moran (D-VA), told Tikkun Magazine that AIPAC. has pushed [the Iraq
war] from the beginning. I don't think they represent the mainstream of American Jewish
thinking at all, but because they are so well organized, and their members are
extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they
The Iraq war -- What did AIPAC do and when did it do it? -- Mondoweiss
mondoweiss.net/2012/ /the-iraq-war-coverup-what-did-aipac-do-and-when-did-it-do
Feb 2, 2012 -- Let's skip forward to the Iraq war itself, 2003. In The Israel Lobby and US
Foreign Policy, Walt and Mearsheimer clearly show that AIPAC pushed the Iraq war, though
quietly. AIPAC usually supports what Israel wants, and Israel certainly wanted the United
States to invade Iraq. Nathan Guttman made this
Barney Frank says Israel and AIPAC lobbied Congress to support war
mondoweiss.net/2015/03/lobbied-congress-support/
Mar 12, 2015 -- Tempers flared even more, they said, when Frank claimed that Israel and
AIPAC had lobbied members of Congress a decade ago to support the war in Iraq. Remember that
Walt and Mearsheimer were tarred as anti-Semites for saying in 2006 that the Israel lobby
pushed the Iraq war.
Sep 30, 2007 -- He said that AIPAC was in favor of the Iraq war and "pushed this war from
the beginning." And he claimed that on the Iraq war, AIPAC didn't represent "the mainstream
of American Jewish thinking at all." Moran had other things to say -- much of it having to do
with AIPAC's lobbying on U.S. relations to Iran.
AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action -- Haaretz
Sep 7, 2013 -- But they had generally wanted the debate to focus on U.S. national security
rather than how a decision to attack Syria might help Israel, a reflection of their
sensitivity to being seen as rooting for the United States to go to war. Obama AIPAC -- AP --
22.5.11 U.S. President Barack Obama arriving at the AIPAC
Dems slam Moran's tying AIPAC to Iraq war -- POLITICO
2012 -- But once inside the hall, the AIPAC attendees heard the sound of war drums.
"Iran's nuclear Nine years ago this month, there was a similar feeling of inevitability --
that despite President George W. Bush's frequent insistence that "war is my last choice," war
in Iraq was coming. Now Israel is moving toward
Feb 21, 2012 -- The bad news is that, as Kampeas also reports, "AIPAC is expected to make
the resolution an 'ask' in three weeks when up to 10,000 activists culminate its Greg
Thielmann of the Arms Control Association notes that, "Even after crushing Iraq in the first
Gulf War, the international coalition only imposed a ..
How much more US hostility toward Russia will it tolerate before declaring unacceptable red
lines were crossed?
Washington and Moscow are on opposite sides of endless war in Syria – a US imperial
project from day one of hostilities.
According to neocon Russophobe Nikki Haley and US ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman, further
(illegal) Trump administration sanctions on Russia are coming, likely Monday.
They'll be imposed for Kremlin involvement in combating US-supported terrorists in Syria
– cutthroat killers falsely called "rebels."
According to Haley, Russian enterprises allegedly "dealing with equipment related to Assad
and any chemical weapons use" will be targeted.
No Syrian CWs exist, the nation's entire stockpile destroyed in 2014, confirmed by the OPCW.
Yet according to Haley (and other lunatic fringe Trump administration Russophobes), Damascus
has undisclosed CWs. Moscow is "covering this up."
The Big Lie persists. No evidence supports it. Facts on the ground never deter Washington
from pursuing it diabolical imperial agenda.
US administrations and bipartisan congressional members consistently blame sovereign
independent nations for US high crimes committed against them.
Haley falsely accused Moscow of aggressive behavior, turning truth on its head, claiming the
Kremlin facilitated the alleged Douma CW incident.
Medical personnel on the ground treated no one for toxic poisoning, no one killed, ill or
harmed, no CW residues found by Russian technical experts at the alleged site.
The false flag incident was staged to blame Syria and Russia for a nonevent – the Big
Lie used as a pretext for US-led terror-bombing of Syrian sites, followed by more illegal
sanctions on Moscow coming Monday.
On Sunday, OPCW inspectors arrived in Douma to inspect the site of the alleged CW attack,
according to Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Ayman Soussan.
AMN news said following US-led terror-bombing of Syrian sites, Russia is sending government
forces more weapons and heavy equipment.
According to Southfront, the Pentagon lied, claiming all missiles fired struck Syrian
targets – at the same time expressing concern about mission results.
An internal probe will be conducted to produce a more accurate after-action report,
including why Syrian air defense systems downed most incoming missiles – reportedly 71 of
103 fired.
Washington intends permanent occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. According to Assad
UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari, one-third of the country is illegally occupied by US forces,
adding:
Security Council debates omit discussing this key issue. Along with terrorists permanent SC
members America, Britain and France support, Damascus faces "three aggressors:" Washington,
London and Paris. "We are a state," Jaafari stressed, "the sovereignty of which has been
violated by a permanent member of the UNSC."
The international community ignores this core issue of the conflict, along with US-led
aggression, using terrorists as foot soldiers, pretending endless war is "civil."
After the latest US-led aggressive incident on a sovereign state, what's next? Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said the Kremlin has "obvious red lines,"
adding Moscow will do all it can to pull East/West relations out of a dangerous "political
nosedive." Addressing the issue diplomatically assures continued failure, along with weakness,
encouraging Washington to slam Russia and Syria harder.
Dealing with hegemonic America requires using the only language it understands –
challenging it forcefully. Pursuing failed policies assures making a bad situation worse ahead. Washington isn't likely
to step back from the brink unless pushed. Diplomacy is futile, accomplishing nothing, encouraging greater US hostility, including
endless aggression in Syria and tough anti-Russia actions.
Washington's rage for global dominance likely assures an eventual East/West showdown. Responding weakly to hostile US actions assures more to come, likely harsher than
already. When will Russia respond with toughness – better to risk it in Syria than be forced to
act in defending its heartland.
"... "This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works. The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him, well, you know, it's all Centcom. ..."
"... Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and "transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon. ..."
In fact, just how "ugly" the relationship has become is fast becoming a matter of public
debate. During his March visit, Scaparrotti appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee
to give testimony on the challenges facing his command. While most members focused on Russia
and cyberwar issues, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine explored the U.S.-Turkey dust-up, hinting that
it might be time for the U.S. to dampen its YPG ties. Scaparrotti didn't disagree, while
soft-pedaling the disagreements over the issue that he's had with Votel and Centcom. "Where do
we want to be in a year, two years and five years?" he asked. "With a close NATO ally like
Turkey, we know that we want to maintain and strengthen our relationship. So that's the
long-term objective and if we look at the long-term objective, it can begin to inform what
we're doing today with respect to NATO." The senior military officer with whom I spoke proved a
willing translator: "What Scaparrotti is saying is that the real marriage here is between the
U.S. and Turkey. The YPG is just a fling."
But convincing James Mattis of that is proving difficult, in part because Scaparrotti is
outgunned. Every defense secretary surrounds himself with people he can count on and who he
listens to. But for Mattis almost all of them have had experience in the Middle East -- and at
Centcom. There's Mattis himself (a former Centcom commander), JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford (who
served with Mattis in Iraq), Joint Staff Director Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, Jr. (a
Marine who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq), retired Rear Admiral Kevin M. Sweeney (the
former Centcom executive officer), Rear Admiral Craig S. Faller (a Mattis advisor, and a Navy
commander during both the Afghan and Iraq wars), and current Centcom commander General Joseph
Votel -- the former commander of the U.S. Special Operation Command ("a trigger puller," as he
was described to me by a currently serving officer). Votel is the most outspoken YPG supporter
of any of them, and because he's the combatant commander, his support carries weight.
"This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of
these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works.
The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the
Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him,
well, you know, it's all Centcom. So Scaparrotti is worried, and he ought to be. We don't
want to be sitting around 30 years from now reading historical pieces with titles like 'Who
Lost Turkey?'"
Even someone as careful in his public utterances as Admiral James Stavridis, who once held
Scaparrotti's command and is now the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, is
raising concerns. While he waves off the "who lost Turkey" formulation as "a trope that is
moving around the Internet," he told me in an email exchange that "it would be a mistake of
epic proportions to allow Turkey to drift out of the transatlantic orbit" -- a repeat of the
warning issued by Scaparrotti to Mattis in March. But like Scaparrotti, Staviridis is
slow-rolling his disagreement. "This is a distinction without a difference," the senior officer
and NATO partisan with whom we spoke says. "By drifting out of NATO, Stavridis means leaving.
He's as worried as anyone else."
Concerns over Turkey are probably a surprise in the White House, given its almost daily
crisis over the looming Russia-gate investigation, but they shouldn't be. The president has had
extended telephone exchanges with Turkish President Tayyip Erodogan twice in the last three
weeks. While the White House has refused to give details of these conversations, the Turkish
official with whom we spoke told TAC that in both conversations (on March 23 and again
on April 11), Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and
"transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note
that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S.
troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a
suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon.
On April 3, the same day Trump issued his let's-get-out statement, Joseph Votel and Brett
McGurk appeared at the U.S. Institute of Peace, arguing that the U.S. needed to stay in. "The
hard part, I think, is in front of us," Votel said, "and that is stabilizing these areas,
consolidating our gains, getting back to their homes. There is a military role in this," he
went on to say. "Certainly in the stabilization phase."
The Votel appearance was exasperating for those worried about NATO's future, and for those
concerned that the endless conflicts in the region are draining the defense budget of badly
needed funds to rebuild U.S. military readiness. For them, a group that now includes a growing
number of very senior and influential military officers, "stabilization" is not only a codeword
for "nation building," it signals support for a mission that is endangering the future of NATO,
the institution that has guaranteed peace in Europe for three generations.
"It's not worth it," the senior military commander who spoke with TAC concludes. "On
top of everything else, it puts us on the wrong side of the political equation. This whole
thing about how the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a bunch of bullshit. The enemy of my
enemy is now making an enemy of our friend. I don't know who we think we're fooling, but it
sure as hell isn't Turkey. And it isn't the American people either."
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to The American
Conservative, and the author of The
Pentagon's Wars (2017).
The technical ability of Porton Down to identify a chemical has never been in doubt, and
the only "finding of the United Kingdom " the OPCW has confirmed is the identity of the
chemical.
But what neither the British Government nor the OPCW have, to the present, acknowledged is
that blood samples from the Skripal's contained two nerve agents, A-234, aka Novichok, plus
3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate, aka BZ or Buzz.
Novichok is a convulsant (which acts by preventing the breakdown of the neurotransmitter
acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction, with the result that muscles go into full
contraction, hence the symptoms of convulsions, vomiting, etc.), whereas BZ is a paralytic
agent (which acts by binding to acetylcholine receptors at the neuromuscular junction without
activating them, thereby preventing muscle contraction, hence the symptoms of paralysis and
ultimately death by asphyxiation).
Thus, BZ will serve as an antidote to Novichok poisoning, wheras Novichok will serve as an
antidote to BZ poisoning. So the presence of Novichok in the Skipal blood samples is not
conclusive evidence that Novichok was the poison, rather than the antidote, as I have
discussed here: 3-Quinuclidinyl
Benzilate: The Antidote to Novichok , and here: Novichok:
Russia's Antidote to Seafood Poisoning .
"... And in the later articles posted here, he writes: "That puts Saudi Arabia (and its client jihadists), Saudi Arabia's close ally Israel, the UK and the USA all in the frame in having a powerful motive in inculcating anti-Russian sentiment prior to planned conflict with Russia in Syria. Any of them could have attacked the Skripals." ..."
I have never ruled out the possibility that Russia is responsible for the attack in
Salisbury, amongst other possibilities. But I do rule out the possibility that Assad is
dropping chemical weapons in Ghouta. In this extraordinary war, where Saudi-funded jihadist
head choppers have Israeli air support and US and UK military "advisers", every time the Syrian
army is about to take complete control of a major jihadist enclave, at the last moment when
victory is in their grasp, the Syrian Army allegedly attacks children with chemical weapons,
for no military reason at all. We have been fed this narrative again and again and again.
We then face a propaganda onslaught from neo-con politicians, think tanks and "charities"
urging a great rain of Western bombs and missiles, and are accused of callousness towards
suffering children if we demur. This despite the certain knowledge that Western military
interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have had consequences which remain to this day
utterly disastrous.
I fear that the massive orchestration of Russophobia over the last two years is intended to
prepare public opinion for a wider military conflict centred on the Middle East, but likely to
spread, and that we are approaching that endgame. The dislocation of the political and media
class from the general population is such, that the levers for people of goodwill to prevent
this are, as with Iraq, extremely few as politicians quake in the face of media jingoism. These
feel like extremely dangerous times.
"I have never ruled out the possibility that Russia is responsible for the attack in
Salisbury"
Time for timid half-truths is over. If by now you haven't identified the Skripal affair as
the joint UK/US production it is, Act I of the AngloZionist war on Syria, Russia and
humanity, your analysis isn't worth the pixels it's written on. There is zero doubt. Case
closed. Especially after this:
I wish you realize that appeals to skepticism and lines like "I'm not fan of Putin/Assad"
get you nowhere. You are facing a brutal, fact-twisting, intellect-insulting, lying,
propaganda machine. Any concession you make to their "arguments" comes with the smell of
blood. They'll mock your "moderate" views and will try to make you look weak and foolish as
Sky-news did. You can't be only half-brave, half-informed and half-right. And why engage
those shameless liars if not to destroy completely their blatant lies?
When Hungary prepared democratically laws to stop Soros meddling in Hungary Soros phoned
Brussels, spoke to Juncker and Tusk, the next day Timmermans tried to intimidate the
Hungarian government.
Just now there have been Hungarian elections, anti migration and anti Soros Orban was
elected.
European parliament member Sargenti now wants to take Hungary's voting right in the EU
away.
Sargenti is on the 231 member list that seem to be followers of Soros.
As Jimmy Carter once said 'those that want war do not expect that they themselves are going
to be hurt'.
That in the next world war anyone will be more than hurt, killed, the war mongers do not
understand, cannot believe.
Please, why don't you mention the other possibilities, instead of "the Russian one"?
Bit harsh to criticise Craig Murray on that score. I see your point, and it would be a
valid point to raise with an establishment journo who has been generally an effective part of
the anti-Russia propaganda campaign, but Murray has discussed the other options on many
occasions (and been the brunt of some pretty harsh establishment bullying in response).
In this case, it can safely be regarded as just efficient writing.
Even if Assad did use gas, which he obviously didn't, who the heck are the Americans, the
British, and the French to lecture anyone on morality, given that they unlike Assad did
practice chemical warfare, and killed uncounted millions around the globe with "conventional"
means in order to loot them, and to "punish" Assad as the bankster with an Oedipus complex
Macron put it?
Mr Murray lost his job because he stood up for the right thing in 2004 and he has been
abused ever since. His sanity has been called into question ever since he suggested the
British government weren't telling the truth. His brief period in an instiuttion after Blair
sacked him has been brought up more than once.
I suspect Craig's position of apparent open-mindedness has arisen from a lengthy Sky News
TV interview with the appalling Kay Burley. He was careful in an eighteen minute segment not
to give cause for Burley to label him as a Putin bot. He was most careful not to take the
focus off the weakness in the British government's position and I think that was correct.
As soon as you see the tissue of lies emanating from London the innocence of Moscow
follows naturally. Mr Murray was correct not to allow himself to be provoked by Kay Burley
and she was visibly annoyed by her failure.
Sky News tried to bury the confrontation but somebody recorded it and you can find the
interview at craigmurray.org
The ever excellent Campaign Against the Arms Trade is back in the English High Court
again today in its continuing attempts to ban arms sales to Saudi Arabia. It is against
UK law to sell arms to a country which is likely to use them in breach of international
humanitarian law , and that Saudi Arabia consistently and regularly uses British
weapons to bomb schools, hospitals and civilians is indisputable.
Why didn't the High Court ban arm sales to UK army, which is using them in breach of
international humanitarian law, consistently & regularly since its colonial era, in
Vietnam & Korea wars, Blair's Iraq WMD illegal war, Cameron's illegal Libya bombing, and
now May's illegal attack to Syria.
Saudi arabia Yemen's war pale in comparison to UK long history of atrocities. What a
British hypocrite law enacted in a kangaroo judicial system? A country of government infested
with shameless warmonger liars & paedophiles, yet popularly elected by its people. What a
great Anglosaxon-West civilization & glorious demoncrapcy system to be spread around the
world for easy subversion & regime change.
Proven guilty Iraq war criminal Tony Blair is walking free, repeating his same lies again
to push for illegal Syria attack. Yet not a single war protest from UK people. Touch a LBGT
issue or Trumps visit, British will gone hysteria protest in London, oh what a great nation.
World Capital of paedophiles, war criminals & pathological liars.
How can God save the Queen that connive criminals, with stolen wealth soaking with
innocents blood.
I appreciated the frame you provided.
That's a very serious charge against Great Britain -- sadly, I found it a somewhat
compelling and disconcerting.
I suspect that in all of this there are fears that it's a response to enemies without as
opposed to enemies from within. I have no idea where this notion comes from -- that states
can act as authority for UN missions without the consent of the UN. Great Britain's press
here sounds very much like the legal gymnastic of the US to invade Iraq and has much weight
-- I agree.
The chaos in Libya, Syria, the Ukraine is the direct result of US and EU manipulation. I
just don't know how to support "wrongness" on so many levels and consider myself a person of
integrity. The humanitarian crisis in all of the regions is exacerbated by our own violations
of law and foreign policy best practices.
Not a bad article, but superficial. Does not address the why question and the huge
ideological difference between Russia and the 'West' which leads to war.
Agree. Resisting lying provocation to war should be done with what ZUSA terms "moral
clarity." Said another way, No Quarter, No Mercy. If the need is felt to characterize Assad, the only things that needs be said are that he
is the legitimate leader of a sovereign nation, and that attempts to topple him, by ZUSA
& Anglos, are in direct violation of United Nations charter.
I have never ruled out the possibility that Russia is responsible for the attack in
Salisbury, amongst other possibilities.
And I have never ruled out the word which can not be spoken, that ISRAEL was behind both
attacks, to justify getting their US/UK/French lackeys to do in Syria what they can not
without taking losses, attacking Syrian cities with cruise missiles.
Poisoned toothpaste and exploding phones: New book chronicles Israel's '2,700'
assassination operations
Poisoned toothpaste that takes a month to end its target's life. Armed drones. Exploding
mobile phones. Spare tyres with remote-control bombs. Assassinating enemy scientists and
discovering the secret lovers of Muslim clerics.
A new book chronicles these techniques and asserts that Israel has carried out at
least 2,700 assassination operations in its 70 years of existence. While many failed,
they add up to far more than any other western country, the book says.
The main beneficiary of the recent cruise missile attacks against Syria is Israel, so
let's be honest and see what happens.
From an April 2003 Haaretz article:
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them
Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them,
journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.
This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25
people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if
you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have
happened.
So, aside from selling weapons to Syria and Iran – and thus, giving up control over
those weapons – what exactly should Putin have done to continue receiving your
approval? Start WW3?
Another question: if this is just a staged play of good cop, bad cop – why does the
puppet master behind the scenes not advance the plot? Why the need for silly diversions into
the bucolic English countryside, and for embarrassing cameos by French boy princes?
Not sure where you are from, but some countries – particularly those that have
experienced it at home – consider war a serious business, not quite the same as a bar
brawl in Dodge City.
I keep hearing that the Qatar – Europe pipeline is the source of the Syria War, what I
cant understand if their so desperate for this why does it need to go through Syria, theres`s
other ways like across SA and up the red sea?
In Murray's first post on the Skripal story, he lists other possible suspects as Orbis
Intelligence (who produced the Steele dossier) and the state of Israel:
And in the later articles posted here, he writes: "That puts Saudi Arabia (and its client
jihadists), Saudi Arabia's close ally Israel, the UK and the USA all in the frame in having a
powerful motive in inculcating anti-Russian sentiment prior to planned conflict with Russia
in Syria. Any of them could have attacked the Skripals."
The West would simply like him to meet his obligations and stop gassing people as there
is an international agreement against killing people that way. Why can't he just stick
to the normal use of high explosives to blast them to pieces?
Why can't he just stick to the normal use of high explosives to blast them to
pieces?
Because that process is still under Israeli patent protection??
Didn't he and various generals plainly state that retaliation would be swift and
immediately delivered to any such platform?
Yes, if Russian military assets in Syria are targeted or hit. The US strike was the
warfare equivalent of a plate smashing fit thrown by a hysterical tranny. Just a loud
demonstration of impotence and fishing for attention. It's better handled unanswered. Now, if
the tranny decides to go in a full abuser mode, Putin may seriously mess up her makeup.
"... Given that a key function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty. Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth that does not serve his objectives. ..."
"... The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the package. ..."
"... The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that he will lash out in destructive ways . ..."
"... But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. ..."
"... Pompeo did not rise so quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear. ..."
This week John Bolton assumes the job of national security adviser. Given that a key
function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and
most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard
to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty.
Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy
that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth
that does not serve his objectives. Bolton's objectives are characterized by never meeting
a war or prospective war he didn't like. He still avows that the Iraq War -- with all the costs
and chaos it has caused, from thousands of American deaths to the birth of the group that we
now know as ISIS -- was a good idea. That someone with this perspective has been entrusted with
the job Bolton now has is a glaring example of how there often is no accountability in
Washington for gross policy malpractice.
Appointments as national security adviser are not subject to Senate confirmation. If they
were, it would be appropriate for the Senate to react as it did the last time Bolton came
before that body as a nominee for a job that does require confirmation. In 2005 the Senate
turned down his nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. The Senate review brought to
light some of the uglier aspects of Bolton's conduct in his previous job as an undersecretary
of state. President George W. Bush gave him a recess appointment to the U.N. job, but
fortunately that meant there was a time limit to the destruction Bolton could wreak in that
position.
The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important
foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated
Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of
Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one
of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package
deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the
package.
The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently
has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during
the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that
he will lash out in destructive ways . The copious commentary during the fifteen
months of the Trump presidency about having "adults in the room" to restrain the worst urges of
an inexperienced and impulsive president speaks to an important truth. Whether adult
supervision of this sort succeeds or fails depends on the collective impact of all of the
president's senior subordinates. To the extent any one subordinate is especially influential in
this regard on foreign policy, it probably is the national security adviser who is best
positioned either to accentuate or to restrain Trump's impulses. Having Bolton in that job
makes the restraining ability of the secretary of state all the more important.
But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to
restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what
Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were
too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. P
Pompeo's winning of favor with Trump, during what reportedly has been lots of face time with
him at the White House during the past year, has a similar dynamic. Pompeo did not rise so
quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to
where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he
needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear.
Senators hold up confirmation of nominees, and sometimes vote against them, for all kinds of
reasons unrelated to the resumé of the nominee. It would be proper for them to vote
against a nominee for secretary of state partly because of who the national security adviser
is, given that both of them are in service to an unstable president.
There are other reasons to consider Pompeo and Bolton in tandem. In several respects they
are two hazardous peas in a pod. On North Korea, Bolton's bellicose posture is matched by
Pompeo's statements about seeking ways to
"separate" Kim Jong Un from his nuclear weapons , suggesting a priority to regime change
over keeping a volatile situation on the Korean peninsula from blowing up. Both Pompeo and
Bolton, along with Trump, have sworn eternal hostility to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), the multilateral agreement that closed all possible paths to an Iranian nuclear
weapon. Neither man bothers to explain how destruction of the agreement, which would free Iran
to produce as much fissile material as it wants and would end the intrusive international
inspections of the Iranian program, could possibly
US officials and the presstitutes tell us that the illegal US missile attack on Syria
destroyed chemical weapons sites where chlorine and sarin are stored/manufactured. If this were
true, would not a lethal cloud have been released that would have taken the lives of far more
people than claimed in the alleged Syrian chemical attack on Douma? Would not the US missile
attack be identical to a chemical weapons attack and thus place the US and its vassals in the
same category as Washington is attempting to place Assad and Putin?
Russia can do nothing alone. NATO is way too strong.
Notable quotes:
"... my honor is called solidarity ..."
"... my honor is loyalty ..."
"... by not taking any action the Russians also failed to deter any future attacks. But what could the Russians have done? ..."
"... Sic transit gloria mundi ..."
"... Trump demonstrated that the U.S. can still bomb non nuclear countries without regard for the Constitution, international law or common decency. The Deplorables demonstrated that elections will not change anything. Only the death of the U.S. dollar will end Anglo/Zio Imperial aggression. ..."
"... Russia was outgunned, so they did not respond. It was probably a wise decision. They did damage control admirably, and now have an opportunity to improve the Syrian arsenal with obvious justification. ..."
"... Slowly but surely, Russia is tightening the noose in Syria. Air defenses are improving. ..."
"... My precious, too many players want to start a real war between the Mercans and Russians. Aside from the casual suspects (KSA and Israel), Chinese also objectively benefit from the confrontation, which explains their aloofness. Should this come to a nuclear war, Chinese will be the one and only winner. For this old smart monkey is still sitting on the tree, and nothing has changed since Chairman Mao times. ..."
"... For Iran, this war will certainly enhance the Iran-Russia axis and thus may postpone the US aggression. Turkey loves it too because it can play both sides. ..."
"... Ironically, only the USA and Russia will be the biggest losers regardless of the outcome. ..."
"... In UNSC, China has surprisingly took abstained neutral stand, allowing it to play the coordinator role & denying US UK Fr to get any legit for attack. This avoid relegating UNSC into two sides shouting. Nikki Harley was thus preempted her wish of striking with or without UNSC mandate since all ended agreed to let UN conduct independent inspection. Overall, this continue to lock US UK Fr inside UNSC framework. ..."
"... The general idea seems to be containment of Russia, hemming them in within their own borders and cutting them off from being able to extend their influence outward. ..."
"... As part of this any allies of theirs such as Syria come under attack; if the west can't own them then they're to be reduced to chaos and rendered into costly burdens for the Russians. ..."
"... It's all a very cynical and calculated plan that fits into the overall picture of encircling the Russians to stymie their development and influence. NATO expansion up to their borders, the Ukraine coup, encirclement, picking off vulnerable allies, economic warfare and political subversion without end, the pattern is clear. At some point an actual clash might come about, not necessarily now with Syria as the trigger but somewhere all along the entire line of points of friction. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that something bad is going to happen somewhere down the line as the irresistible force meets the immovable object. ..."
"... As a fervent anti-war activist since the sixties, I have been appalled at all the regime change the US has and continues to do around the world including both military covert operations and economic warfare. Well Putin had me at his 2007 Munich speech. ..."
About a month ago Nikki Haley announces to the
UNSC that the USA is ready to violate the rules of this very self-same UNSC should a chemical
attack happen in Syria Then the Russians announced that they have evidence that a chemical
false flag is being prepared in Syria Then a chemical attack (supposedly) takes place (in a
location surrounded and, basically, controlled by government forces!) The OPWC sends
investigators (in spite of western powers loudly proclaiming that no investigation was needed)
The AngloZionists then bomb Syria Next, the UNSC refuses to condemn the violation of its own
rules and decisions Finally, the US Americans speak of a 'perfect strike'
Now tell me -- do you get a sense that this is over?
If you tell me that 32/103 is hardly perfect, I will reply that you are missing the point.
In fact, if anything, 32/103 is further incentive to bomb again!
Let's look at the differently for a second and ask this: what has the AngloZionist attack
actually demonstrated?
The western general public is so terminally zombified that false flag
attacks can now be announced 4 weeks in advance The Europeans now live by the motto " my
honor is called solidarity " (a variation of the SS motto " my honor is loyalty
") Led by the USA, western countries have no objections to wars started in violation of their
own national laws The UN Security Council has no objections to wars started in violation of the
UN Charter and International Law The PRC leaders, in their infinite wisdom, act as if they have
nothing personal at stake and act like bystanders The Israelis, via the UN Neocons, are now in
total control of the Empire and use it to "clean house" next door
Oh, I hear the objections. They go something like this:
But the attack was a dismal
failure! So what? the Empire did not pay any price for executing it. But the US Americans did
blink! The attacked from Jordanian airspace and from the Red Sea! They avoided the Russians
completely! They are afraid of them! So what? They still bombed a Russian ally with total
impunity. But, surely you are not suggesting that the Russians should have started a war
against the USA over a strike which did not even kill a single person?
No, of course not, but by not taking any action the Russians also failed to deter any
future attacks. But what could the Russians have done?
Now *that* is the right question!
Let's look at it a little closer. Roughly speaking, the Russians have a choice of 3 types of
retaliatory measures: political, economic and military. However, each one of them has a
specific set of prerequisites which are currently problematic to say the least:
Measures
Political
Economic
Military
Prerequisites
Assumes a minimal amount of decency, integrity and respect for the rule of law by the
rest of the planet.
Assumes that other countries, especially China, would be willing and able to support
such measures.
Assumes that Russia has the military capability to defeat the AngloZionist
"coalition".
Current reality
Russia can moan, bitch, complain, protest, appeal to higher values, logic or facts --
nobody gives a damn.
The Chinese and the rest of them are not willing to do anything at this time to
support Russia.
Russia can militarily defeat the AngloZionists, but only by risking the future of our
planet.
This really can be summarized a simple sentence: the AngloZionist Hegemony is a threat for
the entire planet, but nobody besides Russia and Iran is willing to take it on. Ain't that an
irony!
The so-called "Christian West" has become a willing host for its Zionist parasite and the
only ones with the courage and moral integrity to take it on are Orthodox Christians and
Muslims! Sic transit gloria mundi indeed
But what is even more important is this: while it is true that the US Neocons did not
succeed in delivering the kind of massive attack they would have wanted to, and while it is
true that the US attack was just about as lame as can be, you need to completely forget about
these facts. Facts simply don't matter. And neither does logic. All that matters are
perceptions!
And the perception is that "we" (the AngloZionist rulers and their serfs) "kicked" Assad's
"ass" and that "we" will "do it again" if "we" feel like it. That is all that matters in the
Empire of
Illusions which the AngloZionist Hegemony has become.
As soon as you understand that, you also will have to agree that Trump was right: it was a
"perfect strike" (again, not in reality, but in the world of illusions created around it).
So now we come full circle.
The AngloZionist Hegemony demands that the entire planet bows down and worships
it . Except for Russia and Iran, everybody meekly goes down on their knees or, at most,
meekly looks away. In their own delusional reality, the 'Mericans feel empowered to smack down
Russia or Iran at anytime. There is nothing Iran can do to stop them, and while Russia can, she
can only do that at the risk of the future of our entire planet.
Now you tell me -- do you really think this is over?
That's clearly a civilian assertion. By no way, the US can defeat Iran, unless they are
ready to send 500 000 grunts there. And they are not. No US president will survive a 10 000
body bag return.
They can use air power for sure, but that will never be enough to force Iran to bow.And
I'm quite sure the Russian will provide them everything they have to help Iran.And China
probably too.
Without even mentioning destruction of Barbaric Saudi and closin Ormuz strait. It's
clearly not over but the US are not as powerful as you think.
Well, firstly, I don't think the future of our planet is at risk, if you mean by that
extinction of life on Earth. Current arsenals can't do that, even in the worst case scenario.
Nor even can they extinct human race either. Lots of deaths? Yes, sure. Extinction? Nope.
Secondly, there is no rule of law because there is no punishment. Once punishment is
delivered, things will change quickly. I agree with you that political or economical
punishment will not work. But military punishment will do. Sink some US carriers or destroy
some Israel bases, and you will see how they become well-behaved.
Trump demonstrated that the U.S. can still bomb non nuclear countries without regard for
the Constitution, international law or common decency. The Deplorables demonstrated that
elections will not change anything. Only the death of the U.S. dollar will end Anglo/Zio
Imperial aggression.
It is not only Russia and Iran that does not bow down. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela,
Phillipines, China etc. Etc. These countries have done as much as the Russians have. Its not
like Russia sank a carrier or anything and it's not like Russia is defender of the world on a
crusade to defend the planet. They are only acting because they are in the crosshairs.
If America was targeting Cuba, Russia would not say or do anything against America.
While both vessels [USS Winston Churchill, USS Donald Cook] carry as many as 90 Tomahawk
missiles -- the main weapon used in the Friday evening strike on Syria -- neither ship in
the end fired a shot. Instead, according to a person familiar with White House war
planning, they were part of a plan to distract Russia and its Syrian ally from an assault
Assad's government could do little to defend itself against.
It worked. Pentagon officials on Saturday said they faced little resistance to their
targeted attack on what they said were three Syrian chemical weapons facilities. Most of
the Syrian countermeasures, including defensive ballistic missiles, were fired after U.S.
and allied weapons hit their targets, Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie said
Saturday.
"No Syrian weapon had any effect on anything we did," McKenzie said. He described the
joint U.S., French and U.K. strike as "precise, overwhelming and effective."
Where can I get correct assessments? For, umm . research yeah.
Russia was outgunned, so they did not respond. It was probably a wise decision. They did
damage control admirably, and now have an opportunity to improve the Syrian arsenal with
obvious justification.
Slowly but surely, Russia is tightening the noose in Syria. Air defenses are
improving. The next step is likely to be an arsenal of anti-ship missile's. If necessary
ICBMs might follow some sort of mutual defense treaty.
At some point, Syria itself will be able to deliver the bloody nose to the USA that is so
necessary for justice and world peace. That point will be reached when Syrian abilities to
inflict pain outweigh the costs of escalation
My precious, too many players want to start a real war between the Mercans and Russians.
Aside from the casual suspects (KSA and Israel), Chinese also objectively benefit from the
confrontation, which explains their aloofness. Should this come to a nuclear war, Chinese
will be the one and only winner. For this old smart monkey is still sitting on the tree, and
nothing has changed since Chairman Mao times.
For Iran, this war will certainly enhance the Iran-Russia axis and thus may postpone
the US aggression. Turkey loves it too because it can play both sides.
Ironically, only the USA and Russia will be the biggest losers regardless of the
outcome. It seems they both realize that and are treading carefully. But can they manage
to get out of the clinch? And for how long they can be avoiding the all-out conflict? So no,
-- it's definitely ain't over. We hates it, but the best is yet to come.
You forget ballsy little Bolivia defends Russia in UN with both votes and condemnation of
barking Nikki. It looks like they are offering all they have -- moral condemnation of Empire
and her vassals.
The reason I give it a lot of weight is that the night before the bombing, either Vanessa
Beasley or Eva Bartlett called in to Israeli News Live and gave 12 points explaining what
Syria was expecting to happen and it seems it pretty well went down as they had said. I'm
sorry I can't find the broadcast link. Apparently the Russians said if the strike went into a
second day they would strike back even if Russians were not hit. Looks like the "strike" was
pretty well pre-determined by both sides.
Gave each side a look at the others capabilities and allowed US a chance to waste missiles
and Northrup sell new ones. Same old, same old.
Every time my country says or does something insane (which is often) this Lee Greenwood
song goes thru my mind with modified lyrics. "Ashamed to be an American, where I'm duped to
think I'm free".
How can it be over ? It is a war in progress. One side of the warring party is creating
they own reality, and present it on the world stage with absolute conviction, and
determination. This fake reality is part of the war game , it should not be considered as
lies or staged events. It is war ! Fake reality is part of the repertoire , just like the
missiles. It is war , no rules just brutal conflict.
The other side not understanding any of it. They are running around , like chickens in the
rain. UNSC talk , talk and talk some more. Nobody give a them. They are counting how many
missiles they intercepted , they are analyzing , they are theorizing . Do something you are
about to be wiped off !
Act 2 . China sells tickets. Total now of two hundred missiles used; nothing much
destroyed. Top brass satisfied. Neocons, mollified. Audience, US, asleep in our seats as
usual.
Act 3 . The big love scene: Trump and Putin do Romeo & Juliet, audience
confused. Back to sleep. China offers no refunds.
The Chinese and the rest of them are not willing to do anything
at this time to support Russia. Russia can militarily defeat the AngloZionists, but
only by risking the future of our planet.
Saker correctly pointed out Russia is showing unnecessary weakness in only moaning &
bitching with empty threats that nobody bother, relegating itself to a weakling gas
station.
But to falsely accused China & the rest not willing to do anything at this time to
support Russia is too far fetch, a foolish remark like a whining self pitied child blaming
everyone for his own spilled milk.
Does Saker expect its few allies China, NK, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, SAA to launch attack on
US Nato when RuA refused/not permit?
Economically, China is known to have financially back the entire costly war, signed
numerous huge deals worth hundreds of Bil with Russia to booster its sanctioned economy,
deliver re-construction materials, medicine & food for tens of millions soldiers &
Syrians. A astromical cost.
Military, it has also supply lot of weapons & ammunition under so called old contract
with SAA, sent in its most senior advisors & Special forces to help fighting & get
train, esp to mop up Uyghur ISIS terrorists(CIA assets).
It even cut short a mammoth 40 vessels Liaoning a/c strike group drill in SCS to declare a
unprecedented proximate live firing drill in Taiwan Straits, literally forcing existing USN
three strike groups to tied down in SCS. This sent a very clear signal that if US start a hot
war in Syria with Russia, China might open another war front to take back Taiwan which USM
will be overstretched to defend.
Also China despatched its Defense Minister in a high profile visit to Russia, declaring
its military solidarity with Russia against US tyranny (a rare glaring mentioned of US
name directly) . This sent a very strong signal to USM, China may intervene directly or
asymmetrically.
China also took an unusual hard stand in a looming trade war, threatened to fight at all
cost without slight compromise, hence refusing Trumps any leeway to back down while he up
ante to save face.
China foreign ministry further declare the trade war will not limit in trade but shall
utilize all asymmetric tools, including non cooporation in strategic issues, sanction of US
hugely profiting investments in China. Also Trumps redneck farming vote bank was purposely
targeted to pressure him in coming Nov election. With China $4T war chess & US people
resistance, US can ill afford to fight China if Syria war breakout. Every major war will see
USD artificially hike >30% historically for expenditure mileage.
In UNSC, China has surprisingly took abstained neutral stand, allowing it to play the
coordinator role & denying US UK Fr to get any legit for attack. This avoid relegating
UNSC into two sides shouting. Nikki Harley was thus preempted her wish of striking with or
without UNSC mandate since all ended agreed to let UN conduct independent inspection.
Overall, this continue to lock US UK Fr inside UNSC framework.
China Prez Xi also in Baao seminar announced expedite opening of China huge financial
market. This stirred the world into frenzy to prepare for huge investment, skillfully denied
US ability to pull EU, Jp & others to joint US trade war. All US financier & trade
bodies will loathe any trade or hot war that will derail their golden opportunity.
What else happen behind door we won't know. But whatever we can see now, China has done
every heavy lifting it could, very comprehensive & well plan, short of attacking USM in
Syria which it can't with limited projection force.
Yet Saker is accusing China & others are doing NOTHING to help Russia, when Putin is
refusing to even take down a Israel airfield as a warning to USM. Killing a chicken to
frighten the monkey.
Is Saker demonstrating a typical Russian nature, unappreciative & endless blaming,
always ready to throw ally under bus? This might explain why Russia has few or no true
trusted ally, even ex-Soviet countries. Assad Syria & Iran interest are seen routinely
been sacrificed.
Will China one day decided Russia is not a trusted ally afterall to reconsider US G2
invitation?
I think the point of the article was precisely that the US is not as strong as it thinks.
Hence, the attack was all for "show" so the US can perpetuate the delusion it can handle
Russia/Iran. The danger is that this delusion may cause a major misstep, especially if (when)
the US starts believing it's own bullshit and really pokes the bear.
The general idea seems to be containment of Russia, hemming them in within their own
borders and cutting them off from being able to extend their influence outward.
As part of this any allies of theirs such as Syria come under attack; if the west
can't own them then they're to be reduced to chaos and rendered into costly burdens for the
Russians.
It's all a very cynical and calculated plan that fits into the overall picture of
encircling the Russians to stymie their development and influence. NATO expansion up to their
borders, the Ukraine coup, encirclement, picking off vulnerable allies, economic warfare and
political subversion without end, the pattern is clear. At some point an actual clash might
come about, not necessarily now with Syria as the trigger but somewhere all along the entire
line of points of friction. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that something bad is going to
happen somewhere down the line as the irresistible force meets the immovable object.
The problem here is that moving to a multi-polar world will require many countries to
contribute what and where they can as we fight a very entrenched international Cabal. But,
the largest responsibility lies with the people living within the Evil Empire and its vassal
states. Those whose counties are committing these atrocities need to step up and call foul on
their own governments. This is difficult to do since the Project Mockingbird press
continues to spew unbelievable lies on a non-stop basis. But those lies are getting more and
more difficult to believe. Unless your brain is totally disconnected, you have to realize
that what they are saying is inconsistent and illogical.
Besides calling and berating my representatives, signing petitions, etc. I have taken to
wearing a teeshirt with a picture of Putin and the Russian bear (Putin in a suit, not riding
the bear bare chested).
I wear it to all social events for the purpose of starting a discussion. Most Americans
are not engaged. They have little trust in their government and most feel like there is
nothing they can do about it. I live in the mountain west where people are more libertarian
and more willing to fight. I try to provide them with ammunition and point them to places to
go to get "real" news. I tell them not to "believe" any news, but get a variety of points of
view and use their own minds to determine what is true.
A few years ago, I was very disturbed when I kept hearing Dr. Stephen Cohen say that Putin
was the greatest statesman of our time. As I had studied Soviet history in school, I had sort
of kept abreast of what was happening in Russia. As an economist, I was aware of how the
West, especially the USA, came to help Russia with Democracy and "free markets". It was
obvious to me that we were just assisting in selling Russia by the pound to the moneyed
class. I had followed Dr. Cohen over the years as well. But sceptical of his assessment of
Putin, I have gone back and watched and read almost everything Putin has said and watched
what Russia has done and I believe Dr. Cohen is correct.
As a fervent anti-war activist since the sixties, I have been appalled at all the
regime change the US has and continues to do around the world including both military covert
operations and economic warfare. Well Putin had me at his 2007 Munich speech. The one
the West called a rant.
Finally someone was calling out this criminal behavior on an international stage! Putin
has continued with these messages and as far as I can see, Russia is operating accordingly.
No one country, not Russia, not China, no one can destroy this international Cabal on its
own. It will take a concerted effort of all peace seeking people from around the world to
force their governments on a different path. Starting in my case with the people of the
USA.
In reality Trump proved again that POTUS does not matter and presidential elections matter very little. In was he is like
drunk Obama, reckelss and jingoistic to the extreme. Both foreign and domestic policy is determined by forces, and are outside POTUS control, with very little input
possible. But the "deep state"
fully control the POTUS, no matter who he/she are.
Notable quotes:
"... To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda. ..."
"... Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being elected in US money-driven elections. ..."
"... Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root. Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail. ..."
To Trump apologists: Trump is the Republican Obama. The follow the same model of government: faux populist leader
dogged by crazy critics that want to derail a righteous agenda.
Obamabots gave similar excuses. Real populists simply don't get have a chance of being
elected in US money-driven elections.
Why was there only two populists running for President in 2016? Sanders, Hillay's sheepdog, destroyed the movement that would been the best check on the
establishment and the rush to war. That movement was never going to be allowed to take root.
Trump, a friend of the Clinton's was probably meant to prevail.
Rome had bread and circuses. We've got crumbs and tweets.
It would be legitimate to wonder if the U.S. MIC will stealthily add to the long list of sanctimonious sanctions the interdiction
for any western vassal state to buy the vastly superior Russian weapon systems in a not so distant future. One can feel it coming.
Needless to say this kind of short sighted vision will be the straw that will break the camel's back.
These sanctions are ultimately going to hurt more the USA than Russia because little by little countries are leaving the American
sphere of influence for the more balanced and reasonable Eurasian one. Nobody wants to stay with a maniac like Nikki or a fool
like trump...
The Americans will be begging to be integrated once they hit the bottom.
The reason we voted for Trump is because we are tired of this sanctimonious hypocritical horse shit. Instead we get more of
what we didn't vote for. All Russia did was kindly not sink any of our war ships when we attacked Syria on an assumption.
You got exactly what you voted for... because if you were dumb enough to think you could actually get an outsider maverick
anywhere near the white house I have to think you are too dumb to figure out how to turn on a computer.
Trump's in deep over his head. It was an open question whether he posed any genuine obstacle to the pathocracy, but it seems
more clear now that, one way or another, he has been brought more tightly under their control. THAT, much more than any individual
false-flags or other deceptions or wrongs, should be cause for the rational world to fear. The psychopaths are still on the march,
and Trump is at least paying lip service to their chicanery. The further out on a limb he goes, the more reluctant and then helpless
he will be to backtrack as pathology becomes more extreme and events escalate under their own momentum. With markets looking more
precarious than ever, how long will it be before the psychopaths commit more and bigger false flags?
Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that
anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks
instead of a reasoned response.
We need a President who
understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which
traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own
qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to
the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".
"... Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. ..."
"... Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely (albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south western Syria. ..."
The US media outlet Politico has published claims based on internal White House leaks, which report that the
controversial US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, is the author of Trump's anti-JCPOA and broader
anti-Iran policies, which were conveyed in his speech form the White House, yesterday evening.
Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the
anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. Her role as US Ambassador has been far more public than that of most of
her predecessors. Many, including myself, suspect that Haley who has no previous foreign policy experience, is
using her position at the UN to promote a future entry into elected politics at a Federal level.
According to Politico, in July of this year, Trump grudgingly certified the JCPOA under advice from
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis. However, at the time, Haley was
said to have volunteered to author an argument which could be employed in the future, which would attempt to
justify a US de-certification of the JCPOA.
"At a mid-day meeting in the Oval Office in late July, U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley came to President
Donald Trump with an offer.
Trump had grudgingly declared Tehran in compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal earlier in the month,
at the urging of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Trump hated the
deal. But the two men pushed him to certify it, arguing in part that he lacked a strong case for declaring
Iran in violation. A refusal to do so would have looked rash, they said, convincing Trump sign off for
another 90 days.
Haley, in that July meeting, which also included National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Vice
President Mike Pence, asked the president to let her make the case for decertification
'Let me lay a foundation for it', she said, according a source familiar with the proceedings. The
president agreed.
Haley would become the administration's most vocal public proponent of decertification -- and Trump's
favorite internal voice on Iran -- further boosting her standing with the president at a time when she is seen
as a potential successor to Tillerson, whose tense relationship with Trump has burst into the open in recent
days.
A month after her talk with Trump, Haley flew to Vienna to visit the headquarters of the International
Atomic Energy Association, where she pressed officials about Iranian compliance with the deal. Soon after,
she delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., airing her "doubts and
concerns" about the agreement.
Haley's role was described by a half-dozen administration officials who took part in the Iran policy
review. While many of the president's cabinet members, aides, and advisers work to restrain his impulses,
when it came to Iran deal Haley did the opposite -- channeling what many Democrats and even some Republicans
consider the president's destructive instincts into policy".
The story from Politico which also argues that arch neo-con John Bolton pushed for a full withdrawal from
the JCPOA from his position outside of the White House, follows may well known trends. This helps explain why
Mattis recently stated that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and why Rex Tilleron's State Department has
officially said the same.
Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a
number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have
been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria
for the foreseeable future.
She has also echoed Donald Trump's aggressive statements about North Korea, whereas Rex Tillerson has often
repeated his view that the US does not and should not seek regime change in Pyongyang and instead will continue
to pursue a diplomatic process.
Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely
(albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south
western Syria.
At one point, Rex Tillerson was said to have privately
reprimanded Haley
for inventing her own foreign policy without consulting her superiors at the State
Department. However, it seems that in respect of Iran, Trump has overruled Tillerson and allowed Haley to take
charge.
Haley later told journalists that she was offered the position of Secretary of State but turned it down,
before being offered the position of Ambassador to the UN. Haley further attested that she sent Trump a list of
demands that she never expected to be agreed upon, as a precondition for accepting her current position.
Haley who has long been seen as a rogue figure in the Trump administration and one who is widely exceeding
her authority, is apparently doing so with Donald Trump's approval.
With rumours swirling that Rex Tillerson planned on resigning, even before it emerged that he allegedly
called Trump a "fucking moron", there is now an increased possibility that a hyper-neo-con, might soon become
the chief foreign policy maker in a Trump administration that was elected on the basis of opposing the neo-con
ideology.
With many Trump administration officials coming and going in short order, there is a very worrying
possibility that Nikki Haley's role will only be enhanced in future months. This is dangerous not only for the
United States, but for the wider world. Haley's inexperience is only matched by her zeal for bellicose measures
against countries which have not done any harm to the American people. Such a person should not be anywhere
near power, but it seems as though she has Trump's ear, far more than the vastly more mature Tillerson and
Mattis.
"... And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal. ..."
SPEAKER: What is your view as to whether America should withdraw unilaterally from the Iran nuclear agreement?
MIKE POMPEO: I want to fix this deal. That's the objective. I think that's in the best interest of the United States
of America.
SPEAKER: But if the agreement cannot be changed. My question is pretty simple. We're running very close to a deadline
on certification.
MIKE POMPEO:And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level
best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal.
SHARMINI PERIES: Pompeo is a member of the Tea Party movement, and is generally viewed as a pro-war hardliner who has previously
vowed to cancel the Iran agreement ...
... ... ...
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, let's just take the issue of Iran, for starters. There he said at the hearing that he would not try to get
out of the Iran nuclear deal, that he wants a better deal. But in the past he's talked about getting out of the Iran nuclear deal.
And not only that he said that regime change is the only way to deal with Iran. And as CIA director he also downplayed the CIA's
assessment that Iran was complying with the deal although at the hearing he said he has no reason to deny that Iran is complying.
So he says very different things and in different places. But I think his actions and his statements in the past speak louder than
the words at the hearing, which were quite deceptive, and he's trying to win over Democrats. So he was evasive on some of the issues
that he has been very clear about in the past, such as striking Iran, North Korea, and certainly he was open about the president's
right to bomb Syria.
... ... ...
SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Now, speaking of Syria and the tensions that are arising with Russia over the chemical attack that Russia
now says, and in fact Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, is on record saying they have information that some one else, some other
country, initiated this attack in Syria. This is really a heightening the tension between Russia and the United States. So let me
go to you on this, Phyllis, first, and then we'll go back to Medea. But your take on this rising tension between U.S. And Russia?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: This is a very, very dangerous moment, when we have Trump, with all of his own proclivities towards war and against
diplomacy, surrounding himself by what looks like a clear war cabinet. The danger of escalation in Syria is very serious. It could
lead to a direct clash between the two most powerful nuclear weapon states in the world, the United States and Russia. You have completely
opposite claims emerging from Washington and Moscow, with the U.S. claiming that they know, even though they also agree that they
don't have information, but they know that chemical weapons were used as they were used by the regime in Syria. They seem to know
a lot for a government that admits it doesn't know anything yet.
The Russians, on the other hand, have variously said that another country might be involved. Another Russian diplomat has said
that there was no chemical attack at all. So for myself, I don't actually believe any of these claims by any of the governments.
I'm waiting to hear what the report is of the team that's on its way to D ouma right now, the town outside of Damascus where the
alleged chemical weapons attack occurred. The team of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. That's the the internationally
acknowledged, internationally credible team that will be determining whether or not chemicals were used, what chemicals were used
if there were any, who was affected, what delivery systems, et cetera. They are not mandated to determine who fired or who gave the
orders to fire. That's a much more political question that will come back to the Security Council and may stall there, we don't know.
But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago. So I think that we need to do everything
possible to ramp down this level of rhetoric. When the U.S. continues to talk about the inevitability of new strikes against Syria,
knowing that this is a direct violation of both, again, international law and U.S. domestic law and threatens the possibility of
retaliation against U.S. troops in the region, U.S. warships in the Mediterranean, U.S. warplanes in the skies, and, most importantly,
threatens the possibility, the likelihood, of killing more Syrian civilians. We are facing a very, very urgent crisis even before
we get to the possibility of serious escalation.
So this is something that Congress needs to take very seriously. And unfortunately in what we've seen in the Pompeo hearing there
was simply not enough, not enough pushing for this candidate to be the supposed leader of diplomacy in the United States, to push
him on the necessity not of saying well, we hoped that we could have a diplomatic solution, but if not well then nothing is off the
table. That's not OK. That's not acceptable to the U.S. chief diplomat. And we are simply not hearing enough pressure to make that
position known.
... ... ...
But I was going to put it in the context of remember that we have Bolton as the national security adviser, who did not have to
have a confirmation hearing. This is why somebody like Jeff Merkley, a senator from Massachusetts, came out and said he will not
vote for Pompeo because he recognizes it as part of this larger cabinet, that this is a war cabinet, and therefore a vote for Pompeo
is a vote for war. So I would say continue the fight not to get a confirmation for Mike Pompeo.
SHARMINI PERIES: Phyllis, is that even possible?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Absolutely. And it's crucial. This is exactly what we need to be focusing on right now. The way the votes come
down, it's very, very tight. There are at least, at least one Republican, Rand Paul, who has said he will vote against Pompeo. It
looks like McCain will not be there because of his illness. That cuts out two votes. So it's certainly a possibility. But it's going
to take an enormous amount of work. Enormous numbers of phone calls and visits and protests and threats of not voting back those
members of Congress who, who would go ahead and vote for this person as being the new head of diplomacy. This is as urgent as it
gets.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Phyllis. I thank you so much for joining us. Phyllis is with the Institute for Policy Studies New
Internationalism Project. And Medea Benjamin, thank you so much for joining us. And Medea's from Code Pink. Thank you both.
Nonsense lead . The regime change trope is totally bi-partisan as yesterdays air strikes clearly indicate. Pompeo etal like
most American federal government officialdom are now lackeys and on the payrolls of the MIC , CIA, and banksters. There is no
Iran nuclear deal , Trump is right about that . Iran has moved under Russia's nuclear umbrella as North Korea is now under China's,
making the rush to develop nukes unnecessary at the present time. Obombers treaty was/is a worthless face saving effort, after
the destruction of Libya.. Trump increasing represents the wishes of the duopoly, not the electorate, his latest terror attack
on Syria bumped his popularity 5% across Americas, knocking down the looming Stormy scandal perhaps...
Phyllis: "But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago."
We do know, because we listen daily to the other side of the story too. There was NO Chemical attack . The White Helmets
filmed the deception.
These two Workers of the Douma Hospital's Emergency room, are eyewitnesses of the Lie that was sold by the Western MSM,
which is a tool of the Deep State:
-Syrian Eyewitnesses Reveal How Douma Provocation Was Made- (Published by Sputnik, on Apr 13, 2018)
Arguing for a right-wing Congress to overturn decades of executive war making "privilege" is a bit of a lost cause at this
point. Pompeo is the latest iteration in a long line of those at the State Department who have ditched diplomacy in favor of war.
gustave courbet > novychelovek
Consistent theme in caricatures of other nations/groups relates to their inherent "otherness." Be it Clapper's comment
about Russians being "genetically driven" to "co-opt," or Kim Jong-un's reputation as a madman, or Iran's fundamentalist world
view, they have in common the tendency to project a fundamentally irrational disposition on one's adversaries.
In reality, most governments, be they pseudo-democratic, theocratic, etc are motivated by pragmatic self-interest. In Iran's
case, they can use history to compare non-nuclear states to nuclear powers in regards to US bellicosity and see a clear
pattern.
"... This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave Syria and does not bow to America. ..."
Russia knows that this diplomatic, economic, and military aggression will never stop. These military strikes and economic sanctions from the West represent the death throes of a dying empire. A dying empire is like a gravely wounded, cornered animal.
This is an extremely dangerous animal, because it is willing to arbitrarily kill anyone and anything before it dies.
I still believe that the USA and its European allies will be the
first to use nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping no
doubt recognize the grave circumstances, and they are using the
utmost restraint to avoid the provision of a military pretext that
the West/USA is seeking in their effort to greatly escalate
hostilities.
The US will only use nukes to secure their dominance. The
people in change aren't beholden to any country or continent
being filthy rich and/or dual citizens. So the plan is to deny
the US an excuse to use nukes while cutting the empire off at
the knees.
Otherwise, I agree it'll be a NATO country that
nukes first. That's part of the desire to make smaller nukes.
"Small" nukes are seen as a way to nuke but not start a global
exchange. Fucking insane people gambling with all higher life
forms.
Russia will tolerate it as long as possible. The delay only
weakens the US and allies. All have serious issues domestically
and even alliances are strained. Don't interrupt when your enemy
is making a mistake
True, but look around us. There is no need to nuke cities
and military targets in the US. Shut down the electrical
grid and the population would lose it in a matter of hours.
Within days it would be chaos on so many levels that it
would take a long time to recover. We really are our own
worst enemies because we are so fractured and polarized of
the stupidest shit.
If limited global depopulation is the ultimate goal, then
yes, the USA will suffer the most due to the prevalence
of firearms and the general hostility that is clearly
evident within its citizenry.
That's obviously
not
the main objective for the warmongers and neocons in DC.
The ultimate objective is global dominance, and the
complete and total subjugation of humanity.
Like I said, criminal insanity is the paradigm that
rules the West.
Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that
anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks
instead of a reasoned response.
We need a President who
understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which
traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own
qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to
the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".
This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not
going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave
Syria and does not bow to America.
This recent American
fiasco in
Syria is just the opening overture.
In May we have the moving of American embassy to Jerusalem and the
unilateral withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal.
I think we will not reach the end of the year without a big war :
America is losing power and needs it.
Actually the terrorists were sent by Israel and more specifically, the
Mossad, who trained them. Israel wants to expand its territory by
committing a GENOCIDE.
The chemical weapons organisation in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria
found NO chemical weapons at the site the USA UK And FR bombed for that.
The only chemical weapons are those found in the tunnels in East Ghouta
after Syria bussed the militant occupiers away. The 40 tons of chemicals
have manufactuer names, serial numbers and addresses eg Porton Down
Salisbury.
Cui Bono? Trump says he's going to pull out of Syria -- Things
never looked better for Assad -- and he gets the bright idea, to turn the world against him by gassing
gassing his own people? I'm not buying it. I-F-F (Israeli False Flag)
Trump's in deep over his head. It was an open question whether he posed any genuine obstacle to the pathocracy, but it seems
more clear now that, one way or another, he has been brought more tightly under their control. THAT, much more than any individual
false-flags or other deceptions or wrongs, should be cause for the rational world to fear. The psychopaths are still on the march,
and Trump is at least paying lip service to their chicanery. The further out on a limb he goes, the more reluctant and then helpless
he will be to backtrack as pathology becomes more extreme and events escalate under their own momentum. With markets looking more
precarious than ever, how long will it be before the psychopaths commit more and bigger false flags?
Forgot to say that theses sanctions are downright embarrassing.
So we illegally attack a different country, that country's ally doesn't respond to our act of aggression, and we're now slapping
sanctions on that country... for not responding to our attack? Not only sanctions but sanctions on products that both parties
actually know aren't there. Unless the US is sanctioning the supply chain of swimming pool and industrial/domestic cleaning agents
based on chlorine.
Brilliant just the way to get an agreement from them next time.
Trump had 1 BILLION $ in debt to the chosen banks ; maybe this can point toward whether or not he was part of the deep state
from the beginning ? But ,does it matter any longer ?
Sanctions... act of war. Dropping bombs on a sovereign country (without UN approval even)... act of war. Insulting foreign
leaders and creating false flags to justify your illegal actions... act of war. Don't be fooled into thinking that just b/c Russia
did not respond to the US actions, that "nothing happened". War has started, this is just the beginning.
Here we go again- the ever-plotting West trying to create reality on the fly -- attempting to make the alleged chemical weapons
attack into a fait accompli, painting the tape of reality with the shadow-puppets of the operation mockingbird-controlled, corporate
(MIC) media!
Any good reason we shouldn't just start calling the 5(+1)-eyez media environment the Oceania State News Network (OSNN) right
now?
From what I can make of Trump, he wants to return the US to its general prosperity that it
has enjoyed in the past, a country with world leading infrastructure, were average workers
are better of than workers of other countries. He is not interested in wars that are
detrimental or costly to the US. If a war is profitable for the US, he may be interested.
Like Erdogan in Turkey, Trump is heading for the multi-polar world. Personally I don't
like the US culture of full blown capitalism and privatization that is US culture and gave
rise to the neo-cons, but that is not the point. Trump wants the capitalism of the likes of
Henry Ford whose innovation? of production line produced good quality cheap products but paid
workers two to three times the going rate.
The neo-cons, with their never ending wars for total dominance are destroying the world
and the US. It is starting to look like they will also destroy Trump.
Considering Trump kick out Tillerson and so forth and added many neocons one can't deny the reality of what is going on. Trump knows perfectly well what he is doing and did in
Syria. He isn't pushed by anyone.
The photographs of Trump with his arms folded and the general look. Defensive or beaten type
look.
In Trump's book, Art of the Deal, what he respects most is people that deliver what they
promise. He uses hyperbole to sell a product, but above all he must deliver what the people
want.
He campaigned on pulling US out of foreign entanglements and useless expensive wars.
The choreographed attack on Shayrat airbase preempted the neocons and took the wind out of
their sails. This latest strike, rather than being pre-emptive, was forced on him. He has not
been able to deliver the product he promised and what people bought when they elected
him.
The reaction of the likes of Alan Jones and other Trump supporters on Twitter and elsewhere
is evidence of that failure.
With the country's attention focused on James Comey's book publicity gala interview
with ABC at 10pm ET, the former FBI Director has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney
General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they "jeopardized" the Hillary Clinton email
investigation.
Comey called out Obama and Lynch in his new book, A Higher Loyalty , set to come out on
Tuesday. In it, he defends the FBI's top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged
with probing Clinton's use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information,
reports the
Washington Examiner , which received an advanced copy.
" I never heard anyone on our team -- not one -- take a position that seemed driven by their
personal political motivations . And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I
thought came from a political bias. Never ... Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected,
agonized, played devil's advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major
decisions .
Comey says that multiple public statements made by Obama about the investigation
"jeopardized" the credibility of the FBI investigation - seemingly absolving Clinton of any
crime before FBI investigators were able to complete their work .
" Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama . He had jeopardized the
Department of Justice's credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview
on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton's email use was "a mistake" that had not endangered national
security," Comey writes. "Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have
been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting
that the case involved overclassification of material in the government."
" President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well . To this day, I
don't know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final
determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer
could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than
follow his lead." -
Washington Examiner
Of course, Comey had already begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to
have been "forgotten" in his book.
" The truth was that the president -- as far as I knew, anyway -- he had only as much
information as anyone following it in the media . He had not been briefed on our work at all.
And if he was following the media, he knew nothing, because there had been no leaks at all up
until that point. But, his comments still set all of us up for corrosive attacks if the case
were completed with no charges brought."
"Matter" not "Investigation"
Comey also describes a September 2015 meeting with AG Lynch in which she asked him to
describe the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" instead of an investigation.
"It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the
fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the
Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word
'investigation,'" Comey writes.
" The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy
. Her "just do it" response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural
justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions.
Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.
Comey said others present in the meeting with Lynch thought her request was odd and
political as well - including one of the DOJ's senior leaders.
" I know the FBI attendees at our meeting saw her request as overtly political when we
talked about it afterward . So did at least one of Lynch's senior leaders. George Toscas, then
the number-three person in the department's National Security Division and someone I liked,
smiled at the FBI team as we filed out, saying sarcastically, ' Well you are the Federal Bureau
of Matters ,'" Comey recalled.
That said, Comey "didn't see any instance when Attorney General Lynch interfered with the
conduct of the investigation," writing "Though I had been concerned about her direction to me
at that point, I saw no indication afterward that she had any contact with the investigators or
prosecutors on the case."
In response, Loretta Lynch promptly issued a statement in which she said that if James Comey
" had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample
opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did."
Next Astana meeting in one month, May 14-16, exact date not yet set.
Meanwhile, in Idlib, the crazies are killing one another, as they have for over a year.
The Russian plan of pouring all the "retreaters" into one province was brilliant. The
Russians knew each group of AQ, al Nusra and ISIS terrorists would fight one another.
Turkey will protest and try to protect "their guys" but the inevitable will occur. Putin
already allowed Turkey to do its thing against the Kurds. Afrin, and its months long ground
assaults Olive Branch massacres of Kurds is all Erdogan will get.
If he sticks his nose in the final destruction of the Idlib holdouts, he will get slapped
down by Russia.
His place at the table of big three is dependent on agreeing with Putin. The Kurds are
looking to make a deal with Putin for a piece of the Syrian pie.
The US is betting they can scuttle Astana and force everyone to their manipulation of the
Geneva talks.
But Astana has always set the terms and conditions. Geneva is just the use of the UN. If the
US forces the issue, Geneva will be left at the station, so to speak.
The Syrian Opposition, which boycotted Sochi Peace talks in January, have no place to go
but the battlefield. If they don't get into the political development of Syria, they will
lose all relevance.
The US is trying to get an insurgency war started to keep the conflict going, to justify
their staying in Syria.
I suspect the Russian Aerospace will have the last vote on such insurgency. And maybe a
few thousand of Kadyrov's Chechen Spetsnaz who have all the experience in Chechnya, and all
the credibility as Sunnis in Syria to destroy such a bogus insurgency.
The coming summer and autumn will be interesting times.
Ukraine, the World Cup, and the winding down of "civil war" in Syria.
Moscow is calling for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council about the western
strikes on Syria. Russian president Vladimir Putin said on Saturday that President's Trump's
move is both an "act of aggression" and a "destructive influence on the entire system of
international relations." Russia is claiming that the Syrian military was able to use a
Soviet-era missile defense system to target and destroy dozens of missiles launched at Syrian
air bases. There is also speculation that Moscow will respond with cyberattacks for the attack
on Syria. Col. Gen Sergei Rudskoi has stated that Russia may now deliver S-300 air defense
systems to Syria.
But for all the dangers of escalation, so far the entire Syria affair appears to have had a
highly choreographed nature to it. After days of public signaling, the moving around of
equipment and personnel, and plenty of backchannel communications (a role played with great
assiduity by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been in constant and close
contact with both Washington and Moscow), the United States, Britain and France launched a
coordinated but circumscribed attack on specific Syrian. The exercise seems to have been framed
in terms of upholding honor--a public transgression was committed by the Bashar al-Assad regime
in Syria, with the apparent backing of Russian president Vladimir Putin--and in response to
that transgression, a penalty and penance has been exacted.
1. Giving S300 missiles to Syria.(Shoot down Israel and NATO planes)
2. Giving pantsir AA to Syria.(Shoot down Israel and NATO missiles)
3. Giving Advance anti-ship missiles to Syria.(Counter-attack and take out NATO/Israeli
ships)
It is much more useful for Russia to omit the reputation of the United States, to
represent the United States as a terrorist state of the cultural level of the Islamic
State. The country spitting on international law. Terrorists do not need law, evidence.
Because they are the law, the judge and the hangman of the world scale. And the Law needs
only for weak states.
Do not brag about your weapon. Russia is a peaceful country. Let the Americans boast of
the continuation of Hitler's cause - the fight against communism. They lost 50 thousand
lives in Vietnam in the war with the peasants and fled in disgrace. They have not done
anything in Afghanistan for 16 years. But the Russian radar will have contours of all
aircraft and cruise missiles in memory.
Russia will take a step back. Next battleground is Idlib. That is where Assad, Russia,
ISIS, USA, etc. are now headed. Russian jets have already started bombing "rebel"
positions in Idlib.
US, UK and France air attacks were a distraction. The military steamroller steams
ahead winning one province after another.
Nothing says "America First" like attacking without Congressional approval a far-away
country that has historically not been regarded as a vital interest at the risk of severe
escalation with Russia to punish a leader for maybe using chemical weapons in a
jihadist-occupied town.
No Jihadist did get gassed, American jihadist did gas a lot of civilians after
promises from USA that this would result in an attack on the Secular Syrian government
however.
That is - assuming the attack even toke place. USA decided to attack before any
evidence actually was available, against international law, against the UN charter and
even against USA domestic law that stipulates that the congress must vote on declaring
war on a country, the president does not simply have the authority to send missiles into
other countries, but the USA government seem to hold its own laws in as little regards as
the international ones.
USA ability to pretend have severely fallen as of late and USA is nothing more today
then a mafia state attacking and killing at whim without the need for justification or
proof.
As for ww2, the allies did not have nerve-gas during the war. Churchill was itching to
gas himself some German babies thought, and the allies to great joy in gassing Russian
children after ww1.
It is no surprise that the terrorists train by USA and its clients today in Syria are
so fund of gas.
"A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial
attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of
Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen
fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the
cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious."
https://www.theguardian.com...
No we just firebombed entire cities and killed tens of millions of civilians. Assad is
Gandhi compared to the WW2 US military, even if every bad thing said about him is true.
War is the intentional taking of human life. There is no humanitarian way to kill people.
The dead care that they are dead, not what weapon killed them.
Somebody is lying, or maybe all sides are lying a bit. So far I saw one US missile
destroyed in the sky over Damascus recorded on camera and remains of other clearly shot
down by Syrians on the ground, near Damascus. So clearly some missiles were destroyed.
Also I saw rubbles of Syrian University near Damascus so clearly some hit targets. Until
I don't see pictures from all sites supposedly hit by US, France and UK, some sattelite
images, pictures from drones etc I don't believe they were 100% successful as they claim.
Also even I'm for Assad, Syria and Russia 100% , I don't believe completely in story
about 70% destroyed missiles by Syrian air defence. Those numbers are too high even for
modern anti-air defence systems. And what west proved? They can strike Syria or some
other , poor small noncompliant country. Syrian good but old anti-air systems can't repel
massive attack from west. We all knew that. But if Syrians shot even 30% of all missiles,
wich I believe they did, western armies must wonder what Russians can do when and if they
fully engage. Also I strongly believe west has lost more from this than gained. For 2
days of glory and diversion of attention from their domestic problems they gave Russia
reason to give Syrian government as well to other west's ME adversaries all they have. I
would't be surprised if Iran now gets S-400, SU-35 etc. West shot them selves in the
foot.
Today China as well as Turkey are reconsidering their position about buying Russian
S-400 air defense systems.
Russians, of course, will exaggerate success of their weaponry and continue flooding the
web with disinformation about the number of intercepted missiles, etc.... Armies of
Russian trolls will help in spreading this disinformation... , but yesterday's attack
clearly showed Russian outdated military technology which may be is still quite good for
some African countries...
April 14, 4 pm: Pentagon spokesperson on strikes in Syria: "The Russian disinformation
campaign has already begun. There has been a 2,000% increase in Russian trolls in the
last 24 hours."
Or sales of old Soviet anti-air systems with upgraded radars and surrounding equipment
will skyrocket. Time will tell my dear Ukranian troll. Time will tell.
Be careful of what you think about Russia didn't do, for they might just do something
should the US and coalition strike more than just empty R&D centres.
It cannot be a good situation should Russia get serious with USA.
USA is playing with fire.
Don't worry. I doubt that the U.S. will attack or threaten Russia's Syrian assets (the
current attack was mandated by American politics). Likewise, Russia will avoid
confronting the U.S. This is a good thing between nuclear powers.
Who won in Syria? RUSSIA. Pack your rags and hit the road.President Assad stays for
good. After this little show for MSM and domestic audience Trump is RETREATING. So little
troll-provocateur think little about that. And we - as usual, pounding of terrorists and
your proxies. Damascus is completely free. Next Idlib and pounding of ISIS and other
American proxies. Business as usual.
I'm not saying that, your generals are. All strategicaly important areas are ours. All
bigger cities, ports everything OURS. And every week, day, more and more. DAVAI,
DAVAI!
Yes, you've won a wonderful prize, defending Assad against the future insurgency until
he's dead. Congratulations! Of course, the Kurds still control the oil fields, but you
control the important parts.
Is there insurgencies in Aleppo, Palmyra? No. Life is returning to normal. Concerning
Kurds, they never fought against Assad or vice-versa.Even peacefuly surrendored some
cities to government. I'm 100% sure they will menage to struck a deal. And we gave you a
lesson how to wage a war. Russia spent 1/5000 what USA spent in Iraq and lost 1/5000 of
soldiers and won. Hi hi hi. Aren't we smart huh?
Bush thought mission accomplished too. Your Syrian war is just beginning. Russia has
staked its prestige on Assad and can't ever abandon him without facing humiliation. Even
last night, the Russians were humiliated by abandoning the defense of Assad, despite its
pre-strike bluster. Nope, I'm afraid it is too early to compute Russia's Syrian war
costs.
And difference is Russians are called by Syrian people to protect them. Despite the
propaganda, Syrians love Russians, they wave Russian flags.They give Russian names to
their children. No one wanted Americans in Iraq. No one likes Americans in Iraq. That's
the difference.
What bluster? They said if one Russian soldier got killed, even accidentaly they will
retaliate. Only Russian ambassador in Lebanon told that Russians will down all missiles.
It was a mistake made by him. No one from Russian military or Russian government said
such thing. Especially pres Putin. So it was overblown by your MSM and Twiter President.
I'm sure if Russians told him through official channels, wich they had concerning Russian
soldiers he wouldn't do a thing. And as I remember you avoided us in large circles, you
were so careful not to shoot even remotely close to Russians. All missiles flew much
longer and to avoid hundreds of kilometers of surrounding space of Russian bases. Right?
Carefull=afraid of consequences.
I think Russians and Americans can agree that Syria is not worth starting WWIII. I'm
just wondering what Assad thinks of Russians failing to confront the west's attack.
He probbably thinks"Hmmm, this is very good. Couple of buildings is knocked off, no
one died. Nothing has changed. Hype is gone. Lets start where we stoped. Idlib? Yes,
Idlib would be next. Plus Russians will give us S-300, and even more help. For just few
buildings? Heck yeah, it is more than worth."
As you said, nobody is mad to provoke WWIII. That's why Syrians will get their own, as
well as other handy gadgets, I'm sure. As other US adversaries will get theirs for
sure.
Russia can't afford to escalate in Syria where western military advantage is
overwhelming. Especially not over what looks like a symbolic strike that won't change
anything on the ground. The US, however, despite rhetoric, doesn't really want to start a
war against Syria, much less Russia. It's just not part of what people really want: Obama
recoiled; Congress, for all its hawkish rhetoric, refused to act its words; Trump threw
some cheap missiles, got cheered by the blob and even Democrats, without compromising his
instincts and campaign position. Man, this man, at least on this issue, looks like
Einstein comparing to Obama
Russians have lost their credibility. Their tough stance on retaliation on any US and
Coalition launch platforms and any other assets fell onto empty words.
Russian propaganda is meaningless in real warfare against US and its 2 allies. Russian
military hardware in You Tube propaganda videos looks impressive, however - truth is,
they are just inferior white elephants.
Russia's failure to respond shows how much Russian influence has fallen down to
nothingness. It seems, the latest UN Council - Russia has fallen out of favour to most UN
members.
Russia is a rogue nation. China seems to follow Russian foot steps. China should learn
to step back from its unilateral aggression in the SCS. Can't help it... but lately the
Chinese are beating their chest. LOL!
If the Americans want to go to war against Russia, then you should get better cruise
missiles. The Syrians were armed with 30-year-old Soviet, not current Russian, rockets
and shot down an amazing number of US and British rockets. One can only guess if the
Russians had used their new missiles against US cruise missiles. Probably no one would
probably hit the target. Here is a statistic: A total of 71 cruise missiles were
intercepted by 103 (= 68.9%). The Syrian anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) S-125,
S-200, Buk, Kvadrat and Osa were involved in the defense of the missile attack.
You really are naive. The Syrians didn't launch a missile until after the attack
ended. You will believe any preposterous claim made by Russia or Assad, but given proof
of who shot down MH17, you retreat to conspiracy theories.
Sure you did. Just like you took out the launchers as Russia's ambassador to Lebanon
said you would. Assad must wonder about the reliability of his great protector, who
decided to sit out last night's attack in the dark out of fear of destroying the
marketability of its "state of the art" S-400 system instead of defending Assad. I bet
more than a few Syrians noticed.
Cuba is hurt that you didn't include it in your alliance of titans. China is silently
laughing that Russia thinks that it will stand with Russia when it will matter. Business
is business. Don't take it personally. You still have Cuba.
russia do not think that china will protect and support china - no way
but we are DELIGHTED that china can do whatever it wants in its sphere of interest
while american dog is barking
it is not that russia is trying to get something through china (though we want
stability of OUR REALM)
it is that we are vicariously feel good that china are so strong that it can show
zio-anglo-saxons a middle finger and american dog would only bark and not bite
you could try to send missiles to syria - and only a limited pro-forma amount - for tv
cameras - but you would never ever dream of doing something like that to china (and
russia will certainly help china - if only logistically and through UNSC)
you have to admit that despite your megalomania - there are LARGE swathes of earth
that do not belong to you - mostly russia and china
look at the globe, find russia and china - and you will see "NOT AMERICA"
ahhh, how good it does feel! ho pleasant it is to know that zio-anglo-saxons are
impotent losers
I'm seriously not being sarcastic, but in your many posts you reference "zio." Is that
a reference to Zion or Zionists? I assume this is the case, but I'm not sure.
i use zio in a broad sense of not our side: non-slavic non-sino non-persian
americans should understand that they are being held hostage to zionist regime
ready to fight its enemies to the last american
americans, wake up! free yourselves from the yoke of zionist oppression!
if you are a patriotic american you have to understand that america has been enslaved
by zionist regime that is guiding american foreign policy in the ME
america has no independent foreign policy in the ME: all its actions are goaded to
benefit the zionist entity
check out recent tucker carson (actually, VERY popular in russia!) show where he
doubts necessity and justification of a prospected american attack on syria - his first
interviewee asked what america would gain by attacking syria began its answer by "if you
care about israel..."
"... People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government and its European vassals toward Russia. ..."
"... In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0 Published on Apr 13, 2018 ..."
A normal person would answer "yes" to the three questions. So what does this tell us about
Trump's government as these insane actions are the principle practice of Trump's
government?
Does anyone doubt that Nikki Haley is insane?
Does anyone doubt that John Bolton is insane?
Does anyone doubt that Mike Pompeo is insane?
Does this mean that Trump is insane for appointing to the top positions insane people who
foment war with a nuclear power?
Does this mean that Congress is insane for approving these appointments?
These are honest questions. Assuming we avoid the Trump-promised Syrian showdown, how long
before the insane Trump regime orchestrates another crisis?
The entire world should understand that because of the existence of the insane Trump regime,
the continued existence of life on earth is very much in question.
People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety
of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government
and its European vassals toward Russia. Nothing as irresponsible as what we have witnessed
since the Clinton regime and which has worsened dramatically under the Obama and Trump regimes
would have been imaginable during the Cold War. In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to
Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0
Published on Apr 13, 2018
The failure of political leadership throughout the Western world is total. Such total
failure is likely to prove deadly to life on earth.
At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pompeo boasted that "the Russians met their
match. A couple hundred Russians were killed," referring to a US massacre of military
contractors back in February. Pompeo insisted these killings prove Trump's toughness on
Russia.
The comments threaten to make this incident a bigger diplomatic row. The February 7 incident
came after the US claimed Kurds had come under attack. In reality, an artillery barrage landed
half a kilometer from a Kurdish base, and the US reacted by killing
in excess of 200 pro-Syrian government fighters, declaring the killings "self-defense."
At the time, there were concerns Russian citizens were among the slain, and US officials
ultimately said "scores" of the dead may have been Russian. Now, Pompeo appears to be insisting
they were all Russians, and that the killings were about being "tough" of the Russian
government.
Russia's government denied any knowledge of the incident at the time, and it appears the
slain were private contractors working for the Syrian government, and not in concert with
Russia's government itself. That makes targeting them on the basis of their nationality
potentially even more problematic.
"... People think this is about Syria, it is not. It's about oil price. Watch on Monday and the days following oil price will rocket up, and Iran, Russia, US will all be celebrating privately. The Chinese stock market will fall because oil will cost them more. ..."
Syrian state TV said that the attack hit the country's army depots in the area of Homs,
Reuters reported.
A Reuters witness said that at least six loud explosions were heard in Damascus with smoke
rising over the Syrian capital where a second witness said the Barzah district, the location of
a major Syrian scientific research center, was also hit in the strikes.
Meanwhile, Syrian state television reported that "Syrian air defense blocks American,
British, French aggression on Syria." It added that 13 missiles were shot down.
The US has been threatening Damascus with military action since April 7, when a suspected
chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma, Eastern Ghouta, reportedly killed 60 people and
injured hundreds more. The Syrian government has already strongly denied using chemical
munitions in the flashpoint town.
Joe ,
People think this is about Syria, it is not. It's about oil price. Watch on Monday and the
days following oil price will rocket up, and Iran, Russia, US will all be celebrating
privately. The Chinese stock market will fall because oil will cost them more.
"... Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump, he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules. ..."
"... " Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has created a class society between states. ..."
"... " Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general mistrust. ..."
"... Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters. ..."
o the Western powers hope to put an end to the constraints of International Law? That is the
question asked by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, at the Moscow
conference on International Security [ 1 ].
Over the last few years, Washington has been promoting the concept of " unilateralism ".
International Law and the United Nations are supposed to bow to the power of the United
States.
This concept of political life is born of the History of the United States - the colonists
who came to the Americas intended to live as they chose and make a fortune there. Each
community developed its own laws and refused the intervention of a central government in local
affairs. The President and the Federal Congress are charged with Defense and Foreign Affairs,
but like the citizens themselves, they refused to accept an authority above their own.
Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did
the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump,
he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules.
Making an allusion to the Cebrowski-Barnett doctrine [ 2 ], Sergueï Lavrov declared: " We
have the clear impression that the United States seek to maintain a state of controlled chaos
in this immense geopolitical area [the Near East], hoping to use it to justify the military
presence of the USA in the region, without any time limit, in order to promote their own agenda
".
The United Kingdom also seem to feel quite comfortable with breaking the Law. Last month, it
accused Moscow in the " Skripal affair ", without the slightest proof, and attempted to unite a
majority of the General Assembly of the UN to exclude Russia from the Security Council. It
would of course be easier for the Anglo-Saxons to unilaterally rewrite the Law without having
to take notice of the opinions of their opponents.
Moscow does not believe that London took this initiative. It considers that Washington is
calling the shots.
" Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has
created a class society between states. But we should not confuse this new problem with
the existence of the right to a veto. Of course, the UNO, while it declares equality between
states whatever their size, distinguishes, within the Security Council, five permanent members
who have a veto. This Directorate, composed of the main victors of the Second World War, is a
necessity for them to accept the principle of supra-national Law. However, when this
Directorate fails to embody the Law, the General Assembly may take its place. At least in
theory, because the smaller states which vote against a greater state are obliged to suffer
retaliatory measures.
La " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values " ignores honour and highlights profit, so that the
weight of the propositions by any state will be measured only by the economic development of
its country. However, over the years, three states have managed to gain an audience to the
foundations of their propositions, and not in function of their economy – they are the
Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (today under house arrest in his own country), the Venezuela of
Hugo Chávez, and the Holy See.
The confusion engendered by Anglo-Saxon values has led to the financing of intergovernmental
organisations with private money. As one thing leads to another, the member states of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), for example, have progressively abandoned their
propositional power to the profit of private telecom operators, who are united in a "
consultative committee ".
" Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in
international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax
to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the
Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general
mistrust.
During the first years of its creation, the UNO attempted to forbid " war propaganda ", but
today, it is the permanent members of the Security Council who indulge in it.
The worst occurred in 2012, when Washington managed to obtain the nomination of one of its
worst war-hawks, Jeffrey Feltman, as the number 2 of the UNO [ 3 ]. From that date onward, wars have
been orchestrated in New York by the very institution that is supposed to prevent them.
Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the
United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no
longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters.
Just as a society which falls into chaos, where men are wolves for men when deprived of the
Law, so the world will become a battle-field if it abandons International Law. Thierry Meyssan
At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pompeo boasted that "the Russians met their
match. A couple hundred Russians were killed," referring to a US massacre of military
contractors back in February. Pompeo insisted these killings prove Trump's toughness on
Russia.
The comments threaten to make this incident a bigger diplomatic row. The February 7 incident
came after the US claimed Kurds had come under attack. In reality, an artillery barrage landed
half a kilometer from a Kurdish base, and the US reacted by killing
in excess of 200 pro-Syrian government fighters, declaring the killings "self-defense."
At the time, there were concerns Russian citizens were among the slain, and US officials
ultimately said "scores" of the dead may have been Russian. Now, Pompeo appears to be insisting
they were all Russians, and that the killings were about being "tough" of the Russian
government.
Russia's government denied any knowledge of the incident at the time, and it appears the
slain were private contractors working for the Syrian government, and not in concert with
Russia's government itself. That makes targeting them on the basis of their nationality
potentially even more problematic.
Syria - Threat Of Large War Recedes But May Come Back
The expected U.S. attack on Syria last night did not happen.
Today U.S President Trump seemed to pull back from his earlier
attempt to pressure Russia over a faked chemical incident in Ghouta, Syria:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 10:15 AM UTC - 12 Apr
2018
Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at
all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of
ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our "Thank you America?"
Over night high level military and political negotiations between Russia and the U.S.
continued with at least some success:
Elijah J. Magnier @ejmalrai - 12:49 PM UTC - 12 Apr 2018
#BreakingNews
#Russian sources told me: possibility of war on #Syria has gone down from 9 to 5/10.
Diplomatic contacts with #USA never stopped. It was acknowledged that the possible war on
#Syria serves no purposes but to create a war situation where worse case scenario can happen
A war on Syria has been ongoing for over seven years. It will continue for another two or
three years. But Trump's recent threat of a large U.S. air or missile campaign against the
country has probably been defused.
Trump is certainly under pressure to attack Syria. U.S. media, the neoconservatives and
Zionists are pushing for it. The CBS News graphic department revealed their real aim:
What made Trump blink? Was it the
lack of evidence his Secretary of Defense Mattis acknowledged
? Or was it the earlier reluctance of Britain to become a partner in crime? Was it the threat
of Russian retribution?
I am not under the illusion that the US is the cause of all the world's ills, but if our government had at least some half-sane
foreign policy which involved cooperation with Russia and China--among other nations--on issues of mutual concern, the world would
be a far better place. Instead it's nothing but our-way-or-the-highway confrontation.
Our exceptionalism blinds us to any consideration that there are other people, places, and nations with valid interests. Working
through those interests with the goal of mutual benefit to all parties would truly make America great again, not this nonsense.
The world is not always a zero sum game.
Wouldn't want to be in Putin's seat right now - he's got some very tough calls to make, and none of the choices are good.
If Russia were really the US's enemy, it might be argued that Trump had done good to put him in that position. But why on earth
should Russia be regarded as an enemy of the US, except when the US chooses to make it one with actions like this proposed war
against its ally?
Col Lang, thanks for all you've done in service to the U.S and continue to do by getting this message out to the rest of the nation
through your network.
pat, i am going to go out on a limb and say i don't believe any attack will
happen soon.. if anything happens i think april 24th is close to the
time it will happen... and if that date passes, i think it is unlikely
to happen in the way it is being anticipated at present.. and - wait for it..... that is based off the astrology!
What I see as a major factor is that Russia probably can't afford a small tit-for-tat exchange. If Russia and the US knock down
a couple of each other's planes and then try to cool things off militarily, Russia will almost certainly face massive economic
consequences, probably involving the cancellation of the Nord Stream II at a minimum. This means that Russia needs to either do
nothing or respond with such force that the west cannot simply change tactics and critically escalate the economic pressure.
Please do not misunderstand me, I respect your struggle, Colonel, even if it is futile.
Do you remember Iraq's desperate attempts to avoid war in 2003?
All those efforts, all the massive protests in the West were to no avail, because the Empire had made up its mind that it wanted
war, and was perfectly willing to lie to get that war.
"Mobile WMD factories"
"Yellow cake"
"Aluminum tubes" ZOMG. Aluminum. Tubes.
In spite of crimes on a hitlerian scale, nobody in the United States or UK leadership paid any price at all, not on a personal
level, not on a professional level. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair and the others walk the streets freely, treated as Elder Statesmen
and Wise Leaders, in spite of the fact that they are directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, trillions of dollars
wasted, and not only that, but every doomsayer's prediction with regard to Iraq came to pass.
If the west had one tenth the respect for "the rule of law" that it professes, every last one of these Elder Statesmen and
more would hang. At the same time, if Saddam Hussein truly had nuclear weapons, the west would have to think twice, just as it
cannot force its will on North Korea.
The moral of this sad story? There is no reasoning with sociopaths. They can be dealt with only from a position of strength,
if you have rewards to give them that they cannot otherwise take, or punishments to had out that they cannot avoid.
Reward and punishment is what sociopaths understand.
lol seems like a lifetime ago. A sad development is that Rumsfeld's 'you to go war...' had entered the national psyche as a
saying to be paraphrased. Guilty.
So who were the sociopaths in the room when Hitler allowed the British to depart Dunkirk; when Hitler offered numerous peace offers
to Britain; when the German government offered more-than-generous terms to Poland to settle the Danzig question?
You wrote earlier, Sid Finster,
"Sociopaths care nothing for logic or morality of they stabs in the way of something they want. Like the Reichstag fire.
I don't understand why people refuse to see that we are run by sociopaths, or, at a minimum, by people indistinguishable from
sociopaths."
In a recent comment the failure of comparison of Syria to the Reichstag fire was explained.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is equally intellectually suspect.
How did so many people get to be sociopaths? I suggest that one element is that almost the entire nation has been systematically
misinformed about its own history, and trained like puppy-dogs to load all culpability on 'that guy,' thereby escaping accountability
and also insight, characteristics of -- a sociopath.
Before we start diagnosing sociopathology and offering "reward and punishment" treatment, we might do well to do precisely
what major decision makers in the current situation have failed to do: examine the situation from all sides, rationally, based
on sound evidence (movies & TV don't count).
Rep. Carol Maloney and seven other congressmen are sponsoring the "Never Again Education Act" to "teach American Students about
the Holocaust."
https://www.algemeiner.com/... This is an extremely dangerous measure that must be struck down before it takes hold. The Holocaust
is already taught in US public schools, and taught in a way that permits no critical analysis but only acquiescence. When a school
district in California assigned students to study the issue and prepare a critical analysis of it, the school district was severely
chastised, made to rescind and counteract the assignment, monitored for several years to ensure "Holocaust compliance." This is
not an intellectually sound study of history, this is dogmatic tyranny. It produces --- sociopaths.
On several occasions, I have encountered individuals who are psychologically incapable of constructing boundaries for their personal
conduct. Instead of determining what they should not do for themselves, they rely on their boss (or anyone else who's above them)
to knock them back when they go to far. And then they get to the top...
Interesting develops in Russia reported by John Helmer - a potential major shift in power from oligarchs to defense interests
and indications that the government to be formed by Putin will essentially be a war cabinet (and without Medvedev). All of this
seems driven by the unrelating and largely imaginary criticism of Russia by the US, UK, etc. and the lack of any willingness to
have honest assessments of the negative claims like the Syria "chemical attacks":
http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17...
Last Russian Presidential elections were not about electing the President of Russian Federation, they were about electing a Supreme
Commander. Most Russians understand that, US national security apparatus and media do not. It is simply beyond their grasp and
experiences.
I am afraid this is a fait accompli. Thank you for trying. At least your honor is clean, which is much more than can be said for
too many in a position to influence. I weep for our nation.
As an aside, Trump won't be re-elected, but I don't think he cares at this point - he may not even complete his first term. PT
was wrong. The coup has not failed. It marches on. Trump's lack of character has revealed itself. He should make a stand now on
his principles. Engaging in war with Syria and Russia isn't going to save his presidency. They will overthrow him anyhow as an
example of what will happen to anyone else that The People elect as oppose to the deep state.
Eric:
I voted for Trump but he lost my support over a year ago.
Time to finally accept the fact that Trump has no principles.
Trump's statement last week about pulling troop's out of Syria was a half-assed attempt at cover for what came about a few days
later. Mulshine's try at running interference for Trump is a comical continuation of that cover. It's a dog and pony show. Don't
fall for it.
Now everyone will have a reason to get rid of Trump, then bankrupt his family to boot. Not to worry, Bombing Bolton will win
another war and we'll be greated as liberators from Damascus to Moscow. Evidence? Who cares if the evidence is even more fabricated
than the Fusion GPS crap. Would anyone in the intellegence community lie? On a bright note Little Rocket Man won't have to worry
about his future after Big Rocket Man proves his point.
Eric Newhill,
I fear you may be right. Trump is getting hammered from every side right now.
He may extricate himself, but the quicksand in the swamp is getting deeper.
The funny part is that russiagate conspiracy theorists will scream "Putin puppet!" even as the ICBMs are launched. The "Trump
is fighting the Deep State" conspiracy theorists will insist that this is eleven-dimensional chess or something equally stupid,
even as they go up in a mushroom cloud.
At least it would be funny, if it were not actually happening.
Then again, just when all appears lost a glimmer of hope is offered. Teresa May is hedging now. Maybe it wasn't gas. Maybe
Assad didn't do it - inspectors are needed on the ground at the site:
http://www.breitbart.com/lo...
This is my hometown guy. I was surprised by the number of people there (as well as other places) who are absolutely 100% convinced
about the fact that there was a chemical attack and Assad must be guilty because they saw the footage of the victims foaming from
their mouths on TV. Yikes.
Perhaps I should blame the networks. In all of the coverage that I saw, they simply streamed out the video as if it came from
one of their foreign correspondents. If the networks had any sense of professionalism they would have put up a caption,
'This footage is unverified, it was obtained by rebel activists'
thanks for stating all that pat.. i am happy to see your word is reaching some of the msm! can you get your press secretary to
run your ideas by the nyt, wapo and wsj too? that would be a switch for what they regularly offer!
your comment confirms the idea that alternative views are not being heard in the msm... the msm appears to be one big hall of
mirrors with generally the same message being sent out - one that conforms with the ziocons..
I may be dating myself here, but I can still remember 25 years ago, when Col. Lang was a regular guest on the old McNeill/Lehrer
News Hour on PBS. He always gave excellent, informed commentary. I was so glad a couple of years ago, when--quite by accident--I
found this blog on the internet. It's been a go-to source for me ever since. It's a pity that informed experts like Col. Lang
aren't often featured by our MSM anymore; but the again, that's why I now mostly avoid the MSM.
I think the real problem is not so much ideology but the fact that the current crop of journalists have little experience with
dust-ups in the "developing" world and therefore have to trust inside-the-Beltway "experts" who have no expertise.
House Speaker Paul Ryan to retire. "Paul Ryan is abandoning the ship before it
sinks - Chicago Tribune". No doubt to get his cut. But, I guess he never got the briefing
that if the USA goes to war with the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin has more
than enough nuclear weapons to spare one to target Janesville, WI. Will he have time to realize that it all was for nothing?
I believe this episode demonstrates the soundness of my observation a few months ago that the best course of action for the
United States is to cut and run from Syria as well as Afghanistan and a number of other such places.
US has demonstrated that she could be easily manipulated and her actions could lead to World War III.
The neocons seem to see WWIII as a feature and not a bug.
Witness the articles suggesting that we can "win" a nuclear war. I am reminded of the scene from Dr. Strangelove when General
Buck Turgidson suggested "not more than ten, twenty million dead, TOPS!"
"... If the chemical attack on Douma really is fictitious – as the Russians insist it is – then for the first time their control of the crime scene puts the Russians in a strong position to prove it. ..."
"... The point was made forcefully by Russia's UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security Council session today, and it also received indirect backing from the UN Secretariat, who admitted that they could not confirm that a chemical weapons attack had happened, and who called upon all sides to show restraint until a proper investigation of the incident had taken place. ..."
"... By now it should surprise no-one that the fact that the Russians are in control of the crime scene and may on this occasion be able to prove conclusively that no chemical weapons attack happened in Douma, instead of deterring a US attack, is actually making it more likely. ..."
"... This is because the credibility of the various 'witnesses' to the Douma attack – who are of course the same witnesses who were previously 'witnesses' to the 2013 East Ghouta and the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun attacks – is now on the line, as is the credibility of those Western governments – first and foremost the US government – who believed or who pretended to believe them. ..."
"... We call upon Western politicians to scale down their hawkish rhetoric, to meaningfully consider possible repercussions and to cease the reckless spill over of threats to global security. What military misadventures of the West brought about is well known to us if we consider the examples of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. ..."
"... And nobody invested you with the power to act as policemen of the world and as investigators, procurators, judges and executioners all at the same time. ..."
"... We call for your return to the legal fold to comply with the U N Charter and to jointly tackle problems that arise, rather than attempting at each step to advance your egotistical geopolitical game. All of the energy needs to be focused on support for the political process in Syria, to which it is necessary to constructively pull the efforts of all influential players. Russia always stands ready to engage in such cooperation ..."
"... RobinG posted Haley's UN diatribe from yesterday. She hammered away at the "pictures of dead babies" theme. What an embarrassment to the American people. ..."
For the sake of world peace – I am beginning to think that impeaching Trump is a good idea. He is doing harm to the stability
of the world. He truly is a bull in a china shop. Upsetting America's internal status quo is a good thing – but upsetting the
worlds equilibrium is another. The only country in the world that Trump has not pissed off – is Israel – how totally and completely
disgusting.
As a result of the total surrender of the Jihadis previously in control of Douma on Sunday, it is the Russian military who
this time are in control of the alleged crime scene.
This has put the Russians in a position where for the first time they are able both to invite the OPCW inspectors to attend
the crime scene and to provide them with protection if they are there, whilst at the same time monitoring and supervising their
work.
If the chemical attack on Douma really is fictitious – as the Russians insist it is – then for the first time their control
of the crime scene puts the Russians in a strong position to prove it.
The point was made forcefully by Russia's UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security Council session today, and
it also received indirect backing from the UN Secretariat, who admitted that they could not confirm that a chemical weapons attack
had happened, and who called upon all sides to show restraint until a proper investigation of the incident had taken place.
Nebenzia followed this up by inviting OPCW inspectors to the scene as early as tomorrow Tuesday.
By now it should surprise no-one that the fact that the Russians are in control of the crime scene and may on this occasion
be able to prove conclusively that no chemical weapons attack happened in Douma, instead of deterring a US attack, is actually
making it more likely.
This is because the credibility of the various 'witnesses' to the Douma attack – who are of course the same witnesses who
were previously 'witnesses' to the 2013 East Ghouta and the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun attacks – is now on the line, as is the credibility
of those Western governments – first and foremost the US government – who believed or who pretended to believe them.
I would add that not only is the credibility of the US government and of other Western governments on the line. So is the credibility
of Western journalists who also believed or pretended to believe the 'witnesses'.
Ron Unz posted a video of the Russian envoy's speech at UN today (Apr 11 18).
Rough notes from near the end to the conclusion of his remarks:
"And you are misguided if you think tha thou have friends So called friends of yours are only those who cannot say no to you.
And this is the sole criterion for friendship in your understanding . Russia has friends and unlike yourselves we do not have
adversaries.
We do not view the world through that prism. And yes, international terrorism, that is our enemy. However, we continue to propose
cooperation. This need to be respectful and mutual cooperation, it needs to go towards resolving real and not imagined problems.
And you should be just as interested as we are in such a cooperation.
///
26 min: As permanent members of the Security Council, we bear the main responsibility for the maintenance of international
peace and security. Through the relevant channels, we already conveyed to the US that armed force under mendacious pretexts against
Syria, where, at the request of the legitimate government of the country, Russian troops have been deployed, could lead to grave
repercussions.
We call upon Western politicians to scale down their hawkish rhetoric, to meaningfully consider possible repercussions
and to cease the reckless spill over of threats to global security. What military misadventures of the West brought about is well
known to us if we consider the examples of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.
And nobody invested you with the power to act as policemen of the world and as investigators, procurators, judges and executioners
all at the same time.
We call for your return to the legal fold to comply with the U N Charter and to jointly tackle problems that arise, rather
than attempting at each step to advance your egotistical geopolitical game. All of the energy needs to be focused on support for
the political process in Syria, to which it is necessary to constructively pull the efforts of all influential players. Russia
always stands ready to engage in such cooperation .
To conclude, Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to request an open briefing of the Security Council on the outcomes
of the UN assessment mission in Raqqa and the situation in the Rahman camp. We see the way of members of the Commission attempting
to create a smoke screen around this issue, which is a result of their actions in Syria, including the operations to rain Raqqa
to the ground through bombings. No chemical provocations will divert attention from this, from what you've done. Thank you.
–
Nikki Haley was in the room and listening.
RobinG posted Haley's UN diatribe from yesterday. She hammered away at the "pictures of dead babies" theme. What an embarrassment
to the American people.
There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with
straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over
how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead
to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.
Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the
pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having
written about the
1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda
campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities
in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.
Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who
deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to
resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.
Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites
and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their
slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction
of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied
on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.
Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is
a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed
" the weaponization
of human rights. "
We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion
to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was
rather mealy-mouthed in
her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.
For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American
intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war
continues to tear the country apart to this day.
Power in Power
Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised
as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist
groups.
Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military
mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually
hunted down, tortured and murdered.
The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state
with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians.
It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.
Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions
rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all
that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
predicted "the next genocide
in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued
to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.
Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor
Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective
control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.
Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic
Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.
A Propaganda Speech
Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided
propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."
Despite the key role of neo-Nazis
acknowledged even by the U.S.
House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad
operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.
Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February
2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in
the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence
of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's
destabilizing actions in your country."
Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and
the message you heard from President
Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest
then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.
"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian
aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.
"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its
will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as
one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]
Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number
of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were
pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.
"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in
order to topple a democratically-elected government."
Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was
sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest
prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to
"midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]
The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence.
Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias,
organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials
fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled
the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.
Inventing 'Facts'
But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:
"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours
after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.
"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip
him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several
days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.
"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed
to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled
by outsiders.
"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan
was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers.
Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "
Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving
a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the
Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside
its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.
"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the
inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.
"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women,
including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping
build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.
"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract
foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv
where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage
boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.
"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have
been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people
are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real
numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled
by the separatists."
One-Sided Account
Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians
resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly
in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the
violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence,
but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."
Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on
Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile
documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]
Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014,
burning alive scores of ethnic Russians
while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped
Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.
Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far
larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism
operation."
Use of Propaganda
In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's
" How Reagan Promoted Genocide
."]
Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the
"bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands
of civilians.
During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President
Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric
from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."
Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak
in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored
by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom
a chastened Obama invited to
a White House lunch last year).
But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the
Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the
Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.
The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in
disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.
That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive
neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom.
And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."
There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan
to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.
Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear
program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have
used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.
Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to
so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from
office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.
Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing
to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what
they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing
operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here .
incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm
It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be
forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands
of time' to save their victims from more misery.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Theresa May as more evil than Bill Clinton? That will sound odd to some, but I think it is
true. Hillary is the pure evil half of the Clinton marriage. Bill is simply charming and
filled with a desire to amass enough power to have a group adore him as he finds new panties
to explore.
May is English, and she has the very long line of Brit Empire secret service evil at her
disposal. And her move is a bold one. What it means is that she is signaling that at least if
she is PM, the UK could replace the US as Fearless Leader of the actual New World Order...
There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with
straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over
how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead
to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.
Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the
pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having
written about the
1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda
campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities
in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.
Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who
deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to
resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.
Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites
and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their
slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction
of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied
on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.
Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is
a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed
" the weaponization
of human rights. "
We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion
to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was
rather mealy-mouthed in
her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.
For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American
intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war
continues to tear the country apart to this day.
Power in Power
Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised
as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist
groups.
Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military
mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually
hunted down, tortured and murdered.
The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state
with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians.
It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.
Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions
rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all
that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
predicted "the next genocide
in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued
to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.
Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor
Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective
control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.
Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic
Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.
A Propaganda Speech
Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided
propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."
Despite the key role of neo-Nazis
acknowledged even by the U.S.
House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad
operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.
Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February
2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in
the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence
of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's
destabilizing actions in your country."
Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and
the message you heard from President
Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest
then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.
"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian
aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.
"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its
will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as
one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]
Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number
of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were
pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.
"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in
order to topple a democratically-elected government."
Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was
sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest
prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to
"midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]
The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence.
Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias,
organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials
fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled
the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.
Inventing 'Facts'
But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:
"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours
after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.
"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip
him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several
days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.
"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed
to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled
by outsiders.
"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan
was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers.
Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "
Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving
a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the
Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside
its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.
"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the
inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.
"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women,
including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping
build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.
"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract
foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv
where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage
boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.
"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have
been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people
are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real
numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled
by the separatists."
One-Sided Account
Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians
resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly
in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the
violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence,
but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."
Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on
Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile
documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]
Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014,
burning alive scores of ethnic Russians
while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped
Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.
Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far
larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism
operation."
Use of Propaganda
In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's
" How Reagan Promoted Genocide
."]
Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the
"bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands
of civilians.
During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President
Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric
from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."
Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak
in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored
by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom
a chastened Obama invited to
a White House lunch last year).
But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the
Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the
Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.
The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in
disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.
That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive
neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom.
And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."
There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan
to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.
Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear
program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have
used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.
Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to
so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from
office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.
Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing
to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what
they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing
operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here .
incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm
It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be
forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands
of time' to save their victims from more misery.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
This is US specific bank of chickenhawks, who feed from MIC cramps. this breed is really entrenched in State Department too (Madeleine
Albright, Nuland, Powell, Haley, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria! ..."
"... It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names? ..."
War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it
appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria!
It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope
for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names?
Syria invasion by the USA with Arab monarchies and several Western "partners in crime" is nothing but an attempt to correct
disastrous results of Saddam removal which essentially gave the country for free to Iran. Not they try to convert Syria into Sunni
country hostile to Iraq/Iran and that requires removal of secular Assad government.
An interesting
perspective on why the crisis has escalated to this point is made by Adam Garrie along
the lines of Zhirinovsky's nationalist critique of Putin's policy/rhetoric to NATO/Outlaw US
Empire acts. Excerpt:
"In respect of Syria, Russia is guilty of presuming that in fighting a war against
terrorism that the entire world ought to have supported, that even its enemies in the US and
Europe would somehow allow Russia to go about its business in Syria, owing to the greater
good of eliminating terrorist groups like Daesh, al-Qaeda and their clones from the face of
the earth.
"This was a false premise from the beginning as Russia should have known all too well.
Russia should not have been so naive in presuming a nonchalant attitude from the western, as
when it comes to the western imperial quest for global dominance, they will do anything to
subdue Russia, no matter how many objectively gruesome allies the west will need to associate
itself with in the process. There is even a clear blueprint regarding this western attitude.
Its author was an English academic called Halford Mackinder whose so-called "heartland
theory" portrayed Russia as a necessary "pivot area" that western imperialists would need to
subdue in their wider ambition to conquer China and the wider Asian world."
There are some aspects of this position I agree with. But then neither Garrie, Zhriniovsky
or I are Russia's President having to weigh a great number of issues, which is why I find it
difficult to criticize Putin/Lavrov's overall efforts and thrust. China's Xi now appears to
be willing to emerge from behind the shadows to exert its pressure on events. As I alluded to
in my comment above, it's quite likely Russia will encourage/allow Syria to use its anti-ship
missiles in retaliation, which subtly shifts the dynamic.
Timothy Hagios | Apr 11, 2018 2:41:46 PM |
Russia's main impediment is that it cannot allow the conflict to become purely economic, as it is more vulnerable economically than
militarily.
Thus Russia needs to respond to an attack either by doing nothing or by striking with such force that the West is not given
the option of creating an economic blockade while maintaining its economic advantages.
One option would be to strike Saudi oil fields,
which would be devastating to the West without necessarily leading to a full-blown nuclear war.
"... AIPAC's vulgarity is legendary. Despite the Jewish power in the US and the UK, the Israel-firsters are a miserable lot incapable of maintaining the standards of decency. ..."
Israel has no qualms about being a dishonest and lying inciter of a mass murder while
pretending sanctimoniously on some "superior morality" and "eternal victimhood."
AIPAC's vulgarity is legendary.
Despite the Jewish power in the US and the UK, the Israel-firsters are a miserable lot
incapable of maintaining the standards of decency.
"... It must be pointed out that obviously, Saudi and Israeli goals are mutually incompatible. Saudi Arabia cannot be the premier power in the Middle East while Israel retains much influence. Similarly, Israel cannot be hegemon while the Arabs, in the form of Saudi Arabia, remain powerful. ..."
"... So you paint a scenario where Jews and Arabs have joined forces to suppress the Persians. What happens AFTER the Persians are diminished? Do Israel and Saudi Arabia turn on each other? Do they divvy up the Middle East? Do they jointly turn against the Turks? Does one ally with the Turks to gang up on the third? ..."
Saudi's motive was to prevent its spreading Shia influence in the region because it was a
threat to the Sunni throne i.e.,their place as the leading Kings and rulers of the ME
Israel's motive was of course to destroy all states like Syria and Iran who might resist
their aim of being the supreme hegemon of the ME.
I see the pattern, broadly speaking. Let's suppose you're correct.
It must be pointed out that obviously, Saudi and Israeli goals are mutually
incompatible. Saudi Arabia cannot be the premier power in the Middle East while Israel retains
much influence. Similarly, Israel cannot be hegemon while the Arabs, in the form of Saudi
Arabia, remain powerful.
Bit of layman's background.
The modern region we know as the "Middle East" has 4 ethnic-cultural poles. The Israelites
and Persians have been there since antiquity, the Arabs became a force with the coming of
Islam, and finally Asian interlopers, the Turks, smashed in while fleeing from their Inner
Mongolian homelands.
So you paint a scenario where Jews and Arabs have joined forces to suppress the
Persians. What happens AFTER the Persians are diminished? Do Israel and Saudi Arabia turn on
each other? Do they divvy up the Middle East? Do they jointly turn against the Turks? Does one
ally with the Turks to gang up on the third?
What happens AFTER the Persians are diminished? Do Israel and Saudi Arabia turn on each
other? Do they divvy up the Middle East?
Yes they will turn on each other -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend -- for awhile, not
forever
Israel will never quit trying to rule the ME and dip its beak into other countries wealth
and resources.
Saudi will never let them have that much control over Arab countries as that would be as
threatening to their throne as Iranian influence.
Both think they will be able to control and out smart each once their current mutual goal
is achieved.
"... There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here - and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing the MSM and/or our government. ..."
@ BM: My take on the situation in Germany: the MSM - leftish or rightish, doesn't matter -
mindlessly repeat what our US colonial masters are telling them to.
There is not a shred of independent, intelligent journalism left anywhere around here -
and interestingly there is an amazing number of people who have completely given up believing
the MSM and/or our government.
But what can you do when the published opinions are completely manufactured and anyone has
to suppose his neighbours all believe this idiocy?
That's a bit of a stretch. Germans were demoralized long before, as each sane person knew the war will end in
defeat from mid'42 on. Back in the days I had the somewhat questionable pleasure of talking to German ex-soldiers
(two of my grand-uncles) that were deployed to the Eastern Front. Compared to the kind of warfare that was going
on there, the fighting in the west and south was almost akin to being on vacation - I'm serious about that.
On average the Soviets, mainly comprised of todays Russian peoples, lost 16-18000 people a day, this is
evidence of the fierceness of fighting and, also, to what amount of a beating the Russians can take without
losing sight of their goal.
The Soviet Union did the real fighting against German forces. At all times there'd been about 85% of all
German forces deployed to the east, without this there would had been no bombing campaign against Germany simply
because the number of fighter aircraft available against allied bombers would had been overwhelming.
Except for a few elite units, hastily re-deployed from the east, the main force was inexperienced draftees
with both a lack of proper training and equipment. All other experienced units stayed east in a desperate attempt
to hold back the red army as long as any possible.
A very good friend of mine, who died a couple years back at age 84, was one of these unfortunate souls. When
he turned 17 in late Dec.'44 he received an official letter that read 'A gift from the Fuhrer' - it was his draft
note. That's been the kind of opponent the western allies faced late in the war, a bunch of badly under-equipped
troops consisting of exhausted regulars and youths, that were scared shitless (his words, not mine).
Russia's a different kind of animal. They won WWII - European theater almost singlehandedly but had to pay
dearly.
There's a subconscious racism in the way [neo]liberal westerners treat Russia. Saudis execute
gays and transsexuals but the West focuses on Russian "homophobia," which amounts to little
more than discouraging gay pride marches and sexual orientation education to children. China
has open censorship of the media and doesn't even have elections, yet the West imposes
sanctions on semi-democratic Russia and trades freely with China. Islamists are taking over
in Turkey, yet liberal westerners attack the Russian Orthodox Church for spreading moderately
conservative values.
Basically Russia is bad because it's a white country that's relatively conservative and
does things a bit differently than other white countries. Non-white countries can do whatever
they like because they aren't white as so can't be expected to live up to western liberal
values.
[Russia on Tuesday vetoed a US-drafted United Nations Security Council resolution that
would have set up an investigation into chemical weapons use in Syria following an alleged
toxic gas attack in rebel-held Douma.
It was the 12th time that Russia has used its veto power at the council to block action
targeting its Syrian ally.
Twelve of the 15 council members backed the measure, including France, Britain, African
countries, Kazakhstan and Kuwait. Bolivia voted against the draft resolution, while China
abstained.]
Why petty China always cave in with US. In the latest resolution China AGAIN abstained.
China is a petty colony and people must boycott its garbage, that is called goods. Chinese
criminal 'leaders' still have their slave mentality. They are nothing but petty slaves in the
service of the mass murderers.
They also voted for illegal sanctions against Iran, N. Korea and any other country that
American criminals and mass murderers wanted to kill their children. Chinese petty 'leaders'
are as criminals as US mass murderers. Down with petty colonies and cowards chinese
'leaders'.
Even Bolivia, a small country has more courage than the petty chinses. Long live
Bolivia
California Democrat Zoe Lofgren and Michigan Republican Justin Amash are
circulating
a bipartisan letter to President Trump, insisting that he seek Congressional authorization
before striking the government of Syria.
Defend our Constitution and oppose endless war. Urge your Representative to sign the Lofgren-Amash letter against unconstitutional
war.
Phone calls are best: US Capitol Switchboard (202) 224-3121, ask for your Rep. by
name.
You can leave a message after hours. (Name, zipcode, request.)
The White House: (202) 456-1111
' Don't know how true it is, but this is what Veterans Today says about the captured
spooks and weapons lab '
Thanks for the links
Gordon Duff [Vietnam Marine grunt veteran] and Jim Dean of Veterans Today are well
meaning fellows and are on the 'right team' so to speak
They are often dismissed as Conspiracy Kooks and they sometimes go a bit over the top
I suspect this is because they rely on sources that are perhaps somewhat unreliable [VT
says some of these sources are ex intel guys...so some truth bending might go with the
territory...]
Here is what we do know last month the Syrian government did say it found a 'rebel'
chemical weapons workshop and this was reported in Sputnik
and RT
What has been documented much more extensively especially in RT and Sputnik are huge
conventional weapons caches seized by the SAA as it liberates various locations from
terrorists often these weapons are visibly stamped with manufacturer data plates from US and
Nato countries
This is beyond doubt
So the logical question is how are these holed up bearded fanatics in Ghouta who are
surrounded on all sides getting this stuff for the last five years ?
There is a logistics question here who and how has been smuggling this into the besieged
enclave [including possibly chemical weapons] ?
That is really cloak and dagger stuff no doubt and actual verifiable info would be very
hard to come by
So there could be some truth to this idea that various Western spooks or at
least contractors are involved in this game of smuggling in everything from guns to chlorine
[which is readily available]
However it is doubtful that these personnel would have been caught by the advancing
SAA
Even if SAA did capture various Nato operators or agents there it might not be something
that the Russian side would publicize [I'm just guessing as a layman here...Mr. Giraldi would
certainly have a much better grasp on the nuts and bolts of such things...]
So overall I think this is a case where VT is perhaps a bit too optimistic
' We are still waiting for the first verifiable report of a jhadi and or family that has
been killed by one of these "attacks", or a cemetery of the gassed martyrs, or even a
headstone for such.
The amateur script writers forgot about that part '
That's a very good observation
With all these 'gas victims' churned out by the white helmets how is it that no
such 'martyr' graves have ever turned up ?
Or this observation as to how those chemicals might be used that the headchoppers are
cooking up in their workshops
' As for what these could be used for, how about throwing into a cellar filled with
human shield pro-Damascus family members to generate a nice pile of bodies for our
"un-free" Western media '
Photo showing the buses with the freed prisoners below
On March 26 even the French AFP ran this story
' In the largest city of the East Ghouta district, Douma, civilians and military
personnel have been liberated from the "jail of repentance," where they were kept prisoners
for years by Jaish al-Islam terrorists '
There were hundreds of women and children from the city of Adra, which was
captured by terrorists in December 2013. Adra is one of the largest industrial cities in
the suburbs of Damascus.
"In such places, extremists tortured the abducted people, forcing them to repent of
their sins. Thus, they wanted to realize the doctrine of a peaceful revolution. But what
sins do children, who were the greatest number in the prison, have to repent?" the source
asked.
According to the source, there were 3,500 inmates in the prison. The terrorists
used them as a human shield to put pressure on the Syrian army, which did everything
possible to save the lives of the people of the city '
So these are the 'good guys' for whom Dump is sending the United States to war
?
If he is as stupid as all that then I certainly hope that the Russians don't pull their
punches
At this point Dump is beyond redemption the sooner his disillusioned base cuts him loose
the better
Gordon Duff [Vietnam Marine grunt veteran] and Jim Dean of Veterans Today are well
meaning fellows and are on the 'right team' so to speak
No, they most certainly are NOT. The problem is not with them talking about conspiracies,
conspiracies do take place all the time
Problem is these guys are disinformation, especially Duffy.
The fact that Gordon Duff is a "disinfo toad" is certainly no secret. He has openly
admitted that "about thirty percent of what is on Veterans Today is patently false" and
that at least forty percent of what he writes is "purposely partially false".
Gordon Duff, senior editor of the website Veterans Today, published an article on May
20, 2014, that can only be described as rank disinformation that is meant to obscure the
truth about 9-11. To deliberately spread lies about what caused the deaths of thousands of
people on 9-11 is an egregious and unforgivable offense. The Duff article, which was edited
by Jim W. Dean, is so full of errors that it cannot be taken seriously, except perhaps as
evidence of his role as an agent of disinformation about 9-11.
Also, both Duff and Dean were 100% supporters of the ZUS/NATO war on Libya, and became
furious when several readers protested and confronted them in the comment sections, which led
to censorship. Maybe Duffy boy's defense contracts he claims to have in Africa and the ME had
something to do with that.
Red Crescent Says No Evidence of Chemical Attack in Syria's Douma
Patients treated by aid group not exposed to any chemical agents
Jason Ditz Posted on April 9, 2018
The Syrian Red Crescent issued a statement Monday dismissing the allegations of a
weekend chemical weapon attack in the city of Douma. The statement insisted their medical
personnel in the city had found no evidence any such attack took place.
Y ou might think it would be easier if not more foolproof for the warmongers to
stage a fake chemical attack in Syria by 2018 than it was staging the false flag attack on
the WTC in 2001, but even this simple but bogus narrative crumbles under perfunctory
inspection, and the lies stick out like a pitchfork in a goat's ass, or UA 175 stuck in the
middle at WTC 2, a lie for the ages frozen in pixels.
Not that obvious lies have been any detriment to the warmongers of the past, even when
George W. Bush told his whopper about watching the first WTC crash on the boob tube because
"the TV was obviously on."
Well, Shrub is part of the ruling oligarchy, so he's an untouchable with royal jelly or
something, like Blair, who probably caught it from the Queen.
In October 2001, Rudy Giuliani was even knighted by Her Royal Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II,
who bestowed upon the NYC mayor the modest title of Knight Commander of the Most Excellent
Order of the British Empire ostensibly for his "outstanding help and support to the
bereaved British families in New York."
Of course, successful destruction of WTC evidence had nothing to do with Rudy's award in
the same way that BBC's foreknowledge of WTC 7′s destruction was just one of those
doggone quirky things that happen, during false flags, when the evils hacks can't get their
timing right.
Just one more thing. I noticed that the slim 9/11 articles section has been removed from
the front page at Unz Review. Linh Dinh's article from August 13, 2017 "George Orwell and
Mohammed Atta Were Here" can be found under his name, as can the earlier sole entry in the
now-defunct 9/11 section, author Philip Giraldi's 10-25-2016 article "9/11 Truth?" which drew
over 1,000 comments.
After seeing the 3 Stooges, May, Macron and Trump, locking arms to start another war, I'd
like ours (Larry?) to know that if he becomes a wartime president, it will be difficult to
spend weekends in Mar Largo golfing. Think about it.
Red Crescent Says No Evidence of Chemical Attack in Syria's Douma
Patients treated by aid group not exposed to any chemical agents
Jason Ditz Posted on April 9, 2018
The Syrian Red Crescent issued a statement Monday dismissing the allegations of a weekend
chemical weapon attack in the city of Douma. The statement insisted their medical
personnel in the city had found no evidence any such attack took place.
Crisis Group's Sam Heller wordsmiths a different question, the next question: Can the U.S. Respond to the Syria Chemical Weapons Attack without Risking
Escalation?
After a seemingly sanguine introduction –
So far, no international party has said definitively or presented conclusive evidence
that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical
weapons use. . . .
Heller tightens the frame to fit a preconceived image:
While the lack of access makes it difficult to immediately verify, chemical weapons
use would be consistent with past behaviour by the Syrian government. The government
has repeatedly employed chlorine and, more infrequently, sarin gas against areas under
rebel control , as documented by nonpartisan international bodies such as the United
Nations-established Joint Investigative Mechanism and the Independent International
Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. Chemical attacks fit within a broader
strategy the government has used of targeting civilians and fighters alike in rebel-held
areas. Through brutal means, this strategy renders these areas highly dangerous and
ultimately unlivable, permitting no viable alternative to government control.
That last bit is problematic: if gassed "areas are rendered unlivable," will the British
be holding hosts of quiet funerals for fallen White Helmet rescuers who entered the areas and
came in body-contact with victims?
Heller next constructs a scenario intended to provide a rationale for the Syrian
government to have made the attack, then reports that
"Syria's T-4 airbase was hit by an apparent Israeli airstrike on the morning of 9 April,
although it remains unclear whether the strike was related to the Douma chemical attack. .
. . from Lebanese airspace . . . killing seven Iranians. . . . "
Though Israel declined to comment, Heller noted that
"Israel also struck the T-4 base in February, after an Iranian drone it said was
launched from the base entered Israeli airspace. "
If all is fair in love and war, one must forebear pointing out the hypocrisy of Israel
attacking a Syrian target from Lebanese airspace in retaliation for Iran flying drones over
Israeli airspace. However, the same logic conveys the right to Iran and/or Syria and/or
Russia to attack an Israeli launching site in retaliation for its attacks on Syria.
But even wars have rules, that civilized people comply with -- statesmen like Sergei
Lavrov and Vladimir Putin understand this. But when the adversary/aggressor is a psychopath
who disdains convention's rules and limits, then what?
Israel is not like a drunk or addict that has hit the wall -- such a person is, at that
point, ready for intensive rehabilitation. But a psychopath is not in that category.
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god?
– W H Auden
How does one deal with a psychopath?
How does one deal with a rabid dog? Can a rabid dog be medicated, or re-trained?
What signals do Israelis send about how an entity that fails to comply with demanded norms
should be treated? Israelis insist that such entities respond "only to force." Projection may
be as close to insight as a psychopath can get.
If it is the case that Israel can only be dealt with by force, that the rabid dog must be
put down, then what are we to make of Phil Weiss's recent claim
that Israel's attacks on Palestinians has caused American Jews to distance themselves from
Israel.
Does that mean they will ignore the mad dog as long as it does not roam on their street, or
does that mean they will agree that for the good of their own neighborhood as well as the
entire community, the dog must be put down?
The press in the USA is more effectively controlled and conformist than in Germany in the
late 1930s
Who controlled the press there and then?
What can be said about the control and conformity of the Soviet, British and American press
of the time?
...and nobody goes around beating up journalists or sending them to a KZ.
That's probably because the usual thugs don't need to do that any longer since
they control virtually everything.
A couple of anecdotes to illustrate my point.:
2 of the reasons we don't hear much about mobsters these days are that the press and
judiciary are owned by them and if you do get something published, you run the risk of getting
snuffed. They probably don't stop at mere blinding anymore.
Victor Riesel was an American newspaper journalist and columnist who specialized in
news related to labor unions. In 1956 a mobster threw sulfuric acid in his face on a public
street in Chicago causing his permanent blindness.
"Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the
Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to
the American people as any invading army could be." This indictment launched a
nine-part series of articles entitled "Treason of the Senate."
-David Graham Phillips, Cosmopolitan magazine, February 1906
In 1911 Phillips was shot multiple t imes by Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, a
Harvard-educated scion of a prominent Maryland family, at Gramercy Park in New York City.
The intent of my post was to show that the MSM here is conformist and doesn't like to
stray far from what the USG is claiming and what other journalists are writing. Rather than
explore the topics you raise, as worthy of exploration as they might be, I thought I'd offer
what newspapers around the USA were saying about Saddam's WMD after Powell's UNSC speech;
seems a bit more germane.
The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable.
The Wall Street Journal
Piling fact upon fact, photo upon photo Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
methodically demonstrated why Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remains dangerous to his own
people, Iraq's neighbors
The Los Angeles Times
On Wednesday, America's most reluctant warrior, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
presented succinct and damning evidence of Saddam's enormous threat to world peace.
Arizona Republic
Saddam Hussein's illicit arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, as well as the
equally illicit means that he possesses to deliver them, poses a tangible and urgent danger
to U.S. and world security. Millions of innocent lives are at risk.
Dallas Morning News
At some point, the world chooses to believe President George W. Bush and Secretary Powell
or the international community chooses to side with Saddam Hussein and those who broadcast
his lies to the world. Powell has painstakingly presented a strong case against Iraq.
Greenville News/South Carolina
Iraq is busted. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out the case clearly. No one
hearing Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council could doubt Iraq's
actions and intentions.
Jacksonville Times-Union/Florida
The threat is real and at our door. Sept. 11, 2001, stripped away the belief that the
United States can peacefully coexist with evil. Prove it, they said. Powell has.
Charleston Daily Mail/West Virginia
We are a country always loath to fight unless provoked. The reluctance of Americans to
initiate a war needlessly does the nation credit. But this is not a needless war, nor is it
unprovoked. Powell laid out the need, and explained the provocation, in step-by-step fashion
that cannot be refuted without resorting to fantasy.
Chicago Sun-Times
The Dispatch repeatedly has called on the Bush administration to make a compelling case
that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction and hiding these
efforts from U.N. inspectors. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell made that case
before the Security Council.
Columbus Dispatch
Powell has methodically proved Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. mandates. With each
passing day, Iraq's own choices move it closer to a war that full compliance would
prevent.
Indianapolis Star
Secretary of State Colin Powell's 90-minute presentation to the U.N. Security Council,
buttressed with surveillance photographs and recorded phone conversations, should remove all
doubt that Iraq's Saddam Hussein has developed and hides weapons of mass destruction, in
violation of U.N. resolutions.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council presented not just one 'smoking gun' but a
battery of them, more than sufficient to dispel any lingering doubt about the threat the
Iraqi dictator poses.
Denver Post
The United States has made a compelling case that Iraq has failed to rid itself of weapons
of mass destruction. This failure violates the U.N. Security Council resolution of late last
year which ordered Iraq to disarm. As a consequence and it is a grave one, the Security
Council must act now to disarm Iraq by force.
Salt Lake City Tribune
Powell has connected enough dots to tie Iraq to al-Qaeda and show that this alliance is a
threat to all of Europe as well as the United States.
Manchester Union Leader
In fact, the speech provided proof that Saddam continues to refuse to obey U.N.
resolutions. Any amount of time he has now to comply fully and openly with U.N. demands
should be measured in days or a few weeks – and no longer.
These ridiculous, suicidal gas attacks by Assad seem to coincide not only with battleground
victories against the head-choppers, but co-incidentally with Israel's murderous attacks on
unarmed Palestinians "throwing stones".
What nobody seems to have picked up is the emphasis – and red lines – on Gas;
gas, gas attacks. Why is gas so much worse than being dismembered, disembowelled, and
mutilated by high explosives? Certainly I would favour unconsciousness and death by gas
before being smashed to pieces by depleted uranium.
These relentlessly repeated claims are an exercise with the dual purpose of providing a
subliminal message about the greatest tragedy in human history, repeated ad nauseam. The
massive 'gassing' of European Jews some 65 years ago. Lest we forget.
It does look rather like those Syrian chemical weapon attacks that happen whenever the rebels
are about to be defeated.
I am pretty sure that it was not ordered within the British government and that most of
the British government don't know where it came from, but are willing to believe it was
Russia.
While the CIA does have plenty of form on assassinations, the risk if they were found to
be assassinating in Britain seems quite high due to the close CIA links with the UK
intelligence sector. But CIA agents could have paid someone else to do it.
Mossad is the one group that can act freely in the UK, has a record of assassinating
scientists, engineers etc here, and unlike CIA, can take the risk of being caught. So it's a
possibility – OTOH Israel has shown a lot less anti-Russian hatred than the US Deep
State has.
Normally I'd assume it was indeed Russia – I thought there was plenty of evidence
the Polonium poisoning was Russia – and it still seems possible, but US or Mossad must
be at least equally likely in this case. It's just possible it could have been British
initiated but I doubt it.
I do think it's most likely the person who actually poisoned them was not an employee of
any agency.
Regarding fukus shenanigans,
How could we omit the CIA/MI6 'greatest hit ', the 1965 genocide of 3M Indonesians
'leftists suspects' , The mother of all regime changes ???
The Skriptal caper looks like kindergarten stuff compared to that 1965
genocide.
fukus orchestrated that bloodbath to remove prez Sukarno cuZ he's pro Beijing. MI6 planted disinfo in HK media about an imminent China sponsored coup , supported by
ethnic Chinese fifth columns.
CIA planted 'evidence' of Chinese supplied arms , to be conveniently 'discovered' by Indon
police . [1]
That devious plot provoked a bloodbath by jihadists death squads against the PKI communists
members and ethnic Chinese indons.
CIA whistle blower, John Mcgehee,
The Indonesian covert action of 1965, reported by Ralph McGehee, who was in that area
division, and had documents on his desk, in his custody about that operation. He said that
one of the documents concluded that this was a model operation that should be copied
elsewhere in the world. Not only did it eliminate the effective communist party
(Indonesian communist party), it also eliminated the entire segment of the population
that tended to support the communist party – the ethnic Chinese, Indonesian Chinese.
And the CIA's report put the number of dead at 800,000 killed. And that was one covert
action. We're talking about 1 to 3 million people killed in these things.
[2]
[1]
U.S. officials were particularly interested in linking the September 30th plotters to
Beijing. They helped to spread stories about China's alleged involvement and reported on
caches of weapons purportedly "discovered" by the Indonesian army with the hammer and
sickle conveniently stamped on them. "
We have bonanza chance to nail chicoms on disastrous events in Indonesia ," Green
wrote the State Department. He urged a "continuation [of] covert propaganda" as one of the
"best means of spreading [the] idea of chicom complicity
'Company ' veterans are so proud of that CIA'S greatest hit,
they still reminiscent fondly over it around the water cooler, until this very day.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Your decrying confirms that the British has done something wrong and they did poison
Skripals in Salisbury England. This unscrupulous false flag op, crying foul and smearing the
innocent for the crime they committed relentlessly is a special signature of the
British/Anglo culture and trait. The following history provides the evidence the above is not
allegation but fact.
Nov 24, 1784, a British gunner on the ship "Lady Hughes" fired cannon against Chinese law
and killed two Chinese in Guangzhou. The British refused to hand over the gunner to the
Chinese authority for trail and called up few hundred armed sailors to stop the Chinese
authority from searching the perpetrator in the British warehouses and living compound.
Anyhow the British was outwitted and the perpetrator was tried by the Chinese, convicted
and executed in according to the Chinese law; during that time the British law also gave
death penalty for the same crime.
The British had been trampling other people's sovereignty and law like India with impunity
for a couple of hundreds of years already by then. Never a British was tried and punished for
the crimes, murder or not, they committed since they supplanted the Spanish. British viewed
themselves above all human beings and not bound by any other people's law. The execution of
the gunner made the British Council of Supercargos feel humiliated and devastated as well as
being impotent and incompetent in the eyes of their superiors in London and their peers
(other Europeans) in Guangzhou.
In order to cover their crimes and failures, the megalomaniac British decried Chinese
legal system was barbaric and sanguinary relentlessly like Anonymous[338] is doing here to
Russia. All the Europeans jumped on the British mudslinging bandwagon for the effort to gain
extraterritoriality in China, so they could steal, loot, plunder, etc. Chinese wealth with
impunity like Elizabeth I's Sea Dogs. Soon after the "Lady Hughes" incident the view that
entire Chinese legal system was barbaric and sanguinary or there is no law in China become
the dominant representation of China ever since.
The British then engineered Opium Wars for the vengeance of their "Lady Hughes"
humiliation, and set to destroy the last nation denying their piracy and other unscrupulous
deeds on the moral high ground. If history can be any guidance, the Anglo is not going to
stop at smearing Russia; more vicious plot is going to come.
Bernhard over at his blog, Moon of Alabama, is advocating for the poisoning being real,
but being traceable to shellfish poisoning. The Skripals had a shellfish dish at a local
restaurant about 40 minutes prior to their discovery on the park bench. While very serious,
and potentially fatal, if addressed with respiratory and cardiac support in a timely fashion,
this poisoning is survivable.
The toxin involved in classic shellfish poisoning is a naturally occurring
neurotoxin, Saxitoxin, which agent remains toxic even after boiling or steaming, exactly the
food preparation techniques likely to be employed in preparing shellfish for consumption.
This is, indeed, what makes it so pernicious.
That the Brits, primed for lies in aid of the Hate On The Rooskies campaign, lit on their
story is unsurprising. Of course, the denial of the authorities at the hospital that
anyone , the Skripals and the supposedly affected policeman, was suffering from
exposure to a chemical weapon, along with the refusal of Porton Down officials to lend
credence to the hoo haw that this was surely traceable to Novichok series chemical agents
identifiably produced by the Russians kind of shot some holes in the big lies.
Anyway, cast an eye at the post at Moon of Alabama. Bernhard is pretty damn good at
winnowing facts from the chaff of propaganda, and when he makes a mistake, he openly
confesses it instead of doubling down on a falsehood.
"... Repeated requests by Russia to obtain a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing have been rejected by the British government in spite of the fact that a military grade nerve agent would have surely killed both the Skripals as well as anyone else within 100 yards. ..."
"... It does look rather like those Syrian chemical weapon attacks that happen whenever the rebels are about to be defeated. ..."
"... Actually, I think that in the end Russia has to thank the British for sending a great message to her traitors and gangsters. ..."
Moving along to the present, we have Prime Minister Theresa May. May has been in serious
trouble, politically speaking. After losses suffered in the recent parliamentary elections, she
is clinging to power and is increasingly unpopular even within her own Conservative Party. So
what do you do when you are in trouble at home? You create a foreign crisis that you have to
deal with. If you are someone as venal as former American President and bottom feeder Bill
Clinton you accomplish that end by firing off a few cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical plant
in Sudan and at some mud huts in Afghanistan. If you are Theresa May, you up the ante
considerably, coming up with a powerful enemy who is threatening you, enabling you to appear
both resolute and strong in confronting a formidable foe. That is precisely what we have been
seeing over the past month relating to the alleged poisoning of former Russian intelligence
agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
There is quite a bit that is odd about the Skripal case. Even the increasingly neoconnish
Guardian newspaper has conceded that "the British case [against Russia] has so far relied more
heavily in public on circumstantial evidence and secret intelligence." And secret intelligence,
so called, has all too often been the last refuge of a scoundrel whenever a government is
selling snake oil to the public. In this case, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson rushed to
judgement on Russia less than forty-eight hours after the Skripals were found unconscious on a
bench in Salisbury England, too soon for any chemical analysis of the alleged poisoning to have
taken place.
Theresa May addressed Parliament shortly thereafter to blame the Kremlin and demand a
Russian official response to the event in 36 hours, even though she had to prevaricate
significantly, saying that the apparent poisoning was "very likely" caused by a made-in-Russia
nerve agent referred to by its generic name Novichok. She nevertheless rallied the backbenchers
in Parliament, who responded with a lot of hearty "Hear! Hear!" endorsements. When Labour
Leader Jeremy Corbyn attempted to slow the express train down by suggesting that it might be
wise to wait in see what the police investigation uncovered, he was hooted down. The British
media was soon on board with a vengeance, spreading the government line that such a highly
sensitive operation would require the approval of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin himself. The
expulsion of Russian diplomats soon followed.
One of the strangest aspects of the Skripal case is what is going on now that daughter Yulia
will soon be out of the hospital and Sergei is no longer in critical condition. A cousin
Viktoria Skripal has offered to fly in from Moscow to provide support for her family, but it is
believed that she will not be able to receive a visa from the British. Russian television aired
a recording of a phone call between the two cousins in which Yulia said that she was
disoriented but improving and that neither she nor her father had suffered permanent damage
from the poisoning. The call ended abruptly and Viktoria Skripal believes that it was scripted
by the British government on a controlled phone line.
Repeated requests by Russia to obtain a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing
have been rejected by the British government in spite of the fact that a military grade nerve
agent would have surely killed both the Skripals as well as anyone else within 100 yards.
As the latest British account of the location of the alleged poison places it on the door
handle of the Scripals' residence, the timetable element is also unconvincing. That means that
the two would have spent three hours, including a stop at a pub and lunch, before succumbing on
a park bench. Military grade nerve agents kill instantly.
A request to have the testing done by the politically neutral Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is in progress, but there is little enthusiasm from the British
side, which does not want a Russian observer to participate in the process. The May government
has already established its own narrative and certainly would have plenty to hide if the whole
affair turns out to be fabricated. And fabricated it might have been as the nerve agent, if it
actually exists, could have been manufactured almost anywhere.
The head of Britain's own chemical weapons facility Porton Down has contradicted claims made
by May, Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, and British Ambassador in Moscow Laurie Bristow. The
lab's Chief Executive Gary Aitkenhead has testified that he does not know if the nerve agent
was actually produced in Russia, a not surprising observation as the chemical formula was
revealed to the public in a scientific paper in 1992 and there are an estimated twenty
countries capable of producing it. There are also possible stocks of Novichok remaining in
independent countries that once were part of the Soviet Union, to include Russia's enemy du
jour Ukraine, while a false flag operation by the British themselves, the CIA or Mossad, is not
unthinkable.
The resort to official Orwellian govspeak by the British is remarkable throughout the
process, but is particularly painful reading regarding the treatment of the Skripals' pets, two
guinea pigs and a cat. A spokesman for the Department of the Environment reported that "The
property in Wiltshire was sealed as part of the police investigation. When a vet was able to
access the property, two guinea pigs had sadly died. A cat was also found in a distressed state
and a decision was taken by a veterinary surgeon to euthanize the animal to alleviate its
suffering. This decision was taken in the best interests of the animal and its welfare."
So the presence of squadrons of technicians and cops in the residence did not permit anyone
to take a minute to feed the cat and guinea pigs. And the cat was killed as a purely
humanitarian gesture – it's "best interest" was apparently to die. Sounds familiar,
doesn't it?
Finally, the best argument against the British government's evasions about what took place
in Salisbury on March 4 th remains the question of motive. So the British would have
one believe that Vladimir Putin personally ordered the killing of a former British double agent
who had been released from a Kremlin prison in a spy swap and who was no longer capable of
doing any damage to Russia. He did that in spite of the fact that he had an election coming up
and would be the host of the World Cup in the summer, an event that he would want to go
smoothly. So he deliberately shot himself in the foot on both counts, allegedly because he
wanted to send a message to traitors and also because just can't help himself since he is a
vindictive KGB type whose impulses are pure evil. Does that make sense to the reader? It
doesn't to me. Mulegino1 ,
April 10,
2018 at 4:49 am GMT
A great man once wrote that the "big lie" had a force of credulity among the broad masses, as
the latter were wont to engage in lying about minor quotidian matters of little or no
significance while the big lies were engaged in by the mainstream press, dominated by the
usual tribal suspects...
But here's something else I don't quite understand:
To be sure, President Donald Trump has been exceptional in that he has followed through
on some of the promises he made in his campaign, insisting periodically that he has to do
what he said he would do. Unfortunately, those choices he has made to demonstrate his
accountability to his supporters have been terrible, including moving the U.S. Embassy in
Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, threatening to end the Iran nuclear agreement and
building a wall along the Mexican border.
Now, Trump is a sense-free random number generator, I will fully agree. But you list three
"choices he has made" that you describe as "terrible:" the US embassy move to Jerusalem, the
threats against Iran, and "building a wall along the Mexican border." The first two Trump has
done, and I agree that "terrible" is the right word to describe them. The third thing -- the
border wall -- he hasn't done. And had he done so, it wouldn't have been
"terrible" it would have been the obvious and sensible thing to do. I think he clearly isn't
serious about building the wall, as far as one can discern the intentions of so random an
individual. But your list presents three items in parallel, with one item being quite unlike
the others.
Logic escapes the rabid Neocons, anti Christian Russia crowd and their paid henchmen, or
henchgirls , the likes of Linda Graham. (Grin) Unfortunatley the now feckless Trump is
going to go along with this British yarn and the Neocon wish of destroying Syria.
BTW as of this post your site has still not recovered from the cyber attack it had
today.
"So the British would have one believe that Vladimir Putin personally ordered the killing of
a former British double agent who had been released from a Kremlin prison in a spy swap and
who was no longer capable of doing any damage to Russia. He did that in spite of the fact
that he had an election coming up and would be the host of the World Cup in the summer, an
event that he would want to go smoothly. So he deliberately shot himself in the foot on both
counts, allegedly because he wanted to send a message to traitors and also because just can't
help himself since he is a vindictive KGB type whose impulses are pure evil. Does that make
sense to the reader?"
Absolutely. Under the Putin regime, the body count of his enemies has grown. He put the
"de Thirty-four Russian journalists in the last decade just somehow "died". Occam's Razor
applies here.
Consider also that Putin played a major role in the Russian "Deep State".
It makes complete sense if one simply looks at the British Establishment's prior behavior of
intentionally starting world wars at the order of the Society of the Elect. It's all in the
CFR's archives. Their guilt in starting WW1 is emphatically admitted and documented in
roughly the first 200 pages of the following book. http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf
Who is in the Society of the Elect? Read the back pages of http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf
We have moved way beyond the Skripals case now. Simply put, if US shoots in Syria, Russia
will shoot back this time, yes back at US. USS Donald Duck has been placed as a bait to be
sent to the bottom of Mediterrenain sea by the Russians, similar to Arizona et al at Pearl
Harbour.
Many dissenter websites are currently under attack by the cyber forces of the Western
regimes and Israel, one of them being this one. Another site under attack is my favorite
johnhelmer.com. In addition to saying that he is under attack, the current message from John
is:
WHEN THE RULE OF LAW WAS DESTROYED IN SALISBURY, LONDON AND THE HAGUE, AND THE RULE OF FRAUD
DECLARED IN WASHINGTON, THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RULE OF FORCE IN THE WORLD. THE STAVKA MET IN
MOSCOW ON GOOD FRIDAY AND IS READY. THE FOREIGN MINISTRY ANNOUNCED ON SUNDAY "THE GRAVEST
CONSEQUENCES". THIS MEANS ONE AMERICAN SHOT AT A RUSSIAN SOLDIER, THEN WE ARE AT WAR. NOT
INFOWAR, NOT CYBERWAR, NOT ECONOMIC WAR, NOT PROXY WAR. WORLD WAR.
The West is utterly bankrupt, morally as well as financially and we are experiencing the
Western remedial plan and actions – war!
"In 2016 an official British government inquiry determined that Bush and Blair had indeed
together rushed to war. The Global Establishment has nevertheless rewarded Tony Blair for his
loyalty with Clintonesque generosity. He has enjoyed a number of well-paid sinecures and is
now worth in excess of $100 million."
– The character of Blair and the Establishment is well established: Blair is a major
war criminal supported by the major war profiteers. His children and grandchildren are a
progeny of a horrible criminal.
What is truly amazing is the complacency of the Roman Catholic Church that still has not
excommunicated and anathematized the mass murderer. Blair should be haunted and hunted for
his crimes against humanity.
With age, Blair's face has become expressively evil. His wife Theresa Cara "Cherie" Blair
shows the same acute ugliness coming from her rotten soul of a war profiteer.
Keep in mind how long ago all this is: Skripal was recruited around 1990 and arrested in
2004. Guess that the Russian attitude towards Skripal took the chaos of the 90′s as
mitigating circumstances into account.
Skripal served his sentence of only 13 years till 2010 when he was pardoned and given the
option to leave. Russia did not revoke Skripal's citizenship. The UK issued Skripal a
passport too. On arrival in the UK Skripak was extensively debriefed by UK intelligence
services. Skripal has lived for 8 years in the UK now.
And now out of the blue this incident nicely dovetailing with May ratcheted up anti Russia
language only a few months before this false flag incident and the rapidly failing traction
of the Steele/Orbis/MI6 instigated Russia collusion story on the basis of that fake Trump
Dossier. By the way Orbis affiliated Steele and Miller have been among Skripal's
handlers.
Good article. The Skipnal affair has been an utter disgrace from day one. May & Boris are
a shame on the UK fully reminesent of that utter dog, Blair. The fact that the msm still
babbles on about Russia & Skipnal is indicative of their monumental contempt for the
public & factual balanced reporting .well what's new, I guess ?
Paul Craig Roberts is correct when quoting The Saker:
"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an
infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified." -- The Saker
These ridiculous, suicidal gas attacks by Assad seem to coincide not only with battleground
victories against the head-choppers, but co-incidentally with Israel's murderous attacks on
unarmed Palestinians "throwing stones".
What nobody seems to have picked up is the emphasis – and red lines – on Gas;
gas, gas attacks. Why is gas so much worse than being dismembered, disembowelled, and
mutilated by high explosives? Certainly I would favour unconsciousness and death by gas
before being smashed to pieces by depleted uranium.
These relentlessly repeated claims are an exercise with the dual purpose of providing a
subliminal message about the greatest tragedy in human history, repeated ad nauseam. The
massive 'gassing' of European Jews some 65 years ago. Lest we forget.
Until some kind of sanity returns to this planet and war mongering gangsters like the Bush
and Clinton Mobs, Blair, Obama and a host of Pentagon generals, along with their boot-licking
MSM are indicted, tried for crimes against humanity and war crimes, found guilty and
sentences carried out, there will be no peace on Earth, just an endless series of False
Flags, hysterical reactions by the ones who were behind the False Flags and more wars.
Balfour already in 1907 announced war against Germany: Patrick J. Buchanan, 'Churchill,
Hitler and "The unnecessary war", How Britain lost its empire and the west lost the world',
New York, 2008, Balfour, to US ambassador Henry White, 1907, page 48/ 49
Because if it is a put up job by the CIA or MI6 part of the plot would have been that they
weren't actually killed. And if the perpetrators were other than those what motive would the
government have for pretending they were alive?
It does look rather like those Syrian chemical weapon attacks that happen whenever the
rebels are about to be defeated.
I am pretty sure that it was not ordered within the British government and that most of
the British government don't know where it came from, but are willing to believe it was
Russia.
While the CIA does have plenty of form on assassinations, the risk if they were found to
be assassinating in Britain seems quite high due to the close CIA links with the UK
intelligence sector. But CIA agents could have paid someone else to do it.
Mossad is the one group that can act freely in the UK, has a record of assassinating
scientists, engineers etc here, and unlike CIA, can take the risk of being caught. So it's a
possibility – OTOH Israel has shown a lot less anti-Russian hatred than the US Deep
State has.
Normally I'd assume it was indeed Russia – I thought there was plenty of evidence
the Polonium poisoning was Russia – and it still seems possible, but US or Mossad must
be at least equally likely in this case. It's just possible it could have been British
initiated but I doubt it.
I do think it's most likely the person who actually poisoned them was not an employee of
any agency.
Theresa May as more evil than Bill Clinton? That will sound odd to some, but I think it is
true. Hillary is the pure evil half of the Clinton marriage. Bill is simply charming and
filled with a desire to amass enough power to have a group adore him as he finds new panties
to explore.
May is English, and she has the very long line of Brit Empire secret service evil at her
disposal. And her move is a bold one. What it means is that she is signaling that at least if
she is PM, the UK could replace the US as Fearless Leader of the actual New World
Order...
THANK YOU, anyone who give Chump credit for anything, is either a useful idiot, or
controlled opposition.
Trump is, like Obama and H. Clinton (and Bush and B. Clinton Reagan though total control
of US government had not yet occurred then) a Zionist agent.
The media is very good at giving these traitors cover, Obama was the "peace
President/Constitutional scholar, as he made war and shredded the Constitution...
I challenge anyone to name a modern war prosecuted by the US government and its allies that
did not involve at its root the direct fabrication of blatant lies on enormous levels, both
as a casus belli and also to manipulate public opinion in favor of hostilities.
The clandestine activity represented by these *provocations* isn't even good spycraft. The
Skripal case and the latest use of chlorine gas in Syria are risible, clumsy, amateur
attempts to wangle the empire into war that the callowest rube could see through. And yet,
it's working its magic on the media. The politicians, suborned by the war machine, give
unanimous bipartisan assent.
Saddam's WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., etc. And now a ridiculous false flag attack in Syria.
Did it take place at all? But the narrative is all. The press in the USA is more effectively
controlled and conformist than in Germany in the late 1930s and nobody goes around beating up
journalists or sending them to a KZ. The Syrian Gov't is winning the civil war, things are
going well but what Assad really needs is to have the crap bombed out of his military by
Uncle Sam. What transparent bullshit.
Churchill advocated both the use of gas as well as terror, so I find it interesting that
so many suddenly tender hearted "officials" and war criminals now affect squeamishness
regarding the use of it, yet fail to condemn Israel for its hideous, terroristic use of white
phosphorous among other crimes
Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May 1919 War
Office I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas gasses can be used which cause
great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror
from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, by
Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)
The press in the USA is more effectively controlled and conformist than in Germany in
the late 1930s
Who controlled the press there and then?
What can be said about the control and conformity of the Soviet, British and American
press of the time?
and nobody goes around beating up journalists or sending them to a KZ.
That's probably because the usual thugs don't need to do that any longer since they
control virtually everything.
A couple of anecdotes to illustrate my point.:
2 of the reasons we don't hear much about mobsters these days are that the press and
judiciary are owned by them and if you do get something published, you run the risk of
getting snuffed. They probably don't stop at mere blinding anymore.
Victor Riesel was an American newspaper journalist and columnist who specialized in
news related to labor unions. In 1956 a mobster threw sulfuric acid in his face on a
public street in Chicago causing his permanent blindness.
"Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the
Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to
the American people as any invading army could be." This indictment launched a
nine-part series of articles entitled "Treason of the Senate."
-David Graham Phillips, Cosmopolitan magazine, February 1906
In 1911 Phillips was shot multiple t imes by Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, a
Harvard-educated scion of a prominent Maryland family ,at Gramercy Park in New York
City.
Good article.
Still, you authors need to start digging deeper. Trump and his Allies are putting on an
amazing show / act to distract their ( and Humanities going back generations) hidden enemies.
The Bad Guys have for millennia weoponized information, convincing the public, reporters,
and journalists that the rabbit hole ends here, that they don't need to dig any deeper, to
just accept this slightly deeper layer of the onion. That warm and fuzzy feeling from
scratching just a little deeper into to information matrix, isn't enough anymore. You guys
have the intelligence, experience, and ability just do it please!
Actually, I think that in the end Russia has to thank the British for sending a great
message to her traitors and gangsters. Apart from the Skripal case, the UK seems up to
confiscate the wealth Russian expats in the UK looted back home. On the one hand, it's ~
$10bn worth that will be definitely lost for Russia, on the other if the UK's treatment of
Skripal and runaway oligarchs won't heal Russian traitors and gangsters from their blissful
enamourment with England's climate, I don't know what will.
I can't find the comment because the comment archive is down -- I think it was annamaria
who reported that the British were holding assets of Russian oligarchs and that Russia wanted
the funds back. The speculation was that Teresa May would take possession of the assets.
As these two articles state, most of the Russian billionaire oligarchs are Jewish
US Treasury Putin List Features Jewish Billionaires Times of Israel
So at least (conspiracy theory) part of the Skripal scheme is for Teresa May to be an
angel and return their assets to the Jewish billionaires who stole Russian wealth fair and
square.
I am very fond of the British. They have provided a good deal of what makes the US a healthy
and blessed place to live.
But I will admit that I was disappointed in PM Blair on the Iraq invasion and that of
Afghanistan. It seemed so blatantly obvious to me, that I thought there was no way the prime
minister would buy in. I was wrong. But then who would have believed that the Tory's would
abandon natural relations for same sex relations, muchless marriage.
It's unclear how to respond when the leadership is so afraid that they advance anything to
avoid grappling with hard reality. PM May has the hurdle of guiding Great Britain out of the
EU.
I too noticed that and agree with you. Do not understand why the National Guard can only
serve in a supportive, non-enforcement role on the border. Heck, every nation uses its
military to guard its borders. We need to send our military to guard our border. It's really
very simple–no one can enter the US unless they have been admitted legally.
Another thing I don't understand is how these "sanctuary" cities can so blatantly flout
federal law by sheltering illegals from ICE or any federal law enforcement agencies. If any
city does so, the federal government should put them on notice that ALL federal funds will be
cut off.
He makes great points, and I'm encouraged that he's allowed to do so on to a big and
important audience.
I remember when his predecessor, Bill O'Rielly, claimed to have seen the evidence of
Saddam's WMD, and told his audience, on the run up to war, and I was appalled. As indeed, it
turned out he too was lying.
When the ZUSA was entrenched in the highly profitable war on Vietnam, there seemed to be
no way to end it. Protests in the streets and at the universities, and anger at the war and
war pig$ seemed to no avail.
But then a phenomena began. Fragging.
one wonders .
at seven minutes in, Carlson interviews a senator. The senator does his best to lie and
deceive, as only a ZUS senator can. But Tucker eviscerates him on screen.
now if this senator, and others like him, were themselves put into peril by these
serial, treasonous wars for Israel, would they still be so keen to have Americans die,
slaughtering innocent people- to bolster and benefit the main enemy of America; Israel?
I imagine the parent of a young American, who's life was sacrificed to augment the career
of Lindsey Graham. Or other Americans who're fed up with the endless wars for Israel, and are
willing to do something about the treasonous scum who're demanding and foisting all of these
Satanic wars.
Just as Tucker says, any general who advocates for these wars, should be required to
actually visit a battlefield, so too I wonder about the politicians, and how they eventually
have to go home, and live among their constituents. What if some of the worst of them, like
Graham for instance, were to actually suffer some consequence for all the evil he's done, and
continues to do?
Of course I'm not advocating anything illegal. Just ruminating on potential solutions to
the Eternal Wars for Israel – which are nothing more or less than a continuation of the
first two World Wars (for Israel) duh
END the FED!
(or watch your nation bankrupted and looted and made to die for Israel)
Come on yankee , ( as you say USA is a country of unbridled greed. An insatiable appetite
for blood , land , alcohol ,and loot ) . Just return California , Arizona , New Mexico ,
Florida , Nevada , Utah , Colorado and Louisiana to Mexico , and Alaska to Russia ) , and
then, only then , you can talk .
PS , and do not forget to close the 8OO occupation bases the US has around the world , you
will save a lot of money
The intent of my post was to show that the MSM here is conformist and doesn't like to
stray far from what the USG is claiming and what other journalists are writing. Rather than
explore the topics you raise, as worthy of exploration as they might be, I thought I'd offer
what newspapers around the USA were saying about Saddam's WMD after Powell's UNSC speech;
seems a bit more germane.
The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable.
The Wall Street Journal
Piling fact upon fact, photo upon photo Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
methodically demonstrated why Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remains dangerous to his own
people, Iraq's neighbors
The Los Angeles Times
On Wednesday, America's most reluctant warrior, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
presented succinct and damning evidence of Saddam's enormous threat to world peace.
Arizona Republic
Saddam Hussein's illicit arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, as well as the
equally illicit means that he possesses to deliver them, poses a tangible and urgent danger
to U.S. and world security. Millions of innocent lives are at risk.
Dallas Morning News
At some point, the world chooses to believe President George W. Bush and Secretary Powell
or the international community chooses to side with Saddam Hussein and those who broadcast
his lies to the world. Powell has painstakingly presented a strong case against Iraq.
Greenville News/South Carolina
Iraq is busted. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out the case clearly. No one
hearing Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council could doubt Iraq's
actions and intentions.
Jacksonville Times-Union/Florida
The threat is real and at our door. Sept. 11, 2001, stripped away the belief that the
United States can peacefully coexist with evil. Prove it, they said. Powell has.
Charleston Daily Mail/West Virginia
We are a country always loath to fight unless provoked. The reluctance of Americans to
initiate a war needlessly does the nation credit. But this is not a needless war, nor is it
unprovoked. Powell laid out the need, and explained the provocation, in step-by-step fashion
that cannot be refuted without resorting to fantasy.
Chicago Sun-Times
The Dispatch repeatedly has called on the Bush administration to make a compelling case
that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction and hiding these
efforts from U.N. inspectors. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell made that case
before the Security Council.
Columbus Dispatch
Powell has methodically proved Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. mandates. With each
passing day, Iraq's own choices move it closer to a war that full compliance would
prevent.
Indianapolis Star
Secretary of State Colin Powell's 90-minute presentation to the U.N. Security Council,
buttressed with surveillance photographs and recorded phone conversations, should remove all
doubt that Iraq's Saddam Hussein has developed and hides weapons of mass destruction, in
violation of U.N. resolutions.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council presented not just one 'smoking gun' but a
battery of them, more than sufficient to dispel any lingering doubt about the threat the
Iraqi dictator poses.
Denver Post
The United States has made a compelling case that Iraq has failed to rid itself of weapons
of mass destruction. This failure violates the U.N. Security Council resolution of late last
year which ordered Iraq to disarm. As a consequence and it is a grave one, the Security
Council must act now to disarm Iraq by force.
Salt Lake City Tribune
Powell has connected enough dots to tie Iraq to al-Qaeda and show that this alliance is a
threat to all of Europe as well as the United States.
Manchester Union Leader
In fact, the speech provided proof that Saddam continues to refuse to obey U.N.
resolutions. Any amount of time he has now to comply fully and openly with U.N. demands
should be measured in days or a few weeks – and no longer.
The Skripal affair is better understood in the context of "sir" Savile' knighthood -- when
the influential pedophile had been raping and molesting kids for 40 years and none stood up
to the criminal. The BBC has dutifully refused to publish anything that would upset "sir"
Savile. The Scotland Yard looked the other way -- precisely as the Establishment ordered them
to do. Savile' specialty were orphans. He was the embodiment of British Establishment.
The British Establishment has done with the concepts of honor. The loudest lying voices
against Russia belong either to the whoring "aristocrats," who found that war profiteering
(by any means) pays well, or the opportunistic parvenu like Gavin Williamson representing the
vulgarity and intellectual inadequacy of the Establishment.
the Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile
to the American people as any invading army could be."
-David Graham Phillips, Cosmopolitan magazine, February 1906
and to think that was over a hundred years ago
they've only gotten better at it with time
if you read The Protocols, one thing that I remember was the contemptuous way it referred
to the goyim as having the minds and souls of beasts. Lumbering, mindless cattle, chewing
their cud in a kind of catatonic stupor.
what else can we conclude about the kind of people who would vote for Lindsey Graham or
John McCain? These guys get reelected again and again.
The saddest and most tragic thing about The Protocols is that the goyim seem to be as
accommodating to the Elders as any farm animal can be. At least a pig might be apprehensive
of the trip to the slaughter house. I remember a video where a pig jumped out of a moving
truck, and walked off. But the goyim suit up their children and hand them over as cannon
fodder, to be slaughtered on behalf of their enemies.
In the last century, there may have been an excuse for not knowing the nature of the ZUS
government, being as ((they)) controlled virtually every source of information.
But today it's all out there. Today everybody knows that all of these wars are for Israel,
at the direct expense of America's blood and treasure and (I won't say good) name.
And yet, (especially from the Christian churches) the call to suit up the young people to
die in more wars- slaughtering innocents – for our enemies, will resound in the
nation.
If I were a British soldier, told to kill some Russian soldier, because Putin is Hitler..
as my daughter languishes in a mental hospital, having been gang raped into a shell of a
human being, and my son was brutalized by a British aristocrat, but now I'm called up to kill
Russians in a contrived World War, to benefit the pedophile Peerage and their ((patrons)), I
don't know how I'd resist pointing that weapon away from the Russian, and towards England's
true enemies.
Like a gullible person I at first accepted that there was indeed some event that involved the
Skripals. Now I wonder if the entire thing was a scripted hoax, that nothing had hit them,
that it's all fake. It wouldn't be surprising. We seem to be in an age of rule by sociopaths
whose only compass is that of power and riches. The populations of our countries are being
hustled along for the benefit of the few. This can't have a happy ending for the majority of
people. The much vaunted democracy of the west looks like just a fixed shell game.
The little lie is more difficult because the veracity thereof may be observed. A large lie
or untruth is more difficult to observe. Such as what is visible from outer space is not
something anyone can falsify.
' doesn't this prove I was wrong about Trump and his movement all along?
I was very wrong to discount the role of character, personality, and intelligence: Trump
is simply not fit to be President '
Raimondo's reaction to Dump's incredible imbecility re the Syria 'chemical attacks
'
' A child could see through the fake "chemical attack" supposedly launched by Bashar
al-Assad just as his troops defeated the jihadists and Trump said he wanted out of Syria
'
Yes anyone watching that white helmets footage is immediately cringing for those poor kids
being abused as props in a macabre stage play
"More occupation and killing in Crimea "
-- Evidence? It seems that you are very upset that the Kagans' cookies did not deliver.
"One Year Later, Crimeans Prefer Russia:" https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-06/one-year-later-crimeans-prefer-russia
"How Crimeans See Ukraine Crisis:" https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/11/how-crimeans-see-ukraine-crisis/
"A Pew poll from April 2014 revealed that 91 percent of Crimean respondents believed
the referendum was free and fair, 93 percent had confidence in Putin, and 85
percent believed Kiev should recognize the results.
Another poll in June 2014, this one from Gallup , showed 94 percent of ethnic
Russians in Crimea thought the referendum reflected the views of the people and 68 percent
of ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea agreed . The poll found that 74 percent believed
that joining Russia would make life better.
A GfK poll from February 2015, sponsored by a pro-Ukrainian group in Canada, revealed
93 percent of Crimeans endorsed the referendum."
-- Still not enough for you?
"Ukraine [post-Maidan] under pressure from West over corruption:"
http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2017/dec/07/ukraine-under-pressure-from-west-over-corruption-1721487.html
"Enough documents have been released -- citing coup-backed snipers killing dozens of
protesters, US embassy officials planning false flag attacks, extremists downing a passenger
airliner and NATO peddling falsified intelligence -- to make it very clear that the "coup" is
more of an invasion than anything else.
The term, roughly translated as Revolution of Dignity, was cooked up at the Jamestown
Foundation in Washington, well in advance of Victoria Nuland's assumption of the throne as de
facto "Queen of the Ukraine," lording over her subjects, playing the role of "donut
dollie."
The roots of the conflict in the Ukraine with thousands dead and the threat of, minimally, a
wider regional conflict, are attributable to extremist elements in the United States -- those
faces and voices seen and heard promoting the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the
supporters of ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria -- and the cheerleaders of the continued genocide
against the Palestinian people."
"In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI,
specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation
of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts
mentioned under (i)."
Bravo, indeed, Annamaria. Beautiful, perfect, resounding, harsh, unforgiving words for a
pair of worthless human vermin masquerading as civilised, intelligent professionals with a
moral compass.
The pair of them – and the entire wide set and grouping of their self-loathing,
White-hating racist political henchmen, hangers-on, groupies, freeloaders and Labour party
pirates and race traitors who have brought my nation to the brink in every possible way
should be publicly hanged and left to rot.
Better still that none of the Moslem-loving filth had ever been born.
"... The details of Skripal case are very entertaining, but not necessary for our understanding. The case was used to install in minds the connection between chemical poisoning and Russia. It is unfair, for Russians destroyed all their chemical poisons under the eyes of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors, but life is often unfair. ..."
"... The attack had never occurred at all, but it was duly reported by the pro-Western media. Thus the game came to a close. Skripal Affair established the connection of Russia and chemical weapons, Eastern Ghouta allowed to use this connection in order to attack Russia. ..."
"... We should not overestimate importance of these media events. The leading Western powers and their media refused to consider different explanations, refused an open inquiry, they went for jugular. Russia has been demonised in 2018, like Germany was demonised in 1940. It was a long and cautious labour. Have a look at this site theday.co.uk -- it is a site for school children and their teachers. You'll be amazed to discover its fervent hatred of Russia and Putin being pumped into hearts and heads of young generation. Such a long planning can't be dependent on an event like poisoning of an ex-spy or even on the fall of a Syrian underground fortress. ..."
"... we prefer a more simple explanation: Jews are well integrated into Western elites, and they promote and support the goals of these elites. ..."
The diplomats' expulsion flabbergasted the Russians. For days they went around scratching
their heads and looking for an answer: what do they want from us? What is the bottom line? Too
many events that make little sense separately. Why did the US administration expel 60 Russian
diplomats? Do they want to cut off diplomatic relations, or is it a first step to an attempt to
remove Russia from the Security Council, or to cancel its veto rights? Does it mean the US has
given up on diplomacy? (The answer "it's war" didn't come to their minds at that time).
The astonished Russians responded all right. They also expelled 60 diplomats, and they made
it painful: all US diplomats engaged in the political department of the Moscow Embassy were on
the non-grata list. The Political department consisted of three sections, dealing with foreign
policy, internal Russian politics and military analysis; the most important centre of data
collection, of liaison with Russian politicians, of military consequences, of Syria and
Ukraine, of North Korea and China, experienced first-class intelligence officers and field
hands -- all gone, including their Political Officer Christopher Robinson (POL). The Russians
expelled Maria Olson, the Embassy's well-known spokesperson, and the Ambassador's interpreter.
They closed down St Petersburg Consulate, an important centre for connecting, influencing and
interacting with the opposition in this 'second capital' of Russia. The US has lost many of its
Moscow hands, people who knew Russia and had developed personal relations with important
Russians. It will take a lot of time and effort for the US State Department and intelligence
agencies to get back to the positions they had lost. The Brits who initiated the deportations
also lost about fifty of their Moscow Embassy staff.
Surprisingly, the mass deportation of so many Russian diplomats had little effect on the
Russian people, as this strike had been neutralised by another painful event, by the Kemerovo
Mall blaze killing 64 cinema-goers including over 40 children. The blaze, even if it weren't
arson (it has not been proven yet) had triggered a massive onslaught of fake news and internet
trolls on the people of Russia. A million underfed Ukrainians were deployed by the Western
psywar on the web to tell the Russians that hundreds of their children had been incinerated,
and that their authorities lie to them. This operation revealed the level of influence and
integration the Western spy agencies have in Russia.
Kemerovo was a good choice for the operation: it is the only ethnic-Russian region ruled by
an old-style local hero who had outlived his wits, the only region that reported indecently
(and unrealistically) high support for Putin in the recent elections, a depressive region of
mines and miners with a big potential for trouble.
Putin managed it rather well by coming personally and dealing with the situation hands on.
He learned the ropes since 2000, when, at the dawn of his first presidential term, the
Kursk submarine went down with all hands. Putin stayed away from the sailors'
families, and acted callous, people said. "It had sunk", Putin replied to the question "What
happened to Kursk ?" (It is said USS Memphis had fired a torpedo at the
submarine, causing the disaster, while the new president had been reluctant to aggravate
relations with Clinton Administration). Now, in 2018, he was very good, full of empathy and
consideration, conveying strength and decisiveness.
Whatever American agency carried out the psyop around Kemerovo, it was very successful, but
its success undermined another operation, that of the Russian diplomats' expulsion. The
Russians did not pay it sufficient attention.
The alleged reason for the expulsion, the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter, made
very little sense. Even if the old spy were bumped off by his erstwhile employers, such a
reaction would be excessive by all means. He was not a Napoleon (poisoned by the Brits 200
years ago), not a prince of blood, not a great inventor nor a successful spy. He was a retired
ex-spy, a wash-out. Anyway he didn't die, he was just sick for a while. Perhaps he ate
something in the pub that didn't agree with him. This is the opinion of his niece, Victoria,
who is the only person alive who had been in contact with the Skripals since their alleged
hospitalisation.
This affair is so obscure that it beats Rashomon anytime. Russian reporters went around
Salisbury and noticed many incongruences. It is not certain whether Skripals were poisoned at
all, and where they are. Their pets survived the deadly poison, and they had to be destroyed.
This piece of black Russian humour had been forwarded a lot around the net:
Skripal had been poisoned by a most powerful poison, 2 grams will kill half a country
instantly! The Russians
- poisoned him in the restaurant
- no, on the bench
- no, in the car
- No, the door handle was smeared
- No, the suitcase was poisoned
- No, everything in the house was poisoned.
- Oh, and buckwheat was poisoned,
- but they did not die instantly, but walked around somewhere for four hours,
- but the policeman that discovered them almost died on the spot,
- but the poison was instantly identified,
- an antidote was instantly introduced, and Skripals and the policeman were saved;
- The policeman had been discharged next day!
- But they were in coma, and they will never recover!
- but no, the daughter had recovered fast!
- Oh, and dad is revived a miracle!
- and they both are quickly recovering, your strongest poison is useless.
- the restaurant had been surrounded by police in spacesuits
- the park had been surrounded by police in spacesuits
- the house had surrounded by police in spacesuits
- they are in spacesuits, since the poison is deadly dangerous, but next to them are
policemen without protection
- The bench was cut down and removed: it's such a terrible poison that the bench retained
its toxic quality for two weeks;
- but the cat had survived in the poisoned house the policeman had touched Skripal and
nearly died, and the cat survived and the guinea pigs would survive, but they were all
forgotten, and died of hunger in the house;
- and their remains were immediately burned, as they are poisoned by the strongest
poison;
- For two weeks they were poisoned by the strongest poison and survived, and now they had to
be urgently cremated;
- Only guinea pigs died, the cat survived all this poison. It was stressful and hungry, so
they killed it and cremated to make it certain nobody will find the secret etc etc.
The true hero of Skripal saga is the British ex-Ambassador Craig Murray , who followed the
developments and unveiled many of its inconsistencies and outright lies. You may read his
articles and twits to learn the details.
Julia Skripal took a daring step: she called her cousin Viktoria in Moscow. Their
conversation is an amazing document. Julia says that she and her father are in good health;
she doubts Viktoria will be allowed to visit her. Indeed, the British government refused to
grant her visa. The feeling is that Julia is imprisoned.
I spoke with a retired Russian counter-intelligence officer who is familiar with the
subject. He told me Russia never had a Novichok toxic substance: this name was given by
counter-intelligence to A-232 in order to trace the leaks. It worked: a man called Vil
Mirzayanov, an administrator in the chemical labs, leaked the Novichok story, and thus he was
apprehended and arrested. A-232 had been produced in small amounts in 1990s, and some of it
could be stolen and sold in these horrible years, when a full colonel of Russian intelligence
had to moonlight as a taxi driver to supplement his measly $46 monthly salary. In those years,
the poison could be indeed made available, and in one case it was used by criminals.
Theoretically it is not impossible that some of this poison could have been saved and stored by
some criminals; alternatively, it was available to the Americans who dismantled the labs in
1992. Anyway we have no independent proof that Skripals were poisoned by anything at all. If
they survive, if the British and the American intelligence services don't kill them, perhaps we
shall know more. We can definitely exclude the possibility that Russian state agents would go
to Britain to poison an old spy who had been pardoned by Russian president years ago. Even if
he was active in producing Christopher Steele's Trump ("Golden Rain") file, the Russians would
have no compelling reason to kill him at all, and in such an odd way in particular. "If we
would kill him, he would stay killed", concluded my interlocutor.
The details of Skripal case are very entertaining, but not necessary for our
understanding. The case was used to install in minds the connection between chemical poisoning
and Russia. It is unfair, for Russians destroyed all their chemical poisons under the eyes of
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors, but life is often
unfair.
The connection between chemical poisoning and Russia had been prepared for the forthcoming
event. Eastern Ghouta was an important and well entrenched location of the Syrian rebels. Being
within easy reach from Central Damascus, it provided the rebels with a chance to seize power in
the Syrian capital. As the Syrian army with Iranian and Russian support advanced into Eastern
Ghouta, they learned of the rebel plans to stage a false flag chemical weapon attack, as they
already had done a few times in past. President Putin warned of such a possibility at his joint
(with President Erdogan and President Rouhani) press conference in Ankara last week, a few days
before the alleged attack.
The attack had never occurred at all, but it was duly reported by the pro-Western media.
Thus the game came to a close. Skripal Affair established the connection of Russia and chemical
weapons, Eastern Ghouta allowed to use this connection in order to attack Russia.
We should not overestimate importance of these media events. The leading Western powers
and their media refused to consider different explanations, refused an open inquiry, they went
for jugular. Russia has been demonised in 2018, like Germany was demonised in 1940. It was a
long and cautious labour. Have a look at this site theday.co.uk
-- it is a site for school children and their teachers. You'll be amazed to discover its
fervent hatred of Russia and Putin being pumped into hearts and heads of young generation. Such
a long planning can't be dependent on an event like poisoning of an ex-spy or even on the fall
of a Syrian underground fortress.
The planners of a war on Russia have utilised fear of anti-Semitism for their purposes. I
called this method Anti-semitism Weaponised . Jeremy
Corbyn, the Labour leader, has been blocked and contained by accusations of anti-Semitism. He
was the only leader able to stop Britain's descent into war with Russia. Other Labour MPs and
activists have been attacked over alleged anti-Semitism issue, and -- what a coincidence! --
practically all of them were against demonising Russia; while Friends of Israel -- whether
Conservative or Labour -- were viciously anti-Russian.
This is a correlation that will be discussed at another time, but it is far from obvious
one. Russia has no anti-Semitism; the Russian president is friendly to Israel and to the
powerful Jewish Chabad movement. Russia
has no white nationalism, and little of the alt-right. However, this correlation exists. Shall
we explain it by Jewish hatred of the Orthodox Church, as this Church (active in Russia,
Greece, Palestine and Syria) hasn't been Jewified. Or should we prefer a more simple
explanation: Jews are well integrated into Western elites, and they promote and support the
goals of these elites.
However, people who can withstand accusations of anti-Semitism are the strongest enemies of
the ruling power; they stand against the war with Russia and against attack on Syria, as the
Haaretz newspaper explained in an article called
White Supremacists Defend Assad, Warn Trump: Don't Let Israel Force You Into War With Syria
. The article continues: "Alt-right calls Saturday's chemical attack in Damascus suburb a false
flag operation, claiming it's an effort by Israel and 'globalists' to keep U.S. troops in
Middle East" It quotes David Duke and other untouchables as the only people who reject Israeli
narrative.
Not being a white supremacist (probably I do not qualify) I still applaud these brave men
when they say and do the right thing. Sensitivity to anti-Semitism accusation is a strong
vulnerability of character. Though people like Corbyn have their heart in the right place, they
are weak on this point, and the enemy uses this weakness to neutralize them. There are people
in the left that are not afraid of any accusation, but there aren't many who are resistant to
metum Judaeorum .
Let us hope and pray we shall survive the forthcoming cataclysm.
We have moved way beyond the Skripals case now. Simply put, if US shoots in Syria, Russia
will shoot back this time, yes back at US. USS Donald Duck has been placed as a bait to be
sent to the bottom of Mediterrenain sea by the Russians, similar to Arizona et al at Pearl
Harbour.
Many dissenter websites are currently under attack by the cyber forces of the Western
regimes and Israel, one of them being this one. Another site under attack is my favorite
johnhelmer.com. In addition to saying that he is under attack, the current message from John
is:
WHEN THE RULE OF LAW WAS DESTROYED IN SALISBURY, LONDON AND THE HAGUE, AND THE RULE OF FRAUD
DECLARED IN WASHINGTON, THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RULE OF FORCE IN THE WORLD. THE STAVKA MET IN
MOSCOW ON GOOD FRIDAY AND IS READY. THE FOREIGN MINISTRY ANNOUNCED ON SUNDAY "THE GRAVEST
CONSEQUENCES". THIS MEANS ONE AMERICAN SHOT AT A RUSSIAN SOLDIER, THEN WE ARE AT WAR. NOT
INFOWAR, NOT CYBERWAR, NOT ECONOMIC WAR, NOT PROXY WAR. WORLD WAR.
The West is utterly bankrupt, morally as well as financially and we are experiencing the
Western remedial plan and actions – war!
"In 2016 an official British government inquiry determined that Bush and Blair had indeed
together rushed to war. The Global Establishment has nevertheless rewarded Tony Blair for his
loyalty with Clintonesque generosity. He has enjoyed a number of well-paid sinecures and is
now worth in excess of $100 million."
– The character of Blair and the Establishment is well established: Blair is a major
war criminal supported by the major war profiteers. His children and grandchildren are a
progeny of a horrible criminal.
What is truly amazing is the complacency of the Roman Catholic Church that still has not
excommunicated and anathematized the mass murderer. Blair should be haunted and hunted for
his crimes against humanity.
With age, Blair's face has become expressively evil. His wife Theresa Cara "Cherie" Blair
shows the same acute ugliness coming from her rotten soul of a war profiteer.
Keep in mind how long ago all this is:
Skripal was recruited around 1990 and arrested in 2004. Guess that the Russian attitude
towards Skripal took the chaos of the 90′s as mitigating circumstances into
account.
Skripal served his sentence of only 13 years till 2010 when he was pardoned and given the
option to leave. Russia did not revoke Skripal's citizenship. The UK issued Skripal a
passport too. On arrival in the UK Skripak was extensively debriefed by UK intelligence
services. Skripal has lived for 8 years in the UK now.
And now out of the blue this incident nicely dovetailing with May ratcheted up anti Russia
language only a few months before this false flag incident and the rapidly failing traction
of the Steele/Orbis/MI6 instigated Russia collusion story on the basis of that fake Trump
Dossier. By the way Orbis affiliated Steele and Miller have been among Skripal's
handlers.
Paul Craig Roberts is correct when quoting The Saker:
"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an
infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified." -- The Saker
The "sir" Savile -- a vicious heartless pedophile and friend to many influential Brits --
was indeed the Establishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile
Here are the facts:
"Savile was made a life member of the British Gypsy Council in 1975, becoming the first
"outsider" to be made a member.
Savile became a friend of Margaret Thatcher He reportedly spent eleven consecutive New Year's
Eves at Chequers with Thatcher and her family Letters released in December 2012 by the
National Archives under the thirty-year rule confirm the close friendship between Savile and
Thatcher.
In 1984, he was accepted as a member of the Athenaeum, a gentlemen's club in London's Pall
Mall, after being proposed by Cardinal Basil Hume.
Savile met Prince Charles through mutual charity interests, and Charles reportedly sent him
gifts on his 80th birthday and a note reading: "Nobody will ever know what you have done for
this country, Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that."
In the 1972 New Year Honours, Savile was appointed Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the
British Empire, entitled to append " OBE " to his signature.
In the 1990 Queen's Birthday Honours he was made a Knight Bachelor "for charitable services",
entitled to use the honorific prefix " Sir ". Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had
made four attempts to have him knighted before succeeding in her final year in office.
Savile was honoured with a Papal knighthood by being made a Knight Commander of the
Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Gregory the Great (KCSG) by Pope John Paul II in
1990.
– There were more awards and prestigious memberships.
It was widely known that Savile was a vicious pedophile. Similar to Blair, Savile had been
protected by his powerful friends.
"Immediately after Savile's death, the BBC's Newsnight programme began an
investigation into reports that he was a sexual abuser. Newsnight also discovered that Surrey
Police had investigated allegations of abuse against Savile. There was no public mention of
the Newsnight investigation into Savile at the time there had been a cover-up by the BBC.
By 19 October 2012, police were pursuing 400 lines of inquiry based on testimony from 200
witnesses via 14 police forces across the UK."
"It is now known that Jimmy Savile sexually abused hundreds of children and women at the
height of his fame. Investigators believe the late Top of the Pops host preyed on around 500
vulnerable victims as young as two years old at institutions including the BBC's broadcasting
studios, 14 hospitals and 20 children's hospitals across England." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/26/jimmy-savile-sexual-abuse-timeline
May be a more correct hypothesis that explains Trump behaviour in Skripal case and Douma supposed gas attack is that Trump was a false flag from the beginning. Being a
newcomer to politics he, like Obama before him, was a perfect bait and switch" candidate.
Hillary statement that he is "unfit for office" proved to be true, but in a different sense then
Hillary implied: in foright policy he proved to be copycat of Hillary, save sex change
operation.
And like Obama he does not care about hi electorate -- the sheeple that can be deceived again and again...
Notable quotes:
"... On John Bolton's first day as national security adviser, Trump is being pushed to embrace a policy of Cold War confrontation with Russia and a U.S. war with Syria. Yet candidate Trump campaigned against both. ..."
"... The War Party that was repudiated in 2016 appears to be back in the saddle. But before he makes good on that threat of a "big price to pay," Trump should ask his advisers what comes after the attack on Syria. ..."
"... Trump's strike, a year ago, with 59 cruise missiles, on the air base that allegedly launched a sarin gas attack, was supported only because Trump was new in office and the strike was not seen as the beginning of a longer and deeper involvement in a war Americans did not want to fight. ..."
"... The folks who cheered Trump a week ago when he said we were getting out of Syria, will they cheer him if he announces that we are going deeper in? ..."
"... Before any U.S. attack, Trump should make sure there is more hard evidence that Assad launched this poison gas attack than there is that Russia launched that poison gas attack in Salisbury, England. ..."
With his Sunday tweet that Bashar Assad, "Animal Assad," ordered a gas attack on Syrian
civilians, and Vladimir Putin was morally complicit in the atrocity, President Donald Trump
just painted himself and us into a corner.
"Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria," tweeted
Trump, "President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to
pay."
"Big price to pay," said the president.
Now, either Trump launches an attack that could drag us deeper into a seven-year civil war
from which he promised to extricate us last week, or Trump is mocked as being a man of bluster
and bluff.
For Trump Sunday accused Barack Obama of being a weakling for failing to strike Syria after
an earlier chemical attack.
"If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand," Trump tweeted, "the Syrian
disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"
Trump's credibility is now on the line and he is being goaded by the war hawks to man up.
Sunday, John McCain implied that Trump's comments about leaving Syria "very soon" actually
"emboldened" Assad:
"President Trump last week signaled to the world that the United States would prematurely
withdraw from Syria. Bashar Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers have heard him, and
emboldened by American inaction, Assad has reportedly launched another chemical attack against
innocent men, women and children, this time in Douma."
Pronouncing Assad a "war criminal," Lindsey Graham said Sunday the entire Syrian air force
should be destroyed.
So massive an attack would be an act of war against a nation that has not attacked us and
does not threaten us. Hence, Congress, prior to such an attack, should pass a resolution
authorizing a U.S. war on Syria.
And, as Congress does, it can debate our objectives in this new war, and how many men,
casualties and years will be required to defeat the coalition of Syria, Russia, Hezbollah,
Iran, and the allied Shiite militias from the Near East.
On John Bolton's first day as national security adviser, Trump is being pushed to embrace a
policy of Cold War confrontation with Russia and a U.S. war with Syria. Yet candidate Trump
campaigned against both.
The War Party that was repudiated in 2016 appears to be back in the saddle. But before he
makes good on that threat of a "big price to pay," Trump should ask his advisers what comes
after the attack on Syria.
Lest we forget, there was a reason Obama did not strike Syria for a previous gas attack.
Americans rose up as one and said we do not want another Middle East war.
When John Kerry went to Capitol Hill for authorization, Congress, sensing the national mood,
declined to support any such attack.
Trump's strike, a year ago, with 59 cruise missiles, on the air base that allegedly launched
a sarin gas attack, was supported only because Trump was new in office and the strike was not
seen as the beginning of a longer and deeper involvement in a war Americans did not want to
fight.
Does Trump believe that his political base is more up for a major U.S. war in Syria today
than it was then?
The folks who cheered Trump a week ago when he said we were getting out of Syria, will they
cheer him if he announces that we are going deeper in?
Before any U.S. attack, Trump should make sure there is more hard evidence that Assad
launched this poison gas attack than there is that Russia launched that poison gas attack in
Salisbury, England.
Obama and his co-governators are doing their part to drive us toward World War Nuke with
Russia. Why?
I have spent my time and energy thinking Obama's motives were primarily or even only all
the beautiful money he will collect after he leaves office. I haven't fully wanted to accept
Walrus's warnings that Obama is driven by a very real and pathological narcissism which will
eventually lead Obama to do something amazingly stupid, even to the point of harming Obama's
own interests. And it would be stupid for Obama to help cause World War Nuke because that
would incinerate all of his beautiful money as well as incinerating the rest of us and much
of civilization. So why is he taking and allowing his creatures to take this risk?
He certainly seems to dislike and resent Putin. The more Putin visibly fails to honor and
validate Obama's vast regard for himself the more angry and offended Obama becomes. Could
Putin's nonworshipful nonvalidation of Obama's own opinion of his own wisdom and power drive
Obama's fragile brittle ego to a point of toxic narcissistic lashout? Does Obama's Inner
Child look like this?
Nuland mind was completely warped by serving first at NATO and then as the State Depratment
spokeswoman. Appointing such a person as diplomat is worse then a crime, it is a blunder. But
here it was done by Hillary who by is herself pathological warmonger with very little
connections to reality even before her illness. She has a typical Mafiosi mentality.
"Godmother", I would say.
Do Nuland and her ilk have any idea of chess; or even, more simply, the idea of setting up
a winning shot in tennis through several preceding shots, rather than just one lunge for a
winner? Do she or any of her kind have any comprehension of history? Do they know that
effective propaganda is based in truth?
Bending the arc of history has more to do with gentle changes at very obtuse angles/arcs,
not sharp changes that fly in the face of historical precedents.
Who sanctioned this Ukraine gambit/plan?? Who knew her plan and allowed her to act,
perhaps endorsed her plan?? Do any decision makers in our foreign policy and governing
circles read history?? Are there no longer responsible and educated actors in our foreign
policy establishment? (One light of hope in this vein .CJCS Martin Dempsey.)
Perhaps the real problem may be that we no longer have a true foreign policy
"... Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at Daraa and Suweida. ..."
"... Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the difference? ..."
One common sense thought: no one wants a bigger or wider war. There is no nation that can
handle it.
The West has a strategy to support an insurgency using the leftovers and Kurds. We know the
Kurds in Syria will not fight Assad's forces.
So, there are probably 30,000 fighters of
various sorts the US and Turkey are still feeding and using.
As for the air space over Syria, that will eventually close to the US. All Putin has to do
is move S 400 75-100 kms closer toward the East border from the West enclaves where they now
defend.
The US will be grounded, unable to support their 14+ bases, and will have to leave.
Israel has the leftover al Nusra and AQ in the southwest to keep the 4th DEZ in turmoil at
Daraa and Suweida.
But no one wants to put their Armed Forces into Syria.
So, what happens tonight and the next few days is missiles strikes, unless Bolton can
convince the Military to do something enormous with a huge air strike. How Putin handles this depends on casualties and losses of Russian forces.
Since Russian advisers, Military Police and Reconciliation Officers are all over Syria
North to South, West to East, it will be sheer luck that none are struck by cruise missiles
or other weapons if they come into play.
The Lord Has Risen, and the forces of evil are rabid for more Death and Destruction.
Not exactly sure. Putin can move S-400 close to US presence but in order to Ground US, he
needs to send a message saying that he can shoot them. And in all these episodes Putin never
showed the courage. So you could place S-500 on door step of US airbase but still they will
continue flying!
Please allow me to rephrase your statement that Putin has "never shown courage". The correct
statement is that Putin has "never done anything stupid". Now, that makes sense. See the
difference?
It is hard for me to put into words the utter disgust and anger I feel towards the zio con
clowns in wash dc being led by the nose by Israel/mossad. But I guess, what the hell-zios do
not care what average americas think or feel-they are the fodder..
Might be Israeli that pretends to be USA hoping that Syria or Russia will think it is USA and
fire at USA forces causing a wider war.. Israel has actually done actually this before.
The president also faced unsurprising pushback
from his national security team, forcing him to clarify this week that the 2,000 troops there
now will stay only until the mission to defeat ISIS, which is "coming to a rapid end," is
finished. Of course his military advisors and many of his aides disagree.
A Pentagon spokesman has warned that ISIS is looking for " any opportunity to regain momentum
." Anonymous military officers speak of fumbling the ball "
on the two yard line ." Officials tell reporters that while the group is "almost completely
defeated," a string of renewed ISIS attacks could signal a resurgence.
Regardless of the outcome in Washington, Trump's instincts on Syria deserve discussion.
Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the operation in Syria has cost us very little blood and
treasure, at least so far. Special operations forces (SOF) and "other government agencies" ably
partnered with our largely Kurdish proxies to break the back of ISIS's nascent state. The
group's conventional military power has been destroyed. Howev er menacing officials make it
sound, it's been estimated that the Islamic State has fewer than 1,000 fighters left on the
battlefield. Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto
capital Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands.
Areas of ISIS control are tough to
even find on a map of the Syrian conflict.
For all these successes, however, we have been walking a knife's edge in Syria ever since
openly intervening there in 2014. Deconfliction with Russia has not been flawless: Turkey shot
down a Russian plane in 2015 and U.S. firepower reportedly killed hundreds of Russian
mercenaries earlier this year. That knife's edge has only gotten sharper over the past two
months, as Turkish troops invaded the Afrin region of northern Syria. Turkey's "Operation Olive
Branch" exposed the elephant in the room: America's only successful proxy, the Syrian Kurds,
are linked to Turkey's PKK, which Turkey, the European Union, and the U.S. have declared a
terrorist group. Our NATO ally is now openly at war with our Kurdish partner, as American
advisors do their best to stay off the frontline. In 2008, Vice President-Elect Joe Biden
bluntly told Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai: "Pakistan is 50 times
more important for the United States than Afghanistan." The same obvious wisdom applies in
spades to Turkey and Syria respectively.
What of the Kurds? If recent reports are to be believed, American Special Forces are
incensed they are being told to abandon a valiant, reliable battlefield ally. Squeezed
between a revanchist Turkey and a stabilized Syrian state, Syria's Kurds are not likely to keep
their independent project of Rojava. The United States declined to intervene to protect Iraq's
Kurds last year, when Iraqi forces quickly seized the Kurdish "Jerusalem," oil-rich Kirkuk,
after an abortive independence referendum. To pretend we have a greater will or ability to
protect Syria's Kurds is folly.
The Kurds should ask Vietnam's Montagnards how they fared as an American proxy, or question
the Palestinians about what they've gained from an American mediator .
Loathe though we may be to admit it, America has been a fickle friend for the majority of small
nations and peoples that have looked to her as a protector. Even many of our Afghan
interpreters who served in American uniforms and cashed American paychecks have been
abandoned to their enemies . Like a serial philanderer we can pretend that this time will
be different, but the reality is that America seldom has the patience or stomach for sustained
non-existential military intervention outside our hemisphere, particularly when casualties
mount. The victims of pretending otherwise are seldom Americans; they are Vietnamese, Somalis,
Iraqi Marsh Arabs, and many others. The current state of political polarization in Washington
and the primacy of the 24-hour news cycle have only hardened this long-standing reality.
Left to their own devices, Syria's Kurds can probably work out a modus vivendi with Assad's
government, which has other battles to fight and foreign backers of its own who would like to
draw down their commitments. Battles between the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces and
Assad's Syrian Arab Army have been few. Turkey has tolerated a Kurdish autonomous region on its
border with Iraq -- but it will not do so with Kurds who remain affiliated with the PKK.
Regardless of Rojava's fate, ISIS may well regenerate. It already has the local ties and
financial network
to thrive as an insurgency in western Iraq. That, however, is a governance and security problem
for Iraqis and Syrians, not Americans. The United States maintains an unparalleled ability to
project military power and destroy targets around the world, both with standoff firepower and
by putting troops into battle via air and sea. Should ISIS or another Salafist successor build
any real base of power again in the Levant we can rapidly deploy combat power to destroy it.
But staying there any longer remains a fool's errand.
Gil Barndollar served as a Marine infantry officer from 2009 to 2016. His writing has
appeared in the Marine Corps Gazette , the Journal of Military Operations , and the Michigan
War Studies Review .
"I don't like "abandoning an ally" like this, but that alliance was never going to be long
lasting, and the Kurds have to have known that."
Yes. As a parting gesture, we could round up some of the louder-mouthed neocons and ship
them over to "independent Kurdistan" to spend a few quiet hours with their erstwhile heroes.
Let the Kurds vent their entirely understandable anger out on those who lied to and
manipulated them with the same glib ease that they once lied to America about Iraq's
WMDs.
'Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto capital
Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands.'
I'd like to correct a couple of things, ISIS was destroyed in Syria, by the Syrian Arab
Army, and by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Mosuls and Raqqa were not 'retaken' or 'conquered'.
They were utterly destroyed by aerial bombardment, which is about the only thing we are good
at doing.
Chemical false flag attacks is the traditional way Syria islamists are calling for the US air support. From comments: "After all
they had lost in Douma - there were no point in Syrian gas attack - the fighting was done. Jaish al Islam must be having a great
laugh at our expensive for falling for their trick of gassing their own people. Let us not help the Islamists."
Anther interesting comment: "With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at
least one should have anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence."
And another " including their mouthpieces at the times manufacture
a chemical attack and claim Assad -- who has no reason whatsoever to do such things -- is some horrible monster that deserves to have
bombs rained down on him. How totally corrupt the MIC has become."
That act reported by White helmets looks like a classic MI6 provocation. Russian investigation has shown that no attack took place.
Moreover the rumors about this false flag were circulating long ago. Russians warned about this possiblity a month or so ago telling
the jihadists prepare such provocation. Looks like all that was needed for Trump is a plausible justification -- the desire to "decapitate"
Assad is too strong to resist.
Notable quotes:
"... Syria is a crappy place primarily because of insane overpopulation and limited water. Getting Assad out is not going to help with population or with water. Moving the entire Syrian population to Europe could be done and they are working on that. ..."
"... With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at least one should have anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence. ..."
President Trump on Monday denounced the suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in
Syria over the weekend as a "barbaric act," and said
he will make a decision in the next 24 to 48 hours about whether to retaliate militarily as he did to a similar assault last year.
Congress has skirted their responsibility to authorize war in Syria and Trump is suggesting taking actions that could drag
us into a deep and costly war. The American people deserve to hear this debated in Congress.
Retaliate? They don't even know for sure who it was, could well have been an ally. The place is a mess of competing outside
forces.
Retaliate - and therein lies the problem. Too much to ask that for once they think, discuss, decide a long term policy with
other countries. Last time the 45th tried 'me-big-man-with-bomb' there was no follow up, nothing was done, what was the point?
Look at me I have the biggest, noisiest fire cracker! Pathetic. Careless. Irresponsible. Uniformed. Murderous. The list is endless.
I suppose the President can launch a missile attack, or any military action, based on whatever authority from Congress permitted
the US military to be fighting in Syria in the first place. The more fundamental issue is that Congress long ago ceded to the
President its constitutional responsibility to declare war . This must be corrected with checks restored on the President's power
to deploy the military at will. Otherwise, the US will continue to be in a perpetual state of war, which may be good for the extended
military supply industry but damaging to country as a whole.
What if.....what if this chemical attack was sanctioned not by Assad but by a state or a non-state force that wants the U.S.
to retaliate?
Just why did this chemical attack follow Trump's announced desire to get out of Syria?
Why, also, is Israel urging us to attack now? Could it be to distract from the human rights catastrophe in Gaza?
We all know what John Bolton would have us do.
Where's the proof that this was Assad's work? More WMD ?
Trump wined and dined MBS of Saudi Arabia who has been conducting airstrikes on Yemen with hundreds of casualties, as high
as 68 civilian deaths in one day. It would be hard to imagine a better example of hypocrisy.
Syria is a part of a complex series of issues that make up the problem of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Trump does not have the
capacity to manage any of this. Selling arms to the Saudis to continue their war in Yemen added to the Syrian problem. The cholera
epidemic in Yemen is a form of biological warfare that is killing more civilians than chemical warfare in Syria. Starving the
population of Yemen is also warfare. By supporting the Saudis we have lost the moral high ground in Syria.
Was it the rebels again? Or is it chlorine again? Chlorine is used for several commercial and health purposes--to clean bottles,
to clean water, and for refrigeration. So it is quite easy for a bomb or explosive to hit a container and then there is a serious
gas problem. If pool acid and chlorine are stored together it might be worse when mixed. I do not believe Assad needs to use chemicals
because he has Russians who will do air strikes on his enemies. I call fake news.
The solution to Syria was obvious years ago, if you just wanted to see the obvious. And that was Syria as it had been for years,
in peace, secular, under a government of Assad who, eventually, knew it had to evolve into a more democratic regime . Now that
has changed, and all to Israel´s advantage. It seems as if the whole world has forgotten that the whole Middle East problem was
born, and is still the Occupation of Palestinian Land. Israel is a thorn in Arab Middle East.The only one that has attacked ALL
its neighbours !
We should do nothing. We need to leave Syria to the Syrian. We can't and musn't involve our military in every tragedy in the
world. There is no doubt in my mind that if we mistakenly and stupidly attack the Syrian Army we are aiding the Jihadist who planned
thit attack. After all they had lost in Douma - there were no point in Syrian gas attack - the fighting was done. Jaish al Islam
must be having a great laugh at our expensive for falling for their trick of gassing their own people. Let us not help the Islamists.
The US government LIES about everything. We know this. This has been proved repeatedly.
Yet, here we are with the US government, and its stenographers in the mainstream media, i.e., the stuff that's not Fake News,
right, assuring us that Assad gassed his own people. Again.
Even if we could believe this, or even if we gave the government the benefit of the doubt for . . . what? . . . its integrity?,
we are after all exceptional, right, how is this America's business?
Yes, other countries shouldn't gas their own people. But countries shouldn't commit war crimes either, and that goes on every
day. America is as dirty as any other country. Despite our treaty obligations, even torture is legal here.
We're supposedly the richest country in the world, but we can barely keep our streets paved and lit. And not only that, but
it is a proven fact that one dollar invested in domestic economics brings back much more return than one dollar spent on bombs.
Trump is right. We need to stomp the madness in the Middle East. The oil companies can pay for their own security with all of
the money they don't pay in taxes.
Right now our cities are clogged with people living in tents and defecating on the sidewalks and in the streets. Look at old
pictures from the Depression. It looks the same today.
The left is seeing Russians responsible for every wrong in the world. The right sees itself as the rescuer of the wrongs of
the world. I pray that this does not move this country into a war with Russia.
This nation needs a "policy". Something with careful thought and backed by facts, expert analysis, and wisdom; Aim first and
carefully.
A "Shoot from the Hip" flourish that can be touted at the next Trump self congratulatory ego rally Will Not Do. Either this
nation has a leader or it doesn't - Trump's move!
One of the few things I liked about Trump was his anti-involvement stance in the middle east. We have SO MUCH to fix and worry
about at home. Nothing that Trump does on immigration, environment, or anything else will make me more angry than dragging us
into another war.
I don't see any ink being given to the very likely possibility that the gas attack was a ploy by rebels to get the US (and
their air cover) to stick around. If you ask the question, "Who benefits?" the Assad regime had nothing to gain by gassing a few
civilians -- they're about to win the war, so why would they? OTOH, the rebels need us badly, and know that we will reflexively
blame Assad.
Just a few days ago, Trump talked about withdrawing from Syria. Now, he says he will decide whether to attack Syria within
the next couple of days. One day we're out, the next day we're in. And just a few days ago, Trump said he didn't like to reveal
his military plans in advance. Now, he is announcing to the world that he is consideration retaliation against Syria. His contradictions
make the U.S. look as if it is led by a very confused commander in chief.
Yes, chemical weapons are barbaric, but who launched the attack? Which faction in this complicated civil war? How does trump
know the answer to this question when no one else does? Why would the U.S. "retaliate" based on speculation, especially after
trump recently said, "we need to get out of there and leave it to someone else"? What good would military action do at this point?
Are we anxious to put our "expensive new military" to the test? So many questions...and an administration unable / unwilling to
answer them. Too bad trump can't simply tweet his way out of this one...
The U.S. should respond militarily to Syria's gas attack only on two conditions:
1. The leaders of all key U.S. allies (European countries, Canada, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, etc.) sign a joint declaration
of support for the action.
2. Each of these countries pays a population-weighted share of the expense of the U.S. military operation.
We are either all in this together, or it's not worth doing.
Let's find out if our allies are willing to back up their pious declarations of condemnation.
I don't get it. Subjecting people, women, children and even men, to crushing, burning, lacerating and penetrating wounds is
par for the course. It's war after all. But poison! Oh the (in)humanity!
Also, anyone think it's weird that Assad does this just when the US is making motions to pull out?
It is impossible to know what is really going on as the world's powers continue to fight this proxy war. The only thing that
is certain is the continued suffering of the Syrian people - including the poor sods who will be conventionally incinerated by
American "retaliation" in a day or so.
The President should have no authority to declare war or commit troops, period. So far, there has been no urgent "national
emergency," as required by the War Powers Resolution, which would justify the President to effectively declare war unilaterally
and yet here we are, with presidents on both sides completely ignoring the Constitution, using the WPA as an enabler to bypass
the text which says that only Congress can declare war.
Saddam used gas on the Iranians and we were good with that. It is not clear about this gas in Syria. These "freedom fighters"
have no compunction about using civilians as human shields. How do we know the truth? They are various branches of Al Quaeda and
given their huge birth rate they don't seem to place much weight on human life in the here and now....maybe they focus on the
afterlife more. So why can't we just leave Assad alone and let him be the strong man there? Yes Syria is a crappy place primarily
because of insane overpopulation and limited water. Getting Assad out is not going to help with population or with water. Moving
the entire Syrian population to Europe could be done and they are working on that.
Trump says he was getting us out of Syria. Much to my relief to this endless war.
And I'm pretty sure the president of Syria, Assad, whose regime has been under attack by both the US supported Syrian rebels
and their ISIS allies did not want the US on their soil. So why would he do something like this? I don't believe he did. By the
way if the US was not meddling over in the M.E. there would be no refugees and fewer immigrants.
"Conventional" deaths by artillery and bullets are perfectly acceptable - when bodies are vaporized, ripped and torn apart
unrecognizably. But use a deadly gas and leave the corpses in "beautiful" condition - there you have crossed the line mister.
Lemme get this straight: The US policy doesn't care *how many* Syrians were killed; it only cares *how* they were killed? Nothing
good can come from such an ethically bankrupt policy.
As painful as it is, the possession of chlorine is not in violation of the standards we all signed in to to stop chemical and
biological weapons. Hence, the agreement under Obama, by almost all standards, worked well. Or at least unless we wanted a few
hundred thousands troop on the ground to search the entire country. This use of chlorine is. Maybe Trump will propose a huge tariff
on chlorine exports to Syria?
What is the logic for Assad to provoke the US right after Trump announces his intention to withdraw? Would it not be more strategic
for the regime to hold off until US troops were withdrawn and then go after the rebels? Does Assad assume that the US response
will be more moderate if we still have troops in country? Any chance this was a rogue action to delay or reverse US plans to withdraw?
If so, who benefits from US continuing to maintain troops in Syria?
With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at least one should have
anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence.
Missiles hit the Tiyas airbase, known as T4, near the city of Homs. Observers say 14 people
were killed.
Israel, which has previously hit Syrian targets, has not commented. Syria initially blamed
Washington for the strike, but the US, UK and France have all denied involvement.
It is unclear if the strike has anything to do with the suspected chemical
attack.
To
borrow from the British definition of an ambassador, United States military leaders are honest soldiers promoted in rank to champion
war with reckless disregard for the truth. This practice persists despite the catastrophic waste of lives and money because the untruths
are never punished. Congress needs to correct this problem forthwith.
General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, exemplifies the phenomenon. As reported in The Washington
Post , Dunford recently voiced optimism about defeating the Afghan Taliban in the seventeenth year of a trillion-dollar war that
has multiplied safe havens for international terrorists, the opposite of the war's original mission. While not under oath, Dunford
insisted, "This is not another year of the same thing we've been doing for 17 years. This is a fundamentally different approach [T]he
right people at the right level with the right training [are in place] "
There, the general recklessly disregarded the truth. He followed the instruction of General William Westmoreland who stated at
the National Press Club on November 21, 1967 that the Vietnam War had come to a point "where the end begins to come into view." The
1968 Tet Offensive was then around the corner, which would provoke Westmoreland to ask for 200,000 more American troops. The Pentagon
Papers and Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty have meticulously documented the military's reckless disregard
for the truth throughout the Vietnam War.
Any fool can understand that continuing our 17-year-old war in Afghanistan is a fool's errand. The nation is artificial. Among
other things, its disputed border with Pakistan, the Durand Line, was drawn in 1896 between the British Raj and Afghan Amir Abdur
Rahmen Khair. Afghanistan's population splinters along tribal, ethnic, and sectarian lines, including Pushtans, Uzbeks, Hazara, Tajiks,
Turkmen, and Balochi. Its government is riddled with nepotism, corruption, ineptitude, and lawlessness. Election fraud and political
sclerosis are endemic. Opium production and trafficking replenish the Taliban's coffers.
The Afghan National Army (ANA) is a paper tiger. Desertion and attrition rates are alarming. Disloyalty is widespread. American
weapons are sold to the Taliban or captured. ANA soldiers will not risk that last full measure of devotion for an illegitimate, unrepresentative,
decrepit government.
The Taliban also has a safe haven in Pakistan. A staggering portion -- maybe up to 90 percent -- of United States assistance to
Afghanistan is embezzled, diverted, or wasted. John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR),
related to Chatham House in London that "SIGAR was finding waste, fraud, and abuse nearly everywhere we looked in Afghanistan --
from the $488 million worth of aircraft that couldn't fly, to the navy the U.S. bought for a landlocked country, to the buildings
the U.S. paid for that literally melted in the rain ."
"The Taliban are getting stronger, the government is on the retreat, they are losing ground to the Taliban day by day," Abdul
Jabbar Qahraman, a retired Afghan general who was the Afghan government's military envoy to Helmand Province until 2016, told the
New York Times last summer. ISIS has now joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda in fighting the United States. Secretary of Defense
General James Mattis conceded to Congress last June that "we are not winning in Afghanistan right now," but added polyannaishly,
"And we will correct this as soon as possible." Only two months earlier, the Defense Department insisted that dropping the Mother
of All Bombs on Afghanistan would reverse the losing trend.
Upton Sinclair sermonized: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding
it." Thus do military leaders deceive themselves about futile wars to extract more spending, to maintain their professional reputations
and public stature, and to avoid the embarrassment of explaining to Congress and the American people that astronomical sums have
been wasted and tens of thousands of American soldiers have died or were crippled in vain.
To deter such self-deception, Congress should enact a statute requiring the retirement without pension of any general or admiral
who materially misleads legislators or the public about prospective or ongoing wars with reckless disregard for the truth. That sanction
might have prompted General Dunford to acknowledge the grim truth about Afghanistan: that the United States is clueless about how
to win that war.
Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan and is the founding partner of Fein & DelValle PLLC.
Another hypothesis is that is a "false flag" operation, like Obama was. Or in political
jargon "bait and switch" candidate.
Notable quotes:
"... The case for stupidity is fairly strong: after all, where's the evidence that Assad launched a chemical attack? Like the series of fake "attacks" touted by the jihadist rebels over the years, this one lacks verification – but that doesn't bother the War Party. Since when do they need evidence? ..."
"... The case for craziness – a real mental affliction – is even stronger, in my opinion. When President Obama was confronted with the same phony "attacks," as reported by jihadist "activists" and "medics," Trump urged him to stay out of it . Yet now that's he's in the Oval Office, he's doing what he urged Obama not to do. This is the classic behavior pattern of a schizoid nutjob with multiple personalities: it's " The Three Faces of the Donald ," and the big question is which one will emerge today? ..."
"... He's a Beta male masquerading as an Alpha ..."
"... The top three most powerful foreign lobbies in Washington are pushing the US to not only stay in Syria but to expand the role of US troops: the Saudis, who directly support the jihadist rebels, the Israelis, who have long sought to overthrow Assad, and the British, who are behind the maniacal anti-Russian propaganda campaign, starting with the shenanigans of Christopher Steele. Trump's craven capitulation to these "allies" is yet more evidence of his cowardice under fire. ..."
and wrote about
Trump's various foreign policy pronouncements right up until very recently: as I've pointed out
repeatedly, and exhaustively, the very fact that a successful presidential candidate criticized
the Iraq war ("they lied") and our policy of global intervention – e.g., questioned
NATO's existence – was and still is a great step forward. That Trump isn't living up to
his campaign promises and his post-election rhetoric is another matter entirely. The
"deplorables" are in open rebellion against this new
turn: Trump is losing his base.
So here's the question: is he stupid, like George W. Bush, or is he crazy, in the tradition
of, say, Richard M. Nixon?
The case for stupidity is fairly strong: after all, where's the evidence that Assad
launched a chemical attack? Like
the series of fake "attacks" touted by the jihadist rebels over the years, this one lacks
verification – but that doesn't bother the War Party. Since when do they need
evidence? Last time Trump fell for this routine it turned out that his own Secretary of
Defense
admitted – well after the US bombing raid – that there was "no evidence" that
the Syrian government had launched a chemical attack. The same
dodgy "proof"
beleaguers the Skripal "poisoning" case in
Britain – and, what a coincidence, the same villains are being blamed – Putin
& Co. The idea that Assad had anything to gain from launching such an attack is not even
worth refuting: he'd already won the war. So what would be the point? It isn't hard to
understand this, yet our President is clueless – or pretends to be.
The case for craziness – a real mental affliction – is even stronger, in my
opinion. When President Obama was confronted with the same phony "attacks," as reported by
jihadist "activists" and "medics," Trump urged him to stay out of it . Yet now
that's he's in the Oval Office, he's doing what he urged Obama not to do. This is the
classic behavior pattern of a schizoid nutjob with multiple personalities: it's " The Three Faces of the
Donald ," and the big question is which one will emerge today?
Another issue I was apparently dead wrong about is the ascension of John Bolton as National
Security Advisor: no big deal , I
said. Wrong ! I refuse to believe that Trump is caving in to the War Party on Syria
just as
Bolton gets the keys to his new office . And here's another non-coincidence: this new turn
comes just after Trump got into an argument with his
generals over Syria. He wanted out: they insisted we stay. It didn't take him long to find an
excuse – this bogus "attack" – to cave.
So he's not just stupid, and crazy – he's also a coward. He refuses to confront the
War Party head on, despite his campaign trail rhetoric. Just the other day he was telling
crowds in Ohio how we were on the way out of Syria because "we have to take care of our own
country." The crowd cheered. Would he go back to that same audience and tell them we need to
intervene in a country that's been wracked by warfare for years, with no real hope of a
peaceful settlement? Of course not.
He's a Beta male masquerading as an Alpha .
The top three most powerful foreign lobbies in Washington are pushing the US to not only
stay in Syria but to expand the role of US troops: the Saudis, who directly support the
jihadist rebels, the Israelis, who have long sought to overthrow Assad, and the British, who
are behind the maniacal anti-Russian propaganda campaign, starting with the shenanigans of
Christopher Steele. Trump's craven capitulation to these "allies" is yet more evidence of his
cowardice under fire. And there's no doubt that his blaming Russia – and naming
Putin – as supposedly responsible for this "gas attack" is a ploy to get Robert Mueller
off his back.
I have to say that the future looks grim. This puts Trump's entire foreign policy agenda up
for grabs, including the once-promising Korean peace initiative. Will he sabotage what might
have been his greatest accomplishment – peace on the Korean peninsula?
It's entirely possible.
We are now entering uncharted territory – although, come to think of it, that's been
true since Election Day, 2016. Hold on to your hats, folks, and get a grip on your nerves
– because it's going to be a long, scary ride.
A Note to My Readers : I need to clarify
my column on the current confrontation between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Israeli
military.
I did not mean to draw an equal sign between the two sides: the Israelis, who are wantonly
slaughtering unarmed protesters, including children – and clearly marked media
representatives – are clearly the aggressors. Their actions are inexcusable and just
another giant step in the direction of complete moral degeneration. While I stand by my
criticism of such actions as the "Knife Intifada," what's clear to me is that this is not the
consequence of some inherent flaw in the Palestinian cause, but a mark of sheer desperation.
Yes, Hamas is a monstrous entity, but the Israelis encouraged its
growth and development from the start, which is something you don't read about very often:
see here .
Let no one misunderstand me: while I never give unconditional support to anyone, and I'm
especially critical of the Palestinian leadership, I stand with the Palestinian people
in their just struggle against an oppressive apartheid state. Period.
The big game is the eradication of Western sponsored terrorists and ending of the Syrian
civil war.
This is on schedule and nothing can stop it. It will be over soon.
Russia sees EVERYTHING flying over the entire theatre and in due course the SAA will be
supplied with the means to destroy the IDF over Lebanon also.
The IDF attacks are nothing more than an irritation and will be dealt with in the fullness
of time. 5 from 8 is nothing to brag about at all. In mission planning terms its a disaster
really and will lead to failure in a full war.
Only a direct attack on the Russian military will elicit a direct response from Russia. It
has been stated publicly enough times.
Any response from Russia in that instance will come from missile launches from Russia
(hundreds of them at that) The antagonists know this.
Syria is winning its war and that's all that matters.
Assad is fighting Sunni Insurgency, their all RADICAL. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Gulf
States are funding them. AL-Qaeda, ISIS, and all the other groups, all SUNNI's. This pocket
in SYRIA is filled with Sunni's, their fighting force are all RADICALS.
Look at one of the groups that USA supported a Jihadist Sunni Division, who went to
KITCHEN grab a cooking knife and cut off the head of 10 year old KID.
THE USA, FRANCE, UK, are all in BED with Sunni's, Ironically, It's Sunni's that are also
committing TERROR attacks in EUROPE. Yet Jew Boss's in USA and EUROPE want make Sunni the
Allies and SHIA the enemy.
"Secret cables and reports by the U.S., Saudi and Israeli intelligence agencies indicate
that the moment Assad rejected the Qatari pipeline, military and intelligence planners
quickly arrived at the consensus that fomenting a Sunni uprising in Syria to overthrow the
uncooperative Bashar Assad was a feasible path to achieving the shared objective of
completing the Qatar/Turkey gas link. In 2009, according to WikiLeaks, soon after Bashar
Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline, the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria."
Regime change is the only reason we or any of our proxies are there. We have NO GOOD
REASON being there other than this BS.
The US Congress has not approved the US being in Syria.
The UN Security Council has not approved the US presence in Syria.
President Assad of Syria did not invite the US or approve the US presence in
Syria.
Only the US deep state neocons have approved the US presence in the context of "regime
change".
Dammit Trump! Get control of your staff and get out of Syria leaving the Kurds all the AA
stinger missiles they need to take out Turk aircraft. And on the way out, rip the Turk
invasion force to shreds, then just say, "oops, sorry."
one reason Israel remained silent even though it seems clear they had advanced knowledge
of the 9-11 attack; and allowed them to proceed. Israelis Agents filming the attacks were
arrested and later deported, more than 70 of them.
Fortunately, Bibi was ready to take the microphone minutes after the 9-11 attack and
define the enemy for the American public, resulting in the deaths of thousands of American
service men and $7 Trillion wasted in the shit hole middle east.
The Anglo Jewish Alliance continues to try to provoke a war between the US and Russia,
Iran, and Syria.
Trump is right to get the US out of the shit hole as fast as possible, months not
years.
Former CIA Steele claims that the Epstein Compromise Kiddie Sex tapes from the Lolita
Express, the palm beach estate and probably six other Epstein properties are in Israel for
Control-Blackmail purposes. The next time Bibi calls Trump, Trump should tell Bibi to fuck
off. What happened on the 300ft yacht ?????
CFR and AIPAC and all Globalist and Foreign lobbyist organization must be registered as
Foreign Agents, and forced to meet at the State Dept, and cut off from contact with the rest
of the US govt.
The plan is for Israel to conduct however many cowardly missions it takes until their
murderous ways are considered normalized behavior.
Someday in the not so distant future, israel hopes conversations such as "did you hear
Israel told an incidious lie then killed a bunch of innocent people?" to which a typical brow
beaten dufus responds "yes, but it had to be done," become as common place as banter about
the weather.
Putin really dropped the ball on the Libya No-Fly Resolution trusting the evil empire. Now
the stakes
are even higher. The absolute worse news in all this is that Trump is bringing in Bolton as
his lunatic
wing man at the worst possible time when things were looking like they were wrapping up in
Syria.
Bolton is the male version of Hillary on steroids. Trump is going to hide behind Bolton's
mustache - you know, me good cop; Bolton bad cop; IOW, don't blame me for what needs to be
done. Trump gifted
Jerusalem to Netanyahu, and now he's going to gift him Syria too. The Iran deal will
also get scrapped soon and that's more gasoline on a fire that's about to get out of control.
Here's one way
to distract from the Mueller investigation; start a war and rally the county under
a common cause: war with Syria, ergo Russia and then Iran.
It's as I said from day one: Trump can't help himself; he's always been a Zio-con and
Adelson
is getting his money's worth. It's all going to happen as I always said it would. Trump was
the perfect puppet.
Trump will look like the savior of the realm; a role his big fat ego always dreamed of and
won't resist.
Now, there still might be a way out of this potential catastrophe. Admit it, wouldn't it
be nice if Putin
really was holding back something big regarding Trump?
*sigh* - if only! Very soon would be a good time to drop it. Manafort?
Nikki Haley has erupted in another fiery Russophobic rant, warning that Russia will "never
be America's friend." Moscow can try to behave "like a regular country," but the US will "slap
them when we need to," Haley said.
The US ambassador to the UN is not known for her friendly stance toward Moscow, but her new
take on US-Russia relations stands out among even her most rabid ramblings. Speaking at Duke
University in North Carolina on Friday, Haley admitted that friendly relations with Russia is
an unlikely prospect, adding that the Trump team has done more against Moscow than any other
administration since Ronald Reagan's tenure.
"Russia's never going to be our friend," Haley told students at a Q&A session,
responding to a question about "holding Russia
accountable" for alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The diplomat said
Washington still works with Moscow "when we need to, and we slap them when we need to."
She then raised the stakes further: "Everybody likes to listen to the words. I'm going to
tell you – look at the actions," Haley urged. "We expelled 60 Russian diplomats/spies, we
have armed Ukraine so that they can defend themselves," she added.
According to the UN envoy, the US is doing "two things Russia would never want us to do,"
namely enlarging the military and expanding its energy policy. "So, this president has done
more against Russia than any president since Reagan," she asserted.
"You haven't seen the end of what this administration will do to Russia. You will continue
to see that play out," she stressed.
Cooling down the degree of Russia-bashing in her speech, Haley said the US and Russia do
cooperate on Afghanistan and Africa, looking out for areas of mutual interest. Meanwhile, she
claimed, "our relations with Russia depend solely on Russia."
While the U.S. has intentionally kept it trade wide open with China, China has stolen trillions over the last 20 years in intellectual
property, including military technology. It has kept its markets tightly controlled and/or closed while the U.S. has made China
rich. Today China has a 1/2 Trillion trade surplus, is still stealing our intellectual property, and still keeps its markets tightly
controlled and mostly closed and under Chinese control. That might be ok if the goal of making China richer, a member of the world
community, and peaceful had worked, but it has not.
China is a hegemon using its wealth to grow its military, build up military forces in international sea lanes like the South China
sea, and bullying its neighbors like India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, and others while also supporting the Ballistic Nuclear missile
program of NK. Its time for the USA to realize that China is an adversary, not because we want it that way, but because China
sees itself that way. And its time to stop letting an adversary use us, and steal from us, to further its imperial/hegemonic aggressive
ambitions. Apple can make iPhones in Vietnam, the Philippines, and India as cheaply as in China. Let's stop the theft, and shift
the flow of our money to the countries China is bullying like the Philippines, India, Vietnam, as well as more modern allies like
Taiwan and Japan. Let's make India rich, rather than let China continue to steal from us. Let China figure out how to keep hundreds
of millions of Chinese employed from that 1/2 Trillion surplus employed. Keep in mind a richer Vietnam and India with improved
ties with the USA and increasing wealth helped by the USA both border China. China still has time to play fair and leave the path
of hegemony and aggression, but everything point to the fact that they would rather be our adversary than our friend. So we have
to wake up and smell the coffee of that reality and move forward with our eyes open. Thank God Trump isn't sticking his head in
the sand like Bush, and especially weak, worthless, appeasing Obama.
typical trump supporter, can't even do simple arithmetic. on paper the US calculates the trade deficit to be $347 billion not
the half a trillion figure your lying president so often vomits out.
btw if moving production line to another country is so easy you people would've done it ages ago. but they're still in China,
why is that I wonder, since south east asia and india has much much lower wage than China, why dont the brilliant accountants
at Apple tell their CEO to move their production lines? =)
US Trade Deficit with China (2017) is $375.2B/year.
https://www.census.gov/fore... Moving a Production is easy. Moving a production line while improving productivity is very
hard. The US elites found it easier to move production lines overseas to take advantage of low-cost labor. In the alternative
they could have improve productivity so the US could produce the goods in question at competitive prices. That was the US history
from 1935 to 1985. Changing production processes entails risks, you could create competitors who might displace you. Moving a
standard process overseas gave you a cost advantage and increased the US elite 1% share of income from 10% GDP to 22% of GDP.
The benefits of competive destruction now flow to the Chinese. They Globalized Labor to reduce the power of the US working and
middle classes. See Blyth:
https://www.youtube.com/wat... (around 3:00 Min).
What stops China from IP rights violation now? In fact, this is an incentive to go to town with it. China has excess capacity
there is no way to halt production. China's challenge is to find markets. For instance, if they sell a product to a US owner at
$40 a piece where the US owner sells it to consumers at $900, China can sell it direct to consumers at $500 (or even $50) and
be better off. This is what will happen. Consumers outside USA will be able to buy US goods at a fraction of the price and with
time there will be importers in USA who will use third parties to import these to USA clandestinely. Why should US consumers pay
more anyway!
Talking about stealing who can compete with the whites in this game.
Pls go visit museums and galleries in London, Paris and other European capitals to see how much had been looted and stolen from
China, Asia, Arab world and Africa in the last 500.
The essentials of what Mr Brown wrote are that China got rich trading, got richer stealing IP, and spends riches on militarily
expanding with the stated goal of excluding the U.S. Navy west or south of Guam. From the perspective of an American of any political
variety, would you rather the U.S. observe this trend continuing or act to stop the IP theft and military challenge?
The best approach is go with fully reciprocal tariffs and restructure international trade around Warren Buffet's idea of a
market for Import Certificates based on US exports. This would automatically balance trade (an Import Certificate based on exports
is needed for any Import), provide a rules-based approach (vs. bureaucratic), and thus block massive rent-seeking around Trade
Policy. It would dampen potential trade wars because the focus is on reciprocity, balancing trade and not on tariffs to constantly
reduce imports. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... and
http://thehill.com/blogs/co... We can (perhaps) back off reciprocal trade when we better understand free-markets and can identify
nations who practice this freedom.
There is a reason why China carries a huge trade surplus against USA - Americans have benefitted Chinese cheaper goods and
services (than trying to procure them from other sources). They will pay more for the same service. This will reduce their savings
and increase borrowings. China progressively dumps the US dollar in petroleum purchases which will devalue the USD. This will
make imports even more expensive for Americans. China will devalue its currency again to overcome the tarrif impact.
The worlds largest market for commercial aircraft and Trump just put Boeing out of contention. Betcha Trump gets a yuuuugh
campaign contribution from Airbus on the condition he starts a trade war with the second biggest market of airliners, India, as
well.
China has been preparing for a trade war with the USA for some time. The belt/road project and petroyuan are 2 such projects
looking to build trade relations that bypass the USA altogether. It won't be that difficult for China to find markets for TV's,
dollar store plastic and consumer appliances. I'm sure it will hurt but there are other markets for their products.
Try finding another market for Boeing Dreamliners .... all those high paying specialized jobs. The good news is that with this
trade war markets open up for consumer appliances which Boeing can fill ..... the bad news is the stealth toasters they make will
cost $250,000, will only be operational one day a week as long as it isn't raining and you won't be able to find it on that day
because it's a stealth toaster.
Doesn't matter about finding another market for Dreamliners .. So your implying its ok for China to rip us off and we just
take it. Boeing has done well these last few years.. Boeing plans to increase 737 production to 57 aircraft a month not counting
the 767, 777 and 787. China drops their orders there are customers right behind them to take their slot on the line.
The worse part is the requirement to turn over your intellectual property to the state. Why should they spend the billions
in R&D when they can just wait it out, crack their market open a small bit, then take or steal the property with no recourse from
the owner. Once they have that IP they set up another business putting the original business into bankruptcy.
China is playing an economic war to win. Trump plans to win...
"The worse part is the requirement to turn over your intellectual property to the state."
If that's a condition of the contract why do US companies agree to the contract?
I have a lot of experience negotiating contracts with US firms. The US businesses I've dealt with have always sought favourable
terms to the extent that I really don't like doing business with them.
When I see terms in a contract I can't live with I walk away ..... and I've done it a lot. Now you're trying to tell me US
businesses were coerced into signing contracts that forced them to give away intellectual property?
I don't believe that for a moment.
I have a dozen stories of guys getting screwed over because they didn't bother with the details of a contract. If you are that
naive you take your lumps and if you're smart you learn from it.
What you don't do is keep signing the same agreements that has technology transfers in the terms then cry foul after doing
it for thirty or forty years.
The way I see it technology transfer was likely seen by the Chinese as part of the overall compensation. You got the product
made for a killer price on the condition you tell them how to make it themselves.
You should know that no one works for nothing. If you're getting an unbelievably good price look at the fine print.
Given who your president is, the business he's in and his reputation as a business man I have a pretty good idea what he's
really up to with this tactic and it might play well to the peanut gallery but the Chinese are not going to be played so easily
Most developing countries require some level of technology transfer before they permit foreign firms to operate inside their
borders. It's their only way of avoiding becoming commercial colonies of countries like the US. If firms don't like it, the solution
is as you suggest: they can decline to set up in foreign countries and simply export finished products made in their home country.
Lots of multinational firms have legitimate grievances against the Chinese government for being lax in policing and prosecuting
copyright laws. Fake prestige brand fashion, handbags, cell phones and the like, made in China, are openly sold throughout Asia.
But the crap about 'intellectual property theft' is nonsense.
There is no such thing as FAIR trade among vastly unequal economies. China has a billion citizens (an endless supply of cheap
labor). China is a major polluter (not limited like the US is with it's EPA). The laws concerning wages, working-hours, over-time,
workman's compensation, safety, pensions don't compare between economies. Thus, the US is at a severe competitive disadvantage.
China plays dirty on top of their already significant economic advantages. FAIR trade between China and the US is a fairy-tale.
I support Trump. China is not our friend.
Industrial revolution and consequently polution lasted for decades in west before China jumped into the game. So your "carbon
footprint" is much higher cumulatevely than China's. Also you don't complain about countries like Bangladesh where USA companies
exploit people like modern day slaves. Drop that moralising please! Globalisation is 2 way street, in begining when you "oppened"
3. World markets and flooded them with your superior technologies and products and practically plundered them, it wasn't a problem.
Now when things changed you whine like babies.
Even if U.S. exports to China went to zero, that'd be way less than 1% of our GDP. If China's exports to the U.S. went to zero,
that be about 5% of its GDP.
When one reads Chinese propaganda, Xi is banking heavily on U.S. politics to stop the U.S. from getting tough on China's trade
cheating. He thinks that farmers and other business people will stop the Trump admin from enacting tariffs and other measures
because of fear of Chinese retaliation. Xi faces no similar domestic political pressure because China is an authoritarian state.
The only thing that can mess-up gaining a U.S. trade victory is self-defeat. People here in the U.S. should stop overreacting
and playing into the hands of Xi. Let's get some backbone people!
Given that the U.S. has severely reduced our industrial metal production and manufacturing by failing to modernize years ago,
we do need China. The same goes for several other industrial and manufacturing products. China's pork production is currently
battling a corona virus from bats that is killing off their young swine. Our food products are important to the Chinese given
the high levels of pollution in their country. The U.S. is most vulnerable because China provides nearly all of the Rare Earth
Elements (REEs) that are essential for our high tech industries and defense equipment.
The U.S. would face a real problem anyway if the shipping lanes were closed down because of conflicts or natural catastrophes...better
to prepare for the worst now and get China to open up trade barriers or follow fairer trade policy.
The worst Chinese import is the Marxist-Leninist ideology that slaughtered over 100 million Chinese...blame the Russians!
U.S. free market ideological imports lifted a billion plus Chinese out of poverty.
For anyone travelling in China, being labelled a Laowei or foreignor is commonplace. The current government is pushing a defensive,
Han Chinese based, zenophobic system that seeks to monopolize ideas and keep the imported Marxist-Leninist ideology in total control
of the thoughts and minds of the average Chinese citizen.
The U.S. can't change that, but we can look out for our own sovereign interests in better trade deals, re-establishing vital mining,
industrial and/or manufacturing capabilities, and maintaining strategic reserves of essential elements.
"... The UK and France are in deep economic trouble and need an external enemy such as Russia using an incident such as the Skripal affair to deflect the people from focusing on removing their government leaders. If all else fails, the UK Royals will have a couple of weddings and babies to take up the front pages for most of this year. Meanwhile, like the Skripals, several UK/EU agents involved in the HillaryGate Steele dossier trail of evidence such as Christophe Steele, Joseph Mifsid, and Gianni Pittella have disappeared: ..."
"... In the UK case of May and BoJo, any alternative will result in a continuation of the decline of the society. To be honest, much of the decline is baked in structural with the loss of income from former "slave" colonies and the decline of North Sea oil and gas reserves. Staying in the EU against the will of the people will continue to further drain resources to Germany, which has structurally colonialized Western Europe. ..."
"... France, like the UK, has extracted the wealth from their former colonies and facing a reduction in tribute from these sources. Macron has attempted to maintain control of some colonies such as Mali and really wants to conquer Syria. I suspect the meetings between Macron and MbS will result in an agreement for Saudi Arabia to buy French weapons while France getting financial aid to expand French troop bases in Syria. ..."
"... Almost all sectors of the French society are protesting against the neo-feudal policies of Macron, FIRE economy participants and his dwarves in the National Assembly. There are strikes among: ..."
"... The EU is also experiencing internal dissent with the Visegrad four (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia) plus Italy and Austria and thus needs an external enemy to distract its members. I suspect that a Ukrainian invasion of DPR/LPR will once again be used as a flash point create "two minutes of hate" against Russia ..."
The UK and France are in deep economic trouble and need an external enemy such as Russia
using an incident such as the Skripal affair to deflect the people from focusing on removing
their government leaders. If all else fails, the UK Royals will have a couple of weddings and
babies to take up the front pages for most of this year. Meanwhile, like the Skripals,
several UK/EU agents involved in the HillaryGate Steele dossier trail of evidence such as
Christophe Steele, Joseph Mifsid, and Gianni Pittella have disappeared:
In the UK case of May and BoJo, any alternative will result in a continuation of the
decline of the society. To be honest, much of the decline is baked in structural with the
loss of income from former "slave" colonies and the decline of North Sea oil and gas
reserves. Staying in the EU against the will of the people will continue to further drain
resources to Germany, which has structurally colonialized Western Europe.
France, like the UK, has extracted the wealth from their former colonies and facing a
reduction in tribute from these sources. Macron has attempted to maintain control of some
colonies such as Mali and really wants to conquer Syria. I suspect the meetings between
Macron and MbS will result in an agreement for Saudi Arabia to buy French weapons while
France getting financial aid to expand French troop bases in Syria.
Somehow, the current revolution in France is blacked out in the Western Media. Videos of
the current revolution are common on Youtube such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g21_myERteQ
Almost all sectors of the French society are protesting against the neo-feudal
policies of Macron, FIRE economy participants and his dwarves in the National Assembly. There
are strikes among:
transportation (rail, airlines, rotating bus and subway workers)
hospital workers
students
teachers (including kindergarden)
retirees
postal workers
television workers
Government workers (Fonctionnaires de France)
lawyers and judges
sanitation workers
EDF and GDF workers (Electricite de France and Gas de France)
Macron has already deployed the CRS assassins and the street war will begin when EU police
and military invade to crush to protestors. This will be far more violent than May 1968 and
may usher in the 6th Republic. Unfortunately, Macron would prefer the cities to burn rather
than resign and turnover the government to the President of the Senate.
The EU is also experiencing internal dissent with the Visegrad four (Hungary, Poland,
Czech Republic and Slovakia) plus Italy and Austria and thus needs an external enemy to
distract its members. I suspect that a Ukrainian invasion of DPR/LPR will once again be used
as a flash point create "two minutes of hate" against Russia : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk
These EU conflicts will not end peacefully as the system will fight back rather than step
aside.
Good institutions that limit cheating and rule violations, such as corruption, tax evasion
and political fraud are crucial for prosperity and development. Yet, even very strong
institutions cannot control all situations that may allow for cheating. Well-functioning
societies also require the intrinsic honesty of citizens. Cultural characteristics, such as
whether people see themselves as independent or part of a larger collective, that is, how
individualist or collectivist a society is, might also influence the prevalence of rule
violations due to differences in the perceived scope of moral responsibilities, which is
larger in more individualist cultures.
If cheating is pervasive in society and goes often unpunished, then people might view
dishonesty in certain everyday affairs as justifiable without jeopardising their self-concept
of being honest. Experiencing frequent unfairness, an inevitable by-product of cheating, can
also increase dishonesty. Economic systems, institutions and business cultures shape people's
ethical values, and can likewise impact individual honesty.
I described Gachter and Schultz's work in April 2016, and thought I could immediately see a
problem with the interpretation that the authors placed on the results. Putting forward a
different perspective took a few days. Getting that new approach published has taken 2 years.
For how long will researchers put up with these absurd delays which impede the prompt
assessment of arguments?
The authors of this very interesting study, having revealed the cheats, interpreted the
national differences as being due to cultural factors, particularly whether there were
institutions in each society which encouraged honesty. Of course, this leaves open why one
society would have such institutions and another would not. Culture must come from somewhere. A
reasonable hypothesis is that the institutions of a county are built by the people who live
there. Here is our reply:
Honesty, rule violation and cognitive ability: A reply to Gächter and Schulz
Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, James Thompson.
Intelligence, Volume 68, May–June 2018, Pages 66–69.
Our argument is that both institutions and honesty are determined by the intelligence of
people, and that bright people can see the long-term benefits of honesty and of institutions
that support honest behaviour. Any institution with a code of conduct leads its members toward
probity, and shows prospective applicants what standards are expected of them. However, those
institution do not arise randomnly.
Gächter & Schulz assumed that institutional rules affect individual honesty.
We added cognitive ability as further factor explaining national differences.
Stronger effect of IQ (total 0.55) than of rule violation (total −0.34) on honesty.
Stronger effect of IQ (total −0.68) than of honesty (total −0.26) on rule
violation.
________________________________________
Abstract
Gächter and Schulz (2016) assumed an effect of institutional rule violation on
individual honesty within societies. In this reply we challenge this approach by including a
nation's cognitive ability as a further factor for cross-national variations in the
prevalence of rule violations and intrinsic honesty. Theoretical considerations,
correlational and path analyses show that a nation's cognitive ability level (on average
β = |.62|) better explains and predicts honesty and rule violation. While
institutional and cultural factors are not unimportant, cognitive factors are more
relevant.
The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others.
Cognitive ability seems to have the strongest causal effect on the honesty of a society:
The same pattern holds true if you assume that social levels of honesty intermediate
individual levels of honesty as shown by rule violation.
Either way, it seems that intelligence explains whether some societies cheat at games and
cheat in real life.
Society rots from top and doesn't matter who is at the top. It still remains valid even when
the so called least intellectually developed honest poor people get shafted for hundred of
years by so called high IQ nations who bring cheating,dishonesty,and violations of existing
laws and destruction of existing institutions without replacing them nationwide. Often these
newly created institutions are nothing but vehicle to whitewash the corrupting and corrupted
new system.
Public moral status has a lot to do with corruption at the top -both local and
international in these days of neoliberalism and post -colonization. It sounds painful and
hurtful though.
Interesting work! I am amazed academics have the patience to deal with such a long lag time
for letting arguments play out.
Is there any chance of you publishing a scatter plot matrix of the variables you used
and/or the data itself?
Do you have the correlation matrix for your variables? By any chance did you try single
and multiple variable models to try to predict rule violation from the other variables? It
would be interesting to see how much variance an assortment of those models explained.
Has anyone explored the idea of "cheater fraction" (analogous to smart fraction) to
explain dishonesty in societies?
It's an interesting question. Some years ago The Economist did a "European Honest Test "
leaving a wallet with a fair amount of cash in it (but also including clear contact details
of the owner), in capital cities around Europe.
The test was to see how many wallets were returned – and they found that the
Scandinavians returned almost all of them, and the Italians returned almost none – with
a clear North/South gradient in the results.
By coincidence, at about the same time, I found a wallet beside some rubbish bins with
€ 400 in it and some credit cards (one from my own bank). So on my next visit, I told
them about it and soon got a call from the owner ( a Spanish carpenter working in Germany).
His reaction was 1) to check that the money was still in the wallet 2) say that not many
people would return a wallet with € 400 in it 3) leave 2 bottles of wine at my front
gate.
I checked this reaction with my secretary at the time, and asked her what she would have
done, with the answer that it would be a "Regalo de Dios" (Gift of God), i.e. it was not
going to be returned to the owner, so there seems to be some anecdotal evidence for the
result.
China's position on the Intrinsic Honesty chart is puzzling both at the macro level
(remarkably honest, competent policy-makers) and at the individual level (above average IQ).
The Edelman Corporation, which has a lock on international surveys of personal and
institutional honesty has consistently found the Chinese to be among the most trusting people
on earth, as have World Values Surveys in their own, independent polls of the Chinese.
The source of the discrepancy appears to be the source of the data: "a n indicator of
political rights by Freedom House that measures the democratic quality of a country's
political practices; the size of a country's shadow economy as a proxy for tax evasion; and
corruption as measured by the World Bank's Control of Corruption Index (Supplementary
Methods)".
Relying on George Soros' Freedom House for information about China is akin to relying on
the neighborhood fox to keep an eye on your chickens while you go on vacation. Garbage in,
garbage out
I would rate Japan pretty high for getting things returned, but this ethic has eroded over
the past three or four decades.
Also, in the past you'd see adult males scolding unrelated misbehaving teens in public,
who'd slink away with their tails between their legs. This you do not currently see: men are
less masculine and assertive and some teens at least are more beligerant.
I think, David Perkins' findings about high IQ-people being also very tribal would make for a
nice addendum here, to better understand how IQ and honesty are related.
I refer to Jonathan Haidt's argument, that he bases explicitly on Perkins' findings, that
because of the tendency of high IQ-people to be even more tribal than the lower IQ ranks, ist
is so crucial, to understand with J. S. Mill's On Liberty (and I add: with Kant and
– – the Kantian Habermas' "Theory of Communicative Action"), that the core
achievement of modernity is the institutionalization of disconformation in the
democratic/liberal rational discourse and liberal public sphere (universities, the media,
etc.).
Here's Jonathan Haidt, referring to Perkins and Mill to make clear, how important the
institutionalization of disconformation actually is:
Correlation≠causation. Maybe honesty leads to brighter minds. Is it your knowing the right
answer that makes you follow it, or is it you looking at the situation, as it is, considering
evidence and proof, and getting the right answer through correct deductive reasoning, which
is then to be followed? You can't be honest and act ideologically, because by definition you
follow your observations of the world, not your ideas of the world. An honest person is bound
to direct observation, an intelligent person is not. Honesty is probably primary to an
accurate understanding of the world.
I think that 16 per cent is a bit arbitrary. In a class or caste dominated society you
might, if of a class which can choose to avoid countries, decide that it really doesn't
matter if your butler and housekeeper have to terrify the lower orders to stop them ripping
you off (and the butler and housekeeper have enough relations they want to place in
employment to keep them to the rules as to how much they cheat you).
I recently lost my wallet for a short time in a supermarket-plus-other-shops complex as I
wheeled my trolley to the car park. I thought my pocket had been picked so went to a nearby
poluce station to see if they could accelerate access to CCTV. Mr Plod was useless and
unhelpful. (Fortunately I didn't start cancelling credit cards immediately as he pretty well
demanded). Back in the shopping centre I was directed to a caretaker's office where a 30 ish
man of Pakistani origin had my wallet that had fallen out of my pocket as I went up a ramp.
He had taken the trouble to count the cash and wrap it separately with a note on it that the
amount was $915 or whatever. I never bothered to count it myself or even unwrap it for
several days. What does that say about the standard of civilisation in one of Australia's
biggest cities?
As anyone who has seen how inadequate religion is today to form moral young people may have
thought, the obvious starting point is to ask oneself how I bring up my children and what
moral rules I rub in (preferably by example as well as preaching). One knows children are not
going to be cunning ruthless sophisticates by nature – unless psychopaths – and
will not benefit from being taught to think immediately how they can get away with some theft
or lie. So you bring them up with rules which will help to make sure they are both trusted
and trustworthy – seeing you return the small amount of change over paid for exsmple to
rub in the message about rules they should still be obeying without thought when they have
children. Morality is about the customs of the tribe, its mores, and children are rarely done
any sort of favour by not being trained to be strictly moral (even if taught Christian
forgiveness, especially for the "poor in spirit"). However ..
It occurs to me that the place of intelligence in this may extend to what hss been called
Divergent Thinking (does this overlap with Lateral Thinking? Or imagination?)
A quick imaginative laterally thinking brain may think of several ways some dishonest
subterfuge may go wrong almost st the moment temptation arises. So honesty for him he quickly
concludes is the best policy. And so down the speculative path on which little evidence is to
be found. After all what is one to make of the arrogant lawyer that one reads about in the
big tax case who thought arrogantly he could get away with something and the Mr Plods of the
tax office would never sus him out and prove his wrongdoing to a court?
I was guided by my recollection of the modelling of neighbourhood crime risk, but it is a
sliding scale, I agree. I assumed, years ago, that at the 16-20% level one would begin to
notice a difference from base rate. See, in this particular example, Fig 2 and Fig 3
What does that say about the standard of civilization in one of Australia's biggest
cities?
It doesn't really say anything. You need some standardized parameters and a reasonable
sample size. Then you can draw some conclusions and assess the level of accuracy – like
The Economist did with their wallet test – quite a good experiment.
However , at the individual level, a continuing positive outcome would be the wallet owner
saying thank you, and being more inclined to return the favor one day.
It occurs to me that 5 per cent might be a horrible worrying prospect if you, as a lawyer
or doctor, thought it applied to the five or ten thousand you might come across as fellow
professionals in your city or state. But then it could be that you rarely gossip about others
and only regard as liars and cheats those who have done it to you (apart from the few who
have been busted for insurance fraud). Maybe 16 per cent sometimes fudge or fiddle something
but you don't know so you remain happily (and honestly) complacent, and proud of your
profession.
More intelligent people may be more adept at calculating the possible negative consequences
of personal dishonesty and they are likely to have more to lose. However, put them in a
corporate situation and no doubt they will be as gung-ho as anyone to figure out ways to rip
off customers.
I've lost a wallet once and then I was visited home by shop owner, who carefuly tracked
where I could live by using data from the wallet. She wanted nothing in exchange.
On university, I also was also given back a wallet once; I got back also a cellphone
(which was quite expansive at the time) I left somewhere few years ago.
OTOH once I left a wallet with cash at university and it was not returned.
So, here you are my anecdotal evidence from Poland: three wallets and one cellphone, one
time not returned, two plus one times returned.
More intelligent people may be more adept at calculating the possible negative
consequences of personal dishonesty and they are likely to have more to lose. However, put
them in a corporate situation and no doubt they will be as gung-ho as anyone to figure out
ways to rip off customers.
The purpose of the institution in question is to "figure out ways to rip off customers."
It's neither dishonesty nor cheating. The trick is not to have a culture that puts
corporate/employer concerns first.
Obviously smarter people are going to tend to be more moral; you need to
know what the fuck morality and ethics even are, and assess the circumstances, before
you can make your decisions. Retards can't even get to the point of making a decision. Stupid
people are great at missing the moral implications of their behavior. Smart people are the
ones who need to come up with rationalizations.
All "honesty" begins with the self. Lying to your self, about your self is the basis of
delusion and
in-authenticity. How can you know reality when reality is constantly reinterpreted to fit the
needs of a run-away ego ?
The general point, that intelligence is linked to long term thinking seems sound to me.
Dishonestly is often about immediate gratification: a question of gaining or avoiding
immediate pleasure/displeasure. Honesty is a strategy that "pays off" over the long term.
Honesty, or truth telling (in so far as one can) is also a factor in an Honour culture. The
liar is a "base" person, a person who has no sense (or no care about) their own social (self
conscious) standing. Honesty also has a close correlation with such things as "loyalty",
"promising" etc.
Oh yes !
That's the joy of the corporate structure: no one is responsible. EVERYONE acts because they
"owe" obligations to another. (Executives to higher executives; Higher executives to the
Board; the Board to Shareholders) Personal, moral responsibility becomes entirely lost in
this deliberately confected ethical melange. The Large organisation is the perfect
environment for crafting crimes safe from individual consequence.
It says you are damn lucky. If I had $ 915 in my wallet I'd super-glue the damn thing to
my chest. Rather lose a couple layers of skin than that kind of dosh.
Self honesty is a long tortuous process.
Ideology is a relief: it removes the constant anxiety of needing to "question".
Science is -- should be -- the strictest form of public honesty.
Its frightening how many reports we so often get now about the systemic "dishonesty" in the
scientific realm. (Dishonesty driven usually (not exclusively) by the demands of corporate
profits)
Sublime opportunism, entwined inside collective incentives, converges into supreme ethics,
moral behaviour.
Sadly, the convergence is beyond the gradients of our elites.
The why of hard-wired human elites as are, cannot transcend to long term survival strategies,
and society resembles a chicken coop.
To add another factor randomly, embedded into the above, it does not matter, how
intelligence plays out between individuals, because individual opportunity feeds back into a
pool of extended family, group, tribe, waves of culture and ad-hocs, lastingly and durably
not encased in cognitive ambition, itself a consequence of cognitive genetic effort. Colleges
and universities worldwide are a better example of petty games.
The "truth" and other concepts of "honesty" are a psychological, relative variant,
depending on context. The agnostic concept of real and it's pursuit is unknown to our
archaic, analogue brain without the preposition of a limited context, opportune in the
now.
I would be interested in how honesty was explicated. And the valuation of cross cultural
rules that note the value of said rule equally across cultures. Now perhaps, these are fully
layed out in the study, but I was unable to access the sight provided.
I would also be interested how the study rated honesty as a national value. Thus far the
model looks to be applied by survey data. As I was reading I kept thinking of the multiple
national scandals in which dishonesty played a central role. Once one figures out the
definition and meaning of what constitutes honesty among individuals and or societal groups
as agreed upon by those groups, then a model of measuring said honesty is built. This is
essential because the article indicates that the difference in variable is largely cultural.
So I have to conclude that a standard was established that recognizes what honesty is across
cultures.
Because even withing culture, honesty varies. If intelligence is the key demarcation than
one would expect those groupings with supposedly higher intelligence to have a higher degree
of honesty. But again, even withing culture an agreed upon understanding of honesty is
required.
Assuming intelligence matters to some set post of morality, in this case honesty -- could the
model replicate supposed intelligence to honesty withing a given system in which the rules
are more readily identifiable and agreed upon. Assuming that the students at the US military
academies rank higher in intelligence than say the students at any comparable sized
university would the students among the military academies rank higher or lower as to the
being or practicing honesty. Considering the value placed on meritocratic institutions such
as Harvard when measuring that intelligence grouping demonstrate a higher degree of honesty
than a comparable public university.
Assuming we agree what the rules are,
"The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others"
it could be interesting whether said tested data is measuring awareness verses
adherence.
Here are a bare list of some developed nation's honesty issues regarding rule
adherence.
Again assuming that the players agree on what the rules are across countries or cultures a
comparison of honesty across varying fields as to scandals and or practices might tell us
something regarding the impact of intelligence to honesty across said cultures.
Found the article interesting and just expressed to thoughts on the read.
Well, I'll speak (honestly) from the other perspective.
I used to ride my bike of a Sunday morning on a scenic route that boasted a few first
class restaurants. Twice I found wallets lying on the pavement just downstream from these
establishments. Apparently, the owners, a little tipsy, had set their wallets on top of their
cars while they fumbled for their keys and then drove off.
The first I took to the local police station. The second I took home and called the owner
(who lived in Canada) using their credit card number to pay for the call and left a message
reassuring her that her wallet (and money) was safe and sound, not to worry (because I knew
she would, having lost it outside her home country). I didn't want to take it to the police
because I figured they'd begin to suspect me of stealing the wallets if I kept showing up
with them.
She and her husband drove down to a prearranged place to meet me for the return. She was
very grateful.
The owner of the first lost wallet called me and asked if they could donate $100 in my
name to my favorite charity.
Another time I found a perfectly nice fleece-lined, leather aviation jacket lying in the
road just outside a golf course. Luckily there was a receipt from his fee for 18 holes in the
pocket. I called him and arranged to return the coat. We met. He treated me as though I had
stolen the jacket from his car. Not so much as a thank you.
I don't know if I'm inclined to honesty because I'm bright, it's just that I've lost my
wallet in the past and it's such a pain in the butt that I feel sorry for anyone who shares
that fate. Credit cards, ID etc. the money is the least of it.
"Good institutions that limit cheating and rule violations, such as corruption, tax
evasion and political fraud are crucial for prosperity and development."
I'd argue that these institutions derive from a well-functioning, high-trust society and
are rarely a catalyst for more honesty in other societies.
As for the connection to intelligence, look at India and China to test your
hypothesis.
"Another time I found a perfectly nice fleece-lined, leather aviation jacket lying in the
road just outside a golf course. Luckily there was a receipt from his fee for 18 holes in the
pocket. I called him and arranged to return the coat. We met. He treated me as though I had
stolen the jacket from his car. Not so much as a thank you."
TC, yep. I found a wallet stuffed with cash and credit cards on the campus of our local
state university. A campus policeman was nearby so I turned the wallet over to him. He
cautioned me that people who recover lost or abandoned property are sometimes blamed by the
owners of that property for any real or imagined loss, damage, or inconvenience to the
owners.
My rough rule of thumb is that if the property can be readily linked to an owner, I return
it. If not, and the property has trivial value, say under USD $100, it's a judgment call.
Found a few bottles of liquor, seals unbroken, in a trash can. Kept them. Found an untagged
but well-kept dog once, which I judged to have strong sentimental value to its owner, so I
placed an ad in a local newspaper, got a response, and returned the dog. His children were
very grateful.
The Gachter experiment on rule violation is based on die throwing in sterile experimental
conditions where the financial incentives are trivial and more seriously there are no
competition between the participants and there are no mechanism to identify specific
individual cheating and no resulting blemish to ones' reputation. So how much of that are
relevant to real life situations?
Real life cheating data where there are great advantage to be gained and also with
consequences that might affect ones future are more appropriate to be studied. One aspect of
the OECD TALIS project dealt with real life cheating in 8645 schools and over 100K? teachers
globally,
Table 2.20.Web. School climate – Frequency of student-related factors
(cheating)
Percentage of lower secondary education teachers whose school principal reports that the
following student behaviours occurred 1 Never, 2 Rarely, 3 Monthly, 4 Weekly, 5 Daily in
their schools.
Answers 3, 4 and 5 are considered to be serious indicator of cheating in schools. With the
intention to mash the TALIS data with the PISA 2012 data, the primary school data were
excluded.
Many popular pre-conceived ideas about cheating in schools were not proven by the data. In
fact considerable efforts were needed to find any significant statistical trend. For example
at the national levels cheating were not correlated to the average PISA scores,
fraction of top or bottom PISA scores, teachers' practice of spliting the class to teach and
to test part of the class differently, etc.
The factor that show statistical significance is the proxy factor for competition or
meritocracy. Countries have adopted various shades of "no child left behind" policy and that
is reflected in the age profile of the class. In country that practice strict "no child left
behind", the students are automatically promoted to the next grade in the next academic year
regardless of the ability of the students with the results that the student will be exclusive
of the same 'academic age'. When meritocracy is practiced, poorly performing students might
have to repeat the same grade one or more times resulting in 'academic age' distribution in
class. Since the PISA project has data of percentage of 15 yo for that grade, the idea can be
tested. To be polite, the marked datapoints are not labelled. Two countries separated by a
narrow channel can have drastically different cheating levels.
The school cheating levels is statistically significant to be linearly dependent on the
percent of the 15 yo in class. The levels of cheating is dependent on the level of
meritocracy practiced. With automatic promotion to the next academic grade there is little
need for the students to cheat. The governments are doing the cheating instead. The
out-criers of cheating in other countries do not realized that they are in countries with
lesser meritocracy.
The paper argues that there is a causal link between intellectual development and moral
awareness: the individual process of development represents an advance from cognitive
egocentrism to de-centered thinking, from ethical egocentrism to the consideration of the
interests and rights of others.
This is what Jean Piaget concluded from his studies of Swiss children. He believed that
empathy was an integral part of a child's intellectual development. It doesn't follow,
however, that there is some kind of genetic linkage between intellectual capacity and the
capacity for empathy. These are two different mental traits. It's more likely that the same
selection pressure that favored an increase in intellectual capacity also favored an increase
in the capacity for empathy.
It's impossible to build an advanced society unless most of its members have a high
capacity for both intelligence and empathy. On an individual level, however, high
intelligence can co-exist with low empathy. There have been many cases of ruthless sociopaths
who are very intelligent and yet totally self-centered. Such people can be very successful as
long as they aren't too numerous. Otherwise, they'll destroy the very society that makes
their existence possible.
An advanced society requires a combination of high intelligence and high empathy, although
this may come about in different ways. In northwest Europeans, a high intellectual capacity
co-exists with high capacities for guilt proneness and affective empathy. In East Asians, a
high intellectual capacity co-exists with high capacities for cognitive empathy and
pro-social behavior. In other words, there is more emphasis in East Asian societies on
learning correct moral rules.
I am not following the credit gift of empathy to East Asians, or the connection of
morality and intelligence to the obeying of complex rules, because of the stolen oranges in
the Book of Rites and the counterfeit antiques that impressed the Emperor. The Chinese
literally explain how to lie in their moral teachings. "Lying" is right there among the
morality-guaranteeing complex rules. There are examples in the Talmud I will not specify, or
regard as unreasonable, but I will note that nobody saw the Talmud as less than a downright
complex system of rules. Some African tribes have rules so stringent (eg, no wet dreams) that
nobody could possibly obey them. If anything I would expect that systems of compelled
obedience to complex rules guarantee dishonesty. The only alternative is Billy Budd getting
the captain to take his side.
What I would start with is power. In China, even in periods of decay or civil war, power is
always centralized to a degree only approached in Europe by a few temporarily competent
monarchs, and with an effectiveness that has never been accomplished in Europe. I think this
and not math scores or cheap shoes is the basis of the elite adoration of the Han. The man
who observes that a cow is not a nightingale, or that two and two are four, when the opposite
is being claimed by an officer of the government (be it communist, imperial, or partisan) is
an idiot. He, and probably his family, maybe his hamlet, will be exterminated with efficiency
the European Enlightened Despots could only dream of. Truth, insofar as it is objective, is
the hair of Liberty. It cannot exist at all except in the empty space left by the rolling
back of power. The trick here is embracing negativism instead of falling into the
positivistic trap. We in the West accidentally stumbled across Liberty and Truth and Science,
not because we are good, objectively not because we are smarter, but because we just couldn't
get that mandate of heaven thing together, despite the unambiguous desires of numerous
monarchs. I predict that this will be an unpopular answer but it will not go away.
(but the Japanese are massively more ethical than the Chinese. Yeah. And they are also all
but European, especially in a lot of their political history. They dreamed of imitating
Chinese centralization but never came close.)
Also, how soon can we expect an update to that graph, now plotting IQ (or PISA, or tetris
scores, etc) against something like the Transparency Index? Apologies if this has already
been done and I missed it.
What can we learn about ourselves from the things we ask online? US data scientist Seth
Stephens‑Davidowitz analysed anonymous Google search results, uncovering disturbing
truths about our desires, beliefs and prejudices
Have no idea where the data come from, but scandals with Dutch politicians seem to increase
all the time, most with Rutte's VVD.
Condemned politicians for fraud etc., a novelty.
But until now just one behind bars.
But about honesty, our prime minister Rutte is nicknamed Pinocchio for his lies.
The VVD quickly rid itself of the chairman Keiser, who manipulated himself into possession of
the crematoria of the organisation he advised.
The Dutch tax authority presented him with a claim of € 12 million, our FIOD, the
authority for fiscal crimes is investigating him.
Condemned business men for fraud, more than we like.
Even the former Philips CEO Boonstra was condemned for trade with foreknowledge.
Solicitors also are not above suspicion any more.
At the recent municipality elections measures were applied to prevent criminals being
elected.
Unreliable policemen, also a novelty, the first serious conviction was a short time ago,
he sold information from police data bases to criminals.
How he was not discovered earlier, unbelievable, police salaries are insufficient for driving
Porsches.
Catholic bishop Fulton J. Sheen said it best: "It is much easier for an educated person to
rationalize evil".
All one has to do is look at abortion supporters who insist that abortion merely removes "a
clump of cells", when they damn well know better, that it is HUMAN LIFE that they are
destroying.
The old "ends justifies the means" excuse also comes into play, which is used by communist
societies to purge millions of those who oppose them, not unlike the purges in the old Soviet
Union, China, Cuba, and other communist "paradises".
I would state that it is easier for an educated person to rationalize evil–this
including dishonesty
Do I detect a matter of class? The golfer seems not to have been a gentleman belonging to
a golf club where proper behaviour was de rigeur, very likely passed from father, uncle and
club pro to son. The sort of chap who pays green fees could be a wannabe upwardly mobile
agent for subdivided swamp land
PS I gave up golf after my father died 20+ years ago. Not so much that I couldn't match
his ethical standards but that after two heart attacks and hip replacements he was still a
scratch golfer and all I could do was occasionally outdrive him if my slice or pull
allowed.
1. Perhaps smart people are just better at not getting caught?
2. Overall, there is one major factor in the honesty of a society, and that is poverty.
When an overpopulated third-world society is crushed into misery, when people cannot earn a
half-way decent living – or indeed, any living – through honest effort,
eventually they come to cheat. This has been demonstrated in all cultures and all races.
Does integrity promote prosperity? Surely. But the reverse is if anything more powerful:
poverty promotes corruption and nepotism. For people to behave honorably, yes there must be a
culture of this, but it must also be the case that behaving honorably is not cutting your own
throat. Because few people are saints.
"Found a few bottles of liquor, seals unbroken, in a trash can. "
Dumpster-diving is a different thing than keeping lost goods. I think you're *morally* in
the clear, there, even if sorely lacking in judgement. This doesn't seem very wise. Did it
not occur to you that they were probably in the TRASH for a reason? Probably not poisonous or
anything, since the seals were on. Probably some alcoholic decided to quit drinking. But do
you want to take the chance that this wasn't a bootleg batch full of lead? Obviously the
answer was yes. Your butt, I reckon
We have been flooded here at the University of Chicago by Mainland/Communist Chinese
students. There are lots of accusations that the Chinese Communist government assists these
students by cheating, getting other English language proficient students to take the English
part of the SAT tests.
There appear to be lots and lots of Mainland Chinese/Communist China students here who
supposedly aced the English SAT test but can't seem to speak English.
"like The Economist did with their wallet test – quite a good experiment."
But, The Economist is hardly a bastion of truth. I would tend to dismiss their entire
story of the wallet experiment as a fabrication, having caught their writers in so many
lies.
But certainly that accounts for the fact that politicians are dull, ignorant, dissemblers
at best.
In many governments the candidates for the highest stations are above the law; and, if
they can attain the object of their ambition, they have no fear of being called to account
for the means by which they acquired it. They often endeavour, therefore, not only by
fraud and falsehood, the ordinary and vulgar arts of intrigue and cabal; but sometimes
by the perpetration of the most enormous crimes, by murder and assassination, by rebellion
and civil war, to supplant and destroy those who oppose or stand in the way of their
greatness.
Honesty to me seems a cultural phenomenon.
Once people get away with dishonesty, others think 'why not me ?'.
The Dutch erosion, in my recollection, already began in the seventies, with leftist
people, at the time social democrats.
It was said then 'thinking left, filling pockets at the right'.
People as my father, life long socialists, left the party in great numbers.
It took a long time for THE socialist party, PvdA, to disappear, until the last parliamentary
elections.
The self destruction had much to do with EU support, socialism is at odds with globalisation,
even within the EU.
Few in the USA will have followed all the French scandals before the last presidential
elections.
Even Macron was accused of not declaring all his possessions.
And indeed, I also cannot understand how he spent or lost the millions he got while working
for the Rothschild bank.
Another well known politician, presidential candidate, cannot now remember the name,
disappeared after gifts for suits for some € 50.000 were published, there was also a
very expensive watch, the job his wife had, what she in fact did, nobody understands, and the
temporary jobs for his children.
When one sees the small castle where the family lives one understands that he could not buy
his suits himself.
Now at last there seems to be sufficient proof against Sarkozy.
Now many French presidents were persecuted after their immunity ended, when they no longer
were president.
But the frauds etc. they seem to have perpetrated seem worse and worse, in the Sarko case,
intimidating a judge, among other things.
When Hollande will be persecuted, I wonder.
He had a reputation for sacking editors in chief.
Ask Ghandi, alas he does not live, when Britain was an ethical country.
Just a few years ago, in BBCW Hard Talk, I saw an Indian minister getting quite angry 'the
British did not have to teach the Indians anything'.
Cindy, both gut and butt survived my "rescue" hooch. I did some due diligence: examined
the bottles, carefully tasted the contents, etc. My guess was a domestic quarrel in the
parking garage over the high-end vodka and liqueurs, perhaps over someone's drinking problem,
and the quarrel was settled by chucking the booze.
" . . . [S]orely lacking in judgment." Not really. My judgment turned out to be okay,
because I was informed by the totality of the circumstances and then made my call. Had the
booze been low-end stuff found in an unfamiliar location, etc., I might have judged
differently.
BTW-I didn't dumpster-dive. The booze was clearly visible at the top of the trash can.
How did they measure such 'honesty index' ?
Placing 100 wallets in a park and observe how many are returned to the owners ?
But when the anglos lie, they always lie big time !
Goebel famously oberved .
The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one
should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous
Waging wars by false pretexts surely is the highest form of duplicity ?
They dont call them perfidious albions for nuthin you know !
How does the author explain the link between the supposed highest IQ group – the Jews,
and their reputation for utmost dishonesty, greed and lust throughout history? Same goes for
the Chinese.
Propensity for Honesty is the biggest reason why we need to restrict immigration from low
trust cultures, i.e. all 3rd world countries. It's why they're 3rd world, because they are
low trust, everyone is dishonest from the top down, the few honest ones are called "stupid"
and get ripped off left and right. The more we import from these cultures, the more dishonest
our society will become, this includes all of Asia, Latin America, Middle East, Africa,
Southern & Eastern Europe esp. Russia. The only truly honest people in the world are
Northwestern Protestant Europeans, and maybe the Japanese. All other groups are
dishonest.
Interesting work? This article is a pure misuse of statistics, a fabrication and a classic
work of evil minded Eurocentrist attempting to give a new lease of life to their declining
rotten Eurocentrism in facing of the rising progressive, peaceful, and pragmatic East.
Look at the graph, its racist Eurocentrism is glaring, all the Western nations are on the
good side while rest of the world on the bad side. History has shown all those on the good
side are liars, cheaters, murderers, bandits, and pirates, while those on the bad side are
the victims of those perpetrators on the good side. The missing of the USA in the chart makes
this article an unapologetic white supremacy lie.
To study the link between brightness and honesty, it should pull data from the same pool
of population who are in the same environment, i.e. within a nation, then we even can study
whether cognitive ability, intellectual development, moral awareness, culture factor, and
institutions have any effect on honesty and their relationships.
Besides in spite of being bright, and having cognitive ability, intellectual development,
moral awareness, culture factor and strong institutions, the West still bombs, kills and
waterboards others on the fabricated phantom allegations as humanitarian intervention without
showing remorse; and recently the West lied about the poisoning episode in UK, and brought
the world to the edge of anther world war crisis, those evidences prove the Western societies
are not honest despite the qualities they processed as prerequisite for honesty, it seems it
proves the West is either hypocritical or innate psychopathic.
Ask Ghandi, alas he does not live, when Britain was an ethical country.
Exactly. What a pack of criminals. They were much worse and for a longer period of time,
than what they accused the Nazis of doing.
Churchill refused to divert supplies away from already well-supplied British troops at
the same time he allegedly blocked American and Canadian ships from delivering aid to India
either. Nor would he allow the Indians to help themselves: the colonial government forbade
the country from using its own ships or currency reserves to help the starving masses.
Meanwhile, London pushed up the price of grain with hugely inflated purchases, making it
unaffordable for the dying and destitute. Most-chillingly of all, when the government of
Delhi telegrammed to tell him people were dying, Churchill allegedly only replied to ask
why Gandhi hadn't died yet.
If all this is true -- and documents support it -- then Winston Churchill may well
have starved to death as many innocent people as Stalin did in the Ukrainian genocide.
Could the man who held out against Hitler really be capable of such an atrocity? Judging by
the rest of this list, it wouldn't be surprising.
I cannot play golf without committing a certain amount of larceny. In my mind a mulligan
is a reasonable option to excuse a particularly poorly played shot. And I have been known to
sweeten my lie on the not rare occasion, which, of course, is a form of lying.
I have often wondered if my ease at dishonesty on the links might suggest a propensity
towards darker deeds?
And don't even ask me about gimme putts. That for sure must reflect a lower
intelligence!
Who decides who cheats or being dishonesty? Is misleading advertising cheating? Is empty
campaign promises cheating? Is abusing legal loopholes cheating? Is putting one's
self-interest ahead of the ones they supposed to serve cheating? Is price fixing cheating?
Are cartels of all kind cheating? Are selective reporting, wrongful labelling, and spreading
ideology cheating? . . .
Mind you, the people involved in the above activities are all bright, well educated,
intelligent, having strong institutions, within well-functioning societies, and a sense of
moral responsibilities too, would they be more than 16% in the western societes?
The assumptions behind this are so fragile and unsupportable.
Honesty, as with most of the Judeo-Christian values, largely serves to keep the compliant
majority self-correcting while the predatory and parasitic top and bottom of society maintain
a more productive relativistic approach – long term dishonesty for the elites, short
term dishonesty for the undesirables. In-group honesty is always far more valued than
universal honesty – whether you're talking about stockbrokers or Romani.
The most intelligent in any class or group are far more likely to utilize dishonesty when
it best serves their needs. To do otherwise would be a clear sign of lack of
intelligence.
The idea that intelligent people are more likely to see the purpose of honesty in the long
term is not only an unsupportable assumption, it's also ignoring the countless undeniable
historical instances of intelligent leaders deploying adaptive fictions to achieve positive
social goals (anything from religion to the concept of inalienable rights).
Anyone who uses the phrase "speaking truth to power" can absolutely be counted upon to be
utterly dishonest when that power comes knocking.
As a boy I had the privilege to attend a Catholic grade school. Part of the education was to
go to confession. Admitting to a third party your wrongs, is very powerful. Forgiving the
past frees one. Being truthful builds character, and getting over the past is a blessing. It
was a struggle to be totally truthful all the time. As a mid to late teen, I fell away from
Catholicism.
In my early twenties I came back to believing that truthfulness is the best policy. I
attribute that to the Catholic culture and the confessional. I would not say that it was my
intelligence that led me.
Confession has nothing to do with honesty; it breeds psychopath, unrepentance,
irresponsibility and repeat offending. The churches use confession to cleanse perpetrators'
sins, so the perpetrators can repeat their crimes without moral burden; this is not
hypothesis, history bear witness of such fact. This is the trait of the Western culture, it
reflects in all aspects of the westerners' behaviour. Most common expression of such morally
defunct mentality is that the western governments and officials have no trouble to apologize
the wrongs they have done, but they keep on doing the same wrong over and over again after
apologizing. The Native Americans are the most abused victim of such morally defunct
practice.
The churches use confession to recruit and dominate its members (mentally colonized
serfs), expand their domains. Confession is one of the most effective mechanisms that corrupt
the basic decency of humanity.
Adam Smith apparently had their number when he was alive. It seems that little has changed
in the quality of politicians between the 19th and 21st centuries. If anything, today's
politicians are even more dimwitted and venal. The average Congress member is a moron, and
nearly inarticulate in unscripted speaking.
I really enjoyed reading Henry Mencken's observations on political campaigns of the early
20th century. He also seemed to enjoy making those observations as well. It comes through in
the way he describes the candidates.
The government of the UK seems completely unconcerned with ethics, in the same way the US
government is. Most members of both governments seem, to me, to be morally retarded.
Flash! Flash! Flash! Stop the press. This is not yet 1st April.
Currently there are a lot of news about cheating in sports, e.g. cricket. Out of a whim
the relationship of sports with academic cheating is tested. The OECD PISA project has data
on the percentage of students who exercise before or after school PctExercise, and
PctCheatRpt=+1.044*PctExercise-46.25; #n=29; Rsq=0.234; p=0.007889 ** (V Sig)
It is very statistically significant that PctExercise is positively highly correlated
to academic cheating. The effect is more than double that for the other percentage
variables whether they are statistically significant or not. If students spend too much time
on tracks and fields and little time at home studying the results can easily be inferred. Now
you know those loud mouths screaming about cheating in another countries and that the
students there spend too much time studying, they are on average themselves doing most of the
academic cheatings and they might be trying to divert attention away from them.
To be fair, the situation for the nerds should also be checked. The OECD PISA has data on
the percentage of students who have more than 4 hours per week of off-school maths tuition
PctMathTuitGt4hr,
It is statisticaly not significant. What about those academically very competitive, the
percentage who wanted to be the best PctWantBest,
PctCheatRpt=-0.445*PctWantBest+54.07; #n=29; Rsq=0.222; p=0.009944 ** (V Sig)
It is statistically very significant that PctWantBest negatively correlated with
cheating, i.e, on average the more academically competitive they are the lesser they will
cheat.
It is intuitively that most self-confident students will not cheat. The OECD data can be
transformed and normalized into confident quotient CQ similar to the IQ scale where CQ ≥
115 is considered to be over-confident. However,
Most common expression of such morally defunct mentality is that the western governments
and officials have no trouble to apologize the wrongs they have done, but they keep on
doing the same wrong over and over again after apologizing.
Amen!
What's even worse is the goofy idea that one is automatically "forgiven" if s/he's a
"believer." It's the works vs faith idea. Some of those people feel free to break every rule
in the book (even the 10 supposedly written in stone) with complete impunity.
Those people routinely engage in behavior that's as disgusting as those from the the tribe
who think they're "chosen."
G-wd's special ones, goy and non-goy, are forgiven in advance I guess.
If anything, today's politicians are even more dimwitted and venal. The average Congress
member is a moron, and nearly inarticulate in unscripted speaking.
True.
I think much the same could be said for all hierarchical systems and that includes
religious as well as academic ones. I've always been as much amused as amazed at how
dimwitted and venal priests and professors usually are.
Rereading this reaction comes to mind
Edward W. Said & Christopher Hitchens, ed., Blaming the Victims, Spurious scholarship and
the Palestinian question', 1988, London
How did these two 'ethical' countries keep churning out world class psychopaths as
leaders .since 1600 ?
Beg no longer, fine sir! This dude may have an answer.
Henceforth, Britain will do the bidding of her real masters ; she has
become the tool of the schemers against all she holds dear, namely, her
faith, her patriotism, traditions, civilisation. She grants the " returned "
aliens equality of civil rights ; they may and do become mayors over
Christian population, and within a short time Britain is ruled by a
Jewish Prime Minister, Disraeli, first and foremost a Jew and the
flunkey of the powerful Rothschild financiers.
One of the consequences of this disastrous political mistake is the
transformation of the national attitude of Great Britain and her
colonies into that of the British Empire. Disraeli who inspired it
knew what he was scheming for, the British people did not. But with
him, Zionism is carried up to the very heights of the British Throne, a Zionist World Empire is on the high road to realisation.
-Leslie Fry, "the Jews and the British Empire," 1935
In the light of what Jonathan Haidt in the above linked video says with regards to David
Perkin's findings, I tend to say this question of yours
Do Brighter Minds Incline to Honesty?
has to be answered: "Yes. But ."
The But has to do with the the history of the term "honesty".
People might say wrong things, while being (and feeling!) honest, because honesty is not
necessarily rooted in speaking the truth.
Honesty is a social category alltogether (with close ties to knighthood, chivalry and the
like). It therefor is a category, which in it's very core hints at obedience and fellowship,
and that's at times what keeps people away from speaking the truth – cf. David
Perkins and Jonathan Haidt above (ok – full circle).
Hit-and-run is common all over the world not just in China, it is a sign of moral decay,
confusion, and irresponsibility. Those perpetrators must be denounced.
But if one follows the West or the unrepentant war criminal Japanese, it is easy to white
wash those hit-and-run crimes by saying the percentage of such crime in China is way lower
than in the US though the absolute number might be higher, so Chinese is more honest than
average in the world.
On the other hand killing people with car faces less consequences in the West, most
perpetrators in the West get slap on the wrist for such crime, such as suspension of driving
license, insurance company paid compensation, short term imprisonment, or get way free by
claiming medical conditions, but in China the perpetrators may have to pay their lives for
their crimes. It seems the West does not have a balanced morality, harsh on the victims and
lenient on the criminals.
In the honesty index graph,
Germany is higher than China, OK, thats fair.
As for the five eyes lies , their rightful place is right at the
bottom.
UK [half of fukus] the ethical country ? hehehehhe
Web Of Deceit: Britain's Real Foreign Policy
by Mark Curtis
In his explosive new book, Mark Curtis reveals a new picture of Britain's role in the
world since 1945 and in the 'war against terrorism' by offering a comprehensive critique of
the Blair government's foreign policy. Curtis argues that Britain is an 'outlaw state',
often a violator of international law and ally of many repressive regimes. He reasons not
only that Britain's foreign policies are generally unethical but that they are also making
the world more dangerous and unequal.
Why do you condemn over 100,000 years of homo sapiens behaviour. Destroying human lives
has been continuously the most effective natural way to achieve important utilitarian ends
tight up to today. And given the ancient Hebrew enthusiasm for genocide is it surprising that
God's Ten Commandments not only said nothing about abortion but assumed that limiting killing
was about the best that could be hoped for.
Did I mention the top 100 hoaxes of the century chart, kid ?
Here's a partial list,
Iraq WMD
IRAQ babies incubators
Racak 'massacre'
RUSSIAGATE,
Chinagate,
Indo./China war 1962
Indon genocide 1965
GCHQ fake foto
Tibet fake foto,
Tibet genocide,
Libya
Syria
Sinking of the Maine,
Gulf of Tonkin,
911
War OF terror,
R2p[lunder]
TAM 'massacre'
Tibet 2008
Xinjiang 2009
100 reasons why fukus should be at the bottom of the 'honesty' chart !
These are not just hit and run. In China you do not run until you make sure the victim is
dead. And if the victim is not dead you hit them second time to make sure he/she is dead and
then you run. This is very pragmatic and congruent with all Chinese philosophical systems.
That's why I suggested to your compatriot (denk) here that a bit of Christian mercy and
compassion would do Chinese some good.
As Amryata Sen has pointed out. The problem in Bengal was not a lack of food but the lack
of purchasing power by the poorest peasants. Hoarding by merchants is a traditional driver of
famine in India. The Punjab actually had a good harvest but Bengal ate rice. Churchill's
nvolvement was ncidental. India was governed com India, often by Indians. Churchill was an
outrageous racist but by no means representative of the British of the time. He lost the post
war election.
I am surprised that you posted that first link. Its 1500 tested people (selected how?)
from 15 countries simply reminded me that the "Climategate" emails also belonged to the
University of East Anglia.
I didn't take the time to understand WTF PUBG was all about (third link).
As to the second link it is indeed interesting to learn of what appears to be a formal
recognition by the Chinese Communist Party that part of what contributed to the earlier
economic success of the West was trust and comparative honesty (as Amy Wax might point
out).
First of all Christians have no mercy, and they only have crusade and conversion.
Christians are cult. The Christians have been committing crimes against humanity, crimes
against peace and war crimes using evil and sadist inquisition methods for a very very long
time. Their forte is racial and culture genocide. Before Columbus time they only did their
carnage between themselves and Muslims within the European continent and ME. After Columbus
they spread their plague all over the world.
The most unfortunate victims are the Americans (from North to South). Christian not only
took the American's land, and killed them into nearly extinct, they also burnt all books of
South Americans, so that there is no indigenous South American civilization left to tell
their history and to refute what the Christian casted them as savages.
In China during the late Qing time, the Christians treated Chinese culture and traditions
as witchcraft, backed by their governments' guns they used extraterritorial right to expand
their control of people and land with organized violence and insidious crimes. Their
unscrupulous activities forced Chinese to resist thru Boxer movement because Qing Court was
incompetent. The West labelled Boxer as terrorists and crashed them with Eight Nations
Alliance armed intervention, Christian was a major force that caused China Century
Humiliation.
Since WWII all wars were led by the Christians, their false Christian mercy calls paved
the way for the Western governments and war mongers to bomb, kill and waterboard on moral
high ground just like their barbaric Christian forebears who have done to the native South
Americans and rest of the world.
That kind of morally defunct drivers are not unique to China, they appeare in the West
too. In some incidences the driver in the West made sure nobody survives in the other car by
pushing the car over the road side, so they have better chance not to be convicted due to no
witness.
While guys using assault rifles mowing down tens of school kids for no reasons and claim
it is their constitution rights to do so, and tens of millions of killed, tortured and maimed
by the NATO false flag wars, why don't you suggest your compatriots in the USA and other NATO
nations that a bit of Christian mercy and compassion would do their souls some good? Is it
because Christian mercy is myth, fantasy and snakeoil?
You are being racist, propagating the pink skin pigs' trashes in HK irresponsibly. You
should know those noxious racist trolls in the SCMP are posted by the pink skin pigs and
their mentally colonized wannabes in HK out of resentment and frustration, because they lost
their colonial privileges in HK and they are being rejected as uneducated unscrupulous
colonials back home. They fell from master caste to the bottom of the society and become
worthless trash.
Japanese are unrepentant war criminals, their whole society are liars and they have been
lying since WWII about their war crimes, their past, their present and their future, they
even are lying about the massive toxic nuclear leaking in the Fukushima cripple nuclear power
plants that are causing millions of people died of cancer and extinction of marine creatures.
While the British is the mentor of the Japanese.
Britain was a ruthless global tyrant and liar, but you seem to believe that all the crimes
against humanity and peace and war crimes British committed around the world can be forgiven
and glossed over by claiming Britain a democracy; what a lie and morally defunct double think
evil psychopathic expression. People said British imitates the Romans and the American is
born out of the British, no wonder the American is adopting the same double think logic to
white wash and gloss over the war crimes, crimes against humanity and peace they have been
committing around the world.
Winston Churchill was a classic imperialist with no moral bearing, he believed for the
empire everything goes. WWII is nothing but a dog-eat-dog play rough over the monopoly to
plunder the rest of the world; they squandered all the wealth they obtained thru stealing,
looting and murdering hundreds of millions of people all over the world in that
scrabbling.
About cheating in the exams you must have never seen what the Greeks and Indian are
capable of. PUBG is sour grape, they cannot beat the Chinese so they banned Chinese on the
fabricated allegation, just like the Opium Wars, the British could not beat Chinese
manufactured goods, so they used Opium and wars to steal and cheat Chinese wealth.
Why do you waste time displaying your prejudices without even acknowledging what question
was asked? Your English is up to it – just – so you have no excuse.
All Utu was pointing out is that deliberately killing someone with a car to escape
prosecution is pretty heinous behavior and does suggest something really wrong with the
Chinese culture at a fundamental level.
And the treatment of animals in China is generally deplorable compared with Western
standards with little concern for their well being. How does this obvious cruelty fit on the
ethical plane?
Ethical behavior among human beings is probably more unusual than we would like to believe
and we can all be better people. The Chinese are no exception to that rule. If Christian
ethics or Buddhist ethics can advance that cause, I support this.
I was intrigued to find on the listverse.com site some readable and/or intriguing stuff,
e.g. on Charles Darwin, but your particular, well debunked, choice of anachronistic and
inaccurate story to believe and post suggests to me that anyone whose intellectual standards
allow them to rely on one of those list (usually of 10) sites should not pollute UR. Are you
aware that people are paid $100 (with possibility of bonuses) for those lists?
You are wrong, not everybody demands the same quality, and Chinese provides different
quality for different needs in the market. Besides you get what you paid for, it is
fundamental principle of capitalism if you don't count the first principle of capitalism
which is monopoly which is charge as much as you can bear and cost is irrelevant, that is not
only cheating and it is also blackmailing and looting.
The video just claims but shows no proof what the guy claims. Chinese machinery and parts
are taking more markets around the world, this simply fact proves the video is made out of
bad faith, and pure propaganda.
Coins can stand up on Chinese High Speed Rail running more than 300km/hr, no German,
Japanese or any other nation can do that, it proves the bearing quality in China HSR is
unprecedented, it further proves the guys in the video is a troll out of jealous, resentful
and fear Chinese achievements.
In China you do not run until you make sure the victim is dead.
cuz you watch some videos from youtube, forchrissake !
Can you give me some credible statistics , the percentage of such alleged crimes in
China ?
How does such alleged crimes stack up against fukus state terrorism like double
tapping , sniping at women and chidlren, obliterating the whole neighborhood of a suspect
hideout just to make sure, ?
And .
How does this elevate fukus from its rightful position at the bottom of that honesty
chart, thats all I wanna know ?
It is propaganda. People tell me that the same stories were circulated when Japan
was becoming a tech powerhouse. It will probably take another 5-10 years before it
dissipates.
I merely point out the misconception about Christians supported by historical facts.
Indian treats animals even worse while China has humane protection laws, it seems you are as
impartial as utu.
Your first paragraph comes over as so silly that perhaps it shouldn't surprise that your
second paragraph is, to say the least, extremely puzzling. Where did Anonymous [216] say or
suggest that China eould collapse? The post you are replying to implies no such thing.
After every of your visit by you at unz.com I keep wondering to what degree your primitive
chauvinism is representative of China. How many millions primitive and hateful Joe Wongs are
there? Then I wonder that perhaps you are not Chinese. That you are employed by enemies of
China. That Chinese are too smart to show their cards that early in the game. If they really
hate they would not show it because only fools show hate.
You, see I carry a positive stereotype of Chinese which is supported by my personal
experience with them but you and your sidekick deng do everything possible to undermine it
and change it into: Yes, Chinese can be really stupid and thus more dangerous than we
thought. Watch, out for stupid and dangerous Chinese. Go to the Plan B: Poke NK and the
Rocket Man more to the point that Japan get so paranoid that it starts arming itself with
nukes. If there is to be a war let it start with the yellow races killing each other. They
hate each other anyway. Ask Joe Wong if you have any doubts.
So what is it? Are you Chinese or an agent of revanchist militarist unreformed Chinese
hating interests of Japanese imperialism? And then, if you are Chinese, how many more stupid
ones like you are there?
It seems your only defense for the Christians is denying historical facts, and stating
something that Christians are not.
Naïve? Are you saying the crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and war
crimes committed by the Christians were carefully planned, deeply thought through, determined
and maturely decided like holocaust?
Bible is zero-sum based narrative, the fundamental dogma of Christianity is "you are
either with us or you are with the devil" therefore all Christians have a mission to convert
everyone else into "one of us" on the moral high ground with whatever means necessary,
Christians believe whatever the Christians do it is necessary with good intention, even
bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated allegations is humanitarian
intervention.
Christianity assumes humans are primitive and born evil, they need divine force to
threaten (go to hell) them not to do harm, and it is tribal. While some other civilizations
believe humans are sane, rational, intelligent and compassionate, humans do not need divine
force to tell them how to behave properly in order to achieve peace, harmony, cooperation,
development and mutual benefits, just logical explanation and some directions will be
suffice.
If the past can be any reference, the crimes have been committed against humanity in the
name of Christianity, it is doubtful that Christians have any morality, mind you it does not
mean the Bible does not have good points in it, there are other way better ways and means to
serve as a framework to guide human behaviour for the good.
Chauvinism is someone claims what he is not and based that false claim to demonize others
what they are not on the moral high ground, this is what the West has been doing since
1492.
Stating facts does not involve emotion, so please refrain yourself from sensationalize any
topic unnecessary that makes dialog on difficult issues impossible, Theresa May and Nikki
Haley are not your role model to follow.
For over seventy years the US has dominated Asia, ravaging the continent with two major
wars in Korea and Indo-China with millions of casualties, and multiple counter-insurgency
interventions in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Timor, Myanmar, Pakistan and
Afghanistan. The strategic goal has been to expand its military and political power, exploit
the economies and resources.
Before WWII, the American is just one of the Western imperialists ravaged and wreaked
havoc of Asia with barbaric wars, illicit drugs like Opium, slavery, stealing, robbing,
looting, plundering, murdering, torturing, exploiting, polluting, culture genocide, 'pious'
fanaticism, unmatchable greed and extreme brutality. In fact it is hard to tell the
difference between the American and the unrepentant war criminal Japanese who is more lethal
and barbaric to Asians until the Pearl Harbour incident.
If the past can be any reference, the crimes have been committed against humanity in
the name of Christianity, it is doubtful that Christians have any morality
Do you really believe this???? No morality in any Christians?
You are even more locked into hate and racism than I thought possible.
Have you attended any of the lectures by the anti-racist Tim Wise??
You might get some talking points from him that can help you in your future postings.
And keep up the good work, you have a bright future in any number of our MSM outlets.
And you have not even met the hardcore commies, who would like to explain that the only
thing that Mao did wrong, terribly wrong was that he did not kill nearly enough people.
And the answer to your question is that there are idiots in every country and race, though
in China they are mostly excluded from political positions(because insanity is not welcome),
so they troll online message boards within and without China.
Like various other fanatics and crazies, they can be entertaining in the appropriate
context. If you've been to Finland, he's the equivalent of the old drunk men yelling
propositions at girls in some train stations of the small towns. Entertaining in small
doses.
So you couldnt even give one good reason why UK should be on top of that 'honesty
chart' eh ?
well I can give you 100 why UK should be right at the bottom,
Perfidious albions
exhibit one
How to ethnic cleanse an entire island ? Declare the residents as tresspassers !
'What the files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality. In August 1966, Sir
Paul Gore-Booth, permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: "We must surely be
very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain
ours.
There will be no indigenous population except seagulls." At the end of this is a
handwritten note by DH Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill:
"Along with the Birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays " Under the heading, "Maintaining the
fiction", another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as "a floating
population" and to "make up the rules as we go along".
@joe Wong You are a foolish, ignorant person. At least in regard to Christianity. The
perpetrators of the holocaust and genocide are Christians? You absolutely have no clue about
Christianity. Yes, they came from a Christian based culture but Nazis (and American war
criminals) have nothing in common with Christianity. The best countries in the world are ones
based on Protestant Christianity, meaning Christianity that is the closest to the Biblical
teachings. I admire Chinese culture and history (especially the technology which benefited
the West) but you need the ability to admit the faults of your culture which has some serious
problems.
Though I am convinced that honesty is more rational in the long term than lying, I definitely
don't believe that people with high IQ are more honest than those more modestly gifted with
intellectual talent. Smart people just know better to juggle with fallacies so they are more
likely to get away with it than dummies, that's all.
Logic does say that truth is lower maintenance, as it exists per se and is always consistent,
and lies so they are not exposed need to be cared of constantly, as they are always
intrinsically inconsistent with reality, but people are people, driven by the seven sins, of
which greed and vanity are possibly the worst, with the former being more evenly distributed
while the latter tends to affect the bright rather than the dim.
Logic and ethics are different categories. Equating them is a sign of, well, vanity.
Only a moron equate honesty = quality using ball bearing as example. There are countries
may be very honest like Bhutan, yet they don't produce high quality product.
The US top elites are very intelligent, are producing lots of quality products like Boeing
plane & precision weapons for murdering everywhere, yet their politicians & bankers
are known habitual liars, with British & French close behind, and Germans
reluctantly.
Japanese is producing high quality products, look how frequently their politicians are
caught outright lying, corrupted & nepotism, and researchers are now caught recently in
their published papers using fake data, with big corporates like Toshiba, Nissan, Steel
factories caught cheating systematically for long period.
Its true Germany make top notch quality, undisputed, better than Japan imo.
But look at the chart, beside Germany, who else is producing better ball bearings than
China, or precision tools that run aerospace, manned space craft, rockets, 5th gen J20,
satellites, nuclear plants(light water pebble), nuclear sub, FSR, a long list to go yet they
are rated more honest than China.
Fyi, only 2 countries are able to produce precision steel ball bearings for tiny ball
point pen tip, Germany & Japan. So China is importing billion of them for its ball point
pen production annually.
Why can't China factory produce it? There was some uproar in China media over this last
year. Guess what? Within a mth, some factory is churning out perfect ball bearings, but in
better material – ceramic that is cheaper & longer lasting. And the producer
explained, its not economical worth the effort & machining to produce those bearings as
they cost only $200K p. a. to import. But for national pride, they do it.
And i highly suspect you are either from HK or Taiwan with some bad memory of old China
that you simply like to smear China without taking a fairer stand that, out of 1.4B Chinese
how many % is doing those crimes, vs 400M murkans more serious crimes.
The new generation Chinese should not be continuously viewed through old communist color
lens & West propaganda, they are not responsible for the history but the future. Pres Xi
is a good example, he is leading China to their peaceful rise now. He suffered in culture
revolution, do you want to blame him for those history?
This chart simply look so questionable. Why not include US, France, Oz, Canada, Bhutan,
India, Brazil, Agentina, Singapore, Thailand, Myanmar, HK, Japan, Korea, HK, Taiwan, to give
a wider comparison. And how the author do his samplings to derive this graph is very much
questionable.
And to say brighter mind = honesty, just look at how honest are most world politicians
that are generally top intellectuals of their cohort. I would say more wise = more
honesty.
To use wallets returning as a test of honesty is also overly simplified. When a country is
poor, these are godsend present unless they are true perfect communist.
As a country get wealthier, their people generally get better education & well off,
become indoctrine with social norm of what is so called good behavior(persuaded by praise
& blame). They are more inclined to return a wallet found with money that aren't so
attractive to them compare to poor. But that can never be equate to genuine honest, im sure
most US Pres & UK PM will return wallets.
Take UK as the most glaring example, with its brightest in parliament are consistently
been outright shameless liars, such as Blairs lies for Iraq WMD war, and now May's lies of
Skripal case, which all getting near unanimous support from their parliament members speak
great volumes.
There is a Unz article written on how UK has been the mecca of paedophiles, global capital
in grooming children for sexual exploitation, with systematic covered up over decades by
their politicians because they & those powerful elites were all involved.
Their police chief even suggested not to criminalize Britons watching/owned child porno as
so high a proportion of their nation are doing will overwhelm their prisons & judicial
system.
So what honesty are we talking about here, UK as over 60% honest? Even their moral value
is highly questionable if you ask most UK white people.
And Malaysia getting 3rd highest honesty of near 80% is a great joke just shy from UK. Its
one of well known highest crimes & corruption that the West themselves criticized much,
even Spore ex-PM LKY openly condemn as violent crime infested. I never know violent criminal
is honest, may be yes for the author country when compared to their politicians.
I think the question of what is best for the world is best left to the 8 million that live
in it; humanity should decide on its government every ten years.
The nation state system fosters uncontrolled capitalism. The nation state system is a middle
man between the global wealth of a very few and the slave poverty of the mass of 8 billion..
The problem with capitalism is that it is such a powerful system of economics nothing can
block its path.
Uncontrolled, capitalism is like the game of monopoly: in that game, payment is due to the
capitalist owner at most landing spots on the playing board; unless the party landing on such
spot already owns the spot landed on with each turn at play. In the end, the game of monopoly
wipes out everyone; it transfers everyone's wealth to but one player, the winner. Everyone
else is a broke worthless loser.
Without internationally enforced rules that prevent powerful, large mega monopolies
corporations (the public is unable to vote to change the corporate nature or to restructure
by voting those Board of Directors who mange the mega-corporation) to reach the size of
nation states and to amass the much more capital to burn than most nation states, nothing is
going to change. Bottom up insistence that nations write laws to control the mega-capitalist
powered, monopoly secured corporations go unheeded because no politicians or group of
politicians is strong enough to write laws that the nations can enforce, hence mega
corporations are virtually operating in a completely lawless environment { meaning mega
corporations can do whatever they want }. There is no nation powerful enough to reel in many
very large corporations; those certain few corporations own and enjoy the security from
competition that monopolies guarantee in most of the extremely profitable markets in the
world.
No one, including Russia and China can expect to survive trying to compete against the masses
of capital, the earning capacities and the wealth building power of monopolies. Monopolies
rule the nation state law makers , not the other way around. If I were you, I would add to
your list of possible MH-17 bashers several global corporations; the one's I have in mind,
cannot be completely identified to a single nation in the world because they are so large
they own the lawmakers, most of the assets and all of the earning power in many of the
nations.
One the 9/11 clouds is the possible corporate involvement.
There are three possibilities: Rebels shot, our thought they shot, at an Ukrainian bomber,
and hit a passenger plane A Ukrainian bomber used the passenger plane as shield, in the
expectation that the rebels would not fire A western plane deliberately shot down the plane,
possibly a stealth plane.
That the plane was ordered to fly lower by Kiev air control might support the last two
possibilities.
In any case, neither the rebels, nor the Russians had any interest in shooting down the
plane. The western interest at the time was clear, the Netherlands objected most to
sanctions, our export to Russia. The 300 deaths changed that literally overnight.
What never has been explained was the telephone call from prime minister Rutte to vice
prime minister Asscher, at the time on holiday on vacation in the south of France.
Rutte phoned Asscher on his mobile, but asked him to call back on a land line 'so that the
Russians could not listen in'.
What at the afternoon of the crash was so secret that the Russians were not allowed to
hear, I have just the suspicion that Rutte told Asscher that the Russian had to be
blamed.
The Dutch investigation, with suspect Ukraine, drags on until now.
You are even more cynical than I am. I have no doubt that the politicians, Dutch, US,
Australian, Ukrainian, and all others, are totally amoral and unscrupulous. Naturally, they
are all venal. As the US saying goes, "honest politician is the one who, once bought, stays
bought".
But I thought that a person who lost someone in that crash would like to know the truth,
rather than "official" US BS. It would be sad to think that none of almost 300 people on
board had anyone who cared about them more than about money. If I were related to any of the
victims, I'd feel vindictive. I'd want to kill whoever is responsible, not whoever the liars
found it expedient to blame. And I'd make damn sure I know who planned this provocation and
who executed it in cold blood.
In my blog 'contraviews' http://www.contraviewing.blogspot.com post 148
you will find a recording of the conversation (mentioned in this article) between the
Estonian Foreign Affairs Minister Urmas Paet and EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton. Go
to the year 2014 in the margin and scroll down to post 148. One may find more interesting
articles on MH17.
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government
elites. The Russian government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe,
including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the
Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians, attempting to subvert
Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities.
Russian oligarchs and elites who
profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their
government's destabilizing activities.
Russian foreign ministry presentation provided sensational new details during ambassador briefing claiming that the USA know about
the fact that Boing was short down before Boeing fall on he ground. And deliberately hide satellite information that they have about
the incident that establishedd the sequnce of events in this shooting
Live Russian MFA summons foreign ambassadors to a meeting on Skripal
case -- statement - YouTube
Notable quotes:
"... The Dutch simply accepted that the Ukraine lost all relevant radar data. ..."
The lengths Dutch Prime Minister publicly went (serving quote 'geopolitical interests') to get the EU-Ukraine association agreement
ratified the clear rejection by advisory referendum notwithstanding, ought to make any well informed reader suspicious of how
far Rutte went out of public sight to serve those same 'geopolitical interests' by manipulating both the investigation and public
opinion in relation to MH17.
Rutte recently demonstrated his fealty to those 'geopolitical interests' again. When asked if new evidence was presented in
the Skripal case to justify the Netherlands support for the UK, Rutte answered that 'such evidence wasn't necessary because May
had stated that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible'.
The Dutch Government got a UN mandate to perform the investigation and as such that part of the investigation had to be transparent.
Clearly to serve those 'geopolitical interests' the Dutch separated the technical investigation from the legal liability investigation.
The technical investigation was performed under the UN mandate and the second legal liability investigation was organized separate
from any UN mandate.
The Dutch, Australian, Belgium government colluded with the Ukrainians to organize a 'Joint Investigation Team' which under
the cover of performing a legal investigation refuses any transparency and at regular intervals hints that indictments are close
but not there yet.
Also the Dutch Transport Safety Board technical investigation has concluded that the UkSATSE should have closed the Air Control
area above Eastern Ukraine, but the Dutch government has thus far never taken any action to hold the Ukrainians responsible for
that failure even when 3 days before MNH17 a AN-24 was downed from 6500m and UkSATSE (joint civil-military ATC) continued to control
some 100 civil air liners a day over that area.
The Dutch simply accepted that the Ukraine lost all relevant radar data.
Actually this "Who shot down MH17?" is the wrong question.
The question is "Who is liable?".
Shooting down aircraft above a war zone is SOP. If a civilian air liner is guided and controlled over such war area where 3
days earlier an AN-24 has been downed from 6500m one really ought to question the competence and liability of the ATC involved.
That ATC authority UkSATSE as a joint civil-military ATC was fully informed about the situation and still continued to guide some
100 civil air liners ad day for three days over that war zone.
Shooting down a civil air liner over a war zone is tragic but not necessarily always a crime. There was no motive for the East
Ukrainians, but as shown by the relentless exploitation by the Kiev puppet regime this Kiev regime most definitely had a motive.
Any liability investigation with the Ukrainian secret service as an investigator like in the Dutch/Australian/Ukraine Joint
investigation Team simply can't be trusted to even look for the truth. The JIT was set up with the intention of evading the transparency
requirements associated with the UN mandated investigation.
Thinking people smelled a rat in the case of MH17 straight off. No sensible person can fail to smell it now. Just a few considerations:
1. Donbass freedom fighters (and, by extension, Russia) were blamed by the US, its vassals, and its client states like Ukraine
even before the debris cooled down. Only the perpetrators could have known designated "guilty party" without any investigation.
2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. The only logical conclusion is that the perpetrators
were not those accused by the US, and the pictures would have revealed real perpetrators, which the US did not want to happen.
3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation. Apparently, someone was afraid
that it might not play ball. This can only happen when the "investigators" meant to hide the truth, not to reveal it.
4. The UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and one of the suspects, Ukraine, signed a non-disclosure agreement. It makes no sense
unless one or more of the signatories is guilty.
5. The "investigation" is going on for four years, longer than any investigation in the history of civil aviation. The experience
shows that a lot less time is needed to uncover the truth. Thus, the length of this "investigation" shows that the real purpose
is cover-up.
6. Ukraine never provided the records of pilots' communications with air traffic controllers, or any other air traffic control
records. Thus, it must have had something to hide.
One can continue in this vein, but what's the point? Suffice it to say that all international airlines drew their conclusions:
they fly over Russia, but avoid Ukrainian airspace, like they avoid Iranian and North Korean airspace. Sapienti sat.
Thinking people smelled a rat in the case of MH17 straight off. No sensible person can fail to smell it now. Just a few considerations:
1. Donbass freedom fighters (and, by extension, Russia) were blamed by the US, its vassals, and its client states like Ukraine
even before the debris cooled down. Only the perpetrators could have known designated "guilty party" without any investigation.
2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. The only logical conclusion is that the perpetrators
were not those accused by the US, and the pictures would have revealed real perpetrators, which the US did not want to happen.
3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation. Apparently, someone was afraid that
it might not play ball. This can only happen when the "investigators" meant to hide the truth, not to reveal it.
4. The UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and one of the suspects, Ukraine, signed a non-disclosure agreement. It makes no sense
unless one or more of the signatories is guilty.
5. The "investigation" is going on for four years, longer than any investigation in the history of civil aviation. The experience
shows that a lot less time is needed to uncover the truth. Thus, the length of this "investigation" shows that the real purpose
is cover-up.
6. Ukraine never provided the records of pilots' communications with air traffic controllers, or any other air traffic control
records. Thus, it must have had something to hide.
One can continue in this vein, but what's the point? Suffice it to say that all international airlines drew their conclusions:
they fly over Russia, but avoid Ukrainian airspace, like they avoid Iranian and North Korean airspace. Sapienti sat.
See my comment nr 230: There is not one investigation. The Dutch manipulated this into two separate investigations. There was
a technical UN mandated transparent Dutch Safety Board investigation. The Dutch organized a second criminal investigation together
with Australia, Belgium and the Ukraine and instigated A Joint Investigation Team (JIT).
Yes. I can understand the Dutch government: they serve the US overlords first and foremost. They don't give a hoot about the lives
of ordinary Dutch people. What I do not understand is the behavior of the people who lost loved ones in MH17 crash. Don't they
want to know who killed them? Don't they object to being grist for the mill of amoral and cynical politicians?
Well, actually I believe that those points do not contradict my theory.
You:
1. Donbass freedom fighters were blamed by the US, its vassals, and its client states like Ukraine even before the debris cooled
down. Only the perpetrators could have known designated "guilty party" without any investigation
Me:
1. Donbass freedom fighters were blamed by the US, its vassals, and its client states like Ukraine even before the debris cooled
down. They saw, on their monitors, what happened.
You:
2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. If they could prove that Donbass freedom fighters were
the perpetrators, these pictures would have been publicized by the US more than any Hollywood movie. My conclusion is that the
perpetrators were not those accused by the US, and the pictures would have revealed real perpetrators, which the US did not want
to happen.
Me:
2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. They could've pointed to actual surveillance capabilities
of the US, either way.
You:
3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation. Apparently, someone was afraid that
it might not play ball. This can only happen when the "investigators" meant to hide the truth, not to reveal it
Me:
3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation. The investigation was supposed to
be as impartial as possible. Interested parties were kept out as much as possible.
Etc .
No need to keep see-sawing this. Being done plenty of times before and it is being done, as we speak, all over Internet.
1. If anyone on the US/Ukraine side saw on their screens anything that could place the blame on Donbass freedom fighters and/or
Russia, they would have presented their evidence straight away. The US and its vassals (e.g., UK) go into lengthy hysterics even
when they have no evidence whatsoever (US elections in 2016, Skripal affair, etc).
2. The US was so eager to hide its surveillance capabilities that Kerry blabbered about it from the get go. Then presented
zilch. Very believable.
3. If Malaysia was excluded to make the investigation impartial, than Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia, and UK should have been
excluded, as well. The investigation should have been conducted by a party who has no stake in the matter. Instead, it is conducted
by one of the prime suspects and countries who lost citizens in that crash. For four years! With non-disclosure agreement, to
boot. Inspires lots of confidence.
I am sure your responses to the rest would be just as "convincing".
Why on earth would Russia gain anything from shooting down the plane? Western sanctions assault on the Russian Federation had
been ongoing for some time before this incident. The US is willing to kill its own people, ala 9/11. The deep state is malicious
and dangerous and it is the alt internet that makes our use of same to glean information that we would never to see in the MSM.
The US has been trying to provoke Russia into a war and Putin hasn't taken the bait. The senseless idiots in the west don't seem
to realise that Russian nuclear weaponry is supperia to our own and life on earth would surely end; except for the wealthy elites
who run our country who would be safe in our D.U.M.B's
Nikki Haley has erupted in another fiery Russophobic rant, warning that Russia will "never
be America's friend." Moscow can try to behave "like a regular country," but the US will "slap
them when we need to," Haley said.
The US ambassador to the UN is not known for her friendly
stance toward Moscow, but her new take on US-Russia relations stands out among even her most
rabid ramblings. Speaking at Duke University in North Carolina on Friday, Haley admitted that
friendly relations with Russia is an unlikely prospect, adding that the Trump team has done
more against Moscow than any other administration since Ronald Reagan's tenure.
"Russia's never going to be our friend," Haley told students at a Q&A session,
responding to a question about "holding Russia accountable" for alleged meddling in the 2016
presidential election. The diplomat said Washington still works with Moscow "when we need to,
and we slap them when we need to."
She then raised the stakes further: "Everybody likes to listen to the words. I'm going to
tell you – look at the actions," Haley urged. "We expelled 60 Russian diplomats/spies, we
have armed Ukraine so that they can defend themselves," she added.
"You haven't seen the end of what this administration will do to Russia. You will continue
to see that play out," she stressed. Cooling down the degree of Russia-bashing in her speech,
Haley said the US and Russia do cooperate on Afghanistan and Africa, looking out for areas of
mutual interest. Meanwhile, she claimed, "our relations with Russia depend solely on
Russia."
The topic of Russia-bashing and Moscow's alleged interference in US democratic processes
seems far away from dwindling, despite no solid evidence being presented so far to the public.
Moscow has repeatedly brushed off the claims. "Until we see facts, everything else will be just
blather," Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in Munich last month.
However, there could be signs of improvement on the horizon. Donald Trump has recently
suggested meeting Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Washington, DC. In March, he said the two
leaders "will be meeting in the not too distant future to discuss the arms race which is
getting out of control." Putin and Trump have so far met twice.
The first meeting occurred during the G20 summit in Germany last July, and the second took
place on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vietnam in November.
President Putin, as well as several Russian officials, has continuously signaled Moscow's
readiness to improve ties with the US and the West, based on trust and respect.
"... EXCLUSIVE: Saudi crown prince bragged that Jared Kushner gave him CIA intelligence about other Saudis saying 'here are your enemies' days before 'corruption crackdown' which led to torture and death ..."
"... What does current DCI Pompeo have to say about Kursher's disclosures of CIA Intelligence to MBS? ..."
"... Since Saudi is not an official 'Ally', under the Treason Statute it's called Treason what Kushner did, not Espionage. Espionage pentalty is only for 'Allies', Treason is for all others (according to the Treason Statute). ..."
EXCLUSIVE: Saudi crown prince bragged
that Jared Kushner gave him CIA intelligence about other Saudis saying 'here are your enemies'
days before 'corruption crackdown' which led to torture and death
Said the spider to the fly, come closer my lovely let me play with you.
Now who on earth would be the spider, appears it's Mohammed-Bin Salman, the new Saudi king
apparent, and the fly is Jared Kushner.
I call your attention to the following article:
Look at the second photo of Kushner and MBS at the Murabba Palace in Riyadh last May, BEFORE
their October meeting where Kushner according to MBS, Kushner gave MBS Classified CIA
Intelligence concerning MBS's purported enemies before his crackdown. Now doesn't that photo
speak volumes of a spider eyeing a potential fly? MBS's body language speaks volumes.
What does current DCI Pompeo have to say about Kursher's disclosures of CIA Intelligence to
MBS?
Since Saudi is not an official 'Ally', under the Treason Statute it's called Treason what
Kushner did, not Espionage. Espionage pentalty is only for 'Allies', Treason is for all others
(according to the Treason Statute).
What slice of the Treason execution pie does Jared pick, gallows or other?
The US lost proper timing for the coup -- it was possible in 2011-2012 timeframe. Now hardly. And if one think that
Russian oligarchs will sitting quietly while the West expropriate their money, think again. China banks do exist, if I am not
mistaken. And some other nations also have pretty developed financial sector.
I do not think that Russia should or can cut ties with the USA. Dependence of the US technological sector is substantial and
cutting the ties might backfire. This is the calculation of the UIS lawmakers, who enjoyed the impunity of the unipolar
moment. But bumerang always retrun. sooner or later.
Notable quotes:
"... The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia ..."
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with
protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia
The latest round of sanctions the US Treasury has imposed on Russia are a strange affair.
Earlier rounds of sanctions have been linked to specific acts of real or alleged Russian misbehaviour e.g. the death of
Sergey Magnitsky, the Crimean crisis, the war in the Donbass, the shooting down of MH17, and the alleged Russian meddling in
the 2016 US Presidential election.
This latest round of sanctions is different in that it is not directly linked to any Russian action – real or alleged – at
all. Nor are the people sanctioned – for example the Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska – directly accused of anything.
In place of any specific accusation against Russia or any of the individuals concerned, here is how a
statemen
t from US Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin justifies the latest sanctions
The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites. The Russian
government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe, including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate
violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians,
attempting to subvert Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities.
Russian oligarchs and elites who
profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing
activities.
(bold italics added)
In other words Russia is a bad corrupt country which does lots of bad things around the world of which the US disapproves.
Anyone in Russia who is rich ("an oligarch") and is therefore "profiting from this corrupt system" is in some way
responsible and risks being sanctioned
irrespective of anything they do
unless this changes.
The implication is that if they do not want to be sanctioned the "oligarchs" must overthrow Russia's government.
The latest sanctions are therefore an incitement to a coup.
All
other steps the US has taken having failed
, Russia's businessmen ("oligarchs") are now being told that unless they
engineer the overthrow of Russia's government they will be sanctioned.
The first thing to say about this policy is that it is decades out of date.
There was a time in the 1990s when a small group of stratospherically wealthy and corrupt individuals really did control
Russia's government.
By way of example, most of the people who met in the Kremlin during the 1998 financial crisis to decide whether or not to
devalue the ruble were not members of the government or even officials, and the meeting during which the decision was
finally taken to devalue the ruble was chaired not by a government minister but by the former Acting Prime Minister of
Russia Yegor Gaidar, who at the time was neither a member of the government nor an official, but who was merely an adviser of
Russia's President, Boris Yeltsin, who was at the time away reviewing the fleet.
The decision was in fact made by the same small group of wealthy and corrupt individuals who at that time really did
control Russia's government, meeting informally under Gaidar's chairmanship, and not through the official structures.
It is not a misconception to call these individuals "oligarchs". In the 1990s that is exactly what they were. The most
politically powerful amongst them – Boris Berezovsky – was not even properly speaking a businessman.
That is not the situation in Russia today. A person like Oleg Deripaska – the aluminium magnate whose name appears on the
latest sanctions list – may be a person of great influence and power. However he does not control Russia's government, and
has no means to do so.
I should say that I first came across the suggestion that the "oligarchs" could be mobilised to overthrow President Putin
or force him to reverse his policies by imposing sanctions upon them in early 2014 at the start of the Ukrainian crisis.
As I recall reports appeared in the media that the German intelligence agency the BND was advising Chancellor Merkel that
if the EU imposed sanctions on Russia the "oligarchs" would either force President Putin to change course or would overthrow
him in order to save their fortunes.
Many rounds of sanctions later one might suppose that that theory had been tested to destruction. However Steven
Mnuchin's statement suggests that faith in it dies hard.
The latest round of sanctions the US has imposed on Russian businessmen and their companies will not weaken President
Putin's position or that of the Russian government, and will not affect Russia's economy.
As China's semi-official English language newspaper
Global Times
has recently pointed out, Russia – unlike countries like Iran – has a big largely self-sufficient
continental sized economy possessing immense scientific, technological and natural resources, making it therefore largely
immune to sanctions.
As for the wealthy Russian individuals who the latest sanctions are targeting, the reason so many of them keep money
abroad is not because they control Russia's government, but because they do not control it, and do not wholly trust it.
The result is that they have been squirreling away much of their money abroad, beyond their government's reach.
Now what they are discovering is that their money is at far greater risk of being seized by the US government than by
their own – something the Russian government has been telling them for years – so that it is in fact safer kept at home than
it is squirreled away abroad.
Do not think Russia is in the mood to be Diplomatic or generous. Though, they will always be polite and show their manners and
respect for International Law, up on the world stage. Do believe the UK and US have seriously crossed the red line. Short term
pain for long term gain, so comes to mind.
With Theresa May and Donald Trump as leaders it is no wonder the world is in such a mess. Putin is the only adult left to lead
on the world stage. We will do better listening to Putin. The history of the warmongers (UK and USA ) should never be ignored...
Must, admit, I find it so reassuring the way that President Putin and President Xi-Jinping,
work together. Plus, President Duterte, he might be tactless, but, unlike Trump, he
comes across trustworthy and with a love of his nation and people. Not forgetting
President Assad, all Syria has been through, yet, he will not leave his people and
neither will his family. It is nice to see a different form of politician, that is
managing to come through and help another learn from their values.
Together, with
the fact that President Putin, would not be where he is, without a very confident and
strong team behind him.
"Russia won't "be spoken to in the language of sanctions"..."?
IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!
No country that has self-respect, no respectable person can possibly accept to be spoken
to and treated generally in that disgustingly arrogant, beyond contemptuous manner. The
terms and acts of abuse used by the Empire's representatives, including in the most
"prestigious" international institutions, have by now gone way too far repeatedly (a
euphemism!!!), with no limit in sight.
It is time for Russia and Russians to impose respect to those creatures come straight out
of the Empire's swamps and sewers! Being treated as they now accept to be treated by the
Empire is beyond unacceptable. To hear Russia's highest representatives refer to such
despicably disgusting bullies as "partners" is not amusing anymore. Only unbearably
painful...
Time to STOP playing the part of the poor victim of the Empire (US+EU+NATO+other
bits...). Time to adopt China's model, China now promising to hit the Empire hard and till
the very end of that war on tariffs. "Even if the Trump administration wants to take the
trade war to the direction that bilateral trade and investment is suppressed to zero, China
will meet all the challenges."
Trump doesn't have any instincts. He's just playing the old DC game. Pretend that you want to
do something, then act shocked after you didn't do it. Each party plays the game against the
other party, each house of Congress plays the game against the other house, Presidents play
it against Congress and the "courts".
===
This game wouldn't work in real life.
Example:
I shout to everyone in the house, "I'm going to the store to get groceries."
One hour later, after sitting in the living room watching TV, making no move toward the
car, I shout again:
"See what happens? I tried, but these evil other-party spirits wouldn't let me. You need
to vote these evil other-party spirits out of the house so we can have food!"
Huh you elect someone who says his military strategy will always be "listen to the Generals",
and are then surprised when the Generals want to keep fighting?
Of course Trump will accede. He has no coherent and consistent policy just Fox News
buzzwords spinning in his head. Now add John Bolton as his guiding light.
Mr. Buchanan is correct the U.S. is: "in a country where we have no right to be "
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
The U.S. is in Syria illegally, and what is even worse it is reportedly supporting
terrorists.
This is surely a crime, yet no charges have been laid. Why?
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or
ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for
years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and
other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to
overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Much more evidence on this and other matters at link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html
The important point in Syria is that Putin is irreversibly bogged down there. He sinks or
swims with Assad, which means, sooner or later, sinks. He's a sitting duck who can do nothing
but sit there and wait until the US chooses to attack him. So there's no harm in leaving him
to stew. John Bolton's bête noire has always been Iran, which is supposed to be Putin's
ally. Going after Iran will put Putin on the spot. He has to decide whether to back his
"ally" or leave Iran in the lurch. Thus, putting Syria on the back burner and concentrating
on Iran forces Putin either to discredit himself by abandoning his "ally" or to bog himself
down in yet another conflict. Heads, Ukraine wins, tails, Putin loses!
"Yes, folks, your tax dollars are going to support Islamist crazies in Syria. The same
people who attacked Paris are being aided and abetted by the US – and if that isn't a
criminal act, then there is no justice in this world." Justin Raimondo, November 25, 2015 http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/11/24/turkeys-stab-in-the-back/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
The USA has hundreds of military bases overseas. We should close most of them. Trump is
saying the right thing, unfortunately, we all know he doesn't follow through (that NRA thing,
that DACA thing, that wall thing, that coal thing, that lock-her-up thing, etc. etc).
It seems that the failure in Syria is related to the classical policy verse strategy
conflict. The military is once again put in a difficult position when the civilian leadership
tries to use a military solution to solve a diplomatic problem. The military was given the
task to destroy ISIS but that goal will be impossible without Turkey's cooperation and the
leader of that country has chosen a path toward appeasement by the United States or
confrontation.
There seems to be credible evidence of Turkey's support for ISIS in the flow of combatants
and military logistics into Syria as well as profiting from the sale and transport of ISIS
controlled Syrian oil through Turkey. Now we are seeing Turkey invading Syria and ethnically
cleansing our Kurdish allies from Syria's Northern Boarder. We still don't know what the
Obama/Clinton CIA and State Department was up to in Benghazi, but it did seem to involve the
flow of arms from Libya, and I have read reports that members of the Turkish government were
meeting with the killed ambassador before the attack.
In Syria is appears that the Assad, Iranian and Russian alliance was more focused upon the
rebels attempting to overthrow the government; rather than destroying ISIS. Once the United
States leaves there may be greater tolerance for ISIS as long as the government is not
threatened and ISIS may even be allowed to join that alliance to get some revenge against the
Kurds who were allied with the U.S.
We saw the recent Russian test of US resolve using mercenaries with disastrous
consequences. As long as the US remains in Syria there will be similar tests and what if is
Turkey decides to test the resolve of US forces?
Our NATO partner Turkey seems to have become more of an enemy than a friend, and also more
of a liability than an asset. Removing U.S. military assets from Turkey may be prudent,
followed by its expulsion from NATO. Expelling Turkish citizens from other NATO countries and
economic sanctions may be another strategy to make Turkey reconsider its continued
belligerence.
I don't recall anyone forcing Trump to appoint to top positions people who flat out refuse
his orders and block him from carrying out policy he campaigned on. There is a limit on how
much sincerity you can attribute to a man who says one thing, does the exact opposite, and
defend him as fighting some Don Quixotic struggle tilting at windmills.
"... After a neocon uprising in their various think tanks and journals and after a meeting with Defense Secretary Mattis, Trump did an about-face yesterday and grumbled that he'd keep them in for a while longer. ..."
Just a week after President Trump told an Ohio audience that US troops would
be removed from Syria "very soon" and brought back home "where they belong," he has again
changed his tune.
After a neocon uprising in their various think tanks and journals and after a
meeting with Defense Secretary Mattis, Trump did an about-face yesterday and grumbled that he'd
keep them in for a while longer. Some say six months. Was Trump purposely misleading in Ohio,
or is he really that pliable? Tune in to today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
If we brought back the draft and only allowed a small percentage to enlist, we would have
far fewer and our wars would end far sooner because our so called leaders would have to answer
to the people. As it is now somebody else pays the price so why should I care.
Vietnam established that precisely the opposite is true. Popular support or opposition can
EVENTUALLY force a change at the top, but LBJ and Nixon were able to drag Vietnam out for a
decade because they didn't have to talk people into enlisting, they just drafted them.
That's the practical effect, but even if it wasn't, slavery is evil, conscription is
slavery, and those who attempt to implement it should be tarred, feathered, and dragged behind
trucks until their bodies come apart.
Senator Paul, It is time to put your cards on the table. Start exposing
the crimes of your fellow congressmen and 'political cronies'. All are guilty of crimes against humanity. Trump is draining the swamp. Either
wade out or it is down the drain.
For some reason Trump is trying to antagonize Iran, Russia and China simultaneously. It is
unclear that is the game plan of Trump administration, if any.
Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson, who not only called his boss a "moron" but was also the worst secretary of state in history, the national security council is likely headed for a new adviser as well. McMaster, too, has proved to be a dud, but whether his successor would be any better is an open question. Indeed, a top candidate to replace him is none other than John Bolton, the former George W. Bush ambassador to the United Nations who counsels a very tough line against Iran. ..."
"... Add Bolton to the mix and you have what amounts to a war cabinet against Iran. Defense Secretary James Mattis would be outnumbered and outgunned. His ally, Tillerson, wanted to negotiate with Iran and opposed summarily terminating the agreement. ..."
"... If this occurs, the irony will be rich. Trump campaigned as someone who would not be George W. Bush redux. In fact, he specifically denounced Bush in the South Carolina debate for lying about the pretext for war in Iraq. But that was then. ..."
Now that Trump has polished off the plodding Tillerson, who not only called his boss a
"moron" but was also the worst secretary of state in history, the national security council is
likely headed for a new adviser as well. McMaster, too, has proved to be a dud, but whether his
successor would be any better is an open question. Indeed, a top candidate to replace him is
none other than John Bolton, the former George W. Bush ambassador to the United Nations who
counsels a very tough line against Iran.
The likelihood that America will go to war against Tehran has risen. The 2015 Iran nuclear
deal is now essentially null and void. In his remarks today, Trump emphasized that he and
Tillerson clashed over the Iran nuclear deal: "I guess [Tillerson] thought it was okay. I
wanted to either break it, or do something, and he felt a little bit differently. So we were
not really thinking the same. With Mike Pompeo, we have a very similar thought process."
They do indeed. Pompeo has himself always counseled a tough line against Iran and Islam.
Speaking to a church group in Wichita, Kansas in 2014, he explained : "This
threat to America" comes from Muslims "who deeply believe that Islam is the way and the light
and the only answer."
"They abhor Christians," he said, "and will continue to press against us until we make sure
that we pray and stand and fight and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior is
truly the only solution for our world." Pompeo is also close to Frank Gaffney of the Center for
Security Policy. He appeared on his radio show dozens of times as a Congressman and received
an award from him.
Add Bolton to the mix and you have what amounts to a war cabinet against Iran. Defense
Secretary James Mattis would be outnumbered and outgunned. His ally, Tillerson, wanted to
negotiate with Iran and opposed summarily terminating the agreement.
If this occurs, the irony will be rich. Trump campaigned as someone who would not be
George W. Bush redux. In fact, he specifically denounced Bush in the South Carolina debate for
lying about the pretext for war in Iraq. But that was then.
If he goes down the route to war with Iran, he will be George W. Bush on steroids. Bush went
to war against Iraq, not Iran, because he knew that it was a much tougher nut to crack. If
Trump becomes enmeshed in a new war in the Middle East, his presidency will almost surely go
down in history as a catastrophic failure.
Despite Donald Trump's beliefs that trade wars are easy to win, history suggests that
there is always a loser in a trade war and in the trade conflict with China, America is
likely to fare poorly.
I'm not a policy expert but I do have a small business and when a fellow employee
doesn't work out, he's fired. Is that not the gold standard of running a company anymore,
vetting quality people for the correct positions?
Rex was not the right choice from the start, Trump listened to whom ever and they picked
Rex, not Trump's choice. Trump picks younger more multi dynamic people Rex was only good
at one thing, the Petroleum industry, and that is up for discussion too.
Regarding Russia I have a sneaking suspicion that Trump has struck a Faustian bargain
with Mueller's investigating team. There has been a palpable shift it seems.
After the Skripal affair, is any more proof required that nothingin neoliberal MSM can be taken at face value? Looks like their
motto is "if at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again."
Notable quotes:
"... So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia." ..."
"... The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks. ..."
"... No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted and monitored. ..."
On Tuesday, Gary Aitkenhead, chief executive of the UK's chemical weapons facility, the Porton Down Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory, told Sky News that scientists had "not verified the precise source" of the material used in the attack in Salisbury on
March 4. Aitkenhead's statement came on the eve of the convening at Moscow's request of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) at The Hague, which would have exposed the UK government's case. But this resort to damage control only underscores
the monstrous hoax perpetrated by the British and American governments and their European allies.
May told parliament on March 12 that Porton Down was "absolutely categorical" that the "nerve agent" used on the Skripals had
come from Russia. "Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down," she said,
"the government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible" for an "attempted murder" on British soil.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle on March 20 that "the people from Porton Down"
were "absolutely categorical" that the source of the nerve agent used against the Skripals was Russia. "I asked the guy myself,"
he said, "and he said 'there's no doubt.'"
So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out
on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down
made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia."
... ... ...
The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted
Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into
the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that
Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks.
No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past
month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times
raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the
lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political
purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted
and monitored.
Twelve days
after 9/11, on the night of September 23, 2001, the CIA's Islamabad station chief, Robert Grenier, received a telephone
call from his boss, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. "Listen, Bob," Tenet said, "we're meeting tomorrow at
Camp David to discuss our war strategy in Afghanistan. How should we begin? What targets do we hit? How do we sequence our
actions?"
Grenier later wrote in his book,
88 Days to
Kandahar
, that while he was surprised by the call he'd been thinking about these
same questions -- "mulling them over and over and over," as he later told me -- so he was ready. President George Bush's address
to the U.S. Congress just a few days before, Grenier told Tenet, was a good start: demand that Afghanistan's Taliban ruler,
Mullah Omar, turn bin Laden over to the United States. If he refused, the U.S. should launch a campaign to oust him.
Grenier had thought through the plan, but before going into its details with Tenet he abruptly stopped the conversation.
"Mr. Director," he said, "this isn't going to work. I need to write this all down clearly." Tenet agreed.
Grenier set to work, and over the next three hours he laid out the battle for
Afghanistan. Included in the paper was a detailed program of how the CIA could deploy undercover teams to recruit bin
Laden's enemies among Afghanistan's northern Tajik and Uzbek tribes (an uneasy coalition of ethnic militias operating as
the Northern Alliance), supply them with cash and weapons, and use them in a rolling offensive that would oust the Taliban
in Kabul. With U.S. help, which included deploying American Special Forces teams (under CIA leadership) coupled with
American airpower, the Northern Alliance (more properly, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan) would
start from its Panjshir Valley enclave in Afghanistan's far northeast and, recruiting support from anti-Taliban forces
along the way, roll all the way into Kabul.
Grenier gave the eight-page draft paper to his staff to review, then sent it to Tenet in
Washington, who passed it through the deputies committee (the second-in-command of each of the major national security
agencies), then presented it to Bush. "I regard that cable," Grenier wrote, "as the best three hours of work I ever did in
my twenty-seven-year career."
Three days after the Tenet-Grenier telephone conversation, on September 26, the CIA
landed a covert-operations team in Afghanistan to recruit local allies in the hunt for bin Laden. The quick action was
impressive, but then events slowed to a crawl. It wasn't until October 20 that the first U.S. Special Forces team linked up
with anti-Taliban rebels, and it took another week for U.S. units to land in strength. But by early November al Qaeda was
on the run and the Taliban's grip on the country was slipping away. On November 13, militias of the Northern Alliance
seized Kabul. The Taliban was defeated, its badly mauled units fleeing south and east (its last bastion, in the south, fell
on December 6), and into nearby Pakistan, while what remained of al Qaeda holed up in a series of cave complexes in the
Spin Ghar mountain range of eastern Afghanistan.
By almost any measure, the CIA-led anti-al Qaeda and anti-Taliban offensive (dubbed
Operation Enduring Freedom by George Bush) marked a decisive victory in the war on terror. The U.S. had set out a plan,
marshaled the forces to carry it out, and then seen it to completion.
But this triumph came with problems. The first was that the offensive was hampered by
Washington infighting that pitted the CIA against a puzzlingly recalcitrant U.S. military and a carping Donald Rumsfeld,
who questioned George Tenet's leadership of the effort. This bureaucratic squabbling, focused on just who was responsible
for what (and who exactly was running the Afghanistan war), would remain a hallmark of American efforts well into the Obama
administration. The second problem was that Afghanistan's southern Pashtun tribes were only marginally included in the
effort, and they remained suspicious of their northern non-Pashtun counterparts. The mistrust, CIA officers believed, would
almost certainly plant the seeds of an endless inter-tribal Afghan conflict, embroiling the United States in an effort to
prop up an unpopular Kabul government. The third problem was Pakistan -- or, more precisely, Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence agency, the ISI, and the ISI's "Directorate S," responsible for covertly supplying, training, and arming
Pakistan's Islamist allies, including the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.
♦♦♦
The intractability of these variables, and America's 17-year effort (sometimes focused
but often feckless) to resolve them, form the basis of Steve Coll's
Directorate S
,
a thick but eminently readable account of America's Afghanistan misadventure. While
Directorate S
stands alone as a comprehensive
exposition of the Afghanistan conflict dating from 9/11, it's actually a follow-on of
Ghost Wars
, Coll's Pulitzer Prize-winning 2004
narrative of America's efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan following their invasion in December 1979. Given the
breadth of Coll's dual treatments and the depth of his research, it's likely that these books will remain the standard
exposition of the period for years to come.
While the focus of
Directorate S
is on Pakistan and its shady intelligence services, each of the obstacles that confronted the United States in Afghanistan
from the moment the Taliban abandoned Kabul is embraced in detail. These obstacles included America's post-9/11 attention
deficit disorder (the pivot away from al Qaeda to Iraq was being considered in Washington even as the Northern Alliance
cleared the Afghan capital) and the deeply embedded antipathy toward the new Kabul government among Pakistani-supported
southern tribesman. Thus, after the United States ousted al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters, it embarked on a program to
strengthen the new Kabul government, anointing Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's president and pledging billions in
reconstruction aid. And so, or so it seemed, everything had gone as planned. The Taliban was routed; al Qaeda was on the
run; a new anti-terrorism government was in place in Kabul; and the United States had signed Pakistan on as a willing
accomplice. On May 1, 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld declared an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan. The war
was over. Won.
But of course it wasn't.
Coll's account provides a disturbing catalogue of the U.S. mistakes in the wake of the
Taliban defeat. Almost all of them are well known: Hamid Karzai, the consensus choice of a grand assembly (a loya jirga) as
Afghanistan's interim president, proved to be a weak leader. The monies appropriated for Afghanistan's postwar
reconstruction were woefully inadequate for the task -- "laughable," as one U.S. official put it. American soldiers
responsible for countering the Taliban's return (and hunting al Qaeda terrorist cells) were thinly and poorly deployed
(and, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, of secondary importance in the Pentagon). Tentative Taliban efforts to engage the
United States in political talks were summarily and unwisely spurned. Allegations of prisoner abuse at U.S. detention
facilities consistently undermined U.S. legitimacy. American funds were funneled into Afghan ministries laced with corrupt
officials. Afghani poppy production increased, despite faint-hearted U.S. eradication efforts. And U.S. counter-terrorism
actions proved ham-handed and caused preventable civilian casualties, pushing Afghanis into a resurgent anti-Kabul
resistance.
More crucially, Pakistan's unstinting support for America's Afghanistan efforts proved to
be anything but unstinting. The reason for this was not only entirely predictable but was actually the unintended result of
the American victory. When the Northern Alliance and U.S. airpower pushed what remained of the Taliban (along with the
remnants of al Qaeda) out of Afghanistan, they pushed them into Pakistan, creating conditions that, as Coll tells us,
"deepened resentment among Pakistan's generals, who would come to see their country's rising violence as a price of
American folly . . ." Put simply, for the United States to seal the Operation Enduring Freedom victory, it had to ensure
that its effects did not spill over into the one nation that could ensure that its victory would, in fact, be enduring.
That didn't happen. The result was that the Taliban was able to rebuild and rearm its networks not only in Pakistan, and
under the eyes of the ISI, but also in Afghanistan.
It might have been otherwise. During a series of discussions I had about America's
intervention in Afghanistan in the months immediately following 9/11, a number of currently serving and former senior U.S.
officials told me they believed that, given enough time, the Taliban might well have handed bin Laden over to the
Americans, obviating the need for a full-on invasion. One of these officials was Milton Bearden, a famed CIA officer (his
close friends refer to him as "Uncle Milty") who, during his time as a station chief in Pakistan, had helped to head up the
CIA's war against the Soviets in the mid 1980s.
♦♦♦
After 9/11, Bearden recharged his Pakistan and Afghanistan networks in an effort to
convince the Taliban that turning bin Laden over to the Americans was a better option than the one they were facing. All
the while, Bearden kept senior U.S. officials apprised of what he was doing, even as he was attempting to head off their
rush to war. Bearden told me that, while his efforts had not reached fruition by the time the Bush White House had decided
on a course of action, he believes the United States had not fully explored all of its options -- or thought through the
long-term impact of its intervention. "I don't know what would have happened, I don't know," he says wistfully, "but I
think we have a handhold in history. We should have seen what was coming." He notes that Alexander the Great "took one look
at Afghanistan's mountains and decided against it. He thought his whole army could get swallowed up in there, and he wasn't
going to take that chance. So, well, you tell me if I'm wrong, but Alexander was no slouch, right?"
Not everyone agrees with this, of course. The dissenters include Robert Grenier, the
first drafter of what became the American war plan. Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he told me, was committed to his pledge to
protect Osama bin Laden; he viewed it as a blood oath that could not be broken. Moreover, argues Grenier, "Omar viewed
himself as a kind of world historical figure, a person on whom the axis of history would turn." One result was that he
believed his fight against the Americans would be epochal.
That said, Grenier believes America's foray into Afghanistan, and the mistakes that
followed, might at least have been dampened by a more diligent focus on the inherent divisions of Afghan society. "We [at
the CIA]," he told me several months ago, "were very aware that the march of the Northern Alliance into Kabul would likely
create real difficulties in the south. And we tried to slow it, precisely for this reason. But events overtook us, and it
just wasn't possible. So, yes, things might have been otherwise, but in truth we just don't know."
The value in Coll's
Directorate S
comes not from the elegant telling of a story not fully known, but from the dawning realization that Afghanistan is the
kind of lock for which there is no key. There is no reason to believe that a different outcome would have ensued if other
events had intruded -- for example, more personnel, money, focused diplomacy, or robust and disciplined enemy-defeating and
nation building; or that our war there and the occupation that followed would have yielded the same results that we
realized in, say, Japan after 1945. The real hubris here is not that we tried and failed but that we thought we could
actually succeed. Afghanistan is simply not that kind of place.
There is a term of art for this in the military, which found its first usage in Iraq in
2009, when U.S. commanders adopted it as an appreciation of what could and could not be accomplished. Instead of focusing
on defeating corruption, inefficiency, disunity, and poor leadership, the focus shifted almost exclusively to dampening
violence, to keeping the doors to Iraq open even as its factions battled for its control. More importantly, the adoption of
the phrase marked the abandonment of high expectations and an embrace of realism. The United States would have to yield the
business of replicating a Western-style democracy on the banks of the Euphrates. That goal, if it was going to be
accomplished at all, would have to be realized by the Iraqis.
Analyst Anthony Cordesman, one of America's premier military thinkers, adopted the phrase
and applied to Afghanistan in 2012 in an essay he entitled, "Time to Focus on 'Afghan Good Enough.'" His plan was simply
stated but had all the elegance of actually working: keep the Taliban out of Kabul and the major cities, preserve the
central and provincial government even in the face of endemic corruption, and work to provide security to large numbers of
Afghanis. Cordesman conceded that this was not the kind of victory that Americans had hoped for on September 12. And it was
difficult to describe the outcome as even vaguely passable -- or "good." But it was far better than adopting goals that could
not be realized or embracing an illusion that disappeared even as it was grasped. For the time being at least, it would
have to be "good enough."
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to
The American Conservative
and the author of
The Pentagon's Wars
.
"... "Sir, it can be done (withdrawal of forces from Siachen). Yes, we certainly have the capability to ensure that Pakistani forces do not occupy the areas vacated by us." ..."
"... "Sir, Siachen is strategically far too important to be given up. No, Sir, it is no longer a burden financially, we can easily afford the costs." ..."
The military is the same the world over. In 1992, the conversation would have gone like this
in South Block:
"Sir, it can be done (withdrawal of forces from Siachen). Yes, we certainly have the
capability to ensure that Pakistani forces do not occupy the areas vacated by us."
Eighteen years later, circa 2010, the conversation probably had gone like this:
"Sir, Siachen is strategically far too important to be given up. No, Sir, it is no
longer a burden financially, we can easily afford the costs."
Fortunately for the military, there is no more any conversation taking place regarding
Siachen. It is a closed file. The only remaining issue now is about recovering the lost
territories in POK, Gilgit and Baltistan. Period.
The generals the world over know how to run a long play around politicians. Their trump card
is that politicians as a breed hate taking tough decisions because they don't want under any
circumstances a failure on their hand. And so, they'd rather kick the can down the road –
and that suits the generals.
This was exactly what happened to President Barack Obama who
wanted to pull out of Afghanistan. The generals completely outflanked him and before he knew
what he was doing, he allowed the "surge" in 2010 – and, zoom, the troop deployment shot
up to 140000. Today, Obama is gone, but the generals are still there. The war is stupid and the
generals too admit that it cannot be won. But nonetheless, they want an open-ended stay in
Afghanistan.
In the final analysis, it is all about the corporate interests of the military – more
budget allocation, more "good times", more empire building. And the war profiteers –
military-industrial complex, think tankers, ex-faujis on the conference circuit, congressmen,
the correspondents on the Pentagon press pool all travel in the gravy train at the tax payers'
expense.
President Donald Trump is now facing the moment of truth. He has decided that the
US troops should return home from Syria, but is facing resistance form the military. The
generals have already decided that there shall be an open-ended military presence in Syria. In
fact, they are busy planning more bases in Syria.
The argument being touted is that the ISIS may stage a comeback. The real reason could be
that the Pentagon wants to turn Syria into a theatre in the New Cold War to fight Russia. With
a view to rally the Israeli lobby, the generals also invoke the
spectre of Iranian influence in Syria .
Of course, the 2000 American troops cannot achieve any of the above objectives. But the
generals are buying time and hoping that they can embark on "mission creep" (surreptitiously
augment the scale of deployment as time passes). A
report in the Washington Post discloses that Trump has had a bit of a faceoff with the
generals regarding Syria. It will be interesting to see whether his decision gets implemented.
My prognosis is that Trump will ensure that the troops come home "where they belong."
To my
mind, the recent dismissal of Rex Tillerson as state secretary and HR McMaster as the NSA are
harbingers of new national security strategies emerging. The straws in the wind are highly
indicative – Trump's phone call to President Vladimir Putin to congratulate him on the
election victory (ignoring NSA McMaster's pointed advice in writing against it); Trump's
invitation to Putin to visit the White House; summary abandonment of the confrontation course
and rhetoric against Russia over the Skripal spy case; the announcement in Washington that
Russia is at liberty to replace the 60 expelled diplomats; and of course, the latest decision
on drawdown in Syria.
One thing good about generals (the world over) is that once they sense that the politician
has the spunk in him to force his will, they quickly backtrack and meekly obey. In this case,
Defence Secretary James Mattis is also a retired four-star general who reads books. The WaPo
story suggests that Trump has made it clear he's on leash. Successful generals usually have
good political acumen. Trump has scattered Mattis' "coalition" and Mattis can't overlook the
fate that befell Tillerson and McMaster.
The outcome of this titanic struggle for power and
authority will also affect our region. The point is, if Trump prevails on Syria, the next
battle of wits could be over Afghanistan. Ominously,
Trump has spoken again in exasperation about the US wasting 7 trillion dollars in the
Middle Eastern wars. Make no mistake, that figure includes the costs of the 17-year old war in
Afghanistan as well.
Robert Jervis and Mira Rapp-Hooper
warn about the dangers that come from misperception on both sides of the standoff with
North Korea:
If any U.S. strategy toward North Korea is to have a chance of succeeding (or even of just
averting catastrophe), it must be guided by an accurate sense of how Kim's regime thinks,
what it values, and how it judges its options. Washington must understand not just North
Korean objectives but also how North Korean officials understand U.S. objectives and whether
they consider U.S. statements credible.
Unfortunately, the U.S. is remarkably bad at understanding these things accurately. This is
not just a Trump administration failing. Most American politicians and policymakers routinely
misjudge the intentions and goals of our adversaries, and they often invent a fantasy version
of the regime in question that leads them astray again and again. One reason for this is that
it is simply easier to project our assumptions about what a regime must want than it is to make
the effort to see things as they do. Another reason is that many of our politicians and
policymakers mistakenly think that if they try to understand an adversary's views that must
somehow mean that they sympathize with the adversary or condone its behavior. Instead of trying
to know their enemy, our leaders would prefer not to for fear of being "tainted" by the
experience. This lack of knowledge is compounded in some cases by the absence of normal
diplomatic relations with the adversary. Our leaders are encouraged to take this self-defeating
approach to international problems by a political culture that rewards the people that strike
tough-sounding-but-ignorant poses about a problem and marginalizes those that seek to
understand it as fully as possible.
The first step in correcting these failings is to accept that some of these regimes regard
the U.S. as an "existential threat" and therefore view all U.S. actions with at least much
suspicion and fear as our government views theirs. The next step would be to recognize that the
main goal of any regime is its own preservation. We should be very wary of any explanation of
their actions that claims that an adversary is irrationally suicidal. Another step would be to
acknowledge that regime behavior that we regard as purely aggressive is very often the result
of the adversary's belief that it needs to deter our aggression against them. Our politicians
often talk about North Korea threatening the entire world with its nuclear weapons, but this
misses that in their relative isolation and paranoia the North Korean regime sees the rest of
the world, and especially the U.S., as a threat that needs to be defended against. Recognizing
these things doesn't make their acquisition of nuclear weapons desirable and it doesn't mean
that we approve of it, but it does make it understandable.
Our government's frequent inability to understand how an adversary thinks and what an
adversary wants is usually bound up with our government's overestimation of its own power and a
denial of the other state's agency. If many of our policymakers invent a fantasy version of the
regime to serve as a foil, they come up with unrealistic demands that they think the U.S. can
force the adversary to accept. Because we fail to understand what the adversary is trying to
do, we make demands that we ought to know will never be accepted. Because our government fails
to take the other side's agency into account, our policies are often crafted solely to punish
and compel and rarely to give them an incentive to cooperate or compromise. We then claim to be
surprised when this approach yields only intransigence and more of the behavior that we want
the other state to stop.
Why do you think it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that
ignorant? Did our Presidents, who never have to prove merit, only popularity, ever appoint
people based on reliably tested knowledge of their field? No. They tend to appoint their
cabinet based on political calculation. Sometimes political calculation will raise up
knowledgeable people, more often not.
Welp, this is certainly a different kettle of fish from WWII, where the US government hired
ethnologists like Ruth Benedict to analyze Japanese culture and thought patterns (resulting
in her book "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.")
I really believe it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that
ignorant
Our highest officials are by design more ignorant than the rank and file. During the Iraq
war aftermath, Arabic speakers were actively rejected from jobs within the Coalition
Provisional Authority, because it was assumed their knowledge of the region would prejudice
them against the W adninistration's vision for the Middle East, and they didn't want nay
sayers telling them what they didn't want to hear.
This mindset is persistent, especially in republican administrations, and mirrors the
Soviet Union -- people are selected on the basis of their willingness to toe the ideological
line rather than their expertise.
They are not ignorant, the politicians support these policies because their donors benefit..
They have sold out to greed over country.. I assume that some do it for the easy wealth that
can be had, some of the wealthy ones for fame and never losing elections, but they have their
reasons, our country is not high on that list.
The one exception to this would be Obama's approach to Iran. He had no illusions about the
mullahs and IRGC, but he knew that it was simply impossible to perpetually diplomatically
isolate and militarily surround a nation of 80 million in its own region. The nuke deal was a
tradeoff – Iran gives up its nukes in exchange for being reintegrated with the world.
Of course, this is the last thing that Israel or Saudi Arabia want.
Knowledge of History and Language would help enormously, but the US is so arrogant it expects
other countries to merely accept US assertions and to speak in English, on the basis of its
supposed Exceptionalism.
Vermont Senator says business model of Democratic Party has been a failure for 15
years
Bernie Sanders has triggered a backlash by making comments interpreted as an attack on [Wall
Street/CIA troll] Barack Obama on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther
King. The senator for Vermont appeared to criticise the first black US President as he branded
the Democratic Party a "failure".
Speaking in Jackson, Mississippi, he said Democrats had lost a record number of legislative
seats. "The business model, if you like, of the Democratic Party for the last 15 years or so
has been a failure,'' said the Vermont Senator...Mr Sanders's comments were quickly branded
"patronising" and "deplorable".
Paul Saunders, associate publisher of the National Interest , interviewed
retired Russian general Evgeny Buzhinsky. Buzhinsky retired from the Russian Armed Forces in
2009 as a lieutenant general.
Paul Saunders: You said recently that the confrontation between the United Kingdom and
Russia over the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury could lead to "the
last war in the history of mankind." What did you mean by that?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: I'm sorry, but the BBC correspondent understood me incorrectly. It is not
between Russia and the UK: it is between Russia and the so-called collective West, led by the
United States by the way. This incident was a crime. In investigating this sort of crime, any
investigator must ask some questions: who stands to benefit? What's the motive? For President
Putin, believe me, he is the last man on Earth to try to do such a terrible thing on the eve of
the Russian presidential elections and the eve of the soccer championship in Moscow. This is a
blatant provocation, but what is the aim of this provocation? I don't know if you've heard the
"breaking news" that the British military laboratory said that there are no clues that indicate
that this poison is of Russian production, which is not surprising to me. So no proof, no
evidence, yet the British government said that "we collected information" -- what information?
-- "and on the basis of that information we are sure this crime was committed by Russians."
The question always asked these days if this is a new Cold War or a second Cold War. I
always state that its worse! In the time of the Cold War, everything was clear: an ideological
confrontation, but there were definite truths, definite red lines, no threats, no sanctions. No
cases such as recently, with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has called to press Russia, to isolate
Russia, to economically corner Russia. In my view, it is a very dangerous game to try to corner
and isolate Russia.
Paul Saunders: In your statement though, you seem to suggest that you see a possibility of a
real military conflict between Russia and the West. How do you think something like that could
come about?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: The first place where such a conflict could come about is in Syria.
Recently, some days ago, when the Russians spoke to Dunford [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford] after the Americans threatened to strike the center of Damascus, and
Russia made a public statement that if the United States strikes the center of Damascus, where
Russian servicemen are located, where the headquarters where Russian police and advisors are,
then Russia will strike back against the cruise missiles and the carriers of the cruise
missiles. In my view, this is very dangerous since U.S. cruise missiles are launched from
warships.
Paul Saunders: So you view that statement by Gen. Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the Russian
General Staff, as a very serious threat?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: Yes, it's serious. And I don't think he was joking or just making a
statement to surprise some Americans. No, I am absolutely sure he was serious.
While we're on Syria, there is the subject of chemical weapons. I do appreciate that our
gathered intelligence indicates and can warn the world that terrorists, not the Syrian
government, are the ones deploying chemical weapons in certain locations in provocative
attacks. This results in TV crews being in the right place at the right times, preventing such
provocations. But I think that with such confrontational circumstances that the United States
could decide to strike Damascus.
Paul Saunders: And in that situation, the Russian military would follow through on General
Gerasimov's statement? Many people in the United States would say to themselves that Russia has
a really powerful military force, but President Putin is ultimately a very pragmatic person who
knows that Russia's economy is less than 5 percent of the combined U.S. and European economies
and he would never risk a war like that.
Evgeny Buzhinsky: In the case of war, the economy doesn't matter. 5 percent, 2 percent, 3
percent, it doesn't matter. Because if it ends in war, it will be a very very short war. Do you
think that Russia will go to war with United States for months or years? Of course not.
Paul Saunders: Are you suggesting it would become a nuclear war or it would end very quickly
because of the nature of modern warfare and the conventional weapons at the disposal of the
United States and Russia?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: It is very difficult to predict, but I am sure that any military
confrontation will end up with the use of nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia.
I don't believe that a nuclear confrontation can be controlled; this is an illusion on the part
of the United States.
Paul Saunders: Do you see any dangers elsewhere apart from Syria?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: Possibly Ukraine, if the United States interferes. Ukraine started this,
Russia answered. But I don't think that's very likely.
Paul Saunders: Turning back to the dispute surrounding Mr. Skripal, the United Kingdom
called for solidarity among its allies. Most of the NATO countries also expelled Russian
diplomats. The United States certainly expelled a very considerable number and also closed the
consulate in Seattle. What impact do you think that had inside Russia? What message did the
Russian government and the Russian people take from that strong, coordinated response? Evgeny
Buzhinsky: First of all, I repeat: what happened with Mr. Skripal was a planned provocation. I
don't know if the UK was alone in planning this, but it is a clear-cut provocation attempting
to demonize and isolate Russia. To find a pretext for expelling Russian diplomats. This is why
I am unsure where this confrontational path can lead. What would be next? For example, now the
United States is thinking about their response; they will expel another round of Russian
diplomats. Russia would expel another fifty. Then the United States would expel another fifty.
After that, then what? A freezing of diplomatic relations?
Paul Saunders: Turning back, you mentioned the idea that this all started with a British
provocation, and it certainly seems to be a widespread view in Russia that this was some kind
of provocation, what do you think would be the motive of the British government to do something
like that?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: Well, no offense meant, but I believe that move by Theresa May was
coordinated with Washington. A lot of Russian experts and observers think so. What was the
motive? I don't know, maybe it was an attempt to divert attention from the internal problems
that Theresa May is facing. For example, what was the first item on the agenda during the last
EU summit? Brexit terms, including conditions that aren't favorable for Britain. And after this
provocation? Russia, with discussions about European solidarity against it instead of talking
about Brexit. Maybe that was the real motive.
Paul Saunders: As you can imagine, very few people in the United States or Britain find it
plausible that the British government would do something like that. Do you think there is any
evidence that would suggest something like that may have happened, beyond your view that there
was not really a motive for Russia to do something like that and there is a motive for the
UK?
Evgeny Buzhinsky: I must tell you frankly: I know some people from our intelligence
services, and they're very concerned. Because Mr. Skripal was exchanged via the illegal program
spy swap, there is a worry that this could endanger or ruin the entire mechanism of exchange.
What is the use of this mechanism if people will be killed afterwards? On the Russian side,
there is no motive whatsoever. On the British side, we can only guess.
"Boris Johnson continues to convince everyone the British side supposedly sent Russia a list
of questions to which it still hasn't received any answers. Everything in fact is completely
the opposite. As I said, we never received any list of questions and I turn to the British
side, if you have such a list of questions, please tell us, please list those questions," he
said.
Regarding the UK's insistence that Moscow coordinated the attack, he asked, "Couldn't you
come up with a better fake story?"
The UK is engaged in a propaganda war against Russia, Nebenzya asserted, aiming to discredit
the country globally. But even propaganda wars are dangerous.
If he fails to keep his mouth shut I wouldn't be surprised to learn in the tabloids in the near future of his (sadly fatal)
penchant for auto-erotic asphyxiation.
""Johnson also said that "none of us have forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.""
Translation: "none of us have forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago "which was done by
our Al Qaeda and ISIS proxies with the help of our special forces stationed in Syria."
that's all they learn in boarding schools - how to lie and lie and be good psychopaths: charming, fake, easy to bribe and natural
traitors, obsessed with money and status.
And above all how to develop that exhagarated catatonic accent so valued by Anglosheeple
I know many of these Public school boys - from Malborough, Harrow etc
Look no further than you local electric and gas suppliers who are likely publicly traded with a monopoly on the most traded
commodities in the world. Why does a human necessity have a monopoly - follow the money.
Lol....that's what I think, from my experience with dealing with retarded psychopaths. They just don't back down until you
directly address them and call them out on their bullshit, or just plain fucking slam them against the wall.
So err...is it going to be an "accidental" nuclear launch or dirty bomb, or I don't know.....a Russian ISIS attack? The possibilities
are endless with these slimey limey cunts. They're barely out of the European Union, yet are already faltering like a mule loaded
with lead.
Agreed, and some just go nuts when called out. It's worse than just the Brits. Trump is clearly somewhat on board, and Macron
seems to want a distraction, too.
Trump is in love with himself, Macron is in love with a granny, and Boris Johnson belongs to the fucking zoo with the gorillas.
What a world we live in, when the voices of reason are coming from Russia, China and Iran, and the irrational tantrum turd
throwing is coming from the West.
I might also politely remind you and others of Russia's ability to disable the US Aegis missile system, including the Raytheon
Tomahawk missile using a highly advanced electronic warfare suite known as Khibiny.
You do not need due process to hang him now neither :-) Ain't that cute when the process of law finally breaks down. Happens
when you support banksters operating a ponzi scheme to rob people...
Stupid cunt is a better description. He is supposed to be the number 1 diplomat but he is a classic attention seeking snowflake
who wants to be PM.
He blamed Russia immediately. Then tells everyone not to be Russiaphobic and then the stupid cunt compares attending the WC
the same as Hitler's 1936 Olympics.
Guy is out of his depth and making Britain look stupid.
Portland Down say they do not know where the nerve agent was manufactured (Portland down would have the records of OPCW to
check). Maybe Russia would have the data relating the nerve agent to a NATO stockpile. Note: If the nerve agent was so deadly
how come the person delivering it; is not ill?
Given this talk about "military-grade", it sounds more like something an American MIC manufacturer would make. Overpriced and
ineffective when used.
Three people affected. Hours after contact. Yet all three survived, in spite of the lack of antidote, as the BBC has reported.
Doesn't sound pretty "military-grade" to me. And if it is "military grade", should we even be shitting our pants at the constant
fearmongering over WMDs? If this is what military grade is capable of for terrorism, we're clearly spending way to much money
for this particular threat, now aren't we?
I don't buy the 'no antidote' business. Nerve agents work by blocking receptors in the nervous system. Atropine breaks this
block restoring normal nervous system action. The cop who was affected was talking within days yet the Skirpals were unconscious
for weeks, until Julia Skirpal made a 'miraculous' recovery. Did the cop get atropine?
Just consider 9/11. Mossad was caught with bombs in NYC the day of and yet they were released and there's no mention in the
media. All the evidence Chris Bollyn and others have put together points to a zionist "inside" operation. Over 2,300 engineers
conclude the government's narrative "defies physics", not to mention logic. WTC Building 7 collapses in 7 seconds and this is
ignored without repercussion. 3,000 died that day and millions since as a result (fake "War on Terror", actual "War OF Terror").
The country has been overthrown from within. The question is what to do? How do we wake up the masses suffering from Stockholm
Syndrome? Or is it best to get the heck out of dodge before things unravel and escalate?
We have a fake government, fake media, fake legal system (UCC contract law, no common law), fake education, fake history, fake
air/skies (chemtrails, geo-engineering), fake water (fluoridated), fake food (GMO). 5G is coming, cameras are going up everywhere.
We're close to a police state and martial law can't be far off. Fake President. I deep down knew he wasn't real because it's not
possible. http://themillenniumreport.com
It's a pretty bleak picture. We need an awakening / revolution.
The vampire squid has its much larger and more powerful prey so under control that there is almost no need for it to deliver
orders and commands. The evil parasite has a thought and the host carries out the action as if the blood/brain barrier has been
breached. The only remaining question for sensible realists concerns how much time should pass before they begin to wish for/hope
for/work to bring about the downfall of the host prey as it becomes clearer and more obvious that its downfall is the only way
to destroy the evil parasite and spare the rest of the world.
The critical mistake that the CIA and other institutions of the American deep state made was in failing to understand that media
is critical infrastructure just as much as roads, bridges, ports and the electrical grid and therefore needed to be kept out of
the cartelized control of a tiny ethnic group with foreign allegiances. They allowed this critical infrastructure be bought up
by this foreign minority and thereby used to brainwash the American public and control the perimeter of the debate. This was a
catastrophic mistake which is the primary root cause of most of America's greatest problems from immigration to foreign wars in
the Middle East.
If effect, the American media is controlled by a foreign mafia, until and unless it is dealt with as such, in the same manner
as the Italian mafia, if necessary, America will continue to be run for foreign interests. Most countries are much smarter than
us (e.g., China). They never would have let this happen.
Brian Roberts: Comcast and MSNBC
Aviv Nevo: Time Warner and CNN.
Sulzburger family: NYTimes
Sumner Rothstein: CBS
You won't hear about shooting Gaza protesters on prime time MSNBC, CNN shows for two reasons. The guests either wouldn't
be inclined to speak about it, for ideological and ethic reasons. Or, those that might like to express concern would feel sufficiently
threatened that they would never be asked to come back.
Oh Lord, I want that money is a line from The Producers . But it's applicable here. Many of these cable contributors
know what's expected of them and deliver safe answers so they can continue cashing scale appearance checks. And any show with
a negative focus on Israel would be attacked by the Israel Lobby, forthwith.
I spent several summers in Israel when I was a college student in 1968 and 1969. When I went back to the University of North Carolina
I took a course in the Arab/Israel Dispute; it was a seminar that was methodically fair, telling both sides of the story. After
class the professor and I would walk to our cars in faculty parking areas. He would actually look over his shoulder before admitting
that most to the people in his field were strongly in favor of the Palestinians, since the Jews had such a strangle-hold on every
American university.
Certainly those on the right whose priorities are most directly under attack by powerful jewish lobbies and oligarchs should tactically
support the idea of cutting off any positive connections with Israel, until jewish money stops promoting:
Interventionist wars;
The imposition of speech taboos and ultimately speechcrime laws (as in Europe and the UK) under the pretexts of suppressing
"hate speech" and the political correctness smears (anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc);
"When Mr. Bush [the lesser] cited its most simplified tenet -- that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around
the world -- as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was a unified ideology that justified
military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism."
Normally, on the 50th anniversary of any notable event, there is almost always recognition in the mainstream media not so for
the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5). The American mainstream media was totally silent -- not a single peep
or mention of this act of war by Israel. This is PROOF that our mainstream media is "owned", lock, stock and barrel by Israel
"One of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington is Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs under the Obama administration (and one of the architects of the Ukraine's civil war)
describes himself as a "liberal interventionist"
Between the 1950′s and the 1960′s, a political movement known as Neo-conservatism was born under the liberal hawks of the Democratic
Party in the United States. Then came the Vietnam war where the liberal hawks called for military action to prevent the Communists
from taking power in Vietnam. The neocons were also proponents of the Cold War and supporters of Israel's illegal occupation of
Palestine The neocons made their way to the Reagan administration with Eliot Abrams and company with wars in Central America including
Nicaragua and El Salvador."
-- In any civilized society, the Kagans clan et al would have been isolated like a plague from the population. The US has become
truly zionized by the Trotskyists who have been working synergetically with the MIC and the CIA.
.
It is a loosely guarded secret that American "law enforcement" has embraced Israeli "law enforcement" tactics (which are akin
to military practices). As Israel is on a constant "war footing", its tactics are contentious and confrontational. In fact, American
"law enforcement" agencies routinely send their officers to Israel to receive "training" in Israeli police tactics. There is no
room for Israeli tactics in American "law enforcement".
"Escalation of force" used to be the cornerstone of American "law enforcement", but no more. Police expect us mere mundanes
to cower in fear, and obey their (sometimes confusing and ridiculous) commands without question. This goes hand-in-hand with the
militarization of American "law enforcement". Of course, us mere mundanes are expected to embrace the "escalation of force" doctrine
under penalty of law.
SERIOUS question for people that want to roll back borders to where they were over a half century ago (or wherever their 0 year,
they made up, is):
Can we put Instanbul back in charge of the muddy yeast, being as Erdogan seems tremendously trustworthy, or maybe swap ruling
families back to where they were before some of the swaps? Moving royal fams around is near tradition, at this point.
Not a proper history, but, if you are actually interested, there is much more to read. They even put most of this history in
books, which are often the place to go after web comments. Peer review and everything, on a good day.
If you stand in front of a Chinese tank, you die. If you throw rocks at an Israeli tank, you die. Nothing novel in either case.
Russia has been very restrained re: ukies. Was zero reason to turn it into Chechnya, and that is exactly what State was angling
for. On a meddling n garbage angle: Hell, Obummer tried to pull off a coup in Tatarstan (on the Volga ) and I wish I was imagining
it, but they tried to create a Free Tatarstan Army was heavily under-reported by Western media.
Funny how perfectly the Israelis mimic the Nazis they kvetch about all the time, if one believe the stories they tell. They keep
the untermensch Palestinians in ghettos, where they shoot them and gas them, and otherwise treat them like vermin. No doubt some
commenters here agree that they are vermin. How long until Israel builds them showers?
I appreciate Giraldi's articulate and concise summary of the problem. I would also add that Israel had also been designated by
the UN as the world's leader in human slavery and sex trafficking, another thing you'll never hear reported in America's Jewish-controlled
media. Based on that alone we should be enacting sanctions against Israel.
But I have noticed for decades the recurring quiet void that follows the "something must be done" part in the endless articles
I've read on the subject, as if that iron wall of Jewish censorship and power is eternally insurmountable. It isn't.
We should know by now that there is not going to be a political solution, and I have long since stopped dreaming about voting
Israeli collaborators out of our government.
Put simply, Jewish power comes from money and that money comes from us. The populace may complain endlessly about Washington
Post propaganda and its pernicious efforts to overthrow our democratically elected president, but every December Americans will
dump a few billion dollars into Jeff Bezos' pocket. It's time to stop.
You can already see the effects of Americans boycotting Hollywood and the NFL -- it works.
What I would like to see everyone do is offer a solution instead of another explication of the problems. Essentially, how do
we overthrow this Jewish police state we live in and regain control of our own country before it's too late?
My suggestion is a comprehensive economic boycott against all Jewish goods and services.
You have a better solution? Let's hear it. In fact, I would love to see the Unz Review commit to a series of "solution" articles.
8Are you saying that only a response which shows that a civlian's life is not safe if he engages in a peaceful -- and certainly
not life threatening -- demonstration against the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is adequate to deal with such a demonstration
without severely risking the security of Israel?
Your answer, impled by what you have already said, appears to be "Yes". Really!?
Some of this blame has to be put on the lap of the feckless Arab nation. Egypt, Jordan and of course the coward princes in
Saudi Arabia. El Sisi is a banana republic despot looking, poor man's version of Mubarak, the King of Jordan is trying to stay
above it all and the worst is that 'idiot savant' gorilla sized 'clown prince' MBS who has become good buds with that weird (even
for a Jew) Trump son-in-law Jared . Does he own a chain of jewelry stores? (Grin)
The Turkish emir Erdogan is doing the heavy lifting for these weak Arabs. At least he's trading insults with 'Yahoo'.
The United States, my country, unfortunately is Zionist Occupied Territory. I just started picking fights on Beitbart and while
many of the posters I assume are Zionist trolls some have to be real posters and there the pro Zionist posters outnumbered
the anti Zionist ones at least 5 to 1.
I bow my head in shame for my once great and now Zionist occupied country.
The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away, no matter how horrific, and no
matter that their money is being used to support it. They drink the media koolaid, and think mostly about what's for dinner and
where to go on vacation this year. This is how the farce goes on. It makes the zio animals smile.
Yes, there's a lot of fakery going on, Paul. I agree that the "special relationship" benefits Israel exclusively and that it
has reached the stage of being undeniable. I can't quite accept this latest Q, though. His communiques sound too much like the
average blog commenter's repetitive postings, as though the average blog commenter is the target audience.
Everyone should hope that Justin Raimondo and the readership of "Antiwar.com" reads Giraldi's facts as written in this article.
Moreover, all the subscribers of the New York Times and Washington Post should be apprised of the facts that these two publishers
deliberately withhold from readers. U.S. citizens who are taxed to support these war crimes are purposely kept ignorant of the
facts. Nevertheless, the world is aware of U.S. hypocritical support for Israel's disdain of international law and the horrible
war crimes that occur in Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian captured land.
sad realization that the blood of many innocent people is, to a considerable extent, on our hands
Sad to say, most Americans don't know, don't want to know and don't care. The US, since the end of the last world war, has
caused millions to die all over the world either directly or indirectly. This has gone on up to the present day. The collective
response of the average American to all that has been a collective yawn. The only fightback came during the Vietnam war when the
costs and body counts started getting too high. Otherwise if the furriners get killed at a low cost to us then no problem. Only
about perhaps 2-5% of the American public evinces any moral misgivings about the mass atrocities it's supposed government has
carried out routinely. Because of this it's safe to conclude that America is a nation of moral defectives so don't expect much
from them. In this context the recent Israeli actions are small change and will be memory-holed quickly. They are America's local
pit bull and therefore have the umbrella of American protection. It's also interesting to note how the Palestinians have been
abandoned by the leadership of some of their supposed fellow Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all US client-flunkies.
Non-Arabs seem to be among the ones most discomfited by these recent events.
I would suspect I am not the first to say it (but may be), from the outside, this 'special relationship' looks much like the special
relationship between the face-hugger and the character John Hurt is playing in Alien .
"The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away"
They didn't care what happened in Vegas, either. Illegal gun running, money laundering, mobsters working with the FBI and ATF,
58 innocent Americans dead, hundreds more wounded.
But hey, pretty girls and Harvey Weinstein's wee wee are much more important. Everyone did see that this sex scandal was a
deliberate news bomb to knock Vegas off the news, right?
The Leon Trotsky position was that all gentile Christians must be forced to deny Christ and Church and affirm atheism, and
all nations on the planet must be forced to accept Marxism.
Are you stupid enough to label Trotsky a right winger?
Not many leftists do, but all kinds of leftist Jews and Jewish Neocons call Stalin some type of fascist. Of course, economically,
all fascists are socialists.
Fifteen countries voted against Russia's bid, while six voted for it and 17 abstained.
"Unfortunately, we haven't been able to have two-thirds of the votes in support of that decision. A qualified majority was needed,"
Russian ambassador Alexander Shulgin told reporters, adding " Russia as well as other states that are members of the Executive Committee
have been pushed aside from this investigation ."
UK's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson brushed aside Russia's request, calling it a "ludicrous proposal" designed to "undermine"
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigation.
"Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon -
to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ." Johnson also said that "none of us have
forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.
"After the OPCW-UN investigation found that the Syrian regime was responsible, Russia blocked that body from doing any more work,"
he said.
Russia wants to discuss a letter sent by UK Prime Minister Theresa May to the UN Security Council which says it's "highly likely"
that Moscow was behind last month's nerve agent attack.
Meanwhile ,
as we reported yesterday , the chief scientist from the UK's Porton Down military laboratory facility, Gary Aitkenhead, told
Sky News that they had been unable to prove that the novichok nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal came from Russia.
"We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify that it was military-grade nerve agent," Aitkenhead said. " We have not
identified the precise source, but we have provided the scientific info to government who have then used a number of other sources
to piece together the conclusions you have come to. "
**PAGING COLIN POWELL. IS THERE A MR. POWELL IN THE BUILDING?**
The Porton Down chief scientist said that establishing the Novichok's origin required "other inputs," some of which are intelligence
based and which only the government has access to.
Aitkenhead added: " It is our job to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that
it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured ."
So whose job is it to determine where the Novichok was manufactured?
That said, it was also noted that the nerve agent involved required "extremely sophisticated methods to create, something only
in the capabilities of a state actor," and that there is no known antidote to Novichok - nor was any administered to either of the
Skripals.
Aitkenhead would not say whether the Porton Down facility had manufactured or maintained stocks of Novichok - long rumored to
be the case.
" There is no way anything like that could have come from us or left the four walls of our facility ," said the chief.
Boris Johnson has come under fire since the Porton Down chief's statement, as Johnson lied, saying in an interview two weeks ago
that Porton Down officials told him there was "no doubt" that the nerge agent came from Russia .
The Foreign Office told Sky News that Johnson "misspoke," which is apparently UK officialspeak for "he totally lied, but nobody
will hold him accountable for it."
Perhaps Johnson "misspoke" in his rush to locate a hairbrush?
The evil people, Theresa May, Stoltenberg, Trump and the rest, are damming Russia with obvious lies.
The Novichok nerve agents probably don't even exist.
HERE IS THE PROOF:
The Novichok nerve agents are supposedly much more toxic than the nerve gases VX or Sarin.
Mirzayanov's book, published in 2008, contains the formulas he alleges can be used to create Novichoks. In 1995, he explained
that "the chemical components or precursors" of Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical
companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides."
Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve agents.
So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then spray it all over the little Satan.
Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of information that could lead to thousands
of deaths in Israel?
Do you really think they would protect the publisher of such information by giving him residence in the United States?
Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence in the United States after he was kicked out of Russia.
There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero solid evidence for the existence of
the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016):
"In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed
in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian
military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published."
And, Alexander Shulgin, Russia's representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (2018):
"There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the West, some countries carried out such
research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some reason."
CONCLUSION: The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
The use of the "projection" technique (essentially accusing your opponents of doing the very things you yourself are doing)
in official circles has become widespread. It's biggest proponent is, of course, Shitlery who, as an example, recently accused
Trump of using his position to enrich himself and his family (Um....?). Now BoJo has the chutzpah to accuse Russia of obfuscation
and lies. Same technique. Specifically:
" Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon
- to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ."
And, of course, psychopaths actually believe their projections which allows them to speak with a straight face. And the MSM,
naturally, just blindly "reports" what they say. The internet is the only source of real information and the true investigative
journalism of any integrity. Which is, of course, why they are trying so hard to censor and close the sources of truth.
you can see here their modus operandi - one of the first NSA leaks by Snowden/Greenwald. There is a slide there called the
Gambits For Deception - all the tricks are there - how to never admit when caught lying, how to cover the small move by the big
one - basically all the BS this fat ugly clown is using are there:
projection is everything. America banned the Huwawie Chinese cell phone because they thought it was a threat. What are all
those Apples in China? Not even to speak about domestic use.
Just consider 9/11. Mossad was caught with bombs in NYC the day of and yet they were released and there's no mention in the
media. All the evidence Chris Bollyn and others have put together points to a zionist "inside" operation. Over 2,300 engineers
conclude the government's narrative "defies physics", not to mention logic. WTC Building 7 collapses in 7 seconds and this is
ignored without repercussion. 3,000 died that day and millions since as a result (fake "War on Terror", actual "War OF Terror").
The country has been overthrown from within. The question is what to do? How do we wake up the masses suffering from Stockholm
Syndrome? Or is it best to get the heck out of dodge before things unravel and escalate?
We have a fake government, fake media, fake legal system (UCC contract law, no common law), fake education, fake history, fake
air/skies (chemtrails, geo-engineering), fake water (fluoridated), fake food (GMO). 5G is coming, cameras are going up everywhere.
We're close to a police state and martial law can't be far off. Fake President. I deep down knew he wasn't real because it's not
possible. http://themillenniumreport.com
It's a pretty bleak picture. We need an awakening / revolution.
The vampire squid has its much larger and more powerful prey so under control that there is almost no need for it to deliver
orders and commands. The evil parasite has a thought and the host carries out the action as if the blood/brain barrier has been
breached. The only remaining question for sensible realists concerns how much time should pass before they begin to wish for/hope
for/work to bring about the downfall of the host prey as it becomes clearer and more obvious that its downfall is the only way
to destroy the evil parasite and spare the rest of the world.
The critical mistake that the CIA and other institutions of the American deep state made was in failing to understand that media
is critical infrastructure just as much as roads, bridges, ports and the electrical grid and therefore needed to be kept out of
the cartelized control of a tiny ethnic group with foreign allegiances. They allowed this critical infrastructure be bought up
by this foreign minority and thereby used to brainwash the American public and control the perimeter of the debate. This was a
catastrophic mistake which is the primary root cause of most of America's greatest problems from immigration to foreign wars in
the Middle East.
If effect, the American media is controlled by a foreign mafia, until and unless it is dealt with as such, in the same manner
as the Italian mafia, if necessary, America will continue to be run for foreign interests. Most countries are much smarter than
us (e.g., China). They never would have let this happen.
Brian Roberts: Comcast and MSNBC
Aviv Nevo: Time Warner and CNN.
Sulzburger family: NYTimes
Sumner Rothstein: CBS
You won't hear about shooting Gaza protesters on prime time MSNBC, CNN shows for two reasons. The guests either wouldn't
be inclined to speak about it, for ideological and ethic reasons. Or, those that might like to express concern would feel sufficiently
threatened that they would never be asked to come back.
Oh Lord, I want that money is a line from The Producers . But it's applicable here. Many of these cable contributors
know what's expected of them and deliver safe answers so they can continue cashing scale appearance checks. And any show with
a negative focus on Israel would be attacked by the Israel Lobby, forthwith.
I spent several summers in Israel when I was a college student in 1968 and 1969. When I went back to the University of North Carolina
I took a course in the Arab/Israel Dispute; it was a seminar that was methodically fair, telling both sides of the story. After
class the professor and I would walk to our cars in faculty parking areas. He would actually look over his shoulder before admitting
that most to the people in his field were strongly in favor of the Palestinians, since the Jews had such a strangle-hold on every
American university.
Certainly those on the right whose priorities are most directly under attack by powerful jewish lobbies and oligarchs should tactically
support the idea of cutting off any positive connections with Israel, until jewish money stops promoting:
Interventionist wars;
The imposition of speech taboos and ultimately speechcrime laws (as in Europe and the UK) under the pretexts of suppressing
"hate speech" and the political correctness smears (anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, islamophobia etc);
"When Mr. Bush [the lesser] cited its most simplified tenet -- that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around
the world -- as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was a unified ideology that justified
military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism."
Normally, on the 50th anniversary of any notable event, there is almost always recognition in the mainstream media not so for
the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5). The American mainstream media was totally silent -- not a single peep
or mention of this act of war by Israel. This is PROOF that our mainstream media is "owned", lock, stock and barrel by Israel
"One of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington is Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs under the Obama administration (and one of the architects of the Ukraine's civil war)
describes himself as a "liberal interventionist"
Between the 1950′s and the 1960′s, a political movement known as Neo-conservatism was born under the liberal hawks of the Democratic
Party in the United States. Then came the Vietnam war where the liberal hawks called for military action to prevent the Communists
from taking power in Vietnam. The neocons were also proponents of the Cold War and supporters of Israel's illegal occupation of
Palestine The neocons made their way to the Reagan administration with Eliot Abrams and company with wars in Central America including
Nicaragua and El Salvador."
-- In any civilized society, the Kagans clan et al would have been isolated like a plague from the population. The US has become
truly zionized by the Trotskyists who have been working synergetically with the MIC and the CIA.
.
It is a loosely guarded secret that American "law enforcement" has embraced Israeli "law enforcement" tactics (which are akin
to military practices). As Israel is on a constant "war footing", its tactics are contentious and confrontational. In fact, American
"law enforcement" agencies routinely send their officers to Israel to receive "training" in Israeli police tactics. There is no
room for Israeli tactics in American "law enforcement".
"Escalation of force" used to be the cornerstone of American "law enforcement", but no more. Police expect us mere mundanes
to cower in fear, and obey their (sometimes confusing and ridiculous) commands without question. This goes hand-in-hand with the
militarization of American "law enforcement". Of course, us mere mundanes are expected to embrace the "escalation of force" doctrine
under penalty of law.
SERIOUS question for people that want to roll back borders to where they were over a half century ago (or wherever their 0 year,
they made up, is):
Can we put Instanbul back in charge of the muddy yeast, being as Erdogan seems tremendously trustworthy, or maybe swap ruling
families back to where they were before some of the swaps? Moving royal fams around is near tradition, at this point.
Not a proper history, but, if you are actually interested, there is much more to read. They even put most of this history in
books, which are often the place to go after web comments. Peer review and everything, on a good day.
If you stand in front of a Chinese tank, you die. If you throw rocks at an Israeli tank, you die. Nothing novel in either case.
Russia has been very restrained re: ukies. Was zero reason to turn it into Chechnya, and that is exactly what State was angling
for. On a meddling n garbage angle: Hell, Obummer tried to pull off a coup in Tatarstan (on the Volga ) and I wish I was imagining
it, but they tried to create a Free Tatarstan Army was heavily under-reported by Western media.
Funny how perfectly the Israelis mimic the Nazis they kvetch about all the time, if one believe the stories they tell. They keep
the untermensch Palestinians in ghettos, where they shoot them and gas them, and otherwise treat them like vermin. No doubt some
commenters here agree that they are vermin. How long until Israel builds them showers?
I appreciate Giraldi's articulate and concise summary of the problem. I would also add that Israel had also been designated by
the UN as the world's leader in human slavery and sex trafficking, another thing you'll never hear reported in America's Jewish-controlled
media. Based on that alone we should be enacting sanctions against Israel.
But I have noticed for decades the recurring quiet void that follows the "something must be done" part in the endless articles
I've read on the subject, as if that iron wall of Jewish censorship and power is eternally insurmountable. It isn't.
We should know by now that there is not going to be a political solution, and I have long since stopped dreaming about voting
Israeli collaborators out of our government.
Put simply, Jewish power comes from money and that money comes from us. The populace may complain endlessly about Washington
Post propaganda and its pernicious efforts to overthrow our democratically elected president, but every December Americans will
dump a few billion dollars into Jeff Bezos' pocket. It's time to stop.
You can already see the effects of Americans boycotting Hollywood and the NFL -- it works.
What I would like to see everyone do is offer a solution instead of another explication of the problems. Essentially, how do
we overthrow this Jewish police state we live in and regain control of our own country before it's too late?
My suggestion is a comprehensive economic boycott against all Jewish goods and services.
You have a better solution? Let's hear it. In fact, I would love to see the Unz Review commit to a series of "solution" articles.
8Are you saying that only a response which shows that a civlian's life is not safe if he engages in a peaceful -- and certainly
not life threatening -- demonstration against the Israeli treatment of Palestinians is adequate to deal with such a demonstration
without severely risking the security of Israel?
Your answer, impled by what you have already said, appears to be "Yes". Really!?
Some of this blame has to be put on the lap of the feckless Arab nation. Egypt, Jordan and of course the coward princes in
Saudi Arabia. El Sisi is a banana republic despot looking, poor man's version of Mubarak, the King of Jordan is trying to stay
above it all and the worst is that 'idiot savant' gorilla sized 'clown prince' MBS who has become good buds with that weird (even
for a Jew) Trump son-in-law Jared . Does he own a chain of jewelry stores? (Grin)
The Turkish emir Erdogan is doing the heavy lifting for these weak Arabs. At least he's trading insults with 'Yahoo'.
The United States, my country, unfortunately is Zionist Occupied Territory. I just started picking fights on Beitbart and while
many of the posters I assume are Zionist trolls some have to be real posters and there the pro Zionist posters outnumbered
the anti Zionist ones at least 5 to 1.
I bow my head in shame for my once great and now Zionist occupied country.
The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away, no matter how horrific, and no
matter that their money is being used to support it. They drink the media koolaid, and think mostly about what's for dinner and
where to go on vacation this year. This is how the farce goes on. It makes the zio animals smile.
Yes, there's a lot of fakery going on, Paul. I agree that the "special relationship" benefits Israel exclusively and that it
has reached the stage of being undeniable. I can't quite accept this latest Q, though. His communiques sound too much like the
average blog commenter's repetitive postings, as though the average blog commenter is the target audience.
Everyone should hope that Justin Raimondo and the readership of "Antiwar.com" reads Giraldi's facts as written in this article.
Moreover, all the subscribers of the New York Times and Washington Post should be apprised of the facts that these two publishers
deliberately withhold from readers. U.S. citizens who are taxed to support these war crimes are purposely kept ignorant of the
facts. Nevertheless, the world is aware of U.S. hypocritical support for Israel's disdain of international law and the horrible
war crimes that occur in Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian captured land.
sad realization that the blood of many innocent people is, to a considerable extent, on our hands
Sad to say, most Americans don't know, don't want to know and don't care. The US, since the end of the last world war, has
caused millions to die all over the world either directly or indirectly. This has gone on up to the present day. The collective
response of the average American to all that has been a collective yawn. The only fightback came during the Vietnam war when the
costs and body counts started getting too high. Otherwise if the furriners get killed at a low cost to us then no problem. Only
about perhaps 2-5% of the American public evinces any moral misgivings about the mass atrocities it's supposed government has
carried out routinely. Because of this it's safe to conclude that America is a nation of moral defectives so don't expect much
from them. In this context the recent Israeli actions are small change and will be memory-holed quickly. They are America's local
pit bull and therefore have the umbrella of American protection. It's also interesting to note how the Palestinians have been
abandoned by the leadership of some of their supposed fellow Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, all US client-flunkies.
Non-Arabs seem to be among the ones most discomfited by these recent events.
I would suspect I am not the first to say it (but may be), from the outside, this 'special relationship' looks much like the special
relationship between the face-hugger and the character John Hurt is playing in Alien .
"The sad truth is, most Americans don't really care what is happening eight thousand miles away"
They didn't care what happened in Vegas, either. Illegal gun running, money laundering, mobsters working with the FBI and ATF,
58 innocent Americans dead, hundreds more wounded.
But hey, pretty girls and Harvey Weinstein's wee wee are much more important. Everyone did see that this sex scandal was a
deliberate news bomb to knock Vegas off the news, right?
The Leon Trotsky position was that all gentile Christians must be forced to deny Christ and Church and affirm atheism, and
all nations on the planet must be forced to accept Marxism.
Are you stupid enough to label Trotsky a right winger?
Not many leftists do, but all kinds of leftist Jews and Jewish Neocons call Stalin some type of fascist. Of course, economically,
all fascists are socialists.
"... The first, perhaps most dominant ingredient of the Cold War is missing: ideological competition. America remains aggressive internationally, determined to transform the world in its image, or at least in its interest. Of course, invading Iraq, nation-building in Afghanistan, blowing up Libya and messing around in Syria all failed dramatically -- even disastrously. Nevertheless, so far Washington's governing elite appears to have learned nothing. ..."
"... Putinism is no philosophy. It is just traditional authoritarian nationalism. Even those in the West who seem to admire him -- reactionary conservatives, intolerant nationalists and wannabe authoritarians -- are more enamored of his methods than his person. There is no Putinist version of the Comintern, no global Putinist revolutionary movement devoted to world conquest. Putin cares about the world only insofar as it affects Russia. ..."
"... Second, Russia's foreign policy is essentially conservative and restrained, though not pacifist. (In contrast, America's is unconstrained and frankly militarist.) This approach explains the conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine, as well as attempts to influence American and European elections. The United States views expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders as the natural evolution of American global domination. Moscow considers the incorporation of Ukraine into the alliance created to constrain Russia as a security threat, rather as Washington might view Mexico's entry into the Warsaw Pact. While to Americans Moscow is wildly inflating the threat -- in truth, the idea of the Europeans attacking Russia sounds like the plot for a fantasy movie -- the United States has not suffered multiple invasions from its European neighbors. ..."
President Donald Trump entered office with praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin and
support for improving Washington-Moscow relations. A year later President Trump surprised even
his aides by congratulating Putin on the latter's reelection and suggesting a summit meeting
between the two leaders.
A chilling political wind is blowing through the capitals of America, Europe and Russia.
There is talk of a new Cold War, as the two sides trade diplomatic expulsions. In the West, at
least, there is even a hint of war as NATO fusses over European defense capabilities (poor) and
the United States deploys more troops to the continent (as usual).
President Trump has stood by, mostly silently, as bilateral relations continued their
slow-motion collapse, demonstrating his essential irrelevance to much of U.S. foreign policy.
For instance, he allowed the State Department to announce the latest expulsion of Russian
diplomats. This is one area where his gut instincts -- the value of an improved relationship --
are correct, but what he personally believes obviously doesn't much matter for policy. That
could change as he asserts himself with a new secretary of state and national security advisor,
but they both have hawkish instincts and have demonstrated no interest in détente with
Moscow.
Despite the diplomatic spiral, however, there is no new Cold War. And there won't be a hot
war unless Washington ignites a confrontation while pursuing an ever more interventionist and
activist foreign policy in areas viewed as vital by Russia.
The first, perhaps most dominant ingredient of the Cold War is missing: ideological
competition. America remains aggressive internationally, determined to transform the world in
its image, or at least in its interest. Of course, invading Iraq, nation-building in
Afghanistan, blowing up Libya and messing around in Syria all failed dramatically -- even
disastrously. Nevertheless, so far Washington's governing elite appears to have learned
nothing.
In contrast, Vladimir Putin clearly grasped the lessons of the Soviet Union's collapse. He
is a pragmatic authoritarian, rather than a communist. His ambitions look far more traditional,
like that of the Tsar and the Russian Empire. His government's greatest concerns are
maintaining control, gaining respect for Russia's interests and safeguarding its
boundaries.
Putinism is no philosophy. It is just traditional authoritarian nationalism. Even those in
the West who seem to admire him -- reactionary conservatives, intolerant nationalists and
wannabe authoritarians -- are more enamored of his methods than his person. There is no
Putinist version of the Comintern, no global Putinist revolutionary movement devoted to world
conquest. Putin cares about the world only insofar as it affects Russia.
Second, Russia's foreign policy is essentially conservative and restrained, though not
pacifist. (In contrast, America's is unconstrained and frankly militarist.) This approach
explains the conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine, as well as attempts to influence American and
European elections. The United States views expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders as the
natural evolution of American global domination. Moscow considers the incorporation of Ukraine
into the alliance created to constrain Russia as a security threat, rather as Washington might
view Mexico's entry into the Warsaw Pact. While to Americans Moscow is wildly inflating the
threat -- in truth, the idea of the Europeans attacking Russia sounds like the plot for a
fantasy movie -- the United States has not suffered multiple invasions from its European
neighbors.
Moreover, Putin and many other Russians believe the West violated its commitment not to
expand the transatlantic alliance eastward. Perhaps Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill
Clinton merely encouraged the Gorbachev and Yeltsin governments to believe what they wanted.
However, newly declassified diplomatic records help explain Moscow's anger. To that must be
added the dismemberment of Serbia, long linked to Russia, and "color revolutions," always to
Moscow's detriment. Again, one can imagine the reaction of U.S. policymakers most exercised
over Vladimir Putin had Russia backed a street putsch against a democratically elected,
pro-American president in Mexico City. Such does not justify Moscow's reaction, but it helps
explain it.
Putin wants to disrupt and divide those countries most directly threatening Russia
(ironically, his actions have done more to unite the fractious transatlantic alliance). He also
wants to prevent NATO from incorporating Georgia and Ukraine (in this he has been more
successful). Ironically, there was nothing in his early years in power which suggested animus
toward the West. Rather, he appeared to be a typically cynical and worldly KGB officer
determined to enhance his nation's domestic power and international standing. From his
perspective Russia's foreign policy is just business, nothing personal.
Even Putin's Syrian adventure demonstrates the limits of his ambition. He backed a long-time
ally to thwart what would be another aggressive U.S. advance. Far from threatening to dominate
the Middle East, Moscow is seeking to preserve a small role in a region long dominated by
America, which is allied with Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf States. Only pretentious
Washington policymakers, who successively intervened militarily to oust established governments
in three Middle Eastern countries and backed an ally's invasion of a fourth country would have
the chutzpah to accuse Russia of aggressive designs for supporting a recognized government in
one.
Third, the world no longer is bipolar. China and the European Union both enjoy economic
wealth and power akin to that of the United States, even though Americans remain wealthier and,
at least until the Trump administration, were the primary drivers of international economic
policy. Beijing is building a significant military while the Europeans are capable of doing so,
in whatever form they desire. India is moving onto center stage as well, with virtually
unlimited possibilities in the future.
In a broad sense the Europeans are on America's side while the People's Republic of China
(PRC) backs Russia, but the divisions are far more complex than during the Cold War. Several
European governments have resisted U.S.-led sanctions against Moscow as well as other American
initiatives, while the PRC and Russia are friends out of necessity, mostly drawn together by
Washington's hostility. Such an alliance, if it deserves to be called that, likely will prove
of little value if truly tested. There is no "Evil Empire," as President Ronald Reagan once
characterized the Soviet Union and its satellite states.
Fourth, there are no essential conflicts between Washington and Moscow. There are no
disputed territories, no vital regions occupied by the opposing power. Neither nation has any
interest in conquering the other. The only genuine area of conflict is the desire of American
policymakers to impose their will virtually everywhere on earth, including areas of
long-standing Russian interest. U.S. policy is an inverted form of the Monroe Doctrine: Other
nations are not allowed to exercise influence even in their own neighborhood. Washington
desires to treat the world as it originally deigned to handle Latin America, viewing any
outside interference as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United
States."
This irrationally aggressive approach is evident in Syria, a long-time ally of Moscow.
American policymakers speak with outrage at Russia's military involvement in one nation even
though Washington has spent decades intervening -- often militarily -- virtually everywhere
else in the region: Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Israel, Yemen, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait and the
other Gulf States. Similarly misguided are Washington's complaints about Russian involvement in
Central Asia, which any map shows to be a lot closer to Russia than America. The denizens of
the District of Columbia might aspire to a world in which America dominates every region, but
such an objective is not important let alone vital to the nation's security. And such an overly
ambitious and unsustainable policy certainly is not worth war.
As for Europe, despite the frenzied complaints of the Baltic states and Poland, there is no
evidence of any aggressive Russian designs. And why would there be? The meal would be
indigestible. Indeed, nearing eighteen years in power Putin has gained nothing but Crimea,
which probably was welcomed by a majority of residents. Beyond that influence over South
Ossetia, Abkhazia, and the Donbass is a pretty pitiful empire, while the United States has
bombed, invaded, occupied and/or dismembered several states. If he was biding his time then he
made a huge error, since the Europeans are finally taking steps to create a more effective and
better coordinated continental defense.
Even if Moscow were to win against a Baltic state, Russia would only gain ravaged territory
along with enduring enmity, brutal sanctions and military retaliation. Worse, if NATO chose to
fight -- as it almost certainly would -- Russia would lose the war. Unsurprisingly, Putin has
done nothing to suggests he wants anything other than to secure Russia itself, a goal he has
advanced by destabilizing, but not conquering, Georgia and Ukraine, to prevent their inclusion
in NATO. The easiest way for Washington to avoid conflict with Moscow is to not
advance its security guarantees and military deployments to Russia's borders in Asia.
Fifth, Russia is no match militarily to the United States. Despite the widespread wailing
and gnashing of teeth about the tragically underfunded American military, Washington spends ten
times as much on the armed services as does Moscow. Congress sometimes votes larger annual
increases in outlays than Russia's total annual expenditures.
Such comparisons obviously are imperfect, but only in nuclear weapons does Moscow have
relative military parity. It possesses one aircraft carrier, sort of, versus ten American
carrier groups. The Russian air force and air defense system are competent, and would force the
Pentagon to plan a war without absolute air superiority, for once, but they likely would not
prevail. The Putin government has rebuilt the army after its less than stellar performance in
Georgia, but there is no adjoining American territory for Moscow to invade. And Russia lacks
air or naval lift to reach the United States, and would regret arriving if it could.
Which leaves Europe. However, the continent enjoys almost twelve times Russia's economic
strength -- Italy alone (as well as Germany, the United Kingdom and France) has a larger GDP
than Russia. The Europeans already spend upwards of five times as much on the military as
Moscow; collectively the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, despite their anemic efforts,
devote almost two and a half times as much as Russia to the military.
True, the Europeans suffer problems of interoperability, coordination, and deployment.
Nevertheless, the idea that Moscow could successfully attack America and Europe is a fantasy.
While the allies should prepare for any eventuality, the primary responsibility should fall on
Europe, which both is relatively more vulnerable and entirely capable of defending itself.
How to pull U.S.-Russia relations out of their tailspin? Federal, state, and local officials
should defend the one vital interest at stake, the integrity of American democracy. Of course,
Washington would have greater credibility in doing so if it acknowledged having interfered in
scores of democratic elections worldwide, including in Russia. U.S. policymakers should stop
meddling to help America's foreign friends, improve electoral safeguards at home, and prepare
to retaliate in response to future interference by Russia or anyone else.
Washington should end the diplomatic tit-for-tats. Communication channels need to remain
open. The more people -- businessmen, tourists, students, family members, athletes, performers
and others -- who visit each way, the better. This would be one way to demonstrate that this is
not Cold War II.
The United States also should address Moscow's security concerns. American policymakers
express shock and sadness that anyone anywhere fears the United States, but any nation on
Washington's naughty list should worry about covert or overt efforts at regime change. The
United States and Europeans should explore a settlement with Russia involving Georgia and
Ukraine which includes the end to NATO expansion. In return, the Putin government would stop
supporting anti-Kiev rebels. Moscow isn't going to return Crimea, which historically was part
of Russia: the United States and Europe should de facto accept the annexation, dropping
sanctions if Moscow stops undermining Ukraine's territorial integrity.
On other issues -- Syria, Iran, North Korea and more -- the two sides should return to
old-fashioned compromise. Russian interests are legitimate and need to be taken into account.
Along the way Washington should look for ways to loosen the China-Russia partnership. The PRC
poses a far greater long-term challenge to America. A friendlier Moscow, like India, could act
as an important counterweight to Beijing.
The state of the U.S.-Russia relationship is bad, but it is not Cold War II. Washington
should ensure that relations do not further deteriorate. The Russian Federation is too
important a country to treat as an enemy. No one would gain from a new conflict, whether cold
or hot.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
Report about a new
resistance group specifically formed to attack Imperial forces within Syria. The game is
changing. This group will certainly give a push to Trump's wish to withdraw Imperial forces.
Will its existence be reported by the west's Propaganda System?
-Douma being liberated.
-A US and a UK serviceman killed in Manbij while in company of two female Kurdish fighters.
See@jenanmoussa onTwitter.
-Reports of a US base being under attack by a pro-Gov militia near Raqqa as we speak.
-Next SAA operation to be the Eastern Qalamoon pocket.
Posted on April 2, 2018 by
Yves Smith Yves
here. Even though most readers no doubt know that the military-industrial complex is the moving
force behind our regular exercises in nation-breaking, it's still instructive to have data on
the scale of America's arms scales. The author, William Hartung, notes that US weapons often
make their way to our enemies. From the perspective of the arms makers, that's a feature, not a
bug.
It's one of those stories of the century that somehow never gets treated that way. For an
astounding 25 of the past 26 years, the United States has been the leading arms dealer on the planet, at some
moments in near monopolistic fashion. Its major
weapons-producers, including Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, regularly pour the latest
in high-tech arms and munitions into the
most explosive areas of the planet with ample assistance from the Pentagon. In recent years, the
bulk of those arms have gone to the Greater Middle East. Donald Trump is only the latest
American president to preside over a global arms sales bonanza. With remarkable enthusiasm,
he's appointed himself America's number one weapons salesman and he couldn't be prouder of the
job he's doing.
Earlier this month, for instance, on the very day Congress was debating whether to end U.S.
support for Saudi Arabia's brutal
war in Yemen, Trump engaged in one of his favorite presidential activities: bragging about
the economic benefits of the American arms sales he's been promoting. He was joined in his
moment of braggadocio by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the chief architect of that
war. That grim conflict has killed thousands of civilians
through indiscriminate air strikes, while putting millions at risk of death from famine,
cholera , and other "natural" disasters caused at least in part by a Saudi-led
blockade of that country's ports.
That Washington-enabled humanitarian crisis provided the backdrop for the Senate's
consideration of a bill co-sponsored by Vermont independent Senator Bernie Sanders, Utah
Republican Senator Mike Lee, and Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. It was aimed at
ending U.S. mid-air refueling of Saudi war planes and Washington's additional assistance for
the Saudi war effort (at least until the war is explicitly authorized by Congress). The bill
generated a vigorous
debate . In the end, on an issue that wouldn't have even come to the floor two years ago,
an unprecedented 44 senators voted to halt this country's support for the Saudi war effort. The
bill nonetheless went down to defeat and the suffering in Yemen continues.
Debate about the merits of that brutal war was, however, the last thing on the mind of a
president who views his bear-hug embrace of the Saudi regime as a straightforward business
proposition. He's so enthusiastic about selling arms to Riyadh that he even brought his very
own prop to the White House meeting with bin Salman: a U.S.
map highlighting which of the 50 states would benefit most from pending weapons sales to
the prince's country.
You undoubtedly won't be surprised to learn that Michigan, Ohio, and Florida, the three
crucial swing states in the 2016 presidential election, were specially highlighted. His latest
stunt only underscored a simple fact of his presidency: Trump's arms sales are meant to promote
pork-barrel politics, while pumping up the profits of U.S. weapons manufacturers. As for human
rights or human lives, who cares?
To be fair, Donald Trump is hardly the first American president to make it his business to
aggressively promote weapons exports. Though seldom a highlighted part of his presidency,
Barack Obama proved to be a weapons salesman par excellence. He made
more arms offers in his two terms in office than any U.S. president since World War II,
including an astounding
$115 billion in weapons deals with Saudi Arabia. For the tiny group of us who follow such
things, that map of Trump's only underscored a familiar reality.
On it, in addition to the map linking U.S. jobs and arms transfers to the Saudis, were
little boxes that highlighted four specific weapons sales worth tens of billions of dollars.
Three of those
that included the THAAD missile defense system, C-130 transport planes, P-8 anti-submarine
warfare planes, and Bradley armored vehicles were, in fact, completed during the Obama years.
So much for Donald Trump's claim to be a deal maker the likes of which we've never seen before.
You might, in fact, say that the truest arms race these days is between American presidents,
not the United States and other countries. Not only has the U.S. been the world's top arms exporting nation
throughout this century, but last year it sold
one and a half times as much weaponry as its closest rival, Russia.
Embracing Lockheed Martin
It's worth noting that three of those four Saudi deals involved weapons made by Lockheed
Martin . Admittedly, Trump's relationship with Lockheed got off to a rocky start in
December 2016 when he tweeted
his displeasure over the cost of that company's F-35 combat aircraft, the
most expensive weapons program ever undertaken by the Pentagon. Since then, however,
relations between the nation's largest defense contractor and America's most self-involved
president have warmed considerably.
Before Trump's May 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia, his son-in-law, Jared Kusher, new
best buddy to Mohammed bin Salman, was put in charge of cobbling together a
smoke-and-mirrors, wildly exaggerated
$100 billion-plus
arms package that Trump could announce in Riyadh. What Kushner needed was a list of sales
or potential sales that his father-in-law could boast about (even if many of the deals had been
made by Obama). So he
called Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson to ask if she could cut the price of a THAAD
anti-missile system that the administration wanted to include in the package. She agreed and
the
$15 billion THAAD deal -- still a huge price tag and the most lucrative sale to the Saudis
made by the Trump administration -- went forward. To sweeten the pot for the Saudi royals, the
Pentagon even
waived a $3.5 billion fee normally required by law and designed to reimburse the Treasury
for the cost to American taxpayers of developing such a major weapons system. General Joseph
Rixey, until recently the director of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which
granted that waiver, has since
gone directly through Washington's revolving door and been hired by -- you guessed it --
Lockheed Martin.
In addition, former Lockheed Martin executive John Rood is now the Trump administration's
undersecretary of defense for policy , where one of his responsibilities will be to weigh
in on don't be shocked! major arms deals. In his confirmation hearings, Rood refused to say
that he would recuse himself from transactions involving his former employer, for which he was
denounced by Senators John McCain and Elizabeth Warren. As Warren
asserted in a speech opposing Rood's appointment,
"No taxpayer should have to wonder whether the top policy-makers at the Pentagon are pushing
defense products and foreign military sales for reasons other than the protection of the United
States of America No American should have to wonder whether the Defense Department is acting to
protect the national interests of our nation or the financial interests of the five giant
defense contractors."
Still, most senators were unfazed and Rood's nomination sailed through that body by a vote
of 81 to 7. He is now positioned to help smooth the way for any Lockheed Martin deal that might
meet with a discouraging word from the Pentagon or State Department officials charged with
vetting foreign arms sales.
Arming the Planet
Though Saudi Arabia may be the largest recipient of U.S. arms on the planet, it's anything
but Washington's only customer. According to the Pentagon's annual tally of major agreements
under the Foreign Military Sales program, the most significant channel for U.S. arms exports,
Washington entered into formal agreements to sell weaponry to 130
nations in 2016 (the most recent year for which full data is available). According to a
recent
report from the Cato Institute, between 2002 and 2016 the United States delivered weaponry
to 167 countries -- more than 85% of the nations on the planet. The Cato report also notes
that, between 1981 and 2010, Washington supplied some form of weaponry to 59% of all nations
engaged in high-level conflicts.
In short, Donald Trump has headed down a well-traveled arms superhighway. Every president
since Richard Nixon has taken that same road and, in 2010, the Obama administration managed to
rack up a record $102 billion in foreign arms offers. In a recent
report I wrote for the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy,
I documented more than $82 billion in arms offers by the Trump administration in 2017 alone,
which actually represented a slight increase from the $76 billion in offers made during
President Obama's final year. It was, however, far lower than that 2010 figure,
$60 billion of which came from Saudi deals for F-15 combat aircraft, Apache attack
helicopters, transport aircraft, and armored vehicles, as well as guns and ammunition.
There have nonetheless been some differences in the approaches of the two administrations in
the area of human rights. Under pressure from human rights groups, the Obama administration
did, in the end,
suspend sales of aircraft to Bahrain and Nigeria, both of whose militaries were significant
human rights violators, and also a $1 billion-plus deal for precision-guided bombs to Saudi
Arabia. That
Saudi suspension represented the first concrete action by the Obama administration to
express displeasure with Riyadh's indiscriminate bombing campaign in Yemen. Conducted largely
with U.S. and British supplied aircraft, bombs, and missiles, it has included strikes against
hospitals, marketplaces, water treatment facilities, and even a funeral. In keeping with his
focus on jobs to the exclusion of humanitarian concerns, Trump
reversed all three of the Obama suspensions shortly after taking office.
Fueling Terrorism and Instability
In fact, selling weapons to dictatorships and repressive regimes often fuels instability,
war, and terrorism, as the American war on terror has vividly demonstrated for the last nearly
17 years. U.S.-supplied arms also have a nasty habit of ending up in the hands of America's
adversaries. At the height of the U.S. intervention in Iraq, for instance, that country's armed
forces lost track of
hundreds of thousands of rifles, many of which made their way into the hands of forces
resisting the U.S. occupation.
In a similar fashion, when Islamic State militants
swept into Iraq in 2014, the Iraqi security forces abandoned
billions of dollars worth of American equipment, from small arms to military trucks and
armored vehicles. ISIS promptly put them to use against U.S. advisers and the Iraqi security
forces as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The Taliban, too, has gotten its hands
on
substantial quantities of U.S. weaponry, either on the battlefield or by buying them at
cut-rate, black market prices from corrupt members of the Afghan security forces.
In northern Syria, two U.S.-armed groups are now fighting each other. Turkish forces are
facing off
against Syrian Kurdish militias that have been among the most effective anti-ISIS fighters and
there is even an ongoing risk that U.S. and Turkish forces, NATO allies, may find themselves in
direct combat with each other. Far from giving Washington influence over key allies or
improving their combat effectiveness, U.S. arms and training often simply spur further conflict
and chaos to the detriment of the security of the United States, not to speak of the peace of
the world.
In the grim and devolving conflict in Yemen, for instance, all sides possess at least some
U.S. weaponry. Saudi Arabia is, of course, the top U.S. arms client and its forces are a
catalogue of American weaponry, from planes and anti-tank missiles to cluster bombs, but
hundreds of millions of
dollars in U.S. military aid were also provided to the forces of Yemeni autocrat Ali Abdullah
Saleh during his 30 years of rule before he was driven from power in 2012. Later, however, he
joined forces
with the Houthi rebels against the Saudi-led intervention, taking large parts of the Yemeni
armed forces -- and their U.S.-supplied weapons -- with him. (He would himself be
assassinated by Houthi forces late last year after a falling out.)
Trump's Plan: Make It Easier on Arms Makers
The Trump administration is poised to release a new policy directive on global arms
transfers. A report by
Politico , based on interviews with sources at the State Department and a National
Security Council (NSC) official, suggests that it will seek to further streamline the process
of approving arms sales, in part by increasing the already extensive role of U.S. government
personnel in promoting such exports. It will also remove what a National Security Council
statement has described as "unreasonable constraints on the ability of our companies to
compete." In keeping with that priority, according to the NSC official, "the administration is
intent on ensuring that U.S. industry has every advantage in the global marketplace."
In January, a Reuters
article confirmed this approach, reporting that the forthcoming directive would emphasize
arms-sales promotion by U.S. diplomats and other overseas personnel. As one administration
official told Reuters, "We want to see those guys, the commercial and military attaches,
unfettered to be salesmen for this stuff, to be promoters."
The Trump administration is also expected to move forward with a plan, stalled as the Obama
years ended, to
ease controls on the export of U.S. firearms. Gun exports now licensed and scrutinized by
the State Department would instead be put under the far-less-stringent jurisdiction of the
Commerce Department. Some firearms could then be exported to allies without even a license,
reducing the government's ability to prevent them from reaching criminal networks or the
security forces of potential adversaries.
In September 2017, Democratic senators Ben Cardin, Dianne Feinstein, and Patrick Leahy sent
a letter to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson raising concerns about such a change. As they
wrote ,
"Combat firearms and ammunition are uniquely lethal; they are easily spread and easily
modified, and are the primary means of injury, death and destruction in civil and military
conflicts throughout the world. As such they should be subjected to more -- not less --
rigorous export controls and oversight."
If Trump's vision of an all-arms-sales-all-the-time foreign policy is realized, he may scale
the weapons-dealing heights reached by the Obama administration. As Washington's
arms-dealer-in-chief, he might indeed succeed in selling American weaponry as if there were no
tomorrow. Given the known human costs of unbridled arms trafficking, however, such a presidency
would also ensure that whatever tomorrow finally arrived would prove far worse than today,
unless of course you happen to be a major U.S. arms maker.
I think a point often overlooked is that US arms sales are not just a means for the US to
spread its influence and fuel wars. Its also the primary manner in which foreign countries
purchase influence in the US (and Russia, and France, and the UK). The Gulf States have long
recognised that strategic arms purchases have more utility for the influence they buy, than
the firepower they purchase. You can see this in the manner that they spread purchases across
the major powers, carefully balancing everyone out. The Saudi's are looking to buy S-400's at
the same time as buying THAADs. Qatar is buying equal amounts of US and European combat
aircraft for exactly the same reason.
Its important to remember that when there is no monopoly on suppliers, the buyer has more
power than the vendor. There is no monopoly on weaponry. Its the rich arms buyers who have
all the leverage. When the US focuses on arms sales as a central foreign policy objective, it
is by definition handing over power to rich arms purchasers.
I believe that nations, like individuals, have their own unique karma and destiny (as well
as the free will to alter it if self aware).
The Law of Karma is like the Law of Gravity. It does not care one whit whether you believe
in it or not, or as the Romans said, "The mills of the gods grind slowly. Though very coarse,
nothing slips through."
Like a lot of similar pieces, this one is naive and borderline dishonest.
There are two basic reasons for arms sales. One is that foreign sales keep production lines
moving and (with luck) feed through into lower unit costs for your own forces. The second is
acquiring and maintaining strategic influence. The US is in a particularly strong position
for the latter, since they effectively control the supply of spare parts through the Foreign
Military Sales system, and can thus ground any air force which uses their aircraft. Of course
the influence is not all one way (as PK says, it's a buyer' market and has been for a while)
but the essential point is that it's about acquiring and maintaining political leverage, not
fighting wars. Indeed, in the case of Saudi Arabia, there has been a clear understanding
since the 1960s (when the British sold Lightning fighters) that what the Saudis were buying
was not primarily military equipment but protection and influence. This lasted until the
present insane leadership in Riyadh decided to rip up the bargain.
From reading this you might think that all arms sales go to the Arab Middle East, which has
never been true. Not only does a lot of US weaponry go to Israel, whose US-made aircraft have
been dropping US-made weapons on civilians for decades without any protest, but countries
such as Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea and most of NATO are also major purchasers. In 1991,
when liberal internationalists supported the war to evict the Iraqis from Kuwait, I asked
them where they imagined the equipment their armed forces would use actually came from. I
asked the same question of human rights advocates who wanted to bomb Serbia in 1999 to "free
the Kosovars" and were simultaneously against the "arms trade". In both cases, as I recall,
reactions included, but were not limited to, threats of physical violence and mutilation.
It's true that small arms are the major killers in conflict today, but the idea that export
controls of them would stop wars, is, I'm afraid, naive. Experts will tell you that almost
all wars today (Yemen is a good example) are fought with weapons that already exist. In the
majority of cases these are not US or Western weapons, which are too expensive and
sophisticated, but Kalashnikovs (model 47 and later) which people can be taught to operate in
a couple of days, and which are often third or fourth hand, many being Chinese copies I saw
plenty of them in Yemen. Certainly, US weapons found their way into the wrong hands in Iraq,
which was stupid, but it wasn't small arms that made the difference. As the article admits,
it was mainly vehicles (including the ubiquitous Nissan) driven by deserters from the Iraqi
Army.
The article incorporates a common fantasy of solving complicated problems with simple
solutions, which we would all like to be true, but unfortunately isn't.
feed through into lower unit costs for your own forces.
Doesn't pumping out massive amounts of weapons to be used to slaughter people all over the
world simply so your own armed forces can get the volume discount strike you as more than a
little perverse?
But I'm not sure that's really the case at all because since when has Uncle Sugar ever
been concerned about the cost of the weapons it purchases? Remember the no-bid contract? And
was there ever a war the US declined to fight because we just couldn't it? Somehow we always
fund the funds, but not when it comes to health care, education and the other services a
civil society requires – those are always somehow too expensive.
And on top of all that, this is a website which promotes MMT so I'm sure you are aware
that taxes do not fund expenditures so there is no need to mass produce arms for other
nations to keep prices low for ours.
I said "with luck", because it often doesn't work like that. But there are cases (logistic
vehicles etc.) where it does seem to have happened, at least for certain countries. I admire
your pacifist principles, but I admire much less the many people who flip in an instant from
demanding an end to the "arms trade" in general, to demanding that we arm this or that
allegedly "friendly" group, or intervene militarily against whoever is the hate figure of the
day. Arming groups in Syria, for example, was a stupid idea anyway, for all sorts of
political and strategic reasons. But I doubt that increased the level of violence in a
country already awash with weapons.
I was pointing out that the article is quite wrong to suggest there's any shortage of small
arms in the world: there is probably a massive surplus, and they are already in the hands of
criminal and terrorist groups, not least in Europe. That particular horse left the stable so
long ago people have forgotten what color it was.
You are right about MMT, of course, but unfortunately government spending isn't yet managed
on that basis.
I'm guessing that those who want to poke holes in any statement of the problem and
discussion of possible changes, that does not involve just throwing up of hands and more of
the same, will get the same kind of reference to how "complex" it all is.
Wealth gets generated by "the economy." Deciders get to decide, whether at the
"government" or corporate level, what that wealth gets channeled into. The "politics" is what
humans have been doing since the species became "civilized.," killing and looting and raping
and taking other humans' stuff and the wealth they have in turn extracted. The "complexity"
is now the global interlocking manufacture and marketing of ever more complicated (and even
simple, like the AK-47, that Northwest Afghanis can make with hand tools not even machine
shop stuff) weapons, and all the code and "doctrine" and strategies and tactics that also get
fought over, and the mind set that goes along with the creation and perception of "threats"
and the countering thereof and attempts to leapfrog to world-dominating ascendancy in the
ability to do mass destruction: "Full spectrum dominance," and all that, in the "Global
Network-Centric Interoperababble Battlespace."
Millions, ever-increasing millions, of humans get their paychecks from the whole
operation, the manufacture and marketing and distribution and maintenance and "deployment"
and activation and use of weapons of all levels of complexity, and have their "careers" and
:opportunities" tied to just more-of-the-same-but-bigger-faster-more-destructive idiocy.
That notation that encourages the sense of futility by telling us that "wars that get
fought (at the ground-game level) with weapons that alreadyalready exist" kind of skips over
the whole business of how those weapons got to "already exist," and of course passes over the
bit about how stuff like guided antitank and antiaircraft missiles actually do "change the
game," when the armamentarians of some Great Power manage to deliver a bunch of them to
"insurgents" in support of some Grand Bit Of Geopolitics or other.
I guess I missed the supposed part of the article that laid out some "fantasy of solving
complicated problems with simple solutions." Sure looks to me a lot more like an accounting
and display of some of the pathogenic features of the US part (mostly) of the whole World At
War structure that has as its capstone the soon to be more "usable" nuclear weapons, and
cyber bombing, and 'WE don't do chemical and biological warfare except in defense of our
Nation" stuff that one has to expect, going by past practices, is lurking in the dark of some
labs where monomaniacal and sociopathic 'scientists" and policy and military players live --
as they have since besiegers lobbed infected human and animal carcasses, and "Greek Fire" and
such, over the 'civilized" walls of "civilized" towns and cities. (We are told that "Joshua
fought the battle of Jericho" with sound weapons of some sort -- it's right there in the Holy
Bible, the Hebrew part of it at least )
But we must preserve the Narrative, and the flows of trillions of dollars and other
currencies into the machinery that sure looks to be headed toward grinding us humans to
radioactive or just high-explosive dust, or full-metal-jacket-pierced rotting carcasses to.
Be tossed over other walls )
Remember the motto of LockheedMartin -- "We Never
Forget Who We Are Working For." And who, exactly, is "who ?"
It's the idea, reflected in the article, that we could end war by ending arms sales. The
idea goes back to the 1930s, and doesn't improve with age. Anyone who thinks that some of
these crises have simple solutions is welcome to post themselves off to the Middle East.
That's a BS reading of the article. And we aren't saying the crisis themselves have simple
solutions, we are saying that arming the (family blog) out of everybody with a grievance
tends to kind of undercut the rule of law, dontcha know?
At best, if people want to kill each other we need to not be the people that supply them
with the means.
Regarding the weapons falling into the hands of enemies, there was a statistic published
with no comment in a recent Harper's index that the US had sold 175 military helicopters to
an Afghan military that had 4 people capable of flying them.
The added bonus is that they will make additional money by having to pay for consultants
and professional trainers to teach the locals how to use complex weapons.
In some cases, they made end up even captured by enemy forces. ISIS for example captured a
number of US AFVs manufactured for the Iraqi government. Sometimes said captured weapons end
up being used against the American military.
In even more strange cases, American defence contractors have been known to sell weapons
for nations that are hostile to the US. They care only about getting rich .
Two interconnected thoughts on US propaganda and the US Military Industrial Complex :
1) The American people are the most propagandized people in the history of history. This is
done not simply through the more predictable outright lies of the mass media but also in
innumerable ways including the false history of the education system, the pictures presented in
commercial ads that normalize definitions of "Americanism", lies of omission throughout the
press (the liberal press is particularly bad here), the film industry, manipulation of language
throughout institutions and so forth.
One of the central themes of this propaganda apparatus is to make US citizens think of
things exclusively in terms of "us", and not of "them." US citizens may put yellow ribbons on
their SUV's to commemorate losses of US lives- (2 thousand KIA; 20K WIA), but there is little
acknowledgement of The Other lives destroyed by US imperialism- (2 million dead, mostly
civilians).
Americans may speak about what the war does to the IT'S countries national finances (e.g.
taxes), but rarely about the destroyed infrastructures and collapsed economies of the Iraqi,
Libyan, Yemeni people etc.
One of the many tragedies of modern Amerika is the complete lack of empathy with the plight
or suffering of anyone who isn't Us- a by-product of being socially isolated from others.This
is not by accident. Of course the M$M isn't going to disturb US with the truth about Amerikan
capitalism or US imperialism- it's bad, not only for business, but for 'politics' as well.
The vast propaganda apparatus (including virtually all educational institutions) of the US
ruling class and its media accomplices is a major factor in the difficulties Americans have in
identifying the reasons behind and the devastating impacts of the non-stop US imperialist wars.
A significant part of this brainwashing is in how the idea is beaten into the heads of the US
populace that their interests are (and should be) aligned with the interests of the US economic
elites and the political class that rubber stamps these imperial slaughters for the profits of
those elites.
This false identification of the American working class with the American capitalist
state rather than with the global working class plays a huge role in duping ordinary citizens
as to the actual and malevolent intent of those who formulate US foreign policy.
This problem appears clearly in the language that the media (including most of the lib/prog
media) use in the U.S. This repeatedly seen in such language as, "Have we learned anything from
My Lai?", "We should not have invaded Iraq", "Why are we in Afghanistan?" and so forth.
Of course '"we", the American working class, did not invade Iraq e.g., that was done by the
U.S. capitalist state. This is not just a matter of language. It reveals a serious obstacle,
national identifications, and is utilized to whip up patriotic fervor as well as to disguise
the reality that those same elites are oppressing the working class citizens here at home in a
thousand different ways.
Once it is understood how the domestic repression and economic collapse in this country is
directly connected to the slaughter abroad that support for these imperial crimes evaporates
overnight.
=========
2) An important aspect to the US Military/Industrial/Financial/Media complex is how it
operates within the political/economic system as a guarantor of large profits for the investor
class due to the massive and guaranteed subsidy it receives from the US taxpayer.
There is a consistent fallacy throughout the liberal intelligentsia that has variations such
as "it's a pointless war" or "a failed strategy" or "there is no end game" and on and on, which
stems from the misunderstanding of the primary functions of these imperial assaults.
Beyond the obvious reasons of plunder the US capitalists have been able to secure the US
Military apparatus as a large-scale business scheme which has a large and guaranteed return on
investment.
In short the investor class is investing someone's else's money (the US taxpayer) for their
"enterprise" (Read: wholesale slaughter and theft of other people's lands and resources) so
even when there are losses those are foisted on to the public's account. And whatever "gains"
there are, they flow in the direction of the business class while the costs are extracted from
the working class.Of course the political sector (your "elected official") validates all of
this through the legislative processes and it becomes what is known as "policy."
This is not exclusive to the more "adventurous" US Military/Industrial actions such as
imperial wars but also entails an entire web of activities both foreign and domestic that
create "investment opportunities" for Wall St. Any and everything from massive boondoggles like
the F-35 to more "modest" programs like radio systems, high frequency antennas, BMS software,
data terminals, touch tablets, field service representatives, and of course all of the training
for installation, operation and maintenance.
So you see all of this is done quite legally (with legality being defined within and by a
corrupt system) and all of this is maintained through a massive propaganda system that hides
the mechanics and realities of the how's and why's of what a Trillion Dollars a Year War
Department really entails.
"... North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests. ..."
"... I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy. ..."
"... In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them. ..."
I believe Trump could negotiate a deal. But I also believe he could blow up the whole talk
before it even happens. He has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with
increased interest in foreign war (Bolton hiring) and the ramping up of hostilities by
bouncing Russians from the U.S. over the phony poisoning story in the UK.
I don't disagree with your comment, but not comfortable with the term "bend to". Trump
gets enamored with different people at different times, but he always is looking
down at them. They may get enough rope to scare the rest of us, but they are still on a
rope.
Bolton is horrible, but a lot of other horrible people have come and gone in this really
quick year.
Bolton is horrible but probably won't last long. Nobody at Trump's ear has, including his
own children.
Trump just announced that we're withdrawing from Syria. That's more than Obama ever
did.
Part of being a nationalist demagogue is that you're not as interested in foreign wars
unless they enrich the country. Not a single one of our wars does that. There's nothing
interesting in mercantilism, for instance, that we can't do at home (drill baby drill).
I'm not saying I agree with that view, I'm just saying that if he's a nationalist
demagogue, it only follows that he's not interested in, uh, "non-for-profit warmaking".
I am NO Trump fan or voter, but it does appear that he's the first one to apply sanctions
to those specific Chinese banks handling the trade with North Korea.
(Somewhat) OT, but it strikes me that the best way to look at Trump is through the lense
of what he is – the US version of Sylvio Berlusconi. A sleazy billionaire Oligarch with
no core principles and a fondness for Bunga Bunga parties.
Rather than as LITERALLY HITLER as per the verbiage of hashtag the resistance.
Thus, rather than as a crazed madman bent on "evil" at all times one wonders whether Mr.
Bunga Bunga would do a deal with Lil' Kim. Sure he would, assuming that the ruling military
Junta allows him to. It might be in the interest of the latter to de-escalate this particular
hotspot (as NK crisis/hype fatigue may set in) and simply push Iran as the next flashpoint to
hype.
Indeed! They even sound quite similar -- I recall in a speech that Berlusconi gave when he
was still the Italian president and the Italian left was screaming for his resignation,
Sylvio claimed such demands were making him uneasy, since if he was to go home, and he had 20
homes, it would be difficult for him to decide which house or mansion to go to!
It seems the bottom line for negotiations with North Korea have little to do with this
article which covers Trump's thoughts on nuclear proliferation between major powers that have
massive stockpiles.
North Korea is mainly interested in protecting itself from regime change and from becoming
a US outpost (as in target) butt up against China. It is hard to believe that Kim Jong-Un
would get any advantage whatsoever out of dismantling his nuclear arsenal, however small. One
assumes he is aware of Gaddafi in particular and US's track record on keeping it's promises
– particularly over the span of different administrations – in general.
The above comment assumes full disarmament as the minimum condition of any "negotiation"
since Trump has gone so far out of his way to make that clear.
Oh, and now see the lead story at the Financial Times, China uses economic muscle to bring
N Korea to negotiating table:
China virtually halted exports of petroleum products, coal and other key materials to
North Korea in the months leading to this week's unprecedented summit between Kim Jong Un,
the North Korean leader, and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.
The export freeze -- revealed in official Chinese data and going much further than the
limits stipulated under UN sanctions -- shows the extent of Chinese pressure following the
ramping up of Pyongyang's nuclear testing programme. It also suggests that behind Mr Xi's
talk this week of a "profound revolutionary friendship" between the two nations, his
government has been playing hard ball with its neighbour.
I would normally agree but Kim Jong-Un was just summoned to China. Not even given a state
visit. The Chinese announced North Korea would denuclearlize:
North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un pledged his commitment to denuclearization and to meet
U.S. officials, China said on Wednesday after his meeting with President Xi Jinping, who
promised China would uphold friendship with its isolated neighbour.
China has heretofore pretended that it couldn't do anything about North Korea. It looks
like Trump's tariff threat extracted China jerking Kim Jong-Un's chain as a concession. I
don't see how Kim Jong-Un can defy China if China is serious about wanting North Korea to
denuclearlize. Maybe it will merely reduce its arsenal and stop threatening Hawaii (even
though its ability to deliver rockets that far is in doubt) and just stick to being able to
light up Seoul instead.
Agree. I wasn't aware of the details you mention above regarding the export freeze. (I
won't use Google and my normal 'trick' doesn't work to get around FT's paywall – and I
won't use the trial membership either). I'm hopeless.
Anyway, you make a very convincing case. I can only imagine that Kim Jong Un is one
miserable scared rat. My point about a "silk noose" below was perhaps on the mark.
Kim might agree on paper or through an insincere promise to denuclearize, but I don't see
a closed authoritarian regime like the North agreeing to an inspection regime that would
insure that such a pledge would be lived up to. Reduction, but build-up on the sly w/o
inspections.
China may be interested in a deal to the extent that it prevents a bloody war breaking out
that they'll probably expend manpower to help clean up and it insures the security of a North
Korean buffer that keeps American troops off their border; After all, they've got to keep the
powder dry for "reunification" with Taiwan.
I also don't believe that the US would agree to concessions, such as removing American
troops from the peninsula. the pentagon wouldn't like it, the hawks around Trumps wouldn't
like it, and I believe the SK leadership would not be too crazy about the potential
ramifications for their security with such an agreement.
But, can Trump (by extension, the US), make an agreement that can be relied on over its
term?
For any hope of NK trusting any deal with the US he would have to stand by the Iranian
deal. Then there's Bolton and the Neocon Will To War, for deeply pathological reasons which
by nature cannot be debated.
In this case, the mere possibility of a "deal" is possible, but only if there is a third
party to hold both of them to it.
That's the crazy thing about this. What possible inducement could Kim Jong-Un have gotten
to attend his own funeral? Why would anyone trust the US an inch?
I suppose if he can keep his own people in a suspended state of extreme propaganda, then
he might be vulnerable to his own medicine, but that seems at odds with his behavior so far
(such as the assassination of his uncle). If anything, he would be especially leery of
anything coming out of the US.
And then can he really be that psyched out by Bolton, Pompeo and Torture Lady so
that good cop Trump can hand him is own death certificate with a space for his signature?
Whatever happened during this China trip, the overarching theme must have been how to
manage the US. Here's one rough scenario:
NK 'disarms' to some definition, under the auspices of China, acquiring in return an
explicit Chinese security umbrella for the buffer it presents between them and SK. Nobody
really wants a unified Korea in any case. In return, the US vacates SK militarily, ever so
discretely and over time.
Done correctly, and with the finesse necessary for Trump, China is in a position to
extract all sorts of concessions from the US on other fronts as well. Nothing positive is
going to happen here without China, and they hold most of the cards. If nothing positive
happens, we have to consider the pressure that'd build on Trump to do something, anything,
and that probably being something rash. (Better a big disaster over there than a mammoth one
over here thinking).
"he can't go willy nilly and set nukes a-flying just because it struck him as a good idea
that day."
I mean sure. His "button" isn't literally connected to a missile somewhere, but he sure as
hell can ask that nukes be fired whenever and wherever he wants. You could argue that someone
in the chain of command would prevent that from happening, but that's more of a hope than a
guarantee. For a really good read on how this all works and the history of the nuclear
program I highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788
With Bolton on board and seemingly everyone with half a brain, a little logic and the
ability to hold their tongue for more than about 5 seconds out, I highly doubt anything will
come of these negotiations. In fact, I'm more worried that the US will get steamrolled by
China and NK.
That isn't true. See the link I provided, which you clearly did not bother to read.
Various people can refuse his order as illegal. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker, in a
Financial Times, before Trump was elected, said the same thing. Bolton is the National
Security Adviser. He may have a lot of informal power by having direct access to the
President, but he does not tie in to the formal chain of command, either at the DoD or
State.
Oh I read it and I've read many other articles and a lot of non-fiction on the issue.
Again, I would call your position and the position of this article hopeful at best. Trump has
the football, he has the codes in his jacket pocket and everyone responsible for carrying out
the order to launch has been raised up through a military system that ensures no one
questions an order from their superior. Relying on various people to refuse his order as
illegal in this system is not a fail-safe I feel comfortable with. I do find it interesting
that you just assume I didn't read the article as if this one article is the end all be all
on the subject.
The article seems a bit confused about what it's trying to say. Stopping nuclear
proliferation has been a major policy priority of the US and other western governments since
the 1960s, and if I recall correctly it was one of Bolton's priorities when he was in Bush
the Lesser's administration. It's something in which all of the declared nuclear powers have
an interest, because the smaller the number of nuclear powers in the world, the greater the
difference between them and the rest. This is much more important than wild fantasies about
rogue attacks: if N Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power like India, Israel and Pakistan,
then all sorts of other countries might be tempted to have a go, starting with S Korea (which
has the capacity and has been caught cheating before). Whilst this risk is objectively small,
an end to the NK programme would make it even smaller. I suspect the deal will be that NK
denuclearizes and China guarantees its security: a non-nuclear NK will be even more of a
client state than it is now.
Nuclear competition among the superpowers is quite different and involves a whole set of
different issues.
Less warfare = more wall
But remember the last time Trump said something in Syria's favor? A chemical attack happened
in small village for no logical reason and the hawks immediately took to framing Assad. Trump
then backed off and took harder line on Assad, launching missiles into Syria.
So I'm inclined to think he wants a deal. But look out for screaming hawks immediately
trying to scuttle anything.
Perhaps 30 years ago, Trump was an international defense luminary, but I see little
evidence of the boasted emotional control and cool Trump claimed. He is unarguably a
successful grifter. Is that what it takes to make peace? What happens when the other guy
realizes he has been lied to by a congenital liar? Back to square 1.
In my take, the recent meeting between the heads of China and N Korea just Trumped any
leverage the US might have had in peace talks. Trump will be there only if a scapegoat is
needed. Both S. Korea and Japan have expressed doubts about our reliability as a defense
shield against powerful China – Japan and the Koreans' neighbor. What Little Rocketman
has likely achieved is diplomatically checkmating the US. Now Trump's tariff threats serve
only to push US allies in the region closer to China. Should that turn out to be the case,
the economic repercussions are as dangerous and unpredictable as nukes in the air or as Trump
himself. I sure hope I got this all wrong.
"no enduring principles" is a feature of politicians everywhere today. Their concern is to
represent the rich and their qualification is to present those biased arguments in a way that
beguiles the electorate into supposing its a good idea for them as well. Step Two is the "who
would have thought it?" response after the country catches on.
In former times the candidate for public office would assert his principles on the
hustings and the voters would remember what they knew of him before voting. Sure, there were
ambitious unreliable people who were willing to exchange their reputations for office but
they were few. We should get back to those days.
We allowed our merchants and spooks to drive USSR to the precipice without any thoughts
about the nukes they had. It appeared then that warheads supposedly in Ukraine were missing.
We will likely discover what happened to them in due course. It is possible that surveillance
of communications is the main reason they are not a thread for the time being but that does
not mean they have dropped out of existence.
Thank you NC for introducing an issue that should concern economists as much as everyone
else.
North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have
repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in
return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather
vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October
(Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but
they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear
tests.
Don't forget the United States has itself promised to denuclearize, under the NPT.
It would certainly bring me great pleasure if Trump of all people were to bring about some
great positive change in regards to the Forever War with North Korea. Imagine all the whining
liberals if Trump, unlike Obama, actually did something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make
concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy.
PRC and NK leaders might think that all they have to do is get through a short patch of
bad weather until 2020. If so, they are badly kidding themselves.
In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't
matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they
may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until
somebody else stops them.
All this "door knob" hypothesis smells with MI5/MI6 falsification. An interesting note about stupid and evil presstitutes in
NYT, who bought it.
Notable quotes:
"... The Skripal attack was clearly a total cock-up but that didn't matter. All the UK/US wanted was an/any excuse to vilify Russia – no evidence required, it is all Kabuki. That is why the 5-eyes (excluding NZ) and Nato (excluding Turkey) fell in line with the recent expulsions – no evidence required. The whole point was to show Putin that 'the West' doesn't need evidence – the more ridiculous the better! Everyone knows that Russia didn't do it... but will kick Russia anyway, if it continues on its current path. ..."
"... As for the Skripal "script" and its timing, my speculation is that its purpose was to set the stage for a false flag chemical attack to be blamed on Russia supported Damascus to sell an offensive from the southern flank by US forces in Jordan while missile strikes rained from the Eastern Med ..."
"... Graham: US leaving Syria would be 'single worst decision' Trump could make -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday cautioned President Trump against pulling American troops out of Syria, saying that doing so would be "a disaster in the making." ..."
"... Again the US has supported anti-government forces and invaded a foreign country, destroyed part of it while killing, injuring and displacing millions of people. The locals want the US out. Wouldn't we? ..."
"... NYT has a bombshell scoop! A material so poisonous that the Skripals have not died, and was spread by allegedly "[going] up to the front door" and smearing it on their outside door handle. This kind of stealth could only come from Russia and Putin... Bonus points attempted by doing a Nexis word search on what the CIA liars said regarding DNC emails.. ..."
"... So the Prime Minister said that Porton Down had positively identified the substance as a Novichok nerve agent. The statement from Porton Down says that their tests indicated that it was a Novichok agent or closely related agent. Are these two statements saying exactly the same thing? . . here ..."
"... If the nerve agent is so potent per NYT description, how came the Skripals went to the pub and restaurant having beers and food with no signs of discomfort after having touched the nerve agent smeared on their house door? ..."
"... This is nerve agent not timebomb. Just how stupid can NYT let itself be? ..."
@Lozion, no. 31 What do you think of the veracity of the following comment recently posted
on Zero Hedge? Sorry, I have no links - just the comment:
'The UK's persecution of Russia arises from two unreported incidents in Syria during
operations in Eastern Ghouta. In late February, the SAA's special force unit trapped a group of
UK Special Forces in a siege, near Kafr Batna settlement. That incident occurred a few days
after another unit of UK Special Forces was captured near Nashabiyah!
London didn't want to deal with Assad and sought to negotiate their release with Russia,
with Oman as a mediator. Moscow replied that it was the jurisdiction of Syrian military
authorities. Mattis's visit to Oman on March 11 was to attempt to secure the release of a US
officer and two Israelis also captured in the same operation in Eastern Ghouta.
The UK and US governments (deep state?) see risks rising in Syria and since Russia refuses
to back down, pressure on other fronts had to be increased to raise the stakes for Moscow.
The Skripal attack was clearly a total cock-up but that didn't matter. All the UK/US
wanted was an/any excuse to vilify Russia – no evidence required, it is all Kabuki. That
is why the 5-eyes (excluding NZ) and Nato (excluding Turkey) fell in line with the recent
expulsions – no evidence required. The whole point was to show Putin that 'the West'
doesn't need evidence – the more ridiculous the better! Everyone knows that Russia didn't
do it... but will kick Russia anyway, if it continues on its current path.
Speculation: was the Skripal plan put together by the CIA (deep state) and MI6 (with UK
government support) behind Trump's back, which pretty much forced him to go along with the
expulsions etc., is that one of the reasons why he has now announced US troops will be leaving
Syria altogether?'
@33 miss lacy. Well, yes there have been reports of captured UK and other SF in East Ghouta
along with denials so its confusing. There most probably were a few caught but this is such a
delicate political matter that their release is I think negotiated in secret by the parties
involved. A grey area seems to exist around SF since no one wants to have theirs paraded as
war trophies, a tacit agreement of "dont ask, dont tell" is likely enforced.
As for the Skripal "script" and its timing, my speculation is that its purpose was to set
the stage for a false flag chemical attack to be blamed on Russia supported Damascus to sell
an offensive from the southern flank by US forces in Jordan while missile strikes rained from
the Eastern Med but this was scraped in the nick of time due to the SAA's faster advance then
expected and capture of militants chemical labs, leaving the UK to deal with the mess created
by the failed op.
My opinion is that we went through a real CLOSE CALL around mid-March but
thanks to Gerasimov, Shoigu and Rudskoy multiple warnings and rapid pace of the EG operation,
we are still here to discuss it..
Graham: US leaving Syria would be 'single worst decision' Trump could make -- Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday cautioned President Trump against pulling American troops out of
Syria, saying that doing so would be "a disaster in the making."
Which means it's probably a good idea. The claim in Washington is that Obama made a
mistake in pulling troops out of Iraq. In fact, he had no choice because Bush-II had signed a
treaty (w/o Senate advice & consent) to pull out in December 2010. So it was done. Obama
had no choice.
Syria isn't the same, but it's similar. Again the US has supported anti-government forces
and invaded a foreign country, destroyed part of it while killing, injuring and displacing
millions of people. The locals want the US out. Wouldn't we?
I'm reminded of what Mike Hastie said. "One day while I was in a bunker in Vietnam, a
sniper round went over my head. The person who fired that weapon was not a terrorist, a
rebel, an extremist, or a so-called insurgent. The Vietnamese individual who tried to kill me
was a citizen of Vietnam, who did not want me in his country. This truth escapes millions."
--Mike Hastie, U.S. Army Medic, Vietnam 1970-71
NYT has a bombshell scoop! A material so poisonous that the Skripals have not died, and was
spread by allegedly "[going] up to the front door" and smearing it on their outside door
handle. This kind of stealth could only come from Russia and Putin... Bonus points attempted
by doing a Nexis word search on what the CIA liars said regarding DNC emails..
"LONDON -- British officials investigating the poisoning of Sergei V. Skripal, a former
Russian double agent, believe it is likely that an assassin smeared a nerve agent on the door
handle at his home. This operation is seen as so risky and sensitive that it is unlikely to
have been undertaken without approval from the Kremlin, according to officials who have been
briefed on the early findings of the inquiry.
Because the nerve agent is so potent, the officials said, the task could have been carried
out only by trained professionals familiar with chemical weapons. British and American
officials are skeptical that independent actors could have carried out such a risky operation
or obtained the agent without approval at the highest levels of the Russian government --
almost exactly the same phrase that American intelligence agencies used in October 2016, when
they first attributed the hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee to a team
of Russian hackers.
In her statement to the House of Commons on 12th March 2018, the British Prime Minister,
Theresa May stated the following:
"It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade
nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part of a group of nerve agents
known as 'Novichok '. Based on the positive identification of this chemical
agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton
Down" [my emphasis added].
In the judgement at the High Court on 22nd March on whether to allow blood samples to be
taken from Sergei and Yulia Skripal for examination by the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), evidence submitted by Porton Down to the court (Section 17 i)
stated the following:
"Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings
indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound . The samples tested
positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent "
[my emphasis added].
So the Prime Minister said that Porton Down had positively identified the substance as a
Novichok nerve agent. The statement from Porton Down says that their tests indicated that it
was a Novichok agent or closely related agent. Are these two statements saying exactly the
same thing? . .
here
@37 ...re: door handle, grabbed by both father and daughter exiting the apartment
Novichok nerve agents . . .Within the environment, these agents react with water to
degrade, including moisture in the air, and so in the UK they would have a very limited
lifetime.
"Because the nerve agent is so potent, the officials said, the task could have been carried
out only by trained professionals familiar with chemical weapons. "
daffyDuct @37
------------------------------------------------- If the nerve agent is so potent per NYT description, how came the Skripals went to the pub
and restaurant having beers and food with no signs of discomfort after having touched the
nerve agent smeared on their house door?
This is nerve agent not timebomb. Just how stupid can NYT let itself be?
The Ukraine military shot down another airliner some years before when a missile aimed at a
training drone missed and locked on to the airliner.
I think the Kiev side had been directing airliners across the war zone along the path of
planned bombing runs to allow Ukraine military jets to fly the same course *below* the
airliner and use the airliner's much bigger radar signature (huge compared to a military jet)
as protection i.e. if a missile was fired and missed it might lock on to the airliner
instead.
I don't think the US side wants to admit their allies were using airliners as human
shields and the Russians don't want to admit their surface to air missiles ignore civilian
IFF (as they must in a war zone) hence why both side's stories feel unconvincing.
Apart from the politics it's important because if missiles treat civilian IFF as foe then
it means airliners need to be kept a very long way from any mid-tech war zone.
The parallels are pretty clear. In the case of both 9/11 and this Malaysian airliner, the
western mainstream media had their story ready to go as soon as it happened. And then when
all the evidence starts accumulating that this story is untrue, cannot possibly be true, they
simply ignore all of it. In fact anybody who brings it up is immediately tarred as a
"conspiracy theorist".
Re: "The Ukraine would have no need to shoot AA missiles since so called Rebels had no air
force at the time "
The Kiev regime had no need to put anti-aircraft batteries in the area at all, but they
did!
Please everybody, get real.
Its been months since the shooting down of MH 17 and despite all the accusations made by
the US government and the Kiev regime at the time, not one single piece of credible evidence
has been produced. Obviously the information is being suppressed, and even more obviously it
is not being withheld to protect the rebels or the Russians.
Under Artimovsk there is a gigantic weapons cache. Is it possible that the plane was
downed so that Western investigators could look into an inventory of that site and assess
what the Separatists removed from said weapons dump? Chemical, Nuclear, Biological weapons
stocks?
The HQ for the crash site investigation was set up in Soledar which is a very close to the
Salt Mine cave entrance.
The passengers were just collateral damage in the contest over weapons stocks.
And here is an assessment of the non-surface-to-air-BUK (or 'red herring') theory, going with
the pics and reports of two fighter jets -Ukrainian – seen on each side of MH-17 :
Ray B. March 07, 2015
Here is my analysis, from an ex-Boeing aero engineer standpoint:
The Boeing 777 was initially at 33,000 feet. The aircraft, therefore, was above the Su-25's
ceiling, as listed at wikipedia. (Service ceiling: 7,000 m (22,965 ft) clean,
5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons) I am aware of the Comments both that this is an
artificial, CIA-changed figure and that Su-25 pilots have reached at least 30,000 feet with
supplemental oxygen. For the purpose here, it does not matter. I am presuming the Su-25 was
carrying only two R-60 air-to-air missiles, which are low drag. So, the service ceiling in
this case would have been around 21-22,000 feet. (The upgrades to the Su-25 did not include
engine or aerodynamic changes, so are unlikely to have increased the ceiling.) The 777 was
well within reach of the R-60s, though (66,000 ft, Mach 2.7). As a non-maneuvering, transport
aircraft, it would have been laughably easy to hit. I would have salvoed both missiles, both
for increased hit-chance and to avoid coming back with only one missile (very noticeable, as
opposed to just empty pylons). The above would tie-in with ret. Col Zhilin's testimony. Most
reports indicate the accompanying-fighter was closing from the rear, which is the most
advantageous for infrared guidance. With infrared guidance, the missile would home-in
directly on the hottest area – the engine exhaust. The warhead would probably detonate
in the exhaust cone or adjacent to it. In the Boeing 777, the engine is slung well out in
front of the wing. The expanding-rod warhead would rip up the engine but probably not take
out the wing or flight control cabling. The 'hit' (or hits) might indeed be survivable.
Today's jet engines are built with FAA-mandated 'containment shields'.
They are meant to contain high-velocity fan/compressor/turbine blades if something causes
them to shear off. They are basically armored 'cans' surrounding the rotating
parts. A missile detonating inside this 'can' might have the expanding-rods contained,
rather than punching through the nacelle and into the fuselage. If detonating on the far side
of the 'can' from the fuselage, much the same result Also, Zhilin says, " the Boeing turned
180 degrees to the left." This would be the direct result of losing thrust on the left
engine. The pilots were probably more concerned with staying in the air (under control) than
their heading http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/
commercial/startup/pdf/777_perf.pdf "Engine-out altitude capability (MTOW, ISA + 10°C)
Basic: 16,200 ft Maximum Weight: 15,600 ft" After the 777's engine was hit and disabled by
the R-60, the 777 would have descended to around 15-16,000 feet. That is the standard
one-engine-out 'cruise' altitude as above. It may have been lower with the damage.
If I were the pilot, I would have been on a circling descent through and below that
altitude, looking for a nearby airport or good field. Since the R-60 has
such a small warhead, the pilots may not even have known they were hit by a missile and
assumed a simple engine-out problem. That could account for the lack of initial
reporting.
This descent would have put the 777 well within the Su-25's (wikipedia) altitude
capability. So, it would have been possible at that point to conduct a 'strafing' run with
the 30mm cannon. With the 777 turning, that may have presented the opportunity for whatever
angle shot the fighter pilot wanted. As various Commenters have noted, there seems to have
been a concentration on the cockpit and avionics bay. (Grrr.)
Unfortunately, with the 'secrecy agreement' in place, I see no way that any important
evidence will be revealed, barring a Snowden-like mass-release by someone with a
Conscience
Reply
"... One of the most salient points I find, is the fact that no vapour trail had been observed or photographed from the ground. A vapour condensation trail remains visible for quite some time and is visible for I would think at least 15 minutes. ..."
Someone may already have commented on it, but it's impossible to read all the comments.
One of the most salient points I find, is the fact that no vapour trail had been
observed or photographed from the ground. A vapour condensation trail remains visible for
quite some time and is visible for I would think at least 15 minutes.
Surely in this day and age when virtually everyone carries a cell phone capable of
making pictures, such evidence should be available. But apparently there is not.
As a test it would be interesting if Russia would in front of the international press
test fire a BUK missile.
I would very much appreciate comments on this particular aspect of the catastrophe.
Thank you in anticipation.
The JIT in its 29/9 report showed a picture of a smoke trail. If that had been the smoke
trail of the BUK that alledgedly shot down MH 17 than that picture would without a shadow of
doubt been splashed over al the western media within hours. Hundreds may by thousands would
have seen it and scores of pictures and videos would have been taken. The very fact that JIT
now comes up with a smoke trail (which could have been taken any where) proves that it is a
fake. If that is a fake all the other pictures are most likely fakes. Mr Eliot Higgins should
have done better.
Despite the Dutch whitewash (report) which could only be called the 'likely' & 'probably'
'we love to point any finger at Putin report', material at odds with the western line
continues to come out:
The Dutch investigators "can't decipher" the radar data provided by the Russians. As well,
Dutch police have confiscated from journalists raw footage of new witness interviews that
will no doubt be shared with Ukraine as a party to the investigation, endangering those
persons who provided the information on condition of confidentiality:
The lengths Dutch Prime Minister publicly went (serving quote 'geopolitical interests') to
get the EU-Ukraine association agreement ratified the clear rejection by advisory referendum
notwithstanding, ought to make any well informed reader suspicious of how far Rutte went out
of public sight to serve those same 'geopolitical interests' by manipulating both the
investigation and public opinion in relation to MH17.
Rutte recently demonstrated his fealty to those 'geopolitical interests' again. When asked
if new evidence was presented in the Skripal case to justify the Netherlands support for the
UK, Rutte answered that 'such evidence wasn't necessary because May had stated that it was
highly likely that Russia was responsible'.
The Dutch Government got a UN mandate to perform the investigation and as such that part
of the investigation had to be transparent.
Clearly to serve those 'geopolitical interests' the Dutch separated the technical
investigation from the legal liability investigation. The technical investigation was
performed under the UN mandate and the second legal liability investigation was organized
separate from any UN mandate.
The Dutch, Australian, Belgium government colluded with the Ukrainians to organize a
'Joint Investigation Team' which under the cover of performing a legal investigation refuses
any transparency and at regular intervals hints that indictments are close but not there
yet.
Also the Dutch Transport Safety Board technical investigation has concluded that the
UkSATSE should have closed the Air Control area above Eastern Ukraine, but the Dutch
government has thus far never taken any action to hold the Ukrainians responsible for that
failure even when 3 days before MNH17 a AN-24 was downed from 6500m and UkSATSE (joint
civil-military ATC) continued to control some 100 civil air liners a day over that area. The
Dutch simply accepted that the Ukraine lost all relevant radar data.
News
4th June 2014
UkSATSE ensures safety in Ukrainian sky under any conditions
Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise (UkSATSE) informs that the enterprise keeps
on providing the whole range of air navigation services. It ensures flight safety in the
airspace of Ukraine, airdromes of Ukraine and in the international airspace over the high
seas at the relevant level. Moreover, UkSATSE ensures trouble-free operation of branches of
Joint Civil-Military System of Air Traffic Management of Ukraine irrespective of foreign
interference in work of air traffic services bodies in Crimea and at the East of Ukraine.
Actually this "Who shot down MH17?" is the wrong question.
The question is "Who is liable?".
Shooting down aircraft above a war zone is SOP. If a civilian air liner is guided and
controlled over such war area where 3 days earlier an AN-24 has been downed from 6500m one
really ought to question the competence and liability of the ATC involved. That ATC authority
UkSATSE as a joint civil-military ATC was fully informed about the situation and still
continued to guide some 100 civil air liners ad day for three days over that war zone.
Shooting down a civil air liner over a war zone is tragic but not necessarily always a
crime. There was no motive for the East Ukrainians, but as shown by the relentless
exploitation by the Kiev puppet regime this Kiev regime most definitely had a motive.
Any liability investigation with the Ukrainian secret service as an investigator like in
the Dutch/Australian/Ukraine Joint investigation Team simply can't be trusted to even look
for the truth. The JIT was set up with the intention of evading the transparency requirements
associated with the UN mandated investigation.
Thinking people smelled a rat in the case of MH17 straight off. No sensible person can fail
to smell it now. Just a few considerations:
1. Donbass freedom fighters (and, by extension, Russia) were blamed by the US, its vassals,
and its client states like Ukraine even before the debris cooled down. Only the perpetrators
could have known designated "guilty party" without any investigation.
2. Satellite pictures promised by Kerry four years ago never materialized. The only logical
conclusion is that the perpetrators were not those accused by the US, and the pictures would
have revealed real perpetrators, which the US did not want to happen.
3. Malaysia, the owner of that airplane, was not allowed to participate in the investigation.
Apparently, someone was afraid that it might not play ball. This can only happen when the
"investigators" meant to hide the truth, not to reveal it.
4. The UK, Australia, the Netherlands, and one of the suspects, Ukraine, signed a
non-disclosure agreement. It makes no sense unless one or more of the signatories is
guilty.
5. The "investigation" is going on for four years, longer than any investigation in the
history of civil aviation. The experience shows that a lot less time is needed to uncover the
truth. Thus, the length of this "investigation" shows that the real purpose is cover-up.
6. Ukraine never provided the records of pilots' communications with air traffic controllers,
or any other air traffic control records. Thus, it must have had something to hide.
One can continue in this vein, but what's the point? Suffice it to say that all international
airlines drew their conclusions: they fly over Russia, but avoid Ukrainian airspace, like
they avoid Iranian and North Korean airspace. Sapienti sat.
In my blog 'contraviews' http://www.contraviewing.blogspot.com post 148
you will find a recording of the conversation (mentioned in this article) between the
Estonian Foreign Affairs Minister Urmas Paet and EU Foreign Policy chief Catherine Ashton. Go
to the year 2014 in the margin and scroll down to post 148. One may find more interesting
articles on MH17.
See my comment nr 230: There is not one investigation. The Dutch manipulated this into two
separate investigations. There was a technical UN mandated transparent Dutch Safety Board
investigation. The Dutch organized a second criminal investigation together with Australia,
Belgium and the Ukraine and instigated A Joint Investigation Team (JIT).
Yes. I can understand the Dutch government: they serve the US overlords first and
foremost. They don't give a hoot about the lives of ordinary Dutch people. What I do not
understand is the behavior of the people who lost loved ones in MH17 crash. Don't they want
to know who killed them? Don't they object to being grist for the mill of amoral and cynical
politicians?
"... You think in one dimensional. The warfare & alliance is moving very dynamic, Russia & China are working in all fronts together if you watch carefully. Military & energy are appetizer. Petrol Yuan & BRI are main course. Joint dev of C929 civil plane, space program, agri, .its Eurasia century. ..."
"... Skripal false flag & 2 dozen countries expelling diplomats is full display of bizarre brute force destroying entire international norms. You need to resist before more countries succumb to West pressure. ..."
"... If West can orchestrate diplomatic boycott of Russia, won't China be next? When you see smoke, there is fire. When neighbor house is burning, it will spread to yours. But here you are saying, not my problem let China save its own ass until fire spread to yours. ..."
Oh, we have a copypaste contest? Okay then, i'd copy here my reply at saker's blog
too.
No, i just wanna remind you again, Russia & China have to fight as a team, each with
their best strength, Russia-military, China-economic.
> China will be blackmailed into submission.
Wooop! Then it is not "existential threat" for China.
Clash for power, clash for sovereignty, clash of prosperity -- but not for survival.
If one energy supply is been fully controlled, you are doomed.
> Russia & China are working closely
Which does not mean China's role is making harsh dyplomatic statements in favor of
Russia. At least it was not so before today. So i think it is not today either.
It has very wide implication, West is able to pressure dozens of countries to bend on
false flag, it will spread further to Asia & elsewhere. China will be next. Nib the
bud.
Also remember that Chinese social mindset is build upon idea of "indebting with gifts
and aids" and then requesting payback when they need it.
Since when has the West & Russians, or anyone are more kind than Chinese, giving
without expectation of return of at least gratitude from a Russian like you?
Which means Russia should be very wary about accepting any help from China unless it
wishes to be seen by China as a deeply indebted beggar incapable of sustaining itself.
Yes Russia should, there is never free lunch. But would it be better for Russia to team up
with China to enjoy economic benefits at fair term with a safe South border, than getting
raped by the West again with another hostile South neighbor (China could join West to plunder
Russia, taking back outer Manchuria Siberia land).
And since diplomatic situation for Russia is not deadly critical I do not think Russia
needed that newspaper article. If Russia would request China's support of the kind -- it
would be in official diplomatic venues like UN.
No need to wait for UK US to close all Russia embassies with global sanction like what NK
get. See further my friend.
> Russia needs to save Syria for its own skin
> Iran needs to save its skin
But is it so for China? Is China in critical need of sovereign and friendly Syria? I
doubt it.
Sure Syria is not China concern, but for aftermath implications.
- Stop West eastward
aggression. - BRI node in ME - Uyghur terrorists - West control of all ME Energy supply
Was that article reaction to some new threat to Syria, to russia, or to China itself?
And i believe in the latter option. This article is not linked to any recent events around
Russia, it is caused by Sino-American relations shift.
You think in one dimensional. The warfare & alliance is moving very dynamic,
Russia & China are working in all fronts together if you watch carefully. Military &
energy are appetizer. Petrol Yuan & BRI are main course. Joint dev of C929 civil plane,
space program, agri, .its Eurasia century.
Skripal affair is much less than Olympics was. Even European states many did not jumped
Skripal wagon.
who care about Olympics beside some bruise Russkies pride, Skripal false flag & 2
dozen countries expelling diplomats is full display of bizarre brute force destroying entire
international norms. You need to resist before more countries succumb to West pressure.
Open your narrow vision.
-- but if Russia would soemhow gets politically isolated from the West, what bad is it
for China? Russia would become more dependent on China, like many of the trade with West
would had to go through Chinese "laundry". China gets more influence over Russia. Russia
gets much more limited in its options. Good (for China) develoment, why hurry to cancel it
before Russia even asked for ?
You have asked yourself a good qn, why not joint the West vultures to feast on Russia
bear? Sure, West aggression to Russia is godsend gift to China. But Chinese leaders think
further than greedy West capitalist. Better to have strong Russia as safe Northern backyard
than a Nato military threat encirclement (which Russia dream to join but too bad,
rejected)
> You are silly self center viewer
Frankly, it is exactly the opposite here.
It is you who claim Russia being behing that article in Global Time.
It is me who claims Russia has no any relation to the timing and wording of that
article.
I never claim Russia is solely behind that article. Its entire geopolitical dynamic
situation. If West can orchestrate diplomatic boycott of Russia, won't China be next?
When you see smoke, there is fire. When neighbor house is burning, it will spread to yours.
But here you are saying, not my problem let China save its own ass until fire spread to
yours.
> China special force is operating in Syria.
Maybe it is, but seems no one ever saw those operations.
Open secret. Like Russia, its to fight Chinese terrorists there instead of in China. Also
real war game training by Russia, too good deal to miss.
> Lot of weapons supply to SAA.
Maybe they are, but can you name those Chinese weapons and show me where SAA is
employing it?
It was reported in open news, Syria visited Beijing, then China announced it had old
weapon contracts to fulfil..who will pay? Likely those infantry weapons, ammunition,
artillery, TAW, uniform & gears, whatever construction materials while Russia take care
of high tech equip like S400.
> always throwing allies under bus whenever possible,
.because Putin is evil and just enjoys every opportunity to do bad thing. Always.
I wish i would hear somethign remotely creative from you.
> hence Russia deserve to be raped by West like 1990 is natural.
Oh, i see. Yet another russophobic preaching that "Russians should repent and repay,
repay, and repent", then frustrated when Russia shrugs this lecture off.
I'm Russophile & Putin's fan if you read my comments history. But fact is Russia did
that, which is foolish short sighted. If West has offered Russia G8 on equal term + Nato,
Russia won't hesitate to throw Syria, Iran, China immediately under bus. Then be ready for
another rape fantasy. The West just don't love Russians, no matter how much she plead &
give.
If all Russians think like you, now let China get all the blows since its their trade war,
so Russkies should rest & enjoy the firework, then another bigger 1990′s rape is
awaiting your country.
You have just shown Chinese what its like to be in alliance with Russia.
"... It doesn't matter that China has a larger economy. Their economy can be suffocated so long as they are denied a link to Europe through Eurasia. ..."
The point is not to block off China, the point is to block off China AND Russia from
Europe. Also trade from other Eurasian countries is going to be discouraged unless it goes
through the Straits that the West controlls, but obviously Russia and China are the big
players here.
Russia has a lot of gas and natural resources that the West and ME countries do not want
going to Europe.
And, as you said, the west has many ways of neutralizing China. So to the West, Russia is
the bigger threat since either country could act as a bridge to Europe but Russia has many
more paths of creating these links than China has.
Russia is being singled out, and is being targeted before China, because of Mackinder and
the need to control the "Heartland". Read up on Mackinder as he has a huge influence on the
west.
The empire sees Russia as the greater threat because only Russia and not China is a
threat to control the Heartland and thus the world. This is the real motivation behind
everything.
It doesn't matter that China has a larger economy. Their economy can be
suffocated so long as they are denied a link to Europe through Eurasia.
"... Frankly, Saker reads too much into this Chinese article. It is not about Russia. It is not because Skrypal hoax dialed ritual Russophobia over eleven. It just is a coincidence. Yet before loosing the elections Hillary was promising military war with Russia. Yet before winning the elections Trump was promising economic war with China. ..."
"... Russia`s biggest weakness is the incompetent, useless leaders they had from the 80`s to Yeltsin. The mess that the USSR left behind with unstable states on its borders with no treaty to prevent NATO expansion was a huge gift to the US that just keeps giving!! ..."
"... I`ll go as far as saying this gift to the US might lead to Russia`s end as a country in its present form. You can hardly blame the US I mean in 1990 Russia agreed to basically throw the towel in and live in a US dominated world in practice. Whatever they say about promises at the time that lasted for as long as their breath was warm ..."
"... the problem right now is the Imperial US (ruled from Israel). If it succeeds in destroying Russia, then the Chinese are irrelevant, and have nothing to say about anything. ..."
"... The US public are irretrievably useless and are going to have to go the whole way, with WW3 and/or an economic collapse, with the best bet being on WW3 (which they may well lose). ..."
"That tells you all you need to know about the difference between modern Britain and
the government of Vladimir Putin. They make Novichok, we make light sabers. One a hideous
weapon that is specifically intended for assassination. The other an implausible theatrical
prop with a mysterious buzz. But which of those two weapons is really more effective in the
world of today?".
(Boris Johnson)
Let's begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.
Question one: does anybody
sincerely believe that "Putin" (the collective name for the Russian Mordor) really attempted to
kill a man which "Putin" himself had released in the past, who presented no interest for Russia
whatsoever who,
like Berezovsky , wanted to
return back to Russia , and that to do the deed "Putin" used a binary nerve agent? Question
two: does anybody sincerely believe that the British have presented their "allies" (I will be
polite here and use that euphemism) with incontrovertible or, at least, very strong evidence
that "Putin" indeed did such a thing? Question three: does anybody sincerely believe that the
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats will somehow make Russia more compliant to western demands
(for our purposes, it does not matter what demands we are talking about)? Question four: does
anybody sincerely believe that after this latest episode, the tensions will somehow abate or
even diminish and that things will get better? Question five: does anybody sincerely believe
that the current sharp rise in tensions between the AngloZionist Empire (aka the "West") does
not place the Empire and Russia on collision course which could result in war,
probably/possibly nuclear war, maybe not deliberately, but as the result of an escalation of
incidents?
If in the zombified world of the ideological
drones who actually remain in the dull trance induced by the corporate media there are most
definitely those who answer "yes" to some or even all of the questions above, I submit that not
a single major western decision maker sincerely believes any of that nonsense. In reality,
everybody who matters knows that the Russians had nothing to do with the Skripal incident, that
the Brits have shown no evidence, that the expulsion of Russian diplomats will only harden the
Russian resolve, that all this anti-Russian hysteria will only get worse and that this all puts
at least Europe and the USA, if not the entire planet, in great danger.
And yet what just happened is absolutely amazing: instead of using fundamental principles of
western law (innocent until proven guilty by at least a preponderance of evidence or even
beyond reasonable doubt), basic rules of civilized behavior (do not attack somebody you know is
innocent), universally accepted ethical norms (the truth of the matter is more important than
political expediency) or even primordial self-preservation instincts (I don't want to die for
your cause), the vast majority of western leaders chose a new decision-making paradigm which
can be summarized in two words:
"highly likely" "solidarity"
This is truly absolutely crucial and marks a fundamental change in the way the AngloZionist
Empire will act from now on. Let's look at the assumptions and implications of these two
concepts.
First, "highly likely". While "highly likely" does sound like a simplified version of
"preponderance of evidence" what it really means is something very different and circular:
"Putin" is bad, poisoning is bad, therefore it is "highly likely" that "Putin" did it. How do
we know that the premise "Putin is bad" is true? Well -- he does poison people, does he
not?
You think I am joking?
Check out this wonderful chart presented to the public by "Her Majesty's government"
entitled "A long pattern of Russian malign activity":
In the 12 events listed as evidence of a "pattern of Russian malign activity" one is
demonstratively false (2008 invasion of Georgia), one conflates two different accusations
(occupation of Crimea and destabilization of the Ukraine), one is circular (assassination of
Skripal) and all others are completely unproven accusations. All that is missing here is the
mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret
"weather weapon" to send hurricanes towards the USA. You don't need a law degree to see that,
all you need is an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of logic. For all my
contempt for western leaders, even I wouldn't make the claim that they all lack these. So here
is where "solidarity" kicks-in:
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur 's famous " my
country, right or wrong " applied to the entire Empire. The precedent of Meine Ehre
heißt Treue just slightly rephrased into Meine Ehre heißt
Solidarität also comes to mind.
Solidarity simply means that the comprador ruling elites of the West will say and do
whatever the hell the AngloZionists tell them to. If tomorrow the UK or US leaders proclaim
that Putin eats babies for breakfast or that the West needs to send a strong message to "Putin"
that a Russian invasion of Vanuatu shall not be tolerated, then so be it: the entire
AngloZionist nomenklatura will sing the song in full
unison and to hell with facts, logic or even decency!
Solemnly proclaiming lies is hardly something new in politics, there is nothing new here.
What is new are two far more recent developments: first, now everybody knows that these are
lies and, second, nobody challenges or debunks them. Welcome to the AngloZionist New World
Order indeed!
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of
it.
(John 8:44)
ORDER IT NOW
Over the past weeks I have observed something which I find quite interesting: both on
Russian TV channels and in the English speaking media there is a specific type of anti-Putin
individual who actually takes a great deal of pride in the fact that the Empire has embarked on
a truly unprecedented campaign of lies against Russia. These people view lies as just another
tool in a type of "political toolkit" which can be used like any other political technique. As
I have mentioned in the past, the western indifference to the truth is something very ancient
coming, as it does, from the Middle-Ages: roughly when the spiritual successors of the Franks
in Rome decided that their own, original brand of "Christianity" had no use for 1000 years of
Consensus Patrum .
Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular, power produced both moral
relativism and colonialism (with the Pope's imprimatur in the form of the Treaty of Tordesillas
). The Reformation (with its very pronounced Judaic influence) produced the bases of modern
capitalism which, as Lenin correctly diagnosed, has imperialism as its highest stage. Now that
the West is losing its grip on the planet (imagine that, some SOB nations dare resist!), all of
the ideological justifications have been tossed away and we are left with the true, honest,
bare-bones impulses of the leaders of the Empire: messianic hubris (essentially self-worship),
violence and, above all, a massive reliance on deception and lies on every single level of
society, from the commercial advertisements targeted at children to Colin Powell shaking some
laundry detergent at the UNSC to justify yet another war of aggression.
Self-worship and a total reliance on brute force and falsehoods -- these are the real
"Western values" today. Not the rule of law, not the scientific method, not critical thought,
not pluralism and most definitely not freedom. We are back, full circle, to the kind of
illiterate thuggery the Franks so perfectly embodied and which made them so infamous in the
(then) civilized world (the south and eastern Mediterranean). The agenda, by the way, is also
the same one as the Franks had 1000 years ago: either submit to us and accept our dominion, or
die, and the way to accept our dominion is to let us plunder all your riches. Again, not much
difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the Second Rome in 1204
and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the best predictor of
future behavior is past behavior.
Interestingly, the Chinese saw straight through this strategic psyop and they are now
sounding the alarm in their very official Global Times : (emphasis added)
The accusations that Western countries have hurled at Russia are based on ulterior
motives, similar to how the Chinese use the expression "perhaps it's true" to seize upon the
desired opportunity. From a third-person perspective, the principles and diplomatic logic
behind such drastic efforts are flawed, not to mention that expelling Russian diplomats
almost simultaneously is a crude form of behavior. Such actions make little impact other than
increasing hostility and hatred between Russia and their Western counterparts ( ) The fact
that major Western powers can gang up and "sentence" a foreign country without following the
same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international
law is chilling. During the Cold War, not one Western nation would have dared to make such a
provocation and yet today it is carried out with unrestrained ease. Such actions are nothing
more than a form of Western bullying that threatens global peace and justice. ( ) It is
beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a
frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows
how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western
nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another. These nations need
to establish a level of independence outside the reach of Western influence while breaking
the chains of monopolization declarations, predetermined adjudications and come to value
their own judgment abilities. ( ) The West is only a small fraction of the world and is
nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was. The silenced minorities within
the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding
is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action.
As the French say " à bon entendeur, salut! ": the Chinese position is crystal
clear, as is the warning. I would summarize it as so: if the West is an AngloZionist doormat,
then the East is most definitely not.
[Sidebar: I know that there are some countries in Europe who have, so far, shown the courage
to resist the AngloZionist Diktat . Good for them. I will wait to see how long they can
resist the pressure before giving them a standing ovation]
The decision, therefore, lies here in the East; here must the Russian enemy, this
people numbering two hundred million Russians, be destroyed on the battlefield and person by
person, and made to bleed to death
(Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler)
Still, none of that explain why the leaders of the Empire have decided to engage in a
desperate game of "nuclear chicken" to try to, yet again, force Russia to comply with its
demands to "go away and shut up". This is counter-intuitive and I get several emails each week
telling me that there is absolutely no way the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire would want a
war with Russia, especially not a nuclear-armed one. The truth is that while western leaders
are most definitely psychopaths, they are neither stupid nor suicidal, and neither were
Napoleon or Hitler! And, yes, they probably don't really want a full-scale war with Russia. The
problem is that these rulers are also desperate, and for good cause.
Let's look at the situation just a few months ago. The US was defeated in Syria, ridiculed
in the DPRK, Trump was hated in Europe, the Russians and the Germans were working on North
Stream, the British leaders forced to at least pretend to work on Brexit, the entire
"Ukrainian" project had faceplanted, the sanctions against Russia had failed, Putin was more
popular than ever and the hysterical anti-Trump campaign was still in full swing inside the
USA. The next move by the AngloZionist elites was nothing short of brilliant: by organizing a
really crude false flag in the UK the Empire achieved the following results:
The Europeans
have been forced right back into the Anglosphere's fold ("solidarity", remember?) The Brexiting
Brits are now something like the (im-)moral leaders of Europe again. The Russians are now
demonized to such a degree that any accusation, no matter how stupid, will stick. In the
Middle-East, the US and Israel now have free reign to start any war they want because the
(purely theoretical) European capability to object to anything the Anglos want has now
evaporated, especially now that the Russians have become "known chemical-criminals" from Ghouta
to Salisbury At the very least, the World Cup in Russia will be sabotaged by a massive
anti-Russian campaign. If that campaign is really successful, there is still the hope that the
Germans will finally cave in and, if maybe not outright cancel, then at least very much delay
North Stream thereby forcing the Europeans to accept, what else, US gas.
This is an ambitious plan and, barring an unexpected development, it sure looks like it
might work. The problem with this strategy is that it falls short of getting Russia to truly
"go away and shut up". Neocons are particularly fond of humiliating their enemies (look at how
they are still gunning for Trump even though by now the poor man has become their most
subservient servant) and there is a lot of prestige at stake here. Russia, therefore, must be
humiliated, truly humiliated, not just by sabotaging her participation in Olympic games or by
expelling Russian diplomats, but by something far more tangible like, say, an attack on the
very small and vulnerable Russian task force in Syria. Herein lies the biggest risk.
The Russian task force in Syria is tiny, at least compared to the immense capabilities of
CENTCOM+NATO. The Russians have warned that if they are attacked, they will shoot down not only
the attacking missiles but also their launchers. Since the Americans are not dumb enough to
expose their aircraft to Russian air defenses, they will use air power only outside the range
of Russian air defenses and they will use only cruise missiles to strike targets inside the
"protection cone" of the Russians air defenses. The truth is that I doubt that the Russians
will have the opportunity to shoot down many US aircraft, at least not with their long-range
S-300/S-400 SAMs. Their ubiquitous and formidable combined short to medium range surface-to-air
missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system, the Pantsir, might have a better chance
simply because it's location is impossible to predict. But the real question is this: will the
Russians shoot back at the USN ships if they launch cruise missiles at Syria?
My strictly personal guess is that they won't unless Khmeimim, Tartus or another large
Russian objective (official Russian compounds in Damascus) are hit. Striking a USN ship would
be tantamount to an act of war and that is just not something the Russians will do if they can
avoid it. The problem with that is this restraint will, yet again, be interpreted as a sign of
weakness, not civilization, by the "modern Franks" (visualize a Neanderthal with a nuclear club
in his fist). Should the Russians decide to act à la American and use violence to
"send a message", the Empire will immediately perceive that as a loss of face and a reason to
immediately escalate further to reestablish the "appropriate" hierarchy between the
"indispensable nation" and the "gas station masquerading as a country". So here is the dynamic
at work
Russia limits herself to words of protests ==>> the Empire sees that as a sign of
weakness and escalates
Russia responds in kind with real actions==>> The Empire feels humiliated and
escalates
Now look at this from a Russian point of view for a second and ask yourself what you would
do in this situation?
The answer, I think, is obvious: you try to win as much time as possible and you prepare for
war. The Russians have been doing exactly that since at least early 2015.
For Russia this is really nothing new: been there, done that, and remember it very, very
well, by the way. The "western project" for Russia has always been the same since the
Middle-Ages, the only difference today is the consequences of war. With each passing century
the human cost of the various western crusades against Russia got worse and worse and now we
are not only looking at the very real possibility of another Borodino or Kursk, and not even at
another Hiroshima, but at something which we can't even really imagine: hundreds of millions of
people die in the course of just a few hours.
How do we stop that?
Is the West even capable of acting in a different way?
There is one actor which might, perhaps, stop the current skid towards Armageddon: China.
Right now, the Chinese have officially declared that they have what they call a "
comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation " later shortened to " strategic
partnership ". This is a very apt expression as it does not speak of an "alliance": two
countries of the size of Russia and China cannot have an alliance in the traditional sense --
they are too big and different for that. They are, however, in a symbiotic relationship, that
both sides understand perfectly (see this
White Paper for details). What this means in very simple terms is this: the Chinese cannot
let Russia be defeated by the Empire because once Russia is gone, they will be left one on one
with a united, triumphal and infinitely arrogant West (likewise I would argue that Russia
cannot afford to have Iran defeated by the Empire for exactly the same reasons, and neither can
Iran let the Israelis destroy Hezbollah). Of course, in terms of military power, China is a
dwarf compared to Russia, but in terms of economic power Russia is the dwarf when compared to
China in this "strategic community of interests". Thus, China cannot assist Russia militarily.
But remember that Russia does not need this if only because military assistance is what you
need to win a war. Russia does not want to win a war, Russia desperately needs to avoid a war!
And here is where China can make a huge difference: psychologically.
Yes, the Empire is currently taking on both Russia and China, but everybody, from its
leaders to its zombified population, seems to think that these are two, different and separate
foes. [We can use this opportunity to most sincerely thank Donald Trump for so "perfectly"
timing his trade war with China.] They are not: not only are Russia and China symbionts who
share the same vision of a prosperous and peaceful Eurasia united by a common future centered
around the OBOR and, crucially, free from the US dollar or, for that matter, from any type of
major US role, but Russia and China also stand for exactly the same notion of a post-hegemonic
world order: a multi-polar world of different and truly sovereign nations living together under
the rules of international law. If the AngloZionists have their way, this will never happen.
Instead, we will have the New World Order promised by Bush, dominated by the Anglosphere
countries (basically the ECHELON members, aka the "Five Eyes") and, on top of that pyramid, the
global Zionist overlord. This is something China cannot, and will not allow. Neither can China
allow a US-Russian war, especially not a nuclear one because China, like Russia, also needs
peace.
I don't see what Russia could do to convince the Empire to change its current course: the US
leaders are delusional and the Europeans are their silent, submissive servants. As shown above,
whatever Russia does it always invites further escalation from the Empire. Of course, Russia
can turn the West into a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes. This is hardly a solution since,
in the inevitable exchange, Russia herself will also be turned into a similar pile of
smoldering radioactive ashes by the Empire. In spite of that, the Russian people have most
clearly indicated by their recent vote that they have absolutely no intention of caving in to
the latest western crusade against them. As for the Empire, it will never accept the fact that
Russia refuses to submit. It therefore seems to me that the only thing which can stop
Armageddon would be for the Chinese to ceaselessly continue to repeat to the rulers of the
Empire and the people of the West what the wrote in the article quoted above: that " The
West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it
once thought it was" and "the silenced minorities within the international
community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a
realization by proving it to the world through action."
History teaches us that the West only strikes against those opponents it sees as defenseless
or, at least, weaker. The fact that the Popes, Napoleon or Hitler were wrong in their
evaluation of the strength of Russia does not change this truism. In fact, the Neocons today
are making exactly the same mistake. So telling them about the fact that Russia is much
stronger than what the western propaganda says and which, apparently, many western rulers
believe (you always end up believing your own propaganda), does not help. Russian "reminders of
reality" will do no good simply because the West is out of touch with reality and lacks the
ability to understand its own limitations and weaknesses. But if China stepped in and conveyed
that crucial message " The West is only a small fraction of the world " and that the
rest of the world will prove this " through action " then other countries will step in
and a war can be averted because even the current delusion-based "solidarity" will collapse in
the face of a united Eurasia.
Russia alone cannot continue to carry the burden of stopping the messianic psychopaths
ruling the Empire.
The rest of the world, led by China, now needs to step in to avert the war.
This plan for global dominance has been over 100 years in the making and has already cost
over 100 million lives so far. How likely is it for them to back off now? The Chinese are far
from stupid so it will be interesting to see how they view the situation and act.
I've stated previously that the people who really can put a halt to it are Americans
themselves but it won't be easy. The ideal situation would be a mass mutiny of US military
personnel and the line, The Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war should probably
read, The Israeli Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war. It would be useful to repeat
this ad nauseam until it truly sinks in for US military personnel that the US is a supplicant
to Israel and to understand who they will be fighting and dying for. A mass mutiny would be
the best way to save their families and future.
Again, not much difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the
Second Rome in 1204 and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the
best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
But all three Romes were empires too filled with lies.
But I think that if stupid westerners won't wake up, -- nobody will help. China is big and
possibly can think that in world where no Russia, no Europe nor US/Canada are exist, some
place will still be for China.
It's "higly posssible" a mistake, but if silly westerners will continue to munch their MSM
grass their shadows will be printed on the walls of history.
Actually they deserve to be.
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur's
famous "my country, right or wrong" applied to the entire Empire.
Kind of disappointed in the Saker here. Just like liberals, he omits the rest of Decatur's
famous toast: "Our country -- in her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be
in the right , and always successful, right or wrong. [ Emphasis mine. ]" Decatur
was not trying to encourage amoral behavior, such as that which we now see with the
AngloZionists running Washington.
By the way, I've heard the Russians are now telling a joke about Boris Johnson: they're
saying he was poisoned with durachok (bonehead)!
China has deep ties to the western empire. Russians would be drinking too deeply from their
own propaganda to miss this fact. Indeed, the latest crippling of Trumpist reform was lead by
heavily Chinese invested men Ryan and McConnell. Israel has a strong grip on US foreign
policy for obvious reasons, but Israel has no reason to see Russia bullied into submission.
China does.
It should be plain to any objective observer of global politics that the west is
internally incoherent and will wane in power by the crush weight of demographic change alone.
China observes this and realizes the only long-term competitor to their ascendant position,
one generation hence, is an independent Russia. Far better for the Chinese that Russia is
mortally wounded or harried into Chinese vassal status before the west breaks down into a
third world non-entity.
The real reasons for the expulsions is the revelation of Russia's next generation war
weapons. It was taken up as an invitation to fight, not to make peace, and making it as hard
as possible for Russians to either influence opinion or gather information.
Somebody wanted Skripal dead, and while it may be a useful false flag provocation, with
his involvement with the Steele Dossier a possible trigger, it could be serving more than one
purpose. As usual, we are assigning to the Russkies both more omnipotence and stupidity than
is merited. I supoose it is our own elites who believe their omniscience in surveilling all
of us means they are also smarter than the rest of us. Maybe
Well said and accurate. There is no consensus among the hoipolloi with the neocon push for
war. This will never come about. The west is desperate, no doubt, and will continue to beat
its chest, much to its own detriment. If the west intended on war, it would have come about.
Time is not on their side. The neocons have backed themselves into a corner and, therefore,
must create chaos, camouflage, obfuscation, in order to bamboozle the world until they can
safely go back into their holes. Most likely, they are looking for concessions. Remember the
Wasserman-Schuiltz spy scandal? Remember the many deadly false flags being exposed to the
public for what they are?
Frankly, Saker reads too much into this Chinese article. It is not about Russia. It is
not because Skrypal hoax dialed ritual Russophobia over eleven. It just is a coincidence. Yet
before loosing the elections Hillary was promising military war with Russia. Yet before
winning the elections Trump was promising economic war with China.
USA ruling 1% was making a strategic choice year ago.
When Trump got elected he inherited the raging war. He could not stop it, obviously. Then
he turned it overboard. He started demanding so many wars at once that US Army got
overstretched and paralyzed. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Itan, Yemen, Korea, new European
garrisons . Trump send Army to prepare to war everywhere and now Pentagon can not scratch
together enough forces to attack anywhere specifically.
By his "clumsy and incompetent bravado" Trump neutralized the army, made and exposed it as
incapable pretend-force.
Now Trump can switch to his programme -- economic war with China.
And that is why Chinese diplomats and media run crazy. Now it is their war, not Russia's.
Now their tails are on the line. Now Russia mostly can move to backlines to lick wounds while
China would exchange blows and collect bruises.
This turned recent Chinese statements so bald and pushing. This, and not a concern for
Russia.
something the Russians might consider -- immediately cutting off all gas to Europe and
restoring such service for payment only in gold or the new "petrol yuan" . Europe depends
heavily on that Russian Gas, and such a move would re-align some European thinking. Replacing
it with US provided LPG would take far too long and be much more expensive having to be
shipped by sea
In fact, maybe if Russia, China, the other brics and aligned countries suddenly cut off
all ties to the west, it would hasten the coming economic collapse of the EU and US, and that
dreamed of multipolar world would arise from the ashes.
Better that than the ashes of a nuclear exchange I would think.
China is too smart to show its hand yet, they are building their economic & military
strength quietly, they don't want to scare the westerners yet with threats.
Russia`s biggest weakness is the incompetent, useless leaders they had from the 80`s
to Yeltsin. The mess that the USSR left behind with unstable states on its borders with no
treaty to prevent NATO expansion was a huge gift to the US that just keeps giving!!
I`ll go as far as saying this gift to the US might lead to Russia`s end as a country
in its present form. You can hardly blame the US I mean in 1990 Russia agreed to basically
throw the towel in and live in a US dominated world in practice. Whatever they say about
promises at the time that lasted for as long as their breath was warm .
A couple centuries ago the phrase "The White Man's Burden" was used to explain why
citizens of Western nations must devote resources to civilize the world. Gore Vidal used "The
Yellow Man's Burden" to explain why citizens of Asian nations were devoting so much wealth to
keep the USA and much of Europe wealthy. If our citizens suddenly lost 30% of their annual
income due to tax increases and spending cuts needed to truly balance our national budgets,
they would be outraged. They might learn that this was the result of "free trade", which
might result in revolution and wars. Those who have profited off "free trade" by selling out
their citizens know its best to let the working class learn this truth slowly.
_____________________
Trump's proclamation to pull out of Syria may be good news, but probably not. He hired
psychopath Bolton, so we can assume the US military is just consolidating forces in Iraq to
hold off attacks whilst they bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. The Iraqis aren't our allies, they just
act to get free stuff, and they will know we are not bombing Iran to save Iranians. It might
be wise to get our troops out of Iraq too!
____________________________
To answer:
Let's begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.
Question one (thru five): does anybody sincerely believe
Yes, this bimbo does, and she's the State Department spokesman. The State Department is
still infected with Clinton-hysteria and uses sexy women to spin lies so the foreign press
doesn't laugh and scorn absurd BS too loudly. The American press are just stenographers and
eagerly copy her lies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL9UxED4uuI
The problem is that Russia/USSR submitted once and the West think it can be achieved again.
Hence everything must be made clear. No partners word should be used and the West must be
clearly warned that violence of unimaginable level will be used if they dare and what will
follow if Russian force anywhere attacked and that any use of nukes against Russia means the
end of humanity.
Unfortunately acting adequately and carefully Russia never was able to avoid war. It is in
the books. Right now bets are life on earth hence being too careful and being perceived as
weak is a bad thing. Russia IMHO must act boldly. Respond to USA and UK harassment by cutting
diplomatic relations and giving straight terse warning.
I think what disturbs China about this whole situation regarding the ENTIRE Western world
(US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia) is not simply that it is an overreaction to Russia,
but the whole idea that one particular people -- the Russian people -- have once again been
SINGLED OUT for collective intimidation and eventually for possible dismemberment.
China has very long and very bitter experience of this itself. In the 19th century, the
imperial powers, for some reason, ganged up on China.
In other parts of the world, the experience of other backward peoples was with but ONE
particular Empire (ex. only the Americans vs the Amerinds, only the Spanish in South America,
only Great Britain in India and Australia, only Russians in Central Asia and Siberia, and
only Japanese in Korea. The British, French, Germans, Italians and Belgians each had separate
RIVAL spheres in Africa, and ditto for South-East Asia.
But when it came to China, ALL these competing powers set aside their differences. It's as
if they said to each other "Hey, China is so enormous and juicy, we should not fight among
ourselves, there's enough for everyone!" Unbelievably vicious.
And now, we see the same pattern. the whole Western world against Russia. I think in this
instance, the Han don't need anyone to tell them what to think -- it is 100% certain they do
not approve of what the collective West is doing.
But if China stepped in and conveyed that crucial message "The West is only a small
fraction of the world"
They can do better than this, and explicitly state that a nuclear war with Russia is a
nuclear war with China -- just to make it clear -- and let the US do some more realistic
calculations.
"war is a path of deceit. When you are strong -- pretend weak ."
Am familiar with Sun-tzu a well. But what are you saying here? That the UK is stronger
than Russia. I would definitely have to disagree with that proposition!
It should be plain to any objective observer of global politics that the west is
internally incoherent and will wane in power by the crush weight of demographic change
alone. China observes this and realizes the only long-term competitor to their ascendant
position, one generation hence, is an independent Russia.
Maybe, but the problem right now is the Imperial US (ruled from Israel). If it
succeeds in destroying Russia, then the Chinese are irrelevant, and have nothing to say about
anything.
The recent THREATENED tariffs have an INTERESTING TIMING to them. It is being used by
Washington to convince China to stay passive as the West takes down Russia. Conversely, if
China "bends the knee", then the West promises that the threats won't materialize. (The West
loves worthless promises). Washington calculates that the mere threat of tariffs will make
China stand by as a neighbor is destroyed. Any turmoil in your neighbor's house, spills over
into yours whether you want it to or not. A neighbor is a neighbor, period.
And THAT, IMHO, is why the protectionist threats are happening NOW. Don't get me wrong,
the tariffs were going to happen anyway, eventually. China, whatever it does, cannot escape
them.
But to threaten a trade war RIGHT NOW with the one power guaranteed to be Russia's
economic lifeline (we know that China couldn't care less what Russia does in its backyard, in
the Ukraine) while preparing to attack Russia itself? Well, the whole thing is WAY TOO
OBVIOUS.
And if someone like me can see, so can a lot of other people in Moscow and Beijing.
Washington thinks its being "smart", but they are so ridiculously easy to read.
No, not that UK is really stronger than Russia but appears weaker. It's that the West is
actually not capable of defeating Russia but loudly shouts that it CAN defeat them easily,
and tries to look powerful and intimidating to Russia. In this situation, the
weaker-positioned West pretends to Russia that we are stronger, and we want Russia to believe
us. That way, it won't come to actual war, and we think Russia will back down. It's an
extremely risky plan.
That could, perhaps, take minds of US citizens from shopping and social media to,
perhaps, more serious matters.
Won't hold my breath.
Taking everything into account, I think the you're right. The US public are
irretrievably useless and are going to have to go the whole way, with WW3 and/or an economic
collapse, with the best bet being on WW3 (which they may well lose).
In fact, it's very possible RUSSIA is NOT, at this time, the target of Western aggression.
Sure, the West shall SURELY try to destroy Russia, but the urgency is not there YET. Maybe
the real target right now is CHINA, shortly to have the world's largest economy in absolute
terms. They must be destroyed NOW! The West is trying to cut a deal with Russia: "Stab China
in the back, and bow down to us. You can live A LITTLE LONGER, before we come for you.
Otherwise we get pissed and kill you TODAY".
An entirely plausible master-plan from Washington, London and Paris. Also a pretty
transparent one, if it's the case. The problem with this "Divide and Conquer" plan, aside
from being easy to read, is that it counts on both Russia and China to be dumb enough to
believe they are not BOTH in the cross-hairs. How stupid does the West think China and Russia
are?
It would have a psychological effect, at most. Russia has 5,000 warheads, China only
admits to having around 500 or 600 strategic city-killers. They may have more, but if you
don't admit something it doesn't count for deterrence. Maybe a decade from now, as China
builds its arsenal, the statement could be much more effective.
No, the Chinese are surely disgusted with this bullying behavior of the West (even many
Europeans are, just read the comments to the news in the different media outlets) but China
cannot seriously confront the West. That would make them lose trillions of dollars in exports
and investments and put an abrupt end to their miraculous but still ongoing economic
development. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
The situation will continue to deteriorate until some sort of modus vivendi is reached
(like at the beginning of the first Cold War). Or perhaps it's just been too long since the
last World War and the time is ripe for the next one.
As for the Skripal murder attempt, it's hard to imagine Putin ordering it at this time and
in that manner but it's not that hard to imagine someone from the Kremlin sewers being behind
it.
In the somewhat less likely scenario of a false flag operation, I would consider an
Israeli asymmetrical response to the recent downing of their jet by the Syrians with obvious
help from the Russians. They have plenty of experience in extraterritorial assassinations and
more than enough knowledge to fabricate a Russian-like nerve agent.
I respect and value Saker as a commentator on Russian and military affairs. Those are his
areas of expertise and professional experience. I do not value him as a historian, because
there enters into his writing a clear bias. I respect the fact of his commitment to his
Orthodox faith, but I don't appreciate being almost hammerlocked into having to take a side
in his prejudices.
He has a way of lumping 1,000 years of exceedingly complex history into what amounts
practically to silly formulas that remind one of adolescent pique. West is characterized by
"thuggery," whereas the "East," is presumably the source -- and is possibly the monopoly --
of the virtues Saker has in mind, while Western-like manifestations of military violence and
conquest are unknown there.
And there is this pearl: "Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular,
power produced both moral relativism and colonialism " This is downright embarrassing in its
silliness. Of course, after deep study of Aquinas or Bonaventure the light comes on: moral
relativism! Clearly, subtlety and essential distinctions are not the Saker's strong points,
to say the least, when it comes to registering his annoyance and bitterness in his 1000 year
view of "the West," whereas sweeping and frankly spectacularly inept generalizations are. One
is really tempted to accuse him of a lack of intellectual integrity when it comes to these
matters.
At root, Saker is a highly emotional and touchy "rooter" for Orthodoxy. Fine, that's his
right, but he is no scholar. One looks in vain either for impartiality, for breadth and depth
of understanding and sympathy, and hence for generosity of spirit. Thankfully, there are many
great scholars of history, East and West.
In the 19th century, the imperial powers, for some reason, ganged up on
China.
That's the opposite of reality. If they had ganged up on China, each would have taken
large piece for itself. In reality, they were overawed by China, and tried to preserve it
much as they tried to preserve Ottoman rule against both breakup and dismemberment by Russia.
The Ottomans were too far gone, so they failed in both respects. But they did manage to
prevent China's breakup while failing to keep Russia from annexing a large chunk of Chinese
territory.
Heck, they even helped China defeat the millenarian Taiping rebels who racked up a large
body count during their rebellion. Note that when the Jurchens detected internal rebellion
during the Ming dynasty, they waited until the imperial armies were occupied with rebel
suppression before delivering the coup de grace to the Ming dynasty. The Western powers were
too tied up competing with each other to really cooperate in anything more than avenging the
honor of their envoys and getting trading posts set up on Chinese territory.
By "ganging up" I refer to the way in which China was COLLECTIVELY FORCED to extend any
and all concessions granted any single Imperial Power to ALL Imperial powers. And all the
Imperial powers were on-board with this policy , again as a unified group.
For example, if Russia forced a railroad treaty on China, China by unequal, at-gun-point
"Treaty" with the Eight Powers (at the time Great Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Russia,
The United States, Austria-Hungary and Italy) would also have to grant EVERYONE railroad
concessions in their respective zones.
Or say if China was forced to open trade relations by America, China would automatically
be forced to open trade to EVERYONE ELSE , and even the instigators in that case, the United
States, would force China to do it. All in the name of the relevant Treaties, of course.
Also by mutual agreement among the imperial powers, they would not support China in any
efforts to get better terms in any negotiation with any other power . So Russia refused to,
say provide support for Chinese efforts to fend off the Japanese, though normally it might
have done so. This was because, both being part of the Imperial Powers grouping, Russia and
Japan had agreed to co-exist in mutual exploitation of China.
It was all designed so that China would have no ability to shift its favor diplomatically
from one power to another, but had to negotiate from a position of deliberately imposed
weakness. Diplomacy was the only tool available to China in that execrably weak state,
pathetic as that tool was. By collective agreement among the Empires, that tool was taken
away.
In effect, exploitation of China became a COOPERATIVE project between such disparate
rivals as Britain, France and Germany, or United States, Japan and Russia. Such a thing, of a
coordinated desire to apportion one country among many, was not seen anywhere else in the
Colonial Age .
That is my meaning when I referred to the Empires "ganging up" on China.
How absurd. The foremost producer of virtually all modern goods is irrelevant without
Russia? A weakened Russia is a boon to Chinese expansion into their desired role as Eurasian
leader state. The only irrelevant nations are in the West as their post-national suicide
becomes all the more certain.
Ridiculous, China needs Russia as Russia is a perfect complement to Chinas weaknesses. In
fact, neither China nor Russia could have picked a better strategic partner than each other
as neither country could confront the West on it's own but together the West cannot topple
either nation. No other combination between countries would provide near as much
synergies.
China is not looking to expand into Russia. Why would they when they have a shrinking
population. They are expanding into the SCS in order to keep their oil lines free.
The real strategic advantage Russia and China have with each other is the OBOR. This is
key to everything and is the reason why the West is targeting Russia so aggressively.
If Mackinder's Heartland theory is at play, and you want to cut China off from Europe,
taking down Russia would seem to be an enormous effort to accomplish that. There are much
easier ways. Why not just lobby your European "allies" not to trade at all with China?
Mission accomplished, and no war with Russia as a bonus. If the EU won't follow the Empire's
orders, you need to take out not only Russia, but probably Pakistan, and all the Central
Asian nations, plus Iran and Turkey. If not, and you only destroy one or a few of these,
China's One Belt One Road reaches Europe anyway.
Also don't forget the outright blockade of China's maritime trade to be conducted by the
U.S. Navy -- kind of an act of war in itself.
Seems far easier, if you want to slow China down, to just ORDER America's NATO allies to
stop all trade with China. The rest of the world all together won't be able to fill the gap,
not any time soon.
Voila, you lower China's GDP growth by some significant percentage, using just strong-arm
diplomacy in Europe.
Buys America another full decade as number one economy, maybe.
In the fevered dreams of Western strategists, they hope for Russia and China to turn on each
other, sparing the Atlantic powers the trouble. Then, they come in and pick up the pieces.
They hope to replicate the success of Britain in playing off France against Germany pre-World
War One. The problem is they have in fact encouraged the Sino-Russian strategic alignment,
not hindered it.
No matter, after all, there can never be such a thing, thought the British, of a long-term
common interest between France and Germany -- a "European Union" will never come about.
French and Germans naturally hate each other! Right?
And how did Britain make out with that thinking? How will America make out in coming
decades? In geopolitics, not that well. Not as long as we are short-sighted.
Those with the power, and the happily ruled, have always needed synonyms for "obedience."
Solidarity is a choice in line with our social-mediatic times and the related
communication standards.
I mean, like i said above, Johnson and other western politicians are not "boneheads"
(intellectually weak) as you said, no, they are smart (intellectually strong) and pretending,
faking their intellectual weakness (appearance of stupidity)
Answers:-
One and two. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there is no chance of a
mistake, and the standard necessary for thinking Putin responsible is less than what would be
needed for finding him guilty in a court of law. He cannot hide behind his country and
diplomatic immunity while claiming the protection of British Law for evidence necessary to
convict someone on trial for a capital offence.
Three. We want nothing from Russia , for indeed they have nothing to offer. To go away and
shut up is the most they can do, and that is why are sending the worst of the Russian goons
back were they came from, whether they want to go back or not (they would love to stay in
London*).
Four. Punishment is essential, otherwise they will see weakness.
Five. No chance of nuclear war or any other kind or war. Russia is destined to become the
lonely old man of Europe. It has nothing anyone wants at the price of being treated like an
imbecile, and our diplomats dislike living there*).
Oh, we have a copypaste contest? Okay then, i'd copy here my reply at saker's blog
too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[MORE]
> China will be blackmailed into submission.
Wooop! Then it is not "existential threat" for China.
Clash for power, clash for sovereignty, clash fo prosperity -- but not for survival.
> Russia & China are working closely
Which does not mean China's role is making harsh diplomatic statements in favor of Russia.
At least it was not so before today. So i think it is not today either. Also remember that
Chinese social mindset is build upon idea of "indebting with gifts and aids" and then
requesting payback when they need it. Which means Russia should be very wary about accepting
any help from China unless it wishes to be seen by China as a deeply indebted beggar
incapable of sustaining itself. And since diplomatic situation for Russia is not deadly
critical I do not think Russia needed that newspaper article. If Russia would request China's
support of the kind -- it would be in official diplomatic venues like UN.
> Russia needs to save Syria for its own skin
> Iran needs to save its skin
But is it so for China? Is China in critical need of sovereign and friendly Syria? I doubt
it.
> China has been backing up with big cheque book for last few years, signing hundreds
of billions deal with upfront payments to prop Russia economy for prolong war.
Which is very important, but is not diplomatic statements nor Chinese newspaper
articles.
That is exactly the Chinese role in this fight like i said many times before -- economic
and financial warfare is Chinese responsibility, while military and diplomatic warfare is
Russian's.
> Global times news mostly reflected the China think tank policy that they wish to
propagate to English speaking world.
And here we are getting back to the topic. Why such a harsh, explicitly worded article did
appeared today? Was it because of Russia or of China itself? Was that article reaction to
some new threat to Syria, to russia, or to China itself?
And i believe in the latter option. This article is not linked to any recent events around
Russia, it is caused by Sino-American relations shift.
> China has sensed West is tightened noose around Russia to cut it off from world,
seeing from Olympic & now the Skirpal circus
Skripal affair is much less than Olympics was. Even European states many did not jumped
Skripal wagon. Additionally, if Russia would be "cut off from Western world" -- what the West
did not dared to do even in 2014 on the height of Crimea and MH17 accusations and on the
hopes of "gas station" imminent and fast collapse, so would hardly dare now just because some
Skripal -- but if Russia would somehow gets politically isolated from the West, what bad is
it for China? Russia would become more dependent on China, like many of the trade with West
would had to go through Chinese "laundry". China gets more influence over Russia. Russia gets
much more limited in its options. Good (for China) development, why hurry to cancel it before
Russia even asked for ?
> Trade war will be too bloody for the world
Yes, but the said trade war is not having Russia as primary adversary -- Russian economy i
not that significant to the western world, and for USA in particular it has but zero
significance. The trade war we see igniting -- is the war against China. China can no more be
"wise monkey up the trees", when USA moved their chaingun aim from Russia onto China. Now
China is being shot at, and the article is Chinese response to China being attacked. Not to
anything around Russia.
> You are silly self center viewer
Frankly, it is exactly the opposite here. It is you who claim Russia being behind that
article in Global Time. It is me who claims Russia has no any relation to the timing and
wording of that article.
> China special force is operating in Syria.
Maybe it is, but seems no one ever saw those operations.
> Lot of weapons supply to SAA.
Maybe they are, but can you name those Chinese weapons and show me where SAA is employing
it?
> Lot of money pump in to sustain Syria war,
If they are, then China does it part of the fight, good. Like USA supplied money and
material to fighting European states during WW2. However that has no relation with the Global
Times article being discussed.
> always throwing allies under bus whenever possible,
.because Putin is evil and just enjoys every opportunity to do bad thing. Always. I wish i
would hear somethign remotely creative from you.
> hence Russia deserve to be raped by West like 1990 is natural.
Oh, i see. Yet another russophobic preaching that "Russians should repent and repay,
repay, and repent", then frustrated when Russia shrugs this lecture off.
And, as you said, the west has many ways of neutralizing China.
Don't forget that China has an enormous internal market too, which in time should be
larger than the U.S. and EU combined. European countries that stay out of this vast and
rapidly growing market will be cutting their own throats. Good luck convincing them to do
that.
"... I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda. ..."
"... I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation. ..."
"... To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region. ..."
"... Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse. ..."
"... The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics. ..."
"... According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4 ..."
"... Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available. ..."
"... This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity ..."
"... The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15 ..."
"... During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. ..."
"... Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 ..."
"... In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood. ..."
"... In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. ..."
"... The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle. ..."
"... Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114 ..."
It was during the spring of 2006 that I began this project. I wanted
to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes
by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed
a political agenda.
As I researched the subject, I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared
by different circles within the American political class and promoted through
programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies,
activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia,
but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining
the nation's political reputation.
... ... ....
Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely
legitimate, the issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the
world is growing, yet many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter
in the global arena. Preoccupied with international issues, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to nego- tiate
and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday
seemed so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals,
Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the
United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most
precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown
increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated
that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism
in the former Soviet region.
And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with
Western states. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia
tells us volumes about the United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first
century's central challenges that include political instability, weapons proliferation,
and energy insecurity. Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number
of American elites, this attitude is far from universally shared. Many Americans
understand that Russia has gone a long way from communism and that the overwhelming
support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately explained by high
oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public-despite the frequent
assertions of Russophobic observers.
Balanced analysts are also aware that many Russian problems are typical difficulties
that nations encounter with state-building, and should not be presented as indicative
of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As the United States and
Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly important
to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching
way.
Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an
anti-Russian nature. For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia --
a phenomenon that I have partly researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre
Dame, 2004) and in several articles. Anti-American attitudes are strongly
present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies
of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies
tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often
commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's
political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies
by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly
more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.
The Anti-Russian Lobby
When the facile optimism was disappointed, Western euphoria faded, and
Russophobia returned ... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the
governments, but in the statements of out-of-office politicians, the
publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of jour-
nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Braithwaite,
Across the Moscow River, 2002)1
....
Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Brovvns, but
a real phenomenon of political thought in the main political think tanks
in the West . .. [T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was
approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period in
ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to
serve Washington's interests and that it would remain such in the future.
(Sergei Mikoyati, International Affairs /October 2006j)2
This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's
influence on the U.S. Russia policy. 1 discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its
tactics to achieve them, the history of its formation and rise to prominence,
and the conditions that preserved its influence in the after- math of 9/11.1
argue that Russophobia has been important to American hegemonic elites in pressuring
Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold War era.
1. Goals and Means
Objectives
The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen
America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies.
The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves,
and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective.
Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one
capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were
worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power.
In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military
and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people
and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues
across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device
for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some
the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to
others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international
politics.
According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this
"New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually
to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy
reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American
Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to
the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought
to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great
threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a
threat from arising in the first place."4
Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving
its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S.
interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system
sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared
by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival
in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned,
no other choice was available.
This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within
the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For
example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the
Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy
ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski
envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's
"grand failure."6
In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable of reform. Communism's
decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the system's
"practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism
would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7
Other com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values.
In 1990 Francis Fukuyama first formulated his triumphalist "end of history"
thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the Western-style market democracy.®
... ... ...
Marc Plattner declared the emergence of a "world with one dominant principle
of legitimacy, democracy."9 When the Soviet system had indeed disintegrated,
the leading establishment journal Foreign Affairs pronounced that "the Soviet
system collapsed because of what it was, or more exactly, because of what it
was not. The West 'won' because of what the democracies were-because they were
free, prosperous and successful, because they did justice, or convincingly tried
to do so."10 Still others, such as Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to
proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which
only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the
world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity.11
In this context of U.S. triumphalism, at least some Russophobes expected
Russia to follow the American agenda. Still, they were worried that Russia may
still have surprises to offer and would recover as an enemy.12
Soon after the Soviet disintegration, Russia indeed surprised many, although
not quite in the sense of presenting a power challenge to the United States.
Rather, the surprise was the unexpectedly high degree of corruption, social
and economic decay, and the rapid disappointment of pro-Western reforms inside
Russia. By late 1992, the domestic economic situation was much worsened, as
the failure of Western-style shock ther- apy reform put most of the population
on the verge of poverty. Russia was preoccupied not with the projection of power
but with survival, as poverty, crime, and corruption degraded it from the status
of the indus- trialized country it once was. In the meantime, the economy was
largely controlled by and divided among former high-ranking party and state
officials and their associates. The so-called oligarchs, or a group of extremely
wealthy individuals, played the role of the new post-Soviet nomenklatura; they
influenced many key decisions of the state and suc- cessfully blocked the development
of small- and medium-sized business in the country.13 Under these conditions,
the Russophobes warned that the conditions in Russia may soon be ripe for the
rise of an anti-Western nationalist regime and that Russia was not fit for any
partnership with the United States.14
The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's
ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths
of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist,
autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new
conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's
unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15
... ... ...
The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced
by policy factors, such as the divide within the policy community and the lack
of presidential leadership. Not infrequently, politicians tend to defend their
personal and corporate interests, and lobbying makes a difference in the absence
of firm policy commitments.
Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that
the split, which goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for
the absence of a coherent policy toward the country. During the period of
2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan
group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with
the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not
tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide
US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91
Since November 2004, when the administration launched a review of its policy
on Russia,92 Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found
its advocate. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004,
Colin Powell opposed the vice president's approach, arguing for a softer and
more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.
President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable
to form a consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the
Middle East, Bush failed to provide the leadership committed to devising mutually
acceptable rules in relations with Russia that could have prevented the deterioration
in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he also became doubtful about
the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result, the promising
post-9/11 cooperation never materialized. The new cold war and the American
Sense of History
It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the
United States. (Bret Stephens, "Russia: The Enemy," The Wall Street Journal,
November 28, 2006)
If today's reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real
risk that Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate.
(John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International
Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)
On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin,
Ukraine-the list goes on-Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its
allies . . . here are worse models than the united Western stand that won the
Cold War the first time around.
("Putin Institutionalized," The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007) In
order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive
the image of Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups
have exploited important differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions,
presenting those differences as incompatible.
1. Contested History
Two versions of history
The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American
ideas of Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian
communism. Although scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding
to the Soviet threat, they rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about
history and freedom.' It therefore should not come as surprise that many in
the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory of the
Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure"-as
Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2-the American discourse assumed that from now on
there would be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis
Fukuyama offered his bold summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted
in a famous passage that "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the
Cold War... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant to convey the disappearance
of an alternative to the familiar idea of free- dom, or "the universalization
of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4
In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty
and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it
is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important
attributes of sovereign statehood.
In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces,
the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal
and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy.
Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries ago, as they successfully
withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of the Nazi
regime was important to the Soviets because it legitimized their claims to continue
with the tradition of freedom as independence.
The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing
myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold
War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods
but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle.
This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western
interpretation of the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S.
narrative is the tribute to Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist
ambitions of larger powers. The Cold War too is viewed by many Russians as a
necessarily defensive response to the West's policies, and it is important that
even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the occupation,
emphasizing instead the war vic- tory.6 The Russians officially admitted "moral
responsibility" and apolo- gized for the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7
They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe,
but only in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War. Russians
also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial contribution
of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid
dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle
to every Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian
wrote, "the only undisputable foundation of the national myth."9
If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two
historical narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the
difficulty of negotiating a common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea
of freedom may vary greatly across nations. The urge for freedom may be universal,
but its social content is a specific product of national his- tories and local
circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially downplayed
the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under
the influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated
a strong egalitarian and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the
Cold War- and not without its influence-that democracy has become associated
with elections and pluralistic institutions.10 Second, it is essential to acknowledge
the two nations' mutual respon- sibility for the misunderstanding that has resulted
in the Cold War. A historically sensitive account will recognize that both sides
were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect their visions
of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future
attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent
in accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust
of the two countries' leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more
difficult to prevent a full-fledged political confronta- tion. Western leaders
had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the perception
of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to
the appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II
world made by Britain, the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to
address these deep-seated suspicions.
In addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles
Treaty were neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in
its racist and expansionist policies. The European post-World War 1 security
system was not working properly, and it was only a matter of time before it
would have to be transformed.
Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to
accept that the end of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial a second
Cold War, "it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains
that it made in the decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another
expert asked, "What possible explanation is there for the fact that today-at
a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face the common enemy of Islamist terrorism-hard-liners
within the Bush administration, and especially in the office of Vice President
Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line against Moscow along the lines
of a scaled-down Cold War?"113
Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was
given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest
nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost
perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel
between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO
onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with
our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France
treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114
"... The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other "issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude. ..."
"... The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus, in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. ..."
"... The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature." It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or Muslims. ..."
"... Cheesepopes be gaslighting ..."
"... Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true. ..."
by Srdja Trifkovic via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
There is a paranoid, hysterical quality to the public discourse on Russia and all things Russian
in today's America. The corporate media machine and its Deep State handlers have abdicated reason
and common decency in favor of raw hate and fear-mongering. We have not seen anything like it before,
even in the darkest days of the Cold War.
The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental
relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and
even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and
European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and
morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien
multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other
"issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude.
The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter
hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus,
in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. The result is a surreal narrative
that mixes supposedly unprovoked "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, hostile intent in the Baltics,
serial war crimes in Syria, political destabilization in Western Europe, and gross interference in
America's "democratic process". The result is an altogether fictitious "existential threat," which
has made President Trump's intended détente with Moscow impossible. He may have been serious about
turning over a new leaf, but the Deep State counterpressure proved just too great. A solid rejection
front emerged, left and right, conservative and liberal, which extends even into his own team and
finally inhibited him from making moves that could have appeared too friendly to Putin.
The Russophobes' narrative is unrelated to Russia's actual policies. It reflects a deep odium
of the elite class toward Russia-as-such. That animosity has been developing in its current form
since roughly the time of the Crimean War, when in his Letters From Russia the Marquis de Custine
said that the country's "veneer of European civilization was too thin to be credible."
"No human beings, black, yellow or white, could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant-in
short, as untrustworthy in every way-as the Russians," President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1905.
John Maynard Keynes, after a trip to the Soviet Union in 1925, wondered whether the "mood of oppression"
might be "the fruit of some beastliness in the Russian nature." J. Robert Oppenheimer opined in 1951
that, in Russia, "We are coping with a barbarous, backward people." More recently, Sen. John McCain
declared that "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country." "Russia is an anti-Western power
with a different, darker vision of global politics," Slate wrote in early 2014, even before the Ukrainian
crisis reached its climax.
This narrative has two key pillars. In terms of geopolitics, we see the striving of maritime empires-Britain
before World War II, and the United States after - to "contain" and if possible control the Eurasian
heartland, the core of which is of course Russia. Equally important is the already noted cultural
antipathy, the desire not merely to influence Russian policies and behavior but to effect an irreversible
transformation of Russia's identity. Some of the most viscerally Russophobic stereotypes come from
Russia herself, from those members of Moscow's "intelligentsia" who feel more at home in New York
or London than anywhere in their own country. The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles
Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature."
It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or
Muslims.
The Russophobic frenzy comes at a cost. It further devalues the quality of public discourse on
world affairs in the United States, which is already dismally low. It has already undermined the
prospects for a mutually beneficial new chapter in U.S.-Russian relations, based on a realist assessment
that those two powers have no "existential" differences - and share many actual and potential commonalities.
It perpetrates the arrogant delusion that there is a superior, "Western" model of social and cultural
thought and action that can and should be imposed everywhere, but especially in Russia.
Saddest of all, Russophobic mania prolongs the European civil war that exploded in July 1914,
continued in 1939, and has never properly ended - not even with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would
be in the American interest, as well as Russia's and Europe's, for that conflict to end, so that
the existential challenge common to all- that of resurgent jihad and Europe's demographic crisis
- can be properly addressed.
Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between
the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true.
..it seems like our foreign policy is like an angry poor, innocent "motorist", whacked out
on amphetamines, speeding over 100 mph and destined to drown in his liberal negro lottery swimming
pool.
The United States is closely watching a recent increase in piracy off the coast of Somalia,
a senior U.S. military official said on Sunday as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited an important
military base in Djibouti.
If I ignore your bullshit "but at the maximum..." implication:
So what do you conclude from that. Is it a bad thing to have rivals? Should we strive to turn
every remaining rival into a vassal? Is there a limit on methods allowed toward a rival?
I'll give you a green arrow to make up for the narrow-mindedness of the simpletons who all
gave you red arrows.
We don't need a war with Russia, and the US won't instigate one, either. The juice wouldn't
be worth the squeeze.
With all of that being said, Russia is a rival to the US in other parts of the world. The US
isn't the only country with a desire for influence around the world.
As much as there is a "Russo-phobia" being perpetuated in the US, you can bet a buck that there
is an "Ameri-phobia" being perpetuated out there.
The big difference is that in Russia, they don't have message boards full of people sh*tting
on their own country.
Well, that is kind of how major powers compete for influence. It takes two to tango. We can't
exactly engage in war by proxy if the Russians aren't involved in it, too.
I hate to say it but the so called "elites", in charge of our beloved deep state controlling
everything, are quite stupid -- This continuous news hysteria, against whatever subject du jour
our intelligentsia decides to float publicly, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that said "elites"
suffer from a combination of low IQ, partial education (at best !), and high self-delusion...
We might get to witness nuclear war, just because our "elites" are too idiotic to realize what
a nuclear war really is...
They stick their hook nose into everything because they want to own the whole 4th rock from
the sun. These people are ill, very ill and as I read these comments it's obvious that some just
don't get it yet.
All of this B.S. Russophobia evolved from a convenient distraction from the CONTENT of the
leaked DNC emails, and has been amplified because of the symbiosis with Neoconservative/Globalist
strategies.
What amazes me is how well the propaganda seems to be working. There's a bunch of old farts
(not that I'm really young!) at the gym every morning talking about how awesome it is that we
bombed Syria and it'll show that bastard Putin we're tough and mean business. "America, Fuck yeh!"
I wanted to ask them if they were mentally defective or just fucking retards...
Pretty much. Society has opted to run on emotion rather than fact, emotional manipulation being
the key part of the most popular forms of entertainment. Sadly this bleeds into our dealings with
each other which are increasingly emotional or insulting. Most of human behaviour and attitudes
are due to fear, particularly the egoic fear of inadequacy. As a control mechanism, fear is a
formidable tool. But fear is also a choice.
The Strategic Culture Foundation who published this piece has an evil agenda, and they are
not even friends of Putin. They are very subtle warmongers. You will see when the time comes.
Putin was duped by Iran in Syria, Iran got Syria, not Putin. Trump and Saudi can give Russia
what it needs to survive, if Putin stops being duped by deceptive hegemonial Iran.
This reminds me of when the ZerroHedge owners mentioned that Bloomberg article several months
back that involved an interview of a former Zero Hedge writer blowing the lid off this place.
He mentioned how pro-Russia the ZH owners were. This article suggests that he may have been right
after all!
Yea, we shouldn't be afraid of a country with nukes, that invades it's neigbours, has an uber
crony economy the size of Italy's, dominated by oligarchs in mining and the obligation to keep
friendly with the Kremlin or risk being put in jail and have your assets taken away on trumped
up charges. The country that murders it's opponents and critics with nasty stuff like Polonium,
even abroad, that interferes in others elections with misinformation campaigns and troll factories,
that is on the side of the ayatolla's of Iran and the mass murderer in Syria, helping him by bombing
hospitals and refugees, only to be "recognized as a player again on the world stage" A coutry
of alcoholics with one of the lowest life expectancy in the developed world. Really, a model state.
As Paul Graig Roberts, the inhouse idiot here noted, Putin for the Nobel peace price!
Wikileaks has disclosed the tactic to blame Russia for the election results, Trump's collusion,
etc. back to spring of 2016 --- I remember when they started making those "Russia" comments. They
wanted to start the thoughts about him/his staff being in collusion with the Russians. That was
to hopefully make more decide not to vote for him and in case he won, use it to prove election
fraud, treason and somehow impeach him.
Those who know about the Globalists NWO agenda, Deep State, Neocons, etc. realize we've all
been lied to about Russia (among all the other lies) since the end of the Cold War. for "their"
agenda purposes - need for continuous wars for MIC, etc. also. Putin is not as portrayed at all.
Russia is not the "big bad Commie" beast that wants to take over the world as they want us to
believe to "justify" another war.
Putin is an Eastern Orthodox Chrsitian who protects Christians, hates and fights terrorists
and Globalism. He is not a Globalist. We have those goals in common and Pres. Trump and Putin
would be a fantastic duo that when united, terrorism and Globalism would finally be dealt death
blows,
Our enemies within know that and therefore they're trying to do everything they can to hurt
that relationship and not let it happen because it would mean finally - the end of their evil
world order plan.
Amount of pressure applied commensurate to strength of a country in question. For some of them
all it takes is a stern talk from the ambassador, Russia right now is safely beyond the US ability
to apply the required pressure, including the threat of Nuclear War. What is happening instead
is that world being interconnected the way it is, applying pressure at hardened point that is
Russia is also increasing pressure at other weaker points as well, pretty much all over the world.
EU and NATO are posturing against Russia in display of lunacy that is symptomatic for the West,
it seems that God is taking away humans ability to reason. Day 1, Russia announces indefinite
cuts of gas supplies to Europe, stocks crater, world economy craters, Russia and China who were
hoarding gold watch the West collapse like a house of cards while passing the popcorn. The End.
Afghanistan is about to go full retard again, as taliban cuts ussa out of heroin billions---
as our afghan troops turn their weapons on their masters[1]
The Jewish media has been obsessed with this business about Russia allegedly influencing the
recent 2016 U.S. election. This obsession has concealed the real problem with foreign influence
over the American electoral system. It isn't Russian influence that's the problem, it is Israeli
influence that's the problem.
Below is a list of stories showing how Israelis or Jews substantively connected to Israel have
been subverting the American electoral process.
You know we will have turned the corner when Donald Trump gives the American people a "Fireside
Chat" and tells the public the real reasons the media spearheads a constant barrage of hate filled
anti-Russian LYING PROPAGANDA filled rhetoric... BECAUSE
A) THEY ARE THE WORLDS LEADER IN OIL PRODUCTION B) HAVE NO DEBT C) HAVE THERE OWN BALANCE OF
PAYMENT CREDIT SYSTEM MIR THAT WILL REPLACE THE WESTERN CENTRAL BANK(S) SYSTEM "SWIFT"
And after he delivers that truthful message he will NEVER BE ALLOWED TO EVER AGAIN... He will
probably be shot like HOWARD BEALE in the movie NETWORK... Or WWWIII will be LAUNCHED!!!
Last year I published Our American Pravda , making the case for
the utter corruption and unreliability of the mainstream American media, both in the past and
especially in recent years. The enormous lacunae I daily noticed in the pages of The New
York Times , The Wall Street Journal , and other leading media outlets were a
major motivation behind my creation of The Review , whose readership has grown
enormously in recent weeks.
A perfect example of this dangerous MSM "conspiracy of silence" may be found in the growing
confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, greatly accelerated by the death of almost 300
passengers aboard Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, shot down last month over Eastern Ukraine. The
American media and its Western counterparts have almost unanimously placed the blame on
anti-government rebels backed by Russia, and darkly insinuate that Russian President Vladimir
Putin has the blood of those hundreds of innocent lives on his hands. London's once-respectedEconomist magazine has repeatedly run shrill covers promoting the great threat of
Putin and Russia to world peace, even featuring a photo of the former under the stark title
"A Web of
Lies." There is the serious likelihood of a renewed Cold War against Russia and with the
neoconized Republicans in Congress proposing legislation to incorporate Ukraine as an American
military ally and deploy American forces there, the actual possibility of a military clash near
the Russian border.
As readers know, I have been overwhelmingly consumed with my own software work in recent
months and aside from closely reading the NYT and WSJ every morning, have
devoted little time or effort to following the disastrous Ukraine situation. But just carefully
reading between the lines of our elite MSM outlets and glancing at a few contrary perspectives
presented on alternative websites have left me highly suspicious of our media narrative,
leading me to wonder where the finger of guilt actually points.
For example, according to the official American story, MH17 was downed by rebels armed with
a BUK anti-aircraft missile battery. As it happens, the pro-American Ukraine government
possesses a large inventory of exactly those weapons, while it is far from clear that the
rebels have a single unit, let alone the expertise to operate such sophisticated devices.
Furthermore, there apparently exists radar evidence demonstrating that Ukraine fighter planes
were in the immediate vicinity of MH17 just before it was shot down and there are firsthand
reports from investigators on the ground that portions of the crashed fuselage showed strong
evidence of having been hit the sort of heavy machine-gun fire employed in air combat. I find
it extremely suspicious that the American government has repeatedly refused to release the
evidence supporting its narrative, while the Russian government has released copious evidence
supporting its contrary perspective.
We must bear in mind that the downing of MH17 and the deaths of the hundreds of mostly
European passengers came as a fortuitous stroke of fortune for the embattled Kiev government
and its neoconservative American backers, given that Germany and most of the other major
European governments had just balked at approving the harsh anti-Russian economic sanctions
being proposed by the White House. Cui bono ?
Furthermore, this terrible suspicion that 300 innocent lives may have been sacrificed in a
ghastly false-flag operation by an American-supported government is somewhat buttressed by
earlier events. Consider that the overthrow of the democratically-elected and neutralist
Ukrainian government was sparked by the massive bloodshed that erupted between riot police and
pro-American demonstrators in the Kievan capital, as many hundreds on both sides were suddenly
killed or wounded by an outbreak of heavy gunfire over a couple of nights. I found it very
intriguing that soon afterward an
intercepted telephone call between the pro-Western foreign minister of Estonia and European
High Commissioner Catherine Ashton, later confirmed to be genuine, revealed that the bullets
found in the bodies of both government police and anti-government demonstrators had apparently
come from the same guns. The most plausible explanation of this strange detail is that the
snipers responsible were professionals brought in to cause the massive bloodshed necessary to
overthrow the government, which is exactly what soon followed. Again cui bono ?
Am I certain about these facts, let alone the analysis built upon them? Absolutely not! As
emphasized, I've been entirely preoccupied with other matters over the last few months. But if
such obvious suspicions are apparent to someone who occasionally glances at the news reports
out of the corner of his mind's eye, the total silence of the American media and its huge corps
of full-time professional journalists constitutes a very telling indictment. Personally, I
think there's a high likelihood that forces aligned with current pro-Western regime were
responsible for the massacre in Kiev's Maidan Square and a better than fifty-fifty chance they
more recently shot down MH17, but I really can't be sure about either of these things. However,
I am absolutely 100% certain that the American MSM has been revealed as a totally worthless
source of information on these crucial world events, although it can be relied upon to provide
every last detail of Robin Williams' troubled life or the endless foibles of the
Kardashians.
In the interests of providing our readers at least some access to alternate accounts of why
we may now be heading into a new Cold War against Russia -- or even a hot one -- I've recently
republished a couple of Mike Whitney's fine Counterpunch columns on the mysteries of
Flight
MH17 , which cautiously raised questions rather than claimed to answer them, as well as
those of the redoubtable Paul Craig Roberts.
Aside from attracting considerable debate from our website's often "excitable" commenters,
whose views range from the sensible to the deranged, our Whitney columns regarding MH17 had a
far more important consequence. One of our left-liberal readers was shocked to read facts
totally absent from the pages of The Nation , the Huffington Post , or any of
the other left-liberal sites she visits. Out of curiosity, she contacted a very prominent
left-liberal American academic, someone with special expertise in exactly that area of Europe.
To her considerable surprise, he largely confirmed the outlandish "conspiracy theory," saying
that the evidence increasingly indicated that the American-backed Kiev government had shot down
Flight MH17, either accidentally or otherwise.
Based on his remarks, it sounded like he and his friends had devoted 100x the time and
effort that I had to investigating the incident, thereby reassuring me that my casual
conclusions were at least not wholly ridiculous. Yet it also appeared that neither he or any of
the other American experts in his circle who apparently share his views had seen fit to publish
their opinions in any of the numerous media outlets to which they have easy access, presumably
for fear of being denounced and stigmatized as "conspiracy nuts." They may regard the
possibility of an American military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia as a terrible
danger, but it pales compared to the horrifying risk that the 22-year-old bookers at MSNBC chat
shows might decide to put a black mark down next to their names.
The following day I lamented this cowardice of our intelligentsia to another
prominent liberal academic with whom I'm friendly, and he immediately sent me the draft by a
friend of his on that very topic that I am now greatly honored to publish. Most of the dead on
MH17 were Dutch citizens and Karel van Wolferen ranks as one of the
world's most prominent Dutch journalists, winner of major awards and someone whose numerous
books that have sold well over a million copies worldwide. His article describes the evidence
regarding MH17, but more importantly focuses on the totally corrupted worlds of journalism and
politics that have enabled this dangerous situation to develop.
I urge everyone to read van Wolferen's long and thoughtful piece and ask themselves why such
basic facts and simple analysis appear nowhere within the mainstream American media. Given his
standing and his credibility, the New York Times should have long since featured his
byline on a major opinion piece, and the absence constitutes powerful evidence. During our
disastrous Iraq War the American media applied exactly the same
boycott to the views of my old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who had run the NSA
for President Ronald Reagan and ranked as one of Washington's leading experts on national
security issues. Our totally incompetent ruling elites refuse to let discordant voices puncture
their bubble of unreality.
For those readers who refuse to admit the possibility that our vaunted MSM might conceal
such vital facts, consider the important point I made at the beginning of my 2013 article . In
recent years, leading scholars have conclusively established that for a decade or two during
the 1930s and 1940s, a small network of Communist spies quietly gained substantial control of
our national government in Washington, DC, successfully diverting the actions of the United
States to their own nefarious ends. If our mainstream media had failed to notice or report that
situation at the time and then spent the next half century ridiculing anyone who suggested this
possibility, why should anyone believe that the media can be trusted on the question of who
actually shot down Flight MH17 in Ukraine? Our American Pravda indeed.
UPDATE: Our long, detailed article by distinguished Dutch journalist Karel van Wolferen has
had enormous traffic, and is now on the verge of becoming the most heavily read piece in the
history of our young webzine, while the nearly 600 Tweets it has so far received indicatie
distribution comparable to that of a major New York Times article. All this has happened in
just the last couple of days.
Furthermore, just as I had hoped, the very lengthy comment threads of the two articles have
provided a wealth of additional information, far beyond anything I had previously encountered,
given my slight familiarity with this issue.
First, I learned that a group of highly-experienced former intelligence officers from the
CIA, FBI, NSA, and other government agencies has issued a public statement sharply criticizing
the lack of evidence substantiating the claims made by American government officials.
Also, the blogsite of Col. Patrick Lang, a very highly regarded former Defense Intelligence
official, has published a lengthy and detailed analysis of the MH17 Incident, raising many of
the same issues:
Furthermore, one of the commenters on our website, who purportedly has a military
intelligence background, pointed us to the very detailed analysis he had published on his own
blogsite regarding MH17:
Although I claim no great expertise in military affairs, these analyses certainly seem to
strengthen my suspicions that the Official Story almost universally accepted by the Western MSM
is far from solid and may indeed be a ridiculous fabrication. I urge others to follow the links
I have provided, and draw their own conclusions, perhaps different from my own. But they should
ask themselves why so many highly-regarded former U.S. intelligence professionals would be
raising these serious doubts and why our mainstream media has totally failed to report
them.
As for me, I've noticed a curious fact. It appears that the people and organizations
promoting the current Official Line on Ukraine have a huge overlap with the people and
organizations that promoted the disastrous Iraq War, based on the notorious WMD Hoax.
Meanwhile, the people providing serious skepticism about government accusations regarding MH17
are exactly the same people who raised doubts and skepticism about Iraq's alleged WMD and the
wisdom of attacking Iraq, while being just as totally ignored by the MSM then as now.
Since none of the Iraq War or WMD Hoax culprits ever received proper punishment for their
crimes, they've mostly remained alive and free and able to promote equally disastrous foreign
policy adventures in the media they continue to control. But that doesn't mean we must be so
gullible as to believe what they say.
Going forward, the crucial unknown is whether our timorous media or even its ideological
fringes, will begin to seriously report these issues, or whether they'll all get into line just
as they did during the WMD Hoax.
UPDATE 2:
Scott Horton has a podcast interview of Karel van Wolferen
The Never Trump cabal can now claim total victory. Unsuccessful at preventing Trump from
winning the nomination or the general election, they have instead co-opted his presidency for
their own policies and programs.
With the nomination of John Bolton, Never Trump interventionists have installed one of the
unrepentant architects of the catastrophic Iraq War to head the National Security Council.
In recent months, ignoring and rejecting his own party's convention platform, Trump has
agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. Besides accelerating the deaths of Ukrainians and
ethnic Russians while laying waste to the civilian population of the Donbas, what advantage to
the people of the United States does this military escalation provide?
Last summer, in one of the strangest speeches in American history, President Trump announced
he would surge troop levels in Afghanistan -- and then in the same breath admitted it was a
mistake and something he didn't really want to do. That should show the conflict here: Trump's
instincts versus the establishment sorts around him.
Never Trumpers are not so secretly celebrating. They got the president they thought they
didn't want. And now, pretending they still don't want him, they can hardly believe their good
fortune.
Achieving their foreign policy goals is just the icing on the cake. They also got the
president to implement the entire Wall Street agenda: lowering taxes on the super rich;
advancing huge subsidies to the medical insurance industry; keeping the Export-Import Bank
funded; re-authorizing the ivory trade; shrinking the size of national monuments so that
multi-national corporations can turn our wilderness areas into strip mines and clear-cut
wastelands.
Then, just this week, in a reckless act of generational theft, Trump endorsed the second
biggest budget in U.S. history, caving in to every demand and desire of the UniParty and the K
Street lobbyists whom they serve.
In the 18th century, the cry went "Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute!"
Trump's cry is "Billions for defense, but not one penny for a wall!"
Trump justifies his signature on the omnibus bill by claiming it was necessary for national
security. But that claim rings hollow when comparatively little is allocated for the protection
of America's own borders and the defense of its homeland. Americans intuitively know that the
real danger to their safety is not along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; it's along the
U.S.-Mexico border. But Trump's own laudable instincts have been neutered by the globalist,
interventionist generals and policy wonks who now populate powerful positions at the White
House and the departments of State and Defense.
Many reading this might now protest: what's wrong with passing the omnibus? Isn't it
providing the funds necessary for making America great again? But Donald Trump did not run for
office on a platform of bloating spending; he ran on opposition to massive debt increases and
specifically to many of the programs they pay for. The budget can be summed up in a paraphrase
of a Broadway musical hit tune: whatever crony wants, crony gets.
Has there been a fiercer critic of the Iraq war than Donald Trump? Yet he promotes to the
head of the NSC perhaps that conflict's most vociferous apologist. Trump promised he would end
the wars of choice, that he would refrain from taking sides in other nation's internal
conflicts. He called for a reasonable rapprochement with Russia with the goal of making America
and Americans safer. He specifically said he would wind down the military commitment in
Afghanistan as quickly and safely as possible.
His only bellicose pledge concerned ISIS, which he promised to destroy. As we have seen,
that was one of the few promises he kept. In most other policy areas he has reversed his
campaign pledges. His foreign policy is no longer America First; it's evolved into the same,
old, dangerous, meddling, interventionist program of the last quarter century. Trump has
deepened U.S. involvement in Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan without clearly defining
the missions, the goals, and the risks. If voters had wanted this, they would have elected
Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.
Yet of all the betrayals, the war on nature is the most grievous and shocking. As someone
who supported Trump from day one in June 2015, who has seen virtually every one of his
speeches, interviews, and tweets, I cannot recall a single word about the national parks or
monuments.
Had Trump forecast during the campaign how he would govern on environmental issues, would he
have been elected? Could those narrow margins of victory in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Iowa have gone the other way? With his appointment of Ryan Zinke to the Department of the
Interior, Trump needlessly and recklessly alienated tens of thousands of voters who might
otherwise have supported him and who may indeed have voted for him in 2016. Although its hard
to discern exactly why the president's poll numbers are as low as they are, it would be a
mistake to discount the animus engendered by the unexpected assault on wilderness, open space,
endangered species, and America's magnificent national monuments.
The only national monument that Trump has failed to shrink is the Beltway swamp. In fact,
judging from the continuing spread of McMansions in Potomac, Maryland and Falls Church,
Virginia, he has effectively widened its borders. It's as if the chants from all those packed
stadiums during that long ago presidential campaign were "Fill that swamp! Fill that
swamp!"
It is now abundantly clear why the Never Trumpers are tittering over their cocktails. Trump
has staffed most departments of his government with establishment cronies and neoconservative
zealots. He now presides over the implementation of their agenda. In effect, we're
getting a variation on what could be called the third Bush presidency -- minus the decorum.
Trump's is also the all-talk presidency: talk tough on illegal immigration, but fail to
build the wall; talk tough on sanctuary cities, but fail to cut federal subsidies; talk tough
on illegal immigration, then push for the biggest amnesty since 1986; talk tough against the
Export-Import Bank, then fund it; talk tough on Obamacare, then fund big insurance to keep the
subsidies flowing; talk tough on reducing taxes, then screw millions of homeowners across
America by actually raising their taxes; talk tough on trade, then tiptoe around
Mexico and Canada on everything that really matters; talk tough on the deficit, then sign the
second biggest boondoggle spending bill in U.S. history.
Still, it cannot be denied: President Trump has accomplished much -- for the establishment
and their K Street lobbyists. They write the bills, Paul Ryan guides them through the House
amendment-free, and Trump signs them in to law.
For those who packed those campaign rallies, who wore those red "Make America Great Again"
caps, and for the rest of us mere plebs, Donald Trump's presidency is best summed up by The
Bard: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War motion-pictures Gettysburg ,
Gods & Generals , and Copperhead .
"... North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests. ..."
"... I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy. ..."
"... In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them. ..."
I believe Trump could negotiate a deal. But I also believe he could blow up the whole talk
before it even happens. He has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with
increased interest in foreign war (Bolton hiring) and the ramping up of hostilities by
bouncing Russians from the U.S. over the phony poisoning story in the UK.
I don't disagree with your comment, but not comfortable with the term "bend to". Trump
gets enamored with different people at different times, but he always is looking
down at them. They may get enough rope to scare the rest of us, but they are still on a
rope.
Bolton is horrible, but a lot of other horrible people have come and gone in this really
quick year.
Bolton is horrible but probably won't last long. Nobody at Trump's ear has, including his
own children.
Trump just announced that we're withdrawing from Syria. That's more than Obama ever
did.
Part of being a nationalist demagogue is that you're not as interested in foreign wars
unless they enrich the country. Not a single one of our wars does that. There's nothing
interesting in mercantilism, for instance, that we can't do at home (drill baby drill).
I'm not saying I agree with that view, I'm just saying that if he's a nationalist
demagogue, it only follows that he's not interested in, uh, "non-for-profit warmaking".
I am NO Trump fan or voter, but it does appear that he's the first one to apply sanctions
to those specific Chinese banks handling the trade with North Korea.
(Somewhat) OT, but it strikes me that the best way to look at Trump is through the lense
of what he is – the US version of Sylvio Berlusconi. A sleazy billionaire Oligarch with
no core principles and a fondness for Bunga Bunga parties.
Rather than as LITERALLY HITLER as per the verbiage of hashtag the resistance.
Thus, rather than as a crazed madman bent on "evil" at all times one wonders whether Mr.
Bunga Bunga would do a deal with Lil' Kim. Sure he would, assuming that the ruling military
Junta allows him to. It might be in the interest of the latter to de-escalate this particular
hotspot (as NK crisis/hype fatigue may set in) and simply push Iran as the next flashpoint to
hype.
Indeed! They even sound quite similar -- I recall in a speech that Berlusconi gave when he
was still the Italian president and the Italian left was screaming for his resignation,
Sylvio claimed such demands were making him uneasy, since if he was to go home, and he had 20
homes, it would be difficult for him to decide which house or mansion to go to!
It seems the bottom line for negotiations with North Korea have little to do with this
article which covers Trump's thoughts on nuclear proliferation between major powers that have
massive stockpiles.
North Korea is mainly interested in protecting itself from regime change and from becoming
a US outpost (as in target) butt up against China. It is hard to believe that Kim Jong-Un
would get any advantage whatsoever out of dismantling his nuclear arsenal, however small. One
assumes he is aware of Gaddafi in particular and US's track record on keeping it's promises
– particularly over the span of different administrations – in general.
The above comment assumes full disarmament as the minimum condition of any "negotiation"
since Trump has gone so far out of his way to make that clear.
Oh, and now see the lead story at the Financial Times, China uses economic muscle to bring
N Korea to negotiating table:
China virtually halted exports of petroleum products, coal and other key materials to
North Korea in the months leading to this week's unprecedented summit between Kim Jong Un,
the North Korean leader, and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.
The export freeze -- revealed in official Chinese data and going much further than the
limits stipulated under UN sanctions -- shows the extent of Chinese pressure following the
ramping up of Pyongyang's nuclear testing programme. It also suggests that behind Mr Xi's
talk this week of a "profound revolutionary friendship" between the two nations, his
government has been playing hard ball with its neighbour.
I would normally agree but Kim Jong-Un was just summoned to China. Not even given a state
visit. The Chinese announced North Korea would denuclearlize:
North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un pledged his commitment to denuclearization and to meet
U.S. officials, China said on Wednesday after his meeting with President Xi Jinping, who
promised China would uphold friendship with its isolated neighbour.
China has heretofore pretended that it couldn't do anything about North Korea. It looks
like Trump's tariff threat extracted China jerking Kim Jong-Un's chain as a concession. I
don't see how Kim Jong-Un can defy China if China is serious about wanting North Korea to
denuclearlize. Maybe it will merely reduce its arsenal and stop threatening Hawaii (even
though its ability to deliver rockets that far is in doubt) and just stick to being able to
light up Seoul instead.
Agree. I wasn't aware of the details you mention above regarding the export freeze. (I
won't use Google and my normal 'trick' doesn't work to get around FT's paywall – and I
won't use the trial membership either). I'm hopeless.
Anyway, you make a very convincing case. I can only imagine that Kim Jong Un is one
miserable scared rat. My point about a "silk noose" below was perhaps on the mark.
Kim might agree on paper or through an insincere promise to denuclearize, but I don't see
a closed authoritarian regime like the North agreeing to an inspection regime that would
insure that such a pledge would be lived up to. Reduction, but build-up on the sly w/o
inspections.
China may be interested in a deal to the extent that it prevents a bloody war breaking out
that they'll probably expend manpower to help clean up and it insures the security of a North
Korean buffer that keeps American troops off their border; After all, they've got to keep the
powder dry for "reunification" with Taiwan.
I also don't believe that the US would agree to concessions, such as removing American
troops from the peninsula. the pentagon wouldn't like it, the hawks around Trumps wouldn't
like it, and I believe the SK leadership would not be too crazy about the potential
ramifications for their security with such an agreement.
But, can Trump (by extension, the US), make an agreement that can be relied on over its
term?
For any hope of NK trusting any deal with the US he would have to stand by the Iranian
deal. Then there's Bolton and the Neocon Will To War, for deeply pathological reasons which
by nature cannot be debated.
In this case, the mere possibility of a "deal" is possible, but only if there is a third
party to hold both of them to it.
That's the crazy thing about this. What possible inducement could Kim Jong-Un have gotten
to attend his own funeral? Why would anyone trust the US an inch?
I suppose if he can keep his own people in a suspended state of extreme propaganda, then
he might be vulnerable to his own medicine, but that seems at odds with his behavior so far
(such as the assassination of his uncle). If anything, he would be especially leery of
anything coming out of the US.
And then can he really be that psyched out by Bolton, Pompeo and Torture Lady so
that good cop Trump can hand him is own death certificate with a space for his signature?
Whatever happened during this China trip, the overarching theme must have been how to
manage the US. Here's one rough scenario:
NK 'disarms' to some definition, under the auspices of China, acquiring in return an
explicit Chinese security umbrella for the buffer it presents between them and SK. Nobody
really wants a unified Korea in any case. In return, the US vacates SK militarily, ever so
discretely and over time.
Done correctly, and with the finesse necessary for Trump, China is in a position to
extract all sorts of concessions from the US on other fronts as well. Nothing positive is
going to happen here without China, and they hold most of the cards. If nothing positive
happens, we have to consider the pressure that'd build on Trump to do something, anything,
and that probably being something rash. (Better a big disaster over there than a mammoth one
over here thinking).
"he can't go willy nilly and set nukes a-flying just because it struck him as a good idea
that day."
I mean sure. His "button" isn't literally connected to a missile somewhere, but he sure as
hell can ask that nukes be fired whenever and wherever he wants. You could argue that someone
in the chain of command would prevent that from happening, but that's more of a hope than a
guarantee. For a really good read on how this all works and the history of the nuclear
program I highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788
With Bolton on board and seemingly everyone with half a brain, a little logic and the
ability to hold their tongue for more than about 5 seconds out, I highly doubt anything will
come of these negotiations. In fact, I'm more worried that the US will get steamrolled by
China and NK.
That isn't true. See the link I provided, which you clearly did not bother to read.
Various people can refuse his order as illegal. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker, in a
Financial Times, before Trump was elected, said the same thing. Bolton is the National
Security Adviser. He may have a lot of informal power by having direct access to the
President, but he does not tie in to the formal chain of command, either at the DoD or
State.
Oh I read it and I've read many other articles and a lot of non-fiction on the issue.
Again, I would call your position and the position of this article hopeful at best. Trump has
the football, he has the codes in his jacket pocket and everyone responsible for carrying out
the order to launch has been raised up through a military system that ensures no one
questions an order from their superior. Relying on various people to refuse his order as
illegal in this system is not a fail-safe I feel comfortable with. I do find it interesting
that you just assume I didn't read the article as if this one article is the end all be all
on the subject.
The article seems a bit confused about what it's trying to say. Stopping nuclear
proliferation has been a major policy priority of the US and other western governments since
the 1960s, and if I recall correctly it was one of Bolton's priorities when he was in Bush
the Lesser's administration. It's something in which all of the declared nuclear powers have
an interest, because the smaller the number of nuclear powers in the world, the greater the
difference between them and the rest. This is much more important than wild fantasies about
rogue attacks: if N Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power like India, Israel and Pakistan,
then all sorts of other countries might be tempted to have a go, starting with S Korea (which
has the capacity and has been caught cheating before). Whilst this risk is objectively small,
an end to the NK programme would make it even smaller. I suspect the deal will be that NK
denuclearizes and China guarantees its security: a non-nuclear NK will be even more of a
client state than it is now.
Nuclear competition among the superpowers is quite different and involves a whole set of
different issues.
Less warfare = more wall
But remember the last time Trump said something in Syria's favor? A chemical attack happened
in small village for no logical reason and the hawks immediately took to framing Assad. Trump
then backed off and took harder line on Assad, launching missiles into Syria.
So I'm inclined to think he wants a deal. But look out for screaming hawks immediately
trying to scuttle anything.
Perhaps 30 years ago, Trump was an international defense luminary, but I see little
evidence of the boasted emotional control and cool Trump claimed. He is unarguably a
successful grifter. Is that what it takes to make peace? What happens when the other guy
realizes he has been lied to by a congenital liar? Back to square 1.
In my take, the recent meeting between the heads of China and N Korea just Trumped any
leverage the US might have had in peace talks. Trump will be there only if a scapegoat is
needed. Both S. Korea and Japan have expressed doubts about our reliability as a defense
shield against powerful China – Japan and the Koreans' neighbor. What Little Rocketman
has likely achieved is diplomatically checkmating the US. Now Trump's tariff threats serve
only to push US allies in the region closer to China. Should that turn out to be the case,
the economic repercussions are as dangerous and unpredictable as nukes in the air or as Trump
himself. I sure hope I got this all wrong.
"no enduring principles" is a feature of politicians everywhere today. Their concern is to
represent the rich and their qualification is to present those biased arguments in a way that
beguiles the electorate into supposing its a good idea for them as well. Step Two is the "who
would have thought it?" response after the country catches on.
In former times the candidate for public office would assert his principles on the
hustings and the voters would remember what they knew of him before voting. Sure, there were
ambitious unreliable people who were willing to exchange their reputations for office but
they were few. We should get back to those days.
We allowed our merchants and spooks to drive USSR to the precipice without any thoughts
about the nukes they had. It appeared then that warheads supposedly in Ukraine were missing.
We will likely discover what happened to them in due course. It is possible that surveillance
of communications is the main reason they are not a thread for the time being but that does
not mean they have dropped out of existence.
Thank you NC for introducing an issue that should concern economists as much as everyone
else.
North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have
repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in
return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather
vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October
(Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but
they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear
tests.
Don't forget the United States has itself promised to denuclearize, under the NPT.
It would certainly bring me great pleasure if Trump of all people were to bring about some
great positive change in regards to the Forever War with North Korea. Imagine all the whining
liberals if Trump, unlike Obama, actually did something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make
concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy.
PRC and NK leaders might think that all they have to do is get through a short patch of
bad weather until 2020. If so, they are badly kidding themselves.
In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't
matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they
may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until
somebody else stops them.
The elder Skripal awakes, tells nurses he is tired of hospital; walks out to find nearest
press mike, tells world Russia had nothing to do with it, just bad food at a Chinese
restaurant!
This slide is a good April 1 joke, courtesy of Her majesty government on Theresa May. By the way, I've heard the Russians are
now telling a joke about Boris Johnson: they're saying he was poisoned with durachok (bonehead)! but many be he is
playing fool, with vicious and calculated intention
Notable quotes:
"... All that is missing here is the mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret "weather weapon" to send hurricanes towards the USA. ..."
In the 12 events listed as evidence of a "pattern of Russian malign activity" one is
demonstratively false (2008 invasion of Georgia), one conflates two different accusations
(occupation of Crimea and destabilization of the Ukraine), one is circular (assassination of
Skripal) and all others are completely unproven accusations.
All that is missing here is the
mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret
"weather weapon" to send hurricanes towards the USA.
You don't need a law degree to see that,
all you need is an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of logic. For all my
contempt for western leaders, even I wouldn't make the claim that they all lack these. So here
is where "solidarity" kicks-in:
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur 's famous " my
country, right or wrong " applied to the entire Empire. The precedent of Meine Ehre
heißt Treue just slightly rephrased into Meine Ehre heißt
Solidarität also comes to mind.
You're reading your own narrative rather than what's in front of you. Russia isn't going
to up and blow away no matter what. Their relationship with China is a matter of course as
well, though you vastly over-state the supposed synergy between the two.
My point is that a diminished Russia is obviously no threat to China and clearly in the
long term interests of China if they wish to be the chief architect and manager of the
Eurasian belt of which they have become enamored.
Taken in broader strokes, a world in which nuclear apocalypse isn't on the menu, due to
elites favoring their own survival, is one in which the West invariably declines into
obscurity due to their ruling class having no qualms about destroying their nations and
states in the name of near term personal benefits. In such a world the only question is who
will take the leading role of new geopolitical master.
China is already poised for this position, but having an assuredly weakened Russian gives
them the sort of leverage they need to siphon out more Eurasian trade profits for their own
geopolitical aims. Geopolitical top players don't simply seek a sufficient position from
which to bargain. They seek a position from which the results of said bargain are largely
foregone.
And this is entirely consistent with Chinese foreign policy toward the West and Russia.
The former is a dead man walking with no chance of rebelling against Beijing's economic
control. The latter is a future regional partner whom they would very much like to see as a
junior when the time comes for them to abandon the western financial system and asset their
peerless status.
Exactly. Very good points. China wants weaker Russia. However China can't allow Russia to
submit to the US that's why they will be propping Russia just enough so Russia does not fold
too soon. The US and China have one common objective: they do not want Russia to hook up with
EU and Germany. Russia+EU would be the only third power that could challenge both the US and
China. That's why China is happy with Zio-Amercian meddling in Central Europe by playing
Poland and Hungary against both Germany and Russia as the wedge between them.
China does not trust Russia because they know how avaricious, unpatriotic and devoid of
any deeper nationalist doctrine and thus how unreliable are Russian elites. They know it
because they know their own Chinese elites with respect to which they must use many tools to
discipline them, the tools that Russia lacks because there sis no supreme ideological
authority. There in Russia nobody really knows who suppose to discipline whom and why.
Saker as usual is naive and let his wishful thinking hijack his analytical abilities.
Russia & China are working closely to counter the West for existential threat, deeper
& broader than what your self centered mind can imagine. Russia needs to save Syria for
its own skin, and its last ME bastion of influence. When Syria down, Israel & Saudi gas
will pipe to EU & cut off Russia lucrative EU gas deal & influence. Iran will be next
to attack, hence complete ME oil & gas come under US UK Fr control, which can be utilized
to sabotage Russia oil export.
China will be then blackmailed into submission for oil supply. Iran will be surrounded by
US allied forces everywhere, fighting West moderate terrorists. Its existential war in Syria
against West hedgmon control for Russia, China & Iran, not just propping up Assad. Russia
has overwhelming sufficient military capability to fight US allies, backed by war hardened
powerful Iran, SAA army, Hezbollah & Iraq Shiah fighters unmatched ground force.
USM knows it can't win such war without nuke, so it has to find either face saving exit or
contented with current occupied oil rich land. It got nothing to do with Trumps stupidity to
overstretch its military as you imagine.
China has been backing up Russia with big cheque book for last few years, signing hundreds
of billions deals with upfront payments to prop Russia economy for prolong war.
Global times news mostly reflected the China think tank policy that they wish to propagate
to West English speaking world. China has sensed West is hysteria tightening noose around
Russia in EU foolish solitude movement with UK.
When Russia is down, China is next, vice versa. China special force has been operating in
Syria to fight terrorists. Lot of weapons ammunition supply to SAA. Lot of money pump in to
sustain Syria war & feed millions of Syrians. Who else do you think is paying these
bills, West controlled UN Red cross?
Now China is largest economy & market by PPP term, with 50% w/w mfg capacity, its
capable to inflict unacceptable damage to US economy in trade war. EU, Japan & Korea all
have huge parts export to China for assembly, so none wanted the disastrous trade war that
will suck down global trade.
So Trumpets is blowing hot air only to blackmail China, soon it will back down as WH
already delay any tariffs to after June, seeking dialogue eagerly with Beijing.
You are just silly self centered like those Russians always throwing allies under bus,
hence Russia will find it has no true ally and will forever licking its wounds alone until
slaughtered by West.
The elder Skripal awakes, tells nurses he is tired of hospital; walks out to find nearest
press mike, tells world Russia had nothing to do with it, just bad food at a Chinese
restaurant!
This slide is a good April 1 joke, courtesy of Her majesty government on Theresa May. By the way, I've heard the Russians are
now telling a joke about Boris Johnson: they're saying he was poisoned with durachok (bonehead)! but many be he is
playing fool, with vicious and calculated intention
Notable quotes:
"... All that is missing here is the mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret "weather weapon" to send hurricanes towards the USA. ..."
In the 12 events listed as evidence of a "pattern of Russian malign activity" one is
demonstratively false (2008 invasion of Georgia), one conflates two different accusations
(occupation of Crimea and destabilization of the Ukraine), one is circular (assassination of
Skripal) and all others are completely unproven accusations.
All that is missing here is the
mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret
"weather weapon" to send hurricanes towards the USA.
You don't need a law degree to see that,
all you need is an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of logic. For all my
contempt for western leaders, even I wouldn't make the claim that they all lack these. So here
is where "solidarity" kicks-in:
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur 's famous " my
country, right or wrong " applied to the entire Empire. The precedent of Meine Ehre
heißt Treue just slightly rephrased into Meine Ehre heißt
Solidarität also comes to mind.
"... Still, George McGovern was a humble man who carried the burden, and honor, of his military service with grace. Though proud of his service, he was never constrained by it. When he saw a foolish war, an immoral war -- like Vietnam -- he stood ready to dissent. He was an unapologetic liberal and unwavering in his antiwar stance. These days, his kind is an endangered species on Capitol Hill and in the Democratic National Committee. McGovern died in 2012. His party, and the United States, are lesser for his absence. ..."
"... Today's Democrats are mostly avid hawks, probably to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy. ..."
"... Heck, even Gen. David "Generational War" Petraeus , once found himself in some hot water when -- in a rare moment of candor -- he admitted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel." Translation: US policy toward Israel (and, no doubt, the foolhardy 2003 invasion of Iraq) make American soldiers less safe. ..."
"... So does the basic post-9/11 American policy of sovereignty violation and expansive military intervention whenever and wherever Washington feels like it -- so long as it's in the name of fighting (you guessed it) "terrorism." ..."
"... George McGovern -- a true patriot, a man who knew war but loved peace -- wouldn't recognize the likes of Klobuchar, Clinton, Schumer and company. He'd be rightfully embarrassed by their supplication to the national warfare state. ..."
"... In 1972, McGovern's presidential campaign (as, to some extent, Bernie's did) reached out to impassioned youth in the "New Left," and formed a rainbow coalition with African-Americans and other minority groups. His Democrats were no longer the party of Cold War consensus, no longer the party of LBJ and Vietnam. No, McGovern's signature issue was peace, and opposition to that disastrous war. ..."
"... His campaign distributed pins and T-shirts bearing white doves . Could you even imagine a mainstream Democrat getting within 1,000 meters of such a symbol today? Of course not. ..."
He knew war well -- well enough to know he hated it.
George McGovern was a senator from South Dakota, and he was a Democrat true liberals could admire. Though remembered as a staunch
liberal and foreign policy dove, McGovern was no stranger to combat. He
flew 35 missions
as a B-24 pilot in Italy during World War II. He even earned the Distinguished Flying Cross for executing a heroic emergency crash
landing after his bomber was damaged by German anti-aircraft fire.
Still, George McGovern was a humble man who carried the burden, and honor, of his military service with grace. Though proud
of his service, he was never constrained by it. When he saw a foolish war, an immoral war -- like Vietnam -- he stood ready to dissent.
He was an unapologetic liberal and unwavering in his antiwar stance. These days, his kind is an endangered species on Capitol Hill
and in the Democratic National Committee. McGovern died in 2012. His party, and the United States, are lesser for his absence.
Today's Democrats are mostly avid hawks, probably to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy. They dutifully
voted for Bush's Iraq war . Then, they won back
the White House and promptly expanded an unwinnable Afghan
war . Soon, they again lost the presidency -- to a reality TV star -- and raised hardly a peep as Donald Trump expanded
America's aimless wars
into the realm of the absurd.
I've long known this, but most liberals -- deeply ensconced (or distracted) by hyper-identity politics -- hardly notice. Still,
every once in a while something reminds me of how lost the Democrats truly are.
I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully
attended a panel at the
American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn't help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party.
The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and
more. But she -- a supposed liberal -- and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America's warfare
state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats' reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger
disease in the party -- tacit militarism.
AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings -- well attended by mainstream
Democrats and Republicans alike -- serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu's ring
and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don't dare utter the word "Palestinian." That'd be untoward -- Palestinians
are the unacknowledged
elephants in the room .
The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America's failed
project in the Middle East, should be the last group "liberals" pander to. That said, the state of Israel is a fact. Its people --
just like the Palestinians -- deserve security and liberty. Love it or hate it, Israel will continue to exist. The question is: Can
Israel remain both exclusively Jewish and democratic? I'm less certain about that. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided,
occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign
Palestinian territory , keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights.
This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly
damages the U.S. military's reputation on the "Arab street." I've seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands
of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered US support for Israel
and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: "Why do they hate us?"
Heck, even
Gen. David
"Generational War" Petraeus , once found himself in
some hot water when
-- in a rare moment of candor -- he admitted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception
of US favoritism for Israel." Translation: US policy toward Israel (and, no doubt, the foolhardy 2003 invasion of Iraq) make American
soldiers less safe.
So does the basic post-9/11 American policy of sovereignty violation and expansive military intervention whenever and wherever
Washington feels like it -- so long as it's in the name of fighting (you guessed it) "terrorism." So, which "liberals" are raising
hell and ringing the alarm bells for their constituents about Israeli occupation and America's strategic overreach? Sen. Klobuchar?
Hardly. She, and all but four Democrats, voted for
the latest bloated Pentagon budget with few questions asked. Almost as many Republicans voted against the bill. So, which is
the antiwar party these days? It's hard to know.
Besides, the Dems mustered fewer than 30 votes in support of the
Rand Paul amendment and
his modest call to repeal and replace America's outdated, vague Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). All Sen. Paul,
a libertarian Republican, wanted to do was force a vote -- in six months -- to revisit the AUMF. This wasn't radical stuff by any
means. The failure of Paul's amendment, when paired with the absolute dearth of Democratic dissent on contemporary foreign policy,
proves one thing conclusively: There is no longer an antiwar constituency in a major American political party. The two-party system
has failed what's left of the antiwar movement.
By no means is Amy Klobuchar alone in her forever-war complicity. Long before she graced the halls of the Senate, her prominent
precursors -- Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer (to name just a few) --
rubber-stamped a war of aggression in Iraq and
mostly acquiesced as one president after another (including Barack Obama) gradually expanded America's post-9/11 wars. When will
it end? No one knows, really, but so far, the US military has deployed advisers or commandos to
70 percent
of the world's countries and is actively
bombing at least seven . That's the problem with waging clandestine wars with professional soldiers while asking nothing of an
apathetic public: These conflicts tend to grow and grow, until, one day -- which passed long ago -- hardly anyone realizes we're
now at war with most everyone.
So where are the doves now? On the fringe, that's where. Screaming from the distant corners of the libertarian right and extreme
left. No one cares, no one is listening, and they can hardly get a hearing on either MSNBC or Fox. It's the one thing both networks
agree on: endless, unquestioned war. Hooray for 21st century bipartisanship.
Still, Americans deserve more from the Democrats, once (however briefly) the party of McGovern. These days, the Dems hate Trump
more than they like anything. To be a principled national party, they've got to be more than just anti-Trump. They need to provide
a substantive alternative and present a better foreign policy offer. How about a do-less strategy: For starters, some modesty and
prudent caution would go a long way.
George McGovern -- a true patriot, a man who knew war but loved peace -- wouldn't recognize the likes of Klobuchar, Clinton,
Schumer and company. He'd be rightfully embarrassed by their supplication to the national warfare state.
In 1972, McGovern's presidential campaign (as, to some extent, Bernie's did) reached out to impassioned youth in the "New
Left," and formed a rainbow coalition with African-Americans and other minority groups. His Democrats were no longer the party of
Cold War consensus, no longer the party of LBJ and Vietnam. No, McGovern's signature issue was peace, and opposition to that disastrous
war.
His campaign distributed pins and T-shirts bearing
white doves . Could you even imagine a mainstream Democrat getting within 1,000 meters of such a symbol today? Of course not.
Today's Dems are too frightened, fearful of being labeled "soft" (note the sexual innuendo) on "terror," and have thus ceded foreign
policy preeminence to the unhinged, uber-hawk Republicans. We live, today, with the results of that cowardly concession.
The thing about McGovern is that he lost the 1972 election, by a landslide. And maybe that's the point. Today's Democrats would
rather win than be right. Somewhere along the way, they lost their souls. Worse still, they aren't any good at winning, either.
Sure, they and everybody else "support the troops." Essentially, that means the Dems will at least fight for veterans' health
care and immigration rights when vets return from battle. That's admirable enough. What they won't countenance, or even consider,
is a more comprehensive, and ethical, solution: to end these aimless wars and stop making new veterans that need "saving."
Major Danny Sjursen, anAntiwar.comregular, is a U.S. Army
officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written
a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians,
and the Myth of the Surge. He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at@SkepticalVetand check out his new podcast"Fortress on a Hill,"co-hosted with fellow vet Chris 'Henri' Henrikson.
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect
the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
How a former ambassador who spend five years in the country can remain so jingoistic and close-minded neocon is beyond me...
He sounds like McFaul.
Looks like a part of US neocon elite implicated in Russiagate was also involved (or with enthusiasm became involved) in Skripal
incident. The level of discussion of problems that this incident poses that ambassador Burns offers is very amateurish and immature.
A typical level of anti-Russian propaganda or even lower than that.
He sounds like a typical neocon lamenting the loss of "unipolar moment". The problem that he does not understand (or
does not want to understand) is the neoliberalism in past its prime and as such the decline on neoliberalism
take the USA and USA global neoliberal empire with it. So the USA has a weaker hand now than in 90th when it
was really the sole global superpower and Russian under drunk Yeltsin was a yet another Washington vassal. Those days will never
return as now Washington needs to confront the rise of China and possible Russia-China alliance.
What is interesting that he confirm that desire to expropriate funds of Russian oligarchs in the USA along the same move by
Great Britain.
The problem is not that the British are using a false flag operation to open a new round of the cold war with Russia. The problem
is that this occasion turned out to be the case of Skripal, they so shamefully botched the whole operation that watching all this is
just embarrassing. Washington and London still were able to coerce European vassals to launch diplomatic demarches against Moscow.
Most on NATO members expelled some number of Russian diplomats. Such a simultaneous expulsion is an unprecedented
actions in European history, especially when there is not proof of any wrongdoing in Skripal case on the Part of the Russia. And
several signs that this is a false flag operation by British intelligence services (which might use food poisoning or
revenge of some unknown business partner(s) as a starting point; later Novichok was planted to make it a full brown
provocation against Russia).
The problem is that coercing EU vassals was done under the guise of a six-page document of such quality that it can be be
discussed seriously
only on Comedy Central
This suggests degradation of the USA and GB elites. Which is a very troubling sign of what to come, if we remember of the history
of the USSR.
Notable quotes:
"... His biggest vulnerability is his diplomatic loneliness. He has nothing close to the web of alliances and partnerships that have anchored the United States and its partners. While it's almost always slower, harder and less satisfying to work in coalitions, the policy effects are almost always more long-lasting and effective. It's critical to work with our allies and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to establish a clear baseline to forcefully counter Mr. Putin's unserious denials of culpability. ..."
"... The logical next step after the diplomatic expulsions is a similarly coordinated campaign to hit the wallets of the Kremlin elite. ..."
"... American actions this past week offer a hopeful sign. Agile diplomacy can still land a punch. Now comes the hard part. Diplomacy won't transform the adversarial relationship with Mr. Putin's Russia, but it can manage it. Mr. Putin is right about one thing: We have the stronger cards. We've just played them erratically. ..."
Last week, following the brazen attempt by Russia to assassinate one of its former spies and his daughter in Britain with a
chemical weapon, 27 countries expelled more than 150 Russian diplomats. Moscow swiftly and predictably reciprocated,
announcing that it would
expel 60 American diplomats.
Is this the end of President Trump's illusion about a grand bargain with Vladimir Putin's Russia and the beginning of a sober,
long-term strategy?
Mr. Putin has prided himself on playing a strong game with weak cards. He sees plenty of opportunities to hobble his adversaries
abroad and further cement his position at home. That requires engaging in an asymmetric game -- relying on dark arts to make inroads
in a brutish world, exploiting the vulnerabilities of open societies while highlighting the benefits of his closed one.
... ... ...
It's critical that Mr. Putin lose that bet. That is not a call for self-indulgent chest-thumping or blind confrontation. Mr. Putin's
broadly adversarial calculus cannot be reversed, but it can be altered in meaningful ways with coordinated pressure. That's where
diplomacy comes in.
Mr. Putin's muscular revanchism can camouflage his weakness, but it cannot erase it. He remains reliant on a one-dimensional economy,
constrained by sanctions, mired in the reckless adventures he's pursued in Ukraine and Syria, and increasingly subordinate to China
and its growing ambitions. An effective diplomatic response needs to expose Mr. Putin's vulnerabilities as effectively as he has
sought to exploit ours.
His biggest vulnerability is his diplomatic loneliness. He has nothing close to the web of alliances and partnerships that
have anchored the United States and its partners. While it's almost always slower, harder and less satisfying to work in coalitions,
the policy effects are almost always more long-lasting and effective. It's critical to work with our allies and the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to establish a clear baseline to forcefully counter Mr. Putin's unserious denials of culpability.
We have demonstrated our ability to work in concert on painful sanctions after Mr. Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Now it's time
to tighten those screws further, fully apply the sanctions passed by Congress last summer, and work closely with our partners to
follow suit. We all need to reduce our vulnerabilities to Russia's meddling, and deny impunity to those aiding and abetting those
efforts.
The project of making Russia great is part and parcel of making Mr. Putin and his crony capitalist friends rich. That is also
a vulnerability. Too many countries for too long have facilitated the enrichment and corruption of Mr. Putin's inner circle. That
needs to end.
The logical next step after the diplomatic expulsions is a similarly coordinated campaign to hit the wallets of the Kremlin
elite. That won't be easy or pain-free for a number of economies, including our own. A strong signal that business as usual
is over will unsettle Moscow and stimulate concerns about what more drastic steps might follow. Mr. Putin knows that the longer he
is denied foreign direct investment, the further behind his economy will fall.
There is some risk of a more forceful response to Mr. Putin's aggression. We need to be vigilant not to prompt an unprovoked escalation
in Ukraine or legitimate Mr. Putin's shrouded machinations by deploying our own impulsively -- whether in cyberspace or other types
of covert action. Sustaining military and diplomatic channels is not a favor or a sign of weakness. It's a way to demonstrate that
while we will not give in to Mr. Putin, we will not give up on the longer-term prospect of a healthier relationship with Russia.
It may very well be that last week's countermeasures are nothing more than a passing phase. We already see cracks within the European
Union and Britain is divided by the Brexit debates. The Trump administration has signaled policy shifts, like pulling out of the
Iranian nuclear agreement, that will make it easier for Mr. Putin to create wedges.
American actions this past week offer a hopeful sign. Agile diplomacy can still land a punch. Now comes the hard part. Diplomacy
won't transform the adversarial relationship with Mr. Putin's Russia, but it can manage it. Mr. Putin is right about one thing: We
have the stronger cards. We've just played them erratically.
... ... ...
William J. Burns, the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former deputy secretary of state,
was the American ambassador to Russia from 2005 to 2008.
The problems with Germany is that it does not have any independent press... German MSM are
probably worse then the USA MSM in being neoliberal stooges, if not to say prostitutes.
Also Merkel is a staunch neoliberal politician hell bent on neoliberal globalization and who
still cling to power and tried to use the USA as a leverage to stay in power
Notable quotes:
"... So in a certain sense, I can imagine that the Russians feel really betrayed by this kind of behavior by Merkel. Now, Merkel has a specific background. You know, many people have always asked themselves, what makes this woman tick? Nobody has been able to answer that question in any satisfying way. But I think the Russians really feel betrayed. ..."
"... Merkel is just obviously following like a puppy-dog -- even though puppies are cuter than Mrs. Merkel, I would say. But I think it's a serious matter, and I think people should absolutely not fall for this, because these are the kinds of things which can get out of control and be the trigger for a new world war, and who would want that? ..."
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the case of France is a little bit more complicated, because Macron,
who had a slightly different emphasis on the cooperation with the New Silk Road and China, than
Merkel, for example; the French Foreign Minister Yves Le Drian just announced that Macron will
go to Moscow in May. So I think that that looks a little bit different than Mrs. Merkel, who --
really, I mean, it's a complete shame, and obviously this new "Grand Coalition" government,
which is not so grand, given the fact that they are all falling in the polls like a stone; I
think this is really a reflection of the fact that there is presently no German elite worth
being called the name.
And I think that people in Germany should really not accept that. The history of the
German-Russian relationship, given the fact that there were two world wars, the Second World
War being an unbelievable memory in every Russian person; and then the fact that Russia agreed
to the German unification, without any shots being fired or tanks being deployed, -- you know,
in a peaceful way. Russia gave up East Germany and agreed to the unification, and received
promises at that time that NATO would never be expanded to the borders of Russia, a promise
which was broken. And then you had all these escalations.
So in a certain sense, I can imagine that the Russians feel really betrayed by this kind
of behavior by Merkel. Now, Merkel has a specific background. You know, many people have always
asked themselves, what makes this woman tick? Nobody has been able to answer that question in
any satisfying way. But I think the Russians really feel betrayed.
And I think the German people should go back to the kind of Ostpolitik, at minimum, which
was characteristic for German attitude for a very long time, to have a policy of
good-neighborliness, of peaceful dialogue, of cooperation. And I think this is really, really
important that the population in Germany does not fall in line with this aggressive British
policy which Merkel is just obviously following like a puppy-dog -- even though puppies are
cuter than Mrs. Merkel, I would say. But I think it's a serious matter, and I think people
should absolutely not fall for this, because these are the kinds of things which can get out of
control and be the trigger for a new world war, and who would want that?
"... Kennedy, the Lobby and the Bomb: http://www.voltairenet.org/article178401.html ..."
"... Michael Collins Piper – Final Judgement -The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy: http://americanfreepress.net/PDF/Final_Judgment.pdf ..."
"... Muammar Al-Gaddafi – Ben Gurion ordered JFK's death over Israeli Nuke Plant at Dimona: This may have angered them a bit too: http://time.com/4711687/john-f-kennedy-diary-hitler/ ..."
@redmudhooch Trump should call for a real 9/11 investigation, that would drain the swamp,
the American people would all be behind him, what better way to win over America than 9/11
justice that is way past due?
If this is democracy we need something else, if what we done to Libya, Iraq, Syria,
Afghanistan, Latin American countries is democracy, we need to rid ourselves of democracy
The entire system is 100% corrupt, including Judges, prosecutors, lawyers, the whole swamp.
Big money rules.
The media is with the deep state, they clearly have an agenda, and it doesn't seem to be an
American one, something has to be done to shut them up. Hell yes they're spying on us, They use the IRS and state revenue agencies to get back at
dissenters, I have experienced it...
Not only are they spying on us, they're spying on the politicians, judges, literally
everyone, and blackmailing the snot out of them. Using extortion to get their way. The
corruption needs to be punished, all of it, not just who deep state chooses to get back at.
They're all corrupt.
Look at the electoral map for 2016 election, it is nearly completely red, and all that red
is very well armed and very pissed off. If Trump does the things he got elected on, stops
kissing Netanyahus ass he'll be fine. All he would have to do is get on twitter and make the
announcement, tell the people to help him drain the swamp, shut it down, we can protest and
yell just as loud as the well funded made for tv protesters. People have had enough, we can't
go on this way, people feel threatened now, and they will do what needs to be done to protect
their families. We just need an organizer (Trump) to give the word. But if he keeps up the war
mongering and giving in to the establishment on all the issues that won him the election, hes
done.
Look at what happend to Jim Traficant when he got out of line, who goes to jail in DC?
People who do the right thing.. Heres another example of how they get their way: Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that U.S.-based
Israeli Mossad agents might someday need to "order a hit" on the president of the United
States.
On Jan. 13 the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that
Israel might someday need to "order a hit" on the president of the United States.
In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu would need to "give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president
deemed unfriendly to Israel." The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that
would help the Jewish state "obliterate its enemies." Adler wrote that it is highly likely that the idea "has been discussed in Israel's most inner
circles."
I think this is what happened to JFK when he tried shutting down CIA, cracking down on the
Israeli lobby, inspecting Israeli Dimona nuclear facility. END the Fed scam, take away the
blank check.
I think this is what happened to JFK when he tried shutting down CIA, cracking down on the
Israeli lobby, inspecting Israeli Dimona nuclear facility. END the Fed scam, take away the
blank check.
Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president
warned that unless American inspectors were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any
military activities), Israel would find itself totally isolated. Rather than answering,
Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned.
John F. Kennedy Administration: Summary of Eshkol Reply To Kennedy Letter (November 9,
1963)
In the November 12 talks we hope through open and frank responses to convince the Israeli
representatives of our sympathetic interest in their security concerns and of our genuine
desire to help Israel to the best of our ability. We will press the view that U.S. ability to
deter aggression against Israel makes less imperative the need for Israel to maintain clear
military superiority over the U.A.R. in all fields and underlines the futility of large
expenditures of time, effort and money on a spiralling arms race. We will stress that
Israel's acquisition of missiles could result in a Soviet supply of missiles to the U.A.R.
and that a missile race increases the chance of a missile exchange in which Israel as a
small, compact target would inevitably suffer most.
Details of the JFK-RFK duo's effort to register the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee's (AIPAC) parent organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC) as an Israeli
foreign agent were shrouded in mystery until declassified in mid-2008.
The diary reveals that during his time in Berlin, Kennedy wrote about visiting Hitler's
bunker only months after Germany surrendered in the Second World War.
"You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred
that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived," Kennedy wrote
in his diary in 1945.
"He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the
world, but he had a mystery about him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that
will live and grow after him," he added. "He had in him the stuff of which legends are
made."
"... Still, George McGovern was a humble man who carried the burden, and honor, of his military service with grace. Though proud of his service, he was never constrained by it. When he saw a foolish war, an immoral war -- like Vietnam -- he stood ready to dissent. He was an unapologetic liberal and unwavering in his antiwar stance. These days, his kind is an endangered species on Capitol Hill and in the Democratic National Committee. McGovern died in 2012. His party, and the United States, are lesser for his absence. ..."
"... Today's Democrats are mostly avid hawks, probably to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy. ..."
"... Heck, even Gen. David "Generational War" Petraeus , once found himself in some hot water when -- in a rare moment of candor -- he admitted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel." Translation: US policy toward Israel (and, no doubt, the foolhardy 2003 invasion of Iraq) make American soldiers less safe. ..."
"... So does the basic post-9/11 American policy of sovereignty violation and expansive military intervention whenever and wherever Washington feels like it -- so long as it's in the name of fighting (you guessed it) "terrorism." ..."
"... George McGovern -- a true patriot, a man who knew war but loved peace -- wouldn't recognize the likes of Klobuchar, Clinton, Schumer and company. He'd be rightfully embarrassed by their supplication to the national warfare state. ..."
"... In 1972, McGovern's presidential campaign (as, to some extent, Bernie's did) reached out to impassioned youth in the "New Left," and formed a rainbow coalition with African-Americans and other minority groups. His Democrats were no longer the party of Cold War consensus, no longer the party of LBJ and Vietnam. No, McGovern's signature issue was peace, and opposition to that disastrous war. ..."
"... His campaign distributed pins and T-shirts bearing white doves . Could you even imagine a mainstream Democrat getting within 1,000 meters of such a symbol today? Of course not. ..."
He knew war well -- well enough to know he hated it.
George McGovern was a senator from South Dakota, and he was a Democrat true liberals could admire. Though remembered as a staunch
liberal and foreign policy dove, McGovern was no stranger to combat. He
flew 35 missions
as a B-24 pilot in Italy during World War II. He even earned the Distinguished Flying Cross for executing a heroic emergency crash
landing after his bomber was damaged by German anti-aircraft fire.
Still, George McGovern was a humble man who carried the burden, and honor, of his military service with grace. Though proud
of his service, he was never constrained by it. When he saw a foolish war, an immoral war -- like Vietnam -- he stood ready to dissent.
He was an unapologetic liberal and unwavering in his antiwar stance. These days, his kind is an endangered species on Capitol Hill
and in the Democratic National Committee. McGovern died in 2012. His party, and the United States, are lesser for his absence.
Today's Democrats are mostly avid hawks, probably to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy. They dutifully
voted for Bush's Iraq war . Then, they won back
the White House and promptly expanded an unwinnable Afghan
war . Soon, they again lost the presidency -- to a reality TV star -- and raised hardly a peep as Donald Trump expanded
America's aimless wars
into the realm of the absurd.
I've long known this, but most liberals -- deeply ensconced (or distracted) by hyper-identity politics -- hardly notice. Still,
every once in a while something reminds me of how lost the Democrats truly are.
I nearly spit up my food the other day. Watching on C-SPAN as Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., gleefully
attended a panel at the
American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference, I couldn't help but wonder what has happened to the Democratic Party.
The worst part is I like her, mostly. Look, I agree with Sen. Klobuchar on most domestic issues: health care, taxes and
more. But she -- a supposed liberal -- and her mainstream Democratic colleagues are complicit in the perpetuation of America's warfare
state and neo-imperial interventionism. Sen. Klobuchar and other Democrats' reflexive support for Israel is but a symptom of a larger
disease in the party -- tacit militarism.
AIPAC is a lobbying clique almost as savvy and definitely as effective as the NRA. Its meetings -- well attended by mainstream
Democrats and Republicans alike -- serve as little more than an opportunity for Washington pols to kiss Benjamin Netanyahu's ring
and swear fealty to Israel. Most of the time, participants don't dare utter the word "Palestinian." That'd be untoward -- Palestinians
are the unacknowledged
elephants in the room .
The far right-wing Israeli government of Netanyahu, who is little more than a co-conspirator and enabler for America's failed
project in the Middle East, should be the last group "liberals" pander to. That said, the state of Israel is a fact. Its people --
just like the Palestinians -- deserve security and liberty. Love it or hate it, Israel will continue to exist. The question is: Can
Israel remain both exclusively Jewish and democratic? I'm less certain about that. For 50 years now, the Israeli military has divided,
occupied and enabled the illegal settlement of sovereign
Palestinian territory , keeping Arabs in limbo without citizenship or meaningful civil rights.
This is, so far as international law is concerned, a war crime. As such, unflinching American support for Israeli policy irreversibly
damages the U.S. military's reputation on the "Arab street." I've seen it firsthand. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds and thousands
of miles away from Jerusalem, captured prisoners and hospitable families alike constantly pointed to unfettered US support for Israel
and the plight of Palestinians when answering that naive and ubiquitous American question: "Why do they hate us?"
Heck, even
Gen. David
"Generational War" Petraeus , once found himself in
some hot water when
-- in a rare moment of candor -- he admitted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception
of US favoritism for Israel." Translation: US policy toward Israel (and, no doubt, the foolhardy 2003 invasion of Iraq) make American
soldiers less safe.
So does the basic post-9/11 American policy of sovereignty violation and expansive military intervention whenever and wherever
Washington feels like it -- so long as it's in the name of fighting (you guessed it) "terrorism." So, which "liberals" are raising
hell and ringing the alarm bells for their constituents about Israeli occupation and America's strategic overreach? Sen. Klobuchar?
Hardly. She, and all but four Democrats, voted for
the latest bloated Pentagon budget with few questions asked. Almost as many Republicans voted against the bill. So, which is
the antiwar party these days? It's hard to know.
Besides, the Dems mustered fewer than 30 votes in support of the
Rand Paul amendment and
his modest call to repeal and replace America's outdated, vague Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). All Sen. Paul,
a libertarian Republican, wanted to do was force a vote -- in six months -- to revisit the AUMF. This wasn't radical stuff by any
means. The failure of Paul's amendment, when paired with the absolute dearth of Democratic dissent on contemporary foreign policy,
proves one thing conclusively: There is no longer an antiwar constituency in a major American political party. The two-party system
has failed what's left of the antiwar movement.
By no means is Amy Klobuchar alone in her forever-war complicity. Long before she graced the halls of the Senate, her prominent
precursors -- Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer (to name just a few) --
rubber-stamped a war of aggression in Iraq and
mostly acquiesced as one president after another (including Barack Obama) gradually expanded America's post-9/11 wars. When will
it end? No one knows, really, but so far, the US military has deployed advisers or commandos to
70 percent
of the world's countries and is actively
bombing at least seven . That's the problem with waging clandestine wars with professional soldiers while asking nothing of an
apathetic public: These conflicts tend to grow and grow, until, one day -- which passed long ago -- hardly anyone realizes we're
now at war with most everyone.
So where are the doves now? On the fringe, that's where. Screaming from the distant corners of the libertarian right and extreme
left. No one cares, no one is listening, and they can hardly get a hearing on either MSNBC or Fox. It's the one thing both networks
agree on: endless, unquestioned war. Hooray for 21st century bipartisanship.
Still, Americans deserve more from the Democrats, once (however briefly) the party of McGovern. These days, the Dems hate Trump
more than they like anything. To be a principled national party, they've got to be more than just anti-Trump. They need to provide
a substantive alternative and present a better foreign policy offer. How about a do-less strategy: For starters, some modesty and
prudent caution would go a long way.
George McGovern -- a true patriot, a man who knew war but loved peace -- wouldn't recognize the likes of Klobuchar, Clinton,
Schumer and company. He'd be rightfully embarrassed by their supplication to the national warfare state.
In 1972, McGovern's presidential campaign (as, to some extent, Bernie's did) reached out to impassioned youth in the "New
Left," and formed a rainbow coalition with African-Americans and other minority groups. His Democrats were no longer the party of
Cold War consensus, no longer the party of LBJ and Vietnam. No, McGovern's signature issue was peace, and opposition to that disastrous
war.
His campaign distributed pins and T-shirts bearing
white doves . Could you even imagine a mainstream Democrat getting within 1,000 meters of such a symbol today? Of course not.
Today's Dems are too frightened, fearful of being labeled "soft" (note the sexual innuendo) on "terror," and have thus ceded foreign
policy preeminence to the unhinged, uber-hawk Republicans. We live, today, with the results of that cowardly concession.
The thing about McGovern is that he lost the 1972 election, by a landslide. And maybe that's the point. Today's Democrats would
rather win than be right. Somewhere along the way, they lost their souls. Worse still, they aren't any good at winning, either.
Sure, they and everybody else "support the troops." Essentially, that means the Dems will at least fight for veterans' health
care and immigration rights when vets return from battle. That's admirable enough. What they won't countenance, or even consider,
is a more comprehensive, and ethical, solution: to end these aimless wars and stop making new veterans that need "saving."
Major Danny Sjursen, anAntiwar.comregular, is a U.S. Army
officer and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written
a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians,
and the Myth of the Surge. He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at@SkepticalVetand check out his new podcast"Fortress on a Hill,"co-hosted with fellow vet Chris 'Henri' Henrikson.
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect
the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
This guy, which in th past managed to write not that bad articles, is now 100% pure neocon.
Looks like he does not understand that the drisi of neoliberalism undermines the USA empire more
then Russia.
Similarly, the fact that U.S. policy has, over the last several
years, been driving Moscow and Beijing into a closer strategic embrace -- a negation of four
decades of American strategic logic that dictated the necessity of keeping Russia and China
more invested in their relationship with the United States than with each other -- seems to be
dismissed by pat references to past bad blood between the two countries. Yes, Russians worry
about a Chinese threat to the Russian Far East, and Chinese still would prefer to reverse
Russia's imperial gains of the nineteenth century. But strategic establishments in both Moscow
and Beijing have shown the capacity to set aside nationalist sentiments and to see the benefits
of closer cooperation. Again, a Chinese superpower in 2050 may succeed in retaking Eastern
Siberia for Beijing -- but it is foolhardy for the United States to sit back and make strategy
based on an assumption of eventual Sino-Russian enmity.
Cutting a series of geopolitical deals with the Kremlin is an impossibility as long as Putin
remains in power. Given his approach over the last two years to begin cultivating a new
generation of leadership in Russia, Putin's eventual successor is likely to continue his
approach. The United States must now contemplate the tradeoffs it will have to consider in its
foreign policy. Weaken Russia's hold over Eurasia by peeling China away from its strategic
partnership by conceding to Beijing its preferences in the South and East China Seas? Leave the
Iran deal largely in place and encourage Tehran to diminish its reliance on Moscow? Overcome
domestic resistance to trade by revitalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership as new geoeconomic structures to complement U.S.
security ties in the Pacific and Atlantic basins? Subsidize the price differential between
Russian natural gas and U.S. shale gas, to convince European consumers to diversify in that
direction? Recommit to further NATO enlargement?
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the Captain Jerome E. Levy chair of economic geography and
national security at the Naval War College. He is also a contributing editor to the National
Interest. The views expressed here are his own.
Sebastian Rotella reports
on how many of the people that worked with Bolton remember his tendency to distort intelligence
and ignore facts that contradicted his assumptions:
"Anyone who is so cavalier not just with intelligence, but with facts, and so
ideologically driven, is unfit to be national security adviser," said Robert Hutchings, who
dealt extensively with Bolton as head of the National Intelligence Council, a high-level
agency that synthesizes analysis from across the intelligence community to produce strategic
assessments for policymakers. "He's impervious to information that goes against his
preconceived ideological views." [bold mine-DL]
That assessment lines up with what I understood about Bolton, and it points to one of the
biggest problems with his appointment. I wrote this shortly
before Trump announced that he was choosing Bolton:
The real danger is that he is such an ideologue that he would keep information from the
president that contradicts his views and prevent Trump from getting the best available
advice. Trump is poorly informed to begin with, and having Bolton as his main adviser on
matters of national security and foreign policy would make sure that he stays that way.
Trump is especially susceptible to being manipulated by his advisers into endorsing the
policies they want because he knows so little and responds so favorably to flattery, and he has
shown that he is already more than willing to select a more aggressive option when he is told
that it is the "presidential" thing to do. We should expect that Bolton will feed Trump bad or
incomplete information, present aggressive options in the most favorable light while dismissing
alternatives, and praise Trump's leadership to get him to go along with the hard-line policies
Bolton wants. Bolton will run a very distorted policy process and he will be the opposite of an
honest broker. That won't serve Trump well, and it will be terrible for our foreign policy.
"... It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations , an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, "Project for the New American Century," which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... In 2000, PNAC released a report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses which outlined a strategy of regime change in Iraq and beyond. Under a section titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," the think tank wrote the following controversial line: ..."
"... "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." ..."
This article was written by Derrick Broze and originally published at
Activist Post
The latest neo-conservative warmonger to join the Trump Administration does not bode well for the people of Iran.
On Thursday Donald Trump announced that John Bolton, a former official in George W. Bush's administration and former ambassador
to the UN, would be his new National Security Advisor. Bolton is a warhawk who called for the invasion of Iraq in search of non-existent
weapons of mass destruction and has for years called for the invasion of Iran.
Middle East Eye collected
a number of quotes from Bolton over the years that indicate his plans for Iran and other nations viewed as a threat to national
security of the U.S. government. And by that I mean the people who secretly wield control of corporate and state power.
In 2009, Bolton said that regime change is "ultimately, the only thing that will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons." As recent
as 2015 Bolton call for a U.S./Israel joint bombing campaign."Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran's
opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran."
Meanwhile, Senator Rand Paul questioned the appointment. "It concerns me that Trump would put someone in charge who is unhinged
as far as believing in absolute and total intervention,"
Paul stated. Bolton's appointment
was also criticized by Trita Parsi, leader of the National Iranian American Council.
Further, it seems that Bolton and former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani have already promised the regime change would be happening
within the next year. "Just eight months ago, at a Paris gathering, Bolton told members of the Iranian exile group, known as the
Mujahedeen Khalq, MEK, or People's Mujahedeen, that the Trump administration should embrace their goal of immediate regime change
in Iran and recognize their group as a 'viable' alternative,"
The Intercept
reports.
"The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime
itself," newly appointed National Security Advisor John Bolton told the crowd. The Intercept also noted that Iranian expatriate
journalist Bahman Kalbasi reported that Bolton ended his talk by promising, "And that's why, before 2019, we here will celebrate
in Tehran!"
At a recent celebration of the Persian New Year, Rudy Giuliani promised the audience that "if anything, John Bolton has become
more determined that there needs to be regime change in Iran, that the nuclear agreement needs to be burned, and that you need to
be in charge of that country." Disturbingly, Giuliani reportedly led the crowd in a chant of "regime change!".
It should also be noted that Bolton is a member
of the Council on Foreign Relations , an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few
generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, "Project for the New American Century," which
was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.
In 2000, PNAC released a report titled
Rebuilding America's Defenses which outlined a strategy of regime change in Iraq and beyond. Under a section titled "Creating
Tomorrow's Dominant Force," the think tank wrote the following controversial line:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Less than a year later, 10 of the 18 men who signed the paper became members of the Bush administration. The attacks of 9/11 would
come soon after and the neocons had their "catastrophic and catalyzing event" and an excuse to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
and soon possibly, Iran.
The men included Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of
State Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition; William Kristol, editor of
the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.
In addition to the well-known Pearl Harbor quote, the paper goes on to describe the eventual outcome of the initial regime change.
"Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades." If the last
15 years of war, violence, and death in the Middle East have been the "transition" phase, John Bolton and Trump may be preparing
to shift gears and move into the "transformation" phase – beginning with the invasion of Iran. However, based on PNAC's track record,
they might be looking for a new catastrophic event to generate support for intervention in Iran.
"... Did 95% of Crimeans vote to join Russia? Invalid! Do Europeans oppose the EU constitution? Well, cancel the referendums! Did 61% of Greece vote against austerity? Ignore it! ..."
"... buy our processed food ..."
"... depend on our Big Pharma ..."
"... so we can snoop on you ..."
"... Butcher Assad kills his own people! ..."
"... Okay, stop being a drama queen. You want to overthrow the government, I get it. Let me do some research to figure out your real motives ..."
The first characteristic of our foreign policy is the spending of trillions of dollars on
military, wars and 800+ military bases around the world. This insatiable appetite of the
military-security complex contributes to our unsustainable national debt. This year, America
will spend $500 billion in interest payments alone. That's 20 walls for Trump supporters and,
if you are a progressive, free premium healthcare for 50 million Americans.
Congress allocates more money for "defense" than almost all the other countries of the world
combined! Half of
that money goes to private military contractors who benefit from this massive welfare
system. This also creates an unethical feedback loop where the contractors return some of the
money back to the politicians. Unlike a free market, many defense contractors enjoy monopolies
regardless of their performance. Hence we spend $1.5 trillion on F-35 fighter jets that
can't supply
enough oxygen for the pilots; or how about those spanking new combat navy ships that repeatedly
break down . It's mind-boggling that the Department of Defense has never been
audited and
can't account for $10 trillion of spending since 1996 (that's half of our national
debt).
We have
spent more money on reconstruction of Afghanistan than on Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe
after WW II. Wow! Did we eradicate poverty and extremism, build schools and hospitals, and turn
Afghanistan into a paradise? Well, 40% of the country is
now under Taliban, opium production is at record level ,
ISIS is growing, and 72% of adults still
can't read or write.
Tensions and Terrorism Also Mean Profits
If wars are the most profitable enterprises, then threat of wars and terrorism are the
second best. The original Cold war meant huge arms race; and the current hostility with Russia
means tens of billions spent on missile shields and deployment of troops and weapons along the
Russian border.
Terrorism is also a boon to the domestic security industry. Send a few million unvetted,
low-skilled, young male migrants from war-torn countries into Europe and then just sit back and
wait. People and the governments will soon beg for more police, more lethal arms and more
surveillance.
Deep State Fuels Fear and Loathing
Americans put the military and the intelligence agencies on a pedestal. Failures such
fictitious Iraq's WMD have not really dented people's faith in the Deep State. When the CIA
says, "Russia hacked DNC," or "Putin personally directed the hacking," people don't
ask, "Where is the evidence?"
Few months back, the State Department showed a satellite picture of a Syrian prison from
2015 and proclaimed, "In this part of the roof, the snow is melting. Therefore, this must be a
crematorium! Which also means this is where evil Assad burns prisoners who were tortured to
death!" This wild imagination and absurd conspiracy theory should have been reprimanded.
However, based on this lunacy, Congress passed new sanctions against Syria. If Americans
continue to be so gullible, they lose the right to complain about perpetual wars.
If All You Have is a Hammer
America seems to have lost its diplomatic skills. Like the alpha monkey which spends its
entire day beating up other male monkeys, Washington elites spend too much time contemplating
regime changes, sanctions and bombs. To summarize recent U.S. policies: demonize Russia, bully
China in its own backyard (South China Sea), destroy Libya, bomb Yemen, bomb Afghanistan, bomb
Iraq, send terrorists into
Syria , then bomb the terrorists we armed, instigate color revolution in Venezuela, and
threaten to annihilate North Korea. Sadly, none of this makes America or the world safer, more
peaceful or more prosperous.
An example for peaceful growth is seen in China in the recent decades. Without invading a
single country, China managed to grow its GDP grew 55 times since 1980. In Africa, China has
built thousands of miles of roadways and railways, hospitals and buildings, and dozens of
hydroelectric dams that supply electricity to tens of millions of people. That's a win-win
approach through diplomacy, economics and trade.
Spreading Freedom or FreeDumb?
There has never been a moment in history when powerful elites got together and said, "We
should make plans according to the popular opinions of the masses." Sometimes the elites are
forced to give in to populism, but their real goal is to shape the opinions of the masses so
that the people demand what the elites want. Thus it's extremely silly to think that
the U.S. would crave for true democracy and freedom in other countries. If, say, 51% of
Japanese or Saudi Arabians want the U.S. military bases to be removed, would the U.S. comply?
Of course, not. It won't happen even if 90% demanded it.
Globalists promptly reject democracy when it goes against them. Did 95% of Crimeans vote
to join Russia? Invalid! Do Europeans oppose the EU constitution? Well, cancel the referendums!
Did 61% of Greece vote against austerity? Ignore it! That's the reality. So when the
globalists killed Gaddafi, tried to topple Assad, or staged a coup in Ukraine, Americans should
have questioned the real motives.
Most Americans don't know or don't want to know that the U.S. government has staged coups
and regime changes – sometimes through assassinations –
more than 80 times in other countries since World War II. (BTW, CIA's first successful coup
was in 1949 and it was in Syria!). It's all about installing puppets, not freedom or
democracy.
Corporate Interests
The paramount factor in U.S. foreign policy is the banking-corporate complex. First, every
country must be a part of the global banking system. Once you control the money supply, you
pretty much control everything else. Then comes the domination of that country's media,
agriculture ( use our GMO ), food ( buy our processed food ), medicine (
depend on our Big Pharma ) and technology ( so we can snoop on you ). If the
country has natural resources, they must sell it for pennies on the dollar; if it has poor
people, they must work for the likes of Nike, Starbucks and Calvin Klein. None of these
exploitative policies help other nations or even 99% of Americans.
As General Smedley Butler explained this intersection of
corporations and the military in 1933, "War is a racket."
Global hegemony
Conquering the world has been the dream of powerful people for more than 2000 years. From
Alexander the Great to the Roman/Spanish/British Empires, the methods were obvious and crude.
The modern banking/corporate Empire is subtle and complex. America and EU are just the two
headquarters of the new class of ruthless elites who dream of global hegemony. Every conflict
and war that we are asked to support is based on a tactical or strategic goal of these masters
of the world. Sometimes, the conflicts are cleverly started through proxy wars. For example,
the U.S. used color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine to install puppet governments and turned
those countries against Russia; in Syria, the U.S. put together a coalition of Saudi Arabia,
Qatar and Turkey and used them to try to overthrow Assad. These are utterly immoral and illegal
actions. So we must learn to inquire rather than react when the elites and the Mockingbird
corporate media demonize a country or a leader.
Does this all mean that we should instinctively oppose all conflicts and wars? Absolutely
not. However, if enough Americans are smart and aware, we can avoid needless conflicts and
destructive, cruel wars. As an example, when they scream, " Butcher Assad kills his own
people! " you say, " Okay, stop being a drama queen. You want to overthrow the
government, I get it. Let me do some research to figure out your real motives ." Is doing
such research more fun than, say, going on a vacation? No, but if we can fix the broken foreign
policy, more Americans will have more money to go on vacations to more nations in a more
peaceful world.
should have been worked out during the eight years of Obama.
Obama and his so called "national security" apparatus is primarily responsible for
destroying Russian-American relations . Obama also allowed, in fact helped, Al Qaeda and
ISIS to unleash a mayhem in Syria. Libya also happened on his watch. Trump, for all his major
faults, from the go was sabotaged by Obama (and HRC) establishment especially on the account
of relations with Russia. I will reiterate--we literally, be it Obama or Trump Admin, have
people who have no clue of Russia nor of US situation vis-a-vis Russia.
Take out few sober and professional US military people out of Trump Admin and there is a
chance it all goes kaboom because people literally have no clue. In fact, track record and
overwhelming empirical evidence support my simple thesis.
Russia can deal with Trump or they can face his wrath because sans Trump they will
face the One Worlders' wrath.
This is precisely an example of what I am talking about. And what this wrath could be
against Russia? Another Hollywood movie? You evidently have no idea what happened culturally
in Russia over the last four years. I will omit purely economically and militarily. Nobody is
afraid of NATO or US be it economically let alone militarily. It seems this simple fact goes
constantly missing on anyone in US political top. It is no surprising -- the only sources in
Russia which they have is a narrow strata of Russian so called "liberals" who, apart from
being totally incompetent in any serious military-political or economic matter, tell only
what their Western benefactors want them to say thus echo-chamber for non-stop delusion. But
that is also why it is so dangerous.
"If putting down the big stick and playing nice/diplomacy is the answer, then all of the
international issues should have been worked out during the eight years of Obama."
Perhaps you could check with the people of Ukraine, of Libya, or Yemen about how Obama put
down the big stick. Or maybe the thousands whose relatives were assassinated by drones
throughout the world. The foreign policy of the current resident is the same as the policy of
the Obama administration, which was a continuation of the policy of the lesser Bush
Administration. Mr. Trump promised a different policy on the campaign trail, but has chosen /
been maneuvered into continuity.
Sebastian Rotella reports
on how many of the people that worked with Bolton remember his tendency to distort intelligence
and ignore facts that contradicted his assumptions:
"Anyone who is so cavalier not just with intelligence, but with facts, and so
ideologically driven, is unfit to be national security adviser," said Robert Hutchings, who
dealt extensively with Bolton as head of the National Intelligence Council, a high-level
agency that synthesizes analysis from across the intelligence community to produce strategic
assessments for policymakers. "He's impervious to information that goes against his
preconceived ideological views." [bold mine-DL]
That assessment lines up with what I understood about Bolton, and it points to one of the
biggest problems with his appointment. I wrote this shortly
before Trump announced that he was choosing Bolton:
The real danger is that he is such an ideologue that he would keep information from the
president that contradicts his views and prevent Trump from getting the best available
advice. Trump is poorly informed to begin with, and having Bolton as his main adviser on
matters of national security and foreign policy would make sure that he stays that way.
Trump is especially susceptible to being manipulated by his advisers into endorsing the
policies they want because he knows so little and responds so favorably to flattery, and he has
shown that he is already more than willing to select a more aggressive option when he is told
that it is the "presidential" thing to do. We should expect that Bolton will feed Trump bad or
incomplete information, present aggressive options in the most favorable light while dismissing
alternatives, and praise Trump's leadership to get him to go along with the hard-line policies
Bolton wants. Bolton will run a very distorted policy process and he will be the opposite of an
honest broker. That won't serve Trump well, and it will be terrible for our foreign policy.
"... Poor Assad. He rules a rump nation, whose huge population is devastated, whose structure and infrastructure is devastated, which is seeded and surrounded with enemies and whose resources have been stolen, whose borders are controlled by others, or deliberately not controlled as the case may be. Assad's Syria may end up looking like a huge Gaza. ..."
"... The US has proven again and again that over time, as the victim state crumbles, it is easier and easier to blame the ruler and the government. ..."
"... Just to remind people's that in 2011 it was Medvedev representative of Russian western oligarchic lobby (friendly with Obama and neocons) in Kremlin who was in charge during Arab Spring. ..."
"... It is well documented fact that Assad pleaded with Medvedev in March 2011 for Moscow to deliver already ordered and paid for in 2008 dozens of new combat helicopters as well as massive amount of parts to refurbish and upgrade Russian made warplanes that were also withheld not to upset Israel and US at that time. ..."
"... None of that happened at that time, while at the same time Quadaffi was thrown under the bus by Russians and Chinese UN non veto of the planned NATO agression on Libya, appeasement or coincidence? ..."
To me, it's the same fairytale nonsense repackaged. The US can say what it wants but the Hegemon got exactly what it wanted out
of this war - Syria is like a mouse with its tail under the cat's paw and it thinks it's alllllmoooost free. Russia is hoping
the US will throw it a bone after devouring Syria, which it is in no hurry to do. The Hegemon is perfectly happy to keep building
bases amongst oil fields while Syria crumbles.
Poor Assad. He rules a rump nation, whose huge population is devastated, whose structure and infrastructure is devastated,
which is seeded and surrounded with enemies and whose resources have been stolen, whose borders are controlled by others, or deliberately
not controlled as the case may be. Assad's Syria may end up looking like a huge Gaza.
The US has proven again and again that over time, as the victim state crumbles, it is easier and easier to blame the ruler
and the government.
Assad's situation is horrific and he can thank Putin for that. Putin delayed entering the war, even though the example of Libya
showed clearly what was coming, and when he did enter, he kept declaring peace prematurely, which inevitably allowed the US and
its various puppets to reinforce, weapon up, consolidate territory and make new plans.
Mysteriously the enemies of Syria became stronger and stronger as they seemed to be defeated. This was in part because the
proxy war slowly morphed into an open war. The US and Turkey are entrenched now. The US clearly has no intention of ever leaving.
In fact, the Cat can take the rest of Syria any time it wants. The bear will do nothing. To the bear a mouse is just a mouse after
all.
To me, it's the same fairytale nonsense repackaged. The US can say what it wants but the Hegemon got exactly what it wanted
out of this war - Syria is like a mouse with its tail under the cat's paw and it thinks it's alllllmoooost free. Russia is hoping
the US will throw it a bone after devouring Syria, which it is in no hurry to do. The Hegemon is perfectly happy to keep building
bases amongst oil fields while Syria crumbles.
Poor Assad. He rules a rump nation, whose huge population is devastated, whose structure and infrastructure is devastated,
which is seeded and surrounded with enemies and whose resources have been stolen, whose borders are controlled by others, or deliberately
not controlled as the case may be. Assad's Syria may end up looking like a huge Gaza.
The US has proven again and again that over time, as the victim state crumbles, it is easier and easier to blame the ruler
and the government.
Assad's situation is horrific and he can thank Putin for that. Putin delayed entering the war, even though the example of Libya
showed clearly what was coming, and when he did enter, he kept declaring peace prematurely, which inevitably allowed the US and
its various puppets to reinforce, weapon up, consolidate territory and make new plans.
Mysteriously the enemies of Syria became stronger and stronger as they seemed to be defeated. This was in part because the
proxy war slowly morphed into an open war. The US and Turkey are entrenched now. The US clearly has no intention of ever leaving.
In fact, the Cat can take the rest of Syria any time it wants. The bear will do nothing. To the bear a mouse is just a mouse after
all.
Just seven years past and despite unquestioned positive role that Russian played in Syria mostly to reduce pain and suffering
of Syrian people what I read here is unnecessary whitewashing of Russian initial stand that did nothing but encouraged US and
NATO gangsters to reek chaos that caused tens of thousands dead and injured
Just to remind people's that in 2011 it was Medvedev representative of Russian western oligarchic lobby (friendly with
Obama and neocons) in Kremlin who was in charge during Arab Spring.
It is well documented fact that Assad pleaded with Medvedev in March 2011 for Moscow to deliver already ordered and paid
for in 2008 dozens of new combat helicopters as well as massive amount of parts to refurbish and upgrade Russian made warplanes
that were also withheld not to upset Israel and US at that time.
Assad was not invited to Moscow at that time while he repeatedly declared that his military will be able to defeat terrorist
insurgence financed by the CIA in a matter of weeks if Syrian Army is resupplied and paid for already contracts executed.
None of that happened at that time, while at the same time Quadaffi was thrown under the bus by Russians and Chinese UN
non veto of the planned NATO agression on Libya, appeasement or coincidence?
Russian got their pay off for playing western game in MENA when in 2012 Putin was barely elected in a quite ridiculous political
charade facing CIA/Soros funded failed Moscow Spring which actually started slippery slope of open western anti-Russian hysterical
embellishments.
What was even more puzzling for those not so sophisticated political analysts was Putin inconsistent actions and declarations
especially in regard to Syria between 2012 and 2014 when he joined US phony peace talks and calling on Assad removal from his
post in a some sort of democratic process only to find out that US do not want peace in Syria but some Saudi run fiefdom friendly
to Israel.
The same appeasement to the west was in Putin attitude to Ukraine until 2014 and its 23 millions of ethnic Russians tolerating
rapidly growing western financed Nazism as well his tolerance of Russia connected Ukrainian oligarchic theft that plunged the
country into economic depression enabling political instability.
At that time Russian minorities in Baltic States were also viciously attacked by security forces as well by discriminating
Nuremberg- like laws making them, most born there, second class citizen restricted in ownership and civil rights to organize and
to maintain their culture and language.
All those Putin foreign policies of weakness and submission to the west and that included reluctance in approach to alliances
with China were in sharp contrast to his extreme push to revamp entire military of Russian with enormous like for Russia military
investments and extremely rationalizing it giving them 5 year term to accomplish massive changes while dropping hype about future
fancy technologies for simple solutions that effectively will defend the country from western aggression.
Putin knew what was coming so why Kremlin policies of appeasement and hence encouragement of bullying and aggression. Who was
really in charge?
In fact Putin reacted only when Russian vital national security was directly threatened in 2014 in Crimea where navy bases
are located and in 2015 when he realized that western trained and funded terrorist army commanded by Chechnya Russian speaking
terrorists is being prepared to invade Chechnya after Assad was deposed and the only Mediterranean navy base was threatened.
As always in history policy of appeasement of a bully leads to the same thing ultimate confrontation, more delayed more costly
it is.
So is Putin as Xi for that matter is about to submit their nations to the western oligarchy even more for their personal advancement
at the global oligarchic table or they split which means war.
I do not think war is coming they have too good thing going and their power is not threatened by the enslaved people.
I think this is what happened to JFK when he tried shutting down CIA, cracking down on
the Israeli lobby, inspecting Israeli Dimona nuclear facility. END the Fed scam, take away
the blank check.
Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president
warned that unless American inspectors were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any
military activities), Israel would find itself totally isolated. Rather than answering,
Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned.
John F. Kennedy Administration: Summary of Eshkol Reply To Kennedy Letter (November 9,
1963)
In the November 12 talks we hope through open and frank responses to convince the Israeli
representatives of our sympathetic interest in their security concerns and of our genuine
desire to help Israel to the best of our ability. We will press the view that U.S. ability to
deter aggression against Israel makes less imperative the need for Israel to maintain clear
military superiority over the U.A.R. in all fields and underlines the futility of large
expenditures of time, effort and money on a spiralling arms race. We will stress that
Israel's acquisition of missiles could result in a Soviet supply of missiles to the U.A.R.
and that a missile race increases the chance of a missile exchange in which Israel as a
small, compact target would inevitably suffer most.
Details of the JFK-RFK duo's effort to register the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee's (AIPAC) parent organization, the American Zionist Council (AZC) as an Israeli
foreign agent were shrouded in mystery until declassified in mid-2008.
The diary reveals that during his time in Berlin, Kennedy wrote about visiting Hitler's
bunker only months after Germany surrendered in the Second World War.
"You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred
that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived," Kennedy wrote
in his diary in 1945.
"He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the
world, but he had a mystery about him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that
will live and grow after him," he added. "He had in him the stuff of which legends are
made."
The last paragraph torpedoes the rest of the article! If anyone deserves to be called a
"fatcat" and a member of the "US plutocrat class", it's Donald Trump! If that class is
seeking to "take back" the US from somebody, it can't possibly be Trump. He's one of them.
Isn't it more likely that they are trying to take it back from the "Russian plutocrat
class" of gangsters behind Vladimir Putin and their American supporters? Trying to take
one's country back from foreigners, or prevent foreigners from getting control of it, is
hardly an ignoble enterprise! Certainly not where I come from!
The analysis of the UVA Amsterdam professor Laslo Maracs is that Trump, and his rich
friends, understand that the USA is no longer capable of maintaining an empire, and that war
for enlarging the empire is even more suicide than trying to maintain the empire.
Already around 1910 the British empire no longer could maintain the two fleet standard,
Obama had to lower the USA two war standard to one and a half.
What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria.
WWII destroyed the British empire, as the British said after the war, poor, after Truman
ended LendLease overnight, less food than in the war 'we won the war, and lost the
peace'.
So the fact that Trump is rich, and has rich friends, does not mean he's part of the whole
rich USA clique.
The question remains: Is Washington prepared to accept its defeat and acknowledge that it
has lost control of the world and pull out of Syria?
US political "top" certainly is not ready since they don't have competent enough people to
recognize a disaster before it buries them. US military people certainly know the score but, as
history teaches, in the times when US military has bad news--it is next to impossible to
communicate it to the political top. In general, American "elites" do not have a grasp of the
nature of the military power nor of its application.
That is why they are dangerous, not to mention that many of them have a proud history of draft
dodging and egos larger than cathedral.
This all, against the background of a dramatic, precipitous really, decline of the always not
very "intellectual" level of American power elites in the last 20 or so years. But then again,
unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria in the West is a good indication that they are cornered.
"the US has gone from a reasonably free country where civil liberties were protected under the law, to a state-of-the-art
surveillance state ruled by invisible elites who see the American people as an obstacle to their global ambitions"
One of the clearest telltales that indicate just how far we have deviated from our former "reasonably free country" is how
today, the wealthy, elite corporate and civic leaders have isolated themselves from the general community. Formerly anyone could
find the address of his community's leaders because they lived scattered amongst the common people. Even Who's Who gave out the
city in which a prominent person lived and from there one could consult the telephone directory.
Today, the elite have wiped clean any public trace of where they live. Their phone numbers are not published in a public telephone
directory. It's as though they don't want their fellow citizens to know their whereabouts. Why is that?
As I say, there's no clearer indication that our leaders no longer identify with the people of the communities they rule. Either
they are afraid--and justifiably so because of their treasonous behavior--or they are just plain disdainful--also likely, since
the two are not mutually exclusive. Their fear is the opposite side of the coin of their disdain but at any rate, it's an acknowledgement
by them that the sense of community knitted together by common bonds, is gone.
everything you say is true and it does not matter unless you are an American.
our elites along with the english have been ruling the world for 5 centuries and are now in hysteria because all that is now
drawing to a close. without the usa military acting as a global enforcer for elites wet dreams they remain wet dreams.
Russia now technically has thwarted our elites from using muscle. China's economic rise will supplant the usa within a decade
and by the 2030′s the financial center of the world will move to shanghai from new york/london.
The entire history of mankind speaks the same tale. once and empire collapses it NEVER recovers its former status and power.
the anglosaxon empire is now running on empty ergo the media hysteria of russia this and that. even the serfs ..thats you and
i ..can no longer be trusted to vote the way we are told.
the msm is dying as the go to organization for people control. we no longer live in the 20th century so the iron fist of ruling
is pretty much out as an option.
the elites have their wealth but their power at least here is on the downswing.
ideas and opinion are how societies are controlled and the elite orgs for disseminating these things have become embarassingly
overt which makes their effectivness drop towards zero . hence the hysteria.
when you have nothing to sell or nothing anyone with a brain will purchase you have to appeal to irrational emotions but that
is a futile game plan because maintaining that level of frantic enrgy is exhausting and collapses in time of its own accord.
all the rising east has to do is watch us eat ourselves to death. they have to do nothing aggressive towards our deep state
idiots in power do it for them.
at the end of the day americans will still be stuck with the swamp until it collapses into bankruptcy once the dollar loses
its reserve status still some years ahead . by 2030.
once the dollars loses its status america becomes regular nation. how we pick up the pieces after that will be the real story.
Germany - if I remember correctly - was instrumental on behalf of her client state Croatia
in persuading the U S to acquise in the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Many could see at the time that this would unravel all the balances put into place after the
travail of World War 2 . So it is proving to be . The German peoples' for whatever reasons have
a history of 'overeach'. On one hand the Germans are now - after millennium - within settled
borders but the political and economic wisdom and patience still seems lacking .
I do not understand why the USA lost in Syria: the destruction of the country was goal and it
is fully achieved... Partitioning is half-achieved. Jihadists were expandable from the very beginning. And it was Saudi who
paid for their training and their salaries.
And how Putin can came back fighting having such a week hand: a sing country against a string Western alliance.
Excellent
article by Garrie regarding the Kim/Xi summit, complete with links to the full English
language press releases by China, giving strong grounds for optimism.
Yes, Taiwan is the big pain, but it will always be Chinese and eventually return to its
former status prior to 1949.
The Outlaw US Empire is unable to overcome the Eurasian Alliance currently being formed in
virtually every possible sector--vision, resource base, financial, cultural, diplomatic, and
military; especially their philosophy for providing for their citizenry and treatment of
other nations. As one born within the Outlaw US Empire, far more opportunity and the
promise of enhanced wellbeing exits in Eurasian Alliance nations than the declining Empire and
most of its vassals. There is an alternative, so we refuse to assimilate into Borg.
Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 28, 2018 5:11:08 PM |
16VK , Mar
28, 2018 5:15:42 PM |
18
The question remains: Is Washington prepared to accept its defeat and acknowledge that it
has lost control of the world and pull out of Syria?
The UK, refusing to accept the loss of its imperial status, caused two World Wars, in
vain: Germany still rose as the European superpower (only with 150 years delay) and the USA
occupied the vacuum and became the sole capitalist superpower (later, the absolute
superpower).
I hope, for the sake of humankind, that USA is more gratious.
I don't understand why Putin doesn't come back fighting. Whilst the West sinks to gutter
levels throwing every insult imaginable, blatantly lying and demonising Russia and especially
Putin, somehow Russia remains dignified and tries to resolve things through the proper
channels. Isn't it time they realised there is no reasoning with the West, they have to play
dirty and beat them at their own game, They must have all kinds of dirt on the West . When
will the gloves come off?
"... Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall, Stanford University Press 2018, 280 pages ..."
Millennials and members of Generation Z have spent much of if not their entire lives at war.
As I've noted in these
pages and elsewhere , the
Afghan conflict is now in its 17th year, with
more than 6,000 days having gone by, making it the longest war in American history. I was
12 years old when that war began in 2001; I'm now a month out from my 29th birthday. Beginning
next year, the newly enlisted 18-year-olds who are deployed to Afghanistan will be younger than
the war they are fighting.
The Iraq war began in 2003, saw a major troop withdrawal in 2011, and then was re-escalated
by former President Obama in 2014. American forces remain there today to aid in the fight
against the Islamic State, despite an agreement
with the Iraqis that was supposed to begin a troop drawdown. An American-led regime change
intervention turned Libya into a failed state. And we have blanketed countries such as Pakistan
and Yemen with drone warfare, so much so that
drones now haunt their citizens' dreams . U.S. Special Forces were on
the ground conducting activities in 149 countries as of 2017.
This kind of foreign policy adventurism is hardly unique to the present day. America has
been aggressively deploying its military on foreign soil since the late 19th century. As
Stephen Kinzer shows in his book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to
Iraq, we got our foot in the door of the regime change business all the way
back in 1893 with our acquisition of Hawaii.
Living in a post-9/11 world has shattered any inclination to view domestic life as separate
from and unaffected by foreign policy, particularly since the 2013 publication of classified
NSA documents leaked to the press by Edward Snowden. Snowden's revelations threw back the
curtain on an omnipresent surveillance apparatus under which very few aspects of our digital
lives were left unmonitored -- all in the name of national security and the global war on
terror.
The Snowden leaks demonstrate how an adventurous foreign policy can have negative
consequences for liberty at home. Now, political economists Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall
have documented this phenomenon in their important new book, Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism .
In their words, "coercive foreign intervention creates opportunities to develop and refine
methods and technologies of social control."
Coyne and Hall, economists at George Mason University and the University of Tampa
respectively, introduce a concept for understanding this phenomenon called the "boomerang
effect." It works like this: the constraints on the activities of the U.S. government in the
realm of foreign policy are generally weak, which enables those involved in foreign
interventions to engage in practices abroad that would meet some institutional resistance on
the home front. Eventually, though, interventions end, the interveners come home, and the
practices employed on foreign soil are imported for use against the domestic population.
This importation happens along three separate channels. First, there is the development of
human capital -- the skills, knowledge, and other characteristics that contribute to one's
productive capacity. All companies, organizations, and agencies have goals they seek to
accomplish, so they hire people with the right kind of human capital to execute said goals.
Foreign intervention is no different.
Among the characteristics necessary for interveners include extreme confidence in their
ability to solve complex problems in other countries, a sense of superiority and righteousness,
comfort with pushing the ethical envelope, limited compassion and sympathy for the targeted
population, and the association of state order with control. Interventionists, as Coyne and
Hall put it, treat "society as a grand science project that can be rationalized and improved on
by enlightened and well-intentioned engineers."
The second phase occurs when the interventionists come home. Some may retire, but many go to
work in various public- and private-sector jobs. The skills and mentalities that served them
well abroad don't disappear, so they begin employing their unique human capital domestically.
Those who land in the public sector are able to influence domestic policy, where they see
threats to liberty becoming manifest. Because of the relative lack of constraints when
operating in a foreign theater, tactics that would otherwise cross the line domestically are
seen as standard operating procedure.
Finally, physical capital plays a significant role in bringing methods of foreign
intervention back home. Technological innovation "allows governments to use lower-cost methods
of social control with a greater reach." The federal government spends billions annually on
research and development, which buys a variety of different capabilities. These technologies,
many originally intended for foreign populations, can be used domestically. One example the
authors point to are the surveillance methods originally used in the Iraq war that found their
way to the Baltimore Police Department for routine use.
The implication of the boomerang effect for policing doesn't end with surveillance. It can
also help explain police militarization, the origins of which lie in the foreign interventions
of the Progressive Era, specifically in the Philippines.
In the wake of the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded its colonial territories to the United
States. This led to the Philippine-American War, a bloody conflict
that directly and indirectly caused the deaths of 200,000 Filipino civilians, and which
ended in 1902.
As veterans returned home from the Philippines, many sought careers in law enforcement where
they were able to implement practices inspired by their days in the military. The effect of
this was to "establish precedents whereby military personnel and tactics not only would be
considered legitimate but welcomed" by police administrations. Police militarization wouldn't
kick into high gear until the latter half of the 20th century, with the introduction of SWAT
teams and the federalization of law enforcement during the LBJ and Nixon years. The men behind
the development of SWAT were veterans of the Vietnam War.
What ultimately creates the conditions for this boomerang effect to take place? One factor,
Coyne and Hall argue, is fear. Fear and crisis, both perceived and real, creates "space for
government to expand the scope of its powers and adopt the techniques of state-produced social
control that it has developed and honed abroad." Fear can lead people to seek assurances from
authorities, which goads them into tolerating and even demanding expansions of state powers --
powers that in less fearful times they would not accept.
Once accumulated, that power becomes a normal part of life, and isn't easily given up, as
the great economic historian Robert Higgs shows in his classic work Crisis and Leviathan . Anyone who has gone through airport
security over the last 17 years understands this, as the fear of terror attacks after 9/11 has
led to ratcheted up airline security measures by the TSA. This has resulted in some fairly
egregious violations of person and privacy, despite very
little evidence that they work.
Coyne's and Hall's book is a great, conceptually holistic investigation into how the state
can threaten our liberty. Economists regularly recognize the unintended consequences of
domestic policy; Coyne and Hall have explained the unintended consequences of foreign policy,
and their costs. It's particularly timely, as President Trump's tenure has seen decision-making
authority at the Pentagon pushed down the chain of command, leaving the United States'
war-making capabilities even less accountable and transparent. This book is an incisive
elucidation of what writer Randolph Bourne recognized a century ago and of which we could use a
perpetual reminder: war truly is the health of the state.
Jerrod A. Laber is a writer and Free Society Fellow with Young Voices. He is a
contributor to the Washington Examiner , and his work has appeared in Real Clear
Defense , Quillette , and the Columbus Dispatch , among others.
"... The problem is CIA impunity. CIA uses it to make money -- and to make plutocrats and keep them in line. You don't like plutocrats? Good for you. Lock up some CIA scumbags, storm Langley and take the files, problem solved. ..."
This article is a tour de force of beating around the bush. It relates a campaign initiated
and led by CIA DCI John Brennan, prosecuted with illegal secret government surveillance,
coerced confessions, and suppressed investigation of the murder of Seth Rich. And it blames
the Plutocrat Class.
How many divisions does the Plutocrat Class have? Does the Plutocrat Class have impunity
for murder, torture, and denial of the rights of trial? Does the Plutocrat Class have
anything like these get-out-jail-free cards?
The Central Intelligence Agency Act, which
put CIA covert crime beyond the reach of any court. The Rogers-Houston MOU permitting the DCI
to abort DoJ investigations with the magic words 'national security.'
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes the identity of CIA criminals a
state secret. The operational files exemption to FOIA, which prohibits public scrutiny of
evidence of CIA crime.
The 'political questions' judicial doctrine which stops judicial review of CIA crimes
condoned, however vaguely or unwittingly, by Congress.
The article outlines criminal coup de main by domestic enemies, and sics us on cartoon
Rich Uncle Pennybags.
Don't get wrapped around the axle overthinking some rock-paper-scissors transitivity
relations of abstract political and economic power -- that's CIA-infiltrated Paris Review
bullshit. Impunity beats money every time. To understand this, just watch what happens when a
plutocrat gets in CIA's way. You see right away who's in charge. Plutocrat Ralph Nacchio
learned his lesson, didn't he?
Plutocrat Elliot Spitzer learned his lesson. Dynastic plutocrats John and Bobby Kennedy
didn't learn their lesson fast enough, but everybody else got the message.
The problem is CIA impunity. CIA uses it to make money -- and to make plutocrats and
keep them in line. You don't like plutocrats? Good for you. Lock up some CIA scumbags, storm
Langley and take the files, problem solved.
Speaking candidly to a Columbia University audience comprised largely of College Republicans
and a few hecklers expecting a debate, Coulter broke down her bitter disappointment with Trump
- recounting one instance in which she and the President engaged in a "profanity-laced shouting
match" in the Oval Office last year over what she felt was his weak follow-through on
immigration promises made during the campaign.
" It kind of breaks my heart, " Coulter acknowledged of her disappointment with the
president, and she recounted a profanity-laced shouting match she had with Trump in the Oval
Office last year over what she saw as his lackluster follow-through on immigration policy. "
He's not giving us what he promised at every single campaign stop ." -
Daily Beast
That said, Coulter still says that Trump was the best house in a bad neighborhood when it
came to voting for the 2016 lineup of candidates.
"I regret nothing. I'd do the exact same thing," said Coulter. "We had 16 lunatics being
chased by men with nets running for president -- and Trump. So of course I had to be
pedal-to-the-metal for Donald Trump. I'd been waiting 30 years for someone to say all these
things " -- i.e., that illegal immigration is hurting low-income American citizens and carries
with it high rates of crime. " I went into this completely clear-eyed ."
"I knew he was a shallow, lazy ignoramus, and I didn't care," said the conservative
pundit.
At one point in the evening, Coulter dispatched a heckler after she blamed income inequality
in California on immigration.
We are bringing in immigrants who are good for the very rich, " she said. "They don't live
in their neighborhoods. They don't fill up their schools or their hospital emergency rooms.
And, oh boy, you should see how clean Juanita gets the bathtub. You can eat off of it after
she's done. "
"You're a racist! " shouted a young man from back.
" No, I'm sorry, the people bringing in Juanita, the maid, and underpaying her, are the
racists, " Coulter fired back. " You are a moron! " she added, to fervent applause. " You're
very stupid. I can't argue with stupid people ."
On Wednesday evening, Coulter joined Fox Business Network 's Lou Dobbs to discuss her
"ignoramus" comment. When Dobbs called her out on it, she said " A switch changed with him ,"
adding "An elegant person would have said the things he was saying. It was precisely that he
was so coarse that allowed him to say these incredibly courageous things. He didn't care what
Manhattan elites thought of him ."
" Now all he wants is for Goldman Sachs to like him ," she continued. "I don't know what
happened. But that's a different president. I haven't changed. He has."
"Affirmation complexes are never attractive and unfortunately I believe there is some truth
to the fact that there are those in the White House who would like to guide him toward this
liberal fantasy that is a nightmare for America and has proved to be such for our middle class
which has been dwindling for the past 20 years," Dobbs said, to Coulter's hearty agreement.
"Under this president, they're starting to grow and money is starting to come in and we're
starting to see housing prices rise."
"... Surprisingly, most Americans have not been taken in by the media's promotional hoopla about elections and democracy. They have a fairly-decent grasp of how the system works and who ultimately benefits from it. ..."
"... That democracy is a sham has been the case for decades. It is doubtful the American electorate has a grasp about anything, but regardless .what will they do about it? ..."
The survey appears to confirm that democracy in the United States is largely a sham. Our
elected representatives are not the agents of political change, but cogs in a vast
bureaucratic machine that operates mainly in the interests of the behemoth corporations and
banks.
Surprisingly, most Americans have not been taken in by the media's promotional
hoopla about elections and democracy. They have a fairly-decent grasp of how the system
works and who ultimately benefits from it.
That democracy is a sham has been the case for decades. It is doubtful the American
electorate has a grasp about anything, but regardless .what will they do about it?
Surprisingly, most Americans have not been taken in by the media's promotional hoopla
about elections and democracy. They have a fairly-decent grasp of how the system works and
who ultimately benefits from it.
One can only hope that is true, but I have my doubts.
Damned good question, Real. Since they have a collection of dossiers on everyone in a
position to do something, I suspect nothing. Oh, they may sacrifice a Brennan, much more
likely McCabe, Struzck (or whatever), Lisa Page. They were the operatives. But then, faced
with ten years, thrown to the wolves, denied his pension, facing jail, with McCabe, maybe
they can play let's make a deal. Brennan would HATE that. Then, those operatives maybe start
having accidents. The trick is to keep everyone quiet. One way or the other. They really want
to protect Hillary, but I don't get it. Maybe if Hillary could tell HER tales it could trade
UP to Soros. He's a monster.
Things roll down hills, Real, DC is a funny place. Believe me, the lights burn furiously
all over Washington these days, the bad guys, the Deep State need to cover all this. The
private recriminations must be hideous. All around them, people that can bring them down and
you really cannot kill everyone. The last one was Monica, that was several departments
working 24/7 for a couple of years. That was blow jobs by actual comparison. But this one is
sizzling. This one means the country, war, the integrity of our systems, or will put the lie
to formerly noble notions. This one tell us if we're the United States with Justice For All,
or if we're a Commercial/Military Junta. We have to pick one.
"That democracy is a sham has been the case for decades."
Yes, I agree, and the biggest sham of all is that somehow the US is SUPPOSED to be a
democracy. That's pure bullshit. The word 'democracy" doesn't appear in the text of the
Constitution, and the early statesmen opposed the very idea, calling it "mob rule", "king
numbers" and "the tyranny of the majority", among other epithets.
Congress members are required to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not
to bow to majority opinion on anything, whether that opinion comes from their own
constituency or not. The democracy scam gives Congress members the pretext for disregarding
the Constitution or for cherry picking the provisions of the document using "the will of the
people" as a defense for their malfeasance.
Perversely, this also ends up betraying the interests of their true constituents in favor
of providing for the interests of whoever pays them the biggest bribes. In a democracy, the
representatives allow themselves to do whatever they think will feather their own nests while
claiming that they are bowing to the will of "the people".
You are quite right, Power Elite is more accurate description, but now that the
term Deep State has reached common parlance, is it useful to try to rebrand them?
Well, perhaps, because what we have now is a general misidentification (misdirection!) of
defining the Deep State. Some single out the Intel agencies, others blame think-tanks, some
even blame career civil servants (the 'bureaucrat' smear). Are these accusers really
gatekeepers for the deep money interests?
All the same, how would you do it, and is it worthwhile? We've had the same chatter about
the Fake News, i.e. MSM vs. Legacy News vs. Corporate News vs. Big News, etc. Some good work
is coming out under Deep State -
Misunderstanding the Deep State
CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government
The 'deep state' is not a 'conspiracy theory', it is a basic fact beyond debating. The deep
state by definition means the USA's military industrial complex, i.e. all of the massive
security agencies (Dept of Defense; CIA; State Dept; Pentagon; US Army; CentComm; Navy;
Marines; NSA; NSC; etc) combined with their partners in the corporate sector who sell them
the equipment: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, General
Electric, SAIC, Huntington Ingalls, etc. The 'revolving door' between these two sectors is a
key aspect of the deep state: top ranking brass leave public service to take top positions at
these defense corporations, or become lobbyists for them to continue their multi-billion
dollar contracts at the government trough. The top officials at the security agencies often
have careers spanning decades: these people are 'the deep state' personified. Presidents come
and go, they are window dressing. The deep state calls the shots.
Maybe better to say 'Deep State shoots, and wants far more shooting'.
Just this day a former member of the EU Commission, he did Foreign Affairs, retired, appeared
on the leading German tv channel, with deep doubts about May's assertions, and deep concern
where the anti Russia propaganda will lead to.
He had negotiated with Putin, who he described a very rational man.
He still was quite emotional about the western lies that lead to the attack on Iraq.
BBC, or BBCW, did not watch it myself, broadcast the same interview, also, today.
One cannot fool all people for all times.
BS. The "power elite" in the US is associated with a clearly identifiable group, which
doesn't even hide its own tribal interest and allegiances. A parasite lodged in a host. Its
messianic DNA slowly unfolds and takes over the host's vital functions. Loss of identity and
cognitive ability are only phases preceding total destruction. The complicit host is
apparently fully and gleefully embracing its fate.
Yeah. Distract them with the race issue. Kill extra couple of blacks. Provoke riots. Seen
some money to BLM. And have the right and alt-right and all Sailers write about race , IQ
until they dissipate all energy they got.
It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that
representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly
sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is
impervious to the will of the people.
How far-off it it to naming the Jews as the powerbrokers?
How far-off is the JQ – one year – two, three, four?
Lol yep here we go again it must be Russia and Putin,I sure hope nothing happens to
either, for if it did you would have nothing to live for,that grand place you live in would
be awful lonesome with out either to whine about ,.
It seems you may have missed the main thrust of the article. It is that the Deep State is
directing what Trump does or doesn't do. Trump may not like what he is doing but he has
little choice but to eat crap and comfort himself with vacuous bluster on Twitter.
Deep state?
Sounds like what they called "corporate state" a century ago, especially since there's
little hidden and nothing profound about it. Should be called "mafia state."
The Deep State wielded preponderant power over this nation at least by the time Lincoln
was buried, and its main actors then were virtually all pure WASPs (the non-Wasps were all
Protestants of Continental Germanic ancestry, some of them Saxons, as was Martin Luther).
Jews didn't become the major power in the US Deep State until well after WW2. Probably
after the assassination of JFK. Of course, you also need to face the many implications of the facts that Anglo-Saxon
Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy and that archetypal Mr. WASP himself Oliver Cromwell made
the alliance with Jews concrete.
WASP culture is doing what it always was meant to do.
The Deep State was called The Shadow Government in the 9o's.
And its the same thing it always was people and groups with ideologies or money
interest or power interest or foreign interest ..all trying to direct the government to serve
their interest.
And for the most part they have been successful in doing that.
I don't think that "deep state" is a correct term or that "unelected officials" are so
crucial.
What you got here is typical of any country: power elite . This elite is, in most
modern countries, comprised of big money (different sources in different lands), dominant
media & controllers of intellectual discourse through academia, military infrastructure
plus professional politicians, various intelligence agencies etc.
Only, the power elite is not eternally homogeneous & can be engaged in internal
warfare, and sometimes collapse.
says: March 28, 2018 at
1:28 am GMT 200 Words @L.K Michael
Scheuer may be better than the avg but he is still much LESS than honest when he talks about
the wars in Iraq and Syria.
The reality is that ISIS, Al Qaeda in Syria(formerly known as Nusra Front) & all other
Salafist groups which were, from day one, the real "rebel" fighting forces on the ground, were
created/funded and armed by the ZUS led coalition, in order to overthrow the Syrian government
& justify US meddling in Iraq and Syria. There is plenty of evidence for this, and yet M.
Scheuer does not have much to say about it.
From Prof. Anderson's book "The Dirty War on Syria", we read:
In mid-2012, US intelligence reported two important facts about the violence in Syria. Firstly, most of the armed 'insurgency' was being driven by extremist al Qaeda groups, and
second, the sectarian aim of those groups was 'exactly' what the US and its allies wanted
.
The DIA(Defense Intelligence Agency) wrote:
'The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in
Syria There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality
in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers [The
West, Gulf monarchies and Turkey] to the [Syrian] opposition want, in order to isolate the
Syrian regime' (DIA 2012).
The US also observed (and certainly did not stop) the channelling of arms from Benghazi
in Libya to 'al Qaeda groups' in Syria, in August 2012.
New Evidence US Backed ISIS - Ron Paul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo2GYQxopbM
Ex-DIA boss Michael Flynn: White House took "willful decision" to fund, train Syria
Islamists ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccdeANvo2bg Agreed, no doubt ISIS was US/Israeli and probably
many others creation. Probably many more groups have spawned from the original that we don't
know of. No telling how many different states and corporations are funding these mercenary
psychos for their own gain. I won't pretend to know everything that goes on over there, I try
my best with the little time I have to keep up with the madness.
It would be nice if he or someone with inside info. and credibility would spill the beans on
9/11, he seems to walk a strait line when it comes to that issue too, maybe he just isn't ready
to be involuntarily suicided.. He is pretty brave to rip into Israel the way he does.
He seems like a pretty honest well meaning dude. One of the few I've heard that I trust.
Sad but true:
FBI Uncovers Al-Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Collapse Of United States
F.Y.I., Solzhenitsyn described a traditional Russian proverb on a person's natural eagerness
to take revenge upon a bad other who does harm to a community.
The proverb goes like this : "Never interfere with someone powerful & bad because they
are in the process of destroying themselves." Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
redmudhooch wrote on: "FBI Uncovers Al-Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Collapse Of
United States."
Hi redmudhooch,
Thanks for posting this!
The strategy makes perfect sense.
F.Y.I., Solzhenitsyn described a traditional Russian proverb on a person's natural
eagerness to take revenge upon a bad other who does harm to a community.
The proverb goes like this : "Never interfere with someone powerful & bad because they
are in the process of destroying themselves."
"... "The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a 'blunder,' or even a 'colossal mistake.' It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry." ..."
The Iraq War architects have been thoroughly rehabilitated and are planning
their next adventure, even as the catastrophic ramifications of their crimes continue to
reverberate around the world. Last week marked the 15th anniversary of the American invasion of
Iraq in 2003. April 9 will be the 15th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. The consequences of
these events are still playing out today, from Mali to Niger, to the Philippines. Iraq has
never recovered and is only beginning to emerge from the trauma, while American officials plan
the next military adventure.
Writing in the New York Times, Iraqi novelist Sinan Antoon
observed : "The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a
'blunder,' or even a 'colossal mistake.' It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at
large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly
amnesiac citizenry."
The rehabilitation of the neocons
Indeed, the rise of Trump has provided the cabal of Iraq War architects with a rebranding
opportunity. After their utter failure in Iraq, these people were largely disgraced and no
longer taken seriously outside of right-wing circles. But Trumpism, and the desire of liberals
to oust the current president, has led to an anti-Trump coalition which includes at its helm
many of the instrumental figures behind the Iraq invasion. The list includes David
"axis
of evil" Frum, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush and now a senior editor
at the Atlantic, as well as neoconservative think tanker Bill Kristol, and
George W. Bush , who is now celebrated as a pragmatic leader – even by nostalgic
Democrats who contrast him with Trump.
Trump's victory in the Republican primary on a seemingly isolationist platform, which was
obviously a facade, sent many of these neoconservatives running toward Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic nominee. Those who lined
up behind Clinton have since been embraced by the Democratic establishment, while the more
extreme neoconservative hawks who stuck by the Republican Party have effectively inserted
themselves into the Trump administration. The most recent and terrifying of these is John
Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the
intelligence that was used to mislead the public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And
now he is Trump's national security advisor.
Bolton is a neoconservative extremist who has never seen a country he didn't want to bomb.
On the top of his hit list is Iran and North Korea, though Bolton has expended most of his
energy
agitating for the US to bomb Iran , which he seeks to hand over to the Mujahedin E Khalq (MEK), a
cultish group of Iranian exiles that has received backing from Israeli intelligence and was
formerly classified as a terrorist organization by the United States.
In light of the Iraq war anniversary and the recent appointment of Bolton, it's a good time
to survey the damage that neocons such as Bolton caused in Iraq. The war left an estimated
1 million Iraqis
dead , 4.5 million displaced, 5 million orphaned, some 2 million widowed, and caused
birth
defects and cancer rates in some
Iraqi cities that are significantly worse than those seen in the aftermath of the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of the Second World War.
The irony is that Trump's rise to the presidency is in many ways the fault of the Iraq War
architects. Their policies in Iraq, which were recycled in Libya and Syria, led to
the rise of Islamic State and the refugee crisis that fueled right-wing populists such as
Trump and his counterparts in Europe. The war in Iraq revived a jihadist movement that was dead
after the first few months of the war on Afghanistan, opening the floodgates to jihadists and
their supporters from around the world.
When the US dismantled the Iraqi state in 2003, instead of replacing it with a functioning
government it punished Sunni areas and installed a sectarian Shiite regime comprised of exiles
with no popular support in the country. The US essentially created a new category known as the
Sunni Arab and, where the state collapsed, it was Al-Qaeda who would fight on their behalf. The
inflammation of sectarian fears and lack of security resulted in a power vacuum that opened the
floodgates to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and ignited a gruesome civil war . AQI eventually morphed into
the Islamic State of Iraq. Before morphing into ISIS, ISI established an Al-Qaeda
offshoot in Syria called Jabhat al-Nusra, the strongest and most disciplined armed opposition
group in the country.
ISIS and Al-Qaeda groups cultivate and thrive off of stateless zones as well as a Sunni
Arab victimhood narrative , which started with the execution of Saddam Hussein and has been
propagated throughout the region by popular gulf-funded
religious figures and media outlets such as Al Jazeera Arabic .
Beheadings became a hallmark of the Al Qaeda branch in Iraq under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who,
unlike Osama bin Laden began to focus on fighting the near enemy -- the Arab dictatorships,
secular people and minorities -- as opposed to the far enemy of the infidel west. We would
later see these beheadings in ISIS propaganda videos aimed at terrifying the west. There was a
theory in the past in bin Laden's era that you should fight the far enemy, the west, before the
near enemy. But under this new and evolved Al Qaeda, whether in Iraq or Yemen or Mali, we saw
local franchises focused on slaughtering their fellow countrymen, with particular genocidal
hatred for Shias.
The American occupation of an Arab country fueled this Salafi jihadist movement on a global
scale. The occupation led to sympathy for this Iraqi jihad throughout the Muslim world, which
meant foreign fighters coming in and a huge amount of funding from the gulf.
This global war on terror framework was also implemented by the US in countries such as
Somalia and Yemen and across North Africa as well.
The Iraq War gave us Donald Trump
In spite of America's criminal disaster in Iraq, Barack Obama continued to implement regime
change policies in both Libya and Syria by funding and arming right-wing insurgencies made up
of none other than Al-Qaeda affiliates, the very ideology the US was supposedly fighting in its
global war on terror. Like in Iraq, US intervention led to the rise of a failed state in Libya
and in much of Syria.
In Syria, these failed state zones were then filled by thousands of foreign fighters coming
in from the Turkish border, which the US tolerated as a means to put pressure on the Syrian
regime, hoping the regime would offer concessions, which of course it never did. ISIS
eventually took over many of these failed state areas and began kidnapping westerners and the
group made millions of dollars in ransom money
as a result.
The massive refugee flows which resulted from the US encouraging war and regime change in
the Middle East led to the destabilization of much of Europe and to some extent, the rise of
Donald Trump, who campaigned on the fear-mongering of ISIS, refugees and Muslims. You can trace
all these and other terrible consequences to the US decision to encourage war and state
collapse rather than to prioritize stability and order in the Middle East. It all started with
the Iraq War.
The gift that keeps on giving
The ramifications of the Iraq War are still playing out today, having inspired Salafi
jihadist movements from the
Philippines to Mali and even
Niger , where US soldiers were recently killed by jihadists.
Moreover, the war in Iraq, according to the very people who architected it, has strengthened
Iran in the region. That isn't necessarily a bad thing given that Iran and its partners, such
as Hezbollah and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), were crucial to defeating ISIS in
Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. But a strengthened Iran is a nightmare for the US as it threatens
American, Saudi and Israeli hegemony in the region. So, the Iraq war planners are using the
strong position of Iran – created by neoconservative policies – to push for a war
with Iran. They've also expanded their hit list to include Russia, who they're still hoping to
escalate against in Syria.
With Bolton as Trump's national security advisor, a war with Iran is now much more likely.
For the war industry and the neocons who lobby for it, the Iraq war they started is the gift
that keeps on giving.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Rania Khalek is an American journalist, writer and political commentator based in the Middle East.
Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz
spells out what the nuclear deal with Iran does and what withdrawing from it would
mean:
Conversely, if Trump withdraws the United States from the agreement, with Iran complying
and with our allies clearly committed to its continuation, he will have compromised the most
stringent nuclear verification standard ever achieved, with no credible prospect for
restoring or improving it [bold mine-DL]. Such a move would hand Iran a political "wedge"
dividing the international community, and undercut vital arguments for verification of any
agreement reached with North Korea.
Opponents of the deal often claim to be against it because it isn't "tough" enough, but as
Moniz explains the deal contains the "most robust verification measures the world has ever
known." Withdrawing from the deal means throwing that away for no good reason. If Trump follows
through on his threat to withdraw, he will confirm that his complaints about the agreement were
made in bad faith. Reneging on the deal just because some of its restrictions expire after a
decade or more gives the game away. It gives Iran the excuse to ignore some or all of the
deal's restrictions immediately instead of having some of them lifted in the 2020s or 2030s.
We're supposed to believe that the gradual expiration of some restrictions is so intolerable
that we should throw away all of the restrictions right away. It's a completely irrational
position, and so it's obviously just a bad excuse for killing an agreement that Iran hawks
never wanted.
If Iran is supposed to ratify the Additional
Protocol that it is currently implementing voluntarily. Ratification will make these
verification measures permanent, and that will make ensuring that Iran abides by its NPT
obligations much easier. Blowing up the deal now would give Iran an excuse to stop voluntarily
complying with the Additional Protocol years before they have to ratify it. Sina Azodi
suggests that this is how Iran might respond to a U.S. withdrawal:
One possible response to a US withdrawal would be for Iran to declare that it will no
longer implement the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This
supplementary protocol significantly enhances the ability of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) to monitor and verify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA.
Under the agreement, Iran is required to implement the protocol and to ratify it within
eight years of the January 2016 implementation of the JCPOA. If the deal collapses, Iran will
no longer feel obliged to allow the intrusive inspections required by the protocol or to
ratify it. This would significantly reduce the IAEA's ability to monitor Iran's nuclear
activities. However, this seems to be a relatively safe option for Iran, since implementation
of the protocol is on a voluntary basis.
As Azodi explains, this is the least provocative response available to Iran, and it allows
Iran to further divide the U.S. and our European allies, who remain committed to honoring the
agreement. It's also quite possible that Iran will follow the U.S. out of the deal to protest
the resumption of U.S. sanctions. Either way, the verification measures that make the JCPOA
such a strong nonproliferation agreement will be lost.
The verification measures in the deal were so stringent because of the fear that Iran
wouldn't keep its side of the bargain, but if the deal dies it won't be because of Iranian
cheating. Opponents of the deal have shown that the one truly fatal flaw of the deal was that
it contained no provision to make sure that the U.S. fulfills its obligations. Posted in
foreign
policy , politics . Tagged
Iran ,
IAEA ,
Donald Trump ,
JCPOA
, Sina Azodi , Ernest
Moniz .
Humans are primates. Thus, they are stupid, ignorant, malicious and fearful - mostly the
latter. Pretty much explains everything in human history.
I subscribe to the concept of survival at any cost. But in a rational society that would
entail being aware of the long-term consequences. This, however, is not a rational
society.
Off topic - or maybe not given the topic of human heartlessness - here we have John
Bolton:
Apparently he told the M.E.K. cult that the US would end Iran's leadership before the 40
year anniversary which is February 11, 2019.
That of course is absurd unless somehow the US manages to decapitate the Iranian
leadership with an airstrike or nuclear attack. What actually will happen if the US attacks
Iran is that Iran will fight for the next several decades until the US backs off. There is no
chance short of nuclear bombardment for the US to "defeat" Iran. The US couldn't even
"defeat" Iraq in less than five years and hasn't defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in 17
years. Iran will be a far harder nut to crack than either of those.
John Bolton Tapped for NSA: What Does It Mean for US-Russia Relations?
John Bolton, a Yale-educated lawyer known as a
foreign policy hawk , has been appointed National Security Adviser (NSA), in a major
reshuffle of President Trump's administration. He officially takes office on April 9. No Senate
confirmation is required. Welcome back, Mr. Straight Talker!
Mr. Bolton has a long history of government service, including in the positions of
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and ambassador to the UN, the organization he once
described as "no such thing" and wants to be defunded . John Bolton
scorns international institutions and
does not believe that engaging much with the world is in keeping with US interests.
This soon-to-be NSA is an experienced lawyer and "think tanker," as well as a foreign-policy
pundit who has written a multitude of books and articles. He's a deft and ready speaker whose
gift of gab can win over an audience at any time. The National Security Advisor-designate even
considered entering the presidential races in 2012 and 2016.
In his frequent television commentaries
, Mr. Bolton has
always advocated tough approaches and never missed an opportunity to support using force
rather than wasting time on fruitless diplomacy. For instance, he has advocated for a military
option to solve the problem with North Korea and for boosting cooperation with Taiwan in order
to irk China. He takes a very hard line on Iran. "
To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran ," sums up his position.
Mr. Bolton believes the JCPOA was a blunder. He
wants the US to push Iran out of Syria and topple President Assad's Tehran-friendly government.
With his appointment, the chances of the US certifying the Iran nuclear deal appear to be
somewhere between zero and zilch. Mr. Bolton has always been pro-Israel and backed the idea of
a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran to knock out the facilities there related to its
nuclear program.
The late Jesse Helms, a well-known hawk, once claimed Mr. Bolton would
be the right man "to stand with at Armageddon."
The newest appointee has championed the idea of raising tariffs to unleash trade wars.
With these two very hawkish Republicans -- John Bolton and
Mike Pompeo -- Donald Trump will be under strong pressure to adopt a get-tough approach to
all major issues. Gina Haspel, another hawk, will have frequent access to Donald Trump in her
role as the newly appointed CIA director. The spirit of Barry Goldwater lives on.
John Bolton has always been critical of Moscow and it is almost unanimously believed that
his appointment does not augur well for US-Russia relations.
In response to President Putin's speech in which he unveiled the existence of his new super
weapons, Bolton emphasized the need for "a strategic response ." He
has
called on NATO to offer a strong reaction to what is known as the Scripal case, expressing
his conviction that the POTUS was considering such a response. The latest choice for National
Security Advisor
endorses
the idea of providing Ukraine with lethal weapons and wants the West to take a much tougher
stance on Russia. John Bolton will certainly advocate for expediting Georgia's and Ukraine's
membership in the North Atlantic alliance, as well as granting those nations the status of
Major Non–NATO ally of the US.
He strongly criticized President Obama's "reset policy." Yet despite all that, he never
launched personal attacks against Vladimir Putin. He always seemed to genuinely enjoy his
visits to Russia, including press conferences and visits to think tanks. Despite his tough
talk, he has always been amicable and ready to communicate. He has a long list of personal
acquaintances, including many in senior government positions and academia. John Bolton worked
with Sergey Kiriyenko, Russia's First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration,
back when the latter headed Russia's State Commission on Chemical Disarmament.
Mr. Bolton is an experienced negotiator on strategic arms-control issues. John Bolton was a
strong advocate of the US withdrawal from the 1972 BM Treaty. He took part in the talks over
the 2002 Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty (SORT) that was in effect until the New START went into force. John
Bolton sees the New START as a unilateral
disarmament agreement that is at odds with US interests. President Trump
has also decried that treaty.
Being a hawk does not make him a hopeless prospect. He views the interests of his nation in
his own way, but he wants America to lead, not perish in a war it can't win. His experience in
strategic arms talks is invaluable. Mr. Bolton has a good understanding of security-related
issues.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was a Russia hawk, a tough guy no one could make a deal with.
Remember his " joke "
about dropping bombs on the USSR in five minutes? Or his "Evil Empire" speech? During his
second term, the landmark INF Treaty was
signed and the friendly environment of the US-USSR summits were proof that that bilateral
relationship had clearly evolved beyond its Cold War roots.
The former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev believes that
"He has already entered history as a man who was instrumental in bringing about the end of the
Cold War." President Reagan ended the Cold War and made it possible to ease the nuclear
tensions in the 1990s.
Agreements will remain elusive on many issues and negotiations on some key matters may even
break down, but dialog on arms control will probably continue because it meets vital US
interests and Mr. Bolton knows that well.
In the end, the decisions are made by the president, and while advisers may have influence,
they only advise. President Trump has many people around him to help him see issues from
different viewpoints.
...here is a Ukrainian joke.
- You say Russia occupied Ukrainian Crimea. So, why don't you fight for it?
- We are not stupid, there is Russian army there.
- But you say that there is Russian army in Donbass, yet you fight
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really is Russian army.
"... If the USA empire could have been established and maintained, without a CIA, I doubt. Empires are ruthless, 'perfidious Albion' was the expression for the British empire. ..."
Depends on what you see as bad. If the USA empire could have been established and
maintained, without a CIA, I doubt. Empires are ruthless, 'perfidious Albion' was the
expression for the British empire.
Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003,
2007, Chalford -- Stroud
How an important British diplomat saw British control of the greater part of the world as
the natural order of things
Lord Vansittart, 'The Mist Procession, The autobiography of LORD VANSITTART', London
1958
Great pity that death prevented the biography from going furher than 1938.
The machinations of Vansittart during the thirties are described in
Philip M. Taylor, 'The Projection of Britain, British Overseas Publicity and Propaganda
1919-1939′, Cambridge 1981
and Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
The ideas of Vansittart's friend Leeper one finds in Sir Reginald Leeper, 'When Greek
Meets Greek', London 1950
He more or less ruled Greece from 1945 to say 1950.
So how do you reform the Secret Police? It is an interesting idea. The National Security
State has locked out any outside criticism and made reform almost impossible.
Then, there is also the whole indoctrination process. From hire to retire, these three
letter agencies indoctrinate their employees with esprit de corps and being a team player
with the greatest enthusiasm for the mission.
Claim made by high level persons in the link, suggest need for deep investigation into who in
the USA is getting paid to deliver or make available American taxpayer paid for resources to
foreign payee governments conducting terrorism and destabilization programs?
John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Comcast. Comcast runs NBC. I
would call them the Roberts family, but none of them look like Henry Fonda, so I won't. I
don't dare speculate what their real name is.
Mike Morell is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Viacom. Viacom runs CBS. I
don't care how convoluted those shysters made the exact corporate control of CBS, they run
it. The family name of these nasty Viacom shysters ain't their real name either.
President Trump should have declared war on the corporate propaganda apparatus and the
Deep State on day number one of his administration. Trump let the shysters who run the
corporate media and the treasonous rats in the Deep State off the hook.
President Trump won the GOP presidential primary and the presidency itself because Trump
promised to put the safety, security and sovereignty of America first. The largest vote
getter in terms of specific issues was the IMMIGRATION issue. Trump had the chance to fire
every damn treasonous rat in the Deep State and he didn't do it. Trump betrayed his voters
who wanted immigration reduced and illegal aliens deported.
President Trump should face a GOP presidential primary challenger. Maybe that will force
Trump to remove the Deep State, remove the current controllers of the corporate media and put
America first.
Trump should also call for an immigration moratorium and begin deporting all illegal
aliens immediately.
Trump's problems with the corporate media and the Deep State stem from the fact that Trump
didn't immediately remove them when he had the chance. Trump's voter base was more than ready
for a "burn the boats on the beach" battle plan to defend the United States against the
treasonous rats in the Deep State and the anti-White, anti-Christian shyster rats in the
corporate media.
"He [Brennan] said that the U.S. President is 'afraid of the president of Russia' and
that the Kremlin 'may have something on him personally.' "
Brennan is PROJECTING.
They have the goods on HIM, and will squeeze out of him every last second of influence
operations as long as he draws breath. Brennan will never be able to get off the HAMSTER
WHEEL alive.
More definitive is Mr. Giraldi's identifying him as a "possible war criminal."
Americans are pragmatic people. Identifying John Brennan as a so-called "war criminal"
because he was involved in all the extraneous crap the American Empire is pulling overseas
won't get the interest of ordinary Americans. Calling John Brennan a "propaganda whore" for
the family that controls Comcast will pique their interest.
I would suggest that John Brennan could be politically damaged the most by stating that
John Brennan supports open borders mass immigration. John Brennan and the rest of the Deep
State are dangerous to Americans because they all support open borders mass immigration. The
corporate media all supports mass immigration.
Over 60 million of us voted for Trump because Trump said he would stop the unnecessary
overseas wars, reduce immigration and scrap the sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams. We
voted for Trump to make the American Empire act more like a republic. We're stuck with the
American Empire until it croaks or is croaked in turn. And the empires all turn into rust
again.
The treasonous rats in the American Empire's Deep State all push nation-wrecking mass
immigration.
But was it CIA or DIA that helped to count Trump votes?
Hmmm, let's see here.
Counted Trump votes but not Clinton's?
Counted but reduced the number of Trump votes?
Counted all of the votes, but inflated Clinton's?
Successfully hacked the voting machines in some states to inflate Clinton votes and deflate
Trump votes?
How Brennon came to power, should draw questions. Was the dethroning of Gen. David Petraeus,
as CIA chief, a palace coup? Was Brennen spying on Petraeus? Was the NSA tapping his phones?
Did the idea that a military man was heading the CIA, anathema to the institution – so
they got rid of him?
Just how much actual power does the CIA have in the American permanent Deep State?
Congress is NO check on the CIA – all the politicians on the intel security
committees are handpicked dedicated worshipers.
The CIA is the most anti democracy organization on the planet. From its beginning, it has
played with, subverted, and toppled democracies and sovereign governments. Today it
assonates, tortures, and bombs people around the world. (Has Trump given them a free
hand?)
The commie cold war is over – let's not start another one. The CIA's covert
activities must stop.
"... "Now a new Cold War might be different in many respects than the old one. First of all, a very different balance of forces. Second, the absence of an attractive international ideology on the Russian side. Third, obviously, Russia is much more exposed to the West than during the original Cold War, but also, fewer rules and, I think, perhaps more emotions on both sides and increasingly hostile emotions on both sides." ..."
"... While many in Washington believe that Russia would fold if the United States stood up to the Kremlin, the recent Russian presidential elections on March 18 seem to show that Russian president Vladimir Putin has a much stronger mandate than many Western observers might have expected. As Beebe -- former head of the Central Intelligence Agency's Russia desk -- noted, Putin performed much better in the Russian elections than analysts expected. ..."
"... Part of the reason that Putin did so well was because of the alleged Russian attack on Skripal, since the Russian population generally does not believe that their government was involved. ..."
"... Indeed, Russian liberals faired exceedingly poorly in the elections at least in part because of the "rally around the flag" effect, Beebe said. ..."
"... The idea that Russia is under siege by hostile foreign powers greatly contributed to high voter turnout in the Russian elections and for far greater support for Putin himself. ..."
"I don't think many of us would question that we do face a new Cold War," Dimitri Simes,
Center for the National Interest president and chief executive officer, said during a lunchtime
panel on March 26.
"Now a new Cold War might be different in many respects than the old one. First of
all, a very different balance of forces. Second, the absence of an attractive international
ideology on the Russian side. Third, obviously, Russia is much more exposed to the West than
during the original Cold War, but also, fewer rules and, I think, perhaps more emotions on
both sides and increasingly hostile emotions on both sides."
The Possibility of a Conflict
Simes, who recently returned from a trip to Russia, said that while the Kremlin is held in
low regard by Washington, those feeling are mirrored in Moscow. Indeed, tensions between the
two nuclear-armed great powers are so high that analysts are openly wondering if there could be
some sort of military confrontation between Washington and Moscow.
... ... ...
Putin is in a Strong Position
While many in Washington believe that Russia would fold if the United States stood up to
the Kremlin, the recent Russian presidential elections on March 18 seem to show that Russian
president Vladimir Putin has a much stronger mandate than many Western observers might have
expected. As Beebe -- former head of the Central Intelligence Agency's Russia desk -- noted,
Putin performed much better in the Russian elections than analysts expected.
... ... ...
Simes noted that Putin performed better than expected with parts of the Russian electorate
where he traditionally has not fared well, such as in Moscow and with Russians living abroad.
Part of the reason that Putin did so well was because of the alleged Russian attack on
Skripal, since the Russian population generally does not believe that their government was
involved.
Indeed, Russian liberals faired exceedingly poorly in the elections at least in part
because of the "rally around the flag" effect, Beebe said. Beebe noted that part of the
issue is that neither the United States or Britain has presented concrete evidence that Russia
conducted the attack. The information that is publicly available is cause for a high degree of
suspicion that Russia was behind the attack, Beebe said, however, it is not evidence in and of
itself.
The idea that Russia is under siege by hostile foreign powers greatly contributed to
high voter turnout in the Russian elections and for far greater support for Putin himself.
"I was at a postelection party for journalists where a lot of opposition people, candidates,
their surrogates were present, and they were all saying, 'We lost a lot of voters during the
last days before the election because of this British incident,'" Simes said.
1
5 0 On Monday, a number of European countries, as well as the United States and Canada,
announced they were expelling Russian diplomats over the Skripal case. Radio Sputnik discussed
the significance of the diplomatic response by the Western powers with Srdja Trifkovic, a US
journalist and writer on international affairs. Sputnik: What is your overall assessment about
what has happened with this diplomatic response by so many countries? How significant is it?
Srdja Trifkovic: The overall impression is that
rational discourse has given way to collective hysteria and that it is indeed remarkable.
The extent to which the bandwagon has successfully started rolling while we don't even have
elementary answers to the questions concerning the case itself.
The second important and discouraging aspect is that continental European countries have
followed the Anglo-American lead in Russophobia and this represents a further trial of the
Atlanticist domination over Europe. It is indeed remarkable when both Germany and France, the
putative leaders of independent European foreign policy, have been reduced to the status of
automatic followers of the lead supported by Washington especially when we bear in mind that
the initial round of sanctions in 2014 against Russia was dictated by the United States which
had nothing to lose in the proceedings and to the detriments of Europeans' interests.
So overall I think that, one we have the hysterical phase of Russophobic
discourse in the West which is not amenable to any rational arguments and two, we have a
successful degradation of European diplomacy to the status of pliant satellites comparable to
East Germany and Bulgaria vis-à-vis Brezhnev.
Sputnik: Do you think there was some classified evidence that was presented that proves
beyond a shadow of doubt that Russia was involved or do you think that the fact that there are
11 countries who have not joined in the protest perhaps hints at the fact that this was not the
case?
Srdja Trifkovic: Well, first of all, I would say that President Putin, Foreign Minister
Lavrov and others would not have made such categorical denials of Russian involvement if there
was any possibility of a smoking gun which could effectively show to the world that they were
not telling the truth.
And secondly, it is always possible to present some equivocal
evidence in the form that even if that indicates the modus operandi of intelligence
agencies nevertheless does not disclose outright state secrets. In fact, we've seen that in the
past and I don't think that it would be possible for such confidential information to be
disclosed to the diplomats and foreign ministers of EU countries as divergent as the 27 are,
without risking these very sources.
So I really believe that if you look at the countries which have taken measures against
Russia, they almost read like who is who of those who are prepared to follow the US lead and if
you look at those reluctant to do so, including Austria, Hungary, Cyprus, Greece, we are
looking at those who actually have a more independent foreign policy. So I don't think it's a
reflection of the quality of possible intelligence, it is simply a reflection of the
determination of decision-makers of those countries to preserve a modicum of independence.
Sputnik: What would you say about the level to which the actions that were actually taken by
individual countries? What can you say about the numbers game that's being played? What do you
think determined the number of diplomats?
Srdja Trifkovic: Some of these countries are absolutely insignificant countries like the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which also expelled one Russian and it's just a pathetic
non country. On the other hand in the United States obviously it is a matter of regret that
President Trump's initially stated intention to have detente with Russia has been subverted by
the deep state, it is a long story but now we have really reached the end of the road with the
appointment of Pompeo to State Department and Bolton as the national security adviser.
So we can really look at Trump as the would-be drainer of the swamp who has been swallowed
by the swamp. And I think that we are in for a long haul. I was in Moscow two weeks ago and
coming again next week and sometimes I am surprised that some of my Russian interlocutors are
insufficiently aware of the animosity or end of the rule Russophobic sentiment that currently
prevails among the Western elites, both political and academic and media. It's almost pathetic
when some Russians still use the term "our Western partners," because for partnership you need
to have a modicum of mutual respect and trust and these people really seriously want to destroy
Russia.
They want to delegitimize the Russian political system and process as we have seen with the
public commentary on President Putin's re-election and they want nothing short of regime
change, which would then lead to a permanent and irreversible change of Russia's national
character and possibly the country's partition along the lines allocated by Zbigniew
Brzezinski. With these people partnership is impossible and Russia needs to be prepared for a
long and sustained
period of confrontation .
The views and opinions expressed by Srdja Trifkovic are those of the speaker and do not
necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
"... "[Sergei Skripal] was handed in to Britain as a result of an exchange. So, why should Russia hand in a man that is of any importance or that is of any value? It's unimaginable. If he's handed in – so Russia quits with him. He's of zero value or zero importance," ..."
"... "America stands ready to help Poland and other European nations diversify their energy supplies so that you can never be held hostage to a single supplier," ..."
"... "If we want to have the United States' LNG supplies in Central Europe, we also want to see the United States getting tough on Nord Stream 2, which means getting tough on Russia," ..."
"... "getting tough on Russia." ..."
"... "The draft law makes clear that they're pursuing economic interests and we think that's not acceptable," ..."
"... "Aggressively combining foreign policy issues with American economic interests and saying: 'We want to drive Russian gas out of the European market so we can sell American gas there is definitely not something we can accept.'" ..."
"... "We are determined to maintain open channels of dialogue with Russia," ..."
Once again, the West has tossed out the democratic baby with the bath water, scapegoating
Russia for a mysterious crime on UK territory without a shred of evidence. To understand why,
just follow the money. Any hope that Western capitals would come to their democratic senses and
demand that PM Theresa May provide some proof that Russia was behind an alleged assassination
attempt on Sergei Skripal, a former Russian intelligence officer turned British spy, were
dashed on Monday. Sixteen EU states fell in lockstep behind the US
and UK, taking the dramatic measure of banishing Russian diplomats.
Breaking: US to expel 48 Russian embassy workers in Washington, D.C. and 12 at the Russian
mission to the U.N. U.S. says they were intel officers using diplo status as cover.
pic.twitter.com/mRuwY8Tes6
Meanwhile, back in the land of the free, Trump enthusiastically joined the inquisition,
saying he would expel 60 Russian diplomats 'personae non grata,' and shut down the Seattle
consulate. Good to see that the American leader practices cool-headed moderation in times of
uncertainty.
Short of an actual military conflict with Russia, it would be hard to imagine the situation
getting any worse. Most worrisome is the peddling of pulp-fiction conspiracy theories against
Russia, which compels Western officials to compensate for their wild imaginations with
hysterical, inflammatory outbursts that border on sheer madness.
How else to explain the comment by UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson, who spoke like a
kid at the playground when he said Russia "should go away
and shut up;" or that of Boris Johnson, the British foreign minister, who had the audacity
and historical ignorance to compare Russia's hosting
of this year's World Cup to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany.
So, what is motivating self-satisfied Western countries, like the US and Britain, to forward
such slanderous claims against Russia without a hint of legal due process? After all, it cannot
be denied that Russia would have stood to gain nothing from targeting Skripal.
"[Sergei Skripal] was handed in to Britain as a result of an exchange. So, why should
Russia hand in a man that is of any importance or that is of any value? It's unimaginable. If
he's handed in – so Russia quits with him. He's of zero value or zero importance,"
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in an exclusive
interview with RT.
When we ask the question, 'Cui bono' – who stands to benefit the most from an
assassination attempt on a man of absolutely no consequence to Moscow – the most credible
answer always comes back to 'Russia's accusers.'
Follow the money
Since Washington has taken by far the severest steps against Russia over the Skripal
fallout, it would be fair to ask if the US stands to gain anything from the wave of Russophobia
now sweeping the West, which got its start, incidentally, as a direct result of
'Russiagate.'
Against the backdrop of the Skripal scandal are extremely lucrative gas contracts with EU
countries that Russia has dutifully fulfilled since the Soviet heydays. Today, Russia supplies
about 40 percent of Europe's gas. The US, however, with its fracking-backed liquefied natural
gas (LNG) program, is anxious to get a piece of the pie.
In July, Donald Trump paid a visit to Poland, where he pledged to boost exports of LNG to
Central Europe, as well as challenge Russia's market on energy supplies.
"America stands ready to help Poland and other European nations diversify their energy
supplies so that you can never be held hostage to a single supplier," Trump told
reporters after talks with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
The comment was odd since, even at the height of the Cold War, Europe never froze due to its
gas being turned off in the middle of the night by Moscow.
Marek Matraszek, founder of the lobby firm CEC Government Relations, offered a very
disturbing comment about Washington's push to supply LNG to Europe.
"If we want to have the United States' LNG supplies in Central Europe, we also want to
see the United States getting tough on Nord Stream 2, which means getting tough on
Russia," Matraszek said
.
I am very curious to know exactly what Matraszek had in mind when he spoke about
"getting tough on Russia." Would he approve of the current bilateral breakdown between
the nuclear powers? I certainly hope not.
In light of the massive prospects for gross profit on the European continent, would Western
capitals not be tempted – tempted, at the very least – to deny Moscow the benefit
of the doubt whenever highly suspicious criminal cases arise, like the present one regarding
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia?
In an effort to slander Russia and push it out of lucrative markets, they may be tempted to
milk the situation for all its worth – which is exactly what is happening now. To doubt
that possibility would require a deep misunderstanding of the geopolitical realities as they
have played out over the course of the last decade, complete with a massive propaganda campaign
aimed at everything related to Russia – from the Olympic Games to anti-terrorist
operations in Syria to criminal cases in
foreign lands.
Meanwhile, as the showdown between the US and Russia over EU gas supplies festers,
especially in light of Nord Stream 2, the German-Russia venture that would double direct Russia
gas supplies, the ongoing US sanction regime against Russia is beginning to look suspect.
Commenting on Trump's passage in August of brand new sanctions against Russia, then German
Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel was brave enough to mention the elephant in the room.
"The draft law makes clear that they're pursuing economic interests and we think that's
not acceptable," he
said .
"Aggressively combining foreign policy issues with American economic interests and
saying: 'We want to drive Russian gas out of the European market so we can sell American gas
there is definitely not something we can accept.'"
Meanwhile, it is not only in the energy sector where the United States - and to a lesser
degree the UK - stands to gain from wrecked relations with Russia, but in the defense sector as
well.
The UK regularly
ranks as Europe's leading weapons exporter, behind the United States globally, which
remains the world's leading arms exporter. Much of the expenditure comes from NATO member
states, which were just put on notice by Trump to keep their military spending at 2 percent of
GDP, at the very same time Washington was going out of its way to portray
Russia as a belligerent nation, when it has been the West that has been hell-bent on fomenting
regime change around the world. Now that's certainly an interesting sales strategy.
Romanian Prime Minister @VioricaDancila said that the
government decisions to purchase #HIMARS missile
systems and multirole corvettes were important steps in improving the capability of the
Romanian armed forces as a @NATO and EU member #defencepic.twitter.com/EEYk4Sk5MR
Can this propaganda campaign against Russia work? I believe the answer is no, for many
reasons. First, it is not just the Russians who understand that they are being played by major
powers in a conspicuous attempt to gain geopolitical and economic advantage.
Thus far, nearly half of the EU's member states have refrained from
committing a gesture of "solidarity" with London, deciding not to expel Russian diplomats.
Those 'conscientious objectors' are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Luxembourg,
Malta, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.
"We are determined to maintain open channels of dialogue with Russia," Austrian
government spokesperson Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal told RIA Novosti.
In many ways, this represents a victory for Russia – albeit a bittersweet one –
that London failed to get so many countries on board its anti-Russia juggernaut.
This needs to be emphasized. The majority of the EU countries did not join in this mass
expulsion. As for those that did, expulsions were mostly pro forma, undertaken in order to
keep the British happy. Why then the wildly disproportionate response from Trump? https://t.co/4FldvIS80W
Second, Russia is actively diversifying its economy away from Western markets in preparation
for a worse-case scenario. For example, the "$55bn Power of Siberia pipeline will start
carrying gas 3,000km to China next year. The company is also spending $13bn on a pipeline to
Turkey," the Financial Times reported.
Finally, as Russia understands that they are up against some very dishonest players, the
country has made tremendous inroads to producing many of the things it once depended upon
imports to have, and we are not just talking about cheese. The Russian authorities have even
prepared a backup plan in the
event that Russia is terminated from the SWIFT international payment system. Although, of
course, Russia would prefer not to have to take such drastic steps, the unfortunate situation
in many Western capitals, where otherwise intelligent people are pointing fingers and hurling
unfounded accusations at Russia, without critical evidence or due process – once
hallmarks of the Western judicial system – make such steps absolutely vital.
All things considered, Russia will survive this storm, as it has done so many other times in
the past against far graver enemies, and stronger than ever.
You will gain a better understanding of Vladimir Putin if you study his career as a
sportsman, 3rd degree blackbelt Judoka than by sifting through his career as an ex-spy.
First of all, Judo is a sport. It's not a "martial art". It's not meant to maim or
injure–though of course, people do get injured because they get thrown. Every
particular technique that could inevitably result in injury has been culled from the sport.
You don't "practice" Judo, you "play" it–literally, that's what they say when talking
about participation.
Practice sessions are democratic. Everyone practices against everyone else. Of course,
this results in mismatches as rank beginners will at some point be paired up with advanced
players. But this mismatch doesn't result in humiliation because the advanced take special
pains to play cleanly, pull their throws i.e. execute them perfectly so the person thrown can
land without injury to themselves and it also is an opportunity for every good Judoka to
teach the novices.
There are some people who come to Judo who don't fit in. They standout because they can be
seen really playing rough with those who are lower in rank than them. But this doesn't go
unnoticed. As people cycle through opponents during the practice session, the bully will
eventually be paired up with someone who is better than they are. And they will be taught a
lesson. Either they learn and conform to the rules or they never show up again. Judo weeds
out opportunistic bullies.
Now I hope the above helps people better understand Putin. To sum up: he is competitive
but will try to win fairly, within the prescribed rules. He won't tolerate bullying by the
stronger over the weaker, will, in fact, come to the aid of the weaker. Has a strong sense of
tradition, of belonging to a school of thought and action that is greater than himself and
that is worth preserving for its own sake, believes and more importantly, knows through
experience, that belonging to such a school improves individual character. He is competent.
I've seen film of him in practice and his technique is quite good. His third degree black
belt was honestly earned, it wasn't an honorary award.
From the above it can be seen why he would have little respect for the current crop of
weak, cowardly, politicians who rule America, lacking as they are in discipline, integrity
and dedication to a larger, noble cause. He would, in fact, find it hard not to hold them in
contempt but, keeping his eyes on the long-term goals of what's good for his country, masters
his emotions when dealing with them face to face.
"... My short visit only confirmed my conviction and fear that the invasion would spell disaster for Iraqis. Removing Saddam was just a byproduct of another objective: dismantling the Iraqi state and its institutions. That state was replaced with a dysfunctional and corrupt semi-state. ..."
"... Paul Bremer III, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, announced the formation of the so-called Governing Council in July 2003. The names of its members were each followed by their sect and ethnicity . Many of the Iraqis we spoke to on that day were upset with institutionalization of an ethno-sectarian quota system. Ethnic and sectarian tensions already existed, but their translation into political currency was toxic. Those unsavory characters on the governing council, most of whom were allies of the United States from the preceding decade, went on to loot the country, making it one of the most corrupt in the world. ..."
"... The next time I returned to Baghdad was in 2013. The American tanks were gone, but the effects of the occupation were everywhere. I had low expectations, but I was still disheartened by the ugliness of the city where I had grown up and horrified by how dysfunctional, difficult and dangerous daily life had become for the great majority of Iraqis. ..."
"... I didn't expect the beautiful Basra I'd seen on 1970s postcards. That city had long disappeared. But the Basra I saw was so exhausted and polluted. The city had suffered a great deal during the Iran-Iraq war, and its decline accelerated after 2003. Basra was pale, dilapidated and chaotic thanks to the rampant corruption. Its rivers are polluted and ebbing. ..."
"... Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion) , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter . ..."
Photo
A statue of Saddam Hussein
in front of the burning National Olympic Committee in Baghdad in 2003.
Credit
Tyler Hicks/The New
York Times
When I was 12, Saddam
Hussein, vice president of Iraq at the time, carried out a huge purge and officially usurped total power. I was
living in Baghdad then, and I developed an intuitive, visceral hatred of the dictator early on. That feeling only
intensified and matured as I did. In the late 1990s, I wrote my first novel, "I'jaam: An Iraqi Rhapsody," about
daily life under Saddam's authoritarian regime. Furat, the narrator
,
was a young college student
studying English literature at Baghdad University, as I had. He ends up in prison for cracking a joke about the
dictator. Furat hallucinates and imagines Saddam's fall, just as I often did. I hoped I would witness that
moment, whether in Iraq or from afar.
I left Iraq a few months
after the 1991 Gulf War and went to graduate school in the United States, where I've been ever since. In 2002,
when the cheerleading for the Iraq war started, I was vehemently against the proposed invasion. The United States
had consistently supported dictators in the Arab world and was not in the business of exporting democracy,
irrespective of the Bush administration's slogans. I recalled sitting in my family's living room with my aunt
when I was a teenager, watching Iraqi television and seeing Donald Rumsfeld visiting Baghdad as an emissary from
Ronald Reagan and
shaking hands with Saddam
. That
memory made Mr. Rumsfeld's words in 2002 about freedom and democracy for Iraqis seem hollow. Moreover, having
lived through two previous wars (the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 to 1988 and the Gulf War of 1991), I knew that the
actual objectives of war were always camouflaged by well-designed lies that exploit collective fear and
perpetuate national myths.
I was one of about 500
Iraqis in the diaspora -- of various ethnic and political backgrounds, many of whom were dissidents and victims of
Saddam's regime -- who signed a petition: "No to war on Iraq. No to dictatorship." While condemning Saddam's reign
of terror, we were against a "war that would cause more death and suffering" for innocent Iraqis and one that
threatened to push the entire region into violent chaos. Our voices were not welcomed in mainstream media in the
United States, which preferred the pro-war Iraqi-American who promised cheering crowds that would welcome
invaders with "sweets and flowers." There were none.
The petition didn't make
much of an impact. Fifteen years ago today, the invasion of Iraq began.
Three months later, I
returned to Iraq for the first time since 1991 as part of a collective to film a documentary about Iraqis in a
post-Saddam Iraq. We wanted to show my countrymen as three-dimensional beings, beyond the binary of Saddam versus
the United States. In American media, Iraqis had been reduced to either victims of Saddam who longed for
occupation or supporters and defenders of dictatorship who opposed the war. We wanted Iraqis to speak for
themselves. For two weeks, we drove around Baghdad and spoke to many of its residents. Some were still hopeful,
despite being drained by years of sanctions and dictatorship. But many were furious and worried about what was to
come. The signs were already there: the typical arrogance and violence of a colonial occupying power.
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial
board and contributing writers from around the world.
My short visit only
confirmed my conviction and fear that the invasion would spell disaster for Iraqis. Removing Saddam was just a
byproduct of another objective: dismantling the Iraqi state and its institutions. That state was replaced with a
dysfunctional and corrupt semi-state. We were still filming in Baghdad when L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the
Coalition Provisional Authority,
announced the formation
of the so-called Governing Council in July 2003. The names of its members were each
followed by their
sect and ethnicity
. Many of the Iraqis we
spoke to on that day were upset with institutionalization of an ethno-sectarian quota system. Ethnic and
sectarian tensions already existed, but their translation into political currency was toxic. Those unsavory
characters on the governing council, most of whom were allies of the United States from the preceding decade,
went on to loot the country, making it one of the most corrupt in the world.
We
were fortunate to have been able to shoot our film in that brief period during which there was relative public
security. Shortly after our visit, Iraq descended into violence; suicide bombings became the norm. The invasion
made my country a magnet for terrorists ("We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here," President
George W. Bush had said), and Iraq later descended into a sectarian civil war that claimed the lives of hundreds
of thousands of civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands more, irrevocably changing the country's
demography.
The
next time I returned to Baghdad was in 2013. The American tanks were gone, but the effects of the occupation were
everywhere. I had low expectations, but I was still disheartened by the ugliness of the city where I had grown up and
horrified by how dysfunctional, difficult and dangerous daily life had become for the great majority of Iraqis.
My last visit was in April
2017. I flew from New York, where I now live, to Kuwait, where I was giving a lecture. An Iraqi friend and I crossed
the border by land. I was going to the city of Basra, in the south of Iraq. Basra was the only major Iraqi city I had
not visited before. I was going to sign my books at the Friday book market of al-Farahidi Street, a weekly gathering
for bibliophiles modeled after the famous
Mutanabbi Street book market
in Baghdad. I was driven around by friends. I didn't expect the beautiful Basra I'd
seen on 1970s postcards. That city had long disappeared. But the Basra I saw was so exhausted and polluted. The city
had suffered a great deal during the Iran-Iraq war, and its decline accelerated after 2003. Basra was pale,
dilapidated and chaotic thanks to the rampant corruption. Its rivers are polluted and ebbing. Nonetheless, I made a
pilgrimage to the famous statue of Iraq's greatest poet, Badr Shakir al-Sayyab.
One of the few sources of joy
for me during these short visits were the encounters with Iraqis who had read my novels and were moved by them. These
were novels I had written from afar, and through them, I tried to grapple with the painful disintegration of an
entire country and the destruction of its social fabric. These texts are haunted by the ghosts of the dead, just as
their author is.
No one knows for certain how
many Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion 15 years ago. Some credible estimates put the number at more than
one million. You can read that sentence again. The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a
"blunder," or even a "colossal mistake." It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them
have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry. (A year ago, I
watched Mr. Bush on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," dancing and talking about his paintings.) The pundits and "experts"
who sold us the war still go on doing what they do. I never thought that Iraq could ever be worse than it was during
Saddam's reign, but that is what America's war achieved and bequeathed to Iraqis.
John Bolton Tapped for NSA: What Does It Mean for US-Russia Relations?
John Bolton, a Yale-educated lawyer known as a
foreign policy hawk , has been appointed National Security Adviser (NSA), in a major
reshuffle of President Trump's administration. He officially takes office on April 9. No Senate
confirmation is required. Welcome back, Mr. Straight Talker!
Mr. Bolton has a long history of government service, including in the positions of
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and ambassador to the UN, the organization he once
described as "no such thing" and wants to be defunded . John Bolton
scorns international institutions and
does not believe that engaging much with the world is in keeping with US interests.
This soon-to-be NSA is an experienced lawyer and "think tanker," as well as a foreign-policy
pundit who has written a multitude of books and articles. He's a deft and ready speaker whose
gift of gab can win over an audience at any time. The National Security Advisor-designate even
considered entering the presidential races in 2012 and 2016.
In his frequent television commentaries
, Mr. Bolton has
always advocated tough approaches and never missed an opportunity to support using force
rather than wasting time on fruitless diplomacy. For instance, he has advocated for a military
option to solve the problem with North Korea and for boosting cooperation with Taiwan in order
to irk China. He takes a very hard line on Iran. "
To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran ," sums up his position.
Mr. Bolton believes the JCPOA was a blunder. He
wants the US to push Iran out of Syria and topple President Assad's Tehran-friendly government.
With his appointment, the chances of the US certifying the Iran nuclear deal appear to be
somewhere between zero and zilch. Mr. Bolton has always been pro-Israel and backed the idea of
a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran to knock out the facilities there related to its
nuclear program.
The late Jesse Helms, a well-known hawk, once claimed Mr. Bolton would
be the right man "to stand with at Armageddon."
The newest appointee has championed the idea of raising tariffs to unleash trade wars.
With these two very hawkish Republicans -- John Bolton and
Mike Pompeo -- Donald Trump will be under strong pressure to adopt a get-tough approach to
all major issues. Gina Haspel, another hawk, will have frequent access to Donald Trump in her
role as the newly appointed CIA director. The spirit of Barry Goldwater lives on.
John Bolton has always been critical of Moscow and it is almost unanimously believed that
his appointment does not augur well for US-Russia relations.
In response to President Putin's speech in which he unveiled the existence of his new super
weapons, Bolton emphasized the need for "a strategic response ." He
has
called on NATO to offer a strong reaction to what is known as the Scripal case, expressing
his conviction that the POTUS was considering such a response. The latest choice for National
Security Advisor
endorses
the idea of providing Ukraine with lethal weapons and wants the West to take a much tougher
stance on Russia. John Bolton will certainly advocate for expediting Georgia's and Ukraine's
membership in the North Atlantic alliance, as well as granting those nations the status of
Major Non–NATO ally of the US.
He strongly criticized President Obama's "reset policy." Yet despite all that, he never
launched personal attacks against Vladimir Putin. He always seemed to genuinely enjoy his
visits to Russia, including press conferences and visits to think tanks. Despite his tough
talk, he has always been amicable and ready to communicate. He has a long list of personal
acquaintances, including many in senior government positions and academia. John Bolton worked
with Sergey Kiriyenko, Russia's First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration,
back when the latter headed Russia's State Commission on Chemical Disarmament.
Mr. Bolton is an experienced negotiator on strategic arms-control issues. John Bolton was a
strong advocate of the US withdrawal from the 1972 BM Treaty. He took part in the talks over
the 2002 Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty (SORT) that was in effect until the New START went into force. John
Bolton sees the New START as a unilateral
disarmament agreement that is at odds with US interests. President Trump
has also decried that treaty.
Being a hawk does not make him a hopeless prospect. He views the interests of his nation in
his own way, but he wants America to lead, not perish in a war it can't win. His experience in
strategic arms talks is invaluable. Mr. Bolton has a good understanding of security-related
issues.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was a Russia hawk, a tough guy no one could make a deal with.
Remember his " joke "
about dropping bombs on the USSR in five minutes? Or his "Evil Empire" speech? During his
second term, the landmark INF Treaty was
signed and the friendly environment of the US-USSR summits were proof that that bilateral
relationship had clearly evolved beyond its Cold War roots.
The former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev believes that
"He has already entered history as a man who was instrumental in bringing about the end of the
Cold War." President Reagan ended the Cold War and made it possible to ease the nuclear
tensions in the 1990s.
Agreements will remain elusive on many issues and negotiations on some key matters may even
break down, but dialog on arms control will probably continue because it meets vital US
interests and Mr. Bolton knows that well.
In the end, the decisions are made by the president, and while advisers may have influence,
they only advise. President Trump has many people around him to help him see issues from
different viewpoints.
Humans are primates. Thus, they are stupid, ignorant, malicious and fearful - mostly the
latter. Pretty much explains everything in human history.
I subscribe to the concept of survival at any cost. But in a rational society that would
entail being aware of the long-term consequences. This, however, is not a rational
society.
Off topic - or maybe not given the topic of human heartlessness - here we have John
Bolton:
Apparently he told the M.E.K. cult that the US would end Iran's leadership before the 40
year anniversary which is February 11, 2019.
That of course is absurd unless somehow the US manages to decapitate the Iranian
leadership with an airstrike or nuclear attack. What actually will happen if the US attacks
Iran is that Iran will fight for the next several decades until the US backs off. There is no
chance short of nuclear bombardment for the US to "defeat" Iran. The US couldn't even
"defeat" Iraq in less than five years and hasn't defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in 17
years. Iran will be a far harder nut to crack than either of those.
"... Of course the CIA 'interfered' in the 2016 Presidential election. But our Elites do not want that discussed as a mere possibility. We might also look more closely at the CIA and the JFK assassination. ..."
"... The CIA is the child of British imperial secret service, as are the Mossad and the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse. ..."
"... Why Mueller? Brennan isn't a president, or even a government official at all. He's a former federal employee who is wide open to investigation by the DOJ. Brennan's past terms employment are an open book to the DOJ or to Congress. ..."
"... John Brennan may well be the most dangerous and dirty CIA director in the Company's history. ..."
"... If the USA empire could have been established and maintained, without a CIA, I doubt. Empires are ruthless, 'perfidious Albion' was the expression for the British empire. ..."
"... Which brings us to John Brennan, the Central Intelligence Agency's chief under President Obama, who rushed to MSNBC this week to claim: "The fact that he has had this fawning attitude towards Mr. Putin and has not said anything negative about him, it continues to say something to me that he has something to fear and something serious to fear [from Russia]." ..."
"... Uh huh. Presidents have secrets but they also have power, so if you think they are easily blackmailable, Mr. Brennan may have a third-rate spy novel to sell you. What occurred to anybody who has followed matters closely was a different thought: Mr. Brennan, who has a few things to hide himself, has decided his best defense is a strong offense. ..."
"... For the truth is, Mr. Trump's version of the loudmouth demagogue is increasingly coming out on the better side of the emerging facts on Russia. The Kremlin wasn't the most consequential meddler in the 2016 election: It was James Comey's FBI, with Mr. Brennan standing obscurely at his elbow every step of the way. ..."
"... If a planted Russian intercept was instrumental in the fiasco of Mr. Comey's intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter, as numerous leaks indicate, then that intercept would have come from Mr. Brennan's CIA. What's more, it likely came not with a shrug, but with a clear expectation that Mr. Comey would act to protect a Clinton presidency from an alleged Russian plot. ..."
"... John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Comcast. Comcast runs NBC. I would call them the Roberts family, but none of them look like Henry Fonda, so I won't. I don't dare speculate what their real name is. ..."
"... Mike Morell is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Viacom. Viacom runs CBS. I don't care how convoluted those shysters made the exact corporate control of CBS, they run it. The family name of these nasty Viacom shysters ain't their real name either. ..."
"... Is this trolling or naïvete? All US investigating agencies are complicit, so who is going to investigate investigators? ..."
"... Americans are pragmatic people. Identifying John Brennan as a so-called "war criminal" because he was involved in all the extraneous crap the American Empire is pulling overseas won't get the interest of ordinary Americans. Calling John Brennan a "propaganda whore" for the family that controls Comcast will pique their interest. ..."
Trump is clearly having a perilous time trying to put together a defense team. He is made to
look the fool on an hourly basis. It isn't even news anymore. Fans of his in the media were
complaining about the 60 Minutes broadcast asking isn't "there more" in terms of news
value?
It was with that pending backdrop that we heard from Brennan. It took no courage. Trump is
in the ring and he's battered. Make no mistake others heard what Brennan was making clear.
Yes, Trump is headed for the "dustbin" and it's just a matter of how. Brennan was telling
those that matter to back off and let it happen. Quality legal counsel trust Trump about as
much as Brennan does.
We saw the large number of Russians tossed out yesterday. Trump acquiesced, though made no
statement. The decision was probably taken while the president was preparing for his Florida
break and how best to react to his porn actress assignation, that never happened (in his
mind).
The system is obviously sick to the point of degeneracy yet some still proclaim that it
can still be "reformed" if we somehow manage to magically get the right guy into the
m̶o̶n̶a̶r̶c̶h̶y̶, I mean prezudensy.
'Taint gonna happen goys 'n squirrels.
It is a system that robs all who work for a living.
What, -- did I hear you say that this of which we have spoken, gives employment to lots
of people? That is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person, yet that statement
is excusable as long as we continue the existing business and political scheme. As things
now are, the main thing aimed at by the wealth grabbers is to use us -- to make of us mere
machines to wear out in producing wealth for them.
-Charles A. Lindbergh, Why is your country at war and what happens to you after the war,
and related subjects, p 36-7. (1917)
Thanks to President Truman for both the CIA and recognizing the spawning of Israel, two
demonic entities that have and continue to give both America and the world an endless amount
of trouble, while leeching money out of our economy.
Thank Mr. Giraldi for not babbling on about the latest washed up porn star who claims that
Trump bedded her, which makes for endless conversations among the rubes, while the CIA
continues on with its world-wide assassination program, moving paid for jihadists to Syria,
helping the head-chopping Saudi dictator remain in office, running opium out of Afghanistan
and making sure 90% of the MSM keeps feeding toxic slop to people in the guise of news.
Of course the CIA 'interfered' in the 2016 Presidential election. But our Elites do
not want that discussed as a mere possibility. We might also look more closely at the CIA and
the JFK assassination.
The CIA is the child of British imperial secret service, as are the Mossad and the
Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Morell:
"commitment to our nation's security: her belief that America is an exceptional nation that
must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding
that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use
force if necessary; and her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all: whether to
put young American women and men in harm's way."
What a fine chunk of bullsheat. I wonder how long it took him to come up with that.
Everybody with over 100 IQ knows who steers foreign policy, and they are not American
patriots.
The CIA is the USA's secret army, of course the director is a criminal, judged by common
standards.
If the CIA manipulated elections, I doubt, as nearly all military, they're not very
intelligent.
Only a mighty revolution will even begin to drain the massive D.C. swamp of the
deleterious scum and muck that fills it.
However it has to be a revolution of the spirit and it has to be continuous as you no
doubt already know.
Violent revolutions quickly burn themselves out and are soon co-opted by the usual sleaze.
It's very apparent it even happened to the much vaunted Am Rev, and we see the inevitable
results today. There never, ever, shall be any MAGA. It's merely circus time rhetoric and we
all know that there's a sucker born every minute.
"But while I beheld with pleasure the dawn of liberty rising in Europe, I saw with
regret the lustre of it fading in America
But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first
principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the
people as hereditary property."
THOMAS PAINE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
And particularly to the Leaders of the Federal Faction.
LETTER I, Nov 15, 1802
"Brennan should be thoroughly investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, "
Why Mueller? Brennan isn't a president, or even a government official at all. He's a
former federal employee who is wide open to investigation by the DOJ. Brennan's past terms
employment are an open book to the DOJ or to Congress.
It probably wouldn't take a week for felony charges to be brought against him and he could
be in jail waiting for a trial. Any ordinary citizen is subject to being hounded by the FBI
and charged with multiple felonies, having charges piled up against him until he agrees to
bargain with a guilty plea.
That happens all the time to ordinary citizens. The same could be done to Brennan, who is
just another civilian now. I guess, though, that we would need to have an AG who would be
willing to target a fellow Swamp Creature.
The government will never investigate Brennan or any of the other deep state organs as they
are controlled by the Zionists who also control every facet of the gov, and this control was
proven by the fact that Israel and the deep state did 911 and got away with it.
They might as well call for a real investigation of 911, have a snowballs chance in hell
of getting that done.
You will gain a better understanding of Vladimir Putin if you study his career as a
sportsman, 3rd degree blackbelt Judoka than by sifting through his career as an ex-spy.
First of all, Judo is a sport. It's not a "martial art". It's not meant to maim or injure
-- though of course, people do get injured because they get thrown. Every particular
technique that could inevitably result in injury has been culled from the sport. You don't
"practice" Judo, you "play" it -- literally, that's what they say when talking about
participation.
Practice sessions are democratic. Everyone practices against everyone else. Of course,
this results in mismatches as rank beginners will at some point be paired up with advanced
players. But this mismatch doesn't result in humiliation because the advanced take special
pains to play cleanly, pull their throws i.e. execute them perfectly so the person thrown can
land without injury to themselves and it also is an opportunity for every good Judoka to
teach the novices.
There are some people who come to Judo who don't fit in. They standout because they can be
seen really playing rough with those who are lower in rank than them. But this doesn't go
unnoticed. As people cycle through opponents during the practice session, the bully will
eventually be paired up with someone who is better than they are. And they will be taught a
lesson. Either they learn and conform to the rules or they never show up again. Judo weeds
out opportunistic bullies.
Now I hope the above helps people better understand Putin. To sum up: he is competitive
but will try to win fairly, within the prescribed rules. He won't tolerate bullying by the
stronger over the weaker, will, in fact, come to the aid of the weaker. Has a strong sense of
tradition, of belonging to a school of thought and action that is greater than himself and
that is worth preserving for its own sake, believes and more importantly, knows through
experience, that belonging to such a school improves individual character. He is competent.
I've seen film of him in practice and his technique is quite good. His third degree black
belt was honestly earned, it wasn't an honorary award.
From the above it can be seen why he would have little respect for the current crop of
weak, cowardly, politicians who rule America, lacking as they are in discipline, integrity
and dedication to a larger, noble cause. He would, in fact, find it hard not to hold them in
contempt but, keeping his eyes on the long-term goals of what's good for his country, masters
his emotions when dealing with them face to face.
Not all CIA is bad believe it or not..
Meet CIA Intelligence Officer Michael Scheuer, says Parkland and Las Vegas shootings were
false flags and FBI is covering them up. Goes on to encourage Americans to arm themselves and
stockpile ammo, seems he knows something we don't.
Trump should hire this guy, he doesn't mince words when it comes to Israel either, he is da
man.
If only America had more guys like this in govt, how awesome would America be?
Former CIA Intelligence Officer Dr. Michael Scheuer
You have half a point, from my reading, Truman turned OSS into CIA. Do you think there was
some magical and instant change in the organisation?
On Israel, he may have been having his shoulders twisted, but his writings are very clear
that he found the proto-neocons to be very irritating, specifically the new arrivals from
Europe.
As an outside observer, and excepting the cruel continuing of LeMay's firebombing and the
two atomic bombs, the latter and former clearly war crimes, taking their records into
account, I can not think of one U.S.A. president who was any good since Harding. Perhaps
Coolidge.
They all have their moments, whether the moments are good, bad or meaningless, but the bad
is always outweighing the good.
Philip Giraldi wrote: "Time to find out if CIA interfered in the 2016 election."
Hi Phil,
If Brennan's CIA did not interfere in the volatile 2016 election, I'd be rather
disappointed in them. Will explain. CIA Directors are typically partisan to whichever
political party appoints them to serve. The agency has a long history of interference in
foreign government elections, and a willingness to serve major corporate interests and
foreign governments, i.e., Israel, those interests above & beyond dumb goyim basic
needs.
Consequently, when a solid argument (with evidence) is made that CIA interfered in the
2016 presidential election, the first thing that must be cleared up is the "smoke" that the
CIA works to defend the integrity of American "elections" which allot no other citizen option
but to tolerate and accept Jewish Lobbies who influence (determine) both the outcome of
Congressional & Executive offices.
No doubt, our country's sorry fate would be comforted by a high profile investigation into
Brennan. However, who will conduct such investigation. Robert Mueller who was FBI Director
during the uninvestigated 9/11 attacks?
And then we have 9/11′s CIA Director, George Tenet. I have no clue about CIA funding
for it's operations, but given the huge annual budget allotment to the ZUS Department of
Defense, how was it possible for ESPECIALLY the Pentagon to get victimized by a commercial
airplane attack.
Even moreso than Brennan, does ex-Director Tenet deserve to stand accountable to a serious
criminal coverup investigation, which of course would be the nation's first?
Below is a You Tube video that features an interesting interview with Mark Rossini,
former-FBI "Counter Terrorism" agent and who served under Robert Mueller's command.
Minus any reference to (well known) nefarious Mossad activities in the U.S., Mr. Rossini
tells a passionate story about his attempts to call attention to troublesome Saudi operations
in the "Homeland" prior to 9/11 and how his agency was "coddling the Saudis."
Yes, to expose ex-Director Brennan's more recent "lies" is very necessary. But the man
stood atop an agency that set an incredible example of "by deception we do war" and the
collateral damage is
mankind. "Let's roll!"
Thank you, Philip.
Selah, Great and Holy Tuesday Commemoration of the Ten Wise Virgins (Mt 25:14)
"He [Brennan] said that the U.S. President is 'afraid of the president of Russia' and
that the Kremlin 'may have something on him personally.' "
John Brennan may well be the most dangerous and dirty CIA director in the Company's
history. I think he was engaging in projection when he uttered the above comments.
The true darkness at the heart of the 2016 'hacked' election story is that the Podesta
emails revealed the existence of a pedophile cult in the upper echelons of D.C. society. And
that John Podesta, a long-time CIA asset, was running the cult as an influence and blackmail
operation. Brennan's hands were deep into that miasma, and he has been working overtime at
misdirection since the election.
No fan of Trump and his crew here, but the other team, the D.C. establishment, are much
worse.
We had our bipartisan corporate tax reduction, one of only two things our partisans can agree
on. The other is the ongoing war to make Israel Great. Rinse and repeat.
Depends on what you see as bad. If the USA empire could have been established and
maintained, without a CIA, I doubt. Empires are ruthless, 'perfidious Albion' was the
expression for the British empire.
Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003,
2007, Chalford -- Stroud
How an important British diplomat saw British control of the greater part of the world as
the natural order of things
Lord Vansittart, 'The Mist Procession, The autobiography of LORD VANSITTART', London
1958
Great pity that death prevented the biography from going furher than 1938.
The machinations of Vansittart during the thirties are described in
Philip M. Taylor, 'The Projection of Britain, British Overseas Publicity and Propaganda
1919-1939′, Cambridge 1981
and
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
The ideas of Vansittart's friend Leeper one finds in
Sir Reginald Leeper, 'When Greek Meets Greek', London 1950
He more or less ruled Greece from 1945 to say 1950.
Holman Jenkins Jr, Wall Street Journal columnist, is a cranky writer who was wrong about
which faction to support in a New Hampshire supermarket war, but he is right when he suggests
that John Brennan has decided that a good offense is the best defense. Call it the John
Brennan attempt to replicate the Dan Fouts-era San Diego Chargers strategy of piling up the
passing yards and the points and hoping that you have more points at the end of the game than
your opponent.
Holman Jenkins Jr:
Which brings us to John Brennan, the Central Intelligence Agency's chief under
President Obama, who rushed to MSNBC this week to claim: "The fact that he has had this
fawning attitude towards Mr. Putin and has not said anything negative about him, it
continues to say something to me that he has something to fear and something serious to
fear [from Russia]."
Uh huh. Presidents have secrets but they also have power, so if you think they are
easily blackmailable, Mr. Brennan may have a third-rate spy novel to sell you. What
occurred to anybody who has followed matters closely was a different thought: Mr. Brennan,
who has a few things to hide himself, has decided his best defense is a strong
offense.
For the truth is, Mr. Trump's version of the loudmouth demagogue is increasingly
coming out on the better side of the emerging facts on Russia. The Kremlin wasn't the most
consequential meddler in the 2016 election: It was James Comey's FBI, with Mr. Brennan
standing obscurely at his elbow every step of the way.
If a planted Russian intercept was instrumental in the fiasco of Mr. Comey's
intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter, as numerous leaks indicate, then that
intercept would have come from Mr. Brennan's CIA. What's more, it likely came not with a
shrug, but with a clear expectation that Mr. Comey would act to protect a Clinton
presidency from an alleged Russian plot.
So how do you reform the Secret Police? It is an interesting idea. The National Security
State has locked out any outside criticism and made reform almost impossible.
Then, there is also the whole indoctrination process. From hire to retire, these three
letter agencies indoctrinate their employees with esprit de corps and being a team player
with the greatest enthusiasm for the mission.
Claim made by high level persons in the link, suggest need for deep investigation into who in
the USA is getting paid to deliver or make available American taxpayer paid for resources to
foreign payee governments conducting terrorism and destabilization programs?
John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Comcast. Comcast runs NBC. I
would call them the Roberts family, but none of them look like Henry Fonda, so I won't. I
don't dare speculate what their real name is.
Mike Morell is a propaganda whore for the family that owns Viacom. Viacom runs CBS. I
don't care how convoluted those shysters made the exact corporate control of CBS, they run
it. The family name of these nasty Viacom shysters ain't their real name either.
President Trump should have declared war on the corporate propaganda apparatus and the
Deep State on day number one of his administration. Trump let the shysters who run the
corporate media and the treasonous rats in the Deep State off the hook.
President Trump won the GOP presidential primary and the presidency itself because Trump
promised to put the safety, security and sovereignty of America first. The largest vote
getter in terms of specific issues was the IMMIGRATION issue. Trump had the chance to fire
every damn treasonous rat in the Deep State and he didn't do it. Trump betrayed his voters
who wanted immigration reduced and illegal aliens deported.
President Trump should face a GOP presidential primary challenger. Maybe that will force
Trump to remove the Deep State, remove the current controllers of the corporate media and put
America first.
Trump should also call for an immigration moratorium and begin deporting all illegal
aliens immediately.
Trump's problems with the corporate media and the Deep State stem from the fact that Trump
didn't immediately remove them when he had the chance. Trump's voter base was more than ready
for a "burn the boats on the beach" battle plan to defend the United States against the
treasonous rats in the Deep State and the anti-White, anti-Christian shyster rats in the
corporate media.
He won't tolerate bullying by the stronger over the weaker, will, in fact, come to the
aid of the weaker.
Thanks for your comment. Now I think I have an idea about why he seems so competent, and
why said competence is especially enhanced when he's contrasted with the unmanly screwballs
we've been burdened with for a very long time.
"He [Brennan] said that the U.S. President is 'afraid of the president of Russia' and
that the Kremlin 'may have something on him personally.' "
Brennan is PROJECTING. They have the goods on HIM, and will squeeze out of him every last
second of influence operations as long as he draws breath. Brennan will never be able to get
off the HAMSTER WHEEL alive.
Charles Pewitt wrote: "John Brennan is a propaganda whore for the family that owns
Comcast."
Hi C.P., Above reflects the better part of Brennan' s character. More definitive is Mr.
Giraldi's identifying him as a "possible war criminal." Also, why can not you see that
"treasonous rats" rule? A learning deficiency? Thanks.
More definitive is Mr. Giraldi's identifying him as a "possible war criminal."
Americans are pragmatic people. Identifying John Brennan as a so-called "war criminal"
because he was involved in all the extraneous crap the American Empire is pulling overseas
won't get the interest of ordinary Americans. Calling John Brennan a "propaganda whore" for
the family that controls Comcast will pique their interest.
I would suggest that John Brennan could be politically damaged the most by stating that
John Brennan supports open borders mass immigration. John Brennan and the rest of the Deep
State are dangerous to Americans because they all support open borders mass immigration. The
corporate media all supports mass immigration.
Over 60 million of us voted for Trump because Trump said he would stop the unnecessary
overseas wars, reduce immigration and scrap the sovereignty-sapping trade deal scams. We
voted for Trump to make the American Empire act more like a republic. We're stuck with the
American Empire until it croaks or is croaked in turn. And the empires all turn into rust
again.
The treasonous rats in the American Empire's Deep State all push nation-wrecking mass
immigration.
...here is a Ukrainian joke.
- You say Russia occupied Ukrainian Crimea. So, why don't you fight for it?
- We are not stupid, there is Russian army there.
- But you say that there is Russian army in Donbass, yet you fight
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really is Russian army.
Within a week after Brennan's 'routine' visit in April 2014 to the Ukraine the Ukrainian army
launched a civil war. That was within 2 weeks of the CIA instigated coup an the end of
February 2014.
What is interesting is a strong Brennan connections with UK and his possiblke role in Steel dossier creation and propogation. Which actually were typical for
many members of Trump administration. He also has connections with Saudi intelligence services
Notable quotes:
"... So Morell is by his own words clearly an idiot, which explains a lot about what is wrong with CIA and is probably why he is now a consultant with CBS News instead of serving as Agency Director under the beneficent gaze of President Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Back in 2013 John Brennan, then Obama's counter-terrorism advisor, had a difficult time with the Senate Intelligence Committee explaining some things that he did when he was still working at CIA. ..."
"... He claimed that he had only "raised serious questions" in his own mind on the interrogation issue after reading the 525 page summary of the 6,000 page report prepared by the Senate Intelligence Committee which detailed the failure of the Agency program. Brennan's reaction, however, suggested at a minimum that he had read only the rebuttal material produced by CIA that had deliberately inflated the value of the intelligence produced. ..."
"... Surprisingly the subject of rendition, which Brennan must surely have been involved with while at CIA, hardly surfaced though two other interesting snippets emerged from the questioning. ..."
"... Brennan was not questioned at all about the conflict of interest or ethical issues raised by the revolving door that he benefited from when he left CIA as Deputy Executive Director in 2005 and joined a British-owned company called The Analysis Corporation (TAC) where he was named CEO. ..."
"... At the Center of the Storm ..."
"... Brennan certainly knew how to feather his nest and reward his friends, but the area that is still murky relates to what exactly he was up to in 2016 when he was CIA Director and also quite possibly working hard to help Hillary get elected. He was still at it well after Trump got elected and assumed office. In May 2017, his testimony before Congress was headlined in a Washington Post ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... The testimony inevitably raises some questions about just what Brennan was actually up to. First of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. ..."
"... it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began. ..."
"... So, Mr. Brennan, for all his bluster and scarcely concealed anger, has a lot of baggage, to include his possible role in coordinating with other elements in the national security agencies as well as with overseas parties to get their candidate Hillary Clinton elected. ..."
Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan, a Barack Obama friend and
protégé as well as a current paid contributor for NBC and MSNBC, has
blasted President Donald Trump for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over his victory
in recent Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is "afraid of the
president of Russia" and that the Kremlin "may have something on him personally. The fact that
he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin continues to say to me that he does have
something to fear and something very serious to fear."
It is an indication of how low we have sunk as a nation that a possible war criminal like
Brennan can feel free to use his former official status as a bully pulpit to claim that someone
is a foreign spy without any real pushback or objection from the talking heads and billionaire
manipulators that unfortunately run our country. If Trump is actually being blackmailed, as
Brennan implies, what evidence is there for that? One might reasonably conclude that Brennan
and his associates are actually angry because Trump has had the temerity to try to improve
relations with Russia.
It is ironic that when President Trump does something right he gets assailed by the same
crowd that piles on when he does something stupid, leading to the conclusion that unless The
Donald is attacking another country, when he is lauded as becoming truly presidential, he
cannot ever win with the inside the Beltway Establishment crowd. Brennan and a supporting cast
of dissimulating former intelligence chiefs opposed Trump from the git-go and were perfectly
willing to make things up to support Hillary and the status quo that she represented. It was,
of course, a status quo that greatly and personally benefited that ex-government crowd which by
now might well be described as the proverbial Deep State.
The claim that Trump is a Russian agent is not a new one since it is an easy mark to allege
something that you don't have to prove. During the campaign, one was frequently confronted on
the television by the humorless stare of the malignant Michael Morell, former acting CIA
Director, who wrote in a mind numbing August 2016
op-ed how he was proud to support Hillary Clinton because of her "commitment to our
nation's security: her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world
for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be
effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and
her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all: whether to put young American women
and men in harm's way." Per Morell, she was a "proponent of a more aggressive approach [in
Syria], one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold "
But Morell saved his finest vitriol for Donald Trump, observing how Vladimir Putin, a wily
ex-career intelligence officer "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to
exploit them" obtained the services of one fairly obscure American businessman named Trump
without even physically meeting him. Morell, given his broad experience as an analyst and desk
jockey, notes, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." An "unwitting agent" is a contradiction
in terms, but one wouldn't expect Morell to know that. Nor would John Brennan, who was also an
analyst and desk jockey before he was elevated by an equally witless President Barack
Obama.
So Morell is by his own words clearly an idiot, which explains a lot about what is wrong
with CIA and is probably why he is now a consultant with CBS News instead of serving as Agency
Director under the beneficent gaze of President Hillary Clinton.
Well, Trump's fractured foreign policy aside, I have some real problems with folks like
Michael Morell and John Brennan throwing stones. Both can be reasonably described as war
criminals due to what they did during the war on terror and also as major subverters of the
Constitution of the United States that has emerged as part of the saga of the 2016 election,
the outcome of which, ironically, is being blamed on the Russians.
Back in 2013 John Brennan, then Obama's counter-terrorism advisor, had a difficult time
with the Senate Intelligence Committee explaining some things that he did when he was still
working at CIA. He was predictably
attacked by some senators concerned over the expanding drone program, which he supervised;
over CIA torture; for the kill lists that he helped manage; and regarding the pervasive
government secrecy, which he surely condoned to cover up the questionable nature of the
assassination lists and the drones. Not at all surprisingly, he was forced to defend the
policies of the administration that he was then serving in, claiming that the United States is
"at war with al-Qaeda." But he did cite his basic disagreement with the former CIA
interrogation policies and expressed his surprise at learning that enhanced interrogation,
which he refused to label torture because he is "no lawyer," had not provided any unique or
actionable information. He claimed that he had only "raised serious questions" in his own
mind on the interrogation issue after reading the 525 page summary of the 6,000 page report
prepared by the Senate Intelligence Committee which detailed the failure of the Agency program.
Brennan's reaction, however, suggested at a minimum that he had read only the rebuttal material
produced by CIA that had deliberately inflated the value of the intelligence produced.
Surprisingly the subject of rendition, which Brennan must surely have been involved with
while at CIA, hardly surfaced though two other interesting
snippets emerged from the questioning. One was his confirmation that the government
has its own secret list of innocent civilians killed by drones while at the same time
contradicting himself by maintaining that the program does not actually exist and that if even
if it did exist such fatalities do not occur. And more directly relevant to Brennan himself,
Senator John D. Rockefeller provided an insight into the classified sections of the Senate
report on CIA torture, mentioning that the enhanced interrogation program was both "managed
incompetently" and "corrupted by personnel with pecuniary conflicts of interest." One would
certainly like to learn more about the presumed contractors who profited corruptly from
waterboarding and one would like to know if they were in any way punished, an interesting
sidebar as Brennan has a number of times spoken about the need for accountability.
Brennan was not questioned at all about the conflict of interest or ethical issues
raised by the revolving door
that he benefited from when he left CIA as Deputy Executive Director in 2005 and joined a
British-owned company called The Analysis Corporation (TAC) where he was named CEO. He
made almost certainly some millions of dollars when the Agency and other federal agencies
awarded TAC contracts to develop biometrics and set up systems to manage the government's
various watch lists before rejoining the government with a full bank account to help him along
his way. Brennan also reportedly knew how to return a favor, giving his former boss at CIA
George Tenet a compensated advisory position in his company and also hosting in 2007 a book
signing for Tenet's At the Center of the Storm . The by-invitation-only event included
six hundred current and former intelligence officers, some of whom waited for hours to have
Tenet sign copies of the book, which were provided by TAC.
Brennan certainly knew how to feather his nest and reward his friends, but the area that
is still murky relates to what exactly he was up to in 2016 when he was CIA Director and also
quite possibly working hard to help Hillary get elected. He was still at it well after Trump
got elected and assumed office. In May 2017, his testimony before Congress was headlined in a
Washington Post front page featured article as
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article stated that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
The testimony inevitably raises some questions about just what Brennan was actually up
to. First of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe,
because it was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know
from Politico and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services,
including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the
forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by
Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence,
it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a
possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get
nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate
began.
So, Mr. Brennan, for all his bluster and scarcely concealed anger, has a lot of baggage,
to include his possible role in coordinating with other elements in the national security
agencies as well as with overseas parties to get their candidate Hillary Clinton elected.
Brennan should be thoroughly investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, to include
subpoenaing all records at CIA relating to the Trump inquiries before requiring testimony under
oath of Brennan himself with possible legal consequences if he is caught lying
"... was developed and originated in extremist circles populated by white supremacists ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... neoliberalism versus neo-nationalism ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Thank God for the corporate media. If it wasn't for them, and the ADL, I'd have probably
never discovered that I'm a Nazi. Apparently, I've been one for quite some time which is weird,
as I had no idea. Here I was, naively believing that I'd been writing about global capitalism
and the realignment of political power and ideology in the post-Cold War world, when all along
I had really just been persecuting the Jews. I didn't think I was persecuting the Jews. But
such is the insidious nature of thoughtcrime. When you're a Nazi thought criminal (as I
apparently am), it doesn't matter what you think you're thinking. What matters is what the
global capitalist ruling classes tell you you're thinking, which it turns out is often a lot
more complicated and horrible than what you thought you were thinking.
For example, I've been thinking and writing about globalism, which most dictionaries define
as "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence,"
or "the development of socioeconomic networks that transcend national boundaries," or something
like that which was more or less my understanding of the term. Little did I know that these
fake "definitions" had been infiltrated into these dictionaries by discord-sowing Strasserist
agents to dupe political satirists like myself into unknowingly spreading anti-Semitism as part
of Putin's Master Plan to destroy the United States of America and establish worldwide Nazi
domination.
Fortunately, the lexicography experts in the corporate media and the Anti-Defamation League
cleared that up for me earlier this month. According to these experts, words like "globalist"
and "globalism" don't really mean anything. They are simply Nazi code words for "the
Jews." There is actually no such thing as "globalism," or "global capitalism," or
"transnational capitalism," or "supranational quasi-governmental entities" like the
International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the European Commission, and the
European Central Bank or, OK, sure, there are such entities, but there is no legitimate reason
to discuss them, or write about them, or even casually mention them, and anyone who does is
definitely a Nazi.
Now, imagine my horror when I took that in, especially given my repeated references to "the
corporatocracy," "global capitalism," and "the global capitalist ruling classes" in the essays I've been publishing recently . I
didn't want to accept it at first, but the more "authoritative sources" I consulted, the more
glaringly obvious my thoughtcrimes became.
These authoritative sources were reacting to Trump referring to Gary Cohn as "a globalist"
in his rambling remarks in the Oval Office, which went a little something like this: "He may be
a globalist, but I still like him. He is seriously a globalist. There's no question in his own
way. But you know what, he's also a nationalist. He loves our country and where is Gary?" While
the experts are still scouring the video for
Nazi gestures and facial expressions, there can be no doubt that Trump said the word
"globalist." The corporate media and the ADL could not allow this transgression to stand.
Peter Beinart, writing in
The Atlantic , explained that "globalist" is "an epithet a modern-day vessel for a
slur" against the Jews, and he linked to a video of Jonathan Greenblatt
, CEO of the ADL, who verified that "the term 'globalist' was developed and originated in
extremist circles populated by white supremacists " (by which I can only assume he meant
the Anti-globalization
Movement , which apparently is just a big Nazi front). Eli Rosenberg,
in The Washington Post , although allowing that "globalist" can sometimes mean
"globalist," emphasized that, "to some observers of extremism," it also "speaks to something
darker." Bret Stephens, in The New York
Times ,couldn't quite decide whether using the word makes you an official
goose-stepping Nazi or just a garden variety anti-Semite. CNN's Don Lemon,
delving into "the ugly history" of the word , explained that "it is shorthand for a
worldview based on racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism" the worldview of "far right
conspiracy theorists obsessed with prominent Jews like George Soros." And these are just a few
of the many examples.
After processing all these "authoritative" statements by these "respected experts" and
"credible news sources," I felt like I'd been walking around with a Swastika branded into my
forehead. I was overcome by a sudden need to signal my anti-anti-Semitism to my friends,
family, and the world at large. After destroying my old Pink Floyd CDs and apologizing to Jerry
Seinfeld on Twitter , I immediately ran and confessed to my wife, who just happens to be "a
globalist," and begged her to call her family members who control the media, the banks, and
Hollywood and ask them to forgive me my thoughtcrimes. Then I drafted an email to the SPLC
asking whether they could possibly squeeze me into their interactive Hate Map somewhere, or at
least let some neo-McCarthyite hack
publish a ridiculous, paranoid smear piece about my Nazi vocabulary on their website.
Seriously, though, all satire aside, this stigmatization of terms like "globalist,"
"globalism," and "global capitalism" is a key component of The War on Dissent which the
global capitalist ruling classes have been waging against a broad assortment of insurgent
elements for the last eighteen months. It isn't just a question of delegitimizing dissidents by
smearing them as anti-Semites, Russian agents, and conspiracy theorists. The goal is also to
conceal the essential nature of the conflict itself. The essential nature of the conflict is
neoliberalism versus neo-nationalism . This is what we are experiencing currently, not
a Russian assault on Western democracy, nor even a resumption of the Cold War, but, rather, the
global capitalist ruling classes putting down a neo-nationalist insurgency the insurgency that
led to the Brexit referendum and the presidency of Donald Trump.
Now, here's where things get a little tricky, particularly for those of us on the Left
(whatever that label even means anymore). The neo-nationalists can come right out and call the
conflict what it is. It is in their interest to call it what it is. They may not be opposing
capitalism, but they are certainly opposing global capitalism. In doing so, they are
attracting people who are not so thrilled about being governed by unaccountable global
corporations and supranational non-governmental bodies, people who are still emotionally
attached to outdated concepts like national sovereignty, national culture, and crazy stuff like
that. Some of these folks are actual neo-Nazis, but most of them are just regular people who
know when they are being pissed on by global capitalism and told it's raining. The point is,
the neo-nationalists can describe their opponents as exactly what they are, global capitalists,
or just plain old globalists. Neoliberals do not have this luxury.
See, the problem for the capitalist ruling classes is that global neoliberalism (i.e.,
globalism) is a really tough sell to regular folks. They can't just come out and explain to
people that national sovereignty is essentially dead, and that political power now resides
among a network of global corporations (which couldn't care less about their "nationality")
exploiting a globalized labor market (which is why their "good jobs" are not coming back) and a
globalized financial market (which is why almost everything is being privatized and their
families are being debt-enslaved). Nor can they admit that the "War on Terror" and the European
refugee crisis it has caused, and the chaos and slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen,
Syria, et cetera, is the predictable result of global capitalism aggressively restructuring the
Greater Middle East, which it started doing more or less immediately after the collapse of the
Soviet Union (i.e., as soon as the final impediment to its pursuit of global hegemony was
removed). This kind of thing doesn't go over very well, not with most regular working class
people.
So what the global capitalist ruling classes have to do is well, they have to lie. They have
to disseminate a different narrative, a narrative that has nothing to do with the hegemony of
global capitalism, the dissolution of national sovereignty, and the privatization of virtually
everything. Because people aren't total morons, this narrative needs to bear some resemblance
to the actual conflict taking place. So, all right, a little rebranding is in order. Global
neoliberalism becomes "Western democracy," neo-nationalism becomes "Nazism," and Vladimir Putin
becomes Adolf Hitler.
Presto! Now things are nice and simple! History, geopolitics, and socioeconomics vanish into
the ether! Capitalism schmapitalism! This is no time for critical thinking, not with
Putin-Nazis coming out of the woodwork! No, this is a time to rally behind the freedom fighters
at the FBI, the CIA, the corporate media, and the rest of the military industrial complex, and
to mercilessly hunt down Russian infiltrators, Putin sympathizers, crypto-Assadists,
neo-Strasserian, alt-right entryists, and other sowers of division and discord! We need to get
these folks delegitimitized, stigmatized as racists and anti-Semites, or terrorists, or some
other type of "extremist," before they can "influence" anyone else with their Facebook ads and
subversive essays.
You will know them by the words they use, and by the words they do not use. Anybody using
words like "globalist," "global capitalism," or "neoliberal," or suggesting that anyone voted
for Trump or Brexit for any reason other than racism, you can pretty much rest assured that
they're Nazis. Also, anyone writing about "banks" or the "deep state." Absolutely Nazis. Oh
yeah, and the "corporate media," naturally. Only Putin-Nazis talk like that. Oh, and definitely
anyone who hasn't spent the last two years attacking Trump (as if there has been anything else
to focus on), or has implied that "the Russians" aren't out to destroy us, or that the
historical moment we are living through might be just a bit more complex than that well, you
know what they're really saying. They're saying, "we need to exterminate the Jews."
Look, I could go on and on with this, but I don't think I really need to. Remember, I'm a
Nazi thought criminal now. So just go back and read through some of my essays and make note of
all the coded Nazi messages, or check with the Anti-Defamation League, or the SPLC, or the
corporate media, or well, just ask the good
folks at Google .
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . (Republished by permission of
author or representative) ← The Cult of Authority
"... Trump himself has pledged to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal -- "the worst deal ever" -- and reimpose sanctions in May. His new national security adviser John Bolton, who wrote an op-ed titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran," has called for preemptive strikes and "regime change." Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo calls Iran "a thuggish police state," a "despotic theocracy," and "the vanguard of a pernicious empire that is expanding its power and influence across the Middle East." ..."
"... China and Russia would not abrogate the deal but would welcome Iran into their camp. England, France and Germany would have to choose between the deal and the U.S. And if Airbus were obligated to spurn Iran's orders for hundreds of new planes, how would that sit with the Europeans? ..."
"... How would North Korea react if the U.S. trashed a deal where Iran, after accepting severe restrictions on its nuclear program and allowing intrusive inspections, were cheated of the benefits the Americans promised? ..."
The last man standing between the U.S. and war with Iran may be a four-star general
affectionately known to his Marines as "Mad Dog."
Gen. James Mattis, the secretary of defense, appears to be the last man in the Situation
Room who believes the Iran nuclear deal may be worth preserving and that war with Iran is a
dreadful idea. Yet, other than Mattis, President Donald Trump seems to be creating a war
cabinet.
Trump himself has pledged to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal -- "the worst deal
ever" -- and reimpose sanctions in May. His new national security adviser John Bolton, who
wrote an op-ed titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran," has called for preemptive strikes and
"regime change." Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo calls Iran "a thuggish police state,"
a "despotic theocracy," and "the vanguard of a pernicious empire that is expanding its power
and influence across the Middle East."
Trump's favorite Arab ruler, 32-year-old Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, calls Iran's
Ayatollah Khamenei "the Hitler of the Middle East." Bibi Netanyahu is monomaniacal on Iran,
calling the nuclear deal a threat to Israel's survival and Iran "the greatest threat to our
world." U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley echoes them all.
Yet Iran appears not to want a war. U.N. inspectors routinely confirm that Iran is strictly
abiding by the terms of the nuclear deal. While U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf often
encountered Iranian "fast attack" boats and drones between January 2016 and August 2017, that
has stopped. Vessels of both nations have operated virtually without incident. What would be
the result of Trump's trashing of the nuclear deal?
First would be the isolation of the United States.
China and Russia would not abrogate the deal but would welcome Iran into their camp.
England, France and Germany would have to choose between the deal and the U.S. And if Airbus
were obligated to spurn Iran's orders for hundreds of new planes, how would that sit with the
Europeans?
How would North Korea react if the U.S. trashed a deal where Iran, after accepting
severe restrictions on its nuclear program and allowing intrusive inspections, were cheated of
the benefits the Americans promised?
Why would Pyongyang, having seen us attack Iraq, which had no WMD, and Libya, which had
given up its WMD to mollify us, ever consider given up its nuclear weapons -- especially after
seeing the leaders of both nations executed?
And, should the five other signatories to the Iran deal continue with it despite us, and
Iran agree to abide by its terms, what do we do then?
Find a casus belli to go to war? Why? How does Iran threaten us?
A war, which would involve U.S. warships against swarms of Iranian torpedo boats could shut
down the Persian Gulf to oil traffic and produce a crisis in the global economy. Anti-American
Shiite jihadists in Beirut, Baghdad and Bahrain could attack U.S. civilian and military
personnel.
As the Army and Marine Corps do not have the troops to invade and occupy Iran, would we have
to reinstate the draft?
And if we decided to blockade and bomb Iran, we would have to take out all its anti-ship
missiles, submarines, navy, air force, ballistic missiles and air defense system.
And would not a pre-emptive strike on Iran unite its people in hatred of us, just as Japan's
pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor united us in a determination to annihilate her empire?
What would the Dow Jones average look like after an attack on Iran?
Trump was nominated because he promised to keep us out of stupid wars like those into which
folks like John Bolton and the Bush Republicans plunged us.
After 17 years, we are still mired in Afghanistan, trying to keep the Taliban we overthrew
in 2001 from returning to Kabul. Following our 2003 invasion, Iraq, once a bulwark against
Iran, became a Shiite ally of Iran.
The rebels we supported in Syria have been routed. And Bashar Assad -- thanks to backing
from Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite militias from the Middle East and Central Asia -- has
secured his throne.
The Kurds who trusted us have been hammered by our NATO ally Turkey in Syria, and by the
Iraqi Army we trained in Iraq.
What is Trump, who assured us there would be no more stupid wars, thinking? Truman and LBJ
got us into wars they could not end, and both lost their presidencies. Eisenhower and Nixon
ended those wars and were rewarded with landslides.
After his smashing victory in Desert Storm, Bush I was denied a second term. After invading
Iraq, Bush II lost both houses of Congress in 2006, and his party lost the presidency in 2008
to the antiwar Barack Obama.
Once Trump seemed to understand this history.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
The Russian government called the expulsions "a provocative gesture" and said it would
retaliate in kind, raising the prospect of further tit-for-tat expulsions, as the US and Europe
left the door open for additional measures. The Kremlin said Vladimir Putin would make the
final decision, and the Russian embassy in the US launched a poll on Twitter asking which US
consulate in Russia should be closed.
The US has ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian officials who Washington says are spies,
including a dozen based at the United Nations, and told Moscow to shut down its consulate in
Seattle, which would end Russian diplomatic representation on the west coast.
The EU members Germany, France and Poland are each to expel four Russian diplomats with
intelligence agency backgrounds. Lithuania and the Czech Republic said they would expel three,
and Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands two each. Estonia, Latvia, Croatia, Finland, Hungary,
Sweden and Romania each expelled one Russian. Iceland announced it would not be sending
officials to the World Cup in Russia .
Ukraine, which is not an EU member, is to expel 13 Russian diplomats, while Albania, an EU
candidate member, ordered the departure of two Russians from the embassy in Tirana. Macedonia,
another EU candidate, expelled one Russian official.
Canada announced it was expelling four diplomatic staff serving in Ottawa and Montreal who
the Canadian government said were spies. A pending application from Moscow for three more
diplomatic posts in Canada is being denied.
Raj Shah, a White House spokesperson, told reporters Monday that the US expulsions were part
of "a coordinated effort".
He added that Donald Trump "spoke with many foreign leaders, European allies and others and
encouraged them to join with the United States in this announcement".
"... made a fairly desultory expulsion of a diplomat or two or three, but the United States' act is a kind of declaration of war, all the more surprising given that according to the deep state, and the liberal confluence in the United States, President Trump is Russia's man ..."
"... "precursor to a very sharp deterioration of relations" ..."
"... deep state opponents" ..."
"... "If it were me who was making the decision, I certainly wouldn't proceed on the assumption that being soft will in any way satiate the ravenous beasts that are baying for Russia's blood at this point in time," ..."
"... "As far as I can see there is no investigation, ..."
"... "The verdict was declared before the investigation began and I think there's no investigation because the results of any serious scientific analytical investigation would show that the allegations against Russia are baseless." ..."
"... "I don't believe that Russia is responsible for this act. And the good news is that most of the British public tend to agree," ..."
British politician, broadcaster, and writer George Galloway has slammed Donald Trump's decision to expel 60 Russian diplomats
and close the Russian consulate in Seattle. Galloway regards it as tantamount to a "declaration of war." Galloway contrasted the
US' actions with those of EU member states. Those EU countries who rushed to follow the lead of Britain and the US in response to
the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal are simply acting as "vassal states," doing what they are told.
European states have " made a fairly desultory expulsion of a diplomat or two or three, but the United States' act is a kind
of declaration of war, all the more surprising given that according to the deep state, and the liberal confluence in the United States,
President Trump is Russia's man ," Galloway told RT.
The former British MP said the decision to leave just 40 Russian diplomats to do their jobs in the US was either a "precursor
to a very sharp deterioration of relations" -- or alternatively a "charade " designed to make Trump's " deep state
opponents" lay off him over not being tough enough on Russia.
Galloway said Russia should not assume that being soft in response to Trump's action will have any desirable effect.
"If it were me who was making the decision, I certainly wouldn't proceed on the assumption that being soft will in any way
satiate the ravenous beasts that are baying for Russia's blood at this point in time," he said.
According to Galloway, the UK has not conducted a serious and unbiased investigation into the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter.
"As far as I can see there is no investigation, " he said. "The verdict was declared before the investigation began
and I think there's no investigation because the results of any serious scientific analytical investigation would show that the allegations
against Russia are baseless."
Galloway said there are still many questions which have been left unanswered in the Skripal case.
"I don't believe that Russia is responsible for this act. And the good news is that most of the British public tend to agree,"
he said.
Trump Expels 60 Russian Diplomats as World Slides Towards War Tyler Durden (
Zerohedge ) 9 hours ago | 4,602
314 President Trump has reportedly ordered the expulsion of 60 Russians from the United States on Monday, including 12 people
identified as Russian intelligence officers who have been stationed at the United Nations in New York, in response to Russia's alleged
poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain.
As The New
York Times reports, the expulsion order, announced by administration officials, also closes the Russian consulate in Seattle.
The Russians and their families have seven days to leave the United States, according to officials.
The expulsions are the toughest action taken against the Kremlin by President Trump, who has been criticized for not being
firm enough with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
In a call with reporters, senior White House officials said that the move was to root out Russians actively engaging in intelligence
operations against the country, and to show that the United States would stand with NATO allies.
The officials said that the closure of the consulate in Seattle was ordered because of its proximity to a U.S. naval base.
The expulsion of 60 diplomats is the most sweeping since the Reagan administration ordered 55 diplomats out of the country in
1986.
As The Washington Post reports, a senior administration official, who was only authorized to discuss the actions on the condition
of anonymity, commented:
"This was a reckless attempt by the government to murder a British citizens and his daughter on British soil with a nerve agent,"
"It cannot go unanswered."
Deep State 1 - 0 Trump.
"To the Russian government, we say, when you attack our friend you will face serious consequences," said a senior administration
official.
"As we have continually stressed to Moscow, the door to dialogue is open." But, this official continued, Russia must "cease
its recklessly aggressive behavior."
Last week EU leaders declared in a statement that it was "highly likely" there was "no plausible alternative explanation" other
than Russia being to blame. Today, EU Council President Tusk announces that 14 EU nations will expel Russian diplomats...
What is interesting is that Trump not only folded, but seeking self-preservation he voluntarily appointed
neocons to the top layer of his administration
Notable quotes:
"... This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare state. ..."
"... But no one "forced" President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of Congress. ..."
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference that, "As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history, reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding." ..."
"... his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we weren't looking? ..."
"... On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration, which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. ..."
"... The military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors. ..."
On Friday, President Trump signed the omnibus
spending bill for 2018. The $1.3 trillion bill was so monstrous that it would have made the
biggest spender in the Obama Administration blush. The image of leading Congressional Democrats
Pelosi and Schumer grinning and gloating over getting everything they wanted -- and then some
-- will likely come back to haunt Republicans at the midterm elections. If so, they will
deserve it.
Even President Trump admitted the bill was horrible. As he said in the signing ceremony,
"there are a lot of things that we shouldn't have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense,
forced -- if we want to build our military "
This is why I often say: forget about needing a third political party – we need a
second political party! Trump is admitting that to fuel the warfare state and enrich the
military-industrial complex, it was necessary to dump endless tax dollars into the welfare
state.
But no one "forced" President Trump to sign the bill. His party controls both houses of
Congress. He knows that no one in Washington cares about deficits so he was more than willing
to spread some Fed-created money at home to get his massive war spending boost. And about the
militarism funded by the bill? Defense Secretary James Mattis said at the same press conference
that, "As the President noted, today we received the largest military budget in history,
reversing many years of decline and unpredictable funding."
He's right and wrong at the same time. Yes it is another big increase in military spending.
In fact the US continues to spend more than at least the next seven or so largest countries
combined. But his statement is misleading. Where are these several years of decline? Did we
somehow miss a massive reduction in military spending under President Obama? Did the last
Administration close the thousands of military bases in more than 150 countries while we
weren't looking?
Of course not.
On militarism, the Obama Administration was just an extension of the Bush Administration,
which was an extension of the militarism of the Clinton Administration. And so on. The
military-industrial complex continues to generate record profits from fictitious enemies. The
mainstream media continues to play the game, amplifying the war propaganda produced by the
think tanks, which are funded by the big defense contractors.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. This is conspiracy fact. Enemies must be created to keep
Washington rich, even as the rest of the country suffers from the destruction of the dollar.
That is why the neocons continue to do very well in this Administration.
While Trump and Mattis were celebrating big military spending increases, the president
announced that John Bolton, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war debacle, would become
his national security advisor. As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has written, this is a man
who, while at the State Department, demanded that intelligence analysts reach pre-determined
conclusions about Iraq and WMDs. He cooked the books for war.
Bolton is on the record calling for war with Iran, North Korea, even Cuba! His return to a
senior position in government is a return to the unconstitutional, immoral, and failed policies
of pre-emptive war.
Make no mistake: the neocons are back and looking for another war. They've got the
president's ear. Iran? North Korea? Russia? China? Who's next for the warmongers?
"... (this last sentence in English in the original text – trans.) ..."
"... As to who will prevail, your guess is as good a mine. But the fact that today Trump replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John Bolton is a clear sign that the Neocons are in charge in the US and that the Axis of Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot "kinder". ..."
"... Both Saker and the commenter #1 put accent on the ideological struggle between Russia and the West, contrasting Russian (and) Chinese – we do not interfere with your system of beliefs or who rules you, let us cooperate and do business. This is contrasted against the Western – we are the Borg, you will be regime-changed to be assimilated, aka we are the Exceptional Owners of the World. This is truly the main ideological struggle of the 21. century, forget about left wing – right wing. ..."
"... I do not know how long the Russian initiative will last, but at the moment Russia is in a goldilocks situation: it probably has the best leadership in the world, ..."
"... 'Full Spectrum Dominance', as explicit in US military doctrine, and noted as such by Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel address, and embedded in the F. William Engdahl book 'Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order', was imo both pathological and impossible, but that didn't stop them from trying. ..."
"... Gen. Wesley Clark's rather famous post 9/11 surprise at hearing that 7 countries in five years were slated for – in effect – destruction, euphemistically called regime change is starting to seem like another era. 'Guess what I just heard down the hall. We're gonna go into 5 countries with our mercenaries, and military, and our amazing technology, and bomb them all to hell if we have to, and lie to the world about everything we're doing, and kill and wound and orphan millions of people, because ah, because ah, because ah, actually I'm not sure why, but that's what's on the program. It's sort of a tradition. We bombed the hell out of Korea, then we bombed the hell out of Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia, actually I lost count, so many, anyway fast forward to remnants of Yugoslavia, boy did we ever destroy that.!' ..."
"... Any similarity between MH17 and Skripal investigations, although both cooked up in the same kitchen, is completely coincidental, of course. ..."
So what is really going on here? Surely nobody seriously believes that the Brits really
think that the Russians had any motive to try to kill Skripal or, for that matter, if they had
a motive, that they would do it in such a stupid manner? And what's the deal with Syria anyway?
Is the US going to execute their false flag and bomb?
I think that at this point we should not get bogged down in the details of all this. There
is a forest behind these trees. What matters most now, is that the most powerful factions of
the AngloZionist Empire's ruling elites are making a concerted effort to create a unified
anti-Russian coalition. In this regard it is quite telling that the US, France, and Germany
issued a statement on March 15 th without even bothering to consult with their
so-called "allies" in NATO or the EU. You can immediately tell "who is boss" in those crisis
situations when the rest of the Euro-riffraff simply doesn't matter (poor East Europeans with
their delusions about being appreciated or even respected by the West!). Furthermore, it is
quite clear that in this case, the "Anglo" component of the AngloZionist Empire is far more
involved than the Zionist one, at least insofar as the front of the stage is concerned (
behind the scenes the Neocons are seething at Trump for calling Putin to congratulate him
and offer negotiations). I think that a number of crucial developments forced the US and the UK
into trying to strong-arm the rest of the western nations to "circle the wagons" around the
Empire:
The US humiliatingly failed in its attempts to frighten and force the DPRK into
submission The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria The UK and the rest of the NATO
are becoming militarily irrelevant The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack
on the Donbass is most likely The political forces in Europe who opposed anti-Russian policies
are on the ascent The Russians are winning many EU countries over by economic means including
North Stream whereas sanctions are hurting the EU much more than Russia The anti-Putin campaign
has miserably failed and Russia is fully united in her stance against the Empire
What this all means is very simple: the Empire needs to either fold or double down and
folding is just not something the imperial elites are willing to consider yet. They are
therefore using the tools which they perceive as most effective:
False flags : this is really a time-honored western tradition used by pretty much all
the western powers. Since the general public is brainwashed and mostly can't even begin to
imagine that "freedom loving liberal democracies" could use methods usually ascribed to evil,
bloodthirsty dictatorial regimes, false flags are an ideal way to get the public opinion in
the correct state of mind to approve of aggressive, hostile and even violent policies against
a perceived threat or obstacle to hegemony. Soft power : have you noticed how the Oscars or the Cannes festival always pick
exactly the kind of "artists" which the Empire happens to politically promote? Well, this is
true not only for the Oscars or the Cannes festival but for almost all of the cultural,
social and political life in the West. This is especially true of so-called "human rights"
and "peace" organizations which are simply political pit-bulls which can be sicked on any
country in need of subversion and/or intervention. Russia has never developed that kind of
political toolkit. Verbal escalation : this tactic is extremely crude yet very effective. You begin by
vociferously proclaiming some falsehood. The fact that you proclaimed it in such vociferous
and hyperbolic matter achieves two immediate results: it sends all your friends and allies a
clear message " you are either with us or against us ", that leaves no room for nuance
or analysis, and it gives otherwise rather spineless politicians no way to back down, thus
strengthening their "resolve". Herding : there is safety in numbers. So when dealing with a potentially dangerous
foe, like Russia, all the little guys flock together so as to appear bigger or, at least,
harder to single out. Also, when everybody is responsible, nobody is. Thus herding is also
politically expedient. Finally, it changed the inter-relational dynamic from one of friends
or allies to one typically found among accomplices in a crime. Direct threats : the Empire got away with making threats left and right for many
decades, and this is a habit which is hard to break. The likes of Nikki Haley or Hillary
Clinton probably sincerely believe that the US is quasi-omnipotent or, conversely, they might
be terrified by the creeping suspicion that it might not. Threats are also an easy, if
ineffective, substitute for diplomacy and negotiations, especially when your position is
objectively wrong and the other side is simply a lot smarter than you.
The big problem is that none of these methods work against Russia or, let me correct that,
don't work anymore (they sure appeared to work in the past). Russian public opinion is fully
aware of all these methods (courtesy of a Russian media NOT controlled by AngloZionists) and
Margarita Simonian beautifully summarized
the feelings that all this elicits in the Russian population:
"all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop
respecting you. You and your so-called "values." We don't want to live like you live,
anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any
longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those among us that you support, and for all
those people who support you ( ). For that, you only have yourself to blame ( ) Our people
are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would.
Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn the history of its allies, all of them are
former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance.
White man's burden, my ass!" (this last sentence in English in the original text –
trans.)
The stark truth is that far from wanting to invade, appease or otherwise please the West,
Russia has absolutely no need, or even interest, in it. None. For centuries Russian elites have
been western-focused to some degree or other and none of them could even begin to imagine a
West-less Russia. This is still true today, the Russian "elites" still want to live like (very
rich) Brits or Germans and they still hate the common Russian people and Vladimir Putin. But
those Russian elites have now been crushed by the magnitude of Putin's victory in the
presidential elections. Normally, this should result in an even bigger exile of Russian
"businessmen" to the UK, France or Israel, but the problem now is that the British are making
noises about punishing them for, well, being Russians (even Russophobic, pro-western,
"Russians"). As a result, these "poor" pro-western liberals can only whine on the social media
and in the few pro-western media outlets left in Russia (no, not due to repression, but due to
their political irrelevancy being backed, as they are, by something between 2% and 5% of the
population).
But setting aside the wealthy "elites" for a moment, Russia as a country and as a nation has
simply no use for the West and what it represents. Those who fantasize about Russia being
interested in "Europe", "White identity" or "Western Christianity" are only kidding themselves.
They hope that the current cultural and spiritual revival in Russia will somehow spill over to
them and allow them to extricate themselves from the gutter in which they are currently
prostrated. It won't. Just read again what Simonian said about the western "values" in the
quote above. For most Russians "Europe" reeks of Napoleon, "White identity" of Hitler and
"Western Christianity" of the creation of the Ukraine and the " Eastern Crusades ". No,
Russia has no interest in revenge against any of that, she just has no respect or interest for
what these concepts stand for. (Poland – is possibly the last country where all these
things are taken seriously and fondly remembered). Still, the Russians remain willing to
negotiate to establish a viable coexistence between the Western and Russian civilizational
realms. Putin clearly said so in his speech
There is no need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the
negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and
sustainable development for human civilization. We have been saying this all along. All these
proposals are still valid. Russia is ready for this.
But if the AngloZionists are dead set on world domination by means of war, then Russia is
ready for that too. Not a war of aggression, of course, not even against the tiny Baltic
statelets, Putin made that clear too when he said "w e are not threatening anyone, not going
to attack anyone or take away anything from anyone with the threat of weapons. We do not
need anything . Just the opposite " (emphasis added). But if attacked, Russia is now
ready to defend herself:
"And to those who in the past 15 years have tried to accelerate an arms race and seek
unilateral advantage against Russia, have introduced restrictions and sanctions that are
illegal from the standpoint of international law aiming to restrain our nation's development,
including in the military area, I will say this: everything you have tried to prevent through
such a policy has already happened. No one has managed to restrain Russia ( ) Any use of
nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all,
will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with
all the attendant consequences. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever."
Why is the nuclear issue so central? Because the Russians are fully aware of the fact that
the
AngloZionists cannot win a conventional war with Russia . Thus it is crucial for the
Russians to convince the AngloZionists that they are neither militarily superior nor
invulnerable (see here for a full
analysis of these two myths). But once some kind of modus vivendi is achieved with the
West, Russia will focus her efforts in different directions: much needed internal reforms and
development, the work with China on the establishment of a single Eurasian zone of economic
security, peace and prosperity, the restoration of peace in the Middle-East, the development of
the Russian Far East and North – you name it. Russia has plenty of work which needs to be
done, none of which involves the West in any capacity.
And that is, of course, what is so totally unacceptable to the West.
Hence this month's historical developments which have placed Russia and the West in a direct
collision course. As I said above, the Empire can now either fold or double down. If it decides
to fold, war will be averted and meaningful negotiations finally entered into. If it doubles
down, something the Neocons always do, then this means war with Russia. This is a stark and
very difficult choice (no, not for normal people, but for the psychopaths ruling the West). And
there isn't much Russia could, or should, do at this point. As is the case every time a serious
crisis takes place, the apparently united elites running the West will now break-up into
separate factions and each one of these factions will pursue and promote its own, narrow,
interests. There will be an intense, mostly behind the scenes, struggle between those who will
want to double down or even trigger a war against Russia and those who will be horrified by
that notion (not necessarily for profound moral reasons, just out of basic self-interest and a
healthy instinct for self-preservation).
As to who will prevail, your guess is as good a mine. But the fact that today Trump
replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John Bolton is a clear sign that the
Neocons are in charge in the US and that the Axis of Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot
"kinder".
Those who fantasize about Russia being interested in "Europe", "White identity" or
"Western Christianity" are only kidding themselves. They hope that the current cultural and
spiritual revival in Russia will somehow spill over to them and allow them to extricate
themselves from the gutter in which they are currently prostrated. It won't. Just read
again what Simonian said about the western "values" in the quote above. For most Russians
"Europe" reeks of Napoleon, "White identity" of Hitler and "Western Christianity" of the
creation of the Ukraine and the "Eastern Crusades". No, Russia has no interest in revenge
against any of that, she just has no respect or interest for what these concepts stand for.
(Poland – is possibly the last country where all these things are taken seriously and
fondly remembered).
I think that is very important. I find it rather odd when some people from the alt-right
project their ideals on Russia. Of course, many of these people reject the neoconservative
agenda for legitimate reasons, and therefore, it is normal that they also reject Russophobia,
and that should be welcomed by most people who do not support the neoconservative agenda.
However, they should not think the widespread rejection of Western influence in Russia has
much to do with their own ideology.
For most Russians, the difference between hypocritical Western liberals who want to
dominate the world with their "values" (and military and economic means for spreading them)
and white supremacists is hardly that big, both are a consequence of a similar kind of
arrogance towards the rest of the world. Certainly, some white supremacists may under some
circumstances be ready to accept Russians as fellow whites, but probably, the path back to
regarding them as Asian subhumans is never too long.
Russians are mostly white, but Russia is a multinational and multiracial Eurasian country
that is very far from being "racially pure", even as far as many ethnic Russians are
concerned, and racism in the narrow sense has hardly ever had much support in Russia.
Russia's main religion is Orthodox Christianity, but Islam and Buddhism are also domestic
religions in Russia, and there has been an adversarial relationship between Western
Christianity and Orthodox Christianity for centuries.
Ideologically, Western alt-right ideologues would be much more likely to find relatively
widespread support for their ideas in Poland, the Baltic states, and among nationalists in
Western Ukraine – mainly among the most Russophobic elements of European societies.
Much of the daily hatred against "the Russians" in the Anglophone media is full of unambiguos
bigotry, and even if some of the people believing in Western white identity are currently
less extreme with respect to Russia than the liberal racist bigots who think that they are
progressive because they hate Russians rather than Mexicans, this is rather a kind of
liberals acting as racist supremacists than a genuine split between these two Western
ideologies.
In Russia, the constant aggressive rhetoric from Western countries will hardly lead to
Russians rejecting the liberal West while embracing nationalist Westerners concentrating on
white identity, rather both versions of Western ideology are seen as similarly disgusting. It
is doubtful whether in Soviet times, many people really believed in the official
anti-imperialist Soviet ideology because the propaganda was too artificial. Now, no special
propaganda efforts are needed, the aggressive, arrogant statement of Western politicians and
journalists can simply be shown in the original.
I totally agree with Saker and mostly agree with commenter #1. The only big miss of the
commenter #1 is that he lumps many different factions in the West into only two groups. The
two factions that the commenter describes are as described – much less different than
they themselves realise. But there are also a few factions which could be genuinely
cooperative with Russia, they should not be discarded because they are also the natural
allies in Russian defences against the aggressive West.
Both Saker and the commenter #1 put accent on the ideological struggle between Russia
and the West, contrasting Russian (and) Chinese – we do not interfere with your system
of beliefs or who rules you, let us cooperate and do business. This is contrasted against the
Western – we are the Borg, you will be regime-changed to be assimilated, aka we are the
Exceptional Owners of the World. This is truly the main ideological struggle of the 21.
century, forget about left wing – right wing.
However, there is a very practical component in the Western rabid behavior, especially the
British. The plentiful Russian land was not worth much in the past because it was
predominantly permafrost and marshes. The British Empire of warm lower geographical latitudes
was worth much more than the huge Russian landmass in colder higher latitudes. Even some
Russians did not consider it of much value and this is how Alaska got sold for a pittance by
a gambling Russian Tzar. But the contemporary reality is that the human capability to control
the environment has advanced so much that the cold regions of the planet are not as much of a
challenge that they used to be. On top, they have not been exploited much yet. This is why
the Anglos now have an eye on the Russian land, especially Siberia.
It is commonly accepted that the center of human civilisation is moving from the Atlantic
to the Pacific, but the shift of the center of gravity to the North is not widely
appreciated. Of course, most people still prefer to live in warmer climate but there is more
and more money to be made in colder climate. At the same time that the center of gravity is
shifting Northwards, the human advancement in the warmer climate has broken the Britush
Empire because most of the British colonies have largely caught up in development with the
colonial power. This has left the Anglos with their obsolete principles of domination by the
force of armaments and their attempts to double down in their area of advantage. In other
words, the Anglo leaders do appear to position themselves for: either we maintain our rule or
there will be no World to rule.
IMHO, the main reason for the fervent orgasmic hate displayed by the British parliament,
successfully transferred onto most of the British population, is that the Anglos are in the
process of losing their empire for the second time – first the British, now US. At the
same time, the semi-Asiatic, dirty-Christian Russians (in their racist view) are undeservedly
ascending, even after first the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union dissolved, never
mind that the Russians are now not even creating an empire of the obsolete Anglo kind then
something totally new. The landless Anglo prols versus the landed Russian gentry. Those who
are down on the wheel of fortune could not hate those now on top any more than they do.
Somewhere in there are also ever-expanding Zionist Jews, the cancer of humanity, who just
want to own anything worth owning, but this is worth another long comment.
I do not know how long the Russian initiative will last, but at the moment Russia is
in a goldilocks situation: it probably has the best leadership in the world, with
fantastic ideas and unsurpassed advantages. Even the non-anthropological climate change
appears to work in Russia's favour, opening up a new shorter Northern maritime route and
slowly draining the marshes and exposing virgin fertile land. Both smart and lucky.
Sorry for the long post. What I have been trying to say is that the two biggest current
ills of the world are the Anglo envy and the Zionist greed, whilst Russia and China have been
dealt and have dealt to themselves a magnificent hand of cards.
Interesting read. Just one comment – if Clinton had "won," we would already be "at war"
with Russia. Let's remember, even with the appointments through the revolving door (must get
a bit dizzy for players) of the Trump administration, he is still the Commander in Chief. I
don't see him going to war with Russia. Bolton is just as much "fireable" as the others.
Last thought, this saber rattling by the mouth organs of the Western criminal syndicate
has the colour of desperation to it. Also – attempted misdirection. Good that they're
overplaying their hand today since they'll have little room to escalate the rhetoric should
indictments of the criminals of the Hussein administration be levied some time soon. Let's
hope, anyway.
An .. interesting article. It appears that the author is really getting, fast, detached from
reality. This in particular:
The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria
and this even more.
The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass is most
likely
especially the former. This all is really starting to feel as "online therapy". A little
echo chamber and groupthink simply helping the members to deal with the world around
them.
Question (representative of the US Embassy): It is important in this forum to
demonstrate that we in the United States also stand in complete solidarity with our partners
in the United Kingdom, in the European Union and in NATO. It's important, especially in this
forum, since you have mentioned former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the courage that
you suggest he demonstrated. It is very important that you, instead of demonstrating a
similar type of courage, you attack, attack, attack my British colleague. In this forum in
particular, instead of demonstrating the type of courage that we would hope to have seen in
the 21st century, the Russian Federation continues its tried and true tactics of denying
responsibility, distracting and disinforming. Again, we stand with our colleagues in the
United Kingdom, and we will, as our colleagues in the United Kingdom, hold Russia accountable
for its illegal actions.
Vladimir Yermakov: We are grateful to the respected representative of the US
Embassy for his remarks. It would be interesting to know what American lawyers would make of
them. You probably worked at the US State Department? Have we met before? I used to know
everyone at the US State Department, and everyone there used to know me. That's water under
the bridge In the past, nobody in the US State Department talked to me in this manner. You
are probably on a mission from Washington. Well, everyone has a mission to accomplish.
This has been an under-appreciated trend. North is richer, more liveable, healthier (no
chance of Ebola), and has water. The climate changes and the massive increase in population
are making southern areas slowly uninhabitable.
Western elites know this – they know that in 1-2 generations large parts of the
Third World will collapse, Sub-Saharan Africa, but also partially India, Middle East,
south-east Asia. The spill-over from these regions – that West has foolishly integrated
with – will fatally damage most of the West.
Parts of the West are already suffering from the climate issues and uncontrolled
migration. Inland Australia and Southwest US are becoming deserts. Large cities have been
overrun by Third Worlders, and it is inevitable that more will come.
Russia's large geographic space is unique: very rich in resources, benefiting from climate
changes, and thinly populated by a well educated, unique civilisation. This stands out like a
sore thumb for the West. They have to ' incorporate ' Russia's resources, it is an
economic imperative. West has been failing – mostly due to its own arrogance and
stupidity. But all they know how to do is more of the same, get angry, scream and shout, try
again and again with the same militant approach as before.
When that fails, they go into an outright hysteria: ' No Olympics for you!, and no fish
and chips either, how dare your quote to us our own principles, you impertinent Russian
savages!!! '. Eventually West might end up in a self-imposed cul-de-sac with the only
option to go for the jugular and start an outright war. Then we will be all f ed, but at
least the Western masters will not lose face.
The US humiliatingly failed in its attempts to frighten and force the DPRK into
submission.
The offer of North Koreans to negotiate is a submission, a direct result of the US
pressure.
The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria.
The war is still going on. Assad barely controls half of Syria. As a matter of fact until
recently he did not even control the whole of Damascus. The Turks are in Afrin, Americans
east of the Euphrates River are building new bases.
The UK and the rest of the NATO are becoming militarily irrelevant.
Sure thing. They are so irrelevant that every time they make a move Putin has a major
fit.
The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass is most
likely.
Agree about the possibility of an attack.
The political forces in Europe who opposed anti-Russian policies are on the ascent.
Any evidence?
The Russians are winning many EU countries over by economic means including North Stream
whereas sanctions are hurting the EU much more than Russia.
A pipe dream.
The anti-Putin campaign has miserably failed and Russia is fully united in her stance
against the Empire.
The anti Putin campaign continues, see your own paragraphs above. Most Russians seem to be
behind Putin.
If it doubles down, something the Neocons always do, then this means war with Russia.
This is a stark and very difficult choice (no, not for normal people, but for the
psychopaths ruling the West).
I am sure that deciding to go to war is extremely difficult choice for the psychopaths
whilst for the normal people it is a piece of cake. The entertainment value of this piece is
priceless.
Well, perhaps save that "priceless".
Just the usual Saker, only with one notch up. Increasingly delusional and ratcheting up his
wishful thinking.
Fanbase and grupies here don't mind that. On the contrary, they need it, and increasingly
so. Offsets, at least temporarily, the harsh realities around them.
Assad of course hasn't won. While ISIS might be no more, and there have been real gains
(Aleppo, Damascus suburbs), this is more than counterbalanced by Turkey establishing a real
presence in northern Syria. Not clear how the Syrians can dislodge them, or the US from
Rojava.
The Ukraine has crashed
and is burning for the past four years now too bad The Saker is the only one noticing it
(well, and Ishchenko, I suppose).
Whether the Ukraine will attack or not.
+: If Russia intervenes forcefully, half the participants announce a boycott. $14 billion
or however much all the stadiums + kickbacks cost down the drain.
-: But then the Ukraine will be in for another humiliating defeat, and possibly the gay
dwarves in the Kremlin finally find the balls to recognize the LDNR.
-: If Russia doesn't intervene, then the Ukraine has a basically good chance of conquering
the LDNR.
I'm afraid the Bolton appointment means more that an immoral, horrible war with Iran became
more probable, not so much Russia. Isn't that the main difference between McMaster and
Bolton? Despite the obvious hair differences.
Agree with the spirit of the title of this piece that the month of Mars, the war month, in
2018, feels like an historic watershed.
'Full Spectrum Dominance', as explicit in US military doctrine, and noted as such by
Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel address, and embedded in the F. William Engdahl book 'Full
Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order', was imo both pathological
and impossible, but that didn't stop them from trying.
Putin's announcement to the planet that the Russians had developed a variety of weapons
that were capable of demonstrating dominance over the US, does far more than end American
full spectrum dominance ambitions and pretensions.
The thousand or so American military bases, and its navy around the planet, that have
projected power, are henceforth providing many targets for precise strikes.
It also potentially gives many other countries the ability to purchase the means to be
able to make American or NATO attacks on them far more difficult.
Gen. Wesley Clark's rather famous post 9/11 surprise at hearing that 7 countries in
five years were slated for – in effect – destruction, euphemistically called
regime change is starting to seem like another era. 'Guess what I just heard down the hall.
We're gonna go into 5 countries with our mercenaries, and military, and our amazing
technology, and bomb them all to hell if we have to, and lie to the world about everything
we're doing, and kill and wound and orphan millions of people, because ah, because ah,
because ah, actually I'm not sure why, but that's what's on the program. It's sort of a
tradition. We bombed the hell out of Korea, then we bombed the hell out of Vietnam and Laos
and Cambodia, actually I lost count, so many, anyway fast forward to remnants of Yugoslavia,
boy did we ever destroy that.!'
Absolute power corrupting absolutely, Russia and China providing a counterbalance to the
US attempt at absolute power has saved the Americans perhaps from being corrupted
absolutely.
Karlin, you do understand that you already turned into the cheap pathetic troll, right?
With your zero "expertise" in any military issues (as well as most others related and not)
your opinions on any Russia related military and geopolitical questions are worth as much as
your, well, ignorance. I understand that you have complex of inferiority and are severely
butt-hurt, and having a psychology of a loser-teenager you need to pretend that you somehow
have something to say, but you don't. So, as I suggested in other threads–before you
completely self-destruct and humiliate yourself to the point of becoming a meme for ignorance
matched only by your unconstrained ambition (and you are getting there), try not to parade
yourself as clown since pretty much your any geopolitical "opinion" is a cringe worthy
experience for anyone who have good professional understanding of military issues. You don't
and you have zero background for that, so , as I stated, when I have time I will gladly call
them out. Note though, since you are an amateur in all that, even the way you state your
(butt-hurt) ignorant opinions is such that rational and professional responses are not
possible. It is akin to talking to hysterical girl who was un-liked on Facebook by some boy.
So, just to illustrate how full of shit you are:
The Ukraine has crashed and is burning for the past four years now too bad The Saker is
the only one noticing it (well, and Ishchenko, I suppose).
But then again, you have no faculties to even understand what is going on. Per Ishenko,
LOL. Karlin, read Krylov's famous fable about Elephant and Pug, albeit you are not even
qualified for a role of a pug.
the fact that today Trump replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John
Bolton is a clear sign that the Neocons are in charge in the US and that the Axis of
Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot "kinder".
I don't care for John Bolton more than most reasonable people do, I suppose, but it's not
clear he's any worse than McMaster. People are readily triggered by the name John
Bolton , but has anything substantively changed?
This speech by a US dummy is a preview of what will come from OPCW "investigation", that
is more of the same as what they concluded regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons. By some
upside down magic privy only to the Exceptional People the countries which have declared,
destroyed and have been verified to have destroyed them, keep using the chemical weapons and
being constantly accused by those who still hold and produce chemical weapons. Those who have
them do not use them, whilst those who do not have them use them. Iraq, Syria now Russia. The
Skripal case is Iraq WMD 3.0.
Therefore, OPCW did not find any problem in that Britain did not follow the procedure
clearly stated in the OPCW Statute, after Britain with Canada even declared that procedure
optional. In reality, it is neither explicitly written nor implied that the procedure of
sharing the samples with the accused is optional. But OPCW keeps silent.
Furthermore, the British are already using own courts to their advantage. Although Miss
Skripal is a Russian citizen they convened a court proceeding about which no Russian
representative was informed and straight out lied in court that the Russians never enquired
about their citizen, contrary to the public announcement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The British Government appointed a lawyer for Miss Skripal. This court proceeding
was a formality but it is a good sign of the things to come. More details here:
http://johnhelmer.net/the-skripal-case-goes-to-court-for-the-first-time-new-uncertainties-for-the-british-and-russian-governments/#more-18920
My best guess is that OPCW will produce a report full of weasel words, which will then be
blared from all Western MSM as proof of Russian and maybe even Putin's own doing (not sure
how they would make that big jump over in logic, probably through the meme of secret
intelligence that clown Johnson used already).
Any similarity between MH17 and Skripal investigations, although both cooked up in the
same kitchen, is completely coincidental, of course.
Why do you suppose an alt-rightist must view Russia as an extension of what they wish to
have in America? Do you have an example of someone who conflates Russian national interests
with particular American concerns? Why is it not sufficient to recognize a common enemy and
hope for mutual success? At any rate, Putin's multilateralist vision is inherently
conservative (properly understood), and his coherence in absolute terms is admirable (never
mind in comparison to revolting Western politicians).
"We in the United States" are well aware that the British false flag assassination claim
is sheer nonsense, that the UK refuses to allow an investigation precisely because it is a
pack of lies (probably ginned up in an attempt to improve May's approval rating), and that no
"nerve gas" was used, and very likely nobody was killed.
So that's the problem with this ham handed attempt to stir up a pretext for war. Everyone
with a brain knows that it's a lie .There will be no war with Russia, thank God .
Manipulating democracy -- brainwashing the public for a large fee
Cambridge Analytica, the data harvesting firm that worked for the Trump campaign, is in the
midst of a scandal that should make everyone who cares about a clean political process demand
major investigations of anyone who has procured the services of the company, major prosecutions
of those who have violated laws across multiple nations and a wholesale revitalisation of
electoral laws to prevent politicians from ever again procuring the services of unethical
companies like Cambridge Analytica.
Days ago, whistleblower Christopher Wylie went public about his time
working for Cambridge Analytica and specifically about how the firm illegally obtained the
public and private data, including the private messages of 50 million Facebook users. He also
exposed how Cambridge Analytica used this data to run highly scientific social manipulation
campaigns in order to effectively brainwash the public in various countries to support a
certain political candidate or faction.
Cambridge Analytica's dubious methods were used to meddle in the US election after the Trump
campaign paid Cambridge Analytica substantial sums of money for their services. The firm also
meddled in the last two Kenyan Presidential elections, elections in Nigeria, elections in Czech
Republic, elections in Argentina, elections in India, the Brexit campaign, UK Premier Theresa
May's recently election and now stands accused of working with the disgraced former
Pakistani Premier Nawaz Sharif in an attempt to reverse his judicial ban on holding public
office, while helping his PML-N party win the forthcoming general election.
Beyond the scandalous use of personal data from Facebook users and the illegal access to
people's private messages, Cambridge Analytica has now been exposed as a company that, by the
hidden-camera admission of its CEO Alexander Nix, engages in nefarious, illegal and outrageous
activities across the globe.
The UK Broadcaster Channel 4 just released a video of Cambridge Analytica's CEO and Managing
DIrector Mark Turnbull in a conversation with an undercover reporter posing as a Sri Lankan
businessman interested in meddling in domestic elections. During the conversation Nix boasted
of Cambridge Analytica's history of using entrapment, bribery and intimidation against the
political opponents of its wealthy clients. Furthermore, Nix boasted about his firm's ability
to procure Ukrainian prostitutes as a means to entrap adversaries while also procuring the
services of "Israeli spies" as part of dirty smear operations.
The activities that Nix boasted of using in the past and then offered to a prospective
client are illegal in virtually every country in the world. But for Nix and his world of
ultra-rich clients, acting as though one is above the law is the rule rather than the
exception. Thus far, Cambridge Analaytica has been able to escape justice throughout the world
both for its election meddling, data harvesting, data theft and attempts to slander politicians
through calculated bribery and entrapment schemes.
One person who refused to be tempted by Cambridge Analytica was Julian Assange. Alexander
Nix personally wrote to Julian Assange asking for direct access to information possessed by
Wikileaks and Assange refused. This is a clear example of journalistic ethics and personal
integrity on the part of Assange. Justice must be done
Cambridge Analytica stands accused of doing everything and more that the Russian
state was accused of doing in respect of meddling in the 2016 US Presidential election. While
meetings and conversations that Trump campaign officials, including Steve Bannon had with
Cambridge Analyatica big wigs were not recorded, any information as to what was said during
these exchanges should be thoroughly investigated by law enforcement and eventually made public
for the sake of restoring transparency to politics.
Just as the Hillary Clinton campaign openly conspired to deprive Bernie Sanders of the
Democratic Party's nomination, so too did Donald Trump's campaign pay Cambridge Analytica to
conspire against the American voters using a calculated psychological manipulation campaign
that was made possible through the use of unethically obtained and stolen data.
While Facebook claims it was itself misled and consequently victimised by Cambridge
Analytica and has subsequently banned the firm from its platform, many, including Edward
Snowden have alleged that Facebook knew full well what Cambridge Analytica was doing with the
data retrieved from its Facebook apps. Already, the markets have reacted to the news and the
verdict is not favourble in terms of the public perception of Facebook as an ethical company.
Facebook's share prices are down over 7% on the S&P 500. This represents the biggest tumble
in the price of Facebook share prices since 2014. Moreover, the plunge has knocked Facebook out
of the coveted big five companies atop the S&P 500. Furthermore, Alex Stamos, Facebook's
security director has announced that he will soon leave the company.
The Trump myth and Russia myth exposed
Donald Trump has frequently boasted of his expert campaigning skills as being the reason he
won an election that few thought he could have ever won. While Trump was a far more charismatic
and exciting platform speaker than his rival Hillary Clinton, it seems that for the Trump
campaign, Trump ultimately needed to rely on the expensive and nefarious services of Cambridge
Analytica in order to manipulate the minds of American voters and ultimately trick them into
voting for him. It is impossible to say whether Trump would have still won his election without
Cambridge Analaytica's services, but the fact they were used, should immediately raise the
issue of Trump's suitability for office.
Ultimately, the Trump campaign did conspire to meddle in the election, only it was
not with Russia or Russians with whom the campaign conspired, it was with the British firm
Cambridge Analytica. Thus one sees that both the narrative about Trump the electoral "genius"
and the narrative about Trump the Kremlin puppet are both false. The entire time, the issue of
Trump campaign election meddling was one between a group of American millionaires and
billionaires and a sleaze infested British firm.
Worse than Watergate
In 1972, US President Richard Nixon conspired to cover-up a beak-in at the offices of his
political opponents at the Watergate Complex. The scandal ultimately led to Nixon's resignation
in 1974. What the Trump campaign did with Cambridge Analytica is far more scandalous than the
Watergate break-in and cover-up. Where Nixon's cronies broke into offices to steal information
from the Democratic party, Trump's paid cyber-thugs at Cambridge Analytica broke in to the
private data of 50 million people, the vast majority of whom were US citizens.
Richard Nixon, like Donald Trump, was ultimately driven by a love of power throughout his
life. Just as Trump considered running for President for decades, so too did Nixon try to run
in 1960 and lost to John Fitzgerald Kennedy, while he also failed to become governor of
California in 1962 election. By 1968 he finally got into the White House at the height of the
Vietnam War. When time came for his re-election, Nixon's team weren't going to take any chances
and hence the Watergate break-in was orchestrated to dig up dirt on Nixon's opponent. As it
turned out Nixon won the 1972 by a comfortable margin, meaning that the Watergate break-in was
probably largely in vain.
Likewise, Trump may well have won in 2016 even without Cambridge Analytica, but in his quest
for power, Trump has resorted to dealing with a company whose practices have done far more
damage to the American people than the Watergate break-in.
New laws are needed
While existing laws will likely be sufficient to bring the fiends at Cambridge Analytica to
justice, while also determining the role that Trump campaign officials, up to and including
Trump played in the scandal, new laws must be enshrined across the globe in order to put the
likes of Cambridge Analytica out of business for good.
The following proposals must be debated widely and ideally implemented at the soonest
possible date:
-- A total ban on all forms of data mining/harvesting for political purposes.
-- A total ban on the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence in any political
campaign or for any political purpose.
-- A mandatory seizing of the assets of any company involved in data mining/harvesting for
political purposes, after which point such a company would be forcibly shut down
permanently.
-- A mandatory seizing of the assets of any company involved in the use of artificial
intelligence or algorithms in the course of a public political campaign.
-- A total ban on the use of internet based platforms, including social media by political
candidates and their direct associates for anything that could reasonably be classified as a
misinformation and/or manipulation scheme.
-- A total ban on politicians using third party data firms or advertising firms during
elections. All such advertising and analysis must be devised by advisers employed directly by
or volunteering for an individual candidate or his or her party political organisation.
-- A total ban on any individual working for a political campaign, who derives at least half
of his or her income from employment, ownership and/or shares in a company whose primary
purpose is to deliver news and analysis.
-- A total ban on anyone paid by a political candidate to promote his or her election from
an ownership or major share holding role in any company whose primary purpose is to deliver
news and analysis until 2 years after the said election.
If all of these laws were implemented along with thorough campaign finance reform
initiatives, only then can anything remotely resembling fair elections take place.
The elites eat their own
While many of the media outlets who have helped to publish the revelations of whistleblower
Christopher Wylie continue to defame Russia without any evidence about Russian linkage to the
2016 US election (or any other western vote for that matter), these outlets are nevertheless
exposing the true meddling scandal surrounding the Trump campaign which has the effect of
destroying the Russia narrative.
In this sense, a divided elite are turning against themselves. While the billionaire
property tycoon Donald Trump can hardly be described as anything but a privileged figure who
moved in elite public circles for most of his life, his personal style, rhetoric and attitude
towards fellow elites has served to alienate Trump from many. Thus, there is a desire on the
part of the mainstream media to expose a scandal surrounding Trump in a manner that would be
unthinkable in respect of exposing a cause less popular among western elites, for example the
brutal treatment of Palestine by the Zionist regime.
In this sense, Trump's own unwillingness or lack of desire to endear himself to fellow
elites and instead present himself as a 'man of the people', might be his penultimate undoing.
His rich former friends are now his rich present day enemies and many ordinary voters will be
completely aghast at his involvement with Cambridge Analytica, just as many Republicans who
voted for Nixon, became converts to the anti-Nixon movement once the misdeeds and dishonesty of
Richard Nixon were made public. Many might well leave the 'Trump train' and get on board the
'political ethics express'.
Conclusion
This scandal ultimately has nothing to do with one's opinion on Trump or his policies, let
alone any of the other politicians who have hired Cambridge Analytica. The issue is that a
company engaged in the most nefarious, dangerous, sleazy and wicked behaviour in the world, is
profiting from their destruction of political institutions that ought to be based on open
policy debates rather than public manipulation, brainwashing and artificial intelligence.
The issue is also one of privacy. 50 million people have been exploited by an unethical
company and what's more is that the money from the Trump campaign helped to empower this
unethical company. This is therefore as unfair to non-voters as it is to voters. Cambridge
Analytica must be shut down and all companies like it must restrict the scope of their
operations or else face the same consequence.
John Bolton is in all likelihood a Zionist asset due to the Israelis having some very
powerful kompromat on him.
Numerous sources allege that Bolton forced his wife (now ex-wife) into group sex at a
swinger's club. Did someone get it on film, tape, or some other recording media?
Given the extreme fervor of Bolton's Zionism, the answer seems obvious.
Bolton, to me, is worse than McMaster, is decidedly a neocon, and may well end up being the
intellectual impetus behind a shiny new war in the ME or the Korean peninsula.
Although Trump the candidate offered a sketch of his FP views, including his well known
declaration about the catastrophic Iraq war, today one can itemize where the US military is
currently robustly engaged.
If Bolton can dial back his hawkishness with respect to Russia, not mention--too
much--Iraq, he and POTUS may likely find alignment about which will be the first regime to be
targeted by our standoff capabilities. imao
I agree, people shouldn't imply, they should say straight out what they think.
So allow me.
It appears that the uber Israeli Sheldon Adelson who was the largest campaign donor to
Trump and Nikki Haley and also employs John Bolton is dictating US policy to Trump.
If it trots and barks like an Adelson, then its a Adelson poddle.
Don't forget that Bolton was the one who immediately blamed the Hariri assassination on
Syria.
Immediately assigning blame is one of the signs of a false-flag operation. If Mossad killed
Hariri, Bolton would know about it. He would also know if Mossad whacked the Skripals.
The political dividing line in America may not be Left vs. Right or Democrats vs. Republicans
or anti-war vs. pro-war but Russiagate believers vs. realist who know it is all a false-flag.
Thierry Meyssan believes that Rex Tillerson fell for the
Skripal hoax and that is why Trump fired him. I said something similar
here on MoA
This is about American Imperialism and MIC. Neocons are just well-laid MIC lobbyists. Some
like Bolton are pretty talented guys. Some like Max Boot are simply stupid.
Notable quotes:
"... What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL] ..."
"... So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again. ..."
The conclusion of Stephen Walt's column on
John Bolton is exactly right:
Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to "normalize" this appointment or suggest that it
shouldn't concern you. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you are worried about Bolton, you
should ask yourself the following question: What sort of political system allows someone
with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous
war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the
same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again?
[bold mine-DL]
So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits
people like him to screw up and move up again and again.
There is a strong bias in our foreign policy debates in favor of "action," no matter how
stupid or destructive that action proves to be. That is one reason why reflexive supporters of
an activist foreign policy will never have to face the consequences of the policies they
support. Bolton has thrived as an advocate of hard-line policies precisely because he fills the
assigned role of the fanatical warmonger, and there is always a demand for someone to fill that
role. His fanaticism doesn't discredit him, because it is eminently useful to his somewhat less
fanatical colleagues. That is how he can hang around long enough until there is a president
ignorant enough to think that he is qualified to be a top adviser.
Bolton will also have reliable supporters in the conservative movement that will make
excuses for the inexcusable. National Review recently published an article by
David French in defense of Bolton whose conclusion was that we should "give a hawk a chance."
Besides being evasive and dishonest about just how fanatical Bolton is, the article was an
effort to pretend that Iraq war supporters should be given another chance to wreck U.S. foreign
policy again. It may be true that Bolton's views are "in the mainstream of conservative
foreign-policy thought," but that is an indictment of the so-called "mainstream" that is being
represented. Bolton has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue of the last twenty
years. If that doesn't disqualify you from holding a high-ranking government position, what
does?
Hawks have been given a chance to run our foreign policy every day for decades on end, and
they have failed numerous times at exorbitant cost. Generic hawks don't deserve a second chance
after the last sixteen-plus years of failure and disaster, and fanatical hard-liners like
Bolton never deserved a first chance.
French asserts that Bolton is "not extreme," but that raises the obvious question: compared
to what?Bolton has publicly, repeatedly urged the U.S. government to launch illegal preventive
wars against Iran and North Korea, and that just scratches the surface of his fanaticism. That
strikes me as rather extreme, and that is why so many people are disturbed by the Bolton
appointment. If he isn't "extreme" even by contemporary movement conservative standards, who
is? How psychopathic would one need to be to be considered extreme in French's eyes? If
movement conservatives can't see why Bolton is an unacceptable and outrageous choice for
National Security Advisor, they are so far gone that there is nothing to be done for them and
no point in listening to anything they have to say.
Bolton would be on with this idea. I expect Trump go ahead with a military bombing of
nuclear reactor sites and Government/military sites as envisage by Pompeo. They dare not try
for a full invasion as they will most likely lose. What will be Iran's reaction be?
What could Iran do? They might get Hezbollah to initiate contact with Israel. Try to sink
US navy assets where ever they are. Spread the campaign to Afghanistan. Attack Saudi Arabia
with missiles. However if the US peruses this course I believe it will be a brief attack
lassting 2/3 weeks, whereby a brokered peace to stop US action. But I could be wrong.
I ran onto something about that when researching SCL/Cambridge Analytica
The Mercer/Cambridge Analytica US wing of SCL put a lot of funding into the leave campaign
which was undeclared. Like a political campaign, donations above a threshold have to be
declared.
Threshold for declaring donations I think was around 3 to 7000 and CA put in over 300
000.
I have been researching SCL the last few days now. It is starting to look as though,
rather than being political mercenary's working for whoever pays, they seem to back
nationalist leaning groups or individuals. They have a political or geo-political agenda but
not sure what at the moment. Always anti Russia. Involved in operations in most of the ex
soviet countries to create a hatred of ethnic Russians and I think will work with non
nationalist types who are very anti Russia.
"... So in the end the question boils down to: what will Russia do? Putin has a tendency to make asymmetric moves before committing to military action, and these are by definition hard to predict. While he is also cautious, he is also firm - so if Turkey manages to annex large portions of Syria, he is likely to respond to the exact degree that he sees these acts damaging Russian interests, if not so much Syria's interests. So the question will be how much does Putin think Turkey annexing parts of Syria actually damages Russian interests? ..."
"... Getting to politics for a moment, I read a lot of anti-Trump comments from people who were his supporters, angry over the recent spending. Bolton is not popular amongst the Trump base, actually that's a bit of an understatement. These mid-terms are set to give surprising results IMHO Americans do NOT want another war, they don't want more Neocons, and they don't want Socialists either. The Democrats have no clear direction (when they are asking Biden of all people to make a run for President you know they have run right out of ideas). I expect to see a rise of alternative candidates flowing into the political vacuum... probably isolationist, anti-immigration, anti-war, and perhaps even anti-deficit. ..."
"... The trouble with "simplistic pragmatism" is that humans and their motivations are not simple and their actions are seldom as simple as posited by economic determinism. Economic determinism as a badly flawed tool in analysis. ..."
"... Neutralizing the Kurds would be one more minority eliminated. Only more powerful nation states can stop him. Since Israel's and the USA's intention is permanent tribal warfare to divide Muslims; that leaves Russia or an Iraq and Iran alliance which both have Kurd problems themselves. ..."
"... The USA is sitting on an oil field in the middle of the Syrian desert by itself with Kurds heading home for the final battle with Turkey and the Euphrates Valley full of true believers that can only be controlled by a legitimate even-handed secular national police and army. We are in a World War right now. The world is one mistake or one first strike away from a nuclear war. ..."
"... The tribe is driven far more by the emotions, and sometimes by economic determinism, but rarely by reason. ..."
"... If we invaded Iraq for the oil, we sure f'd up. We surely didn't invade Iraq to remove Iran's main enemy, but we managed that too. ..."
The author of this piece agrees with my position that Turkey will not be leaving northern
Syria unless forced to do so. Any number of crafty ploys are available to insure an indefinite
presence leading in the end to a request from a puppet government for annexation to Turkey. The
same thing is very likely to occur in northern Iraq.
What will Russia, Iran and the US do about such a progression of events? They are likely to
do nothing. Inaction is always probable when larger issues of international economics and great
power rivalries are barriers to action. pl
pat, that sounds like how turkey got hatay province in a roundabout way... it sure seems like
ottoman dreams in sultan erdogans head, supported by a number of voters in apk..
i don't know that russia will be happy with erdogans 'moderate headchoppers' still acting
on behalf of turkey either... the usa will probably remain happy so long as turkey doesn't
try to interfere in project east of the euphrates kurdistan although i had seen an article
they are in manjib at present, to show there support for the kurds/israel, lol..
The US won't act because they'd prefer to see Syria broken up. Iran doesn't have the standing
to act and no capability to act militarily. Syria won't try to use military force because it
can't compete with Turkey's military might.
That leaves Russia, which is supposedly committed to insuring the sovereignty of Syria.
Russia can bring the issue up in the UNSC, but the US is likely to veto anything they
propose. Russia doesn't want a war with Turkey (and vice versa), so military action is likely
to be very much a last resort.
However, Putin has some leverage in Turkey, such as the S-400 sales as well as sanctions
such as were taken after the shoot down of the Russian jet by Turkey. Whether this can be
enough to force Turkey out of Syria is unclear, and perhaps unlikely.
Iraq is in a different position. There, Iran might have some say, albeit again not
militarily, unless Iran tries to use Iraq's military against the Turks, which I find
unlikely. I suspect Iran doesn't really care if Turkey takes over northern Iraq and puts down
the Kurds since Iran has its own conflicts with those Kurds, having shelled them in the
past.
Iraq will care because of the lost oil revenue if the Turks seize the northern oil fields
and may try some military action, but that is likely to merely force Turkey to commit more
troops. The US is likely to try to persuade Iraq not to turn this into full-scale war.
The real issue with Syria is how things play out after ISIS and Al Qaeda have finally been
reduced to a minor terrorist group status. The question is what moves can Russia and to a
lesser degree Syria and Iran make to force Turkey out. While there are probably a number of
harassing moves they can make (what I mean by harassing moves are things like Russian
sanctions.), in the end there are only three possible outcomes:
1) Harassing moves become expensive for Turkey, so it retreats.
2) Turkey does not retreat and the Three Amigos forego military action and give up harassing
moves.
3) The Three Amigos ramp up full-scale military action forcing Turkey either into retreat or
full-scale regional war.
In the latter case, I think Russia, Syria and Iran could make things hot enough for Turkey
to retreat, if not actually defeat Turkey militarily. However, Turkey being a NATO member,
this gives the US another shot at intervening on Turkey's side against Syria, which the US
would be happy to do, depending on how much direct conflict with Russia that might
entail.
So in the end the question boils down to: what will Russia do? Putin has a tendency to
make asymmetric moves before committing to military action, and these are by definition hard
to predict. While he is also cautious, he is also firm - so if Turkey manages to annex large
portions of Syria, he is likely to respond to the exact degree that he sees these acts
damaging Russian interests, if not so much Syria's interests. So the question will be how
much does Putin think Turkey annexing parts of Syria actually damages Russian
interests?
Owning Kurdish territory is really about getting rich from oil revenue and Turkey has
excellent infrastructure to achieve that, so yes they have every reason to stay. Put that
together with Erdogan's self aggrandizing and he will not be able to resist the lure of both
fame and fortune. He'll never give it back.
As a side effect, this also creates a unified Kurdistan. A wise Sultan could offer this as
a bargaining chip: Kurds get sufficient autonomy and democratic elections within their own
cultural group; while the Sultanate takes a largish share of the oil revenue. An uneasy but
stable truce could come out of this. In the short term, let us see how well Turkish troops
are respecting Kurdish civilians in Afrin. The news has been uncomfortably dark since the
Turks took over. If the Kurds believe they will be massacred like the Armenians were, then
they have no choice but to keep fighting to the bitter end, which could get ugly.
Iran would flip out if Turkish troops cross the border into Kurdish parts of Iran, so I
don't expect such provocation (at least, not soon, perhaps later).
Baghdad will no doubt be angry about losing oil revenue to Turkey, but what can they do
about it? They will complain, maybe move some troops around as a show, try not to lose too
much territory but otherwise put up with it.
As for the USA... well if US troops ever clash with Turks that would be a perfect time for
Trump to declare the finish of NATO. He talked about it, the Turks have done nothing to
endear themselves with either America or Europe, and the EU has become pretty much a
deadweight drain on US resources. Maybe better for everyone.
Getting to politics for a moment, I read a lot of anti-Trump comments from people who
were his supporters, angry over the recent spending. Bolton is not popular amongst the Trump
base, actually that's a bit of an understatement. These mid-terms are set to give surprising
results IMHO Americans do NOT want another war, they don't want more Neocons, and they don't
want Socialists either. The Democrats have no clear direction (when they are asking Biden of
all people to make a run for President you know they have run right out of ideas). I expect
to see a rise of alternative candidates flowing into the political vacuum... probably
isolationist, anti-immigration, anti-war, and perhaps even anti-deficit.
In a random universe, all strategies are as good as each other because no matter what you do
the result is still completely random.
I don't believe in a random universe. There are some monks and ascetics who would walk
past a pile of money on the table, uninterested in taking it up. Perhaps there are some
retired old men who have come to value peace and quiet more than anything else. Erdogan is
none of those things, he is attracted to both wealth and power.
On the topic of determinism, not specifically the Middle East, but does explain a lot about
what goes on in the Middle East, and a great general purpose framework as well:
I know there's additional nuance you can add to that, but even if you don't like the
simplistic pragmatism you can't avoid some of the basic conclusions here. It also explains
why Trump's pivot towards the Neocons is largely a sign of weakness.
"some retired old men" Yes, I have long been senile and other worldly. I am well known to
be so. Actually, my objection is not that you think money and greed are important but that
you think it determines the fate of nations. Have you taken the MBTI? Be honest. pl
The trouble with "simplistic pragmatism" is that humans and their motivations are not
simple and their actions are seldom as simple as posited by economic determinism. Economic
determinism as a badly flawed tool in analysis.
Was the VN War about a US attempt to seize the rubber plantations and fish sauce factories
of VN? I suppose you think the US invaded Iraq for its oil. Your remark about Trump and the
neocons is incomprehensible. pl
The Middle East is engulfed by tribal-mob wars sponsored by the Superpowers. Since the
coup attempt and German withdrawal; joining Europe is not an option for Turkey. Recep Tayyip
Erdogan will take and keep what he can. Neutralizing the Kurds would be one more minority
eliminated. Only more powerful nation states can stop him. Since Israel's and the USA's
intention is permanent tribal warfare to divide Muslims; that leaves Russia or an Iraq and
Iran alliance which both have Kurd problems themselves.
The USA is sitting on an oil field in the middle of the Syrian desert by itself with
Kurds heading home for the final battle with Turkey and the Euphrates Valley full of true
believers that can only be controlled by a legitimate even-handed secular national police and
army. We are in a World War right now. The world is one mistake or one first strike away from
a nuclear war.
The Western Empire directed by corporate oligarchs is intent on flushing nation states
down the drain. Yet, the Apocalypse can only be prevented by a Global Peace Treaty signed by
the Middle East Nations and the Superpowers including Russia, China, European Union and the
United States.
"Yes, I have long been senile and other worldly." If your current sharp wit and understanding
of the world represents you in your dotage, I should not have to liked to spar with you when
your were younger and more aware....
On the larger point which you are making, I have come to realize that we are ruled far
more by our emotions than by the rationality we pretend to follow. Individuals act for
personal reasons, which can include venality and emotion, as well as rationality. The
tribe is driven far more by the emotions, and sometimes by economic determinism, but rarely
by reason.
If we invaded Iraq for the oil, we sure f'd up. We surely didn't invade Iraq to remove
Iran's main enemy, but we managed that too.
"... The trouble with bunker-bases is that everyone knows where they are and can circumvent them until the nuisance effect becomes overwhelming, leaving no sensible option other than to destroy them. If there's any logic to this strategy, it's way over my head... ..."
"... Your description reminds me of the Maginot Line and the "island" firebases used in Vietnam. But judging from what's being offloaded in Jordan, it looks like the Outlaw US Empire's offensive will come from there. Russia is also pouring in men and equipment. ..."
"... The rhetorical diplomatic screws are being tightened rapidly by Russia too--Outlaw US Empire's been formally accused of abetting terrorism at the recent meet at MoFA, which I linked to on open thread. ..."
"... There is no such a thing as "Kurdistan," especially in Syria, where only 6% of the population was Kurdish in 2010. Estimates today are as high as 10%, what with all the "immigrants" from Turkey, where 1/2 of all the world's Kurdish people live. Even in Iraq where there are far more Kurds than in Syria, and US/Israeli influence had permitted the creation of a Kurdish semi-autonomous region, when the Barzani gang bit off more than they could chew several months back, Iraqi forces moved in and shut that thing down. ..."
"... And there is no way the people of Syria are going to accept 6% of their population to declare 1/3 of the country (including 1/2 of its petroleum resources) a separate "Kurdistan." ..."
"... Personally, I'm ambivalent about the Kurds. But history is clear that the AAZ Empire uses and abuses them for Empire's geopolitical goals. President Assad has been remarkably patient with the Syrian Kurds, so I hope they realize they're best off realigning with their country, now that Turkey is showing them exactly how important they are to the Empire. ie. "we hope Turkey kills the minimum number of innocent Kurdish civilians." ..."
I'm increasingly mystified by the rumors(?) that the US has circa 20 military bases inside
Syria. Do the Yanks not understand that all of Syria is within easy range of cruise missiles
launched from Russia?
Can they not see that this base & bunker mentality, borrowed from their idiotically
fruitless AfPak campaign, is a disaster waiting to happen?
The trouble with bunker-bases is that everyone knows where they are and can circumvent
them until the nuisance effect becomes overwhelming, leaving no sensible option other than to
destroy them. If there's any logic to this strategy, it's way over my head...
@HW 24
Perhaps twenty US bases is high, but there is evidence of at least a dozen with ~1,500
troops. Most of the bases are in Kurdistan as shown
here .
Your description reminds me of the Maginot Line and the "island" firebases used in
Vietnam. But judging from what's being offloaded in Jordan, it looks like the Outlaw US
Empire's offensive will come from there. Russia is also pouring in men and
equipment.
The rhetorical diplomatic screws are being tightened rapidly by Russia too--Outlaw US
Empire's been formally accused of abetting terrorism at the recent meet at MoFA, which I
linked to on open thread.
Apparently not needless to say, the Pentagon has not provided a map of the military bases
they illegally constructed in Syria. Turkey did release such a map last year, and Don
provides that snippet. This site shows those bases over the whole of Syria, including at al
Tanf.
Yes, the illegal US bases Turkey revealed were almost all in the region east/north of the
Euphrates River that is clearly being promoted as one of those impotent statelets if the AAZ
Empire succeeds in destroying the sovereign country of Syria.
There is no such a thing as "Kurdistan," especially in Syria, where only 6% of the
population was Kurdish in 2010. Estimates today are as high as 10%, what with all the
"immigrants" from Turkey, where 1/2 of all the world's Kurdish people live. Even in Iraq
where there are far more Kurds than in Syria, and US/Israeli influence had permitted the
creation of a Kurdish semi-autonomous region, when the Barzani gang bit off more than they
could chew several months back, Iraqi forces moved in and shut that thing down.
And there is no way the people of Syria are going to accept 6% of their population to
declare 1/3 of the country (including 1/2 of its petroleum resources) a separate
"Kurdistan."
Personally, I'm ambivalent about the Kurds. But history is clear that the AAZ Empire
uses and abuses them for Empire's geopolitical goals. President Assad has been remarkably
patient with the Syrian Kurds, so I hope they realize they're best off realigning with their
country, now that Turkey is showing them exactly how important they are to the Empire. ie.
"we hope Turkey kills the minimum number of innocent Kurdish civilians."
Watching videos of the "rebels" boarding the busses in East Ghouta, I saw a LOT of White
helmets guys wandering around. As usual, they fled with the moderate headchoppers.
But I noticed a LOT of guys in sparkling, new purple costumes assisting the retreat, so I
enlarged a screen shot and saw they are another NGO called "Violet Syria."
So, I went to their website, and followed links to their "partners" and sure enough, all
Western-funded "color revolution" types.
Violet Syria was founded in 2014
in Turkey, just as White helmets had been a year earlier. Their sponsors include the
International Rescue Committee, whose President and CEO is David Miliband, a former Foreign
Secretary of the United Kingdom.
This group may deserve a more thorough investigation.
... US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq
"to secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it.
...who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the
Pentagon's Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles
Krauthammer, columnist and author.
Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to
acknowledge this truth openly, saying that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is
going on ."
Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically
support Israel and its policies.
Remarks by Ernest F. Hollings, May 20, 2004. Congressional Record -- Senate, May 20, 2004,
pages S5921-S5925. Also ""Iraq Was Invaded to Secure Israel
This is about American Imperialism and MIC. Neocons are just well-laid MIC lobbyists. Some
like Bolton are pretty talented guys. Some like Max Boot are simply stupid.
Notable quotes:
"... What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL] ..."
"... So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again. ..."
The conclusion of Stephen Walt's column on
John Bolton is exactly right:
Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to "normalize" this appointment or suggest that it
shouldn't concern you. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you are worried about Bolton, you
should ask yourself the following question: What sort of political system allows someone
with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous
war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the
same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again?
[bold mine-DL]
So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits
people like him to screw up and move up again and again.
There is a strong bias in our foreign policy debates in favor of "action," no matter how
stupid or destructive that action proves to be. That is one reason why reflexive supporters of
an activist foreign policy will never have to face the consequences of the policies they
support. Bolton has thrived as an advocate of hard-line policies precisely because he fills the
assigned role of the fanatical warmonger, and there is always a demand for someone to fill that
role. His fanaticism doesn't discredit him, because it is eminently useful to his somewhat less
fanatical colleagues. That is how he can hang around long enough until there is a president
ignorant enough to think that he is qualified to be a top adviser.
Bolton will also have reliable supporters in the conservative movement that will make
excuses for the inexcusable. National Review recently published an article by
David French in defense of Bolton whose conclusion was that we should "give a hawk a chance."
Besides being evasive and dishonest about just how fanatical Bolton is, the article was an
effort to pretend that Iraq war supporters should be given another chance to wreck U.S. foreign
policy again. It may be true that Bolton's views are "in the mainstream of conservative
foreign-policy thought," but that is an indictment of the so-called "mainstream" that is being
represented. Bolton has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue of the last twenty
years. If that doesn't disqualify you from holding a high-ranking government position, what
does?
Hawks have been given a chance to run our foreign policy every day for decades on end, and
they have failed numerous times at exorbitant cost. Generic hawks don't deserve a second chance
after the last sixteen-plus years of failure and disaster, and fanatical hard-liners like
Bolton never deserved a first chance.
French asserts that Bolton is "not extreme," but that raises the obvious question: compared
to what?Bolton has publicly, repeatedly urged the U.S. government to launch illegal preventive
wars against Iran and North Korea, and that just scratches the surface of his fanaticism. That
strikes me as rather extreme, and that is why so many people are disturbed by the Bolton
appointment. If he isn't "extreme" even by contemporary movement conservative standards, who
is? How psychopathic would one need to be to be considered extreme in French's eyes? If
movement conservatives can't see why Bolton is an unacceptable and outrageous choice for
National Security Advisor, they are so far gone that there is nothing to be done for them and
no point in listening to anything they have to say.
lol... americans are sore losers.. as b mentions in the syria post - they will keep
dispensing tows to the saudis for those moderate headchoppers in daraa and etc... bolt-on
might be able to grow a mustache like a russian, but he can't play chess like a russian!
"... Meadows said that since it dealt with a foreign leader, the leak "had to" come from the president's national security staff, headed by McMaster. ..."
The White House national security team, already facing calls for the ouster of top adviser
H.R. McMaster, was tagged by a key lawmaker with leaking confidential notes ordering President
Trump not to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin for his election win.
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., a conservative leader and foreign policy expert, expressed
outrage at the leak and suggested that it and others thought to come from the national security
council are crimes.
"Here's the big deal. If you've got the national security council team leaking to the press,
that's a big deal," he told reporters at a Heritage Foundation-sponsored "Conversations with
Conservatives" on Capitol Hill Wednesday.
"Quite frankly, some of the other stuff they've leaked is actually a crime," he added.
The Washington Post reported that Trump was pressured by top aides against calling Putin. He
was even given a paper that
read in all caps, "DO NOT CONGRATULATE."
Trump called anyway.
Washington Examiner 's White House correspondent
Gabby Morrongiello reported earlier Wednesday that the president is angered at the
leak.
Meadows said that since it dealt with a foreign leader, the leak "had to" come from the
president's national security staff, headed by McMaster.
McMaster has been under fire inside and outside the White House, and there have been reports
that he will be dumped. But every time a report surfaces, the administration denies it.
Meadows shrugged off the call, and said that there is no evidence it will impact U.S.-Russia
policy. He also noted that former President Barack Obama called foreign leaders approved in
questionable elections.
"I'm probably more concerned about leaks within the administration. You have to understand
that it would be like my chief of staff leaking information that we had in a conversation on
anything. Whether it's [Trump's call] appropriate or not appropriate, there's a bigger concern
there within the West Wing if you've got people on the national security team that have leaked.
That's where it had to have come from. It's a very small group of people that would of even had
any knowledge of that," he said.
"... The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and 100% under CIA control ..."
"... yes.... 100% right..... the servility of Germany with Merkel is disgusting and unbearable ..."
"... It's what one expects from Merkel and her NWO domesticated admin. EU gov'ts have been crying wolf for so long that few now believe a word coming from their media. ..."
I have the same worries. The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and
100% under CIA control , has been ramping up anti-Russia propaganda since weeks. I
didn't think it would be possible after the Ukraine conflict but it is even worse now. The
comments of this filthy lunatic Boris Johnson but also of his boss-bitch Theresa May have
been way below any line of decency. It's even below the kind of rhetoric Hitler has used when
he talked about other statesmen such as (this fat, ugly war-criminal and mass murderer)
Winston Churchill.
But it's not "the West" that is going to war, it is the Anglo-American establishment.
"West" is an artificial propaganda term that should not be used anyway, because all it
denotes is the countries dominated by Anglo-America. Germany and France, the only countries
powerful enough to stop Anglo-American madness, are usually dancing to the tune of
Warshington and London, but I am not so sure if they will really go all the way here,
especially with Iran. Also and despite all the propaganda, while German and French people may
not trust Russia and see Putin as a "dictator", they also see the US regime (especially with
the Trumpet in charge) as nothing but a dangerous, trigger-happy war machinery. There is no
way you could sell a war against Iran to them, also not the rest of Europe including Britain.
I even have doubts about whether the American public would swallow such a war.
Either way, it will be a disaster for the "West" - economically, politically, militarily.
In fact, it will be the end of the "West" and of the Anglo-American empire including the
Zionist colony. So in the end there might be a great result of yet another horror. What
Russia really needs to do now is to give both Syria and Iran the full power of Russian air
defence.
Having spent some time in Germany, I have to agree with these comments. If you think the
Propaganda is bad in the US and the UK, in Germany it is even worse. It is almost as if they
are in competition to be the most servile and obedient to their masters. It is if history
doesn't even exist. It is 1941 all over again. The difference being Germany has nothing to
fight with and if it comes to war they will be absolutely pulverized to nuclear ash.
This is how stupid the media is to hype this Anti-Russian propaganda 24/7, 7 days a week.
There is no real "alternative" news that I could find either. If there is a silver lining in
all this though, is that many Germans don't take the media seriously at all anymore. When you
overcook the pot, this is what can happen. Just like that fool Boris Johnson. He has now
compared Putin to Hitler and the 1936 olympics. How stupid can this buffoon be? You think you
can just carry on with business as usual once this stupid provocation with the poisoned spy
blows over after saying something like that? He hasn't just insulted Putin, he has insulted
all of Russia who sacrificed more than any other country to stop Hitler. I can't believe what
low IQ clowns the UK is producing as politicians these days. It is really scraping the bottom
of the barrel.
Has Germany ever had an election without US interference? I would imagine that securing
power for anyone they choose in the EU has been a doddle for the US, even Hitler's daughter.
That would be a sick joke typical of US neocons.
As a former journalist in Germany I agree. All German news and current affairs are
sanitized. People who object to too much power in the hands of the US on German soil or who
are against the wars will be sidelined or blacklisted, depending on what their job is. "They"
prepare for a new war, or they would not need a new billion $ military hospital near
Ramstein. It said in one article that the German government could not prevent it and had to
contribute, too. Pawns.
On the whole, though, what they prepare is NOT a war by the West, it is by the US for Full
Spectrum Dominance. They rope in allies,sure, but I'd like to be optimistic. After the Iraq
and ME experiences the populations (also here in Australia) are not enthusiastic. So maybe
this time it will be US vs .... and they cannot hide behind a coalition.
The governments of Germany and Australia always kowtow of course. Ramstein and Pine Gap
are crucial for the warmongers.
Thank you for recognizing this, but you're wrong about the German alternative scene. I
think it is one of the strongest out there, it is just, well, German. Not so aggressive and
more analytical. If you ask me, what the world needs is German Spirit, but this spirit has
been oppressed (largely voluntarily, I admit) for the past 70 years or so, but it is still
there.
And when I say German, I mean the real meaning of it, so the cultural heritage of the
German language. Switzerland, Austria and others are definitely included. Do you speak
German?
It's what one expects from Merkel and her NWO domesticated admin. EU gov'ts have been
crying wolf for so long that few now believe a word coming from their media. Most sit
there and view it all as a form of entertainment. Maybe it's the reason why many people in
the west are ambivalent.
In other words, neither men nor women have gained anything from this otherwise-well-intended
campaign against sexual improprieties. However, this is not the first time the West has allowed
raw emotions to knock the train of progress right off the tracks. History books are replete
with examples of Western campaigns rising out of sheer mass hysteria. But at least in those
wild times there was still some semblance of justice, complete with trials and investigations.
Now compare that with our 'modern' times, when all it took for the United States to win
approval for an illicit attack on Iraq was for Colin Powell to shake a vial of faux anthrax in
front of the UN General Assembly.
With these historical hiccups in mind, it is possible to argue that the West has truly
forgotten the lessons of history because they are certainly repeating them today.
By way of example, consider where the great bulk of US troops are encamped today – in
and around the Middle East – and then ask yourself how they got there.
The answer is by hook and by crook, and not a little public manipulation and chicanery. That
is because, in our insatiable desire to defend victims – the good guys, we are told
– we are allowing ourselves to ignore crucial evidence while placing blind faith in what
we are being told is the truth. Clearly that has not been the case to date.
From the accusations that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction to launch against
innocent people, to the current claims that the Syrian government of Bashar Assad is using
chemical weapons against his own people, the West is gambling that claims based on zero
evidence will always work to fulfill ulterior motives. So far, the ploy seems to be working
with the gullible public, but sooner or later truth will catch up, indeed, as truth usually
does.
Just this month, for example, an assassination attempt was made against Sergei Skripal
– a former double agent who had moved to Salisbury, England following a spy-swap in 2010.
Any guesses as to who the British authorities have ruled – without a
trial, evidence or motivating factor – is the main culprit? Yes, Russia. Yet, even the
usually loyal British press has started
expressing reservations over the dubious claims.
This should come as no surprise since the UK, a member of the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), has staunchly refused to provide samples of the alleged
nerve agent to Russia for analysis. Why would it do that? Would anyone be surprised if this
investigation goes the same way it did for all those Russian athletes who were, unjustly,
banned from the
Winter Olympic Games this year?
Or perhaps the same way it went following the 2016 US presidential elections, when Russia
was accused of meddling on behalf of Donald Trump – zero evidence to back up the
slanderous accusations , which are responsible for putting US-Russia relations into a free
fall.
In conclusion, the unsightly spectacle of Western capitals backtracking on legal precedent
– from domestic cases to international – makes it all the more clear why it is so
anxious to win back the media mountaintops – it has no evidence whatsoever to support the
reasons behind its increasingly illicit behavior. It is therefore incumbent upon them to own
the narrative, as well as the justice system. How long this democratic charade can last is
anybody's guess.
In my opinion the May show is no more than paying the price the EU wants for remaining in
the common market.
The EU on the one hand wants to increase the economic war against Russia, on the other it
must prevent that after Brexit GB develops close economic ties with Russia.
The remain in the common market ticket is temporarily, when the agreed period is over a
further price can be asked, the Brussels imperialists think, I suppose.
Alas, Merkel is on her way out, her minister of police etc. begins playing the nationalist
card, resistance in France against Macron is rising, and how the euro country Italy can be
saved nobody knows.
These two staggering leaders want more Europe.
On top of all this misery, the until some time ago biggest bank in the world, Deutsche
Bank, once 100.000 employees worldwide, now 50.000, may soon collapse, share prices dropping
daily for the past week, transaction volumes in shares from 25.000 to even 35.000, where
8.000 is normal.
The derivates DB owns are said to be staggering, over thirty trillion, the EU total national
income, in comparison, is less than ten trillion.
Varoufakis predicted a world wide crash which will make look 1929 child's play in
comparison.
Cannot imagine that the EU survives this crash, the populations will look to the national
governments for food, the rationing thereof, etc.
John Bolton is in all likelihood a Zionist asset due to the Israelis having some very
powerful kompromat on him.
Numerous sources allege that Bolton forced his wife (now ex-wife) into group sex at a
swinger's club. Did someone get it on film, tape, or some other recording media?
Given the extreme fervor of Bolton's Zionism, the answer seems obvious.
Bolton, to me, is worse than McMaster, is decidedly a neocon, and may well end up being the
intellectual impetus behind a shiny new war in the ME or the Korean peninsula.
Although Trump the candidate offered a sketch of his FP views, including his well known
declaration about the catastrophic Iraq war, today one can itemize where the US military is
currently robustly engaged.
If Bolton can dial back his hawkishness with respect to Russia, not mention--too
much--Iraq, he and POTUS may likely find alignment about which will be the first regime to be
targeted by our standoff capabilities. imao
I agree, people shouldn't imply, they should say straight out what they think.
So allow me.
It appears that the uber Israeli Sheldon Adelson who was the largest campaign donor to
Trump and Nikki Haley and also employs John Bolton is dictating US policy to Trump.
If it trots and barks like an Adelson, then its a Adelson poddle.
Don't forget that Bolton was the one who immediately blamed the Hariri assassination on
Syria.
Immediately assigning blame is one of the signs of a false-flag operation. If Mossad killed
Hariri, Bolton would know about it. He would also know if Mossad whacked the Skripals.
The political dividing line in America may not be Left vs. Right or Democrats vs. Republicans
or anti-war vs. pro-war but Russiagate believers vs. realist who know it is all a false-flag.
Thierry Meyssan believes that Rex Tillerson fell for the
Skripal hoax and that is why Trump fired him. I said something similar
here on MoA
Bolton would be on with this idea. I expect Trump go ahead with a military bombing of
nuclear reactor sites and Government/military sites as envisage by Pompeo. They dare not try
for a full invasion as they will most likely lose. What will be Iran's reaction be?
What could Iran do? They might get Hezbollah to initiate contact with Israel. Try to sink
US navy assets where ever they are. Spread the campaign to Afghanistan. Attack Saudi Arabia
with missiles. However if the US peruses this course I believe it will be a brief attack
lassting 2/3 weeks, whereby a brokered peace to stop US action. But I could be wrong.
Basically McMaster started clearing out the Israel Zios in the department ...including
several who violate security rules on top secret info. The report list person after person
McMaster canned and the ZOA is furious all their inside boys were turned out.
Very cleverly the report is presented to Trump as McMaster firing all the 'Pro Trumpers"
because McMasters is ''anti Trump''.
So the ZOA are now Trump Loyalist..lol...just pledge your loyalty to Trump and he'll
follow you like a puppy.
I am beginning to wonder though if there is a small but growing number of upper rank
military that are trying to weed out the bomb Iran Zionist.
"... The Iranian regime, in my mind, is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East...For all the talk of ISIS and Al Qaida everywhere right now they're a very serious threat. But nothing is as serious in the long term enduring ramifications, in terms of stability and prosperity and some hope for a better future for the young people out there, than Iran. ..."
"... We know that vacuums left in the Middle East seem to be filled by either terrorists or by Iran or their surrogates or Russia In order to restore deterrence, we have to show capability, capacity and resolve. ..."
"... Using our special neocon-speak translator, we see that "capability, capacity and resolve" actually means "weapons, deployments, and wars." No wonder Kristol and company are touting this man as their savior. ..."
The neocons have been in a panic this election season. One by
one, their preferred choice for the Republican presidential nomination has been soundly
rejected by the uncooperative American voting public. Sen. Lindsey Graham made a run for the
nomination saying , "If
you're tired of war, don't vote for me," and nobody did. Perhaps the idea of perpetual war to
the very last US dollar is beginning to wear thin among Republican voters.
Though the two Republicans left standing, Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, have endorsed
sending thousands of troops into the Middle East and even turning the sand into glass with a
nuclear weapon, they are viewed as not reliably neoconservative enough for the Beltway
bombardiers. William Kristol, absolutely forlorn over the American voter's rejection of the
reliable Republican neocons in the race, has thrown his hat in with a very reliable Democrat
neocon, Hillary Clinton. "I would rather see Hillary than Trump,"
said Kristol.
But such a move comes not without risk for the Kristol-ites. The neocons migrated from the
Democratic Party to the Republican Party like a virus to a new host and one promising candidate
does not a happy return necessarily make.
What to do?
Again from Kristol: "We'll have to start a new party if it's Trump." And that's what
they're doing. With the help of the compliant media, of course.
Thanks to Target Liberty for its diligence in "Mad Dog"
spotting , we see the (former) house organ of the CIA, Time Magazine, joining the neocon
cheering section behind the notion of a third party run by retired Major General James "Mad
Dog" Mattis, former Commander of the US Central Command.
What is it about military leaders that has led so many voters to champion them for the
Presidency? After all, it's not like the nation has emerged victorious from its recent wars.
... Retired Marine general James "Mad Dog" Mattis, who hung up his uniform three years ago,
has fervent supporters who want him to run for President.
The very title of the article is a fraud. Who are these "Americans" who are
clamoring for a General to become president? Neocons! What percentage to neocons make up of the
US electorate? Re-read the first paragraph for an indication.
Why are the neocons panting like a dog in heat for "Mad Dog" Mattis? His speech today at the
military-industrial complex funded
Center for Strategic and International Studies tells the tale of the tape. What gets the Mad
Dog all hot and bothered? War with Iran!
The Iranian regime, in my mind, is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace
in the Middle East...For all the talk of ISIS and Al Qaida everywhere right now they're a
very serious threat. But nothing is as serious in the long term enduring ramifications, in
terms of stability and prosperity and some hope for a better future for the young people out
there, than Iran.
And, in what must be music to the ears of all those inside the Beltway who have
become rich robbing the rest of us to pay for their wars, Mattis spells out his foreign policy.
In a word: War!
We know that vacuums left in the Middle East seem to be filled by either terrorists or by
Iran or their surrogates or Russia In order to restore deterrence, we have to show
capability, capacity and resolve.
Using our special neocon-speak translator, we see that "capability, capacity
and resolve" actually means "weapons, deployments, and wars." No wonder Kristol and company are
touting this man as their savior.
General George Washington was a reluctant political leader. He accepted the office of
president only at the insistence of others. His preference after the battle was won was to hang
up his guns and retire to hemp-growing and whiskey-distilling. In these days of
increasingly political military officers , it seems the notion of civilian control of the
military is, like the Constitution itself, just another anachronism.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we give you President Mattis:
The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there
are some a**holes in the world that just need to be shot.
( Business
Insider )
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my
eyes: If you f*ck with me, I'll kill you all.
( San Diego Union
Tribune )
Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every
one of them until they're so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms
intact.
( San Diego Union
Tribune )
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
( San Diego Union
Tribune )
You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they
didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a
hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a
hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like
brawling.
( CNN )
I'm going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will
write about what we do here for 10,000 years.
( San Diego Union
Tribune )
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. "
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
Notable quotes:
"... For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. ..."
"... First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state. ..."
"... Secondly, Western elites pillaged the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. ..."
"... Thirdly, the US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent "election" of Yeltsin. ..."
"... With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US. ..."
"... As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war. ..."
"... Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to return to vassalage. ..."
"... The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the EU, North America or their vassals. ..."
"... Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other Western allies. ..."
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear
war.
The most recent western propaganda campaign and one of the most virulent is the charge
launched by the UK regime of Prime Minister Theresa May . The Brits have claimed that Russian
secret agents conspired to poison a former Russian double-agent and his daughter in England ,
threatening the sovereignty and safety of the British people. No evidence has ever been
presented. Instead the UK expelled Russian diplomats and demands harsher sanctions, to increase
tensions. The UK and its US and EU patrons are moving toward a break in relations and a
military build-up.
A number of fundamental questions arise regarding the origins and growing intensity of this
anti-Russian animus.
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
This paper is directed at providing key elements to address these questions.
The Historical Context for Western Aggression
Several fundamental historical factors dating back to the 1990's account for the current
surge in Western hostility to Russia.
First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal
state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state.Secondly, Western elites pillaged
the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. Wall Street
and City of London banks and overseas tax havens were the main beneficiaries Thirdly, the
US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent
"election" of Yeltsin. Fourthly, the West degraded Russia's military and scientific
institutions and advanced their armed forces to Russia's borders. Fifthly, the West insured
that Russia was unable to support its allies and independent governments throughout Europe,
Asia, Africa and Latin America. Russia was unable to aid its allies in the Ukraine, Cuba,
North Korea, Libya etc.
With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia
regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes
were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster
capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US.
Russia's historic recovery under President Putin and its gradual international influence
shattered US pretense to rule over unipolar world. Russia's recovery and control of its
economic resources lessened US dominance, especially of its oil and gas fields.
As Russia consolidated its sovereignty and advanced economically, socially, politically and
militarily, the West increased its hostility in an effort to roll-back Russia to the Dark Ages
of the 1990's. The US launched numerous coups and military intervention and fraudulent
elections to surround and isolate Russia . The Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Russian
allies in Central Asia were targeted. NATO military bases proliferated.
Russia's economy was targeted : sanctions were directed at its imports and exports.
President Putin was subject to a virulent Western media propaganda campaign. US NGO's funded
opposition parties and politicians.
As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a
systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal
for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and
defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war.
The UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the western
public for heightened military confrontations.
Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further
a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to
return to vassalage.
President Putin is immensely popular in Russia and hated by the US precisely because he is
the opposition of Yeltsin -- he has created a flourishing economy; he resists sanctions and
defends Russia's borders and allies.
Conclusion
In a summary response to the opening questions.
The Western regimes recognize that
Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the
EU, North America or their vassals.Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via
economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has
diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other
Western allies.
The Western propaganda campaign has failed to turn Russian voters against Putin. In the
March 19, 2018 Presidential election voter participation increased to 67% . .Vladimir Putin
secured a record 77% majority. President Putin is politically stronger than ever.
Russia's display of advanced nuclear and other advanced weaponry has had a major deterrent
effect especially among US military leaders, making it clear that Russia is not vulnerable to
attack.
The UK has attempted to unify and gain importance with the EU and the US via the launch of
its anti-Russia toxic conspiracy. Prime Minister May has failed. Brexit will force the UK to
break with the EU.
President Trump will not replace the EU as a substitute trading partner. While the EU and
Washington may back the UK crusade against Russia they will pursue their own trade agenda;
which do not include the UK.
In a word, the UK, the EU and the US are ganging-up on Russia, for diverse historic and
contemporary reasons. The UK exploitation of the anti-Russian conspiracy is a temporary ploy to
join the gang but will not change its inevitable global decline and the break-up of the UK.
Russia will remain a global power. It will continue under the leadership of President Putin.
The Western powers will divide and bugger their neighbors -- and decide it is their better
judgment to accept and work within a multi-polar world.
*
Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the CRG.
I have to laugh at the people trying to portray Bonkers Bolton as somehow less insane than he
is.
Yesterday in my Youtube recommended list was at least half a dozen channels with headlines
expressing horror at the appointment of Bolton as National Security Adviser. Clearly there
has been a backlash in quite a few quarters that this appointment is simply lunatic - of a
lunatic.
So naturally today we see people trying to play down the absolute stark insanity of Trump
appointing this clown.
The only thing we can hope for is that before Bolton does too much damage that Trump gets
tired of him, as he has everyone else in his administration, and fires him. But given Trump's
history, all we can expect then is that he appoints Nikki Haley to the same post.
Russia, ever patient, issued a statement saying they're ready to work with Bolton.
Privately they must be wondering why they didn't develop Novichok so they could use it on
him.
Meanwhile the Democrats are trotting out all the hot women they claim had affairs with
Trump. Hello, Democrats! Anyone remember Bill Clinton? At least Trump has a wife good-looking
enough to maybe keep him home at night.
The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the real danger from Bolton is that,
in Trumpian fashion, he will return to those good old days when the Cold War was ending and the
US went hog wild in Central America.
Like a bruised and beaten bully who's just had his come-uppance in the pub who, returning home,
angry and impotent beats up the wife and kids and threatens the neighbours, Uncle Sam is
returning, his tail between his legs, from the middle east to his home turf.
Look out Cuba! Look out Venezuela!
The Contras are back in business. Ecuador-sorry Julian- looks about to crumble. Honduras,
Paraguay, Haiti, Brazil and Argentina have all been rescued from their own people. Things are
beginning to look like the 80s again except that this time there are hardly any 'communists'
left to kill. Military dictatorships are back, death squads are bigger than ever.
And, best of all, from the Bolton/Trump viewpoint, the dangers of running into Russian or
Chinese backed resistance is negligible, the money to be made is infinite. One Continent from
north pole to south, run by a mafia based in Washington.
Its what Making America Great Again means-a return to the Monroe Doctrine and letting up on the
mad dream of global hegemony. There's plenty of poor suckers for everyone to exploit a billion
or so.
There's only one caveat-Israel. Israel undoubtedly wants a war with Iran, just as it wants to
smash up Syria (or get the US to do it for them) but I just can't see the many local interested
parties allowing it. Perhaps moving the Embassy to Jerusalem and getting the Guatemalans,
Hondurans and Solomon Islanders to do the same, is all that they are going to get from Trump- a
gesture without meaning. A con from the grifter himself.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have become accustomed to taking flak from
Democratic (and even some G.O.P.) legislators when she testifies on Capitol Hill, but some of
the most ferocious criticism she has recently faced comes from an unlikely source: John Bolton,
the fiery conservative who served under Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In his
new memoir, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and
Abroad, Bolton -- known to be close to Vice President Dick Cheney -- outlines some of the
internal foreign policy battles in the Administration of George W. Bush, and paints President
Bush himself as betraying his own gut instinct.
Bolton's book covers his childhood as the son of a Baltimore fireman, his days at Yale Law
School and his service in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. But it's
the brickbats he reserves for Rice and fellow diplomats and civil servants in the current
Administration that grab the most attention. First as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
and then as U.N. ambassador, Bolton emerges as an outspoken unilateralist and an opponent of
treaties and international institutions ranging from the Kyoto climate convention to the
International Court of Criminal Justice. And he has been a vocal opponent, both inside and
outside the Administration, of negotiations with North Korea and Iran over their nuclear
programs.
Bolton's outspoken policy views have long been familiar, but what's most interesting about
his new book is the sheer enthusiasm with which he has adopted the mantle of the most vocal
neoconservative critic of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, only months after resigning
from the Bush team when the Senate for the second time refused to confirm his nomination to the
U.N. post.
Bolton accuses the Administration of laxity in dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea and
an Iran intent on obtaining the bomb, not to mention its efforts to arrange a Middle East peace
conference. But implicit in Bolton's bomb-throwing is a startling admission: that his
never-ending battle against "pragmatists" and those less ideologically committed inside the
most conservative administration in decades has been lost. In an interview with TIME, Bolton
said: "Secretary Condoleezza Rice is the dominant voice on national security and there is no
one running even a close second; her ascendancy is undisputed."
So where does that leave Bolton allies like Cheney and his hard-line advisers, and the few
remaining neocons scattered through the national security bureaucracy? "You will never know
what the VP's exact interaction with the President is," says Bolton, "But the VP is still
closer to the President's basic instincts than anyone else." Bolton's explanation for the shift
in White House policy: "The President may be distracted by the Iraq war or other events... but
there's no doubt that the President has moved heartbreakingly away from his own deepest
impulses on the three principal issues of controversy (North Korea, Iran and Middle East
peace); what is happening now is contrary to his basic instincts."
On Iran, Bolton says former Secretary of State Colin Powell was too intent on mollifying
U.S. allies like France, Britain and Germany. This caused Powell to offer Iran too many
"carrots" -- trade and commercial inducements -- if Tehran would rein in its pursuit of atomic
materials. To a large degree Rice, in Bolton's view, perpetuated this strategy even though, he
believes, there is almost no chance that Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions. As a result,
he says, the U.S. has wasted time on "four and half years of failed diplomacy" indulging Iran
with unnecessarily accommodationist negotiations, a period Iran has used to advance its nuclear
acquisitions and research.
On North Korea, Bolton cites (unconfirmed) reports of the Hermit Kingdom's collaboration
with Syria on a secret nuclear facility as evidence that the denuclearization deal between the
U.S. and North Korea is not working. Talks with North Korea continue, he notes, and the U.S.
looks set to invite Syria to its Middle East peace conference later this month. Uncomfortable
issues are not being raised, Bolton charges, for fear of disrupting negotiations that he sees
as pointless to begin with.
So what are the prospects for a return to the muscular unilateralism that Bolton favors?
"There's a possibility that events in the external world will validate our position and give
the President a means to return to his gut," the former U.N. ambassador told TIME. "But until
and unless external events prove that current policies are on the wrong track, there is no
countervailing or obvious force inside this administration that is going to produce a course
correction. "
John Bolton, US President Donald Trump's incoming hawkish
national security adviser, is reportedly planning a massive dismissal of staff at the National
Security Council, aiming to remove dozens of White House officials.
Sources aware of the changes told Foreign Policy that Bolton is preparing to "clean house"
and remove nearly all of the political appointees brought in by his predecessor.
"Bolton can and will clean house," one former White House official told Foreign Policy. One
other source said, "He is going to remove almost all the political [appointees] McMaster
brought in."
Another former official said that any National Security Council officials appointed under
former President Obama "should start packing their shit."
Trump and Bolton see eye to eye on their hawkish foreign policy, especially when it comes to
North Korea and Iran, and are equally averse to multilateral diplomacy, whether that means the
UN or working with the European Union.
A history of bellicosity
Bolton, an outspoken advocate of military action who served in the administration of former
US president George W. Bush, has called for action against Iran and North Korea.
While serving under Secretary of State Colin Powell, Bolton was also both a cheerleader
and early architect of the Iraq war.
In a February
op-ed for The Wall Street Journal , Bolton made the "legal case for striking
North Korea first" to stop what he deems an "imminent threat" from the nation's nuclear
program.
Bolton is also strongly opposed to the Iran nuclear deal and has been obsessed for many
years with going to war against the Islamic Republic.
"He is unabashed about this," said Mark Groombridge, a former top adviser to Bolton at the
State Department and United Nations pointing to his views on preemptive warfare.
"He has no problems with the doctrine of preemption and feels the greatest threat that the
United States faces is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
The Washington Post reports that at the White House, Bolton is likely to reinforce Trump's
"America First" view of the world. Both Trump and Bolton share a long-standing animosity toward
any treaties, international laws or alliances that limit America's freedom to act on the world
stage.
"... When the relevant analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced, finger-waving rage. ..."
"... The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a subordinate ..."
> The most egregious recent instances of arm twisting arose in George W. Bush's
administration but did not involve Iraq. The twister was Undersecretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security John Bolton, who pressured intelligence officers to
endorse his views of other rogue states, especially Syria and Cuba. Bolton wrote his own
public statements on the issues and then tried to get intelligence officers to endorse
them.
According to what later came to light when Bolton was nominated to become ambassador to
the United Nations, the biggest altercation involved Bolton's statements about Cuba's
allegedly pursuing a biological weapons program. When the relevant analyst in the State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's
language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced,
finger-waving rage.
The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee
considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a
subordinate -- and this comment came from someone who described himself as a
conservative Republican who supported the Bush administration's policies -- an orientation I
can verify, having testified alongside him in later appearances on Capitol Hill.
> When Bolton's angry tirade failed to get the INR analyst to cave, the undersecretary
demanded that the analyst be removed. Ford refused. Bolton attempted similar pressure on the
national intelligence officer for Latin America, who also inconveniently did not endorse
Bolton's views on Cuba. Bolton came across the river one day to our National Intelligence
Council offices and demanded to the council's acting chairman that my Latin America colleague
be removed.
The fact that Trump is a sad excuse for a human being and a conman has been pretty obvious
since the 1980s. It was never clear to me why conservatives believed this man had really
changed his spots.
The one and only issue where Trump really does seem to have some principles and conviction
is trade. He has certainly defied the Deep State, and most of his donors, on that issue and
he may yet force China to cave and open their economy to Western corporations. If he pulls
that off, he will deserve some credit.
And really, despite his lack of structural change to immigration laws, the ICE does seem
to have become a lot more zealous under Trump's watch than it would have been under Hillary,
so there is that. Problem is Trump is actually looking a lot like Obama – a lot of
symbolic gestures that will probably be instantly reversed by the next President (whether Dem
or GOP), but no real influence over congress and very little substantive legislative changes.
From Carter to Obama and now Trump the record of "outsiders" in the White House is pretty
pathetic.
Rolled is putting things mildly. This is such brazen act of capitulation by the self styled
swamp slayer Trump that he should strongly consider resigning to save face. Trump just took a
giant dump on the people who risked their physical safety to support him at campaign rallies.
At this point I'm throwing him to the wolves and hope Mueller destroys him or the coming
Democrat majority in 2018 impeaches him. He only has his cowardly, lying self to blame.
This is the third spending bill with no wall funding, no reductions in H1B or H2B visas
and no added interior enforcement funding requested by the WH. Trump keeps rubber stamping
these bills then vows to fight next time around only to meekly sign yet again. This all just
seems to be reality TV to him.
This really leaves the deplorables and those opposed to the third worlding of America in
the lurch. Trump was our only and probably last hope and now he's decided to join the swamp
and conduct business as usual. We're totally without political representation at the moment
while the country browns, yellows and blackens at an alarming rate.
I guess we shouldn't be too surprised since Trump has very few core convictions about
anything other than making money and having sex. And of course "winning" which we've done
little of since he assumed office. The only "win" was that he wasn't Hillary but now he
is!
The few political convictions he might possess are very shallow and subject to change
almost hourly depending on who he talks to, Ivanka's emotional state and his PMS like mood
swings. The only thing that's non-negotiable for Trump is slavish support for and devotion to
Israel. Obama was an anti-white and anti-American bigot, but at least he had a world view and
ideology guiding his actions regardless of input he received, his media coverage or his
approval rating.
Trump = Obama = W. Different actors get to play the same role on behalf of the super rich
– it's in the Constitution. It's sad to see a zombie voter express voter's remorse on
social media. An emotional zombie is an obedient slave. They are easy to control since
there's no need for the lash to get them crying about politics.
Trump will have to pound his chest about war like Clinton did with Yugoslavia. This will
make him a well rounded President – he just needs the right supporting cast.
Some actors like General Kelly proudly served the country into 9/11. You'd figure a guy
would get fired for such an enormously bad performance. Instead this moribund ghoul serves as
Chief of Staff. Perhaps it's not his fault and big complicated computers determine when
massive amounts of people need to be killed from time to time.
The problem with your rational approach and concern for US casualties is, obviously, that
we're dealing with seriously deranged people here. When Trump, Bolton, Adelson, and Netanyahu
put their four propaganda-addled minds and blood-lusting/inferiority-complex-fueled emotions
together ... the challenge may be "How can we attack Iran, inflict ostensibly serious damage,
not lose any of our own 'guys', and receive only a very limited response?"
Perhaps a large but not too large conventional attack by US/Israel on 'industry and
facilities directly related to Iran nuclear weapons development'? Just something to throw to
the big-pockets Israel First crowd in the U.S. and Yahu's domestic base.
The advantage of having Israel launch the attack is that the US can 'defend' them and limit
Iran's ability to respond. In addition it brings the Iranian nuclear issue front and centre
for the world press, allows the US to pressure the Europeans to back away from JCPOA (if only
by 'informal' sanctions) and (based on Israeli media mis-information) allows the US to
challenge the UN to snap-back sanctions on Iran.
I agree with comments above - the US will not directly attack Iran. There is however a
great advantage to having Israel do it and then provide backup.
The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War With Iran, by Gareth Porter
....More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already
influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the
primary financier behind both Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself -- the militantly
Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- to get Trump's ear last October, just as the
president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after
meeting with Adelson.
It was Bolton who persuaded Trump to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of
the JCPOA if Congress and America's European allies did not go along with demands for major
changes that were clearly calculated to ensure the deal would fall apart.....
I have to laugh at the people trying to portray Bonkers Bolton as somehow less insane than he
is.
Yesterday in my Youtube recommended list was at least half a dozen channels with headlines
expressing horror at the appointment of Bolton as National Security Adviser. Clearly there
has been a backlash in quite a few quarters that this appointment is simply lunatic - of a
lunatic.
So naturally today we see people trying to play down the absolute stark insanity of Trump
appointing this clown.
The only thing we can hope for is that before Bolton does too much damage that Trump gets
tired of him, as he has everyone else in his administration, and fires him. But given Trump's
history, all we can expect then is that he appoints Nikki Haley to the same post.
Russia, ever patient, issued a statement saying they're ready to work with Bolton.
Privately they must be wondering why they didn't develop Novichok so they could use it on
him.
Meanwhile the Democrats are trotting out all the hot women they claim had affairs with
Trump. Hello, Democrats! Anyone remember Bill Clinton? At least Trump has a wife good-looking
enough to maybe keep him home at night.
"... When the relevant analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced, finger-waving rage. ..."
"... The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a subordinate ..."
> The most egregious recent instances of arm twisting arose in George W. Bush's
administration but did not involve Iraq. The twister was Undersecretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security John Bolton, who pressured intelligence officers to
endorse his views of other rogue states, especially Syria and Cuba. Bolton wrote his own
public statements on the issues and then tried to get intelligence officers to endorse
them.
According to what later came to light when Bolton was nominated to become ambassador to
the United Nations, the biggest altercation involved Bolton's statements about Cuba's
allegedly pursuing a biological weapons program. When the relevant analyst in the State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's
language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced,
finger-waving rage.
The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee
considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a
subordinate -- and this comment came from someone who described himself as a
conservative Republican who supported the Bush administration's policies -- an orientation I
can verify, having testified alongside him in later appearances on Capitol Hill.
> When Bolton's angry tirade failed to get the INR analyst to cave, the undersecretary
demanded that the analyst be removed. Ford refused. Bolton attempted similar pressure on the
national intelligence officer for Latin America, who also inconveniently did not endorse
Bolton's views on Cuba. Bolton came across the river one day to our National Intelligence
Council offices and demanded to the council's acting chairman that my Latin America colleague
be removed.
John Bolton, US President Donald Trump's incoming hawkish
national security adviser, is reportedly planning a massive dismissal of staff at the National
Security Council, aiming to remove dozens of White House officials.
Sources aware of the changes told Foreign Policy that Bolton is preparing to "clean house"
and remove nearly all of the political appointees brought in by his predecessor.
"Bolton can and will clean house," one former White House official told Foreign Policy. One
other source said, "He is going to remove almost all the political [appointees] McMaster
brought in."
Another former official said that any National Security Council officials appointed under
former President Obama "should start packing their shit."
Trump and Bolton see eye to eye on their hawkish foreign policy, especially when it comes to
North Korea and Iran, and are equally averse to multilateral diplomacy, whether that means the
UN or working with the European Union.
A history of bellicosity
Bolton, an outspoken advocate of military action who served in the administration of former
US president George W. Bush, has called for action against Iran and North Korea.
While serving under Secretary of State Colin Powell, Bolton was also both a cheerleader
and early architect of the Iraq war.
In a February
op-ed for The Wall Street Journal , Bolton made the "legal case for striking
North Korea first" to stop what he deems an "imminent threat" from the nation's nuclear
program.
Bolton is also strongly opposed to the Iran nuclear deal and has been obsessed for many
years with going to war against the Islamic Republic.
"He is unabashed about this," said Mark Groombridge, a former top adviser to Bolton at the
State Department and United Nations pointing to his views on preemptive warfare.
"He has no problems with the doctrine of preemption and feels the greatest threat that the
United States faces is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
The Washington Post reports that at the White House, Bolton is likely to reinforce Trump's
"America First" view of the world. Both Trump and Bolton share a long-standing animosity toward
any treaties, international laws or alliances that limit America's freedom to act on the world
stage.
The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the real danger from Bolton is that,
in Trumpian fashion, he will return to those good old days when the Cold War was ending and the
US went hog wild in Central America.
Like a bruised and beaten bully who's just had his come-uppance in the pub who, returning home,
angry and impotent beats up the wife and kids and threatens the neighbours, Uncle Sam is
returning, his tail between his legs, from the middle east to his home turf.
Look out Cuba! Look out Venezuela!
The Contras are back in business. Ecuador-sorry Julian- looks about to crumble. Honduras,
Paraguay, Haiti, Brazil and Argentina have all been rescued from their own people. Things are
beginning to look like the 80s again except that this time there are hardly any 'communists'
left to kill. Military dictatorships are back, death squads are bigger than ever.
And, best of all, from the Bolton/Trump viewpoint, the dangers of running into Russian or
Chinese backed resistance is negligible, the money to be made is infinite. One Continent from
north pole to south, run by a mafia based in Washington.
Its what Making America Great Again means-a return to the Monroe Doctrine and letting up on the
mad dream of global hegemony. There's plenty of poor suckers for everyone to exploit a billion
or so.
There's only one caveat-Israel. Israel undoubtedly wants a war with Iran, just as it wants to
smash up Syria (or get the US to do it for them) but I just can't see the many local interested
parties allowing it. Perhaps moving the Embassy to Jerusalem and getting the Guatemalans,
Hondurans and Solomon Islanders to do the same, is all that they are going to get from Trump- a
gesture without meaning. A con from the grifter himself.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have become accustomed to taking flak from
Democratic (and even some G.O.P.) legislators when she testifies on Capitol Hill, but some of
the most ferocious criticism she has recently faced comes from an unlikely source: John Bolton,
the fiery conservative who served under Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In his
new memoir, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and
Abroad, Bolton -- known to be close to Vice President Dick Cheney -- outlines some of the
internal foreign policy battles in the Administration of George W. Bush, and paints President
Bush himself as betraying his own gut instinct.
Bolton's book covers his childhood as the son of a Baltimore fireman, his days at Yale Law
School and his service in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. But it's
the brickbats he reserves for Rice and fellow diplomats and civil servants in the current
Administration that grab the most attention. First as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
and then as U.N. ambassador, Bolton emerges as an outspoken unilateralist and an opponent of
treaties and international institutions ranging from the Kyoto climate convention to the
International Court of Criminal Justice. And he has been a vocal opponent, both inside and
outside the Administration, of negotiations with North Korea and Iran over their nuclear
programs.
Bolton's outspoken policy views have long been familiar, but what's most interesting about
his new book is the sheer enthusiasm with which he has adopted the mantle of the most vocal
neoconservative critic of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, only months after resigning
from the Bush team when the Senate for the second time refused to confirm his nomination to the
U.N. post.
Bolton accuses the Administration of laxity in dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea and
an Iran intent on obtaining the bomb, not to mention its efforts to arrange a Middle East peace
conference. But implicit in Bolton's bomb-throwing is a startling admission: that his
never-ending battle against "pragmatists" and those less ideologically committed inside the
most conservative administration in decades has been lost. In an interview with TIME, Bolton
said: "Secretary Condoleezza Rice is the dominant voice on national security and there is no
one running even a close second; her ascendancy is undisputed."
So where does that leave Bolton allies like Cheney and his hard-line advisers, and the few
remaining neocons scattered through the national security bureaucracy? "You will never know
what the VP's exact interaction with the President is," says Bolton, "But the VP is still
closer to the President's basic instincts than anyone else." Bolton's explanation for the shift
in White House policy: "The President may be distracted by the Iraq war or other events... but
there's no doubt that the President has moved heartbreakingly away from his own deepest
impulses on the three principal issues of controversy (North Korea, Iran and Middle East
peace); what is happening now is contrary to his basic instincts."
On Iran, Bolton says former Secretary of State Colin Powell was too intent on mollifying
U.S. allies like France, Britain and Germany. This caused Powell to offer Iran too many
"carrots" -- trade and commercial inducements -- if Tehran would rein in its pursuit of atomic
materials. To a large degree Rice, in Bolton's view, perpetuated this strategy even though, he
believes, there is almost no chance that Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions. As a result,
he says, the U.S. has wasted time on "four and half years of failed diplomacy" indulging Iran
with unnecessarily accommodationist negotiations, a period Iran has used to advance its nuclear
acquisitions and research.
On North Korea, Bolton cites (unconfirmed) reports of the Hermit Kingdom's collaboration
with Syria on a secret nuclear facility as evidence that the denuclearization deal between the
U.S. and North Korea is not working. Talks with North Korea continue, he notes, and the U.S.
looks set to invite Syria to its Middle East peace conference later this month. Uncomfortable
issues are not being raised, Bolton charges, for fear of disrupting negotiations that he sees
as pointless to begin with.
So what are the prospects for a return to the muscular unilateralism that Bolton favors?
"There's a possibility that events in the external world will validate our position and give
the President a means to return to his gut," the former U.N. ambassador told TIME. "But until
and unless external events prove that current policies are on the wrong track, there is no
countervailing or obvious force inside this administration that is going to produce a course
correction. "
"... "With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible conflict," ..."
"... "John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict," ..."
"... "If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor," ..."
"... "drumbeats of war." ..."
"... "absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," ..."
"... "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across the world." ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Donald Trump's cabinet reshuffles have fueled concerns, not least after the latest
appointment of hawkish John Bolton as national security adviser, just days after installing a
former CIA chief as the new secretary of state. On Thursday afternoon Donald Trump decided to
sack Gen. HR McMaster from his national security adviser post, replacing him with John Bolton.
The former US envoy to the United Nations will assume office on April 9 – just days after
Mike Pompeo is set to replace Rex Tillerson as the new secretary of state.
The newly formed doublet has caused shockwaves among the Democrats, who have alleged that
Trump seems to be preparing for war. Democratic Senator from Massachusetts Ed Markey warned
that Trump is creating a "war cabinet," warning of "grave danger" following
Bolton's appointment.
John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran and conducting a first strike on North Korea
without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American
people and a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is
gearing up for military conflict.
"With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully
lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us
into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible
conflict," he tweeted.
"John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear
weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to
the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for
military conflict," Senator Markey added.
John Bolton:
Wanted war w Cuba, arguing wrongly that Cuba had WMD
Wanted war w Iraq, arguing – wrong again – that Iraq had WMD
Believes – wrongly – that Islamic law is taking over America
If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security
Advisor
-- Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) March 22,
2018
The choice of Bolton as the national security adviser has also been questioned by Senator
Jeff Merkley from Oregon, who has pointed out many flaws with the new appointee's policies.
"If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security
Advisor," Merkley tweeted.
This is dangerous news for the country and the world. John Bolton was easily one of the
most extreme, pro-war members of the Bush Administration.
Imagine what havoc he could wreak whispering in Donald Trump's ear...I hear the drumbeats
of war. https://t.co/A6ZIyORAM7
Rep. Barbara Jean Lee of California's 13th congressional district was also disappointed by
Trump's choice, claiming she is hearing the "drumbeats of war."
The President is surrounding himself with combative lawyers. He's replacing Tillerson and
McMaster with Pompeo and Bolton.
It's almost like the President is preparing to go to war in the legal and foreign
relations sense...
Fears expressed by some Capitol Hill members and the public seem justified. The notoriously
hawkish former United Nations ambassador was a chief architect of the George W. Bush
administration's justification for the war in Iraq in 2003, that was based on false accusations
that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Trump's choice of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Mike Pompeo as the new
secretary of state also made many in Washington uneasy. Unlike his predecessor, Rex Tillerson,
Pompeo seems better aligned with Trump's confrontational foreign policy, namely on the Iran
nuclear deal, on North Korea, and on the shift of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Besides politicians, the American public also expressed concern about the feasibility of a
looming armed conflict.
John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has
supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as
UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor
now.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders called Bolton "absolutely the wrong person to be national
security advisor now," recalling how he deceived the public about the Iraq war.
"John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and
has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed
as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor
now," Sanders tweeted.
"John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his
National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-13) said
in a written statement. "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy
theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across
the world."
So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded
with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the
ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?
Guess we'll be out marching again, just like last time. Bolton's walrus mustache is the
21st century version of Adolph H's toothbrush mustache. Down with the Persian Untermenschen!
/sarc
Of course while working for Cheney Bolton was pretty confident about getting Dubya to
start a war with Iran and that didn't happen. Here's a backgrounder that suggests that Bolton
is tight with both Adelson and the Mossad so one way of looking at this has Russia fading as
a target and Iran falling under the bulls eye. Trump's recent friendly phone call with Putin
was contrary to instructions from his NSC and therefore presumably McMaster.
Looked at optimistically it could be out of the frying pan and into a smaller frying pan
(for us if not for Iran but that remains to be seen).
Of course looked at pessimistically it's terrible news but if the public and Congress are
afraid of Trump gratuitously starting a new war then perhaps they should take away his power
to do so. Seems the Constitution did have something to say about that.
Tol'ja so these miserable wretches simply cannot die resurrection a promise any time a
misfit administration takes power all that audition time on FoxNews paid off Trump stripping
the cable channels of right-wing bloviators "best people for the jawb", don't you know.
The worst thing about the appointment of anti-Iran hawk John Bolton is that the Clinton
wing of the Democratic Party 100% supports war with Iran. In fact Hillary was attacking Trump
from the war hawk right on this issue in 2016 (of course alienating key voters as she did
so). So, just like in 2002 with Iraq, the two-party mainstream and all the mainstream media
will be overwhelmed by pro-war voices, and the arguments in favor of peace and basic sanity
will be ostracized. Note in the RT piece below that the only Democrats expressing real,
concrete concern/revulsion are the usual, sheepdog leftie suspects.
'Trump lining up war cabinet'? Bolton's elevation to NSC adviser fuels alarm
@66 Say what you will about Bolton he is a shrewd political animal. Here it looks as though
he is trying to appear sane and reasonable....perhaps even likeable.
"... Kelly and, only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate. ..."
"... Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone, including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of agency. ..."
"... If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you loudly and clearly. ..."
"... Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there. ..."
"... global oligarchy live in harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse. ..."
"... Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy. ..."
...He is also an exceptionally avid bureaucrat who knows how
to get the things he wants done. That quality is what makes him truly dangerous. Bolton is
known for sweet-talking to his superiors, being ruthless against competitors and for kicking
down on everyone below him.
Soon Netanyahoo will have the cabinet in place in DC he always dreamed of. A hawkish Pompeo
at State, a
real torturer as head of the CIA and now Bolton are already sufficient to protect Israel's
further expansion. Kelly and,
only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last
people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will
be completely isolated and easy to manipulate.
Bolton has a hammer and he will find lots of nails. Like
Hillary Clinton he will want to fight with Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and others in no
particular order. He will want to destroy Syria. He is cozy with the Kurds and the
Iranian terror cult MEK. He addressed (vid) their congress eight years in a row
and made lots of money for saying things like this :
"[B]efore 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran."
Bolton has little concern for U.S. allies except, maybe, for Israel.
His first
priority will be to prevent the announced summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un. He will
want more sanctions on North Korea and may argue for a 'preventive' strike against it. He does
not care that such a strike will certainly kill tens of thousands of Koreans in the north and
south and several thousand U.S. soldiers and civilians.
New sanctions on North Korea are problematic as Trump has just
put additional tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods. (The Chinese
response is smart: Tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods from states that Trump won.) Why should
China and Russia (and South Korea) help the U.S. to strangulate North Korea when they
themselves are under fire? To prevent a U.S. strike that may come anyway the very next day?
The Europeans who were part of the nuclear agreement with Iran have to answer
a similar question . Why offer Trump a 'compromise' over the JCPOA when the chances are now
high that he will destroy it anyway?
What will Bolton do on Syria? Will he try to find a new agreement with Erdogan and drag
Turkey away from endorsing Russia's polices in Syria? If he manages to do so, Syria's north
will become a shared Turkish-U.S. entity and will be lost for a long time. New attacks on the
Syrian government, from the north, south and east, where the U.S. re-trains ISIS into a new
'moderate rebel' army, would then open the next phase of the war.
So far the mean time of survival for Trump appointees is some six to eight months. Let us
hope that John Bolton's appointment will - in the end - lower that average.
Posted by b on March 23, 2018 at 11:50 AM | Permalink
These appointments are weird. Ultimately Trump doesn't seem to have an appetite for
large-scale war. What does seem like a dangerous possibility is if Bolton can et al can
provoke a situation that traps Trump in his responses, maybe with a tight timeframe to
respond and leads to a conflict starting that way.
Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone,
including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for
a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of
agency.
Ultimately it doesn't seem like Trump's election has changed much in terms of foreign
policy among prospective successors. So it seems like eventually they will get their war with
Iran during Trump's term or afterwards. It's utterly incredible how implacable the neo-cons
are despite constant exposure over the last 15-20 years and with at least one President being
elected on the basis of disgust with them. (Obama, could maybe include Trump too)
Kim Jong-un has no good reason for a "summit" with Trump. Indeed, there is no reason for him
or his country to have anything to do with the USA or its catamites.
The best path for Korea is for North and South to plan reunification, as early as
possible. They might as well retain the North's nuclear weapons, just in case anyone cuts up
rough. If the Americans try to interfere, the nuclear weapons are there. Any American attempt
to escalate, right on China's and Russia's front door, would meet with an extremely frigid
response from them.
We must always remember that there was never any "North" or "South" Korea until President
Truman's bureaucrats conjured them up out of thin air - apparently with the aid of a school
atlas - to avoid the hideous tragedy of the whole of Korea "going communist". South Korea is
an occupied nation, and should take immediate steps to kick the American occupiers out. By
force if necessary.
Optimism on Bolton as relatively harmless in yesterday's thread is given an interesting
perspective by this piece (from today), adding to b's pessimism above:
It seems the apparently contradictory move by Trump to appoint Bolton after getting rid of
McMaster, who had a similar view to Bolton (North Korea had to be attacked because it is too
late for diplomacy, their rocket programs too advanced), could be part of a scheme for a "big
victory" effort by Trump who is, according to this view, amidst an artful deal-making moment
of allowing faux-optimism re South-North Korean negotiations.
Bolton calls this "diplomatic shock and awe":
Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to
strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for
months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement
about achieving the capability. Bolton envisioned the meeting between Trump and Kim as an
opportunity to deliver a threat of military action:
"I think this session between the two leaders could well be a fairly brief session
where Trump says, 'Tell me you have begun total denuclearization, because we're not going to
have protracted negotiations, you can tell me right now or we'll start thinking of something
else.' "
Trump, who only a few weeks back condemned (again) the Iraq War as disastrous, may be
thinking Bolton is just the man to nail down a quivering retreat of the North Koreans into
denuclearizing or else, now that they've had a nice taste of how sweet it could be in talking
with Moon and the South.
If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering
influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how
Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one
of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you
loudly and clearly.
This analysis also points out how disturbed Asia is over this appointment, and indicates
that despite his views McMaster had been working with South Korea on the problem, and now has
been jerked. This sounds like what happened in Iraq also, jerking out people who were
building relationships and replacing them with hardnose "bring 'em on" thinking from the
brilliant leadership in that war.
p has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so
much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark
Prince is already there.
Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much
anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince
is already there.
I understand that Syrian situation can drive people insane but unfortunately it was and is
interpreted wrongly as a preparation to nuke war, it is not. It is same old same old thing,
it is just more exposed by internet.
US military is in shambles what they showed in Iraq and Syria last year is all they got,
nothing more but a capability of a chicken hawk and D.C. is run by chicken hawks whose
business is intimidation not war about which they have no idea and they know that US military
can only take on shoeless peasants with dilapitated AK 47 and call it even like in
Afghanistan which was utter defeat no one even here want to talk about.
Like Roman Empire before US emporium is an empty shell, and its myth is maintained by US
INSTALLED ELITES to control their own populations.
Recent military posturing on all sides of a global country club dinner table is just
nothing but bail out of MIC and its wall street backers .
Open your even globalization has been accomplished and global oligarchy live in
harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated
at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse.
Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his
temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy.
Show must go on. 160 years after collapse of Roman Empire Roman circuses and theater
continued like Nothing happened.
"Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to
strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for
months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement
about achieving the capability."
--as, Bolton believes the North Koreans are playing around with negotiations only to delay
toward capability, that Trump knows this, and all of it's a game toward resurrection of the
hostilities.
This attitude suggests a foregone conclusion that the Trump-Kim meeting will fail, which
could set up the next step at (from Bolton): "You see, it's hopeless, we just have to attack
and take out this country, as we did with Iraq and are trying to do with Syria."
Israel has the Epstein tapes which show Trump having sex with underage girls, Saudi Arabia
has billions of dollars to bribe Trump with arms deals, both of these immoral nations want
Iran eliminated as an threat to their agendas. Israel and Saudi Arabia demand that Trump try
and neutralize Iran before Trump is removed from office which will happen before his first
term is up if this nation has any sense of self preservation. Trump is replacing those
opposed to a war against Iran with those who support it. Trump is seriously compromised by
foreign agendas.
1. Iran nuclear deal is dead, EU poodles will fall in line (but not entirely) with
sanctions against Iran. I'm curious how Iran will respond, IMHO will restart all centrifuges
and raise enrichment level? I still think its unlikely Iran would go for the nukes as
ultimate deterrent.
2. US will be more involved in Syria. We can most definitely expect more false flag CW
attacks and "retaliation" missiles. The big question mark if Russia will live up to its
promise to retaliate on launch sites or US planes.
3. There will be no overt war against Iran, Pompeo/Bolton or not, US simply cannot win it.
Covert - most definitely. More sabotage, assassinations, sanctions, etc.
It will be hard to do Libya 3.0 as well, but USrael might try anyway. Arm kurds and
baluchis radicals, activate MEK network, it wont be anywhere as bad as in Syria, but some
damage would be done. Thats the most what they can do.
Bolton is a fruitcake. Imo Trump only hired him to expose his nuttiness and fire him. When he
does, the World will breathe a sigh of relief and Trump's popularity will improve.
Bolton's Achilles Heel is that he doesn't do low-profile and talks too much.
@9 sid.. thanks.. i get that... i am more inclined to view bolton like @8 kalen.. it really
does seem that way to me and if so, suggests trump is still in control and happy to have
these bozos talk the talk, while knowing they are not able to walk the walk.. trump would
throw a real monkey wrench in the spanner if he was to engage in the talks and come away with
a positive resolution.. it would be a a nightmare for the military industrial complex and neo
cons.. i still think he is capable of this...
@11 harry.. i hope you are wrong, but it is completely conceivable and tends to be the
usa/israels pattern when confronted with a loss..
@ 12 When you're powerless, give the opposition what they want and hope they choke on it.
Trump is being underestimated. Dunford, Mattis, Pompeo and Kelly lined up
behind Trump against Tillerson and the White Helmets in Ghouta.
"Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate."
This is nonsense. And you know it B. But you still fancy your idea about a
non-interventionistic Trump, and now, by the time this belief is definitely shattered, you
try a reasoning dangerously near to 'wenn das der Führer wüsste'.
This discussion suggests why Mattis has been successful with a naïve blowhard
president, including the following interesting comment:
John Bolton's arrival in April as the president's new national security adviser will
give Mattis a more ardent and skillful adversary at the National Security Council. Mattis
outranked McMaster in military terms and always considered him his junior, even though Mattis
is retired. He likely won't view Bolton that way, and Bolton prizes his ability to corral the
bureaucracy for his purposes.
We're looking at an upcoming contest Mattis vs. Bolton on such matters as wars with Iran,
North Korea, and whoever.
Glad to see all the optimism here on how harmless Bolton is but would like a little more
substance versus the automatic dismissals.
I don't see the financial thread in all of this and I seriously believe that is #1 on Trumps
mind. He would love for his legacy to be the POTUS that turned around the global economic
collapse and opened the door big business everywhere.
That is his history wrt foreign relations and he could care less for the "blow shit up"
mentality. Not saying that he can't be talked into it, just saying he would prefer the
headline "Trump opens up the world for more US business". I honestly think that he believes
that a trade war (business by other means) leads to US becoming a Mfg powerhouse again. Those
around him might convince him that blowing shit up will have the same outcome.
Banking/finance learned a long time ago that you are better off keeping your customers
around to continue borrowing than imprisoning or kill them off. The world is a market place
and Trump wants to "make deals-not war" as long as America gets the better part of the
deal.
Only other thing that makes since is what CM @ 10 proposes, that Trump is compromised.
Kalen @8 you must have followed the Bolton divorce case.
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons it just needs a treaty with Russia and China. It might be
of assistance to the dimwitted in Washington if the treaty specifically stated that Iran is
under a nuclear umbrella.
We ought to acknowledge that, as the camarilla of generals surrounding Trump turns into a
junta of bullshitters and blowhards, the dictatorship in DC has never been anything more than
an alliance between billionaires, bullshitters and the American Gestapo.
@20 Trump may be all about deals but he's having a terrible effect on the stock markets. If a
trade war with China wasn't bad enough now they have Bolton to worry about.
What you mean about Bolt-man is he'll be safe in his office, while YOUR father, mother, son,
uncle, brother, sister or other family member dies for HIS idea of how the world should be.
"We will fight fight "till the last drop of.....your blood!" The "inside the Beltway"
gangsters sicken me.
@ 10 Charles,
In New-York Trump's been known as The FRONT GOY even before the Atlantic city heist. Without
Kompromat tapes they can bury him six million different ways before sunday...
A day before Bolton got the job, still a very interesting read as usual, up to the end,
because Nothing can go wrigth in DC those days, in fact nothing can be done.
The Trump meeting with KJU, if it comes off, will give an indication of where Trump is
headed. Much showtime shock and awe and hyperbole leading up to his suddenly agreeing to the
meeting which caught all the US political animals on both sides of the fence by surprise.
Haley constantly yapping like an annoying little dog has achieved what? Haley seems be just
another prop in the shock and awe show.
At the same time, Trump could miscalculate and stumble into major war, or he may be actually
planning a war. Always room for both pessimism and optimism with Trump, depending on the day.
I rather agree with Kalen. Trump is genuinely a blowhard - loud mouth and little action.
Bolton is an unpleasant warmonger, though he didn't get much through before. He was never
confirmed by the Senate as ambassador to the UN. Since then he's had various sidelined
positions as thinktank fellow.
My impression of Trump is that he is too lazy to get the US into a major war. A major war
would be a lot of work, and, whatever the advice from the help, I don't think he'd go for it.
Especially he wouldn't like months or years in a nuclear bunker. He couldn't dandle young
thighs at Mar-a-Lago. That would be a major argument.
An important issue with Trump is that he is unable to keep staff. He must be running out
of potential candidates. That's why Bolton.
re: "libertarian hawk" is an oxymoron . .Bolton is not a libertarian
Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political
philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. There are various
interpretations of what libertarianism means to various people, such as the freedom to do as
one pleases.
Bolton is a libertarian in a national sense. His liberty is national liberty. He is
anti-globalist and unilateralist, believing that the country's values should never be
superseded by international agreements and treaties. This thinking coincides with Trump's
position declared during the campaign. "We will no longer surrender this country or its
people to the false song of globalism," Trump said in his defining foreign policy speech as a
candidate in the spring of 2016. "The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness
and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America
down."
Following from this concept of national libertarianism, Bolton goes further to the ready and
unilateral use of armed force to advance foreign policy, without bilateral or multilateral
agreement. He's a hawk, but that's not unusual for Americans in government.
The planet isn't going to survive much longer with Americans and the Tribe infesting it.
Fumigation is in order. Pack the Americans and the antisemite semites into an ICBM and send
them flying into the heart of the sun. A solution as good as any other.
@ 27 and 20: thanks Charles re link to the Alastair Crooke article which reflects Jef's
earlier comment: that is, Trump would likely say: me for war? hell no I'm a peace lover but
I'll drive the good bargain including war threat as needed in my "art of making a deal"(hence
tools to this end such as Pompeo and Bolton). Crooke makes a good point that Tillerson was
too much a conventional diplomat; Trump likes tough, unpredictable guys like Mattis to model
himself after.
But all this is in the fundamentals of the same megalomaniacal type thinking that
drove/drives PNAC and smart-ass know-it-all-ism of the Iraq Invasion and continuation of this
mindset (see Bremer) after "mission accomplished."
This mind-set at base is the problem. I call it megalomania, others might call it hubris
on steroids, or daydreams of the psychopath. For me it's difficult to pull Trump out of this
mindset, because he's essentially the same. At the same time HIS version of it clashes with
State Department Egomania--possibly toward doing some good at times (as with changing the
course of US action in Syria last year; as with low-key response to the Skripal nonsense at
this time) but nonetheless presenting the possibility of a new set of tripwires a la invasion
of Iraq 2003, in terms of North Korea-Iraq.
It seems apparent at this time that Trump is clueless that for North Korea to denuclearize
that would mean a quid pro quo of US forces leaving South Korea--which will never be
acceptable to the neocons or Trump.
I wonder if there are people in the military thinking about resigning before WW3? There is
isn't even a believable narrative put forward in bombing Damascus nor Tehran except for
murder, destruction and conquest, there is literally zero self defensive aspect. I wonder how
special forces troops in Syria who are about to attack the Syrian army and Syrian people on
the side if HTS, Al Qaeda, IS, Nouri al Zinki, FSA feel about their mission; many must know
they are basically committing treason.
Bolton may or may not be a blowhard but the malignant idiocy that billows forth from his
mouth is frightening in its combination of willful ignorance and unrestrained rage. He is the
new National Insecurity Advisor--that would be his more accurate title.
From Off Guardian:
"...as of today, it appears that long battle for Jobar and its neighboring suburbs is finally
over after an agreement was put in place with the primary militant groups there.
"According to a military report from Damascus, the Syrian Army and Faylaq Al-Rahman have
agreed to peace terms in four East Ghouta suburbs, with the latter agreeing to leave to
Idlib.
"Based on the agreement, Faylaq Al-Rahman will surrender all of their weapons, except for
their small arms; they will release all Syrian Army prisoners from their jails; they will
inform the government of all explosives they placed around the suburbs of Zamalka, Jobar,
'Ayn Tarma, and Arbin; and agree to exit these suburbs on Saturday.
"The militants are now scheduled to leave these four East Ghouta suburbs by noon
tomorrow..."
It is evident that US policy in Syria is failing. The original plan was to divide Syria into
weak independent cantons, much as the French wanted in the 1920s. The French didn't succeed.
It would be surprising of the US did.
The only parts which remain, are the jihadis in Idlib, and the Kurds in Jazira. Two
elements which are opposed to one another.
Supposing that the US wants to revive the war in Syria, as the Neocons do, what are they
going to do? Decapitation of the regime in Damascus was a way of getting the Jihadis into
power (you have to wonder about US support for jihadis). Unfortunately, the Russians put
troops into Damascus a few weeks ago to prevent that. Otherwise it's a bit of a nothing. The
Kurds can stay in Jazira, Nobody's going to stop them.
Great analysis - as usual. The thing missing is that this guy is a rabid zionist and the
White House is now a governorate of the AN orthodox American province of Israel.
One of the most discouraging aspects of the musical chairs being played among the members of
the White House inner circle is that every change reflects an inexorable move to the right in
foreign policy, which means that the interventionists are back without anyone at the White
House level remaining to say "no." President Donald Trump, for all his international experience
as a businessman, is a novice at the step-by-step process required in diplomacy and in the
development of a coherent foreign policy, so he is inevitably being directed by individuals who
have long American global leadership by force if necessary.
The resurgence of the hawks is facilitated by Donald Trump's own inclinations. He likes to
see himself as a man of action and a leader, which inclines him to be impulsive, some might
even say reckless. He is convinced that he can enter into negotiations with North Korean leader
Kim Jong-un with virtually no preparations and make a deal that will somehow end the crisis
over that nation's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, for example. In so doing, he
is being encouraged by his National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and his Pentagon chief James
Mattis, who believe that the United States can somehow prevail in a preemptive war with the
Koreans if that should become necessary. The enormous collateral damage to South Korea and even
Japan is something that Washington planners somehow seem to miss in their calculations.
The recent shifts in the cabinet have Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. A leading hawk, he
was first in his class of 1986 at the United States Military Academy but found himself as a
junior officer with no real war to fight. He spent six years in uniform before resigning, never
having seen combat, making war an abstraction for him. He went to Harvard Law and then into
politics where he became a Tea Party congressman, eventually becoming a leader of that caucus
when it stopped being Libertarian and lurched rightwards. He has since marketed himself as a
fearless soldier in the war against terrorism and rogue states, in which category he includes
both Iran and Russia.
Pompeo was not popular at the CIA because he enforced a uniformity of thinking that was
anathema for intelligence professionals dedicated to collecting solid information and using it
to produce sound analysis of developments worldwide. Pompeo, an ardent supporter of Israel and
one of the government's leading Iran haters, has been regularly threatening Iran while at the
Agency and will no doubt find plenty of support at State from Assistant Secretary of State for
the Near East David Satterfield, a former
top adviser of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Pompeo has proven himself more than willing to manipulate intelligence produce the result he
desires. Last year, he declassified and then cherry picked
documents recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan that suggested that
al-Qaeda had ties with Iran. The move was coordinated with simultaneous White House steps to
prepare Congress and the public for a withdrawal from the Iran nuclear arms agreement. The
documents were initially released to a journal produced by the neocon Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, where Pompeo has a number of times spoken, to guarantee wide exposure in all the
right places.
Pompeo's arrival might only be the first of several other high-level moves by the White
House. Like the rumors that preceded the firing of Secretary of State Tillerson two weeks ago,
there have been recurrent suggestions that McMaster will be the next to go as he reportedly is
too moderate for the president and has also been accused of being
anti-Israeli , the kiss of death in Washington. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has been
a frequent visitor at the White House and it is believed that he is the preferred candidate to
fill the position. He is an extreme hawk, closely tied to the Israel Lobby, who would push hard
for war against Iran and also for a hardline position in Syria, one that could lead to direct
confrontation with the Syrian Armed Forces and possibly the Russians.
Bolton, who
has been described by a former George W. Bush official as "the most dangerous man we had
during the entire eight years," will undoubtedly have a problem in getting confirmed by
Congress. He was rejected as U.N. Ambassador, requiring Bush to make a recess appointment which did not need
Congressional approval.
"... President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. ..."
"... Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional . ..."
John Bolton has been one of liberals' top bogeymen on national security for more than a decade now. He seems to relish the
role, going out of his way to argue that the Iraq War wasn't really a failure, calling for U.S.-led regime change in Iran and
preventive war against North Korea, and writing the foreword for a
book
that proclaimed President Obama to be a secret Muslim. He is a profoundly partisan creature, having started a
super-PAC whose largest donor was leading Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer and whose provider of analytics was Cambridge
Analytica, the firm alleged to have improperly used Facebook data to make voter profiles, which it sold to the Trump and
Brexit campaigns, among others.
Recently Bolton's statements have grown more extreme, alarming centrist and conservative national security professionals along
with his longtime liberal foes. He seemed to
say
that the United States could attack North Korea without the agreement of our South Korean allies, who would face the
highest risk of retaliation and casualties; just two months ago he
called for
a regime change effort in Iran that would allow the U.S. to open a new embassy there by 2019, the 40th
anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage in Tehran. His
hostility toward Islam
points toward a set of extreme policies that could easily have the effect of abridging American
Muslims' rights at home and alienating America's Muslim allies abroad.
As worrying as these policies are, it's worth taking a step back and thinking not about Bolton, but about his new boss, Donald
Trump. Trump reportedly considered Bolton for a Cabinet post early on, but then
soured
on him, finding his mustache unprofessional. His choice of Bolton to lead the National Security Council reinforces
several trends: right now, this administration is all about making Trump's opponents uncomfortable and angry. Internal
coherence and policy effectiveness are not a primary or even secondary consideration. And anyone would be a fool to imagine
that, because Bolton pleases Trump today, he will continue to do so tomorrow.
Yes, Bolton has taken strong stances against the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin (though he has also been
quoted
praising Russian "democracy" as recently as 2013). That's nothing new: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, incoming
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have called for greater pushback on
Russia as well. But there's every reason to think that, rather than a well-oiled war machine, what we'll get from Bolton's
National Security Council is scheming and discord – which could be even more dangerous.
President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely
to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package.
Their disagreements are real – Bolton has
famously pooh-poohed the kind of summit diplomacy with North Korea that Trump is now committed to. While Trump famously backed
away from his support for the 2002 invasion of Iraq, courting the GOP isolationist base, Bolton continues to argue that the
invasion worked, and seldom hears of a war he would not participate in. Trump
attempted
to block transgender people from serving in the military, but Bolton has declined to take part in the right's
LGBT-bashing, famously hiring gay staff and
calling for
the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
That's all substance. What really seems likely to take Bolton down is his style, which is legendary – and not in a good way.
His colleagues from the George W. Bush administration responded to Trump's
announcement
with
comments like
"the obvious question is whether John Bolton has the temperament and the judgment for the job" – not exactly
a ringing endorsement. One former co-worker
described
Bolton as a "kiss up, kick down kind of guy," and he was notorious in past administrations for conniving and
sneaking around officials who disagreed with him, both traits that Trump seems likely to enjoy until he doesn't. This is a
man who can't refrain from
telling Tucker Carlson
that his analysis is "simpleminded" – while he's a guest on Carlson's show. Turns out it's not true
that he threw a stapler at a contractor – it was a
tape dispenser.
When Bolton was caught attempting to cook intelligence to suggest that Cuba had a biological weapons
program, he bullied the analyst who had dared push back, calling him a "
midlevel
munchkin
." How long until Trump tires of the drama – or of being eclipsed?
Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be
the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and
the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with
Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being
too emotional
.
Love Bolton or hate him, no one imagines he will be a self-effacing figure, and no one hires him to run a no-drama process.
It's also hard to imagine that many of the high-quality professionals McMaster brought into the National Security Council
staff will choose to stay. McMaster repeatedly had to fight for his team within the Trump administration, but Bolton seems
unlikely to follow that pattern, or to inspire the kind of loyalty that drew well-regarded policy wonks to work for McMaster,
regardless their views of Trump.
So even if you like the policies Bolton espouses, it's hard to imagine a smooth process implementing them. That seems likely
to leave us with Muslim ban-level incompetence, extreme bellicosity, and several very loud, competing voices – with
Twitter feeds
– on the most sensitive issues of war and weapons of mass destruction.
What is interesting that as there are 3.4K dislikes and only 1.2K likes. Looks like people start to decipher the NBC propaganda
machine and neoliberal propaganda machine in general (NBC is not an outlier in this respect; this is run of mill neoliberal outlet)
Looks like Putin really has steel nerves. Megyn Kelly was really disgusting pushing her talking points like there is
not tomorrow. Such a shill... . She also was organically able to listen. she has her prejudices can't shake them and actually does
not want to shake them (may be this is connected with her job security ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Confronting? The job of a real journalist is to ask questions, not to confront. Want to see the actual interview go watch Russian Insider is there in its totality. ..."
"... the moment i heard "American Democracy Under Attack" i stopped watching the video. ..."
"... Wtf NBC, this is ridiculously badly edited to fit an agenda. This is not journalism. ..."
"... It's not a debate if she keeps interrupting him, very disappointed in the way NBC took this golden opportunity to have a proper conversation with one of the super powers of the world and wasted it in "I tell you, you did this" and childish reaction from Megyn part. ..."
"... I am American and I am fully of aware how evil and deceptive this country is. I understand Putin is trying to do the right thing. But it seems as if almost 90-95% of people in this country still don't get it. ..."
"... How many governments in the world have been overthrown by the American CIA? How often does evil USA interfere in other states' elections? The USA government is pure evil. ..."
"... "American democracy, under attack".... by putting $46,000 worth of ads on Facebook, most of which were posted AFTER the election. Come on people, don't be foolish. ..."
"... "You believe that America meddled in your elections?" No Megyn Kelly, that's a historical fact, look up the "Harvard Boys" sponsored by USAID, look at the cover of the July 15, 1996 issue of Time Magazine entitled "Yanks to the Rescue", celebrating America's role in hijacking the Russian political system. ..."
Confronting? The job of a real journalist is to ask questions, not to confront. Want to see the actual interview go watch Russian
Insider is there in its totality.
Mr. Putin, did you intervene in the US elections? No But did you intervene? No And when you intervened, did you intervene?
No Have you intervened with the oligarchs? No Did you help them intervene? No And in the US say you intervened you did it? No
But you did not interfere, huh? Yes Interfered? No
Where is the full interview? I had to go to a Russian government TV channel so I can watch the full interview. And you label
the Russian media as state propaganda. Shame on you.
"Cut and paste" the interview with an agenda of bashing Russia, using "some people say" or "some American experts say" as the
sources without any solid proof and evidence is shameful.
Please, please, please, any US citizen who is watching this, go watch the full interview, just in order to get an idea of what your
media is worth. Listen to the words, also pay attention to how it is filmed and
presented.You really need to know how much you are bullshitted to.
When he talked about principles, why didn't she believe? Please, know that there are many people in the world with principles,
who are not necessarily running and dying for capitalist money, brands, silly talentless pointless half-naked pop-stars, yachts
or florida-like beaches, etc. There are many people who are fine to live without all these but with principles and other values
, which are not that bad even they don't run around money!
Her first and fatal mistake was underestimating his intelligence, thinking she could trip him up with her aggressive tone.
Putin has forgotten more about politics than Kelly has yet to learn. It's easy to see why NBC hacked the interview to pieces -
she was pathetic and out of her league, just another brainwashed, deluded American shill.
Wtf NBC, this is ridiculously badly edited to fit an agenda. This is not journalism. I wasn't a fan of Russia before this,
but you might be changing my mind by showing this edited crap. You're making things between the US and Russia worse not better
by showing this edited crap.
Wow, i am a Russian and i have to say you guys went too far with your propaganda. This is cut and edited beyond reason. Why
you do this? Stop making our president look like the ultimate villain. Honestly, it was such a pleasure to listen to Vladimir
Putin's reasonable approach. WTF NBC?
It's not a debate if she keeps interrupting him, very disappointed in the way NBC took this golden opportunity to have a proper
conversation with one of the super powers of the world and wasted it in "I tell you, you did this" and childish reaction from
Megyn part.
In America, Our political & Media Elite managed to collude Our foreign policy with Democracy promotion.We use Democracy promotion
to achieved our foreign policy agenda.. In Libya we Used democracy promotion to achieve our foreign policy goal of getting ride
of Gadhafi, following the fall of Gadhafi we abandon Libya on moved on to OUR NEXT TARGET, SYRIA.... IN SYRIA, we formed an alliance
with non Democratic ARAB REGIMES to Overthrow A Circular government of ASSAD. when RUSSIA & IRAN INTERVEIN @ THE REQUEST OF THE
SYRIAN GOVERNMENT, we have an issue with that.. OUR FOREIGN POLICY is INCONSISTENT AND UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL INTEREST/Democracy.
& Corporate Media is a SCAM... HAD WE HAD alternative NEWS SOURCE LIKE(social media) WE DO TODAY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE INVADED IRAQ
ON FAKE EVIDENCE /INTELLIGENCE God Bless America
NBC is the reason why the US and Russia will never be allies. They seem to want war. Putin is probably laughing at the hysteria
of the US media. Make no mistake, the MEDIA is getting in the way of peace with Russia. Putin is no saint, but keep in mind they
have more nuclear weapons than us. Wouldn't hurt to mend the relationship...
This is American propaganda in its purest most undiluted form. The interpreter is putting words into Putin's mouth making him
sound arrogant and brash. Its is Megyn Kelly who is the arrogant one just like the rest of the American mainstream media. I admire
Putin for his patience, one must have the mental stability of a yogi to tolerate the half literate moronic deluge that radiates
from Megyn's mouth. She was going too far, by interrupting Putin at every turn while Putin still has the decency to politely respond.
If she is so democratic, I would advise her to pay a visit to her government's Saudi "allies.
Putin is too smart for Megyn. Do you really think he's gonna tell you what you think when an American journalist asks you such
questions? I don't like Putin either but he's got balls. I bet he knows English too but he knows that speaking a foreign language
will put him at an disadvantage. Smart move by hiring an interpreter. By the way the US government throughout has done things
far worse than rigging election.
This isnt an interview more less the ' pressing' of 'false allegations & speculation'. Every response Putin gives is reasonable.
Putin didnt have to agree with doing this. She sounds like a failed lawyer & wanna be politician. America is not Perfect, Russia
is not perfect, I wish she would sit down with people in her own country & do the same but she doesnt. She acts as if she is asking
these questions on behalf of Americans when really it is based on 'her' own views and for the sake of 'her' interview. This interview
is flawed.
Don't spread lies NBC news. People should not believe this fake news! Glad to see there's more dislikes than likes, people
are starting to know the truth.
How disingenuous can NBC get? Actual quote from the interview: "Maybe, although they were Russian, they work for some American
company. Maybe one of them worked with one of the candidates. I have no idea about this. These are not my problems" And in the
headlines: "Putin on alleged US election interference: I don't care".
American Democracy is run by plutocrats Itching for war against Russia and China and Iran.. USA is a warmonger doing the bidding
for Israel.. As if Russia had Trump elected.. What a joke.. American mainstream media is trying to manufacture consent from its people
to go to war.. Watch and see..
United state have been interfering in African election forcing us to there evil democracy, killing Gaddafi for no reason. Look
at what you guys did in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries that don't want to do your evil democracy. After lying to the shameless
United nations security council about Saddam's building of weapons of mass destruction, Who fight you about that?.
This is quite possibly the WORST interview ever conducted. This one is NOT a journalist. If you want to be a respectable broadcaster,
fire this moron immediately. Horrendously non-factual, terribly edited - this interview is America in a nutshell. The world has
awoken in this age and won't stand still.
Remember that United States interferes in the affairs of other nations ALL THE TIME. The U.S. attempted to influence the elections
of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000. Since 2000, the U.S. has attempted to sway elections in Ukraine,
Kenya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan.
I am American and I am fully of aware how evil and deceptive this country is. I understand Putin is trying to do the right
thing. But it seems as if almost 90-95% of people in this country still don't get it. They actually are repulsed and
angry by the idea that we could be the bad guys. It has turned my family and friends against me. I am all alone...
Megyn Kelly? Pressure Putin? Should I cry or laugh! It's like watching Ahmedinajad destroying King! Even your questions has
no concrete clue to any Russian government connection! None!!!!! Are you really a journalist? Guys seriously if you wanna do tv
then do it right! You can't pressure Putin by saying they are Russians if you don't have any any any any clues on government connection!
You should really consider your questions next time!
There's no "Russian Connection". This is a lie. This whole "Russian interference in US elections" is a political sham invented
by the corrupt American system infiltrated by Zionists and Anti-Christian lobbyists.
Poor work by the journalist. She is supposed to have a dialogue, she is supposed to listen to the interviewee. Instead, it
was just a bunch of questions and it looked quite awkward.
How many governments in the world have been overthrown by the American CIA? How often does evil USA interfere in other states'
elections? The USA government is pure evil.
"American democracy, under attack".... by putting $46,000 worth of ads on Facebook, most of which were posted AFTER the election.
Come on people, don't be foolish.
"You believe that America meddled in your elections?" No Megyn Kelly, that's a historical fact, look up the "Harvard Boys"
sponsored by USAID, look at the cover of the July 15, 1996 issue of Time Magazine entitled "Yanks to the Rescue", celebrating
America's role in hijacking the Russian political system.
"... Kelly and, only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate. ..."
"... Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone, including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of agency. ..."
"... If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you loudly and clearly. ..."
"... Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there. ..."
"... global oligarchy live in harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse. ..."
"... Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy. ..."
...He is also an exceptionally avid bureaucrat who knows how
to get the things he wants done. That quality is what makes him truly dangerous. Bolton is
known for sweet-talking to his superiors, being ruthless against competitors and for kicking
down on everyone below him.
Soon Netanyahoo will have the cabinet in place in DC he always dreamed of. A hawkish Pompeo
at State, a
real torturer as head of the CIA and now Bolton are already sufficient to protect Israel's
further expansion. Kelly and,
only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last
people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will
be completely isolated and easy to manipulate.
Bolton has a hammer and he will find lots of nails. Like
Hillary Clinton he will want to fight with Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and others in no
particular order. He will want to destroy Syria. He is cozy with the Kurds and the
Iranian terror cult MEK. He addressed (vid) their congress eight years in a row
and made lots of money for saying things like this :
"[B]efore 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran."
Bolton has little concern for U.S. allies except, maybe, for Israel.
His first
priority will be to prevent the announced summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un. He will
want more sanctions on North Korea and may argue for a 'preventive' strike against it. He does
not care that such a strike will certainly kill tens of thousands of Koreans in the north and
south and several thousand U.S. soldiers and civilians.
New sanctions on North Korea are problematic as Trump has just
put additional tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods. (The Chinese
response is smart: Tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods from states that Trump won.) Why should
China and Russia (and South Korea) help the U.S. to strangulate North Korea when they
themselves are under fire? To prevent a U.S. strike that may come anyway the very next day?
The Europeans who were part of the nuclear agreement with Iran have to answer
a similar question . Why offer Trump a 'compromise' over the JCPOA when the chances are now
high that he will destroy it anyway?
What will Bolton do on Syria? Will he try to find a new agreement with Erdogan and drag
Turkey away from endorsing Russia's polices in Syria? If he manages to do so, Syria's north
will become a shared Turkish-U.S. entity and will be lost for a long time. New attacks on the
Syrian government, from the north, south and east, where the U.S. re-trains ISIS into a new
'moderate rebel' army, would then open the next phase of the war.
So far the mean time of survival for Trump appointees is some six to eight months. Let us
hope that John Bolton's appointment will - in the end - lower that average.
Posted by b on March 23, 2018 at 11:50 AM | Permalink
These appointments are weird. Ultimately Trump doesn't seem to have an appetite for
large-scale war. What does seem like a dangerous possibility is if Bolton can et al can
provoke a situation that traps Trump in his responses, maybe with a tight timeframe to
respond and leads to a conflict starting that way.
Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone,
including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for
a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of
agency.
Ultimately it doesn't seem like Trump's election has changed much in terms of foreign
policy among prospective successors. So it seems like eventually they will get their war with
Iran during Trump's term or afterwards. It's utterly incredible how implacable the neo-cons
are despite constant exposure over the last 15-20 years and with at least one President being
elected on the basis of disgust with them. (Obama, could maybe include Trump too)
Kim Jong-un has no good reason for a "summit" with Trump. Indeed, there is no reason for him
or his country to have anything to do with the USA or its catamites.
The best path for Korea is for North and South to plan reunification, as early as
possible. They might as well retain the North's nuclear weapons, just in case anyone cuts up
rough. If the Americans try to interfere, the nuclear weapons are there. Any American attempt
to escalate, right on China's and Russia's front door, would meet with an extremely frigid
response from them.
We must always remember that there was never any "North" or "South" Korea until President
Truman's bureaucrats conjured them up out of thin air - apparently with the aid of a school
atlas - to avoid the hideous tragedy of the whole of Korea "going communist". South Korea is
an occupied nation, and should take immediate steps to kick the American occupiers out. By
force if necessary.
Optimism on Bolton as relatively harmless in yesterday's thread is given an interesting
perspective by this piece (from today), adding to b's pessimism above:
It seems the apparently contradictory move by Trump to appoint Bolton after getting rid of
McMaster, who had a similar view to Bolton (North Korea had to be attacked because it is too
late for diplomacy, their rocket programs too advanced), could be part of a scheme for a "big
victory" effort by Trump who is, according to this view, amidst an artful deal-making moment
of allowing faux-optimism re South-North Korean negotiations.
Bolton calls this "diplomatic shock and awe":
Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to
strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for
months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement
about achieving the capability. Bolton envisioned the meeting between Trump and Kim as an
opportunity to deliver a threat of military action:
"I think this session between the two leaders could well be a fairly brief session
where Trump says, 'Tell me you have begun total denuclearization, because we're not going to
have protracted negotiations, you can tell me right now or we'll start thinking of something
else.' "
Trump, who only a few weeks back condemned (again) the Iraq War as disastrous, may be
thinking Bolton is just the man to nail down a quivering retreat of the North Koreans into
denuclearizing or else, now that they've had a nice taste of how sweet it could be in talking
with Moon and the South.
If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering
influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how
Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one
of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you
loudly and clearly.
This analysis also points out how disturbed Asia is over this appointment, and indicates
that despite his views McMaster had been working with South Korea on the problem, and now has
been jerked. This sounds like what happened in Iraq also, jerking out people who were
building relationships and replacing them with hardnose "bring 'em on" thinking from the
brilliant leadership in that war.
p has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so
much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark
Prince is already there.
Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much
anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince
is already there.
I understand that Syrian situation can drive people insane but unfortunately it was and is
interpreted wrongly as a preparation to nuke war, it is not. It is same old same old thing,
it is just more exposed by internet.
US military is in shambles what they showed in Iraq and Syria last year is all they got,
nothing more but a capability of a chicken hawk and D.C. is run by chicken hawks whose
business is intimidation not war about which they have no idea and they know that US military
can only take on shoeless peasants with dilapitated AK 47 and call it even like in
Afghanistan which was utter defeat no one even here want to talk about.
Like Roman Empire before US emporium is an empty shell, and its myth is maintained by US
INSTALLED ELITES to control their own populations.
Recent military posturing on all sides of a global country club dinner table is just
nothing but bail out of MIC and its wall street backers .
Open your even globalization has been accomplished and global oligarchy live in
harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated
at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse.
Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his
temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy.
Show must go on. 160 years after collapse of Roman Empire Roman circuses and theater
continued like Nothing happened.
"Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to
strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for
months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement
about achieving the capability."
--as, Bolton believes the North Koreans are playing around with negotiations only to delay
toward capability, that Trump knows this, and all of it's a game toward resurrection of the
hostilities.
This attitude suggests a foregone conclusion that the Trump-Kim meeting will fail, which
could set up the next step at (from Bolton): "You see, it's hopeless, we just have to attack
and take out this country, as we did with Iraq and are trying to do with Syria."
Israel has the Epstein tapes which show Trump having sex with underage girls, Saudi Arabia
has billions of dollars to bribe Trump with arms deals, both of these immoral nations want
Iran eliminated as an threat to their agendas. Israel and Saudi Arabia demand that Trump try
and neutralize Iran before Trump is removed from office which will happen before his first
term is up if this nation has any sense of self preservation. Trump is replacing those
opposed to a war against Iran with those who support it. Trump is seriously compromised by
foreign agendas.
1. Iran nuclear deal is dead, EU poodles will fall in line (but not entirely) with
sanctions against Iran. I'm curious how Iran will respond, IMHO will restart all centrifuges
and raise enrichment level? I still think its unlikely Iran would go for the nukes as
ultimate deterrent.
2. US will be more involved in Syria. We can most definitely expect more false flag CW
attacks and "retaliation" missiles. The big question mark if Russia will live up to its
promise to retaliate on launch sites or US planes.
3. There will be no overt war against Iran, Pompeo/Bolton or not, US simply cannot win it.
Covert - most definitely. More sabotage, assassinations, sanctions, etc.
It will be hard to do Libya 3.0 as well, but USrael might try anyway. Arm kurds and
baluchis radicals, activate MEK network, it wont be anywhere as bad as in Syria, but some
damage would be done. Thats the most what they can do.
Bolton is a fruitcake. Imo Trump only hired him to expose his nuttiness and fire him. When he
does, the World will breathe a sigh of relief and Trump's popularity will improve.
Bolton's Achilles Heel is that he doesn't do low-profile and talks too much.
@9 sid.. thanks.. i get that... i am more inclined to view bolton like @8 kalen.. it really
does seem that way to me and if so, suggests trump is still in control and happy to have
these bozos talk the talk, while knowing they are not able to walk the walk.. trump would
throw a real monkey wrench in the spanner if he was to engage in the talks and come away with
a positive resolution.. it would be a a nightmare for the military industrial complex and neo
cons.. i still think he is capable of this...
@11 harry.. i hope you are wrong, but it is completely conceivable and tends to be the
usa/israels pattern when confronted with a loss..
@ 12 When you're powerless, give the opposition what they want and hope they choke on it.
Trump is being underestimated. Dunford, Mattis, Pompeo and Kelly lined up
behind Trump against Tillerson and the White Helmets in Ghouta.
"Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate."
This is nonsense. And you know it B. But you still fancy your idea about a
non-interventionistic Trump, and now, by the time this belief is definitely shattered, you
try a reasoning dangerously near to 'wenn das der Führer wüsste'.
This discussion suggests why Mattis has been successful with a naïve blowhard
president, including the following interesting comment:
John Bolton's arrival in April as the president's new national security adviser will
give Mattis a more ardent and skillful adversary at the National Security Council. Mattis
outranked McMaster in military terms and always considered him his junior, even though Mattis
is retired. He likely won't view Bolton that way, and Bolton prizes his ability to corral the
bureaucracy for his purposes.
We're looking at an upcoming contest Mattis vs. Bolton on such matters as wars with Iran,
North Korea, and whoever.
Glad to see all the optimism here on how harmless Bolton is but would like a little more
substance versus the automatic dismissals.
I don't see the financial thread in all of this and I seriously believe that is #1 on Trumps
mind. He would love for his legacy to be the POTUS that turned around the global economic
collapse and opened the door big business everywhere.
That is his history wrt foreign relations and he could care less for the "blow shit up"
mentality. Not saying that he can't be talked into it, just saying he would prefer the
headline "Trump opens up the world for more US business". I honestly think that he believes
that a trade war (business by other means) leads to US becoming a Mfg powerhouse again. Those
around him might convince him that blowing shit up will have the same outcome.
Banking/finance learned a long time ago that you are better off keeping your customers
around to continue borrowing than imprisoning or kill them off. The world is a market place
and Trump wants to "make deals-not war" as long as America gets the better part of the
deal.
Only other thing that makes since is what CM @ 10 proposes, that Trump is compromised.
Kalen @8 you must have followed the Bolton divorce case.
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons it just needs a treaty with Russia and China. It might be
of assistance to the dimwitted in Washington if the treaty specifically stated that Iran is
under a nuclear umbrella.
We ought to acknowledge that, as the camarilla of generals surrounding Trump turns into a
junta of bullshitters and blowhards, the dictatorship in DC has never been anything more than
an alliance between billionaires, bullshitters and the American Gestapo.
@20 Trump may be all about deals but he's having a terrible effect on the stock markets. If a
trade war with China wasn't bad enough now they have Bolton to worry about.
What you mean about Bolt-man is he'll be safe in his office, while YOUR father, mother, son,
uncle, brother, sister or other family member dies for HIS idea of how the world should be.
"We will fight fight "till the last drop of.....your blood!" The "inside the Beltway"
gangsters sicken me.
@ 10 Charles,
In New-York Trump's been known as The FRONT GOY even before the Atlantic city heist. Without
Kompromat tapes they can bury him six million different ways before sunday...
A day before Bolton got the job, still a very interesting read as usual, up to the end,
because Nothing can go wrigth in DC those days, in fact nothing can be done.
The Trump meeting with KJU, if it comes off, will give an indication of where Trump is
headed. Much showtime shock and awe and hyperbole leading up to his suddenly agreeing to the
meeting which caught all the US political animals on both sides of the fence by surprise.
Haley constantly yapping like an annoying little dog has achieved what? Haley seems be just
another prop in the shock and awe show.
At the same time, Trump could miscalculate and stumble into major war, or he may be actually
planning a war. Always room for both pessimism and optimism with Trump, depending on the day.
I rather agree with Kalen. Trump is genuinely a blowhard - loud mouth and little action.
Bolton is an unpleasant warmonger, though he didn't get much through before. He was never
confirmed by the Senate as ambassador to the UN. Since then he's had various sidelined
positions as thinktank fellow.
My impression of Trump is that he is too lazy to get the US into a major war. A major war
would be a lot of work, and, whatever the advice from the help, I don't think he'd go for it.
Especially he wouldn't like months or years in a nuclear bunker. He couldn't dandle young
thighs at Mar-a-Lago. That would be a major argument.
An important issue with Trump is that he is unable to keep staff. He must be running out
of potential candidates. That's why Bolton.
re: "libertarian hawk" is an oxymoron . .Bolton is not a libertarian
Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political
philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. There are various
interpretations of what libertarianism means to various people, such as the freedom to do as
one pleases.
Bolton is a libertarian in a national sense. His liberty is national liberty. He is
anti-globalist and unilateralist, believing that the country's values should never be
superseded by international agreements and treaties. This thinking coincides with Trump's
position declared during the campaign. "We will no longer surrender this country or its
people to the false song of globalism," Trump said in his defining foreign policy speech as a
candidate in the spring of 2016. "The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness
and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America
down."
Following from this concept of national libertarianism, Bolton goes further to the ready and
unilateral use of armed force to advance foreign policy, without bilateral or multilateral
agreement. He's a hawk, but that's not unusual for Americans in government.
The planet isn't going to survive much longer with Americans and the Tribe infesting it.
Fumigation is in order. Pack the Americans and the antisemite semites into an ICBM and send
them flying into the heart of the sun. A solution as good as any other.
@ 27 and 20: thanks Charles re link to the Alastair Crooke article which reflects Jef's
earlier comment: that is, Trump would likely say: me for war? hell no I'm a peace lover but
I'll drive the good bargain including war threat as needed in my "art of making a deal"(hence
tools to this end such as Pompeo and Bolton). Crooke makes a good point that Tillerson was
too much a conventional diplomat; Trump likes tough, unpredictable guys like Mattis to model
himself after.
But all this is in the fundamentals of the same megalomaniacal type thinking that
drove/drives PNAC and smart-ass know-it-all-ism of the Iraq Invasion and continuation of this
mindset (see Bremer) after "mission accomplished."
This mind-set at base is the problem. I call it megalomania, others might call it hubris
on steroids, or daydreams of the psychopath. For me it's difficult to pull Trump out of this
mindset, because he's essentially the same. At the same time HIS version of it clashes with
State Department Egomania--possibly toward doing some good at times (as with changing the
course of US action in Syria last year; as with low-key response to the Skripal nonsense at
this time) but nonetheless presenting the possibility of a new set of tripwires a la invasion
of Iraq 2003, in terms of North Korea-Iraq.
It seems apparent at this time that Trump is clueless that for North Korea to denuclearize
that would mean a quid pro quo of US forces leaving South Korea--which will never be
acceptable to the neocons or Trump.
I wonder if there are people in the military thinking about resigning before WW3? There is
isn't even a believable narrative put forward in bombing Damascus nor Tehran except for
murder, destruction and conquest, there is literally zero self defensive aspect. I wonder how
special forces troops in Syria who are about to attack the Syrian army and Syrian people on
the side if HTS, Al Qaeda, IS, Nouri al Zinki, FSA feel about their mission; many must know
they are basically committing treason.
Bolton may or may not be a blowhard but the malignant idiocy that billows forth from his
mouth is frightening in its combination of willful ignorance and unrestrained rage. He is the
new National Insecurity Advisor--that would be his more accurate title.
From Off Guardian:
"...as of today, it appears that long battle for Jobar and its neighboring suburbs is finally
over after an agreement was put in place with the primary militant groups there.
"According to a military report from Damascus, the Syrian Army and Faylaq Al-Rahman have
agreed to peace terms in four East Ghouta suburbs, with the latter agreeing to leave to
Idlib.
"Based on the agreement, Faylaq Al-Rahman will surrender all of their weapons, except for
their small arms; they will release all Syrian Army prisoners from their jails; they will
inform the government of all explosives they placed around the suburbs of Zamalka, Jobar,
'Ayn Tarma, and Arbin; and agree to exit these suburbs on Saturday.
"The militants are now scheduled to leave these four East Ghouta suburbs by noon
tomorrow..."
It is evident that US policy in Syria is failing. The original plan was to divide Syria into
weak independent cantons, much as the French wanted in the 1920s. The French didn't succeed.
It would be surprising of the US did.
The only parts which remain, are the jihadis in Idlib, and the Kurds in Jazira. Two
elements which are opposed to one another.
Supposing that the US wants to revive the war in Syria, as the Neocons do, what are they
going to do? Decapitation of the regime in Damascus was a way of getting the Jihadis into
power (you have to wonder about US support for jihadis). Unfortunately, the Russians put
troops into Damascus a few weeks ago to prevent that. Otherwise it's a bit of a nothing. The
Kurds can stay in Jazira, Nobody's going to stop them.
Great analysis - as usual. The thing missing is that this guy is a rabid zionist and the
White House is now a governorate of the AN orthodox American province of Israel.
One of the most discouraging aspects of the musical chairs being played among the members of
the White House inner circle is that every change reflects an inexorable move to the right in
foreign policy, which means that the interventionists are back without anyone at the White
House level remaining to say "no." President Donald Trump, for all his international experience
as a businessman, is a novice at the step-by-step process required in diplomacy and in the
development of a coherent foreign policy, so he is inevitably being directed by individuals who
have long American global leadership by force if necessary.
The resurgence of the hawks is facilitated by Donald Trump's own inclinations. He likes to
see himself as a man of action and a leader, which inclines him to be impulsive, some might
even say reckless. He is convinced that he can enter into negotiations with North Korean leader
Kim Jong-un with virtually no preparations and make a deal that will somehow end the crisis
over that nation's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, for example. In so doing, he
is being encouraged by his National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and his Pentagon chief James
Mattis, who believe that the United States can somehow prevail in a preemptive war with the
Koreans if that should become necessary. The enormous collateral damage to South Korea and even
Japan is something that Washington planners somehow seem to miss in their calculations.
The recent shifts in the cabinet have Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. A leading hawk, he
was first in his class of 1986 at the United States Military Academy but found himself as a
junior officer with no real war to fight. He spent six years in uniform before resigning, never
having seen combat, making war an abstraction for him. He went to Harvard Law and then into
politics where he became a Tea Party congressman, eventually becoming a leader of that caucus
when it stopped being Libertarian and lurched rightwards. He has since marketed himself as a
fearless soldier in the war against terrorism and rogue states, in which category he includes
both Iran and Russia.
Pompeo was not popular at the CIA because he enforced a uniformity of thinking that was
anathema for intelligence professionals dedicated to collecting solid information and using it
to produce sound analysis of developments worldwide. Pompeo, an ardent supporter of Israel and
one of the government's leading Iran haters, has been regularly threatening Iran while at the
Agency and will no doubt find plenty of support at State from Assistant Secretary of State for
the Near East David Satterfield, a former
top adviser of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Pompeo has proven himself more than willing to manipulate intelligence produce the result he
desires. Last year, he declassified and then cherry picked
documents recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan that suggested that
al-Qaeda had ties with Iran. The move was coordinated with simultaneous White House steps to
prepare Congress and the public for a withdrawal from the Iran nuclear arms agreement. The
documents were initially released to a journal produced by the neocon Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, where Pompeo has a number of times spoken, to guarantee wide exposure in all the
right places.
Pompeo's arrival might only be the first of several other high-level moves by the White
House. Like the rumors that preceded the firing of Secretary of State Tillerson two weeks ago,
there have been recurrent suggestions that McMaster will be the next to go as he reportedly is
too moderate for the president and has also been accused of being
anti-Israeli , the kiss of death in Washington. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has been
a frequent visitor at the White House and it is believed that he is the preferred candidate to
fill the position. He is an extreme hawk, closely tied to the Israel Lobby, who would push hard
for war against Iran and also for a hardline position in Syria, one that could lead to direct
confrontation with the Syrian Armed Forces and possibly the Russians.
Bolton, who
has been described by a former George W. Bush official as "the most dangerous man we had
during the entire eight years," will undoubtedly have a problem in getting confirmed by
Congress. He was rejected as U.N. Ambassador, requiring Bush to make a recess appointment which did not need
Congressional approval.
"... President Trump congratulated Vladimir Putin to his reelection as president of the Russian Federation. It was a matter of simply courtesy to do so. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (aka the National Security Advisor), three star general McMaster, had advised him to not congratulate Putin. (McMaster now claims differently .) That was bad advice. But it became even worse when McMaster, or someone in his shop, promptly leaked this to the press. The usual Republican nutters like John McCain grumbled and Trump was furious. ..."
President Trump congratulated
Vladimir Putin to his reelection as president of the Russian Federation. It was a matter of
simply courtesy to do so. The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (aka the
National Security Advisor), three star general McMaster, had advised him to not congratulate
Putin. (McMaster now
claims differently .) That was bad advice. But it became even worse when McMaster, or
someone in his shop, promptly leaked this to the press. The usual Republican nutters like John
McCain grumbled and Trump was furious.
Trump decided to fire McMaster the very next day. He had it coming. Both the White House
Chief of Staff Kelly as well as the Secretary of Defense Mattis wanted McMaster out.
Unfortunately for them Trump chose a replacement that they did not want and will find difficult
to live with.
"... After the disastrous Yeltsin rule (which came on the heels of disastrous rule by Gorbachev) Putin and his team rescued Russia economically, politically, and militarily. ..."
"... As far as Western "democracies" are concerned, the author hit the nail on the head. Yet there are lots of problems in Russia that the author does not mention. I think current Russian take on Soviet propaganda summarizes everything nicely: "what they told us about socialism was a pack of lies, but what they told us about capitalism turned out to be perfectly true". ..."
The author is painting Putin as larger-than-life figure, which he isn't. He is a normal
man, capable and intelligent, but he is not by any means that superhuman leader and savior.
He looks much greater than he is because you subconsciously compare him with pathetic
nonentities that the Western world sees as leaders now. In fact, the leadership of the US
Empire and all its vassal countries visibly degenerated in the last decades. Just compare De
Gaulle with sad excuses La Belle France had for presidents lately. Or compare Nixon (he might
have been a nasty person, but he was a great President of the country) with various clintons,
bushes, obamas, and trumps. Or compare Chancellor Kohl with that poor excuse for a chancellor
that Germany has today. You get the drift.
Just like the Soviet Union was not defeated by the US, but actually collapsed due to
internal problems, regime change rampage is over largely because the United States pushed
their luck and overextended themselves, and not just thanks to Putin. Throughout history, all
dominant empires lose their grip and eventually crumble (remember Roman or British), and now
it's the turn of the US Empire. Fortunately or unfortunately, the next will be the Chinese
Empire, not Russian.
After the disastrous Yeltsin rule (which came on the heels of disastrous rule by
Gorbachev) Putin and his team rescued Russia economically, politically, and
militarily.
However, the US played a huge role in increasing Putin's popularity inside Russia, more
than his propaganda machine ever could. Before the US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014,
Putin's approval hovered at about 45%. Nazi takeover in Ukraine and his decisive move to take
Crimea back (it was transferred to Ukraine from Russia by Khruschev in 1956, illegally even
by vague Soviet law; Crimea tried to get away from Ukraine ever since the breakup of the USSR
in 1991; polls by Gallup and German company GfK showed that 80%+ Crimean residents wanted to
join Russia, rather than remain in the madhouse that Ukraine became after the coup) resulted
in his approval soaring above 70%.
Ill-advised sanctions added even more. Now he did not need to rig elections, he got
genuine 70%+ vote, a level of support Western politicians can't even dream of (e.g., Trump
was elected by 26% of eligible voters; Merkel's party in Germany got even less).
As far as Western "democracies" are concerned, the author hit the nail on the head.
Yet there are lots of problems in Russia that the author does not mention. I think current
Russian take on Soviet propaganda summarizes everything nicely: "what they told us about
socialism was a pack of lies, but what they told us about capitalism turned out to be
perfectly true".
This is way too rosy account. Russia has several significant problems with growth of
Muslim population and the fact that this is last term for Putin, which might signify the end
of the period of political stability.
Also economic rape by local and Western neoliberals of Russia in 1991-2000 was so
successful that the country still can't fully recover. Hundreds of billions were stolen and
transferred to the West. The "problem of neoliberal oligarchs" as "fifth column" still
remains and is a threat to the future of the country. Too much depends of Putin personally.
In this sense China is in a better position.
Moreover, Putin was forced into new arm race (by the USA) and military spending now are
high and that creates another set of problems including growing influence of internal
military industrial complex. Add to this the cost of Syria war and related set of external
and internal problems, such as almost complete absence of allies (neither China not Iraq are
reliable allies; most post-Soviet republics, even Kazakhstan, are now hostile to Russia)
And Russia does not have too many degrees of freedom yet, as it still depends on the West
for many technologies and complex machinery. West dominates high technology area. Add to this
brain drain and export of capital from Russia.
Technological dependence means that really crippling sanction are always a possibility.
Availability of some of those technologies in China makes this problem less acute than in the
past, but still in no way Russia can pursue completely independent policy.
Add to this dependence on dollar and the fact that Russian national bank, which remain a
neoliberal institution, controlled by neoliberal Nabibulina ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvira_Nabiullina
, who is close to Gref ) who like any "good" neoliberal keeps natural sovereign fund invested
in US Treasuries. In this sense she is not that different from Kudrin.
And that means that those money can be confiscated anytime, like the USA did with Iran in
the past. Also oligarchs money are now in danger due to clear desire of London to improve its
financial standing at Russian oligarchs expense.
What is true is that neoliberalism as a political system entered deep crisis after 2008.
In the USA political system became dysfunctional and there is some kind of "virtual" civil
war between two factions of neoliberal oligarchy -- classic neoliberals and bastard
neoliberals (aka economic nationalists). Add to this "strange" relations with Israel, which
sometimes suggest that the tail wags the dog and I do not see why the USA can't experience
something similar to processes that took place in Britain after the WWII.
But there is still no alternative social system on the horizon and return to "New deal
capitalism" is impossible as the social alliance of management caste changed.
So Russia remains a neoliberal country which hates neoliberalism (in which by definition
the power belongs to the financial oligarchy) and which tries to fight Western neoliberal
imperialism in ofreign policy including attempts to make is a vassal and appropriate its
natural resources (and Russia was a vassal of the West under Yeltsin) while remaining a
neoliberal country and promoting neoliberalism externally. that's a recipe for a color
revolution in the future, more successfully then 2012 "White" color revolution run by Moscow
comprador class. Which in Moscow might well represent probably one third of the population
(programmers, doctors, accountants, employees of foreign companies, part of "integrated with
West" artistic cicles, writers, journalists, etc.). They were politically decimated by events
in Ukraine and then by Russiagate hysteria in the USA. So "neoliberal compradors" class was
not a player in the current elections. But that situation might eventually change and they
can restore part of their political power.
So, in a way, Putin is some kind of Don Quixote which fight neoliberalism (and neoliberal
globalization) externally, while allowing it to exist and even flourish internally (Medvedev,
BTW looks like classic neoliberal, a Trojan horse in Putin's administration).
And internally neoliberalism naturally produces high level of corruption, which is
amplified by "New Economic Policy" elements on the current Russia political regime (which
allowed free operation of small and medium business, but tried to cut/decimate political
power of large business -- a very difficult, if not impossible undertaking)
I think Professor Brovkin forgot the classic Lenin work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism". That's sad...
Moreover, former pro-Putin people who are now CEO of large government companies are not
longer Pro-Putin people. Because their position influences their political orientation. In a
sense, people like Gref and Sechin are dangerous strata of Putin-created "nova riches", who
can betray him any moment, especially if their money will be under the treat of confiscation
by the West.
It might well be that Putin was an anomaly and Russian will enter "Maidan" period or some
other form of political crisis after Putin relinquishes his power.
BTW Ukrainians were successfully deceived by the West twice, so I do not see why Russians
can't repeat this trick and step of the same rake again by electing some variation of Yeltsin
who will promise them immediate bright future and jump in the standard of living (which for
the last three year deteriorated due to low oil prices and a huge depreciation of ruble). For
Ukrainians around 20 year was enough to forget all lessons.
My impression is that Russia might experience yet another serious of political cataclysm
in the near future, when "Putinism" will disappear with Putin.
On a related note, this article by Prof. Niels Harrit claims that a document declassified
in 2008 was the basis for the ongoing war in Afghanstian, and that the document is as
evidence free as the Novichok claims:
Is there any forensic evidence provided in this document to serve as a legal basis for
the invocation of Article 5? Nothing. There is absolutely no forensic evidence in support of
the claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan. Only a small part of the
introductory text deals with 9/11, in the form of summary claims like the citation in Lord
Robertson's press release. The main body of the text deals with the alleged actions of
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the nineties.
On 4 October, NATO officially went to war based on a document that provided only
'talking points' and no evidence to support the key claim.
Sound familiar? Of course, I've no idea if he's right.
The Taliban foreign minister at the time tried to warn the Americans of the attack they
learned about it from a third party that is about as far removed from being behind the attack
as it gets. Didn't help them did it the Americans were after vengeance and wanted to satisfy
their bloodlust by bombing a country which didn't even have a single one of its citizens
involved in the attack. Classic scapegoating.
They had other reasons to want to attack Afghanistan . In fact, they warned the Taliban
that they would if the Taliban did not permit the desired pipeline.
What do you expect from Johnson? A grindingly stupid man who has never got a job on merit
and is now desperately hoping the public don't see through his lies for the Americans. No
wonder the government don't want to bring back grammar schools.
New Viz character; Boris the Bullshitter. Textbook bullshitting:
-- "Let me be clear with you" (though what is to follow is as clear as mud,)
" When I look at the evidence, I mean" (not me, actually, I mean) "the people
from Porton Down, the laboratory So they have the samples They do." (believe me)
"And they were absolutely categorical" (about what?) "and I asked the guy
myself," (what did you ask him, Boris?) "I said, "Are you sure?" And he said there's
no doubt" (no doubt of WHAT, Boris?)
Craig, I have to set you straight on this. Boris is as incapable of lying as he is of
telling the truth. As strange as it may seem to rational minds, the concepts of truth and
falsity simply do not exist in minds such as his. To him, everything is merely an
opportunity for achieving his goals, or a threat to his credibility that needs to be bluffed
over, and to those ends every statement he makes will be as vague as he can get away with
under the circumstances.
Russian general gives US general some intel. US general gets the word up to Trump. Trump gets
Pompeo to investigate and as a result sacks Tillerson. US generals tell Russian generals.
Russian generals tell Syrian generals. Syrian generals - or perhaps Russian generals
(unlikely) tell french journalist Therry Meyssan.
I also have Sydney harbour bridge for sale for the amazingly cheap price of a carton of
beer and a packet of durries.
Haha I thought the same when I read that story. Trying to spin this as Trump saving the
world from WW3 when he sacked Tillerson is just... a hillarious story to put it mildly. As
unbelievable as the whole Skripal case itself. Thierry surely does uncover some good stuff
every once in a while, but let's be fair he has more often than not floated some crazy
theories that were subsequently proven to be false.
Looks like the rules of neoliberal game for Ukraine are as following: Ukraine should be ready
for fight Russia till the last Ukrainian, serving as cannon fodder for EU geopolitical interests
in Eurasia; (2) As a "debt slave" Ukraine should allow the transfer of ownership of all strategic
assets and commodities to EU corporations for pennies on dollar independently of how Donbass
situation is resolved; (3) Ukraine should buy EU products, no matter how poor they are and local
production should be be iether eliminated ("Baltics style deindustrialization"), or outsourced to
transnational corporations with Ukrainian as a cheap labor force (wage slaves).
Notable quotes:
"... And the Ukraine made a massive mistake. Their situation is completely different to Poland after USSR fell. ..."
And the Ukraine made a massive mistake. Their situation is completely different to
Poland after USSR fell.
Very true. Poland was the first Eastern European country which adopted neoliberal model
and thus served to a certain extent as "photo model" of neoliberalism for the rest of Eastern
Europe and xUSSR space. So standard of living did not drop too low. The country was somewhat
supported by EU and by the USA.
Ukraine was royally raped economically in 1991-2000. Probably as bad as Russia, may be
even worse.
In 2014 Ukrainians were lured by unrealistic dream of getting Western European standard of
living as a gift for breaking with Russia. As well as the resentment toward kleptocrat
Yanukovich (which actually was pretty typical neoliberal politician; not much worse then
Poroshenko )
Now they start to understand that the EU will devour the corpse to the bones and they are
stuck at the Central African level poverty of $2 a day or so (on average), but this is too
late.
A very typical story, a very typical outcome. Neoliberalism is a cancer. As Russian prime
minister quipped about economic rape of Russia by local and Western neoliberals in 1991-2000:
"We strived to get the best [economic] outcome, but it turned out like we got even worse then
average. As always." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Chernomyrdin
)
So in a way they stepped on the same rake twice: once in 1991 and the second time in 2014.
That's unforgivable.
How many knows that Obama, the son of Africa , went to the WH with a regime change
feather already in his cap, ?
Obama's Kenya caper ..
During the parliamentary elections of December 2007, a survey funded by USAID announces
the victory of Odinga. On election day, John McCain announced that President Kibaki rigged
the election in favor of his party and that in fact the opposition led by Odinga had won.
The NSA, in conjunction with local phone operators, sent anonymous text messages to the
population.
In areas populated by the Luo (Odinga's ethnic group), they read "Dear Kenyans, the
Kikuyu have stolen our children's future We must treat them in the only way that they
understand with violence."
In areas populated by Kikuyu, they read: "The blood of any innocent Kikuyu will be paid.
We will slaughter them right to the heart of the capital. For Justice, establish a list of
Luos that you know. We will send you the phone numbers to call with such information."
Within days, this peaceful country sank into sectarian violence. The riots caused
over 1 000 deaths and 300 000 displaced. 500 000 jobs were lost .
Madeleine Albright came back. She offered to mediate between President Kibaki and the
opposition trying to overthrow him. With finesse, she stepped aside and placed in the
spotlight the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights. The board of this respected NGO was
newly chaired by the former Prime Minister of Norway, Thorbjørn Jagland.
Breaking with the Center's traditional impartiality, he sent two mediators on site, whose
expenses were entirely footed by Madeleine Albright's NDI (that is to say ultimately out of
the U.S. Department of State's budget): another former Norwegian Prime Minister, Kjell Magne
Bondevik, and former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan (the Ghanaian is very much on the scene
in Scandinavian states since he married the niece of Raoul Wallenberg). Compelled to
accept the compromises forced on him in order to restore civil peace, President Kibaki agreed
to create a prime minister post and to entrust it to Raila Odinga,who immediately
began reducing trade with China.
Small gifts between friends
"It's Time to Break Up Facebook" [ Politico
]. " According
to Carol Davidsen , a member of Obama's data team, "Facebook was surprised we were able
to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what
we were doing."
The social graph is Facebook's map of relationships between users and brands on its
platform.
And after the election, she recently acknowledged, Facebook was 'very candid that
they allowed us to do things they wouldn't have allowed someone else to do because they were
on our side .'" Holy moly.
Going back to the days of Obama and Clinton is not going to "save" democracy. That's a
sham democracy where the rich really run things – a plutocracy pretending to be a
democracy.
It's just that Trump has blown off the comfortable mask and the "big lie".
It should also be noted that inequality and economic despair brought about the conditions
such that people would be willing to consider a demagogue like Trump to begin with.
A simple question: Where is Julia Skripal, a citizen of Russain Federation, who was taken by
the UK secret services and whisked away to some undisclosed location? There have been no
photographs of either her father (British citizen) and Julia since the odd incident in a city
of Salisbury that is a few miles away from the UK's main lab of chemical weaponry research.
"Porton Down is situated just northeast of the village of Porton near Salisbury, in
Wiltshire, England. a site of the Ministry of Defence's Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory (Dstl) – known for over 100 years as one of the UK's most secretive and
controversial military research facilities , occupying 7,000 acres." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porton_Down
Support the [ISIS] troops [in a war for Israel]!
http://thesaker.is/syrian-war-report-march-22-2018-syrian-army-gets-control-of-harasta-militants-withdraw/
"Over 40 tonnes of toxic agents have been found in the areas liberated from militants
Damascus has officially confirmed its readiness to assist in any investigation into a
chemical attack in Syria. However, international organizations have refused to cooperate with
the Syrian government, practically conniving with terrorist organizations in their
illegal activity. The Syrian Foreign Ministry pointed out that more than 40 tonnes of
chemical warfare agents have been discovered on the territories liberated from terrorist
s the international community prefers turning a blind eye to the real facts in which chemical
weapons are used in Syria against the government troops and civilians. .."
"... Ultimately, Britain is not a factor in foreign affairs. Having withdrawn from the EU, they've vanished up the USA's asshole. The US controls their Fisher-Price nuclear deterrent and their increasingly atavistic veto. ..."
"... The determining geopolitical factor is Russia's missile announcement. It re-established MAD, but that's not all. It also created a capability for proportional response to the entire range of US force that effectively counters all US use and threat of force. ..."
Interesting detail about illegal British war propaganda in breach of ICCPR Article 20. Of
particular note is the report of Pompeo's role in the blame game for the failed provocation.
Ultimately, Britain is not a factor in foreign affairs. Having withdrawn from the EU,
they've vanished up the USA's asshole. The US controls their Fisher-Price nuclear deterrent
and their increasingly atavistic veto.
The determining geopolitical factor is Russia's missile announcement. It
re-established MAD, but that's not all. It also created a capability for proportional
response to the entire range of US force that effectively counters all US use and threat of
force. There's no more game of chicken. Russia can discipline the US with localized
humiliation and global rout without recourse to mutual destruction.
The Russian program of coercion to peace is already taking effect:
In these talks, Russia is in a position to impose not just nuclear disarmament but
demilitarization. They've turned the clock back to the Eisenhower/Herter peace plan. That is
a very good thing.
My own country is looking particularly shabby at the moment, over a number of topical news
stories:
The alleged Salisbury attack, and in particular the disgraceful and shameful British
government response to it and the lockstep backing for it by the establishment media. Rush to
judgement, childish government and diplomatic ranting, Iraq War-style manipulation of
seemingly laughably inadequate evidence to "fit the facts around the policy", massive
jingoistic propaganda effort.
Intelligence and security community involvement in the manipulative anti-Trump hysteria in
the US.
Now, the related Cambridge Analytica/SCL Elections story and the comical performance in
presumably giving time to cover up information on that company's servers with a convenient
court delay in issuing a search warrant:
The information commissioner will have to wait until at least Friday to enter the
offices of Cambridge Analytica after a high court judge adjourned the hearing into her
application for a warrant.
The commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, announced on Monday night that she planned to
request an urgent warrant to enter the company's London offices, after it was revealed that
it had been given information from 50m Facebook profiles without users' permission.
.
On Tuesday, crates were seen being removed from the central London office that Cambridge
Analytica shares with other tenants. No one on the scene would comment on the origin of the
crates, and the ICO said it was not involved in their removal.
The effectiveness of US sphere establishment media propaganda can be judged from the
widespread belief that Russia was likely responsible for the alleged attack in Salisbury,
when in reality the case against Russia is almost literally
non-existent . One survey suggested as few as 26% even questioned the state approved and
propaganda-imposed version (poll conducted 14th/15th March):
"... May, who referred to a "Russian mafia state," has blamed Moscow for the attack even though she made plain in her first speech that the investigation was still underway. ..."
"... She did not consider that Vladimir Putin's government would have no good reason to carry out an assassination that surely would be attributed to it, particularly as it was on the verge of national elections and also, more important, because it will be hosting the World Cup later this year and will be highly sensitive to threats of boycott. ..."
"... when Theresa May says that the alleged agent used against the Skripals as being "of a type" associated with a reported Russian-developed chemical weapon called Novichok that was produced in the 1970s and 1980s, she is actually conceding that her own chemical weapons laboratories at Porton Down are, to a certain, extent, guessing at the provenance and characteristics of the actual agent that might or might not have been used in Salisbury. ..."
I don't know what happened in Salisbury England on March 4th, but it appears that the
British government doesn't know either. Prime Minister Theresa May's
speech before Parliament last Monday was essentially political, reflecting demands that she
should "do something" in response to the mounting hysteria over the poisoning of former Russian
double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. After May's presentation there were demands
from Parliamentarians for harsh measures against Russia, reminiscent of the calls for action
emanating from the U.S. Congress over the allegations relating to what has been called
Russiagate.
This demand to take action led to a second Parliamentary address by May on Wednesday in
which she detailed the British response to the incident, which included cutting off all
high-level contacts between Moscow and London and the " persona non grata " (PNG)
expulsion of 23 "spies" and intelligence officers working out of the Russian Federation
Embassy. The expulsions will no doubt produce a tit-for-tat PNG from Moscow, ironically
crippling or even eliminating the MI-6 presence and considerably reducing Britain's own ability
to understand what it going on in the Kremlin.
May, who referred to a "Russian mafia state," has blamed Moscow for the attack even
though she made plain in her first speech that the investigation was still underway. In
both her presentations, she addressed the issue of motive by citing her belief that the
attempted assassination conforms with an established pattern of Russian behavior. She did
not consider that Vladimir Putin's government would have no good reason to carry out an
assassination that surely would be attributed to it, particularly as it was on the verge of
national elections and also, more important, because it will be hosting the World Cup later
this year and will be highly sensitive to threats of boycott. And it must be observed that
Skripal posed no active threat to the Russian government. He has been living quietly in Britain
for eight years, leading to wild tabloid press speculation that the Kremlin's motive must have
been to warn potential traitors that there are always consequences, even years later and in a
far-off land.
To provide additional buttressing of what is a questionable thesis, the case of the
assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 has been repeatedly cited by the media
on both sides of the Atlantic as evidence of Russian turpitude, but the backstory is not the
same. Litvinenko was an FSB officer who fled to the United Kingdom to avoid prosecution in
Russia. In Britain, he became a whistleblower and author, exposing numerous alleged Russian
government misdeeds. Would the Kremlin have been motivated to kill him? He was seen as a
traitor and a continuing threat through his books and speeches, so it is certainly possible.
The story of Skripal was, however, completely different. He was a double agent working for
Britain who was arrested and imprisoned in 2006. He was released and traveled to the UK after a
2010 spy swap was arranged by Washington and his daughter has been able to travel freely from
Moscow to visit him. If the Russian government had wanted to kill him, they could have easily
done so while he was in prison, or they could have punished him by taking steps against his
daughter.
There are a number of problems with the accepted narrative as presented by May and the
media. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a nerve agent as "usually odorless organophosphate
(such as sarin, tabun, or VX) that disrupts the transmission of nerve impulses by inhibiting
cholinesterase and especially acetylcholinesterase and is used as a chemical weapon in gaseous
or liquid form," while Wikipedia explains that it is "a class of organic chemicals that disrupt
the mechanisms by which nerves transfer messages to organs." A little more research online
reveals that most so-called nerve agents are chemically related. So when Theresa May says
that the alleged agent used against the Skripals as being "of a type" associated with a
reported Russian-developed chemical weapon called Novichok that was produced in the 1970s and
1980s, she is actually conceding that her own chemical weapons laboratories at Porton Down are,
to a certain, extent, guessing at the provenance and characteristics of the actual agent that
might or might not have been used in Salisbury.
Beyond that, a military strength nerve agent is, by definition, a highly concentrated and
easily dispersed form of a chemical weapon. It is intended to kill or incapacitate hundreds or
even thousands of soldiers. If it truly had been used in Salisbury, even in a small dose, it
would have killed Skripal and his daughter as well as others nearby. First responders who
showed up without protective clothing, clearly seen in the initial videos and photos taken near
the site, would also be dead. After her first speech, May summoned the Russian Ambassador and
demanded that he address the allegations, but Moscow reasonably enough demanded a sample of the
alleged nerve agent for testing by relevant international bodies like the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons before it could even respond to the British accusations. It was
a valid point even supported in Parliament questioning by opposition Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn, but May and her government decided to act anyway.
May's language also conveys uncertainty. She used "it appears" and also said it was "highly
likely" that Moscow was behind the poisoning of Skripal but provided no actual evidence that
that was the case, presumably only assuming that it had to be Russia. And her government has
told the public that there is "little risk" remaining over the incident and that those who were
possibly exposed merely have to wash themselves and their clothes, hardly likely if it were a
military grade toxin, which gains it lethality from being persistent on and around a target.
She made clear her lack of corroboration for her claim by offering an "either-or" analysis:
either Russia's government did it or it had "lost control" of its nerve agent.
As noted above, May's argument is, to a certain extent, based on character assassination of
Russians – she even offered up the alleged "annexation" of Crimea as corroboration of her
view that Moscow is not inclined to play by the rules that others observe. It is a narrative
that is based on the presumption that "this is the sort of thing the Russian government headed
by Vladimir Putin does." The British media has responded enthusiastically, running stories
about numerous assassinations and poisonings that ought to be attributed to Russia, while
ignoring the fact that the world leaders in political assassinations are actually the United
States and Israel.
There are a number of other considerations that the May government has ignored in its rush
to expand the crisis. She mentioned that Russia might be somewhat exonerated if it has lost
control of its chemical weapons, but did not fully explain what that might mean. It could be
plausible to consider that states hostile to Russia like Ukraine and Georgia that were once
part of the Soviet Union could have had , and might
still retain, stocks of the Novichok nerve agent. That in turn suggests a false flag, with
someone having an interest in promoting a crisis between Russia and Britain. If that someone
were a country having a sophisticated arms industry possessing its own chemical weapons
capability, like the United States or Israel, it would be quite easy to copy the
characteristics of the Russian nerve agent, particularly as its formula has been known since it
was published in 1992. The agent could then be used to create an incident that would inevitably
be blamed on Moscow. Why would Israel and the United States want to do that? To put pressure on
Russia to embarrass it and put it on the defensive so I would be forced eventually to abandon
its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Removing al-Assad is the often-expressed
agenda of the Israeli and American governments, both of which have pledged to take "independent
action" in Syria no matter what the United Nations or any other international body says. The
redoubtable Nikki Haley is already using the incident
to fearmonger over Moscow's intentions at the U.N., warning that a Russian chemical attack
on New York City could be coming.
And to throw out a really wild possibility, one might observe that no one in Britain had a
stronger motive to generate a major confrontation with a well-defined enemy than Theresa May,
who has been under fire by the media and pressured to resign by many in her own Conservative
Party. Once upon a time suggesting that a democratically elected government might assassinate
someone for political reasons would have been unthinkable, but the 2016 election in the United
States has demonstrated that nothing is impossible, particularly if one is considering the
possibility that a secret intelligence service might be collaborating with a government to help
it stay in power. An incident in which no one was actually killed that can be used to spark an
international crisis mandating "strong leadership" would be just the ticket.
"... Media outlets based in the US and Britain have long enjoyed dominance in the global news market and have abused their position to manipulate audiences ..."
"... "People are naked against these media wars. They are victims of these media wars," ..."
"... "They are being driven into a certain way of emotions without even understanding that." ..."
"... "Anglo-Saxon media" ..."
"... "They are the most powerful, the most influential, and they have the widest possible reach globally," ..."
"... And, of course, this feeling of monopoly brings a will to manipulate this monopoly. ..."
"... You can use this monopoly as a tool of delivering your point of view, whether it's right or wrong, it doesn't matter, you can adjust it in accordance with the situation -- to simply manipulate the [minds] of people throughout the world." ..."
Media outlets based in the US and Britain have long enjoyed dominance in the global news
market and have abused their position to manipulate audiences , a Kremlin spokesman told
RT in an exclusive interview. Russia is currently being targeted by an unprecedented campaign
in the West, aimed at undermining its resurgence, Dmitry Peskov told RT's Sophie Shevardnadze.
The media are playing a major part in it, as they are selling an anti-Russian narrative to the
people of Western nations. But what those outlets do is a disservice to their audiences, he
argued.
"People are naked against these media wars. They are victims of these media wars,"
he said. "They are being driven into a certain way of emotions without even understanding
that."
Peskov said that for decades "Anglo-Saxon media" enjoyed a virtual global monopoly
on delivering news about economy and politics.
"They are the most powerful, the most influential, and they have the widest possible
reach globally," he said. " And, of course, this feeling of monopoly brings a will
to manipulate this monopoly.
You can use this monopoly as a tool of delivering your point of view, whether it's
right or wrong, it doesn't matter, you can adjust it in accordance with the situation -- to
simply manipulate the [minds] of people throughout the world."
He added that outlets like RT challenge this "huge machine" with alternative
narratives and facts that don't fit into how the Western media wants the world to see things. A
good example of this is coverage of events in Syria and Iraq, Peskov said.
Western media were all too eager to highlight civilian casualties of the operation in
Aleppo, which they blame solely on Russian and Syrian forces, but failed to extend this kind of
reporting to similar operations in Mosul and Raqqa, where the US-led coalition was in
charge.
"... President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. ..."
"... Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional . ..."
John Bolton has been one of liberals' top bogeymen on national security for more than a decade now. He seems to relish the
role, going out of his way to argue that the Iraq War wasn't really a failure, calling for U.S.-led regime change in Iran and
preventive war against North Korea, and writing the foreword for a
book
that proclaimed President Obama to be a secret Muslim. He is a profoundly partisan creature, having started a
super-PAC whose largest donor was leading Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer and whose provider of analytics was Cambridge
Analytica, the firm alleged to have improperly used Facebook data to make voter profiles, which it sold to the Trump and
Brexit campaigns, among others.
Recently Bolton's statements have grown more extreme, alarming centrist and conservative national security professionals along
with his longtime liberal foes. He seemed to
say
that the United States could attack North Korea without the agreement of our South Korean allies, who would face the
highest risk of retaliation and casualties; just two months ago he
called for
a regime change effort in Iran that would allow the U.S. to open a new embassy there by 2019, the 40th
anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage in Tehran. His
hostility toward Islam
points toward a set of extreme policies that could easily have the effect of abridging American
Muslims' rights at home and alienating America's Muslim allies abroad.
As worrying as these policies are, it's worth taking a step back and thinking not about Bolton, but about his new boss, Donald
Trump. Trump reportedly considered Bolton for a Cabinet post early on, but then
soured
on him, finding his mustache unprofessional. His choice of Bolton to lead the National Security Council reinforces
several trends: right now, this administration is all about making Trump's opponents uncomfortable and angry. Internal
coherence and policy effectiveness are not a primary or even secondary consideration. And anyone would be a fool to imagine
that, because Bolton pleases Trump today, he will continue to do so tomorrow.
Yes, Bolton has taken strong stances against the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin (though he has also been
quoted
praising Russian "democracy" as recently as 2013). That's nothing new: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, incoming
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have called for greater pushback on
Russia as well. But there's every reason to think that, rather than a well-oiled war machine, what we'll get from Bolton's
National Security Council is scheming and discord – which could be even more dangerous.
President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely
to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package.
Their disagreements are real – Bolton has
famously pooh-poohed the kind of summit diplomacy with North Korea that Trump is now committed to. While Trump famously backed
away from his support for the 2002 invasion of Iraq, courting the GOP isolationist base, Bolton continues to argue that the
invasion worked, and seldom hears of a war he would not participate in. Trump
attempted
to block transgender people from serving in the military, but Bolton has declined to take part in the right's
LGBT-bashing, famously hiring gay staff and
calling for
the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
That's all substance. What really seems likely to take Bolton down is his style, which is legendary – and not in a good way.
His colleagues from the George W. Bush administration responded to Trump's
announcement
with
comments like
"the obvious question is whether John Bolton has the temperament and the judgment for the job" – not exactly
a ringing endorsement. One former co-worker
described
Bolton as a "kiss up, kick down kind of guy," and he was notorious in past administrations for conniving and
sneaking around officials who disagreed with him, both traits that Trump seems likely to enjoy until he doesn't. This is a
man who can't refrain from
telling Tucker Carlson
that his analysis is "simpleminded" – while he's a guest on Carlson's show. Turns out it's not true
that he threw a stapler at a contractor – it was a
tape dispenser.
When Bolton was caught attempting to cook intelligence to suggest that Cuba had a biological weapons
program, he bullied the analyst who had dared push back, calling him a "
midlevel
munchkin
." How long until Trump tires of the drama – or of being eclipsed?
Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be
the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and
the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with
Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being
too emotional
.
Love Bolton or hate him, no one imagines he will be a self-effacing figure, and no one hires him to run a no-drama process.
It's also hard to imagine that many of the high-quality professionals McMaster brought into the National Security Council
staff will choose to stay. McMaster repeatedly had to fight for his team within the Trump administration, but Bolton seems
unlikely to follow that pattern, or to inspire the kind of loyalty that drew well-regarded policy wonks to work for McMaster,
regardless their views of Trump.
So even if you like the policies Bolton espouses, it's hard to imagine a smooth process implementing them. That seems likely
to leave us with Muslim ban-level incompetence, extreme bellicosity, and several very loud, competing voices – with
Twitter feeds
– on the most sensitive issues of war and weapons of mass destruction.
The worst thing about the appointment of anti-Iran hawk John Bolton is that the Clinton
wing of the Democratic Party 100% supports war with Iran. In fact Hillary was attacking Trump
from the war hawk right on this issue in 2016 (of course alienating key voters as she did
so). So, just like in 2002 with Iraq, the two-party mainstream and all the mainstream media
will be overwhelmed by pro-war voices, and the arguments in favor of peace and basic sanity
will be ostracized. Note in the RT piece below that the only Democrats expressing real,
concrete concern/revulsion are the usual, sheepdog leftie suspects.
'Trump lining up war cabinet'? Bolton's elevation to NSC adviser fuels alarm
"... "With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible conflict," ..."
"... "John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict," ..."
"... "If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor," ..."
"... "drumbeats of war." ..."
"... "absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," ..."
"... "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across the world." ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Donald Trump's cabinet reshuffles have fueled concerns, not least after the latest
appointment of hawkish John Bolton as national security adviser, just days after installing a
former CIA chief as the new secretary of state. On Thursday afternoon Donald Trump decided to
sack Gen. HR McMaster from his national security adviser post, replacing him with John Bolton.
The former US envoy to the United Nations will assume office on April 9 – just days after
Mike Pompeo is set to replace Rex Tillerson as the new secretary of state.
The newly formed doublet has caused shockwaves among the Democrats, who have alleged that
Trump seems to be preparing for war. Democratic Senator from Massachusetts Ed Markey warned
that Trump is creating a "war cabinet," warning of "grave danger" following
Bolton's appointment.
John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran and conducting a first strike on North Korea
without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American
people and a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is
gearing up for military conflict.
"With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully
lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us
into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible
conflict," he tweeted.
"John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear
weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to
the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for
military conflict," Senator Markey added.
John Bolton:
Wanted war w Cuba, arguing wrongly that Cuba had WMD
Wanted war w Iraq, arguing – wrong again – that Iraq had WMD
Believes – wrongly – that Islamic law is taking over America
If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security
Advisor
-- Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) March 22,
2018
The choice of Bolton as the national security adviser has also been questioned by Senator
Jeff Merkley from Oregon, who has pointed out many flaws with the new appointee's policies.
"If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security
Advisor," Merkley tweeted.
This is dangerous news for the country and the world. John Bolton was easily one of the
most extreme, pro-war members of the Bush Administration.
Imagine what havoc he could wreak whispering in Donald Trump's ear...I hear the drumbeats
of war. https://t.co/A6ZIyORAM7
Rep. Barbara Jean Lee of California's 13th congressional district was also disappointed by
Trump's choice, claiming she is hearing the "drumbeats of war."
The President is surrounding himself with combative lawyers. He's replacing Tillerson and
McMaster with Pompeo and Bolton.
It's almost like the President is preparing to go to war in the legal and foreign
relations sense...
Fears expressed by some Capitol Hill members and the public seem justified. The notoriously
hawkish former United Nations ambassador was a chief architect of the George W. Bush
administration's justification for the war in Iraq in 2003, that was based on false accusations
that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Trump's choice of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Mike Pompeo as the new
secretary of state also made many in Washington uneasy. Unlike his predecessor, Rex Tillerson,
Pompeo seems better aligned with Trump's confrontational foreign policy, namely on the Iran
nuclear deal, on North Korea, and on the shift of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Besides politicians, the American public also expressed concern about the feasibility of a
looming armed conflict.
John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has
supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as
UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor
now.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders called Bolton "absolutely the wrong person to be national
security advisor now," recalling how he deceived the public about the Iraq war.
"John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and
has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed
as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor
now," Sanders tweeted.
"John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his
National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-13) said
in a written statement. "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy
theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across
the world."
@66 Say what you will about Bolton he is a shrewd political animal. Here it looks as though
he is trying to appear sane and reasonable....perhaps even likeable.
So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded
with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the
ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?
Guess we'll be out marching again, just like last time. Bolton's walrus mustache is the
21st century version of Adolph H's toothbrush mustache. Down with the Persian Untermenschen!
/sarc
Of course while working for Cheney Bolton was pretty confident about getting Dubya to
start a war with Iran and that didn't happen. Here's a backgrounder that suggests that Bolton
is tight with both Adelson and the Mossad so one way of looking at this has Russia fading as
a target and Iran falling under the bulls eye. Trump's recent friendly phone call with Putin
was contrary to instructions from his NSC and therefore presumably McMaster.
Looked at optimistically it could be out of the frying pan and into a smaller frying pan
(for us if not for Iran but that remains to be seen).
Of course looked at pessimistically it's terrible news but if the public and Congress are
afraid of Trump gratuitously starting a new war then perhaps they should take away his power
to do so. Seems the Constitution did have something to say about that.
Tol'ja so these miserable wretches simply cannot die resurrection a promise any time a
misfit administration takes power all that audition time on FoxNews paid off Trump stripping
the cable channels of right-wing bloviators "best people for the jawb", don't you know.
Let's get over the McMaster ouster. The fact is that he was completely unqualified to be the
National Security advisor. McMaster was uneducated in history and international politics.
McMaster (1) was excellent as an army unit leader and (2) obtained a PhD with a thesis that
claimed that the US lost in Vietnam because generals weren't listened to, which is complete
BS.
Now we may not like Bolton, but at least he's qualified. Does the NSA have the authority to
start a war? No. The simple fact is that in the most likely war scenarios, Korea and Iran,
the US has bases, ships etc. within easy reach of prospective enemies. Forward basing, it's
called. The Pentagon knows this very well. They hate it when bases are destroyed and ships
are sunk.
Currently the US is crowing about an evacuation exercise in Korea -- with a hundred people,
when there are tens of thousands of Americans in South Korea endangered by any war.
So let's cheer up.
As I understand it, Mc Master's thesis was worse than 'generals weren't listened to", it
was that Generals knew what it would take to win but were reluctant to press their case.
I think McMaster's view gets watered-down and sugar-coated into: "Generals should provide
true info to civilian authority" when it seems to me that the message he conveys to Generals
is simply this: be stubborn; insist on full and unconditional support of civilian authority
for any military action. We see this attitude reflected in "The Powell Doctrine" and now
Trump's hand's-off approach to the military.
I see this as civilian authority (the President) essentially handing the keys to the
Generals once any military action is authorized.
@jr 49
Vietnam, a US attempt at nation-building within a nation (stupid), was a lost cause to begin
with and so what generals "knew" was irrelevant.
Harry Truman got it right.
A couple of President Harry Truman quotes: "It's the fellows who go to West Point and are
trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him
[General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not
against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."
Now currently generals aren't any smarter, they are still dumb SOBs who rise up by sucking
up, but at least they are smart enough to realize that forward basing dooms any offensive
attacks against countries that have the capability to counter-attack against US bases and
ships. That would be North Korea and Iran, for starters. Bolton's ascendance won't change
that simple truth, so the sky isn't falling.
Yes, agreed, let's please cheer up. We live in a age of miracles, when Russia and China
see fit to ally, and preserve, or create, world stability.
Trump has always been surrounded by completely vile people, and none of this has stopped
Russia from laying down the gauntlet. Bolton is as much a nothing, I suggest, as Boris
Johnson across the ocean. Neither of them holds power. The west doesn't hold power any
longer. It's been checkmated at every turn - by Russia militarily and China economically.
Power is the ability to force things to your will, and it's backed up by a gun or it fails
in the end. Trump's button may be big but it's old and maybe rusted and the odds are good it
doesn't even work very well, especially against next generation jamming and hypersonic
speeds.
So the west can bluster and parade its theater all it wants, it means nothing as the
caravans all move on into the future. And even the theater is getting found out in advance
now, with chemical-weapon caches and plans rendered visible before they can act.
As for the bluster, it only works on domestic populations, who have no power and thus
cannot affect reality, and whose governments have no power and thus cannot use a mandate to
war even if given one by their populations, gulled by propaganda. It's a useless, circular
mechanism whose paradigm has ended, is defunct.
I find it encouraging beyond words to watch the real power on the ground in this Eurasian
Century, as the west declines. And I'll quote just one last time, because I love the potency
of this equation: "Power. The one quality of the human condition that you can't fake."
I find it rather interesting that none of the comments address the last part of Shamir's
article. If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of
their establishment.
Rick Merlotti , March 19, 2018 at 10:39 am
Perfidious Albion
A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation
can be found in a March 14 London Sunday Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who
rants:
"We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China Such an
alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal
democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust
institutions that are required to contain Russia and China Britain needs a new role in the
world; building such a network would be our perfect mission."
Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational statement was made by 68 former Obama
Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at
securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China.
As visitors to the LaRouchePAC website know, Russia and China have embarked on a massive
infrastructure building project in Eurasia, the center of all British geopolitical fantasies
since the time of Halford MacKinder. Moreover, China's Belt and Road Initiative now
encompasses more than 140 nations in the largest infrastructure-building project ever
undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future, while
neo-liberal economies continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by the massive
mound of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. This debt is now on a hair
trigger for implosion. It is estimated by banking insiders that the City of London is sitting
on a derivatives powderkeg of $700 trillion with over-the-counter derivatives accounting for
another $570 trillion. The City of London will bear the major impact of the derivatives
collapse.
In this strategic geometry, President Trump's support of peaceful collaboration with
Russia during the campaign and his personal friendship with President Xi, marked him for the
relentless coup against him waged by the British and their U.S. friends.
On top of that, President Putin delivered a mammoth strategic shock on March 1, showing
new Russian weapons systems based on new physical principles which render present U.S. ABM
systems and much of current U.S. war-fighting doctrine obsolete, together with the vaunted
first strike capacity with which NATO has surrounded Russia. Not only is the West sitting on
a new financial collapse; its vaunted military superiority has just been flanked.
Allister Heath pretends to be a pole-bearer for liberal democracies. And what exactly is
so precious about Heath and his "liberal democracy" in the UK?
Is it the sudden expertise in chemical weaponry by Boris Johnson, who "knew" immediately
that "Russians did it?" This Boris Johnson: "'I am a passionate Zionist,' declares Boris
Johnson: http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/boris-johnson-zionist/
Compare Boris pronouncements to the expert conclusion by a real expert in chemical
weaponry:
"This so-called "nerve agent" [novichok] has never been placed on the OPCW list of banned
chemical weapons because it has never existed. Its non-existence was confirmed by Dr. Robin
Black, until recently he was a head of the detection laboratory at the Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory (Porton Down). He wrote in his review: " emphasizes that there is no
independent confirmation of Mirzayanov's claims about the chemical properties of these
compounds: Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published.
(Black, 2016)"
WASHINGTON -- Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the battle-tested Army officer tapped
as President Trump's national security adviser last year to stabilize a turbulent foreign
policy operation, will resign and be replaced by John R. Bolton, a hard-line former United
States ambassador to the United Nations, White House officials said Thursday.
General McMaster will retire from the military, the officials said. He has been discussing
his departure with President Trump for several weeks, they said, but decided to speed up his
departure, in part because questions about his status were casting a shadow over his
conversations with foreign officials.
The officials also said that Mr. Trump wanted to fill out his national security team before
his meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un. He
replaced Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson with the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, last
week.
Officials emphasized that General McMaster's departure was a mutual decision and amicable,
with none of the recrimination that marked Mr. Tillerson's exit. They said it was not related
to a leak on Tuesday of
briefing materials for Mr. Trump's phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of
Russia.
In the materials, Mr. Trump was advised not to congratulate Mr. Putin on his re-election,
which the president went ahead and did during the call.
Mr. Bolton, who will take office April 9, has met regularly with Mr. Trump to discuss
foreign policy, and was on a list of candidates for national security adviser. He was in the
West Wing with Mr. Trump to discuss the job on Thursday.
Another chickenhawk in Trump administration. Sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs. ..."
"... During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran. ..."
"... Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days. ..."
"... Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia. ..."
"... So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce. ..."
"... Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences. ..."
"... I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling". ..."
"... I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor. ..."
"... But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq. ..."
"... Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons ..."
"... Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry. ..."
"... Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to ..."
John Bolton (Gage Skidmore/Flikr)
In my reporting on U.S.-Israeli policy, I have tracked numerous episodes in which the
United States and/or Israel made moves that seemed to indicate preparations for war against Iran. Each time -- in
2007
,
in
2008,
and again in 2011
-- those moves, presented in corporate media as presaging
attacks on Tehran, were actually bluffs aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government.
But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next
national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neoconservative
hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing
Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of
such a policy.
His is not merely a rhetorical stance: Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as
the Bush administration's policymaker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for
the administration to carry out military action.
More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already
influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both
Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself -- the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- to get Trump's ear
last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after
meeting
with Adelson
.
It was Bolton who
persuaded
Trump
to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if
Congress and America's European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to
ensure the deal would fall apart.
Although Bolton was passed over for the job of secretary of state, he now appears to
have had the inside track for national security advisor.
Trump
met with Bolton on March 6
and told him, "We need you here, John," according
to a Bolton associate. Bolton said he would only take secretary of state or national security advisor, whereupon Trump
promised, "I'll call you really soon." Trump then replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with former CIA director
Mike Pompeo, after which White House sources
leaked
to the media
Trump's intention to replace H.R. McMaster within a matter of
weeks.
The only other possible candidate for the position
mentioned
in media accounts
is Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who was
acting national security advisor after General Michael Flynn was ousted in February 2017.
Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well
known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex
and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic
Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of
diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence.
Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of
State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton
was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able
to
flout
normal State Department rules
by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003
and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs.
Thus, at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to
attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a February 2003
visit, Bolton
assured Israeli
officials in private meetings
that he had no doubt the United States would
attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran, too, as well as Syria.
During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had
unannounced
meetings, including with the head of Mossad,
Meir Dagan, without the usual
reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit,
those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S.
strike against Iran.
Mossad played a very aggressive role in influencing world opinion on the Iranian
nuclear program. In the summer of 2003, according to journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins in their book
The
Nuclear Jihadist
, Meir Dagan created a new Mossad office tasked with
briefing the world's press on alleged Iranian efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The new unit's
responsibilities included circulating documents from inside Iran as well from outside, according to Frantz and Collins.
Bolton's role in a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy, as he
outlines
in his own 2007 memoir
, was to ensure that the Iran nuclear issue would be
moved out of the International Atomic Energy Agency and into the United Nations Security Council.
He
was determined to prevent IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei from reaching an agreement with Iran that would make
it more difficult for the Bush administration to demonize Tehran as posing a nuclear weapons threat.
Bolton began accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program in mid-2003, but
encountered resistance not only from ElBaradei and non-aligned states, but from Britain, France, and Germany as well.
Bolton's strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear
program from the IAEA, and in early 2004, he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy: he sent a set of satellite images
to the IAEA showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to
simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites and leaked his demand to
the Associated Press in September 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for
conventional explosives testing.
Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA
inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran's "intransigence" in refusing to
answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005 Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them
choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.
The U.S.-Israeli strategy would later hit the jackpot, however, when a large cache of
documents supposedly from a covert source within Iran's nuclear weapons program surfaced in autumn 2004. The documents,
allegedly found on the laptop computer of one of the participants, included technical drawings of a series of efforts to
redesign Iran's Shahab-3 missile to carry what appeared to be a nuclear weapon.
But the whole story of the so-called "laptop documents" was a fabrication. In 2013, a
former senior German official
revealed
the true story
to this writer: the documents had been given to German
intelligence by the Mujahedin E Khalq, the anti-Iran armed group that was well known to have been used by Mossad to
"launder" information the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves. Furthermore, the drawings showing the redesign
that were cited as proof of a nuclear weapons program were clearly done by someone who didn't know that Iran
had
already abandoned the Shahab-3's nose cone
for an entirely different design.
Mossad had clearly been working on those documents in 2003 and 2004 when Bolton was
meeting with Meir Dagan. Whether Bolton knew the Israelis were preparing fake documents or not, it was the Israeli
contribution towards establishing the political basis for an American attack on Iran for which he was the point man.
Bolton reveals in his memoirs that this Cheney-directed strategy took its cues from the Israelis, who told Bolton that
the Iranians were getting close to "the point of no return." That was point, Bolton wrote, at which "we could not stop
their progress without using force."
Cheney and Bolton based their war strategy on the premise that the U.S. military would
be able to consolidate control over Iraq quickly. Instead the U.S. occupation bogged down and never fully recovered.
Cheney proposed taking advantage of a high-casualty event in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran to
attack
an IRGC base in Iran in the summer of 2007.
But the risk that pro-Iranian
Shiite militias in Iraq would retaliate against U.S. troops was a key argument against the proposal.
The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also well aware that Iran had the
capability to retaliate directly against U.S. forces in the region, including against warships in the Strait of Hormuz.
They had no patience for Cheney's wild ideas about more war.
That Pentagon caution remains unchanged. But two minds in the White House unhinged
from reality could challenge that wariness -- and push the United States closer towards a dangerous war with Iran.
I believe "War With Iran" is on the agenda.
I wrote the article below some time ago.
"Will There Be War With Iran"?
Is it now Iran's turn to be subjected to the planned and hellish wars that have already engulfed Iraq, Libya,
Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan and other countries? Will, the gates of hell be further opened to include an attack
on Iran?
Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal
standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days.
The re-emergence of Bolton is the result of Trump's electoral victory, a phenomenon that resembles the upheavals
that followed when an unhinged hereditary ruler would take the reins of power in bygone empires.
There's a big difference between the wars with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia, and a war with Iran. The
difference is, this is a war the United States could lose. And lose very, very badly. As Pompeo remarked, it would
take "only" 2000 airstrikes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear facilities. But what will it take to land 20,000
marines on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf to secure the straits, and there fend off 1.7 million Iranian
regulars and militia on the ground? How will the navy cope with hundreds and hundreds of supersonic cruise
missiles fired in volleys? What about the S-300 missiles that are by now fully operational in Iran?
A look at
the map shows that this is a war that the US simply cannot win.
Unless it uses nuclear weapons and simply sets out to kill every last man, woman, and child in Iran, all 80
million of them.
Which I suppose is not out of the question. As all options are sure to be on the table.
"Everyone worshipped the dragon because he had given his authority to the beast. They worshipped the beast also,
saying, 'Who is like the beast? Who can fight against it?'" Revelation 13:4
Who can fight against the U.S/NATO?
Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at
FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia.
So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service
forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce.
Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to
create them with no regards for consequences.
Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required.
But I don't need background to know that advocating for wars that serve little in the way of US interests
because we simply are not in any "clear and present danger".
Odd that so many "old schoolers" have abandoned some general cliche's that serve as sound guide.
Just when you think you've heard the last of the various catastrophes, blunders, and odd capering about involving
Bolton, you hear that voice from the old late night gadget commercials barking "wait,
there's more
!!"
I
doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly
given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling".
"The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start."
Hey now, Bolton's service
in the Maryland National Guard made sure the North Vietnamese never landed in Baltimore. Can you imagine the
horror if the Russians had captured our supply of soft shell crab?
John Bolton a 75 year old loser, a has Never-been, which is the mouth piece of the Zionists who keep him on the
pay roll. He likes to hear his own voice and to feel important because he wants war with Iran or all the Middle
East. He's actions and speeches are all emotional and lack logic and reasoning.
So, what is he good for?!
Re: "Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required."
Not sure about that. We definitely need Roosevelts and Lincolns, Grants and Shermans and Eisenhowers and Pattons.
I'm not clear on what function the likes of Bolton serve.
I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it
sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done
mankind a favor.
But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency
from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some
minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian
Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq.
And if the Iranians had any sense RIGHT NOW, they would make sure every family had a stock of 10 powerful
anti-vehicle mines, REALLY powerful mines. Make sure all are safely buried with locations memorized. And make sure
everyone had the training to use them, even older children (who will be the front-line guerrillas in 5 years).
So if that devil Bolton gets his way, his own country will pay a price too, and deservedly too. I want my
country to be peaceful and friendly to the world like the Germans are now. But it may take the same type of "WWII
treatment" to get my hateful war-loving countrymen to walk away from their sin.
The guerrilla war in Iraq was fought against only 5 million Sunni Arabs, the US occupiers having successfully
pealed away the Kurds and Shia to be collaborators, or at least stay uninvolved with the insurgency.
But Iran is
not just bigger than Iraq, but much more ethnically and religiously homogeneous. Imagine what kind of insurgency
you might get from 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites?
My advice to the Iranians RIGHT NOW is to mass-produce the most lethal anti-vehicle mines possible and
distribute them to the entire civilian population. Train everyone how to use them, then once trained, bury maybe
20 mines per family, all in known but hidden locations.
THAT will stop the Bolton/Zionist plan dead in its tracks.
Maybe it was a career-enhancing move. It is a legitimate question, along
with "follow the money"? Regardless of why sociopaths like Keith Payne or John Bolton become obsessed with
"winning nuclear war" or "bombing Iran" . How do they make a living? Who would bankroll somebody – over many decades – to not just consider or plan, but actively provoke illegal
acts of aggressive war, against declared policy of the government and the demands of the Constitution they have
sworn an oath to uphold?
It is also educational to see that the fabrications and other "war-program related activities" in regards to
Iran resemble the same stovepipelines that provide the Iraq 2003 pretexts – with Powell reprising his role as
useful idiot – which clashes badly with the "blunder" narrative that anybody in the US government actually
believed Iraq had WMD – was beyond "the point of no return".
This also bodes ill for a Bolton-formulated policy on Korea, and any "National Security Advice" he would see
fit to fabricate and feed to the Bomber In Chief.
Furthermore, we learn just how unhinged Cheney et.al. really were – expecting Iraq to be a mere stepping stone
along their adventures on the "Axis of Evil" trail. If these are our gamblers, nobody would suspect them of
counting cards.
We must look into our very national soul and ask why are we entertaining a war with Iran? The answer is clear. It
is to further the goals of a fanatical, right-wing, group of Zionists. When a truthful history is written about
this era of endless wars, the errant and disgraceful behavior of this group will be clearly identified and they
will not have anywhere to hide. You may fool some of the folks, some of the time, but not all the folks, all of
the time.
Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something.
These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was
true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry.
Israel and the Zionists are exactly the "foreign entanglements" that George Washington warned us about. Bolton is
a neocon-Zionist who wants the United States blood and taxes to ensure Israel's dominance of the Middle East.
So Gareth Porter cites his own Truthout article as authority for the assertion that the "laptop documents" are
fabrications. Most of the cited article seems to be devoted to "Curveball", the impeached source of Iraqi
intelligence, in order to prop up the bona fides of the German who claims the Iranian intelligence is a forgery.
Any other sourcing for this allegation available?
Judging from a quick look at what else Truthout has on offer,
I'm not sure about the credibility of Mr. Porter.
Thank you Mr. Porter for your insightful and intelligent articles, being that I am from Iran Originally brings
tears to my eyes to even imagine such tragedy, I pray this will never happen. Having lived in America more than
half of my life and having children that are Americans makes these thoughts even more horrifying . I am however
thankful to read all the comments from so many intelligent , decent and true Americans and that gives me hope that
such disaster will not take place. The people of Iran are decent and kind and cultured , I am hopeful that they
will find their way and bring about a true democracy soon and again become a positive force to the humanity.
"... I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the 1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet. ..."
"... Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the Olympics. ..."
"... I just thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0 ..."
I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I
knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the
1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence
agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet.
Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the
Olympics. I already have my tickets for England v Panama in Nizhny Novgorod, as well as
a second round match in Moscow.
I don't care much for the Olympics, although I do like the Winter Olympics. I just
thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just
seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the
event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is
probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0
"... "The Syrian Foreign Ministry pointed out that more than 40 tons of poisonous substances were found on the territories, liberated from terrorists," ..."
"... "preparing a provocation with the use of poisonous substances in order to blame the government forces of using chemical weapons against civilians." ..."
"... "has foiled the plans of the US-led coalition to strike key Syrian military targets in order to change the balance of power in favor of the so-called 'moderate opposition," ..."
"... "The shift in focus of the 87th session of the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) Executive Council from the Syrian chemical dossier to the unsubstantiated accusations against Russia over the chemical attack in Salisbury and the violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention only confirms the conclusion that the coalition's goals have been thwarted," ..."
The official was speaking at a press conference in Moscow concerning the poisoning of former
Russian double agent Sergei Skripal. London and some of its Western allies blame the incident
on Moscow, saying it has used a Russian-made nerve agent.
Kirillov said the West won't back off and is prepared to use any means necessary to
discredit Russia. The official recalled the example of Syria's Khan Shaykhun.
The commander also criticized the international bodies for their refusal to work with
Damascus in investigating the alleged chemical attacks in the country.
In late February, the Russian Reconciliation Center in Syria said it had obtained
information that militants in the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta had been "preparing a
provocation with the use of poisonous substances in order to blame the government forces of
using chemical weapons against civilians."
The release of this data "has foiled the plans of the US-led coalition to strike key
Syrian military targets in order to change the balance of power in favor of the so-called
'moderate opposition," he said.
"The shift in focus of the 87th session of the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons) Executive Council from the Syrian chemical dossier to the unsubstantiated
accusations against Russia over the chemical attack in Salisbury and the violation of the
Chemical Weapons Convention only confirms the conclusion that the coalition's goals have been
thwarted," Kirillov noted.
The alleged chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib Governorate took place on April 4,
2017 in an area controlled by Al-Nusra Front terrorist group. Up to 100 civilians were said to
have been killed by sarin gas, released in an airstrike by Syrian government forces. Washington
immediately rushed to blame Damascus for the attack and fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at
the Shayrat Airbase, claiming it was the very compound from which jets allegedly armed with the
chemical took off.
Syria, which was confirmed to have destroyed its sarin stockpiles under a deal brokered
between Russia and the US in 2013, has denied the American accusations. Russia also pointed out
that thorough impartial investigation of the incident never took place, with OPCW experts
refusing to visit Khan Shaykhun. It has argued that the attack could have been staged.
Of course it was a coup, though not a South American style with colonels in charge. It was
brought about in the first instance by American meddling, with the obligatory tidal wave of
cash in the cover of so called Orange Revolutions and aided by the neo-Nazi faction among the
Ukrainians.
However fragile there was a constitutional order in the Ukraine, which held the Ukrainian
and Russian speaking peoples of the Ukraine together. But the Westerners held the carrots of
a Western lifestyle, which the Russians could not match. The bloodshed in that part of the
world was instigated by the usual cabal of troublemakers. Putin was inclined to see the
Ukrainians more as misguided Russians rather than anything else.
''SJ Res 54, the Senate's War Powers Act challenge to the US military involvement in the
Yemen War, was killed Tuesday by the Senate, meaning it will not get a direct floor vote. The
bill noted that Congress never authorized the Yemen War, and would've compelled the US to
withdraw its participation. The vote was 55-44.''
''Merkel stressed that a U.S. withdrawal would divide the west. According to the German
official, Merkel said to Netanyahu: "It will put us, the Brits and the French on the same
side with Russia, China and Iran when the U.S. and Israel will be on the other side. Is this
what you want?"
Merkel must know the answer to her question to Netanyahu...Israel will use the US as a
battering ram against the entire world until it falls into splinters.
"... They mentioned although the Turkish officials have said they are ready to help evacuation of al-Nusra Front (Tahrir al-Sham Hay'at or the Levant Liberation Board) terrorists from Eastern Ghouta to take them to Idlib, this seems to be a cover as they really mean to rescue their special foreign forces that among the ranks of the Al-Qaeda-affiliatetd Al-Nusra in Syria. ..."
"... According to the sources, a sum of 960 foreign agents have so far been transferred to these specific regions after the terrorist groups allowed evacuation of civilians on March 15... ..."
"... It seems that there is a significant effort by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany to provoke a military confrontation with Moscow. How else are we able to interpret threats from Macron to strike Damascus, together with his ominous advice to foreign journalists not to go to Damascus in the coming days and, for those already there, to leave the capital immediately? There has even been chatter within diplomatic circles that suggest that UN personnel are leaving Damascus.... ..."
"... Russian military representatives have reiterated that in the event of an attack, they will respond by hitting both the missiles launched as well as the ships from which the missiles were launched ..."
"The sources said that after the army's expanding march in Eastern Ghouta and failure of
the US-Israeli plot to conduct an effective offensive on Damascus, the US command center
has rushed to to evacuate allied militants and agents operating for Israel, Jordan and NATO
from the region.
They mentioned although the Turkish officials have said they are ready to help
evacuation of al-Nusra Front (Tahrir al-Sham Hay'at or the Levant Liberation Board)
terrorists from Eastern Ghouta to take them to Idlib, this seems to be a cover as they
really mean to rescue their special foreign forces that among the ranks of the
Al-Qaeda-affiliatetd Al-Nusra in Syria.
Therefore, the US has ordered Jeish al-Islam, Faylaq al-Rahman and other terrorist
groups to allow evacuation of civilians from Eastern Ghouta to army-held regions in a bid
to provide the ground for these foreign agents to also leave Ghouta in disguise and enable
the Turkish intelligence service to send them to specified regions in al-Tanf and Northern
Syria which are under the control of the US troops," they
.... According to the sources, a sum of 960 foreign agents have so far been
transferred to these specific regions after the terrorist groups allowed evacuation of
civilians on March 15... ."
"According to reports, terrorists stationed in Al-Tanf received 20 tons of chlorine gas
and detonators, disguised as cigarette packs, in order to attack in an area under the control
of the terrorists that is densely inhabited by civilians. ...
It seems that there is a significant effort by the United States, the United Kingdom,
France and Germany to provoke a military confrontation with Moscow. How else are we able to
interpret threats from Macron to strike Damascus, together with his ominous advice to foreign
journalists not to go to Damascus in the coming days and, for those already there, to leave
the capital immediately? There has even been chatter within diplomatic circles that suggest
that UN personnel are leaving Damascus....
Russian military representatives have reiterated that in the event of an attack, they
will respond by hitting both the missiles launched as well as the ships from which the
missiles were launched ."
Am I correct in assuming that the long-term US/UK/Israel plan is to use false-flag events
blamed on P (spy poisonings, election tampering, MH17, Syria poison gas, etc.) to force R off
the UNSC, then set up a Rus gov in exile (similar to the ploy used recently to steal Libyan
cash), transfer the UNSC role to the exile Rus gov, and with all this to give the Rus elite
sufficient political cover at home to "take out" an ever-popular P, by any means necessary?
Concurrently, a Syria false-flag gas attack is blamed on P, missiles launched on Syria to
make sure Rus sinks a few Anglo warships and a few thousand expendable sailors are sunk, (as
Ukraine warring restarts) then the open warfare, limited to the Med, with UK/US/Is certain
they can outlast Rus, who will be stunned into surrender by the use of limited yield
nukes?
Are the warmongers overplaying their hand? I keep seeing references to hair-on-fire
hysteria of the elite doorkeepers being due to them seeing this trap in the Med as the last
chance to take Rus out in a bid to try to save the NWO project.
Because we all know the State Dept. is expert in hiring and directing jihadis to do dirty
work. Thank heaven the CIA saved us!
...The whole thing smells like a dead fish.
The part about Porton Down getting creative with sarin samples' chain of custody has been
alleged before, and I suppose State could have asked Britain to use its mercs to pull off an
event.
However, since Sy Hersh points out embedded people were explicitly warned about the Apr
'17 conventional attack ahead of time for their own safety (and the Syria plane cleared its
mission with the Deconflict folks, and knew all along it was being tracked), the likelihood
that a different group pulled the current sandbagging job must be considered.
So, fair question: Does State have its own intel / black operations team? Thought it was a
consumer not producer.
"... The UK has a long record of misdoings, he said, including the support of coup in Ukraine and the invasion of Iraq. "This is like talking to overweight alcoholics and drug users that have lost any sense of dignity." ..."
"... Their plan was to fabricate an attack against an ex-double agent in Salisbury and at the same time a chemical attack against the " moderate rebels " in the Ghouta. The conspirators' intention was to profit from the efforts of Syria to liberate the suburbs of its capital city and the disorganisation of Russia on the occasion of its Presidential election. Had these manipulations worked, the United Kingdom would have pushed the USA to bomb Damascus, including the Presidential palace, and demand that the United Nations General Assembly exclude Russia from the Security Council. ..."
"... However, the Syrian and Russian Intelligence Services got wind of what was being plotted. They realised that the US agents in the Ghouta who were preparing an attack against the Ghouta were not working for the Pentagon, but for another US agency. ..."
"... And there's the additional evidence that some kind of False Flag attempt fell apart at Eastern Ghouta + Trump's discovery that the Deep State was planning to take him by surprise (the immediate dismissal of Tillerson). ..."
Lord Robertson, Secretary General of NATO, wrote a draft resolution invoking Article 5 in
the Washington treaty -- the famous 'musketeer clause' -- as a consequence of the terror
attacks: "The Council agreed that if it is determined that this attack was directed from
abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of
the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack against one or more of the Allies in
Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."
There was a reservation. Article 5 would not be formally activated before "it is
determined that this attack was directed from abroad". Apparently, NATO had a suspect. But
the forensic evidence was still pending, and hence also the formal invocation of Article
5.
Formally, this evidence was provided by Frank Taylor, a diplomat with the title of Ambassador
from the US State Department . The first bombs fell in Kabul on 7 October 2001 [the
slaughter of civilians by the US/NATO had begun].
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty emphasises the right to self-defense and reads:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, ." That is,
military action is forbidden in the absence of an armed provocation , and the legality
of the attack on Afghanistan depends exclusively on the evidence presented in Frank Taylor's
report. But it was classified together with the minutes from the pertinent
meetings.
We are still at war seventeen years later. Five countries have been destroyed, hundreds of
thousands of people killed and millions displaced. Refugees are swarming the roads of Europe,
trillions of dollars have been spent on weapons and mercenaries and our grandchildren have
been shackled with endless debt."
-- Oded Yinon plan' fanatics, oilmen, banksters, MIC, "ambassadors," "lords," and "elected
leaders of the free world " -- None of the war criminals has been punished. Guess, their
children and grandchildren will be paying for the scoundrels' cowardice and lies.
"The Day, a news website that produces short articles about current affairs meant to be
used as teaching aids in British schools , has offered students two alternatives to
believe about Vladimir Putin: he is either Europe's "most dangerous leader since Hitler," or
a puffed up figure attacking other nations out of weakness."
-- Was it a Friend of Israel that has concocted the definitions?
"Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko has held a press conference in London, denying the
Kremlin was involved in the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia using
military-grade nerve agent.
"Britain has without any evidence blamed Russia for poisoning three people and continues
to refuse to cooperate," he said.
The UK authorities are violating Vienna Convention by not giving Russia access to
Skripals, because Skripal has dual citizenship (the UK and Russia), Russian Ambassador to the
UK Alexander Yakovenko said.
The Russian embassy has immediately requested details and materials of the case, the envoy
stated.
While 10 days have passed, Moscow has received no response, while London has refused to
pass samples of the poisonous substance allegedly used to attack Skripal.
Then Yakovenko turned a little darker, seemingly indicating concerns that this was nothing
but a false-flag operation (via SputnikNews)
The envoy called for checking how could British experts find out the exact type of the
nerve gas used to poison Skripal . [Good question!]
Commenting on the death of former top manager of Russian Aeroflot airline Nikolai
Glushkov, the ambassador stated that "we cannot take Britain's words on trust."
Alexander Yakovenko said that Britain has provided no proof of Russia's alleged
involvement in the nerve agent attack.
He suggested that the samples of the so-called Novichok nerve gas could have already been
in possession of a laboratory, which is located just miles away from Salisbury .
"We have been refused consular access to our Russian citizen Yulia Skripal ,"
Russian Ambassador to the UK Alexander Yakovenko said.
The UK is ignoring requests on case of Russian businessman Glushkov who died in London,
ambassador stated.
Russian experts puzzled how UK managed to determine type of nerve gas in Skripal
case, in days, but not weeks or months.
The UK has a long record of misdoings, he said, including the support of coup in
Ukraine and the invasion of Iraq. "This is like talking to overweight alcoholics and drug
users that have lost any sense of dignity."
Boris Johnson [the self-proclaimed "passionate Zionist") compared Russia's hosting of this
year's World Cup to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany. Russians respond: "Nobody has the
right to insult the Russian people, who defeated the Nazis."
"The US special forces deliver 20 tons of chlorine gas to Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria
order to execute a false flag for the purposes of blaming Damascus and Moscow."
"It seems that there is a significant effort by the United States, the United Kingdom,
France and Germany to provoke a military confrontation with Moscow. How else are we able to
interpret threats from Macron to strike Damascus, together with his ominous advice to foreign
journalists not to go to Damascus in the coming days and, for those already there, to leave
the capital immediately? There has even been chatter within diplomatic circles that suggest
that UN personnel are leaving Damascus.
This could be psychological warfare, or it could be a prelude to war. With the stakes so
high, we cannot afford to ignore any detail, even if it may be disinformation. The American
attack seems imminent, with mounting signs of movements of American and Russian warships in
the Mediterranean in attack formation.
Russian military representatives have reiterated that in the event of an attack, they will
respond by hitting both the missiles launched as well as the ships from which the missiles
were launched. Things are getting pretty dicey, and the risk of a direct confrontation
between the United States and the Russian Federation are rising with every passing hour. The
transfer of numerous US aircraft from Incirlik, Turkey, to Al-Azrak, Jordan, is another
indication of preparations for an attack, since the forces moved to Jordan are close to the
Al-Tanf base. The proposed strategy could involve an assault on the city of Daraa, for the
purposes of securing the borders between Syria and Jordan and Syria and Israel.
The warnings raised by Lavrov and Gerasimov appear unprecedented, given that they detail a
plan already set in course, evidently approved at the highest levels and aimed at
provoking and justifying an attack on Syria ; and attack that would encompass the Russian
forces in Syria. "
The Zionists control Britain and the U.S. and are planning to start WWIII using Syria and
Iran as the precursor and nothing is going to stop this Zionist drive for a Zionist NWO no
matter what the cost in lives or money, these satanic bastards are bound and determined to
have a war with Russia and so it shall be done.
These satanic bastards have deep underground military bases that they think they can
survive a nuclear war in and so they might, but what will be left, by the way these bases are
known as DUMBs, and are connected by a tunnel system through out the U.S. and Britain, if
anyone doubts this , do some research , it is true.
Mr. Meyssan wrote the first book, in 2002, to assert that 9/11 was a False Flag attack by
what we now call the 'Deep State". 9/11 The Big Lie came out in English in 2003. I believe
that Meyssan is living in exile from France in Syria. He was one of the first reporters to
show that the attacks upon Assad and Syria were being run by foreign intelligence operatives
and their terrorist minions like ISIS.
I am glad that Mr. Unz has run this very important article on the present intrigue.
This excellent article is why I visit this site. Doing the work that the Jewstream media
refuses to do. I knew "something was rotten in Denmark"! It is very, very good that the world
has leaders such as our great President Trump and powerful (take no bull) Putin. As far as
Merkel and May go the sooner the door hits them on the Ass the better.
Hilarious nonsense! Thierry Meyssan is a specialist in conspiracy theories and could be
called a "9/11 negationist". One can assume that, in his eyes, the Salisbury attack,
regardless of who might have carried it out, has not worked to Putin's advantage.
Dutch voters behaved badly, so the toys are taken away. No more 'referanda' for you.
The disintegration will accelerate: more new faces, local parties, rebellion parties. And,
of course, more clowns (hello Boris, now climb down from that tree).
Brussels is having urgent off-sites with think-tank geniuses how to stop it. So far they
have come up with: more 'media control' (propaganda), more outreach, drastic new restrictions
('you like the old Europe? -- xenophobe!, no travel for you'), and a circular management
refresh, Macronism .
One thing I doubt the globo-liberal EU obsessives will ever do is to actually listen to
the 'misguided' people. It has been preliminary decided to simply label any resistance as '
Russian subversion '. That buys some time, but they have no long term solutions, or
even coherent ideas. This will get more entertaining. Boris J-man might actually climb up
that tree before this is over
There is structural Globalist government and all participants as Theresa May are only
puppets. All western leaderships are only participants. So far only Trump is the one who is
resisting.
The orders are coming from Rothschild. He ordered now that Russia must be destroyed or at
least neutralized. I am convinced that Russia's government is fully aware of what is going
on.
Just a while ago Russia commissioned three nuclear armed submarines. Not long time ago
Putin ordered nuclear drill over all country. I would guess that Russia already a while ago
is on war preparation mode. Looks like the west lost its mind.
Concerning economy Britain is in trouble. French were strongly opposing Britain to join
EU. That was because England is the main competitor for French food exports. One thing from
this will be good. Barb be qui season is coming and beef will be now cheep.
Well I felt so unattracted by what I had read that I thought it would be helpful to see if
any of the UR Commenters who can make sense would give an assessment.
Thank you for the information. It doesn't make him sound like a person who is well placed
to make the claims to knowledge he has about what went on in England.
The main Brussels' battle cry is 'populism'. In my opinion, populism is simply opposing
political mainstream. But this mainstream is disintegrating, Hollande abolished the French
socialist party, Parti Socialiste.
In Germany Schulz, former EU top man, SPD member, the Socialist Party Germany, even had to
step down as chairman in order to make SPD members agree with the SPD coalition with Merkel's
CDU. Schulz obviously left his overpaid Brussels job in order to become chancellor.
But also Merkel policies are breaking down. Her minister of the Interior, police, border
control, immigration, naturalisation, granting asylum, Seehofer, states that he will
reinstate border controls, as the EU does nothing. Polls show that 76% of Germans agree with
him.
What most Germans do not know is that oral instructions were given in Merkel's former
chancellor period to customs and border police, not to stop any immigrant at the borders.
Merkel and Seehofer now disagree on Islam, Merkel 'the Islam belongs to Germany', Seehofer
'the Islam is in Germany'. But in how far the German people and culture can be saved in the
long run one wonders. Demographic calsulations show that with present differences in birth
rates in 30 to 40 years time 30 to 40% of the Germans will be Muslims. As Merkel said
'they're here already'. What Merkel's objectives are or were, she if often compared to the
sfinx. In any case Mutti, mom, cannot last much longer.
E European countries reject Muslim immigrants. However, after the Muslim immigrants have
been naturalised, under present EU rules, they can settle anywhere in the EU, so the eastern
countries cannot keep them away. If they want to settle in hostile communities is the
question.
" Looks like the west lost its mind. " Rothschild, Bilderberg, is not the west, nor is
AIPAC and AEI. However, former Shell CEO Van der Veer is chairman of a NATO strategic
advisory committee.
Now go back and read the article and then re-assess what A436 said, Wally.
It doesn't make him sound like a person who is well placed to make the claims to
knowledge he has about what went on in England.
He's talking about whether Thierry Meyssan would really have access to the people and
information that could confirm this story of conspiracy and its uncovering.
The British government and certain of its allies, including US Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, have attempted to launch a Cold War against Russia.
Their plan was to fabricate an attack against an ex-double agent in Salisbury and at
the same time a chemical attack against the " moderate rebels " in the Ghouta. The
conspirators' intention was to profit from the efforts of Syria to liberate the suburbs of
its capital city and the disorganisation of Russia on the occasion of its Presidential
election. Had these manipulations worked, the United Kingdom would have pushed the USA to
bomb Damascus, including the Presidential palace, and demand that the United Nations
General Assembly exclude Russia from the Security Council.
However, the Syrian and Russian Intelligence Services got wind of what was being
plotted. They realised that the US agents in the Ghouta who were preparing an attack
against the Ghouta were not working for the Pentagon, but for another US agency.
In Damascus, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Fayçal Miqdad, set up an
emergency Press conference for 10 March, in order to alert his fellow citizens. From its
own side, Moscow had first of all tried to contact Washington via the diplomatic channels.
But aware that the US ambassador, Jon Huntsman Jr, is the director of Caterpillar, the
company which had supplied tunneling materials to the jihadists so that they could build
their fortifications, Moscow decided to bypass the usual diplomatic channels.
No, you don't need to be IN England. But you do need to have at least a small record of
qualifications and credibility to get readers to move past those first paragraphs which look
like the script of a movie starring Jennifer Lawrence as an FSB triple-agent.
A comment from Randal on another thread that gets to the point:
The only suggestions that the Russians were responsible for the incident come from
exactly the same kinds of people who told us about Iraq's WMD and the supposed Libyan
humanitarian emergency. And yes, about supposed suicidal Syrian government uses of chemical
weapons that are conveniently just big enough to provide their enemies with yet another big
stick to beat them with, but not enough to give them any material advantage.
And there's the additional evidence that some kind of False Flag attempt fell apart at
Eastern Ghouta + Trump's discovery that the Deep State was planning to take him by surprise
(the immediate dismissal of Tillerson).
"... By doing do, the British government adopted the theories of Professor Amy Knight. On 22 January 2018, this US Sovietologist published a very strange book -- Orders to Kill -- the Putin régime and political murder . The author, who is " the " specialist on the ex-KGB, attempts to demonstrate that Vladimir Putin is a serial killer responsible for dozens of political assassinations, from the terrorist attacks in Moscow in 1999 to the attack on the Boston Marathon in 2013, by way of the execution of Alexandre Litvinenko in London in 2006 or that of Boris Nemtsov in Moscow in 2015. However, she admits herself that there is absolutely no proof of her accusations. ..."
"... The European Liberals then joined the fray. Ex-Prime Minister of Belgium Guy Verhofstadt, who presides their group in the European Parliament, called on the European Union to adopt sanctions against Russia. His counterpart at the head of their British party, Sir Vince Cable, proposed a European boycott of the World Football Cup. And already, Buckingham Palace announced that the royal family has canceled their trip to Russia. ..."
"... Responding to the Prime Minister, Blairist deputy Chris Leslie qualified Russia as a rogue state and demanded its suspension from the UN Security Council. Theresa May agreed to examine the question, but stressed that the outcome could only be decided by the General Assembly in order to avoid the Russian veto. ..."
"... During the public debate which followed, UK chargé d'affaire Jonathan Allen represented his country. He is an agent of MI6 who created the British War Propaganda Service and gives active support to the jihadists in Syria. He declared -- " Russia has already interfered in the affairs of other countries, Russia has already violated international law in Ukraine, Russia has comtempt for civilian life, as witnessed by the attack on a commercial aircraft over Ukraine by Russian mercenaries, Russia protects the use of chemical weapons by Assad ( ) The Russian state is responsible for this attempted murder ". The permanent representative for France, François Delattre, who, by virtue of a derogation by President Sarkozy, was trained at the US State Department, noted that his country had launched an initiative to end the impunity of those who use chemical weapons. He implied that the initiative, originally directed at Syria, could also be turned against Russia. ..."
"... Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya pointed out that the session had been convened at London's request, but that it is public at Moscow's request. He observed that the United Kingdom is violating international law by treating this subject at the Security Council while keeping the OPCW out of its enquiry. He noted that if London had been able to identify the " Novotchik ", it's because it has the formula and can therefore make its own. He noted Russia's desire to collaborate with the OPCW in the respect for international procedures. ..."
"... Throughout its long history, England has never hesitated to lie and betray its oath in order to defend its interests. This is how it earned its French nickname of " perfide Albion " (after the Latin name for England) ..."
"... local parties are the winners, winners also are national anti establishment parties, despite the demonizing of these populists, that represent the opinions of a significant portion of the population. ..."
"... As Belgium and Germany, governing our country becomes more and more difficult. The country seems to be more and more divided between those who trust the government, and those with deep distrust. ..."
The British government and certain of its allies, including US Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, have attempted to launch a Cold War against Russia.
Their plan was to fabricate an attack against an ex-double agent in Salisbury and at the
same time a chemical attack against the " moderate rebels " in the Ghouta. The conspirators'
intention was to profit from the efforts of Syria to liberate the suburbs of its capital city
and the disorganisation of Russia on the occasion of its Presidential election. Had these
manipulations worked, the United Kingdom would have pushed the USA to bomb Damascus, including
the Presidential palace, and demand that the United Nations General Assembly exclude Russia
from the Security Council.
However, the Syrian and Russian Intelligence Services got wind of what was being plotted.
They realised that the US agents in the Ghouta who were preparing an attack against the Ghouta
were not working for the Pentagon, but for another US agency.
In Damascus, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Fayçal Miqdad, set up an
emergency Press conference for 10 March, in order to alert his fellow citizens. From its own
side, Moscow had first of all tried to contact Washington via the diplomatic channels. But
aware that the US ambassador, Jon Huntsman Jr, is the director of Caterpillar, the company
which had supplied tunneling materials to the jihadists so that they could build their
fortifications, Moscow decided to bypass the usual diplomatic channels.
The Syrian army seized two chemical weapons laboratories, the first on 12 March in Aftris,
and the second on the following day in Chifonya. Meanwhile, Russian diplomats pushed the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to get involved in the criminal
investigation in Salisbury.
In the House of Commons, British Prime Minister Theresa May violently accused Russia of
having ordered the attack in Salisbury. According to her, the ex-double agent Sergueï
Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by a military nerve gas of a type " developed by
Russia " under the name of " Novitchok ". Since the Kremlin considers Russian citizens who
have defected as legitimate targets, it is therefore highly likely that they ordered the
crime.
" Novitchok " is known by what has been revealed by two Soviet personalities, Lev Fyodorov
and Vil Mirzayanov. The scientist Fyodorov published an article in the Russian weekly Top
Secret (Совершенно
секретно) in July 1992, warning about the
extremely dangerous nature of this product, and warning against the use of old Soviet
weaponry by the Western powers to destroy the environment in Russia and make it unlivable. In
October 1992, he published a second article in the News of Moscow
(Московские
новости) with a counter-espionage executive,
Mirzayanov, denouncing the corruption of certain generals and the traffic of " Novitchok " in
which they were involved. However, they did not know to whom they may have sold the product.
Mirzayanov was first of all arrested for high treason, then released. Fyodorov died in Russia
last August, but Mirzayanov is living in exile in the United States, where he collaborates
with the Department of Defense.
Russian ex-counter intelligence officer Vil Mirzayanov defected to the United States. Now
83 years old, he comments on the Skripal affair from Boston.
" Novitchok " was fabricated in a Soviet laboratory in Nurus, in what is now Uzbekistan.
During the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was destroyed by a US team of specialists.
Uzbekistan and the United States, by necessity, have therefore possessed and studied samples
of this substance. They are both capable of producing it.
British Minister for Foreign Affairs Boris Johnson summoned the Russian ambassador in
London, Alexandre Iakovenko. He gave him an ultimatum of 36 hours to check if any " Novitchok
" was missing from their stocks. The ambassador replied that none was missing, because Russia
had destroyed all of the chemical weapons it had inherited from the Soviet Union, as
witnessed by the OPCW, which had drawn up a certified report.
After a telephone discussion with Boris Johnson, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in
turn condemned Russia for the attack in Salisbury.
Meanwhile, a debate was under way at the UN Security Council concerning the situation in
the Ghouta. The permanent representative for the US, Nikki Haley, declared -- " About one
year ago, after the sarin gas attack perpetrated in Khan Cheïkhoun by the Syrian
régime, the United States warned the Council. We said that faced with the systematic
inaction of the international community, states are sometimes obliged to act on their own.
The Security Council did not react, and the United States bombed the air base from which al
Assad had launched his chemical attack. We are reiterating the same warning today ".
The Russian Intelligence Services handed out documents from the US staff. They showed that
the Pentagon was ready to bomb the Presidential palace and the Syrian Ministries, on the
model of what it had done during the taking of Baghdad (3 to 12 April 2003).
Commenting the declaration by Nikki Haley, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, who
had always called the attack in Khan Cheïkhoun a " Western manipulation ", revealed that
the false information which had led the White House into error and triggered the bombing of
the Al-Chaayrate air base, had in fact come from a British laboratory which had never
revealed how it came to possess its samples.
The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs published a Press release condemning a possible
US military intervention, and announcing that if Russian citizens were harmed in Damascus,
Moscow would riposte proportionally, since the Russian President is constitutionally
responsible for the security of his fellow citizens.
Bypassing the official diplomatic channels, Russian Chief of Staff General Valeri
Guerassimov contacted his US counterpart General Joseph Dunford to inform him of his fear of
a false flag chemical attack in Ghouta. Dunford took this information vey seriously, and
alerted US Defense Secretary General Jim Mattis, who referred the matter to President Donald
Trump. In view of the Russian insistence that this piece of foul play was being prepared
without the knowledge of the Pentagon, the White House asked the Director of the CIA, Mike
Pompeo, to identify those responsible for the conspiracy.
We do not know the result of this internal enquiry, but President Trump acquired the
conviction that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was implicated. The Secretary of State
was immediately asked to interrupt his official journey in Africa and return to
Washington.
Theresa May wrote to the General Secretary of the United Nations accusing Russia of having
ordered the attack in Salisbury, and convened an emergency meeting of the Security Council.
Without waiting, she expelled 23 Russian diplomats.
Published one month and a half before the attack in Salisbury, Amy Knight's book presents
what was to become MI5's thesis. The author herself maintains that she has not the slightest
proof of what she is claiming.
At the request of President of the House of Commons Interior Committee Yvette Cooper,
British Secretary for the Interior Amber Rudd announced that MI5 (Military Interior Secret
Services ) is going to re-open 14 enquiries into deaths which, according to US sources, were
ordered by the Kremlin.
By doing do, the British government adopted the theories of Professor Amy Knight. On
22 January 2018, this US Sovietologist published a very strange book -- Orders to Kill --
the Putin régime and political murder . The author, who is " the " specialist on
the ex-KGB, attempts to demonstrate that Vladimir Putin is a serial killer responsible for
dozens of political assassinations, from the terrorist attacks in Moscow in 1999 to the
attack on the Boston Marathon in 2013, by way of the execution of Alexandre Litvinenko in
London in 2006 or that of Boris Nemtsov in Moscow in 2015. However, she admits herself that
there is absolutely no proof of her accusations.
The European Liberals then joined the fray. Ex-Prime Minister of Belgium Guy
Verhofstadt, who presides their group in the European Parliament, called on the European
Union to adopt sanctions against Russia. His counterpart at the head of their British party,
Sir Vince Cable, proposed a European boycott of the World Football Cup. And already,
Buckingham Palace announced that the royal family has canceled their trip to Russia.
The UK communications regulator, Ofcom, announced that it might ban the channel Russia
Today as a retaliatory measure, even though RT has on no occasion violated British
law.
The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs summoned the British ambassador in Moscow to
inform him that reciprocal measures would soon be indicated in retaliation for the expulsion
of Russian diplomats from London.
President Trump announced on Twitter that he had fired his Secretary of State, with whom
he had not yet been in contact. He was replaced by Mike Pompeo, ex-Director of the CIA, who,
the night before, had confirmed the authenticity of the Russian information transmitted by
General Dunford. On his arrival in Washington, Tillerson obtained confirmation of his
dismissal from White House General Secretary General John Kelly.
The ex-CEO of the largest
multinational in the world, ExxonMobil, thought he was untouchable. But to his great
surprise, Rex Tillerson was brutally dismissed by Donald Trump. The former believed he was
serving the Anglo-Saxon world, while the latter considers him to be a traitor to his country.
Ex-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is a product of the Texan middle class. He and his
family worked for the US Scouts, of whom he became the National President (2010-12).
Culturally close to England, he did not hesitate, when he became President of the
mega-multinational Exxon-Mobil (2006-16), not only to wage a politically correct campaign
favouring the acceptance of young gays into the Scouts, but also to recruit mercenaries in
British Guiana. He is said to be a member of the Pilgrims Society, the most prestigious of
Anglo-US clubs, presided by Queen Elizabeth II, a number of whose members were part of the
Obama administration.
During his functions as Secretary of State, the quality of his education provided a bond
for Donald Trump, considered by US high society to be a buffoon. He was in disagreement with
his President on three major subjects which allow us to define the ideology of the
conspirators -
Like London and the US deep state, he thought it would be useful to diabolise Russia in
order to consolidate the power of the Anglo-Saxons in the Western camp ;
Like London, he thought that in order to maintain Western colonialism in the Middle East, it
was necessary to favour Iranian President Cheikh Rohani against the Supreme Leader of the
Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khamenei. He therefore supported the 5+1 agreement.
Like the US deep state, he considered that the swing of North Korea towards the United
States should remain secret, and be used to justify a military deployment which would be
directed in reality against the People's Repubic of China. He was therefore in favor of
official talks with Pyongyang, but opposed to a meeting between the two heads of
state.
While Washington was still in shock, Theresa May spoke once again before the House of
Commons to develop her accusation, while all around the world, British diplomats spoke to
numerous inter-governmental organisations in order to broadcast the message. Responding
to the Prime Minister, Blairist deputy Chris Leslie qualified Russia as a rogue state and
demanded its suspension from the UN Security Council. Theresa May agreed to examine the
question, but stressed that the outcome could only be decided by the General Assembly in
order to avoid the Russian veto.
The North Atlantic Council (NATO) met in Brussels at the request of the United Kingdom.
The 29 member states drew a link between the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the attack
in Salisbury. They then decided that Russia was " probably " responsible for these two
events.
In New York, the permanent representative of Russia, Vasily Nebenzya, proposed to the
members of the Security Council that they adopt a declaration attesting to their common will
to shed light on the attack in Salisbury and handing over the enquiry to the OPCW in the
respect of international procedures. But the United Kingdom refused any text which did not
contain the expression that Russia was " probably responsible " for the attack.
During the public debate which followed, UK chargé d'affaire Jonathan Allen
represented his country. He is an agent of MI6 who created the British War Propaganda Service
and gives active support to the jihadists in Syria. He declared -- " Russia has already
interfered in the affairs of other countries, Russia has already violated international law
in Ukraine, Russia has comtempt for civilian life, as witnessed by the attack on a commercial
aircraft over Ukraine by Russian mercenaries, Russia protects the use of chemical weapons by
Assad ( ) The Russian state is responsible for this attempted murder ". The permanent
representative for France, François Delattre, who, by virtue of a derogation by
President Sarkozy, was trained at the US State Department, noted that his country had
launched an initiative to end the impunity of those who use chemical weapons. He implied that
the initiative, originally directed at Syria, could also be turned against Russia.
Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya pointed out that the session had been convened at
London's request, but that it is public at Moscow's request. He observed that the United
Kingdom is violating international law by treating this subject at the Security Council while
keeping the OPCW out of its enquiry. He noted that if London had been able to identify the "
Novotchik ", it's because it has the formula and can therefore make its own. He noted
Russia's desire to collaborate with the OPCW in the respect for international
procedures.
The United Kingdom published a common declaration which had been cosigned the night before
by France and Germany, as well as Rex Tillerson, who at that moment was still US Secretary of
State. The text reiterated British suspicions. It denounced the use of " a neurotoxic agent
of military quality, and of a type developed by Russia ", and affirmed that it was " highly
probable that Russia is responsible for the attack ".
The Washington Post published an op-ed piece by Boris Johnson, while the US
Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, established new sanctions against Russia. These
are not connected to the current affair, but to allegations of interference in US public
life. The decree nonetheless mentions the attack in Salisbury as proof of the underhand
methods of Russia.
Throughout its long history, England has never hesitated to lie and
betray its oath in order to defend its interests. This is how it earned its French nickname
of " perfide Albion " (after the Latin name for England)
British Secretary for Defence, the young Gavin Williamson, declared that after the
expulsion of its diplomats, Russia should " shut up and go away " (sic). This is the first
time since the end of the Second World War that a representative of a permanent member state
of the Security Council has employed such a vocabulary in the face of another member of the
Council. Sergueï Lavrov commented -- " He's a charming young man. He must want to ensure
his place in History, by making shock declarations [...] Perhaps he lacks education ".
In the space of four days, the United Kingdom and its allies have laid the premises of a new
division of the world, a Cold War.
However, Syria is not Iraq and the UNO is not the G8 (from which Russia has been excluded
because of its adhesion to Crimea and its support of Syria). The United States are not going to
destroy Damascus, and Russia will not be excluded from the Security Council. After having
resigned from the European Union, then having refused to sign the Chinese declaration about the
Silk Road, the United Kingdom thought to improve its stature by eliminating a competitor. By
this piece of dirty work, it imagined that it would acquire a new dimension and become the "
Global Britain " announced by Madame May. But it is destroying its own credibility.
Yesterday were the Dutch municipal elections. The losers were the governing parties at
national level. Winners the local parties. Trust in 'elite' politicians is diminishing
further.
We yesterday also had our last referendum, the referendum law no longer exists. As with
all previous referenda, we voted against government policy, this time the law that gives
secret services the legal right to spy on anyone.
As with all referenda, our vote will not have any effect, as when in 2005 we voted against
the EU, and two years ago against the EU Ukraine association treaty.
Nevertheless, democracy functions. As I wrote, local parties are the winners, winners
also are national anti establishment parties, despite the demonizing of these populists, that
represent the opinions of a significant portion of the population.
As Belgium and Germany, governing our country becomes more and more difficult. The
country seems to be more and more divided between those who trust the government, and those
with deep distrust.
Two of the worst American false flags are responsible for the killing in North Korea and
Vietnam. The killing of it's own people is not a moral dilemma for the Deep State.
Meyssan has often voiced the opinion that Trump & Putin have an understanding. We can't,
and will probably never know the truth of this opinion, but when one watches their body
language and behaviour together such as was openly displayed at the APEC summit in Vietnam,
one sees that they are very comfortable with each other.
One of the things that the Kremlin understands is that the US, and specifically its
foreign policy determinations, is rat's nest of various vested and/or rogue interests pulling
in their various directions, and that by virtue of Washington's chaotic politics much of what
seems to be foreign policy is executed without the knowledge, much less control of the
President, or even the State & Defence Departments.
The reality is that both Russia and China want (for different reasons) a healthy USA to
sit at a newly constituted round table of Great Powers. There are factions within the
US that agree with them, and that the road to Global Hegemony is a dead end. Trump's election
has opened a window of opportunity to allow the US to de-throttle, and even back away from
that goal should those factions gain the upper hand. From what we see, they are making
progress.
There's still a political battle royal ahead for them, but there's also factions within
the US' allies whose fortunes will take a turn for the worse should they succeed. They will
naturally ally with those in the US who's goal is Empire. As it is, with current developments
in DC, and the Syrian gambit backfiring, said factions are panicking and it should surprise
no-one to see ill-conceived and executed attempts to reverse their fortunes.
I think the Skripal case is a textbook example of just that kind of thing happening. A
farcical caricature of a false flag operation gone awry, and no plausible narrative in
sight.
That the once great UK is reduced to 3 blind mice standing in for Ministers of what are
normally a nation's 3 most powerful ministries shows just how far from its moorings the West
has drifted. One is almost embarrassed for them as they thrash around.
Saker posted a video on his site of a meeting called by the Kremlin of all ambassadors.
It's astonishing, frankly.
MAY-DAY, MAY-DAY don't write checks with insufficient funds on hand, May, America doesn't
need the UK pimping a war with Russia, we can't pay for the ones with have now!
WASHINGTON -- Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the battle-tested Army officer tapped
as President Trump's national security adviser last year to stabilize a turbulent foreign
policy operation, will resign and be replaced by John R. Bolton, a hard-line former United
States ambassador to the United Nations, White House officials said Thursday.
General McMaster will retire from the military, the officials said. He has been discussing
his departure with President Trump for several weeks, they said, but decided to speed up his
departure, in part because questions about his status were casting a shadow over his
conversations with foreign officials.
The officials also said that Mr. Trump wanted to fill out his national security team before
his meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un. He
replaced Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson with the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, last
week.
Officials emphasized that General McMaster's departure was a mutual decision and amicable,
with none of the recrimination that marked Mr. Tillerson's exit. They said it was not related
to a leak on Tuesday of
briefing materials for Mr. Trump's phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of
Russia.
In the materials, Mr. Trump was advised not to congratulate Mr. Putin on his re-election,
which the president went ahead and did during the call.
Mr. Bolton, who will take office April 9, has met regularly with Mr. Trump to discuss
foreign policy, and was on a list of candidates for national security adviser. He was in the
West Wing with Mr. Trump to discuss the job on Thursday.
MUNICH -- Just hours after the Justice Department indicted 13 Russians in what it charged
was a broad conspiracy to alter the 2016 election, President Trump's national security adviser,
Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, accused Moscow of engaging in a campaign of "disinformation,
subversion and espionage" that he said Washington would continue to expose.
The evidence of a Russian effort to interfere in the election "is now incontrovertible,"
General McMaster said at the Munich Security Conference, an annual meeting of European and
American diplomats and security experts, including several senior Russian officials. On Friday,
just hours before the indictment, the top White House official for cyberissues accused Russia
of "the most destructive cyberattack in human history," against Ukraine last summer.
Taken together, the statements appeared to mark a major turn in the administration's
willingness to directly confront the government of President Vladimir V. Putin. Defense
Secretary Jim Mattis and C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo also attended the Munich conference, and
while they did not speak publicly, in private meetings with others here they reiterated similar
statements.
The comments highlighted a sharp division inside the administration about how to talk about
the Russian covert efforts, with only Mr. Trump and a few of his close advisers holding back
from acknowledging the Russian role or talking about a larger strategy to deter future
attacks.
The indictment characterized the cyberattacks and social media fraud as part of a larger
effort by Russia to undermine the United States. A senior administration official called the
effort to confront Russia "a significant point of contention" within the administration.
After the indictment on Friday Mr. Trump declared in a Twitter post that "the results of the
election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong -- no collusion!" He made no
mention of Russia as a "revisionist power," the description used in his own National Security
Strategy, or of the elaborate $1.2 million-a-month effort that the indictment indicated
Russia's Internet Research Agency spent in an effort to discredit the election system and
ultimately to support his candidacy.
Vice President Mike Pence, speaking this past week in Washington, misstated American
intelligence conclusions about the election hacking, arguing "it is the universal conclusion of
our intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any effect on the outcome of the
2016 election." The intelligence chiefs have said they have not, and cannot, reach such a
conclusion.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, cited Mr. Pence's comments during the
session here Saturday to make the case that Russia did nothing wrong. "So until we see the
facts, everything else is just blabber," he said.
The man who served as the Russian ambassador to the United States during the period covered
by the indictments, Sergey I. Kislyak, picked up on a favorite theme of Mr. Trump's:
questioning the credibility of the F.B.I. and intelligence agency assessments.
"I have seen so many indictments and accusations against Russians," Mr. Kislyak said on
Saturday afternoon. "I am not sure I can trust American law enforcement to be the most truthful
source against Russians." He added, "The allegations being mounted against us are simply
fantasies."
Mr. Kislyak, who has been caught up in the investigation because of meetings with Trump
campaign officials during his time as ambassador, went on to cite a study, which he said he was
keeping in his briefcase, that proved the "main source of computer attacks in the world is not
Russia. It is the United States."
You are in a tiny bubble, and just because your small, smart sample seems "woke," don't
imagine IQ is any barometer for resistance to group-think and propaganda.
Furthermore, don't assume that humans, high IQ or otherwise, are capable of extrapolation.
My lunch group was composed of Christian activists who have [each] spent decades advocating
for Palestinians. They are intimately aware of how propaganda has biased Americans for
Israel. They have seen the film, Occupation of the American Mind . They know that only
by persistent clever marketing, the Zionists sold the fraudulent "noble little Israel"
myth.
And yet, they accept unquestioningly the MSM fake news about ANY OTHER SUBJECT. I find
this particularly galling, but I believe it's a form of denial they use because the cognitive
dissonance would be just too much to bear.
Alas, I stayed with USA friends, well educated middle class, where CNN was the only
'news' source.
Three other USA acquaintances I visited in their homes, cannot remember having seen a
newspaper other than a local one about marriages and funerals.
The USA reminded me of the Peking court, that, when British warships were reported on
the coast, responded with 'there had been so many pirates already'.
In the Badlands, in a very small café, I identified myself as Dutch, from
Holland, Netherlands. When all this did not ring bell I mentioned Europe, the first time in
my life. This was understood.
Jilles, maybe your American friends are simply ignorant and easily fooled. That is the
type of people who make CNN their sole source of news. This doesn't make them average
Americans, just CNN fans.
If I came to visit a friend in Holland, and based my opinion of all Nederlanders on that
friend and three others like him that I met while there, would you agree with me if I said
that the average person in the Netherlands thought like my friend and his three friends?
"... Since Russia has asked Lebanon for a military cooperation agreement, which I believe was intended as a warning to Israel not to attack Lebanon again - because of the threat that Syria would become involved - I suspect that Russia is well aware of Israel's intentions. ..."
"... The addition of a US base in Israel and a commitment of US forces to support Israel in their wars means that there will be an increased likelihood of US conflict with Russia if Russia intervenes in a Israeli/US attack in Lebanon which extends into Syria. ..."
Apparently Israel held a command-level war game under cover of the Cobra exercise where
they continued to plan an attack on Lebanon and Syria, as well as what to do if "the Russian
made trouble."
"We can achieve decisive victory over Hezbollah, and we don't need help from a single
American soldier, but we cannot fight Iran alone," he stated last year. "I consider future
cooperation with the U.S. much more important than anything we've had in the past."
Reading that in reverse supports my contention that Israel both continues to intend to
degrade Hizballah and Syria's ability to be effective actors in a US/Israel war with Iran,
and also that they intend to recruit the US in their next attack on Lebanon, with the goal of
extending that war into Syria.
And that is regardless of the Russian presence in Syria.
Since Russia has asked Lebanon for a military cooperation agreement, which I believe
was intended as a warning to Israel not to attack Lebanon again - because of the threat that
Syria would become involved - I suspect that Russia is well aware of Israel's
intentions.
The addition of a US base in Israel and a commitment of US forces to support Israel in
their wars means that there will be an increased likelihood of US conflict with Russia if
Russia intervenes in a Israeli/US attack in Lebanon which extends into Syria.
I don't think Russia would come to Lebanon's aid directly in support of Hizballah, but
it's quite likely Russia would intervene if that war extended into Syria. Russia doesn't have
the forces in country in Syria to directly intervene militarily but it could add additional
forces or use its regional capabilities to intervene enough to complicate Israeli/US actions
in Syria. But not without increasing the probability of escalation to a dangerous degree.
If Israel is not persuaded to stand down on its intentions to attack Hizballah and Syria,
things could get much more ugly than the present Syrian crisis.
As such Russia still gravitates towards "a strong man" style of leadership.
Ironically it was the US and its ((advisers)) that first handed all of the Russian wealth
over to the ((oligarchs)), and then, later, supported Yeltsin when he illegally dissolved the
Rada and arrested their leaders (generally known as the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis)
(they had also supported him earlier, back when he was only President of the Russian Soviet
Socialist Republic and Gorbachev was head honcho, when Yeltsin sent tanks to bomb the
Rada/Parliament, during the so-called "August coup"). As a result, so that "their man" had
all the authority he needed to crush any dissent, the US and "West" fully supported the
"authoritarian" Constitution adopted later that year to cement Yeltsin's powers.
But of course now they blame Putin and the "Russian character" for it. Because, you know,
that is how the "West" rolls.
taking on democratic principle is just not as breezy as assumed
Yes and that is why there is not one country, aside perhaps from Switzerland, that is even
remotely democratic. The US is an utter oligarchic tyranny. Some other countries in Europe
may have some minimal claim at a semblance of democracy but it all collapses under closer
scrutiny. Heck many European countries still have their monarchies, including, probably in
the most extreme form, the UK.
Russia has yet to untangle some several hundred years of central authority style
leadership and taking on democratic principle is just not as breezy as assumed.
This is such a cliche phrase. Could you specify where exactly do you see stellar examples
of "democratic principles" ? In the UK with its unelected upper chamber of the parliament and
the Prime Minister, also not elected directly by the citizens? In the US, with its two-party
system in indirect elections? In Australis, with its compulsory voting?
Today's Russia is as democratic as any Western country, more so than some. Whatever
peculiarities our political system has is due to our history, the same as in any other
country. The same as in the UK, with their "constitutional" monarchy in the absence of actual
constitution. The same as in the US, with their voting system designed by Founding Fathers.
Russia is large and divers; some centralized authority is needed to keep it together
structurally and mentally, that is all.
The whining is coming for the land of Bush the lesser, Cheney five deferments, Rice
mushroom cloud, Chicago-style elections, and the Lobby strict censorship over the US Congress
(only Israel-firsters are allowed). Wouldn't it be great if the US first punish her own
criminals, including banksters and dual-citizenship spies? Four million civilians --
including a multitude of children -- were slaughtered in the Middle East since 1999 to
satisfy the desires of Israel-firsters, MIC, and oilmen. And yet, the major war criminals who
pushed for the wars of aggression (a supreme crime) are wondering free: from Bush and Kristol
to Clinton and Powers
Comment section: " all these statements by Votel are true and it took a good deal of
courage to make them in public." -- Get it? Just stating truthfully that Syria has won a
civil war is an anathema to the Lobby and it takes a great personal courage by a four-star
general in the United States Army who has been commander of United States Central Command to
testify the truth for the US Congress.
Russian Federation is an independent state. The US is ZUSA -- Ziocon United States of
America. Ukraine has become the Kaganat of Nuland, and the UK has become a personal estate of
the Friends of Israel. For example, Boris Johnson proclaimed himself a committed Zionist:
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/boris-johnson-zionist/
" As far as we all know now are quite hard times to Russia and to the world as a whole.
"
Why do we have these hard times ?
Could it be globalisation, western greed, and western aggression ?
Well, probably it can be more clear for those who are attacking and humiliating Russia in
all directions? The West-ZUS-UK
But I think it's just an agony of Empire seeing the world order is about to change. And
yes it's "western greed" which have a "western aggression" as a consequence.
The "globalisation" actually IS that world order which the West trying to
establish. Russia in all times in all its internal structure was a subject of annexation and
submission. But we never agreed and never will do it, until alive. The West is too stupid to
get that simple thing to know and leave us to live as we are about to.
In the last two years, in every single Syrian brigade or division, Russian special forces
have been present, coordinating military operations on the ground and all air strikes...
The main control and command base is also led by Russian generals in connection with the
military operations room in Moscow. This is where planning, information gathering and
attack orders are given to the forces operating in Syria...
This is why the Russian generals have met with the YPG Kurdish leaders on several
occasions, to communicate Damascus's will to control the Afrin enclave on the condition
that the Kurds hand over the administration and all the weapons in possession of the
YPG...
The Syrian Kurds wanted to believe - like the Iraqi Kurds - that the international
community would play a positive role in protecting Afrin and that they would not be
betrayed...
Russia and Damascus understood from the contacts between Afrin and al-Hasaka that the
YPG leaders would have preferred to abandon Afrin to Turkey rather than hand it over to
Damascus...
The Kurds have managed to face a single possibility: to migrate where the American
forces are present and where they can offer protection to the occupying forces in the
north-east of Syria...
Moscow has sided with Ankara, giving Turkey another chance to stand among the
superpower's allies and managed to make a serious step forward with one of the largest NATO
members...
[T]he speed of the battle led by Syria and Russia, has offered the government of
Damascus an obvious victory over the jihadists in the Ghouta, expected in the coming
weeks...
The Kurds of Afrin, not convinced to remain under the government of Damascus, have left
the territory that is not their property to Turkey and used their people as human
shields...
Erdogan is an indispensable actor that Moscow needs to stop the war in Syria.
Aside from the obvious legalized bribery (Citizens United), the absolute control of the
corrupt 2-party system, the oligarchic and utterly undemocratic mass media, etc., we also had
the case in 2000 that a bunch of unelected dictators-for-life "decided" the US election,
clearly unlawfully. Bush vs. Gore.
Yes, US is in no position to be lecturing anybody about "democracy". But US is not short
on chutzpah in any political realm.
If elections resulted in real change, Yankees wouldn't have them. All theater for the
zombies, aka the voting class. Only zombies would argue over the merits of the candidates.
The US needs very little from its citizens. These includes obedience, widespread ignorance
and the unquestioned belief they live in a Democracy because voting happens.
The best slaves are the ones that lack the intelligence to recognize their own slavery.
The happiest slaves know that voting is a rigged sham but don't care because the right master
leads them.
Now, that I believe. Due to dismal school system (purely parochial, no national standards,
local boards full of ignoramuses decide what kids are taught in school) too many Americans
sincerely believe that the world consists of three roughly equal parts: Main street,
out-of-town, and overseas. I guess the election results in the last few decades show this
clearly.
Alas, I stayed with USA friends, well educated middle class, where CNN was the only 'news'
source.
Three other USA acquaintances I visited in their homes, cannot remember having seen a
newspaper other than a local one about marriages and funerals.
The USA reminded me of the Peking court, that, when British warships were reported on the
coast, responded with 'there had been so many pirates already'.
In the Badlands, in a very small café, I identified myself as Dutch, from Holland,
Netherlands. When all this did not ring bell I mentioned Europe, the first time in my life.
This was understood.
Anon from TN
Maybe I overestimate American citizens (I work at a top-rate University and communicate
mostly with faculty and grad students), but I'd like to come to their defense. CNN (as well
as FOX news, NYT, and other MSM) represent the views of the lower half of US citizens by IQ.
As far as I can tell, blatant lies of Western propaganda achieved among the people with
brains the same result as the Soviet propaganda: even if they state something truthful for a
change, people would doubt that.
You're truly delusional if you think CNN does NOT represent average American thinking, at
least a large paart of it. Last week I suffered through a luncheon of 5 mature adults
extolling Rachel Maddow. Sickening.
"... Well, the party lime is pretty different: "Treat Russia Like the Terrorist It Is. Whether the Skripal poisoning can be conclusively pinned on Moscow is beside the point." https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-09/u-k-spy-poisoning-treat-russia-like-the-terrorist-it-is ..."
"... The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person. ..."
"... In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be manufactured it any relatively developed country. ..."
"... It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the KGB successor of the successor of the VChK. ..."
"... Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union. ..."
I'm a socialist. I don't understand how a conservative is getting this so right! There is a mad
rush to judgment and anyone who wants to ask questions is getting accused of being unpatriotic.
Quite a sensible article. The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from
the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person.
In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a
known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a
minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas
has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be
manufactured it any relatively developed country.
It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by
the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the
KGB successor of the successor of the VChK.
At the end of 1980s there was a project started by KGB supposed (1) to detect possible channels
of security leakage, and (2) to begin spreading misinformation to potential adversaries.
Different names were used to test different security leaks. The name "NOVICHOK" used to
identify misinformation given to one of suspects, Vil Mirzayanov who was not chemist but rather
a clerk. Very soon this security leakage was detected, and tons of other misinformation
supplied to Mirzayanov, who was immediately secretly discharged from access to any real
project. Mirzayanov was allowed to publish this fake info in NYT (around 1992-95?), and then to
escape from Russia in 1995.
Since that time NATO has spent about $10 billions to develop protection tools against this
fake "NOVICHOK"
P.S. The Russian word NOVICHOK stands for "a newbie"; from Russian grammar point of view,
there is no chance such word to be assigned to any chemical weapon. It was assigned to
Mirzayanov who was "a newbie" to this sort of projects at that time.
Cui bono: every murder of a Russian dissident/defector/oligarch/critical journalist, cannot
possibly have happened on Putin's orders or with his tacit approval, because it reflects badly
on Russia.
So, we have two possible explanations: some Western intelligence agency is murdering those
people, probably without the knowledge of their own government (you'd have think that someone
in elected office would have stopped such a programme by now); or the Russian Putin opposition
is killing its own people, both in Russia and abroad. If the goal of such an operation is the
destabilization of the Putin regime through Western sanctions, it is obviously not working.
You say cui bono, I say Occam's razor. Putin takes out those who might threaten him, raises
his popularity, the sanctions are used to cover up his own disastrous economical policies, and
in the end nothing changes.
We *knew* Iraq had no nukes, and we knew that the Bush administration lied, and we knew that
"WMD" is the kind of BS we make up when there are no nukes.
Buchanan is not arguing in good faith. What Maine, Tonkin and WMD are about is *lies*, lies
in service of criminal acts of aggression, lies to facilitate a premeditated violation of the
Constitution as well as international law.
That is frankly a more important issue than the – justified and necessary –
doubts regarding the attempted Skripal assassination and the motives behind it.
This is also true of an ongoing campaign employing drones – some controlled by CIA
illegal combatants – and kill teams to implement collective punishment and ideological
cleansing by means of sustained assassination – based on "signatures" provided by the
likes of Google or Booz Allen. The US has no standing to judge the assassination attempts of
others, just as our government can no longer meaningfully speak out on aggressive acts of war,
collective punishment, and torture. A house divided cannot stand for anything.
You say that the burden of proof is on the accused? That works in many parts of the world,
but I hope that we here in the US have had a better standard of Justice. The burden of proof
falls upon the accuser, in this case Britain. There is no ther standard that America should
accept if we are to remain true to American principals. Not that I expect that our current
oligarchy will care about principals.
Exactly. Putin's long term strategy is an integrated Pan-Eurasian economic architecture in
which Europe would be a major customer segment. That is why the EAEU was stood up by Russia and
the BRI stood up by China. With supporting investment platforms like the AIIB to enable the
initiatives.
Given that objective, why would Russia/Putin seek to totally wreck its relationship with
Europe? More importantly what would be the motive and objectives for Russia to attack Poland
and the Baltic Republics – the fear-monger threats du jour? When an overrun of Poland
would create 30+ million subversive malcontents that Russia would have to govern, and when
there are only minority ethnic Russian populations in the Baltics?
The driving force behind the illogical and incoherent demonization of Russia is the
Washington War Party that froths up the political environment with the militarized
fear-mongering. Because as Fran Macadam notes, there's Big Money in it. And the Neocon
war-monger mouthpieces need some Big Enemies to keep themselves relevant, busy and living very
large on the $200K – $600K salaries they collect at the bought off Think
Pimp Tanks.
A crazed U.S. foreign policy that has been completely militarized is a train wreck waiting
to happen. And us taxpayers will yet again be stuck with the bills to clean up the
wreckage.
Sovietologists? Now this, more than anything else, explains the reflexive anti-Russia
hysteria. Who cares what historians dealing with the twentieth century Soviet Union think about
current events? Historians provide useful insight, yes, but that does not mean they are
conversant with current events. What you are doing is throwing in a fear laden buzzword.
Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from
what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union.
Our leaders are enthusiastic about being aggressive with the Russians, but the America Empire
has a problem attracting enough volunteers to join the military.
For example, the Air Force has a shortage of 2,000 pilots and the Navy has a shortage of
mechanics that they need to work on their on their aircraft.
The U.S. and Britain showed more respect to Joseph Stalin, the Butcher, than it has shown to
Putin. The demonization of Putin in all the mainstream media outlets is the tip-off to me that
Putin must be a pretty good guy doing some good things for Russia.
"If the world hates you know that it has hated me first. If the world loves you it is
because you belong to the world." -- Jesus Christ
>>Given the poison used it means one to two things -- either it was Russian secret
services or the Russians have lost control over their poisons. Either one is a nasty thought.
Why? It was presumably created 40 years ago. Pretty much to time for information to spread
around.
E.g., Kim's brother was presumably (again) poisoned by VX. Does it mean that it was MI-6? It's
a British invention after all.
In any case, this story stinks, pardon for a word pun. A 'military grade agent' and no
casualties. How could it be?
>>Why do it? To prove they can. To prove that no matter where you go they can get
you -- that there is no safety.
Safety from what? This guy was non-entity, nobody knew him. More importantly, he has been
already punished and pardoned, so double no sense.
>>I am sure Gary Kasparov is feeling a bit worried right now and Bill Browder is
thinking of moving somewhere new.
Well, I'd suspect that Rodchenko and Khodorkovskiy are more evident sacrificial targets.
Pat asks important questions. Unless we ever see the "evidence" to which Boris Johnson refers,
or other direct evidence that this hit (and others) in Britain was directed by the Kremlin,
it's worth continuing to ask them.
"Who benefits?" Indeed, it could be rogue Russian agents or Western agents attempting to
further drive a wedge between the West and Russia.
But it could also be Putin signalling that the Russia which held onto traitorous spies
between 2006 and 2010 is over.
It could be him simply trying to show that he can reach people inside the West, a pure flexing
of muscle, a warning to future would-be traitors and Western governments. It could be to
make America's allies nervous about Putin's relationship with his American puppet, Trumpolini.
It could be just Putin sowing chaos and attempting to create discord among Western
governments.
Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still applies. If it
growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Who could be so phillistine as to suggest, on the eve of the World Cup, that Premier Andropov's
KGB protege', Major Putin, would one day stoop to whacking a traitorous defector from the Party
Line ?
>>Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still
applies. If it growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Occam's Razor, my backside. Some guys from MI-5 tried to kill him like they killed David
Kelly and Gareth Williams before. It's as credible as it gets, exactly the same amount of
evidence.
"... We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came to be. ..."
"... For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance. ..."
"... (in English in the original text -- trans. ..."
"... Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as their rightful commodities. ..."
"... Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held responsible for the factual truth. ..."
And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never
surrender" mode.
I've been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those
parasites. With their short-sighted sanctions, heartless humiliation of our athletes (including
athletes with disabilities ), with their "skripals" and ostentatious disregard of the most
basic liberal values, like a presumption of innocence, that they manage to hypocritically
combined with forcible imposition of ultra-liberal ideas in their own countries, their
epileptic mass hysteria, causing in a healthy person a sigh of relief that he lives in Russia,
and not in Hollywood, with their post-electoral mess in the United States, in Germany, and in
the Brexit-zone;
with their attacks on RT, which they cannot forgive for taking advantage of the freedom of
speech and showing to the world how to use it, and it turned out that the freedom of speech
never was intended to be used for good, but was invented as an object of beauty, like some sort
of crystal mop that shines from afar, but is not suitable to clean your stables, with all your
injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you.
You and your so called "values."
We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we
wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those
amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came
to be.
For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and
analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive
arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn
history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their
empires. Only because of their arrogance.
(in English in the original text --
trans. )
But the only Empire, you have left, ignores history, it doesn't teach it and refuses to
learn it, meaning that it all will end the way it always does, in such cases.
In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared
him an enemy, we united around him.
Before, he was just our President, who could be reelected. Now, he has become our Leader. We
won't let you change this. And it was you, who created this situation.
It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they
shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose
patriotism.
Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.
Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.
I agree with you, Margarita, and I am American! I remember as a child, being taught about
that horrid USSR - to be so feared, ready at any moment to bomb us into oblivion! I remember
the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. - not knowing the full details, but being told that Kennedy saved us
all from WWIII. As time went on, we'd watch humorous shows detailing the large percentage of
Russians in USSR wanting to AND defecting to America. We were shown Russians lined up around
city blocks to buy toilet paper, shoes (any size, any color would do). Russians naivety was
always made fun of, casting the majority of you as either clowns or criminals capable of all
heinous crimes. Then came the 90s. I watched Yeltsin tottering around drunk, watched in
horror as the USSR collapsed, wondering what had happened to you. Then came Putin - this
young man being handed the reins of your collapsed, ruined country. Suddenly it seemed, we
saw more and more of him. I remember watching his face when he had to explain to the tearful,
waiting parents and friends of the mariners from the Kursk. His remark that if he could go
down there himself and rescue them he would! I knew then, that this was a man to be watched,
because I admired him at that moment. Over the years, after one successful term after
another, I saw Russia rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the USSR. I saw the pride
returning to the Russian faces, saw smiles returning to their faces, watched you regaining
your honor, your sovereignty as we started losing ours. Watching and listening, in horror and
fear as more and more of our rights were taken away after 9/11. Discovering that it was a
false flag (one of many, it seems), that took the lives of ordinary Americans and used their
deaths to start killing more people in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack. More
time going by, more rights taken away here, yet for you, rising ever more to greater economy,
more business friendly environments in Russia, more world trade with an increasing number of
trading partners.
Then started the demonization again - not of USSR, but of Russia - same story, different
name. Putin - guilty of all crimes of mankind, blamed for everything under the sun, capable
and willing to kill people around the globe with impunity, using chemicals and all other
nefarious things! I watched the crimes committed in Ukraine, which deposed the legally
elected president, and that tried to kill him after a coup that put Nazis in his place. I
watched Crimea hold it's referendum, saw the fireworks display afterwards with all the happy
faces. Russia was demonized even more and sanctioned greatly for that. Now to 2017 - I prayed
that Putin would run again - (he waited a long time before stating he would run.) I knew that
Russia sorely needed him to remain at the reins, guiding Russia (and the world, it seems)
around the icebergs of hate, crimes against humanity, local wars, demise of any empathetic
feelings towards others as we are all dragged along to the next, last war. Putin has been the
one who has prevented it from happening in several situations, where it could have been
started. But the demonization continues - little wonder America has lost it's appeal to most
of you!
The deep state has us in thrall - (no Kennedy here now to protect us). I pray daily that
all of us will survive to realize our hopes - yours and ours, but feel on a deep level that
this time it won't happen. It seems that some people here truly want a war - feel they could
survive the strike and retaliate to ruin your country, but that ours would remain mainly
untouched. They think their bunkers will protect them - their expansive underground cities
built for the richest and 'best' of America, while the rest of us are collateral damage. I am
not rich - have no real savings, so am definitely not one of those to be saved - like so
others around me. I'm sure many of you are in the same position, have the same fears and
dreams as I do. I offer all of you my best wishes for a happy, healthy, free and safe world.
Maybe your Putin actually does have a rabbit in his hat, or that silver bullet - the magic
needed to save us all! I truly hope so.
As a Canadian, thank you for your excellent summary of what I have concluded for some
time. Sadly, the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic as established by the founders; it
is not even a representative democracy. What the US has become is an Evil American Empire
that is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity in the US and throughout the entire
world. The good news is that a growing number of people in the US and the Western World
realize this and are working very hard to return America to its founding ideals. The first
stage in this process is the exposure of powerful members of the Deep State who have
infiltrated and corrupted the essential institutions of government, freedom and justice.
I used to be liberal before liberalism became a symbol of stupidity, war mongering and
affiliated with the Deep State and it's rush to rule the world by destroying every society
whose people chose to live life as they saw fit. The translation mechanism for understanding
US leadership is projection. If the mouthpieces ramble on about their values, the meaning is
that they are stating the values of their opponent or target country. If they're accusing a
country of terrorism, they're talking about their own support for terrorism for geopolitical
gains. If they're accusing a country of using chemical weapons, they're really talking about
their own use of chemical weapons to launch another war and destroy yet another country's
society. So one can easily see the true meaning of these psychopaths rantings and rhetoric by
merely using the simple mechanism of projection to determine the truth.
Many times I am completely confused by the use that Americans make of traditional
political or economic terms. "Socialism", for example, applied to Democrats? Calling
"Liberals" those who like to defy society's traditional customs? "Marxism" is no longer a
theory about the conflict of classes, or a dialectical understanding of society! Many
political discussions are due to the different interpretations that people give to the same
words. The US political science vocabulary is in chaos- along with many other US things!
Seventy years ago, George Orwell wrote the prophetic essay, "Politics
and the English Language," in which he noted that politicians,
journalists and academics were increasingly using meaningless words and
euphemisms to make "lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and...
give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Source:
https://www.alternet.org/el...
Totally agree. Fundamental or Philosophical Liberalism has to be with the human being and
his liberties and rights.
Economic Liberalism has to be with the commodities trade and physical money, financial money,
and their privileges put over the human beings, of course this is a euphemism because whom
are really self conceded such privileges are the owners of those goods i.e. International
Usurers.
Economic Liberalism morphed into the worst; into Neo-(Economic)-Liberalism (They call it only
"liberalism" in order to confuse their enemies, all the people). Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things
including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as
their rightful commodities.
You're absolutely correct! We've had the worst of the worst running and influencing those
that run the country and this man was a psycho, but we have more, too many!
The arrogance of the man. I do hope he lives long enough to see the fruits of his labor
whilst the economy collapses around him. I guess when that happens he and his other hapless
miscreants will keep their heads down and rely on security to protect them from the karma
hurtling towards them.
Nothing this man has done has benefited the American people.
Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided
in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is
what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM
and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held
responsible for the factual truth.
"... Let us hope that Votel's message is, "The military is not on board for an adventure in the Middle East whose sole purpose is to make the President a "Wartime" President." ..."
"... Now I know that if the President says jump the military must say how high, but somehow I think that Votel's message is, "Congress, sane people, understand that reality is not set up to make Trump a hero in anything except his own mind." ..."
"... Let's see if we can actually exemplify what we spend $600 billion a year trying to ram down other country's throats. ..."
The Midterm elections. The Midterm elections. Everything that transpires in Washington is
about the Midterm elections. Let us hope that Votel's message is, "The military is not on
board for an adventure in the Middle East whose sole purpose is to make the President a
"Wartime" President."
Now I know that if the President says jump the military must say how high, but somehow
I think that Votel's message is, "Congress, sane people, understand that reality is not set
up to make Trump a hero in anything except his own mind."
Trump has been thoroughly outmaneuvered in Korea. The grandstand meeting with Kim will not
end in war, because that war will be a really unpopular war. Iran is the only possibility.
Let's see who's more powerful: Israel and Saudi Arabia, or the American people. Let's see if
this really is a democracy. Let's see if we can practice what we preach to the rest of the
world.
Let's see if we can actually exemplify what we spend $600 billion a year trying to ram
down other country's throats.
March 20 marks a major anniversary. You'd be forgiven for not knowing it. Fifteen years
after we invaded Iraq, few in the US are addressing our legacy there. But it's worth recalling
we shattered that country.
We made it a terrorist hotspot, as expected. US and British intelligence, in the months
preceding the invasion, expected Bush's planned assault would invigorate Al-Qaeda. The group "
would see an opportunity
to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks," particularly "
in the US and UK ," assessments warned. Due course for the War on Terror.
Follow-up reports confirmed these predictions. "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause
celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and
cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement," Washington analysts explained in
2006.
Fawaz Gerges
lists two groups this milieu produced: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), "a creature of the 2003
US-led invasion," and ISIS, "an extension of AQI."
There were good reasons for anyone -- not just jihadists -- to resent US involvement.
Consider sectarianism. "The most serious sectarian and ethnic tensions in Iraq's modern history
followed the 2003 US-led occupation," Sami Ramadani affirmed .
Nabil Al-Tikriti concurs , citing US
policies that "led to a progressive, incessant increase in sectarian tensions." The Shia death
squads "
organized by U.S. operatives" were one such decision.
The extent to which these squads succeeded is, in part, what scholars debate when they tally
the war deaths. Low estimates, like Iraq Body Count's, put civilians killed at just over 200,000. One research
team determined
some "half million deaths in Iraq could be attributable to the war." Physicians for Social
Responsibility concluded "that the war has, directly or
indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq," plus 300,000 more in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Iraqis surviving the inferno confronted a range of nightmares. The UN " reported that over 4.4
million Iraqis were internally displaced, and an additional 264,100 were refugees abroad," for
example. US forces dealt with Iraqi prisoners -- 70-90% of whom were " arrested by
mistake " -- by "arranging naked detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;" "breaking
chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;" and "forcing groups of male
detainees to masturbate themselves," to list some of the ways we imparted , with the approval of top
Bush administration officials, democratic principles.
Then there are the generations of future Iraqis in bomb-battered cities: Fallujah, Basra. In
the former, "the reported increases in cancer and infant
mortality are alarmingly high" -- perhaps "
worse than Hiroshima " -- while "birth defects reached in 2010 unprecedented
numbers." In the same vein, "a pattern of increase in congenital birth defects" plagues Basra, and
"many suspect that pollution created by the bombardment of Iraqi cities has caused the current
birth defect crisis in that country."
This bombardment began decades before 2003, it's crucial to clarify. We can recall UN
Under-Secretary-General Martti Ahtisaari's mission to Baghdad after Operation Desert Storm. He
and his team were familiar with the literature on the bombings, he wrote in March 1991, "fully
conversant with media reports regarding the situation in Iraq," but realized upon arrival "that
nothing that we had seen or read had quite prepared us for the particular form of devastation"
-- "near-apocalyptic" -- "which has now befallen the country," condemning it "to a
pre-industrial age" for the foreseeable future. This was the scale of ruin when the UN Security
Council imposed sanctions. The measures were "at every turn
shaped by the United States," whose "consistent
policy " was "to inflict the most extreme economic damage possible on Iraq."
The policy was, in this respect, a ripping success. The UN estimated
in 1995 that the sanctions had murdered over a half-million children -- " worth it ," Madeleine Albright said --
one factor prompting two successive UN Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq to resign. Denis
Halliday
thought the sanctions "criminally flawed and genocidal;" Hans von Sponeck
agreed , citing evidence of "conscious violation of human rights and humanitarian law on
the part of governments represented in the Security Council, first and foremost those of the
United States and the United Kingdom."
Eliminating hundreds of thousands of starving children was just the prequel to the
occupation -- "the biggest cultural disaster since the descendants of Genghis Khan destroyed
Baghdad in 1258," in one writer's judgment
. But try to find more than a handful of commentators reflecting on any of these issues on this
dark anniversary. Instead, silence shows the deep US capacity for forgetting.
Nick Alexandrov lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He can be reached at: [email protected]
"... . Mirzoyanov as a source of leakage was identified immediately. In the 1990, he was removed from all real work, through he remained a conduit of disinformation. In 1992, he revealed himself voluntarily by publishing the well-known article. From that moment, the Novichok attracted media interests. In the 1995, NYT wrote about the "new Russian super-weapon". ..."
"... What actually happened in Salisbury is unclear; nor the behavior of the poisoned, nor the actions of the police, doctors, special services do not add up to the whole picture. More or less plausible is the poisoning with a synthetic neurotoxin, similar to the toxin of fugu fish. ..."
"... Brief summary: "Novichok" is not the name of the CW, but the code of the KGB operation carried out to identify the mole (the information leakage channel), as well as the supply of disinformation. ..."
This brief note by Andrey Lazarchuk has been published in the social networks. It is
interesting, and it agrees with revealed facts. Whether it is true or not – remains to
be seen. Here is his text in verbatim translation:
Do not ask for the source of the information, I will not give it up. Everything written
below is very different from what you can find on the web.
1. Already in the early 1980s, the Soviet Army ceased to treat CW (Chemical Weapons) as a
weapon that could be used in real war conditions: approximately in 1983-84 it was decided to
cease CW supplies to the army, reduce operational reserves and take out CW from the troops to
long-term storage warehouses and landfills for destruction. At the same time and until 1996,
there were no new CW products supplied to the army, neither new instructions for use and
protection.
2. Mirzoyanov, majoring in chemistry and analytics, never worked at theoretical
developments or practical synthesis. All 1980s he worked in the administration (First
Department).
3. In the second half of the 1980s, the KGB carried out a large-scale operation to
dis-inform the enemy, which also had the side-line task of identifying information leakage
channels. Twenty "fake" but very detailed projects were developed for "a new chemical
super-weapon that is not detected by existing NATO detectors and from which there is no
protection" (NOVA with indices, "Novichok" with indices, ASD and others). The Novichok passed
through the hands of Mirzoyanov.
4. The factory-laboratory in Kantyubek in the late 70′s was re-profiled from the
creation and testing of CW and BW for the production and testing of herbicides and defoliants
– mainly for the needs of the cotton industry.
5. Mirzoyanov as a source of leakage was identified immediately. In the 1990, he was
removed from all real work, through he remained a conduit of disinformation. In 1992, he
revealed himself voluntarily by publishing the well-known article. From that moment, the
Novichok attracted media interests. In the 1995, NYT wrote about the "new Russian
super-weapon".
6. NATO had spent more than $ 10 billion on defence against this fake weapon.
7. What actually happened in Salisbury is unclear; nor the behavior of the poisoned, nor
the actions of the police, doctors, special services do not add up to the whole picture. More
or less plausible is the poisoning with a synthetic neurotoxin, similar to the toxin of fugu
fish.
Brief summary: "Novichok" is not the name of the CW, but the code of the KGB operation
carried out to identify the mole (the information leakage channel), as well as the supply of
disinformation.
"... It parallels 9/11, whereby contradictory evidence has been 'pushed.' The targets seem to be two, 1) the proles [as usual] and 2) Putin/Russia [danger, nukes!] ..."
"... But (1) makes no sense; as no Iraqi WMDs showed, a) the CCC [= covert criminal cabal] went ahead anyway, telling the proles: "Bite your bum!" The proles are powerless passengers, and voting is futile anyway since x = y. ..."
"... And (2) should have *no* effect at all; Putin was always going to be and has now been re-elected, and from Crimea, E.Ukr and especially Syria, Russia appears to have the rogue-regimes' measure. A proof = refugees now streaming out of Ghouta into [comparative] freedom, say. ..."
"... Let us posit some 3rd party, whose name some dare not mention? "Do what we say and nobody gets hurt" seems to have lost its oomph and 'smartest crims on the planet' looks definitely jaded. Confounded by inconvenient reality, perhaps? ..."
So if the Mossad did it on British soil, you can bet your last penny that both the CIA
and MI5/6 not only knew before hand but participated in the details
It's a publicity stunt; recall Bernays' "torches of freedom." It parallels 9/11,
whereby contradictory evidence has been 'pushed.' The targets seem to be two, 1) the proles
[as usual] and 2) Putin/Russia [danger, nukes!]
But (1) makes no sense; as no Iraqi WMDs showed, a) the CCC [= covert criminal cabal]
went ahead anyway, telling the proles: "Bite your bum!" The proles are powerless passengers,
and voting is futile anyway since x = y.
And (2) should have *no* effect at all; Putin was always going to be and has now been
re-elected, and from Crimea, E.Ukr and especially Syria, Russia appears to have the
rogue-regimes' measure. A proof = refugees now streaming out of Ghouta into [comparative]
freedom, say.
So, given the apparently threadbare psyop, a) with what purpose, and b) cui bono?
Especially (b), UK could end up with a very bad case of 'egg all over its face.'
Let us posit some 3rd party, whose name some dare not mention? "Do what we say and
nobody gets hurt" seems to have lost its oomph and 'smartest crims on the planet' looks
definitely jaded. Confounded by inconvenient reality, perhaps?
When it comes to choosing between a conspiracy and a stuff-up? Well, here we seem to have
both. In spades. *OR* : We haven't seen the 'surprise' ending yet?
There is absolutely nothing totally duplicitous, nothing evil, that British secret service
(meaning both MI5 and MI6) will not do, and in fact has not done.
The British Empire operated as something at least akin to utterly amoral. It saw itself as
beyond good and evil in any historic sense. As it was born of rebellion against Christendom,
that not only makes sense but also was all but inevitable.
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy will produce culture that
is pro-Jewish specifically and more generally will reflect ways of doing and being and
thinking, ways of defining morality, that are in step with the Talmud. And that may be summed
as: amoral will to power based on faith that one's group is the superior race/nation that
should rule the world by any means necessary.
The British Empire did not die in any sense. The British Empire's direct rule simply moved
to DC and NYC. America is now the chief operating officer of the British Empire. WASP culture
and its rather unique form of amoral imperialism still rules the world and intends to crush
every opposition into dust – for the uplifting of poor brown and black brothers and
sisters, and for freedom for all, and other selfless good works.
Who poisoned the hapless idiot Russian double agent and his daughter? In general, some
part of the British secret service, which includes the CIA and the Mossad and the Saudi
General Intelligence Presidency.
"... May accusations implies that the British authorities have both a control sample (to determine if the quantities found would
be lethal) and samples from a few different labs to confirm that the fingerprint was from lab A not lab B for example. How did they
got those ? ..."
"... Also from scant information available suggests that the most plausible hypothesis is a false flag operation which probably
proceeded in two steps (with the first step not necessary accomplished by those who run the second step; it can be two different groups).
..."
"... There is certainly a reasonable list of suspects, most more credible than the Russian state. Perhaps one can also separate
out the crime in to two parts, those who committed it, and those who have sought to exploit it. ..."
May and Johnson are probably examples of the level of the degeneration of British elite.
May accusations implies that the British authorities have both a control sample (to determine if the quantities found would
be lethal) and samples from a few different labs to confirm that the fingerprint was from lab A not lab B for example. How did
they got those ?
Also from scant information available suggests that the most plausible hypothesis is a false flag operation which probably
proceeded in two steps (with the first step not necessary accomplished by those who run the second step; it can be two different
groups).
First some poison like Fentanyl was mixed into food or drinks or taken by Skripals themselves either as masked as some other
medication, or as a part of narcoaddict fix. Fentanyl is known for previous use in assassinations. It killed more than 21K people
in the USA in 2016
On the second stage, which occurred when Skripals were already hospitalized nerve agent was planted in several places, including
home and the police investigator became the first victim. Poisoning of "opponent of the regime" provides ideal conditions for
a false flag operation as the cloud of secrecy can be used to subvert the investigation and pursue the agenda with the complete
impunity. The government can essentially decree the "truth" in such cases. It also provides tremendous propaganda effect.
And British are not shy from experimenting on humans with poison gases either. It took 50 years for Porton Down chemical research
centre to come clean on poisoning a British soldier with Sarin telling him it was a flu test. Poor fella.
The first step can also be plot by some group connected with William Browder of Magnitsky death fame (
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25190975 ), Berezovsky
associates or some other "Russian mafia in London" groups. The fact that Skripal has such an expensive car suggests that he was
participating in some business dealings, probably as a part of some London-based exiles group. UK government is not know for extreme
generosity toward such people as Skripal.
The question arise why the UK government went this path. It well might be the USA pressure (like in case of Iraq invasion)
or internal considerations that such step will be beneficial to the May government survival. Or both.
My impression is that his is just a first (and somewhat clumsy executed) step in multi step gambit in which Scripals were just
sacrificial lamps. Pawns is a bigger game.
The next steps might be related to Would Cup and/or confiscation of assets of Russian oligarchs in London to put pressure on
Putin and possibly initiate with their hands a "regime change" in Russia.
Available timelines suggest that initial poisoning took around half an hour to incapacitate them, which is not typical for
a nerve gas.
CCTV footage shows them walking around 3:47 p.m. 16:15 GMT: emergency services received the first report of an incident ??:??
Police found the pair on a bench outside Zizzi in an "extremely serious condition"
If we assume that they were poisoned at Zizzi with fentanyl or something similar they survived for more then an hour, which
is not atypical in cases of narcotics overdose. Moreover Scripal lost emotional control at the restaurant which also happens when
a narcoaddict wants to take his fix and can't. That does not explain why the daughter was also affected, though.
Only this sequence of events can explain what the doctor who treated the daughter for 30 min and first responders suffered
no consequences.
The "Doctor" who, so the BBC reported, "asked not to be named" is surely a prime suspect. Not only was she the only person
known to be in the vicinity of the Skripals closest to the time they were poisoned, but she was aksi the person best able to have
planted nerve agent contamination where the Skripals were allegedly incapacitated.
As for the Skripals, who have disappeared from view and to whom the daughter has been denied contact by a Russian embassy representative,
perhaps they are already settling into new identities, their old selves eventually to be declared dead, despite heroic efforts
by, um, well we're not sure who, since no one subjected to a nerve agent was admitted as a patient by the local hospital.
There is certainly a reasonable list of suspects, most more credible than the Russian state. Perhaps one can also separate
out the crime in to two parts, those who committed it, and those who have sought to exploit it.
The "hate for Trump" by the establishment, is a total canard.
Trump is OWNED by the same Zionist mafia filth that own May, which is the same Zionists
that own the media in America and Britain.
As when Obama (also a Zionist puppet, mainly because Obama was a coward, unlike Trump
who has been groomed to be a zionist puppet) was in office, he was provided a FAKE conflict
with the "birthers". American politics are all about subterfuge, distraction, divide and
conquer.
The so called "attacks on Trump", are simply meant to drive the right to support him,
precisely the way the "attacks on Obama", drove the left to ignore Obama's neocon ways, and
defend him.
England is run by the Zionists, Washington is run by the Zionists, Wall Street IS
Zionist, as it the media and the entire entertainment industry, as well as the "social
Media", Trump is from Jew York City, owes his fortune to Jewish Bankers, and yet, so many
buy this ridiculous narrative of Trump, the anti establishment warrior, a meme that is
ludicrous.
So, instead of discussing Trump's lies about border enforcement, his lies about leaving
Syria, his lies about rebuilding infrastructure, he are distracted with lies about "sexual
harassment", and "Russia Gate"...and sadly many buy right into it.
" [...] The so called "attacks on Trump", are simply meant to drive the right to support
him, precisely the way the "attacks on Obama", drove the left to ignore Obama's neocon ways,
and defend him. [...]"
Exactly. Orange Clown's whole campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" scam from the
beginning, IMO.
I believe that Orange Clown is a "deep cover" or "sleeper" agent that's been groomed and
"waiting in the wings" for his masters' beck and call. And the call came at the end of the
Obama administration, with the agenda not only stalled but exposed like never before; with
Russia and China rising; and the U.S. falling behind. As I see it, the political ascendancy
of Orange Clown is a sign of his masters' increasing desperation.
I believe that Orange Clown's mission – as puppet president of last resort –
is to present (apparently by way of a series of reckless provocations) ultimatum to Russia
and China: "either cede your sovereignty to the empire and start taking orders, or it's war"
or something like that.
And I believe the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was intended to show the
world (in case there's any doubt) just who it is that's calling the shots here and running
everything in the U.S. (IOW they're taking off the mask as they demand surrender).
Some people woke up when Orange Clown attacked the Syrian airbase with cruise missiles,
but unfortunately it seems there are still many people who absolutely refuse to accept that
Orange Clown is a fraud, no matter what he does (or fails to do). Paul Craig Roberts is an
example of someone who should know better, but who continues to imply that Orange Clown is
just a helpless "babe in the woods"; a nice guy in a bad situation.
Probably Brits. Maybe Benyammerin? Certainly US thug state aware. Most likely the 3 Axis
of Evil members conspired. Fellow was expendable. Daughter murdered for shock value.
Judaized West not ethical not moral.
Any way this event only helped Pres Putin. And 1500 international observers certify legit.
US will need 1500 for NYC alone in 2020 to prevent Demos from stealing.
"... Mirzoyanov, majoring in chemistry and analytics, never worked at theoretical developments or practical synthesis. All 1980s he worked in the administration (First Department). ..."
"... Mirzoyanov as a source of leakage was identified immediately. In the 1990, he was removed from all real work, through he remained a conduit of disinformation. In 1992, he revealed himself voluntarily by publishing the well-known article. From that moment, the Novichok attracted media interests. In the 1995, NYT wrote about the "new Russian super-weapon". ..."
"... What actually happened in Salisbury is unclear; nor the behavior of the poisoned, nor the actions of the police, doctors, special services do not add up to the whole picture. More or less plausible is the poisoning with a synthetic neurotoxin, similar to the toxin of fugu fish ..."
"... Brief summary: "Novichok" is not the name of the CW, but the code of the KGB operation carried out to identify the mole (the information leakage channel), as well as the supply of disinformation. ..."
The Salisbury poisoning played an important role in the Russian elections. Practically all
Russian publications expressed indignation and didn't propose any explanation. This brief note
by Andrey Lazarchuk has been published in the social networks. It is interesting, and it agrees
with revealed facts. Whether it is true or not – remains to be seen. Here is his text in
verbatim translation:
Do not ask for the source of the information, I will not give it up. Everything written
below is very different from what you can find on the web.
1. Already in the early 1980s, the Soviet Army ceased to treat CW (Chemical Weapons) as a
weapon that could be used in real war conditions: approximately in 1983-84 it was decided to
cease CW supplies to the army, reduce operational reserves and take out CW from the troops to
long-term storage warehouses and landfills for destruction. At the same time and until 1996,
there were no new CW products supplied to the army, neither new instructions for use and
protection.
2. Mirzoyanov, majoring in chemistry and analytics, never worked at theoretical
developments or practical synthesis. All 1980s he worked in the administration (First
Department).
3. In the second half of the 1980s, the KGB carried out a large-scale operation to
dis-inform the enemy, which also had the side-line task of identifying information leakage
channels. Twenty "fake" but very detailed projects were developed for "a new chemical
super-weapon that is not detected by existing NATO detectors and from which there is no
protection" (NOVA with indices, "Novichok" with indices, ASD and others). The Novichok passed
through the hands of Mirzoyanov.
4. The factory-laboratory in Kantyubek in the late 70′s was re-profiled from the
creation and testing of CW and BW for the production and testing of herbicides and defoliants
– mainly for the needs of the cotton industry.
5. Mirzoyanov as a source of leakage was identified immediately. In the 1990, he was
removed from all real work, through he remained a conduit of disinformation. In 1992, he
revealed himself voluntarily by publishing the well-known article. From that moment, the
Novichok attracted media interests. In the 1995, NYT wrote about the "new Russian
super-weapon".
6. NATO had spent more than $ 10 billion on defence against this fake weapon.
7. What actually happened in Salisbury is unclear; nor the behavior of the poisoned,
nor the actions of the police, doctors, special services do not add up to the whole picture.
More or less plausible is the poisoning with a synthetic neurotoxin, similar to the toxin of
fugu fish .
Brief summary: "Novichok" is not the name of the CW, but the code of the KGB operation
carried out to identify the mole (the information leakage channel), as well as the supply of
disinformation.
Of course, like most articles about Putin, no evidence is provided.
I'm sick of fake news. I'm sick of the constant barrage of claims with no evidence. I
don't care who makes them. If you want people to pay any attention, provide evidence.
Otherwise, I might as well waste my time watching CNN.
Western journalists, with a very small exception (real outliers), are experts at presenting
one-sided arguments, whatever the facts and evidence. Look at Meagan Kelly interviews for the inspiration.
They know how to wear down any dissident who does not buy into government talking points
If you spend any time on Twitter, you'll probably be familiar with the latest pathetic attempt to defend and insulate the U.S.
status quo from criticism. It centers around the usage of an infantile and meaningless term, "whataboutism."
Let's begin with one particularly absurd accusation of "whataboutism" promoted by
NPR
last year:
When O'Reilly countered that "Putin is a killer," Trump responded, "There are a lot of killers. You got a lot of killers. What,
you think our country is so innocent?"
This particular brand of changing the subject is called "whataboutism" -- a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet
Union and, later, Russia. And its use in Russia helps illustrate how it could be such a useful tool now, in America. As Russian
political experts told NPR, it's an attractive tactic for populists in particular, allowing them to be vague but appear straight-talking
at the same time.
The idea behind whataboutism is simple: Party A accuses Party B of doing something bad. Party B responds by changing the subject
and pointing out one of Party A's faults -- "Yeah? Well what about that bad thing you did?" (Hence the name.)
It's not exactly a complicated tactic -- any grade-schooler can master the "yeah-well-you-suck-too-so-there" defense. But it
came to be associated with the USSR because of the Soviet Union's heavy reliance upon whataboutism throughout the Cold War and
afterward, as Russia.
This is a really embarrassing take by NPR .
First, the author tries to associate a tactic that's been around since humans first wandered into caves -- deflecting attention
away from yourself by pointing out the flaws in others -- into some uniquely nefarious Russian propaganda tool. Second, that's not
even what Trump did in this example.
In his response to O'Reilly, Trump wasn't using "whataboutism" to deflect away from his own sins. Rather, he offered a rare moment
of self-reflection about the true role played by the U.S. government around the world. This isn't "whataboutism," it's questioning
the hypocrisy and abuse of power of one's own government. It's an attempt to take responsibility for stuff he might actually be able
to change as President. It's the most ethical and honest response to that question in light of the amount of violence the U.S. government
engages in abroad. If our leaders did this more often, we might stop repeatedly jumping from one insane and destructive war to the
next.
Had O'Reilly's question been about the U.S. government's ongoing support of Saudi Arabia's war crimes in Yemen and Trump shifted
the conversation to Russian atrocities, he could then be fairly accused of changing the subject to avoid accountability. In that
case, you could condemn Trump for "whataboutism" because he intentionally deflected attention away from his own government's sins
to the sins of another. This sort of thing is indeed very dangerous, especially when done by someone in a position of power.
But here's the thing. You don't need some catchy, infantile term like "whataboutism" to point out that someone in power's deflecting
attention from their own transgressions. I agree wholeheartedly with Adam Johnson when he states:
He's absolutely right. One should never rely on the lazy use of a cutesy, catchy term like "whataboutism" as a retort to someone
who points out a glaring contradiction. If you do, you're either a propagandist with no counterargument or a fool who mindlessly
adopts the jingoistic cues of others. Responding to someone by saying "that's just whataboutism" isn't an argument, it's an assault
on one's logical faculties. It's attempt to provide people with a way to shut down debate and conversation by simply blurting out
a clever sounding fake-word. Here's an example of how I've seen it used on Twitter.
One U.S. citizen (likely a card carrying member of "the resistance") will regurgitate some standard intel agency line on Syria
or Russia. Another U.S. citizen will then draw attention to the fact that their own government plays an active role in egregious
war crimes in Yemen on behalf of the Saudis. This person will proceed to advocate for skepticism with regard to U.S. government and
intelligence agency war promotion considering how badly the public was deceived in the run up to the Iraq war. For this offense,
they'll be accused of "whataboutism."
The problem with this accusation is that this person isn't switching the subject to bring up another's transgression to deflect
from scrutiny of his or her behavior. In contrast, the person is putting the conversation in its rightful place, which is to question
the behavior of one's own country. When it comes to issues such as nation-state violence, the primary duty of a citizen is not to
obsess all day about the violence perpetrated by foreign governments, but to hold one's own government accountable. This is as true
for an American citizen in American as it is for a Russian citizen in Russia.
NPR explained how the Russian government used "whataboutism" to deflect away from it's own crimes, but Trump actually did the
opposite in his interview with O'Reilly. He wasn't deflecting away from his own country's crimes, he was pointing out that they exist.
That's precisely what you're supposed to do as a citizen.
The problem arises when governments deflect attention away from their own crimes for which they are actually responsible, by pointing
out the crimes of a foreign government. This is indeed propaganda and an evasion of responsibility. Calling out your own government's
hypocrisy in matters of state sanctioned murder abroad is the exact opposite sort of thing.
Noam Chomsky put it better than I ever could. Here's what he said
in
a 2003 interview
:
QUESTION: When you talk about the role of intellectuals, you say that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country.
Could you explain this assertion?
CHOMSKY: One of the most elementary moral truisms is that you are responsible for the anticipated consequences of your own
actions. It is fine to talk about the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there isn't much that you can do about them. If Soviet intellectuals
chose to devote their energies to crimes of the U.S., which they could do nothing about, that is their business. We honor those
who recognized that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country. And it is interesting that no one ever asks for an explanation,
because in the case of official enemies, truisms are indeed truisms. It is when truisms are applied to ourselves that they become
contentious, or even outrageous. But they remain truisms. In fact, the truisms hold far more for us than they did for Soviet dissidents,
for the simple reason that we are in free societies, do not face repression, and can have a substantial influence on government
policy. So if we adopt truisms, that is where we will focus most of our energy and commitment. The explanation is even more obvious
than in the case of official enemies.
Naturally, truisms are hated when applied to oneself. You can see it dramatically in the case of terrorism. In fact one of
the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention
that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many
intellectuals, including left-liberal intellectuals, because if we faced such truths we could do something about the terrorist
acts for which we are responsible, accepting elementary moral responsibilities instead of lauding ourselves for denouncing the
crimes official enemies, about which we can often do very little.
Elementary honesty is often uncomfortable, in personal life as well, and there are people who make great efforts to evade it.
For intellectuals, throughout history, it has often come close to being their vocation. Intellectuals are commonly integrated
into dominant institutions. Their privilege and prestige derives from adapting to the interests of power concentrations, often
taking a critical look but in very limited ways. For example, one may criticize the war in Vietnam as a "mistake" that began with
"benign intentions". But it goes too far to say that the war is not "a mistake" but was "fundamentally wrong and immoral". the
position of about 70 percent of the public by the late 1960s, persisting until today, but of only a margin of intellectuals. The
same is true of terrorism. In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts
that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM. That is probably close to a historical universal. And
there are innumerable other examples.
For saying the above, Noam Chomsky would surely be labeled the godfather of "whataboutism" by Twitter's resistance army, but he's
actually advocating the most ethical, logical and courageous path of citizenship. U.S. taxpayers aren't paying for Russia's military
operations, but they are paying for the U.S. government's. The idea that U.S. citizens emphasizing U.S. violence are committing the
thought-crime of "whataboutism" when it comes to foreign policy is absurd. Our primary responsibility as citizens is our own aggressive
and violent foreign policy, not that of other countries.
Naturally, this isn't how neocon/neoliberal and intelligence agency imperialists want you to think. Proponents of the American
empire need the public to ignore the atrocities of the U.S. government and its allies for obvious reasons, while constantly obsessing
over the atrocities of the empire's official enemies. This is the only way to continue to exert force abroad without domestic pushback,
and it's critical in order to keep the imperial gravy train going for those it benefits so significantly. How do you shut down vibrant
foreign policy debate on social media that exposes imperial hypocrisy? Accuse people of "whataboutism."
That's what I see going on. I see the weaponization of a cutesy, catchy term on social media in order to prevent people from
questioning their own government. It's completely logical and ethical for U.S. citizens to push back against those arguing for more
regime change wars by pointing out the evils of our own foreign policy.
In fact, the unethical position is the one espoused by those who claim the U.S. can do no wrong, but when an adversary country
does what we permit ourselves to do, they must be bombed into oblivion. These people know they have no argument, so they run around
condemning those trying to hold their own government accountable of "whataboutism." It's a nonsensical term with no real meaning
or purpose other than to defend imperial talking points.
Accusations of "whataboutism" amount to a cynical, sleazy attempt to stifle debate without actually engaging in argument.
It's also the sort of desperate and childish propaganda tactic you'd expect during late-stage imperial decline.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly
Patron
, or visit our
Support Page
to show your appreciation for
independent content creators.
The plausibility of the doping charges disappeared when, at a time when Russian athletes
were under extreme scrutiny in the Winter Olympics, they were accused of doping in the curling
and bobsleigh events. At that point credibility of the charges flew out of the window.
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says US, British and French special forces are
"directly" engaged in the war on Syria and operating on the ground in the crisis-stricken
country.
"There are special forces on the ground in Syria from the US – they no longer deny it
– the UK, France and a number of other countries," Lavrov said in an interview to the
Kazakh state broadcaster published on the Russian Foreign Ministry's website on Saturday.
"Thus, it's not so much of a 'proxy war,' but rather a direct involvement in the war," the
Russian top diplomat said.
He further said the US-led coalition in Syria, which is purportedly fighting the Daesh
Takfiri group, is "illegitimate" from the standpoint of international law and the UN
Charter.
Good God. How disgusting. You're suggesting that the plebeian mass of ignorant white trash
calling themselves the British nation should actually rule themselves by way of a
democratically elected parliament, their national loyalty centered on a constitutional
monarch who is head of the English national Christian church.
Good God, the first thing that scum would do is vote to send the immigrants home,
beginning with the mayor of London, followed by the rape gangs of Rotherham and
elsewhere.
Fortunately, that can never happen. The media and the K-to-middle-aged education system
tell the people how to despise themselves and their natural inclination to self-preservation,
while the political machines tell the people who they can have to represent them. Thus, the
so-called parliamentary representatives of the people are not representatives of the people
in government, but representative of government to the people. Propagandist, that is, i.e.,
traitors.
"... extreme Muslim terrorists – salafists, Muslims Brotherhood, and AQI (i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq) – have always been the "major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." ..."
"He's still saddled with trying to prevent a final consolidation of Syria in support of
Israeli objectives while defeating what remains of ISIS. That's more than enough to
handle."
-- Hard, indeed: The US Army at the mercy of ziocons.
"Israeli Military Make it Clear that They Support ISIS:" https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2016/07/israeli-military-make-it-clear-that.html
"It is well known that Israel funds, arms and provides medical support for the fighters of Al
Qaeda's Syrian branch, al-Nusra. According to the Daily Mail out of the goodness of its
heart, Israel has rescued and saved some 2,000 Islamic fighters in South Lebanon."
-- "Newly-Declassified U.S. Government Documents: The West Supported the Creation of ISIS:"
extreme Muslim terrorists – salafists, Muslims Brotherhood, and AQI (i.e. Al Qaeda
in Iraq) – have always been the "major forces driving the insurgency in Syria."
Cognitive dissonance is dialed up to the max between my ears when I contemplate 'wagging
the dog' in the autumn, Mr. Kushner's BFF the Crown Prince, and, all this talk about a newly
unbridled POTUS trusting nothing now but his instincts. I sure hope Mattis and Votel are in
agreement, but this report of commonsense does increase the dissonance.
Is North Korea coming off the table to make way for a shock and awe feast in Iran? Is a
Kushner ME peace ultimatum going to moot the courageous General Votel?
One motive for a big war is the President wanting really badly to see what all those
participants in his parade can manage to wreck--all for the purpose of MAGA.
"... Jay Janson , who lived and taught in Korea for six years, is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked in all continents in 67 countries; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, Sweden, Germany Vietnam and the US; now resides in NYC. ..."
Americans have been doing since these principles were universally signed on to. It is also
worth remembering that according to the long since universally adopted Nuremberg Principles of
International Law, every single soldier following illegal orders to invade or bomb shall be
tried as criminally responsible for his actions.[4]
Back in 1991, f ormer US Attorney General Ramsey Clark wrote, "US Foreign Policy
is the Greatest Crime Since WWII," in his book, The Fire This Time – US War Crimes
in the Gulf , in which, Attorney Clark sites specific crimes in dozens of nations bombed
and invaded by Americans since WW II[5]. Thirteen years later, back in Iraq for the crimes of a
second President Bush, Clark declared, that
"American aggression had already created incalculable levels of "misery for the
world"; that "the poor of the planet [are] made poorer,dominated and exploited
by the foreign policies of the U.S. and its rich allies;" that "the U.S. invasion of
Iraq was a war of aggression, an offense called 'the supreme international crime' in the
Nuremberg Judgment."
The question arises, 'how long can indescribably enormous crimes go unpunished?' How long
can the human race, so phenomenally accomplished in science and art, in space exploration and
medicine, afford to let this unearthly criminal insanity continue – an indescribably
idiotic wholesale extermination of millions of children, women and men?
Yours truly, just back from a month in China, as guest of his students of thirty years ago
and marveling on the calm, warm, intelligent and joyful behavior of people throughout all
levels of society, tuned in on C-Span Public TV Channels to watch the US Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations and the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee discuss the
"present day threats to American interests world wide," and the eighteen year and
failing occupation war in Afghanistan. It was embarrassingly amazing to listen to government
officials tossing outright fabrications back and forth while continually congratulating one and
another obsequiously on 'each other's fine service in protecting our great country.' Freaky!
People who are really great, don't need to keep telling each other and everyone else how great
they are.
Seems, when time runs out on 'exceptional America,' a very considerable amount of Americans
should be able to escape being put in the dock, by simply claiming, with good proof, criminal
insanity.
*
Jay Janson , who lived and taught in Korea for six years, is an archival research
peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked in all continents in 67
countries; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, Sweden, Germany Vietnam and
the US; now resides in NYC.
"... Please do not insult Britain because it does not need any other party (Ukraine, Georgia) to organize a false-flag such as this. Any reasonable person would understand that such mad rush to judgment and frantic lying by the British regime are closely related to the organizers of the poisoning. They could be one and only. ..."
"... I predicted at the start of the Skripal affair that will end up the same as the MH17 case: "truth established" without any good facts or based on secret facts, we move on. ..."
"... If somehow truth does surface, as with Iraqi WMD, then exactly the same strategy will be used by the British regime as by the US regime before: faulty intelligence and misleading (Porton Down) scientists. ..."
"... How many Porton Down scientists will be suicided a few weeks before daughters wedding, if the truth of the Russian WMD comes out, just as David Kelly regarding Iraqi WMD? ..."
"... Britain had a stronger motive to generate a major confrontation with a well-defined enemy than Theresa May, who has been under fire by the media and pressured to resign by many in her own Conservative Party. ..."
"... Really don't understand why Giraldi classifies this as "wild". Has he completely missed the numerous 'false flags' by UK initiated and financed 'White Helmets'? Every time UK/US intend to incite public outrage some 'chemical' incident was faked in Syria. ..."
"... The hate of the UK establishment for Trump is only rivaled by its hate for Russia, so MI5/6 playing May (who only a few weeks before Salisbury out of the blue ratcheted up her anti Russia rhetoric) like a fiddle was provided with what she needed. However looks like given the number of exotic deaths concentrated in the UK some MI5/6 idiot now made the mistake of more than he can fake. ..."
"... Quite astonishingly, given the lack of news coverage – At a London airport in public view, Prince Bandar apparently 'committed suicide' over a week ago, on 12 March 2018, when the UK refused entry to Bandar video said to be of Bandar jumping to his death, on YouTube ..."
"... So we have one of the best-known celebrity Saudi Arabian princes – who had threatened Russia – suddenly dead in a shocking and dramatic public 'suicide' at a London airport – yet this is 'not news' according to our overlords, tho Bandar's death and funeral prayers etc seem leading news across Muslim outlets ..."
"... Obviously we have a Western Permitted News Committee telling all major Western media outlets what is 'news', for our own good ..."
"... British media intel 'sources' have proposed different employ of the poison, from a 'hit squad' followed Yulia from Moscow, to the poison was planted in her luggage at Moscow, to the poison was introduced to Skripal's car via the ventilation system. ..."
"... When the 'backstop' lies differ so widely, it points to likelihood the British haven't a clue as to what actually happened, but the default position is 'the Russians did it' ..."
Please do not insult Britain because it does not need any other party (Ukraine, Georgia)
to organize a false-flag such as this. Any reasonable person would understand that such mad
rush to judgment and frantic lying by the British regime are closely related to the
organizers of the poisoning. They could be one and only.
I predicted at the start of the Skripal affair that will end up the same as the MH17 case:
"truth established" without any good facts or based on secret facts, we move on.
If somehow truth does surface, as with Iraqi WMD, then exactly the same strategy will be
used by the British regime as by the US regime before: faulty intelligence and misleading
(Porton Down) scientists.
How many Porton Down scientists will be suicided a few weeks before daughters wedding, if
the truth of the Russian WMD comes out, just as David Kelly regarding Iraqi WMD?
"And to throw out a really wild possibility, one might observe that no one in Britain had a
stronger motive to generate a major confrontation with a well-defined enemy than Theresa May,
who has been under fire by the media and pressured to resign by many in her own Conservative
Party."
Really don't understand why Giraldi classifies this as "wild". Has he completely missed
the numerous 'false flags' by UK initiated and financed 'White Helmets'? Every time UK/US
intend to incite public outrage some 'chemical' incident was faked in Syria.
Look 'Rusiagate' Trump dossier has UK tail waggles US dog all over it. That Russiagate has
been faltering increasingly over the last few months with recently the House Intelligence
Committee declaring there is none. So some new impetus was required. Steele is too closely
connected to MI5/6 to presume innocence on their behalf.
The hate of the UK establishment for Trump is only rivaled by its hate for Russia, so
MI5/6 playing May (who only a few weeks before Salisbury out of the blue ratcheted up her
anti Russia rhetoric) like a fiddle was provided with what she needed. However looks like
given the number of exotic deaths concentrated in the UK some MI5/6 idiot now made the
mistake of more than he can fake.
On the topic of Russia-related deaths in Britain -
Everyone knows Saudi Prince Bandar – 'Bandar Bush' thanks to his close public ties
with the George Bush family – Bandar who reportedly threatened Putin with
Saudi-sponsored terrorist attacks inside Russia Bandar has long been the perhaps best-known
Saudi prince in the world
Quite astonishingly, given the lack of news coverage – At a London airport in public
view, Prince Bandar apparently 'committed suicide' over a week ago, on 12 March 2018, when
the UK refused entry to Bandar video said to be of Bandar jumping to his death, on
YouTube
So we have one of the best-known celebrity Saudi Arabian princes – who had
threatened Russia – suddenly dead in a shocking and dramatic public 'suicide' at a
London airport – yet this is 'not news' according to our overlords, tho Bandar's death
and funeral prayers etc seem leading news across Muslim outlets
Obviously we have a Western Permitted News Committee telling all major Western media
outlets what is 'news', for our own good
British media intel 'sources' have proposed different employ of the poison, from a 'hit
squad' followed Yulia from Moscow, to the poison was planted in her luggage at Moscow, to the
poison was introduced to Skripal's car via the ventilation system.
When the 'backstop' lies differ so widely, it points to likelihood the British haven't
a clue as to what actually happened, but the default position is 'the Russians did
it'
"... After her first speech, May summoned the Russian Ambassador and demanded that he address the allegations, but Moscow reasonably enough demanded a sample of the alleged nerve agent for testing by relevant international bodies like the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons before it could even respond to the British accusations. It was a valid point even supported in Parliament questioning by opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, but May and her government decided to act anyway. ..."
"... That in turn suggests a false flag, with someone having an interest in promoting a crisis between Russia and Britain. If that someone were a country having a sophisticated arms industry possessing its own chemical weapons capability, like the United States or Israel, it would be quite easy to copy the characteristics of the Russian nerve agent, particularly as its formula has been known since it was published in 1992. The agent could then be used to create an incident that would inevitably be blamed on Moscow. Why would Israel and the United States want to do that? To put pressure on Russia to embarrass it and put it on the defensive so I would be forced eventually to abandon its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Removing al-Assad is the often-expressed agenda of the Israeli and American governments, both of which have pledged to take "independent action" in Syria no matter what the United Nations or any other international body says. The redoubtable Nikki Haley is already using the incident to fearmonger over Moscow's intentions at the U.N., warning that a Russian chemical attack on New York City could be coming. ..."
"... Once upon a time suggesting that a democratically elected government might assassinate someone for political reasons would have been unthinkable, but the 2016 election in the United States has demonstrated that nothing is impossible, particularly if one is considering the possibility that a secret intelligence service might be collaborating with a government to help it stay in power. An incident in which no one was actually killed that can be used to spark an international crisis mandating "strong leadership" would be just the ticket. ..."
There are a number of problems with the accepted narrative as presented by May and the
media. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a nerve agent as "usually odorless organophosphate
(such as sarin, tabun, or VX) that disrupts the transmission of nerve impulses by inhibiting
cholinesterase and especially acetylcholinesterase and is used as a chemical weapon in gaseous
or liquid form," while Wikipedia explains that it is "a class of organic chemicals that disrupt
the mechanisms by which nerves transfer messages to organs." A little more research online
reveals that most so-called nerve agents are chemically related. So when Theresa May says that
the alleged agent used against the Skripals as being "of a type" associated with a reported
Russian-developed chemical weapon called Novichok that was produced in the 1970s and 1980s, she
is actually conceding that her own chemical weapons laboratories at Porton Down are, to a
certain, extent, guessing at the provenance and characteristics of the actual agent that might
or might not have been used in Salisbury.
Beyond that, a military strength nerve agent is, by definition, a highly concentrated and
easily dispersed form of a chemical weapon. It is intended to kill or incapacitate hundreds or
even thousands of soldiers. If it truly had been used in Salisbury, even in a small dose, it
would have killed Skripal and his daughter as well as others nearby. First responders who
showed up without protective clothing, clearly seen in the initial videos and photos taken near
the site, would also be dead. After her first speech, May summoned the Russian Ambassador
and demanded that he address the allegations, but Moscow reasonably enough demanded a sample of
the alleged nerve agent for testing by relevant international bodies like the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons before it could even respond to the British accusations. It
was a valid point even supported in Parliament questioning by opposition Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn, but May and her government decided to act anyway.
May's language also conveys uncertainty. She used "it appears" and also said it was "highly
likely" that Moscow was behind the poisoning of Skripal but provided no actual evidence that
that was the case, presumably only assuming that it had to be Russia. And her government has
told the public that there is "little risk" remaining over the incident and that those who were
possibly exposed merely have to wash themselves and their clothes, hardly likely if it were a
military grade toxin, which gains it lethality from being persistent on and around a target.
She made clear her lack of corroboration for her claim by offering an "either-or" analysis:
either Russia's government did it or it had "lost control" of its nerve agent.
As noted above, May's argument is, to a certain extent, based on character assassination of
Russians – she even offered up the alleged "annexation" of Crimea as corroboration of her
view that Moscow is not inclined to play by the rules that others observe. It is a narrative
that is based on the presumption that "this is the sort of thing the Russian government headed
by Vladimir Putin does." The British media has responded enthusiastically, running stories
about numerous assassinations and poisonings that ought to be attributed to Russia, while
ignoring the fact that the world leaders in political assassinations are actually the United
States and Israel.
There are a number of other considerations that the May government has ignored in its rush
to expand the crisis. She mentioned that Russia might be somewhat exonerated if it has lost
control of its chemical weapons, but did not fully explain what that might mean. It could be
plausible to consider that states hostile to Russia like Ukraine and Georgia that were once
part of the Soviet Union could have had , and might
still retain, stocks of the Novichok nerve agent. That in turn suggests a false flag, with
someone having an interest in promoting a crisis between Russia and Britain. If that someone
were a country having a sophisticated arms industry possessing its own chemical weapons
capability, like the United States or Israel, it would be quite easy to copy the
characteristics of the Russian nerve agent, particularly as its formula has been known since it
was published in 1992. The agent could then be used to create an incident that would inevitably
be blamed on Moscow. Why would Israel and the United States want to do that? To put pressure on
Russia to embarrass it and put it on the defensive so I would be forced eventually to abandon
its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Removing al-Assad is the often-expressed
agenda of the Israeli and American governments, both of which have pledged to take "independent
action" in Syria no matter what the United Nations or any other international body says. The
redoubtable Nikki Haley is already using the incident
to fearmonger over Moscow's intentions at the U.N., warning that a Russian chemical attack
on New York City could be coming.
And to throw out a really wild possibility, one might observe that no one in Britain had a
stronger motive to generate a major confrontation with a well-defined enemy than Theresa May,
who has been under fire by the media and pressured to resign by many in her own Conservative
Party. Once upon a time suggesting that a democratically elected government might
assassinate someone for political reasons would have been unthinkable, but the 2016 election in
the United States has demonstrated that nothing is impossible, particularly if one is
considering the possibility that a secret intelligence service might be collaborating with a
government to help it stay in power. An incident in which no one was actually killed that can
be used to spark an international crisis mandating "strong leadership" would be just the
ticket.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
.
"... "There would be some concern (in the region), I think, about how we intended to address that particular threat if it was not being addressed through the JCPOA. ... Right now, I think it is in our interest" ..."
"... "I don't know that that's our particular policy at this particular point. Our focus remains on the defeat of ISIS," ..."
Tillerson had joined Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in pressing a skeptical Trump to stick
with the agreement with Iran.
"There would be some concern (in the region), I think, about how we intended to
address that particular threat if it was not being addressed through the JCPOA. ... Right
now, I think it is in our interest" to stay in the deal, Votel said.
When a lawmaker asked whether he agreed with Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff General Joseph Dunford's position on the deal,Votel said: "Yes, I share their
position."
Mattis said late last year that the United States should consider staying in the Iran
nuclear deal unless it was proven Tehran was not complying or that the agreement was not in the
U.S. national interest.
A collapse of the Iran nuclear deal would be a "great loss," the United Nations atomic
watchdog's chief warned Trump recently, giving a wide-ranging defense of the accord.
Iran has stayed within the deal's restrictions since Trump took office but has fired
diplomatic warning shots at Washington in recent weeks. It said on Monday that it could rapidly
enrich uranium to a higher degree of purity if the deal collapsed.
Syria
Votel also discussed the situation in
Syria at the hearing.
During the Syrian army's offensive in eastern Ghouta, more than 1,100 civilians have died.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces, backed by Russia and Iran, say they are targeting
"terrorist" groups shelling the capital.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley warned on Monday that Washington "remains
prepared to act if we must," if the U.N. Security Council failed to act on Syria.
Votel said the best way to deter Russia, which backs Assad, was through political and
diplomatic channels.
"Certainly if there are other things that are considered, you know, we will do what we are
told. ... (But) I don't recommend that at this particular point," Votel said, in an apparent
to reference to military options.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked whether it was too strong to say that with Russia
and Iran's help, Assad had "won" the civil war in Syria.
"I do not think that is too strong of a statement," Votel said.
Graham also asked if the United States' policy on Syria was still to seek the removal of
Assad from power.
"I don't know that that's our particular policy at this particular point. Our focus
remains on the defeat of ISIS," Votel said, using an acronym for Islamic State. "
Zerohedge
Votel would never say anything like this if he were not in agreement with Mattis and
Dunford. This is illustrative of a weakening of Israeli/AIPAC/Saudi influence in US Middle East
policy. It will be interesting to see if Votel is rebuked for these statements. pl
catherine ,
19 March 2018 at 05:03 PM
After an hour of searches have not found a single major media outlet or press has quoted
anything Votel said in the hearing about the Iran deal.
Instead they have headlines and coverage/quotes only about Russia's meddling in Syria.
Therefore the public will not know that those like Tillerson, Mattis and JCS Dunford all
agree on keeping the Iran deal...they will only read bad Russia.
Catherine notes that the MSM has said zero about what Votel, Mattis and Dunford have said or
thought about Iran and Syria. Even if our host had not made his confirming statement about
Votel's true commitment to his statements, I would have offered the secondary supposition
that Votel's commitment to these statements is true.
I would say that because of the MSM silence on them that Catherine has noted. If Votel was
making these statements as false-fog noise to hide the movement of men and materiel to use
against Iran and Syria, as WillyBilly theorizes, the MSM would be broadcasting and
highlighting the false-fog in order to keep the buildup hidden and keep Syria and Iran off
guard.
The fact that the MSM is so silent makes me think the MSM wants Votel's statements to die
in silence under the MSM Cone of Silence.
Meaning the MSM and its masters reject these statements but can only hope to starve them
of attention because the MSM couldn't prevent Votel from making them.
For an extra funny, at one time, the United States was happy to supply fuel cycle capable
breeder reactors to Iran, before the 1979 Revolution intervened.
No less a personage than Dick Cheney, who was President Ford's Chief of Staff at the time,
commented at the time that he could figure out what those reactors would be used for. The
same Dick Cheney who insisted that non-fuel cycle capable reactors were somehow proof of
Iran's bad intentions.
Source: "The Silk Roads" by Professor Peter Frankopan.
"... The Iranians know how that cartoon ends, so they'd refuse, unlike Mr Saddam. And then the US would call on the client states in the EU to join them in tightening sanctions. Eventually provocation could be arranged and the US would "have no choice but to respond." - some patrol boats being shot at by Iranians as has happened. We all will recall how Obama was cast as a creampuf appeaseer when 'our boys' were caught zooming around Iranian waters. ..."
"... Too many powerful actors on the American political stage have determined hat Iran must be collapsed (It was on the famous hit-list after all) for them to let this go. ..."
What had been happening and what I expect to see is that, as during the George II
Administration, the US would loudly accuse Iran of breaking faith with agreements and demand
unlimited access for 'inspectors'.
The Iranians know how that cartoon ends, so they'd refuse, unlike Mr Saddam. And then
the US would call on the client states in the EU to join them in tightening sanctions.
Eventually provocation could be arranged and the US would "have no choice but to respond." -
some patrol boats being shot at by Iranians as has happened. We all will recall how Obama was
cast as a creampuf appeaseer when 'our boys' were caught zooming around Iranian
waters.
Too many powerful actors on the American political stage have determined hat Iran must
be collapsed (It was on the famous hit-list after all) for them to let this go.
9/11 was less important than the Anthrax show thereafter
¿Qué?
IIRC, the Anthrax show was seen [from my viewpoint = external], as akin to sending out a
sheep-dog to shepherd the outliers = oppress any 'casual dissidents' = get everybody onto the
same page = GWoT, 1st step = invade Afghanistan = rearrange some sand. The latter more than a
bit puzzling, since Afghanistan was not the likeliest place to want to go, to punish any
alleged hijackers. To add 'interest,' it was fairly quickly revealed that the Anthrax was a
'domestic' strain = US-produced. Then they hounded Ivins to death, but that was *much* later.
At the time = 2001, there was almost no '9/11 inside-job' discussion -- except for the
Anthrax. A different puzzling. What did I miss? rgds
Without the Anthrax (which, was not "weaponised" btw), there would not have been a case
for Iraq war and Powell showing vials at the UN nor the Patriot Act and assorted other
totalitarian retardations. One could have looked into the Saudis-finagled-it angle, into the
Israel-knew-about-it angle, into the FBI dropped the ball-years-before angle , into
too-convenient-for-PNACistas-angle,
into-we-found-the-passports-but-we-didnt-find-the-flight-recorders angle. And maybe Shrubby
wouldn't even have been re-elected. Before Anthrax, it was just "an attack on the WTC"
– there had been one of those via the parking garage a couple of years earlier btw, by
the same team. But after Anthrax, hysteria took hold. And everyone was taking Cipro.
This timeline alleges that people were even taking Cipro before 9/11 (don't take
antibiotica until you absolutely, totally, must, idiots – maybe they look too much at
Dark Winter: http://washingtonsblog.com/2014/10/anthrax-dark-winter.html
):
Here's an interesting related piece that was linked to in Craig Murray's comments page. It
deals with the quote by the UK government, in support of their accusation of Russia, of
Putin's words in 2010, when he said: "Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me. Those other
folks betrayed their friends, their brother in arms, whatever they got in exchange for it,
those 30 pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them." The context as stated by
the UK government was "when we think about who benefits" [from the attack on the Skripals],
and the clear intention was to try to create the impression that Putin had threatened to kill
traitors, which is of course exactly how this quote was subsequently misrepresented.
There is of course a familiar "track record", or "pattern of behaviour" here, when one
considers how Israel lobbies of various kinds intentionally misrepresented Iranian words
about the Zionist regime "vanishing from the pages of history" as a threat to attack
Israel.
The piece is long, and I've posted it below for reference because I do not know if the
website in question will necessarily be around for long. Hopefully the moderators will put it
under a [More] tag so it remains, but does not clog up the thread. There are embedded
reference links in the text at the source.
No, on the occasion in question Putin did not say that traitors would be killed. The
quote in your question comes from a March 5, 2018 broadcast of BBC Newsnight. It is a
concatenation of three soundbites from a three-minute statement in which Putin says that
Russia no longer kills traitors. The soundbites come from the last paragraph of his
statement in which Putin paints a melodramatic picture of traitors as broken men living out
their remaining days in abject misery leading to an early death.
The actual fate of enemies of the Russian state is beyond the scope of the question and
this answer. Instead we will discuss the beliefs on this subject which Putin was attempting
to instill. He was inviting the Russian people to picture traitors dying friendless and
alone Men Without a Country in apartments strewn with empty vodka bottles.
The translation in the BBC broadcast alters the tone of Putin's statement and broadens
the meaning of his words to the point that, when they are read in the style used by Western
comedians portraying Putin, they seem to convey veiled threats of violence.
The Story Spreads
The next day (March 6th) the composite soundbite from the BBC broadcast appeared at the
head of article on the website of The Sun, now shorn of all even the context provided in
the BBC broadcast. The article describes the statement as a "threat to 'choke traitors'",
thereby changing the BBC's poor translation into an unambiguously false one.
The day after that (March 7th) the Independent put up an article with its own version of
the BBC video. The article incorrectly identifies it as a video which "re-emerged online"
and describes Putin's words as "apparent death threats".
Also on March 7th the Telegraph described Putin's words unambiguously as a "death
threat". This despite the fact that in 2010 they had reported on the very same statement
and found exactly the opposite meaning in it. What is more, now Putin's words were not
simply spoken close to the time of Sergei Skripal's release, they are now actually about
him.
On March 7th on Good Morning Britain Piers Morgan asked Alexander Nekrassov (former
Kremlin adviser) what Putin had meant by "kick the bucket". They each considered the
other's interpretation of the phrase ridiculous. (Not surprising since Mr. Morgan was
interpreting the Putin's words in the BBC's poor translation while Mr. Nekrassov was
presumably interpreting Mr. Putin's actual words which, at least for this phrase, can be
heard in the BBC broadcast.) Neither one of them seemed to know the context of the
quote.
On March 12th the video was mentioned in an editorial in the New York Times. The
editorial links to the March 7th article in the Independent and quotes the translation from
the video. The editors seem to have obtained some information about the TV show during
which the statement was made, but this is a bit garbled too. In particular their
description of the question is incorrect and they make no mention of the overall import of
Putin's answer.
Earlier Western Press Coverage of Putin's Statement
Putin's statement attracted some press coverage in the West at the time he made it. At
the time the press had the full text of the statement and did not interpret it as a threat
against traitors:
•Vladimir Putin: Russian secret services don't kill traitors (The Telegraph)
•Vladimir Putin says Russian secret service no longer kills traitors (Mirror)
Putin refers to the exposure and arrest of agents of the Illegals Program on June 27,
2010. The Illegals Program (which is the name given it by the US Department of Justice)
planted Russian sleeper agents in the United States under cover as private citizens.
In July of 2010 the ten spies arrested in the United States were exchanged for three
Russian nationals who had been convicted of high treason for espionage one of whom was
Sergei Skripal. (This appears to be his only connection to the affair.) In August the
deported Russian spies were "warmly greeted" by Vladimir Putin who "led them in singing
patriotic songs".
After the program was exposed, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service began an
investigation in an attempt to determine whether the agents had been betrayed. Suspicion
fell on one Colonel Aleksander Poteyev who was in charge of undercover spying in the US. He
is thought to have fled Russia a few days before the arrest of the undercover agents. Where
he is now is unclear, but the opinion in the Russian press is that he went to the US, that
his children are also in the US, and that he may or may not have died in 2016.
The Statement
In the quote in question Putin is commenting on this affair. He is speaking during the
program Direct Line: A Conversation with Vladimir Putin in December 2010. Direct Line is a
marathon ask-me-anything-style show which he does once a year. The broadcast is on Youtube
(the question is asked at about 3:12:15 and Putin concludes his answer at about 3:15:15)
and there is a written transcript. Here is an English translation. The parts included in
some form in the quote from your question are in bold:
M. Sittel: Vladimir Vladimirovich, I'm taking a question from the website, this time it
is a personal one. It is clearly written by someone who loves memoirs. "When you spoke of
the recent spy scandal, you noted: traitors do not live long. The leaders of many
countries, as know from recollections, have signed orders for the the liquidation of the
enemies of the homeland oversees. The French have done so, the Israelis. Have you, as the
head of state, had occasion to make such a decision in the past?"
V.Putin: I do not think that the leaders of state signed such orders personally even in
the past. That is the work of the special services. And during Soviet times, in Stalin's
time, it is no secret, there were special subunits which carried out, including (these were
military subunits, it was not all they did), which when necessary carried out such
assignments: the liquidation of traitors. Such subunits were themselves liquidated long
ago.
It is known that actual many, say the Israeli special services used such methods, yes,
all things considered, as for today, far from all have given this up even now. The Russian
special services do not use such means.
With regard to traitors, they will curl up on their own, I assure you. That's because
Here we have this latest instance of betrayal in which they exposed a group of our
illegals. And these are officers! Do you get it? Officers. A man betrayed his friends, his
comrades in arms. These are people who laid their entire lives on the altar of patriotism.
What is it like to learn a language at native level, leave behind one's relatives, not to
be able to bury one's loved ones? Think about that for a minute! Someone has given his
entire life to serve his homeland and now this brute comes along who betrays people like
that. How is he going to live with that for the rest of his life? How will he look his
children in the eye, the swine?! Whatever went on there, whatever 30 pieces of silver those
people may have gotten, they will stick in their throat, I assure you. To spend your whole
life trying to keep out of view, to be unable to talk with your loved ones, it means that
someone who chooses such a fate will be regretting it a thousand times over.
So the quotation in the form you cite is garbled and has been interpreted in a manner
which is at odds with the original context which is a specific denial that Russia
assassinates traitors.
Notes on Translation
The word "загнуться" famously
translated "kick the bucket" literally means "to curl up" or "to curl down". What it means
here is open to interpretation. The translation "kick the bucket" can be found in
Wiktionary as a possible translation of a very informal use of the word. @bashbino's
assertion that such use refers to decline and death rather than sudden death is probably
correct. I suspect it is an allusion to the way plants whither and die. In 2010 the phrase
was translated "they will croak all by themselves" (The Telegraph, NBC News)
In translating "прятаться" as
"trying to keep out of view" I am trying to leave the question of whether the traitor is
hiding from assassins or simply from people he cannot look in the eye up to the reader's
interpretation. This word can refer to social avoidance such as the behavior of a child who
hides behind his mother's skirt.
The phrase "колом
станут у них в
горле" refers to difficulty swallowing due to revulsion, not
difficulty breathing. To make this clear I have translated it "will stick in their
throat".
"... There are similarities the Skripal poisoning and the 1997 poisoning of Khaled Mashal in Jordan. The poison used may be the same fentanyl based mixture. ..."
"... The thing that really made me suspect Israel was the claim by Boris Johnson that Russia has a secret program that develops novichok type chemical weapons for assassinations ..."
"... I do not think the British found out about the alleged Russian program by themselves. They received the information, along with the disinformation from a foreign intelligence service. Most likely this was Israeli Mossad. Why would Mossad feed the British lies about a Russian assassination program, unless they wanted to pin their own assassinations on Russia. ..."
In the previous open thread I posted a long analysis of the alleged war preparation of a NATO
land invasion of Syria, which I later published on The Duran . The thing that prompted
me to write this was Boris Johnson's latest allegations about a Russian assassination
program. In the end I left this speculation out of the published version.
The United States may be about to start a land invasion of Syria. The offensive would
start from the U.S. base at the Al Tanf border crossing and extend through Abu Kemal to the
American and Kurdish-held areas on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. The troops would be
supplied through Jordan. It is possible that Britain would also take part in this
operation.
The 2,400 man strong U.S. 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived in Haifa in Israel on
March 14, 2018 aboard the three US Navy ships of the Iwo Jima amphibious ready group. The
Marines may be on their way to the Al Tanf base through Jordan. Another 200 U.S. troops are
said to have arrived in Al Tanf the previous week. Unconfirmed rumors claim that an
additional 2,300 British troops also arrived at the base along with Challenger tanks and
Cobra and Black Hawk helicopters.
It now seems evident that to real reason for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal was to
drum up British support for a war against Syria and Russia. One must must thus ask who would
most gains from such a war. If my analysis below is correct, then the answer would be Israel.
Several things make Israel a likely suspect for the poisoning:
Israel has a long history of assassinations abroad.
Israel is not a OPCW member and has an active CW program.
Mossad can perform hostile actions in Britain and still be counted as friendly. If
they got caught in the act, they would simply be deported in secrecy.
There are similarities the Skripal poisoning and the 1997 poisoning of
Khaled Mashal
in Jordan. The poison used may be the same fentanyl based mixture.
Netanyahu is the current prime minister of Israel. He also ordered the 1997
assassination attempt on Mashal.
The thing that really made me suspect Israel was the claim by Boris Johnson that Russia
has a secret program that develops novichok type chemical weapons for assassinations. It is
most likely true that Russian laboratories have been working in novichoks, like all major
weapons laboratories in the West. The part about assassinations is disinformation.
I do not think the British found out about the alleged Russian program by themselves. They
received the information, along with the disinformation from a foreign intelligence service.
Most likely this was Israeli Mossad. Why would Mossad feed the British lies about a Russian
assassination program, unless they wanted to pin their own assassinations on Russia.
Various readers, fans, blog commenters, Facebook trolls, and
auditors twanged on me all last week about my continuing interest in the RussiaRussiaRussia hysteria,
though there is no particular consensus of complaint among them -- except for a general "shut up,
already" motif. For the record, I'm far more interested in the hysteria itself than the
Russia-meddled-in the-election case, which I consider to be hardly any case at all beyond 13 Russian
Facebook trolls.
The hysteria, on the other hand, ought to be a matter of grave concern,
because it
appears more and more to have been engineered by America's own intel community, its handmaidens in the
Dept of Justice, and the twilight's last gleamings of the Obama White House, and now it has shoved
this country in the direction of war at a time when civilian authority over the US military looks
sketchy at best.
This country faces manifold other problems that are certain to reduce the
national standard of living and disrupt the operations of an excessively complex and dishonest
economy,
and the last thing America needs is a national war-dance over trumped-up grievances
with Russia.
The RussiaRussiaRussia narrative has unspooled since Christmas and is blowing back badly
through the FBI,
now with the firing (for cause) of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe hours short
of his official retirement (and inches from the golden ring of his pension). He was axed on the
recommendation of his own colleagues in the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, and they may
have been influenced by the as-yet-unreleased report of the FBI Inspector General, Michael Horowitz,
due out shortly.
The record of misbehavior and "collusion" between the highest ranks of the FBI, the
Democratic Party,
the Clinton campaign, several top political law firms, and a shady cast of
international blackmail-peddlars is
a six-lane Beltway-scale evidence trail compared to the
muddy mule track of Trump "collusion" with Russia.
It will be amazing if a big wad of criminal cases are not dealt out of it, even as
The
New York Times
sticks its fingers in its ears and goes, "La-la-la-la-la ."
It now appears that Mr. McCabe's statements post-firing tend to
incriminate his former
boss, FBI Director James Comey
-- who is about to embark, embarrassingly perhaps, on a tour
for his self-exculpating book,
A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership
.
A great aura of sanctimony surrounds the FBI these days.
Even the news pundits
seem to have forgotten the long, twisted reign of J. Edgar Hoover (1924 – 1972), a dangerous rogue who
excelled at political blackmail. And why, these days, would any sane American take pronouncements from
the CIA and NSA at face value?
What seems to have gone on in the RussiaRussiaRussia matter
is that various parts of the executive branch in the last months under Mr. Obama gave each other tacit
permission, wink-wink, to do anything necessary to stuff HRC into the White House and, failing that,
to derail her opponent, the Golden Golem of Greatness.
The obvious lesson in all this huggermugger is that the ends don't justify the means.
I suspect
there are basically two routes through this mess
.
One is that
the misdeeds of FBI officers, Department of Justice lawyers, and Intel
agency executives get adjudicated by normal means,
namely, grand juries and courts. That
would have the salutary effect of cleansing government agencies and shoring up what's left of their
credibility at a time when faith in institutions hangs in the balance.
The second route would be for the authorities to ignore any formal response to an evermore
self-evident trail of crimes, and to
allow all that political energy to be funneled into
manufactured hysteria and eventually a phony provocation of war with Russia
.
Personally, I'd rather see the US government clean house than blow up the world over an engineered
hallucination.
Tags
Politics
Semiconductors - NEC
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley warned on Monday that Washington "remains
prepared to act if we must," if the U.N. Security Council failed to act on Syria.
Votel said the best way to deter Russia, which backs Assad, was through political and
diplomatic channels.
"Certainly if there are other things that are considered, you know, we will do what we are
told. ... (But) I don't recommend that at this particular point," Votel said, in an apparent
to reference to military options.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked whether it was too strong to say that with Russia
and Iran's help, Assad had "won" the civil war in Syria.
"I do not think that is too strong of a statement," Votel said.
Graham also asked if the United States' policy on Syria was still to seek the removal of
Assad from power.
"I don't know that that's our particular policy at this particular point. Our focus
remains on the defeat of ISIS," Votel said, using an acronym for Islamic State. "
Zerohedge
Votel would never say anything like this if he were not in agreement with Mattis and
Dunford. This is illustrative of a weakening of Israeli/AIPAC/Saudi influence in US Middle East
policy. It will be interesting to see if Votel is rebuked for these statements. pl
''This is illustrative of a weakening of Israeli/AIPAC/Saudi influence in US Middle East
policy. It will be interesting to see if Votel is rebuked for these statements. pl ''
Hooray !!
I am sure the boys at JINSA and the Fifth Column will be furious....let them rage. The more
they show themselves the better.
After an hour of searches have not found a single major media outlet or press has quoted
anything Votel said in the hearing about the Iran deal.
Instead they have headlines and coverage/quotes only about Russia's meddling in Syria.
Therefore the public will not know that those like Tillerson, Mattis and JCS Dunford all
agree on keeping the Iran deal...they will only read bad Russia.
i didn't say we were "out of the woods" but it is a good start. IMO all these statements
by Votel are true and it took a good deal of courage to make them in public. pl
Catherine notes that the MSM has said zero about what Votel, Mattis and Dunford have said or
thought about Iran and Syria. Even if our host had not made his confirming statement about
Votel's true commitment to his statements, I would have offered the secondary supposition
that Votel's commitment to these statements is true.
I would say that because of the MSM silence on them that Catherine has noted. If Votel was
making these statements as false-fog noise to hide the movement of men and materiel to use
against Iran and Syria, as WillyBilly theorizes, the MSM would be broadcasting and
highlighting the false-fog in order to keep the buildup hidden and keep Syria and Iran off
guard. The fact that the MSM is so silent makes me think the MSM wants Votel's statements to
die in silence under the MSM Cone of Silence. Meaning the MSM and its masters reject these
statements but can only hope to starve them of attention because the MSM couldn't prevent
Votel from making them.
"then we will have to have another way to deal with their nuclear weapons program," said U.S.
Army General Joseph Votel."
Iran does not have and has never had a "nuclear weapons program" with the possible
exception of a "feasibility study" back when they were afraid Saddam had one. I believe this
was the opinion of the DIA in the run up to the 2007 Iran NIE which did not make it into the
NIE. But this is consistent with the publicly available information and Iran's own
statements.
"... these statements by Votel are true and it took a good deal of courage to make them in
public."
-- If true they constitute a strong expression of patriotism. God, give us more outspoken
patriots.
(This is a paradoxical time in the US when truth and patriotism are not a norm.)
What had been happening and what I expect to see is that, as during the George II
Administration, the US would loudly accuse Iran of breaking faith with agreements and demand
unlimited access for 'inspectors'. The Iranians know how that cartoon ends, so they'd refuse,
unlike Mr Saddam. And then the US would call on the client states in the EU to join them in
tightening sanctions. Eventually provocation could be arranged and the US would "have no
choice but to respond." - some patrol boats being shot at by Iranians as has happened. We all
will recall how Obama was cast as a creampuf appeaseer when 'our boys' were caught zooming
around Iranian waters.
Too many powerful actors on the American political stage have determined hat Iran must be
collapsed (It was on the famous hit-list after all) for them to let this go.
"... The vast majority of people have already had drummed into them the fact (sic) that novichok could only be produced in Russia, so this will of course be interpreted as conclusive proof that "Putin did it". The real push for dramatic measures (e.g., World Cup) will begin at that point. ..."
It is reported that the OPCW is already carrying out tests on "samples taken from Salisbury".
This will presumably take some time, but eventually (2 weeks?) there will be an announcement
that it is indeed Novichok.
The vast majority of people have already had drummed into them the fact (sic) that
novichok could only be produced in Russia, so this will of course be interpreted as
conclusive proof that "Putin did it". The real push for dramatic measures (e.g., World Cup)
will begin at that point.
there had to be a physical person who did it and that means that person can be found
– the beauty of the luggage story was that it could be written off as a clever remote
attack
BMW has a good security system; this would require a risky break-in with a non-zero chance
of getting caught
the release of the substance in a car cannot be controlled – it could happen in a
crowded place, there could be an accident, Skripal could loan the car, etc
So I am skeptical, no 'intelligence' agency is this un-intelligent. Someone is releasing
more scenarios (luggage, car, drinks, ) to confuse the narrative and let it linger in the
media as in 'well, it was possible and if not that, maybe this was possible'. I don't know
who that 'someone' is, but it is not Boris Johnson or Teresa May. They clearly know
nothing.
"... My impression is that the nerve agent was introduced to the scene after Skripals were hospitalized as a doctor attended the
daughter for 30 min before the ambulance came. She did not develop any symptoms. So at this moment they lost conscience at the bench
there was no nerve gas on the scene. It might well be something else. ..."
I think the Skripals won't be able to talk at all. They are in a coma
How do you know that?
Has there been any public report on the medical condition of the Skripals? I haven't been able to find one. If you know of
such a report, will you please provide a link. In the meantime, one should keep in mind the statement of the Salisbury hospital
consultant, Steohen Davies, that:
no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury
So either (1) the Skripal's were not exposed to Novichok or any other nerve agent, or (2) though exposed to a nerve agent,
they were not treated at the hospital, which would be odd, though not impossible. Perhaps they were taken to the British chemical
weapons lab at Porton Down, just seven miles from Salisbury, where, presumably, there are specialists in detoxification of those
exposed to nerve agents.
But unless you adhere to (1) or (2), it would seem that you have to conclude that the Skripal's were not exposed to a nerve
agent. In other words, that the whole story is probably a sham, a fake terror attack, a story concocted to befuddle the plebs
and justify some new imperial aggression.
My impression is that the nerve agent was introduced to the scene after Skripals were hospitalized as a doctor attended the
daughter for 30 min before the ambulance came. She did not develop any symptoms. So at this moment they lost conscience at the
bench there was no nerve gas on the scene. It might well be something else.
IMHO this looks like an opening salvo in multi-step combination. Clumsy first step. It might well be designed to confiscate
a part of Russian money in London banks and thus create the motive for Russian oligarchs to remove Putin. Kind of color revolution
launched by disgruntled oligarchs.
That's probably why the UK government does not really care, if that is told to people true or not. Officials produce crazy
statements and generally behave quite carelessly, as if they completely despise public and truth dos not matter for them one bit.
The support of the USA is all that matter. Look for example at the most recent statement of Boris Johnson. But they needed the
pretext for further actions, be it another witch hunt or something more serious and they succeeded.
Their actions look completely logical if the resulting hysteria is needed just for a few weeks to start the next round of sanctions
against Russia. It might well be that the real goal is confiscation of "ill gotten" money of Russian oligarchs both to push them
to act against Putin and to compensate for Brexit losses
Things more or less moved from the Points and in the Direction and Pivots I expected and
commented under the Colonels 'time-to-clean-up-the-homs-desert-pocket' Update in February,
the biggest Hurdles to advances in Ghouta remains two Fold - the prospect of brutal Urban
Warfare and the search for a more diplomatic Solution.
Whilst Idlib will no doubt fall under a similar Fate to a degree (Diplomacy will be
necessary whilst low hanging Turkish Fruit remain). I do however propose a different
conclusion which is possible that then simply acceptance of a divided Syria, at least in its
current form.
Turkish Observation Posts largely at current prevent or more, Influence R+6 Activities in
Eastern Idlib and Aleppo Province, the Door is still open in the South and West - Hama and
Latakiya Provinces...
Through the 'Desert Hawks' previously the Syrian Government has demonstrated capability to
advance through the Mountainous Warfare that Latakia demands, Ghouta far from simply securing
the Syrian Heartland may be an action designed to free up large numbers of maneuver Units
which should enable them not only to squeeze the North West but more seriously threaten Jisr
Al Shugur... Likewise an advance in the South could force Opposition out of Hama Province
ensuring Hama Cities security.
The ultimate goal depending on Force Ratios and scale of advance could be to render many
of the Turkish Positions in East Idlib and Aleppo redundant, inducing a withdrawal from
current Positions, or a negotiated Settlement....
The fact that Towns such as Kafarya and Foua remain isolated forces the R+6 to mount some
Operation to ensure or negotiate their Position and indeed the Mountains of Latakia would
position R+6 suitably to overlook much of Idlib to support where further advances can be
made.
Colonel, I would respectfully suggest that War is a Combination of Factors - Economic
being one along with Ideological Factors, this all weighs heavily on the Calculations for
War, In Syria Case I suspect that those arguing for it not only included the Zionists, but
also got consensus from those whom could argue its benefits in Economics and wider
Geopolitics (EU relieved of Russian Energy for example)
By now I suspect the latter Advocates have ideally given up, but the Zionists are
incapable of doing so, because unlike Economics they have literally made a Situation worse
for the cause they serve.
Seriously...I think these 'conspiracy theorists' have been watching too many Hollywood movies.
This is what I want to SCREAM every time I hear this shit...Why the HELL would Russia, or anyone else, bother to use such a
messy, traceable and complicated method to kill this guy? Especially when there are SO MANY WAYS it could have been done that
wouldn't have garnered all the attention, and that would have left no traces? They could have sent someone to shove him in front
of a train or something, or staged a 'botched robbery'.
Reminds me of the stupid assassination methods the CIA wanted to use on Castro...poisoning his beard? Really? Well, aside from
the fact that it is just too 'Wile E. Coyote' to be taken seriously, did anyone ask, if such an assassin could get close enough
to poison his beard, why he wouldn't go with a more dependable method?
I blame the wildly dumbed down and complicit media here in the US and in our "allies" abroad. They spit out whatever the government
feeds to them without a single ounce of effort to validate the stories they frantically preach to the ignorant public. Damn, I
can't believe how many times people will be duped into trillion dollar wars and they still are die hard believers in the ethics
and truthfulness of the US gov't. Morons---
It makes little sense that Russia would assassinate someone using a technique that would immediately implicate them. I'm surprised
they didn't happen to "find" the assassin's Russian passport lying on the ground next to the victims! <
I disagree. If a government is going to terminate a spy they don't botch the job by letting him get to a hospital. In Putin's
Russia they know how to terminate most efficiently. I may be wrong but this is a pretext for something more aggressive/dangerous.
"... Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. ..."
Uri Friedman reviews
Mike Pompeo's hard-line foreign policy views. Here he quotes Pompeo's criticism of the
negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal with Iran:
The Obama administration failed to take "advantage of crushing economic sanctions to end
Iran's nuclear program," he declared when the deal was struck. "That's not foreign policy;
it's surrender."
Pompeo's statement is ridiculous, but it does provide us with a useful window into how he
understands foreign policy issues. Like many other Iran hawks, he opposes the nuclear deal
because it "failed" to bring an end to Iran's nuclear program. He dubs Iran's major concessions
on the nuclear issue as "surrender" by the U.S. because they were not forced to give up
absolutely everything. That reflects the absurd all-or-nothing view of diplomacy that prevails
among hard-line critics of the JCPOA.
Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear
program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at
significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. If the Obama
administration had insisted on the elimination of Iran's nuclear program, the negotiations
would have failed and the restrictions on that problem that are now in place would not exist.
There would have been no nuclear deal if the U.S. had insisted on maximalist demands. What Pompeo calls surrender is what sane people call compromise. Putting someone so inflexible and
allergic to compromise in charge of the State Department is the act of a president who has
nothing but disdain for diplomacy, and Pompeo's all-or-nothing view of the nuclear deal bodes
ill for talks with North Korea.
"... Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. ..."
Uri Friedman reviews
Mike Pompeo's hard-line foreign policy views. Here he quotes Pompeo's criticism of the
negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal with Iran:
The Obama administration failed to take "advantage of crushing economic sanctions to end
Iran's nuclear program," he declared when the deal was struck. "That's not foreign policy;
it's surrender."
Pompeo's statement is ridiculous, but it does provide us with a useful window into how he
understands foreign policy issues. Like many other Iran hawks, he opposes the nuclear deal
because it "failed" to bring an end to Iran's nuclear program. He dubs Iran's major concessions
on the nuclear issue as "surrender" by the U.S. because they were not forced to give up
absolutely everything. That reflects the absurd all-or-nothing view of diplomacy that prevails
among hard-line critics of the JCPOA.
Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear
program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at
significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. If the Obama
administration had insisted on the elimination of Iran's nuclear program, the negotiations
would have failed and the restrictions on that problem that are now in place would not exist.
There would have been no nuclear deal if the U.S. had insisted on maximalist demands. What Pompeo calls surrender is what sane people call compromise. Putting someone so inflexible and
allergic to compromise in charge of the State Department is the act of a president who has
nothing but disdain for diplomacy, and Pompeo's all-or-nothing view of the nuclear deal bodes
ill for talks with North Korea.
"... Valery Gerasimov, head of Russia's General Staff, said Moscow had information that rebels in the enclave of eastern Ghouta were planning to fake a chemical weapons attack against civilians and blame it on the Syrian army. ..."
"... He said the United States intended to use the fake attack as a pretext to bomb the government quarter in nearby Damascus where he said Russian military advisers, Russian military police and Russian ceasefire monitors were based. ..."
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia said on Tuesday it had information that the United States
planned to bomb the government quarter in Damascus on an invented pretext, and said it would
respond militarily if it felt Russian lives were threatened by such an attack.
Valery Gerasimov, head of Russia's General Staff, said Moscow had information that
rebels in the enclave of eastern Ghouta were planning to fake a chemical weapons attack against
civilians and blame it on the Syrian army.
He said the United States intended to use the fake attack as a pretext to bomb the
government quarter in nearby Damascus where he said Russian military advisers, Russian military
police and Russian ceasefire monitors were based.
"If We Should Have to Leave Our Bleached Bones on These Desert Sands in Vain, Then Beware the Anger of the Legions."
Quote Investigator
Notable quotes:
"... Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously spoke of the " fog of war ," the confusion created by and inherent uncertainty built into that complex human endeavor. As thick as that fog often is, in these years the fog of phony war has proven even thicker and more disorienting. ..."
A bizarre version of blitzkrieg overseas and an even stranger version of sitzkrieg at home could be said to define this peculiar
American moment. These two versions exist in a curiously yin-yang relationship to each other. For how can a nation's military be
engaged in warfare at a near-global level -- blitzing people across vast swaths of the globe -- when its citizens are sitting on
their collective duffs,
demobilized
and mentally disarmed? Such a schizoid state of mind can exist only when it's in the interest of those in power. Appeals to "patriotism"
(especially to revering "our" troops) and an overwhelming
atmosphere
of secrecy to preserve American "safety" and "security" have been remarkably effective in
controlling and stifling interest in the
country's wars and their
costs
, long before such an interest might morph into dissent or opposition. If you want an image of just how effective this has been,
recall the moment in July 2016 when small numbers of earnest war protesters quite literally had the
lights turned
off on them at the Democratic National Convention.
To use an expression I heard more than a few times in my years in the military, when it comes to its wars, the government treats
the people like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them bullshit.
The Fog of Phony War
Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously spoke of the "
fog of war ," the confusion created by and inherent uncertainty
built into that complex human endeavor. As thick as that fog often is, in these years the fog of phony war has proven even thicker
and more disorienting.
By its very nature, a real war of necessity, of survival, like the Civil War or World War II brings with it clarity of purpose
and a demand for results. Poorly performing leaders are relieved of command when not killed outright in combat. Consider the number
of mediocre Union generals Abraham Lincoln cycled through before he found Ulysses S. Grant. Consider the number of
senior officers relieved
during World War II by General George C. Marshall, who knew that, in a global struggle against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, subpar
performances couldn't be tolerated. In wars of necessity or survival, moreover, the people are invariably involved. In part, they
may have little choice, but they also know (or at least believe they know) "
why we fight " -- and generally approve of it.
Admittedly, even in wars of necessity there are always those who will find ways to duck service. In the Civil War, for example,
the rich could pay others to fight in their place. But typically in such wars, everyone serves in some capacity. Necessity demands
it.
The definition of twenty-first-century phony war, on the other hand, is its lack of clarity, its lack of purpose, its lack of
any true imperative for national survival (despite a never-ending hysteria over the "terrorist threat"). The fog it produces is especially
disorienting. Americans today have little idea "why we fight" other than a vague sense of fighting them over there (Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Niger, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, etc.) so they won't kill us here, to cite George W. Bush's
rationale for launching the war on terror. Meanwhile, with
such a lack of national involvement and accountability, there's no pressure for the Pentagon or the rest of the national security
state to up its game; there's no one even to point out that wherever the U.S. military has gone into battle in these years, yet more
terror groups have subsequently sprouted like so many malignant weeds. Bureaucracy and mediocrity go unchallenged;
massive boosts in military spending reward incompetency and the creation of a series of quagmire-like "
generational
" wars.
Think of it as war on a Möbius strip. More money shoveled into the Pentagon brings more chaos overseas, more imperial overreach,
and undoubtedly more
blowback
here at home, all witnessed -- or rather largely ignored -- by a sitzkrieg citizenry.
Of course, for those fighting the wars, they are anything but phony. It's just that their experience remains largely isolated
from that of the rest of us, an isolation that only serves to elevate
post-traumatic stress disorder rates,
suicides , and the like. When
today's troops come home, they generally suffer in silence and among themselves.
America's New (Phony) National Defense Strategy
Even phony wars need enemies. In fact, they may need them more (and more of them) than real wars do. No surprise then that the
Trump administration's recently announced
National Defense Strategy (NDS) offers a laundry list of such enemies. China and Russia top it as "revisionist powers" looking
to reverse America's putative victory over Communism in the Cold War. "Rogue" powers like North Korea and Iran are singled out as
especially dangerous because of their nuclear ambitions. (The United States, of course, doesn't have a "rogue" bone in its body,
even if it is now devoting at least $1.2
trillion to building a new generation of more usable nuclear
weapons.) Nor does the NDS neglect Washington's need to
hammer
away at global terrorists until the end of time or to extend "full-spectrum dominance" not just to the traditional realms of
combat (land, sea, and air) but also to
space and cyberspace.
Amid such a plethora of enemies, only one thing is missing in America's
new defense strategy
, the very thing that's been missing all these years, that makes twenty-first-century American war so phony: any sense of national
mobilization and shared sacrifice (or its opposite,
antiwar resistance ). If the United
States truly faces all these existential threats to our democracy and our way of life, what are we doing frittering away more than
$45
billion annually in a quagmire war in Afghanistan? What are we doing spending staggering sums on exotic weaponry like the F-35
jet fighter (total projected program cost:
$1.45 trillion ) when we
have far more pressing national needs to deal with?
Like so much else in Washington in these years, the NDS doesn't represent a strategy for real war, only a call for more of the
same raised to a higher power. That mainly means more money for the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and related "defense"
agencies, facilitating more blitz attacks on various enemies overseas. The formula -- serial blitzkrieg abroad, serial sitzkrieg
in the homeland -- adds up to
victory , but only for the military-industrial complex.
Solutions to Sitzkrieg
Of course, one solution to phony war would be to engage in real war, but for that the famed American way of life would actually
have to be endangered. (By Afghans? Syrians? Iraqis? Yemenis? Really?) Congress would then have to declare war; the public would
have to be mobilized, a draft undoubtedly reinstated, and taxes raised. And those would be just for starters. A clear strategy would
have to be defined and losing generals demoted or dismissed.
Who could imagine such an approach when it comes to America's forever wars? Another solution to phony war would be for the American
people to actually start paying attention. The Pentagon would then have to be starved of funds. (With less money, admirals and generals
might actually have to think.) All those attacks overseas that blitzed innocents and spread chaos would have to end. Here at home,
the cheerleaders would have to put down the pom-poms, stop mindlessly praising the troops for their service, and pick up a few protest
signs.
In point of fact, America's all-too-real wars overseas aren't likely to end until the phony war here at home is dispatched to
oblivion.
A final thought: Americans tell pollsters that, after all these years of failed wars abroad, they continue to
trust the
military more than any other societal institution. Consistent with phony war, however, much of that trust is based on ignorance,
on not really knowing what that military is doing overseas. So, is there a chance that, one of these days, Americans might actually
begin to pay some attention to "their" wars? And if so, would those polls begin to change and how might that military, which has
experienced its share of blood, sweat, and tears, respond to such a loss of societal prestige? Beware the
anger of the legions .
Faith in institutions undergirds democracy. Keeping the people deliberately demobilized and in the dark about the costs and carnage
of America's wars follows a pattern of governmental lying and deceit that stretches from the
Vietnam War to the
Iraq Wars of
1991 and 2003
, to military operations in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere today. Systemic lies and the phony war that goes with them continue
to contribute to a slow-motion process of political and social disintegration that could result in a much grimmer future for this
country: perhaps an authoritarian one; certainly, a more chaotic and less democratic one.
Societal degradation and democratic implosion, caused in part by endless phony war and the lies associated with it, are this country's
real existential enemies, even if you can't find them listed in any National Defense Strategy. Indeed, the price tag for America's
wars may in the end prove not just heavy but catastrophic.
The text of the letter in French as it appeared in "Les Centurions" [LCJL] has been appended near the bottom of this post. Here
is the English language version published in the 1962 edition of "The Centurions" [TCJL]:
We had been told, on leaving our native soil, that we were going to defend the sacred rights conferred on us by so many
of our citizens settled overseas, so many years of our presence, so many benefits brought by us to populations in need of our
assistance and our civilization.
We were able to verify that all this was true, and, because it was true, we did not hesitate to shed our quota of blood,
to sacrifice our youth and our hopes. We regretted nothing, but whereas we over here are inspired by this frame of mind, I
am told that in Rome factions and conspiracies are rife, that treachery flourishes, and that many people in their uncertainty
and confusion lend a ready ear to the dire temptations of relinquishment and vilify our action.
I cannot believe that all this is true and yet recent wars have shown how pernicious such a state of mind could be and to
where it could lead.
Make haste to reassure me, I beg you, and tell me that our fellow-citizens understand us, support us and protect us as we
ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware of the
anger of the Legions!
Marcus Flavinius,
Centurion in the 2nd Cohort of the Augusta Legion,
to his cousin Tertullus in Rome
William Astore, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and history professor, is a
TomDispatch
regular . He blogs at Bracing Views .
I'm not sure why the US's actions overseas are called "wars". They're attacks upon weak 3rd and 4th world countries with little
capability to resist. The US has never fought a peer enemy despite all it's self-promotion. It moved in on the Germans at the
last moment after they were already on the ropes, despite all the WWII movie hype. All other enemies have been carefully chosen
for their vulnerability. But who actually wants a "real" war? Only an insane person wants that. These phony wars serve as an income
transfer scheme siphoning tax money upward from the masses to the upper classes. Funny how that works. An actual war with a country
that can defend itself and inflict real damage might have the effect of upsetting this racket they have going and they don't want
that. Of course the money spent for Afghanistan could be better put to use domestically for roads, medical research and other
ways of spending our money on ourselves but apparently that's not in the cards. What's important is to keep the hysteria going
so as to maintain the .1% in the style to which they're entitled. The people getting killed are the expendables and of no importance.
It's all just a money transfer. Ya have to be in the thick of things around DC, the Pentagon, the likes of Lockheed, the spooks
at NSA, certain aspects of Federal Law Enforcement, the whole Alphabet Soup. The dough is a-flowing and they're up to their hand-sewn
collars in it. Their mansions, their 5 BMWs or whatever, the Rolexes, the vacations, beautiful women at home AND on the road.
They intend to hand it all over to their children as their fathers handed it over to them. They are NOT giving this up. Ever.
Get in the way, Mr. Senator or Congressman or President? Here's what we have on YOU sir, usually a girlfriend or some depravity,
they're politicians after all. End of the day, these are the people that get richer every day by killing people. They're very
good at it. Even in Britain, the UK, even Russians aren't safe in the quest to keep it all going. Get in the way of the cabal
and their income streams in any way, they can disappear you and blame it on Putin. These are the people that kill people. Remember
that, you'll be well-served.
But: there IS sacrifice. All those trillions of dollars wasted on pointless winless foreign wars are coming out of the standard
of living of the United States, one way or the other. It's just indirect and hard to trace.
One is reminded that Donald Trump, during his presidential campaign, suggested that we stop wasting all these trillions on
stupid wars, and spend it on ourselves. For this he was excoriated as "literally Hitler." A lot of Americans voted for him because,
propaganda aside, they are not stupid and they don't want this phony war nonsense. After the election, though, he finally caved,
and now it's back to business as usual. The elites really like their war profits and they will not shy away from playing dirty
to keep them. That's why these phony wars continue.
Remember: IN THE LAST ELECTION THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST PHONY WARS. It's just that we don't live in a Democracy.
But there is an alternate view. One is reminded that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were only possible because the immigration
policy of the United States is increasingly open to people from unstable nations full of extremists. That attack could not have
happened a decade or so earlier.
Even if the United States had the most benevolent foreign policy imaginable, it's a big messy world. There will always be people
who hate the United States, for whatever reason. In the past these people would just stew in their own misery and kill each other.
Now they can come here no questions asked. Now every extremist group in Tyrannia or Fanatistan is our concern, and we need to
break up any potentially hostile organized faction anywhere in the world. So maybe – maybe – these stupid wars aren't that stupid
after all. Maybe these phony wars is just one more price for "there shall be open borders."
Minding our own business was never a strong suit of our ruling classes, but it would have saved the world a lot of grief. However,
it would have shaved the profits of the bankers and other war profiteers.
The "war for profit group" seem to labor under the impression that it is their war, and that it shall be their material
gain. That group, surely is the cause of wars
-Charles A. Lindbergh, Why is your country at war and what happens to you after the war, and related subjects" p77, (1917)
In the battle of Manchuria ( China ) , August 1945 , or " August Storm " , the Russians defeated the imperial japanese army
, the road to Japan was open for the Red Army and the chinese . Then the yankees threw the atomic bombs to Japan to threaten the
Russians ( who still did not have the atomic bomb at the time ) to not to invade Japan .
Japan was completeley defeated , there was not any military need to throw atomic bombs on Japan . The Americans have a sad
record for bombing unarmed civilians : Corea , Vietnam , Germany , Irak, Afganistan , Libia , Siria , Japan , etc ..
Americans are no longer allowed to see the reality of war, as some old movies showed. From my blog:
Jun 8, 2017 – Patriotic Nonsense
Do you become angry when you hear nonsense that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for our freedoms? Do you become
enraged when the death of soldiers is explained by claiming they protected us? This is nothing new, as shown in this short movie
clip with Korean War vet James Garner. Most blame the Generals and politicians, but he also blames the people back home for glorifying
wars, thus allowing the deadly ruse to continue. He stated: "It is always the war widows who lead the Memorial Day parade" as
though their husbands died by accident.
Back when Reagan was doing his impersonation of POTUS, the defense deficit was some measly amount and the cry went out to privatize
defense because the free market could do it for less. Pretty funny in retrospect.
They also fixed our inefficient corporations and markets, then went on to fix housing, inequality and end poverty. As if that
wasn't enough, they also fixed healthcare and banking. I'm surprised we're still afloat. I expect a Wiley Coyote moment soon.
"It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on,
in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands
playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every
hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering
wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide
avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and
sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the
packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory with stirred the deepest deeps of
their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the
tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to
flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in
outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.
It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to
disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern
and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and
offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was
filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of
the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the
flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender!
Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of
glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and
friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for
the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter
from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst
that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating
hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:
God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest,
Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!
Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading
and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful
and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort,
and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and
the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible
in the bloody onset; help them crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country
imperishable honor and glory --
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his
eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his
head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face
unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he
made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there
waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving
prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms,
grant us the victory, O Lord and God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister
did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with
solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:
"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house
with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of
His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such be your desire after I, His messenger,
shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like
unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of
-- except he pause and think. "God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused
and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, and the other not. Both
have reached the ear of Him who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken.
Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest
without intent you invoke a curse upon your neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the
blessing of rain on your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a
curse on some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God
to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your
hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was
so! You heard the words 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole
of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary.
When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow
victory -- must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell
also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle -- be Thou
near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved
firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with
our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead;
help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain;
help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts
of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with
their little children to wander unfriended in the wastes of their desolated land in rags and
hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in
spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it --
For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their
bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white
snow with the blood of their wounded feet!
We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the
ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and
contrite hearts. Amen.
(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most
High waits."
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what
he said
The Secretary of Defense has
written to Congressional leaders to express his opposition to S.J.Res. 54, the resolution
that would end U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen:
In a letter sent to congressional leaders Wednesday and obtained by The Washington Post,
Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the
Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our
partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would
further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis."
He urged Congress not to impose restrictions on the "noncombat," "limited U.S. military
support" being provided to Saudi Arabia, which is "engaging in operations in its legitimate
exercise of self-defense."
The Pentagon has been putting forward very weak legal
arguments against S.J.Res. 54, and Mattis'
statement of the policy arguments against the resolution are not any better. The Saudi-led
coalition would have great difficulty continuing their war without U.S. military assistance.
U.S. refueling allows coalition planes to carry out more attacks than they otherwise could, so
it is extremely unlikely that ending it could possibly result in more civilian casualties than
the bombing campaign causes now. Mattis is taking for granted that U.S. military assistance
somehow makes coalition bombing more accurate and less likely to result in civilian casualties,
but that is hard to credit when coalition forces routinely target civilian structures on
purpose and when the military
admits that it doesn't keep track of what happens after it refuels coalition planes.
Secretary Mattis says that cutting off support could jeopardize cooperation on
counter-terrorism, but the flip side of this is that continuing to enable the Saudi-led war
creates the conditions for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the local ISIS affiliate to
flourish. The coalition's war has made AQAP stronger than it was before, and AQAP members have
sometimes even fought alongside coalition forces on the ground. Instead of worrying about
whether the U.S. is jeopardizing cooperation with these states, we should be asking whether
that cooperation is worth very much in Yemen.
He claims that the Saudis and their allies are engaged in "a legitimate exercise of
self-defense," and this is simply not true. The Saudis and their allies were not attacked and
were not threatened with attack prior to their intervention. Saudi territory now comes under
attack because the coalition has been bombing Yemen for years, but that doesn't make continuing
the war self-defense. If an aggressor launches an attack against a neighboring country, it is
the neighbor that is engaged in self-defense against the state(s) attacking them.
Mattis also warns that ending support for the Saudi-led coalition would have other
undesirable consequences:
As Mattis put it in his letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, "withdrawing U.S.
support would embolden Iran to increase its support to the Houthis, enabling further
ballistic missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and threatening vital shipping lanes in the Red
Sea, thereby raising the risk of a regional conflict."
These claims also don't hold water. Iranian support for the Houthis remains limited, but it
has increased as a direct result of the war. The longer that the war goes on, the greater the
incentive the Houthis and Iran will have to cooperate. The absurdity of this intervention is
that it was dishonestly sold as a war against Iranian "expansionism" and yet it has done more
to aid Iran than anything Iran's government could have done on its own. Missile strikes on
Saudi Arabia wouldn't be happening if the Saudis and their allies weren't regularly bombing
Yemeni cities. If the coalition halted its bombing, the missile strikes would almost certainly
cease as well. Continuing the war is a guarantee that those attacks will continue, and U.S.
military assistance ensures that the war will continue. Every reason Mattis gives here for
continuing U.S. support for the war is actually a reason to end it.
Shipping lanes weren't threatened before the intervention and won't be threatened after it
ends. Yemenis have every incentive to leave shipping lanes alone, since these are their
country's lifeline. Meanwhile, the cruel coalition blockade is slowly starving millions of
Yemenis to death by keeping out essential commercial goods from the main ports that serve the
vast majority of the population. Mattis is warning about potential threats to shipping from
Yemen while completely ignoring that the main cause of the humanitarian disaster is the
interruption of commercial shipping into Yemen by the Saudi-led blockade. The regional conflict
that Mattis warns about is already here. It is called the Saudi-led war on Yemen. If one wants
to prevent the region from being destabilized further, one would want to put an end to that war
as quickly as possible.
Mattis mentions that the U.S. role in the war is a "noncombat" and "limited" one, but for
the purposes of the debate on Sanders-Lee resolution that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that
the military assistance the U.S. is providing doesn't put Americans in combat. That is not the
only way that U.S. forces can be introduced into hostilities. According to the War Powers Resolution
, the U.S. has introduced its armed forces into hostilities under these circumstances:
For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed
Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate,
participate in the movement of, or accompany [bold mine-DL] the regular or irregular military
forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there
exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.
Any fair reading of this definition has to apply to the regular U.S. refueling of coalition
planes that are engaged in an ongoing bombing campaign. The U.S. is obviously participating in
the "movement" of coalition forces when it provides their planes with fuel. Indeed, our forces
are making the movement of their forces possible through refueling. U.S. involvement in the war
on Yemen clearly counts as introducing U.S. forces into hostilities under the WPR, and neither
administration has sought or received authorization to do this. No president is permitted to do
this unless there is "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or
its armed forces." There has obviously been no action from Congress that authorizes this, and
there is certainly no emergency or attack that justifies it. U.S. involvement in the war on
Yemen is illegal, and the Senate should pass S.J.Res. 54 to end it.
"Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the
Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our
partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would
further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis.""
Wow. So MBS is blackmailing us. He's threatening to kill more civilians, to stop
anti-terror cooperation, and to shut us out of other Saudi regional security decisions if we
don't help him starve and wreck Yemen.
Maybe the situation is a little clearer, but how can anyone take Trump seriously after
this embarrassing confession by Mattis?
We may assume that Trump has no self-respect, but doesn't he have any respect for his
office? Is he really going to let this disgusting little torture freak jerk him around like
this? When it implicates all Americans in Saudi war crimes?
Re: "Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen"
Unfortunately, in this day of warped Military Exceptionalism as the civic religion, a
4-Star pedigree fronting weak arguments makes them essentially unassailable. No matter how
immoral, idiotic or costly to the taxpayers.
Mad Dog Mattis got a free ride with his logically incoherent, hyper-belligerent
pronouncements related to the National Security Strategy. Expect no different response to his
perverse rationalizations of the Yemen catastrophe.
Generals and Admirals now pop off stupid and dangerous opinions right and left and are
never challenged by an MSM that is bedazzled by anyone wearing stars on their shoulders.
Mattis' case for Yemen is not only weak, it's pathetic. Too bad the co-opted and seduced
MSM will never suggest that to the public at large deluded by the omnipresent propaganda of
the National Security State.
Nothing will change until the undeserved fawning adoration of the War Machine Elite is
substantially attenuated.
The neocons will stop at nothing to bring down anyone they suspect of threatening Israel or
U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East.
First, they lied about WMDs in Iraq and started a completely illegal war, killing millions
and devastating that country for generations. That led directly to the creation of ISIS and
the havoc it has wrought on both Iraq and Syria (and increasingly in other countries).
Then under Obama and Sec. Clinton, they allowed the military takeover of Egypt by the
murderous and oppressive El-Sisi and launched an aggressive war of regime change in Libya,
throwing both North African countries into turmoil.
Then they supported the brutal and savage ongoing Saudi war against Yemen to curb
non-existent Iranian influence, followed by politically isolating Qatar for its supposed
chumminess with Iran.
The neocons will do absolutely anything to bring down the Iranian regime, no matter how
many foreign and American lives and destroyed to achieve that end.
The details of Mattis' letter of indulgence do not matter as much as the fact that he is
willing to defend the indefensible. Even if his professed concerns were not only genuine, but
actually reflected reality, he also has to know better than anybody else within the
administration about the consequences of the US-backed Saudi/UAE invasion of Yemen.
Mattis has joined Graham and Albright in the "worth it" campaign to sustain and extend
perfectly predictable atrocities.
If he wants to make the case that we cannot accept uncertainty with respect to an alleged
Iranian aggression towards Saudi Arabia – and with even more unlikely acquiescence by
the Houthi to let Iran use them the way the US uses the Kurds – or even assuming that
Mattis wants to misrepresent possible Houthi blowback against Saudi Arabia as "Iranian" just
for convenience – then it should be clear that he is claimng we can easily accept
uncertainty with respect to Yemeni blowback against the US – blowback that he also uses
to justify the US campaign inside Yemen, and that fueled Obama's pathological obsession with
ideological cleansing in Yemen and other prospective "safe harbors".
Mattis is proving the validity of the actual Powell Doctrine – if you join it, you
own it – both with respect to US co-belligerence in Yemen, and with respect to Mattis
personally. He is also proving the observation that anybody who is willing to join an
administration as criminal as that of Bush, Obama or Trump is unlikely to do any good –
by their voluntary association they have irredeemably tainted themselves.
We do not want to get in the middle of this Sunni vs. Shiite war. The Saudis want to destroy
the Shiites in Yemen and we are fools at best and criminals at worst to help them. The people
of Yemen are no threat to the US and for theAmerican Government to cooperate with the Saudis
in the murderof Yemeni women and children is revolting.
Americans have heard for years that supporting "democracy" and popular uprisings throughout
the Middle East are in our national interests, the basis being that oppressed people are more
likely to resort to terrorism.
Yet in the cases of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and now Yemen popular revolutions of Shias
demanding equal rights are actually deemed a threat to our national security.
The neocons have gotten so deep in the Gulf/Israel v. Iran conflict that they're not even
keeping to the ostensible reasons for interventionism.
"... You have obviously been at the crime scene, have witnessed the comatose bodies of the Skripals and after analyzing the Novitchok samples you meticulously collected, have reached the inescapable conclusion ..."
"... Nice sarcasm. Well deserved for those "Novichok hot heads", who claim that it is plausible that a military grade nerve gas was used. Actually initial reports were about a synthetic opioid, not any nerve gas ( https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ex-russian-agent-sergei-skripal-critical-condition-was-poisoned-by-fentanyl-1665286 ) ..."
"... I am amazed that people do not understand the level of absurdity of using nerve gas in such a case. It's really like ignorance has no boundaries. I understand that some people did not manage to graduate from a university or take a decent organic chemistry course, but still, this is simply amazing and very disturbing to read such posts. Especially here. ..."
You have obviously been at the crime scene, have witnessed the comatose bodies of the
Skripals and after analyzing the Novitchok samples you meticulously collected, have reached
the inescapable conclusion
I am amazed that people do not understand the level of absurdity of using nerve gas in
such a case. It's really like ignorance has no boundaries. I understand that some people did
not manage to graduate from a university or take a decent organic chemistry course, but
still, this is simply amazing and very disturbing to read such posts. Especially here.
If it was a nerve gas my question to "Novichok hot heads" here is who the assassin
was?
You need either to place a can or some punctured packet under the bench (probably
impossible) or spray the liquid on the victim from a short distance. The latter is a very
dangerous exercise if you are not wearing a respirator and protection gear.
Remember the place was under surveillance -- bad for any assassination. Also in lethal
concentrations, the gas kills the victims in several minutes. But Skripals survived
unattended for an hour or more and there was only one other seriously affected person -- a
policeman, while doctor who treated Skriplal's daughter on the bench was unaffected.
I do not see any reasonable way to administer the gas in this environment without
affecting many other people including any passerby, or the doctor who treated Skripal's
daughter
Yes, it certainly looks like a provocation, the "false flag" operation. The Brits and the Banks needed the US and the EU to join
the fight.
Notable quotes:
"... The most plausible goal of the whole "Operation Skripal" was poisoning UK-Russia relations and hopefully bringing the US and EU to impose new round of sanctions on Russia. In this sense it reminds Litvinenko case (which brought huge propaganda benefits to the UK and the hysteria lasted several months, if memory does not fail me). ..."
"... One thing I can't understand in "Operation Skripal" is how such an assassination (if we assume that this is an assassination) was accomplished. ..."
"... The gas (if it really exists, which is yet another question) supposedly is really deadly. If this was not gas but some substance infused with this agent (which would be extremely strange and risky method), you need to get it into the drinks, which means 100% chances of your detection. ..."
"... Moreover in case of the gas the difficulties look insurmountable -- to get it to the victim you need to mix components and shortly after spray it from a short distance, hoping the you mixed them correctly. The place where Skripals were found unconscious is a really bad place for such an exercise as there probably several cameras which record the events on the bench. ..."
"... So IMHO it looks like assassination without an assassin ..."
"... suggested traces of the opiate fentanyl -- a synthetic toxin many times stronger than heroin -- had been detected at the scene. ..."
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia,
nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a
parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked (by a Russian sounding chemical weapon Novichok), and
denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk - Craig Murray has been most viciously attacked
for not accepting the official story without any evidence) and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Hermann Göring
That's a perfectly applicable variation of the famous quote.
The most plausible goal of the whole "Operation Skripal" was poisoning UK-Russia relations and hopefully bringing the US and
EU to impose new round of sanctions on Russia. In this sense it reminds Litvinenko case (which brought huge propaganda benefits
to the UK and the hysteria lasted several months, if memory does not fail me).
BTW exiled Russian oligarchs like Khodorkovski ( https://www.voltairenet.org/article168007.html
) also could easily stage such a false flag operation using their interconnections with both Russia and Israel.
One thing I can't understand in "Operation Skripal" is how such an assassination (if we assume that this is an assassination)
was accomplished.
The gas (if it really exists, which is yet another question) supposedly is really deadly. If this was not gas but some
substance infused with this agent (which would be extremely strange and risky method), you need to get it into the drinks, which
means 100% chances of your detection.
Moreover in case of the gas the difficulties look insurmountable -- to get it to the victim you need to mix components
and shortly after spray it from a short distance, hoping the you mixed them correctly. The place where Skripals were found unconscious
is a really bad place for such an exercise as there probably several cameras which record the events on the bench.
Unless it was the daughter who did this (in this case authorities have definitely all the necessary evidence of the crime committed)
chances of an attacker to survive such an attack are slim, and changes not being recorded on one or more camera are virtually
non existent.
If there was a human assassin, he/she risks to be immediately dead or severely injured as even in minimal concentrations such
a gas reliably kills a person within two minutes or so. Antidote might help to survive, but how effective it is depends on the
dose you can get.
If some robotic disperser was used, then it will be found as unlike in case of an explosive device the activation does no destroy
it.
Also unclear why target the daughter, unless we are dealing with some botched amateur false flag operation in best traditions
of ISIS Syria false flag operations.
Moreover, Skripals spent around an hour on a bench in a comatose state and were helped by a doctor who was not affected in
any way. See timeline at
So IMHO it looks like assassination without an assassin . There are some absurd statements that the poison was spiked
in their drinks either in the pub or at the restaurant:
Later their collapse was used to stage a false flag operation, when in fact there was no any gas involved, and at this point,
a grandiose propaganda show with the decontamination of the area started.
Everything that Saker wrote is true, but he also makes it read a little bit complicated.
Things are much simpler. During my career as a market researcher in a Western country, I once slipped in into some commercial
research that I was doing a test of what kind of message do people react to. The results were really shocking (to me): in rounded
figures, 91% of people reacted to an emotional message and only 9% reacted to a rational message. In other words, if you want
to promote almost anything, appeal to the emotional or even animal part of the human nature not to the ratio. This is exactly
what the Western propaganda is doing and this is why it works.
Think for a moment about the implications of the fact that 91% of people are prone to being emotionally manipulated (including
hysterics):
1) on democracy,
2) on drive towards war and so on.
Again, if you want to manipulate people forget about facts and just employ words and images that can elicit emotions and a
large (democratic) majority will follow you even off the cliff .
If you have not been feeling depressed already, maybe this post of mine will do it for you. That is how I feel as well.
It took a long time for you to discover (in a 'commercial research') what was known for a much longer time, the application
of these principles in advertising and propaganda 'discovered' by Edward Bernays and exposed in his 'influential book' "Propaganda"
1928. One of the techniques of propaganda is to make the recipients believe that the ideas instilled in their heads were their
own discovery.
It did not take me as long as you think. As a marketing and advertising professional (with appropriate qualifications) I was always
aware that emotional works better than rational, but I never had an idea by how much. My most extreme supposition was 2/3 to 1/3.
To end up 10:1, I never expected that.
It appears that such high proportion enables the government's/manipulators to silence the rational fraction who oppose the
dragging into a war. Without any firm evidence I do feel that if the proportion was 2/3 to 1/3 then such manipulation, leading
subjects often to mass suicide, would not be possible.
Therefore, I posit that the human society consists of three strata:
But you succeeded in creating a diversion – we are discussing your stupidity instead of an important inclination in the human
nature. Virtually all of the "democratic" system manipulations, especially the dragging of a nation into a war is based on emotional
manipulations such as the Germans bayoneting the Belgian babies, the Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators onto the cold floor,
and so on and so on. Around 91% swallow the regime's emotional crap, the remaining 9% are denounced as traitors and threatened
wth sedition laws.
"The first terrorist attack with chemical weapon on a territory of a NATO nation by a rogue state."
"Virtually all of the "democratic" system manipulations, especially the dragging of a nation into a war is based on emotional
manipulations such as the Germans bayoneting the Belgian babies, the Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators onto the cold floor,
and so on and so on."
If you are going to make this claim, then you are going to have to offer specific research studies, along with their methodologies
and sources, i.e. past studies they based their research on. Because what one person calls "emotional manipulations", another
person calls "facts".
"Around 91% swallow the regime's emotional crap, the remaining 9% are denounced as traitors and threatened wth sedition laws."
Doubling down I see without the requisite verification. Was your own "study" even replicated? You do realize that studies need
to be replicated as to offer further evidence of your conclusions. Can you even name one such study?
The first time I realized how low things would likely get was when Ruth Marcus, deputy editor of the Washington Post
, sent out the following tweet in
March of 2017, squealing with delight at the thought of a new Cold War with the world's other nuclear superpower: "So excited to
be watching The Americans, throwback to a simpler time when everyone considered Russia the enemy. Even the president."
Not only did Marcus's comment imply that it was great for the U.S. to have an enemy, but it specifically implied that there was
something particularly great about that enemy being Russia.
Since then, the public discourse has only gotten nastier. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – who notoriously
perjured himself before Congress about warrantless spying on Americans –
stated on Meet the Press last
May that Russians were uniquely and "genetically" predisposed toward manipulative political activities. If Clapper or anyone else
in the public eye had made such a statement about Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, Jews, Israelis, Chinese or just about any other group,
there would have been some push-back about the prejudice that it reflected and how it didn't correspond with enlightened liberal
values. But Clapper's comment passed with hardly a peep of protest.
More recently, John Sipher , a retired CIA station
chief who reportedly spent years in Russia – although at what point in time is unclear – was interviewed in Jane Mayer's recent New
Yorker
piece
trying to spin the Steele Dossier as somehow legitimate. On March 6, Sipher took to Twitter with the following
comment : "How can one not be a Russophobe?
Russia soft power is political warfare. Hard power is invading neighbors, hiding the death of civilians with chemical weapons and
threatening with doomsday nuclear weapons. And they kill the opposition at home. Name something positive."
In fairness to Sipher, he did backpedal somewhat after being challenged; however, the fact that his unfiltered blabbering reveals
such a deep antipathy toward Russians ("How can one not be a Russophobe?") and an initial assumption that he could get away with
saying it publicly is troubling.
Glenn Greenwald re-tweeted with a comment asking if Russians would soon acceptably be referred to as "rats and roaches." Another
person replied with: "Because they are
rats and roaches. What's the problem?"
This is just a small sampling of the anti-Russian comments and attitudes that pass, largely unremarked upon, in our media landscape.
There are, of course, the larger institutional influencers of culture doing their part to push anti-Russian bigotry in this already
contentious atmosphere. Red Sparrow , both the
book and the
movie , detail the escapades of a female
Russian spy. The story propagates the continued fetishization of Russian women based on the stereotype that they're all hot and frisky.
Furthermore, all those who work in Russian intelligence are evil and backwards rather than possibly being motivated by some kind
of patriotism, while all the American intel agents are paragons of virtue and seem like they just stepped out of an ad for Nick at
Nite's How to be Swell .
The recent Academy Awards continued their politically motivated trend of awarding Oscars for best documentary to films on topics
that just happen to coalesce nicely with Washington's latest adversarial policy. Last year it was the White Helmets film
to support the regime change meme in Syria. This year it's Icarus about the doping scandal in Russia.
"At this stage, only gross ignorance or dishonesty can explain anyone seriously claiming
there's a rational motive for the Russian government to have done this."
Notable quotes:
"... When Putin's cruising to an easy win and the only concern is whether the turnout is 60% or 70%, the claims he wants it for election purposes are pretty stupid, and become untenable when you consider the very real diplomatic, propaganda and soft power costs Russia will bear for this, and coming at a particularly bad time as well on several counts, with Syria on a knife edge in relation to (even more) open US military aggression, the NordStream II pipeline facing new attempts to block it, and the World Cup coming up. ..."
"... Frankly, if the idea of trying to murder someone in Britain, using a "wmd" in the most hysteria-inducing propaganda-favouring method possible, had been suggested to Putin by one of his security apparatchiks I suspect the man would have been guarding ice floes in the Arctic within a few hours. ..."
"... And that's not even considering that this individual (Skripal) wasn't a thuggish, troublemaking fugitive from Russian justice like Litvinenko, but rather a former spy who had already been unmasked, tried and imprisoned by the Russians (his offence was considered so serious he got a whole 13 years), and then exchanged after a few years inside. He was considered so endangered by British intelligence that they didn't even bother hiding his identity, and his address was in the public domain. ..."
"... At this stage, only gross ignorance or dishonesty can explain anyone seriously claiming there's a rational motive for the Russian government to have done this. ..."
"... And by the same exact token, there's no reason to get breathless about the idea that it could have been one of the parties who are real beneficiaries of this propaganda surge -- any of the countries currently engaged in confrontation of Russia in Syria and elsewhere, or that criminal elements connected to the Russian exile "mafia" types could have obtained it from a lab in, say, Ukraine, or that some of the shadowy US and UK security state contacts involved in the campaign to overturn the election of Trump might have used it as a twofer – to get rid of Skripal if he had information they wanted kept secret and set the pretext for the currently ongoing campaign against Russia. ..."
"... All a lot more plausible than the idea that the Russian government was stupid enough to do this to itself, gratuitously ..."
Scenarios for operations are written by somebody. Possibly the same people who also write
screenplays for TV and Hollywood. We know many writers who worked for intelligence services
(Flemming, Greene, LeCarre.) In Six Days of Condor they wanted to keep the scenario secret
and have it removed form popular circulation in a thriller books. But here is opposite
situation. The operation is basically a psy-op so it is public where you want to convince
people that something happened. I can see a point of injecting it as movie drama first so it
will become more believable when it eventually happens. But still the simplest explanation of
laziness and plagiarism can't be excluded.
Others have already explained why Purin and cronies might decide now was a good time to
kill a traitor and be accused of it.
Nobody has yet credibly done so. When Putin's cruising to an easy win and the only concern
is whether the turnout is 60% or 70%, the claims he wants it for election purposes are pretty
stupid, and become untenable when you consider the very real diplomatic, propaganda and soft
power costs Russia will bear for this, and coming at a particularly bad time as well on
several counts, with Syria on a knife edge in relation to (even more) open US military
aggression, the NordStream II pipeline facing new attempts to block it, and the World Cup
coming up.
Frankly, if the idea of trying to murder someone in Britain, using a "wmd" in the most
hysteria-inducing propaganda-favouring method possible, had been suggested to Putin by one of
his security apparatchiks I suspect the man would have been guarding ice floes in the Arctic
within a few hours.
And that's not even considering that this individual (Skripal) wasn't a thuggish,
troublemaking fugitive from Russian justice like Litvinenko, but rather a former spy who had
already been unmasked, tried and imprisoned by the Russians (his offence was considered so
serious he got a whole 13 years), and then exchanged after a few years inside. He was
considered so endangered by British intelligence that they didn't even bother hiding his
identity, and his address was in the public domain.
At this stage, only gross ignorance or dishonesty can explain anyone seriously claiming
there's a rational motive for the Russian government to have done this.
Do I think Russia is involved with the Skripal hit? Of course. .Because of the poison
involved, they (Rus/Putin) almost certainly did it.
That's the poison that Porton Down declined to claim they could identify as having come
from Russia and were only prepared to say is "of a type developed by Russia"?
The poison that the main source for (a former Soviet dissident living in the US) put the
formulae for in his book published ten years ago, and who was quoted a few days ago as saying
that either Russia did it, or someone else who'd read his book?
Of course, exiled dissidents backing up the latest US propaganda campaign against their
former home's government is hardly anything new – that was one of the main methods by
which we were lied into the Iraq War. It's rather cutely naïve for one such to openly
admit that anybody else with the resources (such as the UK, the US or Israel, for a start,
and probably anybody else with access to state resources, such as Ukraine) could have
manufactured the supposedly incriminating substance over the past ten years.
So the idea that the particular chemical allegedly used is in the slightest evidence of
its origin is completely untenable. Nevertheless, that seems to be the only real piece of
"evidence" relied upon for the convenient rush to judgement by the usual suspects.
I just happen to be reading "Rise and Kill First" – the secret history of Israel's
targeted assassinations.
Roughly 700 pages of text and notes about one country's targeted killings so I'm really
not in a 'how could this be' frame of mind with regard to Russia.
Absolutely. And by the same exact token, there's no reason to get breathless about the
idea that it could have been one of the parties who are real beneficiaries of this propaganda
surge -- any of the countries currently engaged in confrontation of Russia in Syria and
elsewhere, or that criminal elements connected to the Russian exile "mafia" types could have
obtained it from a lab in, say, Ukraine, or that some of the shadowy US and UK security state
contacts involved in the campaign to overturn the election of Trump might have used it as a
twofer – to get rid of Skripal if he had information they wanted kept secret and set
the pretext for the currently ongoing campaign against Russia.
All a lot more plausible than the idea that the Russian government was stupid enough to do
this to itself, gratuitously.
bad faith and parochial bellicosity on the part of the all the major powers of the
time
Some of it sounds familiar, but not all. I was pointing out that there are major
differences between today and 1914, but it is extremely volatile and dangerous like then.
At least some in the West have made a decision to deal with Russia now before it gets
stronger. Or to create a much better 'defensive' perimeter for the future. Ukraine, Baltics
and probably Georgia, maybe Turkey have been lined up on Russia's border, with Nato bases and
soldiers. There was the failed attempt to push Russia out of its key Navy base in Crimea.
Syria war will go on to bleed and demoralise Russia, maybe in a few other places. Squeeze the
economy by financial isolation. Use media demonisation to create pressure on the Westernised
Russian elites.
Will that start a war like in 1914? That's where the differences come in. Russia cannot be
today described as ' bellicose ', and neither can large parts of the West. Only some
in the West are bellicose. Germany, Italy and to some extent France want to continue or even
increase business with Russia.
There is also no such thing as a traditional war between Russia and the West – it
would be over in 1-2 days (if that), basically a suicide. It could still happen, but we need
more events before we get there.
Yes, it certainly looks like a provocation, the "false flag" operation. The Brits and the Banks needed the US and the EU to join
the fight.
Notable quotes:
"... The most plausible goal of the whole "Operation Skripal" was poisoning UK-Russia relations and hopefully bringing the US and EU to impose new round of sanctions on Russia. In this sense it reminds Litvinenko case (which brought huge propaganda benefits to the UK and the hysteria lasted several months, if memory does not fail me). ..."
"... One thing I can't understand in "Operation Skripal" is how such an assassination (if we assume that this is an assassination) was accomplished. ..."
"... The gas (if it really exists, which is yet another question) supposedly is really deadly. If this was not gas but some substance infused with this agent (which would be extremely strange and risky method), you need to get it into the drinks, which means 100% chances of your detection. ..."
"... Moreover in case of the gas the difficulties look insurmountable -- to get it to the victim you need to mix components and shortly after spray it from a short distance, hoping the you mixed them correctly. The place where Skripals were found unconscious is a really bad place for such an exercise as there probably several cameras which record the events on the bench. ..."
"... So IMHO it looks like assassination without an assassin ..."
"... suggested traces of the opiate fentanyl -- a synthetic toxin many times stronger than heroin -- had been detected at the scene. ..."
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best
he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia,
nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a
parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked (by a Russian sounding chemical weapon Novichok), and
denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk - Craig Murray has been most viciously attacked
for not accepting the official story without any evidence) and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Hermann Göring
That's a perfectly applicable variation of the famous quote.
The most plausible goal of the whole "Operation Skripal" was poisoning UK-Russia relations and hopefully bringing the US and
EU to impose new round of sanctions on Russia. In this sense it reminds Litvinenko case (which brought huge propaganda benefits
to the UK and the hysteria lasted several months, if memory does not fail me).
BTW exiled Russian oligarchs like Khodorkovski ( https://www.voltairenet.org/article168007.html
) also could easily stage such a false flag operation using their interconnections with both Russia and Israel.
One thing I can't understand in "Operation Skripal" is how such an assassination (if we assume that this is an assassination)
was accomplished.
The gas (if it really exists, which is yet another question) supposedly is really deadly. If this was not gas but some
substance infused with this agent (which would be extremely strange and risky method), you need to get it into the drinks, which
means 100% chances of your detection.
Moreover in case of the gas the difficulties look insurmountable -- to get it to the victim you need to mix components
and shortly after spray it from a short distance, hoping the you mixed them correctly. The place where Skripals were found unconscious
is a really bad place for such an exercise as there probably several cameras which record the events on the bench.
Unless it was the daughter who did this (in this case authorities have definitely all the necessary evidence of the crime committed)
chances of an attacker to survive such an attack are slim, and changes not being recorded on one or more camera are virtually
non existent.
If there was a human assassin, he/she risks to be immediately dead or severely injured as even in minimal concentrations such
a gas reliably kills a person within two minutes or so. Antidote might help to survive, but how effective it is depends on the
dose you can get.
If some robotic disperser was used, then it will be found as unlike in case of an explosive device the activation does no destroy
it.
Also unclear why target the daughter, unless we are dealing with some botched amateur false flag operation in best traditions
of ISIS Syria false flag operations.
Moreover, Skripals spent around an hour on a bench in a comatose state and were helped by a doctor who was not affected in
any way. See timeline at
So IMHO it looks like assassination without an assassin . There are some absurd statements that the poison was spiked
in their drinks either in the pub or at the restaurant:
Later their collapse was used to stage a false flag operation, when in fact there was no any gas involved, and at this point,
a grandiose propaganda show with the decontamination of the area started.
Even if the Russian government had ordered Skripal's kidding, no way would they be so sloppy
as to spew toxins all over the place sickening innocent people. If the backward North Koreans
can do a targeted chemical-based assassination, the Russians certainly can. This is yet
another Anglo-Zionist insult against Russian technical knowhow.
We all know the KGB is smart and crafty and so is Putin. So for unknown reasons, they want to
kill a retired Russian spy living openly in London. Do these brilliant people choose to:
1. Use a dangerous nerve agent that must be smuggled into England, is easily traceable to
Russia, is dangerous to the assassin, and difficult to employ and ensure a kill?
Or:
2. Pay a desperate drug addict to club him on the head on the street and steal his
wallet?
Considering UK behavior towards Russia as a slap on face , Russia not only should but must
demand immediate release of all information available to UK on this case and samples. It
should be done in aggressive manner and backed by international law to which UK is a signer.
Someone must put the money where mouth is or shut up and go away .
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior
Depends. If you have little or no prior behavior to go on, then social status can be a
good predictor as well.
The "higher" you go, the bigger the asshole*.
Trust me, I've experienced it aplenty.
Virtue cannot dwell with wealth either in a city or in a house.
-Diogenes of Sinope, quoted by Stobaeus, iv. 31c. 88
But if you will take note of the mode of proceedings of men, you will see that all those
who come to great riches and great power have obtained them either by fraud or by force;
and afterwards, to hide the ugliness of acquisition, they make it decent by applying the
false title of earnings to things they have usurped by deceit or by violence.
- Niccolo Machiavelli , HISTORY OF FLORENCE AND OF THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY, Book 3 chap
3Para 8
" wealth is no proof of moral character; nor poverty of the want of it. On the contrary,
wealth is often the presumptive evidence of dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence
of innocence."
THOMAS PAINE, DISSERTATION ON FIRST-PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT, 1795
Well, it appears that Assad is a relentless glutton for punishment, because not even a year
later, the
WaPo reported two weeks ago that the US is considering a new military action against Syria
for - what else - retaliation against Assad's latest chemical attack, which took place several
weeks earlier.
How do we know Assad (and apparently, Russia) was behind the attack? We don't: in fact,
former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in a moment of bizarre honesty,
admitted that he really doesn't know much at all about "whoever conducted the attacks. "
But hey: just like it is " highly likely " that Russia
poisoned the former Russian double agent in the UK - with no proof yet - so it is "highly
likely" that a clearly irrational Assad was once again behind an attack which he knew would
provoke violent and aggressive retaliation by the US, and once again destabilize his
regime.
And so we now wait for that flashing, red headline saying that US ships in the Mediterranean
have launched a missile attack on Syria, just like a year ago. Only this time Russia - which is
allied with the Assad regime - is not planning to be on the defensive, and according to
Russia's Defense Ministry, "US instructors" are currently training militants to stage false
flag chemical attacks in south Syria, i.e., the catalyst that will be used to justify the US
attack on Assad. The incidents, the ministry said, will be used a pretext for airstrikes on
Syrian government troops and infrastructure.
"We have reliable information at our disposal that US instructors have trained a number of
militant groups in the vicinity of the town of At-Tanf, to stage provocations involving
chemical warfare agents in southern Syria," Russian General Staff spokesman General Sergey
Rudskoy said at a news briefing on Saturday.
According to the Russian, "early in March, the saboteur groups were deployed to the southern
de-escalation zone to the city of Deraa, where the units of the so-called Free Syrian Army are
stationed."
"They are preparing a series of chemical munitions explosions. This fact will be used to
blame the government forces. The components to produce chemical munitions have been already
delivered to the southern de-escalation zone under the guise of humanitarian convoys of a
number of NGOs."
And, using the exact same worn out narrative as last April, and every prior "chemical attack
by the Assad Regime", the "planned provocations will be widely covered in the Western media and
will ultimately be used as a pretext by the US-led coalition to launch strikes on Syria",
Rudskoy warned.
"The provocations will be used as a pretext by the United States and its allies to launch
strikes on military and government infrastructure in Syria."
Confirming the WaPo's report from early March, it now appears that an attack is
imminent.
"We're registering the signs of the preparations for the possible strikes. Strike groups of
the cruise missile carriers have been formed in the east of the Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf
and Red Sea."
Rudskoy also warned that another false flag chemical attack is being prepared in the
province of Idlib by the "Al-Nusra Front terrorist group, in coordination with the White
Helmets." The militants have already received 20 containers of chlorine to stage the incident,
he said.
Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly warned about upcoming chemical provocations, and have
highlighted that banned warfare agents have been used by the militants. Of course, none of that
matters to the Western press which has its marching orders to expose the bloodthirsty killer
Assad as an irrational despot who will use the exact same military method month after month and
year after year, knowing well the response he will get from the US.
Meanwhile, just a few days ago, Syrian government forces reportedly captured a well-equipped
chemical laboratory in Eastern Ghouta. Footage from the facility has been published by the
SANA news agency .
The installation contained modern industrial-grade hardware of foreign origins, large
amounts of chemical substances as well as crude homemade munitions ad their parts. It was
unclear if the chemical lab was capable of synthesizing the novachok nerve gas used in the
attempted murder of the Russian agent in the UK that has resulted in the latest diplomatic
scandal involving Russia and the west.
Aaron Maté of The Real News joins Scott to discuss two of his latest pieces for The
Nation, " Hyping the Mueller
Indictment " and " What We've
Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate ." Maté explains why he thinks the Trump-Russia
collusion case is much ado about nothing and how Trump's pre-election attempts to de-escalate
tensions with Russia have been misconstrued as collusion. Scott and Maté then discuss
how the centrist left, with the help of Facebook and corporate media, is using the Russiagate
conspiracy to double down on the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic party.
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling
carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing
them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to
repudiate morality while laying claim to it ( ) To tell deliberate lies while genuinely
believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it
becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to
deny the existence of objective reality"
In an essay "The Decay of Lying" (1889), Oscar Wilde launched that famous sentence: "Life
imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".
In November 2017 British TV presented the 6th session episode 5 of 'Strike Back", a
British/American action-adventure/spy-drama television series based on a novel of the same
name by novelist and former Special Air Service (SAS) soldier Chris Ryan. In it the Section
20 ("a secretive unit of British military intelligence, a team of special operations
personnel conducting several high risk missions across the globe") foiled a terrorist attack
with the gas Novichok made by Karim Markov, a Russian scientist who allegedly killed his
colleagues who invented the gas. The team duly trace the labs where Markov continues to
produce more Novichok, in Ukraine and Belarus. The cast is full with the assorted jihadis,
Russian Mafia bosses with their cruel henchmen, Hungarian white supremacists and nasty
Serbians.
You find summaries of the episodes
@https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Back:_Retribution
"It is strange that a British-American intelligence TV drama Strike Back had several
episodes featuring Novichok nerve agent and Evil Russkies last year. Someone orchestrating
political theater in the UK watches a lot of TV, or is advised by its producers."
Nobody will miss the fact that the countries which emitted the 'Joint statement' blaming
Russia's aggression are the countries which repeatedly aggressed and invaded Russia or allied
themselves with Russia's enemies. None of them were ever invaded by Russia but in pursuit of
the repelled invaders. None of them were ever threatened by a Russian invasion.
It took a long time for you to discover (in a 'commercial research') what was known for a
much longer time, the application of these principles in advertising and propaganda
'discovered' by Edward Bernays and exposed in his 'influential book' "Propaganda" 1928. One
of the techniques of propaganda is to make the recipients believe that the ideas instilled
in their heads were their own discovery.
It did not take me as long as you think. As a marketing and advertising
professional (with appropriate qualifications) I was always aware that emotional works better
than rational, but I never had an idea by how much. My most extreme supposition was 2/3 to
1/3. To end up 10:1, I never expected that.
It appears that such high proportion enables the government's/manipulators to silence the
rational fraction who oppose the dragging into a war. Without any firm evidence I do feel
that if the proportion was 2/3 to 1/3 then such manipulation, leading subjects often to mass
suicide, would not be possible.
Therefore, I posit that the human society consists of three strata:
"... The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility towards Russia. ..."
For what its worth: there was a very long and detailed analysis by the Frankfurter Allgmeine
Zeitung yesterday regarding Tillersons dismissal. You can take this analysis as something
like the "official" German position as FAZ journalists are the equivalent of Pravda
journalists. That is fully in the know but only writing what is desired.
The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was
displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards
Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is
then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility
towards Russia.
Interestingly enough today Germany´s defense minister who is a close confident of
Merkel echoed the outrage about the alleged nerve gas attack but called for a "UN
investigation". That is she didn´t endorse the British claim.
Another background to the British provocation might be the Nord Stream gas pipeline from
Russia to Germany. Construction is to start now and once it is finished Ukraine can´t
blackmail Europe anymore by holding up gas delivery. Poland, the Baltics, the US and of
course Ukraine are violently opposed to Nord Stream 2.
"... is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review. ..."
I wonder how Rex Tillerson feels about being the first high-level federal official to be fired publically and online, in one brutal
tweet. I'm sure he expected the hammer to come down on him, but not like that. And I wonder if he will come forward to describe what
led up to it. Unlikely, as he's an extremely wealthy and still influential corporate player who would have little to gain from telling
all. Still, some intrepid journalist should take Rex to lunch and encourage him to cry in his beer.
The events unfurled in typical chaotic Trumpian fashion.
According
to The Atlantic,
The White House said Tuesday that Tillerson was informed last Friday that he would be replaced as secretary of state. But the
statement released Tuesday by Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, suggested Tillerson did not see
it coming until he saw the president's tweet Tuesday morning that he would be replaced by Mike Pompeo, the CIA director. Goldstein
himself has been fired since making the statement.
Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed to have informed Tillerson three days previously that a tweet would be forthcoming, and let
it hang. That's how long it took for the triumvirate behind the throne (Kelly, DoD Secretary James Mattis, and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster) to line up a B team. These military officers have become Trump's minders, nudging him toward decisions that
implement deep state war plans. John Grant writes in
CounterPunch :
The ex-Nixon dirty trickster Roger Stone, who Kelly blocked from Trump access, is cited in Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside
the Trump White House as telling people, "Mattis, McMaster and Kelly had agreed that no military action would ever be taken unless
the three were in accord -- and that at least one of them would always remain in Washington if the others were away."
And so, here we have a junta minding the store whose collective wisdom had determined that State under Tilllerson wasn't accommodating
US bellicosity as enthusiastically as it should. Their solution? Elevate CIA Chief Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson. Pompeo, whom
NPR glowingly
described as having "an extraordinary résumé. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point. He served as a tank officer
in Europe. He went to Harvard Law School." He's also a bombastic Tea-Party Republican and a national security hawk who takes a hard
line no matter what crisis is at hand. I'm sure that résumé will be useful in convincing North Korea to disarm and Putin to back
off from Syria. At least, that seems to be the troika's current calculus. Trump seems amenable to their choice: "With Mike, we've
had a very good chemistry from the beginning," he told reporters. And Pompeo says he's equally chill with the Tweeter-in-Chief: "We
have a half-hour, 40 minutes every day. He asks lots of hard questions as any good intelligence consumer would. He's very engaged."
Before that hammer hit Tillerson, they had already cleared the way to replace Pompeo with seasoned spook Gina Haspel, who proved
her loyalty to the Company by destroying evidence of systematic torture. "She ran the 'black site' prison in Thailand where al-Qaida
suspect Abu Zabaydah was waterboarded 83 times," NPR
reported last winter. "Those sessions were videotaped but the tapes were destroyed in 2005, two years after a member of Congress
called on the CIA to preserve such tapes." Who ordered or at least expedited their destruction? Gina Haspel herself. Running a torture
center was a "dirty job," John Bennett, the chief of the CIA's clandestine service at the time later told NPR, but Gina bravely stepped
up to do it. " it was not only legal but necessary for the safety of the country. And they did it – Gina did it – because they felt
it was their duty."
Obama apparently felt that way, since he declined to prosecute any CIA officials for engaging in torture. Had he had the guts
to go after them, Gina might be wearing a jumpsuit now instead of a business suit. As Dexter Filkins
wrote in the New
Yorker last year after Trump named Haspel Deputy Director,
When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.'s interrogation programs,
not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past,
as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision.
After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.
When Edward Snowden heard of her advancement, he tweeted (
March 13, 2018 )
Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who "tortured some folks," probably can't travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs
without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin
complaint to Germany's federal prosecutor. Details: https://t.co/7q4euQKtm7
Such team spirit clearly deserves a promotion. A round of applause, then, for Gina Haspel, someone who has known no calling besides
black ops, winner of the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism, and the first of her sex to crash through CIA's
bulletproof glass ceiling to the Director's office. Her résumé implies she must have been born at Langley HQ. There's no paper trail
for her prior to 1985, when she joined the agency.
The one bright spot is that both Pompeo and Haspel will have to testify before Congress votes of on their appointments. John McCain
and Ron Wyden are already on record as being opposed to Haspel's appointment. Intense public pressure may help to drag skeltons of
torture victims out of the agency's closet, but don't expect it to matter. The deep state is used to getting what it wants and doesn't
let things like due process get in the way.
Now that the Department of State is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA, America can rest easy. No more mister nice guy.
Diplomacy is for wimps. Let's show all those upstart nations and that upstart commander-in-chief who's boss.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles
by: Geoff Dutton
Geoff Duttonis an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of
reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in
Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review.
"... How do you know Skripal was murdered? Even the British haven't claimed that. In fact we don't even know that Skripal was injured. There have been no photos, no medical statements, we are just expected to believe all the fake news. ..."
"There are only three scenarios explaining the murder of Skripal "
How do you know Skripal was murdered? Even the British haven't claimed that. In fact we
don't even know that Skripal was injured. There have been no photos, no medical statements,
we are just expected to believe all the fake news.
But hey, highly likely has become overwhelmingly likely so why should we quibble.
"... For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his own party. ..."
"... he British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. ..."
"... JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators? ..."
"... My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man. It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. ..."
"... So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say, no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to come next. ..."
"... Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore. ..."
"... Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right. ..."
"... And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics. ..."
"... The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo massacre ..."
"... With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity. ..."
For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former
spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his
own party. We discuss the case with Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at New York University and Princeton
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. Ties between Russia and the West are at their lowest point since The Cold War,
and a new spat over a poisoning in Britain has sunk them even lower. The British government is blaming Russia for the poisoning of
former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the British town of Salisbury.
The two remain in critical condition after ingesting what the British government says is a military-grade nerve agent made by
Russia. The British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of
the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. Speaking today in parliament, British Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia's response
so far proves their culpability.
THERESA MAY: There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of
Mr. Skripal and his daughter. And for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant
Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. And as I set out on Monday,
it has taken place against the backdrop of a well established pattern of Russian state aggression across Europe and beyond. It
must therefore, be met with a full and robust response, beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr. Litvinenko
and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.
AARON MATÉ: As part of the measures against Russia, May announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats, the single biggest such
expulsion in three decades. That drew a response from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who pressed May to hand over evidence.
JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes
that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken
through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the
necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under
Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack
to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence
as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators?
AARON MATÉ: The dispute over the poisoning has gotten so serious, that there has been speculation of NATO invoking Article 5,
which bounds member states to defend others in the event of an attack. So far, Downing Street has tamped down talk of Article 5,
but Theresa May has been summoning support from key allies, including the US
Joining me is professor Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton. Welcome, Professor
Cohen.
You have been warning for a long time that we are in the midst of a new Cold War. What are your thoughts today as you see now
tensions escalating between Britain and Russia, with now Britain ordering the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats following the expulsions
that have happened in the US to Russian diplomats as a result of the Russiagate controversy?
STEPHEN COHEN: My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man.
It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. In the essence of what he said is Theresa May has no evidence,
and yet she's prepared to ratchet up already a bad relationship with Russia based on this. They haven't produced any evidence. Let's
put it like that. This alarms me because, I've said this before on your broadcast, but it's almost never said in the mainstream and
it's hard to get an American discussion of it, is that whether we call our relationship with Russia a new cold war or not, it certainly
is. The point is it's so much more dangerous than the preceding Cold War. I could even argue that the situation today is in some
ways more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say,
no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll
get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts
that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember
in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to
come next.
Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right
on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin,
unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic
attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get
this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very
quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore.
AARON MATÉ: One person who has been pillared in the media today is Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader who we heard from before.
And I wanna play more of his speech of his comments today, to the British parliament.
JEREMY CORBYN: And while suspending planned high level contact, does the prime minister agree that it is essential to maintain
a robust dialogue with Russia in the interest of our own and wider international security?
AARON MATÉ: That's Jeremy Corbyn speaking today, calling today for. "a robust dialogue with Russia." So, Professor Cohen, for
saying that, Corbyn was widely mocked, including by members of his own party. I'm wondering if you can comment on that, the import
of that, not just for this specific case, but overall, this attitude towards having dialogue, calling for dialogue with Russia being
somehow worthy of scorn and contempt.
... ... ...
STEPHEN COHEN: But I've heard some of these people saying privately that we need this, but I don't hear them saying it publicly.
Look, I did live in England and get educated there partly many, many years ago, and I followed British politics. So, I don't have
great authority, but two things come to mind. Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's
holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia
related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search
for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right.
And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader
of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior
on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics.
AARON MATÉ: Well, that's a good segue to the next part of our discussion where we're gonna talk more about the role right now
of Russiagate in US politics. Professor Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York
University, thank you.
And thank you for joining us on The Real News.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at New York University and Princeton University.
The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism
and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo
massacre (See Youtube | StormCloudsGathering | 02m:43s " Charlie Hebdo Shootings - Censored Video " [
https://youtu.be/yJEvlKKm6og ])
With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class
of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally
everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity.
"... Since it seems that Russia's steadfast promise to defend its men and women in Damascus has effectively staved off a US attack, the western alliance did the next best thing to attacking Russia in Syria – it decided to frame Russia for something that happened on English soil. - Let's Talk About Motive in The Skripal Case: Let's Talk About Syria ..."
Just read a very interesting supposition by Adam Garrie, which strikes a very true note:
Since it seems that Russia's steadfast promise to defend its men and women in Damascus has effectively staved off a US attack,
the western alliance did the next best thing to attacking Russia in Syria – it decided to frame Russia for something that happened
on English soil. -
Let's Talk About
Motive in The Skripal Case: Let's Talk About Syria
So, spite. Wounded ego.
And further demonstration of the west's pitiful lack of means to do anything much real in this world except kill people unprepared
to fight back. What will it do as more and more prepare to fight back? Ask Kim. Ask Duterte, Maduro, Erdogan.
The very first announcement made by Boris Johnson after the alleged terrorist act on the
British soil was " British footballers will not attend the championship in Russia" -- before
(BEFORE!) any investigation has been conducted.
The UK still refuses to provide the
required-by-law materials to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon.
The
whole "communication" with Russian re Skripal case has exposed a stunning incompetence of the
UK government across all departments, beginning with the incompetent Mrs. May and Mr. Johnson
and down to the US Sec of Def Gavin Williamson (a Diaper-Boy with the expertise in fine china
and ceramic countertops).
"... "Has high-resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or identity of its perpetrators? The government should work with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." ..."
Such a strong expression of righteousness from peterAUS -- and careful omission, a la
Quartermaster, of a simple fact articulated by Corbin:
"Has high-resolution trace analysis
been run on a sample of the nerve agent that revealed any evidence as to the location of its
production or identity of its perpetrators? The government should work with the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."
But the UK government refuses to provide samples to
the OPCW. Why, peterAUS?
Is it too much to ask for the evidence? Or you want to compete with
the soy-boy Gavin Williamson, the former seller of ceramic countertops? Perhaps you should
watch the BBC documentary about Gladio before making your allegedly righteous rants re Saker.
And please, spare us your ziocon' "defense" of Western society.
The Saker's most important theme in this article is that the whole Western so called
Civilization is built largely on the capacity to LIE, (IE not tell the truth when one knows
the truth). Lying is the most fundamentally destructive actions in any culture and in the
West it is not only essential for success it is revered. I am so disgusted with the West that
it is best for this charade and circus to come to an end, and it seems that the Lying Liars
as Al Franken called them years ago have internalized there own Bull $hit and believe it
absolutely. Yes, Johnny, you can put your hand on the red hot stove and nothing will happen.
Go ahead, put it on there and see!!! Dumber than Dirt and God Damn F-n Proud of it too!! The
new Western Motto!!
The former Soviet scientist, Vil Mirzanyanov, who 'blew the whistle' and wrote about the
'Novichoks', now lives in a $1 million home in the United States. The AFP news agency just
interviewed him about the recent incident:
Mirzayanov, speaking at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, said he is convinced Russia
carried it out as a way of intimidating opponents of President Vladimir Putin.
"Only the Russians" developed this class of nerve agents, said the chemist. "They kept
it and are still keeping it in secrecy."
The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book
to make such a weapon.
"Russia did it", says Mirzanyanov, "OR SOMEONE WHO READ MY BOOK".
The book was published in 2008 and is available at Amazon as hardcover, paperback or for
$8.16 as an electronic file. It includes a number of formulas which, Mirzanyanov says, could
be used to produce those chemical agents.
..But neither Porton Down nor the OPCW seem convinced that this is possible. They may
believe that Mirzanyanov is just full of it.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has not recognized
Novichoks as chemical weapons because it found scant evidence that they exist at all. The
U.S. and the UK are both part of the organization and both agreed with this evaluation:
The name "Novichok" is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported
investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The
OPCW's Scientific Advisory Board states that it has insufficient information to comment on
the existence or properties of "Novichoks". (OPCW, 2013)
As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK's only
chemical weapons facility at Porton Down , a former colleague of Dr David Kelly,
published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the evidence for the existence
of Novichoks was scant and their composition unknown.
In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve
agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of
the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. Robin
Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents. Royal
Society of Chemistry
... I know about people who challenged the system and paid or are still paying the price.
Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, just to name a few of the most recognizable
names.
I know dozens of people who have left the US because of disagreements with its foreign
policy. They walk the walk and talk the talk.
Sure they are the minority because most people are conforming cowards or unthinking fools
who can be pulled on a boiled noodle. I have far more esteem for the members of that minority
though than for somebody who figures than spewing forth a couple of thousands words once a
week represents some form of serious resistance.
The French philosopher Alain Soral is quite right when he says that modern "journalists
are either unemployed or prostitutes"
An interesting observation. I will refrain from drawing any conclusions.
With "principles" such as the end justifies the means and the wholesale violation of the
Ten Commandants all "for the greater glory of God" the western civilization got cozy with
the idea that there was no real, objective truth
Excuse me? What about western civilization before the ten commandments? Was it better or
worse in your eyes? What's so damn special about your ten commandments that their (forced)
acceptance by westerners should mark some sort of magical beginning of the true western
civilization? So we had no morality of any kind before this?
I can think of other civilizations that have nothing – and I mean nothing – to
be proud of. They make us look like amateurs in the rejection of real, objective truth.
"... Ask this, "who is pathologically obsessed with execution by gas?" Who is spearheading the "Russia is Evil" propaganda campaign? ..."
"... If Russian leadership wanted KGB/FSB/GRU/SVR to kill him, they'd done it while the man was in Russia in their custody. He would have never left the Russian prison alive, and nobody would be wiser. ..."
"... He is just not that important, that is why he was let out in a swap after spending only a few years in jail. The orchestrated hysterics and the oversize overreaction by the NATO gang is clear tell that they are the one who did it. ..."
"... Do you remember the Wikileaks about CIA having hacking tools whereby they could spoof cyber attacks form their computers yet have the signature they came from Russia (or some other country)? ..."
"... There is nothing uniquely Russian about the poison. There are no unique poisons or nerve agents. Everybody has the same things. All is being said is that the nerve agent is military grade. And England is refusing to give samples to Russia for analysis, so we don't know what it is. ..."
"... why wouldn't FSB off him by simply clubbing him to death and making it look like a mugging gone wrong: why use a military grade nerve agent of all things. Ridiculous that _anyone_ believes Russians did it. ..."
"... Boris Johnson confirmed widespread suspicions that the attack on Skripal was part of a recycled WMD hoax to justify another U.S. war of aggression, this time in Syria instead of Iraq. ..."
Because of the poison involved, they (Rus/Putin) almost certainly did it. Just
because something like this is stupid doesn't mean it should be written off. Stupid things
happen.
As I constantly iterate, never attribute to complex conspiracy what can be easily
explained by gross stupidity. Look at the Billion plus followers of the lunatic ramblings of
a desert cave dwelling freak, or the State of Utah and Planet Kolob. But your Occam's Razor
analysis also fails the smell test.
If I want to assassinate someone, using a gas, in public, is about the dumbest way to go
about it. Russia may well have wanted to send a message "for the encouragement of others" not
to betray mother Russia, but why a gas rather than oral or injected poison? Why not the old
favorite of defenestration? Or a simple GSW using Russian manufactured firearm/ammo?
Ask this, "who is pathologically obsessed with execution by gas?" Who is spearheading
the "Russia is Evil" propaganda campaign?
If Russian leadership wanted KGB/FSB/GRU/SVR to kill him, they'd done it while the man was
in Russia in their custody. He would have never left the Russian prison alive, and nobody
would be wiser.
He is just not that important, that is why he was let out in a swap after spending only a
few years in jail. The orchestrated hysterics and the oversize overreaction by the NATO gang
is clear tell that they are the one who did it.
{Do I think Russia is involved with the Skripal hit? Of course.}
Based on what?
{Because of the poison involved, they (Rus/Putin) almost certainly did it.}
Really?
Do you remember the Wikileaks about CIA having hacking tools whereby they could spoof cyber
attacks form their computers yet have the signature they came from Russia (or some other
country)?
There is nothing uniquely Russian about the poison. There are no unique poisons or nerve
agents. Everybody has the same things. All is being said is that the nerve agent is military
grade. And England is refusing to give samples to Russia for analysis, so we don't know what
it is.
{Just because something like this is stupid doesn't mean it should be written off.
Stupid things happen}
Well, yeah: stupid things happen, and smart individuals sometimes do stupid things –
but almost always for a reason, even if their actions are stupid. This should be written off,
for a very simple reason: what is the Russian motivation? This guy was released in 2010. He
was arrested in 2004: whatever damage he caused was very long ago. Why would Russian
leadership risk almost certain exposure? for what?
And as poster [Meyer] posits above in #23, why wouldn't FSB off him by simply clubbing him
to death and making it look like a mugging gone wrong: why use a military grade nerve agent
of all things. Ridiculous that _anyone_ believes Russians did it.
Speaking of "great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies," in an article in the
Washington Post on Wednesday, Boris Johnson confirmed widespread suspicions that the
attack on Skripal was part of a recycled WMD hoax to justify another U.S. war of aggression,
this time in Syria instead of Iraq.
The fact that Prime Minister May has produced no evidence that Russia was behind the
attack on Skripal, and that Secretary of Defense Mattis admits he has no evidence the Syrian
government used sarin against its own people, doesn't deter Boris Johnson from blaming Russia
for chemical attacks in both England and Syria.
From Johnson's article:
How much easier does it become for a state [Russia] to deploy chemical weapons when its
government has already tolerated and sought to hide their use by others? I would draw a
connection between Putin's indulgence of Assad's atrocities in Syria and the Russian
state's evident willingness to employ a chemical weapon on British soil.
So a neocon-orchestrated Russiagate hoax merges with a neocon-orchestrated WMD hoax in
Syria. It's all coming together.
The neocon strategy of "regime change by jihadi" in Syria has failed, and they're now
forced to dust off the bogus WMD script that wreaked so much havoc on Iraq. Unfortunately for
the neocons, Vladimir Putin has decided that Russia has nothing to lose, and probably much to
gain, by taking a stand against imperialism now, in Syria, instead of later in Iran.
Now the world is both hostage and spectator to a game of nuclear chicken. If neither
player swerves in time, planet Earth dies.
If Trump orders a climb down, the neocons will impeach him for losing Syria. But more
appeasement by Putin would only embolden the neocons to further acts of aggression.
So Putin asks: "why do we need a world if Russia ceases to exist?" He is right to frame
the showdown in Syria as a fight for Russia's existence, and Trump knows it.
Trump will have to take his chances with Mueller and the neocon crazies. Maybe the neocons
will overplay their hand and bring about their own downfall, a happy outcome for all of
humanity.
"... the fact that freedom of speech is under threat shows that the rise of mere emotive speech is still a long way from dominant. Facts and logic can still be heard and make a difference. This is why the political media elite cannot tolerate reasoned evidenced argument and is so concerned to censor dissenting voices. ..."
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling
carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing
them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to
repudiate morality while laying claim to it ( )
To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has
become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from
oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality"
Whilst there is much to be said in favour of the argument, the fact that freedom of speech is
under threat shows that the rise of mere emotive speech is still a long way from dominant.
Facts and logic can still be heard and make a difference. This is why the political media
elite cannot tolerate reasoned evidenced argument and is so concerned to censor dissenting
voices.
Up until now, I was in favor of Putin trying to keep cool demeanor and be reasonable. Time
works in favor of Russia, so simply trying to wait the Western collapse out is not
unreasonable strategy. But with the West starting to resort to something as extreme as
poisoning its own lapdogs and blaming Russia for it without presenting a single shred of
evidence, it might be a good time to reconsider and join the escalation train in earnest.
If we are in the age of ultimatums, then Moscow may want to start issuing a few of its
own. One would be to warn the West about its intention to abandon START framework within a
year and ultimately rearm to Soviet levels – 20000 strategic warheads at a minimum.
Another would be to ask Syrian government to outsource its air-defense to Russia, then issue
blanket no-flight order to all aircraft not authorized by Damascus.
Third, start arming insurgencies around the world that struggle against NATO/US presence.
Fourth, eliminate USD and GBP from its trade completely. Fifth, consider formalizing military
alliance with Iran.
There are many more steps that Russia can undertake. But whatever it chooses to do, the
somnolent posture it maintained until yesterday is no more feasible.
Respectfully, I think what he means is something that I've learned to do in the last few
years in a rather automatic fashion. Namely, it's to realise that, in the immediate aftermath
of any event, it's best to just sit back and wait a bit before you come to any sort of
conclusion about blame. In the very short term, the water, the stream is very muddy and
clouded as anybody and everybody who has – or think that they have – an interest
in the event du jour tries to spin it to their own advantage.
The truth will reveal itself inasmuch as the Internet is the World's best fact checker.
The initial story will *always* be shown to have a good deal of exaggerations,
contradictions, anomalies and omissions. But those revelations take a (usually relatively
short) bit of time. So better to look at whatever the immediate story might be with a good
deal of patient skepticism and not immediately fly off the rails in a fit of hand-waving,
eye-rolling and pearl-clutching hysterics.
Do this consistently, and I think you'll discover that:
-The truth of the matter is usually gray, with plenty of blame to go around.
-And/or you're being fed a line of pandering BS by people who think that you're a naive
and trusting idiot.
In short, act like an adult and not a dimwitted child. Use your brain and not your
emotions.
Hope this helps.
Just a thought.
VicB3
P.S. A pithy thought from Mike Rivero:
If it doesn't affect you directly, then it's either advertising or propaganda.
Re: "Almost from day one, the early western civilization began by, shall we say, taking
liberties with the truth, which it could bend, adapt, massage and repackage to serve the
ideological agenda of the day. It was not quite the full-blown and unapologetic relativism of
the 19th century yet, but it was an important first step. With "principles" such as the end
justifies the means and the wholesale violation of the Ten Commandants all "for the greater
glory of God" the western civilization got cozy with the idea that there was no real,
objective truth, only the subjective perception or even representation each person might have
thereof."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Saker is a good military analyst, but as a historian he is a laughable dilettante. He is a
very self-righteous, touchy Orthodox Christian ideologue and moralist.
As we approach the fifteenth anniversary of the unwarranted invasion of Iraq, which we are still paying for in so many ways, it
is important to remember the misuse of intelligence that provided a false justification for war. It is particularly important to
do so at this time because President Donald Trump has talked about a military option against North Korea or Iran (or Venezuela for
that matter). Since there is no cause to justify such wars, it is quite likely that politicized intelligence would once again be
used to provide a justification for audiences at home and abroad.
In 2002 and 2003, the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency collaborated in an effort to
describe the false likelihood of a nuclear weapons program that had to be stopped. In the words of Bush administration officials,
the United States was not going to allow the "smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." On September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney and
national security adviser Condi Rice used that phrase on CNN and NBC's "Meet the Press," respectively, to argue that Saddam Hussein
was "using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon."
In October 2002, the CIA orchestrated a national intelligence estimate to argue falsely that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Niger
for use in a nuclear weapon. Senior officials throughout the intelligence community knew that the so-called Niger report was a fabrication
produced by members of the Italian military intelligence service, and several intelligence officials informed Congressional and White
House officials that they doubted the reports of Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger. Nevertheless, the national intelligence estimate
spun a fictitious tale of a clear and present danger based on false reports of alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons;
nuclear weapons; unmanned aerial vehicles; and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda that were nonexistent.
In December 2002, President George W. Bush found the CIA's case for war inadequate and asked for "something that Joe Public would
understand or gain a lot of confidence from." Bush turned to CIA director George Tenet and remarked, "I've been given all this intelligence
about Iraq having WMD and this is the best we've got?" Instead of being truthful, Tenet replied, "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"
Several days later, Alan Foley, the chief of the Weapons Intelligence, Proliferation and Arms Control Staff, told his analysts to
prepare a briefing for the president. "If the president wants intelligence to support a decision to go to war," Foley said, "then
it is up to the agency to provide it." In early January, CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin gave the phony "slam dunk" briefing
at the White House.
The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans distributed the unsubstantiated and flawed intelligence that not even the CIA would vouch
for. The Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith supplied bogus intelligence to the White House on Iraqi WMD and links
to terrorist organizations to make the case for war, and then "leaked" this intelligence to key journalists such as Judith Miller
at The New York Times . Miller had a front page article in the Times on September 8, 2002, citing administration
officials claiming that Saddam was seeking "specially designed" aluminum tubes to enrich uranium, the so-called "smoking gun." Several
days later, President Bush inserted the Times' claim in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
The aluminum tube issue was central to Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN in February 2003, which was based on
the phony CIA estimate from October 2002. As Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson wrote in The New York Times in
February 2018, the secretary's "gravitas was a significant part of the Bush administration's two-year-long effort to get Americans
on the war wagon. It was CIA Deputy Director McLaughlin who lied to Secretary of State Powell about the reliability of the intelligence
in Powell's speech. McLaughlin was the central advocate for the phony intelligence on mobile biological laboratories that ended up
in that speech.
President Bush would have gone to war with or without intelligence, and once again we are confronted by a president who might
consider going to war with or without intelligence. Fifteen years ago, we had a CIA director from Capitol Hill who was loyal to the
president and unwilling to tell truth to power. Once again, we have a CIA director, Gina Haspel, who is a White House loyalist and
cannot be counted on to tell truth to power. She was one of the Agency's leading cheerleaders for torture and abuse, and sent the
message that order the destruction of the torture tapes. And former CIA director Mike Pompeo, a neoconservative hardliner, is now
secretary of state, who earned his new position by being a total loyalist who would never tell truth to power. Is there a voice for
moderation left in the White House?
Bush's war destabilized the entire Middle East. Any Trump war could lead to the use of nuclear weapons that would destabilize
the entire world.
"... I am no longer a great admirer of McMaster, someone who is suffering Russia and Iran Derangement Syndrome (RIDS), but Bolton? Bolton? My god! Not Bolton! ..."
"... At one time I had the chore given to me of visiting the State Department from DIA to explain various events. In the round table discussions at Foggy Bottom John Bolton seemed ever present. He was a brooding, glowering, presence seemingly filled with free floating hostility towards alien populations in the lands of the Saracens. We had a few snarling exchanges. ..."
The rumor is widespread that DJT is seriously thinking of making Ambassador (recess
appointment) John Bolton his National Security Adviser if LTG HR McMaster departs the job.
I am
no longer a great admirer of McMaster, someone who is suffering Russia and Iran Derangement
Syndrome (RIDS), but Bolton? Bolton? My god! Not Bolton!
At one time I had the chore given to me of visiting the State Department from DIA to explain
various events. In the round table discussions at Foggy Bottom John Bolton seemed ever present.
He was a brooding, glowering, presence seemingly filled with free floating hostility towards
alien populations in the lands of the Saracens. We had a few snarling exchanges.
"... is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review. ..."
I wonder how Rex Tillerson feels about being the first high-level federal official to be fired publically and online, in one brutal
tweet. I'm sure he expected the hammer to come down on him, but not like that. And I wonder if he will come forward to describe what
led up to it. Unlikely, as he's an extremely wealthy and still influential corporate player who would have little to gain from telling
all. Still, some intrepid journalist should take Rex to lunch and encourage him to cry in his beer.
The events unfurled in typical chaotic Trumpian fashion.
According
to The Atlantic,
The White House said Tuesday that Tillerson was informed last Friday that he would be replaced as secretary of state. But the
statement released Tuesday by Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, suggested Tillerson did not see
it coming until he saw the president's tweet Tuesday morning that he would be replaced by Mike Pompeo, the CIA director. Goldstein
himself has been fired since making the statement.
Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed to have informed Tillerson three days previously that a tweet would be forthcoming, and let
it hang. That's how long it took for the triumvirate behind the throne (Kelly, DoD Secretary James Mattis, and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster) to line up a B team. These military officers have become Trump's minders, nudging him toward decisions that
implement deep state war plans. John Grant writes in
CounterPunch :
The ex-Nixon dirty trickster Roger Stone, who Kelly blocked from Trump access, is cited in Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside
the Trump White House as telling people, "Mattis, McMaster and Kelly had agreed that no military action would ever be taken unless
the three were in accord -- and that at least one of them would always remain in Washington if the others were away."
And so, here we have a junta minding the store whose collective wisdom had determined that State under Tilllerson wasn't accommodating
US bellicosity as enthusiastically as it should. Their solution? Elevate CIA Chief Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson. Pompeo, whom
NPR glowingly
described as having "an extraordinary résumé. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point. He served as a tank officer
in Europe. He went to Harvard Law School." He's also a bombastic Tea-Party Republican and a national security hawk who takes a hard
line no matter what crisis is at hand. I'm sure that résumé will be useful in convincing North Korea to disarm and Putin to back
off from Syria. At least, that seems to be the troika's current calculus. Trump seems amenable to their choice: "With Mike, we've
had a very good chemistry from the beginning," he told reporters. And Pompeo says he's equally chill with the Tweeter-in-Chief: "We
have a half-hour, 40 minutes every day. He asks lots of hard questions as any good intelligence consumer would. He's very engaged."
Before that hammer hit Tillerson, they had already cleared the way to replace Pompeo with seasoned spook Gina Haspel, who proved
her loyalty to the Company by destroying evidence of systematic torture. "She ran the 'black site' prison in Thailand where al-Qaida
suspect Abu Zabaydah was waterboarded 83 times," NPR
reported last winter. "Those sessions were videotaped but the tapes were destroyed in 2005, two years after a member of Congress
called on the CIA to preserve such tapes." Who ordered or at least expedited their destruction? Gina Haspel herself. Running a torture
center was a "dirty job," John Bennett, the chief of the CIA's clandestine service at the time later told NPR, but Gina bravely stepped
up to do it. " it was not only legal but necessary for the safety of the country. And they did it – Gina did it – because they felt
it was their duty."
Obama apparently felt that way, since he declined to prosecute any CIA officials for engaging in torture. Had he had the guts
to go after them, Gina might be wearing a jumpsuit now instead of a business suit. As Dexter Filkins
wrote in the New
Yorker last year after Trump named Haspel Deputy Director,
When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.'s interrogation programs,
not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past,
as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision.
After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.
When Edward Snowden heard of her advancement, he tweeted (
March 13, 2018 )
Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who "tortured some folks," probably can't travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs
without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin
complaint to Germany's federal prosecutor. Details: https://t.co/7q4euQKtm7
Such team spirit clearly deserves a promotion. A round of applause, then, for Gina Haspel, someone who has known no calling besides
black ops, winner of the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism, and the first of her sex to crash through CIA's
bulletproof glass ceiling to the Director's office. Her résumé implies she must have been born at Langley HQ. There's no paper trail
for her prior to 1985, when she joined the agency.
The one bright spot is that both Pompeo and Haspel will have to testify before Congress votes of on their appointments. John McCain
and Ron Wyden are already on record as being opposed to Haspel's appointment. Intense public pressure may help to drag skeltons of
torture victims out of the agency's closet, but don't expect it to matter. The deep state is used to getting what it wants and doesn't
let things like due process get in the way.
Now that the Department of State is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA, America can rest easy. No more mister nice guy.
Diplomacy is for wimps. Let's show all those upstart nations and that upstart commander-in-chief who's boss.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles
by: Geoff Dutton
Geoff Duttonis an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of
reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in
Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review.
"... The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility towards Russia. ..."
For what its worth: there was a very long and detailed analysis by the Frankfurter Allgmeine
Zeitung yesterday regarding Tillersons dismissal. You can take this analysis as something
like the "official" German position as FAZ journalists are the equivalent of Pravda
journalists. That is fully in the know but only writing what is desired.
The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was
displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards
Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is
then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility
towards Russia.
Interestingly enough today Germany´s defense minister who is a close confident of
Merkel echoed the outrage about the alleged nerve gas attack but called for a "UN
investigation". That is she didn´t endorse the British claim.
Another background to the British provocation might be the Nord Stream gas pipeline from
Russia to Germany. Construction is to start now and once it is finished Ukraine can´t
blackmail Europe anymore by holding up gas delivery. Poland, the Baltics, the US and of
course Ukraine are violently opposed to Nord Stream 2.
"... "We believe that Russia was responsible for this attack, and we call on the Russian government to answer all questions related to this incident, and to provide full information to the OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. No nation -- Russia, China, or anybody else, any other nation -- should be using chemical weapons and nerve agents," McMaster said, following what critics have called a belated Wednesday statement casting blame on Moscow for the attack on Skripal. ..."
If H.R. McMaster is on his way out of the White House, he's going out with two middle fingers raised and pointed in the direction
of the Kremlin.
"Russia is also complicit in [Syrian dictator Bashar] Assad's atrocities," McMaster, President Trump's national security adviser,
said Thursday during an appearance at a discussion of the Syrian civil war held at the U.S. Holocaust memorial museum.
His voice raised, McMaster used harsher and more moralistic language than his boss does in characterizing Russia's geopolitical
influence, and unequivocally blamed the Kremlin for "the abhorrent nerve agent attack" on a former double agent,
Sergei Skripal , and proposed "serious political and economic consequences" for Russian aggression.
"We believe that Russia was responsible for this attack, and we call on the Russian government to answer all questions related
to this incident, and to provide full information to the OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. No nation --
Russia, China, or anybody else, any other nation -- should be using chemical weapons and nerve agents," McMaster said, following
what critics have called
a belated Wednesday statement casting blame on Moscow for the attack on Skripal.
McMaster's brief remarks, lasting under 20 minutes, came as the Army three-star general is the subject of furious speculation
that Trump will soon fire him and install hardliner ex-ambassador John Bolton atop the National Security Council. His capstone achievement
thus far has been a Russia-and-China-centric
security strategy
that has been conspicuously out of step with Trump's rhetoric and actions toward both countries.
"Russia has done nothing to encourage Assad to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid, to respect ceasefires and de-escalation agreements
or to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254's call for a U.N.-monitored political process," McMaster said.
Those remarks suggested that Trump got suckered during his 2017 rounds of personal diplomacy with Vladimir Putin. In November,
Trump and Putin issued a joint statement firmly
pledging support for what is known as the 2254 Process -- though critics considered it a cover for Moscow to continue ensuring support
for its client, Assad -- that "took note" of Assad's "recent commitment to the Geneva process and constitutional reform and elections
as called for under UNSCR 2254."
Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!
Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned
post in government, period! Everybody has baggage, everybody is compromised.
This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find
it impossible to see one thing Trump (or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin
in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the real answer even
there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the
other batch is mystified at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions
between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue the inevitable endless circle
jerk.
Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to
bench press 300 lbs. Those of them who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less.
Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come down! When they can't
intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.
Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous
psychopaths did in 2016, but I also know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and
Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.
The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.
Hmmmm.....let's see. Pompeo hates Julian Assange. Assange has told us a lot of truth but
won't even consider that 911 was an inside job. Pompeo hates Iran and Assad, but he's not
about 911 truth at all either. The 911 myth is the basis for all US foreign policy. Trump
hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit that the
Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition. In the midst of all these powerful world
leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we are royally
fucked. And I don't even especially like Rosie O'Donnell. Doesn't seem likely we will avoid a
catastrophic war. What a world.
Trump hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit
that the Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition.In the midst of all these
powerful world leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we
are royally fucked.
One Donald J Trump was interviewed on TV on the day of 9/11. He said that's not the way
planes hit buildings. There were explosives of some sort involved. Moreover, the same Donald
J Trump as a contender for the Republican nomination in the debate in South Carolina in
February 2016 stated that if he won the presidency he would publish the secret documents
about 9/11.
You have to be paying attention to figure out who Trump really is. Why is that? It is
because Judaia as a conscious policy of that quasi-state has for long had total control of
the minds of the whole West. The brains of Americans have been turned to oatmeal (as Russians
put it) and most of what Trump says has to be oatmeal-to-oatmeal. Trump's brilliance is never
challenging directly the memes (such as 9/11 or the Holocaust or false flag shootings) that
Judaia has so laboriously constructed. That would be foolish. Rather, he takes one strand of
received discourse and short circuits it with another under high voltage. Only rarely and
briefly does Trump address clued-in supporters directly (perhaps he's doing it indirectly
through Q Anon). You have to be paying attention.
A lot of Trump administration double-talk is a game, his way of strongly playing a weak
hand. The anti-Iran bit seems to be a key gambit, going all the way back to Flynn
co-authoring an anti-Iran book with Neocon Ledeen. But Tillerson seems to have turned traitor
by taking over the script. Declaring that America was going go hang on to territory in Syria
was not a 'globalist' gambit in the script. Trump had to tweet that defeating ISIS was
America's only aim in Syria and that had been almost accomplished. Similarly, a limited
anti-Russia posture is necessary to deal with the Muller caper. But supporting the Empire's
Russian poisoning absurdity seems not to be where Trump wants America to be. Tillerson had to
go.
If Pompeo is talking a load of shit, and sounding surprisingly uneducsted for someone who
was number one at West Point and an editor (unlike Obama, under his own steam) at the Harvard
Law Review, be sure there is a game involved.
I instinctively like Trump, and have over a long period, Maybe Trump is at the head of a
huge world-historical change. It's looking good, actually, and I'm willing to wait and
see.
"... All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should heed that advice ..."
Mike Pompeo, in his first speech as director of the CIA, chose to declare war on free speech
rather than on the United States' actual adversaries. He went after WikiLeaks, where I serve as
editor, as a "non-state hostile intelligence service." In Pompeo's worldview, telling the truth
about the administration can be a crime -- as Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly
underscored when he described my arrest as a "priority." News organizations reported that
federal prosecutors are weighing whether to bring charges against members of WikiLeaks,
possibly including conspiracy, theft of government property and violating the Espionage
Act.
All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start
of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA
incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions
of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which
it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed
the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with
computer viruses.
When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher
such as WikiLeaks as a "fraud," "coward" and "enemy," it puts all journalists on notice, or
should. Pompeo's next talking point, unsupported by fact, that WikiLeaks is a "non-state
hostile intelligence service," is a dagger aimed at Americans' constitutional right to receive
honest information about their government. This accusation mirrors attempts throughout history
by bureaucrats seeking, and failing, to criminalize speech that reveals their own failings.
President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or
traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration
when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is
itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should
heed that advice .
Well I said: "I hope that this is true but I cannot discount the other possibility that
Trump has once again been fooled by the intelligence and the media into appointing a tool of
the deep state to replace Tillerson. He was fooled in Syria and the World applauded or rather
the World media applauded loudly. Hopefully he was not fooled by that contrived story. If
that is the case then it is bad news for all of us and might lead to further hostilities
against Russia."
Having further researched Mike Pompeo's history it seems he is a war hawk who will align
to blame Russia for the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Further he has been a
strong critic of the nuclear deal with Iran forged under Obama and has also been a strong
republican supporter of every republican strategy for national defense including keeping
Guantanamo Bay open indefinitely etc. This would support my doubts that the appointment of
Secretary of State Pompeo would do much to ratchet down international tensions in the hot
spots around the World where the US has chosen to portray our "enemies" as military targets
to be conquered rather than other nations with their own sovereign rights to be dealt with
through diplomacy.
The most alarming idea is to launch a war with Iran since they have negotiated a nuclear
disarmament strategy with the Obama administration leaving them in a precarious situation of
being vulnerable to a change in strategy by the US of negotiation towards a threat of armed
force intervention coming from the US. Trump calls the Iran deal a terrible deal and so does
Pompeo. How it is a terrible deal seems to be the same accusation that the US launched
against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It is only a terrible deal for Iran as it was for Iraq to
believe that they could disarm under UN supervision in the hopes it would prevent an attack
by the US.
I fear that the lessons of the potential new anti Iranian strategy to cancel out our deals
with Iran will only convince the North Koreans that any pursuit of a peace with the USA will
ultimately result in our reneging on the deal at the first arrival of our stated goals to get
NK to disarm and will turn on them even if they comply with western demands that they must
dismantle their nuclear arsenals.
The Iranian Nuclear deal is in peril with the appointment of Pompeo and the result will be
that North Korea will see no advantage in cooperating with an adversary which on the one hand
forges peace treaties and on the other hand revokes them by the politically shifting winds in
Washington headed by a president who cannot see the forest from the trees and is easily
influenced by people he "connects with" as though that is reason enough to surround himself
with those people and appoint them to high positions.
The politically shifting instability in Washington with the firings of high officials
alone would be reason enough for any foreign nation to doubt the credibility of any policy
being put forth. Stability is what is essential to create the foundation for trust. Without
an honest and consistent foreign policy it will be impossible to gain the trust of foreign
leaders. As long as the administration is led by the nose by the media and acts in
unpredictable ways there can be no shared basis for trust which is essential for peace.
What we have in Washington is the expansion of domestic political unrest and the
contention of our national elections flaring over into blame of foreign influences and the
externalization of blame for our current sociopolitical divide.
This is the fertile ground laced with the fertilizer for war or at the least a military
buildup to war.
There is no greater threat than a World Superpower nation that shifts almost weekly on its
policies and has open disputes with its appointed leaders which results in that nation
repeatedly reshuffling the cards and changing its positions on foreign policy. I pray that
the current leadership will come to grips with its own internal struggles and find a reasoned
path towards maintaining the fragile peace that we all depend on.
First Steele dossier. Now Skripals.. What's next ?
Notable quotes:
"... But even to an outsider, and even if we take it all at face value, that official account of the Wiltshire poisoning is nowhere near solid enough to justify the steps taken. "If you have a weak argument, shout louder" is sufficient therefore to explain the surprising volume of anti-Russian PR coming out of London just now. ..."
"... I think they're probably shouting loud enough to gain their point. A sufficient number of us in the UK public will accept that Wiltshire incident as further proof of Putin's malevolence. We will therefore accept further anti-Russian measures. ..."
"... For the Westminster bubble all our eggs are in the American neocon basket. One could say that the respective swamps are inextricably connected. What's in it for our politicians is nothing less than the maintenance of a comfortable and familiar status quo. There's therefore no choice but to be more Roman that Rome when it comes to pursuing neocon objectives. ..."
"... As ever therefore it all centres around Trump. Is he getting dragged along by his neocons? Or is he now one of them? ..."
"... Trump is not only up against his own establishment. He's up against the European establishment as well. Hence the hammering he's getting from our European press and politicians. Hence also the dossier scandal, which for my part I now see for certain as a joint attempt by the American/UK status quo supporters to weaken or unseat Trump. ..."
Kooshy - I should have checked down-thread before submitting my comment. Then I'd have seen that "London Bob" (87) had given
a brief account of what is happening in Westminster.
"London Bob" explains something that puzzles some in the UK (and bothered me a lot over Syria). Why isn't Corbyn, the opposition
leader in the House of Commons and now stronger than he was, coming out with all guns firing against the present anti-Russian
hysteria? He'd have plenty of ammunition, that's for sure.
As that brief account explains, he's in no position to do so. He's leading a divided party. He has some support from within
his party rank and file but not from many of his own colleagues in the House. We now see, incidentally, some of his colleagues
making public statements that are only a hair's breadth away from disavowing Corbyn or his spokesmen.
In addition Corbyn is already suspected of being anti-patriotic and doesn't want to give his opponents a bigger stick to beat
him with on that.
Therefore resistance to the current Russophobia from within the Westminster bubble is likely to be weak.
Also in this thread DH is casting a sceptical eye over the Wiltshire poisoning. It's an indication of how far down public discussion
in the UK has gone that specialists in the UK who know their stuff no longer get airtime while people like Luke Harding, who plainly
don't, are all over the media. This blanking out of the voice of reasoned criticism in the UK media is, I suspect, already proving
counterproductive for the status quo. It merely reinforces that general public feeling, evident to some extent in the Brexit vote,
that we do at least know we're being conned even if we don't always know how. I don't know how widespread that feeling is in this
case.
But even to an outsider, and even if we take it all at face value, that official account of the Wiltshire poisoning is
nowhere near solid enough to justify the steps taken. "If you have a weak argument, shout louder" is sufficient therefore to explain
the surprising volume of anti-Russian PR coming out of London just now.
I think they're probably shouting loud enough to gain their point. A sufficient number of us in the UK public will accept
that Wiltshire incident as further proof of Putin's malevolence. We will therefore accept further anti-Russian measures.
What's in it for us? As you perhaps indicate, bent money will be running like the devil away from London, which one would think
can't be good news for the City or for the London property market. Hence the repeated calls for European and American solidarity;
if the Russian expatriates can simply move their fortunes to other Western boltholes that's going to leave Westminster looking
ineffectual.
I don't accept the argument I sometimes see put forward that we, and the East Europeans for that matter, are at present dragging
the Americans along with us. However weak the American economy is or is said to be, there's no question but that ours is considerably
more fragile. For the Westminster bubble all our eggs are in the American neocon basket. One could say that the respective
swamps are inextricably connected. What's in it for our politicians is nothing less than the maintenance of a comfortable and
familiar status quo. There's therefore no choice but to be more Roman that Rome when it comes to pursuing neocon objectives.
So when it comes to the various neocon establishments, the little dogs can kick up more racket but it's still the big dog running
the show.
As ever therefore it all centres around Trump. Is he getting dragged along by his neocons? Or is he now one of them?
If the first, then it's accurate to see this as many of us here have seen it from the start. Trump is not only up against
his own establishment. He's up against the European establishment as well. Hence the hammering he's getting from our European
press and politicians. Hence also the dossier scandal, which for my part I now see for certain as a joint attempt by the American/UK
status quo supporters to weaken or unseat Trump.
If the second then all is still not lost. Better to have the cronies falling out amongst themselves - and it's evident at least
that that's happening - than have them as united as they were before Trump.
"... It's sad that people even watch things such as BBC,CBC,NBC,ABC, CNN, etc. when every one of them parrots the same talking points, and they have repeatedly been outed as disinfo and pure propaganda outlets. ..."
"... Most interesting to me is that people can now see where their MP's stand WRT war - because this sure smells like the run-up to Libya. We already knew where the US would stand, same position for nearly a century. ..."
"... Only bankers benefit from war, and with the current global debt bomb, they are all in for declaration of "force majeure"- rest assured on that. ..."
Lying in bed listening to Australian government media propaganda . Endless parroting about
the ' rules based order ' , ' the rising power of ( guess) and now Boris Johnson informing us
that the world is insensed at Russian aggression . It is funny and absurd , sad and deadly !
It's harder and harder to laugh at this nonsense. Just when you thought it could not get more
ridiculous, something like this happens. I keep hearing that our masters are preparing us for
war with Russia. All those people who keep saying 'war is coming', 'prepare for World War
III', etc., you do realize that your life will be over, along with everyone you know, and ...
human civilization?
When I read
this hysterical panegyric on Observer.com (or at least as much of it as I could stomach),
I couldn't help but think of the Hate Week speech delivered by an Inner
Party member in the movie version of George Orwell's 1984 !
It's sad that people even watch things such as BBC,CBC,NBC,ABC, CNN, etc. when every one
of them parrots the same talking points, and they have repeatedly been outed as disinfo and
pure propaganda outlets. The only "waking up" that I see anywhere is among those few
that are neither progressive or conservative, and they are waking up to a nightmare. I am
glad this is all talking - if fur truly starts flying, there isn't anywhere to hide from all
this.
It's straight out of Bernays - just keep doubling down and throwing it up all over the
media outlets. I get ashamed that critical thinking exists only in a few places like MOA. Yet
even here, people seem to divide themselves right along the lines that all this claptrap
designates at times.
All you need to sort this out is a simple exercise in "cui bono", same as ever - and
Russia had nothing to gain, even in the intel arena.
Most interesting to me is that people can now see where their MP's stand WRT war - because
this sure smells like the run-up to Libya. We already knew where the US would stand, same
position for nearly a century.
Only bankers benefit from war, and with the current global debt bomb, they are all in for
declaration of "force majeure"- rest assured on that.
"... Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? ..."
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his
life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that
matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked (by a Russian sounding chemical weapon
Novichok), and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism
( https://www.craigmurray.org.uk – Craig Murray has
been most viciously attacked for not accepting the official story without any evidence) and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Here's a thought: maybe the Soviet Union looked into the manufacture of these "novichoks" but decided that, nah, they don't work
all that well in practice e.g. mixing the binary components in the field isn't an exact science, so the end result can range from
Instant Death to Oh, Shit, Nobody Has Died And A Lot Of Innocents Are In Hospital.
Utterly unacceptable for any respectable KGB agent.
But some of the dudes who were working on those "novichoks" (dudes now out of work, remember) defected to the West with some
diagrams and some tall tales of how stupendously clever they are and how astonishingly lethal their wares.
So places like Porton Down test the chemistry in the laboratory and, sure enough, under lab conditions the chemistry is astonishingly
lethal.
They don't test it in the field because, well, why would they?
Fast forward to this week, and Someone has the Bright Idea to use some "novichoks" in a false-flag operation.
Why not? Everyone tells them that they are astonishingly lethal, and the lab tests back that up. What could go wrong?
So they do, and they find out what the Soviets found out decades ago.
Which is that this stuff is utter shit under field conditions: your target's don't die an instant death and innocent people
who come to their aid get very, very sick.
Because that is the point that everyone in the MSM won't talk about: if this was supposed to be a hit then it was badly botched.
The nerve agent didn't kill, the assassins didn't *confirm* the kill, the radius of the effect wasn't contained, and other people
were contaminated.
Hardly the hallmarks of an agency that DEVELOPED this nerve agent, is it. But maybe the hallmark of no-hopers who didn't really
understand what they were using.
Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced in the House of Commons that Russia was "highly likely" to have
been involved in the attempted murder of a former Russian spy and his daughter. The incident left Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter
Yulia, 33, critically ill in hospital.
As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes
, The UK has now announced that it will expel 23 Russian diplomats after
Russia failed to explain how a military-grade nerve agent
was used in the attack in Salisbury.
Even though the Kremlin has vehemently denied any involvement, insiders have said that
all signs point to Moscow and if that's
true, it raises some troubling questions ahead of the country's presidential election on Sunday.
Some observers have suggested that rogue elements of the Russian government could be responsible for the attack while others are
pointing their fingers firmly towards Vladimir Putin.
Even though there is no evidence that Putin gave the order to carry out a high-profile killing in public, the decision to use
nerve agents that could be linked to Russia carries considerable risk. Some have claimed that Putin might have arranged the attack
to engineer a confrontation with the west in order to improve turnout at the polls.
If the UK goes a step beyond expelling diplomats and imposes sanctions, Russia could find itself more isolated and that has proven
deeply unpopular with the country's electorate .
Putin
is expected to win Sunday's election easily and even if Russian media portrays the events in Salisbury as some kind of western
conspiracy to rally voters, the president's image is still likely to worsen internationally .
The most recent polling into how Putin is viewed abroad was conducted in August 2017 by the Pew Research Center. Even before the
events in Salisbury, Putin was very unpopular across the world.
In Poland where the relationship with Russia has never been easy, 89 percent of Pew's respondents said they have no confidence
in Putin doing the right thing regarding world affairs.
In France, the share was also high at 80 percent.
In the United Kingdom and the United Stated, 76 and 74 percent of people have no faith in the Russian president doing the right
thing on the world stage.
At the other end of the scale, Nigeria and India are more confident than not confident in Putin doing the right thing.
It seems the global propaganda machine has not been able to reach there quite yet.
If you don't have some appreciation of Putin's intellect and skill as a leader you're not paying attention. Additionally he's
shown real composure and self control given the provocations he has been subject to.
If he has indeed tossed out the Rothschild bankers he is a hero of the ages. That is no light work.
This is complete horseshit straight from the same people who give us WaPo and the New York Times. How does he not have Putin's
popularity in Russia. Where is that?
Also, The author's view of the world is extremely skewed.
No country disapproves of America more than Russia, where 82% of survey respondents said they disapproved of U.S. leadership.
This was also the worst rating from Russia in the history of the survey. While many Russians do not like America, residents of
many other countries do not approve of Russia. The median disapproval rating of Russian leadership was greater than the median
approval rating, the only country to claim this distinction. And while a majority of residents in 15 countries disapprove of the
U.S., a majority of residents in 42 countries disapprove of Russia's leadership. Russia's disapproval rating of U.S. leadership
worsened considerably from 2013, increasing 12 percentage points. Recently implemented U.S.-led Western sanctions on Russia have
likely intensified Russians' disapproval. According to historical data from the Levada Center, Russia's independent public opinion
tracker, negative attitudes towards the United States spiked during the invasion of Iraq and worsened again in 2008 after the
Russia-Georgia conflict. More recently, the U.S. sided with Ukraine after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.
The West doesn't make Statesmen anymore. It produces whores and pedophiles who sell to the highest bidders and don't have the
capacity to think beyond their tenures.
Because Western governments are dominated by cucks and sellouts, they feel threatened by Putin's unwavering determination,
backbone and geopolitical mastery, hence the concerted propaganda campaign to discredit him, which by the way is pretty fucking
pathetic.
This excerpt has a mainstreaming for the Western mainstream media elites dynamic:
" My point here is not to exonerate Putin or Russia for the many bad things that he (and we) has perpetrated. Plenty of
people have died in Syria and Ukraine as the result of his decisions. Russia's history with its European neighbors to the West
has been checkered at best, and I can more than understand the fear and apprehension with which peoples in the Baltic States,
Poland and other countries view any sort of resurgence or posturing ."
****
Plenty more people might've died in Ukraine and Syria without Putin's action. Poland has had its own aggressive past with Russia
– granted that Russia has had the overall upper hand. Besides Poland, some other parts of central/eastern Europe have been strategically
used against Russia, over the course of history.
From elsewhere, here's another piece favoring Putin:
" Scott Shane's February 17 New York Times article 'Russia Isn't the Only One Meddling in Elections – We Do It, Too', distinguishes
the US and Russian activity in question by claiming that American actions are done for a good cause unlike Russia – a thought
shared by former CIA Director James Woolsey. Shane's piece notes the US role in influencing the 1996 Russian presidential election,
without noting an otherwise glaring particular. Many generally believe that the US government intervention in that vote (whether
you want to describe it as direct or indirect) tipped the balance in favor of Boris Yeltsin.
Yeltsin went on to appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor. If one accepts the US role as the deciding factor in the 1996 Russian
presidential election, I wholeheartedly welcome that move which enabled Putin to become Russian president – something that very
well might not have happened if Yeltsin didn't win in 1996."
"My point here is not to exonerate Putin or Russia for the many bad things that he (and we) has perpetrated. Plenty of people
have died in Syria and Ukraine as the result of his decisions. Russia's history with its European neighbors to the West has been
checkered at best, and I can more than understand the fear and apprehension with which peoples in the Baltic States, Poland and
other countries view any sort of resurgence or posturing."
I see where it is all coming from. So, the only position Russia is allowed is doggy style butt up?
History like normal history not much different in this respect form majority. USA seems to have checkered history with practically
the rest of the world and caused millions deaths by now and so what? So are other countries in Europe and Asia.
Russia is denied by the author legitimate right to defend her legitimate interests.
I basically sense same school of thought with minor variations as Anatoly Karlin's minus mammoths on Russian plain of course.
So, the best critical information that UNZ can provide is a Russian, who doesn't know and understand Russia today. This is not
really promoting UNZ as an interesting site. – I am a Danish sociologist, who have collected some information that better explains,
why most Russians think that Putin is the absolutely best choice today.
http://homosociologicus.com/russia --
critical-information
While Cohen wasn't the only one who offered a withering critique of Tillerson, he was often seen as walking point for Washington's
high-profile neoconservative establishment, a gaggle of policy intellectuals and recognized commentators who include right-wing
Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin (now a regular anti-Trumpian on MSNBC), Pompeo cheerleader Bill Kristol (the founder
of the neocon mouthpiece the Weekly Standard ), columnist Max Boot (who once described Tillerson as "an amoral businessman"),
Rumsfeld pal and defense heavyweight Eric Edelman, neocon analyst and author Robert Kagan (who told New Yorker writer Robin
Wright that Tillerson was "an unmitigated disaster"), and Danielle Pletka (the influential head of the American Enterprise Institute)
-- among innumerable others.
Of course, the problem for this clique of in-the-know wonks was not only that their opposition to Tillerson was undergirded by
their doubts about Trump (some of them, like Boot, actually admitted to voting for Clinton), but that their calls for the head of
T-Rex put them in league with the fire-breathing reactionaries of the primitive right. That gaggle includes Frank Gaffney, the shrill
anti-Muslim head of the Center for Security Policy; John Bolton, who wants to rip up the Iran deal (and who's been slipping in and
out of the White House looking for a job); Steve Bannon, who admitted to the New Yorker that he had blocked some of Tillerson's
appointments while serving with Trump; and Bannon buddy Sebastian Gorka, who sniped at Tillerson in public. For them, Rex Tillerson's
chief sin wasn't that he had a "low familiarity with the work of diplomacy," but that he believed in it at all.
That's a strangely cobbled-together crew (Eliot Cohen would undoubtedly recoil from the suggestion that he's allied with a reputed
Hungarian fascist), but even those two groupings shrink in influence in comparison to a third, run out of a suite of well-appointed
offices on M Street in Washington. Founded by neoconservative journalist Clifford May just after 9/11, the non-profit Foundation
for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has emerged as perhaps the most powerful outside influencer of the Trump White House today.
FDD is notorious: a self-styled "non-partisan policy institute," the non-profit organization is funded primarily by right-wing
supporters of Israel, including billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Over the
nearly two decades since its founding, FDD has promoted the Iraq War, banged the drum for an attack on Syria, opposed the Obama administration's
nuclear negotiations with Iran, extolled the virtues of Benjamin Netanyahu, and, at the beginning of this decade, launched a crusade
that targeted the tiny Persian Gulf country of Qatar where the U.S. maintains an airbase.
FDD's anti-Qatar crusade was led by the its vice president for research, Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst
at the Treasury Department who, over the course of the last eight years, has authored dozens of articles (in Foreign Policy
, Politico, The Atlantic, the New York Times , and the New York Post , among many others) slamming Qatar for
being too close to Iran, having links with the Taliban, supporting humanitarian programs in Hamas-controlled Gaza, backing the Muslim
Brotherhood political movement, and supporting jihadists in the Syrian civil war. But the focus of the FDD efforts, and Schanzer's
obsession, was Qatar's hosting of the leaders of Hamas.
For a time, the FDD's anti-Qatar inquisition had little impact, with senior Pentagon officials dismissing the campaign as "just
noise." But then, in June of last year, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt launched an economic embargo against
Qatar, isolating the country from outside contact and splitting apart the Gulf Cooperation Council. The UAE and FDD shared the common
goal of stigmatizing Qatar for its ties to Hamas and, more crucially at least for the UAE-led coalition, its economic and diplomatic
ties to Iran. FDD, as it turned out, took on an outsized role in the UAE-led anti-Qatar coalition, as a tranche of leaked emails
from FDD's Mark Dubowitz and senior counselor John Hannah to Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE's ambassador to Washington, made clear.
Among other topics, the June 2017 emails suggested a three-day meeting between FDD officials (Dubowitz, Hannah, and Schanzer)
and UAE Middle East "experts" aimed at "reducing source of Qatari leverage, especially dependence on Al Udeid [airbase]" -- a strangely
partisan agenda for an organization that claims to be a "non-partisan policy institute." The emails, the result of a hack by the
anonymous group GlobalLeaks, also included a request that the UAE arrange a meeting between FDD officials and Mohammad Dahlan, the
exiled and controversial Palestinian leader. (Dahlan, as the American public later learned, was also an attendee at the notorious
Seychelles meeting now being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.)
Not surprisingly, Rex Tillerson was immediately enmeshed in the UAE-led Qatar embargo, and, with the support of Secretary of Defense
James Mattis, attempted to dampen its impact. Tillerson, it turns out, was not only blindsided by the embargo, but, as was reported
in these pages last June, suspected that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner had known of the UAE's plans, failed to notify him, and
instead urged the president to endorse the UAE initiative, which Trump did. Tillerson was not only shocked, he was angry. "Rex put
two-and-two together," a close associate of Tillerson told TAC at the time, "and concluded that this absolutely vacuous
kid [Kushner] was running a second foreign policy out of the White House family quarters. [UAE ambassador to the U.S.] Otaiba weighed
in with Jared and Jared weighed in with Trump. What a mess."
Beginning in June of 2017, Tillerson worked to dampen and, as he hoped, end the embargo. The effort included multiple trips to
the region, meetings with Gulf leaders, and the strong-arming of Qatari officials to meet at least some of the demands of the UAE-led
anti-Qatar coalition. "Rex was tireless, absolutely tireless," a senior Pentagon official who tracked Tillerson's efforts told
TAC . "All of this talk about how Tillerson was an ineffective diplomat just isn't true. This was shuttle diplomacy at its
best." Tillerson's efforts, which included enlisting the help of Kuwaiti and British diplomats, resulted in a July Memorandum of
Understanding between the U.S. and Qatar aimed at stopping terrorist financing.
Tillerson's efforts, while prodigious, failed to heal the rift between Qatar and its neighbors, but it clearly backfooted the
anti-Qatar coalition, who'd hoped to pressure their neighbor into ending its relations with Iran, isolate Turkey (a strong Qatar
supporter), and shutter the Doha-based Al Jazeera television network. Tillerson's efforts not only remained unacknowledged by the
Trump White House, they only deepened the uneasy alliance of forces arrayed against him. Those forces, according to emails leaked
in early March by the BBC, now included Erik Prince sidekick Elliott Broidy, a U.S. businessman and Trump campaign donor with deep
business ties to the UAE's Mohammed bin Zayed. According to the emails, Broidy met with Trump in October and told him that Tillerson
was "performing poorly and should be fired at a political convenient time." The emails described Tillerson as "weak" and "a tower
of jello" who needs to be "slammed."
It took Donald Trump another four months to "slam" Tillerson and replace him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo. While Tillerson's
demise can be dated to the moment it was reported that he called the president a "moron" back in October, the clock actually started
ticking the previous June, when Tillerson decided he would work to reverse the UAE-led embargo against Qatar. Which is why, within
hours of Trump's announcement that Tillerson was being shown the door, his enemies in the Gulf States held a mini-celebration. Among
the celebrants was Abdulkhalez Abdullaa, a prominent UAE political science professor, who insinuated that his country could take
credit for Tillerson's demise. "History will remember that a Gulf state had a role in expelling the foreign minister of a superpower
and that's just the tip of the iceberg,"
he wrote on Twitter .
There was also, it appears, a celebration at the offices of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, whose officials now
have clear sailing in their efforts not only to continue fstigmatizing Qatar, but to undermine -- and end -- the Obama administration's
nuclear agreement with Iran. Within hours of the Tillerson announcement, FDD President Mark Dubowitz
tweeted his approval of the move . "BREAKING,"
he tweeted. "Trump ousts Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, will replace him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo." Dubowitz linked the news
to a Washington Post report on Tillerson's ouster, but then CC'd the entry to three Iranian officials: "@khamenei_ir," "@HassanRouhani,"
and "@Jzarif ": Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad
Javad Zarif.
The implication was hard to miss. Dubowitz wasn't being polite; he was issuing a threat.
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to The American Conservative ,and the author
of The Pentagon's Wars, which was released in late 2017 . He tweets@markperrydc .
"... One might hope that an encrypted channel (that had been cracked) would provide a few minutes warning for our sailors to get overboard - the fact that carrier groups are useless against a peer power is accepted in naval circles since the 80s. ..."
That sounds like a Russian strategy. It seems Russia has managed to get revenge for
actions that targeted its assets in Syria (I read an article that suggests the E. Ghouta push
is hitting also US SF advisors) but they do not brag about it on twitter.
For example, I assess that the poor performance of the Tomahawk attack was EW (the other
explanation being they are crap missiles), but in either case, Putin did not brag on
twitter.
Also consistent with the Putin story about the rat per Luke8929.
One might hope that an encrypted channel (that had been cracked) would provide a few
minutes warning for our sailors to get overboard - the fact that carrier groups are useless
against a peer power is accepted in naval circles since the 80s.
"... A Rare Glimpse into the Inner Workings of the American Empire in the Middle East - The U.S. foreign policy elite still wants the Middle East for its oil and its strategic location. http://fpif.org/rare-glimpse-inner-workings-american-empire-middle-east/ ..."
"... Currently, all signs indicate the United States is increasing its hold over the Middle East ..."
"... Although the U.S. has constructed a kind of informal American empire, they believe that U.S. actions and polices are creating blowback that is bringing more conflict and violence to the region. ..."
"... Jeffrey insisted that it would be necessary to accept more death and violence if the United States was going to achieve its strategic objectives. This kind of trade-off, he believed, was simply how things worked in the area. Citing recent retaliatory actions by the Israeli and Saudi government against missile attacks, Jeffrey said that the high civilians death tolls that resulted from such operations had simply become one of the costs of military engagement in the region. ..."
In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, four former U.S. diplomats
provided remarkably candid commentary on recent U.S. involvement in the Middle East,
revealing a number of the most closely guarded secrets of U.S. diplomacy.
The four former diplomats emphasized the importance of the region's oil, spoke critically
about the weaknesses of U.S. strategy, made a number of crude comments about U.S. partners,
displayed little concern about ongoing violence, and called for more "discipline" throughout
the region.
... Currently, all signs indicate the United States is increasing its hold over the
Middle East .
The only problem, according to the former diplomats, is that the United States continues
to face significant resistance. Although the U.S. has constructed a kind of informal
American empire, they believe that U.S. actions and polices are creating blowback that is
bringing more conflict and violence to the region.
...Indeed, Jeffrey insisted that it would be necessary to accept more death and
violence if the United States was going to achieve its strategic objectives. This kind of
trade-off, he believed, was simply how things worked in the area. Citing recent retaliatory
actions by the Israeli and Saudi government against missile attacks, Jeffrey said that the
high civilians death tolls that resulted from such operations had simply become one of the
costs of military engagement in the region.
--------------
"... All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should heed that advice ..."
Mike Pompeo, in his first speech as director of the CIA, chose to declare war on free speech
rather than on the United States' actual adversaries. He went after WikiLeaks, where I serve as
editor, as a "non-state hostile intelligence service." In Pompeo's worldview, telling the truth
about the administration can be a crime -- as Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly
underscored when he described my arrest as a "priority." News organizations reported that
federal prosecutors are weighing whether to bring charges against members of WikiLeaks,
possibly including conspiracy, theft of government property and violating the Espionage
Act.
All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start
of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA
incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions
of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which
it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed
the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with
computer viruses.
When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher
such as WikiLeaks as a "fraud," "coward" and "enemy," it puts all journalists on notice, or
should. Pompeo's next talking point, unsupported by fact, that WikiLeaks is a "non-state
hostile intelligence service," is a dagger aimed at Americans' constitutional right to receive
honest information about their government. This accusation mirrors attempts throughout history
by bureaucrats seeking, and failing, to criminalize speech that reveals their own failings.
President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or
traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration
when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is
itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should
heed that advice .
Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!
Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned
post in government, period! Everybody has baggage, everybody is compromised.
This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find
it impossible to see one thing Trump (or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin
in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the real answer even
there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the
other batch is mystified at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions
between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue the inevitable endless circle
jerk.
Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to
bench press 300 lbs. Those of them who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less.
Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come down! When they can't
intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.
Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous
psychopaths did in 2016, but I also know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and
Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.
The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.
Hmmmm.....let's see. Pompeo hates Julian Assange. Assange has told us a lot of truth but
won't even consider that 911 was an inside job. Pompeo hates Iran and Assad, but he's not
about 911 truth at all either. The 911 myth is the basis for all US foreign policy. Trump
hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit that the
Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition. In the midst of all these powerful world
leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we are royally
fucked. And I don't even especially like Rosie O'Donnell. Doesn't seem likely we will avoid a
catastrophic war. What a world.
Trump hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit
that the Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition.In the midst of all these
powerful world leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we
are royally fucked.
One Donald J Trump was interviewed on TV on the day of 9/11. He said that's not the way
planes hit buildings. There were explosives of some sort involved. Moreover, the same Donald
J Trump as a contender for the Republican nomination in the debate in South Carolina in
February 2016 stated that if he won the presidency he would publish the secret documents
about 9/11.
You have to be paying attention to figure out who Trump really is. Why is that? It is
because Judaia as a conscious policy of that quasi-state has for long had total control of
the minds of the whole West. The brains of Americans have been turned to oatmeal (as Russians
put it) and most of what Trump says has to be oatmeal-to-oatmeal. Trump's brilliance is never
challenging directly the memes (such as 9/11 or the Holocaust or false flag shootings) that
Judaia has so laboriously constructed. That would be foolish. Rather, he takes one strand of
received discourse and short circuits it with another under high voltage. Only rarely and
briefly does Trump address clued-in supporters directly (perhaps he's doing it indirectly
through Q Anon). You have to be paying attention.
A lot of Trump administration double-talk is a game, his way of strongly playing a weak
hand. The anti-Iran bit seems to be a key gambit, going all the way back to Flynn
co-authoring an anti-Iran book with Neocon Ledeen. But Tillerson seems to have turned traitor
by taking over the script. Declaring that America was going go hang on to territory in Syria
was not a 'globalist' gambit in the script. Trump had to tweet that defeating ISIS was
America's only aim in Syria and that had been almost accomplished. Similarly, a limited
anti-Russia posture is necessary to deal with the Muller caper. But supporting the Empire's
Russian poisoning absurdity seems not to be where Trump wants America to be. Tillerson had to
go.
If Pompeo is talking a load of shit, and sounding surprisingly uneducsted for someone who
was number one at West Point and an editor (unlike Obama, under his own steam) at the Harvard
Law Review, be sure there is a game involved.
I instinctively like Trump, and have over a long period, Maybe Trump is at the head of a
huge world-historical change. It's looking good, actually, and I'm willing to wait and
see.
"... The problem is that this would have some semblance of solubility were it not for Israel. Israel desperately, repeat desperately, wants the U.S. to go to war in a very big way in the ME. That could tip the scales. ..."
"... I hope you are wrong, but Trump sees very clearly what "Wartime President" did for the cipher Bush. It's the only straw left for him to grasp at ..."
This post was about Mattis being the only "grown-up in the room".
I'm not sure that's something to be reassured about. Brian Cloughley is a seasoned
military writer and analyst. A few years ago he wrote a piece on Mattis that was not very
complimentary. If even half of it is right, we should all be worried.
Trump's mojo has evaporated. He has no coattails. He has negative coattails. So it is time
for war.
The problem is that this would have some semblance of solubility were it not for
Israel. Israel desperately, repeat desperately, wants the U.S. to go to war in a very big way
in the ME. That could tip the scales.
I hope you are wrong, but Trump sees very clearly what "Wartime President" did for the
cipher Bush. It's the only straw left for him to grasp at .
"... I agree with you all that replacing Rex Tillerson, who could not be brow-beaten all the time, with Mike Pompeo, "who agrees with me," further isolates the Trump Whitehouse and makes the world that more dangerous. ..."
I agree with you all that replacing Rex Tillerson, who could not be brow-beaten all the time, with Mike Pompeo, "who agrees with
me," further isolates the Trump Whitehouse and makes the world that more dangerous.
But, am I alone in noting a tendency of President Trump to fire his staff without warning, at considerable distance, and to
deny that anything he might have done was a reason for poor polling?
The first time we saw this was the dismissal of Corey Lewandowski, the man who was with Candidate Trump 24 / 7 for 18 months
of Primaries. Corey arrives at his desk in Trump Tower at 6:00 am and is asked to join Trump Jr. He reaches Jr.'s office and is
assigned a security guard to vacate his office. "What have I done?" he asks and Jr. does not reply. On 5th Avenue he calls Trump's
personal number. The Donald says that "They are killing us." and hangs up. Corey is persuaded to meet Dana Bash of CNN and is
extremely loyal to his former boss, while saying he has no idea about the firing. On leaving the studio, Trump calls him to say
how proud he was of Corey. A nice gesture, but inadequate given Corey's personal sacrifice. (Let Trump Be Trump -- Lewandowski
and Bossie 128 - 133.)
We will probably never learn why President Trump turned on Rex Tillerson. If we ever do, it may be because Neocons are furious
reality refuses to bend to their fantasies.
Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!
Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned post in government, period! Everybody
has baggage, everybody is compromised.
This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find it impossible to see one thing Trump
(or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the
real answer even there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the other batch is mystified
at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue
the inevitable endless circle jerk.
Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to bench press 300 lbs. Those of them
who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less. Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come
down! When they can't intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.
Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous psychopaths did in 2016, but I also
know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.
The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. Much worse. For all his flaws, Rex Tillerson had a
surprisingly sane take on the Middle East, at least relatively. He was known for being against
the idiotic Saudi-UAE attempt blockade of Qatar, as well as in favor of keeping the Iran deal
active. Pompeo shares no such sentiments.
Pompeo, named as his pick for secretary of state by Trump on Tuesday shortly after he
announced Tillerson's departure on Twitter, has taken a notoriously tough stance on Iran in
the past in his erstwhile role as director of the CIA.
"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing
with a CIA medal last year.
back" its 2015 nuclear deal.
"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing
with a CIA medal last year.
... ... ...
But there's more
In November 2016, when Pompeo was appointed to lead the CIA, he warned that Tehran is
"intent of destroying America" and called the nuclear deal "disastrous." He added that he was
looking forward to "rolling back" the agreement.
Differences
of opinion over how Iran should be treated are said to be the source of discord between
Trump and Tillerson, whose firing followed a clash over the nuclear deal, the president said
Tuesday.
"If you look at the Iran deal I think it's terrible and I guess he thought it was OK We
weren't really thinking the same," Trump said in a statement outside the White House. He said
he and Tillerson got on "quite well" but had "different mindsets."
Iran has been increasingly marginalized during the Trump administration, which has sided
with Saudi Arabia in the regional battle for influence in the Middle East.'
Here's the bottom line. As I outlined multiple times last year, Trump is determined to have
a war with Iran and Rex Tillerson was standing in the way. Putting unhinged war hawk Pompeo in
place as Secretary of State is simply Trump getting his ducks in a row ahead of confrontation.
Watch as the sales pitch for another war in the Middle East picks up considerably in the months
ahead.
I believe this forthcoming war against Iran will have almost no international support.
Probably just autocratic regimes in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as
Israel and possibly the UK depending on who's Prime Minister when it gets going. The rest of
the world will be against it, which will lead to spectacular failure.
It's become increasingly clear that a huge military error, such as a new major confrontation
in the Middle East is what will spell the end of the U.S. empire. Such a confrontation is now
increasingly likely with Tillerson out of the picture
Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year
CIA careerist who
ran a torture black site in Thailand .
... ... ...
Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron , or visit our Support Page to show your
appreciation for independent content creators.
Pompeo is in for a rude awakening in the diplomatic arena if he tries to spar with Lavrov.
Lavrov IMO will bloody Pomepo's nose before he knows what hit him.
J,
Haspel isn't alone in her views on torture - according to your link Mattis, Trump and Pompeo
also think waterboarding is an excellent intelligence tool.
According to your article Pompeo answered to Feinstein's torture criticism that agents who
had tortured people were " heroes, not pawns in some liberal game. "
*sob* ... poor heroes ... *sob*
Apparently it was all that heroism that made Haspel destroy evidence about the CIA torture
site in Tailand which she led.
One of the men, known as Abu Zubayda, was waterboarded 83 times in one month and was
slammed into walls by the head. He was deprived of sleep and kept in a coffin-like box.
Interrogators later decided he didn't have any useful information.
ProPublica found that Haspel personally signed cables to CIA headquarters that detailed
Zubayda's interrogation.
CIA videos of the torture were destroyed in 2005, on the orders of a cable drafted by
Haspel.
Indeed, apparently these heroes (and their leaders) needed to be protected from that odd
and unpleasant "liberal game" called 'prosecution for crimes'.
Where's Jim Jones when you need him to serve up some of his koolaid to the numerous
politicos and propagandists pushing the Russiagate Big Lie, for they surely deserve several
pitchers full each.
Given the degree of effort Pompeo's used in pushing Russiagate, I can't wait for his first
meeting with Lavrov or Putin.
The sooner Corbyn is able to become British PM, the better for all excepting the
corrupt.
Looks like Tillerson was yet another Big Lie junkie whose entire worldview is based on bullshit
Notable quotes:
"... Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective. ..."
"... Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes. ..."
"... This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia. ..."
"... The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...? ..."
"... I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians. ..."
Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson
for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!
According to the anti Russian propagandists
(vid) Tillerson got the job because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was in good standing with Putin. The same people
now claim that Tillerson was fired from his job
because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was not in good standing with Putin.
Neither is correct. The plan to oust Tillerson and elevate Pompeo to State has been rumored and written about
for several
month . The plan was "developed by John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff". It had nothing to do with Russia.
Tillerson never got traction as Secretary of State. Congress disliked him for cutting down some State Department programs. Trump
overruled him publicly several times.
There is some contradiction in the statements coming from the White House and the State Department. According
to the Washington Post:
Trump last Friday asked Tillerson to step aside, and the embattled top diplomat cut short his trip to Africa on Monday to return
to Washington.
Last Friday Tillerson suddenly
fell ill while traveling
in Africa and canceled several scheduled events.
... ... ...
Thus ends the 2018 insurrection at State.
With Tillerson leaving Secretary of Defense Mattis is losing
an ally in the cabinet:
[I]t starts with me having breakfast every week with Secretary of State Tillerson. And we talk two, three times a day, sometimes.
We settle all of our issues between he and I, and then we walk together into the White House meetings. That way, State and Defense
are together.
Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective.
CIA head Pompeo, the new Secretary of State, is a neoconservative with a
racist anti-Muslim
attitude and a
special hate
for Iran which he
compared
to ISIS . That he will now become Secretary of State is a bad sign for the nuclear agreement with Iran. The Europeans especially
should take note of that and should stop to look for a compromise with Trump on the issue. The deal is now dead. There is
no chance that a compromise will happen.
The new CIA director Gina Haspel is
well
known for actively directing and participating in the torture of prisoners at 'black sites':
Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both
at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated multiple
court orders as well as the demands of the 9/11 commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as "obstruction"
by commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane.
Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing
prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes.
Both, Pompeo and Haspel, will need to be confirmed by Congress. Both will receive a significant number of 'yes'-votes from the
Democratic side of the aisle.
I think last straw to fire him been TRex stance toward russians -give up Crimea and we cease sanction(WHAT A JOKE) same toward
eastern republics of Ukraine LNR,DPR..good move VSGPDJT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both
Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia.
The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...?
Poor Syria. At least one more fierce year of war. But more likely, endless 2,3,4 more years of war.
Israel and US are getting the rebels in Daraa (DEZ #4) primed to start up fighting again. I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians.
(My notes)
Tillerson says:
- got call today, afternoon from president, also spoke to Kelly (implies that this was the firing)
- hopes for smooth transition
- Deputy Sec State Sullivan will be acting Sec State
- Tillerson job officially terminates March 31
to DoD and State:
- bound by office oath, support constitution, ...
- always stay by oath, (sounds crying)
to people in uniform:
- great relationship State DOD - thanks Mattis and Dunford, all soldiers
work review:
- DPRK pressure campaign was success
- Afghanistan commitment also
- Syria, Iraq - work remains
- nothing goes without allies, partner
- work to be done on China and "troubling behavior" of Russia
- predicts more isolation if Russia doesn't knee
- nothing on Iran
Didn't say thank you to Trump. Emphasized oath to constitution, not to president. Nothing on Iran, Saudis or Palestine.
This was a f*** you to the White House and its priorities. The endorsement by name of Mattis and Dunlap makes them targets.
A Professor for political science from the United Arab Emirates just posted this:
"History will record that a GCC country had a role in the sacking of the foreign minister of a great power, and this is only the
beginning of more"
Individual are highly rewarded i f they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests".
Rebels, individual thinkers tend to get fired, not promoted, snubbed
Notable quotes:
"... The individuals who work in our State Dept., CIA, DOD, corporate defense contractors, lobbyists, politicians, media......these individuals appear to benefit on an indivdual level (promotions, high paying jobs, social acceptance, nice neighborhoods and schools for their kids) when they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests". ..."
Jack, in my opinion, there is no "US". The "US" doesn't have an interest.
There are individuals who behave in their own individual self interest.
The individuals who work in our State Dept., CIA, DOD, corporate defense contractors, lobbyists, politicians, media......these
individuals appear to benefit on an indivdual level (promotions, high paying jobs, social acceptance, nice neighborhoods and schools
for their kids) when they "accept the party-line" that masquerades as US interests".
Its a monumental unconscious group-think based on individual self interest.
This is my understanding of "the Borg" and "US interests", "US foreign policy goals"....they are actually individual interests
shaped by what individuals who work in this realm believe they should believe and espouse to achieve their own goals. Rebels,
individual thinkers tend to get fired, not promoted, snubbed
"... Iraq is a country, in which, even the most pro-American Iraqis (outside of the Kurdish dominated region), will, at this very moment (2017.09.28.17h03 NA EDT) be 100% deciding that they have been screwed! And not very nicely, at that. ..."
First of all, thank you Andrei Martyanov for the very informative analysis/article. Also, thank you Ron Unz for this supporting
addendum.
I am very much interested in further information concerning the U.S. military establishments seeming (increasingly alluded
to) weak assessment/intelligence of Russian military capability, especially armaments.
Iraq is going to be a topic of (likely dramatically) increasing heat and attention (in the uncensored press which reports on
the issues that are the most important to everyone alive, like this web site). The 'referendum' in the Kurdish dominated area
of Iraq will make the 24 month long reverse polarization of Turkey (from NATO/US partner to Russian partner) look like an indecisive
epic.
If anyone thought the 'war' in Iraq was going poorly for the Americans before, 'they ain't seen nothing yet'! Also, the passing
the point of no return for Turkey; they've had enough lies and disingenuous promises from the Euroangangstas; their future association
to the U.S. and (western) Europe will be exclusively from the Eurasian-centric multi-polar world perspective, under which they
will prosper as well or better than they ever have before.
Iraq is a country, in which, even the most pro-American Iraqis (outside of the Kurdish dominated region), will, at this
very moment (2017.09.28.17h03 NA EDT) be 100% deciding that they have been screwed! And not very nicely, at that.
With all of this Russiaphobia (let us not forget that this emanating as a deflection from the revelations a corrupt candidate
who was cheating to win a party's nomination for the U.S. presidential candidate), it is highly politically incorrect to reference
how far ahead V. Putin's geopolitical movement is compared to the west, especially the civil war crippled U.S.A..
One can see so much thoughtfulness and 'communication' in the completely unnecessary flight path, through Iraq of the
bombers delivering their payloads. In fact, it could be the most telling aspect of the entire operation!
Iraq is lost to the western empire.
Unfortunately, the response to on-ground western-empire supported aggression in the Kurdish-dominated region of Iraq, and likely
in other Kurdish dominated middle eastern regions (outside of Iran), will like be decisive and therefore brutal (but, alas, understandable).
The event develop under scenario, which is very close to Litvinenko poisoning and MH17
investigation. Both now are suspected to be false flag operation to demonize Russia.
How about conducting a chemical WMD strike in the heart of U.K? How about Mr. Putin,
O.J. Simpson style, saying "I didn't do it" while at the same time saying "the man deserves
to die." How about poisoning a British police officer who did his duty to render aid along
with about 20 other people? How about that even if the victims, your traitor along with
innocent U.K. citizens survive the immediate effects, they can become permanently disabled
and end up in a nursing home with people having to feed you and clean you up?
How about you admitting that you have not a shred of credible evidence for all your
hysterical hyperventilation about this trivial incident?
How about you admitting that you cannot produce any remotely credible motivation for
Russia doing this, when the costs to Russia of increased confrontation will massively
outweigh any possible gains?
The only suggestions that the Russians were responsible for the incident come from exactly
the same kinds of people who told us about Iraq's WMD and the supposed Libyan humanitarian
emergency. And yes, about supposed suicidal Syrian government uses of chemical weapons that
are conveniently just big enough to provide their enemies with yet another big stick to beat
them with, but not enough to give them any material advantage.
Basically your idea is that the Syrians and Russians do these things just because they
can, because in your opinion they are evil and stupid. And simultaneously, of course, so
fiendishly cunning that they are threats to the world if not suppressed.
God bless Putin and Russia for standing against the Zionist NWO
You are correct Desert Fox. The prime variable in history is economics. Economics before
politics and before war.
Our illuminist friends manipulate the strings of international bank capital for their one
world government. In effect, the West has been infested with a tiny cadre of plutocrats, who
operate a usury mechanism to extract wealth from host peoples and nations.
Russia was to be broken up into parts. ((Harvard boys)) came to the 'rescue" and
privatized Russia with various schemes, the most important of which was to saddle Russian's
with "dollar" debts. Russians as hewers of wood and drawers of water, were to sell their
"earth" in exchange for finished dollar priced goods. Middle Class Russian labor is then cut
out of wealth production inherent in making finished goods. For example, Russian platinum is
used to make high value catalytic converters elsewhere, while only a few Russian's get
wealthy (in dollar terms) by poking holes in Russian land to extract minerals. Former Russian
nuclear scientists walk around drunk as they are not fit for being good labor to extract oil,
platinum, etc.
In effect, our ((friends)) turned Russia into African economy, never mind that Russian's
aren't African's. This desire to rape and pillage the earth, to then take rents on the world,
to then think of yourselves as god (note a little g) is a sophisticated, yet criminally
insane method akin to parasitism.
Russian's were infested by parasites, and yet Russian people as hosts have become stronger
year on year, to eject their parasite. Putin was instrumental in this transformation.
All nationalist economies in the past, which had the temerity to eject these parasites
have come under attack. I'm thinking Nazi Germany as well – oh the horror. This
economic attack is often under the guise of liberalism, which has a knock on effect of
breaking down civil society. In other words, liberalism is a symptom of parasitic financial
oligarchy (and illuminism) a control method to make a host weak, to then be re-colonized.
Russia DOES need to take full control of its Central Bank and eject its fifth columnists
(atlantacists), a final act that hasn't been done yet. On this point, it is factual and fair
to criticize Putin, because once Russian's have their own money power, they can accelerate
even faster. http://www.sovereignmoney.eu
What is US interest in the Middle East? I don't see any. We've got plenty of oil. And the
Canadians will happily sell us more.
The millenia old conflicts there are really no business of ours. The possibility that
we'll go to war with Russia and risk our own population to further Israeli perceptions shows
how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. The zionists "own" our political, media,
governmental establishments lock stock and barrel for this possibility to exist.
If Putin is so diabolical and his information operations so elegant and effective he
should execute one that breaks the chain of zionist influence on the US polity. That would
prevent Armageddon and the world would be thankful.
Honestly I have no idea what the firing of Tillerson and his replacement by Pompeo means.
Maybe it's because Tillerson called Trump a moron and Pompeo is an ass licker. Hillary,
Rubio, etc al wanted a no-fly-zone over Syria. That would have brought instant conflict with
Russia. If Nikki Haley's threats come to pass we'll get there.
Trump is attempting to change many past arrangements. One being trade where the US has
bled for decades running massive trade deficits. How the GOP does in the mid-terms will
influence his position on many issues.
Do some of you ding-a-lings actually think Trump can go off the rails
against the bureaucracy when he's got Mueller trying to crawl up his
ass? He's got to find a balance somehow. He's got to stay alive. Both
politically and personally.
Pompeo is in for a rude awakening in the diplomatic arena if he tries to spar with Lavrov.
Lavrov IMO will bloody Pomepo's nose before he knows what hit him.
Where's Jim Jones when you need him to serve up some of his koolaid to the numerous
politicos and propagandists pushing the Russiagate Big Lie, for they surely deserve several
pitchers full each.
Given the degree of effort Pompeo's used in pushing Russiagate, I can't wait for his first
meeting with Lavrov or Putin.
The sooner Corbyn is able to become British PM, the better for all excepting the
corrupt.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. Much worse. For all his flaws, Rex Tillerson had a
surprisingly sane take on the Middle East, at least relatively. He was known for being against
the idiotic Saudi-UAE attempt blockade of Qatar, as well as in favor of keeping the Iran deal
active. Pompeo shares no such sentiments.
Pompeo, named as his pick for secretary of state by Trump on Tuesday shortly after he
announced Tillerson's departure on Twitter, has taken a notoriously tough stance on Iran in
the past in his erstwhile role as director of the CIA.
"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing
with a CIA medal last year.
back" its 2015 nuclear deal.
"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing
with a CIA medal last year.
... ... ...
But there's more
In November 2016, when Pompeo was appointed to lead the CIA, he warned that Tehran is
"intent of destroying America" and called the nuclear deal "disastrous." He added that he was
looking forward to "rolling back" the agreement.
Differences
of opinion over how Iran should be treated are said to be the source of discord between
Trump and Tillerson, whose firing followed a clash over the nuclear deal, the president said
Tuesday.
"If you look at the Iran deal I think it's terrible and I guess he thought it was OK We
weren't really thinking the same," Trump said in a statement outside the White House. He said
he and Tillerson got on "quite well" but had "different mindsets."
Iran has been increasingly marginalized during the Trump administration, which has sided
with Saudi Arabia in the regional battle for influence in the Middle East.'
Here's the bottom line. As I outlined multiple times last year, Trump is determined to have
a war with Iran and Rex Tillerson was standing in the way. Putting unhinged war hawk Pompeo in
place as Secretary of State is simply Trump getting his ducks in a row ahead of confrontation.
Watch as the sales pitch for another war in the Middle East picks up considerably in the months
ahead.
I believe this forthcoming war against Iran will have almost no international support.
Probably just autocratic regimes in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as
Israel and possibly the UK depending on who's Prime Minister when it gets going. The rest of
the world will be against it, which will lead to spectacular failure.
It's become increasingly clear that a huge military error, such as a new major confrontation
in the Middle East is what will spell the end of the U.S. empire. Such a confrontation is now
increasingly likely with Tillerson out of the picture
Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year
CIA careerist who
ran a torture black site in Thailand .
... ... ...
Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron , or visit our Support Page to show your
appreciation for independent content creators.
J,
Haspel isn't alone in her views on torture - according to your link Mattis, Trump and Pompeo
also think waterboarding is an excellent intelligence tool.
According to your article Pompeo answered to Feinstein's torture criticism that agents who
had tortured people were " heroes, not pawns in some liberal game. "
*sob* ... poor heroes ... *sob*
Apparently it was all that heroism that made Haspel destroy evidence about the CIA torture
site in Tailand which she led.
One of the men, known as Abu Zubayda, was waterboarded 83 times in one month and was
slammed into walls by the head. He was deprived of sleep and kept in a coffin-like box.
Interrogators later decided he didn't have any useful information.
ProPublica found that Haspel personally signed cables to CIA headquarters that detailed
Zubayda's interrogation.
CIA videos of the torture were destroyed in 2005, on the orders of a cable drafted by
Haspel.
Indeed, apparently these heroes (and their leaders) needed to be protected from that odd
and unpleasant "liberal game" called 'prosecution for crimes'.
Do you really think a threat from Nikki Haley to attack is more credible when she repeats
it several times?
I doubt it is. What did she threaten? From what I understand it was something like taking
action and attack Syria like the US did it in April 2017 after the staged CW attack in Khan
Sheikhun. The US fired several dozen uruise missiles worth plenty of Dollars on a military
air field. Before the missiles were fired the US told the Russians the coordinates where they
will hit, so as to ensure the US won't accidentally harm a Russian soldier. Of course, these
missiles then hit nothing what had much worth, because everything of worth was qucikly
removed before the missiles hit. So, does Nikki Haley now threaten a replay of that
circus?
Anyway, the head of Russia's Gen. Staff V. Gerasimov seems not to be very impressed. He
said today Russia will respond with certain measure to both "missiles" & "launchers"
which are delivering these projectiles if the US attacks Syria again. So the US hits Syria
and Russia hits the US launchers in response. So, and then what?
Will the US then want to start some minutemen to Moscow to get back some Sarmats to
Washington? I doubt it. I think the US will just bark a lot then and suck it up.
"... If the US strikes Syria, Russia has to choose whether to let it pass (as it did Trump's previous crime) or to respond. If the US misjudges the scale of its attack and Russia responds with actions that kill US military personnel, then the US regime faces the same choice, and open war is an easy outcome. On each occasion, there is a clear cost to not retaliating, and a psychological inclination not to just turn the other cheek. This is a profoundly dangerous situation, and parallels with 1914 are absolutely not out of place. ..."
Yes & no to Aug'14. I'd go for July; the 'black swan event' has occurred, now what
will the major powers do?
I note that the Russian threat came not from the Pres or the Prime Minister, or the FM. It
came from the CDS. I think the orders for Russian air defense staff in Syria have been cut;
shoot on launch. The Russians seem sure the attack will be on Damascus, in response to an
imagined gas attack in East Ghouta. So probably air launched cruise missiles.
My black swan is Russian air defense knocking down a couple US strike a/c. In 1914,
starting with Austro Hungary, everyone (Rus, Ger, Fra) then reacted instead of looking at how
bad it could get. The Brits were the last in, reluctantly. Brit FM Grey said "The lights are
going out in Europe, I don't know when we shall see them lit again".
Colonel. Unfortunately you are perfectly right again with your analysis,for consequences of
trending current affairs. My hunch is in this new west east war, Europe (except for UK) and
east Asia, none of US main allies will side with US in a meaning full way, and that
unwillingness to share will be the final nail in coffin of US centered world order based on
UN, NATO and BW dollars.
I've been fearing that Syria is looking more and more like that for some time now.
The unimaginative ridicule the suggestion that open war between the US and Russia could
result from events in Syria, because it is just too big a change in the world for them to
comprehend it as a real possibility. But there is a clear route for escalation, and now the
US regime has suggested how the initiation might occur.
If the US strikes Syria, Russia has to choose whether to let it pass (as it did Trump's
previous crime) or to respond. If the US misjudges the scale of its attack and Russia
responds with actions that kill US military personnel, then the US regime faces the same
choice, and open war is an easy outcome. On each occasion, there is a clear cost to not
retaliating, and a psychological inclination not to just turn the other cheek. This is a
profoundly dangerous situation, and parallels with 1914 are absolutely not out of place.
I believe we would have been here a year ago if Clinton had won the presidency. Trump gave
hope that it could be avoided, but it seems that hope was vain, whether because Trump lied or
because he has been putty in the hands of the usual suspects around the US regime.
Fortunately, there will probably be many opportunities for either party to step off the
escalation process before it reaches a nuclear exchange, and the prospect of that tends to
concentrate even the minds of the powerful.
Let's be absolutely clear here, though - the US is wholly the party at fault here in
creating this situation. Syria is a longstanding Russian/Soviet ally and it is the US
regime's determination to overthrow the Syrian government that is creating the danger we now
face. Granted, after that you can look at other parties involved in "influencing" the US
regime towards war in Syria for their own self-serving ulterior motives, but in the end the
US government and nation must be held responsible for its own choices and for allowing itself
to be "influenced".
"... So the US is willing to risk escalation that in gaming always seems to lead to a nuclear weapons exchange for an action with zero strategic benefit! ..."
"... May God keep Mattis safe. ..."
"... Regarding that, SAA have cleared access now for reporters to a very dodgy looking plant in Shifuniyah, SE of Douma. One of them was Mrs Narwani here who shot a few photos on-site: ..."
"... I seem to recall that the usual suspects were hollering about how "chlorine barrel bombs" or whatever was used in Shifuniyah when it had already been taken by SAA at that point... ..."
Stripping away all the claptrap about unicorn rebels and chemical weapons and human
rights, the US is publicly and clearly stating that it will directly militarily intervene in
defense of its demonstrably failing Syria policy; however, not with a ground invasion - there
is no stomach for that. This is moronic (to use Rex's lexicon) - a missile attack on Syria
will have no strategic effect on the Syrian conflict.
Is it coincidence that Russia just very clearly signaled that it has the capability and
will to counter the US military strategy directly? Whereas one suspects few in the
administration believe that history has any relevance, Russia is very history aware. Russia
practices, every year, a nationwide, civilian response to a major nuclear attack. One cannot
imagine such an exercise in the US (it would interfere with our duty to shop).
I cannot see how the US de-escalates if a US carrier group is sunk. Winds of 1914 indeed.
Perhaps after a few metropolitan areas are nuked in each country (and probably someone
glasses the chosen people's country, Israel) saner minds in the US will pull back. Or
not.
So the US is willing to risk escalation that in gaming always seems to lead to a nuclear
weapons exchange for an action with zero strategic benefit!
"Will CNN praise Trump for his new appointments, just like they praised the US cruise missile
attacks on Syria in April 2017 after the alleged chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun?"
Regarding that, SAA have cleared access now for reporters to a very dodgy looking plant in
Shifuniyah, SE of Douma. One of them was Mrs Narwani here who shot a few photos on-site:
and wonders out loud where her colleagues from "Western" agencies are. There's also a video shot by Sama TV, with subtitles added by this Syrian Digital Media
account here:
I seem to recall that the usual suspects were hollering about how "chlorine barrel bombs"
or whatever was used in Shifuniyah when it had already been taken by SAA at that point...
Perhaps a small nuclear exchange against non-civilian targets is just what the world needs to
realize this endless warmongering is not rational. If I were Putin, I would nuke the Ghawar
field in KSA.
"... But it seems Trump intends Syria to be the next target. So the question remains how far will he go to attack Syria and how far will Russia go to defend Syria. If I were Putin, I'd be on the phone with Trump today reminding him that Russia has cruise missiles that can sink the entire US Med fleet (not in those terms, of course, but you get the idea.) He might also remind Trump that half the previous cruise missiles never reached their target even without Russian S-300's and Pantsirs being involved. This time, they might be. ..."
I predicted Tillerson would be out by end of last year. So I was off by three months...
Rumor has it that Trump is looking for an excuse to launch an attack on Syria which will
be "bigger" than the last one, and apparently Ghouta and alleged "chlorine attacks" will be
the excuse.
As I noted yesterday, some believe Putin explicitly mentioned attacks on Russia's allies
as a reason to use nuclear weapons. Whether Putin considers Syria an "ally" justifying the
use of nukes is unlikely in my opinion. North Korea and the implicit threat to China if China
intervenes probably would qualify.
So hopefully Trump will go to meet Kim. Yesterday's Crosstalk pointed out that there's a
lot the Deep State could do to derail that, assuming Trump is even truthful about his
intentions. Personally I suspect Kim is using the talks between NK and SK as a means to drive
a wedge between SK and the US. This would be to the good. Yesterday's Crosstalk suggested the
best outcome would be to get the US "out of the room" and let the two Koreas work it out. The
problem with that is that Kim wants US forces out of SK and while SK might agree to that,
they'll have to talk it over with the US which will be highly resistant since those forces
are there not just for NK but for China. Mark Sleboda suggested Trump might well be going to
Korea not to make things better but to reinsert the US into the SK/NK negotiatons to sabotage
them. We'll see.
But it seems Trump intends Syria to be the next target. So the question remains how
far will he go to attack Syria and how far will Russia go to defend Syria. If I were Putin,
I'd be on the phone with Trump today reminding him that Russia has cruise missiles that can
sink the entire US Med fleet (not in those terms, of course, but you get the idea.) He might
also remind Trump that half the previous cruise missiles never reached their target even
without Russian S-300's and Pantsirs being involved. This time, they might be.
The last cruise missile attacks was around 50 missiles. So if Trump wants a "bigger"
attack this time, will it be 100 missiles? Airstrikes by US jets against the SAA since the
cruise missiles might be ineffective against ground troop positions? What happens if the
Syrian air defenses - even without Russian help - shoot down a US jet attacking SAA forces a
la the Israeli incident earlier? How does Trump react to that?
A very meaningful head line by Izvestia on Potomac, WP. For WP editors, a victory for legal
army of Syria in their own country' is defying the INTERNATIONAL order. One wonders who are
these International community, are Russians, Chinese, Iran and many others part of this
community? Or this so-called community is another of US' international country clubs. Too
bad, i think the international community should just STFU and live with it.
"Syrian military pushes for victory in Ghouta, defying international outcry" https://goo.gl/StPpjp
Until recently I considered these nonsense, after reading a nearly hour to hour
description on how the emperor could end the war, I had to change my view.
Have you read Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan by
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, a Japanese-American historian who was apparently the first to make
significant use of documents from all 3 countries (Russia, Japan, USA). His basic conclusion
is that:
Rather, what decisively changed the views of the Japanese ruling elite was the Soviet
entry into the war. It catapulted the Japanese government into taking immediate action. For
the first time, it forced the government squarely to confront the issue of whether it
should accept the Potsdam terms. In the tortuous discussions from August 9 through August
14, the peace party, motivated by a profound sense of betrayal, fear of Soviet influence on
occupation policy, and above all by a desperate desire to preserve the imperial house,
finally staged a conspiracy to impose the "emperor's sacred decision" and accept the
Potsdam terms, believing that under the circumstances surrendering to the United States
would best assure the preservation of the imperial house and save the emperor.
The quote above is from an article of his replying to some of his critics.
I read
Japan's Decision to Surrender
Robert J. C. Butow
A day to day description of what went on in the critical days, sometimes by the hour, or by
minute.
I cannot completely accept the above quote.
What was at the time the ruling elite ?
Since the mid or early thirties the military ruled Japan.
The fanatical military were prepared to wage war on the Japanese mainland, accepting 20
million deaths.
The Okinawa ratio US Japanese deaths was, from memory, 7000 to 150000.
If one accepts this ratio continuing the war with an invasion on the mainland this would have
cost over 900.000 USA deaths.
Therefore the concept of unconditional surrender was left, as had been the case in
Italy.
And about imposing, the emperor played an active role in ending the war, risking his own
life.
Even after the recording had been made of the emperor announcing, in not too explicit terms,
the surrender, by radio, the very first time Japanese heard his voice, fanatics tried to get
hold of the recording.
As I stated, the two atomic bombs, plus the annihilation of the Kwantung army, made it
possible.
"... The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host. ..."
Our military record is not so great. Russia, on the other hand, has held its lands for a
millennia. The only war we (the USA) have truly won since the War of 1812 was the Pacific
Theater of WWII. Everything else was done by others (WWII European Theater was mostly Russian
work), or a miserable stand-off (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) or a totally unnecessary fiasco
(War Between The States, WWI, Iraq ) such that "winning" was no benefit to the "victor".
You might say the Mexican War gave us some good territory but the Mexicans are winning
their Reconquista invasions while we sleep and dilly dally.
The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces
wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent
killers of their host.
Neocons are like clogged arteries -- you know they will be a problem but failing to
comprehend the danger, that heart attack can occur most unexpectedly, killing the host.
You know you need to clean the crud out of those clogged arteries but you just don't do
what is needed to clean out and become safe.
Looks like Tillerson was yet another Big Lie junkie whose entire worldview is based on bullshit
Notable quotes:
"... Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective. ..."
"... Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes. ..."
"... This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia. ..."
"... The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...? ..."
"... I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians. ..."
Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson
for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!
According to the anti Russian propagandists
(vid) Tillerson got the job because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was in good standing with Putin. The same people
now claim that Tillerson was fired from his job
because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was not in good standing with Putin.
Neither is correct. The plan to oust Tillerson and elevate Pompeo to State has been rumored and written about
for several
month . The plan was "developed by John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff". It had nothing to do with Russia.
Tillerson never got traction as Secretary of State. Congress disliked him for cutting down some State Department programs. Trump
overruled him publicly several times.
There is some contradiction in the statements coming from the White House and the State Department. According
to the Washington Post:
Trump last Friday asked Tillerson to step aside, and the embattled top diplomat cut short his trip to Africa on Monday to return
to Washington.
Last Friday Tillerson suddenly
fell ill while traveling
in Africa and canceled several scheduled events.
... ... ...
Thus ends the 2018 insurrection at State.
With Tillerson leaving Secretary of Defense Mattis is losing
an ally in the cabinet:
[I]t starts with me having breakfast every week with Secretary of State Tillerson. And we talk two, three times a day, sometimes.
We settle all of our issues between he and I, and then we walk together into the White House meetings. That way, State and Defense
are together.
Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective.
CIA head Pompeo, the new Secretary of State, is a neoconservative with a
racist anti-Muslim
attitude and a
special hate
for Iran which he
compared
to ISIS . That he will now become Secretary of State is a bad sign for the nuclear agreement with Iran. The Europeans especially
should take note of that and should stop to look for a compromise with Trump on the issue. The deal is now dead. There is
no chance that a compromise will happen.
The new CIA director Gina Haspel is
well
known for actively directing and participating in the torture of prisoners at 'black sites':
Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both
at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated multiple
court orders as well as the demands of the 9/11 commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as "obstruction"
by commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane.
Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing
prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes.
Both, Pompeo and Haspel, will need to be confirmed by Congress. Both will receive a significant number of 'yes'-votes from the
Democratic side of the aisle.
I think last straw to fire him been TRex stance toward russians -give up Crimea and we cease sanction(WHAT A JOKE) same toward
eastern republics of Ukraine LNR,DPR..good move VSGPDJT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both
Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia.
The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...?
Poor Syria. At least one more fierce year of war. But more likely, endless 2,3,4 more years of war.
Israel and US are getting the rebels in Daraa (DEZ #4) primed to start up fighting again. I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians.
(My notes)
Tillerson says:
- got call today, afternoon from president, also spoke to Kelly (implies that this was the firing)
- hopes for smooth transition
- Deputy Sec State Sullivan will be acting Sec State
- Tillerson job officially terminates March 31
to DoD and State:
- bound by office oath, support constitution, ...
- always stay by oath, (sounds crying)
to people in uniform:
- great relationship State DOD - thanks Mattis and Dunford, all soldiers
work review:
- DPRK pressure campaign was success
- Afghanistan commitment also
- Syria, Iraq - work remains
- nothing goes without allies, partner
- work to be done on China and "troubling behavior" of Russia
- predicts more isolation if Russia doesn't knee
- nothing on Iran
Didn't say thank you to Trump. Emphasized oath to constitution, not to president. Nothing on Iran, Saudis or Palestine.
This was a f*** you to the White House and its priorities. The endorsement by name of Mattis and Dunlap makes them targets.
A Professor for political science from the United Arab Emirates just posted this:
"History will record that a GCC country had a role in the sacking of the foreign minister of a great power, and this is only the
beginning of more"
There is one way this could all happen naturally: I think it's possible that the most
idiotic conspiracy theorists are flocking to alternative websites that are dissenting from
The Narrative. The Unz Review (probably also RT and other sites) is an obvious candidate for
such spontaneous activity. But yes, there's a possibility that some conscious effort is made
to make these websites look bad.
One interesting thing I noticed is that some 8-10 years ago I spent a lot of time debating
911 truthers. I found a number of websites dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories. The
strange thing is, just a couple of years ago, I tried to search for some information on 911,
and basically it appeared from Google and YouTube searches as if the debunking (anti-truther)
websites have greatly decreased in visibility. I needed to do targeted searches on them (and
even so, the results always contained a large number of the truther websites or videos) to
find them. I once debated a "moderate" 911 truther guy. He basically believed most of the
official narrative (i.e. that Osama did it), except he thought either that Osama was a CIA
agent or patsy or that at least he was allowed to proceed by TPTB. He thought that the
idiotic conspiracy theories (the "controlled demolition" crowd or the more extreme "the
planes were holograms") were actually spread by the CIA (or some other similar organization)
in order to crowd out the more intelligent questions about the event. Basically, most people
think that either the official narrative is true to a dot or it's a controlled demolition.
Now I happen to more or less believe the official narrative on 911, but it was an interesting
thought, and could be applied to other things.
It is interesting to think about. There are many unknowns. How many people just visit and
read the articles without paying attention to the comments? (Of course we have quite a few
above the fold articles that match or exceed the bizarreness of the comments). I check
several sites and have never even read the comments at most of them. I only read a few of the
contributors at Unz and regularly comment at fewer still. I am impressed by many of the
knowledgeable comments that can be found here. One has to wade through quite a bit of muck to
get to the worthwhile stuff. (I am sure some feel the same about some of my comments,
especially when I am down in the muck wrestling with the pigs.)
Back to the particulars of your comment. Would the CIA be interested in sowing distrust of
alternative media and limiting its distribution and influence? I can see where they would
have an interest. As in, if everyone had complete trust in someone, say like Uncle Walter,
then it would be simple enough to see that Uncle Walter got the material that you wanted him
to have. If we have anarchy in the media and the populace's trust is all over the place then
peddling the influence that you want would be complicated. You couldn't just drop a Tonkin
Gulf incident into the hopper and get the predictable results that you used to be able to get
with minimal effort.
Just in case they have their eye on you and your interlocutors, I'm putting my hat back
on.
Read "Solving 911″ by Christopher Bollyn. It gives very good details and names about
the who and why of 911. Buildings falling in their footprints, thin skinned passenger planes
going through thick steel framed towers (3 of them), passport of "hijacker" in the dust --
obviously we are not getting the full picture in our MSM.
"... He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests. ..."
"... Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. ..."
Pompeo graduated from both the United States Military Academy at West Point and Harvard and served three terms as a representative
for Kansas's fourth district. As a member of the House select committee on intelligence, he was an aggressive critic of
US foreign policy under the Obama administration,
particularly regarding the nuclear deal with Iran.
... ... ...
He has
cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested
in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based
conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by
liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests.
Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
... ... ...
He has, however, diverged from Trump on Russia. In his confirmation hearing, he appeared to share with CIA staff an adversarial
view of Russia and Vladimir Putin.
The Senate approved his nomination 66-32.
The Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, who voted to confirm Pompeo, said in a statement on Tuesday: "If he's confirmed [as
secretary of state] we hope that Mr Pompeo will turn over a new leaf and will start toughening up our policies towards Russia and
Putin."
Sanctions on Russia are being ignored. China is investing its US Trillions. Under US imposed
sanctions, ExxonMobil withdrew and China said "Thank You" and took the partnership.
Chinese state-controlled Huarong Asset Management has bought a 36.2 percent stake in the unit
of CEFC China Energy through which CEFC is acquiring a $9.1 billion stake in Russian oil
giant Rosneft.
According to CEFC filings seen by Reuters, Huarong has bought the stake in CEFC in two
tranches, one in December and one in February. Huarong is controlled by China's Ministry of
Finance.
In September, CEFC Energy announced plans to acquire 14.16 percent of Rosneft shares from
Glencore and the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA).
"The final structure of Rosneft's shareholders has been formed," Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin
told Rossiya 24 television.
As part of a long-term agreement, Rosneft and CEFC Energy inked a deal on crude oil
deliveries in 2017. According to the agreement, the Russian oil major will supply CEFC with
60.8 million tons of oil annually until 2023.
The agreement covers the development of exploration and production projects in Siberia.
The two companies plan to cooperate in refining, petrochemicals and crude trading.
Could Tillerson dismissal be related to:
"@realDonaldTrump son-in-law Jared #Kushner told Trump to back the #Saudi/#UAE blockade on
#Qatar after Qatar refused to invest in Kushner's indebted property at 666 Fifth Avenue in
New York City."
When this blockade happened, Tillerson supported Qatar and clashed with Kushner. Now that
Kushner's loan issue is public, could Trump be lashing out at Tillerson, could someone at
State have publicized the loan?
Posted by: likklemore | Mar 13, 2018 7:48:34 PM | 69
" Betcha Rex is so so sorry he went to D.C. "
Nah I wouldn't be fretting 'bout l'il rexie; these 1%ers don't make a move unless they
know there is gonna be a top earner or 57 in it for themselves.
I have no doubt tillerson pulled off a mob of smart (for himself n maybe exxonMobil) deals
whilst SecState. That is what 'these people' do.
Tillerson is more than enough evidence for the premise that the first move of any truly
revolutionary political movement must be to put the entire elite up against a wall and shoot
them.
For, as debilitating as such a move can be for the moral hygiene of a revolution, history
has taught us that allowing sociopathic scum such as he to keep breathing, ultimately costs
the lives of millions of ordinary decent, non-sociopathic humans. Sad but true.
"All my life I have been fighting against the spirit of narrowness and violence,
arrogance, intolerance in its absolute, merciless consistency. I have also worked to
overcome this spirit with its evil consequences, such as nationalism in excess, racial
persecution, and materialism. In regards to this, the National Socialists are correct in
killing me.
I have striven to make its consequences milder for its victims and to prepare the way for
a change. In that, my conscience drove me – and in the end, that is a man's duty."
Helmuth James Graf von Moltke,
Executed in Plötzensee Prison on 23 January 1945
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to
speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
Executed in Flossenbürg Camp on 9 April 1945
As journalist activist Carl von Ossietzky put it, 'we cannot hope to affect the conscience of
the world when our own conscience is asleep.'
Heroic virtue shines across the vast seas of history like beacons to those in the troubled
waters of general deception.
"... He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests. ..."
"... Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. ..."
Pompeo graduated from both the United States Military Academy at West Point and Harvard and served three terms as a representative
for Kansas's fourth district. As a member of the House select committee on intelligence, he was an aggressive critic of
US foreign policy under the Obama administration,
particularly regarding the nuclear deal with Iran.
... ... ...
He has
cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested
in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based
conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by
liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests.
Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
... ... ...
He has, however, diverged from Trump on Russia. In his confirmation hearing, he appeared to share with CIA staff an adversarial
view of Russia and Vladimir Putin.
The Senate approved his nomination 66-32.
The Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, who voted to confirm Pompeo, said in a statement on Tuesday: "If he's confirmed [as
secretary of state] we hope that Mr Pompeo will turn over a new leaf and will start toughening up our policies towards Russia and
Putin."
There's some speculation, based on the timing and the targeting, that the recent Russian
cruise missile attacks in Idlib may have targeted US SOF in retaliation for Deir Ezzor and
northern Hama. The US couldn't respond because to do so would be an admission that SOF are
working with HTS and HTS-supporting groups.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out. This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare' activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force -- such as conventional war or hybrid warfare. ..."
"... There's some speculation, based on the timing and the targeting, that the recent Russian cruise missile attacks in Idlib may have targeted US SOF in retaliation for Deir Ezzor and northern Hama. The US couldn't respond because to do so would be an admission that SOF are working with HTS and HTS-supporting groups. ..."
Russia defends the JCPOA but Israel and USA wants to renege on it. Russia agreed to
General Soleiman's request to provide support for Syria. Russia and Iran are under economic
sanctions from you know who and barter oil and gas in non dollar trade. Russia nixed
Netanyahoo's request to keep Iran and PMUs or Hezbollah out of Quneitra. But according to you
Russia is big bad wolf and Iran is sheep.
The skin is quite real. Russia is learning lessons and prefer to fight enemies as far as
possible before they attack or destabilize Russia proper. This whole article and stand off
weapons is about Russia trying to fight enemies from a far and preventing threats from
materializing destroying them before too late.
All the talk of technical specs and capabilities of the various weapons systems are above my
pay grade, but my worst fears have been realized and it seems the U.S. and Israel are trying
to provoke Russia into a reaction that will justify wider war for the purpose of "securing
the realm". Things in Syria were not to Israel's liking and Syria will not be bifurcated nor
does it appear that a puppet leader subservient to America and Israel will supplant Assad.
This is probably why Israel attacked a Hezbollah position recently so they could stir
things up a bit and try to regain some momentum towards their ultimate objective. Israel
knows it can start another military conflagration then quietly exit the scene with little
cost to itself while their American vassal will take over and do the rest. And if America
doesn't take the bait then Izzy's innumerable agents in the media and Congress will scream
anti-semitism and moan about how the president has turned his back on our greatest ally in
the region until the desired outcome is achieved.
Agree. In the long run the best thing for Iran is to stop its military involvement in
Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; and limit its relations to culture and economy. Iranian military
coming into battle with American forces in these countries is no good for Iran. Furthermore,
eventually Iraqis and Syrians will rebel against Iranian domination of their countries
despite their religious affinities to Iran. That is the nature of the nation state. Iranians
should be smart enough to understand this. It is a question of when to begin the
withdrawal.
" the Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both
nations will be destroyed ."
You nailed it that is the plan! Stack up the best and brightest of the Caucasian males
against each other, Nato vs. Russia , with modern weapons they will most effectively wipe out
each other.They are the only ones who can hinder the plan of NWO. , so they have to be
discarded. the remaining goyims will be forcefully crossbred , and microchiped , hence NWO.
Nirvana for some lunatics , humanity for none.
Ok, what you say is true -- there has been no proof of S400 capabilities. This may be:
A) because Russia did not want to reveal its capabilities in the heavily monitored Syrian
military theater, to avoid giving US and Israel a chance to develop counter measures
B) because they could not find a volunteer, such as you, till now who is willing to verify
how poor the performance of S400 is by flying a military plane into its defensive zone.
Perhaps, the Russians also wanted to know how effective S400 would be in detecting F22
Raptors flying from Incirlik. Smaller Radar Cross Section typically means only detection at a
reduced distance, not invisibility as the US MIC marketing says. This could have been an even
more important task, relevant to the whole of mother Russia, than defending the Russian
contingent in Syria.
It depends on your war scenario. A US carrier hit by Iran might make its way home and be
repaired. That was how the US Navy operated in WW2 before armored flight decks. Interestingly
the British carriers operating off Okinawa absorbed kamikazi attacks and stayed on station
while the wooden flight decks on American carriers were not so robust.
Today in a major war I tend to believe you go to war with what you have on day one and who
can hit hardest in the first few days will prevail. There will be no time to move factories
beyond the Urals or create an 'Arsenal of Democracy' out of range of enemy attack. In that
scenario a carrier becomes, like everything else, an expendable platform.
One of the parties involved gotta be sane to avoid really bad things happening. It is
Russia. You have to have similar historical experience and cultural background to understand
and appreciate wisdom and restrain. Otherwise we all would have been like chimps throwing
crap at each other at smallest cause, except we can throw a lot more dangerous things than
doing.
the American brand is just more attractive. Sorry, comrades.
When go for it. You leaders, however, appear to be smarter and understand better what
usually happens to the ones choosing such "attractive brand".
A strong and independent Iran is completely unpalatable to Russia. Why do you think
Russia is in Syria? Because an Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would undermine Russian
energy hegemony over Europe.
Of course. And that is precisely why Russia was instrumental in pushing that Iranian
agreement through, the agreement that would lift the Iranian sanctions and allow Iran to sell
its oil again. BTW your "attractive brand" people are trying their damnedest to renege on
that deal.
Why does nutty yahoo fly to Moscow with meetings with Putin? Because they need to
communicate securely.
If you mean Netanyahu, then of course he did want to meet in secret, because he tried to
convince Putin to boot Iran out of Syria. Israel is getting positively hysterical about the
Iranian presence in Syria. Iran, in case you haven't noticed, has not just the US but also
Israel as its enemy. Putin, however, sent Netanyahu on his way. Russia maintains reasonably
friendly relations with Israel but not about to let Israel dictate its actions.
Its now standard on the PLAN 052D and coordinated with their versions of AEGIS. The world
doesn't stop developing weapons just because the US has gone dumb, you know.
I believe that an old saying with regards to Russian forces is that they are slow to
saddle up but they ride very fast. This is advice to take to heart based on historical events
alone.
Agree. Don't know for sure, but having operated in that military-legislative influence
sphere for a time, I'd almost guarantee that this $700B defense increase was driven by the
"surprise" effectiveness of Russian weapons systems. I'd bet that it's almost exclusively an
RDTE increase on top of the ongoing O&M war fighting (re: imperial) budget structure of
the last 15 years. It's been zero sum between those two categories, but I suspect now that's
no longer the case.
Tomahawk is a dog slow museum piece. There is strong evidence that the Russians 'splashed'
the first batch of Tomahawks fired at the Syrian airbase and that is why they had to fire a
second batch. I think Russia 'EW' capabilities are not fully known and understood.
I don't think I would want to be on any US naval assets and have to try and shoot down
multiple missiles. As one strategist commented – there are targets and there are subs.
The article did not mention that these missiles can be launched in a number of ways –
from land, sea, under the sea and from the air and outside the defensive capabilities of the
intended targets.
How ironic. Meanwhile looks like that it has been working just fine for Rusian side which
deployed miniscule resources in the region. The thing is that outcome pretty much confirms
who is right and who is wrong. There is also no need to make rush moves at the moment. Things
are going in right direction. It is not dick swinging contest if you have not noticed.
They're both 800 lb gorillas, the only difference is the Russian gorilla is fluent in six
languages and reads Tolstoy and Pushkin while the American gorilla has type 2 diabetes, a
sixth grade education and spends its day jerking off to internet porn.
Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of
using force intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost
completely ruled out. This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition
within this military that better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of
non-violent 'asymmetric warfare' activities rather than those which will or can involve the
use of force -- such as conventional war or hybrid warfare.
Asymmetric warfare, of course, and in a nutshell, is a method of warfare employed by the
weak against the strong where the former seeks to level the battlefield with the latter.
The weaker party, using its own relative advantages, attempts to turn the strengths of its
opponent into vulnerabilities, which can then be exploited. The means used are ones which,
in essence, cannot be used in return -- reciprocated -- by the target ('asymmetrical' means
that which cannot be mirror-imaged). Fundamentally, asymmetric warfare is all about
activity that, rather than bludgeoning a target into strategic, operational and tactical
defeats, actually manipulates it into them. And it is all done, ideally, with no use of
force. As Sun Tzu, the 'father' of asymmetric thinking, told us, the acme of skill in the
conduct of warfare is to defeat the adversary without the use of any force. See, for
instance my book titled Asymmetric Warfare: Threat and Response in the 21st Century.
[...]
Other articles present similar arguments for the use of asymmetric warfare by the
Russian military. The overall message for this military, and as the influential military
newspaper Red Star (Krasnaya Zvezda) summed up last year, is that when it comes to the
conduct of warfare in the current era, 'The main emphasis must be placed on asymmetrical
means and methods'.
The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees of destabilisation
(destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted states (e.g.
NATO, EU). A target that is destabilised (in whatever sense) is one that, in Russian
military thinking, is more susceptible to Russian leverage, i.e. it can be manipulated more
easily.[...]
Conventional military assets are still needed, of course. But these days they may be
seen to be acting in a supporting role for the asymmetric warfare campaign against NATO
interests. Their outwardly sabre-rattling movements, deployments and activities are seen as
means of creating 'indirect leverage' that can, in turn, manipulate western actors into
making counter moves that actually suit Moscow's purposes.
The Russian military is now also employing asymmetric warfare methods that these western
actors find very difficult to retaliate against on a like-for-like basis -- reciprocity is
largely denied. Russian democracy has become very much a 'managed' one and this closes down
many avenues of retaliation. Russia is also not open to cyber attack in the same way that
western states are and defences in the country are more pronounced.
The Russian military can and is using non-violent asymmetric means to considerable
strategic advantage against NATO. They are, wherever one looks, destabilising and
manipulating to good effect. Given this continuing situation and the strategic results that
are patently being produced in NATO countries, why would the Russian military need to
consider the conventional use of force? What utility does it have?
No. You're thinking about the former Soviet Union. Russia is not the same thing. Also no,
the USA military exists for no other purpose than profit making. It is the most corrupt on
earth by its definition. The pentagon pays thousands of dollars for a bolt which exists with
the same part number in a GM catalogue for less than ten dollars. That was years old but
typical of the utter joke the US military is. Did we forget the 6 trillion dollars the
Pentagon lost the day before 9/11 in 2001? Or the more recent announcement of a similar
amount LOST? Nobody else even has a budget the size of the missing money in the US one.
Russia is very corrupt in some ways -- but it has cleaned up on the military side.
Remember that the US is only less corrupt because we define lobbying to be legal.
It's excellent propaganda and a great movie about the early Soviet Program. Actually a
better space themed movie since I don't know when, maybe since Appolo 13. Which ironically is
the American version.
There's an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian
capabilities in terms of high tech weapons.
There could be books written about the complete failure of the US to foresee Russia's
achievement of parity+ with the West in advanced weaponry. The Donald Cook incident in 2014
gave a shock about Russian EW capabilities on the order of the shock the U2 incident gave
about Soviet air defense capabilities. Something quietly queered the TLAM attack on the
Syrian airbase earlier this year. The image that the US kept of Russia was left over from the
1980s, that the Soviet Army was a mighty but unwieldy big iron force with plenty of firepower
but wanting in capabilities related to advanced technology. During the first Chechen War in
1996, the Russian Army was referred to in US media as a "glorified Third World army." That's
an exact quote. The performance of Soviet-designed aerial weaponry, largely during the
mideast wars of 1973 to 1982, gave a distinct impression of a disadvantage related to
avionics. But that may have been misleading, as the performance of export aircraft could have
been inferior to that of the home fleet. Either the US estimate of Soviet technology in the
1980s was way off or post-Soviet Russia developed advanced technology at a remarkable pace,
even more so since it occurred during such chaotic times.
There's some speculation, based on the timing and the targeting, that the recent
Russian cruise missile attacks in Idlib may have targeted US SOF in retaliation for Deir
Ezzor and northern Hama. The US couldn't respond because to do so would be an admission that
SOF are working with HTS and HTS-supporting groups.
No doubt much more still hidden in the terrorist enclaves given that the US/UK/France seem
willing to attack Russian forces to ensure east Ghouta remains out of the Syrian governments
hands
"... You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and Hezzbollah. ..."
"... For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew ..."
"... They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways ..."
"... But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime. ..."
"... The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US's general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region. ..."
"... After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. ..."
"... Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. ..."
"... In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a "Bush Doctrine" preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. ..."
"... The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that's not as reassuring as it ought to be. ..."
"... If Russia can stabilize the region on the helm of a coalition of Iran-Iraq-semiTurkey (bc. you never know what the turk will do) it would achieve a massive win in the trade war against the petrodollar (Meanwhile China is making moves in Africa to secure the pipelines) ..."
"... Rather than a direct attack on Russian forces, it is more probable that the US will resort to sneaky backstabbings, with deniability potential. Direct attacks on the Syrian army could escalate, on the other hand. ..."
"... As per neocons–these are exact people who set foreign policies in D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. ..."
"... For people who think that the history of Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagan's version) has any relevance to the age of GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons–these people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist. ..."
"... The neocons are a problem. I think they've largely been kept in check by calmer heads in the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims using the Company and its assets. ..."
"... The Zionist neocons who control the U.S. are used to invading and destroying small countries with no regard for international law and killing millions of civilians including men , women and children, this is what the Zionist neocons do or rather this is what they make the American military do. ..."
"... The Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both nations will be destroyed and fools like col. ralph peters are typical of the toy officer contingent that is harbored in the military, and who are puppets of Israel. ..."
"... My top of the envelope estimate is that Russia spends its military budget about five times more efficiently than US, and about three times more efficiently than the EU/NATO allies of US. China is very similar, possibly even slightly more efficient than Russia. BTW, this efficiency is only partly due to lower labor costs, but this is a discussion which I had with Andrei before. ..."
"... Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live. ..."
"... In case you haven't noticed the author isn't talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran. ..."
"... The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host. ..."
You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the
Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained,
battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and
Hezzbollah.
For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon
Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once
again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew, and actions
like the Iraq War, a neocon feast of overconfidence and bluster, ended up strengthening the
true resistance, the true danger to their regional hegemonic plans.
They doubled down, as
psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger
and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways.
The resistance has
now become The Resistance, and with America's continuing belligerence pushing Russia and
China ever closer, we will soon be calling it THE RESISTANCE.
So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?
OK let's look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the
realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the
decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men
in an overtly military regime.
The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably
listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly
motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and
destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US's general
escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to
the region.
After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria,
involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of
the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that
effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity.
They
would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be
launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases
unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would
have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less
effective.
What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to
escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks
on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to
a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia
(eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic
capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.
Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really
knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on
Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective
destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would
now seem rather a sideshow.
And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and
not to the advantage of the US's interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and
perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full
scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without
significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.
While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term
outcome? Imo that depends on the political context – is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut
bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a "Bush Doctrine"
preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly
saw as an existential threat from a rival.
The result was that although they did considerable
military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which
the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a
total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a
Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of "peacekeeping", and their enemies
struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in
theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and
occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US
military forces from Lebanon.
In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive
loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered,
substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be
rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a
long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open
war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US
have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of
succeeding?
Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime
itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian
response?
Much depends on propaganda – does the US regime and its various collaborating elites
still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the
necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is
how they try to would portray it – the Americans have demonstrated over the years a
shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of
retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also
would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took
place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations,
etc).
In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in
Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.
So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or
political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in
Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to
occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive
military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the
reality that even if the US's European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in
such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of
Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much
more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.
The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly
stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that's not as reassuring
as it ought to be.
Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well .fine. I just don't see
it.
TBH i don't realistically see it either, but if you think about it, it's kind of a win win
situation for them anyways. My thinking goes like this (correct me pls if I am off)
If Russia can stabilize the region on the helm of a coalition of Iran-Iraq-semiTurkey (bc.
you never know what the turk will do) it would achieve a massive win in the trade war against
the petrodollar (Meanwhile China is making moves in Africa to secure the pipelines)
If Russia fails to stabilize the region, it would mean rising oil prices, which again, is
free money for them in the medium term.
Rather than a direct attack on Russian forces, it is more probable that the US will resort to
sneaky backstabbings, with deniability potential. Direct attacks on the Syrian army could
escalate, on the other hand.
but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes
anything he says seriously.
Here is the problem, Peters is not alone, in fact, a lot of his hysteria is echoed by such
people as former SACEUR Phil Breedlove, today it is Dunford etc.
Another matter, because
those are still uniformed (or were recently) it is really bad idea to behave as psychopaths
as Peters but all of them read from the same script, just the method of delivery differs,
slightly at that.
As per neocons–these are exact people who set foreign policies in
D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their
backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. So I would dispute this thesis of
yours. Militarily all neocons are dumb. For people who think that the history of
Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagan's version) has any relevance to the age of
GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons–these
people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist.
for the Rah-Rah crowd
So, we agree–it is 99% of American military, political and, so called, intellectual
elite, right?
At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to
me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering
any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.
Clearly it made no sense in a tactical military sense to use cruise missiles when
straightforward air attack was available, and the use of the Kalibrs in October 2015 was
certainly motivated as a demonstration of capability. To what degree it was a warning to
potential enemies (the US regime, Israel and the Gulf states, obviously, but also remember at
the time still Turkey, though that brief hostility seems to have been managed out of
existence, helped by the US turning to the Kurds as their proxies in Syria, since then), as
opposed to a marketing pitch (
the Russians have been selling export versions of these missiles for many years ) is open
to question – probably both.
The issue is not so much the possession of cruise missiles – the Soviets had
nuclear armed Tomahawk
equivalents back in the 1980s, and it's always been assumed that those (the air and sea
launched ones, anyway) were repurposed as conventionally armed missiles. It's having them,
along with deployable launchers, in numbers and proving that they work reliably that was the
issue. There's an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian
capabilities in terms of high tech weapons. And in order to use cruise missiles in the way
Martyanov describes here – basically as a base-denial weapon against a peer rival
– you need plenty of them. To hit a US base and render it unusable with conventionally
armed weapons, you have to hit it accurately and you have to hit it multiple times, evading
or overloading the defences and counter-measures. To take out a carrier, you have to locate
the target first, and then beat the counter-measures to hit it at least once and preferably
several times, though one hit could be a mission kill. And in the case of the land base, you
have to be able to do it again a few days later, and keep hitting it.
So the Russians, with their repeated uses of cruise missiles and the introduction of more
modern and potentially significantly more capable missiles that Martyanov refers to, have
been building a credible case that the US can no longer count on escalation superiority in
Syria to protect them.
Now I see how shooting from Iranian airspace increases salvo. missiles with shorter range can
be used which could not have been used from Russian airspace. Now the logic behind longer
range missiles is also clear to avoid being dependent on allies too. Those are not
reliable.
One can only say in retrospective that were it not for what happened in 90s soviet/ Russian
stand off capabilities would be absolutely crushing strong long time ago. Now, combined with
EW capabilities, air defences and fast moving hard hitting land forces all this United by
computerized control it must be something.
There are reasons why Breedlove was pushed out. I've been out of the "war" for a couple
decades, so my confidence that there are saner heads where it counts might be misplaced.
I wouldn't say 99%, but the number is non-trivial, and that is alarming. Peters is aimed
at the folks who buy the medicines and other crap hawked on Fox. It helps sell his fiction to
people who used to read Tom Clancy but now have to take a step down. If he were taken
seriously, he'd be doing more appearances on the Sunday shows.
Stoltenberg's militancy is distressing, but I again hope his masters have him on a short
leash, meaning he will bark but he won't bite.
The neocons are a problem. I think they've largely been kept in check by calmer heads in
the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons
want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims
using the Company and its assets.
DoD has undoubtedly seen and assessed the standoff capability of the Russians, which is
why their involvement has been somewhat muted, but yeah, there are some rabid types down the
chain who are itching to try their toys on the only real adversaries we have in the world,
and given the independence we often give field commanders, they can get us in trouble.
Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn't sound
like rocket science.
Even if the Soviet Union didn't have advanced land-attack cruise missiles in the 80s, it
should still have been obvious to anyone that their anti-ship missiles could be developed
into land attack missiles.
We're really just talking about a different guidance package, and depending on the sensors
involved that can be as simple as a software change. GLONASS began to enter service in 1982,
and the first test of a satellite guided bomb was conducted in 1993. Any idiot should've been
able to put two and two together here, and at least some Western writers have been warning
about increasingly sophisticated Russian weapons for more than a decade.
Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch
is certainly yes (and the future obsolescence of surface warships was predicted already
before the war), but this is one of those things we won't truly know until we see it
done.
For that matter I'm not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare
presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and
overwhelm defenses. If none of the of the ships in the task force have low frequency radars,
stealth aircraft could drop laser guided bombs right down the blind stack directly on top of
warships. A 2,000 pound high explosive bomb would sink more or less any warship afloat today.
The Australian theorist Carlo Kopp proposed this for the F-22 as part of his pet cause to get
his country to acquire F-22s.
It has long struck me as idiotic that modern surface warships are largely unarmored, and I
also find it curious how few CIWS Western warships have compared to Russian ones.
The Zionist neocons who control the U.S. are used to invading and destroying small countries
with no regard for international law and killing millions of civilians including men , women
and children, this is what the Zionist neocons do or rather this is what they make the
American military do.
America is run by a Zionist crime cabal that operates much as Hitler and the Nazis did
with no regard for life or limb, ie a rogue nation that creates terror groups such as ISIS
and AL CIADA that it uses to wreck countries and pretends to fight this self created
terror.
The Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both
nations will be destroyed and fools like col. ralph peters are typical of the toy officer
contingent that is harbored in the military, and who are puppets of Israel.
The real GORILLA is the Zionists and Israel who have driven American foreign policy for
decades and who are going to destroy America as just as a parasite destroys its host so shall
Zionist Israel destroy America.
The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of
America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any
military expertise these days.
Two separate illusions are to blame for not understanding the foreign, or particularly
Russian military capability:
1) the US population in general has been brainwashed that US is the technologically the most
advanced country in the World; this may be true in many areas but it is far from being true
in all areas, and
2) the US population and its leaders believe that military superiority, especially the one
based on technology, is proportional to the budget, which is totally non-sensual; it may be
true within US, although the mergers of the MIC companies have reduced the competition to
only a few, but it definitely does not apply even to the comparison with the efficiency of
spending military funds even by Western allies of US, let alone to Russia and China.
My top of the envelope estimate is that Russia spends its military budget about five times
more efficiently than US, and about three times more efficiently than the EU/NATO allies of
US. China is very similar, possibly even slightly more efficient than Russia. BTW, this
efficiency is only partly due to lower labor costs, but this is a discussion which I had with
Andrei before.
And hopefully will not be done in the future–let's keep our fingers crossed.
An admirable sentiment, or outcome of rational, moral principle.
Maybe the wisest statement in this whole OP + comment thread. If grown-ups are in charge in Russia, China and then U.S., then it is the case for all
three that:
1. Their foreign and military policies are intended to advance, sometimes forcefully,
their national interests
2. Their military, forceful, national interest is defined as being sufficiently powerful to
deter one another from the use of force specifically with the intention of preventing an
outcome from ever happening where one or the other is in open conflict
3. Because, open conflict with one or another is an outcome that's wholly incompatible with
#1
Sooooooo many words people toss about finding n-more ways to peal the onion of
US/Russia/China power, but really just two things that matter:
1. The US is always paying too much for its military, regardless of what it gets for what
it paid
2. The most worrisome thing on the world stage is a US leader or person in the US
decision-making chain of command, losing his cool , and acting rashly, out of
irrational fear that US dominance is threatened or the infantile possession of a belief that
US dominance means dominance over near-peer partnersaries
In any case – if the US blanketed Russian military positions in Syria:
A. Definite outcome – somewhere on the planet Russia would face-savingly even the
score by sinking (or otherwise destroying) a carrier yes they are difficult to sink but a
Syria debacle would create a will for a partnersary with ways
B. Unclear outcome – whether it would stop there
Because of B, this must never happen. Let's hope to God our leaders understand that.
It all comes down to the nuclear deterrence which mask the actual level of imbalance in
conventional weapons between Russia and the US. Neither Russia nor the US may demonstrate
conventional weapons advantage in an actual exchange to prevent the opponent from being
forced to resorting to the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the Saving Face Exit Option (SFEO)
will be always left by the stronger one for the weaker one. This means that we will not find
out about the actual conventional strike and counter strike capabilities. It will be left to
speculations, phantasies, disinformation and propaganda.
{ but that's only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.}
Who would seriously oppose Russia?
How?
I think it was either [TheSaker] or [Karlin] who noted that both NATO and/or Israel can
bring to bear assets at least 10X what Russia has in Syria.
But obviously something gives NATO/US and/or Israel 2nd thoughts.
I have no idea what it is, but the reason there is no interference with Russia is not because
NATO/US/Israel are charitably disposed towards Russia.
Clearly they are concerned (or worried) about something.
The pending defeat of the Reptiles in Syria is a BIG deal.
It throws of giant monkey wrench in the PINAC plan to redraw the Middle East for Eretz
Yisrael. Short of directly attacking Russia – with unpredictable consequences – they tried
pretty much everything:.
- Chemical attack and mass murder of Syrian civilians by Turks and ISIS ( blamed on
Assad).
- Shootdown of RuAF Su-24 by Turkey/NATO.
- Several attacks on SAA by US either by 'mistake' or directly.
- Blatant violation of Syrian airspace by NATO pirates.
Despite all that, SAA+Russia+Iran+Hezbollah are relentlessly grinding down the
cannibalistic invaders. Israel-firsters and anti-American slime who have invested the State
dept, Pentagon, and CIA are apoplectic.
But clearly they don't know what to do.
Otherwise, they would have done it already.
They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the
resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly
of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance
Indeed. Relatively unknown (at the time) Hezbollah, who in 2006 put a royal shellacking on
Israel, has not only survived, but emerged many magnitudes stronger and more confident than
anyone could have ever imagined.
There were boots a plenty on the ground in Vietnam – and how did that one end? In
case you missed Vietnam, Iraq has had plenty of boots on the ground as well; this one hasn't
still officially ended but has not been going well, not well at all. And Afghanistan. And
Korea in the fifties.
As to Russia not having been seriously opposed in Syria: well, short of all-out war with
Russia what else could have been done? If we try to understand the real game being played, we
would be very concerned. From a Machiavellian perspective, the US strategy has been
succeeding brilliantly. Boots on the ground did not succeed in Vietnam, but the Machiavellian
plan certainly did. Allow me to elaborate a little below.
Let us stop this knee-jerk, rah-rah rooting for the home team and try to think coolly. The
first thing that comes to mind is that there isn't really any home team. This whole ball-game
is not about wining once and for all, it is about keeping these crises going – all the
time, everywhere. Russia is also learning how to play this game: after all, it, too, has to
put on a game for its citizens lest they start getting all sorts of wrong ideas. So the
powers that be collude, and keep these fires smouldering so that they can continue to collect
protection fees from their respective citizens and client states.
Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who
want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others
live.
During congressional hearings in the 1970s, Admiral Hyman Rickover considered aircraft
carriers as being obsolete targets. It's more than obvious to any reader of this forum why
they continue being produced.
the uproar in Iran regarding the decision to let Russian planes use an Iranian
airbase
There is always somebody in any country who'd create an uproar whether it is in the
interests of the country or not.
In case you haven't noticed the author isn't talking about Russia dictating the
defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western
aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards
Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand,
which is not at all certain about Iran.
It is not in Iran's interest to have Russia use Iran as a forward base. Dream on, and
quit hitting that vodka bottle.
By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn't using Iran as a forward base but, on the
contrary, signaling that Iran isn't alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case
you haven't figured that out yet.
If you guys want to dwell on the past insults, real or perceived, go right ahead, but
remember – this is a loosing proposition unless, of course, you possess a time
machine.
If you think Iran'd be better off allied with the US – who is stopping you?
Our military record is not so great.
Russia, on the other hand, has held its lands for a millennia.
The only war we (the USA) have truly won since the War of 1812 was the Pacific Theater of
WWII. Everything else was done by others (WWII European Theater was mostly Russian work), or a
miserable stand-off (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) or a totally unnecessary fiasco (War
Between The States, WWI, Iraq ) such that "winning" was no benefit to the "victor".
You might say the Mexican War gave us some good territory but the Mexicans are winning
their Reconquista invasions while we sleep and dilly dally.
The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore
uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent
killers of their host.
Neocons are like clogged arteries – you know they will be a problem but failing to
comprehend the danger, that heart attack can occur most unexpectedly, killing the host.
You know you need to clean the crud out of those clogged arteries but you just don't do
what is needed to clean out and become safe.
Even if Russia were militarily the weakest nation on earth, a US attack on the Russians would
still be a colossal mistake.
No American national interests or civilizational interests are advanced by attacking
Russia.
On the contrary, American lives and wealth would be wasted, and America's reputation
tarnished, in a war which would benefit America's real enemies, Sunni jihadists such
as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, while diminishing American export opportunities, providing a pretext
for the ongoing migrant invasion of Europe, and ethnically cleansing Middle Eastern
Christians.
"... At the same time Russia has made it clear that they will fight to protect their ally and interests in Syria. They have been quite plain spoken about that and they included both US aircraft and ships in the threat. I note that the Admiral Essen, a Russian missile shooting frigate sortied from Sebastopol today. ..."
"... How long until Mattis is shown the door? ..."
"... Russia is another ball game altogether and as much as I'd like to see Trump and the US come out on top he's way out of league in this and the heavy pro Israel leaning is going to be trouble. ..."
"... Hopefully some smarter and cooler headed diplomats will keep things on an even keel ..."
"... How will he get along with Nikki, since in the past he has called a Punjabi-American a 'turban topper'? ..."
"... Pompeo's close relationship with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -- a louder bunch of war mongers you would have a hard time finding -- makes the danger that much more palpable, I think. ..."
"... rkka , 13 March 2018 at 03:41 PM ..."
"... I have noted the smell of gunpowder in the air since the Kiev coup, though it is almost unbearably intense now ..."
"... Yes I remember Al Qaida. That several consecutive US administrations decided to threaten Russia in order to protect these terrorists was one of the reasons why I lost my trust in the US government and their political appendices here in Europe. ..."
"... Will CNN praise Trump for his new appointments, just like they praised the US cruise missile attacks on Syria in April 2017 after the alleged chemical attack on Khan Shaykhun? ..."
"... Just my view on things but something is just so very wrong in this country. ..."
"... In 2005 Satterfield was named as having provided classified information to an official of the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC. According to documents, Satterfield had discussed secret national security matters in at least two meetings with AIPAC official Steven J. Rosen, who was subsequently indicted by the U.S. Justice Department (later quashed over the objections of the FBI ..."
"... As for Israel, they should be aware that if this ends up in a US vs Russia WW3, they will be wiped out - if not nuked by Russia, others will seize the opportunity offered by such chaos. There's simply no way that they're coming out of this war in a comparatively better situation, compared to the sorry state of other Western countries, than they are now - they'll be hit just as badly, and probably worse than some. ..."
"... If the US strikes Syria, Russia has to choose whether to let it pass (as it did Trump's previous crime) or to respond. If the US misjudges the scale of its attack and Russia responds with actions that kill US military personnel, then the US regime faces the same choice, and open war is an easy outcome. On each occasion, there is a clear cost to not retaliating, and a psychological inclination not to just turn the other cheek. This is a profoundly dangerous situation, and parallels with 1914 are absolutely not out of place. ..."
"... I believe we would have been here a year ago if Clinton had won the presidency. Trump gave hope that it could be avoided, but it seems that hope was vain, whether because Trump lied or because he has been putty in the hands of the usual suspects around the US regime. ..."
"... Let's be absolutely clear here, though - the US is wholly the party at fault here in creating this situation. Syria is a longstanding Russian/Soviet ally and it is the US regime's determination to overthrow the Syrian government that is creating the danger we now face. Granted, after that you can look at other parties involved in "influencing" the US regime towards war in Syria for their own self-serving ulterior motives, but in the end the US government and nation must be held responsible for its own choices and for allowing itself to be "influenced" ..."
"... I think Putin made his point(s) crystal clear on March 1st. Continually poking the bear only ends one way. What might the neocon/Trump reaction be to a carrier being taken out? Or closing of the Straits by air/sea denial? ..."
"... I do not wish to have either of these questions answered in any reality - simply because our government has come to believe they are invincible, and apparently, our military as well. ..."
"... The Russians seem sure the attack will be on Damascus, in response to an imagined gas attack in East Ghouta. So probably air launched cruise missiles. ..."
"... My black swan is Russian air defense knocking down a couple US strike a/c. In 1914, starting with Austro Hungary, everyone (Rus, Ger, Fra) then reacted instead of looking at how bad it could get. The Brits were the last in, reluctantly. Brit FM Grey said "The lights are going out in Europe, I don't know when we shall see them lit again". ..."
"... meanwhile, may and the uk want to frame russia without proof... this is a reoccurring theme, whether it is from the usa, uk or whoever.. it gets very tiring and not very believable or trustworthy.. ..."
At the UN Nikki Haley has now specifically threatened Syria and Russia with attack if the
Syrian government does not halt its offensive in East Gouta and the Yarmouk camp. Both are near
Damascus. These two places are mainly defended by jihadis, the largest group of which is Hayat
Tahrir al-Sham (HTS, the Al-Qa'ida branch in Syria. You remember Al Qa'ida. They were the
people who attacked us on 9/11. Her threat is for retaliation for use of chemical weapons
(chlorine)or just plain old "inhuman suffering" inflicted on the "Syrian People."
This does not seem an idle threat given the number of times she has repeated it. Someone is
telling her to say this. She works for State and it probably is not Tillerson telling her to do
this so my guess would be David Satterfield, the Assistant secretary of State for the Near
East. He is someone who now runs with the wolves. That is how he got the job.
At the same time Russia has made it clear that they will fight to protect their ally and
interests in Syria. They have been quite plain spoken about that and they included both US
aircraft and ships in the threat. I note that the Admiral Essen, a Russian missile shooting
frigate sortied from Sebastopol today.
I think that Pompeo's nomination and his eventual confirmation brings the world closer to a
US-Russia war. If that happens it will be difficult if not impossible to keep the war from
escalating toward the use of nuclear weapons. Israel wants war, a wrecking war with Iran.
Israel wants the US to win that war for Israel. IMO Israel would be wrecked in such a war
whatever the outcome. This is an August, 1914 moment. pl
Yes absolutely an August 1914 moment...
That was my first thought when I heard the news.
I think the tone on the Russian side has also markedly changed recently. They are losing
patience
The No Ko thing was bluff and bluster against a 3rd rate disfunctional regime at the kiddie
end of the statecraft pool.
Russia is another ball game altogether and as much as I'd like to see Trump and the US
come out on top he's way out of league in this and the heavy pro Israel leaning is going to
be trouble.
Hopefully some smarter and cooler headed diplomats will keep things on an even keel.
A pox on both Pompeo and Haley I say. I have never trusted Pompeo. How does a Californian run and win a Congressional election
in Kansas? Carpetbagger? Plus he got his Doctorate of Law degree from Harvard, which is
another strike against him IMO.
How will he get along with Nikki, since in the past he has
called a Punjabi-American a 'turban topper'? And I note that Nikki had a brother who served
in Desert Storm while Pompeo reportedly sat it out.
I don't know anything about Satterfield. But I thought that Haley's job as United States
Ambassador to the United Nations was a Cabinet level post and that she worked directly for
the White House and not for the State Department. When did that change?
Pompeo's close relationship with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -- a
louder bunch of war mongers you would have a hard time finding -- makes the danger that much
more palpable, I think.
With what has been occurring recently in Syria, now may make or break time for the US. If it
loses to Russia in Syria/Iraq, US would most likely start losing in many places.
Yes I remember Al Qaida. That several consecutive US administrations decided to threaten
Russia in order to protect these terrorists was one of the reasons why I lost my trust in the
US government and their political appendices here in Europe.
Will CNN praise Trump for his new appointments, just like they praised the US cruise
missile attacks on Syria in April 2017 after the alleged chemical attack on Khan
Shaykhun?
Reminds me of a murder that happened near Charlottesville some years back. Two middle aged
brothers who shared a home in the country got into an argument over the use of the air
conditioner and one shot the other. Afterwards he was grief stricken and couldn't believe
what he'd done. Alcohol was involved. So the thing was tragic and the more so because it was
quite unnecessary.
Just my view on things but something is just so very wrong in this country. Yeah,
this has been par for the course for so long that i am used to it but who the hell is in
charge and what is the agenda?
" In 2005 Satterfield was named as having provided classified information to an
official of the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC. According to documents,
Satterfield had discussed secret national security matters in at least two meetings with
AIPAC official Steven J. Rosen, who was subsequently indicted by the U.S. Justice Department
(later quashed over the objections of the FBI ."
I agree. This is August 1914 being replayed again. The end of the second Gilded Age. Only
the true believers and the Generals are left. The VA Secretary has to guard his office suite.
EPA Administrator flies first class. Larry Kudlow, the rumored new economic czar, was fired
from Bear Stearns for his cocaine habit.
Donald Trump wants the three Generals gone. Anything becomes possible even a Korean Peace
Treaty. Correct me if I am wrong. But, without the Generals the President loses military and
contractor backing. The 25th Amendment becomes a real possibility. The God of War is
chuckling; if not a World War; then, at least, another American Civil War.
"Frighteningly, Mattis is now the adult and saner one in the whole administration" was
exactly my thought a few hours ago...
As for Israel, they should be aware that if this ends up in a US vs Russia WW3, they
will be wiped out - if not nuked by Russia, others will seize the opportunity offered by such
chaos. There's simply no way that they're coming out of this war in a comparatively better
situation, compared to the sorry state of other Western countries, than they are now -
they'll be hit just as badly, and probably worse than some.
I think you are being too pessimistic, still a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Trump is instinctively opposed to another war and knows it would be politically disastrous.
The Iran deal being further undermined is more likely the middle path that will be trod.
I was very enthusiastic about Tillerson but he really hasn't looked up to it, the idea was
better than the reality. Pompeo I don't know, superficially looks poor but I think he is
cleverer than he lets on, and a lot is just rhetoric.
Colonel. Unfortunately you are perfectly right again with your analysis, for consequences of
trending current affairs. My hunch is in this new west east war, Europe (except for UK) and
east Asia, none of US main allies will side with US in a meaning full way, and that
unwillingness to share will be the final nail in coffin of US centered world order based on
UN, NATO and BW dollars.
I've been fearing that Syria is looking more and more like that for some time now.
The unimaginative ridicule the suggestion that open war between the US and Russia could
result from events in Syria, because it is just too big a change in the world for them to
comprehend it as a real possibility. But there is a clear route for escalation, and now the
US regime has suggested how the initiation might occur.
If the US strikes Syria, Russia has to choose whether to let it pass (as it did
Trump's previous crime) or to respond. If the US misjudges the scale of its attack and Russia
responds with actions that kill US military personnel, then the US regime faces the same
choice, and open war is an easy outcome. On each occasion, there is a clear cost to not
retaliating, and a psychological inclination not to just turn the other cheek. This is a
profoundly dangerous situation, and parallels with 1914 are absolutely not out of
place.
I believe we would have been here a year ago if Clinton had won the presidency. Trump
gave hope that it could be avoided, but it seems that hope was vain, whether because Trump
lied or because he has been putty in the hands of the usual suspects around the US
regime.
Fortunately, there will probably be many opportunities for either party to step off the
escalation process before it reaches a nuclear exchange, and the prospect of that tends to
concentrate even the minds of the powerful.
Let's be absolutely clear here, though - the US is wholly the party at fault here in
creating this situation. Syria is a longstanding Russian/Soviet ally and it is the US
regime's determination to overthrow the Syrian government that is creating the danger we now
face. Granted, after that you can look at other parties involved in "influencing" the US
regime towards war in Syria for their own self-serving ulterior motives, but in the end the
US government and nation must be held responsible for its own choices and for allowing itself
to be "influenced" .
With NATO right on their border and Alaska on their other - there isn't anywhere for Russia
to retreat to. They have ONE overseas base, and we wish to contest that, per our mouthpieces.
I think Putin made his point(s) crystal clear on March 1st. Continually poking the
bear only ends one way. What might the neocon/Trump reaction be to a carrier being taken out?
Or closing of the Straits by air/sea denial?
I do not wish to have either of these questions answered in any reality - simply
because our government has come to believe they are invincible, and apparently, our military
as well.
Colonel,
Yes & no to Aug'14. I'd go for July; the 'black swan event' has occurred, now what will
the major powers do?
I note that the Russian threat came not from the Pres or the Prime Minister, or the FM. It
came from the CDS. I think the orders for Russian air defense staff in Syria have been cut;
shoot on launch. The Russians seem sure the attack will be on Damascus, in response to an
imagined gas attack in East Ghouta. So probably air launched cruise missiles.
My black swan is Russian air defense knocking down a couple US strike a/c. In 1914,
starting with Austro Hungary, everyone (Rus, Ger, Fra) then reacted instead of looking at how
bad it could get. The Brits were the last in, reluctantly. Brit FM Grey said "The lights are
going out in Europe, I don't know when we shall see them lit again".
thanks for sharing your perspective pat..i agree things look ominous.. it is a shame it has
gotten to this point, but with individuals like nikki haley and etc, doing all the talking
points for israel and happily moving along in this relentless path, it is hard not to
envision a confrontation that results in a wider war...
the usa is responsible for this is as @ 3 johnsonr points out and yes, in spite of the
influences on the usa, it will be the usa that will be held responsible for it too... i
wasn't around for 1914, but things don't look very good here..
meanwhile, may and the uk want to frame russia without proof... this is a reoccurring
theme, whether it is from the usa, uk or whoever.. it gets very tiring and not very
believable or trustworthy..
Sanctions on Russia are being ignored. China is investing its US Trillions. Under US imposed
sanctions, ExxonMobil withdrew and China said "Thank You" and took the partnership.
Chinese state-controlled Huarong Asset Management has bought a 36.2 percent stake in the unit
of CEFC China Energy through which CEFC is acquiring a $9.1 billion stake in Russian oil
giant Rosneft.
According to CEFC filings seen by Reuters, Huarong has bought the stake in CEFC in two
tranches, one in December and one in February. Huarong is controlled by China's Ministry of
Finance.
In September, CEFC Energy announced plans to acquire 14.16 percent of Rosneft shares from
Glencore and the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA).
"The final structure of Rosneft's shareholders has been formed," Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin
told Rossiya 24 television.
As part of a long-term agreement, Rosneft and CEFC Energy inked a deal on crude oil
deliveries in 2017. According to the agreement, the Russian oil major will supply CEFC with
60.8 million tons of oil annually until 2023.
The agreement covers the development of exploration and production projects in Siberia.
The two companies plan to cooperate in refining, petrochemicals and crude trading.
Could Tillerson dismissal be related to:
"@realDonaldTrump son-in-law Jared #Kushner told Trump to back the #Saudi/#UAE blockade on
#Qatar after Qatar refused to invest in Kushner's indebted property at 666 Fifth Avenue in
New York City."
When this blockade happened, Tillerson supported Qatar and clashed with Kushner. Now that
Kushner's loan issue is public, could Trump be lashing out at Tillerson, could someone at
State have publicized the loan?
Posted by: likklemore | Mar 13, 2018 7:48:34 PM | 69
" Betcha Rex is so so sorry he went to D.C. "
Nah I wouldn't be fretting 'bout l'il rexie; these 1%ers don't make a move unless they
know there is gonna be a top earner or 57 in it for themselves.
I have no doubt tillerson pulled off a mob of smart (for himself n maybe exxonMobil) deals
whilst SecState. That is what 'these people' do.
Tillerson is more than enough evidence for the premise that the first move of any truly
revolutionary political movement must be to put the entire elite up against a wall and shoot
them.
For, as debilitating as such a move can be for the moral hygiene of a revolution, history
has taught us that allowing sociopathic scum such as he to keep breathing, ultimately costs
the lives of millions of ordinary decent, non-sociopathic humans. Sad but true.
"... "Christopher Steele the man behind the Trump dossier: how the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trump's ties to Russia" ..."
"... Mayer tries to take the high road by asserting that the Republicans are "trying to take down the intelligence community." It is an odd assertion coming from her as she has written a book called "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals," ..."
"... A Steele friend describes the man as a virtual Second Coming of Jesus, for whom "fairness, integrity and truth trump any ideology." Former head of MI-6 and Steele boss Sir John Dearlove, who once reported how the intelligence on Iraq had been "sexed-up" and "fixed around the policy" to make the false case for war, describes Steele as "superb." ..."
"... Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who himself was involved in lying to support America's journey into Iraq, similarly sees Steele as honest and credible in his claims, while a former CIA Station Chief in Moscow is called upon to cast aspersions on the "Russian character" that impels them to engage in lies and deception. ..."
"... Another major blooper in the Mayer story relates to how one unnamed "senior Russian official" reported that the Kremlin had blocked the appointment of Mitt Romney, a noted critic of Russia, as secretary of state. How exactly that was implemented is not clear from the Steele reporting and there has been no other independent confirmation of the allegation, but Mayer finds it credible, asserting that "subsequent events could be said to support it." What events? one might ask, though the national media did not hesitate and instead reported Mayer's assertion as if it were itself a credible source in a forty-eight hour news cycle frenzy relating to Romney and Trump. ..."
"... Steele's work history also raises some questions. He served in Moscow as a first tour officer for MI-6 under diplomatic cover from 1990 to 1993. Russia was in tumult and Mayer describes how "Boris Yeltsin gained ultimate power, and a moment of democratic promise faded as the KGB -now called the FSB-reasserted its influence, oligarchs snapped up state assets, and nationalist political forces began to emerge." Not to go into too much detail, but Mayer's description of Russia at that time is dead wrong. Yeltsin was a drunkard and a tool of American and European intervention and manipulation. He was no agent of "democratic promise" and only grew more corrupt as his time in office continued into the completely manipulated election of 1996, when the IMF and U.S. conspired to get him reelected so the looting, a.k.a. "democratization," could go on. Mayer goes on to depict in negative terms a "shadowy" former "KGB operative" Vladimir Putin who emerged from the chaos. ..."
"... Sweeping judgements by Mayer also include "[Steele's] allegation that the Kremlin favored Trump in 2016 and was offering his campaign dirt on Hillary has been borne out. So has his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together " As noted above, the WikiLeaks/Kremlin allegations have not been demonstrated, nor have the claims about Kremlin provision of information to discredit Hillary, who was doing a find job at the time discrediting herself. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
The latest salvo in the Russiagate saga is a 15,000 word New Yorker article entitled "Christopher Steele the man behind the Trump
dossier: how the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trump's ties to Russia" by veteran
journalist Jane Mayer. The premise of the piece is clear from the tediously long title, namely
that the Steele dossier, which implicated Donald Trump and his associates in a number of high
crimes and misdemeanors, is basically accurate in exposing an existential threat posed to our
nation by Russia. How does it come to that conclusion? By citing sources that it does not
identify whose credibility is alleged to be unimpeachable as well as by including testimony
from Steele friends and supporters.
In other words, the Mayer piece is an elaboration of the same "trust me" narrative that has
driven the hounding of Russia and Trump from day one. Inevitably, the Trump haters both from
the left and the right have jumped on the Mayer piece as confirmation of their own presumptions
regarding what has allegedly occurred, when, in reality, Trump might just be more right than
wrong when he claims that he has been the victim of a conspiracy by the Establishment to
discredit and remove him.
Mayer is a progressive and a long-time critic of Donald Trump. She has written a book
denouncing "the Koch brothers' deep influence on American politics" and co-authored another
book with Jill Abramson, formerly Executive Editor of the New York Times.
Abramson reportedly carries a small plastic replica of Barack Obama in her purse which she
can take out "to take comfort" whenever she is confronted by Donald Trump's America. Mayer's
New Yorker bio-blurb describes her as a journalist who covers national security,
together with politics and culture.
The problem with the type of neo-journalism as practiced by Mayer is that it first comes to
a conclusion and then selects the necessary "facts" to support that narrative. When the
government does that sort of thing to support, one might suggest, a war against Iraq or even
hypothetically speaking Iran, it is called cherry picking. After the facts have been cherry
picked they are "stovepiped" up to the policy maker, avoiding along the way any analysts who
might demur regarding the product's veracity. In journalistic terms, the equivalent would
perhaps be sending the garbage up directly to a friendly editor, avoiding any fact check.
Mayer tries to take the high road by asserting that the Republicans are "trying to take
down the intelligence community." It is an odd assertion coming from her as she has written a
book called "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on
American Ideals," a development which was pretty much implemented by the intelligence
community working hand-in-hand with Congress and the White House. But she is not the first
liberal who has now become a friend of CIA, the FBI and the NSA as a response to the greater
threat allegedly posed by Donald Trump.
A Steele friend describes the man as a virtual Second Coming of Jesus, for whom
"fairness, integrity and truth trump any ideology." Former head of MI-6 and Steele boss Sir
John Dearlove, who once reported how the intelligence on Iraq had been "sexed-up"
and "fixed
around the policy" to make the false case for war, describes Steele as "superb." Other
commentary from former American CIA officers is similar in nature. Former CIA Deputy
Director John McLaughlin, who himself was involved in lying to support America's journey into
Iraq, similarly sees Steele as honest and credible in his claims, while a former CIA Station
Chief in Moscow is called upon to cast aspersions on the "Russian character" that impels them
to engage in lies and deception.
My review of the Mayer rebuttal of criticism of Steele revealed a number of instances where
she comes to certain conclusions without presenting any real supporting evidence or accepts
"proof" that is essentially hearsay because it supports her overall narrative. She asserts that
Russia and WikiLeaks were working together on the release of the Democratic National
Committee/Hillary Clinton emails without providing any substantiation whatsoever. She surely
came to that judgment based on something she was told, but by whom and when?
Another major blooper in the Mayer story relates to how one unnamed "senior Russian
official" reported that the Kremlin had blocked the appointment of Mitt Romney, a noted critic
of Russia, as secretary of state. How exactly that was implemented is not clear from the Steele
reporting and there has been no other independent confirmation of the allegation, but Mayer
finds it credible, asserting that "subsequent events could be said to support it." What events?
one might ask, though the national media did not hesitate and instead reported Mayer's
assertion as if it were itself a credible source in a forty-eight hour news cycle frenzy
relating to Romney and Trump.
Steele's work history also raises some questions. He served in Moscow as a first tour
officer for MI-6 under diplomatic cover from 1990 to 1993. Russia was in tumult and Mayer
describes how "Boris Yeltsin gained ultimate power, and a moment of democratic promise faded as
the KGB -now called the FSB-reasserted its influence, oligarchs snapped up state assets, and
nationalist political forces began to emerge." Not to go into too much detail, but Mayer's
description of Russia at that time is dead wrong. Yeltsin was a drunkard and a tool of American
and European intervention and manipulation. He was no agent of "democratic promise" and only
grew more corrupt as his time in office continued into the completely manipulated election of
1996, when the IMF and U.S. conspired to get him reelected so the looting, a.k.a.
"democratization," could go on. Mayer goes on to depict in negative terms a "shadowy" former
"KGB operative" Vladimir Putin who emerged from the chaos.
Mayer also cites a Steele report of April 2016, a "secret investigation [that] involved a
survey of Russian interference in the politics of four members of the European Union," but she
neither produces the report itself or the sources used to put it together. The report allegedly
concluded that the "Kremlin's long-term aim was to boost extremist groups and politicians at
the expense of Europe's liberal democracies. The more immediate goal was to destroy the E.U "
The precis provided by Mayer is a bit of fantasy, it would seem, and is perhaps a reflection of
an unhealthy obsession on the part of Steele, if he actually came to that conclusion. As it
stands it is hearsay, possibly provided by Steele himself or a friend to Mayer to defend his
reputation.
Mayer also reports and calls potentially treasonous Steele's claims that "Kremlin and Trump
were politically colluding in the 2016 campaign 'to sow discord and disunity both with the
U.S.' and within the transatlantic alliance." And also, "[Trump] and his top associates had
repeatedly accepted intelligence from the Kremlin on Hillary Clinton and other political
rivals." As Robert Mueller apparently has not developed any information to support such wild
claims, it would be interesting to know why Jane Mayer considers them to be credible.
Sweeping judgements by Mayer also include "[Steele's] allegation that the Kremlin
favored Trump in 2016 and was offering his campaign dirt on Hillary has been borne out. So has
his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together " As noted above, the
WikiLeaks/Kremlin allegations have not been demonstrated, nor have the claims about Kremlin
provision of information to discredit Hillary, who was doing a find job at the time
discrediting herself.
The account of Donald Trump performing "perverted sexual acts" in a Moscow hotel is likewise
a good example of what is wrong with the article. Four sources are cited as providing details
of what took place, but it is conceded that none of them was actually a witness to it. It would
be necessary to learn who the sources were beyond vague descriptions, what their actual access
to the information was and what their motives were for coming forward might be. One was
allegedly a "top-level Russian intelligence officer," but the others were hotel employees and a
Trump associate who had arranged for the travel.
Finally, from an ex-intelligence officer point of view I have some questions about Steele's
sources in Russia. Who are they? If they were MI-6 sources he would not be able to touch them
once he left the service and would face severe sanctions under the Official Secrets Act should
he even try to do so. There are in addition claims in the Mayer story that Steele did not pay
his sources because it would encourage them to fabricate, an argument that could also be made
about Steele who was being paid to produce dirt on Trump. So what was the quid pro quo
? Intelligence agents work for money, particularly when dealing with a private security firm,
and Steele's claim, if he truly made it, that he has sources that gave him closely held, highly
sensitive information in exchange for an occasional lunch in Mayfair rings hollow.
Jane Mayer's account of the Steele dossier seems to accept quite a lot on faith. It would be
interesting to know the extent to which Steele himself or his proxies were the source of much
of what she has written. Until we know more about the actual Russian sources and also about
Mayer's own contacts interviewed for the article, her "man behind the Trump dossier" will
continue to be something of a mystery and the entire Russiagate saga assumption that Moscow
interfered in the 2016 U.S. election must be regarded as still to be demonstrated.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Good article, in the the sense that it seems largely correct, but very gentle ? It really
pulls its punches.
"The problem with the type of neo-journalism as practiced by Mayer is that it first comes to
a conclusion and then selects the necessary "facts" to support that narrative"
Neo-journalism ? More like pure propaganda. Shoddy doesn't even begin to cover the apparent
systematic lying by commission & omission.
Skripal springs to mind. He was recruited by MI6 whilst Steele was in Russia and he worked
for the Steele outfit Orbis, which was paid for the Trump dossier, after he was released.
Last night I watched "The Real Bravo Two Zero", a movie available through Amazon Prime. It
tells the story of 8 British special ops soldiers who were helecoptered down behind Iraqi
lines during the first Gulf War. Their mission was to locate and radio back the co-ordinates
of the mobile missile launchers Saddam was using to hurl Scuds at Israel.
Everything in the mission that could go wrong, did. However the basic fault lay not with
the soldier but rather with the planners back at headquarters. Ultimately a number of the
British soldiers were killed and captured but one of them escaped capture and made a heroic
trek of 200 kilometers to the relative safety of Syria.
Later, after the war, at least two of the survivors authored books that described the
mission. In those books, the authors claimed that the party of 8 had engaged in numerous fire
fights with well armed Iraqi combat teams which resulted in the death of approx. 250 of the
Iraqi soldiers. Other acts of heroism and bravery were delineated as well.
The movie follows the footsteps of an investigative journalist–himself a former
soldier–who is literally retracing the steps of the soldiers. With his fluent Arabic he
interviews those local Bedouin farmers for their take on what happened in their encounter
with the British team.. What he discovers–to his dismay–is that much of what
happens in the books is pure fabrication, fantasy ginned up to stoke patriotic feelings of
pride in the prowess of the British special forces while boosting popularity for the war back
home. Fairy tales.
Now the guy narrating the movie doesn't go so far as to accuse the establishment British
propaganda machine of fabricating this trash but he does explicitly note the discrepancy
between what really occurred and what is put forward as non-fiction account of these
events.
We are all familiar with the charges of lying and deception made against the British by
Charles Lindbergh, Ford and other populist patriots during the lead up to WW2. With this in
mind, why should we believe that anything that comes from England (such as these claims made
by Steele), which recognizes no right to free speech or an unfettered press, is anything but
pure propaganda?
If you have Amazon, please watch the movie. It is excellent.
good question/s harper.. it looks like a positive development.. maybe some american
politicians are coming to their senses? wishful thinking, but it is possible!
the fact the usa is in syria, under the pretext of going after isis is laughable.. very
recently putin asked that the rubble city now known as raqqa, has many dead bodies still
under the rubble.. perhaps aside from leveling raqqa, the usa could consider cleaning up the
mess it is responsible for too..i guess that is too much to ask.. at present usa actions look
like an attempt at partitioning syria.. so yes - someone in political office in the usa can
ask about altering the course and direction of the usa has been on for a good number of
years, especially now with this demonizing of russia on so many levels.. that would be really
great..
i read need to read my posts before posting... oh well.. putin asked the usa to clean up and
bury the dead they are responsible for..maybe that falls to the 'free democratic syrian army'
that are busy running off to afrin at the moment...
I think some in the deep state or the people who really run pax-amaericana might of just got
the message fromPutin's last address to the douma. Fuk with us or any of our allies IE
IRAN,SYRIA,CHINA we will screww you six way of SUNDAY Hypersonic style.
I would love to think that this is Congress waking up to its responsibility, but I suspect it
is nothing more than a move to take a swipe at President Trump; to reduce his power and/or
weaken him politically.
If I remember correctly it was Saudi who set up Syria to begin with and sent Prince Bandar to
organize and finance the anti Assad rebels. Pretty sure they were counting on the Israel
Lobby to bring the US onboard given Syria was second leg after Iraq in their march to Iran
per the Israeli 'Clean Break' plan.
Despite the total FUBAR Iraq turned out to be I don't see the Israelis giving up on their
plan for Iran---all their propaganda says..''we are fighting Iran in Syria''. Since our
congress is basically Israeli occupied territory I don't have any faith in their war
decisions.
Yemen is another story...equally insane.
I welcome Russian involvement in the ME ....it might turn out to be the 'balancing act' the
realist like Stephen Walt have talked about for years
except not quite the 'offshore balancing' they recommend. Both Russia and the US are now
'onshore' instead. imo the US should bow out...nothing in the ME is a'threat' to the US and
we have zero benefits to gain in Syria or Iran.
I'm inclined to believe that this is an anti-Trump project but it may well have elements of
concern about war with Russia. After all, most of Trump's detractors assume he is
unpredictable and could start WWIII over an incident. Whether true or not, some people think
so.
Witness the cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase over bogus intel which DID result
in a confrontation with Russia as Russia downed most of the cruise missiles using ECM
according to reports (and despite a Pentagon denial which was clearly bogus given pictures of
the airbase not being heavily damaged.)
And then we have the Russian contractors killed.
There was an article over at Russia Insider today that suggests the reason Putin announced
the new Russian weapons systems was not just for Russian election PR (since Putin is going to
win anyway) but was in reality because Russia feared an American attack in Syria. Putin
explicitly said in his March 1st speech:
Quote
I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear
weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass
destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the
use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very
clear and specific.
As such, I see it is my duty to announce the following. Any use of nuclear weapons against
Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a
nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant
consequences.
End Quote
Note the phrase "or its allies" - which at the moment is fairly limited to China, Syria,
and maybe Iran (as well as lesser states like Belarus.)
I think it might be possible to include North Korea in the list, if Russia believes a US
attack on North Korea - which would quite possibly involve nuclear weapons - might threaten
to escalate against China, an ally.
Perhaps this is why someone convinced Trump to talk to North Korea. Did some Pentagon
analysts or CIA analysts decide that Putin might be serious about Syria or North Korea based
on some intel and then the Pentagon decided to back down on North Korea or some planned
action against Syria?
I note Mattis seems to have bowed out on answering questions about North Korea, stating
that the State Department is handling that.
"All my life I have been fighting against the spirit of narrowness and violence,
arrogance, intolerance in its absolute, merciless consistency. I have also worked to
overcome this spirit with its evil consequences, such as nationalism in excess, racial
persecution, and materialism. In regards to this, the National Socialists are correct in
killing me.
I have striven to make its consequences milder for its victims and to prepare the way for
a change. In that, my conscience drove me – and in the end, that is a man's duty."
Helmuth James Graf von Moltke,
Executed in Plötzensee Prison on 23 January 1945
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to
speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
Executed in Flossenbürg Camp on 9 April 1945
As journalist activist Carl von Ossietzky put it, 'we cannot hope to affect the conscience of
the world when our own conscience is asleep.'
Heroic virtue shines across the vast seas of history like beacons to those in the troubled
waters of general deception.
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely
predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as
half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the
lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting
candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the
best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the
field for a favored "star" recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who
worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top
aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep
involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of
responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its
top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable
Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which
includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term
Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At
the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political
vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic
Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic
primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
"... We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history. ..."
"... The dangers of a Third World War are routinely obfuscated by the media. A world of fantasy permeates the mainstream media which tacitly upholds the conduct of nuclear war as a peace-making endeavor. ..."
"... "Fake News" has become "Real News". ..."
"... And "Real News" by the independent online media is now tagged as Russian propaganda. ..."
"... In turn, the independent media (including Global Research) is the object of censorship via the search engines and social media. ..."
"... What we are dealing with is a War against the Truth. Objective reporting on the dangers of a Third World war is being suppressed. Why? ..."
"... The future of humanity is at stake. The danger of nuclear annihilation is not front-page news. ..."
"... The unfolding consensus among Pentagon war planners is that a Third World War is "Winnable". ..."
"... Concepts are turned upside down. Political insanity prevails. ..."
"... Author's note: the later part of this article entitled The Road Ahead was first formulated in 2010. ..."
The dangers of a Third World War are routinely obfuscated by the media. A world of
fantasy permeates the mainstream media which tacitly upholds the conduct of nuclear war as a
peace-making endeavor.
World War III is terminal. Albert Einstein understood the perils of nuclear war and the
extinction of life on earth, which has already started with the radioactive contamination
resulting from depleted uranium, not to mention Fukushima.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be
fought with sticks and stones."
The media, the intellectuals, the scientists and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the
untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads destroys humanity.
"Fake News" has become "Real News".
And "Real News" by the independent online media is now tagged as Russian
propaganda.
In turn, the independent media (including Global Research) is the object of censorship
via the search engines and social media.
What we are dealing with is a War against the Truth. Objective reporting on the dangers
of a Third World war is being suppressed. Why?
The future of humanity is at stake. The danger of nuclear annihilation is not front-page
news.
The unfolding consensus among Pentagon war planners is that a Third World War is
"Winnable".
Nuclear War as an "Instrument of Peace"
Concepts are turned upside down. Political insanity prevails.
A diabolical discourse is unfolding. The so-called "more usable" tactical nuclear weapons
(B61-11, B61-12) with an explosive capacity between one third and twelve times a Hiroshima bomb
are heralded (by scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon) as "peace-making" bombs,
"harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground".
These are the weapons which are contemplated for use against North Korea (or Iran) in what
is described by the Pentagon as "a bloody nose operation", with limited civilian casualties.
And the corporate media applauds.
Fake News : these nuclear bombs are WMD. The "Bloody Nose" ("safe for civilians") Concept is
"Fake News"
Lest we forget, when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (see image below),
100,000 people died within the first seven seconds following the explosion. Needless to say,
today's nuclear weapons are far more advanced than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
August 1945.
When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer
possible. Insanity prevails. The institutions of government are criminalized and so is the
media.
The Pentagon and NATO are beating the drums of war. What is at stake is a Worldwide media
disinformation campaign in support of a Third World War, which almost inevitably would lead to
nuclear annihilation.
In the words of Fidel Castro: " In a nuclear war the "collateral damage" would be the life
of all humanity".
"The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity.
Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don't
harbour the least doubt t hat an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic
Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.
There would be "collateral damage", as the American political and military leaders always
affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.
In a nuclear war the "collateral damage" would be the life of all humanity.
Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything
that is used to make war, must disappear!" ( Complete text and video
recording , October 2010 Interview with Fidel Castro by Michel Chossudovsky)
When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.
When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor endorsed by the self proclaimed international
community, pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized. yet it should be noted that in
the course of the last 15 years, the anti-war movement has largely become defunct, civil
society organizations have been coopted.
How do we reverse the tide: a cohesive grassroots counter-propaganda campaign
The Road Ahead
There are no easy solutions. What is required is t he development of a broad based
grassroots network which seeks to disable patterns of authority and decision making pertaining
to war. This is by no means an easy and straightforward undertaking.
This network would be established nationally and internationally at all levels in society,
towns and villages, work places, parishes. Trade unions, farmers organizations, professional
associations, business associations, student unions, veterans associations, church groups would
be called upon to integrate the antiwar organizational structure. Of crucial importance, this
movement should extend into the Armed Forces as a means to breaking the legitimacy of war among
service men and women.
The first task would be to disable war propaganda through an effective campaign against
media disinformation. (including support of the online independent and alternative media).
The corporate media would be directly challenged, leading to boycotts of major news outlets,
which are responsible for channelling disinformation into the news chain. This endeavor would
require a parallel process at the grass roots level, of sensitizing and educating fellow
citizens on the nature of the war and the global crisis, as well as effectively "spreading the
word" through advanced networking, through alternative media outlets on the internet, etc. It
would also require a broad based campaign against the search engines involved in media
censorship on behalf of the Pentagon.
The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the
structures of political authority, is no easy task. It would require a degree of solidarity,
unity and commitment unparalleled in World history. It would require breaking down political
and ideological barriers within society and acting with a single voice . It would also require
eventually unseating the war criminals, and indicting them for war crimes.
Abandon the Battlefield: Refuse to Fight
The military oath taken at the time of induction demands unbending support and allegiance to
the US Constitution, while also demanding that US troops obey orders from their President and
Commander in Chief:
"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear
true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of
the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the
regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"
The President and Commander in Chief has blatantly violated all tenets of domestic and
international law. So that making an oath to "obey orders from the President" is tantamount to
violating rather than defending the US Constitution.
"The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military
personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the
"lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92
(2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only
obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders
by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the
U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those
orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ." (Lawrence Mosqueda, An
Advisory to US Troops A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders,
The Commander in Chief is a war criminal. According to Principle 6 of the Nuremberg
Charter:
"The fact that a person [e.g. Coalition troops] acted pursuant to order of his Government
or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a
moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Let us make that "moral choice" possible, to enlisted American, British, Canadian and
US-NATO Coalition servicemen and women.
Disobey unlawful orders! Abandon the battlefield! Refuse to fight in a war which blatantly
violates international law and the US Constitution!
But this is not a choice which enlisted men and women can make individually.
It is a collective and societal choice, which requires an organizational structure.
Across the land in the US, Britain, Canada and in all coalition countries, the new anti-war
movement must assist enlisted men and women to make that moral choice possible, to abandon the
battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in Syria and Yemen.
This will not be an easy task. Committees at local levels must be set up across the United
States, Canada, Britain, Italy, Japan and other countries, which have troops engaged in US led
military operations.
We call upon veterans' associations and local communities to support this process.
This movement needs to dismantle the disinformation campaign. It must effectively reverse
the indoctrination of coalition troops, who are led to believe that they are fighting "a just
war": "a war against terrorists", a war against the Russians, who are threatening the security
of America.
The legitimacy of the US military authority must be broken.
What has to be achieved:
Reveal the criminal nature of this military project,
Break once and for all the lies and falsehoods which sustain the "political consensus" in
favor of a pre-emptive nuclear war.
Undermine war propaganda, reveal the media lies, reverse the tide of disinformation, wage
a consistent campaign against the corporate media
Break the legitimacy of the war-mongers in high office.
Dismantle the US sponsored military adventure and its corporate sponsors.
Bring Home the Troops
Repeal the illusion that the State is committed to protecting its citizens.
Expose the "fake crises" such as the global flu pandemic as a means to distract public
opinion from the dangers of a global war.
Uphold 9/11 Truth. Reveal the falsehoods behind 9/11 which are used to justify the Middle
East Central Asian war under the banner of the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT)
Expose how a profit driven war serves the vested interests of the banks, the defense
contractors, the oil giants, the media giants and the biotech conglomerates
Challenge the corporate media which deliberately obfuscates the causes and consequences
of this war,
Reveal and take cognizance of the unspoken and tragic outcome of a war waged with nuclear
weapons.
Call for the Dismantling of NATO
Implement the prosecution of war criminals in high office
Close down the weapons assembly plants and implement the foreclosure of major weapons
producers
Close down all US military bases in the US and around the World
Develop an antiwar movement within the Armed Forces and establish bridges between the
Armed Forces and the civilian antiwar movement
Forcefully pressure governments of both NATO and non-NATO countries to withdraw from the
US led global military agenda.
Develop a consistent antiwar movement in Israel. Inform the citizens of Israel of the
likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israeli attack on Iran.
Confront Target the pro-war lobby groups including the pro-Israeli groups in the US
Dismantle the homeland security state, call for the repeal of the PATRIOT
legislation
Call for the removal of the military from civilian law enforcement. Call for the
enforcement of the Posse Comitatus Act
Call for the demilitarization of outer space and the repeal of Star Wars
People across the land, nationally and internationally, must mobilize against this
diabolical military agenda, the authority of the State and its officials must be forcefully
challenged.
This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, pressure their
elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities,
spread the word, inform their fellow citizens on the implications of a nuclear war, initiate
debate and discussion within the armed forces.
What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network
which challenges the structures of power and authority, the nature of the economic system, the
vast amounts of money used to fund the war, the shear size of the so-called defense
industry.
What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of
war, a global people's movement which criminalizes war.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and
distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments
which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has
already defined the contours of a police State.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has
embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate,
particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are
opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens
must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
We call upon people across the land, in North America, Western Europe, Israel, The Arab
World, Turkey and around the world to rise up against this military project, against their
governments which are supportive of US-NATO led wars, against the corporate media which serves
to camouflage the devastating impacts of modern warfare.
The military agenda supports a profit driven destructive global economic system which
impoverishes large sectors of the world population.
This war is sheer madness.
The Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.
It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.
It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow
human beings.
It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and
the police state as the sole avenue.
It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.
Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest
for profit is the overriding force.
This profit driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into
unconscious zombies.
Let us reverse the tide.
Challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which
support them.
Break the American inquisition.
Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.
Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.
Bring home the troops.
Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal
war.
"... We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history. ..."
"... The dangers of a Third World War are routinely obfuscated by the media. A world of fantasy permeates the mainstream media which tacitly upholds the conduct of nuclear war as a peace-making endeavor. ..."
"... "Fake News" has become "Real News". ..."
"... And "Real News" by the independent online media is now tagged as Russian propaganda. ..."
"... In turn, the independent media (including Global Research) is the object of censorship via the search engines and social media. ..."
"... What we are dealing with is a War against the Truth. Objective reporting on the dangers of a Third World war is being suppressed. Why? ..."
"... The future of humanity is at stake. The danger of nuclear annihilation is not front-page news. ..."
"... The unfolding consensus among Pentagon war planners is that a Third World War is "Winnable". ..."
"... Concepts are turned upside down. Political insanity prevails. ..."
"... Author's note: the later part of this article entitled The Road Ahead was first formulated in 2010. ..."
The dangers of a Third World War are routinely obfuscated by the media. A world of
fantasy permeates the mainstream media which tacitly upholds the conduct of nuclear war as a
peace-making endeavor.
World War III is terminal. Albert Einstein understood the perils of nuclear war and the
extinction of life on earth, which has already started with the radioactive contamination
resulting from depleted uranium, not to mention Fukushima.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be
fought with sticks and stones."
The media, the intellectuals, the scientists and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the
untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads destroys humanity.
"Fake News" has become "Real News".
And "Real News" by the independent online media is now tagged as Russian
propaganda.
In turn, the independent media (including Global Research) is the object of censorship
via the search engines and social media.
What we are dealing with is a War against the Truth. Objective reporting on the dangers
of a Third World war is being suppressed. Why?
The future of humanity is at stake. The danger of nuclear annihilation is not front-page
news.
The unfolding consensus among Pentagon war planners is that a Third World War is
"Winnable".
Nuclear War as an "Instrument of Peace"
Concepts are turned upside down. Political insanity prevails.
A diabolical discourse is unfolding. The so-called "more usable" tactical nuclear weapons
(B61-11, B61-12) with an explosive capacity between one third and twelve times a Hiroshima bomb
are heralded (by scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon) as "peace-making" bombs,
"harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground".
These are the weapons which are contemplated for use against North Korea (or Iran) in what
is described by the Pentagon as "a bloody nose operation", with limited civilian casualties.
And the corporate media applauds.
Fake News : these nuclear bombs are WMD. The "Bloody Nose" ("safe for civilians") Concept is
"Fake News"
Lest we forget, when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (see image below),
100,000 people died within the first seven seconds following the explosion. Needless to say,
today's nuclear weapons are far more advanced than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
August 1945.
When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer
possible. Insanity prevails. The institutions of government are criminalized and so is the
media.
The Pentagon and NATO are beating the drums of war. What is at stake is a Worldwide media
disinformation campaign in support of a Third World War, which almost inevitably would lead to
nuclear annihilation.
In the words of Fidel Castro: " In a nuclear war the "collateral damage" would be the life
of all humanity".
"The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity.
Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don't
harbour the least doubt t hat an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic
Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.
There would be "collateral damage", as the American political and military leaders always
affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.
In a nuclear war the "collateral damage" would be the life of all humanity.
Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything
that is used to make war, must disappear!" ( Complete text and video
recording , October 2010 Interview with Fidel Castro by Michel Chossudovsky)
When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.
When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor endorsed by the self proclaimed international
community, pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized. yet it should be noted that in
the course of the last 15 years, the anti-war movement has largely become defunct, civil
society organizations have been coopted.
How do we reverse the tide: a cohesive grassroots counter-propaganda campaign
The Road Ahead
There are no easy solutions. What is required is t he development of a broad based
grassroots network which seeks to disable patterns of authority and decision making pertaining
to war. This is by no means an easy and straightforward undertaking.
This network would be established nationally and internationally at all levels in society,
towns and villages, work places, parishes. Trade unions, farmers organizations, professional
associations, business associations, student unions, veterans associations, church groups would
be called upon to integrate the antiwar organizational structure. Of crucial importance, this
movement should extend into the Armed Forces as a means to breaking the legitimacy of war among
service men and women.
The first task would be to disable war propaganda through an effective campaign against
media disinformation. (including support of the online independent and alternative media).
The corporate media would be directly challenged, leading to boycotts of major news outlets,
which are responsible for channelling disinformation into the news chain. This endeavor would
require a parallel process at the grass roots level, of sensitizing and educating fellow
citizens on the nature of the war and the global crisis, as well as effectively "spreading the
word" through advanced networking, through alternative media outlets on the internet, etc. It
would also require a broad based campaign against the search engines involved in media
censorship on behalf of the Pentagon.
The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the
structures of political authority, is no easy task. It would require a degree of solidarity,
unity and commitment unparalleled in World history. It would require breaking down political
and ideological barriers within society and acting with a single voice . It would also require
eventually unseating the war criminals, and indicting them for war crimes.
Abandon the Battlefield: Refuse to Fight
The military oath taken at the time of induction demands unbending support and allegiance to
the US Constitution, while also demanding that US troops obey orders from their President and
Commander in Chief:
"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear
true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of
the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the
regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"
The President and Commander in Chief has blatantly violated all tenets of domestic and
international law. So that making an oath to "obey orders from the President" is tantamount to
violating rather than defending the US Constitution.
"The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military
personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the
"lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92
(2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only
obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders
by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the
U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those
orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ." (Lawrence Mosqueda, An
Advisory to US Troops A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders,
The Commander in Chief is a war criminal. According to Principle 6 of the Nuremberg
Charter:
"The fact that a person [e.g. Coalition troops] acted pursuant to order of his Government
or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a
moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Let us make that "moral choice" possible, to enlisted American, British, Canadian and
US-NATO Coalition servicemen and women.
Disobey unlawful orders! Abandon the battlefield! Refuse to fight in a war which blatantly
violates international law and the US Constitution!
But this is not a choice which enlisted men and women can make individually.
It is a collective and societal choice, which requires an organizational structure.
Across the land in the US, Britain, Canada and in all coalition countries, the new anti-war
movement must assist enlisted men and women to make that moral choice possible, to abandon the
battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in Syria and Yemen.
This will not be an easy task. Committees at local levels must be set up across the United
States, Canada, Britain, Italy, Japan and other countries, which have troops engaged in US led
military operations.
We call upon veterans' associations and local communities to support this process.
This movement needs to dismantle the disinformation campaign. It must effectively reverse
the indoctrination of coalition troops, who are led to believe that they are fighting "a just
war": "a war against terrorists", a war against the Russians, who are threatening the security
of America.
The legitimacy of the US military authority must be broken.
What has to be achieved:
Reveal the criminal nature of this military project,
Break once and for all the lies and falsehoods which sustain the "political consensus" in
favor of a pre-emptive nuclear war.
Undermine war propaganda, reveal the media lies, reverse the tide of disinformation, wage
a consistent campaign against the corporate media
Break the legitimacy of the war-mongers in high office.
Dismantle the US sponsored military adventure and its corporate sponsors.
Bring Home the Troops
Repeal the illusion that the State is committed to protecting its citizens.
Expose the "fake crises" such as the global flu pandemic as a means to distract public
opinion from the dangers of a global war.
Uphold 9/11 Truth. Reveal the falsehoods behind 9/11 which are used to justify the Middle
East Central Asian war under the banner of the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT)
Expose how a profit driven war serves the vested interests of the banks, the defense
contractors, the oil giants, the media giants and the biotech conglomerates
Challenge the corporate media which deliberately obfuscates the causes and consequences
of this war,
Reveal and take cognizance of the unspoken and tragic outcome of a war waged with nuclear
weapons.
Call for the Dismantling of NATO
Implement the prosecution of war criminals in high office
Close down the weapons assembly plants and implement the foreclosure of major weapons
producers
Close down all US military bases in the US and around the World
Develop an antiwar movement within the Armed Forces and establish bridges between the
Armed Forces and the civilian antiwar movement
Forcefully pressure governments of both NATO and non-NATO countries to withdraw from the
US led global military agenda.
Develop a consistent antiwar movement in Israel. Inform the citizens of Israel of the
likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israeli attack on Iran.
Confront Target the pro-war lobby groups including the pro-Israeli groups in the US
Dismantle the homeland security state, call for the repeal of the PATRIOT
legislation
Call for the removal of the military from civilian law enforcement. Call for the
enforcement of the Posse Comitatus Act
Call for the demilitarization of outer space and the repeal of Star Wars
People across the land, nationally and internationally, must mobilize against this
diabolical military agenda, the authority of the State and its officials must be forcefully
challenged.
This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, pressure their
elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities,
spread the word, inform their fellow citizens on the implications of a nuclear war, initiate
debate and discussion within the armed forces.
What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network
which challenges the structures of power and authority, the nature of the economic system, the
vast amounts of money used to fund the war, the shear size of the so-called defense
industry.
What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of
war, a global people's movement which criminalizes war.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and
distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments
which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has
already defined the contours of a police State.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has
embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate,
particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are
opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens
must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
We call upon people across the land, in North America, Western Europe, Israel, The Arab
World, Turkey and around the world to rise up against this military project, against their
governments which are supportive of US-NATO led wars, against the corporate media which serves
to camouflage the devastating impacts of modern warfare.
The military agenda supports a profit driven destructive global economic system which
impoverishes large sectors of the world population.
This war is sheer madness.
The Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.
It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.
It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow
human beings.
It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and
the police state as the sole avenue.
It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.
Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest
for profit is the overriding force.
This profit driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into
unconscious zombies.
Let us reverse the tide.
Challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which
support them.
Break the American inquisition.
Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.
Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.
Bring home the troops.
Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal
war.
In his March 9th show (thanks ben@2!), Jimmy Dore talks about how Obama's has continued his
neoliberal ways after leaving office. Obama was NOT forced into neoliberal positions by
terrible Repugs like his Obamabot apologists claimed repeatedly.
To trust the USA in Ukraine (if such thing happened) would be a huge, monumental blunder on Putin part. It was clear to any
observer that the goal is to put Ukraine on "Baltic path" using Ukrainian nationalist as a brute force to get the power.
Notable quotes:
"... The US used Russia to prevent Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovich from using his military against rioters in Kiev, and then 'cheated' Moscow by supporting an armed coup, President Vladimir Putin said. The accusation refers to events that happened in February 2014, when Ukraine was gripped by violent anti-government protests. Yanukovich and three leaders of the opposition forces signed a power-sharing deal, which effectively amounted to a capitulation of the president. ..."
"... "Here is something not publicly known," Putin revealed in an interview. "At this very moment, our American partners called us and asked to do everything – and that's almost a quote – to ensure that Yanukovich didn't use the army, so that the opposition could clear the squares and governmental buildings on its own terms and go on towards the implementation of the agreement." ..."
"... The Russian president said Moscow agreed to this request, only to see the situation escalate the next day into a full-fledged armed coup. "They could have at least called us, do something, say a word! They could have said, 'It was a case of agents stepping out of line, but we will fix it and turn everything into the bounds of the law,'" he said. ..."
"... "Not a word! On the contrary, there was full support of those who committed this coup," Putin recalled. "This is what they did with their own hands. How can they not support the current leadership now? They put themselves into a corner." ..."
"... After he was asked whether this was the first time Moscow had been cheated by Washington, Putin said this instance was "the first when the cheating was done so rudely and insolently." It was the first time that the US had broken a promise this quickly, and would not even bother to explain their actions through proper channels, the president added. ..."
"... "If they did it a little different, Ukraine would have benefited much more. Our co-operation links would not have been broken. Entire industries in Ukraine would have still existed," Putin said. "All this destruction was done for what? For a 'civilizational choice?' Was that a choice of poverty or an opportunity to work illegally in European countries under the guise of a tourist visa?" ..."
The US used Russia to prevent Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovich from using his military
against rioters in Kiev, and then 'cheated' Moscow by supporting an armed coup, President
Vladimir Putin said. The accusation refers to events that happened in February 2014, when
Ukraine was gripped by violent anti-government protests. Yanukovich and three leaders of the
opposition forces signed a power-sharing deal, which effectively amounted to a capitulation of
the president.
The deal was enforced by three European nations: Germany, France and Poland. The accord
lasted only a few days, however, as protestors – led by far-right nationalists –
violated its terms and advanced unopposed by demoralized security forces. This forced
Yanukovich to flee for his life.
"Here is something not publicly known," Putin revealed in an interview. "At
this very moment, our American partners called us and asked to do everything – and that's
almost a quote – to ensure that Yanukovich didn't use the army, so that the opposition
could clear the squares and governmental buildings on its own terms and go on towards the
implementation of the agreement."
The Russian president said Moscow agreed to this request, only to see the situation escalate
the next day into a full-fledged armed coup. "They could have at least called us, do
something, say a word! They could have said, 'It was a case of agents stepping out of line, but
we will fix it and turn everything into the bounds of the law,'" he said.
"Not a word! On the contrary, there was full support of those who committed this
coup," Putin recalled. "This is what they did with their own hands. How can they not
support the current leadership now? They put themselves into a corner."
After he was asked whether this was the first time Moscow had been cheated by Washington,
Putin said this instance was "the first when the cheating was done so rudely and
insolently." It was the first time that the US had broken a promise this quickly, and
would not even bother to explain their actions through proper channels, the president
added.
"They should have understood that all this was happening near our borders. There are
many people who identify themselves as Russians or consider themselves closely connected with
Russia," Putin said. "[Ukraine] is a country with which we have centuries-old special
relations. We had an integrated production, energy and transport system. How can one not
consider all those things?"
After the armed coup, the leadership of Ukraine chose to sever as many ties with Russia as
it could, even though it hurt their own country. The painful break-up was justified by Kiev's
ambition to become part of NATO and the European Union – two goals that don't seem much
closer, four years after the ousting of Yanukovich. It did, however, cause significant damage
to Ukraine's economy, forcing millions of Ukrainians to seek low-paid jobs in countries like
Russia, Poland and the Czech Republic.
"If they did it a little different, Ukraine would have benefited much more. Our
co-operation links would not have been broken. Entire industries in Ukraine would have still
existed," Putin said. "All this destruction was done for what? For a 'civilizational
choice?' Was that a choice of poverty or an opportunity to work illegally in European countries
under the guise of a tourist visa?"
The remarks feature in a 90-minute documentary by journalist Vladimir Solovyov called
'World Order 2018,' which is based on interviews with Putin and a number of foreign
dignitaries. The film is intended to show how the Russian leadership perceives the country's
place in the world today.
"... Jones proceeds to suggest the Tuesday hearing is an important step in the effort to wake up Americans who will spread the word that Congress is "brain dead" concerning its constitutional responsibility in regard to war. ..."
According to the Congressional Research Service, the 2001 AUMF has been cited as statutory
authority for unclassified military or related actions at least 41 times in 18 countries. Both
President George W. Bush and President Obama used it, and now President Trump is following the
same path.
That is a portion of the cogent analysis Reps Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Justin Amash
(R-MI) offer in their Wednesday The Hill editorial explaining why they support repealing the AUMF
that has facilitated members of the United States Congress abdicating their authority over US
wars and three presidents exercising unrestrained use of military force abroad. The editorial
came the day after Lee and Amash
hosted a joint hearing of the United States House of Representatives Progressive Caucus and
Liberty Caucus focused on exploring repealing the AUMF.
Watch here the Progressive
Caucus and Liberty Caucus' fascinating hearing. The hearing includes testimony of Michael
McPhearson from Veterans from Peace, Daniel L. Davis from Defense Priorities, and Rita Siemion
from Human Rights First, as well as statements and questions from Reps. Lee, Amash, Walter Jones
(R-NC), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Thomas Massie (R-NC), Jan Schakowski (D-IL), Jim Jordan
(R-OH). Mark Sanford (R-SC), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Jim McGovern (D-MA), and Dave Brat
(R-VA).
We'll see if the bipartisan movement in the House for a repeal of the 2001 AUMF ultimately
gains enough support to force a debate and vote on the House floor. Over the years, House Speaker
Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his predecessor
John Boehner (R-OH) have ducked their constitutional responsibility by withstanding pressure
from members to hold such a debate and vote.
During the hearing, Jones frankly addressed Ryan and Boehner's responsibility for preventing a
House floor debate and vote on the AUMF. "The one man blocking this debate is Paul Ryan,"
declared Jones. Jones elaborates:
The speaker of the House has the authority to order the committees of jurisdiction to mark up a
new AUMF. We have written letters individually and also in a bipartisan way; we still have not
had a debate. We started that request under John Boehner -- no debate.
Jones proceeds to suggest the Tuesday hearing is an important step in the effort to wake
up Americans who will spread the word that Congress is "brain dead" concerning its constitutional
responsibility in regard to war.
Jones and Massie are members of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Advisory
Board.
I have the audacity to hope that the dismantling of the American Empire will proceed as
copacetically as the dismantling of the Soviet Empire did. (This is not to say that it won't be
humiliating or impoverishing, or that it won't be accompanied by a huge increase in morbidity
and mortality.)
One of my greatest fears over the past decade was that Russia wouldn't take the US and NATO
seriously enough and just try to wait them out. After all, what is there to really to fear from
a nation that has over a 100 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlements, that's full of opioid
addicts, with 100 million working-age people permanently out of work, with decrepit
infrastructure and poisoned national politics?
And as far as NATO, there is, of course, Germany, which is busy rewriting "Deutschland,
Deutschland, über alles" to be gender-neutral. What are they supposed to do next? March on
Moscow under a rainbow banner and hope that the Russians die laughing? Oh, and there's also
NATO's largest Eurasian asset, Turkey, which is currently busy slaughtering America's Kurdish
assets in Northern Syria.
But simply waiting them out would have been a gamble, because in its death throes the
American Empire could have lashed out in unpredictable ways.
I am glad that Russia chose not to gamble with its national security. Now that the US has
been safely checkmated using the new Russian weapons systems, I feel that the world is in a
much better place. If you like peace, then it seems like your best option is to also like nukes
-- the best ones possible, ones against which no deterrent exists, and wielded by peaceful,
law-abiding nations that have no evil designs on the rest of the planet.
The crisis of neoliberalism is at the core of current anti-Russian campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory. But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." ..."
"... As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective. It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources . ..."
"... The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making, and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers. ..."
"... Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on. ..."
The United States has launched a three-pronged offensive on Russia. First, it's attacking Russia's economy via sanctions and oil-price
manipulation. Second, it's increasing the threats to Russia's national security by arming and training militant proxies in Syria
and Ukraine, and by encircling Russia with NATO forces and missile systems. And, third, it's conducting a massive disinformation
campaign aimed at convincing the public that Russia is a 'meddling aggressor' that wants to destroy the foundation of American democracy.
(Elections)
In response to Washington's hostility, Moscow has made every effort to extend the olive branch. Russia does not want to fight
the world's biggest superpower any more than it wants to get bogged down in a bloody and protracted conflict in Syria. What Russia
wants is normal, peaceful relations based on respect for each others interests and for international law. What Russia will not tolerate,
however, is another Iraq-type scenario where the sovereign rights of a strategically-located state are shunted off so the US can
arbitrarily topple the government, decimate the society and plunge the region deeper into chaos. Russia won't allow that, which is
why it has put its Airforce at risk in Syria, to defend the foundational principle of state sovereignty upon which the entire edifice
of global security rests.
The majority of Americans believe that Russia is the perpetrator of hostilities against the United States, mainly because the
media and the political class have faithfully disseminated the spurious claims that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. But the
allegations are ridiculous and without merit. Russia-gate is merely the propaganda component of Washington's Full Spectrum Dominance
theory, that is, disinformation is being used to make it appear as though the US is the victim when, in fact, it is the perpetrator
of hostilities against Russia. Simply put, the media has turned reality on its head. Washington wants to inflict as much pain as
possible on Russia because Russia has frustrated its plan to control critical resources and pipeline corridors in Central Asia and
the Middle East. The Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy is quite clear on this point. Russia's opposition to Washington's
destabilizing interventions has earned it the top spot on the Pentagon's "emerging rivals" list. Moscow is now Public Enemy#1.
Washington's war on Russia has a long history dating back at least 100 years to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Despite the
fact that the US was engaged in a war with Germany at the time (WW1), Washington and its allies sent 150,000 men from 15 nations
to intervene on behalf of the "Whites" hoping to staunch the spread of communism into Europe. In the words of British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill, the goal was "to strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib."
According to Vasilis Vourkoutiotis from the University of Ottawa:
" the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.. was a failed attempt to eradicate Bolshevism while it was still weak .As
early as February 1918 Britain supported intervention in the civil war on behalf of the Whites, and in March it landed troops
in Murmansk. They were soon joined by forces from France, Italy, Japan, the United States, and ten other nations. Eventually,
more than 150,000 Allied soldiers served in Russia
The scale of the war between the Russian Reds and Whites, however, was such that the Allies soon realized they would have little,
if any, direct impact on the course of the Civil War unless they were prepared to intervene on a far grander scale. By the end
of April 1919 the French had withdrawn their soldiers .British and American troops saw some action in November 1918 on the Northern
Front but this campaign was of limited significance in the outcome of the Civil War. The last British and American soldiers were
withdrawn in 1920. The main Allied contributions to the White cause thereafter were supplies and money, mostly from Britain .
The chief purpose of Allied intervention in Soviet Russia was to help the Whites defeat the Reds and destroy Bolshevism." (Allied
Intervention in the Russian Revolution", portalus.ru)
The reason we bring up this relatively unknown bit of history is because it helps to put current events into perspective. First,
it helps readers to see that Washington has been sticking its nose in Russia's business more than a century. Second, it shows that–
while Washington's war on Russia has ebbed and flowed depending on the political situation in Moscow– it has never completely ended.
The US has always treated Russia with suspicion, contempt and brutality. During the Cold War, when Russia's global activities put
a damper on Washington's depredations around the world, relations remained stretched to the breaking point. But after the Soviet
Union collapsed in December, 1991, relations gradually thawed, mainly because the buffoonish Boris Yeltsin opened the country up
to a democratization program that allowed the state's most valuable strategic assets to be transferred to voracious oligarchs for
pennies on the dollar. The plundering of Russia pleased Washington which is why it sent a number of prominent US economists to Moscow
to assist in the transition from communism to a free-market system. These neoliberal miscreants subjected the Russian economy to
"shock therapy" which required the auctioning off of state-owned resources and industries even while hyperinflation continued to
rage and the minuscule life savings of ordinary working people were wiped out almost over night. The upshot of this Washington-approved
looting-spree was a dramatic uptick in extreme poverty which intensified the immiseration of tens of millions of people. Economist
Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up like this:
"In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented
poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous
other social indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life ..
(Due to) the tight monetary policies that were pursued firms didn't have the money to even pay their employees . they didn't
have enough money to pay their pensioners, to pay their workers .Then, with the government not having enough revenue, other aspects
of life started to deteriorate. They didn't have enough money for hospitals, schools. Russia used to have one of the good school
systems in the world; the technical level of education was very high. (But they no longer had) enough money for that. So it just
began to affect people in every dimension of their lives .
The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with
more than one out of two children living in families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people
than the Communists had said it would be. It brought Gucci bags, Mercedes, the fruits of capitalism to a few .But you had a shrinking
(economy). The GDP in Russia fell by 40 percent. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the national income, fell
by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices,
and the majority of people wound up with less and less and less . (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding Heights)
So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory.
But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then
western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." At the same time, Washington continued
its maniacal push eastward using its military catspaw, NATO, to achieve its geopolitical ambitions to control vital resources and
industries in the most populous and prosperous region of the coming century, Eurasia. After promising Russian President Gorbachev
that NATO would never "expand one inch to the east", the US-led military alliance added 13 new countries to its membership, all of
them straddling Russia's western flank, all of them located, like Hitler, on Russia's doorstep, all of them posing an existential
threat to Russia's survival. NATO forces now routinely conduct provocative military drills just miles from the Russian border while
state-of-the-art missile systems surround Russia on all sides. (Imagine Russia conducting similar drills in the Gulf of Mexico or
on the Canadian border. How would Washington respond?)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an excellent summary of post Cold War history at a gathering of the Korber Foundation
in Berlin in 2017. Brainwashed Americans who foolishly blame Russia for meddling in the 2016 elections, should pay attention to what
he said.
LAVROV– "Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall we have shown our cards, trying to do our best to assert the values of equal
partnership in international affairs .Back in the early 1990s, we withdrew our troops from Eastern and Central Europe and the
Baltic states and dramatically downsized our military capacity near our western borders
When the cold war era came to an end, Russia was hoping that this would become our common victory – the victory of both the
former Communist bloc countries and the West. The dreams of ushering in shared peace and cooperation seemed near to fruition.
However, the United States and its allies decided to declare themselves the sole winners, refusing to work together to create
the architecture of equal and indivisible security. They made their choice in favor of shifting the dividing lines to our borders
– through expanding NATO and then through the implementation of the EU's Eastern Partnership program
As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats
were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main
reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture
and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective.
It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global
economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources .
The latest events are clear evidence that the persistent attempts to form a unipolar world order have failed .The new centers
of economic growth and concomitant political influence are assuming responsibility for the state of affairs in their regions.
Let me reiterate that the emergence of multipolar world order is a fact and a reality. Seeking to hold back this process and keep
the unfairly gained privileged positions is going to lead nowhere. We see increasing examples of nations raising their voice in
defense of their right to decide their own destiny ." (Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister)
The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's
enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in
the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging
reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and
seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making,
and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers.
Who doesn't want this? Who doesn't want to see an end of the bloody US-led invasions, the countless drone assassinations, the
vast destruction of ancient civilizations, and the senseless slaughter of innocent men, women and children? Who doesn't want to see
Washington's wings clipped so the bloodletting stops and the millions of refugees and internally displaced can return to their homes?
Lavrov offers a vision of the future that all peace-loving people should welcome with open arms.
Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on.
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
Mark Rice-Oxley,
Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation
with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a
weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at
the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media
are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury,
one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war.
Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever
heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet,
and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would
still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping
FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The
"public
inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which
contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too
busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs
have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and
embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like
Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to
his
"last 270 million" .
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe
literally billions in tax , and our government lets them
get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous
adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: Russiagate is a farce,
anyone with an open-mind can see that . The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen,
Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, a
nd allegedly
campaigned for many candidates , and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.
It bought a World Cup,
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence
of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial
malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia
many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to
ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The
"anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died.
The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom
espouse outright fascism
.
bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia
is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the
conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory,
al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether
or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free
and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists
and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move . America then moved their
AEGIS "defense
shield" into Eastern Europe . Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position
for any country.
Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush
and Cheney if he has a problem with it.
And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally
awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.
MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have
been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive
military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened
and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the
right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure
and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly
admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps .
Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia
alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped
foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical
appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double
standards.
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself.
Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything
but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in
Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused
to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for
years.
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear
casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the
vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist
almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia
so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual
comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by
over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security
and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just
a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone
thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical
trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own
agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires
explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why
Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic,
social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People
sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access
to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in
pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even
maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's
health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid
society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their
benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been
down, for decades.
Poverty is increasing all the time ,
food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people,
now live in poverty .
In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the
UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley
go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can
pitch us a "solution".
There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy
Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs
or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't
bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London
is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually
a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the
oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn
suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to
make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change
in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public
opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to
win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about
how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context
and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ –
their existence
was reported in the
Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight
face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine
their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing
our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He
is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent
speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:
And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who
lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans
out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain
kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."
I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian
and leave it en masse? It's as dishonest as The Sun.
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in
the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one
that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles
fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial
murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem
to be ok with it.
Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes
for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that
and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder
on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official
line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind
of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes
of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity
loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards
Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."
Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war."
All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Russophobes over at the Guardian (and the rest of the corporate media) would be well advised to review the trial of Julius
Streicher at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine
and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation
on its borders in Ukraine.
I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically
for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian',
or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands
in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the
US.
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless,
we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper
and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do
to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The
Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing
their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of
pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more
buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe
she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just
out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet
the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that
attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died?
Funny that?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter,
stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that
PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed
the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a
week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions
to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other
deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is
pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from
C4News (mute the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform
and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication
the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast.
I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate
question after the events in Salisbury?
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist
media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons
in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement,
marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around
in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America –
and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring
democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white
man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the
short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000
Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history,
it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in
businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain
as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter
to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in,
wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest
in.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash,
it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial
services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's
because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's
a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it
really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
"It's them, over there, they are evil. We must stop them. They are coming for us, they will take our children and steal our i
phones !!! Arrgh!!!" "I'll have another strong short black thanks"
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear
are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south,
are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles
of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the
only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment
has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing
left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water
is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black.
There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown
into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away
the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force
that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate
those not worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors
to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
up.
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal
for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who
inspected the premises.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard
drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn
Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation
AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional
US Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the
Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing
-- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also
the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia
and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or
American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by
coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup
in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t
expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary
/congressional industyrial complex.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown
how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive
to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!
There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen
other people at the same time.
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something
else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up
and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
"... Jones proceeds to suggest the Tuesday hearing is an important step in the effort to wake up Americans who will spread the word that Congress is "brain dead" concerning its constitutional responsibility in regard to war. ..."
According to the Congressional Research Service, the 2001 AUMF has been cited as statutory
authority for unclassified military or related actions at least 41 times in 18 countries. Both
President George W. Bush and President Obama used it, and now President Trump is following the
same path.
That is a portion of the cogent analysis Reps Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Justin Amash
(R-MI) offer in their Wednesday The Hill editorial explaining why they support repealing the AUMF
that has facilitated members of the United States Congress abdicating their authority over US
wars and three presidents exercising unrestrained use of military force abroad. The editorial
came the day after Lee and Amash
hosted a joint hearing of the United States House of Representatives Progressive Caucus and
Liberty Caucus focused on exploring repealing the AUMF.
Watch here the Progressive
Caucus and Liberty Caucus' fascinating hearing. The hearing includes testimony of Michael
McPhearson from Veterans from Peace, Daniel L. Davis from Defense Priorities, and Rita Siemion
from Human Rights First, as well as statements and questions from Reps. Lee, Amash, Walter Jones
(R-NC), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Thomas Massie (R-NC), Jan Schakowski (D-IL), Jim Jordan
(R-OH). Mark Sanford (R-SC), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Jim McGovern (D-MA), and Dave Brat
(R-VA).
We'll see if the bipartisan movement in the House for a repeal of the 2001 AUMF ultimately
gains enough support to force a debate and vote on the House floor. Over the years, House Speaker
Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his predecessor
John Boehner (R-OH) have ducked their constitutional responsibility by withstanding pressure
from members to hold such a debate and vote.
During the hearing, Jones frankly addressed Ryan and Boehner's responsibility for preventing a
House floor debate and vote on the AUMF. "The one man blocking this debate is Paul Ryan,"
declared Jones. Jones elaborates:
The speaker of the House has the authority to order the committees of jurisdiction to mark up a
new AUMF. We have written letters individually and also in a bipartisan way; we still have not
had a debate. We started that request under John Boehner -- no debate.
Jones proceeds to suggest the Tuesday hearing is an important step in the effort to wake
up Americans who will spread the word that Congress is "brain dead" concerning its constitutional
responsibility in regard to war.
Jones and Massie are members of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Advisory
Board.
Looks like neocons represent a trap in which the US society got and out of which there is not easy end. That trap
which can be fatal.
Notable quotes:
"... American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force. They simply have no reference points ..."
"... In the " Empire of Illusions ," facts simply don't matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. ..."
"... The zombified US general public won't be told what is going on, those who will understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have way too much at stake to throw in the towel ..."
"... In fact, since the US is now run by Neocons, we can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down. So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by "patriotic" "Congresspersons" (my attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized public that they are "taking a firm stance" against "the Russian dictator" and that the proud US of A shall not cave in to the "Russian nuclear blackmail". These colors don't run! United we stand! Etc. etc. etc. ..."
Bringing a sense of reality to a deeply delusional Empire
The leaders of the Empire, along with their brainwashed ideological
drones , live in a world completely detached from reality. This is why Martyanov writes
that the US " still continues to reside in her bubble which insulates her from any outside
voices of reason and peace " and that Putin's speech aimed at " coercing America's
elites into, if not peace, at least into some form of sanity, given that they are currently
completely detached from the geopolitical, military and economic realities of a newly emerging
world ". Martyanov explains that:
American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever
attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious
military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear
weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are
simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force.
They simply have no reference points. Yet, being a product of the American pop-military
culture, also known as military porn and propaganda, these people -- this collection of
lawyers, political "scientists", sociologists and journalists who dominate the American
strategic kitchen which cooks non-stop delusional geopolitical and military doctrines, can
understand one thing for sure, and that is when their poor dears get a bulls-eye on their
backs or foreheads.
The fact that in the real world these elites have had a bulls-eye on their backs for decades
doesn't change the fact that they also managed to convince themselves that they could remove
that bulls-eye by means of withdrawing from the ABM treaty and by surrounding Russia with
anti-missile launchers. The fact that some (many? most?) US politicians realized, at least in
the back of their minds, that their ABM systems would never truly protect the US from a Russian
counter-strike did not really matter because there were some uniquely American psychological
factors which made the notion of an ABM system irresistibly attractive:
1) An ABM system promised the US impunity : impunity is, along with military superiority,
one of the great American myths (as discussed here ). From Reagan
with this "weapons which kill weapons" to the current crisis in Korea, Americans have always
strived for impunity for their actions abroad: let all countries drown in an ocean of fire,
murder and mayhem as long as our "homeland" remains the untouchable sacrosanct citadel. Since
WWII Americans have killed many millions of people abroad, but when 9/11 came (nevermind that
it was obviously a false flag) the country went into something like clinical shock from the
loss of about 3'000 innocent civilians. Soviet, and then later, Russian nuclear weapons
promised to deliver many tens of millions of deaths if the USSR/Russia was attacked and that is
why spinning the fairy tale about an ABM "shield" was so appealing even if it was
technologically speaking either a pipe-dream (Reagan's "Star Wars") or an extremely limited
system capable of stopping maybe a few missiles at most (the current ABM system in Europe).
Again, facts don't matter at all, at least not in American politics or in the US collective
psyche.
2) An ABM system promised a huge financial bonanza for the fantastically corrupt US
Military-Industrial Complex for which millions of Americans work and which made many of them
fantastically rich. Frankly, I suspect that many (most?) folks involved in the ABM programs
fully realized that this was a waste of time, but as long as they were getting their bank
accounts filled with money, they simply did not care: hey, they pay me – I will take
it!
3) The US military culture never had much of an emphasis on personal courage or
self-sacrifice (for obvious reasons). The various variations of the ABM fairy tale make it
possible for Americans to believe that the next war would be mostly fought by pressing buttons
and relying on computers. And if real bombs start falling, let them fall somewhere else,
preferably on some remote brown people who, well, ain't quite as precious to God and humanity
as us, the White "indispensable nation".
Add to this a quasi-religious belief (a dogma, really) in the myth of American technological
superiority and you understand that the Russian leaders began to realize that their US
counterparts were gradually forgetting that they did have a bulls-eye painted on their backs.
So what Putin did is simply paint a few more, different ones, just to make sure that US leaders
come back to reality.
The goal of Putin's speech was also to prove both Obama ("the Russian economy is in
tatters") and McCain ("Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country") wrong. The Russian
message to the US ruling elites was simple: no, not only are we not lagging behind you
technologically, in many ways we are decades ahead of you, in spite of sanctions, your attempts
to isolate us, the dramatic drop in energy prices or your attempts at limiting our access to
world markets (the successful development of this new generation of weapons systems is a clear
indicator of the real state of fundamental research in Russia in such spheres are advanced
alloys, nanotechnology, super-computing, etc.).
To the warmongers at the Pentagon, the message was equally clear and tough: we spend less
than 10% of what you can spend on global aggression; we will match your quantitative advantage
with our qualitative superiority. Simply put, you fight with dollars, we will fight with
brains. US propagandists, who love to speak about how Russia always uses huge numbers of
unskilled soldiers and dumb but brutal weapons now have to deal with a paradigm which they are
completely unfamiliar with: a Russian soldier is much better trained, much better equipped,
much better commanded and their morale and willpower is almost infinitely higher than one of
the typical US serviceman. For a military culture used to mantrically repeat that everything
about it is "the best in the world" or even "the best in history" this kind of new reality will
come as a very painful shock and most will respond to it by going into deep denial. To those
who believed in the (historically completely false) narrative about the US and Reagan
bankrupting the USSR by means of a successful arms race, it must feel very strange to have sort
of "traded places" with the bad old USSR and being in the situation of having to face
military-spending induced bankruptcy.
Nothing will change in the Empire of Illusions (at least for the foreseeable
future)
Speaking of bankruptcy. The recent revelations have confirmed what the Russians have been
warning about for years: all the immense sums of money spent by the US in ABM defenses have
been completely wasted. Russia did find and deploy an asymmetrical response which makes the
entire US ABM program completely useless and obsolete. Furthermore, as Martyanov also points
out, the current force structure of the US surface fleet has also been made basically obsolete
and useless, at least against Russia (but you can be sure that China is following close
behind). Potentially, this state of affairs should have immense, tectonic repercussions:
immense amounts US taxpayer money has been completely wasted, the US nuclear and naval
strategies have been completely misguided, intelligence has failed (either on the acquisition
or the analytical level), US politicians have made disastrous decisions and this is all a total
"cluster-bleep" which should trigger God knows how many investigations, resignations, and
numerous sanctions, administrative or even criminal ones. But, of course, absolutely nothing of
this, nothing at all, will happen. Not a single head will roll
In the " Empire of
Illusions ," facts simply don't matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now
self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. And, in a way, that
is true.
The zombified US general public won't be told what is going on, those who will
understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites
who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have
way too much at stake to throw in the towel.
In fact, since the US is now run by Neocons, we
can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down.
So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and
outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by "patriotic" "Congresspersons" (my
attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized
public that they are "taking a firm stance" against "the Russian dictator" and that the proud
US of A shall not cave in to the "Russian nuclear blackmail". These colors don't run! United we
stand! Etc. etc. etc.
"... The drooling left-wing talking heads insist endlessly that Julian Assange, the publisher of WikiLeaks, is a Russian agent and WikiLeaks is a Russian front. Therefore, they reason that obtaining and passing such documents to Trump would be a treasonous crime. ..."
I
AM UNDER ATTACK In the 40 years that I have spent in American Politics, I have never seen a
more hysterical lynch mob than the one at MSNBC , and other "Trump Hating" fake news
sites. If you read the Washington Post, Salon or Vice , they would have you
believe that I am on the verge of being indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for
obtaining copies of the allegedly hacked DNC emails acquired and published by Julian Assange,
and passing them to Donald Trump and his campaign.
The drooling left-wing talking heads insist endlessly that Julian Assange, the publisher
of WikiLeaks, is a Russian agent and WikiLeaks is a Russian front. Therefore, they reason that
obtaining and passing such documents to Trump would be a treasonous crime.
There is only one little problem with this conspiracy theory. I never received anything from
Wikileaks, or the Russians, or anyone else. I never sent Donald Trump anything. In fact, I
never discussed the Wikileaks disclosures or allegedly hacked DNC emails with Donald Trump
before during or after the election.
I testified for four hours before the House Intelligence Committee months ago, debunking
this left-wing conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, although members of the Committee disparaged
me in public session, I was only allowed to respond behind closed doors. Suggestions by the
grumbling Democratic minority and amplified by Politico that my testimony was less than
honest are completely and categorically false.
Last week someone on the staff of the House of Intelligence Committee leaked a carefully
doctored and truncated screenshot of the direct message exchange I had with WikiLeaks. This
material was long ago supplied to the House Intelligence Committee and even in its heavily
edited form, proves yet again that I had no coordination or collaboration with WikiLeaks.
"... In the comedy movie " Wag the Dog ," a fictitious U.S. president is on the cusp of losing an election over a real scandal. So a political spin doctor and Hollywood producer hired by his campaign instead distract the public by manufacturing "the appearance of a war" with Albania. The spin doctor explains: "It's not a war, it's a pageant. We need a theme, a song -- some visuals." The producer ascribes Albania a false motive against the United States: "They want to destroy our way of life!" The story line keeps changing to explain away emerging, inconvenient realities. ..."
"... The ever-changing "Russia narrative" in American politics is today's "Wag the Dog" scenario. Technology and the disintegration of evidence-based journalism permit a surprisingly small number of individuals to destroy bilateral or multilateral relations. Their motivation in shifting from an inconvenient reality into their desired reality is power and military-industrial commercial interests. ..."
"... Ignore Donald Trump and increase your defense budget to 2 percent, because the generals who are 'operationalizing policy' remain in charge ..."
"... When you owe the world $18 trillion, the only way to get them to "pay 2 percent for defense" is to manufacture a boogeyman. Russian novelist and pacifist Leo Tolstoy observed: "There is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people." ..."
"... they simply follow the "Wag the Dog" playbook: We don't need it to prove to be true. We need it to distract them. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt once cautioned ..."
"... The distractions no longer can mask these "unholy alliances." The wife of a central architect of the Department of Justice's "Russia narrative" secretly worked for the dossier-peddling Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson attempted -- according to his own congressional admissions -- to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election ..."
"... Yet on March 16, 2017, Daniel Jones -- himself a team member of Fusion GPS, self-described former FBI agent and, as we now know from the media, an ex-Feinstein staffer -- met with my lawyer, Adam Waldman, and described Fusion as a "shadow media organization helping the government," funded by a "group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros." My lawyer testified these facts to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Nov. 3. Mr. Soros is, not coincidentally, also the funder of two "ethics watchdog" NGOs (Democracy 21 and CREW) attacking Rep. Nunes' committee memo. ..."
"... A former Obama State Department official, Nuland, has been recently outed as another shadow player, reviewing and disseminating Fusion's dossier, and reportedly, hundreds of other dossiers over a period of years. "Deep State-proud loyalists" apparently was a Freudian slip, not a joke. ..."
In the comedy movie " Wag the Dog ," a
fictitious U.S. president is on the cusp of losing an election over a real scandal. So a
political spin doctor and Hollywood producer hired by his campaign instead distract the public
by manufacturing "the appearance of a war" with Albania. The spin doctor explains: "It's not a
war, it's a pageant. We need a theme, a song -- some visuals." The producer ascribes Albania a
false motive against the United States: "They want to destroy our way of life!" The story line
keeps changing to explain away emerging, inconvenient realities.
The ever-changing "Russia narrative" in American politics is today's "Wag the Dog"
scenario. Technology and the disintegration of evidence-based journalism permit a surprisingly
small number of individuals to destroy bilateral or multilateral relations. Their motivation in
shifting from an inconvenient reality into their desired reality is power and
military-industrial commercial interests.
When I attended the Munich Security Conference in
February, the extraordinary, coordinated message of a panel of U.S. senators was summarized by
moderator Victoria Nuland, former assistant secretary of state under President Barack Obama,
as: "Deep State-proud loyalists giv[ing] broad reassurance about continuity." One of the
panelists, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), said: "What the Breitbart crowd would call the
'Deep State' is what many of us would call 'knowledgeable professionals.'" The panel's uniform
message was essentially: Ignore Donald Trump and increase your defense budget to 2 percent,
because the generals who are 'operationalizing policy' remain in charge .
When you owe the world $18 trillion, the only way to get them to "pay 2 percent for
defense" is to manufacture a boogeyman. Russian novelist and pacifist Leo Tolstoy observed:
"There is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent
of the interests of the people."
What has been inelegantly termed the "Deep State" is really this: shadow power exercised by
a small number of individuals from media, business, government and the intelligence community,
foisting provocative and cynically false manipulations on the public. Out of these
manipulations, an agenda of these architects' own design is born.
Unfortunately, I am personally familiar with this group. Before they moved to their current,
bigger ambitions of reversing the U.S. presidential election results, they scurrilously
attacked me and others from the shadows for two decades. The various story lines and roles they
have created for me don't survive close scrutiny and are internally inconsistent, yet they
simply follow the "Wag the Dog" playbook: We don't need it to prove to be true. We need it to
distract them.
President Theodore Roosevelt once cautioned : "Behind the ostensible government
sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility
to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between
corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task."
The distractions no longer can mask these "unholy alliances." The wife of a central
architect of the Department of Justice's "Russia narrative" secretly worked for the
dossier-peddling Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson attempted -- according to his own
congressional admissions -- to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and its
aftermath, to attack Russia and to "embarrass" me and cause trouble for the company I
founded.
This inconvenient disclosure necessitated a new story line. Former Democratic National
Committee chairwoman and CNN commentator Donna Brazile attacked
the memo prepared by House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on
television as "the weaponization of classified information." It is ironic that someone who once
ran the organization that allegedly rigged the primary nomination process and who was fired
from CNN for allegedly rigging a presidential debate is now producing "Russian-rigging"
stories.
World War II hero and former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) once
observed , in a different context: "There exists a shadowy government with its own
fundraising mechanism." Wagging the dog costs money. So, who is the "funding mechanism" of this
"shadowy government?"
Fusion GPS's Simpson, in a New York Times op-ed describing his own Judiciary Committee
testimony, claimed a neoconservative website "and the Clinton campaign" were "the Republican
and Democratic funders of our Trump research." The Judiciary Committee's Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.) then unilaterally released, over the objection of committee chairman Sen. Chuck
Grassley (R-Iowa), Simpson's testimony to "set the record straight." Fusion GPS "commended
Senator Feinstein for her courage."
Yet on March 16, 2017, Daniel Jones -- himself a team member of Fusion GPS,
self-described former FBI agent and, as we now know from the media, an ex-Feinstein staffer --
met with my lawyer, Adam Waldman, and described Fusion as a "shadow media organization helping
the government," funded by a "group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros." My lawyer
testified these facts to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Nov. 3. Mr. Soros is, not
coincidentally, also the funder of two "ethics watchdog" NGOs (Democracy 21 and CREW) attacking
Rep. Nunes' committee memo.
A former Obama State Department official, Nuland, has been recently outed as another
shadow player, reviewing and disseminating Fusion's dossier, and reportedly, hundreds of other
dossiers over a period of years. "Deep State-proud loyalists" apparently was a Freudian slip,
not a joke.
Invented narratives -- not "of the people, by the people, for the people," but rather just
from a couple of people, cloaked in the very same hypocritical rhetoric of "freedom" and
"democracy" that those are actively undermining -- impede internationally shared efforts on the
world's most pressing, real issues, like global health, climate change and the future of
energy. My own "Mother Russia" has many problems and challenges, and my country is still in
transition from the Soviet regime -- a transition some clearly wish us to remain in
indefinitely.
But we need to stop this old movie.
Oleg Deripaska is the founder of UC Rusal, the world's leading producer of aluminum
using clean, renewable hydropower.
Russiagate is being used for a host of multipurpose items. Including the suppression of
any disagreement with the Mainstream Media, and any dissent with the official line.
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or Ike
still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
While McCain is a war veteran, his career was not in any way distinguished - rather he pretty
clearly was given "hall pass" after "hall pass" given his father and grandfather. It also
seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view of the
world.
"The Nightingale's Song" has an excellent treatment of his Naval Academy and service time,
along with and in contrast to Ollie North, Jim Webb, admiral Poindexter and Bud MacFarlane.
Not a pretty picture..
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or
Ike still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
Seeing generations of your close and remote relatives killed and your property destroyed
as a result of war is usually a very sobering collective experience. McCain, apart from being
a rather exceptional warmonger, doesn't know what it is, despite experiencing some serious
trials while being a POW. Ike saw, for starters, concentration camps and, unlike, McCain was
mostly on the ground. This is a crucial distinction.
"It also seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view
of the world."
I agree, and, that was the point I tried to make, not all veterans are necessary qualified
MINDS for deciding future of the coming generations. I have the same suspicion for General
Kelly, having lost a son in Afghanistan and having power to influence the war in Afghanistan,
I think is this situation, like judges, one has to recuse him/herself to be part of planers.
"... Obvious failure everywhere the supposed electorate look. Of course they want an alternative. ..."
"... You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. ..."
"... The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
I'm increasingly coming tip the conclusion that the Russia stuff is caused by the economic failures of the ruling classes in the
UK and US. No noticeable advance in living standards since 1985.
An American oligarch is now a trillionaire and doesn't pay tax.
Obvious failure everywhere the supposed electorate look. Of course they want an alternative. Its lucky the Russians
chose now to become aggressive cos otherwise the Dem party leaders would be fired for incompetence.
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and
refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and
go full authoritarian.
Karl Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a return of chattel slavery. I recall
during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending
access to bankruptcy
likbez -< Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg...
Late Sheldon Wolin (who died Oct. 21, 2015) claimed that the current US political system should be called "inverted totalitarism".
He stressed that the democracy and the republican form of government are incompatible with
Powerful national intelligence agencies, which inevitably tend to escape civilian control and convert the state into national
security state
MIC which enforces the imperial foreign policy which is associated with such terms as "super power" and global neoliberal
Empire. This was noted much earlier by President Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation.
High level of concentration of media ownership. In the USA six corporations control the lion share of MSM.
Neoliberalism as a social system, with its inescapable tendency to replace representative democracy with "one dollar, one
vote" regime and institualized corruption of politicians (via "revolving door" mechanism, mechanism of financing the election
campaign, and the power of lobbyists on Capital Hill )
"Empire" and "superpower" accurately symbolize the projection of American power abroad, but for that reason they obscure
the internal consequences. Consider how odd it would sound if we were to refer to "the Constitution of the American Empire"
or "superpower democracy." The reason they ring false is that "constitution" signifies limitations on power, while "democracy"
commonly refers to the active involvement of citizens with their government and the responsiveness of government to its citizens.
For their part, "empire" and "superpower" stand for the surpassing of limits and the dwarfing of the citizenry. The increasing
power of the state and the declining power of institutions intended to control it has been in the making for some time. The
[two] party system is a notorious example.
...Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by
an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the
major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power,
are consistently deferential to the claims of national security.
Elections have become heavily subsidized non-events that typically attract at best merely half of an electorate whose information
about foreign and domestic politics is filtered through corporate-dominated media.
Citizens are manipulated into a nervous state by the media's reports of rampant crime and terrorist networks, by thinly
veiled threats... and by their own fears about unemployment.
What is crucially important here is not only the expansion of governmental power but the inevitable discrediting of constitutional
limitations and institutional processes that discourages the citizenry and leaves them politically apathetic.
...At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding
power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing
drive
.. a pervasive atmosphere of fear abetted by a corporate economy of ruthless downsizing, withdrawal or reduction of pension
and health benefits; a corporate political system that relentlessly threatens to privatize Social Security and the modest health
benefits available, especially to the poor.
With such instrumentalities for promoting uncertainty and dependence, it is almost overkill for inverted totalitarianism
to employ a system of criminal justice [to suppress dissent, like in classic totalitarism. ]
"... For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one. ..."
"... Ultimately the US government's anti-Russian animus does not matter. US government propaganda intensifies in lockstep with Washington's impotence and discredit. These beltway tantrums are a good sign. ..."
"... But in fact, comprehensive and exhaustive evidence shows that the US is more repressive than Russia. ..."
"... Russia is no longer a communist totalitarian state. In the intervening 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet empire, the yankee imperium itself has completed its morph into a quasi-fascist empire begun over the cold war decades. It is, therefore, imperative that Mr. Buchanan's wise counsel be followed if we are to survive. ..."
"... Few Americans understand the extent of the anti-Russian propaganda and the massive profiteering by military contractors that results. Watch this recent Jimmy Dore clip to learn more. Most are shocked to learn the USA spends twelve times more. Our increase this year alone is much greater than Russian entire military budget! ..."
"... The antipathy to Russia comes from the US Deep State, not Trump or the American people. Anti-Russian hysteria is derived entirely from America's Jewish press and Deep State with their "Russian hacking" and "influencing elections" stories – as if the Israel lobby doesn't influence US elections?? ..."
"... Neocons, Izzy firsters, and globalist banksters, mostly. Then there are the stooges like the McCainiacs and the Hillaryhyenas Then we have stupid, gullible people who believe their rot, essentially the rot believed by preceding generations including the brain dead, unquestioning, "greatest" generation of pseudo tough guy servile suck ups. ..."
"And Russians today enjoy freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, travel, politics, and
the press that the generations before 1989 never knew."
And these are freedoms that Americans, since 2001, are enjoying less and less. To add
insult to injury, it's not only our gov't., but our neighbors who seek to curtail Freedom of
Speech. One is likely to be ostracized for not succumbing to the Russiagate hysteria.
This excellent interview discusses motives for this propaganda.
Will Russiagate Help the Israel Lobby Censor Al Jazeera?
Most Americans would have no 'Russophobia' if not for the crazy media. After all, most
Americans, Demmy or Repuby, are wholly oblivious to world affairs. They only care about pop
culture.
So, why did Russia become a big deal?
Not because of the people. It was because of the media and deep state. Who runs them?
Jewish globalists. Why do Jews hate Russia? It's historic.
So, the real problem is Jewish Supremacism. 'Russophobia' is just a symptom of it.
Jewish globalists HATE anything that stands in the way of their total domination.
Russia clearly isn't anti-Jewish. Jews are 0.2% of the population but make up 20% of the
richest people there. So, why do Jews hate Russia? They haven't been allowed to gain total
power as in the US. And Jews fear that the Russian example might inspire other white nations.
And only total mastery and domination will please Jewish globalists who are in supremacist
mode.
That's what this is about. All this hysteria about Russia hacking blah blah is just Jewish
globalists trying to discredit Russia in the eyes of goyim.
Now, given the Jewish globalist mindset, why would they abandon anti-Russian hysteria?
It's not about Russia. It's about them. They will do ANYTHING to serve their own
interests.
Unfortunately, we will not get over it for the following reasons:
1. The military industrial complex needs an enemy to keep Western Europe in line. The
Russians serve this role as Boogeyman.
2. The LA-NYC-DC media axis has a strong hatred of Russians because they are White and
opposed to gays; never mind the fact that the public at large could care less. The axis
controls the megaphone, so Russiophobia it is.
3. Russiophobia is the means by which these Deep State traitors and axis allies are
attempting to overthrow our elected president. Not a single day has gone by that I haven't
seen some BS Russia gate crap from these late night propaganda shows or the controlled media.
Russiophobia is literally the only thing they have going because their immigration and trade
policies are unpopular.
4. Money. Lots of cash to be made in weapon sales from a new Cold War. Since the Chinese
are Chinese, a Cold War with them would be 'racist' but since Russia is white
5. The Israel lobby has their sights set on Iran and Russia stands in the way. Thus, the
lobby fiercely opposes Putin.
For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for
the absence of one.
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military
impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid
treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by
Washington. Putin is a serious strategist -- on the premises of Russian history.
Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding
Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing.
But what Russian leader, save Yeltsin, has not been an autocrat?
How was Yeltsin not an autocrat? He illegally dissolved the parliament by military force
killing hundreds, illegally ousted his own vice president who was elected on the same ticket
as himself, had a new constitution accepted by a plebiscite with massive fraud, then had
himself re-elected with massive fraud, while some 100% of the media and 90+% of the press
were under his or his allies' control. He then handpicked a successor who was elected in 2000
with near total control of the media (and massive fraud, though probably it was only needed
to avoid a second round).
If that's not an autocrat, then what is? How could Yeltsin be any less of an autocrat than
Putin?
Where is the threat? What have they done? Yes they have good weapons and thank God they do or
the crazy Israeli led US Generals would surely have nuked someone by now.
The economy? About the same as Italy, big whoop.
Resource rich, peaceful, mind their own business sort of folks not being led around by Gays
goofs and assholes like the USA, why not do business with em? They are not the BOOGIE
MAN!
I'm sure trump would have been over there cutting deals a year ago if it weren't for the
Hillary crazies. What a bunch of looser's they are, they make me sick.
Very good collection of Buchanan's erros and omissions, but you missed one:
Neither Putin nor Franklin Roosevelt were autocrats. They were (or are about to be)
elected by their people 4 times. They were and are very popular leaders.
The Constitutional Amendment limiting a President to 2 terms should have never been passed
and should be repealed (or if not, then add all of Congress to that 2 term limit
nonsense).
The only reason for a 2-term limit was hatred of Roosevelt by idiots like Buchanan, and
the so-called "tradition" of Presidents only staying or lasting for 2 terms.
Both reasons are obvious poppycock. Buchanan and his ilk never complain about the 10 terms
of many Senators and House members. Yet a beloved and popular President is somehow an
autocrat?
What a moronic smear. Mirriam-Webster's definition of autocrat is: a person (such as a
monarch) ruling with unlimited authority; one who has undisputed influence or power.
FDR like Putin did not have unlimited power, neither did(do) either have undispouted power
or influence.
You are dead wrong about both Presidents, Pat. Shame on you, you know that you know
better.
Ultimately the US government's anti-Russian animus does not matter. US government propaganda
intensifies in lockstep with Washington's impotence and discredit. These beltway tantrums are
a good sign.
When this article says 'us,' I don't think it conflates the US police state and the
American people. Many Americans suffer from induced Russophobia. They feel they have to
qualify any opinion with a general complaint about Russian oppression.
But in fact, comprehensive and exhaustive evidence shows that the US is more repressive
than Russia.
The Russian government has put itself on a self-improvement treadmill of ongoing
independent review by all the nations that commit themselves to human rights. The US
government evades independent review and undermines your rights with bureaucratic red tape
and bad faith.
Russians get a better deal than you do. What happens when we all realize it? We'll do to
the USA what we did to the USSR. We'll knock it over, rip it apart, replace it with a country
based on rights and rule of law. That's the underlying panic of the bureaucrats at Langley.
Their real enemy is rights and rule of law.
I agree, and Mr. Buchanan comes off sounding naive in quite a few of his columns. He knows
what's going on in the world. He also knows American politics, but only in terms of who is on
this committee, who will vote yea on that bill there, whether there is a precedent for this,
etc. and lots of history on all this. What he does not seem to understand is that it is not
1965 or even 1990, as far as the way things get actually run in this country.
There are no civil agreements "across the aisle" that will be held to, no precedent from a
court decision from 1995 that will, of course, be upheld by rule-of-law judges, and that sort
of thing. It is anarcho-tyranny at this point, from top to bottom .
Neither Putin nor Franklin Roosevelt were autocrats. They were (or are about to be)
elected by their people 4 times. They were and are very popular leaders.
I don't know Russian politics that well, but I imagine Putin would be very popular. As far
as relations with American is concerned he's a great guy to have there, and things would be
lots better between our countries without the American Deep State .
Buchanan needs to address the Jewish Power directly. WE are not behind anti-Russianism. If Jews were call a halt to anti-Russianism, everyone else would follow suit since most of
the goys inside the Beltway are shabbos cucks.
Russia is no longer a communist totalitarian state. In the intervening 30 years since the
collapse of the Soviet empire, the yankee imperium itself has completed its morph into a
quasi-fascist empire begun over the cold war decades. It is, therefore, imperative that Mr.
Buchanan's wise counsel be followed if we are to survive.
There WAS a referendum in the Crimea -- I have a copy of it before me, as I write,
provided by my wife, a Ukrainian -- and it asks whether you (the voter), wish to retain the
Constitution of '56, by which the Crimea was ceded by Khruschev to Ukraine, as a gift, or
whether you (the voter) wish to return to Russian hegemony?
The vote for the latter was 97%.
All the talk of "annexation" was nonsense. There were no troops involved, no movement of
military, and the Russian Federation Base, which contractually was allowed to host 10,000
troops, was not involved.
It was a perfectly peaceful SECESSION from Ukraine
Few Americans understand the extent of the anti-Russian propaganda and the massive
profiteering by military contractors that results. Watch this recent Jimmy Dore clip to learn
more. Most are shocked to learn the USA spends twelve times more. Our increase this year
alone is much greater than Russian entire military budget!
"Pat, you need to get over the Putinist propaganda. There was no coup in Ukraine."
Literally the next sentence: "The people rose up because they refused to be betrayed into Russian hands by
Yanukovich." These State Department paid trolls really need to get some better training. State Dept Gets $40 Million to Fund Troll Farm:
Syria was never about "Assad putting down peaceful protests". It is about pipelines –
both existing Russian and potential new ones from Qatar that need a route (a la Trans
Afghanistan Pipeline), geopolitical dominance, regional destabilization (for Israel and the
MIC), and revenge for Putin derailing the imminent US invasion of Syria by brokering a deal
for Assad to eliminate chemical weapons.
It isn't us, Pat, at least not ordinary people like you and me who have no input into
policy decisions. It's the neocons, zionists, and the lunatics in government who are pushing
this Russophobia. They have a goal in mind and it looks as though they are afraid to reveal
what it is.
Whatever that goal is, it's not likely to be good for either the US or Russia.
Yet, what is also clear is that Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of
Trump, Russia might be able to restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United
States.
Clearly, Putin wanted that, as did Trump.
That's what it looked like, and Trump clearly said that he wanted better relations with
Russia.
The antipathy to Russia comes from the US Deep State, not Trump or the American people.
Anti-Russian hysteria is derived entirely from America's Jewish press and Deep State with
their "Russian hacking" and "influencing elections" stories – as if the Israel lobby
doesn't influence US elections??
USA as a country, has been hopelessly captured by Zionist Jews who have their own agenda
directed against Russia (and the US public).
Neocons, Izzy firsters, and globalist banksters, mostly. Then there are the stooges like
the McCainiacs and the Hillaryhyenas Then we have stupid, gullible people who believe their
rot, essentially the rot believed by preceding generations including the brain dead,
unquestioning, "greatest" generation of pseudo tough guy servile suck ups.
Boycott 'em, mock 'em, and play the victim card just like the imaginary heroes and
bureaucrat messiahs typically do.
That's because Bibi is playing good cop while he outsources the role of bad cop to the
Jewish diaspora in the West and specifically AIPAC. This is in keeping with the age old
Jewish strategy of betting on both horses so only a certain segment of Jewry gets blamed and
reaps the consequences.
Putin has to know this and the power American Jews and their goy auxiliaries have over
U.S. foreign policy.
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet
Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms
the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by
inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets.
Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981.
Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal
fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the
Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of
Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain
Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea
"that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc
of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007,
pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White
House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the
Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is
based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in
what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the
Soviet Union
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin
later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support
for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that in mind, I
don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war
planers, will be regretting, even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved
ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports and other places around
the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in
aftermath of the terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows
what will happens to us if the opposite side start to supply his own proxies with lethal anti
air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such an
escalation.
Soros might well be a front company for an intelligence agency.
Notable quotes:
"... a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a Fusion GPS operative ..."
"... This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home. ..."
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs." ..."
"... I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency. ..."
"... i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it... ..."
"... It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards singling out russia for everything.. ..."
"... i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape or form.. ..."
"... My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian. ..."
"... When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven. ..."
"In a Daily Caller op-ed calling the Russian meddling narrative a "
false public manipulation ," Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska claims that Daniel Jones -
a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a
Fusion GPS operative - told the Russian Oligarch's lawyer in March, 2017 that Fusion
GPS was funded by " a group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros. "" Zerohedge
------------
Now, this is something different. I have no idea what the relative truthiness of this may
be, but... pl
This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their
PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the
neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our
IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home.
I appreciate your use of the phrase ' relative truthiness', and I suggest this latest
truthiness is just part of the movie, and a great movie it is.
Still, it's about time Soros
showed up and he's in good company too, along with this week's poisoned Russian spy and a
paid prostitute with a Trump story to tell. Next ?
We're probably due for a
Clinton/Russia-related Julian Assange document dump, some Russian intel officer arrests in DC
and....a new Steele-equivalent originator offering a more respectable document since after
all any evidence is good evidence.
Anything to keep the show going and the audience enthralled !
As for Soros himself, I suggest that there are plenty of Soros's with plenty of attached
money trails, but George has the watch.
All he is missing is the white cat on his lap.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign
influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies,
Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of
state for public diplomacy and public affairs."
Soros? All NGO's that apear in MSM articles, I look up their funding. Most funding traces
back to State Dep NED and Soros, along with other older money 'philanthropist' type
foundations.
I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency.
i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner
of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it...
It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards
singling out russia for everything..
i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would
be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape
or form..
My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated
himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in
past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and
removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has
paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to
Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon
billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are
clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant
like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian.
When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and
personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin
Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven.
Interesting that a former staffer from Senator Feinstein is implicated in the mess. How many
others are there who have been doing the same thing? I wonder if Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultt's IT staffer Mr. Arwan was accessing any relevant information while he was
on her payroll and for whom?
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [£1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that
their diligent work in pushing the Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep
State everything it demands, he will be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not
allowed to remain in power.
"... Russia is acting again as a great power. And she sees us as having slapped away her hand, extended in friendship in the 1990s, only to humiliate her by planting NATO on her front porch. ..."
"... Yet what is also clear is that Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of Trump, Russia might be able to restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United States. Clearly, Putin wanted that, as did Trump. Yet with the Beltway in hysteria over hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, and the Russophobia raging in Washington, we appear to be paralyzed when it comes to engaging with Russia. ..."
"... The U.S. political system, said Putin this week, "has been eating itself up." Is his depiction that wide of the mark? What is the matter with us? ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"... " If Russia wanted friendly relations with the US why meddle in our elections?" ..."
"... "However, Europeans are not irrational, but perfectly logical in being wary of Russia." ..."
That's pretty naive article. The Russophobia is used to cement fracturing neoliberal society
and create the commonenemy, more important the neoliberal elite which looted the country for
the last 40 years or so.
Russia is just a very convenient target which allow to reuse Cold War stereotypes and play
to the crowd instincts.
Another problem that Russa refuses to the be a Washington vassal (the status it enjoyed
under drunk Yeltsin) and neoliberal empire accept only vassal not eaul partners in thier
ranks.
Unless there is a late surge for Communist Party candidate Pavel Grudinin, who is running in
second place with 7 percent, Vladimir Putin will be re-elected president of Russia for
another six years on March 18.
Once he is, we must decide whether to continue on course into a second Cold War, or to
engage Russia, as every president sought to do in Cold War I.
For our present conflict, Vladimir Putin is not alone at fault. His actions have often
been reactions to America's unilateral moves.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, we brought all of the Warsaw Pact members and three
former republics of the USSR into our military alliance, NATO, to corral Russia. How friendly
was that?
Putin responded with his military buildup in the Baltic.
George W. Bush abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that Richard Nixon had
negotiated. Putin responded with a buildup of the offensive missiles he put on display last
week. The U.S. helped to instigate the Maidan Square coup that dumped over the elected
pro-Russian government in Ukraine. To prevent the loss of his Sevastopol naval base on the
Black Sea, Putin countered by annexing the Crimean Peninsula.
After peaceful protests in Syria were put down by Bashar al-Assad, we sent arms to Syrian
rebels to overthrow the Damascus regime. Seeing his last naval base in the Med, Tartus,
imperiled, Putin came to Assad's aid and helped him win the civil war.
The Boris Yeltsin years are over.
Russia is acting again as a great power. And she sees us as having slapped away her
hand, extended in friendship in the 1990s, only to humiliate her by planting NATO on her
front porch.
Yet what is also clear is that Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of
Trump, Russia might be able to restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United
States. Clearly, Putin wanted that, as did Trump. Yet with the Beltway in hysteria over
hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, and the Russophobia raging in Washington, we
appear to be paralyzed when it comes to engaging with Russia.
The U.S. political system, said Putin this week, "has been eating itself up." Is his
depiction that wide of the mark? What is the matter with us?
... ... ...
Japan negotiates with Putin's Russia over the southern Kuril Islands lost at the end of
World War II. Bibi Netanyahu has met many times with Putin, though he is an ally of Assad,
whom Bibi would like to see ousted, and has a naval and air base not far from Israel's
border.
We Americans have far bigger fish to fry with Russia than Bibi. Strategic arms control.
De-escalation in the Baltic, Ukraine, and the Black Sea. Ending the war in Syria. North
Korea. Space. Afghanistan. The Arctic. The war on terror. Yet all we seem to hear from our
elites is endless whining that Putin has not been sanctioned enough for desecrating "our
democracy."
Get over it.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
Good article, Pat, although it will probably send commenter Michael Kenny into apoplexy.
Yes, we have all heard the official lines about why we should beware of Putin. Like so many
official spins (Saddam's WMDs, etc.) it is probably an intentional distraction from the
actual truth.
It's the same nonsense in other places of the world, North Korea agitates against America,
Israel against Iran, Iran against Israel, China against Japan, etc. What all of these have
in common is that it is easier to point out the distant foreigner as the cause of so many
problems instead of looking inward and asking what REALLY is causing problems.
And with absolute certainty all the liberal comments here will say that this is false
and that Russia is to blame for all the problems.
Russia is neither America's "best friend" nor our "implacable enemy". What it is is a very
powerful competitor, with its own agenda and its own interests. Sometimes those interests
will align with ours, sometimes they will clash. Certainly it is a good thing for our
relationship with them to be on as amicable terms as possible, in order to facilitate our
mutual benefit wherever possible.
But for you to insist that their direct meddling in our electoral process is a non-issue
that should be ignored, is to declare that the United States is not a sovereign state, that
we have no right to determine our own form of government. That we in fact exist as a puppet
of Russia. You may think that is an acceptable position to take. I do not.
So this article is a basically a softball way of pitching the reactionary motto
"America Is A Communist Country". Why did the elites favor engagement with the Soviet
premiers? Because they liked communism. Why are they enraged by Putin, who is in every
significant way less oppressive than his predecessors? Because he's not a communist.
While I agree with you that the expansion of NATO did a lot of damage to the relationship
with Russia I have to say that you seem remarkably sanguine about a foreign power
influencing the American election so much that the clear favorite ended up losing.
I wonder how easily you would have been able to 'get over it' if Russia had leaked
letters from the Republicans which lead to Carter beating Reagan in 1980 or Gore beating
Bush in 2000? I'm no fan of Clinton and am glad she lost but I am a fan of Democracy and a
foreign power undermining it is tantamount to an act of war. Are you really so partisan
that you would rather your side win than the country have a reliable democracy?
If Russia had no military designs on the new NATO members, why was their membership
considered an affront? If Russia had no economic designs on Ukraine, why was it's joining
the EU considered a treat? If Russia wanted friendly relations with the US why meddle in
our elections?
Is Russia the great bogey-man of yesteryear? Perhaps not. Do they have legitimate issues
and grievances? Possibly. Can we perhaps reach an accommodation with them? Maybe. Is Trump
doing anything to curtail their mucking about in our political process? Nope. There's the
rub.
Patrick Buchanan is an apologist for Kremlin kleptocrats who not only foment trouble
abroad, but oppress their own people to stay in power.
The U.S. did not instigate the Maidan protest, unless you think that upwards of a
million ordinary people in Kyiv and millions more across Ukraine protested for dignity and
the rule of law in the dead of winter for nearly four months, then perhaps Mr. Buchanan has
a point. He does not.
Again, I quote verbatim from comments I made last month to pieces by Robert Merry and
Mr. Buchanan: "The Ukrainian president wasn't toppled; he fled,doubting the loyalty of his
own security forces and despite an agreement with the opposition to stay in power pending a
new election within 10 months."
I lean liberal and it's not that much much about what Russia is up to but If Meuller
actually came out with solid evidence that Trump himself and his people, did collude with
Russia to influence the 2016 election will his followers even care at this point?
I really wonder how Americas next generation is going to behave now that Trump and his
cronies have done so much to damage to any ideas of truth, integrity, honesty, decency, the
common good I could go on.
And something like 70% of Republicans think Trump is a good role model for children
according to a January Quinnipiac poll.
If you want to stop Russiaphobia, then Putin and Trump need to come clean about the 2016
activity. Period. Trump will not be impeached. End the Russian trolling for alt-right
causes or otherwise Democrats will attack hard.
Otherwise, the Manafort trial starting in July is going to be the biggest trial since OJ
and every night cable news will analyze every detail of Manafort working with Russian
government and money laundering for the Russians. (And there will be plenty of details of
expensive area rugs!)
And if there are any connections of Manafort or witness Gates to the Russian trolls it
will not be pretty. (Or Roger Stone to the hacked DNC e-mails.)
The usual double-talk: "Vladimir Putin will be re-elected president of Russia", i.e. the
Russian Federation, a sovereign state which has existed only since 1991, but then, "we must
decide whether to continue on course into a second Cold War, or to engage Russia, as every
president sought to do in Cold War I, "Russia" here meaning the now defunct "Soviet Union".
Mr Buchanan is locked in his cold war mindset and is simply unable to get his mind around
the idea that the Russian Federation isn't the Soviet Union, nor is it even the sole
successor state to the Soviet Union. It is merely one of 15 former Soviet republics and if
Mr Buchanan believes the US should "engage" with the former Soviet Union, shouldn't it also
engage with, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic Republics etc.? Engaging only with the Russian
Federation implies taking sides with Putin against the other 14 former Soviet republics,
which, of course, contradicts Mr Buchanan's much proclaimed belief in "non-intervention"!
It's perfectly true to say that US wrongdoing created Putin, not least the US neocon
attempt to use him as a useful idiot to destroy the EU, but how does US wrongdoing give
Putin the right to violate Ukrainians' rights? This is in fact the standard pro-Putin
nonsense argument: A violates B's rights. C is to be allowed to punish A by also violating
B's rights! If the US is at fault, it must put right its wrongdoing by getting Putin out of
Ukraine. One way or the other. Any other course of action is just one more step towards the
collapse of the US.
All that I know to be the truth is that Russia seems to support the truth more than we
Americans! We have lost our soul. If we cannot recuperate our "soul", we need to die the
death of all failed empires!
During an event in October, 2017, the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir V.
Putin blamed the collapse of the U.S.S.R. on Soviet Union trusting the West "too much,"
describing the move as "our biggest mistake!"
"You interpreted our trust as weakness, and you exploited that," said the Russian
president, adding:
"Unfortunately, our Western partners, having divided the U.S.S.R.'s geopolitical legacy,
were certain of their own incontestable righteousness having declared themselves the
victors of the 'Cold War'."
"They started to openly interfere in the sovereign affairs of countries and to export
democracy in the same way as in their time the Soviet leadership tried to export the
Socialist revolution to the whole world."
Re: Thaomas, " If Russia wanted friendly relations with the US why meddle in our
elections?"
The jilted Left has mutated a huge bogus "Russian meddling" junk narrative into a
self-licking ice cream cone of political insanity.
The late, great journalist Robert Parry (RIP) had been tracking the Russia meddling
story assiduously before he died unexpectedly in January. Parry's Consortium News is one of
the few remaining sites of genuine journalistic integrity. It has no affection for Donald
Trump, only the Truth. It swings a 2X4 in every direction. Read the final assessment of the
Russia Meddling ruse by Parry published last December:
And then tell us how Parry had it wrong. Americans, including Thaomas are being played
for chumps by the corrupted MSM and crony Political Hacks. Reject the Big Lie and the Crony
Tools that sustain it.
P.S. Save consortiumnews to your browser favorites and visit it occasionally to wash off
the slime of MSM Fake News propaganda.
The truth is this. Russia is the irreplaceable adversary of the United States because they
are the one significant nation on this planet whose peoples do not fit neatly into our post
modern western concepts of race and ethnicity. Slavic people have and never will be
understood in the United States. They will always be the backwards, unelightened, barbaric,
undemocratic people. The one whom both Churchill and Hitler stated were inferior to both
the Anglo and Germanic peoples.
While your critique of America's unnecessary post-Cold War antagonism is correct, it is
hardly relevant to 2018.
"Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of Trump, Russia might be able to
restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United States." >? What?!
Putin has and continues to attempt to meddle in and create chaos in our elections. He
clearly "has something" on Trump personally. He's using Trump as an agent of disruption
within the United States to get vengeance on the US for its post-Cold War activities.
It may very well make sense to attempt to reach out to the Russians, but this is hardly
the president or the time to do that.
Pat Buchanan is far from my favourite American (ex)politician, but this article is a model
of pure reason. Indeed, it ranks up there with the best ones on the current topic of
Washington's childish and dangerous Russophobia.
It really is high time that the Democrats and their fellow travellers, the neocons, gave
up on their poorly designed anti-Russia, anti-Putin propaganda narrative. Ever more
Americans are not buying it, Washington's vassal states have never bought it (although, as
obedient vassals the leaders of those states don't dare say so), and the rest of the world
is simply enjoying the clownish performance of American victimization and injured
innocence.
Good article.
What snowflakes we are -- has our house of Democracy always been built on the sands of
hypocrisy and hubris? The recent demonization of Russia, it seems to me, is a gift to the
War Machine which always needs an enemy to justify $billions in weaponry. I am much more
concerned about John Bolton calling shots from the White House, than I am about Putin, or
even Kim Jungun.
"Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of Trump, Russia might be able to restore
respectful if not friendly relations with the United States. Clearly, Putin wanted that, as
did Trump. [..] What is the matter with us?"
Let us not pretend to be naive, and let us give credit where credit is due. Whereas the
Republican Party's principled stance against the political opponents focused on "stained
dress" and "birth certificate", the Clinton/Obama leadership of the *other* war mongering
party managed to strike a strategic alliance with the neocons and the "national insecurity"
apparat, and, together with the "Real GOP", has prevented Trump from changing US foreign
policy for the better as effectively as the business wings of the "Biparty" have co-opted
Trump into Reagonomics 2.0 – now as farce.
There is a reason why the GOP refused to focus on the Benghazi CIA pipeline channeling
Libyan arsenals to Syrian islamists.
The authors recap makes rather clear that the US elites, since before the end of WW2,
committed themselves to the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the subordination of its
parts. US policy towards Russia is not driven by negligence or incompetence, and we should
not ever forget that US talk of "winneable" nuclear war, decapitation strikes and "regime
change" goes far back – to Eisenhower, in fact, who denied that nuclear weapons were
different from other means of "mass destruction" in war. The continuity of US aggressive
posture – and posturing – is exemplified by the career of Keith Payne, with GWB
and now Trump, and his sponsors – like Rumsfeld – with Reagan, Bush and Bush
– posturing that culminated in Able Archer, which led Thatcher to concern herself
with containing and rolling back US nuclear blackmail.
The Biparty and other camp followers of the war profiteering classes and the global
oligarchy are not concerned with "defending" The People, much less our "allies", as South
Korea is learning at cost – the Endsieg over Russia and, eventually, China, is their
multi-generational project. If you wonder whether the 2016 election was rigged or fixed in
any way, you have to go back to the primaries that were supposed to only offer us a choice
between two warmongers intent to outdo each other.
In Clinton, the establishment succeeded in promoting another Judas goat in the mold of
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, for the Democratic Party. The Republican leadership failed
in this task, but it turns out that Trump is not merely a flawed champion of the
discontent, a hollow man, but the perfect Judas goat of our time – he even believed
himself.
Anybody voting for "pocket change" in 2018 will lead us to another goat rodeo in 2020.
Meanwhile, we are heading for a repeat of Able Archer and another change to "win" ourselves
a profitable nuclear war at "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."
A phobia is an irrational fear, not based on reason. The term "Russophobia" is used to
proactively belittle and discredit arguments critical of Russia.
However, Europeans are not irrational, but perfectly logical in being wary of Russia.
The Soviet Union occupied and violently oppressed Eastern Europe for 50 years, while
building the capability to wage massive nuclear war on Western Europe on short notice.
It is now perfectly sensible for former Warsaw Pact allies or Soviet republics to seek
maximum integration with any and all institutions of the West, such as NATO and the EU. It
is also their right to do so as sovereign nations. Russia has no legitimate "sphere of
interest" beyond her own borders.
And NATO in its current form is but a shadow of the Cold War alliance in Europe. US
troop levels there are at 1/5 of Cold War numbers. NATO does not have an offensive posture
in Europe, hardly even a good defensive one. It does not threaten Russia in any way, even
if you might think otherwise from the incessant complaining by Putin and some of his
American fellow travellers.
Re: DanJ, "However, Europeans are not irrational, but perfectly logical in being wary
of Russia."
Talk is cheap. The actual level of European fear of Russia is implied by the level of
military spending by the Europeans to defend themselves against that supposed threat. Those
military spending levels are almost universally below the relatively modest GDP targets,
especially compared to the out of control U.S. "defense" spending.
The perverse irony is that the low levels of military spending by Europe would indicate
masochistic irrationality if the Russian threat were genuine.
Agree NATO does not militarily threaten Russia. The Russian objection is to the Global
Cop Gorilla that consciously throws wrenches in the normalization of Russian/European
relationships by militarizing every element of foreign policy. Simply because the U.S.
Security State apparatus needs an existential enemy to justify its TRILLION dollar War
Machine.
The Europeans currently accept U.S. hegemony because it doesn't cost them anything.
The U.S. war-monger led foreign policy model is completely bankrupt. The Crony Elite
Hacks in Washington just haven't realized it yet. Because as parasites, they make too much
money from it. They will feed on the carcass until it collapses.
@ Aleks "They will always be the backwards, unelightened, barbaric, undemocratic people. The one
whom both Churchill and Hitler stated were inferior to both the Anglo and Germanic
peoples."
If what you wrote isn't racist, then I dunno what to say.
Something else to keep in mind is this: In the 1960s, Russia detonated an H-bomb that
was–I forget the exact ratio–about 10,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped
on Hiroshima. And now we're worried about a country–North Korea–that a half
century later detonated a bomb five times as powerful as the one that obliterated
Hiroshima.
How crazy is it to demonize Putin when, if push came to shove, they could annihilate the
U.S.? Yes, we could annihilate them, even if they launched a first strike with strategic
(as opposed to tactical) nuclear weapons. But it's no offense to the country that produced
the incomparable Tolstoy to say that against the ruin of Moscow and St. Petersburg would be
measured the ruin of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta, Philadelphia,
Washington, D.C., San Diego, and Denver. Russia can destroy far more human capital in
America than we can destroy in Russia. Advantage, Russia.
The moral of this story: It's unwise to poke the bear–much less to poke the bear
in the eye, as we have been doing since the presidency of Bill Clinton, who started NATO's
misguided project of encircling Russia.
Guys, if you trully believe that 13 superheroes with 100 K$ can overcome +1Bn$ plethora of
PACs|SuperPACS|and all other whatnots you should quit watching all these fine Marvel movies
about superheroes.
And, btw, leaving aside total lack of proofs, how did this DNC hack played out? Was it
some dirty invented lies about Whight Knigtess? Or was it blatant truth? ) I'm really
amused how lemmings started to sing 'DNC hacks!DNC hacks!' being completely oblivious to
the content of this leaked emails. You don't care that you're being, hmm, 'abused' by your
ruling class all the time, don't you?
Finally, do you care that US meddled (and this fact is 1000% proven) in internal politics
in quite a number of different countries, Russia included?
"If what you wrote isn't racist, then I dunno what to say."
I fail to see the racism in what I wrote since they were both well-known beliefs (and
quotes) held by both Churchill and Hitler. But I'm sure you knew that.
I will follow Buchanan's reasoning to its logical conclusion and say that, well, the guy,
and maybe his daughter to, were spies and deserved the classic kgb response. What putin
does, we deserve. It is getting hard to swallow so much putin and kgb love here at TAC.
Like, most americans are not suffering from russophobia nearly as much as so many are
enamored by authoritarianism and the murderous kgb agent putin. The don himself admires
putin for the head oligarch the don wishes he himself could be. Putin is head of an
organized crime syndicate masquerading as a great state. Social conservatives have even
crowned putin an advocate for western christian civilization. Russians gladly kiss his
hand. It may not pay them anything, but the consequences of not kissing his hand have been
demonstrated. You know, something right wingers admire. The don is doing the same thing
here. Like, if we could see his tax returns, we could readily anticipate his policy
actions. Hey, and get rich too.
I will be surprised though, if US steel does much more than become the middle man in
marking up steel they import and stamp USA on to. I do not know, but expect a large part of
the imported steel the US buys, is bought from middlemen companies that buy chinese steel
and stamp it canadian. Canada does produce allot of aluminum. Most of china sits on a 15k
foot plateau of minerals. The rest of the world will buy from their glut. We might really
not want to depend on chinese steel if we are planning to war. Europe is beholding to putin
to stay warm in the winter, so it will be interesting to see how they respond to the
collateral damage from assassinations carried out in their own countries. Like, I wonder if
their punditry will claim they probably deserve it. Churchill has been gone for quite a
while after all. Russophobia? Is that where people show illegitimate concern when putin
proclaims to have shiny new nukes that we have no defense against. Yepper, we deserve that
too. Once you put the victims mantle on, it is hard to be anything but a victim, and much
easier to excuse yourself anything while projecting your fear onto, well, defenseless
snowflakes are an easy target.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-ex-spy-sergei-skripal-his-daughter-poisoned-nerve-agent-n854516
The Democratics are obsessed with Putin and the Russians, blaming them for the most
ignominious shellacking in modern electoral history, and yet refuse to do the necessary
groundwork to win the presidency in 2020. They've placed all their cards on the collusion
narrative, hoping for the best. BTW, good article, Pat.
I think cdugga expresses best the mentality that defines the present moment: 'If Russia is
accused of something, it means that they are guilty.' Can't imagine how that assumption
could ever be abused, can you?
One of your better articles, Pat, was glad to see it. Let's hope a few more of our
leaders start thinking along these same lines and decide it might be just as well not to
nuke the planet out of pique over some bleeping facebook ads.
2 cdugga
>> I will follow Buchanan's reasoning to its logical conclusion and say that, well,
the guy, and maybe his daughter to, were spies and deserved the classic kgb response.
Could you please provide some proofs that they were poisoned by some Russian secret
service? Why on Earth would these aforementioned services like to kill the guy? He's 100%
non-entity.
On the other hand, it's a very convenient target if someone wants to frame FSB or GRU, so
I'll bet on British MI-###. Tough luck for this guy, you're fired in this way in this
business.
@ Aleks
I'm aware that Hitler and Churchill believed those. I apologize for taking your comment out
of context and calling out racism where none was intended. I feel kinda silly now.
"... It would also require the FBI to investigate all requests by U.S.-based Russian diplomats to travel 50 miles outside his or her official post to ensure those diplomats have properly notified the U.S. Government of their travel plans. No Russian diplomats could travel outside of that 50 mile perimeter unless all of their colleagues have followed travel rules in the three months prior. The FBI would also be required to notify Congress that the Russians have followed the rules before the travel is cleared by the State Department. The purpose is to ensure the Russians are following proper protocol in their travel. ..."
Dr. Strangelove already back, McCarthy coming! 02/07/2016 Senate Committee Looks
To Revive Cold-War Era Body To Catch Russian Spies
By Ali Watkins
A new intelligence bill also proposes tightening how Russian diplomats can travel.
Congress is pushing the White House to revive a Cold War-era committee to crack down on
Russian spies, underscoring just how uneasy Washington is about its adversaries in Moscow.
In its 2017 Intelligence Authorization Bill, the Senate Intelligence Committee is asking the
White House to reinstate a presidentially-appointed group to unmask Russian spies and uncover
Russian-sponsored assassinations. The group, which would include personnel from the State
Department, intelligence community and several other executive offices, would meet monthly.
Along with spies and covert killings, the committee would also investigate the funding of front
groups -- or cover organizations for Russian operations -- "covert broadcasting, media
manipulation" and secret funding.
A similar interagency body called the
"Active Measures Working Group" existed during the Cold War, but it hasn't been active in
decades. This new group would be modeled after its Cold War predecessor, one U.S. intelligence
official said on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive bill.
The intelligence bill
passed through the Senate committee in May, and now must be passed by the full Senate.
It would also require the FBI to investigate all requests by U.S.-based Russian
diplomats to travel 50 miles outside his or her official post to ensure those diplomats have
properly notified the U.S. Government of their travel plans. No Russian diplomats could travel
outside of that 50 mile perimeter unless all of their colleagues have followed travel rules in
the three months prior. The FBI would also be required to notify Congress that the Russians
have followed the rules before the travel is cleared by the State Department. The purpose is to
ensure the Russians are following proper protocol in their travel.
"... Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack. ..."
The former British ambassador Craig Murray suspects a different motive and culprit:
Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg - 10:21 AM - 8 Mar 2018 Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces
intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal
attack.
When we look at how the corporate media is spinning this story, it seems to me that Craig
Murray's theory about using the incident to ramp up Russophobia has its merits.
"... Nobody of us can really know what happened in London with the Russian ex-double agent they tried to kill. But Russians would be foolish to let the agent leave from Russia to try to assassinate him many years afterwards, at the eve of their Presidential Election. DK ..."
"... By Robert Stevens ..."
"... Financial Times, ..."
"... Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia's border, Putin authorising the murder of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents. ..."
Nobody of
us can really know what happened in London with the Russian ex-double agent they tried to kill.
But Russians would be foolish to let the agent leave from Russia to try to assassinate him many
years afterwards, at the eve of their Presidential Election.
DKAnti-Russia campaign follows alleged poisoning of former UK/Russian double agent and
daughter
By Robert Stevens 8 March 2018
The British government and mass media have mounted a hysterical anti-Russian campaign
centred on the still unexplained circumstances surrounding the hospitalisation of former
British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, after they were found unconscious on a
bench in Salisbury on Sunday.
Initial reports Monday stated that Skripal, aged 66, may have ingested fentanyl, a synthetic
opioid many times stronger than heroin, which can be fatal in small doses.
On Tuesday, the other person hospitalised was identified as Skripal's 33-year-old daughter,
Yulia, who was also said to be in a critical condition.
Skripal is a former colonel in Russia's GRU, the military intelligence service. He spent
four years in jail in Russia after being found guilty in 2006 of passing secrets to MI6, the
UK's foreign intelligence service. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison.
Skripal served four years before being released in 2010, when he was pardoned by Russia as
part of a well-publicized 10-person spy swap between the US, the UK and Russia. He moved to the
UK where he has lived for the past seven years.
The pair were found unconscious and slumped on a bench near the Maltings shopping centre.
Police stated that two became ill at around 13.30 p.m. Police arrived on the scene at around
16.15 p.m., after being alerted by a concerned member of the public. It was announced Wednesday
that a police officer is also in critical condition after attending the incident. The Skripals
visited a nearby restaurant, Zizzi's, which was cordoned off, as well as a local pub, The
Bishop's Mill.
By Tuesday, despite nothing of substance being reported by the police, the government and
media had effectively declared the incident an act of terrorism, with the finger pointing at
Russia's Putin government. References to an opioid being involved were dropped, with media
reports saying the government's secret chemical lab at Porton Down was as yet unable to
identify the substance. Wiltshire police announced that London's Metropolitan Police
counter-terrorist unit would be taking over the investigation. In parliament, Foreign Secretary
Boris Johnson spoke about the "disturbing incident in Salisbury" and stated, "Although I am not
now pointing fingers, because we cannot point fingers, I say to governments around the world
that no attempt to take innocent life on UK soil will go either unsanctioned or unpunished," He
then referred to Russia as a "malign and destructive force" and warned that if Moscow were
found to be involved, the government would "take whatever measures we deem necessary to protect
the lives of the people in this country, our values and our freedoms."
In another pointed reference to Russia, he stated that the case had "echoes of the death of
Alexander Litvinenko in 2006" -- the former officer in Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB,
the successor to the KGB), who died on November 23, 2006 after having been granted asylum in
Britain in 2000. The UK, backed by the US have long claimed that the Putin regime ordered the
killing despite no evidence being presented in an official British inquiry in 2016 -- other
than the presence of the radioactive substance polonium.
Johnson threatened that England could consider boycotting the soccer World Cup in Russia
this summer.
Every newspaper, apart from the Financial Times, led with hysterical anti-Russian
headlines . The Sun blared, "Red Spy in UK Poison Terror," with an accompanying story
referring to "fear over a Kremlin backed hit " The Daily Mirror's headline was "
'Assassins' on British street".
In an article in the Spectator , columnist Ed West posed the question, "Will
Britain stand up to Russia?" By the evening, despite Newsnight anchor Kirsty Wark introducing
the story by saying, "so far we know nothing about what happened to them, if they were poisoned
and if they were, by whom," the BBC's flagship news programme was dedicated to a narrative that
Russia was responsible and that Skripal and his daughter were likely victims of an attack by
Russia intelligence operatives.
The media have reported the deaths of Skripal's wife, his son and his older brother as
mysterious events requiring investigation. His wife died of cancer in 2012 in Britain.
The following day the DailyTelegraph asserted that "Putin swore death on
poisoned Russian spy." The Times went with "MI5 believes Russians tried to kill former
spy."
On Wednesday morning, the government convened its COBRA committee, which meets during
periods of national emergencies. On Wednesday evening, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark
Rowley announced that Skripal and his daughter were subjected to an attack by a "nerve agent,"
with it being classified as a case of "attempted murder."
No information released by the authorities can be taken at face value. All reports attest
that Skripal was supposedly politically inactive. He evidently did nothing to hide his
identity, buying a house for £260,000 in his real name and applying to join a railway
social club. He regularly bought lottery scratch cards and purchased food from a local Polish
food store.
If the Putin regime were indeed set on killing Skripal and his daughter, some explanation
needs to be made as to motive. Skripal's daughter lived and worked in Russia and made regular
trips back and forth.
At least one other person released from jail in Russia would appear to have been a much more
likely target of the Putin regime than Skripal, if indeed its intention was to prevent
anti-Russian activities. Igor Sutyagin developed into a prominent anti-Putin figure in the UK,
becoming a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) defence and intelligence
think-tank.
RUSI is central to the formulation of British imperialism's anti-Russian policy. Even the
Guardian's main advocate against the Putin regime, columnist Luke Harding, was forced
to acknowledge that Sutyagin "gave lectures on Vladimir Putin's darkening state, and kept a
high public profile. Skripal, by contrast, eschewed London. He settled with Liudmilla [his
wife] in the comparative quiet of Wiltshire." Asking the question who would benefit from the
deaths of Skripal and his daughter, there would appear to be no obvious reason why the Putin
government would authorize such an act. Putin is currently campaigning in the last stretch of
the 2018 presidential election, which takes place on March 18. He is expected to be
re-elected.
Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any
pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia's border, Putin authorising the murder
of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents.
The response of the government and media to these events must be placed in the context of
the concerted drive by London to demonize Russia. Only last week the Times devoted its
front page, an op-ed piece and an editorial to bellicose calls by senior military figures,
including second in command of the armed forces, Sir Gordon Messenger, for an increase in
military spending, naming Russia as the power that must be confronted.
This followed a January speech given at RUSI by General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the
General Staff of the British Armed Forces, in which he declared that the UK had to actively
prepare for war with Russia and other geo-political rivals:
Dickerson: "What keeps you awake at night?" Mattis: "Nothing, I keep other people awake at night." and. . . MATTIS: A conflict in North Korea, John, would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most
people's lifetimes. Why do I say this? The North Korean regime has hundreds of artillery cannons and rocket
launchers within range of one of the most densely populated cities on earth, which is the
capital of South Korea.
We are working with the international community to deal with this issue. This regime is a
threat to the region, to Japan, to South Korea, and in the event of war, they would bring
danger to China and to Russia as well.
But the bottom line is, it would be a catastrophic war if this turns into combat, if we are
not able to resolve this situation through diplomatic means.
here
We shouldn't expect that any meeting and talks would actually solve anything, because the
DPRK and US positions are basically irreconcilable. DPRK wants the US out of Korea, US wants
DPRK to denuke (disarm).
The DPRK strategy, probably, is to spawn endless meetings for a long
time. The Vietnam peace talks serve as a model, first with the parties discussing the shape
of the table, etc. I look for DPRK to play this game.
It's a basic east vs. west gambit, where the east has the patience to endure years whereas
the west expects quick results.
The US
is considering the option of military action against Syria. The alleged use of chemical
weapons (CW) by the Syrian government, which is not backed by any solid evidence, is to serve
as the pretext. Syrian President Assad is going to be "punished." On March 6, US President
Trump and Israeli PM Netanyahu discussed
the threat posed by Iran's presence in Syria and ways to counter it.
Chemical weapons? But why should Syria's President Assad use them if he has had no trouble
winning with conventional weapons wherever he goes? Couldn't the rebels be using CW? Instances
of that have been uncovered and confirmed. But no, US officials don't even bother to give a
passing thought to such "unimportant and irrelevant" considerations. They know better who to
blame and who deserves to be made to pay for the wrongdoings they believe have taken place. In
April, 2017, the US delivered a missile strike
against a Syrian military facility, in flagrant violation of international law.
It's worth noting that a group of US senators visited Israel in late February. According to
them, a conflict between Israel and the pro-Iranian forces in southern Lebanon
was
imminent and that fighting would likely encompass Syria as well. Israel has been
increasing its support of proxy groups in Syria recently.
Senator Lindsey Graham
believes that Tehran is "testing" the US and Israel and that the administration
is not doing enough to push back against Iran in Syria and throughout the Middle East.
There is huge difference: Stalinist were convinced that communism is a bright future of
mankind and were determine (with the religious zeal_ to eliminate allthe resistance to tits
coming.
Neoliberalism is clearly experience both ideological (since 2008) and now social crisis in
the USA. So here the purges are designed to prolong the like of decaying regime which lost its
legitimacy in the eyes of population. As such is is not similar to the Stalin Doctors' plot - Wikipedia -- the purge of
Jewish doctors at the end of this reign.
Notable quotes:
"... Militarily, since World War II Washington has relied on its armed predominance to dictate to the world. But now the President of Russia has announced possession of what are from the US perspective super weapons that do not, as some claim, give Russia parity with the US, but give Russia immense military superiority over the US, indeed over the entire Western alliance. ..."
This year could turn out to be a defining year for the United States. It is clear that the
US military/security complex and the Democratic Party aided by their media vassals intend to
purge Donald Trump from the presidency. One of the open conspirators declared the other day
that we have to get rid of Trump now before he wins re-election in a landslide.
It is now a known fact that Russiagate is a conspiracy of the military/security complex,
Obama regime, Democratic National Committee, and presstitute media to destroy President Trump.
However, the presstitutes never present this fact to the American public. Nevertheless, a
majority of Americans do not believe the Democrats and the presstitutes that Trump conspired
with Putin to steal the election.
One question before us is: Will Mueller and the Democrats succeed in purging Donald Trump,
as Joseph Stalin succeed in purging Lenin's Bolsheviks, including Nikolai Bukharin, who Lenin
called "the golden boy of the revolution," or will the Democratic Party and the presstitutes
discredit themselves such that the country moves far to the right.
Stalin didn't need facts and could frame-up people at will as he had absolute power. In the
US the presstitute media, like Stalin, does not concern itself with facts, but the presstitutes
do not have absolute power. Indeed, few people trust the presstitutes, and even fewer trust
Mueller.
Many are puzzled that President Trump has not moved against his enemies as they have no
evidence for their charges. Indeed, Mueller's indictments have nothing whatsoever to do with
the Russiagate accusations. Why are not Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and all the rest indicted
for their clear and obvious crimes?
America's future turns on the answer to this question. Is it because the Trump regime is
letting the presstitutes and the Democrats destroy their credibility, or is it because Trump is
weak, confused, and doesn't know how to use the powers of his office to slay those who intend
to slay him?
If it is the former, then America will move far to the right. If it is the latter, America
will have had its own Stalinist purge, and the purge is likely to follow the Stalin model and to
extend down to those who voted for Trump.
The failure of the integrity of the liberal/progressive/left has left the US facing two
unpalatable outcomes. One is a right-wing government empowered by the left's self-defeat. The
other is the rise of the Identity Politics state in which oppression will be based on gender,
race, and beliefs.
This is not the only issue that could be resolved in 2018. There are others, and the other
two major ones are the economic situation and the military situation.
For a decade the central banks of the West and Japan have printed money far in excess of the
increase in real goods and services. This money printing has not caused massive inflation of
consumer prices. Instead it has caused inflation in financial instruments and real estate.
The high Dow Jones average is the product of this money printing. Can the central banks stop
printing money and allow interest rates to rise, thus collapsing equity prices and pension
funds? What would be the consequences?
Militarily, since World War II Washington has relied on its armed predominance to dictate to
the world. But now the President of Russia has announced possession of what are from the US
perspective super weapons that do not, as some claim, give Russia parity with the US, but give
Russia immense military superiority over the US, indeed over the entire Western alliance.
"... Still worse, Putin and "Putin's Russia" have been so demonized that it is hard to imagine any leading American political figures or editorial commentators responding positively to what is plainly his hope for a new beginning in US-Russian relations. If nothing else, strategic parity always also meant political parity -- recognizing that Soviet Russia, like the United States, had legitimate national interests abroad. The years of American vilifying Putin and Russia are essentially an assertion that neither has any such legitimacy. ..."
Does Putin really believe Washington will "listen now"? He may still have some
"illusions," but we should have none. In recent years, there has been ample evidence that
US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to
read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service
reports.
Still worse, Putin and "Putin's Russia" have been so demonized that it is hard to
imagine any leading American political figures or editorial commentators responding
positively to what is plainly his hope for a new beginning in US-Russian relations. If
nothing else, strategic parity always also meant political parity -- recognizing that
Soviet Russia, like the United States, had legitimate national interests abroad. The years
of American vilifying Putin and Russia are essentially an assertion that neither has any
such legitimacy.
And making matters worse, there are the still unproven allegations of "Russiagate"
collusion. Even if President Trump understands, or is made to understand, the new --
possibly historic -- overture represented by Putin's speech, would the "Kremlin puppet"
allegations made daily against him permit him to seize this opportunity? Indeed, do the
promoters of "Russiagate" care?
"... What has however become clear in recent days is that the 'Gerasimov Doctrine' was not invented by its supposed author, but by a British academic, Mark Galeotti, who has now confessed – although in a way clearly designed to maintain as much of the 'narrative' as possible. ..."
"... Three days ago, an article by Galleoti appeared in 'Foreign Policy' entitled 'I'm Sorry for Creating the "Gerasimov Doctrine": I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.' ..."
"... The translation of the original article by Gerasimov with annotations by Galeotti which provoked the whole hysteria turns out to be a classic example of what I am inclined to term 'bad Straussianism.' ..."
"... What Strauss would have called the 'exoteric' meaning of the article quite clearly has to do with defensive strategies aimed at combatting the kind of Western 'régime change' projects about which people like those who write for 'Lawfare' are so enthusiastic. But Galeotti tells us that this is, at least partially, a cover for an 'esoteric' meaning, which has to do with offensive actions in Ukraine and similar places. ..."
More material on the British end of the conspiracy.
Commenting on an earlier piece by PT, I suggested that a key piece of evidence pointing to
'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to
disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a
leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt
Tait.
To recapitulate: Back in June 2016, hard on the heels of the claim by Dmitri Alperovitch
of 'CrowdStrike' to have identified clinching evidence making the GRU prime suspects, Tait
announced that, although initially unconvinced, he had found a 'smoking gun' in the
'metadata' of the documents released by 'Guccifer 2.0.'
A key part of this was the use by someone modifying a document of 'Felix Edmundovich'
– the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky, the Lithuanian-Polish noble who created the
Soviet secret police.
As I noted, Tait was generally identified as a former GCHQ employee who now ran a
consultancy called 'Capital Alpha Security.' However, checking Companies House records
revealed that he had filed 'dormant accounts' for the company. So it looks as though the
company was simply a 'front', designed to fool 'useful idiots' into believing he was an
objective analyst.
As I also noted in those comments, Tait writes the 'Lawfare' blog, one of whose founders,
Benjamin Wittes, looks as though he may himself have been involved in the conspiracy up to
the hilt. Furthermore, a secure income now appears to have been provided to replace that from
the non-existent consultancy, in the shape of a position at the 'Robert S. Strauss Center for
International Security and Law', run by Robert Chesney, a co-founder with Wittes of
'Lawfare.'
A crucial part of the story, however, is that the notion of GRU responsibility for the
supposed 'hacks' appears to be part of a wider 'narrative' about the supposed 'Gerasimov
Doctrine.' From the 'View from Langley' provided to Bret Stephens by CIA Director Mike Pompeo
at the 'Aspen Security Forum' last July:
'I hearken back to something called the Gerasimov doctrine from the early 70s, he's now
the head of the – I'm a Cold War guy, forgive me if I mention Soviet Union. He's now
the head of the Russian army and his idea was that you can win wars without firing a single
shot or with firing very few shots in ways that are decidedly not militaristic, and that's
what's happened. What changes is the costs; to effectuate change through cyber and through RT
and Sputnik, their news outlets, and through other soft means; has just really been lowered,
right. It used to be it was expensive to run an ad on a television station now you simply go
online and propagate your message. And so they have they have found an effective tool, an
easy way to go reach into our systems, and into our culture to achieve the outcomes they are
looking for.'
What has however become clear in recent days is that the 'Gerasimov Doctrine' was not
invented by its supposed author, but by a British academic, Mark Galeotti, who has now
confessed – although in a way clearly designed to maintain as much of the 'narrative'
as possible.
Three days ago, an article by Galleoti appeared in 'Foreign Policy' entitled 'I'm
Sorry for Creating the "Gerasimov Doctrine": I was the first to write about Russia's infamous
high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.'
'Gerasimov was actually talking about how the Kremlin understands what happened in the
"Arab Spring" uprisings, the "color revolutions" against pro-Moscow regimes in Russia's
neighborhood, and in due course Ukraine's "Maidan" revolt. The Russians honestly –
however wrongly – believe that these were not genuine protests against brutal and
corrupt governments, but regime changes orchestrated in Washington, or rather, Langley. This
wasn't a "doctrine" as the Russians understand it, for future adventures abroad: Gerasimov
was trying to work out how to fight, not promote, such uprisings at home.'
The translation of the original article by Gerasimov with annotations by Galeotti
which provoked the whole hysteria turns out to be a classic example of what I am inclined to
term 'bad Straussianism.'
What Strauss would have called the 'exoteric' meaning of the article quite clearly has
to do with defensive strategies aimed at combatting the kind of Western 'régime
change' projects about which people like those who write for 'Lawfare' are so enthusiastic.
But Galeotti tells us that this is, at least partially, a cover for an 'esoteric' meaning,
which has to do with offensive actions in Ukraine and similar places.
Having now read the text of the article, I can see a peculiar irony in it. In a section
entitled 'You Can't Generate Ideas On Command', Gerasimov suggests that 'The state of Russian
military science today cannot be compared with the flowering of military-theoretical thought
in our country on the eve of World War II.'
According to the 'exoteric' meaning of the article, it is not possible to blame anyone in
particular for this situation. But Gerasimov goes on on to remark that, while at the time of
that flowering there were 'no people with higher degrees' or 'academic schools or
departments', there were 'extraordinary personalities with brilliant ideas', who he terms
'fanatics in the best sense of the word.'
Again, Galeotti discounts the suggestion that nobody is to blame, assuming an 'esoteric
meaning', and remarking: 'Ouch. Who is he slapping here?'
Actually, Gerasimov refers by name to two, utterly different figures, who certainly were
'extraordinarily personalities with brilliant ideas.'
If Pompeo had even the highly amateurish grasp of the history of debates among Soviet
military theorists that I have managed to acquire he would be aware that one of the things
which was actually happening in the 'Seventies was the rediscovery of the ideas of Alexander
Svechin.
Confirming my sense that this has continued on, Gerasimov ends by using Svechin to point
up an intractable problem: it can be extraordinarily difficult to anticipate the conditions
of a war, and crucial not to impose a standardised template likely to be inappropriate, but
one has to make some kinds of prediction in order to plan.
Immediately after the passage which Galeotti interprets as a dig at some colleague,
Gerasimov elaborates his reference to 'extraordinary people with brilliant ideas' by
referring to an anticipation of a future war, which proved prescient, from a very different
figure to Svechin:
'People like, for instance, Georgy Isserson, who, despite the views he formed in the
prewar years, published the book "New Forms Of Combat." In it, this Soviet military
theoretician predicted: "War in general is not declared. It simply begins with already
developed military forces. Mobilization and concentration is not part of the period after the
onset of the state of war as was the case in 1914 but rather, unnoticed, proceeds long before
that." The fate of this "prophet of the Fatherland" unfolded tragically. Our country paid in
great quantities of blood for not listening to the conclusions of this professor of the
General Staff Academy.'
Unlike Svechin, whom I have read, I was unfamiliar with Isserson. A quick Google search,
however, unearthed a mass of material in American sources – including, by good fortune,
an online text of a 2010 study by Dr Richard Harrison entitled 'Architect of Soviet Victory
in World War II: The Life and Theories of G.S. Isserson', and a presentation summarising the
volume.
Ironically, Svechin and Isserson were on opposite sides of fundamental divides. So the
former, an ethnic Russian from Odessa, was one of the 'genstabisty', the former Tsarist
General Staff officers who sided with the Bolsheviks and played a critical role in teaching
the Red Army how to fight. Meanwhile Isserson was a very different product of the
'borderlands' – the son of a Jewish doctor, brought up in Kaunas, with a German Jewish
mother from what was then Königsberg, giving him an easy facility with German-language
sources.
The originator of the crucial concept of 'operational' art – the notion that in
modern industrial war, the ability to handle a level intermediate between strategy and
tactics was critical to success – was actually Svechin.
Developing the ambivalence of Clausewitz, however, he stressed that both the offensive and
the defensive had their places, and that the key to success was to know which was appropriate
when and also to be able rapidly to change from one to the other. His genuflections to
Marxist-Leninist dogma, moreover, were not such as to take in any of Dzerzhinsky's
people.
By contrast, Isserson was unambiguously committed to the offensive strand in the
Clausewitzian tradition, and a Bolshevik 'true believer' (although he married the daughter of
a dispossessed ethnically Russian merchant, who had their daughter baptised without his
knowledge.)
As Harrison brings out, Isserson's working through of the problems of offensive
'operational art' would be critical to the eventual success of the Red Army against Hitler.
However, the specific text to which he refers was, ironically, a warning of precisely one of
the problems implicit in the single-minded reliance on the offensive: the possibility that
one could be left with no good options confronting an antagonist similarly oriented –
as turned out to be the case.
As Gerasimov intimates, while unlike Svechin, executed in 1938, Isserson survived the
Stalin years, he was another of the victims of Dzerzhinsky's heirs. Arrested shortly before
his warnings were vindicated by the German attack on 22 June 1941, he would spend the war in
the Gulag and only return to normal life after Stalin's death.
So I think that the actual text of Gerasimov's article reinforces a point I have made
previously. The 'evidence' identified by Tait is indeed a 'smoking gun.' But it emphatically
does not point towards the GRU.
Meanwhile, another moral of the tale is that Americans really should stop being taken in
by charlatan Brits like Galeotti, Tait, and Steele.
"... So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy. Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes to forging correct relations with a nuclear power. ..."
It will be interesting to see why the interviewing FBI Agents to whom Flynn has admitted to
the Mueller Op telling a lie, or lies, did not avail Flynn the opportunity of the 'lie
circumstantial."
From what I think I know about the case, the answers to the questions put to Flynn were
already known to the Agents from wire overhears; and their substance did not constitute a
crime in any case.
Why would not the Agents interviewing Flynn have said "If you're telling me this, we have
reason to think that you're mistaken?"
If I'm correct in my understanding, in my opinion, the Agents conducted themselves in a
very chickenshit fashion and I would suspect an Agenda was in play.
Making a more general observation regarding the Mueller Op, it seems to me that not the least
reprehensible effect of its existence is that de facto it has usurped the authority of the
White House and the State Department to conduct Foreign Policy vis a vis Russia.
For example, I doubt very much whether Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating
to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI
Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind. And even if Mueller did, what
would, what could the WH or State response have been given the mishapen political climate and
the track record of outrageous leaking that so far have gone on without consequence to the
leaker.
So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy.
Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes
to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.
"... We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers, no doubt). ..."
As
NBC News pointed out, Hicks' hacking claim raises questions about who hacked the account and why. But the committee wasn't able
to pursue those questions because Hicks, like many other members of the White House staff who have appeared before the House Intel
Committee, has refused to answer questions about her time at the White House or her experiences during the transition -- and also
because she was appearing voluntarily and not under a subpoena for her testimony.
It is standard practice for lawmakers to ask witnesses about phone numbers and email accounts. However, it is uncommon, according
to people familiar with the committee process, for a witness to tell lawmakers that he or she no longer has access to past accounts.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has famously been pursuing the emails of Trump associates and other records from the campaign period,
transition and the Trump administration.
Mueller recently sent a subpoena to former Trump aide Sam Nunberg ordering Nunberg to turn over documents relating in any way
to 10 current and former Trump associates, including Hicks.
As
NBC points out, Corey Lewandowski, Trump's first campaign manager (who reportedly dated Hicks during the campaign while he was
married to another woman), is slated to testify before the committee on Thursday.
We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers,
no doubt).
What is always a mystery to me is why these email servers are attached and available to the public Internet. Any script kiddie
with a version of "crack" can eventually guess a password that is composed of regular words or favorite clichés. Not to mention
some inherently hackable OSs.
Are your email accounts all hosted on servers not attached to the internet?
Email servers, even ones attached to the internet, can be protected. Not perfectly, but well enough. Throw in proper use of
non-trivial passwords and you become even safer in a relatively private environment such as a corporation or campaign committee
might set up. When email services are offered freely to everyone you are always at risk, because the hosts will have full access
to whatever you send and receive.
One more thing: make certain you can trust those running your servers. Then you won't have to hire someone to kill them when
they steal stuff via direct access to the servers. Think Seth Rich.
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in
waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the
wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this
around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with this
post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war
based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched
reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly,
for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the
Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before
Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking to
save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against
Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that -- unlike
Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability threatens
the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary Clinton was a
sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am
not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
"... in his latest piece today he seems to tap the root cause of all the western media nonsense happening right now, at least with regard to Syria and the Zionist dream - which we must remember, drives the western press: Tangled Web In The East Ghouta; Ghouta Has Got The Neocon Goat ..."
"... Zionists are united in pursuing a policy of complete hopelessness in order to assuage their own hurt feelings. They simply will not accept their own failures and are determined to bully the CIA into another miserable foreign adventure. ..."
"... Unable to stir the passions of the American public into supporting another foreign war, they have resolved to use the media as a substitute for the noisy demonstrations of which they fantasized in order to urge military action to stop the inevitable rise of the new alliance. ..."
Ziad Fadel is best known for his insider news and perspective on Syria and status on the ground - but in his latest piece today
he seems to tap the root cause of all the western media nonsense happening right now, at least with regard to Syria and the Zionist
dream - which we must remember, drives the western press:
Tangled Web In The East Ghouta; Ghouta Has Got The Neocon Goat
It's a short piece, only 9 paragraphs, but here's a slice:
Zionists are united in pursuing a policy of complete hopelessness in order to assuage their own hurt feelings. They simply
will not accept their own failures and are determined to bully the CIA into another miserable foreign adventure.
Unable to stir the passions of the American public into supporting another foreign war, they have resolved to use the media
as a substitute for the noisy demonstrations of which they fantasized in order to urge military action to stop the inevitable
rise of the new alliance.
The key here is that the US public is not being roused into caring about the Middle East. So this war must continue to take place
in the media.
It's the only place there will be a win of any kind for the Zionists. But this will not manifest tangible facts.
And it will have nothing to do with reality on the ground.
"... Kissinger has always been influenced by Munich, if not always directly or humanely. His and President Richard Nixon's opening to China in order to undermine the Soviet Union while they sought détente with Moscow; their unwillingness to quit Vietnam without first wreaking havoc and spilling blood; their support of odious yet pro-American regimes in Greece and Chile; and their brilliantly executed face-off with Syria and the Soviet Union in 1970, at the time of the terrorist challenge to Jordan's pro-Western regime -- all flowed to a significant extent from Kissinger's determination to avoid the slightest show of weakness, for which read "appeasement." Kissinger regularly mixed violence and the threat of it with diplomacy, so that the diplomacy had credibility. He preserved what he saw as the legitimate order, in which the Soviet Union was both contained and accepted, so that revolutionary chaos was confined to the edges of the superpower battlefield, in the Third World. [emphasis added] ..."
"... America's power elites, "are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature and application of military force. They simply have no reference points," is proven by today's article, which infuriates me in its sophomoric arrogance, posted on The Hill by "Tom Nichols a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor at the Harvard Extension School." ..."
"... I read somewhere that the art of diplomacy was the ability to say " Nice Doggie, Nice Doggie until one had obtained a rock" . I suspect that the Russians have found the working Reset button that Hillary and her associates couldn't. ..."
"... The American global track record of the last few decades does not require any special elaborations -- it is a record of military and humanitarian disasters. ..."
"... Yet, somehow, the Americans have always managed to benefit from those disasters. On the other hand, the very educated country full of graduates of very famous institutions, particularly the military academies, has disintegrated. In case you are wondering I am talking about USSR. ..."
"... let me ask you: how many NATO divisions did it take to conquer Ukraine? That's right, zero. US did spend 5 billion dollars, organized QUANGOS, CIA was involved, no doubt. All the missiles in the world wouldn't have helped Ukraine. Economic sanctions, propaganda and intelligence warfare are the biggest threats to Russia, as far as West is concerned, not open military confrontation. ..."
"... Probably we should accept that Karl Doenitz was right about the future of naval warfare -- nothing on the surface. ..."
"... Since the whole purpose of America's military is to force the host, the United States and its population, to fork over wealth to the parasite, the military industrial complex, the news that all the technology is junk could not be better for them. Now they can throw that all away and make us pay for new useless junk. ..."
"... Nothing drains a country's resources more than wasting them on war and soldiers, rather than on its own people. ..."
"... In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help to implement it. ..."
"... US "elites" simply have no grasp what real war is. ..."
"... After 20 years in the Air Force in air operations and 26 years as a government contractor in finance and procurement, I offer the F-35 as the paradigm of the "death of the US military". Bad design compounded by troubled procurement compounded by non-stop lobbying by politicians and contracts to ignore the obvious = a procurement disaster. ..."
"... Is it not clear that the US generals have sold out America's defenses to Israel – J-MIC rules the Pentagon. We fight wars for Israel – we are NOT defending America. We have lost our Twentieth century defensive edge. We now have a military that is good at assassinating village chiefs (and their families). The US generals keep expanding the geography of their killing until there is going to be a true world war. The cold-hard fact is that our US generals are defending Israel not America. Our US generals are not doing American defense – they are doing Israeli offence. ..."
"... Again, the whole nature of the American military posture since 1970s is lack of any desire to play by the rules, including within the more-or-less stable framework of MAD. In fact, the US constantly tries to exit MAD framework. ..."
"... My main comment on these weapons. How to pay for all this, infrastructure renewal, double the growth rate alongside a huge decline in work force and all those new pensioners seeking healthcare? ..."
"... Can you name one friend the United States has that's not bought and paid for – including Israel? You can't be serious in trotting out the assertion the US has any friends who would remain friends more than 30 minutes following failure on delivery of the latest foreign aid check. ..."
"... Obviously, beyond the greed focused MIC there is a much more serious implication of US last experiencing, but only a medium intensity, war in its Civil War so long ago. The much more serious implication is that it is dishing out war mush more readily than any other nation on the planet. ..."
"... The reason that Ziocon parasites have found such a fertile ground in the US is almost like an isolated island, whose people consider war to be entertainment (shock & awe), have never had any serious family or home losses from it and are dumb and uneducated enough to be pulled by their noses through their MSM to any war that Ziocons fancy. ..."
"... In short, [MIC is a bunch of] smart parasites feeding on dumb f*cks. ..."
"... Therefore, US winning a war against Russia? Not in the next hundred years militarily but possibly through subterfuge: assasinations and regime change. ..."
Putin's speech was brilliant. The neocons couldn't have asked for better content. A CIA
writer like Tom Friedman couldn't glorify militarism any better. The US has no choice but to
ramp up defense spending to even more extreme levels to counter the new Russian threat.
Henry Kissinger's first book, on the Napoleonic Wars, explains Kissinger's foreign
policy better than any of his memoirs, and is striking as an early display of brilliance and
authority
Kissinger has always been influenced by Munich, if not always directly or humanely. His
and President Richard Nixon's opening to China in order to undermine the Soviet Union while
they sought détente with Moscow; their unwillingness to quit Vietnam without first
wreaking havoc and spilling blood; their support of odious yet pro-American regimes in
Greece and Chile; and their brilliantly executed face-off with Syria and the Soviet Union
in 1970, at the time of the terrorist challenge to Jordan's pro-Western regime -- all
flowed to a significant extent from Kissinger's determination to avoid the slightest show
of weakness, for which read "appeasement." Kissinger regularly mixed violence and the
threat of it with diplomacy, so that the diplomacy had credibility. He preserved what
he saw as the legitimate order, in which the Soviet Union was both contained and accepted,
so that revolutionary chaos was confined to the edges of the superpower battlefield, in the
Third World. [emphasis added]
. . .
When, in 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, Kissinger argued for military force against Saddam
Hussein. The legitimate order in the Gulf had been disrupted by a revolutionary chieftain;
to react merely with sanctions would constitute appeasement, and Kissinger said as
much.
Thank God for Russia and Putin, at last their is a country and a man who the Zionist neocons
in the U.S. and Israel and Britain can not invade and destroy for the Zionist NWO, the tide
has changed.
This is one of the best articles that I have recently read. The validity of the points made
is enhanced by some superb expressions and descriptions (pop-military culture, American
strategic kitchen etc.) Eminemtly readable. Well done!
From William Mallinson, author of 'The Danger of Geopolitics to International Relations:
Obsession with the Heartland'.
What I find both galling and frightening, which proves Andrei's point about America's power
elites, "are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature and application of
military force. They simply have no reference points," is proven by today's article, which
infuriates me in its sophomoric arrogance, posted on The Hill by "Tom Nichols a professor of
national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and an adjunct professor at the
Harvard Extension School."
"The only thing that could have made Russian President Vladimir Putin's speech about
Russia's nuclear arsenal better is if he had given it wearing a Mao jacket and stroking a
white cat, like the evil character Blofeld from a James Bond movie.
"Putin's theatrics represented a farrago of theater, fantasy and bluster. For some reason,
Putin said he was unveiling a nuclear-powered cruise missile with virtually unlimited range.
This is a strange thing to claim, for several reasons. It is technologically difficult to do
(which is why the Americans never built one, even after considering it more than 50 years
ago), but more to the point, it serves no purpose. Why build a cruise missile that takes
hours to reach its target when intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) or
submarine-launched ballistic missiles can reach the same targets in minutes?
... ... ...
I think these excerpts prove the idiot has no idea that his much beloved carrier groups
are now effectively rendered useless. Either he's in denial or he's that stupid or he's
lying, preaching to the "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" choir.
Unfortunately the neocons will need a demonstration. Hopefully this can be done without
the sinking of an aircraft carrier and the inevitable escalation that would follow
Thank you for your kind words, William. My upcoming book deals with those issues in much
more expanded form. The title is: "Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American
Strategic Planning." It is not often in one's life that one begins to realize in terror that
present West's in general and US in particular so called "elites" and policy makers are for
the most part ignorant amateurs.
Interesting how many commenters bring back this to neocons. Should Russia disarm so that
peace-loving Americans don't have to endure the neocons' militaristic ramblings?
Don't be–this is the "level" of current American "national security expertdom" which
is a mix of ignorance, arrogance and huge insecurity. There are, of course, many fluffy
"credentials" but for the most part those people are nothing more than empty suites, such as
this "professor" from Naval War College. Actually, the butt-hurt oozes from his filled with
BS piece. I think they got the message.
The Triad appears to have become a duo.
The boomers and the silos.
As it appears that the latest generation of Russian airframes are very stealthy, so it would
extrapolate that the lead in stealth has "vanished."
I wonder when the Russians will announce the breakthrough that makes the oceans transparent
to their satellites.
I read somewhere that the art of diplomacy was the ability to say " Nice Doggie, Nice Doggie
until one had obtained a rock" . I suspect that the Russians have found the working Reset
button that Hillary and her associates couldn't.
The American global track record of the last few decades does not require any special
elaborations -- it is a record of military and humanitarian disasters.
Yet, somehow, the Americans have always managed to benefit from those disasters. On the
other hand, the very educated country full of graduates of very famous institutions,
particularly the military academies, has disintegrated. In case you are wondering I am
talking about USSR.
The Pre-Shoigu Russian Army, for all its real and perceived shortcomings, disposed of
the US-trained and partially equipped Georgian force in a matter of five days -- the
Russian Army's technology, personnel and operational art was simply better.
The mighty Russians defeated a tiny country. What an achievement! At least they had enough
sense not to boast about it. At the beginning of the conflict the Russians were actually
quite a bit disorganized, as is the habit of all Slavs. They were caught by surprise. That
much for their better personnel and operational art.
American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever
attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious
military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to couple of seminars on nuclear
weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service
are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature and application of military
force. They simply have no reference points.
You seem to know so much one is almost tempted to believe you rub shoulders with those
elites on a daily basis. We all know by now that the only person in the world who can
understand those issues is the greates general of all times, Andrei Martyanov, formerly known
as Smoothie ( I wonder what happened ). The power elites do not have to understand those
issues. That is not their job. Believe it or not they have plenty of experts, real experts,
not bloggers who take care of those issues. Whose expert are better? You can measure that by
the position of a country in the world. As far as the pathetic talk about USA collapsing
every minute now I have been hearing that for 60 years. Here is a short list of the countries
which really disintegrated. USSR, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria,Lybia,Ukraine,etc.
After that he proceeded with what can only be described as a military-technological
Pearl-Harbor meets Stalingrad. The strategic ramifications of the latest weapon systems
Putin presented are immense.
I am sure they are. After the slaughter of several hundred Russian mercenaries in Syria
the mighty Russian stand off capabilities, to use your term, showed to the whole world that
they can only stand down. The Russians did not do much in a way of response after the killing
of their general, attack on their base, attack on their embassy, shooting down of their
plane, etc. I know. Their technology is so good they do not have to. It is enough to talk
about it.
In the end, to be attacked from the South Pole, through South America, is not a
contingency the US military is capable of facing. Probably not for very many years.
They do not have to. It is an idiotic proposal.
In any case if only half of your exagerated claims are true you should leave United States
immediately unless of course you are suicidal.
I am pleased –thrilled–to hear from the author of this unemotional, rational,
factual analysis. "Butt-hurt" indeed or delusion. The problem as the "Empire" doubles down as other comments and even your friend The Saker
posted in: http://thesaker.is/how-far-can-the-americans-be-pushed/ is that the hubris and stupidity may escalate into violence, i.e. direct conflict.
You're a better judge perhaps than I of American political and military stupidity. The
C.I.A. controlled Hollywood keeps showing apocalyptic films so as to prepare the masses for
mass death. In addition to making Russians bad guys.
Do Russians understand -- its leadership -- that the extermination of their peons,
namely us, is not a "bug" but a feature to the so-called Western elites? That is, they hold
us in contempt. Look at the recent mass censorship by YouTube of even Christians.
My concern is that a military conflict is unavoidable, except perhaps the Mad Dogs are
such cowards and want to maintain invincibility maybe they'll just stick to proxies in
Ukraine and Syria for now. Thanks for the concise and wise reply.
I agree, they are very, very dumb, but not so dumb to neglect something that may end their
miserable little lives. Therefore, the "professor's" write up is a butt hurt soothing piece.
Just note the amount of hate and frustration reserved for the messenger, because they cannot
even kill the messenger.
The Academies have long been staffed by Cult. Marxist faculties. That is why you see so many military officers who seem to
have astonishingly Liberal political and cultural views. The long march through the institutions has swept over all the major
institutions in the West including the military. The military has been used as the perfect vehicle for instituting the changes
the Left wants because it is based on strict obedience to orders from above. From racial integration in the forties to gay
rights, tranny rights, combat roles for women, and racially equalized outcomes, the Left has used the military as the cutting
edge. I remember an article in American Spectator on Clinton's first inauguration. There was a flyover of military aircraft at
the ceremony. The Spectator reporter saw a Clinton campaigner jeering at the planes, and one of his comrades interrupted him
saying, "Hey, it's cool, those are ours now".
Absolutely excellent point; they can't win wars against real adversaries they can only
murder and bully to spread an agenda. And now their bluff has been called. Ray McGovern's essay on Consortium News is good but none of the State Department morons
and Pentagon fools will understand.
Meh. Good for Russia, but let me ask you: how many NATO divisions did it take to conquer
Ukraine? That's right, zero. US did spend 5 billion dollars, organized QUANGOS, CIA was
involved, no doubt. All the missiles in the world wouldn't have helped Ukraine. Economic
sanctions, propaganda and intelligence warfare are the biggest threats to Russia, as far as
West is concerned, not open military confrontation.
I've been reading your site for a long time. Some points on your response to
Martyanov:
The USA should return to the method used before the 1980s where government organizations
developed weapons and then contracted production to the private sector. Most of these
military/government organizations still exist, but have been sidelined, so crap is
developed by a free market profit seeking monopoly, like the F-35.
Is this really accurate? There was plenty of development by commercial organizations prior
to the 1980s, and military arsenals have their own failure records. Examples of commercial
successes in the past:
*Most aircraft produced until the F-111 (which ultimately matured into a fine aircraftt),
and then afterwards the entire teen series of fighters as well as the A-10
*The original AR-15, which the army chose to screw up royally
Then we have examples of arsenal and lab failures such as:
*Refusing the .276 round for the M1 Garand and later insisting on the 7.62 NATO in
contravention of the superior British alternative
*The aforementioned M16 screwup
*BuOrd's disgraceful WW2 torpedo foulup
Now one thing that has changed substantially is that most ship classes used to be
developed by the Navy itself and its government yards, but now they're developed by
contractors (badly, as shown by the Gerald Ford class, the Zumwalt class, and the LCS joke).
But the old navy did solicit commercial designs as well.
Some more competition is needed. This can come from renewed development by arsenals, but
also we need trust busting in the defense industry.
Program management is obviously a huge disaster, but who knows why? Cost-plus contracts?
Officers and politicians effectively playing for the contractors rather than the country?
Ignorance, as Martyanov suggested?
2. The use of small lasers to blind combatants. The US Marine Corps recently added
expensive "dazzlers" to its machine guns that will prove more effective than the gun
itself. (pictured)
Skeptical. Against trained infantry gunfire is largely suppressive. The enemy is destroyed
by indirect fires and making use of microterrain to maneuver.
That said adds another useful weapon for relatively little weight, and depending on the
power of the laser and the weather that day it could outperform gunfire at longer ranges.
3. The inability to replace munitions stocks in a timely manner. Most nations have
limited stockpiles and the complexity of some make rapid production impossible. If the USA
becomes involved in a major war that lasts longer than a month, it will have to pause for
several months until new munitions are produced and delivered.
This was an issue even in the Cold War (NATO officially planned on 30 days warstocks, but
based on the experience of the Yom Kippur war it probably had one-two weeks). It was also an
issue for all combatants in the early stages of both world wars.
It seems difficult to plan for this, especially as politicians are likely to balk at huge
warstocks which must be frequently replaced or refurbished.
More important may be simply maintaining a strong industrial base–woops.
5. The millions of civilian vehicles on the world's roads. It is impossible to tell if
they are friend or foe unless inspected up close. Soldiers can use this to their advantage,
which makes urban operations very dangerous for both civilians and soldiers.
This, incidentally, also makes the interdiction mission for airpower that was so
successful in the summer of 1944 effectively useless against any industrialized opponent.
In the summer of 1944 we had 11,000 fighters (as well as medium bombers, unsure how many)
in Western Europe facing a few thousand German trucks and a small number of rail lines.
In a modern conflict we'd have a few hundred fighters and attack aircraft against
millions of trucks. Modern aircraft can attack more targets successfully, but the
disparity is too huge to overcome.
9. Modern body armor has made 5.56mm and even 7.62mm bullets less lethal.
This is solvable problem in my view. Increase the sectional density and length of the
bullet, and increase muzzle velocity.
Explosive and raufoss rounds might work as well, though the small size of bullets makes me
skeptical.
Precision-guided glide weapons of relatively small size (e.g. 40mm in diameter) are
another option.
You also don't need to kill an opponent to achieve mission kill, and even someone in
hard-kill body armor will be suppressed by gunfire which then allows for attack by indirect
fires.
10. Fleets of surface ships cannot hide for long in big oceans.
Embarrassingly the USN's official response to the Chinese demonstration of an antiship
ballistic missile was that battlegroups would be hard to find. Sure. Even if that were true, to attack the enemy on land the battlegroups must get close to
shore, where they are easily found and attacked. The USN basically stopped even bothering to defend its surface fleet against serious
opponents after the cancellation of the F-111B.
The F-111B was a logical response to the threat of Soviet naval aviation. With a combat
range of over 2,000 nautical miles on internal fuel, it could credibly keep Soviet maritime
patrol bombers out of launch range for their anti-ship missiles (which were to be armed with
tactical nuclear warheads).
The replacement F-14 only had a range of about 500 nautical miles. While a fine aircraft
in many respect, it was useless in its planned role of fleet defense.
Advanced long-range SAMs could do the job instead of long-range interceptors, but the US
lags Russia badly here and has no long-range SAMs of any kind.
This leaves missile defense and CIWS (where the US also lags many foreign nations, even
small European ones!) to protect the fleet.
Good luck with that. Serious things that might defend the fleet:
*Long-range interceptors
*Long-range SAMs (USN equivalent of S-300/400/500 family)
*High energy microwaves (with enough energy a bubble field could destroy missile
electronics)
*Upgraded and more numerous CIWS, ideally with lasers and rail guns if they ever get those to
work
*Actually armoring ships
But even if all of these expensive technologies work as intended, they'll still vulnerable
to being overwhelmed by salvos as well as nuclear warheads.
Probably we should accept that Karl Doenitz was right about the future of naval
warfare -- nothing on the surface.
The navy should instead be made up mostly of submarines and long range aircraft. Surface
forces would be limited to mine sweepers, ASW corvettes, and green/brown water small boats
(like the LCS except not expensive and trash).
The entire amphibious assault concept is ridiculous as well. Amphibious assaults were hard
enough to pull off in WW2 against inferior opponents hard pressed on other fronts. Against a prepared opponent with modern technology they will fail spectacularly.
And against an UNPREPARED opponent no specialized and expensive amphibious forces are
needed. They can be quickly conducted using improvised equipment as the Germans did in 1917
and again in 1940.
Technology is not the factor that makes this leapfrog so hopeless for the US MIC. The
structure of Russia's defense industrial base is inherently more agile and efficient because
it's a resource of the state and not exclusively a private profit center.
Back when the USSR had just collapsed in the expectation of peace and disarmament, Russian
defense industries lost interest in weapons and looked to commercial markets. They pitched
projects like satellite systems they could field at one percent of the cost of existing
systems. You read that right. Comparable US systems were two orders of magnitude more
expensive. Russia's defense industrial base continued to out-innovate the Pentagon.
The US counter is to spend ten times more and piss away 95% of it. The inherent drain on
procurement includes loading, such as marketing for more and more programs, and McMansions
for the C-Suite parasites, from performance bonuses whose intended incentives can always be
negated with revenue growth. It's as if you decided to bulk up, but instead of lifting
weights you injected yourself with CIA's metastasizing-cancer toxin. The beltway cannot
possibly keep up.
Since the whole purpose of America's military is to force the host, the United States and its
population, to fork over wealth to the parasite, the military industrial complex, the news
that all the technology is junk could not be better for them. Now they can throw that all
away and make us pay for new useless junk.
The US exports War and Terrorism as its number one export, all for the profit of the rich.
The taxpayers pay for all sorts of military equipment that gets paid for but most of it is
never really delivered. How many ICBM missiles do you think the thieving rich have in those
silos in North Dakota? I would bet zero. Much more profit in pocketing the money and telling
the suckers you buried their missiles in the ground where the Russkies, and the taxpayers,
never can see them. Why would any of the super wonderful people who rule us lie about
anything? Why would super wonderful Putin lie about anything? Only commie pinkos don't trust
their Government or the stuff they read on the internet.
After the slaughter of several hundred Russian mercenaries in Syria
most likely less than 20, but, doesn't affect your point. All this "online therapy" about all powerful Russia is just that.
Good for them. Beats pills and alcohol. The war between The Empire and Russia won't be with high tech weaponry.
It will be by dissent, insurrections and ethic warfare, as in Ukraine. We'll see how will all that "high tech" work in next flareup there.
"The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is on the run around the globe" said chief Pentagon
spokesman Dana W. White last year.
"We're not surprised by the statements and the American people should rest assured that we
are fully prepared," said Pentagon tranny Dana White a week ago.
The US military exists to enslave the majority and to force them to pay the majority of
their incomes in taxes. What do Americans get in exchange for their taxes? Do they get health
insurance? No. Do they get retirement benefits? No, unless you consider $1000 or less a month
in social security a "retirement." Maybe if you live in your car. Do they get decent roads?
No. Do they get decent public transportation? No. Do they get anything positive of any sort?
No, except their "Freedoms" and their "Specialness" and "Preparation" by the world's greatest
Ponzi scheme. Nothing drains a country's resources more than wasting them on war and
soldiers, rather than on its own people.
You can be absolutely 100% sure that huge amount of money will be thrown at Pentagon, but
as some people here astutely observed, most of it will be wasted or stolen. US will continue
to invest into totally bankrupt weapons systems since they are not designed to fight but to
make money. The track record of military-technological whopping disasters of the last decade
or so is simply stunning–from F-35, to LCS, to now emerging unproven and fantastically
expensive technologies for Columbia-class sub, to, basically not working air-defense and
anti-missile complexes. This is simply unprecedented in human history.
Technology is not the factor that makes this leapfrog so hopeless for the US MIC. The
structure of Russia's defense industrial base is inherently more agile and efficient
because it's a resource of the state and not exclusively a private profit center.
I agree with your thesis but the major factor here is a cultural one–a dramatically
different attitude to war between Russia and US. I wrote about this here:
In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and
technological pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and
weapons which would help to implement it.
One cannot buy a history (albeit many in Washington think that it is possible) one has to
experience it and built national institutions accordingly. US "elites" simply have no grasp
what real war is.
In the 1970s, NATO sponsored seminars on the Soviet Union's military weaponry. I attended
the seminars. We had "hands-on" access to Soviet tanks and other equipment. I was impressed.
It was the biggest "bang for the buck" as opposed to the US model of letting private,
for-profit contractors design and cost weapons for you. We left the seminars with a heartfelt
fear of the Soviet Union's military capability.
BTW: Due to a few soldiers going "postal", we
were not allowed access to our unit weapons except in the case of an emergency or, maybe a
war.
After 20 years in the Air Force in air operations and 26 years as a government contractor
in finance and procurement, I offer the F-35 as the paradigm of the "death of the US
military". Bad design compounded by troubled procurement compounded by non-stop lobbying by
politicians and contracts to ignore the obvious = a procurement disaster.
The F-111 program proved that it was not possible to develop a common design that could
meet the requirements of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. Carriers vs. land-based
airfields. It cannot be done. The contracts and politicians made the case that it could be
done. The F-35 is the dismal result.
Russian weapons are designed by the military and then outsourced to government-industries
or private contractors for production. US weapons are designed by contractors to maximize
profits and then forced on the military services by politicians. Go figure the outcomes.
The US military exists to enslave the majority and to force them to pay the majority of
their incomes in taxes.
This is a silly comment. All taxing authority (which in turn also implies monetary
authority) is dependent on state power. Military power is but one aspect of state power. To
that we can add police forces, courts, and of course the the tax authorities themselves.
There are also the non-coercive aspects of state power such as propaganda, legitimacy, social
services, public employees, etc.
If the primary purpose of the US military were to enslave the domestic population, both
its deployment and its weapons would be completely different. Instead of a global empire of
bases which won't even protect the Southern border, armed forces would be arrayed in bases
located outside of major metropolitan areas.
The army would have a lot more armor, artillery, infantry, and airpower. The air force
would have low performance aircraft with large payloads. The navy would be more of a
gendarmerie.
And almost no one in America pays the majority of his income in taxes. Some people far
into the top bracket in California who are very bad at tax planning and hate capital gains
and qualified dividends perhaps.
What do Americans get in exchange for their taxes? Do they get health insurance? No. Do
they get retirement benefits? No, unless you consider $1000 or less a month in social
security a "retirement." Maybe if you live in your car. Do they get decent roads? No. Do
they get decent public transportation?
In other words you're a social democrat, and for that matter your statements aren't
correct.
Poor Americans and elderly Americans get health insurance from the government.
The maximum monthly social security benefit is $3,538.
The roads are not bad at all in most of the country.
Can't argue with you on mass transit of course.
I'd rather have minimal safety nets and an expansive private sector (stripped of
rent-seeking, monopolistic, and parasitic elements to be sure). This is a class and
ideological issue with trade-offs.
What is damning is the relative inefficiency of public spending in America relative to
many other industrial countries, and this isn't all owing to the bloated military-industrial
complex (which is also inefficient). The country spends as much tax money on health
insurance as many other countries but fails to cover the entire population. The pay-as-you
pension system has an abysmal rate of return. Infrastructure projects are cartoonishly
expensive compared to other rich countries.
You can be absolutely 100% sure that huge amount of money will be thrown at Pentagon,
but as some people here astutely observed, most of it will be wasted or stolen.
May be that was Putin's idea. Let them outspend and enlarge the astronomic budget US's
deficit. In the end with 2500 strategic nukes on each side, MAD will remain firmly in place
with or whithout NMD.
Is it not clear that the US generals have sold out America's defenses to Israel – J-MIC
rules the Pentagon. We fight wars for Israel – we are NOT defending America. We have
lost our Twentieth century defensive edge. We now have a military that is good at
assassinating village chiefs (and their families).
The US generals keep expanding the geography of their killing until there is going to be a
true world war. The cold-hard fact is that our US generals are defending Israel not America. Our US
generals are not doing American defense – they are doing Israeli offence.
Why is every US general a supporter of Israel? The trillions of dollars spent on the ME are depleting our defenses at home. Is this not
obvious? The J-MIC must be taken on!
Think Peace -- Art
p.s. In true fascist order, Netanyahu is meeting Trump today – in un-American
fashion, there will be no free press asking questions.
p.s. How does that bastard get to dictate to our country – ignoring our values.
May be that was Putin's idea. Let them outspend and enlarge the astronomic budget US's
deficit. In the end with 2500 strategic nukes on each side, MAD will remain firmly in place
with or whitout NMD.
The main idea was to show futility of most American strategies re: Russia, including
useless and immensely expensive ABM program. This, by definition, should "coerce" American
"elites" into more constructive mode.
Again, the whole nature of the American military
posture since 1970s is lack of any desire to play by the rules, including within the
more-or-less stable framework of MAD. In fact, the US constantly tries to exit MAD framework.
Now it is over for US, it may try to exit MAD whatever it wants–it doesn't matter: US
is completely defenseless against both nuclear and conventional HPWs. Again, since 2010
Russia's Military Doctrine, reiterated in 2014 edition of same, the use of high precision
conventional weapons IS stated as means of strategic power containment. Obviously, most of US
"experts" seldom comprehend what they read from Russia, but it is their problem.
As per bankrupting itself–sorry, but the US is already bankrupt and the only exit
from this situation for US is coercion of Europe and American re-industrialization. Is it
possible at this stage? I doubt it but we still have to wait and see. A huge part of the US
"dominance" was its claim to being capable to power wrestle anyone on the planet. This is
absolutely NOT the case anymore. hasn't been for quite some time, without this military
mythology the globalist economic "order" begins to crumble–a process we all observe
today. So, in summary–it is not one or the other thing, it is many things together
working both in concert and providing synergistic effect. On March 1st Putin declared
Russia's absolute sovereignty–as I said, we are entering new post-Pax American world,
and I mean right this very moment as I type this.
I've often thought there should be international war games where, for example, the
Russians are authorized to launch a missile "attack" on some deserted area with dummy
warheads, and we're obliged to shoot them down to thwart the attack, and vice versa.
The USA should return to the method used before the 1980s where government organizations
developed weapons and then contracted production to the private sector.
This is a blatant admission that free market economy which is the source of innovation and
efficiency is a hoax and a failure. Free market economy is nothing but a façade and a 3
Cup Scam to stealing from the people en masse without raising a fuss.
Second will Russia use their new and potentially superior position to offer protection
to its neighbours and eventually kick America out of Eurasia.
As Syria's example shows, one of the major Russian exports of the future will be, in
fact–already is, a political stability and defense against "regime changes". This
"product" will be in a very high demand.
Putin offered Bush superior sites for a radar to monitor Iran. Bush refused and insisted
on a site that monitored Russia as least as well. After that, Putin lost trust in US
intentions. Bush screwed up so much.
My main comment on these weapons. How to pay for all this, infrastructure renewal, double the
growth rate alongside a huge decline in work force and all those new pensioners seeking
healthcare? World class Big Data too. Productivity growth needs new investment which needs
modest interest rates. That's not really happening, a Rotenberg project or so excluded.
As Syria's example shows, one of the major Russian exports of the future will be, in
fact–already is, a political stability and defense against "regime changes". This
"product" will be in a very high demand.
Whatever the next major conflict, who are friends are will matter -- especially on the
question of the breadth and scope extended operations.
Can you name one friend the United States has that's not bought and paid for –
including Israel? You can't be serious in trotting out the assertion the US has any friends
who would remain friends more than 30 minutes following failure on delivery of the latest
foreign aid check.
Not to mention the numerous and immensely large sums (Trillions?) that have simply
disappeared "in" the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld made one such announcement on 10/11/2001.
Obviously, beyond the greed focused MIC there is a much more serious implication of US
last experiencing, but only a medium intensity, war in its Civil War so long ago. The much
more serious implication is that it is dishing out war mush more readily than any other
nation on the planet.
The reason that Ziocon parasites have found such a fertile ground in
the US is almost like an isolated island, whose people consider war to be entertainment
(shock & awe), have never had any serious family or home losses from it and are dumb and
uneducated enough to be pulled by their noses through their MSM to any war that Ziocons
fancy.
In short, [MIC is a bunch of] smart parasites feeding on dumb f*cks.
Another point is that the parasites control and profit from the fully enclosed war
cycle:
Media,
Weapon building industry,
Post-war reconstruction industry and
More stolen oil, water and land for Israel.
In such system, the efficiency is an absolutely last (unprofitable) consideration.
Therefore, US winning a war against Russia? Not in the next hundred years militarily but
possibly through subterfuge: assasinations and regime change.
"... #Russiagate, from the start, was framed as an indictment not just of one potentially traitorous Trump, but all alternative politics in general. The story has evolved to seem less like a single focused investigation and more like the broad institutional response to a spate of shocking election results, targeting the beliefs of discontented Americans across the political spectrum. ..."
"... it might be more scary then insane actually given how many are being suckered into this stupidity.. ..."
"... The US is under a psychotic mind massage that requires daily doses of Russophobic "medicine". ..."
"... All they have is their own crippled view of reality. But it is very dangerous. Projecting their own fears and hatreds often self-triggers into violence when schizoidal patients act out. ..."
"... The silver lining here though is that it is not working. Take the case of Matteo Renzi in Sunday's general election in Italy. He had tried to copy his neoliberal colleagues in other countries and allege victimization at the hands of Russian hackers and bots, but he eventually threw in the towel because the absurdity of his claims were roundly dismissed by the public. His Democratic Party polled under 20% and he announced his resignation the other day. The neoliberals can keep peddling their Russophobia but it doesn't work at the polls. ..."
"... "This Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further abuse against dissent on everything else." To me it looks like a Sisyphos work. Where I look I am confronted with cheating Russians, faking Russians, murdering Russians, they are just evil, evil, evil. I honestly doubt you can do anything against this avalanche of genuine demonizing. It's disgusting but apparently the ruling circles want to go to war. And even you won't stop them. ..."
"... The morons who peddle this "Russia did it" nonsense fully realize it isn't true, but it distracts the masses, so the bought and paid for idiots who now own the U$A, can dismantle any Govt. interference to their plan for global market share capture. ..."
"... Taibbi is right and that makes 'progressive' embrace of the Russiagate hoaxes that much more sinister. It is fundamentally pro-war, pro-establishment and pro-censorship ..."
"... "...but I rather doubt "the ruling circles" want a hot war with Russia/China and their allies as that will destroy their Casino-economy faster than most anything else..." ..."
"... Let's hope you're right. Brit General Sir Gordon Messenger views the "next big fight," most likely against nuclear-armed Russia, as winnable. (Times 18.03.01) And he isn't the only confident warmonger. ..."
"... Really folks, what the hell do people expect the rest of the globe to do, as the U$A's corporate empire continues to surround and attempt to strangle other nations? If other nations of the globe didn't push back, I for one, wouldn't respect them. Other nations of the world have the legitimate right to push back, and should. ..."
It is unlikely that the headline was chosen by the author of the op-ed. The editors of the
Washington Post opinion page wrote it. I also doubt that she would have chosen a
picture of the FCC head to decorate her piece.
For the record: The headline is false.
The op-ed is about a request for comments the Federal Communications Commission issued last
year in preparation of its net-neutrality decision. Anyone, and anything, could comment
multiple times. Various lobbying firms, political action groups and hacks abused the public
comment system to send copy-paste comments via single-use email accounts or even without giving
any email address.
But this had and has nothing to with Russia or Russians.
Here are the top graphs of the the WaPo op-ed with the "Russia-did-it" headline:
What do Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), deceased actress Patty Duke, a 13-year-old from upstate
New York and a 96-year-old veteran from Southern California have in common?
They appear to have filed comments in the net neutrality record at the Federal
Communications Commission. That ought to mean they went online, submitted their names and
addresses, and typed out their thoughts about Internet regulatory policy. But appearances can
be deceiving. In fact, each of these individuals -- along with 2 million others -- had their
identities stolen and used to file fake comments.
These fake comments were not the only unnerving thing in the FCC net neutrality record. In
the course of its deliberations on the future of Internet openness, the agency logged about
half a million comments sent from Russian email addresses . It received nearly 8 million
comments from email domains associated with FakeMailGenerator.com with almost identical
wording.
I have emphasized the only words in the whole op-ed that are related to Russia. They are
wrong. The author of that op-ed does not understand the FCC public comment system. Public
comments are made by filling
out a form on the FCC website leaving ones comment, some address data and an email address.
Public comments are not "send" by email. Thus the FCC did not log any comments "sent from
Russian email". It logged comments made in a web form where the human (or program) making the
comment provided a Russian email address as a means of contact. (It is obviously not expertise
on communication issues that qualifies Mrs. Rosenworcel for her position as FCC
commissioner.)
At least 12-13 million of the 21.7 million comments to the FCC were fake. 8 million email
addresses entered in the form the FCC had set up were generated with www.fakemailgenerator.com , half a million were entered
with *.ru Internet domains.
FakeMailGenerator can use foreign domains for generating throw-away email addresses. In the
screenshot below it generated an Hungarian one for me.
If I would comment at the FCC and enter [email protected] into the FCC form I
would be counted as Hungarian. I would not have "sent" that comment from an Hungarian email
address. Nor did the entering of the comment make me Hungarian. Neither do *.ru email domains
mean that the people (ab-)using them have anything to do with Russia.
The Pew Research Center
analyzed the 21.7 million comments the FCC received:
Fully 57% of comments used temporary or duplicate email addresses, and seven popular comments
accounted for 38% of all submissions
The FCC and other agencies are required by law to accept public comments. But, as the op-ed
says, it is utterly useless to request such public comments on the Internet without having some
authentication system in place. The FCC did have some email address verification system in
place. But it did not use it. As the Pew Center writes:
[T]he Center's analysis shows that the FCC site does not appear to have utilized this email
verification process on a consistent basis. According to this analysis of the data from the
FCC, only 3% of the comments definitively went through this validation process . In the vast
majority of cases, it is unclear whether any attempt was made to validate the email address
provided.
As a result, in many cases commenters were able to use generic or bogus email addresses
and still have their comments accepted by the FCC and posted online.
It is obvious that the FCC had no interest at all in receiving legitimate public comments.
But the FCC at least did not blame Russia. The Washington Post editors do that when
they chose a headline that has no factual basis in the piece below it. They abuse the op-ed
which has the presumed authority of an FCC commissioner to reinforce their anti-Russian
campaign.
C. J. Hopkins notes that such a cult of authority is
systematically used to make the lunatic claims of Russiagate believable.
Matt Taibbi writes that the aim of the Russiagate campaign was and is to
target all dissent :
If you don't think that the endgame to all of this lunacy is a world where every
America-critical movement from Black Lives Matter to Our Revolution to the Green Party is
ultimately swept up in the collusion narrative along with Donald Trump and his alt-right
minions, you haven't been paying attention.
That's because #Russiagate, from the start, was framed as an indictment not just of one
potentially traitorous Trump, but all alternative politics in general. The story has evolved
to seem less like a single focused investigation and more like the broad institutional
response to a spate of shocking election results, targeting the beliefs of discontented
Americans across the political spectrum.
Some commenters here lament about my posts about the Steele and or Russiagate issues. "It's
enough already." But the issue is, as Taibbi points out, much bigger. This Russiagate nonsense
has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further abuse against dissent on
everything else.
Posted by b on March 7, 2018 at 04:17 PM | Permalink
thanks b.. this Russiagate thing is insane... i like the counter punch article you linked to
and appreciate your breaking these fcc thing apart... it might be more scary then insane
actually given how many are being suckered into this stupidity..
b: "This Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its
further abuse against dissent on everything else."
Concur 100% Truth must be used in the constant battle against Big Lie Nation and its
perverse billionaire Deep State. Bezos should be wary he now wears a bullseye on his back
none of his billions can remove. I see Taibbi has finally gotten part of his head out of his
ass and is finally beginning to recognize Russiagate to be the Big Lie that it is, although
he hasn't yet extracted his mouth so he can tell the world it's all a Big Lie--bet Deep State
affiliated Rolling Stone would fire him if he did so. That's why we're treated to his
poorly written article that's almost two years too late.
b, glad to have your expert mind cutting through the maze of crapola. The US is under a psychotic mind massage that requires daily doses of Russophobic
"medicine".
All they have is their own crippled view of reality. But it is very dangerous.
Projecting their own fears and hatreds often self-triggers into violence when schizoidal
patients act out. We see this in America with school and concert shootings. With Russia as its enemy, the Exceptional Nation is taunting a great power with more nukes
than the US has. Every stupid American statement, thus, must be challenged. We can't be silent or laugh.
It's too serious.
The silver lining here though is that it is not working. Take the case of Matteo Renzi in
Sunday's general election in Italy. He had tried to copy his neoliberal colleagues in other
countries and allege victimization at the hands of Russian hackers and bots, but he
eventually threw in the towel because the absurdity of his claims were roundly dismissed by
the public. His Democratic Party polled under 20% and he announced his resignation the other
day. The neoliberals can keep peddling their Russophobia but it doesn't work at the polls.
Sorry to go off topic but the Syrian Arab Army has just marched thru East Gouta town of
Al-Hammouriyah to the joy of locals who are demanding that the arseholes of Faylaq al-Rahman
and Jaysh al-Islam take the next stage outta Beit Sawa.
There is a vid from
Al Masdar Newshereand another
here if you want to use facebook links as the vids are mounted on FB. Both vids show
support for the SAA by the population of East Gouta.
"This Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further
abuse against dissent on everything else."
To me it looks like a Sisyphos work. Where I look I am confronted with cheating Russians,
faking Russians, murdering Russians, they are just evil, evil, evil. I honestly doubt you can
do anything against this avalanche of genuine demonizing. It's disgusting but apparently the
ruling circles want to go to war. And even you won't stop them.
"It is obvious that the FCC had no interest at all in receiving legitimate public comments.
..." hahaha. too true, B!! quite simply, democracy and capitalism can no longer co-habitate under the same roof
The morons who peddle this "Russia did it" nonsense fully realize it isn't true, but it
distracts the masses, so the bought and paid for idiots who now own the U$A, can dismantle
any Govt. interference to their plan for global market share capture.
Taibbi is right and that makes 'progressive' embrace of the Russiagate hoaxes that much more
sinister. It is fundamentally pro-war, pro-establishment and pro-censorship and thus not
progressive -- depending on how we define progress of course...
"...but I rather doubt "the ruling circles" want a hot war with Russia/China and their allies
as that will destroy their Casino-economy faster than most anything else..."
Let's hope you're right. Brit General Sir Gordon Messenger views the "next big fight," most
likely against nuclear-armed Russia, as winnable. (Times 18.03.01) And he isn't the only
confident warmonger.
Yes, we (patriotic) dissenters are "swept up in the collusion narrative" when we are labeled
"Russians." This has happened to me. When I comment a lot on military sites about the
ridiculous waste of money they are, I occasionally get the Russian treatment. "You're a
Russian." Once it was hilarious when the "Russian" label on me was deemed authentic by one
genius blogger. He said I must be Russian because I had used the word "kilometers." That
proved my Russian-ness to him. . . .Currently Trump is denigrated for being a Russia-lover,
but calling him a Russian is not likely (but possible).
Really folks, what the hell do people expect the rest of the globe to do, as the U$A's
corporate empire continues to surround and attempt to strangle other nations? If other
nations of the globe didn't push back, I for one, wouldn't respect them. Other nations of the
world have the legitimate right to push back, and should.
The US Power Elite ... would be rightfully called the „Deep State" of the USA (
http://tinyurl.com/ho2nz87
).
And this Deep State has become more and more ruthless over the time. They have brought
nightmares over the Southern Hemisphere by installing brutal dictatorships ( http://tinyurl.com/kkpvcf7 ) in their
interest and waging bloody colonial wars, in the last one and a half decades especially with
their „War on Terror" ( http://tinyurl.com/nrxxej5 ).
One of their aims is to prevent countries of Africa, Latin America, Near and Middle East and
Southern Asia from choosing their trade partners freely and from making use of their resources
and industrialize, since that would mean a division of resources and allowing them their part
of „consuming ecologic Earth capacity".
Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 US presidential
election , the Democratic Party establishment has held tightly to the belief that her shock
defeat was not the result of her and their shortcomings, but rather due to a nefarious Russian
plot to "hack" the election in "collusion" with the winner.
Instead of examining why Donald Trump was able to connect with voters in economically
distressed parts of the country in a way that Democrats failed to do, adherents of the
Russiagate narrative hoped that investigations would quickly find a smoking gun, leading to
Trump's impeachment and undoing an election result they consider aberrant and unjust.
On Friday, I spoke at a conference in Washington, DC, titled The Israel Lobby and American Policy , sponsored
by The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and IRmep , a group that researches the lobby's influence.
As I note in my talk, a handful of journalists – especially Max Blumenthal and
Aaron Maté of The Real News – have consistently debunked the wild, exaggerated
and sometimes fabricated claims of Russian interference made by members of the self-styled but
woefully ineffectual "Resistance" to Trump.
Watch the video above.
True, over the course of the last year, special counsel Robert Mueller has made a number of
indictments, but none of those cases – including the recent
indictment of 13 Russians linked to a St. Petersburg troll farm – substantiates the
heavily hyped claim that Russia helped Trump win the White House.
Perhaps the most high-profile indictment of someone in Trump's inner circle, the president's
first national security adviser Michael Flynn , actually shows that
rather than colluding with Russia, senior members of Trump's team were really
working with Israel to
advanceits agenda.
And while no one has pinpointed evidence of Trump auctioning off his foreign policy to any
Russian oligarchs, he has definitely
tailored his policy toward Israel to the demands of casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson , his biggest campaign
donor .
Adelson's immediate priority was securing US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital
and moving the American embassy there – and Trump duly
obliged .
New censorship helps Israel
In my talk I consider how the Russiagate narrative is actually helping Israel and its lobby
in particular ways.
I point out that the Russiagate hysteria being adopted by many liberals is legitimizing
censorship that helps Israel clamp down on free speech and a free press.
Last year, the Russian-funded network RT was forced to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act (FARA).
As Maté has noted, free speech advocates and journalists were largely
silent about it , perhaps thinking this tool of government control over the media would
never be used against them.
But now, Israel's supporters in Congress –
including Senator Ted Cruz – are demanding
that Al Jazeera be investigated by the Department of Justice and forced to register as an agent
of Qatar. They are explicitly citing the US government crackdown on RT as their precedent.
Al Jazeera's transgression is that it produced an undercover documentary on the workings of
the Israel lobby in the US.
Qatar has come under intense pressure from that lobby to make sure the documentary is never
aired. Five months after the network's head of investigations Clayton Swisher
announced it would be released "very soon," the film has yet to be broadcast.
According to a source who has seen it, the film identifies a number of lobby groups as
working with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques.
It is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too
critical of Israel.
True, FARA is being used only against foreign networks, but the point is that these outlets
– whatever their flaws – are providing space for discussion and dissent that docile
US mainstream media keep closed.
It's simply impossible to imagine CNN, ABC – or for that matter the BBC –
showing true independence and taking on the power of the Israel lobby.
While organizers diligently informed media about the Washington conference, the only outlets
that invited me on to talk about the Israel lobby were the The Real News and RT. I know that
other speakers were shut out of mainstream media as well.
And besides, there are other forms of high-tech censorship that are being used to stifle or
stigmatize dissent in domestic media: Partly as an outgrowth of Russiagate, Silicon Valley
giants Google and
Facebook have succumbed to political
pressure to effectively
throttle the exposure
of independent outlets in the name of fighting extremism, "fake news" and alleged foreign
interference.
The perverse effect has been to reassert state and elite control over media and erode the
freedom that those of us shut out of mainstream outlets rely on. Nothing could suit Israel and
its lobby better.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was
secretary of state in the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, issued a stark warning that the US ramping up its
military presence in Syria may be a prelude to launching a war on Iran on behalf of Israel.
Wilkerson said that Israel and its ally Saudi Arabia are encouraging the US to fight a
regime-change war against Tehran that they would be incapable of mounting on their own.
"We've already done Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan," Wilkerson said, "so we'd just be seen
as continuing the trend."
He warned that an Israeli confrontation and war with Lebanon – perhaps on the pretext
of disputed gas fields in the Mediterranean – could provide the pretext.
In an ominous parallel, he likened the current situation to 1914, the eve of World War I
– any spark could generate a broad regional or even global conflagration.
Wilkerson singled out the role of the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of
Democracies as leading the campaign for war on behalf of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and his defense minister Avigdor Lieberman.
Notably, the source who spoke to The Electronic Intifada about Al Jazeera's suppressed
Israel lobby film said that the documentary reveals that the same think tank may be acting as
an agent for Israel in its covert efforts to undermine support for Palestinian rights in the
US.
In spite of Wilkerson's worrying thesis, it must be said that, however powerful, the Israel
lobby cannot alone force the US to undertake foreign military conquests. For one thing, US
elites have never needed encouragement from anyone to wage devastating wars around the
world.
When the US establishment sees a critical interest at stake, it pursues it regardless of
what the lobby may want. That is why the US signed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement despite
all of Israel's efforts to sabotage it. Of course whether that deal survives the Trump
administration
remains to be seen .
In his keynote
address , Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy stated that Israel's
military rule over Palestinians "is today one of the most brutal, cruel tyrannies on
Earth."
He asserted that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights
is a "legitimate tool" and the "only game in town" to force Israel to end this injustice.
Gloating about Syrian tragedy, peterAUS -- in an openly pro-Israel manner? Are you able to
see the difference between opportunists (presstitutes and profiteers) and decent (principled
and courageous) individuals? Here are some samples for you:
"Vanessa Beeley Presents Exposé on White Helmets at Swiss Press Club in Geneva:"
Looks like in order to make such a statement Putin should have intelligence information
about a real threat of attack from the USA, or some large scale provocation in Syria or
Ukraine. Only in this case his statement makes some sense. As a open warning: do not do
it.
It's an interesting commentary, and I came to the same conclusion. Threats, braggadocio
(We Are Empire) and general hubris are features of 21st century American foreign policy
– not Russian, so I have to interpret Putin's statement as reactive. There is something
out there that Putin is aware of, and he's saying "Don't do It".
America is incapable of viewing itself through the eyes of others, and has the kind of
blind arrogance that I would best compare to late 19th and early 20th Century German
militarism – the deeply embedded German worldview (long before Hitler) of superiority,
destiny, and the corresponding natural right to Empire. Hitler was only the last in a long
line of German exponents of this view when he said "According to the laws of nature, the soil
belongs to he who conquers it. The fact of having children who want to live, the fact that
our people is bursting out of its cramped frontiers – these justify all of our claims
to the Eastern spaces."
It took two World Wars, and Russian troops in Berlin, to rid the world of this cancer
– and the same dynamic is now at work again. The crazed Imperialist is the USA (or at
least its Zio-Glob leadership), but with the difference that a technological WW3 will be over
in a matter of days if not hours.
"... The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious. ..."
"... The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation. ..."
"... The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election. Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains. ..."
Well of course there are. We've been told repeatedly that the Obama administration was on the job and focused like a laser
on Russia collusion and meddling.
Unfortunately, the hard drive all that was stored on crashed and it was all lost.
If we really want the truth then we have to stop relying on what people say just because we like them, or we think they are
on our side, and instead we have to examine the interests of the various sources. Only then we can make better decisions. At this
stage of the game the deep state can no longer blame with any credibility Russian hacking as the source of the alleged leak. The
know it came directly from the DNC. However, the deep state has a priority (a very strong interest) to keep the heat on Russia.
The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether
or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in
the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious.
The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification
of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic
rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged
or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining
resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation
to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation.
The disproportionate ongoing emphasis on the fake story that Russia meddled in the US election, not only serves to stir up
suspicions and fears regarding Russia in the generally brain-numbed population, but mainly at this stage, and by the sheer fact
that the deep state has carried this rouse so far down the field, the only rational conclusion one can make is that the deep state
is going to interfere in the Russian elections in a very major way to ensure that Putin and his cronies - those wicked oil and
gas nationalizers, those heinous enemies of the Rothschild banksters and their plans for an expanded US Fed to the auspices of
their proposed One World Bank; those upstart renegades who support nations which choose to trade oil without US petrodollars;
those evil monsters who oppose globalism and defend their own nation's sovereignty and other nations like Syria which call for
help.
The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election.
Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure
Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains.
that's not exactly what I've been saying and what concerns me. That's the easy, nice
option. There is only one, very little snag there. TRUST.
That's an astute observation, but it cuts both ways. You also need to take into account
the level of Neo-McCarthyism in the USA and resulting growing distrust toward neoliberals and
compradors in Russia. Despite efforts of Putin personally and Putin administration (Lavrov,
Medvedev) to suppression growing anti-Americanism, soon Russian people might start throwing
eggs at neoliberals/comparadors rallies. Look at the travails of the elite prostitute who is
the most neoliberal and pro-Western candidate for Presidents in the current race:
Add to that a distinct desire by the "Collective West" to expropriate Russian oligarchs
holdings during the next six years of Putin rule (which they now probably understand, or at
least start to understand after the most recent "blacklist"). That creates some links with
the motherland even for the most cosmopolitan Russian bankers
$21 trillion of unauthorized spending by US govt discovered by economics
professor
Published time: 16 Dec, 2017
[MORE]
The US government may have misspent $21 trillion, a professor at Michigan State
University has found. Papers supporting the study briefly went missing just as an audit was
announced.
Two departments of the US federal government may have spent as much as $21 trillion on
things they can't account for between 1998 and 2015. At least that's what Mark Skidmore, a
Professor of Economics at MSU specializing in public finance, and his team have found.
They came up with the figure after digging the websites of departments of Defense (DoD)
and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as repots of the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) over summer.
The research was triggered by Skidmore hearing Catherine Austin Fitts, a former
Assistant Secretary in the HUD in the first Bush administration, saying the Inspector
General found $6.5 trillion worth of military spending that the DoD couldn't account for.
She was referring to a July 2016 report by the OIG, but Skidmore thought she must be
mistaking billion for trillion. Based on his previous experience with public finances, he
thought the figure was too big even for an organization as large as the US military.
"Sometimes you have an adjustment just because you don't have adequate transactions so
an auditor would just recede. Usually it's just a small portion of authorized spending,
maybe one percent at most. So for the Army one percent would be $1.2 billion of
transactions that you just can't account for," he explained in an interview with
USAWatchdog.com earlier this month.
After discovering that the figure was accurate, he and Fitts collaborated with a pair of
graduate students to comb through thousands of reports of the OIG dating back to 1998, when
new rules of public accountability for the federal government were set and all the way to
2015, the time of the latest reports available at the time. The research was only for the
DoD and the HUD.
"This is incomplete, but we have found $21 trillion in adjustments over that period. The
biggest chunk is for the Army. We were able to find 13 of the 17 years and we found about
$11.5 trillion just for the Army," Skidmore said.
I think Americans might be able to get along just fine without the USA?
If the USA wants to threaten or mute those who offer an opinion?
As stupid as Americans are said to be,
they do feel the pains of fake news, loss of freedom of speech,
spying, corporate dominance, and corrupt in purpose leadership?
Another possibility is that even the best technology can't compensate for human
factor.
From the crew being overworked, untrained to being on drugs. Or vodka. Pick the one more
likely.
Perhaps you've seen the article linked below.
Some excerpts from the summation follow:
"Russia appears to have won at least a partial victory in Syria, and done so with
impressive efficiency, flexibility, and coordination between military and political
action."
" Russia's "lean" strategy, adaptable tactics, and coordination of military and diplomatic
initiatives offer important lessons for the conduct of any military intervention in as
complex and volatile an environment as the Middle East."
" Washington should pay close attention to the Russian intervention and how Moscow
achieved its objectives in Syria."
Leaving the requisite downplaying of what happened in Syria ("partial victory"?, really?)
aside, the authors seem a little envious, frankly.
Your points are of course valid, but the Russians seem to have answered those calls and a
few others besides, at least in the Syrian theatre. One can expect a similar or better
performance in any conflict involving Russian soil, especially as only the creme de la creme
of missile crews would be assigned to game changing weaponry.
Putin's announcement represents a massive FAIL on the part of a $1T's worth of
intelligence agencies, military think tanks, political analysts and military planners who
collectively didn't see it coming . They're all now in either panic, the foundation of
America's geo-political goals utterly undermined, or in denial.
Denial is winning, so their next big FAIL is already underway. Heads aren't rolling. The
Pentagon thinks it can save the day by doubling down and demanding more of the useless crap
they've got now. We can expect the CIA et al will roll out even more failing propaganda and
politically destabilizing activity to continue trying their hand at regime change. Even the
Afghans are on to them, so good luck with that.
The US simply must internalize the strategic significance of these developments, and
change everything about their postures and behaviours in the world. There's little sign of
that happening, Mad Dogs can't learn new tricks, so we're sailing into very treacherous
waters indeed.
The Deep State, also known as the Swamp, holds Trump in contempt because he put Deep State
people into so many positions. The Secretary of the Air Force is a Lockheed agent – she
took in $600k from Lockheed while she was a politician. Mattis is in favour of trannies in
the military – 50% suicide rate and $100k a pop. Tillerson was in favour of the Paris
climate treaty, so was Mattis. There are signs that reality is sinking in though –
putting Trophy systems on M1 tanks for example. The increase in the bomb production rate is a
sign that it is not business as usual. A much larger warstock is necessary for the coming
conflict with China. Nobody in the system has the guts to end the F-35. Mattis, for all his
bravado, is just a political creature.
One thing that struck me about Putin's speech on the new missile systems is that he
understood the technical detail of how the things worked to the extent of having a genuine
personal interest in knowing such stuff. Corruption and the Russian mafia are still Russia's
biggest problem but I see that Russian wheat production is finally increasing near 20 years
after the fall of communism.
These was reported some time ago. Pentagon needs another 911 to remove all evidents that
they did after 5+Trillions unknown usage was discovered.
Tip of iceberg how many trillions US is printing from air for its lavish unproductive
lives & endless wars over last many decades unreported. The world having their foreign
reserves tied by IMF to 5 currencies, is picking up the tabs of US, EU, Japan & UK free
currency printing QE to artificially prop up their collapsing economy based on stupid theory
of growth by borrowing.
These countries run on deficit(except jp with high export & artificial low ex-ch
rate), high debts, high salary, high property price, overspending with budget deficit, and
financial banking scams to prop up high Nominal GDP.
When music stop, someone will miss the seat.
China & Russia know, they stored up time proven gold reserve, & Petrol Yuan
started. When China replaced Petrol $ with yuan, slash its 3T US treasury reserve, the music
stop.
I see that Russian wheat production is finally increasing near 20 years after the fall
of communism.
Food commodity price is controlled by big oligarchs. West has big subsidy to artificially
lowered their cost/ export price in name of food security, to the tune that all subsidies are
enough to feed all hungries on earth. But its aim to destroy developing countries agri
sector. Latin America was hit badly in past that agri no longer sustainable, when land bcom
barren, capitalist swoop in to buy land dirt cheap.
China & Russia aren't stupid to let West control their food chain, but they imported
these subsidized food without ruin own agri ability, esp for animal feeds. When sanction
started, Putin simply activated its standby agri program. When trade war start, China will do
the same, already its probing US sorghum subsidy.
Looks like in order to make such a statement Putin should have intelligence information
about a real threat of attack from the USA, or some large scale provocation in Syria or
Ukraine. Only in this case his statement makes some sense. As a open warning: do not do
it.
Look at the keyword, allies. Putin emphasized, if Russia or its allies are attacked .. so
its Syria potential hyper escalation, Ukraine brewing collision with new lethal weapons, to
some lesser extent, Iran & Venezuela with Russia high investment.
12. China has less than 300 nuclear weapons and still is regarded as a formidable
nuclear power, probably spending 20 times less money in this area.
China might have to do something similar to Putin later just to ensure US won't took the
wrong calculated risk to do something stupid. However China style is always keep secretive of
its killer weapon that worry US most. Its said in every Wargaming, whenever Red team losing
to Blue, they launch China Murderer Mace(Trump card), then everything end in Red favour.
In another topic, some said China has est 400 nukes, with only 20~40 that can reach US
which might tempted US to believe it could survive an exchange. So a large upgrade is
necessary. Anyone got better idea?
In last year during South China Seas confrontation, China actually sent out all its navy
to conduct live exercise till eve of fake Hague court judgement, with nuclear subs in high
profile despatched to US Guam & Indian ocean bases(where their nuclear bombers station).
Two strike groups that with its Adm Harry threaten war start tonight, were reportedly hiding
in East Philippine Seas to get out of H6k bomber missiles(aircraft carrier killer) range.
WH panick of real war escalation, Obama sent its top general to China, with NSA advisor
Rice also visited Xi to resolve. This shows US isn't ready for a military clash with nuke
China, with much lesser warheads than Russia.
The new $14 billion USS Ford aircraft carrier has a launch system that cannot be fixed
because it never worked. It remains an experimental system that after 20 years of
development is not ready for use, and may never be. Replacing it with a proven steam system
will cost over $5 billion.
EMALS works! Carrier Ford completes first flight operations
By: Mark D. Faram July 29, 2017
Construction of the third carrier is expected to start next year and will use
electromagnetic launch rather than steam-powered catapults. The carrier is expected to have
80,000 ton displacement which would put it in the super carrier class.
China was confident about its EMALS technology now that it was able to produce its own
insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chips, a key component of the high-efficiency
electric energy conversion systems used in variable-speed drives, trains, electric and hybrid
electric vehicles, power grids and renewable energy plants.
All things described like "realism", "order" and references to Napoleon is all contrived
pseudo-academic bunk. In the end another "great" strategic minds such as neocons wrote
(Kagan's cabal) what is touted as the "best" history pf Peloponnese Wars. And look where this
"academic brilliance" based on those ideas brought the United States and the world to.
American elites of the 20th and 21st Century, with some minor exceptions, have no grasp of
the nature of the military force (power) and how it applies. None and this can not be fixed.
It is also a tragedy for many, including the US itself.
Mr. Martyanov -- Does the ECM/EMP capability that the USS Donald Cook allegedly ran into
in the Black Sea enter into these deliberations at all?
No. Russia does have the best EW capabilities in the world–the fact admitted even by
US military's top brass, but USS Donald Cook's alleged "shutting down" of her radar by SU-24
never happened. It is all, hm, as strange as it sounds, Russian amateurs' and fanboys'
propaganda. SU-24 is not capable to "shut down" anything on a ship with energy capacity of
Arleigh Burke-class DDG. Two different weight categories. Most likely SU-24 simply put out
what is known as pomehi (interference) which may have created multiple targets
picture–this is possible. It is still very unpleasant and unnerving situation but
nothing as dramatic as what became now a consistent and false meme.
and I'm just guessing, but for the same reasons successful anti-laser techniques could be
devised once that becomes a reality (even in clear day conditions)
Andrei, I don't know if you're still reading comments on this thread, but ZeroHedge posted
confirming what you wrote, yet somehow analysts are still dismissive. Still to quote you
"butt hurt."
Quote: "From a national security perspective, Putin's claims of hypersonic weapons should
not be underestimated but should be analyzed in an attempt to parse fact from fiction.
"The team of analysts at The Drive precisely did that, and made several conclusions: In
particular, one of the weapons Putin mentioned in his speech was an air-launched hypersonic
anti-ship missile launched from a Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound. Upon closer examination, the Drive
team found the hypersonic weapon closely resembles the Iskander short-range ballistic
missile."
End quotation.
I wonder if Putin will deploy the laser system to Syria, now that America is making
threats.
"A potential decision by Washington to take new military actions against Damascus would
mark the second US strike on Syria in less than a year."
The elder Kagan's Peloponnesian war history is actually instructive from a neocon point of
view. He identifies with the Athenian side, and with the most belligerent Athenian
politicians, so completely that he shows not the least understanding of why the other side,
or neutrals, or less aggressive Athenian politicians acted as they did. So although he uses a
respectable scholarly apparatus, he has no conception of how history should be written.
Thanks for the reply but my point primarily is that the A.Z. (to quote The Saker) Empire
is doubling down. Its attitude is still "what're you gonna do about it" and the recent news
indicates they're pushing in Syria.
A nuclear strike from Russia that kills 99% of the population doesn't bother them in the
slightest. Or they think Putin is bluffing.
My concern is about the plane crash in Syria: why were so many pilots (allegedly) on board
and thus so vulnerable. Not that it's necessarily true that the "Deep State" caused this.
The self-confessed military analysts "Q" with millions of followers states, incidentally,
that CIA caused the recent jetliner crash to kill Rosatom executives and scientists. I don't
trust him. He says Snowden now is in China; was CIA all along and was deliberately sent to
Russia for mischief making.
Finally, if you have any idea about my hypothesis discussed with F.B. above whether the
glider manipulates plasma using electric fields and a small on-board nuclear reactor or just
uses an undiscovered and unknown to America composite. But from what F.B. wrote we have no
how idea how it would work, hence the skepticism by the fake experts.
I hope you can comment since you're the expert and can separate truth from the
bullshit.
Putin's character makes me think he doesn't bluff. Western politicians are such liars they
don't believe Putin tells the truth.
Your points are of course valid, but the Russians seem to have answered those calls and
a few others besides, at least in the Syrian theatre. One can expect a similar or better
performance in any conflict involving Russian soil,
Agree.
Keywords "Syria" and "similar".
How about:
A new flareup in Novorossya->in, say, 3 months of "engagement" that part of Ukraine starts
looking as parts of Syria now.
An ethnic unrest in one of remote regions->reaction by the Kremlin->that part of RF
starts looking as parts of Syria now.
So, based on that, this
.the foundation of America's geo-political goals utterly undermined, or in denial.
and
They're all now in either panic, the foundation of America's geo-political goals utterly
undermined, or in denial
sounds .wrong?
Perhaps those advising Kremlin are in denial?
So, related to
We can expect the CIA et al will roll out even more failing propaganda and politically
destabilizing activity to continue trying their hand at regime change.
how about:
We can expect the Kremlin et al will roll out even more failing propaganda and internal
politically destabilizing activity to continue trying their hand against The Empire.
My concern is about the plane crash in Syria: why were so many pilots (allegedly) on
board and thus so vulnerable.
Systemic failure. Somewhere between acquiring spare parts, through maintenance and general
processes and procedures to, last, but not least .vodka.
More to come in coming months.
So although he uses a respectable scholarly apparatus, he has no conception of how
history should be written.
True, but to add insult to injury neocons generally do not know actual military
history–one is bound to fail to know it when they are in the business of erasing
causalities, rather than finding them. That is why they suck as strategists, have a very
vague understanding of operational and tactical issues and, of course, none of them
understands serious military-technological problems. Just to reiterate my point–they
have no idea what warfare is.
{ ., he has no conception of how history should be written.}
I think he does, so do his ilk.
They mind-bend history to fit their narrative, to confuse the multitudes into seeing the
world through their Neocon lens. Part and parcel of the full spectrum
disinformation/propaganda/brainwashing campaign. History (books & movies), "news",
analysis, commercials, nothing is off the table.
I am assuming the laser is state-of-the-art anti-missile defense: better chance of
shooting down Patriot missiles and making a point if another attack comes and prove the
system exists and he's not a liar. A real field test.
I am saddened, incidentally, by the death of so many brave Russian personnel in the plane
crash, which I notice you didn't remark upon. If it was an accident, I am sure the callous
Americans are saying, "See, they kill themselves, we don't have to bother trying" unless
there was duplicity involved and not just a gross failure due to negligence, etc.
I assume also that there is no evidence CIA (or Mossad) did target Rosatom executives in
the jet liner crash or Russia would not want that to get out, clear act of war.
Of course, sadly, American Deep State is at war with Russia. They just use duplicity and
proxies and it's too bad since we could have been friends and not enemies. So many voted for
Trump hoping for the best.
American Deep State won't change (neocons) until they get a bloody nose. Not sure when or
if that will ever happen.
The thing with "neocons" is that they're pathological liars and narcissists. And the first
victims of their dishonesty are themselves. In fact even describing them as "liars" who've
deceived themselves is being generous. To put it another way, they've created a false reality
for themselves. Actual facts and reasoned arguments, especially any kind of moral reasoning,
bounce off such creatures like bullets bounce off Superman.
My contention is that the factions are not so clear cut and most people that matters can
switch sides. That is why I think, the compradors will eventually win if a sweeping cleaning
is not done as such a setup is open to external manipulation for tipping the balance on one
side.
Currently, the wind is blowing from the side of patriots so many people that are
influential position themselves on this side. But as said before, a patriot billionaire is an
oxymoron and they would switch sides when they feel themselves or their wealth are
threatened. That is why the military-security bureaucracy that spearheads the Russian
nationalist faction will eventually have to make a choice if they want to sustain their
power: either clean them up or try to juggle a a difficult balancing act while also not
completely alienating western elites. In my view, this cannot be done. But, since the
difference among them is not day and night for many an reverse transition of power in a
similar manner like the smooth transition from Yeltsin to Putin is most likely.
"... How is Trump different from Hillary? Here's how: Trump is MUCH better at playing the crowd. He is a MUCH better faux populist and distractor. Please take note: The left hates Trump for being a playboy and colluding with Russia!! Real issues like inequality and militarism are back page material. ..."
"... It's all political games now. One side promises too much, the other side corrects that, then goes overboard themselves. This back and forth APPEARS to rock the boat but no one of any importance ever falls out. Only the occasional wildcard - like Assange and Putin - give the establishment pause. ..."
Russia this and Russia that. It's a circus. It's a spectacle. Nothing more. US has one
party: the war party. US has one establishment that wants MOAR.
Why did Al Gore choose not to fight for the Presidency? Why did "liberal lion" Ted Kennedy
throw his support to Obama, the sneaky warmongering neoliberal? Why did Sanders not walk away
from the Democratic Party when it became clear that they conspired with the Hillary
campaign?
How is Trump different from Hillary? Here's how: Trump is MUCH better at playing the
crowd. He is a MUCH better faux populist and distractor. Please take note: The left hates Trump
for being a playboy and colluding with Russia!! Real issues like inequality and militarism are
back page material.
It's all political games now. One side promises too much, the other side corrects that,
then goes overboard themselves. This back and forth APPEARS to rock the boat but no one of any
importance ever falls out. Only the occasional wildcard - like Assange and Putin - give the
establishment pause.
"... Frankly; I'm so bloody fed up with this whole narrative; I don't care if it's true or not! What difference does it make? Russia, Russia, Russia; bloody hell; get over it! It's a massive distraction from many other vile things being done; war against Yemen; illegal US occupation of Syria; ongoing war in Ukraine; massive violations of the US constitution within the borders of the continental US; militarized police violence against US citizens; the list goes on ad infinitum... ..."
"... I'm shocked! Mayer has a stellar reputation, but this piece is riddled with errors and misinformation. Are they all sellouts in the MSM???? ..."
"... The term "presstitute" which is used for attacking pro-establishment media shills comes to mind. Formerly respectable outlets such as the New Yorker and their writer, Jane Mayer, have gone over into war crimes by in effect fomenting a new cold war based on falsehoods, similar to what the postwar less corrupt yankee imperium considered war crimes in the four power Nuremberg trial which convicted the editor of Der Stuermer, a Nazi sheet, on that basis. ..."
"... The reason why this whole Russiagate seems to go beyond the usual partisan tit-for-tat when it comes to the executive branch (Kenneth Star v. Clinton, Birthers v. Hussein-Obama, liberal-educated dems v. A fundamentalist-protestant dumbass W. Bush), is the absolute certainty which the MSM, the dems, and neocons spew their Russophobic spittle onto anyone that happens to be listening; meanwhile dragging Trump through the mud. The usual partisan coverage of prior executive branches were more evenhanded by news outlets (it resembled news). The current atmosphere resembles pure propaganda and smacks of utter desperation and globalist panic. ..."
"... The New Yorker refused to allow Sy Hersh to publish "The Red Line and the Rat Line", about the covert US effort to transfer weapons from Libya to Syrian jihadist groups, so he had to go to the London Review of Books. At that point it became clear the New Yorker had gone over into partisan pro-government propaganda publishing. ..."
"... These days the corporate media will often start a story with a lie. They think it's funny or something ..."
"... Mayer is no Judith Miller, but if it's not "selling out", she may be suffering from a case of incipient Judith Miller Syndrome. ..."
"... This New Yorker disinfomation piece is most likely not exclusively Ms Mayer's doing alone. David Remnick (NYer Publisher & Ms. Mayers boss) is a full fledged participant in the MSM'S ongoing 'Russian Collusion' narrative. ..."
"... Remnick is a full fledged supporter of our oligarchical, neocon establishment that's hell bent on establishing a US/Israel centered global hegemony since the break-up of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... So, we have yet another fraud promoting the initial fraud as Big Lie Nation manufactures and exports its #1 commodity. Those of us knowing Russiagate's yet another Big Lie ought to be shocked by the further digging of this massive excavation that can no longer be called a deep hole but aren't because the desperation's become all too predictable. The exceptional witch is melting live in living color! ..."
"... The Slate is another publication that wants to go to war with Russia, 'Why are we letting the Russians get away with it' ... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/why-is-america-letting-russia-get-away-with-meddling-in-our-democracy.html What does Fred Kaplan want to do? Oh nothing crazy, just cyber espionage on the order of Stuxnet, or at least outing Putin's secret foreign bank accounts (or pilfering them). ..."
Frankly; I'm so bloody fed up with this whole narrative; I don't care if it's true or
not! What difference does it make? Russia, Russia, Russia; bloody hell; get over it! It's a
massive distraction from many other vile things being done; war against Yemen; illegal US
occupation of Syria; ongoing war in Ukraine; massive violations of the US constitution within
the borders of the continental US; militarized police violence against US citizens; the list
goes on ad infinitum...
CNN had another lengthy special report on alleged Trump-Russia collusion over the weekend.
Remember CNN was the lead-dog on the dossier with its release of the dossier fake news on Jan
10, 2017, just ten days before the Trump inauguration. But also remember what a CNN producer
said last summer about Trump-Russia collusion: " Could be
bullshit. I mean, it's mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don't have any big giant
proof ."
And twice Ms Mayer repeats the lie about "all US intelligence agencies concluding that Russia
interfered in the US election". Her phrasing: "that major U.S. intelligence agencies had
unanimously endorsed this view'" then: "It [the report] contained the agencies' unanimous
conclusion that, during the Presidential campaign, Putin had directed a cyber campaign aimed
at getting Trump elected."
These are obvious references to the January 6th 2017 "report" that was full of unsupported
assertions and distraction. Ms Mayer doesn't appear to be familiar with reasons to avoid
citing that report.
The New York Times has had to retract the "17 agencies lie"--did so at the end of June
2017. Ms Mayer doesn't appear to have noticed, or worse thought she could get away with
changing the phrasing of the lie slightly to "major intelligence agencies".
I too seemed to remember that Yahoo news had published on the Steele report in advance of
others in the press. Obviously the New Yorker staff didn't.
All very embarrassing for the New Yorker and Ms Mayer, will now of course be used to
question the validity of other Jane Mayer reporting.
I'm shocked! Mayer has a stellar reputation, but this piece is riddled with errors and
misinformation. Are they all sellouts in the MSM????
exiled off mainstreet , Mar 6, 2018 11:04:37 AM |
18
The term "presstitute" which is used for attacking pro-establishment media shills comes
to mind. Formerly respectable outlets such as the New Yorker and their writer, Jane Mayer,
have gone over into war crimes by in effect fomenting a new cold war based on falsehoods,
similar to what the postwar less corrupt yankee imperium considered war crimes in the four
power Nuremberg trial which convicted the editor of Der Stuermer, a Nazi sheet, on that
basis.
Ah, so the elitist award-winning (((culprit))) of
global warming propaganda and niece of "dark money" oligarch henchmen such as Emanuel Lehman
and Allan Nevins has written a eulogy for the creatures of the Imperial Swamp?
As a former, longtime New Yorker reader I can attest that the New Yorker's supposed fact
checking is basically non-existent. They do check rigorously for spelling and grammar to fit
the writing style of the magazine, but incorrect facts have riddled articles for decades.
They do publish a few letters each issue and occasionally allow criticisms through but for
the most part as long as the narrative fits what "the right sort of people believe" there
seems to be no standard for actually, you know, basing statements on reality.
My guess is that the Democratic Party, so addled at the top, splits by 2020. All it has for
the voters, which it repetitiously blares from its many organs -- CNN, MSNBC, NYT, New Yorker
-- is Russophobia. For instance, I ran into a guy last night who regularly watches MSNBC and
he said the network has not once mentioned the statewide teachers strike underway in West
Virginia. How's that for "leaning forward"?
The reason why this whole Russiagate seems to go beyond the usual partisan tit-for-tat
when it comes to the executive branch (Kenneth Star v. Clinton, Birthers v. Hussein-Obama,
liberal-educated dems v. A fundamentalist-protestant dumbass W. Bush), is the absolute
certainty which the MSM, the dems, and neocons spew their Russophobic spittle onto anyone
that happens to be listening; meanwhile dragging Trump through the mud. The usual partisan
coverage of prior executive branches were more evenhanded by news outlets (it resembled
news). The current atmosphere resembles pure propaganda and smacks of utter desperation and
globalist panic.
It makes the whole situation seem like Trump really is anti-establishment. That is where
the hope came from which won him the election and it continues on in his fanbase.
@24 nemesiscalling.. ditto your comment as well.. thanks..
The New Yorker refused to allow Sy Hersh to publish "The Red Line and the Rat Line",
about the covert US effort to transfer weapons from Libya to Syrian jihadist groups, so he
had to go to the London Review of Books. At that point it became clear the New Yorker had
gone over into partisan pro-government propaganda publishing.
It's also curious how the article doesn't really touch on Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry in the United States; that sector also donates heavily to Democrats, which is likely
why. There could be some issues there related to sanctions-dodging by ExxonMobil but digging
into that doesn't serve the political agenda, so. . . . Still nothing credible on the
evidence side as far as iI can tell.
Mayer has a stellar reputation, but this piece is riddled with errors and
misinformation. Are they all sellouts in the MSM????
____________________________________
Some well-regarded Amerikan investigative journalists seem deeply ambivalent when
reporting on US government, military, and intelligence (spook agencies) affairs.
They can be appropriately skeptical and critical some of the time-- admirable "watchdogs"
or "gadflies" in the best muckraking tradition. Their critical stories are even a form of
"speaking truth to power", and their reputation and popularity is deserved.
OTOH, at other times they seem to display a core uncritical regard, respect, and even
admiration for these institutions and their personnel. I've seen interviews with Mayer
following some exposé in which she comes across as being either deliberately
naïve, or reluctant to follow her own findings to an unacceptably radical logical
conclusion.
As in this article, Mayer is far more trusting and credulous of official sources than her
experience of their habitual mendacity dictates.
Sorry that I can't provide precise examples off the top of my head, but I think this is an
occupational hazard of journalists who spend their careers working (too) closely with
government insiders. Seymour Hersh and Jeremy Scahill come to mind.
In a nutshell, I think they're trying to be disinterested, dispassionate
journalists who report without fear or favor though the heavens fall, etc. But my
pop-psychology guess is that they also develop an affinity with their sources that
occasionally trips them up, and/or renders them vulnerable to manipulation by their vaunted
insider connections.
Or maybe it's comparable to the undercover drug enforcement agent who ends up getting
addicted and engaging in criminal activity after becoming too immersed in the life they're
supposed to be policing.
Mayer is no Judith Miller, but if it's not "selling out", she may be suffering from a
case of incipient Judith Miller Syndrome.
An autotranslated article about a pending(?) cw false flag in Syria with the usual cast of
cute children, fake wounds and the White "False Flags 'R US" Helmets. If they do pull
something off it may be worth keeping an eye open for these actors.
Fakebook and LiveJournal have already pulled the original articles this item was based
on.
This New Yorker disinfomation piece is most likely not exclusively Ms Mayer's doing
alone. David Remnick (NYer Publisher & Ms. Mayers boss) is a full fledged participant in
the MSM'S ongoing 'Russian Collusion' narrative.
Remember, even the great Sy Hersh had to go to the independent European press to publish
his 'controversial' article that methodically debunked the deep states fairy tale narrative
of events on what exactly went down in the infamous OBL Abottabad compound raid in 2011.
Hersh, up until then, exclusively published most of his investigative "bombshell" articles
in the New Yorker. Remnick is a full fledged supporter of our oligarchical, neocon
establishment that's hell bent on establishing a US/Israel centered global hegemony since the
break-up of the Soviet Union.
So, we have yet another fraud promoting the initial fraud as Big Lie Nation manufactures
and exports its #1 commodity. Those of us knowing Russiagate's yet another Big Lie ought to
be shocked by the further digging of this massive excavation that can no longer be called a
deep hole but aren't because the desperation's become all too predictable. The exceptional
witch is melting live in living color!
V.ARNOLD #7 ..You forget very important stuff....since 11/9/16 Dems they still wage war
against legally elected president PDJT...those whores did try everything..and nothing is
working......
BTW I do not believe that Putin has billions socked away offshore. If he did then Obama
would have revealed it on his way out the door and even if Obama didn't the CIA / FBI /
Treasury would have leaked it. Instead what they did was claim he had billions without
providing any proof.
Some Faraday bags allow you to reveive calls if placed in the front pouch and block all
signals at back pouch, while still offering complete EMP protection front or back
If you are able to receive a call on your cellphone - in a Faraday bag, or not, you are still
completely vulnerable to hacking and/or tracking. No "back of the bag EMP protection" claim
is gonna be able to block invasive signals - unless the pouch, or bag, or whatever it's
stored in is COMPLETELY impenetrable - period!
You can make your own Faraday bag with rolls of aluminum or tin foil spun around a crayon
box.
Anyway, cell phones are unavoidable tracking devices and can not be immunized from
surveillance and hacking http://hpub.org/article-64217/ so anybody with secrets
would avoid using one unless your name is Her Haughtiness Hillary Clinton and you keep an
unencrypted email server in your personal bathroom or, your name is Podesta and your google
account password is "password."
End to end encryption is available but requires cooperation on both ends.
I seem to recall that Steele was involved in the Magnitsky and Litvinenko cases and that he
has long made a living out of defending oligarchs against the Russian government's attempts
to collect taxes from them.
It is sad that Steele is polluting the air of Farnham an ancient town with a long history
which includes being the birthplace of some of the greatest English writers.
The Australian diplomat whose 2016 tip resulted in the FBI's Trump-Russia
counterintelligence investigation had previously arranged one of the largest donations to
Clinton charities, documents reveal.
...
Downer tipped off Australian authorities after a conversation with Trump campaign advisor
George Papadopoulos at a London bar, in which Papadopoulos reportedly said the Russians had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton. After Australian authorities alerted the FBI, a
counterintelligence probe was launched according to reports
Greta work
It only proves that western journalist have become stenographers and propagandist for
pax-americana/anglo-zionist.
15000 word readers digest entry on the so called fourth estate. It only shows how desperate
they are in trying to keep the perception of the Russians ate my lunch. Seeing that the
Russian Federation just recently revealed that their invincibility as a Military force is
questionable Nato must be rethinking their first strike capacity.
Post Scriptum: It is sad to see not one nation in the west speaking of peace and detente but
of aggression and conquest. It smells like 1913 all over again especially since the Trump
regime has now opened up the can of worms TRADE WARS. If any individual with a semblance of
grey matter can critically analyse these moves one could see WAR on the horizon .
Firts currency wars then trade wars and docius in fundem Firing wars. How sad the weste has
become.
Alexander Downer has never been a diplomat, he was always a particularly sleazy politician
- may even have been leader of the opposition as head of Oz's conservative & misnamed
Liberal Party. The guy is the worst of the worst, a small time suburban solicitor (lawyer who
doesn't go to court), whose play was posing as a mock englander gentleman but never quite
pulling it off.
Anything Downer gets his sticky fingers into has two common features 1) It benefits A.Downer
and 2) It is a lie.
Tobin Paz @ 48, Debsisdead @ 54: I thought Alexander Downer had been sent overseas to play at
being ambassador or diplomat so as to limit the amount the damage he could cause just by his
very existence. Instead he hoovers up money faster than a pig can sniff out truffles.
I'm sorta enjoying it all it's so over the top I doubt anyone apart from the usual dingbats
& drongos, takes it seriously.
Just as the Steele dossier with its outrageous fictions led the way, the englanders are
outdoing themselves sledging Russia and Russians.
Even the seemingly innocuous 'weatherman' has been getting in on the act, England has been
even colder than usual and before the freeze over actually began the incessant weather
reports which dominate englander 'news' was warning of a cold wind from Siberia that was in
evil Russian fashion about to "freeze the balls off Her Majesty's brass monkey".
The cooler air a direct result of western europe's (including england) two century long
penchant for burning shit up which had raised the temperature of the Arctic seas to the point
where even in the middle of winter the North Pole waters no longer freeze. Warm seas=warmer
air which rises and cooler air comes in to fill the gap blah, blah but that didn't stop the
weather reports, which by the time england was frozen the cause had been casually abbreviated
into "the beast from the east". Cold are you englanders? Don't forget to blame Russia and
Russians while you salute Stephenson's Rocket (the instigator) and you wait for a train which
will never come thanks to Thatcherism/neoliberalism/can't pick Johnnie Foreigner's pocket any
more, better pick Johnnie Neighbours.
But blaming the weather on Russia is so last week, this week it is all about some
treasonous former KGB colonel and his daughter who prolly offed themselves in the most public
way possible
since their lives turned to shit . Natch the englander media being what it is, the
traitor was executed at the behest of the man himself Vladimir Putin. Except of course the
timing is inexplicable as Prez Putin is about to have an election - sorry 'election'
(elections in Russia have to have single quotes around em because the winner is not supported
by any englander newspaper and must therefore be a put up job cos englander fishwraps never
get it wrong). The old cui bene is relevant since this death happened at a bad time for
Russia one is left asking if the traitor didn't top himself who else would want it right now,
certainly not Russia's leadership.
I can still remember 50 years later exactly how gobsmacked I was the first time I read a
serious englander newspaper and discovered that these otherwise seemingly intelligent journos
actually believed all this Cold War horseshit that we used to laugh at in the South. Yeah
amerika sure they believe anything they are told to, but the englanders subscribe to this
nonsense - how can that be? I was young and naive and didn't realise that the most truthful
parts of englander media are in the boxes around the edges of the articles. The real
commercials are the news stories. In england in the 1970's all the foreign correspondents had
two jobs, there was the newspaper gig which paid well but felt sleazy and the other gig with
the SIS aka MI6 which was a good way to rub shoulders with the elite plus it covered the
kids' public school fees.
Nothing about englander media can be believed, for a long time the audience was entirely
captive so the earn was guaranteed with more money if you could tell a really big lie. Big
enough to generate headlines and start a fleet street feeding frenzy. Those days are gone the
journos know no other way to work so the stories are getting more tawdry and less believable
by the day.
This is the poisonous atmosphere the Steele dossier came out of. There is certain to be a
few doubles in the generation of this yarn That is the double giggers englander journo by day
wannabe 'secret' agent by night. Steele wasn't allowed into Russia so who else is he gonna
call?
It's becoming more amusing. From Stars and Stripes--
WASHINGTON, Mar 6 -- Senators grilled the top intel chief Tuesday, pushing for details of a
U.S. plan to stave off attempts of Russian meddling and cyberattacks .
In a tense congressional hearing examining worldwide threats, the lawmakers expressed
frustration that the U.S., hampered by President Donald Trump, hasn't done enough to
address past and future Russian cyberattacks.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee that while counterintelligence work is underway, the details of those operations
are classified.
"The American people deserve to know whether or not the president directed his top
intelligence officials to effectively counter this continuing act of war on our
country ," Sen. Richard Blumethal, D-Conn., said in a sharp exchange with Coats.
The comments come a week after a hearing before the same committee when U.S. Cyber
Command Chief Adm. Mike Rogers said that Russia has paid little for its interference in
the 2016 elections , and that he hasn't been authorized by Trump to combat future
attempts.
There are growing concerns that Russia will target this year's elections and that the
U.S. hasn't done enough to counter that effort.
"We're taking steps, but we're probably not doing enough ," Rogers told the
committee last week. . .
here
President Putin must be enjoying this. I know I am.
The "free market" corruption begins on a level of personal dignity (morals). Both morality
and patriotism are sorely lacking by the current US/UK power elite that has become a chimera
composed of Cheney and the Lobby. We are dealing not so much with a "fraudulent" program as
with deeply immoral bloody opportunists.
From comment section. David Habakkuk said: " In relation to the 'White Helmets', the 'case
for the prosecution' was set out in detail in a presentation by the journalist Vanessa Beeley
to the Swiss Press Club in Geneva back in November, with Richard Labévière also
involved – available, together with links to a range of supporting material, at
The first appearance of the 'Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media' was in a letter
submitted to the 'Comment is Free' section of the 'Guardian', and not published by them, in
response to an article by Olivia Solon which attacked Beeley among others.
It claimed that critical discussion of the White Helmets in Syria has been 'propagated
online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the
support of the Russian government'.
The article rejected by the 'CiF' was reproduced, together with an account of the failure
of the 'Guardian' either to publish it or to defend their decision not to, on Tim Hayward's
blog in January. It contains links to material which calls into question the role of the
'White Helmets.'
(See
https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/the-guardian-white-helmets-and-silenced-comment/
)
Concluding his demolition of the 'Joint Intelligence Mechanism' report into Khan
Sheikhoun, also published on Hayward's blog, Paul McKeigue writes: 'The weight of evidence
favouring the hypothesis of a managed massacre over a chemical attack has obvious
implications also for the role of the White Helmets in this incident.'
And, of course, in relation to Benjamin Norman and other FCO people, prominent among
them Matthew Rycroft and Boris Johnson, a question really does arise as to: 'What did they
know and when did they know it?' "
- Olivia Solon -- a presstitute for Guardian
- Benjamin Norman -- a "diplomat" at the British Embassy in DC
- Matthew Rycroft -- a British "diplomat" at UN
- Boris Johnston -- a person of easy morals and Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, UK
Looks like "Javanka" does not have many friend among pro-Trump crown at Zerohedge...
Notable quotes:
"... Trump denied reports that he was displeased. "As I told Jared days ago, I have full confidence in his ability to continue performing his duties in his foreign policy portfolio including overseeing our Israeli–Palestinian peace effort and serving as an integral part of our relationship with Mexico," ..."
"I am
not a person who has sought the spotlight. First in my business and now in public service, I have
worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception," Kushner
told congressional investigators last July.
But it is not immediately obvious what he's achieved.
There has been little
progress on Mideast peace and relations with Mexico, another top Kushner priority, remain
contentious over Trump's proposed border wall. Kushner's much ballyhooed project to reinvent the
federal government has gained little traction. And
questions persist about his family
business's global hunt for cash just a year before a $1.2 billion mortgage on a Manhattan
skyscraper must be paid off by the company
. -AP
Kushner has come under fire of late, as Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly probing his
family's Real Estate dealings - including whether foreign nationals sought to manipulate him over his
family's financial position.
The Kushner Co. says it is financially sound, however skeptics point to the company scrambling to
raise funds from investors whose country of origin may present a conflict of interest.
The
Intercept
reported that Kushner supported a blockade against Qatar after his father, Charles
Kushner, sought and failed to obtain financial support from the Qatari financial minister for the
family's troublesome 666 Fifth Avenue property.
"If it's true it's damning,
" Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) a member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, told ABC on "This Week" Sunday. "
If it's true he's got to go."
Kushner also lost his ability to access top-secret intelligence last week, as President Trump - who
could have granted Jared a permanent clearance - left the decision to Chief of Staff John Kelly.
"I will let General Kelly make that decision," Trump told reporters. "I have no doubt he'll make
the right decision."
The couple perceives Kelly's crackdown on security clearances as a direct shot at them,
according to White House aides and outside advisers. But one White House official disputed that
account, suggesting that Kushner welcomed Kelly's efforts to organize the West Wing, allowing him
to more singularly focus on his portfolio.
Kelly, in turn, has been angered by what he views as the couple's freelancing. He blames
them for changing Trump's mind at the last minute and questions what exactly they do all day
,
according to one White House official and an outside ally. -
AP
Kushner's clearance was downgraded from "Top Secret/SCI-level" to "secret" - walling them off from
the most sensitive information. The decision was the first major shakeup since the dismissal of former
White House staff secretary Rob Porter, who was exposed for abusing both of his ex-wives. The FBI
insinuated that it had informed the White House of Porter's conduct, appearing to contradict a
timeline of events initially offered by Kelly.
"Only a son-in-law could withstand this sort of exposure and not be fired," said former Obama
communications director, Jennifer Palmieri "
Kushner's vulnerable and in an accelerated fall
from grace
. Even though his departure would leave Trump even more isolated, a decision could
be made that it's just not worth it for him to stay."
That said, Trump has reportedly grown
frustrated
with both Kelly and over negative press surrounding Jared and Ivanka, according to the New York Times
- and has been quietly seeking a solution to remove them from the White House.
Trump denied reports that he was displeased. "As I told Jared days ago, I have full confidence in
his ability to continue performing his duties in his foreign policy portfolio including overseeing our
Israeli–Palestinian peace effort and serving as an integral part of our relationship with Mexico,"
said Trump. "Everyone in the White House is grateful for these valuable contributions to furthering
the president's agenda. There is no truth to any suggestion otherwise."
The AP reports that Jared and Ivanka have no plans on leaving Washington anytime soon.
can't be any worse than the Clinton Foundations pay to play scheme ... By the
way, I don't know what general Kelly does all day either but I will put money he
will go to work for the MIC industry capitalizing on his position so fuck that pot
says the kettle.
Obviously, beyond the greed focused MIC there is a much more serious implication of US
last experiencing, but only a medium intensity, war in its Civil War so long ago. The much
more serious implication is that it is dishing out war mush more readily than any other
nation on the planet. The reason that Ziocon parasites have found such a fertile ground in
the US is almost like an isolated island, whose people consider war to be entertainment
(shock & awe), have never had any serious family or home losses from it and are dumb and
uneducated enough to be pulled by their noses through their MSM to any war that Ziocons
fancy.
In short, smart parasites feeding on dumb f*cks.
Another point is that the parasites control and profit from the fully enclosed war
cycle:
Media,
Weapon building industry,
Post-war reconstruction industry and
More stolen oil, water and land for Israel.
In such system, the efficiency is an absolutely last (unprofitable) consideration.
Therefore, US winning a war against Russia? Not in the next hundred years militarily but
possibly through subterfuge: assasinations and regime change.
This part of the New Yorker article could be sheer comedy gold:
'... Regardless of what others might think, it's clear that Steele believed that his
dossier was filled with important intelligence. Otherwise, he would never have subjected it,
his firm, and his reputation to the harsh scrutiny of the F.B.I. "I'm impressed that he was
willing to share it with the F.B.I.," [former CIA spook John Sipher] said. "That gives him
real credibility to me, the notion that he'd give it to the best intelligence professionals
in the world."...'
FBI, best intelligence professionals in the world? Didn't the FBI along with the CIA miss
most indications of a looming terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in the months
leading up to September 11, 2001?
A former CIA officer called John Sipher, calling a rival organisation 'the best
intelligence professionals in the world'?
"...looked much like the other businessmen heading home, except for the fact that he kept his
phones in a Faraday bag -- a pouch, of military-tested double-grade fabric, designed to block
signal detection..."
A practical man, Steele also kept a giant roll of telephone line attached to his belt.
Unrolling it as he proceeded down the high street, he glanced upwards.
A Pteranodon, perched upon the slate roof was watching him closely. A bead of sweat
appeared on his temple, just showing underneath the rim of his bowler hat, trickling down the
side of his face, the leaving a streak that resembled a long forgotten river delta.
A chimmney sweet was approaching him on his right, whistling a jaunty tune, his bag of
extendable brushes jingling and clanking, just like Steele's nerves. Obviously a Russian
operative, the sweep was whistling an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty, an ominous
warning...
"... Erdogan's guys seem to think that they need US support to stay in power. All sugar beet factories are being sold and the public think this has something to do with the Zarrab case in NY which is really undermining the Erdogan govt. No beet root factories means more Cargill domination in Turkey so people think Erdogan is bribing the Americans to stay in power. ..."
Turkish TVs accused Genie Energy (pointing out the shady guys on it's board) last night. The
Turkish analysts base their claims on a network of foreign analysts which apparently think
Genie Energy is 'solely' responsible for all the problems in Syria in that they planned the war
and have been administering it to this day.
The analysts are drawing attention to the risk of AQ, ISIS, Nusra etc. or whatever people
call them, let's say the head-choppers, going in to Turkey because they fear radical islamists
are about to declare jihad against Turkey sometime in the near future. Erdogan's defense is
this 'Assad is a mass murderer!' to keep the islamic fighters at bay. Actually there is almost
a consensus in the country that TR govt. should openly talk to Assad to prevent SR from
breaking into pieces (4?). It was Obama admin's idea to support the Islamists, Erdogan agreed
to the plan and now he is stuck.
There are so many different groups in Syria especially in Idlib. I think instead of using
names we need Pantone codes to identify these entities.
The OpOlive has been a success so far but the Turks suspect there will be a massive
resistance in Afrin town center.
Erdogan's govt. maybe planning to use the potentiallly successful Afrin op to their benefit
in the upcoming elections but the general public will not be satisfied because the real problem
area is the East of Euphrates. Erdogan's guys seem to think that they need US support to stay
in power. All sugar beet factories are being sold and the public think this has something to do
with the Zarrab case in NY which is really undermining the Erdogan govt. No beet root factories
means more Cargill domination in Turkey so people think Erdogan is bribing the Americans to
stay in power.
Today the US embassy to Ankara is closed due to security risk according to the USembassy
statement. Coincidentally the TR security forces detained 30 ISIS guys today. It's been 6
months and the US ambassador to Turkey has still not been appointed. In 3 days TR-US talks will
begin as planned after Tillerson's visit.
So everybody is waiting for Erdogan, who was on a
tour of Africa, to find out what's govt's plan for the next weeks because right now people
don't know to which direction they are heading.
oldenyoung "Does Syria have an Answer for their problem?"
Depends on what you consider is their 'problem'. I see Syria's main problem as divide and
conquer attacks by foreign forces and Syria's vulnerability to these attacks.
I would look to Putin's strategy in the second Chechen war though Syria is far more
complicated and many more groups than Chechnya. First Chechen war was Chechen's fighting for
independence on the breakup of the Soviet Union. Wahabbis and Cia then moved in and second
Chen war started or quickly devolved into a three way war. All Chechen vs Russia but also
traditional Chechen vs wahabbi/CIA converts. Putin's deal with Kadyrov senior was along the
lines that Russian Federation would protect the traditional Chechens from foreign attacks and
Chechens would have a good deal of autonomy for their traditional culture, and in return
Chechnya would give its loyalty to the Russian federation. A strength in numbers type deal
from what I can make out. Also, it seems kadyrov junior as leader of Chechnya is only
answerable to the president of the Russian and only deals direct one on one with the RF
president.
I would guess that something along these lines is what Russia is looking for if there are
any changes to the Syrian constitution.
"... It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war. ..."
"... And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by tacitly backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing. ..."
"... In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned , "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day" -- a remark aimed directly at Russia. ..."
"... NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that "our generation has become used to wars of choice since the end of the Cold War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with Russia." He added , "The parallels with 1914 are stark." ..."
"... Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, U.S. Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as " imperial ," an ironic choice of words given Washington's more overtly imperial history in the region. ..."
"... While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons, Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia -- or, for that matter, the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The U.S. and its NATO allies currently spend more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments, and even that vastly underestimates Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as "military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5 trillion. ..."
"... The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. still outspends China almost three to one. Fact in Washington's major regional allies -- Japan, Australia, and South Korea -- and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1. ..."
"... Meanwhile, China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by building up its navy, and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep potential enemies at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships, and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area denial." It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the U.S.: 1.9 percent as opposed to 3.3 percent as of 2016. ..."
"... But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856, when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895 and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them. ..."
"... Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about "Communist subversion," but trade. ..."
"... For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time. "Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force. ..."
"... And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's loss to Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program. ..."
"... Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia " would be like declaring war ." ..."
The U.S. has never taken its eyes off its big competitors.
It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the
Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current
tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea
as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when
it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war.
It was President George W. Bush who designated China a "strategic competitor," and who tried
to lure India into an anti-Chinese alliance by allowing New Delhi to violate the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Letting India purchase uranium on the international market -- it was
barred from doing so by refusing to sign the NPT -- helped ignite the dangerous nuclear arms
race with Pakistan in South Asia.
And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by tacitly
backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between
Washington and Beijing.
So is jettisoning "terrorism" as the enemy in favor of "great powers" just old wine, new
bottle? Not quite. For one thing the new emphasis has a decidedly more dangerous edge to
it.
1914 vs. Today
In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary
James Mattis warned , "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day" -- a
remark aimed directly at Russia.
NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick
Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that "our generation has become used to wars of
choice since the end of the Cold War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with
Russia."
He added , "The parallels with 1914 are stark."
Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described
as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, U.S. Defense
Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as "
imperial ," an ironic choice of words given Washington's more overtly imperial history in the
region.
But there are differences between now and the run up to the First World War. In 1914, there
were several powerful and evenly matched empires at odds. That is not the case today.
While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons,
Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia -- or, for that matter, the Soviet
Union.
The U.S. and its NATO allies currently spend
more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments, and even that vastly underestimates
Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as
"military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5
trillion.
The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. still outspends China
almost three to one. Fact in Washington's major regional allies -- Japan, Australia, and South
Korea -- and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly
greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1.
This isn't to say that the military forces of Russia and China are irrelevant. Russia's
intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the anti-Assad coalition put
together by the United States. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its "aggression" is
arguably a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's doorstep.
Meanwhile, China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by
building up its navy, and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep
potential enemies at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships,
and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area
denial." It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing
in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the U.S.:
1.9 percent as
opposed to 3.3 percent as of 2016.
Beijing has been heavy-handed in establishing "area denial," alienating many of its
neighbors -- Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan -- by claiming most of the South
China Sea and building bases in the Paracel and Spratly islands.
But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856,
when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895
and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them.
China is, however, the United States' major competitor and the second largest economy in the
world. It has replaced the U.S. as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully
outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the U.S. asked its
key allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with
the exception of Japan , they ignored Washington.
However, commercial success is hardly "imperial."
Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet
Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems,
socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about
"Communist subversion," but trade.
Behind the Shift
There are other players behind this shift.
For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems,
Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time.
"Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers,
submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force.
This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms
company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have
spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a
stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those often high paying jobs.
Nor are the Republicans going to get much opposition on increased defense spending from the
Democrats, many of whom are as hawkish as their colleagues across the aisle. That's true even
though higher defense spending -- coupled with the recent tax cut bill -- will rule out funding
many of the programs the Democrats hold dear. Of course, for the Republicans that dilemma is a
major side benefit: cut taxes, increase defense spending, then dismantle social services,
Social Security, and Medicare in order to service the deficit.
And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the
Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's
loss to Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own
lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program.
There are other actors pushing this new emphasis as well, including the Bush
administration's neoconservatives who launched the Iraq War. Their new target is Iran, even
though inflating Iran to the level of a "great power" is laughable. Iran's military budget is
$12.3 billion. Saudi Arabia alone spends $63.7 billion on defense, slightly less than Russia,
which has five times the population and eight times the land area. In a clash between Iran and
the U.S. and its local allies, the disparity in military strength would be closer to 60 to 1 .
However, in terms of disasters, even Iraq would pale before a war with Iran.
The most dangerous place in the world right now is the Korean Peninsula, where the Trump
administration appears to be casting around for some kind of military demonstration that will
not ignite a nuclear war. But how would China react to an attack that might put hostile troops
on its southern border?
Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's
largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia "
would be like
declaring war ."
"... Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and slipping further into decline. ..."
"... This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in the West are causing. ..."
I don't understand the last three paragraphs of your comment so I may be missing
your central point. However, I believe this sentence taken in isolation could do with
qualifying:-
"No doubt there is a lot of noise, but the reality is that economically Russia is a basket
case and the US is rapidly joining them."
The picture one gets of Russia is of a country slowly digging itself out of the
disintegrative corruption of the 90's. Putin's recent remarks indicate how slowly.
President Carter's characterisation of the US as now being an oligarchy shows the US
slowly going the other way. Even including Germany that is the general picture in the
West.
Some recent remarks and examples from DH show the Russian people, or rather a substantial
number of them, soberly and consciously preparing to address the threat from the West. Unless
it's all Russian PR there is a sense of national unity there, at least for many, and that is
reflected by the Russian leadership.
I'm afraid our host is correct when he characterises the current anti-Russian sentiment in
the West as hysterical. That, however, is I believe largely top down. It is a product of PR
from the media and from the Western politicians. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or
national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided
within themselves.
The Russians seem also to have escaped the demoralising effects of the more far out social
trends in the US and other Western countries.
Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less
powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a
West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and
slipping further into decline.
This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously
unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in
the West are causing.
President Trump
reportedly berated former White House communications director Hope Hicks the day before her resignation, according
to a new report.
CNN's Erin Burnett reported Wednesday
that Trump was angry with Hicks following her closed-door testimony to the House Intelligence
Committee, in which she reportedly revealed she was sometimes required to tell "white lies" as
part of her work in the White House.
Burnett reported one of Trump's "close allies" told CNN that Trump asked Hicks after her
testimony "how she could be so stupid."
"Apparently, that was the final straw for Hope Hicks," Burnett said.
"There are no words to adequately
express my gratitude to President Trump. I wish the president and his administration the very
best as he continues to lead our country," Hicks said in a statement announcing her departure.
The 29-year-old has served as a top adviser to Trump since he launched his presidential
campaign in 2015.
Hicks has set no departure date but is expected to leave the White House in the next few
weeks, White House officials said.
Her departure comes one day after her lengthy interview with the House Intelligence panel as
part of its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
"... The inherent drain on procurement includes loading, such as marketing for more and more programs, and McMansions for the C-Suite parasites, from performance bonuses whose intended incentives can always be negated with revenue growth. It's as if you decided to bulk up, but instead of lifting weights you injected yourself with CIA's metastasizing-cancer toxin. The beltway cannot possibly keep up. ..."
"... One cannot buy a history (albeit many in Washington think that it is possible) one has to experience it and built national institutions accordingly. US "elites" simply have no grasp what real war is. ..."
"... Therefore, US winning a war against Russia? Not in the next hundred years militarily but possibly through subterfuge: assasinations and regime change. ..."
Technology is not the factor that makes this leapfrog so hopeless for the US MIC. The structure of Russia's defense industrial
base is inherently more agile and efficient because it's a resource of the state and not exclusively a private profit center.
Back when the USSR had just collapsed in the expectation of peace and disarmament, Russian defense industries lost interest
in weapons and looked to commercial markets. They pitched projects like satellite systems they could field at one percent of the
cost of existing systems. You read that right. Comparable US systems were two orders of magnitude more expensive. Russia's defense
industrial base continued to out-innovate the Pentagon.
The US counter is to spend ten times more and piss away 95% of it. The inherent drain on procurement includes loading, such
as marketing for more and more programs, and McMansions for the C-Suite parasites, from performance bonuses whose intended incentives
can always be negated with revenue growth. It's as if you decided to bulk up, but instead of lifting weights you injected yourself
with CIA's metastasizing-cancer toxin. The beltway cannot possibly keep up.
Technology is not the factor that makes this leapfrog so hopeless for the US MIC. The structure of Russia's defense industrial
base is inherently more agile and efficient because it's a resource of the state and not exclusively a private profit center.
I agree with your thesis but the major factor here is a cultural one -- a dramatically different attitude to war between Russia
and US. I wrote about this here:
In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological pressures to develop
and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help to implement it.
One cannot buy a history (albeit many in Washington think that it is possible) one has to experience it and built national
institutions accordingly. US "elites" simply have no grasp what real war is.
Obviously, beyond the greed focused MIC there is a much more serious implication of US last experiencing, but only a medium
intensity, war in its Civil War so long ago. The much more serious implication is that it is dishing out war mush more readily
than any other nation on the planet. The reason that Ziocon parasites have found such a fertile ground in the US is almost like
an isolated island, whose people consider war to be entertainment (shock & awe), have never had any serious family or home losses
from it and are dumb and uneducated enough to be pulled by their noses through their MSM to any war that Ziocons fancy.
In short, smart parasites feeding on dumb f*cks.
Another point is that the parasites control and profit from the fully enclosed war cycle:
Media,
Weapon building industry,
Post-war reconstruction industry and
More stolen oil, water and land for Israel.
In such system, the efficiency is an absolutely last (unprofitable) consideration.
Therefore, US winning a war against Russia? Not in the next hundred years militarily but possibly through subterfuge: assasinations
and regime change.
"... Even though this was clearly a US operation using two proxies (a Turkish/CIA Airforce General without Erdogan's knowledge and a Saudi AWACS probably flown by a US crew), Putin did nothing. ..."
"... One of many, many unanswered US provocations to suck Russia in deeper. ..."
"... One possibility is that the event was to send France back in line within NATO as an ally of Turkey now in conflict with Russia instead of France getting cozy with Putin after Bataclan 11 days earlier. There was a great support in France for Putin then and for a common action with him against ISIS. ..."
The two F16 were cruising with all active electronics off, on the Turkish side of the border, below the mountain range on the
border, thus preventing the Russian ground radar in Syria from noticing them.
But, a Saudi AWACS was constantly observing the Su-24 position from a distance and feeding data into two F16.
When the situation was optimal, F16 jumped up launched A2A missiles and dived down below the mountains and flew back without
waiting to see the outcome.
Even though this was clearly a US operation using two proxies (a Turkish/CIA Airforce General without Erdogan's knowledge
and a Saudi AWACS probably flown by a US crew), Putin did nothing.
One of many, many unanswered US provocations to suck Russia in deeper.
One of many, many unanswered US provocations to suck Russia in deeper.
One possibility is that the event was to send France back in line within NATO as an ally of Turkey now in conflict with
Russia instead of France getting cozy with Putin after Bataclan 11 days earlier. There was a great support in France for Putin
then and for a common action with him against ISIS.
Russia was the greatest PR beneficiary of the Bataclan operation. The shooting down of Su-24 by Turks extinguished the Bataclan
effect and the French sobered up.
"... Putin's revelations show that the Russians feel the situation is becoming increasingly dangerous. There is just no way to talk sense into the Americans, just as it would have been futile to advise Britain against stopping their 20-year planning for a war with Germany in the years leading up to WWI, even if proceeding meant impoverishing their aristocracy and their country and sacrificing their young men. 31 per cent of Oxford's 1913 graduates were killed on French fields. I used to think self-preservation was stronger than greed but now I am not so sure. ..."
"... The US has carefully molded PYD ideology (via arms supply/bribes) to serve US interests, and THOSE interests are served by an independent Syrian Kurdistan - with their PYD lapdogs in charge, of course. ..."
"... I seriously doubt that statements from the current YPG/YPJ leadership represent 'the will of the average Syrian Kurd'. Militia leaders mostly just parrot the PYD party line - I would expect nothing less than that. ..."
"... I believe it is the PYD that mostly demands and independent Kurdistan/SDFistan in Syria to further consolidate their power and control, not the average Kurd. Nobody asks the average Kurd what it's like to live under the PYD's oppressive control today. ..."
"... Now imagine that the PYD is probably as corrupt as EVERY other US-supported (= bribed, CIA-moled) political party in CENTCOMistan proper. Sorry, but no amount of useless committees are going to vote corruption out of any future Syrian Kurd leadership. Why would anyone think otherwise? ..."
"... "Russia appears to have won at least a partial victory in Syria" because it actually took to the field and systematically attacked ISIS. This cannot be said of the U.S. "effort." Read this quote from a BBC story about how the U.S. cooperated with ISIS to allow it to escape destruction in Raqqah ..."
"... It is only western culture that puts a limit on presidential terms and calls anything else a dictatorship. Assad never left his country, apart from a couple of very short trips for meetings with Russian executive leadership, and has has held his country together in the toughest times. He seems popular, and the majority of Syrians may well wish to keep him as the leader of their country into the future. ..."
"... @ paveway "A broken, corrupt, useless Baathist government in Damascus." You could say the opposite. Syrian Government re-made. Re-focused with one of the world's best armies. Reoriented with regard to neoliberalism. How has a useless government resisted the combined strength of the Empire, Israel, Saudi and Gulf, UK and France to name just a few? ..."
"... You are forgetting that what triggered Erdogan was Mattis' assertion that US was training a 30,000 strong 'border force'. ..."
"... J Swift should add option #8: Erdogan insisted on attacking Afrin. If Russia denied Erdogan's wishes she risked a possible break with Turkey. Erdogan might have also pointed to the drone attack on a Russian base - conducted from Turkish-controlled territory, saying that than attack on the Kurds would help avenge this attempted 'false flag'. I bet that such an argument would've appealed to the Russians. ..."
Afrin, and the games being played there, are a tough one to figure. I suspect that is partly because it's like a four-sided
triangle, with each potential alliance carrying diametrically opposing pros and cons. Why would Russia tacitly green-light Turkish
intervention?
Some thoughts: (1) The Kurds have been coddled and supported by the US and Israel for many years as a long-term Israel 2.0
project. They would of course be used, marginalized, and ultimately cast out once the Zionists had their new and improved homeland,
but the Kurdish dream of "Kurdistan" blinds them.
(2) Every power in the ME (except Israel) is against the Kurds becoming too powerful, for precisely this reason, and the number
one reason Russia agreed to loose the Turks on Afrin was because it was the showcase of Syrian Kurdish pomposity and refusal to
submit to Syrian sovereignty, while simultaneously demonstrating what the Russians had been telling the Kurds in back channels
for ages -- the US is just using you and will not help when you call.
(3) Russia or the SAA could not really directly attack the Kurds, both because they are the sympathetic darlings of western
press, and it would drive them further into the arms of the US. Let the Turks be the bad guys, especially since that has the added
bonus of increasing the split between the US and Turkey.
(4) The attack would serve to draw Kurds away from other areas in NE Syria they had expanded into as the military spearhead
of the US. It will be much easier for Assad to turn or defeat the remaining Arab tribes, even though temporarily the US is doing
everything it can to stave off this inevitable result. But at least you won't have the SAA directly fighting Kurds, which the
US could use much more effectively to attempt to garner support for its actions.
(5) While the Russians had some historic pull with the Kurds, the US had effectively enticed them away with goodies and promises.
For Russia to get the Kurds to back down in Afrin (and other areas) would be very difficult -- just not much direct leverage short
of openly hitting them. But once the operation has achieved the (Russian) goals of suitably weakening and humbling the Kurds,
Russia does have significant leverage against the Turks.
Russia already demonstrated once how much economic pain they could inflict on Turkey after the first plane shootdown, but also
wisely not only reversed the sanctions but rewarded the apologies with even bigger rewards (meaning the pain of return to sanctions
would be even more painful and embarrassing to Ergodan -- effectively probably guaranteeing the end of his rule).
So while not ideal to have Turkey inside Syria, Russia probably feels they can ultimately force a withdrawal, especially if
Turkey's somewhat justified fear of a Kurdish stronghold is neutralized.
(6) Lastly, Russia could have a long term concept for how the Kurds -- suitably humbled and servient but still relatively strong
and cohesive -- could be useful to Damascus. Russia had her own troublesome nomadic warriors roaming its south. It never could
really completely subdue the Cossacks, until Catherine the Great (or perhaps it was Peter) had the bright idea to put them on
the payroll, arm them and give them some autonomy, on the condition THEY be the shield against the constant attempts of encroachment
by, you guessed it, the Turks. It worked brilliantly.
I would not bet much money on any of this, but those were some thoughts I thought I'd share on a dreary Sunday.
You're presuming that Russia really did greenlight the Turkish attack on Afrin. I would be surprised. You suggest that the
Syrians want to attack the Kurds. Nothing could be further from the truth. Syria prefers to entice the Kurds into preferring a
future association, when the US has left. That's probably the main misdirection of your analysis - the Russians go firstly with
Syrian interests, so were unlikely to encourage the Turks.
Putin's revelations show that the Russians feel the situation is becoming increasingly dangerous. There is just no way to talk
sense into the Americans, just as it would have been futile to advise Britain against stopping their 20-year planning for a war
with Germany in the years leading up to WWI, even if proceeding meant impoverishing their aristocracy and their country and sacrificing
their young men. 31 per cent of Oxford's 1913 graduates were killed on French fields. I used to think self-preservation was stronger
than greed but now I am not so sure.
J Swift@4 - interesting observations, but I think you are assigning a single-minded nationalist sentiment to all Kurds when, in
fact, it was mostly a construct of the US-usurped PYD political party and a result of US arms supply extortion. Yes to the US/Israeli
schemes, but I have difficulty with believing "...the Kurdish dream of "Kurdistan" blinds them."
Nobody ever polled the Syrian Kurds about this. Indeed, the MSM has always tossed out this assertion without ANY backing and
conflated Barzani's vision for 'his' Iraq with Syrian Kurds' initial desire for nothing more than survival. They were simply offered
no other choice than a PYD-indoctrinated and controlled YPG/YPJ if they wanted to get a rifle and kill the ISIS invaders. The
US has carefully molded PYD ideology (via arms supply/bribes) to serve US interests, and THOSE interests are served by an independent
Syrian Kurdistan - with their PYD lapdogs in charge, of course.
The motivations of the YPG/YPJ are blurred today. A significant amount of their 'training' now consists of PYD indoctrination.
The main purpose of the YPG/YPJ today in Syria seems to be the preservation of the PYD's power and control, not 'fighting ISIS'.
I seriously doubt that statements from the current YPG/YPJ leadership represent 'the will of the average Syrian Kurd'. Militia
leaders mostly just parrot the PYD party line - I would expect nothing less than that.
I believe it is the PYD that mostly demands and independent Kurdistan/SDFistan in Syria to further consolidate their
power and control, not the average Kurd. Nobody asks the average Kurd what it's like to live under the PYD's oppressive control
today. In fact, about the only bit of information that makes it out of there is that every committee at all layers seems to tax
everything there while providing nothing of value besides a forum to complain about how nothing is getting done. That, and Arabs
in majority Kurdish areas have found that some people are more equal than others under the PYD.
Now imagine that the PYD is probably as corrupt as EVERY other US-supported (= bribed, CIA-moled) political party in CENTCOMistan
proper. Sorry, but no amount of useless committees are going to vote corruption out of any future Syrian Kurd leadership. Why
would anyone think otherwise?
Kind of a toss-up, isn't it? A broken, corrupt, useless Baathist government in Damascus, or a broken, corrupt, useless Kurdish
government in Qamlishi. I fail to see the desire of the little people Kurds to die for the latter - they're not getting a damn
thing either way. And for whatever Kurdish nationalism they have, they were probably hoping for an independent, healthy Kurdistan,
not a welfare-queen Kurdistan forever wrapped in the tentacles of US/Israeli interests and beholden to them for survival.
"Russia appears to have won at least a partial victory in Syria" because it actually took to the field and systematically attacked
ISIS. This cannot be said of the U.S. "effort." Read this quote from a
BBC story about how the U.S. cooperated
with ISIS to allow it to escape destruction in Raqqah:
"Along the route, many people we spoke to said they heard coalition aircraft, sometimes drones, following the convoy.
From the cab of his truck, Abu Fawzi watched as a coalition warplane flew overhead, dropping illumination flares, which
lit up the convoy and the road ahead.
When the last of the convoy were about to cross, a US jet flew very low and deployed flares to light up the area. IS fighters
[were very scared]."
Thomas Friedman in the
New
York Times , describes the U.S. "pretend" war against ISIS:
"America's goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing
accord that would also ease Assad out of power."
Therefore, since the Islamic States' "goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria -- plus its Russian, Iranian
and Hezbollah allies we could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia,
Hezbollah and Assad."
I have been wondering today about the future of syria... It would appear that Assad's government will eventually hold enough territory to be sovereign again... Will elections be held at that time? Are there any viable candidates to run against assad? will the elections be allowed to
be fair and "unmolested"? Will any new government be tolerated by anyone?
I am not knowledgeable on internal
Syrian politics and any help would be welcome..
The military Review article is hard going with the obligatory propaganda lines that contradict themselves, But one thing the author
did pick up on is that Russia runs a number of strategies concurrently to get to a given goal.
Saker who's area of professional expertise was analyzing Soviet military, has often pointed this out. This is contrasted to US
military thinking that has one strategy to get to a given goal and all resources are put into that strategy or line of advance.
Very noticeable among the US military indoctrinated types at SST.
It is only western culture that puts a limit on presidential terms and calls anything else a dictatorship.
Assad never left his country, apart from a couple of very short trips for meetings with Russian executive leadership, and has
has held his country together in the toughest times. He seems popular, and the majority of Syrians may well wish to keep him as
the leader of their country into the future.
@ paveway "A broken, corrupt, useless Baathist government in Damascus." You could say the opposite. Syrian Government re-made. Re-focused with one of the world's best armies. Reoriented with regard
to neoliberalism. How has a useless government resisted the combined strength of the Empire, Israel, Saudi and Gulf, UK and France
to name just a few?
You are forgetting that what triggered Erdogan was Mattis' assertion that US was training a 30,000 strong 'border force'.
J Swift should add option #8: Erdogan insisted on attacking Afrin. If Russia denied Erdogan's wishes she risked a possible
break with Turkey. Erdogan might have also pointed to the drone attack on a Russian base - conducted from Turkish-controlled
territory,
saying that than attack on the Kurds would help avenge this attempted 'false flag'. I bet that such an argument would've appealed
to the Russians.
Was it coincidence that the reaction to Mattis' remarks would result in an attack on Afrin only weeks before the Sochi talks?
Talks that had already been delayed twice before to ensure that they went well. Well, we now have a report that the strategy of
the "small group" included sabotaging the Sochi talks.
Even before that report came out I thought that sabotaging Sochi was what the attack on Afrin was all about so I predicted
that after Sochi Erdogan would stop his attack on Afrin with some excuse. Later, I realized that the 'Assad must go!' Coalition
needs to move refuges back. And taking Afrin might also be 'payment' for Erdogan to act more favorably toward USA. Northeastern
Syria needs supply lines, after all. In that context "Olive Branch" makes sense as rapprochement with USA. (in line with the rouse
that Gulen-CIA were responsible for the 2016 apparent coup attempt).
In sum, Russia appears to have won at least a partial victory in Syria, and done so with impressive efficiency, flexibility, and
coordination between military and political action. ... Russia's "lean" strategy, adaptable tactics, and coordination of military
and diplomatic initiatives offer important lessons for the conduct of any military intervention in as complex and volatile an environment
as the Middle East.
Started reading that
article from Military Review and while the authors are forced to state the obvious because of events on the ground, they also
stick very close to the political views of the Washington foreign policy establishment (SST's Borg rather than the "Deep State")
and its garbage narrative.
For example:
...the bloody-handed Assad regime...
No, it's Obama and Clinton who have the really bloody hands by interfering and allowing others such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,
etc. to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Certain commentators in the western msm have taken to comparing
the alleged Russian hacking of 2016 election as equivalent to Pearl Harbor which is absolute BS, but what the United States and
others have to done Syria is equivalent to if not worse than Pear Harbor.
I gave up reading the article after a few pages worth because it's just not worth my time to read so much crap.
McMaster is a danger tot he USA and the world as a whole. Trump disingaged from forign policy and now generals are
running it.
Notable quotes:
"... I stopped listening to McMaster at one point. Quite early really. I wish there was a transcript around. But on first sight there isn't. But yes, 'revisionist' surfaced. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham wants to attack North Korea. China promises to defend North Korea if attacked by the USA. If nuclear weapons are used by anyone; destroying Seoul, Pyongyang, Kyoto, Tokyo or Guam, the war will explode. China has 65 hardened ICBMs that can survive a first attack and destroy every major American city. Russia cannot sit out a world war blowing up directly South of Siberia. ..."
"... Simply put, Washington DC has become unhinged. The military is free to do whatever it wants. The western economic system is in slow-motion collapse. There is too much debt. Either the people will force the oligarchs to write down the debt and end the wars; or, fighting over the remains, the corrupt elite will kill off mankind. ..."
"... He has given the quartet too much leeway and they for some naïve reason are far too willing to listen to the Israelis always whispering in their ears. GC Marshall was right when he warned Truman against a future dominated by the existence of Israel. pl ..."
I have been reflecting about Reagan too in recent contributions here. Not least since Trump
seemed to try to emulate the GOP's greatest hero.
From the original Strategic Statement, casting Russia and China as 'rivals and
competitors', the subsequent Defense Posture Statement elevated the latter from mere rivals,
to 'revisionist powers'
I stopped listening to McMaster at one point. Quite early really. I wish there was a
transcript around. But on first sight there isn't. But yes, 'revisionist' surfaced. As
curiously enough this did: "rogue regimes (ME north East Asia) are developing the most
destructive weapons on earth."
Maybe I listen to him now. Relevant parts start at 1:45.
******
That said, what I still have huge troubles seemingly is to wrap my head around is the huge
applause Trump got on SST, while it left me more then a little irritated, when delivering his
foreign policy speech in April 2016. That was before Russia-Gate made news.
"These US generals have shown themselves to be shallow-minded believers in a doctrine of US
invincibility and universal dominance that is no longer applicable to the world we live in."
General Ali, if I remember correctly you reside in Canada, those who are brought up in and
under US system, majority think of their country in this way, it's part of the mentality that
the system educates and trains it's constituency, to think they are exceptional, invincible
and above all others. From what I have learned, this is not unique to just these four
generals, this is how even the regular police thinks regardless of state or community they
serve. This is how every child has been thought early on.
This week NBC News described the White House as "unglued". The owner of Comcast that owns
NBC, Brian L. Roberts (Barrack Obama's friend), and the five other media moguls want Donald
Trump gone. All that has stopped them so far are four Generals. This is highly unstable. The
USA has already killed Russians in Syria. Turkey is heading towards attacking American troops
in Manbij. U.S. trainers are in the trenches with Ukraine troops in the Donbass. Anyone who
is against this madness is labeled as a Russian collaborator.
Senator Lindsey Graham wants to attack North Korea. China promises to defend North
Korea if attacked by the USA. If nuclear weapons are used by anyone; destroying Seoul,
Pyongyang, Kyoto, Tokyo or Guam, the war will explode. China has 65 hardened ICBMs that can
survive a first attack and destroy every major American city. Russia cannot sit out a world
war blowing up directly South of Siberia.
Simply put, Washington DC has become unhinged. The military is free to do whatever it
wants. The western economic system is in slow-motion collapse. There is too much debt. Either
the people will force the oligarchs to write down the debt and end the wars; or, fighting
over the remains, the corrupt elite will kill off mankind.
If somehow, the use of nuclear weapons is avoided; at best, South Korea, the heart of the
Asian Economy, will be destroyed. The drumbeats for war with North Korea, Iran and/or Russia
is crazy.
I agree that the "Four of Hearts" among the generals now running US foreign policy are a
great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the
atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to
a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill."
Trump is as yet indifferent to such matters and is in pursuit of his mercantilist view of
economics. He has given the quartet too much leeway and they for some naïve reason
are far too willing to listen to the Israelis always whispering in their ears. GC Marshall
was right when he warned Truman against a future dominated by the existence of Israel.
pl
"... Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine. ..."
"... (Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London financial institutions.) ..."
"... It was also in June that CIA Director John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of "suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity. Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy" against him, if he won. ..."
"... Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100 memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming. ..."
"... When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 -- four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the Steele memos. ..."
"... Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate coup. ..."
"... The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates. Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea, Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process." ..."
"... On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking. ..."
"... One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks. ..."
"... Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of Directors of HSBC! ..."
"... From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud. ..."
"... With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance strategy. ..."
What is not generally known, however, due to the lying coverage in the Transatlantic "Fake
News" media, is that included in this unholy alliance of coup plotters were armed militia units
made up of neo-Nazis, who were responsible for the bloodshed on Maidan Square in Kiev, and
which threatened the ethnic Russians, which constitute the majority of the population in the
eastern Ukraine regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The lie that there was no neo-Nazi involvement has been maintained, despite ample evidence
to the contrary, including interviews with militants pronouncing admiration for Hitler's
collaborators in the Bandera movement in Ukraine during World War II, when Ukrainian units
murdered ethnic Poles, Russians, and other "non-Ukrainians", including Ukrainian Jews. The
armed "Banderistas" and related thugs have been incorporated into the security apparatus of the
Kiev regime, and continue to march in the halls of Parliament and on the streets, under banners
with pictures of Bandera, the Nazi collaborator, and symbols going back to their alliance with
the Nazi SS.
The coup provoked a chain of events which the U.S., London and NATO used as justification to
impose punitive sanctions against Russia, while demonizing Russia's President Putin, asserting
that the he was engaged in military operations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, to reverse the
coup. Efforts to stop the fighting between the regime's armed forces and ethnic Russian rebels
in eastern Ukraine led to the Minsk Accord in 2015, which included a cease fire and the
granting of autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. The Minsk Accord was brokered by France, Germany
and Russia.
On January 18, 2018, the Ukrainian Parliament ripped up the Minsk Accord, referring to the
two republics as "temporarily occupied" by an "aggressor country," that is, Russia, and vowed
to reintegrate them, by military force if necessary. This bill, which received the full support
of Ukraine's President Poroshenko, has been described by the Russian Foreign Ministry as "a
preparation for a new war." It occurs simultaneously with an outburst of war-like propaganda
from western neocons, typified by a report from the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), released on February 20 with the title, "Coping with Surprise in Great Power
Conflicts." The report charges that both Russia and China are preparing for war against the
U.S., and that the Russians are deploying forces and artillery to overrun the Baltic states in
a lightning strike, to reincorporate them into a new Russian empire!
THE CASE OF PAUL MANAFORT
This background is necessary to understand the vicious hostility behind the targeting of
Paul Manafort, a long-time U.S. political operative, by the "amoral legal assassin", special
counsel Robert Mueller. Manafort, who served as Donald Trump's campaign manager at a key moment
in his fight to secure the Republican nomination, from May to August 2016, was indicted by
Mueller on October 27, 2017, charged with numerous counts of money laundering, tax fraud, not
registering as an agent of a foreign government, and of making false statements to the FBI.
Mueller filed a revised indictment on February 28, 2018, following his "turning" of Manafort's
partner Rick Gates, who filed a guilty plea to a single count on February 22. While awaiting
trial in September, Manafort is confined to house arrest.
None of the charges against Manafort are related to the initial mandate given to Mueller, by
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to investigate the allegations of Russian hacking and
sundry meddling in the 2016 election, and whether Donald Trump had "colluded" with the
Russians. However, they are directly related to the geopolitical manipulations against Russia,
which have been sharply criticized by Trump, both as a candidate and as President.
Manafort was first placed under surveillance following a FISA Court order in 2014. FISA, the
super-secret court set up as part of the post-9/11 apparat to spy on potential terrorists,
granted the surveillance order as part of an investigation into alleged illegal lobbying on
behalf of the Yanukovych government of Ukraine by Manafort and others. Note that the timing of
the court order coincided with the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Manafort had been working for several
years as an adviser to the Party of the Regions, which was the party of President Yanukovych,
who was overthrown by the regime change coup.
The original FISA warrant targeting Manafort
was subsequently not renewed, for lack of evidence. A second order, however, was approved by
the FISA Court for surveillance of Manafort sometime during 2016 -- the exact date of the order
has not been released -- likely around the time Manafort took over the reins of the Trump
campaign. Manafort played a key role in holding the Trump coalition together heading into the
Republican convention July 18-21, as Bush-directed "Never-Trumpers" were attempting to steal
the nomination away from him.
Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove
language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko
government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump
for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as
the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine.
Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a leading campaigner for tougher sanctions against Russia --
he was one of the authors of the initial anti-Russia sanctions, in the Magnitsky Act -- accused
Trump and Manafort of changing the platform to benefit Russia, which he accused of robbing
Ukraine of sovereignty! It is now reported that Manafort's role in changing the language in the
platform is "under investigation" by Mueller!
(Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass
Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London
financial institutions.)
It was during this same time period, June and July, once it was evident that, barring some
unforeseen event, Trump would be the Republican nominee, that the anti-Trump activities of the
"Deep State" went into high gear. While the "Never Trumpers" were unsuccessfully plotting to
prevent his nomination at the convention, Christopher Steele began churning out memos, paid for
by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, which included wild claims about
Putin's secret service filming Trump in compromising sexual activity during the 2013 Miss
Universe contest in Moscow. His first memo was written on June 20, 2016, and he met for the
first time with an FBI official on July 5, 2016.
It was also in June that CIA Director
John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of
"suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's
cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled
together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity.
Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating
the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the
Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy"
against him, if he won.
This incriminating text describes the meeting as taking place in "Andy's office", a
reference to the now-fired Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who told a Congressional
hearing that there would have been no surveillance warrant issued by the FISA court in October
2016 against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, had it not been for the Steele dossier.
Nunes has sent a list of ten questions regarding how the Steele's dossier shaped the
anti-Trump mobilization of Obama's intelligence agencies. Among those receiving the list of ten
questions are James Comey, the former FBI director fired by Trump, Obama's Director of National
Intelligence Clapper, Brennan and Victoria Nuland. They are given until March 2 to answer, or
they will face subpoenas. What Nunes is looking for is answers as to when the Steele dossier
was brought to their attention, by whom, what actions were taken in response to it, its role in
the submission to the FISA Court, and whether President Obama was briefed on what the dossier
contained. They lay the basis for possible indictments against those receiving the questions,
and for Steele. Senators Grassley and Graham have already stated they believe charges should be
filed against Steele, who has thus far been protected by Her Majesty's government, which has
acted to prevent Steele from being brought before a court of law.
STEELE AND THE UKRAINIAN CONNECTION
But Steele's role in shaping U.S. policy predates the setting up of the Get Trump task
force. Both Nunes and Grassley are investigating Steele's connections with the U.S. State
Department, including with the notorious Nuland. They are looking into the role of Jonathan
Winer, a former assistant Secretary of State who served as a long-time aide to former Secretary
of State John Kerry. Winer befriended Steele in 2009, when they were collaborating on
investigations of Russian "corruption".
Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100
memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to
Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer
admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to
Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written
at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep
State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes
helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming.
When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 --
four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the
Steele memos.
But the Steele-Winer connection continued. In September 2016, Winer met with Steele, who
presented to Winer his anti-Trump dossier. Winer drafted a two-page summary of the dossier,
which he gave to Nuland. She told him to present this to Kerry. Later in the month, Winer met
with Hillary Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who showed him another specious anti-Trump
dossier, compiled by Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Winer then shared this who Steele, who
then claimed it confirmed the charges he made in his dossier, though coming from different
"sources."
Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what
this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate
coup. Among those calling for a full criminal investigation into Brennan, Clapper, Comey
and Hillary Clinton, which would reach Obama as well, is former Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney
Joseph DiGenova, who said it's very likely they could all be indicted.
YET BRITISH HITMAN MUELLER PROCEEDS!
The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates.
Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to
him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea,
Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a
change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the
circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family
moving forward by exiting this process."
On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's
astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and
Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged
in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking.
One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined
repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against
criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a
criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global
financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file
any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks.
Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of
Directors of HSBC!
From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes
clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows
from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch
hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being
dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than
prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud.
With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty
role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance
strategy.
It's the way to achieve mass-indoctrination, which the Ministry of Truth specializes in.
Thus, among the reader-comments to that bold article, the top-listed one under "sort by best"
(in other words, the most popular) was the anti -Russian "Have you counted how many neo-Nazis
are in the Russian army as well?"
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blasted the United States on Friday saying that
the Russian Foreign Ministry will allocate special seats for American journalists at press
briefings if the US continues to infringe on the rights of Russian reporters.
The aggressive response came as US State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert rudely and
condescendingly rejected questions from a Russian reporter at a press briefing on Thursday.
"You're from Russian TV too? OK! Enough said then, I'll move on," Nauert interrupted.
Nauert's outburst even received condemnation from some American journalists who also wanted
the spokesperson to clarify her remarks about Putin's speech.
"This behavior is unacceptable! If the State Department once again dares to label our
journalists who are present at press briefings 'journalists from Russia' and stop communicating
with them because of that, we will carry out what we promised," Zakharova said.
"We will arrange special seats for the so-called journalists from the US at the Foreign
Ministry's press center so that your journalists could feel this time what it is all about,"
she said.
"Earlier, literally several decades ago, people with different skin color were not allowed
to ride on the same bus in the United States. It is necessary to overcome that instead of
returning to the flawed practice of the early 19th century, dividing journalists into countries
and nationalities. You have no right to deny them access to information due to their
nationality," Zakharova stressed.
She then also went onto thank "those American reporters who defended their Russian
counterparts' right to access information and be treated equally."
"... Maher released a helpful summary of "rules for identifying fake news" - which everybody who posts on social media about the campaign-era predations of shadowy Russian trolls ..."
"... In his monologue "explainer" on how to spot fake news, Maher admits that Trump voters have good reasons to be suspicious of the mainstream media and its tendency toward hyperbole and exaggeration that often leads CNN, the Huffington Post, Slate and their peers to manufacture controversies out of thing air. ..."
"... "I used to think something was news if a journalist reported it. But really I live in a world where its news if Mariah Carey's tit flops out because Twitter will respond and then a journalist reports on the controversy. If a boob flops in the forest and nothing is heard about it doesn't make a sound. But if three jackasses tweet about it, it's news." ..."
"... This is not an outlier, this is a constant and prominent part of today's journalism. Creating some bullshit non-issue that a few trolls will go apeshit over, then reporting on those tweets like all of America's talking about nothing else ..."
"... No wonder fake news resonates so much with Trump fans - because so much of it is fake! Just nonsense made to keep you perpetually offended with an endless stream of controversy that aren't controversial. And outrages that aren't outrageous. ..."
"... Because places like the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed and Salon - they make their money based on how many clicks they get. Yes, the people who see themselves as morally superior are actually ignoring their sacred job of informing citizens of what's important and instead creating divisions to pursue their own selfish ends. Wait isn't that what Russia was doing to us? Yes it is . ..."
"... And no, it's not easy: in fact, as the media's current business model shows, clickbait works, which is why it is easier to just blame someone else for creating it and "sowing discord", when the real culprit is America's endless superficial, scandal-seeking obsession, always eager to to click on the next catchy, if idiotic news story, and then cover up its guilt by blaming, why who else, Russia. ..."
Every once in a while, Bill Maher reminds us that he's the only liberal pundit on TV who
will call "the tolerant" left on its BS. In his latest weekly show, Maher released a helpful
summary of "rules for identifying fake news" - which everybody who posts on social media about
the campaign-era predations of shadowy Russian trolls and the mechanics of "internalized
misogyny" would do well to watch: "Fake News" isn't some made-up phenomenon concocted by
pro-Trump bloggers. It's a very real and disturbing trend that goes much further in tearing at
the social fabric of American society than $100,000 of spending on Facebook ads ever could.
In his monologue "explainer" on how to spot fake news, Maher admits that Trump voters have
good reasons to be suspicious of the mainstream media and its tendency toward hyperbole and
exaggeration that often leads CNN, the Huffington Post, Slate and their peers to manufacture
controversies out of thing air. Or, as he puts it, just because a few people on Twitter with no
followers and no real-life influence are angry, doesn't mean the rest of America feels that
way...
"Since so much of what passes for today's journalism is anything but...how about some
rules for identifying actual news.
"If anybody is demanding an apology... unless they have hostages, that's not news.
"And when the offended group are identified as the internet, twitter or people - it's
nobody. I guarantee when you click on the story the internet is three losers with a combined
twitter following of their mom."
"I used to think something was news if a journalist reported it. But really I live in a
world where its news if Mariah Carey's tit flops out because Twitter will respond and then a
journalist reports on the controversy. If a boob flops in the forest and nothing is heard
about it doesn't make a sound. But if three jackasses tweet about it, it's news."
Maher gives several examples of what passes as news, including the "controversy surrounding
Jennifer Lawrence's performance in the movie "Red Sparrow". The mainstream press reported that
a shot of Lawrence with a group of men was unforgivably sexist...because Lawrence wasn't
wearing a coat (while the men in the shot were).
Maher threw up all over the "story" which just happened to be reported in dozens of
"serious" media outlets, despite having zero social import or even any grounding in
reality.
Here's the headline from Elle online and a hundred other sites: 'Jennifer Lawrence's
latest red sparrow protocol has twitter calling out gender inequality. See because the men
are wearing coats but she's not. And even though that was her choice, somebody with 11
followers didn't like it so the the story was reported in the New York Times, the Washington
Post, the New York Post, Fox News..."
" Now all these esteemed news organizations aren't saying they think it's a big deal
because they're serious journalists. They'd rather be writing about Syria or the oceans dying
but oh the humanity, Jennifer Lawrence didn't have a coat. Wrap her up, wrap her up!"
Such "clickbait" stories like this aren't rare, in fact as Maher admits they have become the
norm, to an extent that most consumers of news hardly recognize how ridiculous they sound.
"This is not an outlier, this is a constant and prominent part of today's journalism.
Creating some bullshit non-issue that a few trolls will go apeshit over, then reporting on
those tweets like all of America's talking about nothing else."
Justin Timberlake used a protection of Prince for his Superbowl halftime show and people
are furious...nope nobody cared.
People are really mad that Sean White dragged the American flag after he won the
gold...nope not even a little you fucking liars.""Weight Watchers is targeting teens and
twitter is outraged. No it isn't, it's the same three people. And it's not hard to find three
people who are mad at anything. I could say good morning and three people on twitter would
object: 'Good in your privileged world, Bill Maher'."
Yet considering the mainstream media's obsession with these types of stories, it is no
surprise that a sizable chunk of the US population has lost its faith in the validity and and
motivations of news organizations like CNN. What is surprising is that people like Maher are
finally admitting what is really going on...
"No wonder fake news resonates so much with Trump fans - because so much of it is fake!
Just nonsense made to keep you perpetually offended with an endless stream of controversy
that aren't controversial. And outrages that aren't outrageous.
And what is really going on is that as Maher admits, what the US media is doing is no
different than the alleged "discord-sowing" misinformation campaign that Mueller recently
accused 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies of perpetrating on the US population?
"Because places like the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed and Salon - they make their money
based on how many clicks they get. Yes, the people who see themselves as morally superior are
actually ignoring their sacred job of informing citizens of what's important and instead
creating divisions to pursue their own selfish ends. Wait isn't that what Russia was doing to
us? Yes it is .
And we need to stop both of them from using us as the cocks in their cock fights. And so I
saw to the people who were unable to go on after seeing Kendal Jenner tweet the wrong colored
emoji A bit of advice: If you didn't like what Kendal did with a brown fist...then don't
watch her sister's sex tape."
So, next time you're reading about the epidemic of teenagers eating Tide Pods, or rushing to
be the first to know all about the latest Kardashian clickbait du jour, don't: not only will it
stop rewarding hollow headlines designed for clicks, it will force the US media to once again
focus on news that truly matters. The real news.
And no, it's not easy: in fact, as the media's current business model shows, clickbait
works, which is why it is easier to just blame someone else for creating it and "sowing
discord", when the real culprit is America's endless superficial, scandal-seeking obsession,
always eager to to click on the next catchy, if idiotic news story, and then cover up its guilt
by blaming, why who else, Russia.
"... Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act ..."
"... "This has happened as the Russia-gate claims have fallen to pieces All across the media spectrum, from the big name corporate stenographers like The New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio, The Washington Post to The Atlantic and Nation magazines and other "leftist" publications such as Mother Jones and Who What Why, the Russia and Putin bashing has become hysterical in tone, joined as it is with an anti-Trump obsession "Russia Sees Midterm Elections as a Chance to Sow Fresh Discord ( NY Times , 2/13), "Russia Strongman [Putin] haspulled off one of the greatest acts of political sabotage in modern history" ( The Atlantic , Jan. /Feb. 2018), "Mueller's Latest Indictment Shows Trump Has Helped Putin Cover Up a Crime" ( Mother Jones , 2/16/18), "A Russian Sightseeing Tour For Realists" ( whowhatwhy.com , 2/7/18), etc." ..."
The compulsive hatred of President Putin
in élite western circles has surpassed anything witnessed during the Cold War. Western
states have been hyping political hostility in almost every sphere: In Syria, in Ukraine,
across the Middle East, in Eurasia, and now, this hatred has leached into the Security Council,
leaving it irretrievably polarised -- and paralysed. This hostility has percolated too, across
to all Russia's allies, contaminating them. It potends – almost inevitably –
further sanctions on Russia (and its friends) under the catch-all Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act . But the real question is: Does this collective
hysteria portend war ?
Ed Curtis reminds us of
the almost parabolic escalation of antagonism in recent weeks:
"This has happened as the Russia-gate claims have fallen to pieces All across the media
spectrum, from the big name corporate stenographers like The New York Times, CNN, National
Public Radio, The Washington Post to The Atlantic and Nation magazines and other "leftist"
publications such as Mother Jones and Who What Why, the Russia and Putin bashing has become
hysterical in tone, joined as it is with an anti-Trump obsession "Russia Sees Midterm Elections
as a Chance to Sow Fresh Discord (
NY Times , 2/13), "Russia Strongman [Putin] haspulled off one of the greatest acts of
political sabotage in modern history" ( The Atlantic ,
Jan. /Feb. 2018), "Mueller's Latest Indictment Shows Trump Has Helped Putin Cover Up a Crime" (
Mother Jones , 2/16/18), "A Russian Sightseeing Tour For Realists" ( whowhatwhy.com
, 2/7/18), etc."
By casting Russia's interference in the US presidential election as "an attack on American
democracy" and thus "an act of war", the 'Covert American State' is saying – implicitly -
that just as the act of war at Pearl Harbour brought a retaliatory war upon Japan, so, pari
passu , Russia's effort to subvert America require similar retribution.
Across the Middle East – but especially in Syria – there is ample dry tinder for
a conflagration, with incipient or existing conflicts between Turkey and the Kurds; between the
Turkish Army and the Syrian Army; between Turkish forces and American forces in Manbij; between
Syrian forces and American forces; between American forces and the USAF, and Russian servicemen
and Russia's aerospace forces; between American forces and Iranian forces, and last but not
least, between Israel and Syria.
This is one heck of a pile of combustible material. Plainly any incident amidst such
compressed volatility may escalate dangerously. But this is not the point. The point is: Does
all this Russia hysteria imply that the US is contemplating a war of choice
against Russia, or in support of a re-set of the Middle East landscape to
Israel's and Saudi Arabia's benefit ? Will the US deliberately provoke Russia – by
killing Russian servicemen, for example – in order to find pretext for a 'bloody nose'
military action launched against Russia itself – for responding to the American
provocation?
Inadvertent war is a distinct possibility, of course: Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are
experiencing domestic leadership crises. Israel may overreach, and America may overreach, too,
in its desire to support Israel. Indeed the constant portrayal of the US President as Putin's
puppet is pursued, of course, to taunt Trump into proving the opposite - by authorizing some or
other action against Russia – albeit against his better instincts.
At the Munich Security Conference, PM Netanyahu
said :
"For some time I've been warning about this development [Iran's alleged plan to complete a
Shi'i crescent] I've made clear in word and deed that Israel has red lines it will enforce.
Israel will continue to prevent Iran from establishing a permanent military presence in Syria
We will act without hesitation to defend ourselves. And we will act, if necessary, not just
against Iran's proxies that are attacking us, but against Iran itself."
And, at the same conference, US National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster warned
Saturday against increased Iranian efforts to support its proxies in the Middle East, saying
the "time is now" to act against Tehran.
But what did McMaster mean by "time is now to act" ? Is he encouraging Israel to
attack Hizbullah or Iranian-linked forces in Syria? This, almost certainly, would lead to a
three or four front war for Israel; yet there are good grounds for believing that the Israeli
security establishment does not want to risk a three front war. Possibly, McMaster was
thinking more of full-spectrum hybrid, or COIN war, but not conventional war, especially since
Israel cannot, any longer (after the shoot down of its F16), be sure of
its air dominance , without which, it cannot expect, or hope, to prevail.
As senior Israeli officials complain about
the gap between US rhetoric and action, General Josef Votel, the commander of
Centcom , stated explicitly, by way of confirmation of the differing view, at a
hearing in Congress on 28 February that, "countering Iran is not one of the coalition missions
in Syria".
So – back to the Russia hysteria. I do not believe that Syria is a practical locus for
a war of choice either for the United States or Russia. Both are circumscribed by the
realities of Syria. American forces there are not numerous: they are isolated, and dependent on
allies – the Kurds – who are a minority in that part of Syria, who are divided, and
who are disliked
by the Arab population. And Russian forces mostly consist of no more than 37 aircraft, and
small numbers of Russian advisers and Russian supply lines are extended and vulnerable (in the
Bosphorous).
No, the US aim in Syria is limited to denying any political success to either Presidents
Putin or Assad. It is pure schadenfreude. The American occupation of north-east Syria is
primarily about spitting in the face of Iran – i.e. the pursuit of a COIN war against an
American, generational enemy.
And at the same time, at the macro, geo-strategic level, America has precisely been trying
to 'disarm' Russia's nuclear defences, and seize the advantage, by withdrawing from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and by deliberately surrounding Russia on its borders with
anti-ballistic missiles (the ABM treaty provided for only one site on its territory -
for each party - that would be protected from missile attack). The US strategy effectively left
Russia naked, in the nuclear sense. And that clearly was the intent. "With the build-up of the
global US ABM missile system, the New START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is
devaluated, and the strategic balance [was] broken", Russian President Vladimir Putin
said in his State of the Nation
Address yesterday.
But then, as 'the quartet of generals' (effectively, General Petraeus is a part of the WH
trinity of generals), having usurped America's foreign policy out from the prerogative of the
President and into their control, so US defence policy has metamorphosed beyond 'Cold War', to
something far more aggressive - and dangerous: a precursor to 'hot war'.
From the original Strategic Statement, casting Russia and China as 'rivals and competitors',
the subsequent Defense Posture Statement elevated the latter from mere rivals, to 'revisionist
powers', which is to say, dubbed them as seditionists committed to overturning the global order
by military force (the definition of revisionist power). The Statement placed great power
competition above terrorism, as the primordial threat facing America, and implied that
this 'revisionist' threat to the American-led global order needed to be met. American generals
complained that their erstwhile, unchallenged global dominance of the skies, and of terrain,
was being
eroded by Russia acting as 'arsonist' [of stability] whilst presenting itself as the
"fire-fighter" [in Syria]. America's air dominance must be reasserted, General Votel
implied .
But in a startling upending of the strategic balance and missile encirclement, that America
has been seeking to impose on Russia, President Putin
announced yesterday that:
"Those who for the past 15 years have been fueling the arms race, seeking advantages over
Russia, imposing restrictions and sanctions, which are illegal from the standpoint of
international law, in order to hinder our country's development, particularly in the defence
field, must hear this: all that you have been trying to prevent by this policy has happened.
Attempts to restrain Russia have failed."
The Russian President announced a series of new weapons (including new nuclear-powered
missiles invulnerable to any missile defence, hypersonic weapons, and underwater drones,
inter alia ), that remarkably
return the situation to the status quo ante – one of mutually assured
destruction (MAD), were NATO to contemplate attacking Russia.
President Putin said that he had repeatedly warned Washington not to deploy ABM missiles
around Russia – "Nobody listened to us: [But] Listen now!", he said:
"Our nuclear doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons only in response
to a nuclear attack or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against her or her
allies, or a conventional attack against us that threatens the very existence of the
state."
"It is my duty to state this: Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its
allies , be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a
nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant - and with all the relevant
consequences" (emphasis added).
President Putin underlined that he was not threatening America, nor did Russia have
revanchist ambitions. It was rather Russia simply using the only language that Washington
understands.
Putin's speech, accompanied by visuals of the new Russian weaponry, explains at least
something of what has been going on in DC: America's recent seizure by a madness for spending.
The Pentagon must have got (some) wind of Russia's advances – hence the huge increase in
the budget for Defence planned for this year, and another 9% next year, and an
unbudgeted commitment to fund a new nuclear submarine fleet, a replacement for the Minuteman
missile system, and the development of new nuclear (tactical) weapons (costs unspecified).
The expense will be prodigious for the US government. But Russia already has stolen the
lead, and did this with government debt, as a percentage of nominal GDP, standing
at only 12.6%, whereas America debt's already is at 105% of GDP (before the weapons upgrade
has begun). President Reagan is credited with busting the USSR economically by forcing it into
an arms race, but now it is the US that is vulnerable to its mountain of debt – should
the US try to reverse Putin's Spring 'surprise', and (if it can), restore its global
conventional and nuclear primacy.
So, America has a choice: either to re-set the relationship with Russia (i.e. pursue
détente), or, risk running a US borrowing requirement that busts the credibility of the
dollar. The US, culturally, is accustomed to acting militarily 'where, when and how' it decides
so to do. It will probably be culturally unable to abstain from this well-practiced habit.
Therefore, a weak dollar and rising debt servicing costs seems inevitable: thus, the
rôles seem set for a reversal from the Reagan era. Then it was Russia that overreached,
trying to catch up with the US. Now, it may be the vice versa .
The hysteric anti-Russian rhetoric will continue – so deeply embedded is it as an
'article of faith' - but it seems likely that America will need to reconsider before further
provoking Russia in Syria. If America is now unwilling to 'bloody Russia's nose' over some
escalation in Syria, then its isolated and vulnerable military outposts in eastern Syria will
loose much of their point, or begin to take casualties, or both.
The question now must be how Russia's exercise in speaking 'truth to power' will play on
America's policy towards North Korea. The US 'generals' will not like President Putin's
message, but there is probably little that they can do about it. But North Korea is different.
Just as Britain, at its moment of weakness, in the wake of WW2, wanted the world to know that
it remained strong (though the signs of its weakened state were evident to all), it sought to
demonstrate its continued power through the disastrous Suez Campaign. Let us hope North Korea
does not become America's 'Suez moment'.
It seems Russia was able to develop all these weapons, right up to the testing phase, in
total secrecy. Testing, impossible to conceal, would have been undertaken over the last two
years or so, which fits the time frame for US looking at upgrading their weapons. US ABM
defense, a big part of US military future, what twenty years in the making for US? is now
null and void.
If I know my country our reaction will be, 'we beat them in space race, we beat them in the
80's arms race, and dog gone it, we will beat them again'.
We have no interest in examining how we got here or who triggered it. All we see is that a
gauntlet has been thrown down. We will go into even more massive deficit spending to whip
them again and won't think about it again until we are eating out of garbage cans.
I'm angry at the professional Cold Warriors but even more angry at the MSM. Just today, I
heard a Russian expert (aka hater) on FOX intone that Russia never had anything to worry
about with our ABM systems because it can't a massive first strike. I naively expected the
lady host to ask, 'but maybe they are worried that it would be able to stop a retaliatory
strike after we send them to hades'. Needless to say, I was disappointed. Instead, Eboni
Williams (mentioning her name to show that I'm not hallucinating, any of them would have
reacted the same way), her eyes opened wide, 'we must improve our defenses to stop them'.
There you go, the FOX host, not only didn't see through the guests straw man argument but
took it as a given that the U.S. should be able to nuke Russia out of existence with no
consequences for us. The entire premise of the START treaty was to preserve MAD with a
smaller nuke force to reduce accidents. Mr. Naive again, why should I expect the host to know
that or the expert to inform her that MAD is the expected norm.
''The point is, ladies and gentleman, that war, for lack of a better word, is good. War is
right, war works. War clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary
spirit. War, in all of its forms; war for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the
upward surge of mankind.''
So say the fellows who qualify to sit it out in well stocked gov bunkers and watch it on
TV.
When you qualify any anti-Russian sentiment as "hysteric", you lose a lot of credibility. No
doubt there is a lot of noise, but the reality is that economically Russia is a basket case
and the US is rapidly joining them.
For the next decade, we are faced with an unstable world and that will cause a lot of
damage. However, it is unlikely that it will result in the massive land wars of the past. The
biggest potential adversary to both the US and Russia is China. The battle field will be the
communications platforms. The good new is that they will remain fragmented and technology
will more than likely make it even more so, which will thankfully and eventually localize
information, as global solutions are increasingly rejected.
As with these pages, there are a lot of conspiracies published right now, but as they are
increasingly dispatched, a standard will be developed. Some will agree with it and others
will not and will thus migrate elsewhere. This will be repeated all over the Internet.
I was an early user of the Internet and it quickly became a rather awful place where
people were exchanging views. It soon became evident that was not sustainable and things
changed. Like in a pond, the scum will rise, until encountering sunlight, when it is
transformed and sinks to the bottom, never to be seen again, unless you dig very deep. But
the cream will assemble at the top.
The compulsive hatred of President Putin in élite western circles has surpassed
anything witnessed during the Cold War. Western states have been hyping political hostility
in almost every sphere: In Syria, in Ukraine, across the Middle East, in Eurasia, and now,
this hatred has leached into the Security Council, leaving it irretrievably polarised --
and paralysed. This hostility has percolated too, across to all Russia's allies,
contaminating them. It potends – almost inevitably – further sanctions on
Russia (and its friends) under the catch-all Countering America's Adversaries Through
Sanctions Act. But the real question is: Does this collective hysteria portend war?
Not necessary. With MAD temporary restored on a new level the benefits of the
first strike against Russia (if such plans existed) are null and void.
Moreover spending on the current generation of missile defense systems should be partially
written off, as their efficiency is now highly questionable (but they can be repurposed into
offensive weapons carrying cruise missiles and such)
But the new neo-McCarthyism campaign, which is now in full force in the USA, serves a
different purpose than the preparation to the WWIII, and reached such scale and intensity for
a quite different reason.
Neoliberalism, which was the social system that the USA adopted in 1970th and spread
around the globe entered a deep crisis. And Russia is a very convenient scapegoat, which
allows to avoid the most difficult question: what to do next as neoliberalism entered the phase of
decline (also Russia as a scapegoat allows just to reuse Cold War stereotypes firmly engraved
in minds of the considerable part of the US population.)
The collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008. and the collapse of support by the US
population of neoliberal elite in 2016, threatens the USA role in the world and thus the
existence of global neoliberal empire. And, in a more distant perspective (a decade, or two),
the status of dollar as a global reserve currency.
And nobody knows what to do with this situation, how to approach it.
First it looked to me that the election of Trump was a sign that a more forward looking part
of the US elite was trying to organize a soft landing: declare victory for neoliberalism and
slowly retreat from the large part of the expenses for maintaining the global neoliberal
empire. Partially off-loading those costs on EU, Japan, Australia, etc.
In this case enormous resources spent on MIC and empire per se can be redirected internally
to placate restive population, and the deepening of the internal crisis in governance and the
loss of confidence of population in the ruling elite, which demonstrated itself is such a
dramatic manner in Hillary loss in 2016, can be probably be averted.
I was wrong. Multinationals fully and tightly control the US neoliberal elite (and are an
important part of it) and they will never allow this. Also a large part of neoliberal elite is
hell bent on world domination, and, like French aristocracy, "forgot nothing, and learned
nothing" after 2016 elections.
With the alarming level of degeneration of the elite clearly visible in both Trump
Administration and Congress. But the process itself started long ago (people say that Nixon
was the last "real" president ;-). To say nothing about top intelligence agencies
honchos.
In any case, it is clear that the US neoliberal elite still is hell-bent on world
domination and is resistant to any change of the status quo . And I also noticed that,
like in Rome, there is now an influential caste of "imperial servants", also hell-bent on
maintaining the status quo.
Which includes not only Pentagon, and State Department which have a lot of staff living
abroad for years. But also major intelligence agencies, closely connected with their counterparts (note
role of UK-USA connections in Steele dossier) and as such fully "globalized/neoliberalized",
at least ideologically. As well as the majority of the US Senate and House
That blocks any possibility of change in the US foreign policy and budget priorities. It
looks like MIC needs to be fed at all costs. And the power of the "deep state" is such that
it took them just three months to emasculate Trump, and put him in line with previous
policies.
I would like to remind that Trumpism (or "economic nationalism" as it sometimes it is
called) initially was pretty attractive proposition which included the following elements
(most of which are anathema to classic neoliberalism):
Rejection of neoliberal globalization;
Rejection of unrestricted immigration;
Fight against suppression of wages by multinationals via cheap imported labor;
Fight against the elimination of meaningful, well-paying jobs via outsourcing and
offshoring of manufacturing;
Rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially
NATO role as global policemen and wars for Washington client Israel in the Middle
East;
Détente with Russia;
More pragmatic relations with Israel and suppression of Israeli agents of
influence;
Revision of offshoring of manufacturing and relations with China and India, as well as
addressing the problem of trade
deficit;
Rejection of total surveillance on all citizens;
The cut of military expenses to one third or less of the current level and
concentrating on revival on national infrastructure, education, and science.
Abandonment of maintenance of the "sole superpower" status and global neoliberal
empire for more practical and less costly "semi-isolationist" foreign policy;
Closing of
unnecessary foreign military bases and cutting aid to the current clients.
The truth is that the moment, when the USA could change direction to the regime of
"splendid isolation", or whatever such move can be called, was lost.
Moreover, despite Trump capitulation, the color revolution against him continued because
he is not accepted as a legitimate POTUS by neoliberal elite, and, especially, by neocons. Which
further weakens the state. That's another reason why neo-McCarthyism hysteria is still in
full swing: it helps to compensate for the damage caused by slash-and-burn political
infighting (which is a kind of soft civil war, if you wish)
The problem with witch hunt against Russia is that can speed up the alliance of China and
Russia, on most beneficial for China terms. If and when China-Russia alliance materialize,
the containment of China would be even more difficult and costly, the threat to dollar more
pronounced and all bets are off for the US led global neoliberal empire as "Silk road"
project will eat it in Europe and Asia chunk by chunk.
Neo-McCarthyism in this respect might be not such an absurd policy (and it does provide
internal benefits in the form of consolidation of society against the fake external enemy --
a classic trick described by Hermann Göring in his famous quote https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/33505-why-of-course-the-people-don-t-want-war-why-should
) as Putin is not eternal and this will be his last term in office. With clear signs of
possible political crisis in Russia due to the weakness of the mechanisms for smooth
transition of the power to a new leader, or even the selection of the new one.
The danger is that instead of desirable new pro-European president (or at least a person
who is inclined to cooperate with the West, but only on equal terms, like Putin) the next
Russian president can be a fierce nationalist.
NBC's Megyn Kelly has tried to establish herself as the US media's preeminent "Putin
whisperer" since confronting the Russian president last year over allegations he sanctioned
interference by hacking groups in the 2016 US presidential election. In a formal
interview with the Russian president, Kelly asked the Russian leader about the latest
development in the ongoing controversy, Mueller's indictment of
13 Russians and 3 Russian entities for election meddling.
Ignoring that the indictment stated that the alleged activities of the trolls at the
Internet Research Agency had no impact on the outcome of the election, Kelly insisted on
pressing the Russian president about why Russia hadn't acted to prosecute the men - including
Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a wealthy Russian businessman.
Putin pointed out that no formal requests had been made by the US government, and no effort
to share the incriminating information had been made.
"I have to see first what they've done. Give us a document, give us an official request"
Putin said in the NBC interview adding that "We can not respond to that if they do not violate
Russian laws."
Kelly responded by listing some of the allegations, before Putin insisted that they
shouldn't be presented to him personally - but to Russia's general prosecutor.
"This has to go through official channels, not through the press, or yelling and hollering
in the United States Congress," Putin said.
The broadcast aired a day after Putin grabbed headlines in Western media by revealing that
Russia had recently finished testing a range of nuclear weapons that were capable of evading US
anti-ballistic missile batteries, showing animated footage and digital representations of the
missiles' capabilities striking Florida which
prompted an uproar at the US State Department .
Meanwhile, even though Russia has repeatedly criticized the US and NATO for installing
anti-ballistic missile shields in Eastern Europe that Russia says more closely resemble
offensive missile batteries, Putin pushed back against questions about whether the US and
Russia were entering a new Cold War. The Russian leader said anybody spreading these
accusations are more concerned with propaganda than accurate representations of the
relationships between the two countries.
"My point of view is that the individuals that have said that a new Cold War has started
are not analysts. They do propaganda."
Repeating a claim that has been made by many Russian officials, Putin said the arms race
between the US and Russia began when George W Bush withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile
treaty in 2002.
"If you were to speak about an arms race, then an arms race began exactly at the time and
moment the U.S. opted out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," he said.
When asked, Putin refused to answer direct questions about the missile tests, saying only
that "every single weapons system that I have discussed today easily surpasses and avoids a
missile defense system."
Whatever interview is shown of Putin on any lamestream outlet, you can bet your bottom
dollar that they will twist it to fit their narratives that Putin is bad, and the Swamp is
good. In fact, it don't matter that the US pulls out of treaties and acts
unilaterally.......laws and treaties are optional to the evil empire. Non-agreement capable
comes to mind.
So this pro-Hillary bastion of Neoliberal innuentndo -- Guardian -- does not not like Hicks.
As onecommneter noted " The poisonous Guardian which is so toxic I would advise folks not to use
it even as an ass wipe, did not allow comments as is their custom now."
Source
What is despicable pressitute is this guy: "The Washington Post has
found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times
throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings"."
Hicks, 29, had the high-pressure job last summer of
crafting , with the president, an explanation for his son Donald Trump Jr's secret
meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in New York in 2016 – an explanation later
revealed as false. More recently, Hicks was said to have run the botched White House response
to domestic abuse allegations
against former aide Rob Porter, with whom she has been linked romantically.
... ... ...
Hicks aggressively defended the president-elect and his team against charges of
inappropriate ties to Russian figures.
"The campaign had no contact with Russian officials," she said. Two days after the
election, she said: "We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with
any foreign entities before yesterday, when Mr Trump spoke with many world leaders."
The Washington Post has
found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times
throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings".
Discrepancies such as those have perhaps accelerated Hicks' political education. On
Tuesday, the House intelligence committee questioned her for close to nine hours about the
campaign's Russia ties.
Hicks refused to answer some of the most sensitive questions, including about the
explanation for Trump Jr's meeting with Russians, according to House Democrat Adam
Schiff.
But Hicks was said to have made one concession, admitting to having told, on an
unspecified number of occasions, certain "white lies" on the president's behalf.
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
"... he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit. ..."
"... I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all. ..."
"... My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially
in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of
the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns
this around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with
this post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed
war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their
torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy.
Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching
on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine
before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking
to save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united
against Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that --
unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability
threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary
Clinton was a sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as
I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
"... Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and health care by AHIP with runaway costs. ..."
In fifty years, very little has been done by US Federal Government which benefits the common citizen. A great deal has been done
to facilitate the degradation of the common citizen by the global one percent. We have a new world order as called for by GHW
Bush.
Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change
our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and
health care by AHIP with runaway costs.
Trump is and has been carrying out his own policies to enrich those that already have everything and to repeal any regulations
that were put into place to protect the people. Have you not noticed that he lined his cabinet with Goldman Sachs (which he blasted
HRC for associating her self with.
Like I said he and his gang are doing what they want to help enrich themselves on the backs of the rest of us. Wake up and
quit upholding these lying pieces of excrement they are no different than the ones before them.
Trump is a dirty businessman the things that he is doing are to benefit him and his family and to screw the rest of us and
tell us how great it is for us. You my man have drank from the Trump cup and think that anything that speaks against him is "fake
news" when in reality Trump and the likes of Breitbart are the "fake news" a little truth but a bunch of spin
This past September, in one of his regular interviews with the newspaper Parlamentní Listy, retired Czech Major General
Hynek Blaško commented on the possibility of a conflict between Russia and NATO with a following anecdote:
"I have seen a popular joke on the Internet about Obama and his generals in the Pentagon debating on the best timing to
attack Russia. They couldn't come to any agreement, so they decided to ask their allies.
The French said: " We do not know, but certainly not in the winter. This will end badly. "
The Germans responded: "We do not know, either, but definitely not in a summer. We have already tried."
Someone in Obama's war room had a brilliant idea to ask China, on the basis that China is developing and always has new
ideas.
The Chinese answered: "The best time for this is right now. Russia is building the Power of Siberia pipeline, the North
Stream Pipeline, Vostochny Cosmodrome Spaceport, the MegaProject bridge to Crimea; also Russian is upgrading the Trans-Siberian
railroad with a new railway bridge across Lena River and the Amur-Yakutsk Mainline. Russia is also building new sports facilities
for the World Cup and athletics, and has in development over 150 production projects in the Arctic Well, now they really need
as many POWs as possible!"
"... So, albeit the USSR registered up to 17% of GDP spending on the "military" (as some sources claim) -- you have to take it with a grain of salt. ..."
"... Another problem with this "too much military" theory is the logic behind it. During the 50s and 60s, the USSR was also spending a lot on the military, but it didn't stop it growing 15%-10% yoy ..."
"... It was only after the mid-70s, when the USSR begun to stagnate (it never had a recession), that the military spending theorists begun to sprout. The question is the same about the ill fate of the welfare state in Western Europe in the end of the 70s: which came first, the egg or the chicken. Putting it in another way: was it the Soviet was spending that caused its long stagnation or was it its long stagnation that made its military spending look big? ..."
The war hawks in my beloved country are the Soviet Politburo clamoring for a larger army,
navy, air force to be equipped with the most expensive weaponry. Back in the 80's the
Soviet Union had an army of 5M, they it is less than 1M and is purely defensive. We on the
other hand have built up our Defense Budget to epic levels and have consultant after
consultant telling us that it is at an all time low.
- Posted by: Christian Chuba | Mar 1, 2018 4:14:46 PM | 20
The USSR had deeper problems than that.
It's not that the Soviet expenditure with the military was a problem. On the opposite: the
Soviet were very familiar with the concept of dual industry, them being the masters of WWII.
Many industries in the USSR that were officially military were actually civilian: the most
colorful example being the airplane industry, which could produce either civilian or military
aircraft. Another example: the USSR was the biggest agriculture tractor producer in the world
at one point. These tractors were produced in the same industrial plants as the one used to
produce battle tanks. So, albeit the USSR registered up to 17% of GDP spending on the
"military" (as some sources claim) -- you have to take it with a grain of salt.
Another problem with this "too much military" theory is the logic behind it. During
the 50s and 60s, the USSR was also spending a lot on the military, but it didn't stop it
growing 15%-10% yoy .
It was only after the mid-70s, when the USSR begun to stagnate (it never had a
recession), that the military spending theorists begun to sprout. The question is the same
about the ill fate of the welfare state in Western Europe in the end of the 70s: which came
first, the egg or the chicken. Putting it in another way: was it the Soviet was spending that
caused its long stagnation or was it its long stagnation that made its military spending look
big?
Offensive weapons are cheaper the comprehensive defense. For example specialized supersonic
missile for destroying anti-missile sites are much cheaper then anti-missile sites. So Putin
gamble against US anti-missile system is a right one and much cheaper, which is important for
Russia. But with Ukraine under total US control Putin still suffered a huge geopolitical
defeat.
Mr. Putin said Russia had developed the weaponry because the United States had rejected
established arms control treaties and was deploying new missile defense systems in Europe and
Asia.
... ... ..
The new Russian weapons would render such defenses obsolete... and if anyone found a
workaround, "our boys will think of something new."
... ... ...
Mr. Putin's guns-and-butter, Russia-can-do-it-all speech came 17 days before the March 18
election. It seemed intended to reassure voters that expanded social spending would help solve
the economic problems of the past four years, while sending the message that Mr. Putin was
their best hope in protecting a Russia portrayed as a besieged fortress.
... ... ...
On the social front, Mr. Putin promised to double government spending on health care and
raise pensions. He said Russia would reduce the poverty rate -- official statistics indicate
that around 14 million Russians live below the poverty line -- by 2024.
... ... ...
Mr. Putin also said that life expectancy, currently at 73, a leap from when he first took
office in 2000, should exceed 80 by 2030.
... ... ...
For years, Mr. Putin has chafed at the perceived disrespect showed to him and Russia by the
United States. "Nobody listened to Russia," he said near the end of the speech, to huge
applause. "Well, listen up now."
No, she was not talking on a secure phone. She was obviously picked up by a scanner. Once
picked up, a program could be attached to monitor that phone whenever it was activated.
Whether analogue or digital, that phone was now infected. Anyone who ever telephoned her on
that phone could be identified and tracked. Their phones could also be infected.
My opinion about this is that in the event Russian troops took over Kiev, they would
arrest all the parties who made contact with Nuland's phone.
What intrigues me -- if she liked her phone, decided to stick with it, perhaps a new
Blackberry, and she took it home to the USA, if she used it in, say, Virginia, could it still
be tracked? If so, it could result in knowledge of predictable movement of certain people.
And the infection could continue to spread.
If you get the right scanner and monitor, say, the Academy Awards, you could capture the
phone conversations of some very famous people as they arrived. This is done all the time in
New York near stadiums, for example.
This happened to Prince Charles in London.
I am not a tech guy. I think I am right about this. I could do it myself. Problem is, some
type of scanners are now illegal and also hard to get. In Kiev, that would be no problem.
None of the articles you linked to provided any clear indication that Russian secure
communications were compromised or that there was a drop in productivity of any USI
penetration operations. The most recent account talks about intelligence briefings provided
to McMaster. These briefings could have referred to SIGINT outside of secure diplomatic
communications or even diplomatic cocktail party chitchat. Much of the reporting about
Kislyak referred to conversations with Trump associates. Certainly that wasn't secure
communications systems.
The common denominator in all this reporting is the SS7 exploitation that was known for a
long time and was publicly explained at the 2014 Chaos Computer Communications convention in
Berlin. This was probably how Nuland's "F the EU" conversation was picked up. This is no
longer a technical breach of secure communications. It's a breach of human behavior. These
smartphones are ubiquitous and open everyone around them to 24/7 surveillance.
Having said all that, I agree with you in considering these disclosures felonious.
"... The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media narratives on critical foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total domination. Thus we now have the " Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act " that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that challenges Official Washington's version of reality. ..."
"... The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." ..."
"... Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies for " strategic communications " and " public diplomacy " were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government approach leveraging all elements of national power." ..."
"... The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election. ..."
"... Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA agents Philip Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting "black propaganda" and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world, with much of the fake news blowing back into the American media. ..."
"... In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot. ..."
The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media
narratives on critical foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total
domination. Thus we now have the " Countering
Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act " that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23
as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that
challenges Official Washington's version of reality.
The new law mandates the U.S. Secretary of State to collaborate with the Secretary of
Defense, Director of National Intelligence and other federal agencies to create a Global
Engagement Center "to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to
recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and
disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The law
directs the Center to be formed in 180 days and to share expertise among agencies and to
"coordinate with allied nations."
The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President
Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian
hacking" around the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly
"fake news." Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for
the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step
up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives."
The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges
a new
McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with
a new
Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center
– to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation."
As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the
Center to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing
expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and
implementing best practices." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google,
Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as
purveyors of "Russian
propaganda" or "fake news." )
Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies
for " strategic
communications " and " public
diplomacy " were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government
approach leveraging all elements of national power."
The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among
the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call
evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails
to "influence" the U.S. election.
Despite these accusations -- leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the
mainstream U.S. news media -- there is little or no
public evidence to support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis
by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by Wikileaks
founder Julian Assange and an associate, former British Ambassador Craig
Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media
has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new
"Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed.
Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA
agents Philip Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting
"black propaganda" and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world,
with much of the fake news blowing back into the American media.
In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that
formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment
for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and
distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream
media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who
challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another
$160 million into the pot.
Propaganda and Disinformation on Syria
Syria is a good case study in the modern application of information warfare. In her memoir
Hard Choices , former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that the U.S. provided
"support for (Syrian) civilian opposition groups, including satellite-linked computers,
telephones, cameras, and training for more than a thousand activists, students and independent
journalists."
Indeed, a huge amount of money has gone to "activists" and "civil society" groups in Syria
and other countries that have been targeted for "regime change." A lot of the money also goes
to parent organizations that are based in the United States and Europe, so these efforts do not
only support on-the-ground efforts to undermine the targeted countries, but perhaps even more
importantly, the money influences and manipulates public opinion in the West.
In North America, representatives from the Syrian "Local Coordination
Committees" (LCC) were frequent guests on popular media programs such as "DemocracyNow."
The message was clear: there is a "revolution" in Syria against a "brutal regime" personified
in Bashar al-Assad. It was not mentioned that the "Local Coordination Committees" have been
primarily funded by the West, specifically the Office for Syrian Opposition Support, which was
founded by the U.S. State Department and the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
More recently, news and analysis about Syria has been conveyed through the filter of the
White Helmets, also known as Syrian Civil Defense. In the Western news media, the White Helmets
are described as neutral, non-partisan, civilian volunteers courageously carrying out rescue
work in the war zone. In fact, the group is none of the above.
It was initiated by the U.S. and U.K. using a British military contractor and Brooklyn-based
marketing company.
While they may have performed some genuine rescue operations, the White Helmets are
primarily a media organization with a political goal: to promote NATO intervention in Syria.
(The manipulation of public opinion using the White Helmets and promoted by the New York Times
and Avaaz petition for a "No Fly Zone" in Syria is documented here.
)
The White Helmets hoax continues to be widely believed and receives uncritical promotion
though it has increasingly been exposed at alternative media outlets as the creation of a
"shady PR firm ." During critical times in the conflict in Aleppo, White Helmet individuals
have been used as the source for important news stories despite a track record of deception.
Recent Propaganda: Blatant Lies?
As the armed groups in east Aleppo recently lost ground and then collapsed, Western
governments and allied media went into a frenzy of accusations against Syria and Russia based
on reports from sources connected with the armed opposition. CNN host Wolf Blitzer described
Aleppo as "falling" in a "slaughter of these women and children" while CNN host Jake Tapper
referred to "genocide by another name."
The Daily Beast published the claims of the Aleppo Siege Media Center under the title
"Doomsday is held in Aleppo" and amid accusations that the Syrian army was executing
civilians, burning them alive and "20 women committed suicide in order not to be raped." These
sensational claims were widely broadcast without verification. However, this "news" on CNN and
throughout Western media came from highly biased sources and many of the claims – lacking
anything approaching independent corroboration – could be accurately described as
propaganda and disinformation.
Ironically, some of the supposedly "Russian propaganda" sites, such as RT, have provided
first-hand on-the-ground reporting from the war zones with verifiable information that
contradicts the Western narrative and thus has received almost no attention in the U.S. news
media. For instance, some of these non-Western outlets have shown videos of popular
celebrations over the "liberation of Aleppo."
There has been further corroboration of these realities from peace activists, such as Jan
Oberg of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research who published a photo
essay of his eyewitness observations in Aleppo including the happiness of civilians from
east Aleppo reaching the government-controlled areas of west Aleppo, finally freed from areas
that had been controlled by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and its jihadist allies in Ahrar
al-Sham.
Dr. Nabil Antaki, a medical doctor from Aleppo, described the liberation of Aleppo in an
interview titled
"Aleppo is Celebrating, Free from Terrorists, the Western Media Misinformed." The first
Christmas celebrations in Aleppo in four years are shown here, replete with marching band members in
Santa Claus outfits. Journalist Vanessa Beeley has published testimonies of civilians from east Aleppo.
The happiness of civilians at their liberation is clear.
Whether or not you wish to accept these depictions of the reality in Aleppo, at a minimum,
they reflect another side of the story that you have been denied while being persistently
force-fed the version favored by the U.S. State Department. The goal of the new Global
Engagement Center to counter "foreign propaganda" is to ensure that you never get to hear this
alternative narrative to the Western propaganda line.
Even much earlier, contrary to the Western mythology of rebel "liberated zones," there was
strong evidence that the armed groups were never popular in Aleppo. American journalist James
Foley described the situation in 2012 like this
:
"Aleppo, a city of about 3 million people, was once the financial heart of Syria. As it
continues to deteriorate, many civilians here are losing patience with the increasingly violent
and unrecognizable opposition -- one that is hampered by infighting and a lack of structure,
and deeply infiltrated by both foreign fighters and terrorist groups. The rebels in Aleppo are
predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once
lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the
authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad."
On Nov. 22, 2012, Foley was kidnapped in northwestern Syria and held by Islamic State
terrorists before his beheading in August 2014.
The Overall Narrative on Syria
Analysis of the Syrian conflict boils down to two competing narratives. One narrative is
that the conflict is a fight for freedom and democracy against a brutal regime, a storyline
promoted in the West and the Gulf states, which have been fueling the
conflict from the start . This narrative is also favored by some self-styled
"anti-imperialists" who want a "Syrian revolution."
The other narrative is that the conflict is essentially a war of aggression against a
sovereign state, with the aggressors including NATO countries, Gulf monarchies, Israel and
Jordan. Domination of the Western media by these powerful interests is so thorough that one
almost never gets access to this second narrative, which is essentially banned from not only
the mainstream but also much of the liberal and progressive media.
For example, listeners and viewers of the generally progressive TV and radio program
"DemocracyNow" have rarely if ever heard the second narrative described in any detail. Instead,
the program frequently broadcasts the statements of Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations Samantha Power and others associated with the U.S. position. Rarely do you hear
the viewpoint of the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations, the Syrian Foreign Minister or
analysts inside Syria and around the world who have written about and follow events there
closely.
"DemocracyNow" also has done repeated interviews with proponents of the "Syrian revolution"
while ignoring analysts who call the conflict a war of aggression sponsored by the West and the
Gulf monarchies. This blackout of the second narrative continues despite the fact that many
prominent international figures see it as such. For example, the former Foreign Minister of
Nicaragua and former President of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D'Escoto, has said,
"What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which,
according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against
another State."
In many areas of politics, "DemocracyNow" is excellent and challenges mainstream media.
However in this area, coverage of the Syrian conflict, the broadcast is biased, one-sided and
echoes the news and analysis of mainstream Western corporate media, showing the extent of
control over foreign policy news that already exists in the United States and Europe.
Suppressing and Censoring Challenges
Despite the widespread censorship of alternative analyses on Syria and other foreign
hotspots that already exists in the West, the U.S. government's new "Global Engagement Center"
will seek to ensure that the censorship is even more complete with its goal to "counter foreign
state and non-state propaganda and disinformation." We can expect even more aggressive and
better-financed assaults on the few voices daring to challenge the West's "group thinks"
– smear campaigns that are already quite extensive.
In an article titled "Controlling the Narrative on
Syria" , Louis Allday describes the criticisms and attacks on journalists Rania Khalek and
Max Blumenthal for straying from the "approved" Western narrative on Syria. Some of the
bullying and abuse has come from precisely those people, such as Robin Yassin-Kassab, who have
been frequent guests in liberal Western media.
Reporters who have returned from Syria with accounts that challenge the propaganda themes
that have permeated the Western media also have come under attack. For instance, Canadian
journalist Eva Bartlett recently returned to North America after being in Syria and Aleppo,
conveying a very different image and critical of the West's biased media coverage. Bartlett
appeared at a United Nations press conference and then did numerous
interviews across the country during a speaking tour. During the course of her talks and
presentation, Bartlett criticized the White Helmets and questioned whether it was true that Al
Quds Hospital in opposition-held East Aleppo was attacked and destroyed as claimed.
Bartlett's recounting of this information made her a target of Snopes, which has been a
mostly useful website exposing urban legends and false rumors but has come under criticism
itself for some internal
challenges and has been inconsistent in its investigations. In one report entitled "
White
Helmet Hearsay," Snopes' writer Bethania Palmer says claims the White Helmets are "linked
to terrorists" is "unproven," but she overlooks numerous videos , photos, and other reports showing
White Helmet members celebrating a Nusra/Al Qaeda battle victory, picking up the bodies of
civilians executed by a Nusra executioner, and having a member who alternatively appears as a
rebel/terrorist fighter with a weapon and later wearing a White Helmet uniform. The "fact
check" barely scrapes the surface of public evidence.
The same writer did another shallow "investigation" titled
"victim blaming" regarding Bartlett's critique of White Helmet videos and what happened at
the Al Quds Hospital in Aleppo. Bartlett suggests that some White Helmet videos may be
fabricated and may feature the same child at different times, i.e., photographs that appear to
show the same girl being rescued by White Helmet workers at different places and times. While
it is uncertain whether this is the same girl, the similarity is clear.
The Snopes writer goes on to criticize Bartlett for her comments about the reported bombing
of Al Quds Hospital in east Aleppo in April 2016. A statement at the website of Doctors Without Borders says the
building was "destroyed and reduced to rubble," but this was clearly false since photos show
the building with unclear damage. Five months later, the September 2016 report by Doctors Without
Borders says the top two floors of the building were destroyed and the ground floor Emergency
Room damaged yet they re-opened in two weeks.
The many inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of Doctors Without Borders
resulted in an
open letter to them. In their last report, Doctors Without Borders (known by its French
initials, MSF) acknowledges that "MSF staff did not directly witness the attack and has not
visited Al Quds Hospital since 2014."
Bartlett referenced satellite images taken before and after the reported attack on the
hospital. The images do not show severe damage and it is unclear whether or not there is any
damage to the roof, the basis for Bartlett's statement. In the past week, independent
journalists have visited the scene of Al Quds Hospital and report that that the top floors of
the building are still there and damage is unclear.
The Snopes' investigation criticizing Bartlett was superficial and ignored the broader
issues of accuracy and integrity in the Western media's depiction of the Syrian conflict.
Instead the article appeared to be an effort to discredit the eyewitness observations and
analysis of a journalist who dared challenge the mainstream narrative.
U.S. propaganda and disinformation on Syria has been extremely effective in misleading much
of the American population. Thus, most Americans are unaware how many billions of taxpayer
dollars have been spent on yet another "regime change" project. The propaganda campaign –
having learned from the successful demonizations of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Muammar
Gaddafi and other targeted leaders – has been so masterful regarding Syria that many
liberal and progressive news outlets were pulled in. It has been left to RT and some Internet
outlets to challenge the U.S. government and the mainstream media.
But the U.S. government's near total control of the message doesn't appear to be enough.
Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a few voices too many.
The enactment of HR5181, "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation," suggests that
the ruling powers seek to escalate suppression of news and analyses that run counter to the
official narrative. Backed by a new infusion of $160 million, the plan is to further squelch
skeptical voices with operation for "countering" and "refuting" what the U.S. government deems
to be propaganda and disinformation.
As part of the $160 million package, funds can be used to hire or reward "civil society
groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and
development centers, private companies, or academic institutions."
Among the tasks that these private entities can be hired to perform is to identify and
investigate both print and online sources of news that are deemed to be distributing
"disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies
and partners."
In other words, we are about to see an escalation of the information war.
Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the San Francisco Bay
Area and can be reached at [email protected]
Joe Tedesky , February 28, 2018 at 4:08 pm
If Russia-Gate hadn't been about providing a distraction from Hillary's blasted emails, it
would have been something else to create this need to combat 'fake news', because for my
whole life of 68 years most of everything our government and media has told us is a lie, so
now truthful reporting will be censored. Now all alternative news is being attacked by the
very establishment of people who have been lying to us for so long, as their constant lies
have made necessary a market for honest news. Rather the corporate owned media tell the
truth, they instead rally behind a patriotically draped 'news ban', as this is the MSM's fix
for all that's fake, or to tell the truth their fake news hammer to squash all that's honest.
We are in the bottom of the ninth whereas our police state nation is about to lose it's free
press god help us, god help the world.
" their constant lies have made necessary a market for honest news." yes, Joe, perhaps
that's the only good thing that has come out of their monopoly of MSM.
Joe Tedesky , February 28, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Yes being able to find truthful journalism is a commodity these days, but how long before
we lose that, is the question?
Joe Tedesky , February 28, 2018 at 4:54 pm
Lt. Col. Daniel L Davis says it's time to quit going to war with the AUMF. After you read
this let's see how much media attention the good Lt. Col. gets.
Here's an interesting view[1] and a classic on patriotic peer pressure for war[2]. There
must have been ample profit for stakeholders in the Vickers maxim gun production during the
Boer Wars and WW1[3,4].
Thank you very much. I watched the first video and got the book, I also am going to enjoy
'the Four Feathers' movie since it is one of my favorites.
Here something where moonofalabama is suggesting of how the NYT is back to their old
tricks like before the Iraq WMD invasion, where now the NYT is claiming N Korea is selling
nuclear weapons parts to Syria.
Checked out all of your links. I have downloaded, and saved as favorites. I have some
reading to do. I'll watch the youtube links that you have provided first. Thanks
godenrich.
John W , March 1, 2018 at 11:19 am
Keep those links coming Joe Tedesky. People need actual reality, not reality derived by
the criminally insane.
Bruce , March 1, 2018 at 5:57 am
Excellent comment. To paraphrase Orwell .telling the truth has become a revolutionary
act.
Joe Tedesky , March 1, 2018 at 5:51 pm
Orwell was so right, that sometimes I swear we in this century should be looking to see if
he is amongst us .a true time traveler. Joe
John W , March 1, 2018 at 11:13 am
I concur Joe Tedesky. The shit is indeed hitting the fan. Destroying the very thing that
gives them live(Earth) is complete insanity. But, psychopaths want control, and I believe
that these humanoids in control do not want anything to grow, live, prosper, or be, unless
they say so. Unless they have ultimate control over it(trees, grass, flowers, birds, animals,
humans, bacteria, planets, suns, etc). This geoengineering and other agendas that they are
doing, is killing off everything. This I believe is where their GMO's comes in. Kill all off,
then replace it with that they have created to live in the environment they have created.
Nothing or no one has a child or offspring unless they deem it ok, give their acceptance for
it to be. Entirely psychopathic, or an extremely primitive beastial mind. But, no one says
that what we call psychopathic is anywhere near sane. A bit off the tracks, but it does
coincide with controlling narratives or 'truths' for their agendas.
Nancy , March 1, 2018 at 1:07 pm
In a crazy way, it makes sense!
Joe Tedesky , March 1, 2018 at 5:50 pm
John W if more people were to investigate the harmful effects of GMO food products, and
they were to take what they found seriously, why this alone would be a good reason to stand
up and say to our corporate masters, 'enough is enough'.
Glad you enjoyed the links, because I was fearful that I had over done it with all those
posted links get this I had even more, but thought I was going overboard with what I had
already posted. So thanks for the approval John W. Joe
"the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train
and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false
stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media." and yet they
hyperventilate about "Russian trolls". How many of these pseudo patriotic agencies have been
financed with our taxes?
mark , March 1, 2018 at 5:22 pm
They paid just one British PR company, Bell Pottinger, $540 million to produce fake
material about Iraq and Syria and get it on to the Internet. This firm is run by a British
Lord, Lord Bell. He and his firm have a very shady record. They were hired by corrupt South
African politicians to divert attention from corruption scandals by fomenting hatred towards
the white minority there.
mike k , February 28, 2018 at 4:17 pm
Mind control is an essential feature of the project to enslave the world. If you think
there is no such project, you may already be a victim of it. Realizing that this is happening
is essential for defending against it. Those who are waging this war against your freedom
will do everything in their power to make you unaware of being brainwashed.
For a person to awaken to being brainwashed requires humility, openness, honesty, courage,
and the right kind of help from those already awakening.
mike k , February 28, 2018 at 5:43 pm
And if you lack the qualities mentioned, welcome to zombiehood!
ranney , February 28, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Last Sunday 60 minutes had a segment on the White Helmets so full of lies I wanted to
barf. I hope everyone who reads this comments section will write 60 minutes and tell them
that lying to the public is a big no-no and that White Helmets is an ISIS organization that
gasses their own people and leaves "evidence" to prove Assad did it.
Lois Gagnon , February 28, 2018 at 6:46 pm
Once in a while I go on the networks' Facebook pages and link an article that contradicts
what they just reported. Sometimes the next night they will add what the critics of US policy
are saying. They go out of their way to minimize that content, but it's good to let them know
there are people paying attention to the reality on the ground. It also exposes those
commenting on the FB page to alternative information.
It may not make a big difference, but even putting a dent in the official propaganda is
better then nothing.
Realist , March 1, 2018 at 3:48 am
I make it a point not to watch 60 Minutes any more, because I have a low tolerance for
deceit. However, I am aware of the false narratives they have been propagating on this
country's foreign policy for a long time. Other media outlets that have taken on that role
with zest these days include the History Channel, with a scathing systematic slander of
"Public Enemy Number One," President Vladimir Putin, and the National Geographic Channel.
Like PBS and NPR, both try to pass themselves off as dispensers of a refined intellectual
approach to news. Frankly, there is more thoughtful analysis given to the purchases of
backyard junk made by Mike Wolfe and Frank Fritz on the History Channel's "American
Pickers."
john wilson , March 1, 2018 at 5:23 am
60 minutes is part of the MSM deep state mouth piece. You don't seriously think they will
take the slightest bit of notice of letters complaining about their shyty programme do you?
We need to support and donate to genuine alternative media, news and comment like the late Mr
Parry's great site. Further, good, informative articles and alternative news clips should be
printed out and left on public transport for others to read. If each of us only printed out
10 copies of informative alternative news and left them on public transport for others to
read, then we might get at least a bit of the alternative (no, not alternative but truth
news) out there.
Nancy , March 1, 2018 at 1:10 pm
That's a great idea.
Virginia , March 1, 2018 at 2:51 pm
I second that idea.
Dan Good , February 28, 2018 at 7:04 pm
It is quite amazing to see that America is creating a class of American dissidents.
Growing up in the 50's and 60's it was hard to understand how the USSR could treat its
writers as outcasts. But it is about to happen now in the US of A.
Sobering recap in reprint of this Rick Sterling article, to realize that things continue
as bad or worse since this was published. There is a very well written opinion piece on
Sputnik by Finian Cunningham, "American Collapse -- The Spectacle of Our Time". The US power
structure, rather than address US internal societal rot, he says, doubles down on its rogue
nation behavior and militarism. The US is now as bad as Nazi Germany was and ought to receive
a "Judgement at Nuremberg" condemnation, is my opinion, but read Finian's piece at Sputnik,
very good.
geeyp , March 1, 2018 at 12:24 am
Particularly good choice to reprint as many have awoken since then to the last president's
sedition and cutting of the last thin thread of what was left of US democracy. And, he didn't
even have to pay for it. He allotted for it, and you paid for it.
robjira , March 1, 2018 at 1:12 am
It was the one sided reporting on Syria that was the last straw for me regarding DN, of
which I had been a financial supporter. Cracks in the veneer appeared (for me, at any rate)
as far back as the release of the Collateral Murder video (I distinctly recall Amy Goodman
relentlessly badgering Julian Assange to confirm it was [Bradley] Chelsea Manning who
provided the material to Wikileaks, while Assange with obvious discomfort repeatedly told
Goodman Wikileaks did not reveal the identities of sources), and continued with her ignorant
and insulting treatment of a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War who acknowledged during
a segment on the CM video, that he had friends among the squad of ground troops who arrived
after the massacre (he didn't want to reveal their names, and Goodman tore into him
questioning his enthusiasm for transparency, displaying stunning ignorance of the bonds
formed by soldiers serving together in combat). My misgivings deepened with the enthusiastic
support for the vilification of Putin as a monolithic representation of all that is brutally
and nefariously, "Russian." This coincided with DN's somewhat murky reporting on the
Ukrainian crisis, but it was Syria and the coverage of the 2016 election that did it for me
as far as DN is concerned.
Thank the stars for Consortium News. RIP Robert Parry.
robjira – thanks for the observations on Democracy Now. It has really been quite
amazing to watch Amy and company continue to shill for amoral neocon war mongering while
continuing to promote themselves as some sort of challenge to power. I'm really not sure how
that crew sleeps at night given the amount of civilian blood on their hands from their
reporting both Libya and Syria. Glad to see Aaron Mate left and now is able to do important
ethical journalism over at RealNews. Meanwhile a senior reporter Shane Bauer at "Mother
Jones" openly calls for censorship by the web platform "Medium" of those posting views that
challenge the official government narrative on Syria. And "Counterpunch" seems to have
stopped publishing the work of Andre Vitchek, as its editorial selection of articles becomes
more and more milk-toast "McResistance" by the week. As the ranks of "alternative media"
willing to actually stand up and oppose U.S. imperialism continues to shrink, those (like
Consortiumnews) that have maintained their integrity become that much more important.
Nancy , March 1, 2018 at 1:21 pm
The times we are living in are separating the real truth-seekers from the phonies. This is
a good thing, as Democracy Now, Counterpunch, etc. are exposing themselves as part of the
problem, not the solution. The truth is hard to face but as the saying goes–will set us
free –someday.
The good news is that there are other independent sources that keep popping up. They may
have occasional links to MSM(when relevant) but the bias is toward uncovering corruption and
international hypocrisy. One such website I recently discovered was Defend Democracy Press
with an emphasis on European news.
Robjira, Gary, Nancy -- I observed the same thing with DN and Amy Goodman. I recall a
piece here at CN that show DN not to be the independent news source it used to be, some huge
contribution was mentioned. DN is compromised now.
Maybe you saw Amy interview Glenn Greenwald who early on debunked Russia hacking the DNC.
He made a good case but she, as did MSM's reporters, stopped using the word "alleged" hacking
almost right away.
Two good articles not to miss on RT today: one on White Helmets, the other on Putin's
speech.
mark , March 1, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Not really all that amazing.
DemocracyNow is funded by Soros.
Just follow the money.
It's the same story with a lot of these "radical", "alternative" sites.
Realist , March 1, 2018 at 3:37 am
Wonderful, this gives me another chance to say it: Thanks, Obama! NOT!!!
KiwiAntz , March 1, 2018 at 4:39 am
What a godsend Consortiumnews & other alternative news outlets like RT & Sputnik
are which provide real news rather than the Fakestream American & Western Media? I can't
even watch or read Western Media now, I just cringe in disgust at the endless, baseless &
24 hr propagandist lies & bull crap, it makes me sick to my stomach! Consortiumnews has
really opened my eyes to the real situation behind World events? As a thinking person, I
reached a sort of "Road to Damascus moment" & that's when one comes to the realisation
that everything our Leaders & Countries have told us are blatant lies & brainwashing
lies at that? Some Americans, especially those who read alternative news & refuse to be
brainwashed by their Govt, are slowly coming to this realisation, that their Country has
become a evil, murderous, Fascist, Oligarchy state & when that happens the scales really
come off the eyes (just like the Apostle Paul) & you really start to understand the
serious threat to every human being on Earth, that this evil, scumbag, American deepstate
elite class are, with their demented agenda, seeking to manipulate, deceive & enslave the
World with their murderous, money making schemes. Using Nazi style, fake media propaganda as
demonstrated in this article, that Joseph Goebels would have rejoiced in, they fail to
recognise that just as Hitler's fascist Empire fell, it is the fate of this current false US
Empire as well, to collapse under its own imperialistic weight? Americans need a "storming
the Bastille" revolution like the French Revolution, where they round up this elite class
& dispense justice by gullotine? It worked out fine for the French & it could work
for American citizens, fed up with this bunch of crooks? That's the only way to get rid of
these satanic nutcases? The Writings on the Wall, the rot has set in, & hopefully we will
be around to see the American empire collapse, it's going to happen & the sooner the
better before it's drags us into WW3?
john wilson , March 1, 2018 at 5:31 am
Hey there KiwAntz, there is another great site out there called 'information clearing
house info' and it has great articles by people like John Pilger and others. Just type in the
usual www, etc and you will find it.
Well of course the USG has to quiet the Alternative News army – how else can one
have successful False Flags or assisted ones , when you have someone – spilling the
beans. And there is a big one coming folks – you can bet on it – but they have to
silence the Truth News – first. The Deep State , MIC, Corporations, Bankers, Wall
Street, and many many USG employees along with State and Muni Govs. are going to throw all
their chips into the pot on this Global poker game – they're all in – Look out
World !
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 6:32 am
The Southern Poverty Law Center has been hired by Google to police the content of YouTube
for hate speech. IOW, one hate group gets to stifle their opposition.
anastasia , March 1, 2018 at 8:10 am
Is this why I have noticed that google and youtube are taking down comments, youtube
channels, etc of alternative media; why I also noticed that new bogus websites are going up
purporting to be "alternative" websites (but who clearly are not) that are putting up false
information and are very threatening, etc. Is google, Amazon, etc. doing this in accordance
with this new law? What is our President doing about it? What about Congress? Eventually will
they close down Trump's Twitter account and claim that they are only complying with the
National Defense Authorization Act for 2017? This is very disturbing.
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 8:45 am
anastasia – yes, it is disturbing. I think Congress is putting pressure on Google
(who owns YouTube), Facebook and Twitter to censor. Of course, some say that these outfits
are merely an arm of the U.S. government. Who knows what's really happening.
The upshot is that freedom of speech is being strangled right in front of our eyes. I hope
everyone will stop using Google, Facebook and Twitter. Boycott them.
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 8:47 am
As Paul Craig Roberts said:
"Who asked Google to transform itself from search engine to gatekeeper? Is there a
conspiracy here against the First Amendment? What are Google's qualifications for determining
what is fake news and extremist views? Is what are we witnessing here the elite's use of a
private company to control explanations in behalf of the One Percent?
How does a private company get to overrule the First Amendment of the US Constitution? [
]
Why do people use Google, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter when the companies are in a
conspiracy against freedom of the press? Is the answer that Americans would rather be
entertained than to be free?"
E. Leete , March 1, 2018 at 11:03 am
I remember Paul Craig Roberts saying that the neoliberal economic agenda is getting enough
pushback that it will have to use nuclear weapons to succeed, and make no mistake the
neoliberal economic agenda means. to. succeed.
I can't fathom why the 99% underpaid are not campaigning united for an end to allowing
overpay. When will humans snap awake and stop shoveling world wealth to a fraction few in
exchange for tyranny? Tyranny is where overfortunes are – money is power – power
to influence power to control power to make human history be what they say it will be –
!! – the government is bought by people with overfortunes who are writing the laws and
putting themselves above the laws they write – because they can – the gigarich
are behind all the disinformation, the waste of wealth, the chaos, violence, corruption, the
psychopathological militarism we cannot afford – divide and conquer –
distractions instead of focus on the root cause – people endlessly discuss myriad
CONsequences of allowing overpayoverpower but won't go near the one idea that would reverse
the colossal destruction of everyone's everything. Getting good government and an unbiased
press requires turning to justice and obeying her. Peace, safety, prosperity, a bright
future? Spread world wealth as evenly as world work is spread and outlaw once and for all
time any human being's being able to keep an overfortune. The madness is not going to stop
until we resolve ourselves to end the stealing – legal thefts are too numerous to count
right now and the gigarich obviously have the power to keep inventing new ones even if you
can manage to shut one legal theft down now and then – see the biggest picture,
humanity – or perish by your own lack of seeing. Endlessly attacking the consquences of
allowing overpayoverpower is getting you nowhere but deeper in the hole.
"Who asked Google to transform itself from search engine to gatekeeper?" exactly, it's the
loose end of a long rope that tends to choke dissent on the internet at best, it induces
paranoia one never knows whether that "glitche" is intended to censor or is merely a
technical aberration
jools , March 1, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Just wait until Net Neutrality "officially" kicks in, when the Stasi will go full throttle
in interrupting many of the progressive channels esp. on UTube. On a side note, I was
wondering, does Consortiumnews have a podcast? Again, thanks for enlightening us all w/your
hard hitting journalism for I fear that much darker days awaits this nation.
Liam , March 1, 2018 at 12:27 pm
Excellent article Rick Sterling and Consortium News. For those wanting to learn more about
the White Helmets (FSA terrorists) this link includes hundreds of pics from their own
Facebook accounts proving that they are indeed terrorists posing as rescuers of little
kids.
Huge Cache of White Helmets Exposed Links All In One Massive Volume For Sharing and Red
Pilling – Over 400 Images in 22 Files
Also worth noting: A huge purge of You Tube alternative information channels took place in
the wake of the Parkland shooting event. Looks like the school shooting has been used not
just as a gun grab, but also to assert control via purging of a large number of popular You
Tube channels that were critical of the children's acting skills. It would be great to see
Consortium News cover this attack on free speech, and also the Google/You Tube connections to
the Deep State and why they should be looked at as a government entity and not simply as a
corporate entity that has the right to ban and censor people. They have almost complete
control of information.
Massive list of channels removed from YouTube #The1984IsREAL
Liam – great post! People need to open their eyes. I too hope that more and more
articles are written on this very topic. I know Tucker Carlson at Fox tries to bring this to
people's attention on a weekly basis. You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. We had
better smarten up quickly.
me under the circumstances , March 1, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett are targeted by the "pure white never mistaken good guys"
ie the Fawning Corporate Media, as Ray McGovern calls them, as fake news providers,
indicating to fair observers that they are actually the reporters on the scene in many parts
of the globe who record what is really happening and how it affects the people involved.
Even when evidence is staring people in the face, many refuse to change their stereotyped
images of who is to blame.
Lucifer Christ , March 1, 2018 at 3:49 pm
The problem with this propaganda is that the US government is calling its own ticked off
citizens trolls.
The American people should not be paying for propaganda against their own interests.
This money is being spent by the Deep State to destroy the American people.
The American people are aware of the evil that lives in Washington, DC and how people in
Washington, DC within the Deep State care nothing about them or their families. No matter of
money will change that fact!
People's actions say much. Over time the American people have learned that the Deep State
and the majority of politicians in DC are all about their own agenda and padding their own
pockets – not serving Americans.
Washington DC is evil. Everybody knows!
mark , March 1, 2018 at 5:02 pm
DemocracyNow is just controlled opposition.
It is constantly shilling for regime change and "humanitarian bombing".
It gets its funding from Soros.
It is just another faux Left outfit like the Guardian.
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 10:22 pm
From Paul Craig Roberts again:
"The Trump presidency is the perfect timing for the oligarchs to take over control of all
information. The liberal/progressive/left hate Trump so much that they are willing to ignore
the proven fact that Russiagate was a FBI/Obama/Hillary conspiracy against Trump in order to
use the false accusation as a weapon against Trump.
Gun control advocates and Identity Politics are willing to turn a blind eye to the
unanswered questions about school shootings and terrorist bombings in order to get more gun
control and police power to suppress "white supremacists." Partisan in their approach, they
do not consider that the same power will be used against them.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of young Americans have no idea what is at stake.
Most will never realize that their reality consists of controlled explanations. They will
never know the truth about anything."
The Lefties are playing right into their trap. Like I said, useful idiots.
Drew Hunkins , March 2, 2018 at 12:55 am
There were two points in very recent history when the Putin vilification operations really
began to ramp up in the West:
1.) The anti Putin propaganda campaign escalated in 2006 when Kemp & Edwards published
their CFR paper in which they made the absurd charge that Putin was "rolling back democracy"
in Russia. What a sick joke. They made no such breathless accusations during the rape and
pillage of Russia during the 1990s when j. Sachs and his Harvard boyz provided the
intellectual muscle for the massive exploitation and plunder. No, it was only when Putin put
a halt to a lot of the looting and capital flight that the Western liberal intellectual class
became alarmed and proceeded to assail and decry the Putin "regime" ( it is almost always
deemed a regime, rarely is it referred to as the Putin "administration.")
2.) Then the anti Putin propaganda campaign began to escalate even more so in 2013 when
Putin pulled off one of the finest diplomatic moves of the last 30 years: he talked Obama
down from bombing Damascus to remove Assad. This made Putin enemy number one in the eyes of
the Zio-Saudi-Washington militarist Terror Network. They wanted ever so desperately to topple
Assad and turn Syria into a wasteland and miserable failed state. They were apoplectic.
From here on out the Rachelle Maddows & Masha Gessens were off and running, fomenting
Russophobia and putting the world on the brink of thermo nuclear Armageddon.
Gerry , March 2, 2018 at 2:45 am
I wrote a small comment thanking Rick (whom I know) and even that comment was not
published.
I cannot find a moderation policy, but perhaps non-US citizens are not allowed on this site?
I cannot find any way of contacting anybody either.Probably because I said a few more things
that were upsetting the status quo here.
Well, so much for the most censored site I have ever seen: nice website but operated by
controlling journalists, so better stick to non-US sites as this is really ridiculous. You
publish whatever somebody says (Abe) who exposes anybody who dares to disagree with his idea
about those of us who do not agree with Zionism, but no rebuttal allowed. Nobody will see
this comment probably, so censor that as well and you are right up there with all the other
Americans who pretend they have a broader view and yet censor anybody who says something
slightly critical. Goodbye and good luck with the effect of this site on the media while your
part of the same policies in the end if it does not suit you.
Loretta , March 2, 2018 at 5:11 am
What about Israel's foreign propaganda and meddling in elections?
Biggest blunder in our lifetimes was not inviting Russia to join NATO, but I guess after
years of anti-Russian propaganda the Neocons figured China would never be quite the bogeyman
that we had built the Sovs into, big enough to keep the defense-dollars gravy-train flowing
while we re-jiggered the mission to find another bogey man. Then, one day, we woke up and
realised the Chicoms held enough of our debt to destroy us, while the Russians don't, so we
keep kicking at the old bogeyman.
The first line of the Ukrainian national anthem is "Ukraine has not yet died," one
interviewee says in "Breaking Point," a fierce documentary about that country and its recent
clashes with Russia. For a land often perched on the edge of ruin, she says, mere survival is
something to celebrate.
Directed by Mark Jonathan Harris and Oles Sanin, the film starts with a rundown of a history
that has repeated itself for centuries -- invaders have long prized Ukraine for its resources
and geography, and modern times are no exception.
... ... ...
The filmmakers supply terrifying footage: At civilian rallies, we see nightstick beatings
and bloody riots. During military battles, bullets whiz by and explosions shake the cameras.
Nerve-racking scenes follow Ukraine's extraordinarily bold volunteer soldiers.
"... Mainstream Media: Trump Victorious At CPAC, Economic Nationalist 'Takeover of Conservatism Is Complete, ..."
"... Witness the celebration of neocon pundit Mona Charen (pictured right) a marginal talent whose career of purported conservatism while actually accepting liberal clichés is endangered by the rise of nationalism in the GOP. Her condemnation of CPAC as a "disgrace" because it invited Marion Le Pen of France led to gleeful celebration in the MSM. Charen was promptly rewarded with an op-ed in the New York Times, ..."
"... CPAC panelist reveals in NYT op-ed that she was happy to be booed ..."
"... National Review's ..."
"... Speaking Truth ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Europe in Crisis ..."
"... Marion Marechal Le Pen's Dynamic Speech, The American Conservative ..."
"... But, of course, what do they care? After all, it's increasingly clear that many Conservatism Inc. functionaries, such as Bill Kristol, always regarded their fellow American citizens as the real enemy anyway . ..."
"... Wanna Be a Player at CPAC? Write a Check First ..."
"... Daily Beast, ..."
"... The Coming Clash of the GOP Titans ..."
"... The American Conservative, ..."
"... WesternJournalism, ..."
"... Kentucky Democrat wins state House in Trump stronghold ..."
"... In blow to Trump, Supreme Court won't hear appeal of DACA ruling ..."
"... I was good with Kucinich and Nader. I'm neither Conservative nor Republican. I voted for McGovern. Yet I am a card carrying deplorable. Bernie is a fraud and Trump is the only real opposition to the entrenched thieves and murderers in Washington. Your Conservative grass roots have a significant cohort of fellow travelers. Trump could not have won the upper midwest without us. ..."
It was only two years ago that then-candidate Trump avoided the annual Conservative
Political Action Conference [CPAC] because it looked likely he would be booed by "true
conservatives." At this year's CPAC, both President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence
were treated as conquering heroes, leading the Main Stream Media to declare the president's
victory conclusive [ Trump's Takeover of Conservatism Is Complete and Total, by Tim Alberta,
Politico, February 25, 2018]. But there are still real dangers for
National Conservatives aiming to use the GOP as a vehicle to achieve patriotic immigration
reform. Chief among them: the possibility that President Trump will continue to show weakness
on immigration. With midterms approaching, time is running out, and Trump
simply has not yet given his base a compelling reason to follow him .
This is inexcusable given President Trump's remarkable capture the GOP . Pat Buchanan correctly observed on
the most recent McLaughlin Group that the "Bush party has become a Trump party" on immigration,
trade and foreign policy [ Pat Buchanan: The Bush Party Has Become A Trump Party On Immigration, Trade, Staying Out of
Foreign Wars, by John Binder, Breitbart, February 25, 2018]. The
rank-and-file conservative activists at CPAC showed utter contempt for Bush-era talking points,
lustily booing the ritualistic references to Hispanic immigrants as "natural Republicans."
An astonishing 93 percent of CPAC attendees gave the president a favorable approval rating,
with almost 80 percent demanding the GOP Congress do a better job of working with him [
Trump tweets CPAC straw poll showing favorable approval rating, by John
Boweden, The Hill, February 24, 2018].
With any other Republican, this could simply be dismissed as the grassroots backing their
leader. but with Donald Trump, it shows that much of the official Conservative Movement has
bent the knee to a man they regarded as a usurper during his candidacy.
And those who would dethrone Trump and, more importantly, Trumpism, are still rallying their
forces. Thus Alberta began: "If you're a conservative with something critical to say about
President Trump, watch your back" -- implying the conservative faithful will ruin the careers
of anyone who attacks the Commander-in-Chief. But attacking Trump is in reality a great
professional move for ambitious conservative mediocrities, who can become more prominent in the
Main Stream Media by trashing the president.
Witness the celebration of neocon pundit
Mona Charen (pictured right) a marginal talent whose career of purported conservatism
while actually accepting liberal clichés is endangered by the rise of nationalism in the
GOP. Her
condemnation of CPAC as a "disgrace" because it invited Marion Le Pen of France led to
gleeful celebration in the MSM. Charen was promptly rewarded with an op-ed in the New York
Times, where she got to brag about how she was "glad to be booed at CPAC" [
CPAC
panelist reveals in NYT op-ed that she was happy to be booed, by Alessia
Grunberger, CNN, February 25, 2018]. Charen thus joins the ranks of people like
Charlie Sykes ,
Rick Wilson , and Jennifer Rubin , professional
"conservatives" who, somehow, never have anything positive to say about Republicans but instead
validate the MSM line of the day.
Of more interest was National Review's celebration of Charen. Yuval Levin praised
her and presenting her antics as a Time For
Choosing : "Mona's comments and the ugly reaction of some in the audience lay out before us
two possible paths for the Right," he said sanctimoniously. "Let's hope we ultimately choose
the right one. It certainly isn't the one we have generally been choosing lately" [ Speaking
Truth, February 25, 2018].
Yet what Levin is urging is not some return to an idealized intellectual conservatism, but a
turn back to the lame slogans which marked the George W. Bush years and a refusal to confront
the issues of today. The Islamization of Europe is occurring before our eyes, and has even been
described in National Review itself [ Europe in Crisis, by David Pryce-Jones, July 10, 2017]. Marion Le
Pen (pictured right) also offered, by far, the most intellectually sophisticated and
authentically conservative address of the conference, which even Rod Dreher admitted avoided
the usual "conservative boilerplate" that passes for wisdom at these increasingly embarrassing
junkets [ Marion
Marechal Le Pen's Dynamic Speech, The American Conservative, February 22,
2018]. Yet even at this moment of existential civilization danger, the parasites of the
Respectable Right are determined to make sure there is no effective resistance until it's
too late -- just as they purged everyone
who warned of America's immigration disaster which now threatens the entire GOP with
annihilation.
This intellectual bankruptcy won't prevent Conservatism Inc. from simply retaking the
movement once President Trump is gone, or politically defeated. While the grassroots is with
Trump and CPAC could not openly oppose the president, the panels were still ultimately
controlled by the Donor Class, which pushed cheap labor, mass immigration and resistance to
America First trade and immigration policies [ Wanna Be a
Player at CPAC? Write a Check First, by Lachlan Markay, Daily
Beast, February 23, 2018]
2/ was somehow responsible for those wage increases, not increased immigration enforcement
and thus a tighter labor market with less cheap, foreign competition. This assertion seems to
be common among the Reagan-nostalgic wing of the GOP,
And Mitt Romney is also clearly setting himself up as the "anti-Trump,"
denouncing identity politics from the crypto-ethnostate of Utah. Once
he gets his chance, he'll go back to making sure Republicans continue politely losing the way
they did over the past decade [ The
Coming Clash of the GOP Titans, by Daniel Depetris, The American
Conservative, February 23, 2018].
And Romney may get his chance soon. Rasmussen has President Trump's approval rating at 50
percent, but it only polls likely voters. Groups that poll all registered voters have the
president's approval rating as far lower, even in the mid 30's [ Trump Hits 50% by Dick
Morris, WesternJournalism, February 25, 2018]
This is significant because in 2018 there is likely to be far more voter turnout than usual
in a midterm election, as the Main Stream Media has whipped the Democrat base into a frenzy.
Democrats are also scoring a number of special election victories in districts President Trump
and the Republicans won handily in 2016 [ Kentucky
Democrat wins state House in Trump stronghold, by Maegan Vasquez,
CNN, February 22, 2018].
The defeat of Roy Moore in Alabama (albeit due to his
betrayal by a terrified GOP Establishment ) should also be considered a warning sign.
Yet Republicans appear complacent -- and this includes the "nationalists." And with the
Supreme Court's recent decision to allow DACA recipients to stay in the country until the issue
is litigated through the appeals court level, President Trump's peculiar decision to try
to pose as a
pro-DACA moderate on immigration no longer makes any sense because Democrats will not be
under any pressure to "save the Dreamers" [
In blow to Trump, Supreme Court won't hear appeal of DACA ruling, by Pete
Williams, NBC News, February 26, 2018]. The March 5 "deadline" is now gone for
good.
Trump needs to change the equation on immigration and find new sources of pressure to put on
the Democrats. One of the easiest moves:
advocate a remittance tax to pay for the border wall. With the Supreme Court's DACA ruling,
an action like this practically becomes a political necessity.
CPAC shows the conservative grassroots are with the president and that the Beltway elites
are cowed. But they are still hostile. They will only accept the president while he is strong.
Today, he appears weak, as even foreign leaders such as former Mexican President Vicente Fox
are mocking him, saying Mexico
will never pay for the wall.
It is time for President Trump to show leadership and strength on his signature issue. And
if he doesn't act soon, the anti-Trump wing of the GOP will join the incipient coup against
him.
CuckPAC has never represented any conservative values and has always been a display of
Zionist ass kissing. That they now love them some Donald just shows what a worthless Israel
firster Trump has shown himself to be.
"This intellectual bankruptcy won't prevent Conservatism Inc. from simply retaking the
movement once President Trump is gone, or politically defeated."
When Trump is gone or politically defeated it will be due to the efforts of Conservative
Inc. for which CuckPAC has always been the showcase.
CPAC shows the conservative grassroots are with the president and that the Beltway
elites are cowed.
I was good with Kucinich and Nader. I'm neither Conservative nor Republican. I voted for
McGovern. Yet I am a card carrying deplorable. Bernie is a fraud and Trump is the only real
opposition to the entrenched thieves and murderers in Washington. Your Conservative grass
roots have a significant cohort of fellow travelers. Trump could not have won the upper
midwest without us.
I thought Trump's offer of amnesty in exchange for moving toward a sane immigration policy
WAS leadership. It's easier to stop immigration than to reverse it. And he exposed the
Democrats. They have lost the dreamers as a political tool.
Where Trump is losing me is with his stupid and dangerous foreign policy. That's where I
would like to see some leadership.
Hope Hicks, President Trump's communications director and one of his longest-serving advisers, said
Wednesday that she planned to leave the White House in the next few weeks.
When Hope Hicks walked into
President Trump's private study on Wednesday to inform him that she planned to leave the White House -- concluding a
can't-make-it-up run in which Ms. Hicks, a woman with zero political experience three years ago,
became the closest aide to the most
powerful man in the world
-- the president responded like a father whose daughter had outgrown the nest.
According to a person with
knowledge of their conversation, Mr. Trump expressed an understanding of Ms. Hicks's desire to pursue a new phase of
her life. But, the person added, he also acknowledged something else: that Ms. Hicks's happiness in her role had
begun to wane lately, after a trying few weeks in the public glare.
The
departure
of Ms. Hicks, arguably the least experienced person to ever hold the job of White House communications director,
capped an astounding rise for a political neophyte whose seemingly implausible career hinged on a deep understanding
of, and bottomless patience for, her mercurial charge.
But as someone with a pull
toward discretion -- Ms. Hicks, 29, who grew up in the buttoned-up suburb of Greenwich, Conn., the daughter and
granddaughter of prominent public relations men -- seeing her name splashed across international tabloids had taken a
toll.
In
explaining her decision to friends, Ms. Hicks, a communications director who rarely spoke publicly, made clear that
she had no interest in being at the center of the public conversation.
That
aversion to the spotlight had become increasingly difficult to maintain.
Ms. Hicks's role in helping
write a statement by Donald J. Trump Jr. about a 2016 meeting with Russian officials has
drawn attention
from federal investigators. On Tuesday, she
testified
for eight hours before the House Intelligence Committee and made headlines for admitting that she had
sometimes told fibs as part of her job.
Last month, the man she had
been dating, the former White House staff secretary Rob Porter, was accused by his former wives of domestic abuse,
sparking an ongoing scandal that offered a glimpse of her closely guarded personal life and drew paparazzi to her
apartment building. There were rumblings that Mr. Trump questioned Ms. Hicks's judgment after the White House
initially defended Mr. Porter, although a bevy of administration officials, including the president's daughter Ivanka
Trump, later vouched for Ms. Hicks in on-the-record interviews.
Ms. Hicks had stopped
monitoring news coverage of herself, restricting her television intake to Fox News, which she often watched on mute,
assuming that the Trump-friendly network would rarely include her name on its chyrons.
Friends who reached out to
her, offering support or guidance, acknowledged that Ms. Hicks had been distressed. But they also received text
messages from her in which she declared that she was tougher than people assumed.
Ms. Hicks's career followed a
curious trajectory. As a young model, she appeared on the covers of young adult paperbacks and in Ralph Lauren
catalogs before going to work for Ms. Trump's apparel and licensing brand. Even after she had begun serving as an
Oval Office gatekeeper, she maintained a low public profile, which fueled the fascination -- and sometimes disdain --
of those who watch national politics closely.
Trump's relationship with Hope was always puzzling and oddly salacious. Hicks dated Trump's
campaign manager Corey Lewandowski while he was still married, to Alison Hardy. She later began dating former White
House Staff Secretary Rob Porter. This is not acceptable in the Me too and Times Up era. I am a woman and I have seen
inappropriate office romances that adversely affected everyone in the office.
Point is Trump's penchant for surrounding himself with beauty queens is inappropriate. Her behavior is also
inappropriate. Then, there are the lies. Sometimes known as, "Alternative facts".
Beautiful girl. She will have a great career at Fox.
"Ms. Hicks's success was viewed as a product of other qualities, including her nuanced
understanding of Mr. Trump's moods, her ability to subtly nudge him away from his coarser impulses..."
She did that? When? And what on earth is a "nuanced understanding of Mr. Trump's moods?" Angry and angrier?
Soon-to-be-former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks hasn't even left the West
Wing yet, but unsurprisingly, she's already received a flood of offers from powerful publishers
and producers promising eight-figure paydays if she's wiling to provide juicy insider details
like those.
A friend of Hicks' who spoke with the
Daily Mail said the communications director - who once handled as many as 250 media
requests per day - was "overwhelmed" by the response. As the Mail points out, the desirability
of Hicks' story has increased because of her informal position as the "most glamorous person in
the West Wing."
One anonymous source from inside the publishing industry even went so far as to compare
Hicks with Jackie Kennedy.
One insider told the Mail that Hicks kept a diary of her time in the White House, which
could be an incredible resource should she decide to write a memoir.
What would it take to do your story as a mini-series or on the big screen? I can get the
financing, like tomorrow, and make you rich and even more famous. You have an incredible
story. Let's talk!'
And since then Hick has been overwhelmed with messages offering millions of dollars in
advances for book deals by major publishers, and offers from Hollywood to make biopics about
her glamorous political and scandalous life.
As one publishing executive told DailyMail.com, 'Next to Ivanka and Melania, Hope is the
woman closest to the president, and knows all the secrets, all the foibles, all the
quirks.
'She's also the most glamorous White House female since Jackie Kennedy. Her story will be
a blockbuster. I have the authority to offer her an advance of $10 million, and we're open to
negotiate.'
If she does decide to publish, it'd be prudent for Hicks to hold an auction. Hicks could
probably walk away with an agreement to keep 15% of total sales.
'If a book were to happen, it would undoubtedly be the subject of an auction among the
major publishers, which would be a key factor in driving up the amount of the advance.'
Another prestigious literary agent who has represented Pulitzer Prize-winning political
journalists, among other high-profile, celebrity clients – and receives a fifteen
percent commission on every book sold -- told DailyMail.com: 'Hope Hicks was a star
Washington insider.
'I always saw a book coming from her when the time was right. Now the time's right.
Overnight she's become a potential goldmine.
Several Trump confidants, employees and advisers have books in the works. Corey Lewandowski,
Trump's first campaign manager who briefly dated Hicks during the campaign while he was married
to another woman, published a book last year that earned high praise from Trump.
Former Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced in December that he was publishing a West Wing
tell-all of his own.
And while we imagine Spicer knows where at least some of the bodies are buried, James
Comey's book - "A Higher Honor: Truth, Lies and Leadership" - is set to be published in
mid-April. It already has a sizable backlog of preorders.
Hicks is turning 30 in October. During her time running the communications department, Hicks
rarely gave interviews or on-the-record statements - which only deepened the mystique
surrounding her personality. That and she famously dated Lewandowski and former Staff Secretary
Rob Porter.
We imagine, after all those months of silence, Hicks probably has something to say. The
question is: Will she risk her relationship with the president to say it?
A former employee
of Jared Kushner has claimed the senior adviser doesn't read and calls his father "daddy."
Kyle Pope, who worked as an editor for the New York Observer while Kushner was
publisher, described his time working for Kushner in a tell-all article for the Columbia
Journalism Review , where he is currently editor-in-chief and publisher.
Despite Kushner being responsible for the publication, Pope said he did not take much
interest in actually reading the paper -- or any other publication. "Most weeks, Kushner not
only didn't read the Observer , he didn't appear to read anything else, either. I
never knew him to discuss a book, a play, or anything else that was in the Observer 's
cultural wheelhouse," Pope wrote, also stating he could see where the first strains of
anti-media sentiment began.
"... Mr. Kushner's clearance was reduced to the level of secret and his official portfolio inside the West Wing, especially with regard to his globe-trotting conduct of foreign affairs on behalf of President Trump, is expected to be sharply reduced as well, the people said. ..."
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and KATIE ROGERS
FEB. 27, 2018
WASHINGTON -- Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, has been
stripped of his top-secret security clearance after months of delays in completing his
background check, and will now be limited in his ability to view highly classified information,
a White House official and another person familiar with Mr. Kushner's situation said on
Tuesday.
Mr. Kushner's clearance was reduced to the level of secret and his official portfolio inside
the West Wing, especially with regard to his globe-trotting conduct of foreign affairs on
behalf of President Trump, is expected to be sharply reduced as well, the people said.
"... Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA. ..."
"... A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster. ..."
First, and this is crucial, Russia is at war. Let me repeat this: Russia is at war with the AngloZionist Empire. The fact
that this war is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic does not make it less real or less dangerous, if only
because these ratios can very rapidly change.
So is China, except we're not as aware of it. Especially the information warfare part.
I think Putin should just kick democracy to the curb and make sure his opponents never have a chance to even deny him a majority.
The west already regards Russia as an "non-democratic authoritarian state" anyway, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of perception.
Yes and no. It is much more complex with China than with Russia. US-Chinese relations have a peculiar dynamics, although at
some pint of time things may get really dicey, no doubt about it.
Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically
balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA.
I'm praying for both of our countries to turn it around, each according to its own culture, traditions, and core people's wishes
(I.e. I want a less centralized system than Russia has, and than WE have for that matter, and generally more individual liberty
than most Russians would want. America and Russia can develop on different paths and still be effective partners, increasing trade
and military cooperation to destroy Islamists, crush piracy on the sea, deter and contain China to Asia, etc.)
A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the
us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop
supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster.
What Washington really haptes about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their
model of a "unipolar" world order.
Notable quotes:
"... The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. ..."
"... That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny. ..."
"... John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling back democracy" in Russia. ..."
"... What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their model of a "unipolar" world order. ..."
"... Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day. ..."
"... But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. ..."
"... The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression is really the victim. ..."
"... Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground. ..."
"... The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. ..."
"... The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble. ..."
"... After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders committed abroad. ..."
"... China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. ..."
"... American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free' trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike. ..."
"... not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs. ..."
"... Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows administered by US/NATO. A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example? ..."
"... Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example. It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for. ..."
"... Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence. Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has. ..."
"... When asked by a Germany-based academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests." ..."
"... America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria. Very sad. ..."
"... America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes. Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. ..."
"... In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons ..."
"... The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors. ..."
"... GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British empire now? ..."
"... US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them militarily. Good luck with that. ..."
"... The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various "dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British style. ..."
"It is essential to provide conditions for creative labor and economic growth at a pace that would put an end to the division
of the world into permanent winners and permanent losers. The rules of the game should give the developing economies at least
a chance to catch up with those we know as developed economies. We should work to level out the pace of economic development,
and brace up backward countries and regions so as to make the fruit of economic growth and technological progress accessible to
all. Particularly, this would help to put an end to poverty, one of the worst contemporary problems." Vladimir Putin, President
Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Putin wants to end poverty? Putin wants to stimulate economic growth in developing countries? Putin wants to change the system
that divides the world into "permanent winners and losers"? But, how can that be, after all, Putin is bad, Putin is a "KGB thug",
Putin is the "new Hitler"?
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support. For
example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer in
universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution. Naturally, the Russian system has its shortcomings, but
there has been significant progress under Putin who has dramatically increased the budget, improved treatment and widened accessibility.
Putin believes that healthcare should be a universal human right. Here's what he said at the annual meeting of the Valdai International
Discussion Club:
"Another priority is global healthcare . All people in the world, not only the elite, should have the right to healthy, long
and full lives. This is a noble goal. In short, we should build the foundation for the future world today by investing in all
priority areas of human development." (Vladimir Putin, President Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion
Club)
How many "liberal" politicians in the US would support a recommendation like Putin's? Not very many. The Democrats are much more
partial to market-based reforms like Obamacare that guarantee an ever-increasing slice of the pie goes to the giant HMOs and the
voracious pharmaceutical companies. The Dems no longer make any attempt to promote universal healthcare as a basic human right. They've
simply thrown in the towel and moved on to other issues.
Many Americans would find Putin's views on climate change equally surprising. Here's another clip from the Valdai speech:
"Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. I suggest that
we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new,
groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us
to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.
It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity
to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities,
and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN
to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia
is willing to co-sponsor such a forum .." Valdai)
Most people would never suspect that Putin supports a global effort to address climate change. And, how would they know, after
all, bits of information like that– that help to soften Putin's image and make him seem like a rational human being– are scrubbed
from the media's coverage in order to cast him in the worst possible light. The media doesn't want people to know that Putin is a
reflective and modest man who has worked tirelessly to make Russia and the world a better place. No, they want them to believe that
he's is a scheming tyrannical despot who's obsessive hatred for America poses a very real threat to US national security. But it's
not true.
Putin is not the ghoulish caricature the media makes him out to be nor does he hate America, that's just more propaganda from
the corporate echo-chamber. The truth is Putin has been good for Russia, good for regional stability, and good for global security.
He pulled the Russian Federation back from the brink of annihilation in 2000, and has had the country moving in a positive direction
ever since. His impact on the Russian economy has been particularly impressive. According to Wikipedia:
"Between 2000 and 2012 Russia's energy exports fueled a rapid growth in living standards, with real disposable income rising
by 160%. In dollar-denominated terms this amounted to a more than sevenfold increase in disposable incomes since 2000. In the
same period, unemployment and poverty more than halved and Russians' self-assessed life satisfaction also rose significantly."
Inequality is a problem in Russia just like it is in the US, but the vast majority of working people have benefited greatly from
Putin's reforms and a system of distribution that –judging by steady uptick in disposable incomes – is significantly superior to that
in the United States where wages have flatlined for over 2 decades and where virtually all of the nation's wealth trickles upward
to the parasitic 1 percent.
Since Putin took office in 2000, workers have seen across-the-board increase in wages, benefits, healthcare and pensions. Poverty
and unemployment have been reduced by more than half while foreign investment has experienced steady growth. Onerous IMF loans have
been repaid in full, capital flight has all-but ceased, hundreds in billions in reserves have been accumulated, personal and corporate
taxes have been slashed, and technology has experienced an unprecedented renaissance. The notorious Russian oligarchs still have
a stranglehold on many privately-owned industries, but their grip has begun to loosen and the "kleptocracy has begun to fade."
Things are far from perfect, but the Russian economy has flourished under Putin and, generally speaking, the people are appreciative.
This helps to explain why Putin's public approval ratings are typically in the stratosphere. (70 to 80 percent) Simply put: Putin
the most popular Russian president of all time. And his popularity is not limited to Russia either, in fact, he typically ranks at
the top of most global leadership polls such as the recent Gallup International End of Year Survey (EoY) where Putin came in third
(43 percent positive rating) behind Germany's Angela Merkel (49 percent) and French President Emmanuel Macron. (45 percent) According
to Gallup: "Putin has gone from one in three (33 percent) viewing him favourably to 43 percent, a significant increase over two years."
The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations
where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. This should come as no surprise to Americans
who know that the chances of stumbling across an article that treats Putin with even minimal objectivity is about as likely as finding
a copper coin at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. The consensus view of the western media is that Putin is a maniacal autocrat who
kills journalists and political opponents (no proof), who meddles in US elections to "sow discord" and destroy our precious democracy
(no proof), and who is conducting a secret and sinister cyberwar against the United States. (no proof). It's a pathetic litany of
libels and fabrications, but its impact on the brainwashed American people has been quite impressive as Gallup's results indicate.
Bottom line: Propaganda works.
The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist
the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. This is when the powerful Council on Foreign Relations funded
a report titled "Russia's Wrong Direction" that suggested that Russia's increasingly independent foreign policy and insistence that
it control its own vast oil and natural gas resources meant that "the very idea of a 'strategic partnership' no longer seems realistic."
That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny.
John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling
back democracy" in Russia. They claimed that the government had become increasingly authoritarian and that the society was growing
less "open and pluralistic". Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign
against Putin has been built. Twelve years later, the same charges are still being leveled at Putin along with the additional allegations
that he meddled in the 2016 presidential elections.
Needless to say, none of the nation's newspapers, magazines or broadcast media ever publish anything that deviates even slightly
from the prevailing, propagandistic narrative about Putin. One can only assume that the MSM's views on Putin are either universally
accepted by all 325 million Americans or that the so-called "free press" is a wretched farce that conceals an authoritarian corporate
machine that censors all opinions that don't promote their own malign political agenda.
What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their
model of a "unipolar" world order. As he said at the annual Security Conference at Munich in 2007:
"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force,
one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for
the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."
Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival
that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against
each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day.
But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the
turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced
the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. At present, US Special Forces and
their allies are clinging to a strip of arid wasteland in the Syrian outback hoping that the Pentagon brass can settle on a forward-operating
strategy that reverses their fortunes or brings the war to a swift end.
The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current
war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression
is really the victim. More important, failure in Syria has led to a reevaluation of how Washington conducts its wars abroad. The
War on Terror pretext has been jettisoned for a more direct approach laid out in the Trump administration's National Defense Strategy.
The focus going forward will be on "Great Power Competition", that is, the US is subordinating its covert proxy operations to more
flagrant displays of military force particularly in regards to the "growing threat from revisionist powers", Russia and China. In
short, the gloves are coming off and Washington is ramping up for a land war.
Putin has become an obstacle to Washington's imperial ambitions which is why he's has been elevated to Public Enemy Number 1.
It has nothing to do with the fictitious meddling in the 2016 elections or the nonsensical "rolling back democracy" in Russia. It's
all about power. In the United States the group with the tightest grip on power is the foreign policy establishment. These are the
towering mandarins who dictate the policy, tailor the politics to fit their strategic vision, and dispatch their lackeys in the media
to shape the narrative. These are the people who decided that Putin must be demonized to pave the way for more foreign interventions,
more regime change wars, more bloody aggression against sovereign states.
Putin has repeatedly warned Washington that Russia would not stand by while the US destroyed one country after the other in its
lust for global domination. He reiterated his claim that Washington's "uncontained hyper-use of force" was creating "new centers
of tension", exacerbating regional conflicts, undermining international relations, and "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent
conflicts." He has pointed out how the US routinely displayed its contempt for international law and "overstepped its national borders
in every way." As a result of Washington's aggressive behavior, public confidence in international law and global security has steadily
eroded and "No one feels safe. I want to emphasize this," Putin thundered in Munich. "No one feels safe."
On September 28, 2015 Putin finally threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly
in New York. After reiterating his commitment to international law, the UN, and state sovereignty, he provided a brief but disturbing
account of recent events in the Middle East, all of which have gotten significantly worse due to Washington's use of force. Here's
Putin:
"Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention
destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty,
social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life
The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy,
which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting
for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose
statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 ."
US interventions have decimated Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond. Over a million people have been killed while tens of millions
have been forced to flee their homes and their countries. The refugee spillover has added to social tensions across the EU where
anti-immigrant sentiment has precipitated the explosive growth in right wing groups and political organizations. From Northern
Africa, across the Middle East, and into Central Asia, global security has steadily deteriorated under Washington's ruthless stewardship.
Here's more from Putin:
"The Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes.
Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions .It is irresponsible
to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of
them or somehow eliminate them ."
Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy
to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform
at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct
a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground.
Putin: "We can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world."
Less than 48 hours after these words were uttered, Russian warplanes began pounding militant targets in Syria.
Putin again: "Dear colleagues, relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are
facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism .Russia is confident of the United Nations' enormous
potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations,
we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make
the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples."
So, here's the question: Is Putin "evil" for opposing Washington's regime change wars, for stopping the spread of terrorism, and
for rejecting the idea that one unipolar world power should rule the world? Is that why he's evil, because he won't click his heels
and do as he's told by the global hegemon?
The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march
to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position
of influence the US has dreamed of for a century.
The next war, if it comes, will be over something like Cobalt. The future lies in big and plentiful electric batteries and China
and Russia between them control almost 50% of the known supply of Cobalt, while the US has none. Stand by and wait, folks.
The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the
two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class.
I would be staggered is only 14 percent of Americans had a negative view of Putin – almost everybody I have spoken to
has completely swallowed the media line. In Europe UK in particular has been brainwashed against him – southern Europe far less
so. The 28 percent is more realistic.
Is China trying to trash our constitution? Is China invading other countries, killing people with missiles and bombs all over
the world, staging "color revolutions" and subverting legitimate governments in the "West"? Is China patrolling the Gulf of Mexico
and putting missiles in Mexico and Canada? China hasn't done anything bad to me or to anyone I know, so please explain how China
is "our" "rival"?
This is a great article. The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful
for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble.
There's a simple reason why Putin is talking sense. He's doing nothing more than stating customary international law. Those
economic quotes have been set out in a series of UN resolutions including A/RES/41/128 on the right to development. This is the
acquis of the civilized world. No country in the world opposes it – except the USA. The US votes alone against it every time it
comes up, even though customary international law is US federal and state common law under the Supreme Court decision, The Paquete
Habana.
Mr. Whitney has accepted the official framing that it's all about Putin. That clever decision makes his article more provocative.
Calm appraisal of the current official foreign devil is inherently inflammatory. However, this has nothing to do with Putin. Rigid
legalist that he is, his hands are tied. Russia has ratified the ICESCR.
Russia has ratified the ICESCR. The USA has not. Here are some of the rights Russians have that you do not:
OHCHR has a convenient compilation showing how each government meets its legal obligations and commitments. The synoptic heatmap
below shows the US deep down in the shithole with Wahhabi headchoppers and neocolonial African presidents-for-life.
The exhaustively documented fact here is, the Russian state meets world standards. The US government does not. The Russian
government respects, protects, and fulfils human rights. The US government fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach,
and negates your incomplete half-assed constitutional rights with statist red tape. Russians get a better deal than you do. Merely
by reciting the law as he does, Putin would win a fair election here with Roosevelt-scale majorities, again and again. That's
why he drives the US government up the wall.
Where is it the propaganda campaign going? We have seen this before as preparation for a war or a regime change. In Russia both
are unlikely to succeed. That leaves an ever increasing propaganda bombast in the West, people brainwashed to the point where
outright racism against anything 'Russian' will become widespread. Then what? Move movies with white Russian villains, as if that
is what threatens West the most?
Russia can neither be isolated, nor 'collapsed' economically, nor ignored. It is too resource rich and powerful. Russia could
possibly be checked in a second tier conflict (Syria?), but that would be of minimal consequence. Ukraine could be escalated,
but there Russia has an enormous local logistics advantage, it would be a disaster for Kiev. And Russia is on friendly terms with
China, its only potential military threat on land.
Propaganda by itself does nothing, it is only means to an end. West is in no position to go beyond propaganda, so we might
experience a bizarre example of a mindless propaganda that goes on and on. As with all propaganda the main target is the domestic
population – in other words it is the common people in the West who are being propagandised and in effect made more stupid, less
capable of making rational decisions.
Even a slight u-turn is at this point unthinkable, almost all elites have too visibly engaged in the evil-Russia talk, how
could they let go of it? We are stuck, we might get saved by an unrelated 'big event' somewhere else. If not, this could just
be fatal, after all this belligerent talk we could perish because somebody dared to call Clinton a satan on Facebook. And they
didn't use their real name – the horror .
My own view is that Putin is probably as trustworthy and honest as any other ex-KGB man. On the other hand he does come across
as intelligent, cautious, and calm. Especially when compared to the crook Hillary or the oaf Trump.
The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
This is starting to bother me. Stuff is disappearing from the web. Look at the link below to an Al Jazeera documentary which
has disappeared from YouTube and the web.
Si1ver1ock, interesting problems you're having. I had no problem with the links, but then the magic of Tor means I'm reaching
them from the Netherlands. State censorship is harder when you can access suppressed URLs from a couple dozen different countries.
Please do respond, and in good faith, to the reply of commenter Harold Smith. I share his apparent concern that you may be
conflating the interests of the American people with the imperial ambitions of their Uncle Sam.
I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply
in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing. I
tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade and business,
while China certainly is.
Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned. However, I am afraid our national focus in this
unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious competition is actually coming from and be able
to deal with it in a timely fashion.
"I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply
in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing."
In your original comment you said:
"The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march
to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position
of influence the US has dreamed of for a century."
Since a big part of the U.S. "focus" on Russia is military encirclement, confrontation by proxy, the threat of direct conflict
even nuclear war, etc., this statement clearly suggests a "military solution" to "contain" an economically "rising" China, IMO.
(After all, when the only tool the U.S. "government" has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail).
But so what if China has some kind of "mastery" of the Eastern hemisphere? To the extent that's true, at least they didn't
do it by way of lawless imperial treachery.
The U.S. is losing influence all over the world because it's making itself hated; it's imposing itself everywhere and squandering
everything of value on the hopeless pursuit of world domination and control.
"I tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade
and business, while China certainly is."
The thing is "we" don't demonize Russia "as a nation"; rather, it's done by the Satanic ruling class that hates Russia – not
for any rational reason, but for the same reason that Cain hated Abel: because "evil" hates a "good" example.
"Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned."
Unless you're going change the definition of "rival" again, I should point out that the U.S. "government" doesn't generally
attack "rivals" but deems any country that asserts its sovereign independence and refuses to take orders an "enemy", subject to
economic, political and military attack.
"However, I am afraid our national focus in this unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious
competition is actually coming from and be able to deal with it in a timely fashion."
You seem to be conflating "us as a people" with the U.S. "government" which has by now lost even the pretense of moral and
constitutional legitimacy, and thus has nothing remotely to do with what's in the best interests of "us as a people".
Here is the explanation. China is economic rival to US. That is not only inconvenient, rival, it is the most efficient and
most dangerous rival, because who is wining the economic competition is pushing out the opponent from world markets.
That people in the West believe the lies that TPTB concoct for their consumption, I can conceive, though only after a convoluted
intellectual effort, for given all the now exposed deceit, one is left in wonder as to why the masses still believe proven liars.
After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very
low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders
committed abroad.
Still, I can't figure out if TPTB believe their own narrative. It takes a very peculiar mindset to be able to live in permanent
lies. Contrary to truth which can exist per se and is therefore essentially cost-free, lies demand permanent maintenance and have
high maintenance cost.
So, TPTB of the West are either delusional in thinking they can maintain their lies ad vitam aeternam, or they are mythomaniacs.
Either way, just think what happens when lies cannot be maintained any more and the liars don't want to relinquish power.
Bear in mind that lying being effectively irrational, they cannot be considered as rational actors. Prepare your shelters folks.
Very seldom, I've read such a realistic article on President Putin and his policy. I've been following not only his administration
but also that of the US Empire, and I'm always flabbergasted about the US elites demonization of this leader. He belongs to the
few leaders who got their act together compared to the political exorcists in Washington. The real thugs and psychopaths are the
members of the American political elite and their cheerleaders in the fawning US mainstream media. Following their analysis, I
often think they stem from lunatics who are coming from outer space.
Yes, China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically
facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour.
So -- Dr Frankenstein is now scared of his own monster. Oh the irony !
In the last two weeks a virtual book burning has begun on YouTube. Scores of independent truth seeking channels have been deleted.
Some were pretty amateur and sensationalist, many were good, top notch investigative fact checking in nature. Many had large numbers
of subscribers, a few had 100,000s subscribers.
Common denominator seemed to question official mainstream media narrative on mass shootings, 9/11, war on terror, human sex
trafficking, Clinton Foundation corruption, and even UFO coverups. One channel was a woman skilled at body language commenting
on videos of people like John Podesta being interviewed as to whether he was lying.
None of these channels advocated violence, quite the contrary. Most couched opinion alongside probable facts by asking deductive
and inductive questions. The YouTube virtual book burning appears to have gathered pace in last week.
So much for free speech in the fake but very slickly fake Western democracies. Where the geopolitical narrative is uniformly
uniform.
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support.
For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer
in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution.
American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free'
trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike.
"I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve
introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony
with it "
I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable energy–whether
or not global warming is real.
not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him
trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs.
"China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. "
We all know the drill here. China makes stuff cheap so that WalMart can undercut competitors and grow rich. Therefore, alas,
what can be done?
Except that WalMart has over four hundred stores IN CHINA and plans to build forty more! So what's our excuse now for not being
able to compete?
Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows
administered by US/NATO.
A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed
to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example?
Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough
shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example.
It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for.
Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined
military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence.
Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms
race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has.
Alden, sounds like you stopped with the maps and didn't read any of the underlying documents because of the preconceptions you
wear on your sleeve: "idealistic pie in the sky by and by UN treaties impossible to effect." Those preconceptions happen to coincide
with the residual message of one persistent strand of US statist propaganda.
Have you ever read, in any US institution or medium, criticism as comprehensive and incisive as this?
IGs can't do this. Courts can't begin to do this. Congress wouldn't dare do this. Media would never do it if they could. The
recommendations are legally binding and the US government knows it. Each review is videoed. You haven't lived until you've seen
State and Justice bureaucrats crawling and sniveling and tying themselves in logical knots, making fools of themselves in the
most public forum in the world. You get to watch the US regime bleeding influence and standing and 'soft power.' It's public disgrace
in front of the 96% of the world outside the US iron curtain. You may not want to watch impartial legal experts make a laughingstock
of the USG, but everybody else in the world watches with amusement, so you might as well know.
Treaty body review has driven more reforms than Congress ever did. You know perfectly well how bad your government sucks, what
a useless parasite it is. The treaty bodies and charter bodies give you more say than either state-controlled political party.
Face it, human rights review is all you got. When your government sucks, you go over its head to the world.
"During a policy talk at the Valdai Discussion Club, the Russian leader spoke on a number of issues, especially criticizing
U.S. foreign policy moves across the globe and lauding Russia's increasingly relevant role as a world power. When asked by a Germany-based
academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust
in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests."
Well maybe you can make Vladimir Putin feel better about this. You can tell him that blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in
the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all, since Russia couldn't have done a single thing
about it anyway, right?
This is a ridiculous statement. When Putin came aboard, there was no Russian economy to speak of. Now it's grown strong enough
to withstand the events in Ukraine, sanctions and what not and even derive benefits from these challenges. I am not saying everything's
coming up roses but it could hardly be expected considering the deep hole Russia dug itself into in the 1990s.
the entire region is upset with Putin's behavior as they have seen Putin's behavior in Crimea and the Donbas.
The entire region, it you mean our Eastern European neighbors, can like it or lump it. They, Poland in particular, participated
very willingly and actively in the coup in Ukraine. Crimea and Donbass are direct, and perfectly predictable, consequences of
that coup. If they forgot the law of physics that every action has a reaction, this is just as good a reminder as any.
the thing is, because of the recent study by J. Leroy Hulsey, Putin could still do it, but I predict that he unfortunately
will do nothing of the kind.
blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all,
since Russia couldn't have done a single thing about it anyway, right?
Actually, it could've done a lot. Right at the beginning, Russia could've refused to trust in the word of the West's leaders
about the NATO expansion and demand guarantees. A formal treaty plus a couple of remaining military bases, say, in Poland and
East Germany, would've sufficed. This likely would've saved Yugoslavia as well.
Russia could've refrained from stopping the development of many weapon system and from destroying others. It could've also
kept its own industry (civil aviation comes to mind) instead of relying on cooperation with the West. It could've refrained from
allowing the US troops to use the Russia territory to move supplies to Afghanistan. Even recently it did occur to someone exceedingly
smart to order aircraft carriers in France – speaking about trust! I do hope they learned their lesson, finally.
America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic
how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria.
Very sad.
America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes.
Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. Come on dudes !
This is just a phase, we will turn it around and make America great again ( as opposed to israel which was never great anyway).
It is just a question of how long it will take.
It will start the day when we'll tell that terrorist, shit-hole country called israel to go the hell, fight your own wars,
pay for your own wars.
In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons.
Because of this the Sept 11 shock, while in reality it meant very little, as USA citizens working in the Netherlands soon afterwards
said 'we have 30.000 traffic deaths each year'.
Good comeback there that was one of the best ones in a while!
I'm sorry, but no we're not. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we here in the "West" are living under a Satanic judeo-communist
dictatorship, bent on world domination and control at any cost.
The difference between corporate state, and totalitarian state like old Soviet system is getting blurier all the time. Like
planned economies of command systems, now they just create money for the cronies, who might as well be commies, and they don't
give a care about what's true or honest, they lie and that's, like you mentioned, (Satanic), the truth isn't in 'em.
' I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable
energy–whether or not global warming is real '
Good comment however the environment is about more than just 'global warming' which may or may not be man-caused there is no
scientific certainty but certainly what looks like a concerted push by certain quarters
But there is also habitat loss the toxins introduced through pollution industrial farming and the problems it causes with erosion,
bad food etc
Putin's comments and Mike's citation of them reflect a thoughtful and realistic approach to at least start looking at these
problems
Anon from TN
The author is painting Putin as larger-than-life figure, which he isn't. Just like the Soviet Union was not defeated by the US,
but actually collapsed due to internal problems, regime change rampage is over largely because the United States pushed their
luck and overextended themselves, and not just thanks to Putin. Throughout history, all dominant empires lose their grip and eventually
crumble (remember Roman or British), and now it's the turn of the US Empire. Fortunately or unfortunately, the next will be the
Chinese Empire, not Russian. (PS. Muslims missed the train. Again)
It's not like he used the term 'enemy,' which too many unfortunately resort to in these discussions. During Cold War 1.0, a
lot of us referred to the Sovs as the 'Adversary' because it was a less loaded term than enemy, though many equate the two. Are
the Chinese rivals? Sure. Are they adversaries? You bet, especially when we keep stepping into their back yard. Are they enemies?
The will be if we keep stepping into their back yard and telling them how to behave with their next door neighbours. All of this
applies to Russia as well.
The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying
to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors.
GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British
empire now?
From an empire on which the sun never sets, pretty soon they'll be a country where the sun never rises – thanks to their stupid
immigration policies and preoccupations with Russia (still!), like they (the British) are still even a factor in the global power
games.
US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them
militarily. Good luck with that.
The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various
"dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using
those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British
style.
If anything the British military record was at least better than US's, at least they used to win wars – they pretty much went
down undefeated – but they did went down and US military doesn't have the same success rate and even if they did, they will not
accomplish holding the world back – same as Britain didn't.
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support.
For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer
in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution
I do not see anything 'liberal' in Putin's ideas, certainly not as in the liberal agendas in the US.
I see him advocating Balance . creating a better order for the needs of populations and interactions between nations
. therefore preserving nations, people and earth. Balance is not rocket science .nature is the ultimate example of balance, when it is tampered with all species eventually suffer.
The neocons were/are Zionist in essence and mainly Jewish in thought leadership – this is inarguable.
Also inarguable, though I am not aware of very many well-written essays on the topic, is that under Yeltsin, brought to power
in no small part by US meddling, there was a fire sale of Russian assets – something arranged very largely by Jewish economists
and Jewish bureaucrats. And the new 'oligarchs?' Why 6 of 7 of the most enriches were Jews in a nation <3% Jewish.
Ukraine was largely a coup by Nuland, Pyatt, Feltman ato help Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine who suddenly found themselves in
the very top of the new govt. Jewish names pop up inordinately as to authors and editors of unhinged Russophobic articles. At what point do we say that the mideast wars are driven by Jews, so, disproportionately (maybe even mainly as to the media)
is the aggression and disinfo on Russia.
The Jewish Problem is to be taken seriously. We need to find a way to discuss it, rescued from Zionists and bona fide Judeophobes. Our lives may well depend on it.
Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for
materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.
In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum
tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich
uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum
tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the
intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.
The infamous aluminum tubes Iraq sought to buy from Italy were for short range rockets, not
for uranium enrichment centrifuges as the Bush administration claimed. That was a fact well
known to several U.S. agencies like the Energy and State Departments. But the claim, first
propagandized by the NY Times, was repeated by then President Bush in a speech to the UN and
became a
main basis for the war on Iraq. The Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy) Washington Bureau, but
not the NY Times, reported
about the many doubts experts had about such Weapon of Mass Destruction claims.
North Korea has been shipping supplies to the Syrian government that could be used in the
production of chemical weapons, United Nations experts contend.
...
The supplies from North Korea include acid-resistant tiles, valves and thermometers,
according to a report by United Nations investigators .
...
The possible chemical weapons components were part of at least 40 previously unreported
shipments by North Korea to Syria between 2012 and 2017 of prohibited ballistic missile parts
and materials that could be used for both military and civilian purposes , according to the
report, which has not been publicly released but which was reviewed by The New York Times.
The valves, thermometers and acid resistance tiles Syria may have sought to acquire could be
used for medical facilities, the production of candy or for dozens of other civilian purposes.
They could be used to produce something for the military with chemical weapons probably being
the most unlikely.
But like the discredited aluminum tube story, the current NYT piece, written by its UN
reporter Michael Schwirtz, obfuscates the doubts about WMD connections of the issue. It makes
false claims and is full of war-mongering assertions by hawkish figures. It is a scare story
constructed to vilify various opponents to U.S. hegemony on meager factual grounds.
The reporter does not understand the issue he writes about. The "possible chemical weapons
components" are not such. Chemical weapons obviously do not contain valves,
thermometers or acid resistance tiles. To increase the "be afraid" effect of his piece the
author mentions an alleged 2007 accident "in which several Syrian technicians, along with North
Korean and Iranian advisers, were killed in the explosion of a warhead filled with sarin gas
and the extremely toxic nerve agent VX." No weapon designer ever thought of "a warhead" that
was filled with both - Sarin and VX. That would be lunacy and reports thereof are obviously
bogus.
The "United Nations investigators" are a bunch of spooks selected by individual Security
Council members who collect claims of North Korean breaches of sanctions. The group was set up
in 2006 under the UN Security Council resolution 1718 as a "Committee of the Security Council
consisting of all the members of the Council". The Committee is not part of the UN bureaucracy
and they are not "UN experts" or "UN investigators". The reports of the committee list various
claims made by single UN member countries without judging their veracity.
[The report] said, a visit by a technical delegation from North Korea in August 2016
"involved the transfer to Syria of special resistance valves and thermometers known for use
in chemical weapons programmes".
That information came from another member state , which also reported that North Korean
technicians "continue to operate at chemical weapons and missile facilities at Barzeh, Adra
and Hama", the report said.
The valve and thermometer point in the Committee report are based on the claims of one
country alone. But the NY Times lists those claims as "the [UN] report says" giving them a
false aura of neutrality. That one country also claims that Syria still has chemical weapons
facility. In 2013 the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) verified (pdf)
that all Syrian production facilities for chemical weapons and under control of the government
were rendered unusable or destroyed. The OPCW can request to inspect additional facilities it
deems suspicious. It has not done so. The AP, but not the New York Times, notes that the Syrian
government officially denied that any North Korean technicians are working there.
The New York Times discredited itself over its support for the false Bush administration
claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It later issued a lame mea culpa and fired
one reporter while the responsible editors and managers stayed on.
The paper has obviously not changed. It is again creating false pretexts for wars by
publishing unobjective, one sided and intended-to-scare pieces about alleged weapons of mass
destruction.
Posted by b on February 28, 2018 at 08:36 AM |
Permalink
It's amazing that these diplomats could get copies of key documents.
NYTimes -- The report, which is more than 200 pages long, includes copies of contracts
between North Korean and Syrian companies as well as bills of lading indicating the types
of materials shipped. Much information was provided by unidentified United Nations member
states.
But hey, why release the details when the US propaganda public diplomacy
mill is working.
The UN declined to comment on the report, which was written by a panel of eight experts
tasked with checking North Korea's compliance with sanctions. It may never be publicly
released, but a spokesperson stressed that the "overarching message is that all member
states have a duty and responsibility to abide by the sanctions that are in place."
"The valves, thermometers and acid resistance tiles Syria may have sought to acquire could be
used for medical facilities, the production of candy or for dozens of other civilian
purposes. They could be used to produce something for the military with chemical weapons
probably being the most unlikely"
Funny how their is no mention of the simple fact that most 'western' homes have numerous
devices which could be identified as 'suspect' if TPTB needed an excuse. Where I'm from there
is a big push for households to obtain pressure cookers, as 'a roast from frozen in two
hours' fit's a hyper active stressful cancer causing lifestyle and eating out is becoming
prohibitively expensive even for those of us on the west side of town.
How many households
have old cell phones? Got a pool/hot tub? Bromine/chlorine anyone? Like to garden, oops might
be some NPK fertilizers around. Like to hunt? Gunpowder, I wont even go into the over the
counter kinetic explosives that are the target shooter rage ATM. Got kids' then you probably
have electronic kits and RC vehicles, likely in doubles.
Western society bows to authority regardless how illegitimate it shows itself to be. How
else can you explain a belief that fires at the top of three buildings caused them to free
fall into their own footprints against the laws of gravity taught in grade school and still
practiced and verified daily in universities and regular life.
You quoted: "Much information was provided by unidentified United Nations member
states" The NYT has given everyone on this planet permission to identify themselves as from a UN
member state. This post came to you courtesy of a UN Member state.
All these lies based and hidden under the auspices of a UN Panel of Experts which
consists of 8 members: P5 + Japan , South Korea and South Africa , sitting on their a---s @
Turtle Bay.
Did they visit Syria or North Korea or any port to check on those shipments ?
This "report" coincides with US charges on chemical use in Ghouta.
Diplomatic sources have said the chemical weapons watchdog, the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, opened an investigation into attacks in eastern Ghouta to
determine whether banned munitions were used. U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood said
on Wednesday that Russia has violated its duty to guarantee the destruction of Syria's
chemical weapons stockpile and prevent the Assad government from using poison gas. . .
here
"Russia has..." -- In a larger sense this is part of an updated US diplomatic offensive
against Russia. From recent testimony of General Votel, CENTCOM Commander:
>On the diplomatic front, Moscow is playing the role of arsonist and
firefighter–fueling the conflict in Syria between the Syrian Regime, YPG, and Turkey,
then claiming to serve as an arbiter to resolve the dispute. Moscow continues to advocate
for alternate diplomatic initiatives to Western-led political negotiations in Syria and
Afghan-led peace processes in Afghanistan, attempting to thwart the UN's role and limit the
advance of American influence.
> Russia is also trying to cultivate multi-dimensional ties to Iran. Though historic
rivals, Moscow and Tehran share interests across the region, including an overarching
desire to sideline, if not expel, the U.S. from the region.
> Russia also maintains significant influence in Central Asia,where the countries of the
former-Soviet Union rely on Russia to varying degrees for their economic and security
needs. This is problematic as Russia's efforts could limit U.S. engagement options and
provide Moscow additional levers of influence, particularly as NATO forces deployed in
Afghanistan are dependent on Central Asian partners for logistical support. . .
here
Meanwhile, the sanctions on North Korea shipping are a joke. More than 50 ships and shipping
companies were cited by the Treasury Department for evading existing U.S. and international
sanctions. While most of those named were based in North Korea, companies and ships from
China, Singapore, Taiwan, Panama, Tanzania, the Marshall Islands and the Comoros were also
included.
Bloomberg reports on the "name game":
The Jin Teng, sanctioned by the U.S. in March 2016, became the Shen Da 8 and then the Hang
Yu 1 last November, according to Kharon, a Los Angeles-based firm that identifies sanctions
risks for banks and companies. The Jin Tai 7, also sanctioned by the U.S. in March 2016,
changed its name to Sheng Da 6 two months later and then to Bothwin 7 last November, Kharon
said. That was before a new round of UN sanctions was agreed on in December. Both ships
remain on the U.S.'s sanctions list despite the name changes.The Bothwin 7 visited the port
of Lianyungang, China, in January, the same month that the Hang Yu 1 stopped at the Port of
Ningbo-Zhoushan, also in China. Both ships, once part of a fleet owned by Ocean Maritime
Management Co., based in Pyongyang and sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department and the
UN, changed their names to evade detection, according to Kharon, whose researchers drill
down into company releases as well as court and corporate filings to establish links
between front companies and sanctioned entities.
"Sanctions against North Korea are largely symbolic gestures of disapproval that do not
demonstrate any capability to change the political behavior of the Kims," said Robert
Huish, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, who has been
monitoring the country's shipping traffic. . .
here
And we have the recent striking news that the Pentagon doesn't believe Syria used Sarin
last year.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis made it very clear recently that "aid groups and
others" had provided the U.S. with evidence that was insufficient to conclude that
President Bashar Assad had recently used the chemical weapon Sarin against Syrian
civilians . In other words, the Pentagon does not believe what has been presented to
it as evidence, chiefly because of the dubious provenance of the providers. . .
here
Remember that almost a year ago a UN commission concluded that the Syrian government
was responsible for a widely discussed incident in Khan Sheikhoun. An alleged gas attack by
air happened in April in an al-Qaeda controlled area in Syria. It was used by the White
House to justify its bombing of a Syrian airbase.
The Guardian link has one of the most comical requests that the U.N. tends to make on the
accused in the vein of 'prove you are not a witch' ...
"The UN experts added that they had not yet received a reply with documents supporting
this claim and a list of all North Koreans who had travelled to Syria."
Syria, 'there were no Korean technicians, military, or official visits'.
U.N. - 'Prove it, give us a list of the Koreans'
The Syrians should give the U.N. an empty list.
They did this to Syria before when they were accused of a WMD bombing of civilians. The
Syrians said that they didn't have any military flights that day, 'give us a list of
flights, what, no list? GUILTY!'
thanks b... i think what you are doing here, if i could be so bold, is that you are tearing
apart of merits of this reporter michael schwirtz's talking points... this is very
important to do, as no one is doing it! in looking at what the dolt has written for the nyt
the past few months, it becomes very clear the agenda is to carry water for the neo con
crowd, facts be dammed... this is his job... he does need to be taken to the woodshed and
given a beating! and why is it these ambiguous types are always given clearance in such
papers as the nyt, wapo or wsj? it would be hard not to conclude the folks who own these
papers are very intent on doing the same - carrying water for the military and financial
industry in a move towards war, or a desire for war..
your story is not going to get the coverage the nyt story gets... how do we change
that?
@don bacon - reading the usa daily press propaganda briefings is always informative...
why it was just yesterday that the quote you gave from today, was served up yesterday
thanks heather nauert.. this from yesterday "MS NAUERT: Russia signed on to this. That's
first of all. Russia signed on to this as an entity that agreed to this UN Security Council
resolution. Let me remind you also that Russia had agreed to help, years ago, Syria with
getting rid of its chemical weapons. Russia has failed to do that. I want to point that out
as well." who needs facts, when you can lie, make shit up and etc. etc.?? https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2018/02/278913.htm
@1 librel.. i agree with you - change the word, again to still... the nyt is 'still'
shilling for the war machine...
Is it some surprise that US sanctioned countries trade with other US sanctioned countries
(for benign, commercial reasons)? It apparently is to some.
(Warning: sweeping statement alert...) This GLOBAL US sanctions regime only hastens the
formation of a non-US/alternative commercial trade collective, the end of the dollar as
"world trade currency," and the subsequent end of the US ability to fund global war (as US
T-Bill interest rates jack up - currently at ZERO - correspondingly, US sovereign debt
becomes unsupportable by the economy, and the end of economic life as we in the US know
it). Perpetual war, as a function of the end of empire, do have that effect.
The Syrian attempt to end militants in Ghouta has elicited an incredibly strong, and for
me, unexpected response. Why are the NATO/zionist/neocon crowd going crazy over a small
plot of land that was obviously going to be recaptured? Are they concerned that the
inability of the jihadists to shell Damascus will be too beneficial to Assad? Is this just
an attempt by Bibi to save his skin? Maybe the jihadist backers have finally come to
realize that this little game is coming to a close?
@17 alaric - "Reading media reports of the fighting in east Ghouta over the last few days
has triggered an eery sense of déjà vu.
It is like taking a time machine back to the autumn of 2016 and listening to all the
arguments over the fighting in Aleppo all over again." the article is here
Thanks b and also Yul | 6 for shedding light on that matter.
Those "UN experts" are being cited on German state media again and again, with some new
report on this or that, establishing Syria as guilty party. But whenever that happens and I
go on the UN's website to find s.th. on said report, like a press statement, just anything
official, there's nothing to be found. So clearly they're misusing the official 'UN' tag,
and no-one's stopping them.
As for the latest expert ruse, it's eye-opening to have a look at the people from the
document which Yul posted. On the face of it, it might look like a pretty diverse crew, ppl
from all regions of the world with names no-one has ever heard of, so why not trust
them?
It gets bad when you take a closer look. The French boy (born '84) is from law and has
dealt with nothing but law so far, yet poses as an expert on "missile issues and other
technologies". Would you believe it?
This just goes on, the Britisher ("air transport") has a background in political science
(or "science" rather).
Rounding things off, there's this American lady with her no doubt common English name
Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt. If you're confused as to her actual nationality you can at
least be sure that she's a deep-state outgrowth. Council on Foreign Relations, Council of
Europe, council here, council there. Political science by training too, probably's never
done a day's work in her life. But quite the expert on "finance and economics", I hear.
PS: Those tiles, I remember we had tables clad with those in the chemistry labs, back in
high school. So maybe they were justmeant for one of the schools they're rebuilding in
Aleppo, another thought.
These reports (allegations) are part of a psychological war waged by the US and its allies
on Syria et al. There may be a military attack in the works, maybe not, but one thibg's for
sure -- serious allegations like these serve to keep the Syrians and their allies on their
tippy toes, and intended to make them think twice before they make moves contrary to US
interests. So yes the reports are for domestic consumption but also part of a warning to
foreign foes.
@ 19 Scotch
Don't forget who has got the permanent post for the USG of Political Affairs at the UN . A
US citizen- currently Jeffrey Feltman who is leaving soon to be replaced by another ilk - a
woman this time around. Ban Ki-Moon couldn't sneeze w/o the approval of Jeffrey. Looks like
Antonio is in the same boat - guess that's how and why he got elected - another US puppet
as UNSG.
The NYT piece so obviously contradicts itself internally to boil down to a leaked document
without official imprimatur, containing unverified information from unnamed UN member
states, information which may or may not appear sinister, should it ever be confirmed,
depending on one's point of view. That's very thin gruel, and yet the story has been
amplified by other outlets and presented to the public as representing some sort of
established fact. Yes, that is exactly the Iraqi WMD propaganda playbook.
.... Abdulmonam Eassa AFP News February 28, 2018
Syrian civil defence volunteers pray over the body of a victim who died in a building
collapse following reported regime bombardment in Haza, in the besieged Eastern Ghouta
region on February 26, 2018 More In Syria's rebel-held Eastern Ghouta enclave, the bombs
have stopped falling from the sky but the dead are still being raised from the
rubble.
In the town of Hazeh, volunteers from the Syrian Civil Defence known as the "White
Helmets" pull one body from the basement of a collapsed home. And minutes later, a second
one.
"It's carnage down there," says Ali Bakr, a young man looking on with other
residents. "People hide underground to shelter from the strikes but even that doesn't
guarantee you're safe."
Syrian regime forces, backed by Russia's military, intensified their bombardment of
Eastern Ghouta on February 18, carrying out one of the bloodiest assaults of the country's
seven-year war.
More than 600 civilians have been killed in 10 days of air strikes, barrel bombs
dropped from helicopters and rocket fire on the area, which is controlled by Islamist and
jihadist groups....
The „churnalists" live up to their real name. They did the same stunt in 2017 –
even more brazenly rehashing what the press agency „said" (in turn relying on what
anonymous „officials" and reports „said"):
The „sources":
1 a „confidential" (read: secret) report by ANONYMOUS authors (called:
„independent experts" in manipulative press jargon):
„The report by a panel of independent U.N. experts, which was submitted to the
U.N. Security Council earlier this month and seen by Reuters on Monday, gave no details on
WHEN or WHERE the interdictions occurred or WHAT the shipments contained".
(Give me a break )
2 the allegations of 3 UNIDENTIFIED „(UN) member states": 2 „interdicted
shipments " and 1 „HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE" :
(REUTERS) " Two MEMBER STATES interdicted shipments destined for Syria. Another Member
state informed the panel that it HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE that the goods were part of a KOMID
contract with Syria," according to the report.
„KOMID is the Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation. It was blacklisted by the
Security Council in 2009 and DESCRIBED AS Pyongyang's key arms dealer and exporter of
equipment related to ballistic missiles and conventional weapons. In March 2016 the council
also blacklisted two KOMID representatives in Syria."
The consignees were Syrian entities DESIGNATED by the European Union and the United States
as front companies for Syria's Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC), a Syrian
entity identified by the Panel as cooperating with KOMID in previous prohibited item
transfers," the U.N. experts wrote. SSRC has overseen the country's chemical weapons
program since the 1970s."
The latest „reporting" is using the same methods: secret sources, innuendo,
conjecture, confirmation bias, framing, etc.
The report is UNPUBLISHED, the authors („experts on what?) are NOT KNOWN but the
insinuation is that it contains „new evidence" for criminal activities between the
DPRK and Syria (criminal only because of the unwarranted sanctions)
So the „multiplicators" write about what Reuters says is in the report (as if it
were true) although no journalist has tried to verify the claims but when the Syrian
government refutes the allegations they dutifully point out that
„The UN panel said Syrian officials had not responded to a request for documents
that would support this assertion "
BENOIT CAMGUILHEM (F) – missile issues
a French university lecturer in public / administrative law - an expert on missiles?
HUGH GRIFFITHS (UK) - air transport
leads the panel this guy is a dangerous fraud ... infiltrating SIPRI and earlier involved
in the black "human rights" propaganda about Serbia and Kosovo (director of field mission,
medecins du monde (1999-2001)- as "authentic" as the White Helmets...)
(„he worked for governments" (!) and the „Institute for War &
Peace":
„Institute for War & Peace Reporting (or IWPR for short) is an international
media development charity, established in 1991. It runs major programmes in Afghanistan,
the Caucasus, Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, the Philippines, Southeastern Europe, Syria, Uganda
and Southern Africa. (nice choice of countries !)
"IWPR builds democracy at the frontlines of conflict and change through the power of
professional journalism. IWPR programs provide intensive hands-on training, extensive
reporting and publishing, and ambitious initiatives to build the capacity of local media ."
(haven't we heard this crap before ?)
„Also we are managing a special reporting project on war crimes tribunals" .
„managing" indeed:
Edward Herman's great analysis about the Milosevic trial (Marlise Simons: A Study in
Total Propaganda Service) contains this reference:
Marlise Simons, "Prosecutors SAY Documents Link Milosevic to Genocide," New York Times,
June 20, 2003
„Simons swallowed the Office of the Prosecutor's bait, its revelation of a
document that "MAY PROVE TO BE crucial evidence in support of their case that the former
Yugoslav president is guilty of genocide." (First published on the webpage of the
highly-compromised Institute for War & Peace Reporting..)" Sound familiar?
The Simonses of this world have multiplied like cancer cells and as Herman
remarked:
„Framing and sourcing are closely linked, as the use of a particular source
allows that source to define the issues and to fix the frames of reference, presumably
those acceptable to or preferred by the journalist"
By the way, the IWPR (their "democracy-loving" directors) seem to be very unpopular
in Iraq .. I wonder why:
The newly-appointed Iraq Director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting
(IWPR) has been found dead in suspicious circumstances at an Istanbul airport.
(„hanged herself with shoelaces") The ex-BBC journalist had been returning from a
memorial service in London for the former IWPR Iraq director, Ammar Al Shahbander, who was
killed in a car bomb attack in Baghdad in May.
I hate to admit it, but clearly the AZ Empire is not "finished" with Syria yet. The
division of this ancient society with the storied Euphrates River serving as one border (as
"Promised" in Genesis 15:18) is enforced by thousands of US troops, artillery pieces,
warplanes and at least a dozen US military bases. That gives about 1/3 of Syria's land and
1/2 of its oil to the proposed Kurdistan (with Kurdish people making up 6% of Syria's
population).
I sincerely hope that Syria's allies, Russia and Iran, are themselves sincere in their
commitment to preserve Syria's sovereignty and the integrity of its borders.
Another story came out of this devastated land and people.
Syria conflict: Women 'sexually exploited in return for aid'
It's been going on since "revolution" began. The first UN report on it was 3 years ago,
but nothing has been done. And of course, it is the Sharia Councils we pay for that set the
terms for trading food for women and girls (and no doubt boys).
Senator Lindsey Graham said Iran is testing President Donald Trump and warned Israel was
preparing to start a war in southern Lebanon over an Iranian-backed Hezbollah rocket
factory.
You write: "the folks who own these papers are very intent on doing the same - carrying
water for the military and financial industry in a move towards war, or a desire for war..
"
Have you considered that the owners of the media also own large parts of the military
industrial complex, as well as controlling interest in the financial institutions?
The media is not a separate fourth estate seeking objectivity, it is a useful tool to
create popular support for policies that go against the interest of the majority. They are
not separate.
Excellent points! I shun most "traditional" media of all types as most are corrupted in
some manner, with some more than others. I'm reminded of the closed door meeting FDR had
with the major media CEOs just prior to 7 Dec and the resulting lock-step they all
displayed afterwards--a lock-step continuing as we breathe.
This is a black propaganda two-fer, casting aspersions upon both Syria and North Korea. Let
us now forget it was the U.S. that enabled sales of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. It
was the U.S. that most likely used Sarin gas during the Vietnam War. And it was the U.S.
that amnestied the worst biological warfare criminals from Japan's Unit 731 complex and
then used their expertise to conduct a large-scale experimental campaign of germ warfare
against both China and North Korea during the Korean War. Regarding the latter, readers are
referred to
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-long-suppressed-korean-war-report-on-u-s-use-of-biological-weapons-released-at-last-20d83f5cee54
Castellio @ 28, James and Karlof1: In the case of Rupert Murdoch, who through News
Corporation owns newspapers, journals, magazines, TV and online news channels, at least one
major film studio (20th Century Fox), publishing company HarperCollins Publishers and other
media outlets, the link between the media and the military industrial complex is between
the two hemispheres of his brain. Murdoch is on the Board of Directors of Genie Energy
(along with ex-US President of Vice Dick Cheney) which owns a company that has a licence
(granted by an Israeli court) to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's Golan
Heights.
How much more incestuous can the media be with the military industrial complex?
Wait while I hunt out the connection between The Guardian newspaper's management and
investment bank NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd ...
What is up here? Apart from the horror of the NYT story, why are so many commenters in this
thread too damn lazy to use the html tags provided. It is 2018 and I find it impossible to
accept that so many are still incapable of posting to a blog.
The only reason I can deduce is that far too many still sit at ancient desktops and don't
comprehend the disaster their laziness causes for those who use tablets & phones.
A new movie "Revolution Man" directed by Syrian director Najdat Aznour. Deals with rebel
propaganda ie. #WhiteHelmets fakery, child soldiers & the role of western media in
demonizing the government.
A new movie "Revolution Man" directed by Syrian director Najdat Aznour. Deals with rebel
propaganda ,#WhiteHelmets fakery, child soldiers & the role of western media in
demonizing the government
Such incestuousness was uncovered during the Merchants of Death Congressional hearings
during the 1930s and helped enact the Neutrality Acts. Prominent US Historians Charles and
Mary Beard were decrying the evils of media consolidation soon after WW1, a message that
only increased in volume as time moved forward. Imagine what we might have if anti-trust
legislation were enforced as rigorously as Taft(!) did 100+ years ago.
"... It has been a long year ever since January 20 th of last year. Not only because of the ever-ensuing embarrassments of the Commander in Chief with such frequency it can be difficult to follow, but also – and I would say especially – because of the incessant daily media focus on the so called "Russiagate" scandal, a conspiracy which seeks to prove a collusion between the Putin and the Trump administration in order to successfully steal the 2016 presidential election win away from Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton. ..."
It has been a long year ever since January 20 th of last year. Not only because of the ever-ensuing embarrassments
of the Commander in Chief with such frequency it can be difficult to follow, but also – and I would say especially – because of the
incessant daily media focus on the so called "Russiagate" scandal, a conspiracy which seeks to prove a collusion between the Putin
and the Trump administration in order to successfully steal the 2016 presidential election win away from Democrat nominee Hillary
Clinton.
The United States and the Russian Federation have a long history of mutual hostility – famously dividing the East and West into
a bipolar world during the Cold War – and the vision of Russia is among many Americans still that of the Soviet
bad guys . The Cold War was not a pleasant time for many
obvious reasons, but in the minds of the American left, the McCarthy era is one that still sticks, and
its apparent return is something
that seems to concern only a minority on the left – including myself. Now for the unacquainted, McCarthyism can be described as "
the vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the period 1950–4. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, though most did not in fact belong to the
Communist Party " ( source ). It was a
clever way used by the US government to frame and condemn all the big left leaning civil rights and social justice movements that
were happening during the Cold War era. Professors, academics, independent media platforms, politicians or activists with left leaning
messages were being labelled as Soviet agents by the US government, discrediting them completely of any legitimacy in the eyes of
the American people through the widespread Red Scare
. What has been happening in the last year can be seen as a mirror of the same mentality, except that " Soviet spy " has today
been replaced by labels such as " Kremlin agent " or " Russian bot ".
It isn't news that what is often referred to as the " American Left" of the Democratic party is in reality nothing more
than a neo-liberal party slightly more to the center/left than the GOP. So in this article, when I am referring to the terminology
"American Left" , and the one subject to the revamped McCarthyism, I am in fact talking about the often anti-establishment,
anti-imperialistic and even sometimes anti-capitalistic left – the one that threatens the current neo-liberal status quo. So as I
elaborate my case, I just want to make it clear that I am referring to the latter.
One of the greater, larger left-wing media presence on US ground is undoubtedly RT America (RT short for Russia Today). Hosting
many US critical segments such as Redacted Tonight
by Lee Camp, On Contact with Chis Hedges and Breaking The Set with Abby Martin, RT America comes
out as a prominent side-narrative to the mainstream medias such as MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR and so forth. Yet last year,
RT America has had to register itself as a "foreign agent" , on the basis of a
very weak report by the Director of National Intelligence
. Reasons for this decision as stated in the report claims to be that RT regularly covers surveillance, civil liberties, protest
movements, the environmental impacts of fracking and Wall Street greed. Other more establishment friendly foreign news media on US
soil such as BBC America have not had to register as a foreign agent. So far, only RT. Facebook (known for working closely with the
US government) has even gone as far as marking RT articles shared on its platform
as spam The Intercept
Where the delegitimization of leftist media really strikes is in the realm of "fake news"-stamping and propaganda-flagging.
The Washington Post backed the website project PropOrNot.com which frames in a sort of 'blacklist' news medias that they believe
are Russian Propaganda, with usually no evidence to back up their claims. Many independent news outlets are to be found on their
list, and none of the major media conglomerates (unless they're Russian, of course). In the same vein, Facebook has decided to team
up with established media outlets such as AP and ABC News to find out and
decide what is or is
not "Fake News" .
Apparently, Americans are believed to be too unwise to figure it out for themselves, and if alternate narratives and opinions
are being held, it must be because they have fallen victim of fake news. BBC has even gone as far as taking the
teaching role in spotting "fake news" . The concept
seems to be that social media platforms and mainstream media outlets are to tell the population what is real and what is a lie. The
same outlets that pushed the war in Iraq, Syria, Libya, as well as the current Russiagate narrative. Media outlets that are
ramping up on US intelligence spokesmen for their news
segments, despite the fact that they are
historically known to lie
and deceive the American people . These same people are to tell us what is the truth. It is my belief that one of the only way
such a development has become possible lies in the fact that the Democratic party and its voters have a
newfound love for the FBI, NSA and
CIA, thanks to the Russiagate conspiracy.
During the last year, James Comey and
Robert Mueller have incessantly been praised
by the media as American heroes and patriots saving the American people from the Kremlin puppets that Trump and his administration
are accused to be (with very little evidence so far). It would seem that in this day and age, the Democrats would rather side with
the deep state than with reason. Through programs such as COINTELPRO
and Operation
Mockingbird , the FBI and CIA have spent decades and millions of dollars deceiving and crushing any movement that dared to challenge
the two-party system. For " the resistance " movement to embrace US intelligence agencies and the lies they propagate is an
extremely reckless and dangerous move, and by doing so they are not only consciously trying their best to harm the current administration,
but unconsciously harming the many media outlets, journalists, activists and politicians who hold a different view on the world than
the Washington narrative, and who are now all being flagged as Kremlin agents pushing Russian propaganda.
During the last year we have been told not only that Trump's campaign colluded with the Kremlin, but also that
Bernie Sanders, Green Party leader Jill Stein and even that UK's
Jeremy Corbyn did. So have we been told about whistleblowers
Julian Assange ,
Edward Snowden
and
Chelsea Manning , and many of RT America's journalists who have their shows and articles published on RT America for the sole
reason that RT is one of the only outlets allowing their differing viewpoints on American politics. Many Russiagate sceptics on Twitter
have
r
eceived messages directly from Twitter informing them that they might have fallen victim to Russian propaganda because they had
retweeted or were following certain accounts they deemed to be associated with the Kremlin. From my own personal experience, I cannot
count how many times I have seen Russiagate sceptics being called-out by liberals for being Kremlin agents or Russian bot accounts
– all because of the many, many Russia-Kremlin-Trump stories that have been promulgated over the last year. It has paralyzed a large
portion of the centre-left to not even move an inch more towards the left, and has condemned those who have.
There is a paranoia happening in the US political establishment, remarkably similar to the one experienced during the Cold War
era. It doesn't matter whether the Russia-Collusion story is true or not (let's not forget the United States has itself
meddled in countless foreign elections ever since the end of WWII , even in
Russia in 1996 ), it matters more what this ongoing investigation and grotesque media-hype is doing to the American public –
and by extension to the rest of the world. The
US-Russia relation
is worse today than at the high point of the Cold War , all thanks to this constant Putin bashing and the fact that NATO is slowly
encircling the Russia in Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, the Arctic, the Middle-East and Asia. Despite the West
promising
not to expand NATO an inch Eastwards as part of the German reunification deal, such promises have not been kept. But of course,
most of the general population is fine this politically unwise expansion of NATO, " because you know, Russians are bad " (satire).
If there is a threat to national and global security today, and a threat to free speech and independent media, it is not coming
from Putin or the Kremlin – but rather from the United States. And until the American left gathers itself and stops listening to
the warmongering pundits and establishment journalists parroting the Washington narrative, we have nothing but a bleak future in
front of us with regards to the relation between thte two old nemesis nuclear superpowers.
*
Jonathan Sigrist is a student at the University of Tromsø in Northern Norway, currently studying the geopolitical, environmental,
cultural and economic relations between the Arctic nations (The US, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark/Greenland and
Iceland), as well as the future of the Arctic's role in global politics. He has lived in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and France, and
is a fervent observer and critic of US foreign policy.
h6> Feb 28, 2018
briefed
the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on Tuesday on the efforts against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and the wars in
Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. All of which fall under the purview of CENTCOM, "the only geographic combatant command executing
active combat operations," Votel pointed out.
The US has partitioned the globe into six combatant commands. Under this arrangement, CENTCOM's area of responsibility extends
from the Libyan border with Egypt to Pakistan's border with India, and from Kazakhstan's border with Russia to Sudan.
US geographical combatant commands / Wikipedia
From Votel's 45-page
prepared
testimony , it was apparent that the US regards Iran as the biggest challenge in the region, followed by Russian and Chinese
efforts to chip away at Washington's hegemony.
"An increase in Russian surface-to-air missile systems in the region threatens our access and ability to dominate the airspace,"
Votel complained at one point, discussing Syria.
Unlike the US forces present in that country, Russian forces are in Syria at the invitation of the government in Damascus. Votel
argued that the legal basis for the presence of US troops was the "collective self-defense of Iraq" from IS.
"The principle reason we are in Syria is to defeat ISIS, and that remains our sole and single task," Votel told the lawmakers,
echoing last week's remarks by President Donald
Trump.
Declaring the IS largely defeated, Votel cautioned that "Sunni populations remain vulnerable to identity-based recruitment"
into terrorist groups, adding that "impressionable youth in this tumultuous region, seeking community and justice, are highly
susceptible to extremists' teachings."
Espionage would possibly be Steele's indictment. But nobody was 'formally' spying for another country. He was simply fed leaked
info and he put it into a document and sent it back. Is that a crime?
Notable quotes:
"... The facts are there but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute. ..."
The Obama spying is politically terrible but when I consider what is laid out I am not seeing very many crimes that would put
people in prison.
Having contractors use FISA 702 search queries – not a crime?
The president disseminating his PDB – not a crime
Unmasking people – not a crime
Submitting fraudulent info to a FISA court – probably a crime (10 yrs?), but tough to prove because submitters can just
say they believed the dossier
Using someone else's name to unmask – probably a crime (but good luck finding out who did it
Leaking FISA 702s to a british spy – probably a crime
Leaking the unmasked intel from president's PDBs – a crime (but leak crimes are tough to catch and won't end up punished
that severely.)
Consipracy/Racketeering – a crime, but a tough case to prove and even put together. That is why tax fraud is the litigator's
preferred indictment, there are just so many moving parts with a conspiracy.
This is most likely why this is taking such a long time – and I worry that most if not all conspirators will skate. They will
probably be fired and collect their retirement pensions but that may be the end of it.
Though with the next democrat president, they will make sure that all those lose ends that got them caught this time will be
perfectly legal. We have only witnessed the beginning of our own homegrown Stazi
We have already seen some of their defense through the dem memo. I am outraged at the spying scheme, but you have to recognize
that all these people involved are lawyers. They will have made sure to have possible exits when the shtf. There are still plenty
of black hats in all our gov bureaus and there will be a constant tit for tat throughout the process. The facts are there
but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute.
Sundance has summarized the scheme quite nicely. Even so, blog posts are very different than an actual indictment. I suppose there
must be more substantial crimes if they have been able to get people to flip – crimes we have not been told (I hope).
You say there are many other cases but fail to name any other crimes that have come to light. You could have enlightened me
rather than just make accusations against me and told me to 'do my homework'.
I am simply saying they have created a scheme where it is nebulously legal. They could have just leaked the 702 queries but
they laundered it through the PDB. This is all done to make it technically legal.
So far I am only seeing leaking, FISA fraud, and conspiracy/racketeering (which is next to impossible to prove). If there are
only indictments along leaking, that would easily be seen as political prosecution (dems live under a different rule book than
Trump/GoP being hounded by corrupt prosecutors ala Mueller). The Dem memo is trying to politicize the FISA fraud because they
recognize that that is the next closest to an open and shut case.
"... This is why Washington has adopted a strategy of bashing Russia. The US wants to break our country and withdraw it from the game, deprive it of sovereignty and subjectivity in world politics, as was the case in the 1990s, so that at the hour of the decisive clash, Russia was not an independent player capable of making decisions based on its interests. ..."
"... Thus, the minimum and maximum goals of the US are pursued: the first is to neutralize Russia, and since today it reliably covers China's rear, create threats for China from the Russian direction. ..."
"... The second is to establish a power in Moscow that would act together with Washington against China in a decisive battle. In recent years, we have seen elements of the implementation of this strategy. These are sanctions in Ukraine, attempts at financial and economic strangulation, involvement in mediated wars and a new arms race in order to provoke a split in elite Russian circles, and between the masses and the leader -- in order to ruin Putin's power and establish a puppet regime in Russia. ..."
The US is no longer a superpower: Washington's nuclear strategy tells us this.
By now, the United States has already adopted a deterrence strategy with respect to
Beijing and methodically pursues a policy of encircling the PRC with the help of its partners
and allies. China has with almost all its neighbours conflicts and problems that the US
traditionally skilfully uses to create an anti-China coalition. Countries that can form its
core include Japan, India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Australia. Over time, other states
may join them.
... And now - the most important thing. Against the backdrop of a possible battle between
the two giants in the foreseeable future, Russia's role and significance are incredibly
increasing. Obviously, having huge nuclear-missile potential, vast spaces and immense
resources, Russia can, with its participation on the side of one of the giants in the battle,
decide the fate of the confrontation.
I personally get the impression that Washington strategists understand this perfectly.
However, they do not believe that by improving relations with Moscow, they can make it a
reliable ally in the case of a head-on confrontation with China. And because the future
destiny of the United States is at stake, facing an impending existential challenge, any
miscalculation can prove fatal.
This is why Washington has adopted a strategy of bashing Russia. The US wants to break our
country and withdraw it from the game, deprive it of sovereignty and subjectivity in world
politics, as was the case in the 1990s, so that at the hour of the decisive clash, Russia was
not an independent player capable of making decisions based on its interests.
Thus, the
minimum and maximum goals of the US are pursued: the first is to neutralize Russia, and since
today it reliably covers China's rear, create threats for China from the Russian direction.
The second is to establish a power in Moscow that would act together with Washington against
China in a decisive battle. In recent years, we have seen elements of the implementation of
this strategy. These are sanctions in Ukraine, attempts at financial and economic
strangulation, involvement in mediated wars and a new arms race in order to provoke a split
in elite Russian circles, and between the masses and the leader -- in order to ruin Putin's
power and establish a puppet regime in Russia.
Will the Americans succeed in implementing their strategy? This is highly doubtful,
despite the enormous resources that the collective West, led by the United States, can
mobilize. First, the Western world and the States are not experiencing the best of times.
America has overextended itself over almost the past two decades in a series of endless wars
and external adventures. Secondly, Russia cannot be broken by applying crude, direct pressure
on it. If it breaks down, as we know from our history, it is only because of internal
conflicts and confrontations. So, in the medium term, external pressure can only consolidate
Russian society and power.
Third. The history of the White House's pressure on North Korea suggests that this huge
country cannot cope even with this small state, which has taken a firm stand.
Fourth. The solidarity of Western countries with the United States also has its limits.
They are unlikely to become willing hostages to the confrontation of the US vs Russia, and
then the US vs China.
And lastly, I like to hope that in Beijing they understand (or very soon will realize)
that the main target of the States is not Russia. Thus, the Kremlin is now resisting the
White House both for itself and, as we used to say in the USSR, for the other guy.
And it seems to me that if in this confrontation China more vigorously defends Russia,
then it is likely that the US will understand the hopelessness of the strategy of bashing
Russia and change the paradigm of its policy. Otherwise, they themselves are at risk of being
broken because of the exorbitant imperial overstrain.
No wonder Patrick Buchanan, one of the most astute patriarchs of American politics and
analysts of US foreign and domestic policy, published a few years ago a book with the very
characteristic title "Suicide of a superpower: will the US survive until 2025?"
Interesting observation: "This is what happens when you have 'Five Eyes' but no brains!"
Notable quotes:
"... The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap. ..."
"... It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause. ..."
"... I've been writing to my favorite websites telling them that the Russians could not possibly compete with the U.S. when it came to manipulation of twitter/facebook etc. Where is the comparative analysis? How could the Russians possibly compete with US Internet-manipulation, US-election-funding? Look at the most basic numbers, US population compared to Russian population... ..."
"... The whole Russiagate thing has been proven to be nothing but a cover for the Democratic Party's real manipulation of the last election to cut out the only progressive in the race (Sanders) and get the worst possible opponent (Trump) for the elite's favorite candidate (Clinton). The stupid little people of middle America just didn't follow orders like their ever so sophisticated compatriots on the east and west coasts and now the 0.01% have to cover their tracks. Mueller's indictment of 13 interns in some sadsack little St Petersburg troll farm would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic (well actually it is pretty funny). ..."
"... It's McCarthyism on steroids, and as usual, the real targets are progressives and the "real left" fighting for workers. We are allowed to have all the social justice we want, but don't you dare discuss economic justice that threatens the bank accounts of the 0.01%, or watch any of that evil alternative news that provides a different perspective from our govt/corporate approved sources. ..."
It went much further than that . Google actually tweaked its algorithms to alter search
recommendations in favor of the Clinton campaign. A comparative analysis of search engines
Google, Bing and Yahoo showed that Google differed significantly from the other two in
producing search recommendations relevant to Clinton.
The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The
U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap.
How to stop it is the only question, to stop the impunity with which these criminals like
Bush and Trump and Obama and Mattis et.al. lie with their pants on fire and .....they all
suck .01% dick.
It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over
this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he
laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause.
Finally, I do not believe my eyes. I've been writing to my favorite websites telling them
that the Russians could not possibly compete with the U.S. when it came to manipulation of
twitter/facebook etc. Where is the comparative analysis? How could the Russians possibly compete with US Internet-manipulation,
US-election-funding? Look at the most basic numbers, US population compared to Russian
population...
"Russia is attracted to Canada because destabilizing it will 'undermine the cohesion' of
the broader NATO alliance. Moreover it could serve to undermine Canadian policy in
Europe..."
More money for CSIS, CSE, 'Five Eyes' etc. Maybe we'll build a Trudeau troll-farm too.
Gee gosh golly a NATO researcher thinks Russia is threatening Canada and the CBC acts as a
megaphone for this BS.
The whole Russiagate thing has been proven to be nothing but a cover for the
Democratic Party's real manipulation of the last election to cut out the only progressive in
the race (Sanders) and get the worst possible opponent (Trump) for the elite's favorite
candidate (Clinton). The stupid little people of middle America just didn't follow orders
like their ever so sophisticated compatriots on the east and west coasts and now the 0.01%
have to cover their tracks. Mueller's indictment of 13 interns in some sadsack little St
Petersburg troll farm would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic (well actually it is pretty
funny).
Who exactly is Putin going to support in a Canadian election? The liberals and
conservatives are both reliable lapdogs of Washington and even the NDP (No Difference Party)
is infected with Russophobia and Whitehelmetphilia. Between supporting an overtly fascist
regime in Kiev, contributing to every "bombing brown people to save them" campaign concocted
by Washington, and leading a NATO battle group in Latvia some 250 miles from Moscow, it's
pretty hard to make a case that Canada is a passive little angel looking for world peace
anymore.
Very sad what the neo-liberal imposter Trudeau is doing to Canada. The guy is Harper with
ridiculous socks and a bit of identity politics thrown in to fool whatever passes as
center-left in Canada these days. What a change and almost nobody makes a fuss or cares. Of
course the Canadian media attacks anyone suggesting better relations with Russia and Canada
might be worth trying. It's McCarthyism on steroids, and as usual, the real targets are
progressives and the "real left" fighting for workers. We are allowed to have all the social
justice we want, but don't you dare discuss economic justice that threatens the bank accounts
of the 0.01%, or watch any of that evil alternative news that provides a different
perspective from our govt/corporate approved sources.
"When people ask about what is most threatening to humanity and all of
life on Earth today, they usually mention nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons, but forget about one more
truly terrible weapons of mass destruction, aimed primarily at the human brain. This is information, propaganda
and agitation."
Valentin Falin, who recently died aged 92.
More on what he thought (some of it quite extreme) here:
Looks like Poroshenko is playing with fire. the longer Donetsk and Lugansk republics exists as a separate political
entities the more difficult and costly will be to bring them back. Each year matters in this respect. After, say, ten year
probably no compromise could ever emerge, unless Russia is weakened and /or dissolved into smaller statelets (the permanent
problem for Russia is change of leadership, so 2024 will be a very important year, as Putin does not have any realistic successor
who can continue his policies. So iether Russian "economic nationalists" (to borrow Bannon's term) or Pro-European faction
will come to power. In both cases foreign policies change. Or the US economy crash again and military budget will be
drastically cut, leaving no money for foreign military adventure and the protection of neoliberal empire. Direct attach
might elicit Russian response and as such is highly risky (especially in view of Russia being pissed by the USA all the time now
and might want to make Ukraine, as a US client, a boy for beating) , but periodic skirmishes just run this territory into
wasteland that Syria regions now are. They also drive population out.
Notable quotes:
"... IMO the emerging partition is likely to last a long time. Syria is only 80 years old as a state and a prolonged de facto partition as opposed to wartime occupation can easily become more or less perm ..."
"... If the Kurds of Afrin throw themselves on the mercy of the Syrian government in Damascus then Kurdish autonomy is squashed in that enclave. And, when it is all said and done, isn't that what Erdogan really wants? ..."
You don't understand what I mean. IMO the emerging partition is likely to last a long
time. Syria is only 80 years old as a state and a prolonged de facto partition as opposed to
wartime occupation can easily become more or less permanent as was the case with Turkey's
acquisition of Hatay. pl
I certainly don't dispute that Turkey is invading Afrin. And I agree with you that if things
continue to stand as they are now then that invasion will continue until all of Afrin has
been overrun.
But to simply extrapolate from what has happened into the future suggests that
circumstances won't change or - if they do - that Erdogan will continue on like some wind-up
automaton.
If the Kurds of Afrin throw themselves on the mercy of the Syrian government in Damascus
then Kurdish autonomy is squashed in that enclave. And, when it is all said and done, isn't
that what Erdogan really wants?
If the Kurds are too stupid or too proud to play that card then, yeah, sure, you and I
both agree that they will be ground into the dirt.
But if they do supplicate to Assad then the situation changes.
You (I assume) believe that in that circumstance Erdogan will continue to grind on with
this invasion regardless.
I believe he will beat his chest and then go home.
One of us will be wrong, and one of us will be right.
In this 128.4 video George begins by saying: "The only thing we really learn from the
Democratic Memo is that Carter Page has been used as a surveillance rabbit, what I call a
surveillance rabbit. Basically he runs around and rubs his nose against whoever you want to
surveil and then you start surveillance on them in the FISA Court and I had said that he had
been used as a surveillance rabbit going very far back with Victoria Nuland here is at least
back to 2009. Well the Democratic Memo proved that I was right going back to 2013. The only
new facts out of the ten pages, most of the ten pages were deny, deny, deny, and make
exculpatory statements for the FBI etc. The one piece of information, the new piece of
information, was Carter Page was used as a surveillance rabbit. Now again, I know everyone's
going to say oh wait you said that 19 days ago. Believe it or not we're closing the gap, and
this for me is a relatively short period of time before mainstream confirmation is coming.
So
if you want to go back and look just say "George Webb Carter Page" catch up on all the Carter
Page stuff, now that more of this, of what I've said has been trestled under you're going to
have a lot more. It's just going to seem very much less speculative than it was 19 days ago.
You're going to see how true a lot of the references were. The important piece of this is
also Manafort was used in this way, and Manafort is now being stabbed in the back, and I
think this is the appreciation people still don't have that Manafort was that, what I call
the Bishop used in a higher-level manner more insiders more at the high level of the Sechin
the right-hand man of, the guy who can get a meeting with the right-hand man of USSR. But you
will find that Paul Manafort has met Sechin and that's how Sechin was put on surveillance and
so again this is why it's so important for, now that the two, the summary memos are out there
now we need to see the actual FISA Court proceedings.
I know the judges ruled against that in
part, but then we also need to actually see the FISA applications. All 99 pages, all 99
pages. See exactly what went into it because the American people need to understand this.
This was a soft coup. This was a soft coup attempt. So you have to look at actually the
document that the conspirators used in the soft coup. It's absolutely fundamental to our
right of review and our due process. There's just no other way to talk about it. We've
actually been talking about Carter Page more than a year now. Lionel made some funny jokes
about that when we had that interview. And again no one has really looked at how Carter Page
has been used as far as getting Visas for Chinese Nationals coming into the United States,
getting Visas for Russian Nationals coming into the United States.
How is he related to Omar Awan? He worked for him in San Diego still hasn't come forward and I talk about how Carter
Page is probably a NOC, we don't know that background yet, like Valerie Plame, but he does
seem to be, the same way Valerie Plame was used for Uranium it seems like Carter Page is used
for oil and gas. Especially is Eastern Europe.
So there's the Chinese Visas and I make the
Chinese Visa point and I make the, just all the proximity. What news agency, what news
outlets has actually gone to show you how close he lives to the Naval Observatory or the fact
that he had a Naval Intelligence background? Nobody. The number of times he visited the
Soviet Embassy.
Who's asking those question?"
George goes on to say, "Again, this is going to
be a fundamental part of understanding a soft coup in American history. All of this needs to
be understood. This is almost like the 18-minute gap in Nixon's tape. It's so fundamental to
understanding what actually happened in Watergate, or whatever that was, 13 minute gap, that
it needs to be explained. How many times did Carter Page go to the Russian Embassy? How many
Visas did Carter Page get? How many people did he meet with over there? How many people ended
up on surveillance because of Carter Page had a meeting with them at the Chinese Embassy or
the Russian Embassy? Again, here it is, here he's working for Omar Awan in San Diego going
back to 2008.
Now is that because he's getting Pakistani Visas? We don't know yet. There is a
whole, the other thing I saw done in the memo was that somehow that Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page's conversations were a red herring. Yeah, fifty thousand messages in the three most
important investigations of our time, the Hillary Investigation, the Huma Investigation and
the Trump Investigation, they're involved all the way through, as well as Benghazi and some
other major events, and that's a red herring?
That's a little bit like saying John Wilkes
Booth is a red herring. Well I guess so, it depends on how you look at it. If you are really
interested in the play I guess John Wilkes Booth is a red herring. George concludes, "So
again documents, documents, documents. No one is looking at any of the supporting documents
as far as Carter Page is concerned, and either supporting investigation or other
investigations he was used to do, but that is the key here to unraveling this American
history here. So, I will just say this that everything we've seen so far has been a very
cursory, all the news programs has been a very cursory understanding of who Carter Page was
for a three-month period of time. Actually he worked for the Trump campaign for less than
that.
And in order to understand history you have to understand the full flight of the arrow.
Where did this guy come from? He came from Navy Intel. How was he used?
Well, he was used all
over Eastern Europe and there is the resources business. When did he start getting used to
get convictions and exact bids from Russian Oligarchs? Well, we now know that it goes back to
at least 2013, and I say it goes back to 2009."
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein. "It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the offensive. ..."
"... Israel is long known for such information operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but actively manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in commercial marketing campaigns. ..."
"... With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b states). ..."
"... If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use' in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million paycheck. ..."
"... The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your lying eyes." ..."
"... money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they will frame it - 180% of that... ..."
The U.S. State Department will increase its online trolling capabilities and up its support
for meddling in other countries. The Hill
reports :
The State Department is launching a $40 million initiative to crack down on foreign
propaganda and disinformation amid widespread concerns about future Russian efforts to
interfere in elections.
The department announced Monday that it signed a deal with the Pentagon to transfer $40
million from the Defense Department's coffers to bolster the Global Engagement Center, an
office set up at State during the Obama years to expose and counter foreign propaganda and
disinformation.
The professed reason for the new funding is the alleged but unproven "Russian meddling" in
the U.S. election campaign. U.S. Special Counsel Mueller indicted 13 Russians for what is
claimed to be interference but which
is likely mere commercial activity.
The announcement by the State Department
explains that this new money will not only be used for measures against foreign trolling but to
actively meddle in countries abroad:
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein said the
transfer of funds announced today reiterates the United States' commitment to the fight.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to
malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our
allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein.
"It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the
offensive. "
The mentioning of Silicon Valley is of interest. The big Silicon Valley companies Google,
Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the U.S. election campaign. The companies
embedded
people within the campaigns to advise them how to reach a maximum trolling effect:
While the companies call it standard practice to work hand-in-hand with high-spending
advertisers like political campaigns, the new research details how the staffers assigned to
the 2016 candidates frequently acted more like political operatives, doing things like
suggesting methods to target difficult-to-reach voters online, helping to tee up responses to
likely lines of attack during debates, and scanning candidate calendars to recommend ad
pushes around upcoming speeches.
Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one
that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the
Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find
and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner.
In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of
trolling that already exists online.
Clinton is quite experienced in such issues. In 2009, during protests in Iran, then
Secretary of State Clinton pushed Twitter to defer
maintenance of its system to "help" the protesters. In 2010 USAid, under the State Department
set up a
Twitter-like service to meddle in Cuba.
The foreign policy advisor of Hillery Clinton's campaign, Laura Rosenberger,
initiated and runs the Hamilton68 project which
falsely explains any mentioning of issues disliked by its neo-conservative backers as the
result of nefarious "Russian meddling".
The State Department can build on that and other experience.
Since at least 2011
the U.S. military is manipulating social media via sock puppets and trolls:
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command
(Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop
what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman
or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
...
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing
background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be
able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by
sophisticated adversaries".
It was then wisely predicted that other countries would follow up:
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to
users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments,
private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
Israel is long known for such information
operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but
actively
manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in
commercial marketing campaigns.
With the new money the State Department will expand its Global Engagement Center
(GEC) which is running "public diplomacy", aka propaganda, abroad:
The Fund will be a key part of the GEC's partnerships with local civil society organizations,
NGOs, media providers, and content creators to counter propaganda and disinformation. The
Fund will also drive the use of innovative messaging and data science techniques.
Separately, the GEC will initiate a series of pilot projects developed with the Department
of Defense that are designed to counter propaganda and disinformation. Those projects will be
supported by Department of Defense funding.
This money will be in addition to the large funds the CIA
traditionally spends on manipulating foreign media:
"We've been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947," said Mr. Johnson,
now at the University of Georgia. "We've used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you
name it. We've planted false information in foreign newspapers. We've used what the British
call 'King George's cavalry': suitcases of cash."
...
C.I.A. officials told Mr. Johnson in the late 1980s that "insertions" of information into
foreign news media, mostly accurate but sometimes false, were running at 70 to 80 a day.
Part of the new State Department money will be used to provide grants. If online trolling or
sock puppetry is your thing, you may want to apply now.
Posted by b on February 26, 2018 at 02:02 PM |
Permalink
"to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner"
I call these social media watchers rather than trolls. Rather than simply trying to
disrupt any and all social media threads they don't like, social media watchers look for
comments or comment threads that are disparaging or damaging to their employer.
#2 @Peter AU 1 - I would say the language "to find and CONFRONT" sounds pretty much like
troll behavior.
With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its
allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic
and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and
everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b
states).
That $40 million will probably be pissed away on a couple sweetheart contracts to Tillerson
friends and nobody will see a difference. US State Department propaganda programs, labeled as
"public diplomacy" and other monikers, have been around for a long time but haven't been
executed very well.
From the State Dept. historian office, 2013: . .(excerpt):
Public Diplomacy Is Still in Its Adolescent Stage in the State Department , etc.
. . . The process of convergence has been evolutionary. Secretary Powell grasped the power
of the information revolution, reallocated positions and resources from traditional
diplomatic posting to new areas and recognized the power of satellite television to move
publics and constrain governments even in authoritarian regimes. Secretary Rice forwarded
this reconceptualization under the rubric of "Transformational Diplomacy," which sought to
help people transform their own lives and the relationship between state and society.
Secretary Clinton continued the theme under the concept of "Smart Power." "Person-to-person
diplomacy in today's work is as important as what we do in official meetings in national
capitals across the globe," Clinton said in 2010.The work done by PD officials in Arab
Spring countries beginning in 2011 was as much about capacity-building as advocating U.S.
policies or directly trying to explain American culture. . . here
Prior efforts were targeted more at traditional news outlets, this is just an expansion into
social media along the lines of previous work, example A being the Rendon Group in Iraq,
etc. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rendon_Group
If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For
example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no
on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so
then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use'
in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a
book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million
paycheck.
Media watchers target specific comments or comment threads, in the case stated by b, those
disparaging or damaging to Clinton.
What I term trolls target blogs or social media accounts that are considered targets, no
matter the content of a particular article or comment thread. Social media media watchers are
a little more specialized than trolls and look for specific content.
P.S. it's funny that you can find out what these clowns are up to by looking for job listings
and salary reports:
The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist Salary | Glassdoor
Average [monthly] salaries for The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist: $2,520. The Rendon
Group salary trends based on salaries posted anonymously by The Rendon Group employees.
Talk about a soul-destroying job. Right up there with Wikipedia page editor.
I see what you are alluding to, but the only problem with it is that, irrespective of the
differing definitions, at heart, these infiltrators are a disrupting force on the message
boards, whether paid to be or not. Their medium is disruption and obfuscation. I tried to
wade into the neoliberal viper's den at slate.com un the past to post "alt-right" stuff and
was quickly attacked by multiple avatars.
In essence, one troll disrupts because he has a need for recognition, and the latter
disrupts for money. Both are netgain for the troll and loss for the rest of us.
The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation
and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your
lying eyes."
thanks b... troll farms looks like a good name for it... farming for the empire.. they could
call it that too.. russia as trend setter, lol.. i don't think so!
speaking of troll farms, i see max Blumenthal came out with some 'about time' comments on
the sad kettle of fish called 'democracy now'... here is his tweet - "If @democracynow is
going to push the neocon project of regime change in Syria so relentlessly and without
debate, it should drop the high minded literary NPR aesthetic and just host Nikki Haley for a
friendly one-on-one #EstablishmentNow https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/967123918237655041
7:07 AM - Feb 25, 2018 "
money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of
reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more
dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they
will frame it - 180% of that...
The silver lining here is that the state dept. is in a sense admitting that there is nothing
"in the pipe" relating to outright censorship whether through nefarious agreements between
ISP providers and the IC via the repeal of net neutrality.
$40 mil is a lot for liberal college graduates however.
Nonsense Factory @ 8, Peter AU 1 @ 9: There are plenty of communities in rural Australia
who'd be glad to have troll farms paying that sort of money (even as Australian dollars - 1
Australian dollar being worth about US$0.76 at this time of posting) a month. Real farmers
could do trolling on the side during slow seasons of the year and make some money.
What we need are some Mole Trolls, or maybe that's Troll Moles--double agents if you will
that work for 6-12 months recording 100% of all they do then reveal it all in an expose.
Getting ready for mid-terms. It's going to be interesting to see if the Democrats get wiped
off the map. They should be able to hire quite a few people for $40 million. Don't be
surprised if they deploy AI in the first wave, then follow up with a real person.
ben @13:
Turn off your I phones, and think a little.
ROFL After wandering aimlessly in the mall with Her Majesty over the weekend, I'm not sure
if that's even possible now.
"The big Silicon Valley companies Google, Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the
U.S. election campaign. The companies embedded people within the campaigns to advise them how
to reach a maximum trolling effect:"
It went much further than that . Google actually tweaked its algorithms to alter search
recommendations in favor of the Clinton campaign. A comparative analysis of search engines
Google, Bing and Yahoo showed that Google differed significantly from the other two in
producing search recommendations relevant to Clinton.
The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The
U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap.
How to stop it is the only question, to stop the impunity with which these criminals like
Bush and Trump and Obama and Mattis et.al. lie with their pants on fire and .....they all
suck .01% dick.
It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over
this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he
laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause.
Two days before 9/11, Condoleeza Rice received the draft of a formal National Security
Presidential Directive that Bush was expected to sign immediately. The directive contained
a comprehensive plan to launch a
global war on al-Qaeda , including an "imminent" invasion of Afghanistan to topple the
Taliban. The directive was approved by the highest levels of the White House and officials
of the National Security Council, including of course Rice and Rumsfeld. The same NSC
officials were simultaneously running the Dhabol Working Group to secure the Indian power
plant deal for Enron's Trans-Afghan pipeline project. The next day, one day before 9/11,
the Bush administration formally agreed on the
plan to attack the Taliban.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire
conceptualization of the 'war on terror.' Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice
president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from 1997
to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term
that I first heard at the Forum. It seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict
in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts we are now in
have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our
very way of life and impose their own."
Yeah well since the writer of the 'quiz' exposes themself as bein a troll of the worst
sort there is nothing to be said. I'm currently attempting to ingest only those newstories
where the publisher provides space for feedback from readers since if a story is truthful it
should be able to withstand challenge. yeah riight cos that means there's bugger all out
there anymore. The biggest 'win' populism has had this far is in driving all feedback off all
sites with a readership of more than a few hundred. Many of those that do allow feedback only
permit humans with credentialed facebook or google accounts to indulge and the comments are
only visible to similarly logged in types. That tells us a lot about the lack of faith the
corporate media actually have in the nonsense they publish.
Of course 'trolls' are the ones held to be the guilty for causing this but if you actually
watch what happens in a feedback column such as the rare occasions when the graun still
permits CIF comments it isn't the deliberately offensive arseholes spouting the usual cliches
who get deleted, it is those who put forward a considered argument which details why the
original writer has reached a faulty conclusion.
We all know this yet it seems as though none of us are prepared to confront it properly as
the censorship it is.
IMO media outlets which continually lie or at least distort the truth to advance a particular
agenda need to be called to account.
Massed pickets outside newsrooms would be a good way cos as much as media hate us loudmouths
who won't swallow their bromides, they like their competition even less. A decently organised
picket of NYT, WaPo or the Graun would be news in every other spineless, propagandising &
slug-featured media entity.
Said troll was published in Richmond and God only knows who else picked it up. I refuted
it in the comments as best I could, also excerpting MOA. Regardless:
Among Rendon's activities was the creation of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC)
on behalf of the CIA, a group of Iraqi exiles tasked with disseminating propaganda,
including much of the false intelligence about WMD . That process
had begun concertedly under the administration of George H W. Bush, then rumbled along
under Clinton with little fanfare, before escalating after 9/11 under George W. Bush.
Rendon thus played a large role in the manufacture of inaccurate and false news stories
relating to Iraq under lucrative CIA and Pentagon contracts -- and he did so
in the period running up to the 2003 invasion as an advisor to Bush's National
Security Council: the same NSC, of course, that planned the invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq, achieved with input from Enron executives who were simultaneously engaging the
Pentagon Highlands Forum.
Mass surveillance and data-mining also now has a distinctive operational purpose in
assisting with the lethal execution of special operations, selecting targets for the CIA's
drone strike kill lists via dubious algorithms, for instance, along with providing
geospatial and other information for combatant commanders on land, air and sea, among many
other functions. A single social media post on Twitter or Facebook is enough to trigger
being placed on secret terrorism watch-lists solely due to a vaguely defined hunch or
suspicion; and can potentially even land a suspect on a kill list.
In 2011, the Forum hosted two DARPA-funded scientists, Antonio and Hanna Damasio, who are
principal investigators in the 'Neurobiology of Narrative Framing' project at the
University of Southern California. Evoking Zalman's emphasis on the need for Pentagon
psychological operations to deploy "empathetic influence," the new DARPA-backed project
aims to investigate how narratives often appeal "to strong, sacred values in order to evoke
an emotional response," but in different ways across different cultures
This goes a long way toward explaining what is occurring in Hollywood and Nashville.
Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it
permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole Memo discussion above concerns the FBI's data manipulations to cast Carter Page as a spy worthy of an Article 1 warrant by the FISC. As I explained above, once Admiral Rogers closed the FBI's access to the NSA mega-file, the Bureau developed several work-arounds to explain how the FBI had data from the mega-file that they were mining through our Ambassador to the UN. ..."
"... Fusion GPS immediately hired the wife of FBI manager Bruce Ohr, Nellie, and Christopher Steele. Bruce handed material to Nellie, Nellie to Christopher. He repackaged the material claiming it was provided by very personal "Russian contacts" and the FBI then handed that laundered Steele material to the FISC. ..."
"... This laundering operation was exposed with a mistake concerning Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen was actually attending a family celebration and a ball game here in the US when he supposedly met Steele's "Russian contacts" in Prague. Steele's contacts, who exist only in his mind, dutifully confirmed that the meeting took place in Prague. ..."
"... Bill Binney, on Jimmy Dore show, said that FISA warrant enabled "two hop" surveillance. If so, then Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... My "dog that didn't bark" question about Carter Page - if Carter Page was such a known danger, why didn't the FBI warn the Trump Campaign against letting him become involved in the campaign? ..."
"... The dog that didn't bark - if the Schiff Memo were so powerful, such a slam dunk, every MSM outlet in the western world would be trumpeting it to the skies and talking about nothing but. They seem to be barely able to acknowledge the existence of the Memo. ..."
"... As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously. ..."
"... Schiff's defence sounded so, pardon the pun, shifty and did nothing to really counter the main point Nunes made when he released his memo. ..."
"... Schiff's memo was basically a vendetta against persons. Page and Papadopolis (sp?) are obviously the unpopular kids in the minds of the "mean girl" Democrats because they had links to Trump, the real threat to the popular girl Democrats. ..."
"... Funnily enough the question raised in your excerpt is exactly what I've been thinking since reading a post by TTG about Carter Page being an important FBI informant and state witness to the prosecution of Russian espionage. ..."
"... If the FBI believed Page had become a Russian spy it would have been easy due to their prior relationship with him to interview him and if he lied, to prosecute him for the process crime of perjury. That is such a slam dunk that the fact they didn't do that makes it seem there's something fishy there. ..."
"... And they never verified Steele's allegation that Page met with Sechin and Divyekin which would have been easy to do and now it seems was pure fabrication. Instead the FBI and DOJ lied and misrepresented to FISC to get a surveillance warrant on Page. This seems rather fishy. I speculate they did that to gain incidental collection on members of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... I note that Page hasn't been charged by the DOJ for any crime. ..."
"... Instead of working hard to protect national security, the FBI/CIA/DOJ' senior-idiots (accustomed to comfort and hefty checks) have been politicking and meddling in the electoral process. Meanwhile, the foreign nationals were left free to surf congressional computers – for years! (See Awan affair) and the "natives" like Clinton et al have been making a lot of money by getting huge bribes from Russians and Saudis (see Uranium One, involving Mueller for all other people). ..."
"... Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew, about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage. It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok? ..."
"... What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate, and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to classified information? This is not looking good. ..."
"... Carter Page is indeed a puzzlement. I don't see any account of him being an FBI informant, but he was a witness in the investigation and trial of the three SVR officers who tried to recruit him in 2013. ..."
"... Obama claimed something to the effect that, it turns out I am pretty good at killing people. This was in reference to the drone program and assume I don't need to footnote. Perhaps he got the notion that his administration was pretty good at intelligence. ..."
Devin
Nunes and his team have saved me the effort of pointing out the problems with the Schiff
rebuttal. I am presenting that in full. Here is the bottomline--we now know that Christopher
Steele was not a "one-time Charlie." He had a longstanding covert relationship as an FBI
intelligence asset. The Democrat memo does nothing to dispute that fact.
It also is clear that DOJ and FBI personnel engaged in unprofessional (and possibly illegal)
conduct with respect to making representations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC). Three key points on this front--1: The so-called Steele dossier was proffered as
evidence to the FISC without fully disclosing that Steele was a covert asset being paid for his
work and that Democrat political operatives were also paying him; 2: Senior DOJ officials,
particularly Bruce Our, were totally comprised yet continued to be involved in the process; and
3: The Democrats insist that Carter Page is a bad guy and deserves to be investigated. Yet, no
charges have been filed against him and the allegations leveled in the Steele dossier were
dismissed by former FBI Director Comey as "salacious and unverified."
Anyway, here are the main points from the Democrat memo and the Republican response.
"George Papadopoulos revealed [redacted] that individuals linked to Russia, who took
interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, informed him in late
April 2016 that Russia [two lines redacted]. Papadopoulos's disclosure, moreover, occurred
against the backdrop of Russia's aggressive covert campaign to influence our elections, which
the FBI was already monitoring. We would later learn in Papadopoulos's plea that the
information the Russians could assist by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary
Clinton emails."
my problem with this is wikileaks released the e mails via a search-able archive on march
16th 2016...
i still don't see how anything papadopolous said is relevant time wise.. what am i missing
here, other then the obvious fact papadopolous looks like a lousy liar.. apparently he got
this from Joseph Mifsud who as it turns out was 'director of the London Academy of Diplomacy'
and etc - according to the nyt here -
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/world/europe/russia-us-election-joseph-mifsud.html
and from the nyt article "Mr. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about
his conversations with the "professor." Mr. Mifsud is referred to in the papers only as "the
professor," based in London, but a Senate aide familiar with emails involving Mr. Mifsud --
lawmakers in both the Senate and the House are investigating Russia's role in the election --
confirmed that he was the person cited."
the whole thing of russia influencing the usa election seems built on via a number of
sketchy characters at best..
at any rate - this is what emptywheel thinks is relevant in an otherwise irrelevant memo
from schiff... i don't get how it is!
The whole Memo discussion above concerns the FBI's data manipulations to cast Carter Page
as a spy worthy of an Article 1 warrant by the FISC. As I explained above, once Admiral
Rogers closed the FBI's access to the NSA mega-file, the Bureau developed several
work-arounds to explain how the FBI had data from the mega-file that they were mining through
our Ambassador to the UN.
Fusion GPS immediately hired the wife of FBI manager Bruce Ohr, Nellie, and Christopher
Steele. Bruce handed material to Nellie, Nellie to Christopher. He repackaged the material
claiming it was provided by very personal "Russian contacts" and the FBI then handed that
laundered Steele material to the FISC.
This laundering operation was exposed with a mistake concerning Trump's lawyer Michael
Cohen. Michael Cohen was actually attending a family celebration and a ball game here in the
US when he supposedly met Steele's "Russian contacts" in Prague. Steele's contacts, who exist
only in his mind, dutifully confirmed that the meeting took place in Prague.
I wish I might be a sock-puppet, but too many of my condo neighbors know otherwise. My
favorite hobby in retirement is writing films for children, in which white hats succeed and
black hats don't.
Bill Binney, on Jimmy Dore show, said that FISA warrant enabled "two hop" surveillance. If
so, then Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it
permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign.
In some ways, being a sock-puppet and napping, in a bureau drawer (?), between soliloquies
would be rather peaceful. Alas, too many of my condo neighbors know me to be otherwise !
Do check out sites such as The Conservative Treehouse and you will discover that Admiral
Rogers' closing the NSA mega-file to the FBI led to Nellie Ohr's & Christopher Steele's
information laundering operation. Other sites yet will introduce you to FISC Chief Judge
Rosemary Collyer's 99-page rebuke of the FBI for their defalcations.
At a minimum, you won't be surprised when a plethora of FBI / DOJ / State Department
employees are found guilty and sent to prison.
My "dog that didn't bark" question about Carter Page - if Carter Page was such a known
danger, why didn't the FBI warn the Trump Campaign against letting him become involved in the
campaign?
The memo does note that "the FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian
intelligence contacts." Apparently, these interviews stretch back to 2013. The memo also
lets slip that there was at least one more interview with Page in March 2016, before the
counterintelligence investigation began. We must assume that Page was a truthful
informant since his information was used in a prosecution against Russian spies and Page
himself has never been accused of lying to the FBI .
So . . . here's the question: When Steele brought the FBI his unverified allegations
that Page had met with Sechin and Divyekin, why didn't the FBI call Page in for an
interview rather than subject him to FISA surveillance? Lest you wonder, this is not an
instance of me second-guessing the Bureau with an investigative plan I think would have
been better. It is a requirement of FISA law.
When the FBI and DOJ apply for a FISA warrant, they must convince the court that
surveillance -- a highly intrusive tactic by which the government monitors all of an
American citizen's electronic communications -- is necessary because the
foreign-intelligence information the government seeks "cannot reasonably be obtained by
normal investigative techniques." (See FISA, Section 1804(a)(6)(C) of Title 50, U.S. Code.)
Normal investigative techniques include interviewing the subject. There are, of course,
situations in which such alternative investigative techniques will inevitably fail -- a
mafia don or a jihadist is not likely to sit down with FBI agents and tell them everything
he knows. But Carter Page was not only likely to do so, he had a documented
history of providing information to the FBI .
There's a reason why Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley are focused on the Clinton commissioned
Fusion GPS dossier, Christopher Steele and the FISA Title 1 warrant on Carter Page. It is the
simplest path to the conspiracy at the Obama administration.
My, street sense, and experience as a lawyer tells me that -- "tips, confessions.." from
informants is true Steve. But the bar for going after a drug dealer, or fence, or kiddie porn
type, is supposed -- one assumes -- to be a hell of a lot lower than going after the nominee for
President of a major political party.
Welcome to the criminal defense world. Everyday, hundreds of warrants based on the statements
of criminals, paid informers, bitter ex-girlfriends, lying cops, and even non-existent
"confidential informants" are issued. With all but the most blatant provably false
affidavits, questionable searches are upheld by judges.
At this point I'm just waiting for Mueller's final indictments and the report. The facts
will be there, or they won't.
If they are, try arguing a Motion to Suppress Evidence in the impeachment trial. That'll
get you far . . .
The dog that didn't bark - if the Schiff Memo were so powerful, such a slam dunk, every MSM
outlet in the western world would be trumpeting it to the skies and talking about nothing
but.
They seem to be barely able to acknowledge the existence of the Memo.
It really does help if, when you make claims, you link to the source so that others can
evaluate them. In the case of the claims you are making, the source is clearly a post two days ago by
'sundance' on the 'Conservative Treehouse' site entitled 'Tying All The Loose Threads
Together – DOJ, FBI, DoS, White House: "Operation Latitude" '
As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very
substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product
of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously.
However, to repeat claims by 'sundance', while not taking the – rather minimal
– amount of trouble required to provide the link which allows others to evaluate them,
simply puts people's backs up and makes them less likely to take what you are suggesting
seriously.
In the words of Emily Dickinson, I'm nobody. So., I come here to test my reaction when I
read what the Democrats wrote -- though it was hard to get any continuity while reading because
of all the big black lines--I was completely underwhelmed. I hate it when someone claims that
what he/she is going to say will be something that will change my entire Weltanschauung and
it turns out to be a nothing burger, in today's parance.
So thank you for confirming my opinion of the memo and thanks to others who have commented
and who have way more experience and knowledge about how our Swam works (or doesn't
work?).
My first reaction before I even tried to read the memo was correct. My first instinct was
to judge on the basis of personality, which I know is not often logical. I felt that nothing
put out under Schiff's authority could change my mind about the point Nunes made when he put
out his mamo. Schiff's defence sounded so, pardon the pun, shifty and did nothing to really
counter the main point Nunes made when he released his memo.
Schiff's memo was basically a vendetta against persons. Page and Papadopolis (sp?) are
obviously the unpopular kids in the minds of the "mean girl" Democrats because they had links
to Trump, the real threat to the popular girl Democrats. All we have to do is hear their
names and we should automatically decide that if we want to be popular, we should malign them
also so as to malign Trump and gain our entrance into the popular group in the cafeteria.
Funnily enough the question raised in your excerpt is exactly what I've been thinking
since reading a post by TTG about Carter Page being an important FBI informant and state
witness to the prosecution of Russian espionage.
If the FBI believed Page had become a Russian spy it would have been easy due to their
prior relationship with him to interview him and if he lied, to prosecute him for the process
crime of perjury. That is such a slam dunk that the fact they didn't do that makes it seem
there's something fishy there.
And they never verified Steele's allegation that Page met with Sechin and Divyekin which
would have been easy to do and now it seems was pure fabrication. Instead the FBI and DOJ
lied and misrepresented to FISC to get a surveillance warrant on Page. This seems rather
fishy. I speculate they did that to gain incidental collection on members of the Trump
campaign.
I note that Page hasn't been charged by the DOJ for any crime. I agree with you that the
investigation of the "conspiracy" is moving along well despite the roadblocks by the DOJ. Goodlatte who has seen the FISA application has now requested all the DOJ testimony from
FISC. In a recent interview Rep. Ratcliffe who has also seen the FISA application made an
interesting point that since in a FISC proceeding the accused has no ability to challenge the
prosecution's claims, the prosecution has an affirmative obligation under FISA to present all
the evidence, which the DOJ did not do but instead knowingly mislead the court.
It looks like we're heading towards another special counsel to investigate law enforcement
and the IC regarding both the Trump and Clinton counter-intelligence investigations as well
as the IC and media propaganda efforts to build hysteria around the meme of collusion of the
Trump campaign with the Russian government. That investigation could lead all the way into
the Obama White House.
See post No 14: "...the FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian
intelligence contacts." Apparently, these interviews stretch back to 2013. The memo also lets
slip that there was at least one more interview with Page in March 2016, before the
counterintelligence investigation began. We must assume that Page was a truthful informant
since his information was used in a prosecution against Russian spies and Page himself has
never been accused of lying to the FBI."
The case is not closed – it is closing on the high-placed violators of the US
Constitution --as well as on their lack of professionalism, sheer incompetence and
promiscuous opportunism
Instead of working hard to protect national security, the FBI/CIA/DOJ' senior-idiots
(accustomed to comfort and hefty checks) have been politicking and meddling in the electoral
process. Meanwhile, the foreign nationals were left free to surf congressional computers
– for years! (See Awan affair) and the "natives" like Clinton et al have been making a
lot of money by getting huge bribes from Russians and Saudis (see Uranium One, involving
Mueller for all other people).
There is another big Q: To what extend both the FBI and the CIA have been infiltrated by
Israel-firsters that are loyal to Zion, and how extensive is the damage inflicted by the
"duals" on the US.
Most unusual, I would say, for an Agent in an upper management position in FBI HQ to open a
counter intelligence case and then for all intents and purposes assign it to himself. Cases
are normally worked and directly supervised in field offices.
Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by
Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew,
about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage.
It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok?
What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate,
and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the
targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to
classified information?
This is not looking good.
Carter Page is indeed a puzzlement. I don't see any account of him being an FBI informant,
but he was a witness in the investigation and trial of the three SVR officers who tried to
recruit him in 2013.
If he was an informant, the FBI would not have had to obtain a FISA
warrant to surveil him in 2014. That also raises doubts about how cooperative he was during
that investigation and the 2015 Russian spy trial.
Obviously he didn't obstruct the
investigation or prosecution or he would have been charged for that long ago. I get the
impression he is a lot more wily than most people give him credit for.
Obama claimed something to the effect that, it turns out I am pretty good at killing people.
This was in reference to the drone program and assume I don't need to footnote.
Perhaps he got the notion that his administration was pretty good at intelligence.
Looks like neoliberals decided to equate widespread anti-neoliberalism and anti-globalization sentiment with pro-Russian
propaganda. A very clever and very dirty trick.
What is funny is that Steele dossier and FBI Mayberry Machiavellians machinations actually deprived Sanders a chance to
represent Democratic Party. nt that he wanted this badly, he folded eve without major pressure (many be under behind the scenes
intimidation due to business dealing of his wife)
Notable quotes:
"... Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against the Russian government " as well as Trump. ..."
"... This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical "indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump. Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were flops). ..."
"... Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing – nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a full-fledged witch-hunt: ..."
"... Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material by the fraudulent fanatic Luke Harding all over the web site of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest about Russia. ..."
"... Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since he's not been charged with a crime after all this time. ..."
"... So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people? ..."
"... A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job – exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible donations. ..."
One by one, the plaster gods fall,
cracked and crumbled on the ground: the latest is Bernie Sanders, the Great Pinko Hope of the
(very few) remaining Democrats with a modicum of sense who reject the "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
paranoia of Rep. Adam Schiff and what I call the party's California Crazies. The official
Democratic leadership seems to have no real commitment to anything other than fealty to a few
well-known oligarchs, who provide the party with needed cash, a burning hatred of Russia
– an issue no ordinary voter outside of the Sunshine State loony bin and Washington, D.C.
cares about – and exotic issues of interest only to the upper class virtue-signalers who
are now their main constituency (e.g., where will trans people go to the bathroom?). Overlaying
this potpourri of nothingness, the glue holding it all together, is pure unadulterated hatred:
of President Trump, of Trump voters, of Middle America in general, and, of course, fear and
loathing of Russia and all things Russian.
And now the one supposedly bright spot in this pit of abysmal darkness has flickered out,
with Bernie Sanders, the Ron Paul of the Reds, jumping
on the Russia-did-it bandwagon and cowering in the wake of Robert Mueller's laughable
"indictment," in which the special prosecutor avers that $100,000 in Facebook ads were designed
to throw the election to Trump – and to help Bernie!
Oh no, says Bernie, from his place of exile in the wilds of Vermont, where the
Russians
did not take over the electrical grid: It wasn't me!
Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party
Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but
hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian
agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against
the Russian government " as well as Trump.
This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical
"indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an
out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on
Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump.
Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting
Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were
flops).
Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing –
nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a
full-fledged witch-hunt:
"The key issues now are: 1) How we prevent the unwitting manipulation of our electoral
and political system by foreign governments. 2) Exposing who was actively consorting with the
Russian government's attack on our democracy."
This is the real goal of anti-Trump groups like the "
Alliance for Securing Democracy " and their "Hamilton dashboard," which purports to track
"pro-Russian" sentiment online: it's the explicit intention of #TheResistance to censor the
media with the cooperation of the tech oligarchs like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. It's back
to the 1950s, folks, only this time the Thought Police are "liberals," and "socialists" like
Bernie and the Bernie Bros.
Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material
by the fraudulent fanatic
Luke Harding all over the web site
of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA
will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest
about Russia.
Coming soon: a congressional "investigation" into "pro-Russian" Americans using the
"Hamilton dashboard" and the Southern Poverty Law Center as templates. Remember the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee? Well, it's coming back. That's always been in the cards, and
now those cards are about to be dealt.
I'll tell you one thing: I would have colluded with the Klingon Empire to prevent Hillary
and her band of authoritarian statists and warmongering nutcases from taking the White House.
If only the Russians had intervened, they'd have been doing this country – and the
world – a great service. Alas, there's not one lick of solid evidence – forensic,
documentary, witness testimony – that shows this. Which is what the Mueller investigation
is all about: the Democrats are claiming there was interference, and Mueller is out to find
corroboration. Except it's been over a year and he's come up with nothing.
Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing
to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page
pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since
he's not been charged with a crime after all this time.
The Deep State's bid for power has hit several roadblocks recently, but it could yet
succeed. First, Mueller could indict the President for "obstruction of justice" – a
charge derived not from any real criminal activity, but from the investigation itself. I think
this is the most probable outcome of all this.
Barring that, however, there is one road they could and probably would go down, given the
intensity of their hatred for this President and their overweening power lust. Having gone this
far in an attempt to overthrow a sitting President, they can't just stop halfway to their goal.
They have to go all the way, or else suffer the consequences – public exposure, and
possible criminal charges. In short, if they fail to get Trump on some semi-legal basis, I
think they'd welcome his assassination.
The Deep State cannot allow the Trump administration to stand for a number of reasons, the
chief one being that the coup is already in progress and there's no stopping it now. The
President's enemies are legion, they are powerful, and they are abroad as well as here on
American shores. They cannot allow his brand of "America First" nationalism to succeed, or seem
to succeed: it conflicts too violently with their globalist vision of a borderless
America-centric empire ruled by a coalition of oligarchs, technocrats, and Deep State
operatives who've been shaping world events from the shadows for generations.
So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the
Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a
sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can
exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people?
That's the issue at hand and that's why I spend so much time writing about Trump and his
enemies' efforts to destroy him. Because if the Deep State succeeds, the America we knew and
loved will be no more. Something else will take its place – and believe me, it won't be
pretty.
A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten
together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in
smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job –
exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible
donations.
If we all get together and make that final push we can make our goal. Every donation counts,
no matter the amount. This is how we'll finally win the battle for peace: by uniting, despite
superficial differences, to support the institutions that are in the front lines of the
struggle for a rational foreign policy. And leading the charge is Antiwar.com.
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
This is mainly about the defense of neoliberal empire which is challenge by Russia who does not wants to be Washington
vassal and China who is rising economic power that challenge the US world dominance and status quo of dollar as the main reserve
currency. There are also some oil related consideration as weakening and dismembering Russia while capturing its oil and gar
resources can postpone the day of becoming for the USA and Western Europe.
Notable quotes:
"... `We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great-power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security.' Henceforth Russia and China will be America's main enemies, with Iran and North Korea thrown in for good measure. ..."
"... At the same time, the US is fast running out of Muslim targets to bomb, now that the bogeyman ISIS has vanished into thin air and US air attacks in Syria are being minimized for fear of clashing with Russia. Iran still remains on the US potential hit list. ..."
"... Which brings us back to General 'Mad Dog' Mattis. He is quite right that so-called terrorists (that's anyone who actively opposes the Lex Americana) pose no real life or death threat to the US mainland. ..."
"... Of course, this supposes the US is ready for war. In truth, neither the US and NATO nor Russia are in any way prepared to fight a real war on land, sea and air. Military forces on both sides have been so run down and depleted by little wars and budget cuts that there are serious shortages of war stocks and aging equipment. ..."
"... Key NATO member Germany is in a shambles. Its feminized military, run by a nice but incompetent lady defense minister, could not fight its way out of a paper bag. France is not much better off. The US armed forces and Britain are critically short of spares, munitions, transport, and armor. Russia's once mighty Red Army is short of everything. Both east and west are simply unready for a real war. ..."
"... As if there is any reason for one. There is not. Those jackanapes in the US Congress and media trying to inflate online mischief by 20-something Russian hackers into a second Pearl Harbor are crying 'fire' in a crowded theater. ..."
"... A final respectful note to Gen. Mattis (my dad was a marine): A good general does not pick a fight with two, far–away major powers at once. The trick is to turn them against one another. Declaring a future war against China and Russia is a crazy idea. Only draft-dodgers and generals who lost the Vietnam War could come up with it. ..."
`We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great-power competition
– not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security.' Henceforth
Russia and China will be America's main enemies, with Iran and North Korea thrown in for good
measure.
So declared US Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, last week in a statement of profound
importance for the world.
For the past seventeen years, the US military has been laying waste to the Muslim world in
the faux `war on terrorism.' Afghanistan, Iraq, much of Syria, Somalia, Pakistan – all
have been heavily bombed. US B-52's and B-1 heavy bombers have tried to pound those resisting
American 'guidance' into submission.
In Afghanistan, America's longest war, President Donald Trump ordered a doubling of bombing
against Taliban forces battling US occupation. Now, the US is running very low on bombs, guided
munitions and even air-to-air missiles for some reason. Stores of munitions are being rushed
from the US Pacific command to the Mideast.
At the same time, the US is fast running out of Muslim targets to bomb, now that the
bogeyman ISIS has vanished into thin air and US air attacks in Syria are being minimized for
fear of clashing with Russia. Iran still remains on the US potential hit list.
Which brings us back to General 'Mad Dog' Mattis. He is quite right that so-called
terrorists (that's anyone who actively opposes the Lex Americana) pose no real life or death
threat to the US mainland.
But if so, how then to maintain the $1 trillion US military budget? Well, of course, trot
out those good old 'Reds Under Our Beds.' Actually, the Pentagon has been planning a new war
with China for the past three years, a mainly air and naval conflict to dominate China's coasts
and seas. The Pentagon is loading up on new aircraft, missiles, satellites and naval craft for
the next Pacific War, and trying to enlist India as an ally against China.
But what then about Russia? Not so easy. The likely theater for a US-Russia clash is on the
Baltic coast, Ukraine, the Black Sea or Syria. In this case, the US would be confronted by the
same problem that afflicted France in the fall of 1939.
Few people know that it was France that first attacked Germany, not the other way around.
Responding to the German invasion of Poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany. French
divisions began to invade Germany's Rhineland. But after a few skirmishes the French high
command, under the inept Gen. Maurice Gamelin, didn't know what to do next. Germany was large,
and the defensive-minded French did not anticipate occupying its entire country.
After a brief demonstration, the French Army withdrew behind the Maginot Line. Hitler did
not counter-attack in hope he could forge a peace treaty with London and Paris. Winston
Churchill and his fellow imperialists furiously sought to push Britain into war with Germany.
But months of inactivity went by, known as the 'Sitzkrieg' or ' drôle de guerre'
until Germany acted decisively.
This would also be America's problem in a war against Russia. How deep into Russia to attack
(assuming no use of nuclear weapons)? How to protect ever lengthening supply lines? Napoleon
and Hitler faced the same challenges and failed.
Of course, this supposes the US is ready for war. In truth, neither the US and NATO nor
Russia are in any way prepared to fight a real war on land, sea and air. Military forces on
both sides have been so run down and depleted by little wars and budget cuts that there are
serious shortages of war stocks and aging equipment.
Key NATO member Germany is in a shambles. Its feminized military, run by a nice but
incompetent lady defense minister, could not fight its way out of a paper bag. France is not
much better off. The US armed forces and Britain are critically short of spares, munitions,
transport, and armor. Russia's once mighty Red Army is short of everything. Both east and west
are simply unready for a real war.
As if there is any reason for one. There is not. Those jackanapes in the US Congress and
media trying to inflate online mischief by 20-something Russian hackers into a second Pearl
Harbor are crying 'fire' in a crowded theater.
A final respectful note to Gen. Mattis (my dad was a marine): A good general does not
pick a fight with two, far–away major powers at once. The trick is to turn them against
one another. Declaring a future war against China and Russia is a crazy idea. Only
draft-dodgers and generals who lost the Vietnam War could come up with it.
It seems to me that what is coming is a de facto partition of Syria. I doubt if
there is an actual understanding or agreement on the subject but the actions of the players
indicate that they comprehend what the outcome will be if present trends and actions
continue.
IMO the SAG should have re-captured Idlib Province in the period immediately following
their victory at Aleppo. The jihadist enemy was then on the run, disorganized and demoralized
by defeat. The correlation of forces was very much in the government's favor. This did not
happen.
Instead the SAG went east from Aleppo City to secure water and electric energy supplies
for the re-construction of Aleppo. Success led to further and further exploitation to the
east and the opportunity was lost to re-take the province. Whether or not the government
still has the means or the will, or enough Russian support to re-capture the province is
debatable. The Turks are busy conquering the Afrin district. Can anyone seriously doubt that
they will succeed in the end? When that happens we will see an effective barrier against
government control established farther south by Turkish forces closing up on their
"observation posts" in Idlib Province. These OPs are IMO positioned to impede the SAA.
On the line of the Euphrates River a de facto frontier has already emerged
between government control to the south and US/SDF to the north and east of the stream.
Evidently the US intends to discourage a SAG/SDF reconciliation in the hope of maintaining
the dream of eventual destruction of the Damascus government. The enclave around al-Tanf on
the Jordanian border is yet further indication of American desire to impeded and embarrass
SAG efforts to re-consolidate power. I think the US will cling to that enclave "until the
last dog dies." (American modismo). What will be the administrative center of the US
protectorate on the other side of the Euphrates? Will it be the former IS capital in the
damaged city of Raqqa? Will the denizens of that be-deviled place see a proliferation of KFC
and McDonald's. If so, will the franchisees be Chinese? The US is leaving Iraq, diverting
forces to the unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Iraqi politics will encourage that departure.
When that happens the US will be in possession of a landlocked territory in eastern Syria
that is inhabited by people who don't like us very much even if necessity has made them our
allies.
The SAG has massed a significant percentage of its mobile forces to capture the jihadi
stronghold of East Ghouta. The preparatory fires have naturally excited the jihadis who hold
the area and their media allies in the US and Europe. I expect that this size force will do
an adequate job of jihadi cleansing in the near future and then move on to browner pastures.
With the prospect of having to govern a rump Syria under Russian, Iranian and Chinese
tutelage, the SAG will probably move to clean up the several rebel held pockets aligned north
to south from the Jordanian border to north of Hama City.
Will the Syrian government acknowledge the loss of its territories? They will not. pl
I doubt that the U.S. will be able to cling to the north-east. The Arabs there are already
infuriated about the Kurds and their protectors.
/quote/
Balanche, who just returned from a three-week research trip to northern Syria, told
Al-Monitor in a wide-ranging interview, "America's current policies will lead to America's
defeat in Syria. At some point they will be forced to pull out because US soldiers will get
blown up." Balanche said he had reached this conclusion after talking to scores of Arabs
living under effective Kurdish control in the mainly Arab towns of Raqqa, Tell Abyad and
Manbij. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/02/turkey-olive-branch-syria-slows.html
/endquote/
Turkey will likewise have trouble holding onto the land it captures. It is using the
worst goons one can find as front troops. They plunder, rape and kill for nothing without
remorse. Resistance to them will build and express itself.
Russia and Syria currently allow Turkish bombing of Afrin. They will continue to do so
until the Kurds come to their senses and submit to Damascus. Then the Turkish air
superiority will end and without that its troops will be in trouble.
Last week Russia upped its fighter contingent in Syria by 12 machines and also added
another AWACS type. It is at every turn emphasizing Syrian unity and sovereignty over its
land. It will not stop its support and neither will Iran.
Colonel,
I am not going to be surprised when I hear of roadside bombs going off east of the
Euphrates. The Syrian govt has probably been planning this for a while. Politically this
has a few effects to recommend it; the US occupation will become more costly, painfully.
The Kurds & US forces will have to react, thus pissing off the Arab population.
Improvised explosive devices; Oh it's probably Islamic State remnants. I think the Russians
will be behind this now too; I make Russian nationals casualties in the air attack on the
Syrian probe(?) as five killed (names are out) & 11 wounded admitted to Moscow & St
Petersburg hospitals (my Russian friends). The Presidential election in Russia is next
month, so there needs to be plausible deniability.
I have not got the story straight about the air attack on the Syrian column; the Syrians
& Russians are not really saying anything. Bernard's (Moon of Alabama) analysis is
probably the most likely at this time: Wagner gets 25% of the proceeds from any oilfield
liberated. I looked at pictures of the many funerals on the Syrian side after that
incident. Syrians, particularly the ISIS Hunters, blame the Kurds for enabling the attack.
More ethnic hatred stored up. When will Syria find peace?
If/when the Sunni Arab resistance you predict for the Kurd-controlled zone and the
Turk-controlled zone arises, it will be a Cannibal Liver Eating Jihadi resistance. Probably
an al qaeda type resistance.
The DC FedRegime would be well pleased with that, though it would never say so. The DC
FedRegime would view that as an opportunity to help the CLEJ forces to establish 2 little
jihadi emirates. The reason the DC FedRegime would want to help that happen would be an
eventual hope of toppling Assad's successors sooner or later and finally someday turning
Syria into a Jihadi Emirate.
One hopes that in the meantime, Russia/Iran/China/etc. fund up, rebuild, etc. the SAR
zone of control to make it unconquerable and to give it its own fighting chance of retaking
the Kurdish and Turkish zones someday maybe. One also hopes that the SARgov practices
"extreme vetting" when deciding which refugees to allow back into its own zone of control.
CLEJ sympathisers should never ever be allowed to return to SAR territory. Let them all go
to the Kurdish and Turkish zones of control so they can all be kept on two concentrated
places in case something can be done about them at some future time.
The Idlib civilian population or what remain of them seem generally hostile to the Syrian
government. If Syrian forces had retaken that territory early on, either the civilian
population would have to be pushed back along with the jihadi's or many troops tied up
controlling the hostile population. As time goes by, many seem to turn away from the
jihadists and back towards the Syrian government.
I would argue that there has been a defacto partition of Syria for many years now;
however, it is coalescing to four areas (There is an Israeli rebel controlled area, too),
Your post raises the important question, will it stand?
I think the US partition will not stand because it will be costly, and I do not think
President Trump will pay the price (President Hillary would have).
Just recently, Trump contradicted the meme by Tillerson and generals that the US is in
Syria to stay until the SAG falls or the cows come home. I predict once the issues you
raise become reality (landlocked territory surrounded by hostile locals), at some point
Trump will inform the deep strategic, neocon thinkers around him "Out!" - our president
clearly has no strategic instincts, and when his out will not be a request.
Meanwhile, the slowness of the Turkish progress suggests the purge did significant harm
to their military capabilities.. I guess the question is would Turkey be willing to grind
on in Northern Syria? If the grind is strong enough (certainly encouraged by Syria), then
Kurds in Turkey will look towards seizing the opportunity, and then Turkey would have to
pull back. IMO, Turkey can either support Idlib as an uncontrollable terrorist territory,
or try (emphasis on try) to control the border Kurdish lands, but if they try both then
they likely will fail at both.
I am not so sure the Afrin Kurds coming to their senses will save them now. Turkey has made
it clear by attacking SAG forces entering Afrin that it considers them hostile. Erdogan
wants his Lebensraum so Turks can "go everywhere
our forefathers went on horse-back" .
Russia seems to be faced with the choice of risking outright war with Turkey (&
maybe US) if it goes as far as shooting TAF planes down, or accepting the loss of Afrin
& probably Idlib to bring an end to its involvement in the war. Purely in terms of its
strategic assets in Syria why would the latter option be unacceptable to it? It is 4 weeks
to the Russian Presidential elections, by that time there may not be much left of Afrin to
save.
"We're there for one reason: to get ISIS and get rid of ISIS, and to go home," Trump
said on Friday, during a joint press conference with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm
Turnbull at the White House. "We're not there for any other reason and we've largely
accomplished our goal."
"The Turks are busy conquering the Afrin district. Can anyone seriously doubt that they
will succeed in the end?"
If the YPD insists on fighting to the bitter end then, yes, that is the assured
outcome.
But if the Kurds in Afrin bend the knee towards Damascus in a humiliating and
without-any-strings fashion then I think that Erdogan will proclaim that he has what he
wants and then turn around and go home.
After all, his aim is to extinguish Kurdish independence of action. I don't think that
he much cares about the details of how those aspirations are extinguished, just that they
are.
An end-result where the Kurds in Afrin become supplicants to the Syrian central
government should satisfy Erdogan, and he will be able to claim (rightly) that it was his
actions that caused the Kurds to humiliate themselves in this manner.
Don't get me wrong: it's not enough that the YPG allow the Syrian Arab Army to fight
alongside them; they have to hand their weapons over to the SAA and step aside (or, more
likely, they have to agree to don SAA uniforms and take orders from SAA commanders).
Because I suspect that Russia is busy telling the YPG that they really, really, really
need to roll over and show the belly to Assad.
And that the Russians have already asked Erdogan if this will satisfy him, and he has
said "Yes".
The SAG has been enduring a de facto partition of Syria for years. I think it will take
another several years for most, if not all, Syrian territory to once again come under SAG
control. The Idlib area is seeing a new round of jihadi on jihadi violence. The more of
this, the better. That may have been part of the SAG plan all along. The game with the
Turks, FSA and Kurds is high risk. I do think the Kurds will eventually turn back to
Damascus, but I don't know if the Turks will ever leave voluntarily. I do think we're
playing a losing hand. Our presence there will only please Tel Aviv.
Rather than permanent partition, could this just be the phase where the frog (Kurds) is
slowly boiled? The Turks seem to be making slow work of Afrin. Perhaps this is a sign that
the point isn't capturing of territory per se, but to just keep the heat on with an economy
of force. After all, isn't the Turkish army big enough to swarm in and take the place
easily? That's my tell that everyone seems to be playing for time. Once the Kurds throw in
the towel, it's over. The real question is: just how stubborn are they? My guess: very...
Could Trump's recent declaration that the US is going to leave once ISIS is defeated
setting the stage to declare victory and pull out? If the Kurds make a deal with Assad that
would leave the US without even a fig leaf of legitimacy to be in Syria anymore.
Turkey has an enormous current account deficit, their companies are heavily indebted, much
of it in foreign currencies. They are reliant on Russian and Iranian gas. Erdogan would be
a problem best handled in concert with the Russians, but I think Erdogan is smart enough to
realise the US elites are more interested in their contrived new cold war. Hopefully the
rumours are true and McMaster is off, but then I am not hopeful his replacement will be up
to much either.
I think the Kurds will come to their senses sooner rather than later. I think you are
right that the Turkish military is not up to much, and someone needs to call Erdogan's
bluff.
Could not Syria simply treat east Syria as the Turks treat east Turkey? Its population
is quite small, and concentrated by water (or the lack of water) resources? I.e., sustain a
low grade guerilla war for a decade-ish until it tamps down, while making deals with some
of the tribes to switch loyalty? Given the politics of US casualties, I cant see the US
staying, particularly given that our friends would also be happy to cut our throats.
Your assessment that Idlib is another question as it can be kept permanently out of the
Syria's control by shifting weapons and jihadis across the Turkish border ad infinitum.
Turkey will never allow the same to Syrian Kurds, nor Iraq.
As you suggest, the disagreement is based upon differing assessments of what Turkish
objectives in Syria are. You think their only important goal is suppressing Kurdish
independence, and that having achieved that they will go home.
You might be right, but personally, I'm with the gaffer here on this one. Erdogan has
made enough noise about Assad to make it difficult for him to be in cooperation with him at
all, and certainly gives the impression of having irredentist goals. Taking long term
control of a slice of northern Syria seems like it would be a winning proposition for
Erdogan. Certainly initial Turkish responses to so far limited Syrian moves in Afrin have
the whiff of burned bridges about them, as far as both rhetoric and actual attacks are
concerned.
Imo, Turkey will only leave Afrin if it is made to do so, and Syria alone probably
cannot do that. But we shall see.
The Kurdish areas maintained and still maintain Arabic-speaking bureaucracies, land
registers, etc. While to some starry-eyed Westerners the story is told differently, on the
ground the Syrian administrative tradition continues. I don't see this as a partition as
long as the cadastre is still a unified system.
Could this in any way be compared to the Syrian involvement in Lebanon? I happened to be
there when the Syrians had just crushed Michel Aoun, and I think this intervention was
borne out of a Syrian desire to react to events, and led to the Syrian occupation as a
result of backing their local clients, the desire to profit from the relative wealth of
Lebanon. thanks to the Kuwait war, the opportunity was there, too.
With the added advantage that it is the Syrian indigenous structures that dominate life
in East Syria. And I see no attempts to change this.
The difference to what we see now is that the Syrians in Lebanon respected the internal
structures, and tried simply to make them work in their favor. The structures of Idlib
(international and Islamist NGOs under the umbrella of an unstable coalition of AQ- and
IS-inspired, enabled and directed groups) is different. Building went on without any regard
for the cadastre, and I don't know if anyone has been kept around to run the whole thing.
So it is chaos. Seems the Turks have something like that in mind for the are they now
conquer in Afrin, too.
it will be good for Erdogan to be able to point out that he too, like Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk, added territory in this case enlarged hinterland of Antioch (Hatay). With
this he can fend off criticism by the nationalist military sympathizers. The violence is
good for him, too, as everyone is now a patriot.
Syria's prolonged conflict and misery going into its eighth year is no accident. It is by
design. American imperialist design.
First though, we note the increasing reprehensible absurdity in this conflict.
Turkey, which invaded Syria nearly a month ago in violation of Syria's sovereignty, this
week accused Damascus of "terrorism" after the Syrian government sent forces to defend the
northern area near Afrin under assault from Turkey.
Meanwhile, US forces, again illegally occupying Syria in violation of international law,
claim to be fighting terrorist militia. Yet more often than not, the Americans are affording
protection to various terrorist groups. Then when Syrian state forces advance to clear the
terror groups, the US claims it is acting in "self-defense" by massacring whole units of the
Syrian army.
Further absurdity is due to France, which has been bombing Syria illegally along with the US
and Britain, warning Iranian militia, who are legally present in Syria owing to Damascus'
approval, that they have to withdraw from the country.
As if the situation couldn't get any more bizarre, Israel has carried out more than 100 air
strikes on Syria, claiming that the aggression are "acts of self-defense".
The Syrian government of President Assad is the sovereign authority of the country, as
recognized by UN resolutions. It has the right to defend its nation and to reclaim areas which
have been usurped by illegally armed groups. Virtually all of these insurgents are
foreign-backed proxies who have been waging a war for regime change according to the designs of
their foreign sponsors.
The only armed forces legally present in Syria are those of Russia, Iran and associated
militia who have been requested legally by the Syrian government to assist in defending the
state from a foreign-backed war.
It is within the sovereign right of the Syrian government to take back all areas, including
the suburb of East Ghouta near the capital Damascus. The district has been held under siege by
foreign-backed extremists going by the name of Jaysh al Islam who are affiliated with
internationally proscribed terror groups Al Nusra Front and Islamic State.
The impetus to liberate East Ghouta has come about because the militants have been firing
mortars at nearby Damascus with deadly results.
Not only are Western states violating international law by militarily hampering the Syrian
army and its allies in rescuing the country from foreign insurgents, the Western governments
and media are mounting a propaganda campaign in an attempt to tie the Syrian state forces'
hands behind their backs by distorting their legal duty as "barbarism".
Out of the half million people who have died in the past seven years of war in Syria, it is
estimated that nearly half of that total were members of the Syrian army.
Added to the Western calumnies over Syria are claims that Syrian state forces have been
using chemical weapons on civilian populations. The evidence points in fact to the
Western-backed so-called jihadists who have been stealthily using these weapons for false-flag
propaganda stunts.
To understand the chaotic conflict in Syria, we must refer to the decades-old imperial
designs that the US and its allies have had towards the country. The Americans and the British
governments going back to Eisenhower and Churchill in the 1950s wanted to destabilize and
subjugate the Arab republic – a former French colony.
In 1996, a new generation of imperialists in Washington led by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith,
David Wurmser and other neoconservatives formulated the "Clean Break" strategy. The strategy in
conjunction with Israel sought to destabilize and "roll back" Syria because of its alliance
with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
More widely, the neoconservatives in Washington openly declared their aim of balkanizing the
entire region in order to, in their calculation, make Israel more secure. Syria and Iraq were
top priorities for US-imposed chaos.
Significantly, the Clean Break strategy designated Turkey as a key partner to the US and
Israel for implementing this plan.
The same American neoconservative planners went on to occupy key positions at the Pentagon
and State Department during President George W Bush administrations. There is every reason to
believe their stratagem of organized chaos – as a way of exerting hegemony over the
oil-rich Middle East – continues to be the guiding, albeit tacit, policy of the US
government under President Trump.
Russia, Iran and Hezbollah largely helped Syria bring the war to a close at the end of last
year with the widespread routing of foreign-backed insurgents. However, a subsequent peace
process
brokered by Russia, Iran and Turkey has lost momentum. The violence in Syria appears to be
re-igniting.
The increasingly overt military presence of US and Turkish forces, as well as Israeli
incursions, is the clearest factor in the resurgence of conflict. More than ever, the US and
its allies are operating on a brazen imperial design to dismember Syria and its territorial
integrity.
This is nothing short of criminal aggression by Washington following a deliberate plan for
regional domination. This imperialist intrigue should be called out for what it is by the
United Nations. But rather than upholding the UN Charter, the body's senior figures are
joining
in the Western chorus of condemning Syria for defending its national rights.
The UN is appearing like the ineffectual League of Nations in the 1930s when it pandered to
Nazi and fascist aggression. What the US and its allies are doing now in Syria is a repeat
– fanning the flames of wider war in the Middle East.
Laws and sovereignty are being smashed at will and yet the Western media and UN are blind to
the aggression. Indeed, they are turning reality on its head, by blaming victim-states for the
aggression.
The straightforward bottom line is that the US, Turkey, Israel and other NATO powers must
withdraw from Syria. Respect Syria's sovereignty and desist from criminal intrigues for regime
change. This is a minimum of abiding by international law.
If these protagonists persist in their criminal schemes, the region is heading for a
conflagration sparing no-one.
We can't continue to run the world... sentiment toward the US has started to shift too; there was a time when we were welcome...
We often have a foreign policy, especially in the last several decades, of being the dominant power. We pressure people; if they
do what we tell 'em,
we send them more money, since we can print the world currency. And if they don't do what we
tell 'em, then we have to participate in a little aggression by bombing and doing these kinds of things.
Former Texas Congressman and leading libertarian thinker Dr. Ron Paul has shared his views
on President Trump's job as president after his first year in office, the situation in Syria
and the renewed debate on gun control in the wake of the Florida school shooting.
Trump's
Year in Office
Sputnik: Donald Trump has been in office for over a year. What is your general assessment of
his job as president?
Ron Paul: Mediocre; probably not worse than the other options. But I don't think presidents
really have much control. I think the deep state – the people behind the scenes and the
shadow government, who control the monetary system, who control our foreign policy and the
welfare state, and are connected to the media and the military-industrial complex. – I
don't think the presidency is as important as it's made out to be. But everybody talks about
it; it's a political thing, and they keep churning the issue and directing everybody to ask 'is
Trump a good guy or a bad guy, and are we going to impeach him or what's going to happen',
rather than [asking] what kind of philosophy do we have: why do we have this philosophy of
welfare-warfare, spend money, run up debt and let the central bank print all that money.
They don't even talk about it; the major parties, including Trump, they sign even more
controls on us when it comes to FISA courts and spying on us. In spite of the fact that
government officials like the FBI and others actually spy on our own president, he supports
this; he passes and signs bills on that. So that really raises questions about 'does the
president really have much to say', and I think he has much less to say than a lot of people
believe. I believe that if he had stuck to his guns and had a different relationship with
Russia and started bringing troops home and not aggravating things, he wouldn't have been
tolerated. Something would have happened.
Syria and America's Place in the World
Sputnik: Moving on to the Middle East, in your reports you've stated that with so many
countries controlling territory in Syria, there's very little left for the Syrians. Do you
think there's a good chance that government forces can regain control of the country?
Ron Paul: I do. I think there will always be a Syria. What it's going to look like is the
big problem. At the moment, it's hard to predict and say that the people who have invaded --
the Turks, the Israelis, the United States will leave. They're going to have to suffer a defeat
somewhere along the way. That may occur soon –another defeat like Aleppo. That might make
them think differently, but it's still a hotbed
Sputnik: There's an ongoing campaign in the east of Demascus in Eastern Ghouta, with media
portrayals of it in the West comparing the ongoing campaign to Srebrenica and what happened in
Bosnia. Why do you think this is, and how is the situation being portrayed in the West? Do
Americans know what's actually going on?
Ron Paul: I think this, indirectly, may be a subtle bit of good news You know Aleppo was
seen as a return of Syrian territory, and a lot of people moved back! Everybody said that 'it's
Assad who wants to kill his people and gas his people,' and yet they all moved back after the
fighting stopped. So maybe this is one of the last desperate stands [for the anti-Damascus
forces], at least for the part of Syria where Assad is stronger
Sputnik: The UN has been commenting on this to emphasize how bad things are in Syria, and
particularly in Eastern Ghouta. But the situation was also really bad in Mosul in Iraq, with
recent video footage showing the results of US airstrikes. Where do you think the UN was
then?
Ron Paul: Probably cheering them on. We often have a foreign policy, especially in the last
several decades, of being the dominant power. We pressure people; if they do what we tell 'em,
we send them more money, since we can print the world currency. And if they don't do what we
tell 'em, then we have to participate in a little aggression by bombing and doing these kinds
of things. My argument from the day they started, back to 1998 – I argued don't mess
around with sanctions on Iraq, it'll lead to war.
Someday, we'll go broke. I don't think that we all of a sudden will have a reasonable
foreign policy. I think it's going to be financial. I believe it was the financing of the
Soviet system that brought it down as much as anything; that's the way most authoritarian
empires end, and I think that's the way our system is going to end. Who knows when that's going
to happen, but we can't continue to do what we're doing.
We can't continue to run the world. Our deficit's exploding. I think the sentiment toward
the United States has started to shift too; there was a time when we were welcome, and were on
the side of trying to help people, but right now it's on the side of expanding our controls
around the world.
... ... ...
You can find the complete audio from Dr. Paul's full interview with Sputnik below
"... Last year on the campaign trail, crowds roared when Donald Trump denounced his opponent as " trigger-happy " Hillary. But President Trump is rapidly incarnating the vice he condemned. Nowhere is this more evident than in Syria, where Trump's recklessness risks dragging America into a major war. ..."
"... Four years ago, Trump warned in a tweet : "If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay." But the Trump administration has sharply increased U.S. bombing while curtailing restrictions that sought to protect innocents. A British-based human rights monitoring group estimated Friday that U.S.-led coalition strikes had killed almost 500 civilians in the past month -- more than any month since U.S. bombing began. A United Nations commission of inquiry concluded that coalition airstrikes have caused a "staggering loss of civilian life." ..."
"... The carnage is sufficiently embarrassing that "the Pentagon will no longer acknowledge when its own aircraft are responsible for civilian casualty incidents," Micah Zenko of the Council of Foreign Relations recently noted. ..."
"... U.S.-led forces are reportedly bombarding the besieged city of Raqqa with white phosphorous, a munition that burns intensely and is prohibited by international law from use against civilians. Deploying white phosphorous to attack Raqqa could be a war crime, Amnesty International warns. ..."
"... Trump's most dangerous innovation involves direct attacks on Syrian government forces, including last week's shootdown of a Syrian jet fighter. The Russian government, which is backing Syrian President Bashar Assad, responded by threatening to shoot down any aircraft over much of Syria. ..."
"... Every side in the Syrian conflict has committed atrocities, often with approval of their foreign patrons. Former CIA officer Phil Giraldi observed, "The Saudis, Qataris, Turks and Israelis are all currently (or have been recently) in bed with terrorist groups (in Syria) that the United States is pledged to destroy." The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... The Syrian government has never threatened the United States, and Congress has not approved attacking it. White House spokesman Sean Spicer justified Trump's cruise missile attack because "when it's in the national interest of the country, the president has the full authority to act." But this is a recipe for unlimited power -- warring limited solely by self-serving presidential proclamations. ..."
"... Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va., condemned Trump's attacks on Syrian government forces as "unconstitutional" and a " completely unlawful use of power ." Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., concurs: "This is illegal war at this point." ..."
"... James Bovard, author of ..."
"... is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors . Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard ..."
"... You can read diverse opinions from our ..."
"... Board of Contributors ..."
"... and other writers on the ..."
"... Opinion front page ..."
"... and in our daily ..."
"... Opinion newsletter ..."
"... . To submit a letter, comment or column, check our ..."
, Opinion columnist
Published 3:15 a.m. ET June 26, 2017
Trump said Obama's 'horrendous leadership' on Syria could start World War III. He's made things
even worse.
CONNECT
TWEET
2
LINKEDIN
25
COMMENT
EMAIL
MORE
Last year on the campaign trail, crowds roared when Donald Trump denounced his opponent
as "
trigger-happy
" Hillary. But
President Trump is rapidly incarnating the vice he condemned. Nowhere is this more evident than in Syria, where Trump's
recklessness risks dragging America into a major war.
Four years ago,
Trump
warned in a tweet
: "If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide
hell to pay." But the Trump administration has sharply
increased U.S. bombing
while curtailing restrictions that sought to protect innocents. A British-based human rights
monitoring group estimated Friday that U.S.-led coalition strikes had
killed almost 500 civilians
in the past month -- more than any month since U.S. bombing began. A
United Nations commission
of inquiry
concluded that coalition airstrikes have caused a "staggering loss of civilian life."
The carnage is sufficiently embarrassing that "the Pentagon will no longer acknowledge when its own
aircraft are responsible for civilian casualty incidents,"
Micah Zenko of the Council
of Foreign Relations
recently noted.
U.S.-led forces are reportedly bombarding the besieged city of Raqqa with white phosphorous, a
munition that burns intensely and is prohibited by international law from use against civilians. Deploying white
phosphorous to attack Raqqa could be a war crime,
Amnesty International
warns.
Trump's most dangerous innovation involves direct attacks on Syrian government forces, including last
week's shootdown of a Syrian jet fighter. The Russian government, which is backing Syrian President Bashar Assad,
responded by threatening to
shoot down any
aircraft
over much of Syria.
After the Syrian government was accused of
killing at least 70 civilians
with
sarin gas in April, Trump speedily ordered the launch of
59 cruise missiles
against a Syrian military airfield. Much of the
American news media
hailed the Syrian missile attack as Trump's finest hour. When he gave the commencement
address at Liberty University
in May, the audience cheered when Trump was introduced as the man who "bombed those in
the Middle East who were persecuting and killing Christians." But America could pay a harsh price for Trump's "virtue
signalling" with bombs and missiles.
The biggest delusion driving U.S. policy is the quest for viable "moderate rebels" -- which apparently
means groups who oppose Assad but refrain from making grisly videos of beheadings. America has spent billions aiding and
training Syrian forces who either quickly collapsed on the battlefield or
teamed up with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
, or al-Qaeda-linked forces. Policy is so muddled that
Pentagon-backed Syrian
rebels
have openly battled CIA-backed rebels.
The United States has armed and aided
al-Qaeda-linked groups
in Syria despite federal law prohibiting providing material support to terrorist groups. A prominent Assad opponent who
organized a conference of anti-Assad groups financed by the CIA was recently
denied political
asylum
. The Department of Homeland Security notified Radwan Ziadeh that because he provided "material support" to
the Free Syrian Army, he has "engaged in terrorist activity."
By the same standard, thousands of CIA, State Department, Pentagon and White House officials should be
jailed. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, has introduced
The Stop
Arming Terrorists Act
to prohibit any funding, support or weapons for al-Qaeda, ISIS and allied terrorist groups.
Every side in the Syrian conflict has committed atrocities, often with approval of their foreign
patrons. Former CIA officer
Phil
Giraldi
observed, "The Saudis, Qataris, Turks and Israelis are all currently (or have been recently) in bed with
terrorist groups (in Syria) that the United States is pledged to destroy."
The Wall Street Journal
reported
this month that "Israel has been regularly
supplying Syrian rebels
near its border with cash as well as food, fuel and medical supplies for years."
The Syrian government has never threatened the United States, and Congress has not approved attacking
it. White House spokesman
Sean
Spicer
justified Trump's cruise missile attack because "when it's in the national interest of the country, the
president has the full authority to act." But this is a recipe for unlimited power -- warring limited solely by
self-serving presidential proclamations.
Killing vast numbers of innocent civilians sows the seeds of future terrorist attacks on America.
There are no good options for continuing U.S. intervention in Syria. The only question is whether Trump's blundering
will turn that war into a catastrophe for Americans as well as Syrians. As
Trump tweeted
about Obama's Syria
policy in 2013: "Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into
World War III."
"... The Russian independent TV Rain, also known as Dozhd, found (Russian, machine translation ) that one management person of the IRA was missing in the Mueller indictment. That women, Agata Burdonova, has recently moved with her husband to the United States. She had run the "translator" department of the IRA that created English language social marketing campaigns. She has now applied for a U.S. Social Security number. ..."
"... On June 15, 2017, Dmitry Fyodorov says he received an employment offer from Facebook. On August 8, 2017 Fyodorov marries Burdonova. Employer (presumably, Facebook) sponsors both of their visas -- prob. H1B. ..."
"... On December 7 2017 both moved to Bellevue, Washington. Two month later Mueller indicts the alleged IRA owner and management, but not Burdonova. This smells of a deal made by some US agency to get insight into the IRA. In return, an opportunity to move to the US was offered. ..."
Automated Twitter accounts, or trolls, repeated a tweet about a MoA piece
on Muller's indictment of "Russian trolls" . Funny but not really important. There is
interesting news though related to the original Muller indictment. Mueller accused with little
evidence 13 persons involved in the private Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) of meddling
with the U.S. election campaign.
The Russian independent TV Rain, also known as Dozhd,
found (Russian,
machine translation ) that one management person of the IRA was missing in the Mueller
indictment. That women, Agata Burdonova, has recently moved with her husband to the United
States. She had run the "translator" department of the IRA that created English language social
marketing campaigns. She has now applied for a U.S. Social Security number.
On June 15, 2017, Dmitry Fyodorov says he received an employment offer from Facebook. On
August 8, 2017 Fyodorov marries Burdonova. Employer (presumably, Facebook) sponsors both of
their visas -- prob. H1B.
On December 7 2017 both moved to Bellevue, Washington. Two month later Mueller indicts the
alleged IRA owner and management, but not Burdonova. This smells of a deal made by some US
agency to get insight into the IRA. In return, an opportunity to move to the US was
offered.
Crooke makes a number of interesting points about the sea change in Syria's military
relations with Israel after the shoot down of the Israeli jet, whether Turkey will indeed try
to take Manbij, and US relations with Iran.
"... He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon. ..."
"... Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump. ..."
"... The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported. ..."
"... The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent. ..."
"... Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are usually secondary to his machinations ..."
"... Great development and exposure of this hillary-look-alike. Love the phrase 'pretend progressive,' as it describes Schumer to a T. Great piece. ..."
"... Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong. Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States. ..."
"... Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency. ..."
"... Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes me wonder what he knows? ..."
"... Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers ..."
"... Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerer of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred to mankind, poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah! ..."
"... Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor ..."
"... Time will tell on their power minds Making war just for fun Treating people just like pawns in chess Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪ ..."
Thomas Hedges: In the 2007 book he published, Positively American, in the midst of his campaign against the war, Schumer
admitted that his opposition that year and the year before, was as much about ending a failed policy as it was about getting votes.
In reality Schumer had been one of the war's most ardent supporters, beyond his public display against the war carefully timed for
the 2006 Congressional elections, Schumer in fact pitted much of the blame on Iraqis themselves, arguing that Sunis, Shiites and
Kurds seemed more interested in starting a civil war in Iraq than in receiving help from the Americans and constructing any democratic
central government.
He even said, that in a similar future situation, he might vote again to authorize the use of force against a country like Iraq.
"Today," he wrote in his book, "I still believe that when our country is under attack the chief executive deserves a degree of latitude,
if God forbid, we were attacked again, I could well vote to give it to a future President, Democrat or Republican." And when a Real
News correspondent pressed Schumer in 2007 on US reparations to the Iraqi people, this is what he had to say.
Sam Husseini: Do we owe something to the Iraqi people other than just getting out? Do we owe them reparations for having
brought about this war?
Chuck Schumer: I don't believe that.
Ben Norton: It's hard to find a Democrat that's more gung-ho about war than Chuck Schumer. Not only did he support the
Iraq war, and fearmonger about weapons of mass destruction, he tepidly criticized the Bush administration for how it carried out
the war.
Thomas Hedges: In fact, tepid criticism seems to be Schumer at his most radical. In general, he is someone who supports
hard-line policy decisions, atoning for mistakes only years down the line, and usually because it's politically expedient to do so,
as in an election is about to take place.
Chuck Schumer: If you don't give up and you keep fighting and you're right, you win!
Thomas Hedges: In his early days, Schumer wasn't as focused on foreign policy, in the years before 911 would shift America's
attention to the Middle East, Congressman Schumer, along with the new Democrats like Bill Clinton among others, would exploit the
crime scare of the 1990's in order to gain more votes and more power. During those years, Schumer supported the Omnibus Crime Bill
of 1994, which spiked the prison population. And in 1995 he sponsored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act, which became the foundation
from which the Patriot Act six years later, was built.
Ben Norton: When it comes to the war on terror he was a very enthusiastic supporter and remains so. He voted for the Patriot
Act, and again this is a supposed Democratic leader, who voted for the Bush administration to take away Americans civil liberties.
Thomas Hedges: In the years straddling 911, he supported many of the same policies Republicans supported. From his tough
on crime approach to supporting war in the Middle East, to defending the surveillance of Muslim groups in New York after 911. Schumer
and the GOP had very few differences, in fact despite shedding tears at a press conference earlier this year after the Muslim ban
that Trump implemented, Schumer himself had proposed something eerily similar.
Ben Norton: In November of 2015, not that long ago, less than two years ago, Schumer also said that the US government should
consider a so called pause on the re-settlement of Syrian refugees. He also, in one of the most egregious yet under reported aspects
of Schumer, previously said that torture should be considered in some places, and he said that, "Oh well if you oppose torture, you
say this now, but you need to put yourself in the shoes of people in these particular situations etc." So he really left torture
on the table.
Before Trump was President, he had actually donated money to Schumer, that of course, represents something, this is not a progressive
Democrat. Schumer actually represents the segment, the influential powerful segment of the Democratic Party, that has helped pave
the way for Donald Trump to carry out many of the policies he's already implementing.
Thomas Hedges: But for voters who have paid attention to Schumer for a long time, the Senator's policy choices are anything
but surprising.
Kevin Zeese:He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which
is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon.
Ariel Gold: He has come out in strong opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement and was very supportive
of New York Governor Cuomo's order to ban BDS in New York state, and Schumer made a direct statement in support of that.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's staunch support for Israel has prompted him for example, to criticize the Obama administration,
when in 2016, the United States abstained from a UN Security Council resolution re-affirming something the Council had almost unanimously
upheld since 1979. Namely, that Israel's settlement building projects on Palestinian land violated international law.
Ben Norton:Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other
country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that
was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes
it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump.
Thomas Hedges:The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to
launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported.
Chuck Schumer: On Syria, I salute the professionalism and skill of our armed forces, who took action last night. The
people of Syria have suffered untold horrors and violence at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and his supporters in Tehran and in
Putin's Russia, making sure that Assad knows when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price, is the right thing
to do.
Thomas Hedges: But perhaps Schumer's greatest show of allegiance to Israel, was his decision to oppose the Iran nuclear
deal, without which experts have warned, would put the United States and Iran on a collision course.
Ben Norton: Under President Obama, Schumer was one of the most prominent Democrats to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, and
he was of course fearmongering about Iran, which to him is the devil incarnate, and he actually made factually false statements about
the nuclear agreement, and claimed that it would allow Iran in 10 years to produce nuclear weapons etc.
Thomas Hedges: Leading up to his decision, Schumer reassured Zionists that he was consulting the most credentialed men
in Washington, including Henry Kissinger, an opponent of the deal, and the man who orchestrated the violent coup in Chile that toppled
its democratically elected leader, as well as the architect of the very bloody Vietnam war.
Chuck Schumer: I spent some time with Dr. Kissinger, I'm spending time with excellence.
Ariel Gold: So it threatened to pull us into another war, and we're back in that threat again with Trump winning the election
we hear a lot about undoing the Iran nuclear deal, and it's one of the things that Israel has been saying they would like to see
come out of the Trump administration.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's willingness to oppose the deal early on, which created an opening for other undecided Democrats
to do the same, is a strong display of support for Israel.
News Anchor: Schumer's support here really would have been key for the White House, but coming out overnight against
this deal saying in a statement quote, "I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable
option, not to challenge the path of dis-plomacy it is because, I believe Iran will not change."
Thomas Hedges: It also put him in yet the same camp as current President Donald Trump in terms of pursuing a Middle East
policy that is in line with Washington's most hawkish advocates. In the end, Schumer's a friend of the neo conservative foreign policy
agenda. While he may cry over Trump's Muslim ban and purport to have the same inclinations as America's most progressive members
of the Senate, he's fundamentally in agreement with the United States forceful efforts abroad.
Kevin Zeese:The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and
so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent.
Thomas Hedges: As the United States nears yet another arms deal with Middle East ally Saudi Arabia, this time for
a hundred billion dollars, and coupled with its four billion dollar annual aid to Israel, we can expect Schumer not only to support
an even more militarized Middle East, but to continue to rail against countries like Iran that pose a threat to US and Israel's hegemony
in the region.
Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are
usually secondary to his machinations
Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong.
Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States.
"I only take up causes in which I know I'll find no allies. And often I wait for a cause to become successful before
attacking it."
Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on
Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency.
Anything in the way of progressiveness that you suggest will be only, like Obama's eloquent blackness, to run cover for favors
for the war party. Which at this late date ought also be christened the "hastening to collective extinction" party.
Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and
his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes
me wonder what he knows?
Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better
for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers
♪ Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerer of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪
The US has spent several trillion dollars over the past two decades in the Middle East ,
North Africa and West Asia. US Intervention from Libya and Southern Sudan, Somalia, across to
Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan has resulted in enormous costs and dubious
advances. The results are meagre except in terms of suffering. The US has spread chaos and
destruction throughout Libya and Syria, but failed to incorporate either into an enlarged
empire. The Middle East wars, initiated at the behest of Israel, have rewarded Tel Aviv with a
sense of invulnerability and a thirst for more, while multiplying and unifying US
adversaries.
Empires are not effectively enlarged through alliances with with armed tribal, sectarian and
separatist organizations. Empires, allied with disparate, fractured and self-aggrandizing
entities do not expand or strengthen their global powers.
The US has waged war against Libya and lost the political leverage and economic resources it
enjoyed during the Gaddafi regime. It intervened in Somalia, South Sudan and Syria, and has
gained enclaves of warring self-serving 'separatists' and subsidized mercenaries. Afghanistan,
the US's longest war in history, is an unmitigated military disaster. After seventeen years of
warfare and occupation, the US is holed up in the walled enclaves of the capital, Kabul.
Meanwhile, the puppet regime feeds on multi-billion dollar monthly subsidies.
Iraq is a 'shared' imperial outpost -- the result of fifteen years of military intervention.
Kurdish clients, Sunni-Saudi warlords, Shia militia, Baghdad kleptocrats and US
contractor-mercenaries all compete for control and a larger piece of the pillage. Every square
meter of contested 'terrain has cost the US five hundred million dollars and scores of
casualties.
Iran remains forever under threat, but retains its independence outside of the
US-Saudi-Israeli orbit. The US geo-political map has been reduced to dubious alliance with
Saudi Arabia and its micro-clients among the Emirate statelets – which are constantly
fighting among themselves – as well as Israel, the 'client' that openly revels in leading
its patron by the nose!
Compared to the period before the turn of the millennium, the US imperial map has shrunk and
faces further retrenchment.
Is there anyone on internet who doesn't know that USA basically is the global main founder
of terrorism and militant islamofascist groups?
"According to the newly declassified US document, the Pentagon foresaw the likely rise of
the 'Islamic State' as a direct consequence of the strategy, but described this outcome as a
strategic opportunity to "isolate the Syrian regime.""
http://www.judicialwatch.or...
"Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) program to arm and finance the Jihadi warriors, mujahideen, in Afghanistan from 1979 to
1989, prior to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the
Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant
Islamic groups"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
If you use your brain, you'll realize the report is saying that Gulf States and Turkey
would be OK with a salafist principality, because it would isolate the Syrian regime. It's
obviously not talking about what the US wants - remember Joe Biden's speech to Harvard?
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
As for Afghanistan, you seem to forget that it was the Soviets who helped the Afghan
communists seize power in the 1978 coup. That's what initially led to war, and yes, the US
supported those fighting the communist Afghan government, including the mujahideen, and that
eventually backfired.
Neither of those are examples of the US being the "global main founder of terrorism."
You seem to lack an ability to read, the report clearly states the USA government was
informed that arming terrorists would lead to the creation of ISIS, but that the USA
government when ahead with arming terrorist anyway. The mujahideen in Afghanistan became the
Taliban and al-qaeda btw.
"As for Afghanistan, you seem to forget that it was the Soviets who
helped the Afghan communists seize power in the 1978 coup. That's what
initially led to war,"
-Both purely irrelevant and a lie, USA funded terrorists in Afghanistan BEFORE Soviet sent
troops in, not that, that is relevant at all but you are trying a trolling tactic know as a
red herring where you are saying irrelevant things hoping it will distract from the
topic.
Do you know that Osama was a direct consequence of the US funding rebels in Afghanistan?
watch out, may the US is Training the next Osama in syria.
When you bomb countries and kill people's relatives , dont expect the people to love you.
Remember Abu gharib?
Both of this examples are the US promoting terrorism
There's some truth to what you say. I do remember Abu Ghraib - it is a source of deep
shame for Americans. I hope the Iraqi people can forgive us for that. I also hope there will
not be another bin Laden.
As for Syria, there are some rebels who are worth supporting - al Assad and his family
ruled Syria with iron fists for 50+ years.
"den. As for Syria, there are some rebels who are worth
supporting - al Assad and his family ruled Syria with iron fists for 50+
years."
-Actually it is illegal in accordance with international law to support rebels in other
countries. Especially the kind that USA supports that kids the heads of children and eats
peoples organs.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
The size of funds that Democrats and Republicans operated were in billions. And , IRA
staffers purchased just $100,000 worth of Facebook ads, 56% of which ran after Election
Day. So only $44K was spent during election campaign.
There author is wrong about color revolution against Trump. It is progressing.
One interesting side effect will be ruthless suppression of the US influence in Russian
elections. Bismark famously remarked that "the Russians are slow to saddle up, but ride fast."
Here media dogs also are off leash and there will be innocent victims, blamed in treason and
other nefarious activities just to voicing dissent. Russiagate discredited neoliberal fifth
column in Russia, making them all "enemies of the people".
Notable quotes:
"... After nine months of labor, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller thus brought forth a mouse. Even if all the charges are true – something we'll probably never know since it's unlikely that any of the accused will be brought to trial -- the indictment tells us virtually nothing that's new. ..."
"... Yes, they persuaded someone in Florida to dress up as Hillary Clinton in a prison uniform and stand inside a cage mounted on a flatbed truck. And, yes, they also got another "real U.S. person," as the indictment terms it, to stand in front of the White House with a sign saying, "Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss," a tribute, apparently, to IRA founder Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the convicted robber turned caterer whose birthday was three days away. Instead of a super-sophisticated spying operation, the indictment depicts a bumbling freelance operation that is still giving Putin heartburn months after the fact. ..."
"... Not that this has stopped the media from whipping itself into a frenzy. "Russia is at war with our democracy," screamed a headline in the Washington Post. "Trump is ignoring the worst attack on America since 9/11," blared another. " Russia is engaged in a virtual war against the United States through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda," declared the New York Times, while Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter tweeted that the IRA's activities amounted to nothing less than a "tech Pearl Harbor." ..."
"... This makes the Dems seem crass, unscrupulous, and none too democratic. But then Mudde gave the knife a twist. The real trouble with the strategy, he said, is that it isn't working: ..."
"... No collusion means no impeachment and hence no anti-Trump "color revolution" of the sort that was so effective in Georgia or the Ukraine. Moreover, while 53 percent of Americans believe that investigating Russiagate should be a top or at least an important priority according to a recent poll , figures for a half-dozen other issues ranging from Medicare and Social Security reform to tax policy, healthcare, infrastructure, and immigration are actually a good deal higher – 67 percent, 72 percent, or even more. ..."
"... " the Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country." Out in flyover country, rather, Americans can't figure out why the political elite is more concerned with a nonexistent scandal than with things that really count, i.e. de-industrialization, infrastructure decay, the opioid epidemic, and school shootings. As society disintegrates, the only thing Democrats have accomplished with all their blathering about Russkis under the bed is to demonstrate just how cut off from the real world they are. ..."
"... But Russiagate is not just about regime change, but other things as well. One is repression. Where once Democrats would have laughed off Russian trolls and the like, they're now obsessed with making a mountain out of a molehill in order to enforce mainstream opinion and marginalize ideas and opinions suspected of being un-American and hence pro-Russian. If the RT (Russia Today) news network is now suspect -- the Times described it not long ago as "the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the West" – then why not the BBC or Agence France-Presse? How long until foreign books are banned or foreign musicians? ..."
"... "I'm actually surprised I haven't been indicted," tweets Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky. "I'm Russian, I was in the U.S. in 2016 and I published columns critical of both Clinton and Trump w/o registering as a foreign agent." When the Times complains that Facebook "still sees itself as the bank that got robbed, rather than the architect who designed a bank with no safes, and no alarms or locks on the doors, and then acted surprised when burglars struck," then it's clear that the goal is to force Facebook to rein in its activities or stand by and watch as others do so instead. ..."
"... But Russiagate is about something else as well: war. As National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster warns that the "time is now" to act against Iran, the New York Times slams Trump for not imposing sanctions on Moscow, and a spooky "Nuclear Posture Review" suggests that the US might someday respond to a cyber attack with atomic weapons, it's plain that Washington is itching for a showdown that will somehow undo the mistakes of the previous administration. The more Trump drags his feet, the more Democrats conclude that a war drive is the best way to bring him to his knees. ..."
"... Thus, low-grade political interference is elevated into a casus belli while Vladimir Putin is portrayed as a supernatural villain straight out of Harry Potter. But where does it stop? Libya has been set back decades, Syria, the subject of yet another US regime-change effort, has been all but destroyed, while Yemen – which America helps Saudi Arabia bomb virtually around the clock – is now a disaster area with some 9,000 people killed, 50,000 injured, a million-plus cholera cases, and more than half of all hospitals and clinics destroyed. ..."
"... The more Democrats pound the war drums, the more death and destruction will ensue. The process is well underway in Syria, the victim of Israeli bombings and a US-Turkish invasion, and it will undoubtedly spread as Dems turn up the heat. If the pathetic pseudo-scandal known as Russiagate really is collapsing under its own weight, then it's not a moment too soon. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... A minor quibble was how at the end the author kept referring to how the "U.S" or "Washington" were the forces for the regime changes or flat-out destruction of nations Israel wants destroyed. The crappy little pesthole has been the barely-concealed mastermind of all the "Wars For Israel" which have turned the US of A into a bankrupt laughingstock. ..."
"... As ludicrous as Russiagate became, it was no joke, and became a real amplifier of the threat of nuclear war, and the relentlessly increasing militarization of America. Without the enthusiastic help of the corporate media, the whole phony narrative would never have got off the ground. Of course the criminals we call the intelligence community did all they could to give it legs, as well. We can only pray that it fades away now, and is not replaced with something else like a shooting war. But that hope is fading now on several fronts ..."
"... That was NOT to remove Trump, which was always a long shot and would only produce Pence and angry motivated Trump voters in the next election. ..."
"... The Trump derangement syndrome had a calculated purpose to keep donors giving after they were outraged by the waste of their donations. They'd been acting like a donor-strike was in progress. This cured that. ..."
"... This fed off the Stages of Grief reactions of those who'd so confidently expected a Hillary win. That helped do it, but was not the real motive. Those who initiated and shaped it were more directed, and aimed at the money. That is why the more likely things to blame, like Comey, were set aside in favor of the easy target of a foreign enemy which was familiar from recent Cold War. ..."
"... Having only as reference my own personal take on our news media the infamous MSM, is that these journalistic bandits are only in the game of twisting the news for the ratings, and to promote their own opportunistic careers. The corporate owned media has replaced responsible reporting with salaisuus promotions of often tragic events in a way that tends to in my eyes be a mere exploitation of these tragedies, as we viewers become glued to our TV screens. ..."
Fads and scandals often follow a set trajectory. They grow big, bigger, and then, finally,
too big, at which point they topple over and collapse under the weight of their own internal
contradictions. This was the fate of the "Me too" campaign, which started out as an
exposé of serial abuser Harvey Weinstein but then went too far when Babe.net published a
story about one
woman's bad date with comedian Aziz Ansari. Suddenly, it became clear that different types of
behavior were being lumped together in a dangerous way, and a once-explosive movement began to
fizzle.
So, too, with Russiagate. After dominating the news for more than a year, the scandal may
have at last reached a tipping point with last week's indictment of thirteen Russian
individuals and three Russian corporations on charges of illegal interference in the 2016
presidential campaign. But the indictment landed with a decided thud for three reasons:
It
failed to connect the Internet Research Agency (IRA), the alleged St. Petersburg troll factory
accused of political meddling, with Vladimir Putin, the all-purpose evil-doer who the corporate
media say is out to destroy American democracy. It similarly failed to establish a connection
with the Trump campaign and indeed went out of its way to describe contacts with the Russians
as "unwitting." It described the meddling itself as even more inept and amateurish than many
had suspected.
After nine months of labor, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller thus brought forth a
mouse. Even if all the charges are true – something we'll probably never know since it's
unlikely that any of the accused will be brought to trial -- the indictment tells us virtually
nothing that's new.
Yes, IRA staffers purchased $100,000 worth of Facebook ads, 56 percent of which ran
after Election Day. Yes, they persuaded someone in Florida to dress up as Hillary
Clinton in a prison uniform and stand inside a cage mounted on a flatbed truck. And, yes, they
also got another "real U.S. person," as the indictment terms it, to stand in front of the White
House with a sign saying, "Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss," a tribute, apparently, to IRA
founder Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the convicted robber turned caterer whose birthday was three days
away. Instead of a super-sophisticated spying operation, the indictment depicts a bumbling
freelance operation that is still giving Putin heartburn months after the fact.
Not that this has stopped the media from whipping itself into a frenzy. "Russia is at
war with our democracy,"
screamed a headline in the Washington Post. "Trump is ignoring the worst attack on America
since 9/11,"
blared another. " Russia is engaged in a virtual war against the United States through
21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda," declared the New York
Times, while Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter tweeted that the IRA's
activities amounted to nothing less than a "tech Pearl Harbor."
All of which merely demonstrates, in proper backhanded fashion, how grievously Mueller has
fallen short. Proof that the scandal had at last overstayed its welcome came five days later
when the Guardian, a website that had previously flogged Russiagate even more vigorously than
the Post, the Times, or CNN, published a
news analysis by Cas Mudde, an associate professor at the University of Georgia, admitting
that it was all a farce – and a particularly self-defeating one at that.
Mudde's article made short work of hollow pieties about a neutral and objective
investigation. Rather than an effort to get at the truth, Russiagate was a thinly-veiled effort
at regime change. "[I]n the end," he wrote, "the only question everyone really seems to care
about is whether Donald Trump was involved – and can therefore be impeached for
treason.
With last week's indictment, the article went on, "Democratic party leaders once again
reassured their followers that this was the next logical step in the inevitable downfall of
Trump." The more Democrats play the Russiagate card, in other words, the nearer they will come
to their goal of riding the Orange-Haired One out of town on a rail.
This makes the Dems seem crass, unscrupulous, and none too democratic. But then Mudde
gave the knife a twist. The real trouble with the strategy, he said, is that it isn't
working:
"While there is no doubt that the Trump camp was, and still is, filled with amoral and
fraudulent people, and was very happy to take the Russians help during the elections, even
encouraging it on the campaign, I do not think Mueller will be able to find conclusive evidence
that Donald Trump
himself colluded with Putin's Russia to win the elections. And that is the only thing that will
lead to his impeachment as the Republican party is not risking political suicide for anything
less."
Other Objectives of "Russiagate"
No collusion means no impeachment and hence no anti-Trump "color revolution" of the sort
that was so effective in Georgia or the Ukraine. Moreover, while 53 percent of Americans
believe that investigating Russiagate should be a top or at least an important priority
according to a recent poll ,
figures for a half-dozen other issues ranging from Medicare and Social Security reform to tax
policy, healthcare, infrastructure, and immigration are actually a good deal higher – 67
percent, 72 percent, or even more.
Summed up Mudde: " the Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in
Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country." Out in flyover
country, rather, Americans can't figure out why the political elite is more concerned with a
nonexistent scandal than with things that really count, i.e. de-industrialization,
infrastructure decay, the opioid epidemic, and school shootings. As society disintegrates, the
only thing Democrats have accomplished with all their blathering about Russkis under the bed is
to demonstrate just how cut off from the real world they are.
But Russiagate is not just about regime change, but other things as well. One is
repression. Where once Democrats would have laughed off Russian trolls and the like, they're
now obsessed with making a mountain out of a molehill in order to enforce mainstream opinion
and marginalize ideas and opinions suspected of being un-American and hence pro-Russian. If the
RT (Russia Today) news network is now suspect -- the Times
described it not long ago as "the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert
disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the
West" – then why not the BBC or Agence France-Presse? How long until foreign books are
banned or foreign musicians?
"I'm actually surprised I haven't been indicted," tweets Bloomberg columnist
Leonid Bershidsky. "I'm Russian, I was in the U.S. in 2016 and I published columns critical of
both Clinton and Trump w/o registering as a foreign agent." When the Times complains
that Facebook "still sees itself as the bank that got robbed, rather than the architect who
designed a bank with no safes, and no alarms or locks on the doors, and then acted surprised
when burglars struck," then it's clear that the goal is to force Facebook to rein in its
activities or stand by and watch as others do so instead.
Add to this the classic moral panic promoted by #MeToo – to believe charges of sexual
harassment and assault without first demanding evidence "is to disbelieve, and deny due process
to, the accused,"
notes Judith Levine in the Boston Review – and it's clear that a powerful wave of
cultural conservatism is crashing down on the United States, much of it originating in a
classic neoliberal-Hillaryite milieu. Formerly the liberal alternative, the Democratic Party is
now passing the Republicans on the right.
But Russiagate is about something else as well: war. As National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster warns
that the "time is now" to act against Iran, the New York Times slams
Trump for not imposing sanctions on Moscow, and a spooky "Nuclear Posture Review"
suggests that the US might someday respond to a cyber attack with atomic weapons, it's
plain that Washington is itching for a showdown that will somehow undo the mistakes of the
previous administration. The more Trump drags his feet, the more Democrats conclude that a war
drive is the best way to bring him to his knees.
Thus, low-grade political interference is elevated into a casus belli while
Vladimir Putin is portrayed as a supernatural villain straight out of Harry Potter. But
where does it stop? Libya has been set back decades, Syria, the subject of yet another US
regime-change effort, has been all but destroyed, while Yemen – which America helps Saudi
Arabia bomb virtually around the clock – is now
a disaster area with some 9,000 people killed, 50,000 injured, a million-plus cholera
cases, and more than half of all hospitals and clinics destroyed.
The more Democrats pound the war drums, the more death and destruction will ensue. The
process is well underway in Syria, the victim of Israeli bombings and a US-Turkish invasion,
and it will undoubtedly spread as Dems turn up the heat. If the pathetic pseudo-scandal known
as Russiagate really is collapsing under its own weight, then it's not a moment too
soon.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Zachary Smith , February 24, 2018 at 1:25 pm
First thing I checked before reading this was to check for instances of misuse of the term
"liberal". When I found none at all, the piece suddenly looked very promising. And it
was a fine essay!
A minor quibble was how at the end the author kept referring to how the "U.S" or
"Washington" were the forces for the regime changes or flat-out destruction of nations Israel
wants destroyed. The crappy little pesthole has been the barely-concealed mastermind of all
the "Wars For Israel" which have turned the US of A into a bankrupt laughingstock.
With that small objection on record, I will declare this was great.
Zachary, I wouldn't get too hung up on words like "liberal" which have been used and
abused to become almost meaningless but yes, "the Democratic Party is now passing the
Republicans on the right." Somehow I think they believe they can pick up enough "moderate"
Republicans in the midterms to make up for the "angry white males"(& intellectuals) they
lost in the last election the same losing strategy.
mike k , February 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm
As ludicrous as Russiagate became, it was no joke, and became a real amplifier of the
threat of nuclear war, and the relentlessly increasing militarization of America. Without the
enthusiastic help of the corporate media, the whole phony narrative would never have got off
the ground. Of course the criminals we call the intelligence community did all they could to
give it legs, as well. We can only pray that it fades away now, and is not replaced with
something else like a shooting war. But that hope is fading now on several fronts
Mark Thomason , February 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm
From its first moment, this was a Team Hillary exercise, decided on by her in the days
right after the election and promoted through her media contracts that had been an extension
of her campaign.
Why? At first they seemed to imagine it possible to reverse the election outcome.
Then it shifted to Trump hate. Why?
That was NOT to remove Trump, which was always a long shot and would only produce Pence
and angry motivated Trump voters in the next election.
The Trump derangement syndrome had a calculated purpose to keep donors giving after they
were outraged by the waste of their donations. They'd been acting like a donor-strike was in
progress. This cured that.
This fed off the Stages of Grief reactions of those who'd so confidently expected a
Hillary win. That helped do it, but was not the real motive. Those who initiated and shaped
it were more directed, and aimed at the money. That is why the more likely things to blame,
like Comey, were set aside in favor of the easy target of a foreign enemy which was familiar
from recent Cold War.
It was completely cynical, guided by the same greed that had produced the candidacy of
Hillary and run it the whole time, doing fund raising in friendly places instead of
campaigning in swing states.
JDQ , February 24, 2018 at 2:00 pm
..please do read this. It gives Liberals more a bashing than Conservatives
Joe Tedesky , February 24, 2018 at 2:40 pm
Having only as reference my own personal take on our news media the infamous MSM, is that
these journalistic bandits are only in the game of twisting the news for the ratings, and to
promote their own opportunistic careers. The corporate owned media has replaced responsible
reporting with salaisuus promotions of often tragic events in a way that tends to in my eyes
be a mere exploitation of these tragedies, as we viewers become glued to our TV screens.
This
is the way the MSM sell too many needless pharmaceutical products, and their drugs are
products, to insurance ad's and somehow make commercial space for the MIC defense
contractors. This is how the MSM makes real money, as they forfeited our learning of anything
worthwhile, as to pave the way for more exploitation of our country's struggles with
everything and anything, but all forfeited simply to make the MSM more money.
It goes without saying that we the American public aren't necessarily as fooled, and
tricked, as our masters would like to believe we are. So to explain away the Empire's
failings certain forces from within our nation's Beltway are hard at work trying to blame all
of their misgivings on another, and that another is Vladimir Putin and his American
engineered misunderstood Russians. For this reason our MSM hardly ever put the real Putin on
our television screens. No never, these American media producers always when describing
Putin, use a prop, or a slimy squinty eyed shirtless Russian stereotype instead. For our MSM
ever to air a speech of Putin, or do as Oliver Stone did, is beyond question, so don't wait
up kids to see ever steady Vladimir on our American TV sets because it just isn't going to
happen.
So now our MSM is exploiting the Florida mass shooting, and it is with their slants and
predisposed opinions where I lose faith in anything our media does. Even as terrible as this
Florida school shooting was, our MSM must politicize and adhere left right slants to this
story as in their daff journalistic heads this is what they must do. Like I said this is my
opinion taken from my own experiences, so take my comment for what it is, and not from any
references I happened upon.
So one year ago McMaster was under attack and survived. Note that this was the time of
appointment of the Special Prosecutor which changed the dynamics, probably preserving his scalp.
This time might be different.
The Afghanistan strategy McMaster is pushing, with the support of Defense Secretary James
Mattis, would send roughly 3,000-5,000 U.S. and NATO troops to Afghanistan, according to a
separate source familiar with the internal deliberations. These troops would be sent to help
bulk up the Afghan National Security Forces, which, after years of U.S. assistance, are still
struggling against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a small Islamic State presence in the
country.
According to the Washington Post , the new strategy "would authorize the Pentagon, not the White
House, to set troop numbers in Afghanistan and give the military far broader authority to use
airstrikes to target Taliban militants." The hope is that by increasing pressure on the
Taliban, it will force them to the negotiating table with more favorable terms for Kabul and
Washington. Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan follows a decision made last year by
then-President Barack Obama, who
announced in July that 8,400 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan through January 2017
because of the "precarious" security situation there, undoing his previous plan to draw down to
5,500 by the time he left office.
The Post reported that "those opposed to the plan have begun to refer derisively to
the strategy as 'McMaster's War,'" and this particular criticism is repeated in a handful of
negative stories about McMaster that have already cropped up this week. For those plugged into
the dicey world of Trump administration power plays, this slur has the hallmarks of a hit job
by Bannon's team. (It's worth noting that the same people who oppose McMaster are no fans of
Mattis's moderating influence on the president, but he's seen as politically untouchable for
now.)
"... The low-calorie Jan. 6 ICA was clumsily cobbled together: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks." ..."
"... Binney and other highly experienced NSA alumni, as well as other members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), drawing on their intimate familiarity with how the technical systems and hacking work, have been saying for a year and a half that this CIA/FBI/NSA conclusion is a red herring , so to speak. Last summer, the results of forensic investigation enabled VIPs to apply the principles of physics and the known capacity of the internet to confirm that conclusion. ..."
"... Oddly, the FBI chose not to do forensics on the so-called "Russian hack" of the Democratic National Committee computers and, by all appearances, neither did the drafters of the ICA. ..."
"... What troubles me greatly is that the NYT and other mainstream print and TV media seem to be bloated with the thin gruel-cum-Kool Aid they have been slurping at our CIA trough for a year and a half; and then treating the meager fare consumed as some sort of holy sacrament. That goes in spades for media handling of the celebrated ICA of Jan. 6, 2017 cobbled together by those "handpicked" analysts from CIA, FBI, and NSA. It is, in all candor, an embarrassment to the profession of intelligence analysis and yet, for political reasons, it has attained the status of Holy Writ. ..."
"... And Democrats like Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, were kicking the ball hard down the streets of Washington. On Jan. 25, 2017, I had a chance to confront Schiff personally about the lack of evidence -- something that even Obama had acknowledged just before slipping out the door. I think our two-minute conversation speaks volumes. ..."
"... Now I absolutely look forward to dealing with Adam Schiff from my new position as CIA director. I will ask him to show me the evidence of "Russian hacking" that he said he could not show me on Jan. 25, 2017 – on the chance his evidence includes more than reports from the New York Times ..."
"... Intelligence analysts put great weight, of course, on sources. The authors of the lede, banner-headlined NYT article of Jan. 7, 2017 were Michael D. Shear and David E. Sanger; Sanger has had a particularly checkered career, while always landing on his feet. Despite his record of parroting CIA handouts (or perhaps partly because of it), Sanger is now the NYT's chief Washington correspondent. ..."
"... More instructive still, in May 2005, when firsthand documentary evidence from the now-famous "Downing Street Memorandum" showed that President George W. Bush had decided by early summer 2002 to attack Iraq, the NYT ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger rose to the occasion with a tortured report claiming just the opposite. The title given his article of June 13 2005 was "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made." ..."
"... Against this peculiar reporting record, I was not inclined to take at face value the Jan. 7, 2017 report he co-authored with Michael D. Shear – "Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds." ..."
"... Nor am I inclined to take seriously former National Intelligence Director James Clapper's stated views on the proclivity of Russians to be, well, just really bad people – like it's in their genes. I plan to avail myself of the opportunity to discover whether intelligence analysts who labored under his "aegis" were infected by his quaint view of the Russians. ..."
"... I shall ask any of the "handpicked" analysts who specialize in analysis of Russia (and, hopefully, there are at least a few): Do you share Clapper's view, as he explained it to NBC's Meet the Press on May 30, 2017, that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever"? I truly do not know what to expect by way of reply. ..."
"... In sum, my priority for Day One is to hear both sides of the story regarding "Russian hacking" with all cards on the table. All cards. That means no questions are out of order, including what, if any, role the "Steele dossier" may have played in the preparation of the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment. ..."
Now that I have been nominated again – this time
by author Paul Craig Roberts – to be CIA director, I am preparing to hit the ground
running.
Last time my name was offered in nomination for the position – by The Nation
publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel – I did not hold my breath waiting for a call from the
White House. Her nomination came in the afterglow of my fortuitous, four-minute debate with
then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when I confronted him on his lies about the attack on
Iraq , on May 4, 2006 on national TV. Since it was abundantly clear that Rumsfeld and I
would not get along, I felt confident I had royally disqualified myself.
This time around, on the off-chance I do get the nod, I have taken the time to prepare the
agenda for my first few days as CIA director. Here's how Day One looks so far:
Get former National Security Agency Technical Director William Binney back to CIA to join me
and the "handpicked" CIA analysts who, with other "handpicked" analysts (as described by former
National Intelligence Director James Clapper on May 8, 2017) from the FBI and NSA, prepared the
so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017. That evidence-impoverished
assessment argued the case that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his minions "to help
President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton."
When my predecessor, CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited Binney to his office on Oct. 24, 2017
to discuss cyber-attacks, he told Pompeo that he had been fed a pack of lies on "Russian
hacking" and that he could prove it. Why Pompeo left that hanging is puzzling, but I believe
this is the kind of low-hanging fruit we should pick pronto.
The low-calorie Jan. 6 ICA was clumsily cobbled together: "We assess with high
confidence that Russian military intelligence used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to
release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets
and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
Binney and other highly experienced NSA alumni, as well as other members of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), drawing on their intimate familiarity with how
the technical systems and hacking work, have been
saying for a year and a half that this CIA/FBI/NSA conclusion is a red
herring , so to speak. Last summer, the results of forensic investigation enabled VIPs to
apply the principles of physics and the known capacity of the internet to confirm that
conclusion.
Oddly, the FBI chose not to do forensics on the so-called "Russian hack" of the
Democratic National Committee computers and, by all appearances, neither did the drafters of
the ICA.
Again, Binney says that the main conclusions he and his VIPs colleagues reached are based
largely on principles of physics – simple ones like fluid dynamics. I want to hear what
that's all about, how that applies to the "Russian hack," and hear what my own CIA analysts
have to say about that.
I will have Binney's clearances updated to remove any unnecessary barriers to a
no-holds-barred discussion at a highly classified level. After which I shall have a transcript
prepared, sanitized to protect sources and methods, and promptly released to the media.
Like Sisyphus Up the Media Mountain
At that point things are bound to get very interesting. Far too few people realize that they
get a very warped view on such issues from the New York Times . And, no doubt, it
would take some time, for the Times and other outlets to get used to some candor from the CIA,
instead of the far more common tendentious leaks. In any event, we will try to speak truth to
the media – as well as to power.
I happen to share the view of the handful of my predecessor directors who believed we have
an important secondary obligation to do what we possibly can to inform/educate the public as
well as the rest of the government – especially on such volatile and contentious issues
like "Russian hacking."
What troubles me greatly is that the NYT and other mainstream print and TV media seem to
be bloated with the thin gruel-cum-Kool Aid they have been slurping at our CIA trough for a
year and a half; and then treating the meager fare consumed as some sort of holy sacrament.
That goes in spades for media handling of the celebrated ICA of Jan. 6, 2017 cobbled together
by those "handpicked" analysts from CIA, FBI, and NSA. It is, in all candor, an embarrassment
to the profession of intelligence analysis and yet, for political reasons, it has attained the
status of Holy Writ.
The Paper of (Dubious) Record
I recall the banner headline spanning the top of the entire front page of the NYT on Jan. 7,
2017: "Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says;" and the electronic version headed "Putin
Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds." I said to myself sarcastically,
"Well there you go! That's exactly what Mrs. Clinton – not to mention the NY Times, the
Washington Post and The Establishment –
have been saying for many months."
Buried in that same edition of the Times was
a short paragraph by Scott Shane: "What is missing from the public report is what many
Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the
Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission."
Omission? No hard evidence? No problem. The publication of the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment got
the ball rolling. And Democrats like Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) ranking member of the House
Intelligence Committee, were kicking the ball hard down the streets of Washington. On Jan. 25,
2017, I had a chance to confront Schiff personally about the lack of evidence -- something that
even Obama had acknowledged just before slipping out the door. I think our
two-minute conversation speaks volumes.
Now I absolutely look forward to dealing with Adam Schiff from my new position as CIA
director. I will ask him to show me the evidence of "Russian hacking" that he said he could not
show me on Jan. 25, 2017 – on the chance his evidence includes more than reports from the
New York Times .
Sources
Intelligence analysts put great weight, of course, on sources. The authors of the lede,
banner-headlined NYT article of Jan. 7, 2017 were Michael D. Shear and David E. Sanger; Sanger
has had a particularly checkered career, while always landing on his feet. Despite his record
of parroting CIA handouts (or perhaps partly because of it), Sanger is now the NYT's chief
Washington correspondent.
Those whose memories go back more than 15 years may recall his promoting weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq as flat fact. In a July 29, 2002 article co-written with Them Shanker, for
example, Iraq's (nonexistent) "weapons of mass destruction" appear no
fewer than seven times as flat fact.
More instructive still, in May 2005, when firsthand documentary evidence from the
now-famous "Downing Street Memorandum" showed that President George W. Bush had decided by
early summer 2002 to attack Iraq, the NYT ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger
rose to the occasion with a tortured report claiming just the opposite. The title
given his article of
June 13 2005 was "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made."
Against this peculiar reporting record, I was not inclined to take at face value the
Jan. 7, 2017 report he co-authored with Michael D. Shear – "Putin Led a Complex
Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds."
Nor am I inclined to take seriously former National Intelligence Director James
Clapper's stated views on the proclivity of Russians to be, well, just really bad people
– like it's in their genes. I plan to avail myself of the opportunity to discover whether
intelligence analysts who labored under his "aegis" were infected by his quaint view of the
Russians.
I shall ask any of the "handpicked" analysts who specialize in analysis of Russia (and,
hopefully, there are at least a few): Do you share Clapper's view, as he explained it to NBC's
Meet the Press on May 30, 2017, that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever"? I truly do not know what to expect by way of
reply.
End of Day One
In sum, my priority for Day One is to hear both sides of the story regarding "Russian
hacking" with all cards on the table. All cards. That means no questions are out of order,
including what, if any, role the "Steele dossier" may have played in the preparation of the
Jan. 6, 2017 assessment.
I may decide to seek some independent, disinterested technical input, as well. But it should
not take me very long to figure out which of the two interpretations of alleged "Russian
hacking" is more straight-up fact-based and unbiased. That done, in the following days I shall
brief both the Chair, Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and ranking member Schiff of the House
Intelligence Committee, as well as the Chair and ranking member of its counterpart in the
Senate. I will then personally brief the NYT's David Sanger and follow closely what he and his
masters decide to do with the facts I present.
On the chance that the Times and other media might decide to play it straight, and that the
"straight" diverges from the prevailing, Clapperesque narrative of Russian perfidy, the various
mainstream outlets will face a formidable problem of their own making. Mark Twain put it this
way: "It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled."
And that will probably be enough for Day One.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .
"... For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat ..."
"... Are you reading this commentary? ..."
"... To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that enmity with Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is a smashing success already. ..."
For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the
heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat colluded to
ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and, when that failed, to undermine the nascent
presidency of Donald Trump. Agencies tainted by this corruption include not only the FBI and
the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the Obama White House, the State Department, the NSA, and
the CIA,
plus their British sister organizations MI6 and GCHQ , possibly along with the British
Foreign Office (with the involvement of former
British ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood ) and even Number 10 Downing Street.
Those implicated form a regular rogue's gallery of the Deep State: Peter Strzok (formerly
Chief of the FBI's Counterespionage Section, then Deputy Assistant Director of the
Counterintelligence Division; busy bee Strzok is implicated not only in exonerating Hillary
from her email server crimes but initiating the Russiagate investigation in the first place,
securing a FISA warrant using the dodgy "Steele Dossier," and nailing erstwhile National
Security Adviser General Mike Flynn on a
bogus charge of "lying to the FBI "); Lisa Page (Strzok's paramour and a DOJ lawyer
formerly assigned to the all-star Democrat lineup on the Robert Mueller Russigate inquisition);
former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and – let's not forget – current Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein,
himself implicated by having signed at least one of the dubious FISA warrant requests .
Finally, there's reason to believe that former CIA Director John O.
Brennan may have been the mastermind behind the whole operation .
Not to be overlooked is the possible implication of a pack of former Democratic
administration officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
former National Security Adviser Susan Rice , and President Barack Obama himself, who
according to text communications between Strzok and Page "wants to know everything we're
doing." Also involved is the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton operatives Sidney
Blumenthal and Cody Shearer – rendering the ignorance of Hillary herself totally
implausible.
On the British side we have "former" (suuure . . . ) MI6 spook Christopher Steele, diplomat
Wood, former GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan (who resigned a
year ago under mysterious circumstances ), and whoever they answered to in the Prime
Minister's office.
The growing sense of panic was palpable. Oh my – this is a curtain that just cannot be
allowed to be pulled back!
What to do, what to do . . .
Ah, here's the ticket – come out swinging against the main enemy. That's not even
Donald Trump. It's Russia and Vladimir Putin. Russia! Russia! Russia!
Hence the unveiling of an indictment against 13 Russian citizens
and three companies for alleged meddling in U.S. elections and various ancillary crimes.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume all the allegations in the indictment are true,
however unlikely that is to be the case. (While that would be the American legal rule for a
complaint in a civil case, this is a criminal indictment, where there is supposedly a
presumption of innocence. Rosenstein even mentioned that in his press conference, pretending
not to notice that that presumption doesn't apply to Russian Untermenschen – certainly not to
Olympic athletes and really not to Russians at all, who are presumed guilty on "genetic"
grounds .)
Based on the public announcement of the indictment by Rosenstein – who is effectively
the Attorney General in place of the pro forma holder of that office, Jeff Sessions
(R-Recused) – and on an initial examination of the indictment, and we can already draw a
few conclusions:
Finally, "collusion" is dead! If Mueller and the anti-constitutional cabal had any hint
that anyone on the Trump team cooperated with those indicted, they would have included it.
They didn't. That means that after months and months of "investigation" – or really,
setting "perjury traps" and trying to nail people on unrelated accusations, like Paul Manafort's alleged circumvention of lobbying and financial reporting laws – and wasting
however many millions of dollars, Mueller and his merry band got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bupkes.
Nada.The fake charge that Trump colluded with the Russians is exposed as the fraud it always
was.
And yet, "collusion" still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much less
evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, "colluded" with the indicted
Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and disparage
Hillary. Thus, Trump is guilty of being favored by Russia even if there was no actual
cooperation. It's a kind of zombie walking dead collusion, collusion by intent (of someone
else) absent actual collusion. Its purpose in the indictment is to discredit Trump as a
Russian puppet, albeit an unwitting one. The indictment says the Russian desperados supported
Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein too – so they're also Putin's dupes.
Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points to any
connection of those indicted to the Russian government! This is on a par with the hysteria
over social media placements by "Russian interests" on account of which hysterical Senators demanded that tech
giants impose content controls , or dimwit
CIA agents getting bilked out of $100,000 by a Russian scam artist in Berlin in exchange
for – well, pretty much nothing. ( The CIA denies it , which
leads one to suspect it is true.) Paragraph 95 of the indictment points to what amounted to a
click-bait scam to fleece American merchants and social media sites from between $25 and $50
per post for promotional content. Paragraph 88 refers to "self-enrichment" as one motive of
the alleged operation. That makes a lot more sense than the bone-headed claim in the
indictment that the Russian goal was to "sow discord in the U.S. political system" by posting
content on "divisive U.S. political and social issues." What! Americans disagree about stuff?
The Russians are setting us against each other! In announcing the indictment,
Rosenstein said the Russians wanted to "promote discord in the United States and
undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." (He wagged his
finger with resolve at that point.) It evidently doesn't occur to Rosenstein that he and his
pals have undermined public confidence in our institutions by perverting them for political
ends.
Demonizing dissent. Those indicted allegedly sought to attract Americans' attention to
their diabolical machinations through appeal to hot-button issues (immigration, Black Lives
Matter, religion, etc.) and popular hashtags (#Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA,
#Hillary4Prison). Have you taken a stand on divisive issues, Dear Reader? Have you used any
of these hashtags? Are you reading this commentary? You too might be an unwitting
Russian stooge! Vladimir Putin is inside your head! Hopefully DOJ will set up a hotline where
patriotic citizens influenced without their knowledge can now report themselves, now that
they've been alerted. Are you a thought criminal, comrade ?
An amateurish, penny-ante scheme with no results – compared to what the U.S. does.
At worst, even if all the allegations in the indictment are true – a big "if" –
it would still amount to the kind of garden-variety kicking each other under the table that a
lot of countries routinely engage in. As described in the indictment this gargantuan Russian
scheme was (as reported
by Politico ) an "expensive [sic] effort that cost millions of dollars and
employed as many as hundreds of people." Millions of dollars! Hundreds of
people! How did the American republic manage to survive the onslaught? Rosenstein was keen to
point out for the umpteenth time that nothing the Russians are alleged to have done (never
mind what they actually might have done, which is far less) had any impact on the election.
That stands in sharp contrast to the lavishly funded, multifaceted, global political
influence and meddling operations the U.S. conducts in nations around the world under the
guise of "democracy promotion." The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with its
Democratic and Republican sub-organizations, can be considered the flagship of a community of
ostensibly private but government-funded or subsidized organizations that provides the soft
compliment to American hard military power. The various governmental, quasi-governmental, and
nongovernmental components of this network – sometimes called the " Demintern " in
analogy to the Comintern , an organization
comparable in global ambition if differing in ideology and methods – are also
coordinated
internationally at the official level through the less-well-known " Community of Democracies ." It is often
difficult to know where the "official" entities (CIA, NATO, the State Department,
Pentagon, USAID) divide from ostensibly nongovernmental but tax dollar-supported groups (NED,
Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) and privately funded organizations that
cooperate with them towards common goals (especially the Open Society organizations funded by
billionaire George Soros). Among the specialties of this network are often
successful "
color revolutions " targeting leaders and governments disfavored by Washington for regime
change – a far cry from the pathetic Russian operation alleged in the indictment.
"
Mitt Romney was right ." Already many of Trump's supporters are not only crowing with
satisfaction that the indictment proves there was no collusion but refocusing their gaze from
the domestic culprits within the FBI, DOJ, etc., to a bogus foreign threat. "This whole saga
just brings back the 2012 election, and the fact that Mitt Romney was right" for "suggesting
that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe," is
the new GOP meme . To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that
enmity with
Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is
a smashing success already.
The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract Americans'
attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting attention to
a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are themselves
complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work.
In January, McMaster quashed rumors of his departure, telling reporters "I have a job and it is my
intention to go as long and hard as I can in service of the President of the nation," adding that it
was "a tremendous honor to do this job every day."
Trump's first National Security Advisor, Michael
Flynn, resigned shortly after taking office amid a controversy over whether he lied to Vice President
Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.
On Thursday, the Pentagon directed all inquiries about McMaster to the White House. "General
McMaster works for President Trump. Any decision with regards to staff, the White House will make
those determinations," said chief spokesperson Dana White. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary
Sarah Sanders told reporters on Tuesday that Trump "still has confidence in General McMaster."
A Source within the White House, leaking to CNN, reports that Trump can't stand McMaster's demeanor
during briefings - and that the President considers his National Security Advisor to be "gruff and
condescending."
He prefers the briefing style of someone like CIA Director Mike Pompeo or Defense Secretary
James Mattis, who patiently answer his questions, regardless of the premise. McMaster, meanwhile,
is the person who delivers the news that Trump doesn't want to hear on a daily basis, according to
the senior Republican source.
The issue is not political but mostly stylistic, as McMaster and Mattis tend to discuss
information before it is presented to the President, the same source added. -
CNN
Kelly and McMaster both declined to comment,
however Reuters' sources were quick to add that
"tensions could blow over, at least for now, as have previous episodes of discord between the
president and other top officials who have fallen out of favor."
McSinister is the essence of Goldfinger in the old James Bond fiction. One
couldn't envision a more stereotypical "worm-tonguesque" villain in charge
of our armed forces and acting presidential "advisor".
McMaster Finally Out? Pentagon Paving Way For Return To Military:
Report
My response: Looks like the POTUS is prepping for the Return
of General Flynn.
McMaster has some very suspicious associations and has been
referenced in Q-ANON posts. He was an "OBOZO" plant.
Also, it appears that "OBOZO's" LEGAL problems are growing by the
day.
"OBOZO" maybe the first POTUS in US history to be charged
with TREASON. Also, KERRY is in a DEEP PILE OF SHIT as well. He
directed the US State Department to provide 9 million dollars to her
charity. This is ladies and gentlemen of ZH is BULLSHIT!!!!!!
CORRUPTION and CRIME as far as the EYE can see for the last four
POTUS office holders. It make me ashamed of my nation at times.
May GOD bless, guide and protect President TRUMP and the TRUMP
administration as they "DRAIN THE SWAMP".
Flynn blew the whistle on Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopath Obama, the CIA & State Dept. arming,
funding & training terror organizations.
The Criminal Deep State has had it for him ever since.
Boy you sure get a different news feed than I do.... Mine says we
have heavy ground presence in Syria (didnt under Obowel), are on
the verge of war with the NORKs after the Olympics, and our CIA
has been stirring the shit pot in Iran....
Does your news
coverage come before of after the episodes of My little pony?
The only difference between Trump and Hillary is Hillary has
better hair. Follow what Trump actually does and not what he
Tweets, HUGE difference. WE ARENT WINNING.
SecDef knows him (from in the sandbox) and might want/need him to fill a CinC
slot. The pussified O crowd cut off the balls of many of the flag ranks and
they need to be purged (Regan did that and brought in/up Starry and Papa Bear
and Vuono and Art C-ski and the other knuckle draggers).
POTUS might be
getting his foreign policy situation sorted out. McMaster hasn't ever been a
smooth team player within the Army structure--that would also endear him to
Jim, but not suit him to a staff/advisor role.
We can always blame it on Global Climate Change and the Rooskies--cover all
the bases.
Monster McMaster opening greeting to the Munich security conference, "I know OUR
good friend John McCain can't be here, as unfortunately he can't, but he brings you
good wishes"....Then he proceeded to outline Russian Election bullshit. Cyber bot
farm meddling invading Georgia BLA BLA BLA. This is why war is plausible, McMaster
is Military SWAMP.
Oh boy, some oversized ego tripping....the sheer hubris of it all....fuckers cannot
see or admit to the gross amount of meddling they have done to the world, and yet
react like little bitches when allegations are merely cooked up.
I cannot believe
that this is the
lowly
state of American political discourse in 2018 AD.
Just another Rome, only with a much bigger budget for bullshit and weaponry.
Fire him. Forget the fourth star. He is undeserving. Another scumbag trying to
upend President Trump's agenda/objectives. The scumbag conveniently doesn't
mention that the Russian Hacking didn't have an impact on the election. This
untrustworthy piece of shit never should have been brought into the fold. And
don't even think about allowing him back into the military. Fuck off you
turncoat.
This guy was the commanding officer of 3rd ACR while I was in. Only time I saw
him in Iraq was when he flew down to tell us how sorry he was, or something like
that, after we lost 1/3 of our platoon. The rest of the time he was in northern
Iraq where it was safe. While those of us unlucky enough to be in 3rd Squadron
were stuck down on the south side of Baghdad. If you read his bio they make it
out like he personally did all kinds of Rambo shit. I guess that's they way it is
for officers. Those guys will slit your throat for the next shiny thing to stick
on their uniform.
Even back then my buddy SSG Judy, just talked to him an hour
ago, told me McMaster was being groomed for bigger roles. He definitely nailed
that one.
These two and Mad Dog keep whispering "Evil Russia" at Trump and demanding US
troops keep poking a stick at the bear - meanwhile Trump knows there is no
collusion. How does that square up?
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point
the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing
capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become
bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture,
herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
"... Among Global Research's most popular articles in 2016. ..."
"... Hillary is Dangerous. She Means What She says? Or Does She? (M. C. GR. Editor) ..."
"... On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event. She lied calling Iran an "existential threat to Israel I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear weapons program." ..."
Among Global Research's most popular articles in 2016.
Hillary is Dangerous. She Means What She says? Or Does She? (M. C. GR. Editor)
* * *
On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event.
She lied calling Iran an "existential threat to Israel I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear
weapons program."
Even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran. They are the world's chief sponsor of terrorism.
They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and create insurgencies to destabilize governments. They are taking more and
more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel.
We have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to reign in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness.
Fact: US and Israeli intelligence both say Iran's nuclear program has no military component. No evidence whatever suggests Tehran
wants one. Plenty indicates otherwise.
As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she addressed AIPAC's annual convention saying:
The United States stands with Israel now and forever. We have shared interests .shared ideals .common values. I have a bedrock
commitment to Israel's security.
(O)ur two nations are fighting a shared threat" against Islamic extremism. I strongly support Israel's right to self-defense
(and) believe America should aid in that defense.
I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats. I am deeply concerned about
the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas' campaign of terror.
No such campaign exists. The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.
Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas' charter "calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel."
"I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both
tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late."
She backs "massive retaliation" if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:
" I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly
consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that "keep the
peace." She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike
weapons entirely for offense.
*
Stephen Lendmanlives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
This is an old method to unite the nation against external enemy. Carnage (with so much oil and gas) needs to be
destroyed. And it's working only partially with the major divisions between Trump and Hillary supporters remaining
open and unaffected by Russiagate witch hunt.
Notable quotes:
"... It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances. ..."
"... The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media. ..."
"... A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together." ..."
"... He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning." ..."
"... The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law. ..."
"... The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies? ..."
"... The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference". ..."
"... Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV. ..."
Russophobia - "blame it all on Russia" - is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious
and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union.
But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal problems. Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news", he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed off in
December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by
"weaponizing disinformation" and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based
news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia
destabilized the US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir
Julian King, casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated
disinformation" to destabilize the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned
that Russia is stepping up its efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later
this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary"
, he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save
it, Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as
well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact"
.
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When
the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must
stop contributing to a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real scandal that
the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt the democratic
process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several
languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and
Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation
and Press TV.
Nunes chances to bring perpetrators to justice are close to zero. The Deep State controls the Washington, DC and can
withstand sporadic attacks.
It is an extremly courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview.
Notable quotes:
"... Throwing down the gauntlet on alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the Department of Justice and the FBI, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) stated that there could be legal consequences for officials who may have misled the FISA court. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said. "The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... Nunes took this highly unusual, no-holds-barred stance during an interview with Emmy-award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson , which aired on Sunday. ..."
"... He unapologetically averred that, yes, a criminal trial might well be the outcome. "DOJ and FBI are not above the law," he stated emphatically. "If they are committing abuse before a secret court getting warrants on American citizens, you're darn right that we're going to put them on trial." ..."
"... The stakes are very high. Current and former senior officials -- and not only from DOJ and FBI, but from other agencies like the CIA and NSA, whom documents and testimony show were involved in providing faulty information to justify a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump campaign official Carter Page -- may suddenly find themselves in considerable legal jeopardy. Like, felony territory. ..."
"... On the other hand, the presumptive perps have not run into a chairman like Nunes in four decades, since Congressmen Lucien Nedzi (D-Mich.), Otis Pike (D-NY), and Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) ran tough, explosive hearings on the abuses of a previous generation deep state, including massive domestic spying revealed by quintessential investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in December 1974. (Actually, this is largely why the congressional intelligence oversight committees were later established, and why the FISA law was passed in 1978.) ..."
"... At this point, one is tempted to say plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ..."
"... One glaring sign of the media's unwillingness to displease corporate masters and Official Washington is the harsh reality that Hersh's most recent explosive investigations, using his large array of government sources to explore front-burner issues, have not been able to find a home in any English-speaking newspaper or journal. ..."
"... On this point, Nunes said, "In the last administration they were unmasking hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of Americans' names. They were unmasking for what I would say, for lack of a better definition, were for political purposes." ..."
"... It is real courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview. It is not only the accountability to law that is at stake in U.S., but the Whole World is imperiled with what happens in Washington. But as many have written before in comments about this complete moral collapse of the Entire West, I am afraid, it is all going to be swept under the rug. We have to just keep the fingers crossed. ..."
"... I have never seen such media bias against a sitting president in my lifetime, not even against Richard Nixon when they at least practiced decorum and feigned objectivity even if they were secretly cheering on his demise. I will reiterate here that I do not champion the man but rather due process under our constitution, which has been made a travesty from the moment of Clinton's loss at the polls. ..."
"... I completely agree with you Realist. I am not Trump's fan or supporter of his agenda, in fact, in many things quite the opposite of it. However, he raised some very valid points about the the domestic economy and other issues, and about the need to stop interventions in foreign countries, and getting along Russia, and the need to rebuild country's manufacturing system again. He was duly elected by the people, and he should have been given the support to pursue what he promised. But it did not happen. ..."
"... Although it's being done for the wrong reasons, I am nevertheless looking forward to seeing our out-of-control intelligence agencies being put in their place. If I were president and my party controlled both houses of Congress, you'd better believe I'd be looking to dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military budget to a "mere" $250 billion annually. ..."
"... The post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes were sold to the American public as only to be inflicted on foreigners, i.e. "we fight them over there so we don't fight them here." But the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls, workplaces, concerts and churches into war zones and little by little, the disinformation ops, "regime change" know-how and other accoutrements of perpetual war (the fool's errand of gaining full spectrum dominance over the rest of the world) have been turned inward on the American people, including powerful American officials themselves. So it would seem to be a good thing that some politicians like Nunes have finally seen the light exactly as Frank Church did -- only when they themselves began to reap the negative consequences of what they thought would only negatively impact other, lesser people. ..."
"... But there is more to it, as some have pointed out in comments above, there are some intra-party quarrels going on in Washington to take the upper hand. Regarding foreign policy, National Security State and surveillance, and other such issues, both parties are joined at the hip. ..."
"... It is instructive to read the comments on any NYT article on this subject. The comments are clearly written by intelligent, well-educated individuals – who parrot the Deep State's anti-Russian propaganda as if they were the dumbest of the "Better dead than Red!" 50s McCarthyites. ..."
"... The new McCarthyites are actually stupider and more authoritarian than their sad fore-bearers, because they could pierce the Deep States lies with 30 minutes of online research, but they prefer tribalism and ignorance, instead. ..."
"... Trump started going head to head with the intel folks, but has backed down a lot now. Let's hope Nunes et al hang in there and keep the pressure on these despicable criminals who hide behind governmental powers. ..."
"... Somehow I don't think Nunes or his committee is capable of reigning in Frankenstein. His "constitutuents"" are not likely to allow it and although the monster was pieced together from many body parts its instincts for self-preservation are formidable. Nevertheless, I would applaud anyone who makes the effort. ..."
"... Note that after saying the Russians are indicted for interfering in the election, and spending 5 minutes on this, at the 5 minute 20 second mark Rosenstein says there is no evidence that the Russians had any affect [sic] on the election! So what we have is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States announcing an indictment for which he says there is no evidence! ..."
"... In the world of cypher espionage I have no knowledge, but if Russia does hang out in it well then I'm sure the U.S. is already there to do what it must to defend it's cypher security. So that's a wash, but this insane Russia-Gate distraction was originally a way to deflect attention from Hillary & Debbie's putting the screws to Socialist Sanders . then Russia-Gate became a MSM driven coup to oust Trump from his Electoral won presidential office. ..."
"... Impossible to get the whole Gorgon's head, anyway, in such a corrupt system as we have ..."
"... Ray, do you think Trump has made a deal: he'll allow escalations against Russia, and in return the Deep State will leave him alone? If so, does that portend that this will fizzle out? ..."
"... While the shiny ball, smoke and mirrors psychological operation known as "Russiagate" has begun running on fumes before the gas tank finally runs dry, the major revelation of the Clinton WikiLeaks emails describing Saudi/Qatari financing of ISIS drops further down the memory hole. There's nothing like success ..."
House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes has stated that "DOJ and FBI are not above
the law," and could face legal consequences for alleged abuses of the FISA court, reports Ray
McGovern.
Throwing down the gauntlet on alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) by the Department of Justice and the FBI, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-Calif.) stated that there could be legal consequences for officials who may have misled the
FISA court. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said. "The reason
Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Attkisson said she had invited both Nunes and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) but that only Nunes agreed. She asked him about Schiff's charge that
Nunes' goal was "to put the FBI and DOJ on trial." What followed was very atypical bluntness --
candor normally considered quite unacceptable in polite circles of the Washington
Establishment.
Rather than play the diplomat and disavow what Schiff contended was Nunes' goal, Nunes said,
in effect, let the chips fall where they may. He unapologetically averred that, yes, a
criminal trial might well be the outcome. "DOJ and FBI are not above the law," he stated
emphatically. "If they are committing abuse before a secret court getting warrants on American
citizens, you're darn right that we're going to put them on trial."
Die Is Cast
The stakes are very high. Current and former senior officials -- and not only from DOJ
and FBI, but from other agencies like the CIA and NSA, whom documents and testimony show were
involved in providing faulty information to justify a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump
campaign official Carter Page -- may suddenly find themselves in considerable legal jeopardy.
Like, felony territory.
This was not supposed to happen. Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? Back when the FISA
surveillance warrant of Page was obtained, just weeks before the November 2016 election, there
seemed to be no need to hide tracks, because, even if these extracurricular activities were
discovered, the perps would have looked forward to award certificates rather than legal
problems under a Trump presidency.
Thus, the knives will be coming out. Mostly because the mainstream media will make a major
effort -- together with Schiff-mates in the Democratic Party -- to marginalize Nunes, those who
find themselves in jeopardy can be expected to push back strongly.
If past is precedent, they will be confident that, with their powerful allies within the
FBI/DOJ/CIA "Deep State" they will be able to counter Nunes and show him and the other
congressional investigation committee chairs, where the power lies. The conventional wisdom is
that Nunes and the others have bit off far more than they can chew. And the odds do not favor
folks, including oversight committee chairs, who buck the system.
Staying Power
On the other hand, the presumptive perps have not run into a chairman like Nunes in four
decades, since Congressmen Lucien Nedzi (D-Mich.), Otis Pike (D-NY), and Sen. Frank Church
(D-Idaho) ran tough, explosive hearings on the abuses of a previous generation deep state,
including massive domestic spying revealed by quintessential investigative reporter Seymour
Hersh in December 1974. (Actually, this is largely why the congressional intelligence oversight
committees were later established, and why the FISA law was passed in 1978.)
At this point, one is tempted to say plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose -- or the more things change, the more they stay the same -- but that would be only
half correct in this context. Yes, scoundrels will always take liberties with the law to spy on
others. But the huge difference today is that mainstream media have no room for those who
uncover government crimes and abuse. And this will be a major impediment to efforts by Nunes
and other committee chairs to inform the public.
One glaring sign of the media's unwillingness to displease corporate masters and
Official Washington is the harsh reality that Hersh's most recent explosive investigations,
using his large array of government sources to explore front-burner issues, have not been able
to find a home in any English-speaking newspaper or journal. In a sense, this provides
what might be called a "confidence-building" factor, giving some assurance to deep-state perps
that they will be able to ride this out, and that congressional committee chairs will once
again learn to know their (subservient) place.
Much will depend on whether top DOJ and FBI officials can bring themselves to reverse course
and give priority to the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies foreign and domestic. This should not be too much to hope for, but
it will require uncommon courage in facing up honestly to the major misdeeds appear to have
occurred -- and letting the chips fall where they may. Besides, it would be the right thing to
do.
Nunes is projecting calm confidence that once he and Trey Gowdey (R-Tenn.), chair of the
House Oversight Committee, release documentary evidence showing what their investigations have
turned up, it will be hard for DOJ and FBI officials to dissimulate.
In Other News
In the interview with Attkisson, Nunes covered a number of other significant issues:
The
committee is closing down its investigation into possible collusion between Moscow and the
Trump campaign; no evidence of collusion was found. The apparently widespread practice of
"unmasking" the identities of Americans under surveillance. On this point, Nunes said, "In
the last administration they were unmasking hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of Americans'
names. They were unmasking for what I would say, for lack of a better definition, were for
political purposes." Asked about Schiff's criticism that Nunes behaved improperly on what
he called the "midnight run to the White House," Nunes responded that the stories were untrue.
"Well, most of the time I ignore political nonsense in this town," he said. "What I will say is
that all of those stories were totally fake from the beginning."
Not since Watergate has there been so high a degree of political tension here in Washington
but the stakes for our Republic are even higher this time. Assuming abuse of FISA court
procedures is documented and those responsible for playing fast and loose with the required
justification for legal warrants are not held to account, the division of powers enshrined in
the Constitution will be in peril.
A denouement of some kind can be expected in the coming months. Stay tuned.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Savior in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Skip Scott , February 19, 2018 at 9:38 am
Thanks Ray for another great article. One can only hope that Nunes is successful. However,
like you say, the MSM is now complicit with the "Deep State", so the fight for justice
becomes much harder. One also has to remember Schumer's "six ways from Sunday" applies
equally to the congress as it does to the president. I hardly ever watch TV news, but
recently I've been subjected to it, and I've seen a deluge of fluff pieces on our so-called
Intelligence Agencies. I would love to see Trump give a speech (instead of a tweet) directly
to the American people letting them know what rascals like Brennan, Clapper, et al have been
up to.
Bob Van Noy , February 19, 2018 at 12:51 pm
This may be the best broadcast tv journalism in many years, read Sharyl Attkisson's story,
"Stonewalled" (I will link the commentary page to that book for thorough readers). And thank
you Nat, Ray McGovern & CN
An excellent and very timely article by Ray McGovern. Lawlessness, greed, complete
subservience to Wall Street Finance and other Powers, insanity, and utter inhumanity prevails
in present day Ruling Establishment in Washington. Obama, "the hope and change" Con Artist
for whose election, being democrats we worked so hard in 2008 turned to be the biggest
perpetrator of this lawlessness and responsible for fanning the flames still further in
starting a new Cold War.
It is real courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview. It is not only the
accountability to law that is at stake in U.S., but the Whole World is imperiled with what
happens in Washington. But as many have written before in comments about this complete moral
collapse of the Entire West, I am afraid, it is all going to be swept under the rug. We have
to just keep the fingers crossed.
Howard Dean just said yesterday that Nunes and people like him belong in jail. Now can you
believe it, how low these so called liberal democrats have come to? Looking at the pictures
of Adam Schiff, Howard Dean, and others in their company, I literally feel sick in the
stomach. And one asks the essential question: "did not their parents teach them any honesty
or moral principles in young age?".
Abbybwood , February 19, 2018 at 3:54 pm
But what he said is very confusing. First he says that Congress has no way to prosecute the DOJ/FBI for wrong doing then at
the end he says Congress will need to prosecute the DOJ/FBI if necessary. Either Congress has the ability to prosecute the DOJ/FBI and issue indictments and set up
Grand Juries or they don't.
Somebody needs to find out, Constitutionally, what the solution is when the DOJ/FBI at the
highest levels become the criminals. WHO has the power to indict/convict these individuals??
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:36 pm
A special prosecutor (Mueller's position) is appointed by the Pres or AG.
Annie , February 19, 2018 at 3:20 pm
From what I've heard expressed by a few FBI people, you don't come before a court, but a
judge, one person, and they are known to rubber stamp almost everything. So they should be
investigated too.
Realist , February 19, 2018 at 5:02 pm
I have never seen such media bias against a sitting president in my lifetime, not even
against Richard Nixon when they at least practiced decorum and feigned objectivity even if
they were secretly cheering on his demise. I will reiterate here that I do not champion the
man but rather due process under our constitution, which has been made a travesty from the
moment of Clinton's loss at the polls.
Dave P. , February 19, 2018 at 7:56 pm
I completely agree with you Realist. I am not Trump's fan or supporter of his agenda, in
fact, in many things quite the opposite of it. However, he raised some very valid points
about the the domestic economy and other issues, and about the need to stop interventions in
foreign countries, and getting along Russia, and the need to rebuild country's manufacturing
system again. He was duly elected by the people, and he should have been given the support to
pursue what he promised. But it did not happen. We would not know now what he actually wanted
to accomplish.
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:41 pm
Yes, neither party nor the mass media shows concern for the Constitution or for the
people. As the propaganda agency, the mass media are primarily responsible. The
zionist/WallSt/MIC oligarchy have consolidated control over mass media, secret agencies, and
elections, but not without factions.
Although it's being done for the wrong reasons, I am nevertheless looking forward to
seeing our out-of-control intelligence agencies being put in their place. If I were president
and my party controlled both houses of Congress, you'd better believe I'd be looking to
dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military budget to a "mere" $250
billion annually.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 11:09 am
Michael I hear ya. Yes, there is a civil war of sorts going on in DC, and yes it would be
a wonderful thing to rid our bureaucracy of all the slim that is in it, but taking Jiminy
Cricket's good advice to heart would be so much more fruitful to if you and I would only
sing;
'When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you"
Now that song will be stuck in my head all day .got any Journey? Joe
Coleen Rowley , February 19, 2018 at 3:27 pm
It's true that people generally do not care when bad practices, policies or violence is
inflicted on others and not on themselves. Of course that's stupid because it's just a matter
of time before "blowback" occurs (as the CIA euphemistically labeled how doing unto others
eventually boomerangs back on perpetrators). Going back to the Church Committee and how that
bit of accountability finally happened, it only got off the ground when Frank Church and
other Senators found THEMSELVES in the crosshairs of FBI Cointelpro; CIA's "CHAOS" and NSA's
"Minaret" surveillance.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/25/secret-cold-war-documents-reveal-nsa-spied-on-senators/
(To this day, only 7 of the 1000 or so Americans targeted by the NSA during the Vietnam War
have been discovered but their identities are telling.)
The post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes were
sold to the American public as only to be inflicted on foreigners, i.e. "we fight them over
there so we don't fight them here." But the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls,
workplaces, concerts and churches into war zones and little by little, the disinformation
ops, "regime change" know-how and other accoutrements of perpetual war (the fool's errand of
gaining full spectrum dominance over the rest of the world) have been turned inward on the
American people, including powerful American officials themselves. So it would seem to be a
good thing that some politicians like Nunes have finally seen the light exactly as Frank
Church did -- only when they themselves began to reap the negative consequences of what they
thought would only negatively impact other, lesser people.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 4:50 pm
" the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls, workplaces, concerts and churches
into war zones"
"blowback" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, if you're referring specifically to
"post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes". Whenever
the incidents have had a political agenda attached, it's more often than not been of the
domestic right-wing variety. And of course, all of them have been facilitated by easy
civilian access to hardware that was originally developed by the military (ours and the
Soviets) to efficiently kill/incapacitate large numbers of enemy fighters.
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 7:30 pm
BobS fails to understand that blowback encapsulates more than "revenge". "Forever war" and
all Colleen mentions that goes with it has had societal impact because violence is glorified
as a "solution" and feelings of suspicion and antagonism become part of the dark
undertow.
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:54 pm
Well said, Colleen. Let us hope that Nunes is not merely acting the part. I wonder whether
the greatest secrets of domestic spying are now so compartmentalized and controlled that only
those most dependent upon their agency could blow the whistle.
Annie , February 19, 2018 at 4:23 pm
This is not to be compared to spying on citizens, which is unacceptable, but they tried to
undermine a presidency, whether you like Trump or not, and at the same time it allowed them
to push their cold war agenda. I remember Clinton's campaign manager coming out right after
the e-mail dump that said the Russians did it. And didn't Obama send a lot of those Russian
ambassadors packing? They should be investigated, as should the FISA court itself. Perhaps if
Trump didn't have this charge of colluding with Russia he might have been able to be more
diplomatic on that score. Now, they made sure he would never be getting along with Russia.
What they have now is a bunch of Russians acting on their own that allegedly interfered in
our elections and created political discord, which is absurd, since the democrats are mainly
responsible for this nonsense, as is the FBI and DOJ. I was a democrat, but no more.
Dave P. , February 19, 2018 at 4:52 pm
Annie, you are right on that. However, Coleen Rowely has also made some very good
observations in her comments. But there is more to it, as some have pointed out in comments
above, there are some intra-party quarrels going on in Washington to take the upper hand.
Regarding foreign policy, National Security State and surveillance, and other such issues,
both parties are joined at the hip.
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 7:42 pm
I wouldn't completely discount the idea that Nunes' sense of responsibility has been
activated by being a close witness to what is blatant wrongdoing. But then my cynicism is
still tempered by the belief that sometimes people are compelled to do what's right just
because it's what's right. Silly me.
Virginia , February 19, 2018 at 10:34 am
Me, too, Michael, to " dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military
budget to a 'mere' $250 billion annually."
Thanks to Ray McGovern for another good article with link to interview. Good to hear they
will finally be closing the Mueller investigation (Nunes was straightforward about that, no
there there) and will likely be investigating the FBI and DOJ.
Applause goes to David Nunes. Keep up the good work.
Abbybwood , February 19, 2018 at 4:03 pm
But I see where Trump asked for nearly one TRILLION dollars for the military and got
it.
Pandas4peace , February 19, 2018 at 10:24 am
Where can we get access to Seymour Hersh's "recent explosive investigations" even if they
are written in German?
"On June 25th 2017 the German newspaper, Welt, published the latest piece by Seymour
Hersh, countering the "mainstream" narrative around the April 4th 2017 Khan Sheikhoun
chemical attack in Syria."
Consortiumnews.com publishes and comments on everything Pulitzer Prize winning Sy Hersh
does. The problem is that he is BANNED from English-language pubs -- simply banned and even
kept off erstwhile "liberal" TV and radio programs. Amy Goodman, for example, has ALWAYS had
Sy on when he had a new story until this one. She would not touch it; these days prefers to
go with the "White Helmets" of this world. O Tempora, O Mores. Sad.
So, in sum, the problem is a very basic one. Sy does not publish until he has nailed down
every significant detail and, since he is so well plugged in with many longtime, trusted
sources to sift through, that takes a while for a bit story -- as all of them are. And when
he is ready to publish, he hears folks whisper "Leper" as he gets close to an editorial
office. It really IS that bad. We owe the op-ed editor at die Welt our thanks.
Btw: The Consortiumnews.com main page has a SEARCH button that I find very handy. Try to
search on Seymour Hersh. Same goes for easily searchable raymcgovern.com, my website.
Ray
David Otness , February 19, 2018 at 5:37 pm
The London Review of Books has been publishing Hersh's work. That's one source.
The ostracizing of Sy Hersh is a major -- if highly depressing -- story in and of itself.
But he is irrepressible. I do not think he is going to silently steal away any time soon.
Ray McGovern
Kim Dixon , February 19, 2018 at 10:32 am
Can anyone imagine the Neocon WashPo, or the NYT (or CBS, or CNN, or ) committing actual
journalism, as this story progresses?
That, and the DNC's commitment to the DNC to the Russia Did It!™ canard, will ensure
that real revelations go nowhere.
It is instructive to read the comments on any NYT article on this subject. The comments
are clearly written by intelligent, well-educated individuals – who parrot the Deep
State's anti-Russian propaganda as if they were the dumbest of the "Better dead than Red!"
50s McCarthyites.
The new McCarthyites are actually stupider and more authoritarian than their sad
fore-bearers, because they could pierce the Deep States lies with 30 minutes of online
research, but they prefer tribalism and ignorance, instead.
Lois Gagnon , February 19, 2018 at 1:01 pm
You got that right! I live in the 5 college area in Massachusetts. Plenty of those types
around here playing activists. They fit your description. I can't stand to be in the same
room with any of them. They may as well be from Mars.
Nancy , February 19, 2018 at 2:47 pm
I agree. The average working person has more common sense than the so-called intelligent,
educated class. I suspect their views reflect the fact that they are very comfortable,
financially, with the status quo, and don't want any real change.
mike k , February 19, 2018 at 10:35 am
Trump started going head to head with the intel folks, but has backed down a lot now.
Let's hope Nunes et al hang in there and keep the pressure on these despicable criminals who
hide behind governmental powers. When you allow people to do whatever they want in secret
with no oversight, you can expect them to abuse their power. The basic question all this
leads to is "who is running this country and making crucial decisions about war and peace, or
fascism and democracy"?
Somehow I don't think Nunes or his committee is capable of reigning in Frankenstein. His
"constitutuents"" are not likely to allow it and although the monster was pieced together
from many body parts its instincts for self-preservation are formidable. Nevertheless, I
would applaud anyone who makes the effort.
Thanks BobH, that's an excellent rant, thanks for passing it along.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 10:58 am
The only way any trail that Nunes could even begin to make magically appear to happen
before our weary eyes will happen only, and I say only, will appear because it will be good
for tv ratings. Enforcing Constitutional law, I mean who does that anymore? Why today in our
nation's capital we have congressional people asking the opposite of what Ben Franklin warned
us good citizens about as the swamp critters are saying, 'Constitution how can we lose it'.
You know this Ray that these crooks and crookettes in DC think that the U.S. Constitution is
so passé and so anciently colonial that they hear Jefferson saying, 'ignore this
stupid document, I was drunk with Adams and Franklin when I wrote it. It was all a big
mistake.' Or something like that, but Constitutional law we don't need no stink'n
Constitutional law, now get back to your part time work. (Whip cracking sound)
Hey Ray this whole fiasco does what is most important in this new American century, this
fiasco is entertaining and the ratings are going through the roof so with that what more
could a red blooded good American ask for now pass the tv remote.
Note that after saying the Russians are indicted for interfering in the
election, and spending 5 minutes on this, at the 5 minute 20 second mark Rosenstein says
there is no evidence that the Russians had any affect [sic] on the election! So what
we have is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States announcing an indictment for
which he says there is no evidence!
If we take Roberts' statement at face value, he may have inadvertenly mischaracterized
Rosenstein's statement. According to Roberts, Rosenstein said there is no evidence of an
effect on the election, but it does not follow from that that Rosenstein is saying that there
is no evidence of interference. There may have been "interference" that had no impact. And,
of course, there is the question, just what is meant by "interference" in this context?
I share the frustration many commenters have about the entire "Russiagate" narrative, but
I think it is important to be careful in how we evaluate these statements. It may all be a
"nothinburger," but it is important to describe things carefully and correctly. Otherwise,
one ends up inadvertently setting up a straw man for someone else to knock down.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 10:25 pm
I share the stress you do blimblax that you and all who stay on this Russia-Gate pay-ops
suffer, but the way this crooked nail investigation has been going, mostly distorted by the
press coverage, your argument about the interpretation of Rosenstein's words to the general
public will be like splitting hairs with bald people . they just won't get it, and why,
because I'm not sure the vast amount of Americans get it now. They got turned off along time
ago back when the FBI didn't produce Trump performing his much heard about Steele Dossier
acclaimed Water Sports in his Moscow Obama's Presidential Suite sick, yes, but it's the
truth. No pictures, no believe you.
Personally I have never doubted any Russian influence in the way of statements, or essays,
but this contribution of opinion is to be expected from any well thinking country, or nation
if you'd rather of the world. Plus the Russians spending wasn't even close to any real
fraction of what both U.S. Presidential candidate spend on their campaigns, get real.
In the world of cypher espionage I have no knowledge, but if Russia does hang out in it
well then I'm sure the U.S. is already there to do what it must to defend it's cypher
security. So that's a wash, but this insane Russia-Gate distraction was originally a way to
deflect attention from Hillary & Debbie's putting the screws to Socialist Sanders . then
Russia-Gate became a MSM driven coup to oust Trump from his Electoral won presidential
office.
We could argue to how Trump,should be questioned, or even brought up on impeachment
charges, but not for this particular Russia interference into our so well guarded American
democracy. In fact we Americans don't need any Russian help at bringing our American
democracy down, because we Americans already did that with the Patriot Act as among a few
many other things. Joe
Somehow many Democrats are convinced that the FBI/DOJ did nothing wrong with regards to
the FISA warrants. And they're still convinced that Trump colluded with Putin. Nothing will
change their minds, it's hopeless.
Lois Gagnon , February 19, 2018 at 4:17 pm
It is indeed surreal to watch people who classify themselves as the left undermining the
left by supporting the very agencies whose sole purpose from their inception is to destroy
the left.
As David William Pear put it at OpEd News, "I don't think even Orwell has a scene like
this: anti-authoritarian dissidents endorse more authoritarian means to weed out
authoritarians resulting in authoritarians having more control to weed out dissidents."
The Deep State is very, very deep, and we're "Knee Deep in the Big Muddy" (Pete Seeger).
Anybody knows the US Deep State was thoroughly entrenched by Reagan's time. It's overdue not
to let this deep state corruption harden to concrete. I support neither party until there is
a course correction, and Nunes makes valid points in support of a correction. Thanks,
Ray.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 11:58 am
Thin skinned too, eh Ray?
You're right, of course- Russia analysts at the CIA did stellar work in the 1980s.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 12:01 pm
No BobS it's you with your thickhead that doesn't get it. Keep it up BobS, because
eventually you are going to say something funny. Take care. Joe
Will Nunes or any conservative go after the thousands of illegal acts perpetrated by
conservatives??? NO! Nunes, along with every conservative traitor in America (republican or
democrat) needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The conservative agenda is
not moral or constitutional.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Considering their disregard for law as well as their worship of authoritarianism
(exercised against the proper targets, of course), I'd say it's more than "self-enrichment"
that drives conservatives, both ancient and modern.
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 1:58 pm
Perhaps that is an issue, but I am unclear precisely what is wrong in Nunes position that
he is relying on Gowdy, an undeniably sharp, precise, prosecutor, to review the examined
material. Watching both Nunes and Gowdy in sessions, I would have probably, and gladly, made
the same decision. It also make sense politically that they cover for each other, one person
is expendable and takes the heat – Nunes, while the other – Gowdy, an upward star
of the party, who probably ran the whole investigation anyway, keeps his hands clean.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 2:09 pm
The always partisan "upward star" Trey 'BENGHAZI!!!' Gowdy announced his retirement from
congress last month due to his being "sick of hyper-partisanship".
And let me show you this bridge I'm selling
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 2:32 pm
In fact, I would greatly enjoy a discussion on weapons transfers from Libya to Erdogan to
Al – Qaeda via Clinton. This is actually one of my favorite topics. So have it.
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 5:34 pm
So what is your argument, that we should be loyal to our crime family and not theirs?
Or do you think Hillary, "We came, we saw, he died" or Mueller, of nothing to see here on
9/11 notoriety are the sort of people we should be defending.
Impossible to get the whole Gorgon's head, anyway, in such a corrupt system as we have.
Why else are we in such a mess? Both GOP and Democrats have not served the people, so we
should therefore give up trying to address any abuse?
Antiwar7 , February 19, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Ray, do you think Trump has made a deal: he'll allow escalations against Russia, and in
return the Deep State will leave him alone? If so, does that portend that this will fizzle
out?
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 8:14 pm
So you are privy to the briefings in question. Just because Reagan bloated the military
budget doesn't mean he was being fed false intelligence by McGovern.
On the other hand, it is well publicized that Cheney twisted arms at Langley and Tenet
obliged and Rummy worked the Iraq angle as well. We also had the Downing Street Memo and the
Powell fiasco and Valerie Plame. Ray was right to be indignant.
While the shiny ball, smoke and mirrors psychological operation known as "Russiagate" has
begun running on fumes before the gas tank finally runs dry, the major revelation of the
Clinton WikiLeaks emails describing Saudi/Qatari financing of ISIS drops further down the
memory hole. There's nothing like success
Drew Hunkins , February 19, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Good point Mr. Alatalo. The Saudi-Zio Terror Network gets away with murder, literally and
figuratively and of course the Saudi-Zio Terror Network NEVER, EVER interferes in ANY
elections in the United States, no never.
Thank you Paul E. Merrell, J.D. I have been convinced from the beginning of all of this
that this was the line to Wikileaks. Now if we could only get a real investigation into
Seth's murder.
Stop Bush and Clinton , February 19, 2018 at 7:34 pm
"We found that they broke a vast number of laws, did surveillance of a competitor with a
warrant based on fake evidence, all adding up to treason worse than Watergate. But we think
that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges .."
-- The FBI
19 Feb, 2018
US troops must immediately shut down their zone of control in southern Syria in the area of
Al-Tanf, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested when asked what should be done to
help the Syrian peace settlement.
Lavrov was referring to an area on Syria's border with Jordan and Iraq, which the US
declared to be under its protection last year. Among other things, it contains the Rukban
refugee camp.
The facility is apparently used by radical militants, including members of UN-designated
terrorist group best known by its former name Al-Nusra Front, to recover and raid other parts
of Syria, Lavrov said at the Valdai Club conference on the Middle East in Moscow.
The US is turning a blind eye to such abuses of its protection, he added.
Mueller was the person responsible for investigation of 911. That fact alone tells you all as for what we can
expect.
Notable quotes:
"... NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that Russia hacked the DNC ..."
"... There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin ..."
"... Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective ..."
"... Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept) ..."
"... There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm ..."
"... Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber security ..."
"... Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy (and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War and maintaining U.S. global hegemony. ..."
"... Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss. ..."
"... How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup, kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the media never mentions. ..."
"... Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the party. ..."
"... That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the earth's environment. ..."
"... It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House. Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful idiots". ..."
"... This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary. ..."
"... I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe. ..."
"... tweet by Peter Van Buren, former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC, Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians, and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally. ..."
"... BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats. ..."
"... Seems that the end justifies the means. No matter what is the truth. In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered their computers for FBI forensics. ..."
"... The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for corporate media. ..."
"... It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT. ..."
"... So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining. ..."
"... Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose sole purpose was "regime change"? ..."
"... Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI can convincingly prove that the Russian government armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House. ..."
"... You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia, don't you? ..."
"... Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat. ..."
"... Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely since Gorbachev. Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure in their bad state. ..."
NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that
Russia hacked the DNC
There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the
Kremlin
Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the
extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective
Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake
anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept)
There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently
indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm
Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being
promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is
acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber
security
Read number six again and think about it. The U.S. is ready and willing to launch a
preemptive nuclear attack against any nation it accuses of undermining our cyber security -
no proof necessary. The Democratic establishment, which has spent the past year engaging in
baseless Kremlin-baiting (and very little else), is directly responsible for this
insanity.
Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing
but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy
(and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War
and maintaining U.S. global hegemony.
Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among
Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon
warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and
the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm
Who gives a shit really?
How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup,
kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the
media never mentions.
Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:12 am
As I open the online edition of The Nation this morning, there are two lead stories. One
of them tells how Trump is planning to evict 5 million poor people from public housing. A
very important story.
The second story by Bob Dreyfuss is probably the 10,000th one I've seen about the Russia
probe. The public housing story is obviously much more important and substantial, yet the
Democrats have been focusing almost exclusively on the flimsy Russia probe. Not even the
pressing need to regulate assault rifles has really grabbed their full attention, even in the
wake of the latest dreadful Florida high school massacre. In perusing the news stories this
Sunday morning, the Russia probe continues to hold first place in coverage by a big
margin.
Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant
Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary
really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the
party.
That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no
importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real
atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the
earth's environment.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 9:52 am
Amen, Caleb It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House.
Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful
idiots".
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:33 pm
This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary.
Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:42 am
I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat
Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged
against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 8:24 am
FYI tweet by Peter Van Buren,
former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections
between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the
impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but
nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC,
Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything
anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians,
and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:37 pm
There is nothing illegal or unethical about any individual of government supporting one
candidate over another. BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 19, 2018 at 9:02 am
Seems that the end justifies the means.
No matter what is the truth.
In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered
their computers for FBI forensics.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 12:31 pm
The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for
corporate media.
Richard Phelps says: February 18, 2018 at 2:52 am
There is one issue that no media is talking about regarding the "memos". Trump is clearly
a "person of interest", if not a suspect in some parts of the investigation. Given Trump's
entanglement how is it not an absolute conflict of interest for Trump being the person who
decides what memos get to be public and what redactions must be made.
Imagine a judge being a suspect in a crime or a major stockholder in a corporate civil
suit. S/he would never be allowed to make any rulings on what evidence the jury gets to see
or anything about the case. Some non-interested 3rd party needs to make those decisions.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Quit feeding this beast.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm
The other interesting and fun fact not mentioned anywhere. Three Names won by 3 million
votes. Crafty Ruskis.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:33 pm
This investigation by Mueller is just beginning. In other words, and to use the
vernacular, "We "ain't seen nothing," yet."
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:40 pm
You are right. This is nothing but bullshit and it may be just the beginning. The
Democrats have an endless supply of donkey-shit.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm
It's interesting that the Russians set this all up to boost Trump and disparage Three
Names before Trump even announced he was running. The basic set up for this was going on in
2014 whereas Trump announced in 2015.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm
No, not really. Trump was making gestures of interest in the presidency in 2012
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 10:28 am
Since when have you been so trusting of our FBI & CIA, Carla?
From what we've experienced together from the Gulf of Tonkin onward, I'm a wee-tad taken
aback.
Please read the ex-foreign intelligence officer's twitter posting that I posted above.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:30 pm
Pfui. He also made noises about running in the 2012 election. People don't set up
organizations to do stuff just on the off chance that some politician or wannabe is going to
run. These guys ain't got nothin'. It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he
got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was
not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media
posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be
true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign
parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising
from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm
So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a
nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining.
Francis Louis Szot says: February 16, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted
various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the
murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented
in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling
dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose
sole purpose was "regime change"?
Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI
can convincingly prove that the Russian government
armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group
that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm
You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia,
don't you?
Clark M Shanahan says: February 16, 2018 at 3:44 pm
I'm hoping the hush-money passed on to two of Trump's romantic caprices, during the election, gets traction.
Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard
tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever
Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 10:13 am
Yes David, I'm still a skeptic.
In fact, I think this move to indict 13 suspects, that have a snowball in Hell's chance of
ever being tried, is simply a dog and pony show to placate the public.
Debrief yourself, read Binney's report and listen to Stephen F Cohen's latest, here on the
Nation.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely
since Gorbachev.
Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to
an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure
in their bad state.
As if Hill, who stole the primaries actually ran a competent campaign.
"... The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative. ..."
"... They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly, or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration. ..."
"... This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice. ..."
Kim Dotcom has once again chimed in on the DNC hack, following a Sunday morning tweet from President Trump clarifying his previous
comments on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
In response, Dotcom tweeted " Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn't even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know
this because I know who did it and why," adding "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him
twice. He never replied. 360 pounds! " alluding of course to Trump's "400 pound genius" comment.
Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator , who determined
that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed
typical of file transfers to a memory stick.
The local transfer theory of course blows the Russian hacking narrative out of the water, lending credibility to the theory that
the DNC "hack" was in fact an inside job, potentially implicating late DNC IT staffer, Seth Rich.
John Podesta's email was allegely successfully "hacked" (he fell victim to a
phishing scam
) in March 2016, while the DNC reported suspicious activity (the suspected Seth Rich file transfer) in late April, 2016 according
to the
Washington Post.
On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide
written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.
On May 19 2017 Dotcom tweeted "I knew Seth Rich. I was involved"
Three days later, Dotcom again released a guarded statement saying "I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK," adding:
"I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared
to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.
If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made.
I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the
United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements.
In the meantime, I will make no further comment."
Dotcom knew.
While one could simply write off Dotcom's claims as an attention seeking stunt, he made several comments and a series of tweets
hinting at the upcoming email releases prior to both the WikiLeaks dumps as well as the publication of the hacked DNC emails to a
website known as "DCLeaks."
In a May 14, 2015
Bloomberg article entitled "Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be Hillary Clinton's Worst Nightmare In 2016 ": "I have to say it's
probably more Julian," who threatens Hillary, Dotcom said. " But I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks
for her ."
Two days later, Dotcom tweeted this:
Around two months later, Kim asks a provocative question
Two weeks after that, Dotcom then tweeted "Mishandling classified info is a crime. When Hillary's emails eventually pop up on
the internet who's going to jail?"
It should thus be fairly obvious to anyone that Dotcom was somehow involved, and therefore any evidence he claims to have, should
be taken seriously as part of Mueller's investigation. Instead, as Dotcom tweeted, "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in
my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. "
The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything
they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of
the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative.
Meanwhile they keep enacting the most Pro Deep State/MIC/Police State/Zionist/Wall Street agenda possible. And they call it
#winning
"Had to be a Russian mole with a computer stick. MSM, DNC and Muller say so."
They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center
or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly,
or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration.
This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up
to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice.
Kim is great, Assange is great. Kim is playing a double game. He wants immunity from the US GUmmint overreach that destroyed
his company and made him a prisoner in NZ.
Good on ya Kim.
His name was Seth Rich...and he will reach out from the grave and bury Killary who murdered him.
There are so many nuances to this and all are getting mentioned but the one that also stands out is that in an age of demands
for gun control by the Dems, Seth Rich is never, ever mentioned. He should be the poster child for gun control. Young man, draped
in a American flag, helping democracy, gunned down...it writes itself.
They either are afraid of the possible racial issues should it turn out to be a black man killing a white man (but why should
that matter in a gun control debate?) or they just don't want people looking at this case. I go for #2.
Funny that George Webb can figure it out, but Trump, Leader of the Free World, is sitting there with his dick in his hand waiting
for someone to save him.
Whatever he might turn out to be, this much is clear: Trump is a spineless weakling. He might be able to fuck starlets, but
he hasn't got the balls to defend either himself or the Republic.
Webb's research is also...managed. But a lot of it was/is really good (don't follow it anymore) and I agree re: SR piece of
it.
I think SR is such an interesting case. It's not really an anomaly because SO many Bush-CFR-related hits end the same way and
his had typical signatures. But his also squeels of a job done w/out much prior planning because I think SR surprised everyone.
If, in fact, that was when he was killed. Everything regarding the family's demeanor suggests no.
MANY patterns in shootings: failure in law enforcement/intelligence who were notified of problem individuals ahead of time,
ARs, mental health and SSRIs, and ongoing resistance to gun control in DC ----these are NOT coincidences. Nor are distractions
in MSM's version of events w/ controlled propaganda.
Children will stop being killed when America wakes the
fuck up and starts asking the right questions, making the right demands. It's time.
I don't think you know how these hackers have nearly ALL been intercepted by CIA--for decades now. DS has had backdoor access
to just about all of them. I agree that Kim is great, brilliant and was sabotaged but he's also cooperating. Otherwise he'd be
dead.
Bes is either "disinfo plant" or energy draining pessimist. Result is the same - to deflate your power to create a new future.
Trump saw the goal of the Fed Reserve banksters decades ago and spoke often about it. Like Prez Kennedy he wants to return
USA economy to silver or gold backed dollar then transition to new system away from the Black Magic fed reserve/ tax natl debt
machine.
The Globalist Cabal has been working to destroy the US economy ever since they income tax April 15th Lincoln at the Ford theater.
125 years. But Bes claims because Trump cannot reverse 125 years of history in one year that it is kabuki.
Will Erdogan again turn towards the US?
Feb 8, 2018
|
5,604
96
Two things differentiate the downing of a Russian Su-25 ground-attack jet in the western province of Idlib on
February 3 from the drone attacks on the Russian air base at Hmeimim a month earlier.
One, Russia could thwart
the attack on January 5 by a wave of drone aircraft but singularly failed to anticipate the use of man-portable
air defense systems by extremists operating in Idlib under Turkish watch. Russia lost an ace fighter pilot in the
latter attack.
Two, Moscow sensed an American hand in the drone attack on January 5, but this time around Russia's Tass news
agency promptly highlighted an American denial on record. The Kremlin's Dmitry Peskov made a point of cautioning
against speculations "before one gets precise information as to how terrorists in Syria got that particular
man-portable air defense system and other weapons that they have."
Notably, however, an influential lawmaker – Dmitry Sablin, coordinator of the Russia-Syria parliamentary
friendship group – went ahead to "speculate," saying: "We have information that the MANPADS used to bring down our
jet was brought into Syria from a neighboring country several days ago. Countries from whose territory weapons
arrive, that are then used against Russian servicemen, must understand that this will not go unpunished."
Curiously, the day after Sablin spoke, Turkey came out with a counter-allegation of its own, attributed to
"security sources," to the effect that the weaponry used in the attack against a Turkish army tank on February 3
by Kurds in Afrin "might have been a Russian-made 9M113 Konkurs" and that the "claim is being evaluated." Five
Turkish soldiers were killed in that attack.
Suffice to say, the air is thick with innuendos and dark hints that Russia and Turkey may have drawn each
other's blood on February 3, despite notionally being allies in Syria's hybrid war.
In January, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reached out to President Vladimir Putin to clarify the
situation. But over the latest incident, no such exchange has so far taken place, even though Erdogan is under
obligation to initiate one – according to the understanding reached in talks in Astana last year following the
Syrian ceasefire, Turkey is entrusted with setting up "observation posts" in Idlib to monitor the activities of
extremist groups.
Meanwhile, on February 5, Putin sent an effusive message to Nicos Anastasiades congratulating him on his
re-election as the President of the Republic of Cyprus. Putin's message expressed confidence that the
"constructive dialogue" and "joint work" by the two countries are in the mutual interests of both and "in keeping
with efforts to improve stability and security in Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean." Cyprus' relations with
Turkey have been unfriendly ever since the Turkish invasion and occupation of the northern part of the country in
1974.
Typically, therefore, Erdogan will now seek a
modus vivendi
with the US. Of course, it will be a dream
come true for the US if the hairline crack in the Russian-Turkish axis in Syria widens and becomes a rift in the
coming weeks. In their opposition to the establishment of Russian bases in Syria, Washington and Ankara are on the
same page.
On the other hand, the Pentagon will expect Erdogan to give up his plans to launch any military operation to
attack the Kurds in Manbij. The US simply cannot accede to the Turkish demand that it break its alliance with
Syria's Kurds. US Defence Secretary James Mattis hinted on Friday that talks are going on with Turkey to dissuade
Erdogan from ordering an operation on Manbij.
For his part, Erdogan will seek a tradeoff with the Trump administration to create conditions for a broader
rapprochement with the US. He is well aware that the US will see advantages in the developing situation to push
its containment strategy against Iran more effectively in Syria and to isolate the Assad regime. Indeed, a rift in
the Russian-Turkish axis in Syria opens an entirely new ball game in the country, one that enables the US to
create new facts on the ground and negotiate harder on the terms of a future Syrian settlement. Israel is also a
stakeholder here.
Erdogan all along hankered for an enhanced role for Turkey as the flag carrier in the West's strategies in
Syria, fancying himself to be the role model for the Muslim Middle East. But President Barack Obama was
disinterested in any such dalliance with the mercurial Sultan in Ankara.
Things are very much in flux, though. Erdogan met Pope Francis on Monday. It was the first time in 59 years that a
Turkish President had visited the Vatican.
More like attempt to unite the nation which crumbles die to crisis of
neoliberalism and decimation of neoliberal ideology. And resore even on
false pretext trust for neoliberal ruling elite that is sitting in Congress
and major government institutions.
As well as swipe Hillary political fiasco under the rug and prevent loss of
power by Clinton wing of Democratic Party.
With the almost non stop Russian bashing in the US one has to wonder if something
else is at play here. Like priming the US psych to cheer on an inevitable war
with Russia. If one digs into the revelations it's obvious they are bunk, unless
your reading Wapo, New York Times, Time, and other neocon mouthpieces which are
full of fiction not facts, but America is a soundbite nation. We stop reading
after the headline and the way stories are structured that do have some truth in
them never get read.
No matter what the US has done to crash the Russian
economy Putin has strengthened it and is working hard to make it impervious to
outside forces.
Unlike the US where the government and the CEO's can't destroy it
fast enough while filling their wallets. The more successful Putin is, especially
on foreign policy, the more desperate and dangerous the neocons will become.
Remember they have nice luxurious bunkers to wait out the inevitable while you
die a slow death.
"... The author is a prominent American social critic, blogger, and podcaster , and we carry his articles regularly on RI . His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining. ..."
"... He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. ..."
"... You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject, here . To get a sense of how entertaining he is, watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED. ..."
"... If you like his work, please consider supporting him on Patreon . ..."
"... Why Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia? , ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Sport's Illustrated ..."
"... Actually the Times's editorial seems to have CIA / NSA fingerprints all over it, or at least Deep State paw prints. By stating that the Russians are already "meddling" in 2018 elections that haven't happened yet, aren't our own security agencies setting up the public to lose faith in the electoral process and fight over election results? Oh, by the way, the Times ..."
"... The longer this fantasy about Russia continues from the Left side of the political transect, the deeper the nation sinks into a dangerous collective psychosis. After all this time, the only known instances of American political figures "colluding" with Russians involve the shenanigans between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and US intel services including the FBI and CIA, in paying for the "Steele Dossier" and the activities of the Fusion GPS company that claimed Russia hacked Hillary's and John Podesta's email. ..."
"... There is now a ton of evidence about all this monkey business, and no sign (yet) that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller may be taking a good hard look at it, not to mention the professional misconduct of a half dozen senior FBI, NSA, and CIA officials, especially former CIA chief John Brennan, who has now morphed into a CNN "analyst," taking an active role in what amounts to a psy-ops campaign to shove the public toward war. ..."
"... We are already choking this polity to death by endlessly litigating the past, insuring that the country doesn't have the time or the fortitude to deal with much more important quandaries of the present -- especially a financial system that is speeding into the most colossal train wreck in history. That will de-rail Mr. Trump soon enough, and then all the rest of us will have enough to do to keep our lives together or to refashion them in some that will work in a very different economy. ..."
He is one of the better-known thinkers
The New Yorker
has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in
an
excellent 2009 profile
, along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another
regular
contributor to RI (archive)
. These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful
crack-up.
If you like his work, please consider supporting him on
Patreon
.
Forget about sharks. In their Valentine's Day editorial:
Why
Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia?
,
The New York Times
jumped several
blue whales (all the ones left on earth), a cruise ship, a subtropical archipelago, a giant vortex of plastic
bottles, and the
Sport's Illustrated
swimsuit shoot. The lede said:
The phalanx of intelligence chiefs who testified on Capitol Hill delivered a chilling message: Not only did
Russia interfere in the 2016 election, it is already meddling in the 2018 election by using a digital strategy to
exacerbate the country's political and social divisions.
Hmmm . After almost two years of relentless public paranoia about Russia and US elections, don't you suppose these
Ruskie gremlins would find some other way to make mischief in our world -- maybe meddle in the NHL playoffs, or hack
WalMart's bookkeeping department, or covertly switch out the real Dwayne Johnson with a robot? I kind of completely
and absolutely doubt that they'll bother with our elections.
Actually the Times's editorial seems to have CIA / NSA fingerprints all over it, or at least Deep State paw
prints. By stating that the Russians are already "meddling" in 2018 elections that haven't happened yet, aren't our
own security agencies setting up the public to lose faith in the electoral process and fight over election results?
Oh, by the way, the
Times
presented no evidence whatsoever that this alleged "meddling" is taking place.
They just assert it, as if it were already adjudicated.
But then they take it another step, making the case that because Mr. Trump does not go along with the Russian
Meddling story, he is obstructing efforts to prevent Russian interference in the elections that haven't happened yet,
and is therefore by implication guilty of treason. A fine piece of casuistry.
The longer this fantasy about Russia continues from the Left side of the political transect, the deeper the nation
sinks into a dangerous collective psychosis. After all this time, the only known instances of American political
figures "colluding" with Russians involve the shenanigans between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and US intel
services including the FBI and CIA, in paying for the "Steele Dossier" and the activities of the Fusion GPS company
that claimed Russia hacked Hillary's and John Podesta's email.
There is now a ton of evidence about all this monkey business, and no sign (yet) that Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller may be taking a good hard look at it, not to mention the professional misconduct of a half dozen senior FBI,
NSA, and CIA officials, especially former CIA chief John Brennan, who has now morphed into a CNN "analyst," taking an
active role in what amounts to a psy-ops campaign to shove the public toward war.
The "resistance" may think it is getting some mileage out of this interminable narrative, but its arrant
inconsistencies only undermine faith in all our political institutions, and that is really playing with fire.
We are already choking this polity to death by endlessly litigating the past, insuring that the country doesn't
have the time or the fortitude to deal with much more important quandaries of the present -- especially a financial
system that is speeding into the most colossal train wreck in history. That will de-rail Mr. Trump soon enough, and
then all the rest of us will have enough to do to keep our lives together or to refashion them in some that will work
in a very different economy.
Very weak analysis The authors completely missed the point. Susceptibility to rumors (now
called "fake new" which more correctly should be called "improvised news") and high level of
distrust to "official MSM" (of which popularity of alternative news site is only tip of the
iceberg) is a sign of the crisis and tearing down of the the social fabric that hold the so
social groups together. This first of all demonstrated with the de-legitimization of the
neoliberal elite.
As such attempt to patch this discord and unite the US society of fake premises of Russiagate
and anti-Russian hysteria look very problematic. The effect might be quite opposite as the story
with Steele dossier, which really undermined credibility of Justice Department and destroyed the
credibility o FBI can teach us.
In this case claims that "The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan
" are just s a sign of rejection of neoliberalism by voters. Nothing more nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more damaging, is all American-made. ..."
"... A recent study found that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media consumption. ..."
That these efforts might have actually made a difference, or at least were intended to,
highlights a force that was already destabilizing American democracy far more than any
Russian-made fake news post: partisan polarization.
"Partisanship can even alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgment," the
political scientists Jay J. Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira wrote in a recent paper . "The human attraction to fake and
untrustworthy news" -- a danger cited by political scientists far more frequently than
orchestrated meddling -- "poses a serious problem for healthy democratic functioning."
It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it
vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but
laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more
damaging, is all American-made.
... ... ...
A recent study found
that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers
of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media
consumption.
Americans, it said, sought out stories that reflected their already-formed partisan view of
reality. This suggests that these Russians efforts are indicators -- not drivers -- of how
widely Americans had polarized.
That distinction matters for how the indictment is read: Though Americans have seen it as
highlighting a foreign threat, it also illustrates the perhaps graver threats from
within.
An Especially Toxic Form of Partisanship
... ... ...
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
In taking this approach, the Russians were merely riding a trend that has been building for
decades.
Since the 1980s , surveys have found that Republicans and Democrats' feelings toward the
opposing party have been growing more and more negative. Voters are animated more by distrust
of the other side than support for their own.
This highlights a problem that Lilliana Mason, a University of Maryland political scientist,
said had left American democracy dangerously vulnerable. But it's a problem driven primarily by
American politicians and media outlets, which have far louder megaphones than any Russian-made
Facebook posts.
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
"... The Dulles brothers, with Allan as head of Sullivan and Cromwells' CIA were notorious facilitators for the international banksters and their subsidiary corporations which comprise the largest oil and military entities which have literally plainly stated in writing, need to occasionally "GALVANIZE" the American public through catastrophic and catalyzing events in order for Americans to be terrified into funding and fighting for those interlocked corporations in their quest to spread "FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE," throughout the globe. ..."
"... The book by Peter Dale Scott, "The American Deep State Wall Street, Big Oil And the Attack on American Democracy" covers in detail some of the points you mention in your reply. It is a fascinating book. ..."
Your link to the Giraldi piece is appreciated, however, Giraldi starts off on a false
premise: He claims that people generally liked and trusted the FBI and CIA up until or
shortly after 9/11. Not so! Both agencies were complicit in the most infamous assassinations
and false flag episodes since the Kennedy/MLK Vietnam days. Don't forget Air America CIA drug
running and Iran/Contra / October Surprise affairs.
The Dulles brothers, with Allan as head of Sullivan and Cromwells' CIA were notorious
facilitators for the international banksters and their subsidiary corporations which comprise
the largest oil and military entities which have literally plainly stated in writing, need to
occasionally "GALVANIZE" the American public through catastrophic and catalyzing events in
order for Americans to be terrified into funding and fighting for those interlocked
corporations in their quest to spread "FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE," throughout the globe.
The political parties are theatre designed to fool the people into believing we are living
in some sort of legitimate, representative system, when it's the same old plutocracy that
manages to get elected because they've long figured out the art of polarizing people and
capitalising on tribal alignments.
We should eliminate all government for a time so that people can begin to see that
corporations really do and most always have run the country.
It's preposterous to think the stupid public is actually discussing saddling ourselves and
future generations with gargantuan debt through a system designed and run by banksters!
it should be self evident a sovereign nation should maintain and forever hold the rights
to develop a monetary/financial system that serves the needs of the people, not be indentured
servants in a financial system that serves the insatiable greed of a handful of parasitic
banksters and corporate tycoons!
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 5:08 pm
You are so right, in fact Robert Parry made quite a journalistic career out of exposing
the CIA for such things as drug running. I gave up on that agency a longtime ago, after JFK
was murdered, and I was only 13 then. Yeah maybe Phil discounts the time while he worked for
the CIA, but the CIA has many, many rooms in which plots are hatched, so the valiant truth
teller Giraldi maybe excused this one time for his lack of memory .I guess, right?
Good comment Lee. Joe
Annie , February 17, 2018 at 5:56 pm
Yes, but he's referring to the public's opinion of these agencies, and if they didn't
continue to retain, even after 9/11, a significant popularity in the public's mind how would
we have so many American's buying into Russia-gate? In my perception of things they only lost
some ground after 9/11, but Americans notoriously have a short memory span.
Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 6:42 pm
And films that are supposed to help Americans feel good about the aims and efficacy of the
agencies like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo are in the popular imagination.
Skeptigal , February 17, 2018 at 7:19 pm
The book by Peter Dale Scott, "The American Deep State Wall Street, Big Oil And the Attack
on American Democracy" covers in detail some of the points you mention in your reply. It is a
fascinating book.
"... The author is a prominent American social critic, blogger, and podcaster , and we carry his articles regularly on RI . His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining. ..."
"... He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. ..."
"... You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject, here . To get a sense of how entertaining he is, watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED. ..."
"... If you like his work, please consider supporting him on Patreon . ..."
"... Why Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia? , ..."
He is one of the better-known thinkers
The New Yorker
has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in
an
excellent 2009 profile
, along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another
regular
contributor to RI (archive)
. These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful
crack-up.
If you like his work, please consider supporting him on
Patreon
.
Forget about sharks. In their Valentine's Day editorial:
Why
Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia?
,
The New York Times
jumped several
blue whales (all the ones left on earth), a cruise ship, a subtropical archipelago, a giant vortex of plastic
bottles, and the
Sport's Illustrated
swimsuit shoot. The lede said:
The phalanx of intelligence chiefs who testified on Capitol Hill delivered a chilling message: Not only did
Russia interfere in the 2016 election, it is already meddling in the 2018 election by using a digital strategy to
exacerbate the country's political and social divisions.
Hmmm . After almost two years of relentless public paranoia about Russia and US elections, don't you suppose these
Ruskie gremlins would find some other way to make mischief in our world -- maybe meddle in the NHL playoffs, or hack
WalMart's bookkeeping department, or covertly switch out the real Dwayne Johnson with a robot? I kind of completely
and absolutely doubt that they'll bother with our elections.
Actually the Times's editorial seems to have CIA / NSA fingerprints all over it, or at least Deep State paw
prints. By stating that the Russians are already "meddling" in 2018 elections that haven't happened yet, aren't our
own security agencies setting up the public to lose faith in the electoral process and fight over election results?
Oh, by the way, the
Times
presented no evidence whatsoever that this alleged "meddling" is taking place.
They just assert it, as if it were already adjudicated.
But then they take it another step, making the case that because Mr. Trump does not go along with the Russian
Meddling story, he is obstructing efforts to prevent Russian interference in the elections that haven't happened yet,
and is therefore by implication guilty of treason. A fine piece of casuistry.
The longer this fantasy about Russia continues from the Left side of the political transect, the deeper the nation
sinks into a dangerous collective psychosis. After all this time, the only known instances of American political
figures "colluding" with Russians involve the shenanigans between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and US intel
services including the FBI and CIA, in paying for the "Steele Dossier" and the activities of the Fusion GPS company
that claimed Russia hacked Hillary's and John Podesta's email.
There is now a ton of evidence about all this monkey business, and no sign (yet) that Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller may be taking a good hard look at it, not to mention the professional misconduct of a half dozen senior FBI,
NSA, and CIA officials, especially former CIA chief John Brennan, who has now morphed into a CNN "analyst," taking an
active role in what amounts to a psy-ops campaign to shove the public toward war.
The "resistance" may think it is getting some mileage out of this interminable narrative, but its arrant
inconsistencies only undermine faith in all our political institutions, and that is really playing with fire.
We are already choking this polity to death by endlessly litigating the past, insuring that the country doesn't
have the time or the fortitude to deal with much more important quandaries of the present -- especially a financial
system that is speeding into the most colossal train wreck in history. That will de-rail Mr. Trump soon enough, and
then all the rest of us will have enough to do to keep our lives together or to refashion them in some that will work
in a very different economy.
PS:
Readers may wonder why I did not devote this space to the school shooting in Parkland,
Florida. It is exactly what you get in a society that wants to erase behavioral boundaries. It is especially
dangerous where adolescent boys are concerned. The country has a gigantic boundary problem.
We have also created perfect conditions -- between the anomie of suburbia and the dreariness of our school systems
-- to induce explosions of violent despair. That's why these things happen.
Until we change these conditions, expect ever more of it.
Syrian government army units have discovered warehouses with weapons and ammunition,
including those produced in Israel while patrolling areas in Deir Ez-Zor liberated from Daesh
terrorist group (outlawed in Russia), the SANA news agency reported. The warehouses with a huge
amount of rockets, mortars, tank shells and other ammunition were discovered in Al Boukamal and
Al Mayadin areas, according to the Syrian state-run news agency. The weapons reportedly were
produced in Israel.
A source told the media outlet that in one of the tunnels in the al-Sbikhan village to the
east of al-Mayadin, the army units found a factory for manufacturing shells and explosives as
well as barrels with a strange essence that could be used for manufacturing toxic
substances.
Israel and Syria, which have a very embittered relations recently, and have a long history
of troublesome controversies over the Golan Heights, have repeatedly exchanged fire, with the
latest incident taking place in February.
In December 2017, Syrian Army units discovered a huge pile of the US and European-made
weapons inside Daesh dens in Deir ez-Zor's countryside.
In October, local media reported that Syrian troops had found weapons in the city of
Mayadin, which had been the largest Daesh stronghold in the region, with weapons from Belgium,
Great Britain, and Israel. As the Syrian military noted, the jihadists supposedly received
these weapons, which were allegedly bought under Pentagon programs, in order to help the
allies.
"... * Nick Danforth is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He completed a PhD in Turkish history at Georgetown University and has written widely on Middle Eastern politics. ..."
What makes the current situation alarming is that anti-Western hostility, which extends far
beyond Erdogan's base, now appears to be driving policy independent of pragmatic or
specifically Islamist concerns. Erdogan, for example, is now courting
U.S. sanctions by
purchasing S-400 air defense systems from Moscow . His decision appears motivated
in part by a genuine belief that he needs them for self-protection following a 2016 coup
attempt that he, like a majority of his citizens, believes was orchestrated by the United
States. By comparison, Ankara's anger over U.S. support for the YPG makes much more sense. But
it has been dangerously inflamed by a climate of
rampant nationalism . Most recently, Meral Aksener, a nationalist politician who has
emerged as a potential challenger to Erdogan, called
for Turkish forces to move east and attack territories where American soldiers are
present.
Only against this backdrop is it possible to imagine a worst-case scenario where, say,
direct fighting between U.S. and Turkish troops pushes both sides toward a decisive rupture
that each hopes to avoid. Were this to happen, Ankara would face hard decisions about whether
to try to pragmatically patch things up or embrace an unequal and unrewarding relationship with
an unsympathetic power like Russia. It remains to be seen whether Ankara's lack of other
options will be enough to save the U.S.-Turkish alliance. But Washington would do well not to
count on it.
* Nick Danforth is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He completed
a PhD in Turkish history at Georgetown University and has written widely on Middle Eastern
politics.
"I swear that Russiagate is nothing more than trying to cover up the blatant corruption of
the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the FBI, CIA and The Department of Justice. Keep everybody busy with
Russiagate and don't allow the corruption (with the help of the press) to see the light of day.
Otherwise, people in high places would be going to jail.
Notable quotes:
"... As many commentators have pointed out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . . they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with. ..."
"... They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to call "free" in this country. ..."
"... The Thought Police use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who challenge the party's authority and ideology. ..."
"... Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state. ..."
"... What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying to spark a war with Russia? ..."
"... The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. ..."
"... "Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military adventure of all. War with Russia." ..."
"... The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. ..."
"... Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC). ..."
Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens
for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via
public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the
press about it did not deny doing so. Mueller made no links to the Russian government, Putin,
the FSB or even their alleged puppet Donald Trump. Just private individuals being persecuted
for expressing an opinion on American politics in public because they are foreigners. Doesn't
matter whether the opinions were true, false, complementary or disparaging because they were
subjective just like anyone else's opinions (you know, opinions are like a-holes, everybody's
got one).
So, if that move by Mueller is allowed to stand and serve as a precedent in American
jurisprudence, doesn't that mean that journalists from foreign lands, like Caitlin herself,
are at risk of being indicated at any moment by the US Justice Department if they express
opinions that the insiders in the Deep State do not like? And, what about all the foreign
nationals who post here in this forum on this blog? I daresay most offer opinions not
complementary of the US government and its political menagerie. And, to be honest, many do so
in order to either change minds or solidify shared beliefs with others, including great
swirling drifts of snowflake Americans.
This free exchange of thoughts is now to be verboten because someone other than Uncle Sam
may have an influence or even change the mind of a precious American citizen? This is
madness. That the most educated and articulate amongst us do not see this, but rather
participate in the feeding frenzy upon the carcass of what is left of our liberal democracy
is absolutely stupifying. As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must
be imposing a form of mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most
here) seem to be immune to its effects. Maybe something we consume acts as an antidote.
Perhaps your Italian grandma's muffalettas or calzones, Joe? Or my mother's German
rouladen?
Dave P. , February 17, 2018 at 5:01 pm
Realist –
"As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must be imposing a form of
mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most here) seem to be
immune to its effects."
You are dead right on that. My wife was yelling and screaming last night that why I was
not watching this "Russia trolls" show with her on CNN, MSNBC, and PBS; to learn how the
Russians have destroyed our beautiful democracy. She had seen the World too, mostly for fun
and experiences; she taught English in Malaysia – British colony until 1957 – as
a peace Corps volunteer during 1960's. There you have it. As many commentators have pointed
out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . .
they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who
will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of
opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with.
Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 6:21 pm
They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin
puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either
shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called
Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to
call "free" in this country. They not only take us for moronic fools, but they can't even see
that that they are insulting us further by insinuating that our voting decisions are
completely unsophisticated and easily swayed to the point that 13 Russians could have an
impact amidst a sea of election season campaign "propaganda" from both major parties and an
array of special interest influence peddling. Like the Clinton campaign didn't hire Facebook
trolls!
Bye Bye First Amendment no one in the halls of power takes it seriously enough to defend it
unless you're spouting groupthink right Bernie?
Zachary Smith , February 17, 2018 at 8:00 pm
Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens
for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via
public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the
press about it did not deny doing so.
I'll echo Drew Hunkins in calling this a brilliant condensation of the issue. What worries
me is what the morons-in-charge might have in mind as a follow-up to this lunacy.
CitizenOne , February 18, 2018 at 2:31 am
Perhaps we are entering into the Orwellian dawn of Thought Crimes which are any feelings
or thinking a Citizen has which are counter to the State Propaganda put out by the Ministry
of Truth. The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is their job to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police
use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who
challenge the party's authority and ideology.
Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump
colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state.
It would appear to be allegations of thought crime because 15 foreign nationals posted
things on social media. We have been under the perception that social media is a free forum
for discourse but now, like China, we are seeing the formation of a witch hunt for foreign
devils who have infiltrated the social mediascape and are on trial for the results of a
national election.
We are literally burning some innocent teenager for the calamity we are convinced was not
of our own making. We need to find a witch to brew some witchcraft to explain how our current
situation has arisen.
Not sure if anyone alive today believes the Salem Witch Trials served justice and created
a restoration of civil harmony. I'm fairly sure that everyone looks at those dark days as a
travesty of justice.
Yes we are living in a time of universal deceit and the act of telling the truth has
become a revolutionary act just as Orwell portrayed in his novel.
Thought crimes are fairly scary and they imply that our government is willing to indict
the thoughts of whoever it deems to be an enemy of the state and bring the thinkers of
thought crime as defined by the state as anyone who questions the official fake narrative of
Russia Gate to "justice".
What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war
with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your
question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying
to spark a war with Russia?
The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its
insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery
strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is
happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough
pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what
I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence
agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely
believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons.
Even the analysis on North Korea which opines that NK will use all weapons first as a
first strike in a scenario the USA has called the "Use it or Lose it" fell short and was
proved a false scenario or that there were really no actual WMDs in Iraq as the UN
claimed.
Either way, the likely outcomes of a WMD armed Iraqi leader facing imminent demise which
would cause him to use all available weapons at his disposal did not happen. There are only
two conclusions to the outcome. Saddam did not have these weapons or the likely scenario of
"Use it or Lose it" is all wrong.
Either way the premise of the war was shown to be false.
Unfortunately in the aftermath of that war there was no US counterpart to the British
Chilcot Report and the US went on to engage in regime change in other nations like Ukraine,
Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
There is no sense to it other than to destabilize nations, foment violence and create
international tensions which have the effect of causing our elected leaders to pony up more
money for defense to combat the new enemies we just created.
Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to
do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military
adventure of all. War with Russia.
I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet
but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media
all the times before.
I agree with you Joe that a form of mass hypnosis has gripped our democrat officials and a
large segment of our population. We have been handed a leader they don't like and they are
ready and able to make hay with the election outcome to persuade us by force to support more
military adventures.
Dave P. , February 18, 2018 at 3:53 am
Citizen One –
"Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to
do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military
adventure of all. War with Russia."
I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet
but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media
all the times before."
Yes. This scenario is getting more and more likely. All steps point to that direction.
Skeptigal , February 17, 2018 at 11:10 pm
Unfortunately I'm not as confident. Here is the complete indictment at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945
. There are three counts (with almost 70 allegations): 1. Conspiracy to Defraud the United
States 2. Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud And Bank Fraud and 3. Aggravated Identity Theft. It
ends with a forfeiture allegation seeking property, real or personal from the defendants.
The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is
under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. Mueller will
be the hero; Trump may be saved as the interference started in 2014, before his campaign
began; the Hillary emails and Nunes memo will be cast aside; and the USA can say to the world
"see I told you so."
Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer
another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia
for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC).
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 18, 2018 at 1:15 am
If the allegations are true, they need to be put in perspective:
– what might be the rational behind? Eg tit-for-tat for Western meddling, arms
race,
– do other nations engage in similar projects? What are the scale of those?
Starting in 2014 could it have been triggered by the Kiev coup and Nuland's was it five
billion?
This dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia is extremely lucrative for the war
profiteers, the retired generals & intelligence members who prostitute themselves as
media pundits, the members of Congress who get $$$ from the war profiteers, and the corporate
media which thrives on links to the war profiteers as well as on war reporting.
That's why we must all be kept fearful, so we don't demand that annual trillion dollar
military "defense" budgets be slashed and that money instead be spent on social safety net
programs and infrastructure.
That's also why tensions with not only Russia, but Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China
must be maintained, and our endless wars and global empire of military bases continued.
As long as war and militarism are such profitable rackets, it doesn't matter that all life
on earth is threatened. That is the essence of capitalism in a nutshell: profits are more
important than life itself.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 12:55 pm
You got that right, and the sooner the American public wise up to all these lies the
better. If you want this maddening insanity to stop, well then my fellow Americans quit
buying into their lies. Just go ahead and board the damn plane, oh BTW one of the reasons NFL
attendance is down is well think of the new security rules put in place plus who knows the
rules of football anymore (our football is even tainted with screwiness). Sorry for the rant,
but we Americans got to start calling our officials out on this stuff. It's that plain and
simple. Nice post REDPILLED. Joe
Virginia , February 17, 2018 at 1:06 pm
REDPILLED,
I'm just imagining how it must feel, if you're Putin, to be able to rein in your emotions,
to not react no matter how much baited, and to stay above the fray while warmongers, like
dogs, are barking at your feet. That degree of self-composure, resting on a strong necessity
to try to prevent WWIII and nuclear annihilation, well, I'm afraid not many of us will ever
know or feel that exactly, but we can imagine! To do this with grace and dignity, insult
after insult! There are lessons to be learned here.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 1:10 pm
Virginia we Americans better hope patient Putin stays in power. Joe
irina , February 17, 2018 at 3:19 pm
Exactly. I can't imagine who the Creatures of the Deep think would be a
good successor to Putin, but I do think they should be very careful of
what they wish for. Case in point, the Ukraine. What exactly happened
to "Our Man Yats" anyway ? He seems to have (been ?) disappeared. . .
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm
There is a bit of a warring nature still left in this old fighter cat, and during these
imaginary moments of destruction I struggle with I see Russian T72 tanks driving down Maiden
Square looking for old Yats and his friends. Not to worry though, I seriously don't want
anyone, anywhere, to have to suffer even one minute of war, but on a bad day, well need I say
more? Joe
ranney , February 17, 2018 at 5:45 pm
I agree Virginia. I am so depressed by Mueller's actions my head swims. I had hoped that
Mueller was actually an honest investigator who believed in the rule of law as everyone said.
Now I can't imagine what game he is playing. Now it seems like all hope has vanished that
anything even vaguely resembling the truth will come out.. Mueller"s indictments of these
poor people seals the deal: Russia is the evil bugbear that must be destroyed and all right
thinking patriots will agree to that when we launch nuclear war.
I keep feeling like we're all in a Kafka exercise or a Harold Pinter play where motives and
truths are hidden behind an impenatrable wall. Even the new Consortium article by McGovern
and Binney seems to hint at much more than they are telling, leaving me to wish they'd just
come out and say what they are worried about given their knowledge and expertise. Instead I'm
left with the sense that there is a coded message in there that I have missed.
So yes, I too worry about how patient Putin can be when we have already in so many ways
performed a dozen or more acts of war on Russia in the past year and he has not reacted
violently.
p.s. Once again Caitlin has provided great links. Click on one of the first about the
government telling us lies. It'll get you a great 4 minute cartoon based on Chomskys book
Manufacturing Consent. It's about propaganda. You'll like it.
Virginia , February 17, 2018 at 8:50 pm
Ranney -- One thing that has lifted my spirit somewhat, I heard a real thinker say that
the Deep State (DS) is losing ground now because its anointed candidate HRC was defeated in
2016. So 2016 marks a positive time of turning and healing. Putin and Xi seem to both be
working for the good of the world. Wonderful if Donald Trump could drain the swamp and get on
board. Either way, those two Leaders together can lead us out of this morass.
There's a state of thought that remains composed no matter what the valley of the shadow
of death. The more I learn -- and sometimes what I learn is vastly darker than I could ever
conceive -- the deeper grows my joy. It's been a puzzle to me that I could read something
truly devastating here on CN and walk away with more joy than I had before reading it (and
believe me, it's not because of the evil news). It's partly because I'm grateful that my eyes
have been opened. There is absolutely nothing I can do without being well informed about it.
I feel I'm learning all this for a reason; a very real big good reason. Don't you? There's a
state of thought that refuses to be fearful no matter what. Adopt that one, Ranney.
Just look at those Olympiads doing the impossible! They start with, "I can."
Dave P. , February 18, 2018 at 4:07 am
Virginia,
Yes. Regarding the barking dogs, I read some where this Putin's answer to a question a few
days ago on that list of 200 sanctioned Russians put out by U.S. Treasury Department. Putin
said: Let the barking dogs bark, but the caravan goes on.
"... 'Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell, who supports Hillary Clinton and insists that Donald Trump is being manipulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to "pay the price."' ..."
"... Reminds me of the notorious Imperial Japanese Navy order of the day. Perhaps we might say that Washington's policy is: "The bombings will continue until stability improves". ..."
"... Even the head of the Israeli Air Force Air Division confessed that his country has carried out "thousands of operations in Syria" in the last year alone. This fact was missing from most mainstream news accounts, which portrayed Israel as a non-interventionist bystander in the Syrian conflict. ..."
"... Neither the Russians nor the Americans can trust Turkey to any great degree, because politics in Turkey has traditionally been based on treachery and deceit. The Turks would like nothing better than to play Russians against Americans and visa versa, but even they know this would be going too far, as there are limits. ..."
"... When it comes to Turkey, the Russians have the advantage, in the short term certainly, and probably in the long term. Erdogan cannot forget that the US instigated that coup d'etat against him, and that Russia saved his life, literally, warning him of the approaching coup and sending combat planes to prevent his own plane being shot down. ..."
"... The goal has remained the same and will never change – to take out Assad and create a Northern vassal state. Anyone suggesting otherwise is doing disinfo for the Empire. ..."
"... mod-to note: last line removed as unnecessary to the comment and inflammatory. ..."
"... watch the old footage of helicopters flying from the rooftops in Saigon. "Ugly" doesn't worry the US elites that control policy. They'll gladly trade 'ugly' for any small benefit, and the same elites have no problems putting the lives of the people who are foolishly loyal to them into great danger. ..."
"... I believe this is where US and Israeli intentions are. With the defeat of the US/Israel/Saudi plan to degrade Syria's military preparatory to an Israel attack on Lebanon, Israel now wants to up the ante by getting the US to join it in an attack on Hizballah in Lebanon and then the US will find a way to justify extending that war into Syria. ..."
"... The last shooting skirmish between Syria and Israel caused much more than a downed F16I. It caused consternation because the Air Space at Ben Gurion was officially closed during the hostilities. ..."
"... Hezbollah also confirmed that an Israeli vs Syria + Hezbollah war will include the resistance striking targets in Israel's off shore Gas and Oil interests. The war front will be wider including Israel occupied Golan Heights, Shebaa farms, Off Shore gas rigs operated by Israel. ..."
"... In Syria's East the Hegemon is in an untenable situation. Weaponizing the Kurds against Turkey will result in an accelerated Turkey-exit from NATO on the least and an inter NATO clash on the worst case. ..."
"... I hope sanctions will not hurt many Russian citizens. Since neither the Russian government, nor the Russian citizens live in a make-believe world, they could suspect that the West will not give up with its efforts at destabilizing the Russian Federation. ..."
"... True and I believe this is the correct policy. Dramatic confrontations with the US are not in Russia's interest. There is also the issue that Trump is looking increasingly like a winner, in the Russian collusion fight. If the republicans do well in the up coming elections, he will be able to put that vicious battle behind him. This will open up possibilities for the US to cooperate with Russia, if only tacitly, in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... Surely Russia must have anticipated that the powers-that-be in the US would never admit defeat and cease interfereing. This will always be the case. It's a consequence of the US ubermensch mentality. As ever, to anticipate US behavior one must ask oneself 'what would the Mafia do?' ..."
"... This is why Putin has twice declared a Russian withdrawal from Syria. The Russians understand they have no good options in a direct confrontation with the West and further their greatest potential ally in the region, the Iranians, are themselves playing a double game, also secretly alligned to the Peridious Ones, as has been highlighted repeatedly by Thierry Meyssan. ..."
"... Should the Iranians wish it they could sweep the US and SDF Kurds out of eastern Syria and northern Iraq in no time flat. It is the secret cooperation of the Iranians and Pentagon in Iraq and eastern Syria which gives the game away concerning the role of the Pentagon. By threatening to tear up the nuclear agreement, which in any case gives the Iranians nothing and relinquishes over 100 billion dollars of Iranian assets held since the Iranian revolution, the Trump administration is creating a pretext which appears to be holding the Iranians back from full cooperation with Russia and ultimately, from victory in this war. ..."
"... Something is missing from the story, I keep thinking it's still about oil, lots of powerful people in the States made it in the oil industry. Why is the USA going so hard out with it's fracking? Energy isn't that expensive, why not use other countries reserves first? ..."
"... By the way, I do not see Trump falling for this trap, I believe he is sincere in his wish to disengage the US from such foreign adventures. But there is not much he can do presently against the neocon establishment. But he has already made real progress, ISIS would not have been defeated and the Syrians won the war, if Trump had not been president. Try and imagine a Hillary presidency, with McCain making Syria policy. ..."
"... Counter escalation is too logical. Syria is a quagmire. The 'mud' weighing down Russia is Daesh and the pro-US 'moderates', mainly those Kurds backed by the US. But there more potential 'mud' that can suck in the US. ..."
The imposition of a de-facto partition of Syria
by taking under control the Syrian territory east of the Euphrates river (we could call that
"plan C version 3.0")
The theft of the gas fields located in northeastern Syria
The creation of
a US-controlled staging area from which Kurdish, good terrorist and bad terrorist operations
can be planned and executed
The sabotaging of any Russian-backed peace negotiations T
he support
for Israeli operations against Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Syria Engaging in
regular attacks against Syrian forces attempting to liberate their country from foreign
invaders Presenting the invasion and occupation of Syria as one of the "victories" promised by
Trump to the MIC and the Israel lobby
So far the Russian response to this developing strategy has been a rather a passive one and
the current escalation strongly suggests that a new approach might be needed. The shooting down
of the Israeli F-16 is a good first step, but much more needs to be done to dramatically
increase the costs the Empire will have to pay for is policies towards Syria. The increase in
the number of Russian commentators and analysts demanding a stronger reaction to the current
provocations might be a sign that something is in the making.
'Killing Russians "on the margins", so to speak, either with plausible deniability or,
alternatively, killing Russians private contractors is much safer and thus far more tempting
option'.
Remind anyone of this?
'Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell, who supports Hillary Clinton and insists that
Donald Trump is being manipulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that Russians and
Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to "pay the price."'
'The bottom line is this: since the US Americans have declared that they will (illegally)
stay in Syria until the situation "stabilizes" they now must do everything their power to
destabilize Syria'.
Reminds me of the notorious Imperial Japanese Navy order of the day. Perhaps we might say
that Washington's policy is: "The bombings will continue until stability improves".
The 4 principle objectives of the Israeli's and their American dog in Syria:
Removing a government that was resistant to globalist debt-death finance.
In concert with the 'pipe cutting' operation in Ukraine, to push through a Axis of Evil
controlled gas pipe line from Qatar to the EU to strangle Russia.
Partition of Syria, creating US military controlled Kurdistan to the North (with oil
fields) to control Syria between two fronts, plus annexation of Golan heights as part of
'greater Israel'.
A related analysis in RT on the situation in Syria that exposes the Israeli role there behind
the terrorists. Syria strikes back as Israel discovers its warplanes aren't invincible (Op-ed)
"Israel has long been the unchallenged bully in the Middle East, but now Tel Aviv will
face consequences for its temper tantrums. That was the message from Damascus last weekend
when the Syrian army shot down an Israeli F-16.
As usual, Israel painted itself as a victim of irrational Arab aggression. However, in
fact, Syria was clearly acting in self-defence against repeated Israeli violations of its
sovereignty.
Even the head of the Israeli Air Force Air Division confessed that his country has carried
out "thousands of operations in Syria" in the last year alone. This fact was missing from
most mainstream news accounts, which portrayed Israel as a non-interventionist bystander in
the Syrian conflict. That couldn't be further from the truth. Not only has Israel repeatedly
bombed Syrian government installations, it has also armed Jihadist rebel groups in the Golan
Heights, coordinated with Al-Qaeda's Syria affiliate against government forces and provided
medical treatment to Al-Qaeda and Islamic State-linked rebels before sending them back into
battle."
Two key issues with this as an operational concept:
1) Regardless of the original manufacturing point of the MANPAD, it downed a Russian plane
from the hands of a Turkish/SDF combatant. Also, Erdogan is still the #1 advocate of regime
change in Syria.*
A unitary state structure would have a legal framework that ensures an eventual
regime change in Syria produces an opposition government that exercises political power over
the entire country. This outcome would be highly beneficial for Turkey's geopolitical
interests, as it would allow Syria to potentially become a Turkish ally if Assad were to fall
from power.
Encouraging Erdogan to expand operations in Syria is incredibly risky as his forces could
attack South towards Damascus instead of West. It seems unlikely that Assad or Putin would be
willing to gamble on their ability to predict/control Erdogan's behaviour.
2) Assuming that Turkey-NATO relations are destroyed in the manner suggested, where will
freed up NATO forces reposition?
While the idea of reducing NATO activity in Syria sounds good on paper it could readily
lead to increased NATO activity in areas of much deeper concern to Russia, such as the
Baltics or Ukraine. Keeping NATO focused on Syria serves Putin's interest by tying up
resources. It seems unlike that he would risk these other more critical locations for
potential gains in Syria.
_________
Neither the Russians nor the Americans can trust Turkey to any great degree, because politics
in Turkey has traditionally been based on treachery and deceit. The Turks would like nothing
better than to play Russians against Americans and visa versa, but even they know this would
be going too far, as there are limits.
When it comes to Turkey, the Russians have the advantage, in the short term certainly, and
probably in the long term. Erdogan cannot forget that the US instigated that coup d'etat
against him, and that Russia saved his life, literally, warning him of the approaching coup
and sending combat planes to prevent his own plane being shot down. Even Russian AA missile
systems in Syria protected Erdogans life, the plotters receiving warnings from Russian ground
crews. Erdogan knows the EU will never accept him, and Turkeys membership of NATO is more
than a liability, becoming dangerous. The last thing Erdogan wants is for Turkey to be
involved in a possible US war against Iran, let alone in a war against Russia, for which
Turkey would pay a price.
Some analysts have speculated that Turkey and the US could make a deal at the expense of
Russia. Not impossible, but unlikely, as neither side could trust the other. As far as I can
see, Erdogan is playing the waiting game, waiting for the right moment to leave NATO and
prevent Turkey being dragged into a potential US led war, from which Turkey has nothing to
gain but plenty to lose. I think even the US knows this, which is the reason it will try
another coup against Erdogan, and Erdogan knows it. Turkey is now playing a balancing act,
waiting for the right moment to turn to Russia and China and their economic alliances.
One well known analyst has stated that it's only a matter of time before both the EU and
NATO implode. NATO's implosion could well start with Turkey exiting.
As for Russia, it will stay in Syria for a long time. I don't see the US staying too long,
as it's tactical position in northern Syria is dangerous, the supply lines being easily cut.
Yes, the US could, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and Israel, attack Iran. However, the
repercussions would be tremendous. The US would not get any European backing, while such a
move could well speed up Turkey's exit from NATO.
For our part, we must tell commentators on this issue to stop claiming the US has changed its
position on Assad and Syria because tillerson/kerry/whoever said something that seemed like a
ray of light (anyone Orthodox, by the way, should be immune to the idea of humans producing
rays of light).
The goal has remained the same and will never change – to take out
Assad and create a Northern vassal state. Anyone suggesting otherwise is doing disinfo for
the Empire.
mod-to note: last line removed as unnecessary to the comment and inflammatory.
Thanks, everyone, for your insights on these issues. In light of Mr. Trump's recent statement
about a big military parade he would like to see staged later this year (at a cost of at
least thirty million dollars) , I can't help but wonder what kind of "victory" or Make
America Great Again big win he wants to pull out of the hat that would make the parade even
more appropriate "victory" over North Korea? ? ? "victory" in Syria? ?
I am very concerned
about the whole timetable. Hopefully these wars aren't being waged with glowing visions of
rapid effortless victories. The flip side to that is that these wars are being waged with the
intent of dragging on for half of forever, consuming as many human lives as possible, and
above all, destroying as much human hope and love as possible.
A positive note from analyst 6 1/2hr ago. [Basically the enemy continues in retreat]:
" the deal between the Syrian Government and Afrin Canton is begin to take shape and has
the best shot to be signed today or tomorrow. This is as close to a deal as it has ever, so
this time all sides are determined to get it done.
"It is early to celebrated, as I mentioned yesterday, there are other players that may
influence in the last minute, but it is encouraging.
When I say celebrate, it means this deal (assuming the Syrian Government takes full
control of State business and the SAA is fully present in all Canton with minimum possibility
of setbacks with armed militias), will influence the years to come in Syria, Sheikh Maksud
(which is slowly being absorbed into normal life in Aleppo) will be the first to join the
deal completely.
We will see impact in Hasaka city and Province, where many inhabitants (Arabs and Kurds doe
support the Syrian Government). This deal could be a message to the US that it is time to get
out with some dignity or it will get uglier as time goes by .."
watch the old footage of helicopters flying from the rooftops in Saigon. "Ugly" doesn't worry
the US elites that control policy. They'll gladly trade 'ugly' for any small benefit, and the
same elites have no problems putting the lives of the people who are foolishly loyal to them
into great danger.
The great philosopher George Carlin famously once said, "its a small club. And you ain't
in it." They only care about the members of their club, and will sacrifice a few of them when
forced to. But they don't care about 'ugly' and they make sure that no members of the club
are among the last to flee Saigon and beyond that they don't care about anyone or anything
else if it gets into the way of their grabs for power and wealth.
Very difficult , one week ( may ten days) ago all Turkish newspapers published a photo of
Erdogan : at his right side the prime minister, and at the left side the previous prime
minister Davutoglu.
Davutoglu has been the most important planner of the Syrian war, big ally of the USA. He was
obliged to resign and practically disappear from the political scene when Erdogan went to
Putin excusing himself for the shooting down of a Russian plane. Now he ( and his policies )
seem to have made a full scale coming back .
The US is still trying to use the Kurds to manipulate Turkey into a direct conflict with
Syria. Erdoğan still wants to overthrow Assad as does the US.
Erdoğan's blocking Syria in Idlib and the possible movement of SA into Afrin sets up
this potential confrontation.
The question is will Turkey take the bit if its observation forces are challenged or
attecked in Idlib, and send in the Turkish army, or will they back off and leave the fighting
to their Takfiri? The US hopes that the former will occur.
"The support for Israeli operations against Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and
Syria"
I believe this is where US and Israeli intentions are. With the defeat of the
US/Israel/Saudi plan to degrade Syria's military preparatory to an Israel attack on Lebanon,
Israel now wants to up the ante by getting the US to join it in an attack on Hizballah in
Lebanon and then the US will find a way to justify extending that war into Syria.
Tillerson just attacked Hizballah again today as part of the ramp-up"
President Aoun decides about Hezbollah, and he already has decided he wants them, he wants
Russia and he wants no relationship with Hegemon. Tillerson is a traveling carnival show. Sad to see a man used as a puppet.
Lebanon is being presented with two diametrically opposite choices: a) attempt to disarm
Hezbollah so that it stops threatening Israeli off-shore claims or water access wishes in
southern Lebanon. b) provide access to Russian navy assets on all your ports. The first
choice is just political suicide. The second choice will infuriate the Hegemon.
The last shooting skirmish between Syria and Israel caused much more than a downed F16I.
It caused consternation because the Air Space at Ben Gurion was officially closed during the
hostilities. Elijah Magnier ejmagnier.com asserts that his Syrian sources confirm a decision
to rain down a couple of dozen Surface to Surface missiles over Israeli towns in the Golan
Heights or anywhere in Israel if IAF violates Syrian air space sovereignty. The fact that
Israel immediately after mobilized to strengthened its Air Defense batteries to the Northern
border speaks to that threat.
Hezbollah also confirmed that an Israeli vs Syria + Hezbollah war will include the
resistance striking targets in Israel's off shore Gas and Oil interests. The war front will
be wider including Israel occupied Golan Heights, Shebaa farms, Off Shore gas rigs operated
by Israel.
In Syria's East the Hegemon is in an untenable situation. Weaponizing the Kurds against
Turkey will result in an accelerated Turkey-exit from NATO on the least and an inter NATO
clash on the worst case.
It is with this in mind that I am convinced that this is the beginning of the war called
Armageddon in the Bible. The Tel Megiddo is a man made mound in Northern Israel that
dominates this famous battlefield.
The next Front is now in Northern Israel as proven by the location of the downed F16 and
by Israeli fortification of its Northern Air Defense.
In my opinion any reactions by Russia to the escalating provocations in Syria and elsewhere
will be muted, and this includes if serving Russian Military are killed again. There are a
number of reasons for this but again in my opinion this muted response has nothing to do with
the upcoming election and/or the football champion ships which, by the way, will probably be
withdrawn at the last minute as yet another calculated insult to Russia.
Muted response has been the norm from Russia for quite some years but on the other hand
this in no way means there was no and/or will not be a response. Take for instance the
pinpoint accuracy mortar attack on the field hospital last year that killed our doctors and
nurses who were in place to treat Syrian civilians. I will not go in to the mechanics of this
attack but I know exactly how it was done and I am willing to guaranty you that the highly
trained and expert foreign team that did the attack is not alive today nor were they alive 3
days after the attack. It is the same with the team that shot down our Dry 25. They are dead.
Period. However, killing these teams after they do their deed does not negate the damage they
do in the first place and therein is the problem.
There are two ways to stop these ongoing and guaranteed to escalate attacks. One, Russia
surrenders and pulls everyone and everything back to within her borders. Not going to happen.
Period. Two, Russia continues on her implacable course of steady pressure on the Empire to
not so much as defeat her but to preserve Russian interests and world interests, world
interests meaning peace on this war wracked planet we call home.
In the near future, read a good part of this year, you can expect escalating attacks and
provocations against any Russian interests and this will include both Syria and Ukraine plus
southern and western Russia, proposed or in process gas supply lines and various business and
industrial projects and agreements between Russia and other countries. I have few doubts that
the orcs will be ordered to attack Novorossiya within a week of the Russian elections and at
the same time the well known coming false flag chemical attack in Syria will take place. Both
attacks will result in increasingly serious sanctions against Russia in attempts to turn the
Russian populace against President Putin and foment a revolution against the government. This
will not happen, that is a given, but the sanctions will hurt an ever widening part of the
populace. Russians are a pretty tough bunch and additional sanctions will do nothing but make
the Russians more resolved to support their government and culture.
In the end, Russia will persevere and while we will have more and more of our servicemen
and women coming home dead, we will win in the end. The Empire is dying, that is obvious, but
a dying animal is if anything more dangerous than when young and healthy. Therein is the real
problem, will the empire in it's death throes pull down the entire world with it.
One more little detail. The number of Russian citizens under contract to Syria killed in
the now world famous attack is three, two dead and one wounded who died. End of story, except
for the grieving widows and families in Russia and Syria.
"This will not happen, that is a given, but the sanctions will hurt an ever widening part of
the populace."
I hope sanctions will not hurt many Russian citizens. Since neither the Russian
government, nor the Russian citizens live in a make-believe world, they could suspect that
the West will not give up with its efforts at destabilizing the Russian Federation. Russia,
in corporation with China can produce pretty neat hich-tech gadgets. The Chines are able to
produce excellent quality (if they want to). Who needs many Western products (often produced
to fail – planned obsolescence) if the Russians have learned to develop / produce
quality stuff themselves?
True and I believe this is the correct policy. Dramatic confrontations with the US are not in
Russia's interest. There is also the issue that Trump is looking increasingly like a winner,
in the Russian collusion fight. If the republicans do well in the up coming elections, he
will be able to put that vicious battle behind him. This will open up possibilities for the
US to cooperate with Russia, if only tacitly, in Syria and Ukraine.
I think Saker is way too
hard on Trump, his zig-zagging on Russia is due to his domestic issues. The possibilities for
friendship between Russia and the US remain. Edgar Cayce the US's "Sleeping Prophet"
predicted in 1932 and 1944 that:
1944: " What then of nations? In Russia there comes the hope of the world, not as that
sometimes termed of the Communistic, of the Bolshevistic; no. But freedom, freedom! that each
man will live for his fellow man! The principle has been born. It will take years for it to
be crystallized, but out of Russia comes again the hope of the world. Guided by what? That
friendship with the nation that hath even set on its present monetary unit "In God We Trust."
"
and
1932:"On Russia's religious development will come the greater hope of the world. Then
that one, or group, that is the closer in its relationships, may fare the better in the
gradual changes and final settlement of conditions as to the rule of the world. "
Can someone please explain why China has not provided real assistance in Syria in terms of
sending their defense forces namely their air force and navy? If anything it would provide
them with real combat experience which they may more than possibly need to rely on in any
potential conflicts with Taiwan and the South China Sea. I really don't understand their
"neutrality" with this situation. Russia really needs their help right now or the
consequences of this whole Syrian situation will just be unimaginable.
What is not known is how far that level of support has gone. As I mentioned in another
post a few weeks ago, supplying Chinese military personnel to Syria – overtly –
is not in China's strategic interest. If they actually supply 'unattached' Chinese troops it
will be covert and very quiet.
@ main purpose of the entire US deployment in northern Syria:
--
I think main purpose for the US in northern Syria is:
– to establish Kurdish state, from which Americans would control the whole Middle
East,
– to build pipelines from the Gulf to Turkey and Europe, and to dictate the prices of
oil and petrol,
– to exploit local gas and oil fields.
Surely Russia must have anticipated that the powers-that-be in the US would never admit
defeat and cease interfereing. This will always be the case. It's a consequence of the US
ubermensch mentality. As ever, to anticipate US behavior one must ask oneself 'what would the Mafia do?'
No it's much more simple. If one wants to anticipate what they will do as a next step just
ask yourself what would the lowest scum do, and your bet will hit better than 50% absolutly
certain..
Read carefully because everything is coming into view.
At the begining of WW1 the British, in an incident involving the battlecruiser Goeben,
placed under a Turkish flag but still operated by a German crew, shelled Odessa pushing the
Ottomans into the war on the side of the Central Powers.
The Young Turks had wanted very badly to be on the side of the Entente, but this did not
matter because the British plan was to carve up the Ottoman Empire, ultimately aiming to
control all of it's oil (imagine how much oil it would control if it were around today), and
so after the war it was dismantled and the British-made stooge Attaturk was
installed.
The same strategy is being enacted today vis a vis Turkey and Russia. Erdogan is the
direct inheritor of the Young Turk political tradition and he is also a stooge of the
British.
What is the proof that the Turks are controlled by the British?
There are many but one obvious link concerns the Anglo-Zionist propaganda and the chemical
weapons 'management' organization known as White Helmets, which are imbedded with Turkish
controlled HTS in Northern Syria, thus dilineating a crystal clear link to support what I am
describing. There was also the recent drone attack on the Russian Khmeimim made from Turkish
controlled Syrian territory, an attack which the Russians expalined was not 'Turkish' without
further elaborating.
The Russians understood the attack on Khmeimim was perpetrated by British Intelligence,
and so they gave Turkey a pass.
Now, imagine you are the Russians and your best bets for a military ally in Syria are
Turkey and perhaps Iran.
What would you think?
Under no circumstances would you even consider exposing your armies to dependence on
Turkish support or supply lines to Syria which could easily be blocked. To do so would be
suicide.
Therefore the Russian strategy is delay delay delay, because they understand there are no
good options for them in a war against the Perfidious Ones in Syria, who are effectively
allied to China despite mountains of (scarcely believable) propaganda suggesting China
supports Russia, which is in itself an absolute load of Dung Xiaoping.
But the Anglo-Zionists, like the Russians, all together understand these surface
calculations and so the Perfidious Ones are going one better, to entice the Russians into
overestimating their strength and becoming more deeply involved in Syria especially.
This involves convincing the Russians that the Pentagon junta which controls the
Whitehouse of Donald Trump is also on their side and would effectively (as it sometimes
appears) support Russia in a wider war, thus changing the Kremlin calculation, however,
despite close cooperation in Syria between the Russians and Pentagon, and in alternative
media which is generally pro Russian and pro-Pentagon , it seems the Russians are not
fooled and will do their best to keep options for withdrawal from Syria open.
This is why Putin has twice declared a Russian withdrawal from Syria. The Russians
understand they have no good options in a direct confrontation with the West and further
their greatest potential ally in the region, the Iranians, are themselves playing a double
game, also secretly alligned to the Peridious Ones, as has been highlighted repeatedly by
Thierry Meyssan.
Should the Iranians wish it they could sweep the US and SDF Kurds out of eastern Syria and
northern Iraq in no time flat. It is the secret cooperation of the Iranians and Pentagon in
Iraq and eastern Syria which gives the game away concerning the role of the Pentagon. By
threatening to tear up the nuclear agreement, which in any case gives the Iranians nothing
and relinquishes over 100 billion dollars of Iranian assets held since the Iranian
revolution, the Trump administration is creating a pretext which appears to be holding the
Iranians back from full cooperation with Russia and ultimately, from victory in this war.
I don't think the question, "What will be the Russian response to further provocation?" is
the right question. Although Russia is doing the right thing, assisting Syria at its request
to fight terrorism and launching a legitimate peace process, from the twisted viewpoint of
Rogue State and Hegemon, these actions are provocation. Any action that prevents Rogue State
and Hegemon from destroying other nations is viewed as a provocation.
I think the right question is, "Based on the success of the past two years, how will
Russia tweak its policies going forth?"
My guess is that the obvious rules. Syrian lands belong to Syria. Russia has affirmed its
support for Syrian territorial integrity. Neither party has earned a reputation for
hyperbole. There are locations where ISIS/Acronym have been identified, namely the pocket
west of Deir Ezzor, The pocket along the border with Iraq east of the Euphrates, Al-Tanf,
spots south of Damascus, Daara, and just across the Euphrates from Deir Ezzor where ISIS et
all attacked SAA and government aligned troops as they attempted to cross the Euphrates and
approach the Conoco oil fields.
Now that Syria has established their prerogative to shoot down opposition warplanes, and I
hope Russia is providing massive ordnance in this regard, I suspect we will see a war of
attrition that plays into Syrian strengths and Hegemon's weaknesses; Rather than asymmetric
warfare waged on Syrian and Russian forces, wouldn't it be a hoot if the good guys waged a
guerrilla
operation on Hegemon. And what can Hegemon do, launch airplanes? They can be shot down, and
over Syrian territory.
We should go back to Libya, it's the big why we need an answer to.
Hillary Clinton said' we came, we saw, he died'. Thats a lot of spite from someone raised
in the South and living in comfort a long way away.
Something tipped someone over the edge, the Brits went for Gaddafi, even with NATO help
they needed the USA to finish the job, they must have known it would erupt in internecine
warfare, unless their intelligence is very basic, it's not like it hasn't happened everywhere
else they have been. It left the EU very short of light crude for diesel, so there was some
sacrifice from the EU.
Israel got a hammering in Lebanon, any idea of their invincibility was well and truly
vanquished, they still have great intelligence capacity and nukes but not seen as invincible
in a traditional scrap.
Something is missing from the story, I keep thinking it's still about oil, lots of
powerful people in the States made it in the oil industry. Why is the USA going so hard out
with it's fracking? Energy isn't that expensive, why not use other countries reserves
first?
China is most dependent on energy imports, he who controls energy controls it all, and
that was the house of Saud with its dependence on the USA and Aramco, a company that could be
worth 10 trillion in the right market. A China/Russia alliance is going to be very powerful,
China is being driven into trade deals with Russia to protect its energy supplies. China
wasn't happy with the old TPP deal.
Today the energy market is more fragmented, taking control is harder and Russia looks
likely to be the big player and they won't be pushed around or influenced like those in the
middle east.
Syria is a mix match of cultures but it sort of works. Why was Syria so important, Ok they
side with Iran and Iran is a red flag to the States. Still it shouldn't be enough to warrant
this treatment, unless someone thought they could get to Iran via Syria. Either that or the
Jewish lobby in the States is more powerful than I thought and it's all about Israel
The Assads have very close ties to the UK, she was born and went to school there, it's
makes more sense they would be pro British than anything else. Just me thinking aloud.
He got his eye doctor training here and her parents still live here, but it doesn't
necessarily follow that they are particularly pro-British. Pro-Syrian and cosmopolitan is far
more likely.
The Russians should encourage the US to go for its mini Kurdistan project and hope they
achieve it. The benefits of such a policy far outweigh the costs of trying to prevent it:
A mini Kurdistan in the interior of Syria is completely unsustainable in the face of
Syrian, Turkish and Iraqi opposition.
It will make the perfect quagmire for the US/Israel combo. It will tie up vast AngloZionist resources in establishing and defending it. All for nothing in the medium to
long term.
It will drive a major wedge between Turkey and the US. This would likely lead to the US
being driven from Turkey and Iraq.
It will allow Syria to mop up the rest of the country and begin reconstruction. This
rebuilding is Syria's best defense against the AngloZionist imperialists. Syria must build
itself into a fortress like Iran if it is to survive.
Sometimes people want something to happen, just out of spite for someone else, without
thinking of the consequences for themselves. This is the case with the US Kurdistan project.
The US wants to spite Russia and Syria by establishing Kurdistan. But such a state would be
landlocked between very hostile neighbors. It has absolutely no viability. At the same time
it will destroy the US geopolitical position in the middle east. Kurdistan is poisoned fruit
and if the US wants it, why should Russia stand in its way?
By the way, I do not see Trump falling for this trap, I believe he is sincere in his wish to
disengage the US from such foreign adventures. But there is not much he can do presently
against the neocon establishment. But he has already made real progress, ISIS would not have
been defeated and the Syrians won the war, if Trump had not been president. Try and imagine a
Hillary presidency, with McCain making Syria policy.
"Step two: saturating Syria with mobile modern short/middle range air defenses" It is the
only possible way to go forward (in my humble opinion) this to try avoid risking Russian
lives. The best and most advanced weapons should be provided to the Syrian, Hezbollah and
Iran militias. Israel will be mad about that but is the only way to put pressure on them to
stop their aggression against Syria.
"One objection to this plan would be that two can play this game and that there is nothing
preventing the USA from sending even more advanced MANPADs to their "good terrorist" allies".
Whatever Russia does will not prevent the US from providing these weapons, on the contrary
they are probably doing that already through their "secret" channels like the CIA, Mossad,
etc.
Counter escalation is too logical. Syria is a quagmire. The 'mud' weighing down Russia is
Daesh and the pro-US 'moderates', mainly those Kurds backed by the US. But there more
potential 'mud' that can suck in the US.
Turkey is already bogged down by the Kurds in what
can be identified as the beginning of protracted warfare with Turkish cargo 200 being
steadily produced for Erdogan. Israel feels threatened and so does the US.
But the Israelis
are too astute to put boots on the ground in Syria in substantial numbers. Besides Hezbollah
has 100,000 rockets pointed like a gun to Israel's head. But the US? There is now a window of
opportunity to suck in the US in a protracted guerrilla war in Syria.
Hezbollah, Iranians and
the Iraqi Shi'ites would be only too glad to scalp the Yankees in Syria and elsewhere. Now
what can be done or rather what can Russia do or don't do, to suck in the ZioYanks into a
Vietnam-like protracted scrap in Syria? If the ZioYanks are sucked into Syria in a big way,
the fighting will likely spread to Iraq and Afghanistan. If this happen, it will also doom
the already badly managed US economy! I think the solution is staring us in the eyes! Just
speculatin'.
As usual, a well thought out and presented essay for an escalation in Syria.
Additional thought: If the Russians are concerned about a "deniability context" in
supplying more competent anti-air capacity against US/Israeli air attacks I wonder if
announcing a sale of S-300 or better units to Syria would be preferable to letting this
escalate gradually with Russian upgrades of what already exists in Syria.
If such a purchase
was undertaken, these would be Syrian owned missile systems and therefore deniable as
aggressive on the part of Russia. After all the Turks are buying them, and the Iranians and
the Saudis are also in line for them. But for the Syrians it would be tantamount to them
declaring a no fly zone; the air losses to Israel and US planes would be very serious –
serious enough to discourage this kind of escalation completely.
FWIW,
L.
P.S. Typos are the pepper in a Saker meal, maybe it doesn't add much, but given the positives
I tolerate them very well.
How far can the Russians be pushed? The important thing is their responses are always the
response of an intelligent, self-assured player who understands that power is not to be
thrown around like some schoolyard bully. To quote Shakespeare in "Cymbelline", the game is
up. And Uncle Scam knows it.
American contractors can now come under similar pressure, after march election the command
and control of the US proxies may be missiled. Even if there are US advisors on site.
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Then Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, would be president of the United States, but the
Senate, probably, and the House of Representatives, certainly, would have remained under
Republican control.
In other words, had Hillary won, we would now have pretty much what we had when Barack Obama
was president – but with the executive branch less competently led and more packed with
Clintonite (neoliberal, liberal imperialist, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later) officials,
and with a Congress run by obstinate Republican troglodytes running roughshod over feckless,
slightly less retrograde Democrats.
Radical impulses would, of course, continue to stir throughout the general population but
notwithstanding widespread and deep popular support, to even less avail than before.
A Clinton presidency wouldn't make the blood of high-minded people boil, the way the Trump
presidency has done, though, for anyone with the courage to face reality squarely, it would be
nearly as painful to endure.
That pain would be much less constructive than the pain that is now so widely felt. Instead
of sparking anodyne "resistance," it would be drowned out in a sea of acquiescence.
In a word, Clinton's first term would be what a third Obama term would have been –
ratcheted down a few notches in the squelched "hope" and "change" departments.
By being African American, Obama stirred up plenty of hope and change illusions, especially
at first, in many, maybe most, sectors of the population. In other sectors, Obama's race
brought barely suppressed prejudices and resentments out into the open.
Because it soon became clear – not to everybody, but to everybody not willfully blind
– that, under Obama, little, if any, good would come, Obamaphilia eventually faded away;
the racism and nativism Obama's election boosted proved more durable.
Hillary, on the other hand, was anything but a beacon of hope – except perhaps to
those of her supporters whose highest priority was electing a woman president. Hardly anyone
else ever expected much good to come from her calling the shots.
In comparison with Obama, she wasn't even good at what she did. Despite a constant barrage
of public relations babble about how experienced and competent she is, this was widely
understood, even if seldom conceded.
She hadn't been much of a First Lady or Senator; among other things, she helped set the
cause of health insurance reform back a generation, and she supported the Afghanistan and Iraq
Wars.
Then, as Secretary of State, she was at least partly responsible for devastating levels of
disorder and mayhem throughout North Africa (Libya especially), the Greater Middle East (not
just Syria), and elsewhere (Honduras, for example). But for her tenure at Foggy Bottom, there
would be many fewer refugees in the world today.
It is therefore a good bet that were she president now, Obama would be sorely missed –
notwithstanding his fondness for terrorizing civilians with weaponized drones, and for
deporting Hispanics and others with a zeal exceeding George Bush's.
Inasmuch as he did break a color line that seemed infrangible, it was impossible for persons
of good will not to root for the man. That would be like not rooting for Jackie Robinson. But
the fact remains: except in comparison to his rivals and to Trump, he was no prize.
Because it was clear to nearly everybody outside the Clinton propaganda circuit that, by
2016, there really was no "glass ceiling" holding women back, Hillary had nothing like that
going for her.
There were and are plenty of people of all ages and genders who would have liked to see a
woman elected president; the time for that is long past due. But, by the time Clinton became
the Democratic standard bearer, hardly anyone could truly believe that patriarchal attitudes or
rampant misogyny were significant factors standing in her way.
To be sure, the lingering effects of attitudes in place years ago have diminished the pool
of plausible female candidates. But then so too did the idea that Clinton was somehow entitled
to the office. Because that attitude was so deeply entrenched, few women wanted to cross
her.
Nevertheless, there are women who, running on the Democratic line, could surely have
defeated Trump. An obvious example is Elizabeth Warren.
I am not alone in thinking that had the Democratic National Committee not rigged the
nomination process in Clinton's favor, Bernie Sanders would have become the party's nominee and
then gone on to defeat Trump. Warren's chances of winning the election were better still
– precisely because, she is a woman.
Clinton's problem was not her gender; it was her politics.
Even so, we would be a lot better off now had she won in 2016 -- not just because the evil
we know (too well!) is easier to deal with than the blooming buzzing confusion we ended up with
instead, but also because, despite her Russophobia and fondness for "military solutions," the
likelihood that the United States would blunder into a nuclear Armageddon would now be
significantly less.
Too bad therefore that she flubbed even more egregiously than those of us who saw through
the public relations myths about her accomplishments and competence thought possible.
Needless to say, in the alternative universe that Democrats and their media flacks have
concocted, they explain the election outcome differently. In their view, Hillary lost because
"the Russians" subverted our democratic institutions.
Or was it because James Comey, then the Director of the FBI, tipped that election to Trump
by refocusing attention on Clinton's emails as Election Day approached?
One would think that it would faze Democratic confabulators that, shortly after the election
was over, Comey rose to the top of Donald Trump's shit list – and was unceremoniously
fired. They really should get their story straight.
While they are sorting that out, they might also make an effort to be a tad less besotted
with the FBI. It is, to say the least, unseemly, even for faux-progressives, to cozy up to the
perennial scourge of every progressive tendency in the American body politic.
And it isn't just the FBI – Democrats nowadays are smitten with the entire national
security state apparatus, including the CIA and the NSA.
Democrats have always been that way to some extent, but, in the pre-Trump era, Republicans
were generally the more gung ho of our two semi-established parties.
For decades, Cold War anti-Communist paranoia endeared the FBI and the others to wide
swathes of the general public and to Republicans and Democrats alike. When a dearth of real
world Communists made that story line impossible to maintain, "Islamic terrorists" were on hand
to take their place.
These obsessions pair well with the right's passion for law and order – in other
words, for keeping the poor generally, and persons of color especially, down.
And so, being the more rightwing of the duopoly parties, Republicans, before Trump, were
especially besotted with the forces of order – from local police (for whom, black lives
don't really matter) on up (or is it down?).
Democrats have never had any real quarrel with any of this, but, being the "nicer" and more
reasonable of the duopoly parties, they were less inclined to go overboard.
It grieves me to say anything good about Donald Trump, but, to his credit, he did force
Republicans onto a less unreasonable track – not in general, but towards Russia, a
country with a nuclear arsenal so formidable that only maniacs would want to mess with it
unnecessarily.
In all likelihood, Trump's reasons are venal or otherwise nefarious, and have little if
anything to do with common sense. But anything that holds back the Doomsday Clock is
welcome.
It is likely, though, that, before long, Republicans will revert back to their old ways.
Indeed, this is already happening: witness Trump's new "defense strategy" – aimed at
the old Cold War bugaboos, Russia and China.
The scare quotes are in order because there is no strategy there, and what Trump is
proposing has nothing to do with defense. It has everything to do, however, with giving free
rein to the Pentagon to squander monies that could be otherwise spent in socially useful ways,
and with stuffing the pockets of death merchants ("defense contractors") and those who feed off
the taxpayer money our political class throws their way.
***
Despite even this, Democrats remain the less odious duopoly party. On nearly all "issues,"
just about any Republican is worse than any Democrat; and the attitudes and instincts
Republicans evince are more execrable by far.
It should be born in mind, however, that the Democratic Party is, if anything, even more
responsible for Trump than the Republicans are.
Insofar as he has set political views and attitudes, they were forged in New York City,
under the aegis of Democratic Party politicians. And the Clintonite (neoliberal) turn in the
larger political culture created the conditions for the possibility of Trump, or someone like
him, rising to national prominence.
Democrats pulled this off by malignly neglecting the working class – and therefore
less well-off white voters, among others – and by euthanizing nascent left oppositions
that showed promise of challenging the economic supremacy and political power of the so-called
"donor class" and of capitalists generally.
Neoliberalism shifts power and resources from the state sector to private capital, it
encourages the globalization of trade, and it facilitates the free flow of capital around the
world.
Its nostrums are integral to a form of class struggle aimed at weakening working class
opposition – largely, but not exclusively, by attacks on the labor movement.
The classical fascism of the interwar years took aim at workers' economic and political
organizations too – more directly, through violent frontal assaults. Neoliberalism works
more gently, through protracted wars of attrition. The consequences, however, are much the
same.
The Clintons and Tony Blair and their counterparts in other countries make a show of their
progressivism – limiting their efforts, however, to cultural issues that do not
materially harm capitalists' interests.
Around election times, they even make nice with union leaders -- because they need the
resources and manpower they can still provide. But it is all a ruse, as workers and others know
well.
Real fascists set out to intimidate workers' organizations; they liked bloodying noses.
Neoliberals take aim at workers' power in such subtle but far-reaching ways that they often
don't even realize that they have been had.
In the early days of the Regan era, Bertram Gross famously introduced the notion of
"friendly fascism." The GOP used to be the friendly fascist's natural home. These days,
however, Republicans are a lot nastier than they were in Reagan's time.
In recent years, the Tea Party and then Trump and the miscreants he has empowered have
accentuated the GOP's racist, nativist, and authoritarian side. It is not a fascist party in
the traditional sense, but the resemblances are more than a little worrisome.
And so, Reagan-style friendly fascism has largely disappeared from the Republican fold. But
for what has taken its place, this would be a reason to celebrate.
Meanwhile, the spirit of the "Reagan revolution" lives on in the other duopoly party
–where, thanks to the Clintons and others like them, efforts to keep "the donor class up"
and everyone else down continue in a seemingly more benign way.
The electoral consequences are predictable. The kinds of working class people whom Trump
derides – basically, everyone who is not white, male and straight – are, of course,
more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans. But they are more likely still not to vote
at all.
Why would they when they have nothing to vote for ?
And, in large (mainly rural) swathes of the country, white working class men and the women
who stand by them will vote for anyone, even an obviously incompetent billionaire buffoon whose
policies will do nothing for them materially, provided only that he channels their resentments
at Clintonite policies and people.
However, malign neglect of an important segment of the working class is only partly
responsible for Trump. The absence of a genuine left is of far greater importance.
The reasons for its absence are many, and go far beyond the Democratic Party. Even so,
Democrats have a lot to answer for.
As it became increasingly clear that the Bush-Cheney wars launched after 9/11 were
responsible for enormous harm to people and to geopolitical stability, a peace movement took
shape that, by 2006, had become a force to be reckoned with.
At the same time, in anticipation of the 2008 election, the leadership of the Democratic
Party did its best to keep dissent in bounds. Their aim was to get Hillary Clinton elected
president, and they feared that political turbulence would upset their plans.
At the very least, with the House back under Democratic control in 2006, Democrats could
have initiated impeachment proceedings against George Bush; they had more than ample grounds.
Whether or not he would then have been removed from office, he and his subordinates would have
been impeded to some extent from doing at least some of the harm they went on to do.
But Nancy Pelosi and her co-thinkers in Congress put the kibosh on that idea. Their efforts
did not stifle the growing peace movement entirely, but it did take some of the wind out its
sails.
When it turned out that Obama was a stronger candidate than Clinton, and that the nomination
would go his way, leading Democrats adapted. Hillary was their favorite, but Obama had been
thoroughly vetted for corporate-friendliness and passed all the tests with flying colors. That
was good enough for them.
And so it fell to the Nobel laureate to put the peace movement definitively down, even as he
continued – temporarily even escalating -- the Bush-Cheney wars.
For too long and against too much contrary evidence, liberals took it for granted that Obama
was on the side of the angels. They therefore let pass the murder and mayhem he was responsible
for.
After eight years of that, what little semblance of a genuine left there had been within the
Democratic Party's ambit found itself narcotized into oblivion.
An appetite for real opposition, even rebellion, existed within the general public; under
the pressure of events it was growing all the time. But, with our debilitating duopoly party
system in place, there was no political way out of the status quo.
Had Hillary won, that sad state of affairs would have continued, while the underlying
maladies that Trump exploited for the benefit of himself and his class would have continued to
fester.
And we would now likely be on the brink of even more appalling electoral outcomes than we
suffered through in 2010 and 2014, and in 2016, when the Trump phenomenon defied all
expectations.
Paradoxically, though, with Trump's victory, the prospects for a better mainstream politics
actually improved. Trump is so manifestly unfit for the job he holds that his hold over the
White House and the Republican Party actually harms the right more than it helps it.
His ever expanding docket of impeachable offenses and his crude misogyny are doing the work
an organized left opposition would be doing, if only one existed -- creating space for popular
movements to develop.
It started with the Women's March, immediately after Inauguration Day, and has been growing
ever since; with women – black, brown, and white – leading the surge.
With midterm elections looming, the danger of cooptation is great -- Democrats, their media
in tow, are working overtime to make that happen. But thanks to Trump, things have gone too far
by now to be squelched entirely.
What Obama's victory did to the peace movement after 2008, a Hillary victory in 2016 would
have done ten times over to the several (mainly woman-led) insurgencies that were beginning to
take shape during the campaign.
With Trump in the White House, progressive women remain in the forefront of struggles to
change the world for the better. With Clinton there instead, their best efforts would be
swamped by anodyne campaigns led by well-meaning liberals of the kind that understandably rile
up the Trump base.
All things considered, it would have been better (less catastrophically awful) had Hillary
won. Even so, there is some reason to be grateful that she did not. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most
recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong
With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College
Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and
the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
Here is an interesting article that points to the new American strategy with respect to Iran and central Asia. Iran is already
being attacked from West and East in the North. And central Asia is next. This might force Iran to pull back some forces from Syria
and Iraq.
Taking oil price to 30th or 40th is a strategic goal of the USA in relation to Russia. Listen at 3:30.
Notable quotes:
"... Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years. ..."
"... You are exactly right. U$ politicians are uninformed, stupid, detached from reality, selfish and they think like schoolyard kids do. ..."
"... They are the product of the US society as a whole. ..."
"... Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them". ..."
"... In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of power? ..."
"... I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors. ..."
"... The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin). ..."
"... Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election, 2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States. ..."
"... What an admission! trump doesn't want more drilling for oil to Americans to use. It is for export and for foreign interference ..."
"... and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too ..."
Another tiresome, butthurt yank/wank? Between the new One Belt, One Road Chinese initiative, the Russians taking control of
ME oil production and the fact that america has NO answers to help it's declining empire, it would seem to the non-partisan observer
that america is well and truly f***ed. You must be talking about their debt expansionism, $20 TRILLION and rising by the second.
Thank you Mario......let's not forget Ukraine, Kosovo, Bosnia, the entirety of eastern Europe, the entirety of northern Africa,
Rwanda, the Congo, Venezuela, Chili, Guatemala, Panama, Jeeeeeeeze etc......
Russia condemned and defined as the enemy of America with laughably little evidence (effing Facebook posts being about the
extent of it) .... not a word about JEWISH MONEY controlling the entire political system in the USA. When Netanyahu gets 29 standing
ovations from Congress should that not have triggered an FBI "Investigation"? Nah ... nothing happening there. It is breathtaking
that THIS is the Alice-In-Wonderland world we inhabit.
Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual
level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years.
Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them".
Yeah, that's hilarious. Join the murdering creep in a giggle, Laura, that's cute. Here's a global criminal who should have
been hung years ago for crimes against humanity. No one in their right mind would treat this creep with anything but contempt
and horror, let alone find him funny.
In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of
power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we
in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of
power?
My profound and sincere condolences. You are getting the 'Democracy Treatment' by the West. I hope some of you survive to tell
the tale and take revenge.
Are those ears or bat-wings? WOW! Yet another Jewe, pretending not be be. I guess he would say that the USA murdered all the
Indians and enslaved Africans 'for their own good' as well.
Talmudo-Satanism is the pernicious underlying ideology of the people who have taken over, not just the USA, but, lets face it,
the entire West.
Lets not forget that the U.$.A. meddled in Australia's election of the Whitlam Government. (And several governments there after
as soon as they realised they could get away with it an nothing would happen to them). The United States are a bunch of sick puppies;
really sick puppies the way they have treated Australia.
So much for being allies. With allies like the United States you don't need enemies (Unless the U.$. doctors them up for you
to force you to pay them more money for weapons and protection).
And it makes me sick that so many 'naive' people around the world keep falling for the SH*T that comes out of their mouths.
When dealing with the United States there are a few rules to follow. (Apologies to the innocent Americans out there but 'they'
allow their government to do some unspeakable horrors to the world.)
Rule One: If an American politician is speaking, then they are lying to you.
Rule Two: If an American Politician is quiet, they they want you to believe a lie.
Rule Three: If you have relations with the United States, you will be lied to.
And that goes for the entire planet no matter who the United States is speaking to.
Worst part is the our Gov can't think ahead, if they keep antagonising China on behalf of the Seppo's China will eventually
pull their mineral imports and our economy will crash overnight.
Yes, nobody doubts that the US interferes with elections in other countries - we're the good guys, so this is ok :)
I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the
Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors.
The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch
Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin).
Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election,
2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just
a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their
elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States.
Frederick the Great concluded that to allow governments to be dominated by the majority would be
disastrous: "A democracy, to survive, must be, like other governments a minority persuading a majority to let itself be led by
a minority."
and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking
industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too
...and the US bombed half of the world's countries for their own good too. US made Libya a slave market for humanity's good
as well. Oboomer even got the Nobel Peace Prize for it.
MIC controls Trump, not the other way around. That's why Trump deflated just three months
after inauguration. He can tell all he wants, but his actions speak louder then his words. His
actions are typical neocon actions.
Notable quotes:
"... However inadvertently, Trump has thereby bestowed on the American people a singular gift, putting a presidential imprimatur on a point that critics have been making for years, to no avail. Pointing out that our post-9/11 wars have resulted in a multitrillion-dollar waste of lives and treasure represents easily the greatest achievement of his young administration. ..."
"... Now let's look at the rest of the story. I will claim that most US military adventures, since Korea has been a failure often with unintended consequences, squandering taxpayer dollars while the national infrastructure and national psyche crumble. Involving ourselves in Vietnam after the French abandoned it was a horrific mistake with the loss of many lives and the expenditure of immeasurable political and economic capital. Somebody tell me again what Bay of Pigs and Grenada accomplished? There have been numerous other short term in-and-out deployments of troops and materiel since Korea. See Wikipedia's "Timeline of United States military operations." ..."
"... Let's face it. The military-industrial complex continues to lead the country into deeply unfortunate places and situations. Let's tie all this back to the recent school massacre in Parkland FL, one of many in recent years. Military surplus has been given away by the federal government to build up highly militarized SWAT teams in cities, armed with tanks, missile launchers and automatic weapons. Citizens easily and quickly arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons, seizing on loopholes that regulate the buying of hand guns but not AK-15s, all because the NRA owns too many members of Congress. ..."
"... Let's go beyond Trump's simplistic pronouncement. The United States has been and is a bellicose and violent nation. Unfortunately, President Trump's words have been equally bellicose, especially toward North Korea. I have little faith that our country will dial back its aggressiveness under the Trump regime. ..."
In a typically offhand remark, President Trump the other day rendered his personal
assessment of our various post-9/11 wars, interventions, and punitive expeditions. "
Seven trillion dollars. What a mistake ," he said. "But it is what it is."
The seven trillion is merely a guesstimate, of course. No one, least of all the lords of the
Pentagon, really knows how much our sundry military campaigns, large and small, have cost. Yet
at this point, total expenditures certainly reach well into the trillions. And whatever the
current tally, that sum will inevitably increase as our wars drag on and as downstream
obligations – care for veterans, for example – pile up for decades to come.
That Trump himself should characterize those wars as mistaken represents a moment of plain
speaking rare in today's Washington. After all, as the current commander in chief, he owns that
mistake and its myriad consequences. We may doubt that the generals occupying senior positions
in his administration share their boss's assessment. Nor, in all likelihood, does the national
security establishment as a whole. Yet it qualifies as more than mildly interesting that the
individual exercising supreme authority views the entire enterprise as misbegotten.
Imagine the head of Planned Parenthood declaring herself a pro-lifer. Imagine Amazon CEO
Jeff Bezos criticizing the American penchant for conspicuous consumption. Imagine Tom Brady
announcing that his son will never play a brutal and dangerous sport like football. A sitting
American president characterizing ongoing American wars as mistaken is hardly less notable and
ought to command widespread public attention.
Imagine the head of Planned Parenthood
declaring herself a pro-lifer. Imagine Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos criticizing the American penchant
for conspicuous consumption. Imagine Tom Brady announcing that his son will never play a brutal
and dangerous sport like football. A sitting American president characterizing ongoing American
wars as mistaken is hardly less notable and ought to command widespread public attention. Of
course, Trump is an improbable source of truth. His many critics have become accustomed to
dismissing his every word as either false or hateful or simply bizarre. Yet in this instance, I
submit, he has uttered a genuine truth of profound importance.
Unfortunately, Trump's bottom line obscures the implications of that truth: "It is what it
is." There are at least two ways of interpreting that remark. The first is fatalistic: We're
stuck in a heckuva mess and there's no way of getting unstuck. The second is pragmatic: Here
are facts that we dare not ignore.
... ... ...
In Hans Christian Andersen's familiar tale "The Emperor's New Clothes," a young child states
the obvious: The monarch is naked. Now we have the emperor himself making a comparably
self-evident point: Our wars aren't working.
However inadvertently, Trump has thereby bestowed on the American people a singular gift,
putting a presidential imprimatur on a point that critics have been making for years, to no
avail. Pointing out that our post-9/11 wars have resulted in a multitrillion-dollar waste of
lives and treasure represents easily the greatest achievement of his young administration.
We tend to think that the story of that administration thus far has been one of ineptitude
combined with persistent scandal. Yet the real scandal will occur if the American people and
their elected representatives in Washington fail to treat Trump's verdict regarding our recent
wars with the respect and seriousness it deserves.
Thank you, Mr. President, for your candor. If for nothing else, on this score, we owe you
one.
Andrew J. Bacevich is the author, most recently, of "America's War for the Greater
Middle East: A Military History."
Reubenhop 02/16/18 09:49 AM The
trouble is Trump criticizes these wars only because they are not his wars. He needs to be the
outsider who will do better than those that preceded him. But what does he do? He builds up
the military for future wars (even nuclear wars) and engages in dangerous saber rattling and
shows of strength. He learned nothing from his criticisms.
bernieman
02/16/18 09:57 AM said this before: arm both sides with our most destructive weapons, nukes
included, withdraw from the midevil east and let them kill each other. problem solved in
probably less than a year.
MassGuy2 02/16/18 09:57 AM Another
big mistake we're continuing to make is paying for these wars without raising taxes. In
fact, Trump is lowering taxes. Its like a homeowner taking out an expensive loan to buy
something he can't afford, and then cutting back on his work hours. As long as these wars
are being funded by future debt, most Americans will not seriously question the need to
spend money on foolish wars. If Trump is really serious, he should propose taxes be
immediately raised to pay for these wars, bring back the draft, and scrap the volunteer
army. Then see how fast the American people demand good answers as to why we're fighting
these wars.
CambridgeMAry 02/16/18 12:07 PM
I agree. Getting rid of the draft was a mistake, and it does not redound to the credit of
those who opposed the Vietnam War that most of their opposition to it evaporated when the
draft was abolished.
The draft during WWII applied to all men, including the sons of Members of Congress.
Hitler was devastating Europe, and attempting to bomb and strafe the UK into submission,
but the US did not really become involved until we were actually attacked at Pearl
Harbor.
Now, it is too easy for us to dismiss the dangers we send our service persons into
because "They volunteered."
no-name- 02/16/18 04:20
PM "Getting rid of the draft was a mistake, and it does not redound to the credit of
those who opposed the Vietnam War that most of their opposition to it evaporated when
the draft was abolished."
you're misinformed. there was strong and ever-growing opposition to the war until it
ended.
Eurydice9276 02/16/18 01:29 PM
Not at all defending Trump - but stating the obvious doesn't have to be an original
thought.
NinjaLibn 02/16/18 10:15 AM
I've long admired Andrew's insights and incisive writing. It would have been interesting to
hear his recommendations for disentangling ourselves from these wars.
Ben-Myers-not-gutless-anonymous
02/16/18 10:51 AM Trump was almost right, and he did not go far enough. Bush 41's quick
in-and-out adventure in Kuwait makes some sense. Bush 41 and his advisors smartly realized
that a surgical removal of Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait would have few long term
implications.
Now let's look at the rest of the story. I will claim that most US military adventures,
since Korea has been a failure often with unintended consequences, squandering taxpayer
dollars while the national infrastructure and national psyche crumble. Involving ourselves
in Vietnam after the French abandoned it was a horrific mistake with the loss of many lives
and the expenditure of immeasurable political and economic capital. Somebody tell me again
what Bay of Pigs and Grenada accomplished? There have been numerous other short term
in-and-out deployments of troops and materiel since Korea. See Wikipedia's "Timeline of
United States military operations."
Let's face it. The military-industrial complex continues to lead the country into deeply
unfortunate places and situations. Let's tie all this back to the recent school massacre in
Parkland FL, one of many in recent years. Military surplus has been given away by the
federal government to build up highly militarized SWAT teams in cities, armed with tanks,
missile launchers and automatic weapons. Citizens easily and quickly arm themselves with
semi-automatic weapons, seizing on loopholes that regulate the buying of hand guns but not
AK-15s, all because the NRA owns too many members of Congress.
Let's go beyond Trump's simplistic pronouncement. The United States has been and is a
bellicose and violent nation. Unfortunately, President Trump's words have been equally
bellicose, especially toward North Korea. I have little faith that our country will dial
back its aggressiveness under the Trump regime.
MNMoore 02/16/18 12:00 PM Right.
Our economy is addicted to war. The goal is not to win the war. It is to sustain it.
...and the US bombed half of the world's countries for their own good too. US made Libya a
slave market for humanity's good as well. Oboomer even got the Nobel Peace Prize for it.
"... How about Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa? Fuck Allen Dulles, Mike Pompeo, and everybody in-between! ..."
"... BTW, Victoria Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work. ..."
"... Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and along others like Hannity have blood on their hands. ..."
"... You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment. ..."
Former CIA chief James Woolsey appeared on Fox News to push the narrative of how dastardly 'dem Russkies' are in their meddling
with the sacred soul of America's democracy.
Woolsey did his patriotic deep-state-duty and proclaimed the evils of "expansionist Russia" and dropped 'facts' like "Russia has
a larger cyber-army than its standing army," before he moved on to China and its existential threats.
But then, beginning at around 4:30 , the real debacle of the conversation begins as Ingraham asks Woolsey,
"Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?"
Hes responds, surprisingly frankly...
"Oh probably... but it was for the good of the system..."
To which Ingraham follows up...
"We don't do that now though? We don't mess around in other people's elections?"
Prompting this extraordinary sentence from a former CIA chief...
"Well...hhhmmm, numm numm numm numm... only for a very good cause...in the interests of democracy"
So just to clarify - yes, the CIA chief admitted that Democracy-spreading 'Murica meddled in the Democratic elections of other
nations "in the interests of democracy."
In case you wondered which ones he was referring to, here's a brief selection since 1948...
2016: UK (verbal intervention against Brexit)
2014: Afghanistan (effectively re-writing Afghan constitution)
2014: UK (verbal intervention against Scottish independence)
2011: Libya (providing support to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi)
2009: Honduras (ousting President Zelaya)
2006: Palestine (providing support to oust Prime Minister Haniyeh)
2005: Syria (providing support against President al-Assad)
2003: Iran (providing support against President Khatami)-
2003: Iraq (ousting of President Hussein)
2002: Venezuela (providing support to attempt an overthrow of President Chavez)
1999: Yugoslavia (removing Yugoslav forces from Kosovo)
1994: Iraq (attempted overthrow of President Hussein)
1991: Haiti (ousting President Aristide)
1991: Kuwait (removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
1989: Panama (ousting General Noriega)
1983: Grenada (ousting General Austin's Marxist forces)
1982: Nicaragua (providing support
1971: Chile (ousting President Allende)
1967: Indonesia (ousting President Sukarno)
1964: Brazil (ousting President Goulart)
1964: Chile (providing support against Salvador Allende)
1961: Congo (assassination of leader Lumumba)
1958: Lebanon (providing support to Christian political parties)
1954: Guatemala (ousting President Arbenz)
1953: Iran (ousting Prime Minister Mossadegh)
1953: Philippines (providing support to the President Magsaysay campaign)
1948: Italy (providing support to the Christian Democrats campaign)
This Russia bullshit has gotta stop. For the love of God, it's been like two and a a half years now. If Vladimir Putin was
as twice as evil as we're told, he still wouldn't be half as evil as the Clintons are on any given Thursday.
Democracy? Annnnnnnd it's gone! No wonder the rest of the world thinks we've collectively lost our minds. BTW, Victoria
Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work.
Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair
and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and
along others like Hannity have blood on their hands.
The whole purpose of the Mueller indictment was to give the mainstream outlets something to report so idiot Americans will
believe the crap put out about Russia since the Winter Olympics in Sochi and set the tone to justify a military conflict with
Russia that won't end well for anyone, IMO
mary, just a touch catty tonight, don't cha' think?
Zio-Nazi? How dat work?
Whole purpose of the Mueller indictments is to give the folks a show to prove that their money hasn't been wasted on a Trump
collusion charge for collusion that started in 2014 when Trump was prolly out schlongin' some playmate or other..
I kinda wondered why they missed that one, too. I've seen that list on here before. I guess messing with Israel's elections
doesn't fit the ZH narrative?
No way he believes it. One thing about people who lack human empathy is that they would NEVER fall for the same tricks that
the empathy having population does. They will always see the angle. It's what their brain is devoted to. All the capacity that
we use to be reflective, emotional or caring all goes to angling for advantage with them. He knows exactly why people are tortured
and couldn't give a shit less. You are either shark or mutilated gold fish as far as he is concerned.
Woolsey is an evil man, for a certainty. But, au contraire, I bet he does believe it is for their own good. Whoever "they"
are that he's doin' shit to. Like the Jesuits in Andalusia, purging the non-believers.
You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura
Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment.
It really would be a new dawn for this country if the entire Deep State were outed, and publicly executed. I know that sounds
like tinfoil hat talk, but hey, I'm sure the NSA is all over me right about now. Too bad they can't seem to find serial killers
that say they're going to shoot up a school online. Too busy trying to shut up those that don't like the Deep State.
They have always done this and every single other accusation that they have levied against other "tyrants". The crazy train
continues to pick up speed.
Ummm, Fidel Castro, Cuba, 1962 ? Leading up to Dallas? Which led to LBJ and ramp up of Indochina. If you look closely you will
see that there was a huge little war going on in Laos, lots of bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail from fighter bombers based in
Thailand.
Also, Australia. The 1972 Whitlam dismissal was a bloodless coup d'état. Whitlam recognized North Vietnam which pissed off
a bunch of people in Langley. The pilots were on strike and they couldn't fly parts and crew into Alice Springs (Pine Gap Satellite
facility). The Aussies have long memories and it will be a cold day in hell before they trust the Yanks like before. This is a
country with a strong sense of injustice. The Aussies still talk about the "bodyline" cricket scandal with the Brits, and that
happened in the 1930's....
"... So just to clarify - yes, the CIA chief admitted that Democracy-spreading 'Murica meddled in the Democratic elections of other nations "in the interests of democracy." ..."
So just to clarify - yes, the CIA chief admitted that Democracy-spreading 'Murica meddled in the Democratic elections of other
nations "in the interests of democracy."
In case you wondered which ones he was referring to, here's a brief selection since 1948...
2016: UK (verbal intervention against Brexit)
2014: Afghanistan (effectively re-writing Afghan constitution)
2014: UK (verbal intervention against Scottish independence)
2011: Libya (providing support to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi)
2009: Honduras (ousting President Zelaya)
2006: Palestine (providing support to oust Prime Minister Haniyeh)
2005: Syria (providing support against President al-Assad)
2003: Iran (providing support against President Khatami)-
2003: Iraq (ousting of President Hussein)
2002: Venezuela (providing support to attempt an overthrow of President Chavez)
1999: Yugoslavia (removing Yugoslav forces from Kosovo)
1994: Iraq (attempted overthrow of President Hussein)
1991: Haiti (ousting President Aristide)
1991: Kuwait (removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
1989: Panama (ousting General Noriega)
1983: Grenada (ousting General Austin's Marxist forces)
1982: Nicaragua (providing support
1971: Chile (ousting President Allende)
1967: Indonesia (ousting President Sukarno)
1964: Brazil (ousting President Goulart)
1964: Chile (providing support against Salvador Allende)
1961: Congo (assassination of leader Lumumba)
1958: Lebanon (providing support to Christian political parties)
1954: Guatemala (ousting President Arbenz)
1953: Iran (ousting Prime Minister Mossadegh)
1953: Philippines (providing support to the President Magsaysay campaign)
1948: Italy (providing support to the Christian Democrats campaign)
Democracy? Annnnnnnd it's gone! No wonder the rest of the world thinks we've collectively lost our minds. BTW, Victoria Noodles
will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work.
Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair and
Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and along
others like Hannity have blood on their hands.
The whole purpose of the Mueller indictment was to give the mainstream outlets something to report so idiot Americans will
believe the crap put out about Russia since the Winter Olympics in Sochi and set the tone to justify a military conflict with
Russia that won't end well for anyone, IMO
But thankfully we now have Stephen Miller, the 32-year old Trump advisor and immigration hard-liner recently blamed by Democratic
senators for scuttling their desired amnesty deal for illegal immigrants. Transparently, the Dems are trying to spoil Trump's relationship
with Miller, as they did with Bannon,
by insinuating that
Miller is pulling Trump's strings. Of course it is absurd to suggest that Trump is anything but his own man. But Miller is a
crucially important figure in the Trump administration and his influence is, from what I can tell, entirely positive for the interest
of Americans concerned with mass immigration and the very tangible threat of
Europeans and people of European descent becoming
minorities in their own countries.
Jews, and Americans overall, need more Stephen Millers. Brash, unafraid, quick-witted, verbally formidable, and unabashedly "America
First," Miller is a powerful spokesman for
economic nationalist positions
,
anti-globalism , and for preserving this country's original culture and people against the Democratic scheme to flood it with
illegal and legal immigrants whose main gift to America will be their reliable Democratic votes in every future election. Miller
is roundly despised by the establishment for his positions and rhetoric.
Nancy
Pelosi has called Miller a "White supremacist," while others on the left have
compared him to Joseph Goebbels . He's the only Jew I can think of offhand that the mainstream media actively encourages the
country to hate.
But we Jews should be honest: for every mensch like Miller, we have shmucks like
Tim Wise ,
Noel Ignativ ,
Rob Reiner , Charles Schumer, and thousands
of other high-profile Jews who seem to hate or fear White Christian Americans and seek to hasten their demise as the ethnic majority
of this country. Yes, we Jews have Miller, but we also have the ADL and the SPLC -- powerful well-funded groups who conduct witch
hunts against anyone who dares speak out against multiculturalism, open-borders, globalist doctrine, or who dares to criticize Jews.
Jewish political influence in the US is still overwhelmingly negative, despite the great work of a few good Jews.
As an American (first) and Jew (second) who supports Trump and Trumpism, the European New Right, and anyone concerned with the
long-term impacts of mass immigration, I want to see more Jews, particularly younger, Generation Z Jews move to our ideological side.
I have tried to explore my own motivations for this. Why do I find myself so far to the Right on the issue of immigration and of
protecting European cultures and peoples? Why do I hope other Jews follow me on this ideological journey? And there is
growing indication
they are.
First of all, it has nothing to do with being "self-hating", a common but largely asinine Jewish slur used against Jews who step
out of line. I neither hate myself or Jews collectively. Like many non-Jewish critics of Jews, I just want Jews to stop attacking
Europeans and their descendants in their former colonies by pushing destructive ideologies and policies.
Secondly, I agree with the major criticism of Jews and certainly of Jewish activists: that they seek to do what they think is
good for Jews, while hiding their ethnocentrism by pretending their interests are universalist. Self-interest is often disguised
as "tikun olam," bringing light to the world.
Most importantly, accepting some of the recent critique of the JQ, or the Jewish role in the West's current situation -- without
thinking the situation is simple, monocausal, or part of a grand conspiracy, I view it as important to think about what Jews can
do positively in the current year.
It seems clear that ethnic Jewish activists in the 20 th century had a conscious or subconscious fear of European Christians
maintaining their ethnic or cultural identities, and this manifested itself in the various movements MacDonald brilliantly analyzes
in the Culture of Critique : the anthropology of race, psychoanalysis, communism, the Frankfort School and Cultural Marxism.
When Jewish activists pushed through immigration reform in the US, the effects were absolutely transformative. Jews largely achieved
their goals, or maybe even surpassed them. Now, more than 50 years later, we can re-examine the question: was this actually good
for the Jews?
To me the answer to this question is a resounding NO. To look at just one simple factor: the people pouring into the US in recent
years are no more Jew-friendly then the White Americans who made up almost 90% of the county in 1960 were. In fact, they are likely
to be considerably less Jew friendly. Mexicans have no special relationship with Jews or with Israel. Neither do Somalis, or Syrians,
or Afghans, or MS-13. Identity-politics obsessed leftist college activists have already made it quite clear that
Jews who side against them are to be viewed as White s -- their Jewishness will not protect them. This trend will continue, and
Jews will become Whites in the eyes of the many people who hate Whites. However different things may have looked to our parents'
or grandparents' generation, there is no tangible benefit today to ordinary American Jews today from the importation of quarter of
Mexico's population, or to ordinary French Jews from a million new Muslims. To think otherwise is to deny reality.
A main motivation for Jewish activism on immigration and other related issues was Jewish fear of being a major outgroup in American
society. Perhaps these fears may have seemed real in the wake of the Second World War, or perhaps even then they were delusional.
Today, they seem absurd. Maybe it is a generational thing, or maybe my Jewish identification is too weak, or maybe it was the context
I grew up in; but I just can't understand American Jews having feelings of fear or hostility towards White Christian Americans in
general. I grew up around White Christians; work with them; live amongst them; and count many as friends, neighbors, colleagues or
teachers. Jewish neurosis or not, a generalized Jewish fear of American Whites is, in my view, insane. Granted, things could change
in the future if we reach such a desperate state that American Whites begin to focus on some of the negative influence Jews have
had in changing their society, and collectively determine to do something about it. But flooding the country with immigrants doesn't
lessen the possibility that will happen. Quite the opposite, it increases it.
Given that, what is really best for the Jews? As American Whites slowly begin to wake up to the reality of their own ethnic interests,
what kind of Jews do we want as our representatives in the public sphere: Stephen Miller or Charles Schumer?
From my point of view, what is "best for the Jews" is to realize that while Jewish elites have been pushing a corrosive and destructive
agenda for 50 years or more, the rest of us are under no obligation to support it. Being Jewish doesn't mean one has to be a leftist
or multiculturalist booster, or work to disenfranchise White majorities in traditionally White countries. Stephen Miller is proof
of that.
But there is another response to the question "what is good for the Jews?" that is also worth serious consideration by American
Jews. The response is: who cares? Seriously, look at the current state of Jews in America. Jews have an extremely disproportionate
share of control over the media, entertainment industry, banking and financial sector, law, medicine, academia, and important policy-making
institutions. Jews are the wealthiest ethnic group in the country. I don't allege any conspiracy here. Jews' tendency to position
ourselves close to power is well described in Benjamin Ginsberg's The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Jews have high
IQs and are excellent verbalists, and obviously Jewish nepotism exists as well. While I abhor the contemporary politicized notion
of "privilege" that minority groups use to cover up their lack of rational argument, it would be dishonest to not admit that if there
is a privileged ethnic group in the US today, that group is not Whites as a whole, but Jews.
It is impossible to look at the situation objectively and not see that generally things have been going very well for American
Jews, and certainly for Jewish elites, for some time. There is thus no reason to spend time and energy thinking about what is good
for the Jews. Even if things do go wildly wrong for diaspora Jews in the future, we have a viable ethnostate that we know will take
us in; a luxury few other peoples in the world possess.
There are abundant reasons however to worry about the welfare of Europeans and people of European descent. The migration crisis
in Europe and the reality of looming major demographic increases in Africa and the Middle East that could drive much larger waves
of migrants are rapidly creating a potential future in which entire peoples could become minorities in their own countries. In the
US, demographic changes due to migration and considerably higher fertility rates among immigrants will alter the country permanently
unless drastic changes to immigration policies are made. Jews need to focus our "tikun olam" on the moral necessity of protecting
ethnic homelands and cultures in Europe, and the neo-Europes. In Stephen Miller we see a Jew who seems to understand what needs to
be done. There is no reason other American Jews can't follow his lead.
In my view, in 2018 what's good for the Jews is for us to stop thinking about what's good for the Jews and start thinking about
the right to self-determination and survival for the people we live amongst: the people who have facilitated the most stunning successes
of our tribe's history in diaspora to date, Americans, Europeans, and people of European descent. (Republished from
The Occidental
Observer by permission of author or representative)
"... The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free speech. ..."
The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the
growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has
been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free
speech.
Senator Mark Warner
The performance of Senator Mark Warner , the ranking Democrat on the committee, was
particularly obscene. Warner, whose net worth is estimated at $257 million, appeared to be
doing his best impersonation of Senator Joe McCarthy . He declared that foreign subversion
works together with, and is largely indistinguishable from, "threats to our institutions from
right here at home."
Alluding to the publication of the so-called Nunes memo, which documented the fraudulent
character of the Democratic-led investigation of White House "collusion" with Russia, Warner
noted,
"There have been some, aided and abetted by Russian Internet bots and trolls, who have
attacked the basic integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department."
Responding to questioning from Warner, FBI Director Christopher Wray praised the US
intelligence agencies' greater "engagement" and "partnership" with the private sector,
concluding,
"We can't fully police social media, so we have to work with them so that they can police
themselves."
Wray was referring to the sweeping measures taken by social media companies, working
directly with the US intelligence agencies, to implement a regime of censorship, including
through the hiring of tens of thousands of "content reviewers," many with intelligence
backgrounds, to flag, report and delete content.
The assault on democratic rights is increasingly connected to preparations for a major war,
which will further exacerbate social tensions within the United States. Coats prefaced his
remarks by declaring that "the risk of inter-state conflict, including among great powers, is
higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War."
As the hearing was taking place, multiple news outlets were reporting that potentially
hundreds of Russian military contractors had been killed in a recent US air strike in Syria.
This came just weeks after the publication of the Pentagon's National Defense Strategy, which
declared,
"Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US
national security."
However, the implications of this great-power conflict are not simply external to the US
"homeland." The document argues that "the homeland is no longer a sanctuary," and that "America
is a target," for "political and information subversion" on the part of "revisionist powers"
such as Russia and China.
Since "America's military has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield," the only
way the US can prevail in this conflict is through the "seamless integration of multiple
elements of national power," including "information, economics, finance, intelligence, law
enforcement and military."
In other words, America's supremacy in the new world of great-power conflict requires the
subordination of every aspect of life to the requirements of war. In this totalitarian
nightmare, already far advanced, the police, the military and the intelligence agencies unite
with media and technology companies to form a single seamless unit, whose combined power is
marshaled to manipulate public opinion and suppress political dissent.
The dictatorial character of the measures being prepared was underscored by an exchange
between Wray and Republican Senator Marco Rubio , who asked whether Chinese students were
serving as spies for Beijing.
"What is the counterintelligence risk posed to US national security from Chinese students,
particularly those in advanced programs in the sciences and mathematics?" asked Rubio.
Wray responded that
"the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it's
professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around
the country, not just in major cities, small ones as well, basically every discipline."
This campaign, with racist overtones, recalls the official rationale -- defense of "national
security" -- used to justify the internment of some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry during
the Second World War.
In its open letter calling for a
coalition of socialist, antiwar and progressive websites against Internet censorship, the
World Socialist Web Site noted that
"the ruling class has identified the Internet as a mortal threat to its monopolization of
information and its ability to promote propaganda to wage war and legitimize the obscene
concentration of wealth and extreme social inequality."
It is this mortal threat -- and fear of the growth of class conflict -- that motivate the
lies and hypocrisy on display at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.
"... or like viewing old photos of the Robber Barons. The msm has stopped trying to convince middle class readers it's 'on their side', imo. A few have gone full plutocrat friendly. Anything that rocks the plutocrats boats must be caused by 'russians, russians, russians', or outside agitators, or foreigners of one kind or another – not 'real' Americans. ..."
"... Exactly the kind of things the robber barons and their press said 100+ years ago about working class workers striking for better wages and working conditions. ..."
"... I agree in the regard to the seeming reduction in analytical quantity and quality. I think you're right with it being caused by reductions in newsroom staff, but I think the type of journalists we have has also changed drastically. ..."
"... In this real world context, this guy wants to promote an unnecessary new cold war to get Democrats elected. Truly disgusting and insane. ..."
"... Not only disgusting and insane, but politically stupid. Any Democrat politician who thinks that promoting Unhinged Russia Hysteria is a winning political strategy is guilty of political malpractice. ..."
"... seems to be what she and they are pushing(unhinged Russia hysteria ) as a winning political strategy. ..."
"... That's what people are going to remember when they go to the voting booth in 2018 (if they even bother) – while the Democrats where whining about Putin and Russia and doing nothing productive whatsoever to improve people's lives, Trump gave everybody more $$$. ..."
"... The "official" narratives from much of the MSM are increasingly removed from any reality experienced by the majority. For example, the latest is a report from Hamilton that much of the social media activity concerning the Florida school shooting is now infested and promoted by Russian bots "to sow division". How more absurd could it be? ..."
"... I have it on good authority that the whole rebranding of the KKK first as the CCC than as the NRA was a long-term Soviet Russian plot to cause an epidemic of mass shootings that would undermine not only US 'Democracy', but the entire capitalist juggernaut! ..."
"... Following up on something Lambert wrote once, it seems that pundits who are incapable of using the term "working class" without somehow attaching the word "white" to it are -- besides not really being on the left -- also more likely than others to push the "Russia ate my Election" nonsense. ..."
"... I think what the horrid warmongering article in Useless News misses is that the flyover states, which supply the troops for the wars, are getting war weary (and why not). Trump capitalized on this in the election, and there was a positive correlation at IIRC the county level between war casualities and troop support. ..."
"... An anti-war candidate who could make the case in the flyover states might really make an impact. ..."
"... I wholeheartedly agree about how a significant factor is that the mainstream media insists on viewing everything through ridiculously contrived "lenses" (Trump, "Russia-gate", Brexit, harassment) and, intentionally I would claim, deliberately obscuring the real problems (wealth distribution, neoliberalism, collapse of the social contract). ..."
"... whatever other news there is seems weirdly predictable and is based around personalities, rather than communities and systems. ..."
"... Animals become agitated in advance of earthquakes. It may be that the reason for angst does not lie in the past, but in the future. In general, so many of the stories are predictable self-parodies, from the Democrats relentless pursuit of the mythical 'moderate insurgents' in republican suburbs, and their comical screeching about Putin, to the drumbeat stories attacking Trump for Obama policies, to the contortions of the neocon policy apparatus trying to justify occupation and regime change in Syria, without mentioning those goals ..."
"... For me, this is key. When I cast my eye upon the news I'm greeted with unrelenting bleakness. Trump's cruel and terrible health plan was big news for months, then his terrible tax cut plan, now his terrible budget. Foreign affairs are equally bleak: the Democrats are busy stirring up a second Cold War. There's no end in sight to the trillions of dollars our nation spends every year on waste and destructive mayhem. Sociopathic corporations and octogenarian billionaires own this country. It's difficult to see anything positive on the horizon. ..."
"... There are two Americas. The news is mostly for and from the one that protects the rentier or elite class. They send their children to private schools. The second one has children who go to public schools who get shot and killed by gunmen that the school and law authorities have been warned about and then decide it's not worth their attention. ..."
"... I think we have reached America's breaking point. Shitty jobs, shitty pay, shitty hours, no hope of affordable housing anywhere, no advancement, massive amounts debt, no easy access to medical care, uneven safety nets, denigration, lack of mutual respect, a lifetime of working with little hope of a safe retirement it's just not pretty out here. ..."
"... I think we are still in a Wile E. Coyote moment where he has gone off the cliff but gravity has not taken hold yet (cartoons don't understand parabolic arcs, similar to central banks and politicians). One of the purposes of financial crises like 2008 is to reset the playing field. The inequality and inefficiency of the Roaring 20s got reset in the 1930s where many people who had paper wealth, but large debt, collapsed and regulation followed that survived for 60 years in preventing similar scenarios. The 2009-2016 period missed that window of opportunity as the focus became preserving the people who had destabilized the system. That meant the damage was one-sided to the bottom 90%. The top 10% are largely disconnected, deliberately, from what is going on with the bottom 90% and as a result are baffled about the swelling unrest in the country. That unrest is still largely unfocused and just burps out random things right now like the Tea Party, Trump, Sanders etc. ..."
"... The only good news to come out of the Florida shooting is that the young people are beginning to realize that they are cannon fodder (literally) in the cynical political battles waged by their elders. ..."
"... I've done my stint in living through the chaotic end to the 1970's and endured the major social upheavals in Thatcher's show-no-mercy early 1980's. Those were bad times. But this is worse in a lot of ways, if only for the crushing atmosphere of a powerless proletariat. ..."
"... The Dem commitment to Russiagate has become their WMD story, it has to be stuck with lest its proponents admit their lying ..."
"... The Russo-Resistance strategy has had the effect of exacerbating divisions in the potential opposition to neoliberalism. Not a bug. ..."
"... Compare and contrast with Putin and Xi, who are personally untouched by corruption taint, and whom their population actually believes has their nations' long-term interests at heart ..."
"... The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are. ..."
"... I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whether it's skyrocketing measures of income inequality, health insurance premiums rising faster than wages, college tuition rates and student loan balances rising faster than wages, mindlessly skyrocketing stock markets and asset bubbles fueled by stupid central bank policies, or whatever other unsustainable woe you choose to pick, these things cannot go on forever ..."
"... And we're incredibly divided. Most of the MSM has been sucked into personality conflicts and the us-vs-them mindset. They actively feed it now. You're expected to pick a team and learn to hate the other guys. ..."
"... I too suspect that "tweaking round the edges" will prove totally inadequate, but I have no desire for revolution. I've seen too many of them start off well but then go off the rails in horrible, terrifying directions. Revolutions can be terribly sloppy affairs, with real people getting hurt in the process. And they usually don't end where we really want them to. ..."
"... Just yesterday I was asked, "Aren't you a liberal Democrat?" I answered, "No, I hate both parties equally." That set them back on their laurels. They expected me to say "Yes." ..."
"... The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are ..."
"... Waiting for Godot ..."
"... A seemingly endless loop of outrage that yields nothing, except the feeling of powerlessness -- that all that is important in life is out of our hands, and in the hands of those who look at us and see nothing but another source of revenue. ..."
"... I rather think that our "feeling of powerlessness" is the goal aimed for by the msm. And identity politics serves a divide and conquer function. (But you can buy T-shirts! so it's all good. /s) ..."
"... I hope to draw some response to the second part of my complaint, which is that in the dog-eat-dog world of a society ordered solely by markets, we are reduced: First, from being to citizens to consumers, then from being consumers to being marks, rubes, suckers. The "news" (such as it is) isn't reported to us, it's sold to us. ..."
"... Corporate media has been pumping out Trump Derangement Syndrome stories for 18+ months. [if you're cynical] not only because the media genuinely dislike trump, but to drive clickbait and subscription sign-ups ..."
"... From my reading of history, when countries have been in the grip of anxiety it is often a relief when a feared thing happens – such as when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour it was widely reported that the response of the public, including anti-war activists, was great relief. ..."
"... I've read that much the same feeling descended over much of Europe at the start of WWI. While the same situation doesn't quite apply in the US, I do fear that there is a craving for some sort of decision, a decisive act. ..."
"... I think Trump understands more than he reveals. I think we are looking at the tempered effects of MSM froth by all the good, sensible internet bloggers and commenters which serve to neutralize the nonsense. What I see is angst failure – nobody bought this farcical onslaught of propaganda. Everyone questioned it. Something happens to the "news" when opposite views and facts collide – it gets emulsified like vinegar and oil into much less drastic possibilities. ..."
"... Interesting reminds me of how some torturers have learned that the fear of the pain can be worse than the pain itself in terms of emotional distress and breaking down ego-barriers to cooperation/submission. When the fear is worse than the feared experience, the feared experience itself is a relief. ..."
"... ur–Angst? ..."
"... Our Jerri-Lynn, who mainly lives overseas, was briefly in the US last month and dropped by our NYC meetup. She commented to me that she was very eager to leave because she could sense how high the general tension level was. ..."
"... Few people I know feel secure; a lot of it is about the basic stuff, health care and jobs. ..."
"... True, but can they address those concerns? The Occupy movement was such an effort, but the police seem to have stifled it. Then Sen. Sanders appeared on the scene with his Presidential campaign and that too was suppressed. If people are in fact not engaged it probably indicates an absence of what is important and meaningful for them in the larger society ..."
"... The LAT had truly turned into a piece of garbage the past years, they'd get scooped on stories in their own backyard, the writing was what you'd expect from a newspaper emanating from a city of 48,424, and it would be a given that new reporter hires should go at least a page into google when investigating. ..."
"... We've been watching a German TV series called Babylon Berlin, which is set in Wiemar Germany, 1929, just before the crash. It's fascinating to compare those times to our own, there are many parallels. The show is extremely well done. https://newrepublic.com/article/147053/babylon-berlin-sees-weimar-republic ..."
"... ah, yes. this has been on my mind lately. More the best lacking all conviction and the worst full of passionate intensity than the rough beast part He's already ensconced in Washington and doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything [brain glancing off the specter of all those judges]. ..."
"... post the nation state ..."
"... When war comes it will not be fought by "post-nation states." ..."
"... These are middle aged and middle class professionals about to be thrown on the scrap heap. ..."
"... Colonel Smithers, I observed something similar during the Sanders campaign's peak here in Tucson. That would be during late 2015 and early 2016. Let's just say that people weren't flocking to Bernie because their lives were going well. ..."
"... If the subtext to the MSM's Trump coverage is, "He's a racist authoritarian so he must be stopped at all costs," then you'd think they'd cover police brutality every day. If they're so concerned about racism and authoritarianism. Instead, we're seeing the FBI, CIA, etc., cast in the role of 'oppressed minorities standing up to The System, Maaan!' ..."
"... Plus, as a fan of paranoia, I can say. . . I've never seen a more unsatisfying, overly-abstract conspiracy in my life. It's not that they are rehabilitating CIA goons, but they're doing so specifically in order to obsess over memos, and reports about memos, and memos about reports about leaks about other memos. ..."
"... It's like an episode of The Office if everyone in the office had nukes. ..."
"... that attitude is nearly universal, across all layers of society ..."
"... I am in my late 50s, and for most of my life there was an air of seriousness and competence about national leaders. Even when they were doing something you didn't like, you could generally assume they were adequate to the situation, or at least had access to people who were. E.g., the moronic Reagan at least supposedly had a coterie of serious people in his administration who could keep the train on the tracks. ..."
"... Now we seem to be at a point where the people in charge are unapologetic about their greed, their lack of ability or even interest in their jobs and consitiuents, their lack of intellect and integrity, and the absence of any pretense of doing anything useful for the population or the society ..."
"... I guess what I'm saying is, as one surveys the landscape, there is a marked loss of hope coupled with a tearing urgency that something needs to be done. It's a terrible, very volatile and dangerous condition. ..."
' orthodox MSM outlets like the New York Times and the WaPo seem to be presenting us
with stale fare right now '
Such as this [paywalled] bombshell from the WaPo: 'With McCain's retreat, some turn to
Romney to carry his torch.'
Riveting. Like reviewing old photos of the Soviet Politburo to see who got airbrushed out. To paraphrase the WaPo's slogan, 'Democracy dies in decadence. '
or like viewing old photos of the Robber Barons. The msm has stopped trying to convince
middle class readers it's 'on their side', imo. A few have gone full plutocrat friendly.
Anything that rocks the plutocrats boats must be caused by 'russians, russians, russians', or
outside agitators, or foreigners of one kind or another – not 'real' Americans.
Exactly
the kind of things the robber barons and their press said 100+ years ago about working class
workers striking for better wages and working conditions.
I agree in the regard to the seeming reduction in analytical quantity and quality. I think
you're right with it being caused by reductions in newsroom staff, but I think the type of
journalists we have has also changed drastically.
Most of the younger generation that is
being brought in has gone directly to journalism school, but has no other experience in the
real world. I think many of the older guard had other careers, expertise or experience before
they started writing.
So much of what passes for "analysis" nowadays reveals very shallow
knowledge of the subject being covered by the writer. This is often most apparent in tech or
science articles. I would say some overlap to "management" culture – managers are
interchangeable, no matter the industry, since they are experts on managing. Same thing with
journalism – if you can write something, you can write about anything .
For one thing, the, MSM has become heavily dependent on election coverage in the last
decade or so, both (I assume) in revenue from political advertising, and in fountains of
easy-to-write daily horse race articles about the state of the election.
I think 2017, a post-election year, kind of got a free pass because of the election of
Trump, who was either going to make everything great (again!) or blow everything up, and the
media was able to sustain an electoral-style energy and reader involvement well beyond the
2016 elections.
Now that (a) Trump has turned out to be an incompetent and ineffectual idiot who does
nothing but watch TV, (b) we are seeing the tired old GOP program of screwing the population
instead of anything new, and ( c) the Dems have done absolutely nothing for 13 months beyond
foam at the mouth about Trump, perhaps the energy of the 2016 election is finally wearing
off.
This strategy was already starting to become implicit, as the Mueller-related
"wolf"-crying drags on (and counter-investigations of Clintons are brandished as a M.A.D.
deterrent), and as we read that Trump's tax cuts are playing well among likely swing voters
both in Congress and in the low-middle income electorate, while it gets ever-closer to "too
late" (to be credible before the 2018 midterms) for the Democratic establishment to show any
new seriousness about the issues raised and pursued by Bernie Sanders, and by the many local
candidates being sabotaged (of necessity more openly than in the past) by the donor-addicted
Democratic establishment.
In the real world, we have growing social needs with an aging population that will require
Social Security and Medicare. This guy is basically saying to ignore that, which will likely
result in a mass die-off of the middle-aged and elderly like that which occurred in 1990s
Russia when social programs were gutted under neoliberal shock-therapy "advisors" to the
puppet Yeltsin.
Meanwhile, climate change advances requiring massive investment in adaptation, and
mitigation if Democrat concerns about climate change are to be taken at face value. (I
believe we are 30 years too late, but should do what we can. Democrats claim to be concerned
about climate change with their posturing around the Paris Agreement – how does this
new cold war lower emissions?)
Nuclear waste from nuclear power and weapons needs to be secured before climate change
kicks in, but instead we are spending trillions on new weapons that will create new
radioactive waste. The new arms race with Russia and China will be incredibly expensive and
dangerous, taking money from real societal and economic needs. Arms spending by the US will
result in arms spending in Russia and China, multiplying the problem on a global scale.
Unsecured nuclear waste in Russia and China, like unsecured nuclear waste in the US, affects
the entire globe.
In this real world context, this guy wants to promote an unnecessary new cold war to get
Democrats elected. Truly disgusting and insane.
In this real world context, this guy wants to promote an unnecessary new cold war to
get Democrats elected. Truly disgusting and insane.
Not only disgusting and insane, but politically stupid. Any Democrat politician who thinks
that promoting Unhinged Russia Hysteria is a winning political strategy is guilty of
political malpractice.
On that note, I'll try harder to go to that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen talk on Tuesday, as that
seems to be what she and they are pushing(unhinged Russia hysteria ) as a winning political
strategy.
I got paid today and since the Republican tax cut, my take home pay is larger. Not a
dollar or two larger, but enough that it's very easy to notice.
That's what people are going to remember when they go to the voting booth in 2018 (if they
even bother) – while the Democrats where whining about Putin and Russia and doing
nothing productive whatsoever to improve people's lives, Trump gave everybody more $$$.
Not everything is about money and its not going to affect the majority of people who will
be going to the polls, we are already set in our objections of the POTUS and unless he
becomes Presidential quickly none of us are changing our minds. This brought to you by a
swing voting independent. I will not vote for a republican in 2018 sans what I said.
. . . articulating and advocating a strategy of the Democratic establishment making
anti-Russia hysteria (and resulting surveillance and military spending and probably
adventures), as a core campaigning plank, the new normal, completely independent of any
impeachment or even re-election defeat of Trump.
The "official" narratives from much of the MSM are increasingly removed from any reality
experienced by the majority. For example, the latest is a report from Hamilton that much of
the social media activity concerning the Florida school shooting is now infested and promoted
by Russian bots "to sow division". How more absurd could it be?
I think that sort of disconnect produces both a numbness and an anxiety and a belief that
we are governed and led by institutions completely clueless and out of control. Therefore,
people just hunker down in disbelief.
this. this seems important. coupled with the fact that enough of the news consumers today
are wholly cynical regarding any ability of the hoi poloi to make change.
I have it on good authority that the whole rebranding of the KKK first as the CCC than as
the NRA was a long-term Soviet Russian plot to cause an epidemic of mass shootings
that would undermine not only US 'Democracy', but the entire capitalist juggernaut!
I've definitely been noticing a fairly obvious breakdown in people's ability to be on top
of even basic things. We're all fried. I've got really reliable clients suddenly bouncing
payments, unable to track projects I've also had first hand encounters with both the
law/court system and the medical industry/health care system and the IT processes are
byzantine and hugely ineffective.
I think Lambert used the phrase "boom exhaustion ". I think it's apt. We're spinning so
hard and nothings getting better or easier.
That story is a classic example of a dominant minority resorting to archaism to address
the present crisis they face. It won't work either. The US government had an extraordinarily
high amount of social trust and support heading into the external crisis that was the Cold
War. They eventually frittered it away into the present and the expectation that events will
turn out the same is why the creative minority of our past is now a dominant minority in the
present. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, for the sake of clarity. We live in a
target rich environment for people who've studied Toynbee.
Following up on something Lambert wrote once, it seems that pundits who are incapable of
using the term "working class" without somehow attaching the word "white" to it are -- besides not really being on the left -- also more likely than others to push the
"Russia ate my Election" nonsense.
I think what the horrid warmongering article in Useless News misses is that the flyover
states, which supply the troops for the wars, are getting war weary (and why not). Trump
capitalized on this in the election, and there was a positive correlation at IIRC the county
level between war casualities and troop support.
An anti-war candidate who could make the case in the flyover states might really make an
impact. And the only candidate I can see doing that is Sanders, and I'm not sure Sanders has
the inclination, or even the stones, to do it. That F-35 base in Vermont rankles. Is
that really the kind of bacon to bring home?
1) Do you think this might be an age-related experience? The elders among us may have a
feeling of deja-vu, been here, seen that there's not much new in the world, just the same
scenes endlessly repeated with new actors, or an incremental worsening of situations that
have already been in decline for years. How long can endless war be news? Or endless
corruption? Or endless neo-liberalism etc?
2) Here in the UK, I personally am sick to death with everything being seen through the
prism of Brexit. Yes it is an existential crisis for our politics and our way of life but
no-one is addressing the ways in which it will improve/demolish our daily lives – food
being an obvious one. Yes it is referred to but not in such terms as ordinary people can
identify with. It's all about abstracts – treaties/reciprocal arrangements/customs and
tariffs/values and volumes of exports/imports etc. And in the meantime, we get stories about
how Europeans leaving us will damage our NHS and crop picking without addressing the
underlying causes of WHY we need imported labour and why the NHS is still deteriorating
despite having those immigrants.
3) Following on from 2, whatever other news there is seems weirdly predictable and is
based around personalities, rather than communities and systems. Whatever source one chooses
to read, this predictability leads one to end up agreeing with Mandy Rice-Davies "Well, he
would say that, wouldn't he?", no matter who the subject is.
4) Now we are leaping on the Russiabus but it is largely met with a huge yawn, unless you
like to foam at the mouth at ConservativeHome.
I wholeheartedly agree about how a significant factor is that the mainstream media insists
on viewing everything through ridiculously contrived "lenses" (Trump, "Russia-gate", Brexit,
harassment) and, intentionally I would claim, deliberately obscuring the real problems
(wealth distribution, neoliberalism, collapse of the social contract).
Here in the UK, I personally am sick to death with everything being seen through the
prism of Brexit.
I read the following article from today's Links fully expecting it to be about Brexit and
the political fallout from a possible hard border. Instead, the pivotal issue in the split
between Sinn Fein and the DUP apparently revolves around efforts to secure offical status for
the Irish language in the North. While that issue too may well be a distraction, it had
nothing to do with Brexit, and I was surprised.
Animals become agitated in advance of earthquakes. It may be that the reason for angst
does not lie in the past, but in the future.
In general, so many of the stories are predictable self-parodies, from the Democrats
relentless pursuit of the mythical 'moderate insurgents' in republican suburbs, and their
comical screeching about Putin, to the drumbeat stories attacking Trump for Obama policies,
to the contortions of the neocon policy apparatus trying to justify occupation and regime
change in Syria, without mentioning those goals
" The centre does not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ".
Yes! I've never seen anything like this by any measure. It's the scope and magnitude and
number and inter-relatedness and intractability of all the issues at once. Population,
climate change, economic disaster systems as in Capitalism going nuts, exploding Military
Industrial Complex and perpetual wars , 2 Bat -- - Crazy and utterly corrupt political
parties playing nuclear Russian Roulette, Baghdad Bob like main stream media, transformation
from a democracy into a police state, open and protected killing of blacks for being black
(the fact that isn't exaggerated is mind-numbing), technological tsunamis being co-opted and
twisted into iron fisted dystopias by all of the above.
The mind simply can't keep up with it – particularly the reality of it (as in the
Democrats going stark raving mad with Russia-Gate – never mind just being corrupt and
hypocritical to the core) and the body or something inside sends out a sort of anesthetic to
help the mind deal with the increasing perception of the trauma.
I do "get" the analogy of calm before the storm and perhaps that is indeed what we are
going through right now but to me it feels like we are simultaneously in the middle of the
disaster and constantly waking up to just how horrific it really is.
"Slowed down by a sense of hopelessness in all his decisions and movements, he suffered
from bitter sadness, and his incapacity solidified into a pain that often sat like a
nosebleed behind his forehead the moment he tried to make up his mind to do something."
-- Robert Musil, The Man Without Qualities
For me, this is key. When I cast my eye upon the news I'm greeted with unrelenting
bleakness. Trump's cruel and terrible health plan was big news for months, then his terrible
tax cut plan, now his terrible budget. Foreign affairs are equally bleak: the Democrats are
busy stirring up a second Cold War. There's no end in sight to the trillions of dollars our
nation spends every year on waste and destructive mayhem. Sociopathic corporations and
octogenarian billionaires own this country. It's difficult to see anything positive on the
horizon.
It could also come down to low Vitamin D and an unusually cold (thanks to climate change)
winter.
There are two Americas. The news is mostly for and from the one that protects the rentier
or elite class. They send their children to private schools. The second one has children who go to public schools who get shot and killed by gunmen
that the school and law authorities have been warned about and then decide it's not worth
their attention.
I think we have reached America's breaking point. Shitty jobs, shitty pay, shitty hours,
no hope of affordable housing anywhere, no advancement, massive amounts debt, no easy access
to medical care, uneven safety nets, denigration, lack of mutual respect, a lifetime of
working with little hope of a safe retirement it's just not pretty out here.
Where I live, they post the real estate sales in the newspaper and there are many weeks
where not a single house sold for over $500k. But in SF, it is news that something sold for
$500k because nothing is ever that cheap.
So you have many areas of the country (not accidental they voted for Trump) where $500k is
a fabulously high price for a house because the economies are in a rut but the places where
all the people carrying huge student debt loads are supposed to go to work to be part of the
future are completely unaffordable for all but a few.
I think we are still in a Wile E. Coyote moment where he has gone off the cliff but
gravity has not taken hold yet (cartoons don't understand parabolic arcs, similar to central
banks and politicians). One of the purposes of financial crises like 2008 is to reset the
playing field. The inequality and inefficiency of the Roaring 20s got reset in the 1930s
where many people who had paper wealth, but large debt, collapsed and regulation followed
that survived for 60 years in preventing similar scenarios. The 2009-2016 period missed that
window of opportunity as the focus became preserving the people who had destabilized the
system. That meant the damage was one-sided to the bottom 90%. The top 10% are largely
disconnected, deliberately, from what is going on with the bottom 90% and as a result are
baffled about the swelling unrest in the country. That unrest is still largely unfocused and
just burps out random things right now like the Tea Party, Trump, Sanders etc.
The only good news to come out of the Florida shooting is that the young people are
beginning to realize that they are cannon fodder (literally) in the cynical political battles
waged by their elders. We may start to see more passion for change occurring.
https://www.thecut.com/2018/02/florida-school-shooting-survivors-share-powerful-messages.html
Hopefully the 70 years old politicians will move out of the way and allow a new generation
with new ideas to start to emerge. However, it will take a lot to displace the current
political inertia from funding allowed for the wealthy 70 year olds by Citizens United.
Strangely enough, I've been thinking the exact same things, obviously from a U.K. framed
perspective. I've not commented on this on posts nor have I discussed this with either
Jerri-Lynn, Lambert, Yves, Richard Smith or any of the regular crowd here. I just passed it
off to myself as my usual neurotic preoccupations.
I can't really put it into words properly. Which can be one of the reasons why I've not
put my thoughts down in writing. Musing on this earlier this week, the best way I could come
up with capturing the vibe was to quote from E M Forster who (describing an English country
house, the people in it and as a metaphor for the country as a whole at the time) as "being
not yet actually in decline, but in the torpor which precedes it". That fit both the mood
that I sense and the cause of the pervasive anxiety.
It also, he says, opening a can of worms which he'll probably regret, but here goes,
covers and explains several conversations I've had with fellow Brexit voters. The U.K.
government is screwing things up royally with regards to the implementation of Brexit. The
national division is just as bad as ever. And we're alienating the neighbors who we really
need to keep in with for the sake of the long term. We may yet end up as being something akin
to Mordor-on-Sea. But, among the friends and relatives I've had these discussions with, none
of us could, if we were being honest, really say we cared that much. The nihilism was
slightly shocking. What was the reason for that?
The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are. Something --
anything -- is better than years and years, decades and decades of more of the same.
A shake up is long overdue and we're way past the point that tweaking round the edges is
going to be good enough.
I'm still slightly stunned to have stumbled across this unsettling zeitgeist.
I've done my stint in living through the chaotic end to the 1970's and endured the major
social upheavals in Thatcher's show-no-mercy early 1980's. Those were bad times. But this is
worse in a lot of ways, if only for the crushing atmosphere of a powerless proletariat.
I do think there are some safety valves. And at least in the past decade we've come to
recognise in our shared culture the harms done by things like inequality and how corrupt our
governments and corporations really are. And we've channels of common communication (like
Naked Capitalism, amongst a few others) which didn't exist a decade or so ago. I'm just not
sure they're enough.
Completely agree with "none of us could, if we were being honest, really say we cared that
much". My friends and I are in the same boat. I'm not sure it's nihilism sometimes I think
this is the point of our news coverage – to grind us down with boring mediocrity until
we accept whatever settlement suddenly becomes acceptable to TPTB. But then maybe THAT is
nihilistic too.
Important question! Let me serve up a goulash of inertial fear and loathing:
1. Attacks on Trump have failed to wing him legally. Passage of the corporatophilic tax
bill is going to produce a short term stimulus that many of us suspect will undermine the
reversal of fortune the policy-thin Dems hoped to pull off. So in part we're stuck with
watching a dreary theme in political economy play out in as margin estimates drift
downward.
2. The Dem commitment to Russiagate has become their WMD story, it has to be stuck with
lest its proponents admit their lying. Down on the ground, I was flummoxed to get a forwarded MoveOn email from a friend encouraging me to participate in flash demonstration at the
capitol if Mueller is fired. I was moved to explain that this worried me since it likely
hinged on Russophobia. A coolness ensued. This is happening broadly. The Russo-Resistance
strategy has had the effect of exacerbating divisions in the potential opposition to
neoliberalism. Not a bug.
3. The Syrian conflict has entered yet another crucial phase. I expect the Israelis to
kick over the table, and the Trump administration doesn't have the necessary resolution to
stop them with guaranteed threats. Militaristic cretins might be given a chance to run with
the ball. And then there's North Korea. Breath holding here.
4. Personally, I have very little gut-level understanding of the cadences of crisis
politics. Given the seriousness of the issues and the obviousness of the targets, I'd expect
Sanders or someone else to be sounding the trumpets. Instead, it seems to be more a matter of
setting out rebuttals, worrying about exhausting or boring the audience. I realize that we're
not in an "in the streets" phase, but are supposed to be building organizations, finding
candidates, etc. But the methodical, deliberate pace of that effort starts to seem inadequate
to the moment.
5. And then there's climate warming, which so easily gives rise to that deck chairs
feeling. Hard to suppress it at times.
I hate to concede much to the importance of national leadership, but in the absence, as
yet, of a broad, thoroughly anti-neoliberal social democratic organization that provides a
"culture of solidarity," (as Rick Fantasia described it in his fine book) we need it. And so
we're left with moods and presentiments, while trying to deflate fake leader trial balloons
-- another Kennedy? Cory Booker?
I would argue that there's a basic need for most human beings to feel like part of
something greater, that they're working towards something more meaningful than ever more
crass consumerism, ala Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you .."
So when push comes to shove, a credible national leader who is able to cajole everyone to
start pulling together in the same direction can make a serious go at solving or at least
addressing / amerliorating some of our pressing issues. I don't think there's anyone in the
US political circles right now that fits the bill ..
Compare and contrast with Putin and Xi, who are personally untouched by corruption taint,
and whom their population actually believes has their nations' long-term interests at
heart
I'd say national leadership will make all the difference when push comes to shove. Been
telling that to US friends for a couple of years, fwiw.
" The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are. "
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whether it's skyrocketing measures of income
inequality, health insurance premiums rising faster than wages, college tuition rates and
student loan balances rising faster than wages, mindlessly skyrocketing stock markets and
asset bubbles fueled by stupid central bank policies, or whatever other unsustainable woe you
choose to pick, these things cannot go on forever . Indeed, you can almost feel the
"major social upheaval" lurking around the corner.
And we're incredibly divided. Most of the MSM has been sucked into personality conflicts
and the us-vs-them mindset. They actively feed it now. You're expected to pick a team and
learn to hate the other guys.
I too suspect that "tweaking round the edges" will prove totally inadequate, but I have no
desire for revolution. I've seen too many of them start off well but then go off the rails in
horrible, terrifying directions. Revolutions can be terribly sloppy affairs, with real people
getting hurt in the process. And they usually don't end where we really want them to.
So where does this leave us? Unsettled and full of angst, to say the least, with no good
solutions in sight.
Just yesterday I was asked, "Aren't you a liberal Democrat?" I answered, "No, I hate both
parties equally." That set them back on their laurels. They expected me to say "Yes."
A seemingly endless loop of outrage that yields nothing, except the feeling of
powerlessness -- that all that is important in life is out of our hands, and in the hands
of those who look at us and see nothing but another source of revenue.
Yes, I agree with the "endless loop of outrage" weariness that has set in, the best
example being the (ho-hum) shooting of a dozen high school students that in a normal society
would prompt mobilization for change and quick marginalization of any leader who said, Let's
do nothing! When murder becomes routine, an overall numbness is unavoidable. I had a visitor
from Mexico with me recently who asked why I was watching a documentary about serial killer
John Wayne Gacey (as someone who hitchhiked nearby around that time, I take a personal
interest) and remarked, "In Mexico serial killers are not news."
"A seemingly endless loop of outrage that yields nothing, except the feeling of
powerlessness–"
I rather think that our "feeling of powerlessness" is the goal aimed for by the msm. And
identity politics serves a divide and conquer function. (But you can buy T-shirts! so it's
all good. /s)
I hope to draw some response to the second part of my complaint, which is that in the
dog-eat-dog world of a society ordered solely by markets, we are reduced: First, from being
to citizens to consumers, then from being consumers to being marks, rubes, suckers. The
"news" (such as it is) isn't reported to us, it's sold to us.
Corporate media has been pumping out Trump Derangement Syndrome stories for 18+ months.
[if you're cynical] not only because the media genuinely dislike trump, but to drive
clickbait and subscription sign-ups
but just as 'likes' juice the happy-chemical parts of your brain, Trump-related outrage
stories juice the angry-chemical parts of your brain.
After 18 months of being triggered by the news media [sometimes by Trump, sometimes by DNC
pundits, sometimes by real life], your brain basically says -- 'so what? i'm not angry any
more.'
I was idly wondering yesterday where the current hysteria surrounding Trump will lead
everyone. There have been hysterical political situations before, but they have tended to be
'single issue' ones – I can't recall any time when so many people on the main political
parties have been so singlemindedly determined to whip up anger. When its a 'single issue' or
generated by one side it can run out of steam or diffuse but when its multiple issues I think
its liable to either result in an explosion, or, conversely, lead to a sort of nervous
exhaustion. Looking at it from the outside, I would really fear what could happen in the US
if there was a major economic reversal. A sense of a rising tide can ease over a lot of
worries, but if things go into reverse, it can curdle into real anger. In historical
situations it can help if the anger has a particular focus, but a huge problem in the US
seems to me to be that there is no focus – its all so diffuse – anger at Trump,
at inequality, at feminists, at equality, at Russia, at Iran, at pretty much everyone.
From my reading of history, when countries have been in the grip of anxiety it is often a
relief when a feared thing happens – such as when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour it was
widely reported that the response of the public, including anti-war activists, was great
relief. A feeling that at least a course had been set, a key decision made, even if it was a
potentially disastrous one.
I've read that much the same feeling descended over much of
Europe at the start of WWI. While the same situation doesn't quite apply in the US, I do fear
that there is a craving for some sort of decision, a decisive act. While I think Trump is by
nature someone who prefers to stir the pot rather than take decisive action, he is also very
sensitive to the darker drives of the public feeling. I do fear that he might feel inclined
to do something really stupid, and there is nobody sensible around him to stop it
happening.
I think Trump understands more than he reveals. I think we are looking at the tempered
effects of MSM froth by all the good, sensible internet bloggers and commenters which serve
to neutralize the nonsense. What I see is angst failure – nobody bought this farcical
onslaught of propaganda. Everyone questioned it. Something happens to the "news" when
opposite views and facts collide – it gets emulsified like vinegar and oil into much
less drastic possibilities.
On the one hand – on the other hand. The internet was able
to neutralize the MSM because the MSM does only superficial "reporting". There seems to be a
state of angst withdrawal, lots of confusion, and no direction. As if "time goes on like
nothing is important." And lately a very interesting thing has happened – there is
almost no hysteria about "the debt. I have the vague feeling that there are some few people
who are actually in control of their senses and the sea change is approaching critical mass.
Things will change for the better not only because everyone is fed up but probably more
because our dear leaders, including the banksters, are clueless and they don't know how to
make capitalism work using the old rules. It's gonna be interesting. Thank you NC.
Interesting reminds me of how some torturers have learned that the fear of the pain can be
worse than the pain itself in terms of emotional distress and breaking down ego-barriers to
cooperation/submission. When the fear is worse than the feared experience, the feared
experience itself is a relief.
Our Jerri-Lynn, who mainly lives overseas, was briefly in the US last month and
dropped by our NYC meetup. She commented to me that she was very eager to leave because she
could sense how high the general tension level was.
I can assure you, what she feels is very, very real.
My wife and I travel at least once a year back to Canada , where my wife is from – the
difference in tension is palpable. I feel so loose and calm when I am there.
"Do you sense, as Lambert and I do, that the news tide has receded?"
My primary news source is the print edition of the Wall Street Journal and I've noted to
myself a similar observation recently. The first time I saw the gymnist doctor sex abuse
story featured prominetly on the first page I thought it odd. When the story was featured
promintely on the front page multiple times after that it felt bizzare. My reaction was
wondering how can this possibly be that important compared to everything else happening in
the world.
"If so, to resort to Warren Buffett's image, who do you think it has exposed as swimming
naked?"
My interpetation has been the news media has been exposed as swimming naked. They are
unable or unwilling to spend the money required to deliver professional reporting. Since
election season they have depended on reporting on Trump's controversies to fill their pages.
That is cheap and easy to do. Without that they have to spend time, money and talent to
report on other complex matters.
The quaility and quantity of the print edition of the WSJ has been a noticeable decline
the last few years. Little things like a front page lead in to what was supposed to be on
page B1 was instead on B4. I've been reading the WSJ for probably twenty years now and never
seen that happen before.
Twice during the presidential election they had what looked like at
first a normal section of the newspaper but was actually a "paid advertisement" from China
and Japan. It was blatant propaganda from their governments. It was shocking that the WSJ
would take money to print foreign government's propaganda on election matters. There have
been many other observations like that which have lead me to the conclusion news reporting
capabilities have been gutted more than most people realize.
True, but can they address those concerns? The Occupy movement was such an effort, but the
police seem to have stifled it. Then Sen. Sanders appeared on the scene with his Presidential
campaign and that too was suppressed. If people are in fact not engaged it probably indicates
an absence of what is important and meaningful for them in the larger society.
I have had the same or at a least similar feeling of late, but for the most part
considered it as me reflecting my own circumstances on the world, as well as worrying items
of news particularly from Syria. A bit like an increasing tightness of breath, within the
increasingly stale & pressurized air of an expanding balloon.
It has been a rather dull time for news, and i'm not really feeling any angst, other than
when I went to a neighbor's dinner party surrounded by reign of error supporters that seemed
to be doubling down on their choice in an assertive manner, with absolutely no prompting from
me.
I found that disturbing, the group-sink mentality, a blackjack equivalent of doubling down
on a 16, with the dealer showing a face card, why?
The LA Times got sold this week, which came with the SD Union Tribune as 2 for 1 deal for
$500 million.
The LAT had truly turned into a piece of garbage the past years, they'd get scooped on
stories in their own backyard, the writing was what you'd expect from a newspaper emanating
from a city of 48,424, and it would be a given that new reporter hires should go at least a
page into google when investigating.
Why would somebody pay half a billion for something that's broken down and even if you
fixed it, where is the upside?
My take is we are in the period just before WW1 and the last garden parties. Everything
seems warm, slightly off. The skirts are hobbling, the hats large and the military medals
shiny on gold braid. The politicians are making noise, but we all know that for all the strum
and bother, they will come to a resolution.
Did you hear the Austrian heir and his wife were shot? Try the sandwiches .
Ummm, those sandwiches are simply MARVELOUS I *must* get your recipe.
My neighbors sons both joined the Uhlan Regiment, and we are organizing a party for them
before they go to the academy. They look sooooo precious in their uniforms, I want to be sure
we have the best in food and drink for their send off party!
And yes, those dang Serbians. Such troublemakers. Rest assured they will be dealt with
swiftly and severely.
We've been watching a German TV series called Babylon Berlin, which is set in Wiemar
Germany, 1929, just before the crash. It's fascinating to compare those times to our own,
there are many parallels. The show is extremely well done. https://newrepublic.com/article/147053/babylon-berlin-sees-weimar-republic
There's an Ingmar Bergman film from the 1960s called Winter Light where one of the
characters finds out the Red Chinese have acquired the bomb and kills himself. Surely it's
the news media who are creating the current wave of high anxiety and even tragedies like
school shootings seem to be egged on by the media since most shooters are copycats.
Which is why some of us have taken to getting our news from sites like this one. A sanity
filter is needed. A sense of perspective may also be useful as in world historical terms
there have been much worse periods than this. Time does heal wounds, perhaps even elites who
have lost their marbles.
ah, yes. this has been on my mind lately. More the best lacking all conviction and the
worst full of passionate intensity than the rough beast part He's already ensconced in
Washington and doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything [brain glancing off the specter
of all those judges].
This is an astute post by NC and lots of great comments -- little to add but I'll see your
Yeats and raise you one Gramsci:
"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be
born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."
Well as long as we're talking poetry, I think Auden's September 1, 1939 might be even
more relevant today than it was back when it was written. So much so that I can't decide
which part of it to excerpt (and it's a bit too long to just quote the whole thing!).
Actually, no, I do know -- here is the last stanza of the poem, which just happens to
describe exactly the kind of thing that NC -- at its best -- can provide in opposition to the
"waves of anger and fear [ ] obsessing our private lives."
Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.
The DOJ Inspector General report will be out in March. After one look at a draft of the
report, Randall Wray fired McCabe. And remember, the DOJIG has all of the Strzok e-mails,
including the ones the FBI "inadvertently destroyed." Hopes–and fears–are high
that this report will expose all of the Russiagate corruption in complete detail. If so, even
mainstream media stars won't have a place to hide. They went all in too long ago and pushed
the story way too hard.
So to answer Yves's questions: yes, there is deep fear that a receding tide is about to
reveal a lot of naked swimmers and that yes, it will be a tsunami.
Professor Kendall Thomas, director of the Center for the Study of Law and Culture at
Columbia Law School, spoke at Goethe House New York recently. He designated Trump a
'post-president,' saying that the mythological status of the US presidency has been exploded
(my word). An audience member asked if we were also post the nation state; Kendall replied
that the questioner had answered his own question.
Perhaps here we have the source, or one major source, of the generalized angst?
(No video, or no video yet, however, see https://www.goethe.de/ins/us/en/sta/ney/ver.cfm
? fuseaction=events.detail&event_id=21154521)
I suppose it might have been private eye, a very changed publication from my first
introduction, suggested that the offspring of the firm were far more interested in
discotheques and tax free beaches than than the fealty of the field mice in their
property.
A little disinterested resignation might go a long way.
NCO smithers, sorry to hijack your thread; But if I'm going to do it within the headline post: Iraq war protests: The one in edinburgh was glorious, people flowing in from the mound, the west est end and
leith street, blocking the roads, g galloway and t sheridan doing what they do best.
I retired and watched the news on the bbc and that is why I have hardly looked at since
then.
What your have gifted me is contributions is that nothing is rational as family business,
and extra-family is hopeless romance.
I'll jog along (to use the contemporary parlance),
1) gaslighting with news that doesn't matter
2) feeeling of an echo chamber and the same ol same ol
3) unclear ways of taking action and identifying those persons who can fix the mess that
those persons impmementing neoliberalism and warmongering have created
I don't have much contact with the 1% now, having changed jobs in mid-2016, but agree with
you and get that sense from friends / former colleagues who do.
I work in the City of London. To use the euphemism en vogue at my employer, many people
will be "rolling off the platform", ours, over the spring. It's the same at my former
employer and another firm I know well. These are middle aged and middle class professionals
about to be thrown on the scrap heap.
Colonel Smithers, I observed something similar during the Sanders campaign's peak here in
Tucson. That would be during late 2015 and early 2016. Let's just say that people weren't
flocking to Bernie because their lives were going well.
Just to clarify, these are Bernie folks I'm talking about, with no love of corporate
Dems/Hillary, but I fear they don't realize how very real the threat is that the energy of
the base will be coopted by the leadership.
The news tide has receded because by blurring the line between news/information and
entertainment, for most people, it looses all relevance in conducting daily life. People are
tuned out and apathetic. Those watching the MSM closely are either entirely satisfied with
society as is, brainwashed, social voyeurs titilated by the access to human suffering in ever
expanding forms, or for professional interest. The weird atmosphere is that people realize
how precarious their social positions have become, but are offered no outlet to relieve the
growing anxiety. There is no leadership attempting to address these grievances, and when
movements do surface, the same set of characters jump to the forefront and successfully
diffuse the energy building for something different.
There is no accountability.
The MSM is ubiquitous in its constant drone of irrelevance. Just as the constant flashing
of advertising becomes harder and harder to see, it just stops carrying any useful
information regardless of what is being said or shown.
My sense for years has been the thought, "what will it take to break the malaise". Society
has gone from the Deep Water Horizon disaster, Fukushima meltdown, endless small wars, and
growing ecological disasters. Not to mention growing economic inequality with no end in
sight. The response is indifference and obfuscation.
Democracy requires civic action, but without proper leadership, Democracy is impossible.
Democracy requires institutions that citizens can participate in, and the current crop of
leaders undermines that participation at every turn.
So what is left is that everyone conducts their lives on autopilot- until forced to act
otherwise. It is a weird atmosphere where the general consensus is one of quiet despair, but
easier to pretend that all is well.
I will note that years after I stopped biting my nails I have started again. And this time
it is worse. I never endangered the quick, but am now so anxious And I have eliminated most
traditional sources of news from my life.
I am powerless. A seismic event that should have caused at least a small path change has
not. Instead the road is even more closed to alteration, the real news is the same or worse.
And the bread and circuses is not considered necessary because nothing really changed. The
shootings, the growing early deaths of the populace, and so on are normal. I do not know if
the slow boil of the frogs/populace will only end with their total collapse and that we have
merely turned up the heat to speed things up. Or if another seismic event that is more
violent and revolutionary is going to happen as the restricted road is overrun by those
supposed to die quickly and quietly. A Russian and French Revolution level up rising where
our current system is bludgeoned to death.
I try to ignore that sense, that prediction. But as my admission makes clear I cannot. We
are cursed to live in interesting times.
The firehose of information (shit?) being sprayed at me during my waking hours by the industrial-information complex was
chipping away at my soul one clickbait headline at a time, one junk email at a time, one advertisement at a time. So I made a
choice and l 'opted out' as best I could. I have only 3 news bookmarks (NC on of them). I dropped all social media in the
summer of '16. I've been cable free for nearly two years.
My overall mood has improved greatly over this time. I am not feeling the angst but I see the effect the 24×7 bombardment
is having on people close to me.
I am beginning to wonder if this constant bombardment is someone's grand design to wear us down, divide us, and keep us in
a permanent state of fear and paralysis.
Brilliant! I felt a similar Lightness of Being after giving up Facebook a few months ago. But this has been undermined by
recently taking up Twitter. Twitter is like having a stranger run up to you every few minutes shouting the same piece of
nonsense in your face. Then someone else shouts the exact opposite. And so on and so on.
I share your sense of "bombardment," and for me it's an on-going fight with my husband who
wants to watch MSNBC, CNN, etc. We have a very small house, so it's almost impossible for me
to get away from the audio, and it's winter, so going outside to escape is more
challenging.
I find the yelling of Rachel Maddow et al. actually like a physical assault on my senses.
I say to my husband, "you know things in the world are crap. Do you need to have that fact
repeated to you again and again? And don't you feel that this assault wears you down and
makes you less able to take positive action? That's its effect on me."
Gosh, Kokuanani, I am in much the same situation. My recently-retired husband turns the TV
on first thing in the morning and almost never shuts it down until bedtime. We have downsized
to a small condo, which fortunately has a small second bedroom/sitting room, so I can escape
for a time.
He watches CNN and the local news stations a lot and, as I stroll through the living room
or work in the adjacent kitchen, I am assaulted with the tension-laden voices of the news
anchors, pushing the latest disaster. I was almost grateful for the school shooting, since it
did make a change from the incessant prattling about l'affaire Porter.
What I find most horrifying are the daytime TV shows that feature white male authority
figures telling hapless people who have supposedly screwed up their lives and relationships,
exactly where they have gone wrong and what they need to do to straighten themselves out. The
audience, or should it be the 'mob,' acts as a chorus, egging on the participants.
I now realize how insulated from the 'real world' I have been for decades.
It is interesting that you feel the verbal yelling as as an almost physical assault. I
feel the same about constant background noise; it hurts. My spouse, on the other hand, seems
to need the stimulation of the verbal stream. (Might have something to do with his
dyslexia).
I frequently like to have the television on – often as background while I do other
things. I do have cable (as part of an integrated telephone/internet/television package) and
when I have broadcast television playing, as opposed to DVD's etc., I find I gravitate to old
comedy reruns. I've rewatched the entirety of the Mary Tyler Moore show multiple times this
winter along with many other 50's through early 80's television. The only breakthrough from
the hurricane of angst whirling through the U.S. media has been the commercials. The ads are
often made up of 50% promotion of a new pharmaceutical or medical product and 50% an
invitation to join a class action suit against the makers of a slightly older pharmaceutical
or medical product. It's an odd juxtaposition.
The wheels keep turning in place with no movement forward, backward, or in a circle. Case
in point: Yet one more mass shooting in a school. Yet one more disturbed, angry, and/or
obsessed personal with a semi-automatic weapon. Shock, horror, thoughts, prayers; we need
'sensible' gun controls; it's not the time to talk about guns, etc., etc. Same script every
time and it fades away until the next time. Does no one notice?
What can I add to what has already been said? I am sick to death of slippery empty words
and sly tactics and thievery. I want to say to hell with it all, but I cannot not care.
The reason most news is dull is that most of it is fake. I was watching an old interview
that Kerry Cassidy did with Jim Marrs the other day and he was riveting. A lot of people
classify Marrs as a conspiracy nut but he described himself as a journalist. One of the most
memorable things he said (this is not an exact quote) is that he still tried to do
journalism, but we really don't have journals any more. They are more like advertising
circulars and the stories are almost all government or corporate public relations pieces.
There are plenty of stories to write. The pieces you guys run on Uber and Calpers are rare
and not dull. It is obvious when a competent journalist has taken the time to do research and
investigate and double-check things and think about what they are doing.
The manipulated dope the government releases on the latest shooting is not news. It is
propaganda. It isn't worth reading.
my 2 cents: the FOX NEWS-ification of the MSM is now complete, and that's why it's
weird.
If the subtext to the MSM's Trump coverage is, "He's a racist authoritarian so he must be
stopped at all costs," then you'd think they'd cover police brutality every day. If they're
so concerned about racism and authoritarianism. Instead, we're seeing the FBI, CIA, etc.,
cast in the role of 'oppressed minorities standing up to The System, Maaan!'
Plus, as a fan of paranoia, I can say. . . I've never seen a more unsatisfying,
overly-abstract conspiracy in my life. It's not that they are rehabilitating CIA goons, but
they're doing so specifically in order to obsess over memos, and reports about memos, and
memos about reports about leaks about other memos.
It's like an episode of The Office if everyone in the office had nukes. Sheesh, give me P2
and the Vatican Bank any day.
TLDR: It's weird because of the sudden growth of the disconnect between [the very real
anxieties we news consumers feel in our daily lives] . . . . and the news reports which
attempt to leverage those anxieties into outrage at [whatever media elites are mad at that
day].
A question I'm pondering lately that may be related: suppose a general pulled a Julius
Caesar, crossed the Rubicon/Potomac and seized control of the US government. What would the
response be?
Sixty years ago, there would have been staunch support for the civilian government,
politicians of both parties would have rallied their supporters to defend our democratic
heritage, and I believe ordinary citizens would have actively opposed the military government
in a number of ways up to and including taking up arms.
Today? I just can't see it. I don't know if anyone would really give a [family_blog]
beyond some outrage on Facebook or Twitter. The nihilism and ennui are palpable.
Mark Blyth tells the story of speaking to a room full of fund managers and other monied
types, and he asked them if they would have trusted the politicians they supported twenty or
thirty years prior to manage one of their accounts, to general assent. But when he asked if
they would trust any of the politicians they currently support to do the same, they all
laughed out loud. In the US, that attitude is nearly universal, across all layers of
society .
Could you see yourself risking your life to go fight for our democracy under the banner of
Chuck Schumer? The DNC? Any of the ghouls in the GOP? I can't. And I think that's
meaningful.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say the MSM is getting revenge on us. They got the 2016 election wrong, were exposed as out-of-touch, and rightly ridiculed.
Lacking credibility and unwilling to do stories that would upset their owners (i.e. stories
ABOUT average American problems), the only tool left in their 'keep people reading us'
toolkit is. . .'aaaaah read this or the country dies!!!!'
And what do you know, the 'anxiety' tool just also happens to inflict a lot of psychic
punishment on the same news consumers that ridiculed them. So that's a two-fer!
I'm having trouble articulating the pile of words in my head to describe my thinking on
current news media. I'll just say that I've suspected an "establishment agenda" in most news
for years and Trump has mostly confirmed that suspicion. I'm sure it has, to some extent,
always been that way with the press (we can't escape our culture), but the stakes of
milquetoast (or outright nefarious) new media seem bigger now than ever (US empire collapse,
climate change, ballooning global inequality). I'm only 31 so let me know if I'm off base
thinking the sky is falling.
I think the hosts are right that the news seems to be drying up as of late, but I think
that is more a feature than a bug. There is plenty to discuss and dissect. They are just not
the kinds of things that capitalist media wants to even acknowledge much less cover.
I don't know if there are any Aussies in this thread, but I'll include a link to a
comedian from Australia who has excellent and usually funny commentary on Australian
politics. He posts a great deal on Youtube and has a pretty excellent take down of Vice News.
BTW the ever edgy Vice has a 5% stake owned by Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox and his boy
James is/was a board member, figure that one out. The comedian says more pointedly what I was
trying to say above to a particular example of the problem, and I think the critique of Vice
News is within the topic of the thread. As a heads up, you may need to see his initial video to get any context. I recommend
both.
I think one thing that is new recently is that the people supposedly driving the bus are
*obviously* incompetent and in over their heads.
I am in my late 50s, and for most of my life there was an air of seriousness and
competence about national leaders. Even when they were doing something you didn't like, you
could generally assume they were adequate to the situation, or at least had access to people
who were. E.g., the moronic Reagan at least supposedly had a coterie of serious people in his
administration who could keep the train on the tracks. Various government departments were
staffed by people who had a lifetime of experience in their affairs, and there was thus a
deep bench of skill and experience the national leaders could rely on when needed. Government
seemed serious and purposeful for the most part, and the nation seemed in reasonably good
hands.
It's impossible to say how much of this sensibility was real and how much carefully
maintained illusion; my guess is a lot of what was going on was the latter, but at least
leaders and the media realized seriousness was an important front to maintain.
Now we seem to be at a point where the people in charge are unapologetic about their
greed, their lack of ability or even interest in their jobs and consitiuents, their lack of
intellect and integrity, and the absence of any pretense of doing anything useful for the
population or the society. Important national institutions (e.g. the State Department! The
CDC!) are being left to languish or being actively dismantled. Who will fill the void? No one
cares. The media, meanwhile, not only fails to lament these things but actually seems to have
some glee about the situation and delights in spotlighting incompetence and even criminality
in the leadership
(I write from the US, obviously; however, the same seems to be true, perhaps even more so,
in the UK, from what I read.)
As a result, a deadly sense of futility sets in. At best, we can head off the bigger
disasters. Nothing is likely to actually improve. The will and leadership to face our many
impending disasters (climate change, nuclear war, inequality, racism, financial collapse,
infrastructure collapse) seems utterly absent.
I guess what I'm saying is, as one surveys the landscape, there is a marked loss of hope
coupled with a tearing urgency that something needs to be done. It's a terrible, very
volatile and dangerous condition.
"Before I go on with this short history, let me make a general observation -- the test
of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same
time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that
things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."
"... It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war. ..."
"... And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing. ..."
"... Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, US Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as "imperial. ..."
"... Russia's intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the anti-Assad coalition put together by the US. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its "aggression" is largely a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's doorstep. ..."
"... China is, however, the US's major competitor and the second largest economy in the world. It has replaced the US as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the US asked its key allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with the exception of Japan, they ignored Washington ..."
"... Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about "Communist subversion," but trade. ..."
"... For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time. "Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force. ..."
"... This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those high paying jobs. ..."
"... Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times ..."
"... Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com ..."
The Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy is being touted as a sea change in
U.S. foreign policy, a shift from the "war on terrorism" to "great power competition," a line
that would not be out of place in the years leading up to World War I. But is the shift really
a major course change, or a re-statement of policies followed by the last four
administrations?
The U.S. has never taken its eyes off its big competitors.
It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with
the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current
tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea
as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when
it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war.
It was President George W. Bush who designated China a "strategic competitor," and who tried
to lure India into an anti-Chinese alliance by allowing New Delhi to violate the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Letting India purchase uranium on the international market -- it was
barred from doing so by refusing to sign the NPT -- helped ignite the dangerous nuclear arms
race with Pakistan in South Asia.
And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by
backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between
Washington and Beijing.
So is jettisoning "terrorism" as the enemy in favor of "great powers" just old wine, new
bottle? Not quite. For one thing the new emphasis has a decidedly more dangerous edge to
it.
In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned, "If you challenge us,
it will be your longest and worst day," a remark aimed directly at Russia. NATO ally Britain
went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick Carter, told the Defense and
Security Forum that "our generation has become use to wars of choice since the end of the Cold
War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with Russia," adding "The parallels with
1914 are stark."
Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described
as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, US Defense
Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as "imperial. "
But in 1914 there were several powerful and evenly matched empires at odds. That is not the
case today.
While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons, Russia
today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia, or, for that matter, the Soviet Union.
The U.S. and its allies currently spend more than 12 times what Russia does on its
armaments–$840 billion to $69 billion -- and that figure vastly underestimates
Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as
"military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5
trillion.
The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. outspends China almost
three to one. Include Washington's allies, Japan, Australia and South Korea, and that figure is
almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the
U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1.
This is not to say that the military forces of Russia and China are irrelevant.
Russia's intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the
anti-Assad coalition put together by the US. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its
"aggression" is largely a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's
doorstep.
China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by building up its
navy and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep potential enemies
at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships, and missiles capable
of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area denial." It has also
modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing in air and sea assets.
However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the US: 1.9 percent as opposed to
3.8 percent.
Beijing has been rather heavy-handed in establishing "area denial," aliening many of its
neighbors -- Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan -- by claiming most of the South
China Sea and building bases in the Paracel and Spratly islands.
But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856,
when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895
and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them.
China is, however, the US's major competitor and the second largest economy in the
world. It has replaced the US as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully
outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the US asked its key
allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with the exception of
Japan, they ignored Washington .
However, commercial success is hardly "imperial."
Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet
Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems,
socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about
"Communist subversion," but trade.
There are other players behind this shift.
For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems,
Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time.
"Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers,
submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force.
This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms
company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have
spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a
stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those high paying jobs.
Nor are the Republicans going to get much opposition on increased defense spending from the
Democrats, many of whom are as hawkish as their colleagues across the aisle. Higher defense
spending -- coupled with the recent tax cut bill -- will rule out funding many of the programs
the Democrats hold dear. Of course, for the Republicans that dilemma is a major side benefit:
cut taxes, increase defense spending, then dismantle social services, Social Security and
Medicare in order to service the deficit.
And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the Russians.
The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the Party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's loss to
Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own lackluster
campaign and unimaginative political program.
There are other actors pushing this new emphasis as well, including the Bush
administration's neo-conservatives who launched the Iraq War. Their new target is Iran, even
though inflating Iran to the level of a "great power" is laughable. Iran's military budget is
$12.3 billion. Saudi Arabia alone spends $63.7 billion on defense, slightly less than Russia,
which has five times the population and eight times the land area. In a clash between Iran and
the US and its local allies, the disparity in military strength would be a little more than 66
to 1.
However, in terms of disasters, even Iraq would pale before a war with Iran.
The most dangerous place in the world right now is the Korean Peninsula, where the Trump
administration appears to be casting around for some kind of military demonstration that will
not ignite a nuclear war. But how would China react to an attack that might put hostile troops
on its southern border?
Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's
largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia
"would be like declaring war."
The problem with designating "great powers" as your adversaries is that they might just take
your word for it and respond accordingly. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Conn Hallinan
Russians Spooked by Nukes-Against-Cyber-Attack Policy February 16, 2018
New U.S. policy on nuclear retaliatory strikes for cyber-attacks is raising concerns, with
Russia claiming that it's already been blamed for a false-flag cyber-attack – namely the
election hacking allegations of 2016, explain Ray McGovern and William Binney.
By Ray McGovern and William Binney
Moscow is showing understandable concern over the lowering of the threshold for employing
nuclear weapons to include retaliation for cyber-attacks, a change announced on Feb. 2 in the
U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
A nuclear test detonation carried out in Nevada on April 18, 1953.
Explaining the shift in U.S. doctrine on first-use, the NPR cites the efforts of potential
adversaries "to design and use cyber weapons" and explains the change as a "hedge" against
non-nuclear threats. In response, Russia described the move as an "attempt to shift onto others
one's own responsibility" for the deteriorating security situation.
Moscow's concern goes beyond rhetoric. Cyber-attacks are notoriously difficult to trace to
the actual perpetrator and can be pinned easily on others in what we call "false-flag"
operations. These can be highly destabilizing – not only in the strategic context, but in
the political arena as well.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has good reason to believe he has been the target of a
false-flag attack of the political genre. We judged this to be the case a year and a half ago,
and said so. Our judgment was fortified last summer – thanks to forensic evidence
challenging accusations that the Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee and
provided emails to WikiLeaks. (Curiously, the FBI declined to do forensics, even though the
"Russian hack" was being described as an "act of war.")
Our conclusions were based on work conducted over several months by highly experienced
technical specialists, including another former NSA technical director (besides co-author
Binney) and experts from outside the circle of intelligence analysts.
On August 9, 2017, investigative reporter Patrick Lawrence
summed up our findings in The Nation. "They have all argued that the hack theory is wrong
and that a locally executed leak is the far more likely explanation," he explained.
As we wrote in an open letter to Barack Obama dated January 17, three days before he left
office, the NSA's programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data. "We
strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of
Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks," our letter said. "If NSA cannot produce such evidence
– and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any."
A 'Dot' Pointing to a False Flag?
In his article, Lawrence included mention of one key, previously unknown "dot" revealed by
WikiLeaks on March 31, 2017. When connected with other dots, it puts a huge dent in the
dominant narrative about Russian hacking. Small wonder that the mainstream media immediately
applied white-out to the offending dot.
Lawrence, however, let the dot out of the bag, so to speak: "The list of the CIA's
cyber-tools WikiLeaks began to release in March and labeled Vault 7 includes one called
Marble Framework
that is capable of obfuscating the origin of documents in false-flag operations and leaving
markings that point to whatever the CIA wants to point to."
If congressional oversight committees summon the courage to look into "Obfus-Gate" and
Marble, they are likely to find this line of inquiry as lucrative as the Steele "dossier." In
fact, they are likely to find the same dramatis personae playing leading roles in both
productions.
Two Surprising Visits
Last October CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited one of us (Binney) into his office to discuss
Russian hacking. Binney told Pompeo his analysts had lied and that he could prove it.
In retrospect, the Pompeo-Binney meeting appears to have been a shot across the bow of those
cyber warriors in the CIA, FBI, and NSA with the means and incentive to adduce "just
discovered" evidence of Russian hacking. That Pompeo could promptly invite Binney back to
evaluate any such "evidence" would be seen as a strong deterrent to that kind of operation.
Pompeo's closeness to President Donald Trump is probably why the heads of Russia's three top
intelligence agencies paid Pompeo an unprecedented visit in late January. We think it likely
that the proximate cause was the strategic danger Moscow sees in the
nuclear-hedge-against-cyber-attack provision of the Nuclear Posture Statement (a draft of which
had been leaked a few weeks before).
If so, the discussion presumably focused on enhancing hot-line and other fail-safe
arrangements to reduce the possibility of false-flag attacks in the strategic arena -- by
anyone – given the extremely high stakes.
Putin may have told his intelligence chiefs to pick up on President Donald Trump's
suggestion, after the two met last July, to establish a U.S.-Russian cyber security unit. That
proposal was widely ridiculed at the time. It may make good sense now.
Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, was chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and
briefed the President's Daily Brief one-on-one from 1981-1985. William Binney worked for NSA
for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical
analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
mike k , February 16, 2018 at 5:36 pm
Those Russians had a strange mission coming to CIA headquarters to try to negotiate with
soulless mass murderers in the name of maintaining a precarious semblance of peace, knowing
full well that these men's words and assurances were worth less than nothing. Ah well, I
guess in a mad situation one is reduced to making desperate gestures, hoping against hope
.
Mild-ly -Facetious , February 16, 2018 at 5:42 pm
F Y I :> Putin prefers Aramco to Trump's sword dance
Hardly 10 months after honoring the visiting US president, the Saudis are open to a
Russian-Chinese consortium investing in the upcoming Aramco IPO
By M.K. BHADRAKUMAR
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
[extract]
In the slideshow that is Middle Eastern politics, the series of still images seldom add up
to make an enduring narrative. And the probability is high that when an indelible image
appears, it might go unnoticed – such as Russia and Saudi Arabia wrapping up huge
energy deals on Wednesday underscoring a new narrative in regional and international
security.
The ebb and flow of events in Syria – Turkey's campaign in Afrin and its threat to
administer an "Ottoman slap" to the United States, and the shooting down of an Israeli F-16
jet – hogged the attention. But something of far greater importance was unfolding in
Riyadh, as Saudi and Russian officials met to seal major deals marking a historic challenge
to the US dominance in the Persian Gulf region.
The big news is the Russian offer to the Saudi authorities to invest directly in the
upcoming Aramco initial public offering – and the Saudis acknowledging the offer. Even
bigger news, surely, is that Moscow is putting together a Russian-Chinese consortium of joint
investment funds plus several major Russian banks to be part of the Aramco IPO.
Chinese state oil companies were interested in becoming cornerstone investors in the IPO,
but the participation of a Russia-China joint investment fund takes matters to an entirely
different realm. Clearly, the Chinese side is willing to hand over tens of billions of
dollars.
Yet the Aramco IPO was a prime motive for US President Donald Trump to choose Saudi Arabia
for his first foreign trip. The Saudi hosts extended the ultimate honor to Trump – a
ceremonial sword dance outside the Murabba Palace in Riyadh. Hardly 10 months later, they are
open to a Russian-Chinese consortium investing in the Aramco IPO.
Riyadh plans to sell 5% of Saudi Aramco in what is billed as the largest IPO in world
history. In the Saudi estimation, Aramco is worth US$2 trillion; a 5% stake sale could fetch
as much as $100 billion. The IPO is a crucial segment of Vision 2030, Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammad bin Salman's ambitious plan to diversify the kingdom's economy.
"Last October CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited one of us (Binney) into his office to
discuss Russian hacking. Binney told Pompeo his analysts had lied and that he could prove
it."
That was about some Dm. Alperovitch for CrowdStrike fame, who had discovered the "hacking" in
10 sec. Guess Alperovitch, as an "expert" at the viciously Russophobic Atlantic Council
(funded by the State Dept., NATO, and a set of unsavory characters like Ukrainian oligrach
Pinchuk) decided to show his "understanding" of the task. The shy FBI did not even attempt to
look at the Clinton's server because the bosses "knew better."
Alperovitch must be investigated for anti-American activities; the scoundrel has been sowing
discord into the US society with his lies while endangering the US citizenry.
Is not "included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging
Hillary Clinton . " (or vise versa) by posting on social media an example of free speech ?
But usage of fake identities clearly is not: "The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some,
as described below, traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign. They
used stolen U.S. identities, including fake driver's licenses, and contacted news media outlets to
promote their activities."
The question is how those unquestionable very talented Russians managed to learn English language without living in the USA and
operate such a sophisticated operation from oversees? English is a very difficult language for Russians to master and
Russian immigrants who came to the USA being older then 16 and living in the USA for ten or twenty years typically still have
horrible accent and bad or very bad grammar (tenses, "a" and "the" usage, you name it). Actually Russian woman are noticeably better
then men in this area, especially if they are married to a US spouse. Ass to this dismal understanding of the USA politics
including differences between Democratic and Republican parties (you probably need to live in the USA for ten years to start
appreciate those differences ;-) . How they managed to learn local political culture to be effective? That's a strong argument
in favor of false flag operation -- in case they have puppeteers from the USA everything is more or less rationally explainable.
Notable quotes:
"... It gets better: the defendants reportedly worked day and night shifts to pump out messages, controlling pages targeting a range of issues, including immigration, Black Lives Matter, and they amassed hundreds of thousands of followers. They set up and used servers inside the U.S. to mask the Russian origin of the accounts. ..."
"... The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said. ..."
"... The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some, as described below, traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign. They used stolen U.S. identities, including fake driver's licenses, and contacted news media outlets to promote their activities. ..."
"... Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton . ..."
"... Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact, they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election of 2016 ..."
"... Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a Trump protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked group that sought to capitalize on racial tensions between black and white Americans. The event was shared with 61,000 users. ..."
"... As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually convened at Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according to media reports at the time . ..."
"... 13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1 BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success. ..."
"... Indict AIPAC. That is the real foreign interference in ALL US elections. Such hypocrisy. At the very least, make them register as a foreign operation! Information warfare using social media ? What, you mean like the Israeli students who are paid to shape public opinion thru social media? This is no secret and has been in the news. I fail to find the difference? Psychologists call this projection, that is where you accuse others of the crimes you commit . ..."
"... It looks like Mueller would have these people for identity theft if he had them in the US, which he probably doesn't. ..."
"... Deep state pivot to keep the Russian hate alive. ..."
"... Fucking hilarious - Mueller has indicted an anti-Russian CIA operation that was run out of St. Petersburg. http://thesaker.is/a-brief-history-of-the-kremlin-trolls/ ..."
"... The bigger question is "when is Mueller going to be indicted for covering up the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings on nine eleven??" ..."
Mueller charges "defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons
known and unknown to the Grand Jury)
to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing,
and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of
interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes,
including the presidential
election of 2016."
The indictment adds that the Russians "
were instructed to post content
that focused on 'politics in the USA' and to 'use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest
(except Sanders and Trump -- we support them)'
."
It gets better: the defendants reportedly worked day and night shifts to pump out messages,
controlling pages targeting a range of issues, including immigration, Black Lives Matter, and they
amassed hundreds of thousands of followers. They set up and used servers inside the U.S. to mask the
Russian origin of the accounts.
Ultimately, and this is the punchline,
the goal was to disparage Hillary Clinton and to
assist the election of Donald Trump.
In other words,
anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a
collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election.
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency -
and the
defendants began working in 2014
-
so one year before the Trump candidacy was even
announced
- to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington.
They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and
communicating with "unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
The Russians "had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system," according to the
indictment in Washington.
The Russians also reportedly bought advertisements on U.S. social media, created numerous Twitter
accounts designed to appear as if they were U.S. groups or people, according to the indictment. One
fake account, @TEN_GOP account, attracted more than 100,000 online followers.
The Russians tracked the metrics of their effort in reports and budgeted for their efforts. Some,
as described below, traveled to the U.S. to gather intelligence for the surreptitious campaign. They
used stolen U.S. identities, including fake driver's licenses, and contacted news media outlets to
promote their activities.
The full list of named defendants in addition to the Internet Research Agency, as well as Concord
Management and Consulting and Concord Catering, include:
MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV,
MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK,
ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA,
ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA,
SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV,
MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA,
ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA,
DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV,
VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV,
GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO,
IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA,
VLADIMIR VENKOV
YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN
Mueller's office said that none of the defendants was in custody.
So how is Trump involved? Well, he isn't, as it now seems that collusion narrative is dead, and
instead Russian involvement was unilateral. Instead, according to the indictment, the Russian
operations were unsolicited and pro bono, and included "
supporting Trump... and disparaging
Hillary Clinton,' staging political rallies, buying political advertising while posing as grassroots
U.S. groups.
Oh, and communicating "
with unwitting individuals associated with the
Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
"
Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system,
including the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Defendants posted derogatory information
about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting
the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump
("Trump Campaign")
and
disparaging Hillary Clinton
.
Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those
activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons
and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing
as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and
ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage
candidates.
Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian
association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with
other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
Furthermore, the dastardly Russians created fake accounts to pretend they are Americans:
Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media pages
and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed divisive
U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists when, in fact,
they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities of real U.S. persons
to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts.
Over time, these social media
accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for purposes of
interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election of 2016
Mueller also alleges a combination of traditional and modern espionage...
Certain Defendants traveled to the United States under false pretenses for the purpose
of collecting intelligence to inform Defendants' operations.
Defendants also procured and
used computer infrastructure, based partly in the United States, to hide the Russian origin of
their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law enforcement.
Mueller also charges that two of the defendants received US visas and from approximately June 4,
2014 through June 26, 2014, KRYLOVA and BOGACHEVA "
traveled in and around the United States,
including stops in Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and
New York to gather intelligence, After the trip, KRYLOVA and BURCHIK exchanged an intelligence report
regarding the trip."
* * *
The indictment points to a broader conspiracy beyond the pages of the indictment,
saying
the grand jury has heard about other people with whom the Russians allegedly conspired in their
efforts.
I wonder if any of these Russians were behind the anti-Trump rallies
of November 2016?
Thousands attended protest organized by Russians on
Facebook.
Thousands of Americans attended a march last November organized by
a Russian group that used social media to interfere in the 2016
election.
The demonstration in New York City, which took place a few
days after the election, appears to be the largest and most
successful known effort to date pulled off by Russian-linked groups
intent on using social media platforms to influence American
politics.
Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a
Trump protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for
BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked group that sought to capitalize on
racial tensions between black and white Americans. The event was
shared with 61,000 users.
As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually convened at
Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according
to media reports at the time
.
The BlackMattersUS-organized rally took advantage of outrage among
groups on the left following President Trump's victory on Nov. 8 to
galvanize support for its event. The group's protest was the fourth
consecutive anti-Trump rally in New York following election night,
and one of many across the country.
"Join us in the streets! Stop Trump and his bigoted
agenda!" reads the Facebook event page for the rally. "Divided is the
reason we just fell. We must unite despite our differences to stop
HATE from ruling the land."
13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State
Department spend $1 BIllion every year on opposition groups inside
Russia without success.
Indict AIPAC.
That is the real foreign
interference in ALL US elections. Such hypocrisy. At the
very least, make them register as a foreign operation! Information
warfare using social media
?
What,
you mean like the Israeli students who are paid
to shape public opinion
thru social media? This is
no secret and has been in the news. I fail to find the
difference? Psychologists call this projection, that is where
you
accuse others of the crimes you commit
.
Boy Hillary sure didnt get her money's worth. She
shoulda hired these people.
Is it ok for MSM for
to make all of their disparaging commentary, but
not ok for people to do the same? Mueller
mustve forgot about the craigslist ads hiring
protesters to attack Trump rallies. What a fucking
clown show.
I guess that's it Mueller gets his indictments
to save face and Trump is pleased its over.
This ties directly into the October 31, 2017
testimony from Facebook, Twitter and Google
regarding Russian media presence on social
media. Mueller is grasping here, and given that
it talks about visas granted for short visits,
I'm led to believe that most of these people are
actually not on US soil to be arrested. This
means political grandstanding via an indictment
that is never going to see a courtroom where the
evidence can be examined and witnesses can be
cross examined. It looks like Mueller would
have these people for identity theft if he had
them in the US, which he probably doesn't.
I'm going to get called a Russian bot over
this elsewhere. Well, maybe facetiously here.
#WeAreAllRussianBotsNow
Wow, I am going to have to keep the
radio off for a couple of days.
They are going to be wall to wall on
this. Maybe even bump the stories
where fakely sympathetic reporter
cunts (FSRC) ask mother's if they
miss their dead kids.
This is a
fucking clownshow anymore. Jesus,
THIS is what the investigation
brought home? Holy fuckshit, this
is a joke. Some guy had 100k
followers? Really? Like anyone GAF
about that? We have AIPAC making
candidates kneel before them and yet
some guys on Tweeter fucked around.
I think that is even bullshit. If
Russians really did that, they
wouldn't "work in shifts" they would
program some fucking bots to do
this.
I can just imagine the fake
outrage that that worthless kike
from NY Chuckie "don't get between
me and a camera" Schumer has to say
about this.
This is a Matrix alright, and a
cheap ass one at that.
Mueller should be taken out and
horsewhipped for bringing this shit
home.
Hey Mueller, I read a comment on
Yahoo news that was in broken
English. Go get um!
I was gonna vote for
Hillary then I read tweets where
she bullied the woman her husband
raped to keep quiet. And how her
foundation got hundreds of
$millions from countries with
business before her at the state
dept. ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA
KRYLOVA mislead me.
WANHUA CHEMICAL, A
$10
billion chemical company
controlled by the Chinese
government, now has an avenue
to influence American
elections.
On Monday, Wanhua joined
the American Chemistry
Council, a lobby organization
for chemical manufacturers
that is unusually aggressive
in intervening in U.S.
politics.
The ACC is a prominent
recipient of so-called dark
money -- that is, unlimited
amounts of cash from
corporations or
individuals the origins of
which are only disclosed to
the IRS, not the public.
During the
2012
,
2014
,
and
2016
election
cycles, the ACC took this dark
money and spent
over
$40 million
of it on
contributions to super PACs,
lobbying, and direct
expenditures. (Additional
money flowed directly to
candidates via the ACC's
political action
committee.).....
~" In other words, anyone
who was disparaging Clinton, may
have "unwittingly" been a
collaborator of the 13 Russian
"specialists" who cost Hillary
the election. "~
Wait,
does this mean that "disparaging
Hillary" was just for the
witless? I've been doing that for
years, (without any Russian
influence at all), and have found
it to be rather witty virtually
all the time.
Can we
NOW
get to the point where we appoint
a special prosecutor to
investigate Hillary?
any of us who
spread "fake news"
are now "conspirators" who
gave "support" to foreign
agents
with the goal of
undermining the "democratic
process"
by denying Hillary the
presidency.
tsk, tsk.
ignorance can be no excuse
for such wanton lawlessness.
Yes, Mueller is a clown
show, but he came up w/ this crap
in an attempt to divert media
attention away from his & McCabes
direct involvement in trying to
cover up Uranium 1 for
Hillary...The Truth!
The FBI going
DEEP
(#sarc)
into its playbook for this one.
Simultaneously distracting from their
incompetencies with regards to domestic
threats (school shooters/government
collusion to subvert presidential
election), and exonerating Hillary AGAIN.
"Using lies and deception to cover our
lies and deceptions, so that we can
enslave the populace to our will"
(visualize
Meuller/Comey/Strzok/Page/Ohr/Rosenstein/Obama/Rice/
with left hands on Satanic Bible and right
arms extended giving oath in Temple of
Mammon before upside down American flag).
The DoJ and Miller
activities are anti-American. What else is new
in occupied America?
PS
Note Trump does nothing about this
unprecedented assault on Freedom of Speech and
Assembly in the USA. Therefore, Trump is a
willing player in these criminal activities.
Mueller is going to go until he gets some meat.
Maybe this lean and stringy meat is enough to
satisfy. Of course, nobody will look at AIPAC and
all of the foreign influence money funneling into
senators coffers.
He said they stole identities, posting anti-Hillary remarks on
Russian-controlled sites, using the stolen identities. They must do that
through hacking, which is illegal.
They also organized rallies, he
said. There were ads on job sites, advertising for paid
[leftist] protestors, long before Trump emerged as a candidate. People
posted them on American sites. Some attribute it to Soros. I am a little
skeptical that Soros controls the world, anymore than Russians, but that
is what people often believe, when it is leftist ads.
Advertisements are all over the Internet. Is that illegal? He called
it fraud, referring to the misrepresentation of identity, I guess. They
should not be manipulating unknowing people.
But, I wonder if he has the same vigilance when illegal aliens use
fake SS cards to acquire jobs, while their girlfriends use real SS cards
of US-born kids to get $450 on average in EBT food assistance, in
addition to other welfare, making it easy for illegal aliens to undercut
American citizens in jobs. Using a fake SS number -- i.e. posing as an
American to get a job -- is fraud.
As long as the illegal aliens have sex after illegal border
crossings, reproduce and say they misrepresent their identities for the
good of their kids, this is legal and deserving of pay-per-birth welfare
/ child-tax-credit freebies and citizenship, whereas these Russians are
committing fraud.
They should not be doing that in either case, but the double standard
is interesting.
And if people cannot post freely on the internet without revealing
their real names, a lot of internet activity (and a lot of related
commerce) will cease. Many people post anonymously, often due to jobs or
other factors that have nothing to do with elections.
In fact, FBI agents post under identities (personas) that are not
their own. There are many articles, describing how police agencies
use fake identities on the internet to track down criminals, including
those who abuse children. They do the same thing to monitor terrorists;
they use fake identities.
Where are these indictments ? Obama, Hillary
Clinton, Victoria Nuland, Geoffrey Pyatt and John McCain.
The US has been meddling and interfering in other countries
elections and internal affairs for decades. Not only does
the US meddle and interfere in other countries elections it
overthrows democratically elected governments it simply
doesn't like, and then installs its own puppet leaders. Our
deep-state MIC owned neocons casually refer to this as
"regime change".
I can only imagine the hell that would break loose if
Russia fomented, paid for, and assisted in a violent
overthrow of the legitimately and democratically elected
government in Mexico. Imagine Russian spymasters working
from the Russian Embassy in Mexico City training radicals
how to use social media to bring out angry people and foment
violent pubic unrest. Then Russian Duma members in Mexico
City handing out tacos, and tamales emboldening and urging
these angry people to riot, and overthrow the government and
toss the bums out. Then Putin's executive group hand picking
all the new (anti-USA) drug cartel junta puppet leaders and
an old senile Russian senator in Mexico City stating at a
podium on RT, there are no drug cartels here, that's all
propaganda!
On the other side of the world Obama's neocon warmongers
spent billions doing exactly this. Instead of drug cartels
it was Banderist Neo-Nazis. Obama and our neocons, including
John McCain intentionally caused all of this fucking mess,
civil war and horrific death in Ukraine on Russia's border
and then placed the blame on Putin and Russia.
Thanks to John McCain and our evil fucking neocons - the
regime change policy implemented by Obama, Clinton and
Nuland's minions, like Geoffrey Pyatt, the Ukraine today is
totally fucked. It is now a corrupt banana republic
embroiled in a bloody civil war. For the US and NATO the
golden prize of this violent undemocratic regime change was
supposed to be the Crimea. This scheme did not play out as
intended. No matter what sanctions the warmongering neocons
place on Russia they will NEVER give back the Crimea!
Our neocon fuck heads spent billions of our hard earned
taxpayer dollars to create pain, suffering, death and a
civil war in Ukraine on the border with
Russia.
This is a case of don't do what we do, only do what we
tell you to do. It's perfectly okay when we meddle. We don't
like it when we think it may have been done to us. It's
hypocrisy and duplicity at its finest!
Tech Camp NGO
- operating out of US
Embassy in Kiev
(using social media to help bring out radicals-and cause
civil war-pre Maidan 2013)
"... People read these accusational headlines, probably just the headlines, and it acts as a virus and penetrates the membrane of the collective subconscious, without even a moments thought to question the assertion. In time, the virus breaks down the will of the rational consumer to weigh evidence fairly, though it is also aided by further bombardment of fake news, which increases the rate of infection. ..."
One of the best bits about the indictment is the mention ;"arranging for a Real US person
to stand in front of the White House in the district of Colombia with a sign that read;
"Happy 55th birthday dear boss" (May 29, in 2016)" America must have trembled. (or maybe they
were shaking with laughter?).
People read these accusational headlines, probably just the headlines, and it acts as a virus
and penetrates the membrane of the collective subconscious, without even a moments thought to
question the assertion. In time, the virus breaks down the will of the rational consumer to
weigh evidence fairly, though it is also aided by further bombardment of fake news, which
increases the rate of infection.
The virus then blossoms into a fairly beautiful and uniform
flower with clean, geometric edges and universal appeal which catches the gaze of others and
so is able to double the rate of infection from this secondary source.
This flower, the Ruskiesdidittous, is the result of haphazard propogation, though its ability to survive and
thrive is notable due to a carrier population already enfeebled by a diet of Dr. Pepper and a
lack of discernible vegetables.
The indictment includes charges not yet proven in a court of law, yet prominent Americans
are treating the indictment as fact. from CNN:
>House Speaker Paul Ryan called the Russians' alleged actions "a conspiracy to subvert
the process, and take aim at democracy itself." "We have known that Russians meddled in the
election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge," Ryan said in a
statement.
>Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that given the indictments,
Trump should "immediately" implement the Russia sanctions that Congress passed last summer
to punish Moscow for its election meddling. "The administration needs to be far more
vigilant in protecting the 2018 elections, and alert the American public any time the
Russians attempt to interfere," Schumer said.
>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that the indictments "make
absolutely clear" that Russians tried to influence the presidential election to support
Trump's campaign and continue to try to interfere with our elections. "We are on the eve of
the 2018 midterm elections," the statement added. "There is no time to waste to defend the
integrity of our elections and our democracy."
>Robby Mook, Clinton's former campaign manager, tweeted: "The intelligence community
has repeatedly told us Russia meddled. Now criminal indictments from DOJ. We were attacked
by a foreign adversary. Will our Congress and President stand strong and take action? Or
let it happen again?"
There has never been any "integrity" in US elections, nor is there such a thing as "democracy" within the USA.
IMO, Congresscritters have never before looked and acted so damn stupid -- clearly they are merely mutts being led by a
leash and told to bray at a moon called Russia.
The Outlaw US Empire totally lacks integrity and clearly isn't a democracy; it is merely another of history's failed
empires destroyed by its own hubris; it really needs to gouge its eyes out and wander in the forest until it dies.
Now the administration assures us that it has an even better idea, an extended occupation by
combat troops amid multiple contending armed forces, highlighted by forcing Assad from office,
fixing war-ravaged areas, building up Kurdish forces, satisfying the Turkish government,
banishing Tehran's influence, and avoiding confrontation with Russia. There is no risk of
overreach or mission creep. And certainly no need for Congress to vote on the issue.
Excellent analysis. However, "odious" is what the U.S. and its oil-rich Arab toadies
did to spark a far more destructive intervention than in Libya. Now, uinvited, Washington
is intent on upping the ante while antagonizing Syria's committed neighbors and acting as
spoiler of a peaceful outcome.
CarlD@14 The partition of Syria according to the US is a fait accompli, presumably the
Kurds/SDF will be invited to govern almost one third of the oil rich and fertile parts of
Syria, without them being asked. Syria, Iraq, Iran,Turkey or Russia will not like this
arrangement, but as you know, when the US occupy a state, they never leave until militarily
forced to do so. At this time it is not wise for the five states to fight the US directly
even Turkey who have potentially just as much to lose as Syria and have promised to strangle
this new state at birth, must do so by at least..
Not letting any trade [particularly oil] cross the border.
Stop any arms shipments to the Kurds.
Since Incirlik air base is essential to the setting up of this state, US forces should
be persona non grata there.
If this fails they should do what the coalition have done, us proxies, unattributed of
course and ensure they have the weapons to do the job...IED's,EFP's mortars, rockets and
manpads. The only langauge the US understands.
- Peter Lee had one other interesting story: Harry Truman fired surpreme commander Douglas
McArthur in 1950 because McArthur wanted to provoke an incident with China and start a war
with China.
In Syria the USA is playing "might is right" card. Ignoring all international laws. There is
no legal justification for the USA troops presence. They care clearly illegal force on Syrian
territory. That's a dangerous game. Taking into account the USA unleashed Syria civil war for
their own geopolitical purposes, trying to reverse growing influence of Iran due to the blunder
on Iraq war this is clearly Roman empire moment for the USA.
Turkey, for example, isn't willing to accept the entrenchment of a
U.S.-supported Kurdish militia , which the Turkish government associates with Kurdish
insurgents in Turkey, right across its border. The United States seems determined to hold
ground in Syria to prevent the resurgence of terrorist groups and frustrate Iran's plans to
extend its power across the Eastern Mediterranean. Israel shares America's goal of countering
Iran, particularly at its border with Syria.
Russia, meanwhile, is bent on preserving a friendly government in Damascus and a military
presence on the Mediterranean, while casting itself as a global power player on par with
America. The Iranians -- currently "the single-most influential player" in Syria -- are "trying
to establish a long-term strategic military infrastructure in [Syria], build missile-production
facilities, move precision-guided munitions," Itani said. Both nations " are upset that
the United States is not departing the country," Tabler said.
"... Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after twenty-one years, including four combat deployments ..."
In Iraq, U.S. advisors and air power in some cases ironically
helped Iranian-backed militias succeed on the ground, strengthening Teheran's hand in Iraq.
Their influence remains strong today . Less than two
months into his presidency, Trump ordered hundreds more
troops into Syria to assist the SDF in its battle against ISIS, especially in Raqqa. Almost
immediately U.S.-NATO ally Turkey protested the effort, Syria condemned the intrusion into
their country, and Russia cautioned against it.
The U.S.-backed SDF did indeed eventually
liberate Raqqa , but again it must be pointed out that ISIS would have eventually lost
Raqqa even without U.S. involvement. The cost to our country at having supported the Kurds,
however, has been growing.
Making good on his early threats, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan crossed into Syrian
territory to engage in what he called Operation Olive Branch on January 20. Turkish troops
began attacking the SDF, whom Ankara views as a terror threat to its country. Though both
Secretary of State
Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James
Mattis mildly protested, Erdogan ignored U.S. pleas with cavalier disdain.
"We don't care what they say," the Turkish president
said of America's reaction. "They will learn how wrong it is to trust a terror
organization." Adding that Turkey would only remain on Syrian territory until they had
accomplished their objectives, Erdogan sarcastically
added , "I ask the United States: Did you have any specific time duration in Afghanistan?"
Adding insult to injury, Russia owned the airspace above
the location in Syria where Turkey attacked: Ankara got Moscow to support its move against the
SDF in opposition to U.S. preferences. That a NATO ally can so easily and publicly rebuke the
United States, literally killing soldiers that America supported and cooperating with its
biggest competitor, is a troubling indicator how much influence Washington has lost. Russia is
only too happy to drive a wedge between NATO countries, especially if it pokes a stick in
America's eye.
All of these developments are unequivocally antithetical to American
interests––and all of them could have been avoided if Obama had not committed the
United States to the operations in Iraq and Syria, and if Trump hadn't doubled-down on the
missions. As it is, the trouble is still not over. Recent events have raised the potential for
unintentional military clashes between the United States and Turkey.
On Wednesday the
White House said that Trump told Erdogan in a phone conversation that Trump "urged Turkey
to deescalate, limit its military actions, and avoid civilian casualties." On the same day in
Ankara, Erdogan announced his forces would expand the assault "[s]tarting in Manbij," where "we
will continue to thwart (SDF's) game." In response, U.S. military spokesman Col.
Ryan Dillon said the U.S. Forces in the Manbij area "have an inherent right to defend
themselves and will do so if necessary."
Moreover, though Washington helped liberate Mosul and Raqqa, the terror
threat to the United States ISIS poses is virtually unchanged, as the group's leaders
simply moved underground to continue operating. In other words, the United States has expended
enormous resources and sacrificed many of its service members to a mission that has resulted in
a net loss to America.
Instead of trying desperately to remain in Iraq and Syria to perpetuate these failures, it
is time for the interests of America to be considered first. Washington must wind down its
combat missions in the Middle East, redeploy its troops to their home bases, and begin the
process of rebuilding the ability of America's Armed Forces to face potentially existential
fights in the future.
Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant
colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after twenty-one years, including four combat
deployments . Follow him@DanielLDavis1.
LOL another agent of democracy believing that America actually cares about its citizen
or the well being of anyone else.
The US military is the armed wing of a gangster regime, their task is to protect the
petrodollar, how can you protect your number one exported goods when you dont control the
middle east?
7 nation in 5 years, come on US military you can do it.
The New York Timesreports on the
Trump administration's poor grasp of diplomacy:
American officials were more guarded, saying they were open to talks but not a
full-fledged negotiation.
The United States, they said, would reiterate its demands that North Korea make
concessions and did not plan to offer any in return.
This is being billed as the administration's willingness to "open the door" to holding talks
with North Korea, but as we can see here there is no real interest in pursuing a diplomatic
solution. If U.S. officials just want to deliver an ultimatum in person to North Korean
officials, it is a pointless exercise that would make it harder to enter into real negotiations
later. North Korea knows what the U.S. wants it to do, and it has said many times that it will
never do that, so why would they agree to talks where the same demands will be put to them once
again? The U.S. is not willing to make confidence-building gestures that might lead to more
substantive negotiations down the road, and it has no intention of offering North Korea
anything in exchange for any concessions it might conceivably make.
In the very unlikely event that North Korea agreed to a meeting with administration
officials, they would have nothing to gain from the encounter and every incentive to stay away.
The problem isn't just that the administration won't offer North Korea the tiniest of carrots,
but that it doesn't accept the idea of using carrots in diplomacy in the first place. The
administration's posturing is what a government does when it wants to feign support for
diplomacy even as it rejects diplomacy at every turn. If people here at home can see through
this ploy, North Korea will definitely take it as more proof of Washington's bad faith.
Mattis is probably mentally ill. He'll gleefully kill millions more.
The terrorists are mentally ill. They would kill millions if they could.
Implacable.
Thus, the reason for the rise of Russia and the influence and respect for Putin. Russians
will kill terrorists but embrace Islamic people who want peaceful cooperation.
Peace is a long way off. The Hegemon abhors Peace and has the means and ideology to create
chaos, death and destruction anywhere on the globe.
The American economic system depends on MIC expenditures, debt, waste, corruption, and
fiscal abuse.
Nothing much will change until multi-polar economic forces come into dominance and coerce
the American changes. Those are a long way off, also, though a few of those forces are coming
into view.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Feb 12, 2018 12:21:31 PM |
2
Pentagon statement today: 550 million dolar, 2018 budget, for PKK.
(Meaning: You can defeat terrorism, but you can't you beat our purse!)
There is a massive propaganda campaing targeting Turkey in the past 2-3 days. It's coming
from international sources. BBC, AFP etc.
This is the main theme
"Turks, beware of Russia, Syria and Iran! They are your enemy. Israel is your friend! The
USA is a superpower, obey!"
I believe nobody, no muslim targets America or ordinary American people for that mater! So
any incident should be received as provocation.
Those who pull the strings in the USA, behind the doors, maybe under risk though.
@colin 3, Yes, I used to try to update the wikipedia page on the TAPI pipeline and while some
things remained on the site, most of it was edited away. Anything to do with Exxon, Chevron,
US military actions along the pipeline route, Hillary Clinton's cheerleading for the project
during the Obama era, actions taken by the US State Department in summer 2001 (pre 9-11)
aimed at pressuring the Taliban into signing off on the deal (in exchange for handing over
bin Laden, etc.) all gone. Not worth the bother; you're up against PR firms with full-time
staff devoted to sanitizing everything.
@4 CP, the corporate media PR stream, it's something I can't even watch anymore (I follow
it with Google News search just to see what the headlines are, but it's basically predictable
content so that's enough). Here and there across the web there are some honest discussions
though: https://thewire.in/219467/russia-turkey-iran-triangle-economic-interests-paramount/
I really can't see what Tillerson and Mattis have to offer Turkey other than
threats.
"If America Wasn't America, The United States Would Be Bombing It".
Damn, that's funny
yeah, i just read
the article , and while the title is indeed humorous, the content is decidedly not. but
it's a good synopsis of the unprecedented amount of death and destruction wrought on this
undeserving planet by the US of Argh.
The West and in particular Amerikkans constantly use the Circular Argument in its public
relation and propaganda statements. That kind of attitude works with an allies, nominal or
otherwise, in the cases where sovereignty/national interest is threatened that kind of
deception is treated just like that, deception.
Unfortunately Tayyip has been used as client state for long time, from Libya to Syria where
he experienced sudden awakening.
The US has reiterated that it has no plans to withdraw its forces from Manbij.
Paul Funk, the commander of US forces in Syria and Iraq, made a recent visit to Manbij
and said that the US and its partners in Syria would hit back if attacked.
"You hit us, we will respond aggressively. We will defend ourselves," Funk said.
Erdogan took aim at that, saying: "It is obvious that those, who say they will 'give a
sharp response' if they were hit, have not been hit by the Ottoman slap."
that would be nice if the state capable to put the USA in place exists. But such state does
not exist and we need to be content with this fact. The period of wnjoying "sole superpower"
status which started in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR will not end probably until we run
out of cheap oil. Russia currently is way too weak to confront the USA and NATO allies in Syria.
So she needs to suffer, while trying to preserve gains of Assad government.
I think Russia realizes that Washington is not a rational government with which diplomacy can
be practiced, peace pursued, and agreements reached.
As the author stated earlier
: " With the public in its pocket, the military/security complex will increase its reckless
provocations of Russia until we are all dead."
Notable quotes:
"... Eric Zuesse notes that only Syria and Russia complain about Washington's illegal occupation of Syrian territory, an occupation that has no UN authorization and is a complete and total violation of international law, and Israel's continual attacks on Syria. ..."
"... Zuesse also notes that Washington and its UK puppet block all UN action against Washington's illegality. http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/u-s-not-globally-condemned-military-occupation-syria/ ..."
"... But the question is, when will Russia learn, if ever, that facts and law make no difference whatsoever to Washington? Washington's interest is in its hegemony over the world and in Israel's hegemony in the Middle East. ..."
"... Lendman makes the point that "As long as Russia maintains the myth of partnership with Washington instead of giving Washington a taste of its own medicine . . . conflict will likely continue escalating." https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-blasts-us-attack-on-syrian-and-allied-forces/5628740 ..."
"... Either Russia is unsure of its power or Putin is prevented from using Russia's power by the treasonous Atlanticist Integrationists who constitute Washington's Fifth Column inside the Russian government and economy. It is a mystery why Putin tolerates a small handful of traitors who have minimal public support while the West and Israel become daily more aggressive against Russian national interests. ..."
"... Putin sensibly avoids escalating a situation, but one gets the impression that there are constraints on Putin's ability to stand up to Washington. The Saker identifies the problem as the pro-Washington "Atlanticist Integrationists" who for personal career reasons, personal business reasons, and because they are supported by Washington-financed NGOs and media inside Russia, have sold out Russian sovereignty to globalism. ..."
"... This entire conflict, primed to grow in intensity, could have been stopped by Putin acknowledging the same overwhelming majority vote as occured in Crimea and reincorporating the provinces in Russia. The nazi government of Ukraine even with Washington and EU's support is not so completely insane that it would attack Russia and expect to continue to exist. ..."
Defending the latest round of US/Israeli aggression against Syria, US State Department
spokesperson Heather Nauert struck a Hitlerian note when she blamed Syria and Iran for an act
of overt Israeli aggression, saying "The United States . . . strongly supports Israel's
sovereign right to defend itself," and when she lied that "Iran's malign activities" and
"calculated escalation of threat and its ambition to project its power and dominance places all
people in the region at risk."
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201802111061547754-state-department-syria-israel-escalation/
Adolf Hitler covered his "projection of power and dominance" and his invasion of Poland with
the same blatant lies that Washington and Israel use to cover their aggressions. Hitler claimed
that Polish forces had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. That is the excuse used by
Israel and its puppets in the White House and Pentagon that blames Iran for Israel's attack on
Syria. When Washington and Israel are shameless in their lies, why does Russia think they are
"partners" with whom agreements can be reached?
Eric Zuesse notes that only Syria and Russia complain about Washington's illegal
occupation of Syrian territory, an occupation that has no UN authorization and is a complete
and total violation of international law, and Israel's continual attacks on Syria.
Washington's continuing support for war against the legitimate government of Syria and support
for Israeli and terrorist attacks on Syrian and Russian forces are undermining Russia's efforts
to bring peace to the region. Zuesse also notes that Washington and its UK puppet block all
UN action against Washington's illegality. http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/u-s-not-globally-condemned-military-occupation-syria/
Why? It appears to be the case that the Russian government is so anxious for Western
approval that it ends its successful military campaigns before the job is finished. It was
Putin himself who declared "victory" in Syria and withdrew some of the Russian military before
clearing all of Syria of foreign and jihadist occupation, thus leaving in place US beachheads
for renewing the conflict.
It couldn't have taken more than two more weeks for Russia and Syria to liberate all of
Syria from the US backed jihadists, but apparently Russia was afraid to annoy Washington that
much and to risk contact with US personnel, even though Russia is in Syria legally under
international law and the US is present illegally.
Again trusting to international law, the UN, and "our Western partners," Russia quit
prematurely. As Lendman says, the complaints by Zakharova, Lavrov, Russian Defense Ministry
spokesmen, and Putin himself are based in absolute fact. But the question is, when will
Russia learn, if ever, that facts and law make no difference whatsoever to Washington?
Washington's interest is in its hegemony over the world and in Israel's hegemony in the Middle
East.
Lendman might be correct judging by the reported heavy Israeli attacks on Syria on February
10 after Syrian air defences damaged Israel's image of invincibility by shooting down one of
Israel's US-supplied war planes that was attacking Syria and reports that the conflict might be
escalating and involving Iran. RT reports that the Kremlin is worried that the de-escalation
zones are threatened and that Putin got on the telephone with Netanyahu urging restraint.
All of my life US presidents have been urging restraint on Israel to no effect whatsoever.
Putin's urges will have no more effect, unless Putin takes the card from Lendman's playbook and
tells the war criminal Netanyahu who heads the illegal Israeli state, which is based on land
stolen at bayonet point from Palestinians, that any more of this and Russia will take Israel
out. Lendman thinks that no other way of talking to the crazed zionist state, or to Washington,
will have any effect, and history seems to be on Lendman's side. http://stephenlendman.org/2018/02/syrian-air-defense-downs-israeli-f-16/
and http://stephenlendman.org/2018/02/israel-escalates-aggression-syria/
Either Russia is unsure of its power or Putin is prevented from using Russia's power by
the treasonous Atlanticist Integrationists who constitute Washington's Fifth Column inside the
Russian government and economy. It is a mystery why Putin tolerates a small handful of traitors
who have minimal public support while the West and Israel become daily more aggressive against
Russian national interests.
Putin sensibly avoids escalating a situation, but one gets the impression that there are
constraints on Putin's ability to stand up to Washington. The Saker identifies the problem as
the pro-Washington "Atlanticist Integrationists" who for personal career reasons, personal
business reasons, and because they are supported by Washington-financed NGOs and media inside
Russia, have sold out Russian sovereignty to globalism. Putin, apparently, is unwilling or
unable to move aside those who serve as Washington's check on Russian nationalism, which
prevents any real Russian victory. If the "Atlanticist Integrationists" inside Putin's
government are able to block more decisive responses, the question arises: how powerful,
really, is Putin? Did Putin win Syria only to lose it to Washington and the Israelis? How can
we imagine Putin, the head of a powerful state, on the telephone pleading with an Israeli war
criminal who heads a tiny state? We know that Israel owns Washington, but does Israel own
Russia also?
How many times did Putin announce victory in Syria, pull out, and then have to go back after
Washington's forces had recuperated? Why does Putin refuse the reincorporation of the breakaway
Russian provinces in Ukraine? He allowed Crimea back in because of the Russian naval base, but
he has refused the Russian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Consequently, the Russian people
in these provinces continue to be subject to attack, and Washington has now armed its Ukrainian
nazi state with weapons to reconquer the breakaway republics.
This entire conflict, primed to grow in intensity, could have been stopped by Putin
acknowledging the same overwhelming majority vote as occured in Crimea and reincorporating the
provinces in Russia. The nazi government of Ukraine even with Washington and EU's support is
not so completely insane that it would attack Russia and expect to continue to exist.
Putin can entirely end the Ukrainian conflict by accepting the former Russian provinces back
into Russia. We can understand that Putin might be thinking long term, as were the Soviet
leaders who put Russian populations into Ukraine, to balance the Ukrainian state with Russian
populations so that the West cannot completely turn Ukraine, a historic part of Russia herself,
into a completely hostile state against which more military forces must be directed. Clearly
Putin is a long term strategic thinker, but Russia's fate and that of the rest of us will be
decided in the short run.
We can also understand that Putin, by continuing to stress international law, is trying to
bring Europe to the realization that Washington operates outside of and above law. Putin is
wasting his time. For decades European leaders have been on Washington's payroll. They don't
give a hoot about anything other than their bank balances.
The neoconservatives who rule in Washington believe that Putin's removal will restore
Washington's hegemony over the world. They regard China as a country that will accept American
leadership in exchange for riches. This is most likely a mistaken view of the Chinese
government, but it serves to concentrate the attack on Russia, within whose government
Washington has allies.
Can the Russian government successfully withstand Washington without Putin dispensing with
the Atlanticist Integrationists?
I understand that the views expressed here might be wrong. Zuesse perhaps is wrong. Lendman
is perhaps wrong. The Saker is perhaps wrong. And perhaps I am mistaken in my reading of them.
No one should underestimate Putin. Nevertheless, Russia should be aware that she is perceived
by neoconservative policymakers as a weak state lacking in courage that Washington, and even
tiny Israel, can push around, as Washington has done since the collapse of the Soviet Union and
as Israel is doing now in Syria. There is never any cost to Washington of blackening Russia's
eyes and Russia's reputation. Russia's passivity is inviting nuclear war or Russian
surrender.
Whether or not Russia wants to acknowledge it, Russia is in a fight for her life. There is
evidence that top Russian leaders are unaware of this. Sergei Chemezov says that Russia is
willing to sell Russia's S-400 anti-aircraft system to Washington so Washington can learn how
to defeat it and catch up with Russian military technology. Unless Chemezov is making a joke,
there is a problem in his perception of reality. http://www.fort-russ.com/2018/02/head-of-rostech-us-may-buy-russias-s.html
Putin damaged himself with people who have a moral conscience when he met with the
criminal-in-chief of the Israeli state and treated Netanyahu as if he were not a war criminal
who belonged on the scaffold but a world leader worthy of Russia's recognition. This act of
folly deflated Putin's reputation as a leader who stood for moral outcomes and not merely for
self-interested, negotiated outcomes.
The world needs a leader. The hopes were on Putin.
The America-worshipping Russian Atlanticist Ingegrationists must have many screws loose to
want to be part of degenerate Western civilization:
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union. But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal
problems.
Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news" , he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed
off in December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by "weaponizing disinformation"
and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia destabilized the
US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir Julian King,
casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated disinformation" to destabilize
the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned that Russia is stepping up its
efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he
claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it,
Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions. It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact" .
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the
press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must stop contributing to
a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real
scandal that the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt
the democratic process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
Anyone who believes MSM is totally indoctrinated since it has been proven over and over that
they won't tell the truth of the matter. The only REAL thing this country supplies or
produces is war. Most other industries have been outsourced and given subsidies to so, thus
taking American jobs from our lives. And now they want to take Social Security and Medicare
to PAY for our military buildup????
It is without a doubt true that the political class and their oligharchic owners are falling
and falling fast. They need a war to sustain their enrichment and attempted control of the
world. They have run out of potential victims , while on the home front the naive Amrikan is
starting to reject their nonsense. They can't really afford to take on China as they could
easily dump their US treasuries and sink the financing arrangements for a war. They would
like to stop the OBOR ; but how? Ah Russia. Smaller population but lethal in central Europe
and perhaps beyond. Good geographic position for cutting OBOR. After all why would anyone be
allowed to put in such a mega project and not let the US oligharchic class control it?
A big part of the problem with Washington DC is that they are ruled by the Rothschild
oligarchs and function first and foremost for Rothschild interests such as Israel and other
Rothschild programs. Washington is not focused on the states it was designed to serve.
Rothschild's and other oligarchs, fascists and the like control Washington crippling them.
Countries like China, Russia are making their own destinies while Washington languishes and
dissolves under a Rothschild fascist flag.
"Intel chief: Federal debt poses 'dire threat' to national security"
The above was the title to an article in The Hill, yesterday. The comment was attributed
to Dan Coates, DNI in testimony to Congress. To me, since elected officials CREATE the
federal debt, what the DNI is REALLY saying is that the elected officials are a dire threat
to national security. Their spending and fake borrowing from the Federal Reserve is the
threat-not Syria, Yemen, or other countries that have not attacked the US. The elected
officials, both Democrat and Republicans are on the way to destroying the US. Not Russia,
China, ISIS, or international terrorism.
I recently read a horrifying commentary by John Whitehead on the burgeoning sex trade in this
country where young girls are abducted and sold for sexual favors to deviants in every major
city in the US. Many of these girls are as young a three and four years old, and the average
age of these victims is 13! Thousands of missing children end up as sex slaves and are forced
to be with as many as 40 men a night.
This great evil has become extremely lucrative, and numerous monsters, both men, and women
are reaping billions of dollars from the unspeakable crime of destroying children's lives,
not only physically, but mentally and spiritually as well.
The West has reached a new level of rottenness. Moral decay is actively gnawing at the
very fabric of our society. The Cabal and its rampant criminality in Washington is a
reflection of this terrible decline we are witnessing around us.
The hypocritical cry and hue from our government officials about the terrible human rights
abuses in other countries as they seek to deflect the attention away from their own
criminality and murderous abuses at home and abroad is indeed sickening.
UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold was killed in a suspicious plane crash in 1961. He
dared speak Truth to the Power. His quote from over 60 years ago is so relevant to what is
going on Today. It has spread like never before to affect the judgments of the Politicians,
the news media, and the Public.
-The Assembly has witnessed over the last weeks how historical truth is established; once
an allegation has been repeated a few times, it is no longer an allegation, it is an
established fact, even if no evidence has been brought out in order to support it.
American propaganda is scapegoating Russia to absolve Americans of responsibility for
creating their own political divisions.
Observing from CanaDa, this anti-Russia/Putin Propaganda is confirming this Vision of the
Future published 41 years ago.
On September 13, 1976, the major daily THE KANSAS CITY TIMES published this Vision of the
FUTURE: "He came to town for the Republican National Convention and will stay until the
election in November TO DO GOD'S BIDDING: To tell the world, from Kansas City, this country
has been found wanting and its days are numbered [...] He gestured toward a gleaming church
dome. "The gold dome is the symbol of Babylon," he said." [...] He wanted to bring to the
Public's attention an "idea being put out subtly and deceptively" by the government that we
have to get prepared for a war with Russia.
It's taken over 40 years, but that 1976 FUTURE is NOW with the Revelation of the details
GENERALLY unfolding in the spirit of the letter. The World is finally waking up to see Trump
just may hasten "its days are numbered" part of the 1976 Public record.
The KANSAS CITY TIMES did a follow up report on ALL SOULS DAY, November 2, 1976. When the TV
movie 'THE DAY AFTER' Kansas City was incinerated in a Nuclear Holocaust appeared in 1983,
most likely, I was the only Human on Earth, including the newspaper reporters, to note at the
END, the movie pauses at the very same picture frame THE KANSAS CITY TIMES chose for the ALL
SOULS DAY record 7 years earlier.
Any way you look at it, that HISTORICAL FACT is a confirming SIGN for our Generations, the
World has arrived at this point of Decision, of an "idea being put out subtly and
deceptively" by the government that we have to get prepared for a war with Russia."
Multitudes! Multitudes in the Valley of Decision. The Day of the LORD IS NEAR in the Valley
of Decision.
Not many will recognize, "this country has been found wanting and its days are numbered"
as the 1st two parts, of the 3 part 'Writing on the Wall" from Daniel 5 and the Captivity of
Babylon some 2600 years ago. The whole world saw The Writing on the Wall for the 1st TIME at
the same TIME, with the Global Financial Meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour in September of
2008, even if the world does not recognize it as such.
The 3rd part of the Writing on the Wall tells of the decline of Babylon, the 1st Biblical
model of the Nation that reaches Imperial Military-Economic Superpower Status, and the rise
of Persia
Ancient Babylon is now Iraq, and ancient Persia is now Iran.
The US is the latest, greatest of all the Nations reaching Imperial Military-Economic
Superpower Status in the 2600 year old Biblical Babylonian superstructure.
The TAIL struck the HEAD, causing the unravelling of the Earthly Babylonian superstructure
and infrastructure, ushering in the Law of the Jungle to the Middle East and this World.
The Iranian Revolution happened in 1979, 2-1/2 years after the record in the 1976 KANSAS
CITY TIMES Timeline.
All the chaos in the Middle East since then, including the carnage in Syria, is the
consequence of the vain attempt to reverse that God ordained, repeat of History, as a SIGN
for our Generations. http://ray032.com/2013/09/01/signs-of-the-times/
Bulldoze them Georgia Guidestones.
Erase that Denver Airport Artwork.
Send Lady Liberty back to France.
Neandertals, behaving badly.
Stars and Stripes gilded cheap pennant should be changed to Skull n Bones.
What the U.S. political and Deep State accused of Russia today is exactly what they
themselves have done to much of the world. Entire Wikipedia is not big enough to write about
the dirty tricks of the CIA and NSA.
Russia of course has no need to do what was accused. But they are surely laughing at being
accused. Indeed, keep the accusation coming. The more the accusations, the longer they last,
the more sure Russia know the corrupt terror empires of the west are going down.
Without firing a single shot. Now isn't that funny? Just ask the Chinese!
February 14, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - Every
empire needs a scary external threat, led by a singular menacing villain, to justify its massive military expenditures, consolidation
of authoritarian powers, and endless wars. For the five decades after the end of World War II, Moscow played this role perfectly.
But the fall of Soviet Union meant, at least for a while, that the Kremlin could no longer sustain sufficient fear levels. After
some brief, largely unsuccessful auditions for possible replacements -- Asian actors
like China and
a splurging Japan were considered
-- the post-9/11 era elevated a cast of Muslim understudies to the starring role: Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, ISIS and Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, and "jihadism" generally kept fear alive.
The lack of any 9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S. (or any Western) soil for the past 17 years, along with the killing of a
pitifully aged, ailing bin Laden and the erosion of ISIS, has severely compromised their ongoing viability as major bad guys. So
now -- just as a film studio revitalizes a once-successful super-villain franchise for a new generation of moviegoers -- we're back
to the Russians occupying center stage.
That Barack Obama spent eight years (including up through his final year-end news conference) mocking the notion that Russia posed
a serious threat to the U.S. given their size and capabilities, and that he
even tried
repeatedly to accommodate and partner with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is of no concern: In the internet age, "2016" is
regarded as ancient history, drowned out by an endless array of new threats pinned by a united media on the Russkie Plague. Moreover,
human nature craves a belief in an existential foreign threat because it confers a sense of purpose and cause, strengthens tribal
unity and identity, permits scapegoating, shifts blame for maladies from internal to external causes, and (like religion) offers
a simplifying theory for understanding a complex world.
One of the prime accusations sustaining this script is that the Kremlin is drowning the West in "fake news" and other forms of
propaganda. One can debate its impact and magnitude, but disinformation campaigns are something the U.S., Russia, and countless other
nations have done to one another for centuries, and there is
convincing evidence that Russia does this
sort of thing now. But evidence of one threat does not mean that all claimed threats are real, nor does it mean that that tactic
is exclusively wielded by one side.
Over the past year, there have been numerous claims made by Western intelligence agencies, mindlessly accepted as true in the
Western press, that have turned out to be baseless, if not deliberate scams. Just today, it
was revealed
that Dutch Foreign Minister Halbe Zijlstra lied when he claimed he was at a meeting with Putin, in which the Russian president "said
he considered Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic states as part of a 'Greater Russia.'"
"Fake news" is certainly something to worry about when it emanates from foreign adversaries, but it is at least as concerning
and threatening, if not more so, when emanating from one's own governments and media. And there are countless, highly significant
examples beyond today's of such propaganda that emanates from within.
... ... ...
If there's any lesson that should unite everyone in the West, it's that the greatest skepticism is required when it comes to government
and media claims about the nature of foreign threats. If we're going to rejuvenate a Cold War, or submit to greater military spending
and government powers in the name of stopping alleged Russian aggression, we should at least ensure that the information on which
those campaigns succeed are grounded in fact. Even a casual review of the propaganda spewing forth from Western power centers over
the last year leaves little doubt that the exact opposite is happening.
This article was originally published by "
The Intercept "
Russia accusations are a false flag!!-No evidence-Zero NADA!!
Rather than Russia how about Mossad false flags??!
More likely .............and the silence is deafening.......... at theZionist owned MSMs in the USA!!!!
Dollars to Doughnuts-Israel is the perpetrator
I suppose I am too naive to understand the
hysteria and indignation that claims of Russia
Interference in the 2016 american electoral process garners.
The US openly calls for regime change in Syria. Hung Saddam
Hussein after a show trial. Arranged Muammar Gaddafi's sodomization
and assassination.
Do americans not realize that in levelling the accusation that Putin-Russia
successfully subverted the US electoral process that you are conceding that Russia has the power to subjugate (bring under domination
or control, especially by conquest.) the US electoral process, its government, institutions and public perception.
If americans are going to continue to make this outlandish claim for which no evidence has yet to be produced then Putin's Russia
must be recognized as the world hegemon and the indispensable- Exceptional nation. What does that do to the narrative of the "shining
city set upon a hill".
The US is blinded by its own conceit.
Frankly, what I have seen in the past 20 years, the people in San Francisco might be better off under Russian federation management
than it has been under the selected, elected, salaried, privileged 527 USA neo clowns who manage Americans in America. At least
the Russians might not give USA money to foreigners, prevent Americans from drilling their own gas and oil, tax Americans so the
USA can give the tax revenues to the corporations, and send American jobs and educational knowledge to far away places; as the
NEO CLOWN management has done.
My personal experience with Russia people with whom I have worked is they are just exactly like Americans, quite a bit better
educated, may be a little more honest.. so the question becomes under which managing government would 340,000,000 Americans be
better off: the Russian Federation or the 527 neocon-selected, media-elected, salaried, privileged USA neo clowns? Actually, i
think both governments are in need of being better arranged to respond to the needs and intentions of their people instead of
using those they govern to satisfy the Oligarchs.
"9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S." a self-inflicted "catastrophic attack". Perhaps the USI should quit murdering people at
home and abroad... maybe that way some semblence of symathy could be mustered up.
Oh and the "shooter" in Florida.. notuce it's not a "terrorist"? So this kid was a "shooter". Pfft. Call it what it is. He was
and is a terrorist. Treat him as one would treat the invented funded and propped up "terrorists" abroad. Send the kid to 'Gitmo'
(how i loathe that americanized word)
- Lots of outlets claim that dozens if not hundreds Russian contractors died in the recent U.S. attack in east Syria. I stand
by my
take on the issue. There was some kind of local deal made to hand over an oil field in which the Russian contractor Wagner was
involved. The U.S. blew up the deal, literally, when it was about to happen. It wants to keep the issue under its sole control. Few,
if any, Russians were hurt.
The Syrian special forces group ISIS Hunters have confirmed 20 killed among their ranks in the U.S. airstrikes. I have collected
sources here:
US airstrike
on ISIS Hunters, February 7, 2018
Five Russians are confirmed to be dead. There are some convincing stories of over 100 PMC Wagner contractors killed. These
include audio and transcript of Wagner fighters discussing the event and an interview with an alleged survivor. (
audio here.) Allegedly many of the dead are actually
from Donbass. It is possible that the audio files are fake. They may come from the same sources as the stories of hundreds or
thousands of regular Russian soldiers dying in the Ukraine.
The rumor of hundreds of Russians killed would be exactly the kind of story they would want to spread before the presidential
elections in Russia. It is highly doubtful a mercenary company would undertake such an operation such as this without Russian
government support. And it is highly doubtful the Russian military woukd offer such support.
"Already Grigory Yavlinsky, a veteran liberal politician who is running for president in elections next month, has called on
Putin to disclose how many Russians had been killed in Syria and in what circumstances."
Sounds to me like fodder for regime change operations.
Grigory A. Yavlinsky, a veteran Russian opposition politician who is a candidate in next month's presidential
election, called on Tuesday for Mr. Putin to disclose the number of Russians who had died in Syria.
"I demand an explanation as to why Russian nationals take part in ground military operations in Syria, despite
the statements by the president and defense minister that Russian military formations will be withdrawn from this
country," Mr. Yavlinsky said in a statement. "I also think there needs to be a public report about relations with
the U.S., as there is a growing threat of an accidental or deliberate direct military clash between Russia and America."
To identify Yabloko founder Yavlinsky as "a veteran Russian opposition politician who is a candidate in next month's
presidential election," the reporters don't even have the courage to call out Yabloko by name, that's how discredited
the party is, is like saying Lydon LaRouche is a veteran U.S. opposition politician.
There are more dollars than roubles in Russia! How is this situation in any way or shape compatible with
a viable national security? How can the Russians claim any degree of independence when their economy is more
dollarized than that of Israel or Turkey? Read about it from the horse's mouth:
I also
believe the effective defense against the Israeli military aggression is a result of the attack in Deir Ezzor as it
serves as a warning that the bombings from the air which are increasingly occuring with impunity should seize.
If the Western casualty numbers are real, then the
northwestern front could be severely degraded, and vulnerable to SDF, formerlly-known-as-ISIL raids.
I guess it's a difficult situation for Russia, but USA and Israel have prodded Russian-occupied Syria for the past
two years, and are one step away from dramatically escalating their provocations. Putin pulled a GWBush 'Mission
Accomplished', and seems to be more concerned about other matters
I completely agree. Russia and China have learned to take the long view. In the USA,
too many people think like Wall Street investors, looking for the next quarterly payout, not even thinking a year
ahead. Our media operates on the same cycle.
As far as Putin, he seems to think first about the effects of his actions on the Russian economy and the local
standard of living. Hence he doesn't make ideological gestures; he doesn't throw temper tantrums (something the
neoliberals and neocons always do when they don't get their way). When Turkey shot down the Russian jet, he basically
let them off the hook; he didn't get sucked into some tit-for-tat retaliate-and-escalate game, and thus Russia-Turkey
relations were better than ever in a few years.
I don't think you understand how the global banking system works. The Russian Central Bank is a member of
the Bank of International Settlements. It is not independent and follows the policies the City of London (or
whichever cabal is in power).
There is no other central bank in the world that would not be allowed to support the national economy. The Russian
Central Bank is the only exception. This is a specific peculiarity of the Russian Central Bank. The law even says
that the bank is a branch of foreign companies in Russia. For example, the Russian Central Bank is a depositary of
the IMF. The law of the Central Bank does not have a word about the Russian economy. Yet, it contains detailed
instructions on how to follow and execute instructions from abroad. The law was made during the 1990s. Putin tried
to amend it in the 2000s, but it did not work out. As a result, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation works
for a foreign country under the Russian Constitution. This state imposes sanctions on Russia. The Russian Central
Bank is obliged to execute instructions from the USA - the Americans set an official task to weaken the Russian
economy
The potential disconnection of Russia from SWIFT has been under discussion since 2014, when the EU and the US
introduced the first round of international penalties against Moscow over alleged involvement in the Ukraine
crisis and the reunification with Crimea.
".....Meanwhile, the analysis of open info, including reports from relatives and friends of the PMCs involved in the
operation, allowed all the concerned sides to find out that 5 Russians reportedly died in the aforementioned period.
However, no details are available.
.....SouthFront's military experts aware of the situation say that the possible number of the casualties could be
higher than 5, but not more than 15-20.
The entire story about mass casualties of Russian PMCs is based on unconfirmed and fake data, that includes a few
real facts like the US strikes, some PMCs casualties and the participation of the ISIS Hunters in the incident. The
rest is an orchestrated campaign in keeping with the best traditions of propaganda.
The goals of which would be that:
the US is able to fight back against the Russians in Syria;
Russia is not able to defend its interests;
the Kremlin is not concerned over killed Russian citizens or is not able to carry out any pay back."
The cob-web of armed opposition groups and Sunni fighters in Syria are "probably no longer
capable of overthrowing President Bashar Al-Assad or overcoming a growing military advantage",
the report adds. Intelligence analysts have calculated that the Syrian armed opposition will
most likely only have resources to continue its fight for at least "next year".
Daesh over the next year is expected to focus on "regrouping in Syria and Iraq" and
enhancing its global presence. However, with Daesh receding its reach, Al-Qaeda remains "a
major actor in global terrorism" and a threat to the US and Western interests, the report
concludes.
I hope the Russians are aware of the utter ruthlessness of certain western countries, the US
in particular. They are so determined to have regime change in Syria that they will lie and
cheat to achieve that end, probably culminating in direct military attacks on Syrian forces
west of the Euphrates on some phoney pretext or another.
Because Putin is aware of US aims it is beyond foolish to withdraw Russian forces as they
have done in the past, in the vain hope that the US will reciprocate, the US do not behave
like that, they see any withdrawal as a sign of weakness and exploit it. Make no mistake the
US are in this for keeps, anyone who thinks otherwise will be killed just like those Russian
contractors last week and the hundreds of Syrian troops killed because they posed a "so
called threat" to deconfliction zones.
If the West can supply hundred's of billions worth of arms to the most repressive nations
on earth [Saudi Arabia and Co, then surely the Russians should supply s400 anti aircraft
missiles to the Syrians who are under threat of a military assault from the West in the event
of a successful false flag chemical weapons attack by the Wests proxies[which they are
working on now] If not, why not?
Lavrov has it right, the US partitioning Syria to form a new state. Problem is they do not
have anyone as citizens or prospective leaders for it. A minor detail for the exceptional
ones.
"Now we hear completely different explanations from our US partners regarding their presence
in Syria -- they say that this presence should be maintained not only until military tasks
are accomplished, but also until there is a stable political process that should end in a
transition of power which will be acceptable for all -- meaning for the United States --
which is regime change. In general, we have a suspicion . that the United States wants to
stay there for a long time, if not forever," Lavrov told a press conference after talks with
his Belgian counterpart, Didier Reynders. [Sputnik News Today].
Basically, "muslims will be attacking the USA" is a silly argument. However, Palestinians are refugees in Lebanon and Jordan.
Syrian refugees (up to 4 million) are in Turkey.
This region can no longer make space for Israeli settlers! This is what people are saying
here. The resentment could lead to some collateral damage to the Americans.
In this region there are millions of Mel Gibsons now. They say: "The Jews are responsible
for all the wars in the world."
I personally can't comment on that because I'm not sure about it. All I know is that it's
not the people from Peru who are behind all the wars in the world. It's not the muslims either.
'Muslims' from the Gulf region do pay for some of the weapons, that's for sure. And the muslims
pose no threat to 'American People' despite Abu Ghraibs, MOABs, cluster bombs, B-52 campaigns
in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, $100.000 a pop ATGM missilies which rain like confettis on the
Turkish army fired by the poor PKK fighters.
Compared with the terrorism visited on other nations by the Outlaw US Empire, the Metropole
has experienced zilch--nada. The closest is 911, but that was done by ZionistWasps, not
Muslims.
Well, a second place finish would be conferred upon the deliberate targeting of
people of color by police, ICE and other federal terror agencies--the many FBI Frame-ups come
to mind. But neither of those examples are acts of terror specifically targeting the State's
Institutions.
Lurking nearby is the Empire's version of an IMF SAP and the terror within it
that'll be inflicted on the Empire's citizenry when the dollar tanks and takes the economy
down with it. Actions by the FED and Treasury Dept prove there's no interest in trying to
create conditions for a softer Depression--they mean to harm as many people as possible.
So as has been noted on many occasions, the biggest Terror threat facing the people living
within the Outlaw US Empire is their national government and related institutions--an ongoing
situation existing since before the nation was born.
"... the government is losing its legitimacy at the moment when it is increasing its demands on the people. And decreasing its servicing of their needs. There has never been a time in which both parties have been so focused on looking away from the real concerns, the anger and desperation of the great majority of the population. The Democrats are not even pretending to be reformers, the Republicans are finally wallowing in unmasked greed. ..."
"... As many others have suggested the current jockeying is all about weakening Putin's election campaign, Incredibly enough there are still idiots in Washington who, after years of boosting his position into an Alexander Nevsky like saviour of the nation, now believe that they can cut him down by accusing him of endangering Russia by defending it. ..."
The campaign in Syria is going very well from the Russian point of view. So is the
disengagement from the western dominated financial system, but the trends being bucked are very
old, centuries old, and well established.
The prime mover in the campaign against the dollar is the US government, and it moves by
over reach, the more rope it is given the sooner it will hang itself. Every tactical victory,
on the battlefield or in domestic politics is a strategic loss.
The bloated budget, the incredible waste in military expenditure, which appears to be
inversely related to threats, the increasingly regressive tax system, transferring the burden
from rich to poor, the cuts in social programmes all add up to certain disaster; the government
is losing its legitimacy at the moment when it is increasing its demands on the people. And
decreasing its servicing of their needs. There has never been a time in which both parties have
been so focused on looking away from the real concerns, the anger and desperation of the great
majority of the population. The Democrats are not even pretending to be reformers, the
Republicans are finally wallowing in unmasked greed.
As to Syria, the position of the US Special Forces is very delicate, their supply lines are
long and easily broken, their 'allies' are generally unreliable, they are in Syria on
sufferance, they may boast otherwise but the reality is that everyone around them hates them
and what they represent. A Sicilian Vespers may come any day.
As many others have suggested the current jockeying is all about weakening Putin's election
campaign, Incredibly enough there are still idiots in Washington who, after years of boosting
his position into an Alexander Nevsky like saviour of the nation, now believe that they can cut
him down by accusing him of endangering Russia by defending it.
Nothing is ever certain but the balance of probabilities is moving inexorably against the US
and its clients in the Middle East. Only those with an irrational faith in the US military and
economy cannot see this.
In syria the USA is playing "might is right" card. Ignoring all international laws. There is
no justification for the USA troops presence. They care clearly illegal force on Syrian
territory. That's a dangerous game. Taking into account the USA unleashed Syria civil war for
their own geopolitical purposes, trying to reverse growing influence of Iran due to the blunder
on Iraq war this is clearly Roman empire moment for the USA.
"The Syrian war has now been outsourced," said Christopher Phillips, a Syria scholar at Queen
Mary University of London. "The decision-makers are now not really Syrians, perhaps with the
exception of Assad." Foreign involvement in the civil war first took the form of "diplomatic
support, then it was economic support, then it was material support for fighters, then it was
fighting themselves directly. And I don't see why that shouldn't continue."
Turkey, for example, isn't willing to accept the entrenchment of a
U.S.-supported Kurdish militia , which the Turkish government associates with Kurdish
insurgents in Turkey, right across its border. The United States seems determined to hold
ground in Syria to prevent the resurgence of terrorist groups and frustrate Iran's plans to
extend its power across the Eastern Mediterranean. Israel shares America's goal of countering
Iran, particularly at its border with Syria.
Russia, meanwhile, is bent on preserving a friendly government in Damascus and a military
presence on the Mediterranean, while casting itself as a global power player on par with
America. The Iranians -- currently "the single-most influential player" in Syria -- are
"trying to establish a long-term strategic military infrastructure in [Syria], build
missile-production facilities, move precision-guided munitions," Itani said. Both nations
" are upset that the United States is not departing the country," Tabler said.
"... After all, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson explained last month, the Trump administration has committed to an indefinite military presence of roughly 2,000 U.S. boots on the Syrian battlefield. Are these troops present at the behest of the host government? Certainly not. Has Congress ratified their deployment in some way? Guess again. Are they there preempting an imminent threat of attack on America? Nope. Are they under the mandate of a UN Security Council resolution? No. ..."
"... America has an interest in a stable Middle East, and thus in a stable Syria, but the notion that U.S. policy has contributed to that end is rather dubious. The Islamic State, which exacerbated the Syrian Civil War by orders of magnitude, is, after all, an outgrowth of America's war in Iraq. And the U.S. and its allies encouraged the Syrian rebellion from early on, an effort that was not only a spectacular failure but also fostered quite the opposite of stability. ..."
"... With Assad, we have a known entity that represents what is left of Syria. Get rid of Assad, there's unmanageable chaos and vacuum for decades potentially. ..."
America's Creeping Regime Change in Syria
And you thought our government toppling days were over.
In eastern Syria last week, American air and ground forces attacked Syrian pro-government military units, killing
roughly 100 people,
including some
Russian advisors
. U.S. Army Colonel Thomas Veale
described
the attack
as "taken in self-defense."
"Self-defense"? Had the regime of Bashar al-Assad bombarded Boston Harbor? No, but it had
attacked a base, long held by Syrian rebels, with U.S. military advisors present. Despite the tit-for-tat chronology
here, it's hard to see how Veale's "self-defense" claim is tenable.
After all, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
explained
last month, the Trump administration
has committed to an indefinite military presence of roughly 2,000 U.S. boots on the Syrian battlefield. Are these troops
present at the behest of the host government? Certainly not. Has Congress ratified their deployment in some way? Guess
again. Are they there preempting an imminent threat of attack on America? Nope. Are they under the mandate of a UN
Security Council resolution? No.
In fact, the U.S. military presence in Syria has no legal authorization whatsoever. Those American forces are
cooperating with Syrian rebels to, as Tillerson put it, "help liberated peoples" in territory outside Assad's control
"stabilize their own communities" and defend themselves against regime forces. This is, he added, "a critical step to
creating the conditions for a post-Assad political settlement."
Dispensing with the euphemistic flummery, U.S. forces are engaged in a kind of creeping regime change operation -- the
lessons of recent history be damned.
One might fairly argue that the Assad regime, in its brutality against its own people, long ago forfeited the
sovereign right to defend its territory against an invading foreign army. Fine, but we should be clear that Washington,
in responding to the lawlessness, is also acting lawlessly -- hardly a lodestar mission of the liberal, rules-based world
order America claims to lead, and, in the big picture, decidedly not a case of "self-defense."
Quaint legalisms aside, the clash between U.S. and Syrian forces should make clear just how dangerous our military
presence in Syria is. This particular incident, we can reasonably assume, didn't escalate only because the regime is
desperate to avoid escalation. Were they to counterattack, the Syrians surely know, the full might of America would come
crashing down upon Damascus, and that would be the end of them all.
But that is by no means a reassuring "balance of terror," the term nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter
used
to describe the deterrence model of
the Cold War's mutually assured destruction. Indeed, the multi-sided chaos of the Syrian Civil War is neither balanced
nor stable and the risk of escalation is very real. Should the actors in the next clash miscalculate, will the Russians
defend their ally in Damascus before it falls, or will America's "self-defense" spiral into the destruction of the
regime? Will the resulting anarchy plunge us into a full-scale occupation? Will Turkey take advantage of the mayhem to
rampage through Kurdish-held Syria? Will Iranian-backed militias still prioritize fighting Sunni extremist groups? If
anything could reverse the defeat of the Islamic State, it is an escalation like this.
As with much of American foreign policy today, the threat to the United States in Syria is roughly proportional to
the extent to which we choose to expose ourselves to it. None of the five missions Tillerson laid out for the U.S.
military effort in Syria -- to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda, usher in a post-Assad state, counter Iranian influence, facilitate
the return of refugees, and free Syria of weapons of mass destruction -- are vital to protect America's wealth and physical
security.
Nor are these low-cost, low-risk, or high-probability-success missions. And as everyone knows, the last thing America
needs now is a new set of elective, hazardous, and unachievable war aims on the other side of the globe.
America has an interest in a stable Middle East, and thus in a stable Syria, but the notion that U.S. policy has
contributed to that end is rather dubious. The Islamic State, which exacerbated the Syrian Civil War by orders of
magnitude, is, after all, an outgrowth of America's war in Iraq. And the U.S. and its allies encouraged the Syrian
rebellion from early on, an effort that was not only a spectacular failure but also fostered quite the opposite of
stability.
An enduring feature of U.S. foreign policy is that each intervention, whether it is seen to fail or succeed,
eventually serves to justify further intervention. While it's true that the Islamic State has been decimated, thanks in
part to the collective destructive power of Damascus, Tehran, Baghdad, Moscow, Washington, and various Kurdish and
Syrian militias on the ground, it has been accomplished at great cost in blood and treasure. The answer to this
near-Pyrrhic victory is not for Washington to invent new missions that lack legal authorization or a plausible timeline
of success, but instead to reckon with its own role in this interminable tempest and acknowledge the very real
possibility that backing away may be in the best interest of America and of Syria.
John Glaser is director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
I never thought I would say this, but Russia and the old USSR is right is supporting Bashar Assad (during the
USSR time, Bashar's father,Hafez). At least Russia has historical interests in that region, unlike the US. How
I long for the days when Brezhnev was in power.
With Assad, we have a known entity that represents what is left of Syria. Get rid of Assad, there's
unmanageable chaos and vacuum for decades potentially. Why some seem so eager for the latter option of getting
rid of Assad hasn't been honestly explained.
Damon Linker chides
Americans for the lies we tell ourselves about our unending wars:
The honest and alarming truth that we seem all-too-eager to evade is that America is
already at war around the world. Someone desperately needs to pay attention, demand
accountability, and keep tabs on the steep monetary, human, and geopolitical costs.
Linker is right that Americans should pay attention to and demand accountability for the
endless wars waged in their name, but he also acknowledges that most have no interest in doing
so. Another alarming truth is that many Americans seem content to allow perpetual war to
continue so long as the steep costs are borne mostly by people in other countries. Those costs
tend to be ignored or mentioned only in passing when assessing the damage done, and even when
they are acknowledged they are not given much weight in our policy debates. The hundreds of
thousands that died because of the 2003 invasion of Iraq have practically been reduced to a
footnote in subsequent debates over military intervention.
One reason for this indifference is that many of our leaders tell us other comforting lies
about these wars: that they are necessary and waged in self-defense. The reality is that
virtually none of the military interventions that the U.S. has carried out in the last thirty
years was unavoidable or required for the defense of the United States and its allies. Our wars
are usually wars of choice fought for reasons unrelated to defending ourselves or the nations
we are obliged by treaty to protect, and they are typically fought in places where the U.S. has
no vital interests at stake.
The U.S. is at war around the world because our government chooses to be at war around the
world. For the most part, this was not forced on us, but rather it is something that our
leaders and pundits have willingly embraced again and again. Perhaps the biggest lie of all is
that the U.S. goes to war reluctantly and grudgingly. In fact, no other government resorts to
the use of force in international affairs so often and so casually as ours has in the last
twenty-five years. On the rare occasions when the public recoils from this, as they did in the
2006 midterms and again in 2013 at the prospect of attacking Syria, our leaders and pundits
shake their heads and warn against the dangers of "retreat" from the world. Of course, the myth
of retreat is another lie used to justify the next unnecessary war, and if that doesn't work
then they tell us the lie that the rest of the world supposedly craves and demands U.S.
"leadership" in its most destructive form.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but served as a bulwark against Iran and kept down Sunni
fanatics as well. He was no threat to the US. Why did we go to war with Iraq and topple him?
How have things gone in Iraq since the US invasion?
The whole concepts of premptive war and regime change is insanity. I want the United
States to be a republic not an empire.
Adam Johnson has been good at pointing out all the times the US is being described as
"accidentally" or "reluctantly" being pulled into a war somewhere.
We need to bring back the draft. Not until is it THEIR CHILDREN in the line of fire will the
people of the US revolt. The draft was the reason why the war in Vietnam was so unpopular.
After it was done with, war became a spectator sport, to be viewed from the comfort of ones
couch.
The All-Volunteer arm (A.K.A. mercenaires) made perpetual war possible.
How many people voted for Trump because he was the only one of the bunch on either side
saying anything other than "SYRIA/IRAN/ISRAEL/ RUSSIA/WIN"..??
Yes; we find(probably should have known) that he is a filthy low-life . but in
desperation
I think a lot of us gave him a chance
What is missing from this otherwise healthy and needed essay is a description of lies. Being
cagey and silent is not the same as telling lies.
After all, the fact that we are engaged in persistent conflicts, these past few decades,
is not being denied. I haven't heard the U.S. government say: 'We are at peace with all the
world.' Saying so would indeed be a lie. But, to the contrary, the US government boldly
announces that it is fighting -- in Syria, for example. Though ISIS is defeated, the Defense
Dept. recently stated that U.S. army personnel are staying in Syria, with the goal of regime
change, despite having no legal basis whatsoever to do so.
So here we have one example of a lie -- our government's earlier excuse for being in Syria
('to defeat ISIS'). What other lies of this sort has our government been telling us? THAT
would be an article that warrants this essay's title.
The honest and alarming truth that we seem all-too-eager to evade is that America is
violating its own Constitution, the UN Charter, and the ratified international order around
the world. We all need to pay attention, demand the impeachment of Presidents, Senators and
Representatives, and vote any incumbent that aided, abetted or authorized illegal acts of
aggression out of office regardless of the cost.
Thank you for making a principled statement to refute a deeply misleading observation by
Linker. If Linker's is the best published opinion can do, then we are still content to be
cognitively captured by War Profiteers "R" US.
Given the exercise of collective punishment that the US engages in in Yemen and has
engaged in elsewhere, this is on *us*, whether we accept it or not.
"Americans seem content to allow perpetual war to continue so long as the steep costs are
borne mostly by people in other countries "
.. and states, and counties.
It is to the eternal shame of the Democratic Party that Trump apparently won additional
votes in the districts across the nation where the military casualties and related "cost" of
our wars for chosen profits are born the most.
The "National Securities" con is the textbook example of bipartisan comity and national
unity that anybody could conceive. Why anybody would be asking for more "consensus" is beyond
me.
"Bacevich suggested a number of explanations for why the overwhelming majority of
Americans, from elected officials on down to ordinary voters, display such indifference about
our frenzied military actions abroad. They include: because casualty rates on our side are
low; because, despite President Trump's rhetoric, no one really keeps track of and demands
public accountability for just how much money is being spent, and wasted, around the world;
because the wars are fought by an all-volunteer force in which a tiny percentage of the
population serves, allowing most Americans to go about their lives without ever being touched
by the human consequences; and because the threat of terrorism is hyped, and most people just
want to feel safe. Voters want to be protected, and politicians want to avoid the blame
either for a successful attack on the homeland or a humiliating defeat abroad. The result is
that no war ever comes to a decisive end, the total number of wars increases over time, and
we never speak of any of them."
Neither he nor Bacevich mention what I consider the most relevant aspects – many
Americans benefit from these wars, and most are not taxed by the cost of debt-financed war
and "defense" spending.
"Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of the its population
. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in
the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain
this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we
will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day dreaming; and our attention will have
to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive
ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. This process
cannot be a liberal or peaceful one."
We are willingly sacrificing both living humans being and our unborn children for our own
personal, immediate profit. How fitting for a nation born in tax evasion and collapsing by
defunding itself in public-private partnerships for profit extraction.
Think of all the jobs that are made necessary by endless wars. Somebody has to make the
bullets, the tanks, they planes, helicopters, uniforms, etc. Americans don't care how many
thousands of little brown people die, as long as Uncle Joe has a job at Boeing.
To clarify an earlier post (in case my first sentence is misinterpreted) -- of course the US
government regularly lies, especially about its 'foreign policy', endless wars, etc. My point
was simply that this article needed to focus on the nature of those lies and bogus
justifications. It's an almost inexhaustible subject, enough to keep an army of journalists
busy for many years.
The problem, of course, is not the need for such analysis: what could be more obvious? The
problem is that digging too deep in that way is taboo. And taboos are enforced here. Ask
Chuck Schumer.
Oct 10, 2016 In last night's debate, the Republican nominee said, apropos military policy:
"General George Patton, General Douglas MacArthur are spinning in their grave at the stupidity
of what we're doing in the Middle East."
In most of his speeches Trump mentions those same two generals. Reader Marcus Hall assesses
what the reliance on Patton and MacArthur might tell us about Trump:
It is easy to see why these two military legends are attractive to Trump:
1) Both were known as showmen and motivators. This is clearly Trump's modus operandi as
well; he is most comfortable being the showman and motivator. When he isn't in the granted
position of head of the dais, he looks, seems, and acts out of place. (For example, think
back to the instance in Flint where the pastor takes the initiative to challenge him as a
person.)
2) Both were known to take personal animus against rivals on their own side to extremes.
Think of Patton's constant infighting with Montgomery, and his less than amicable
relationship to Bradley after Sicily.
3) Both were known for strident aggressive stances against an enemy without consideration
for larger picture effects. MacArthur's blunders with antagonizing the Chinese after Inchon,
and Patton's immediate post-war desire to go to war with the Soviets before the armed forces
and the country (or its non-Russian allies) could even recover from WWII.
4) Both faced disgrace at the hands of the media and at the hands of those who were better
able to handle the larger context of events (Eisenhower for Patton, and Truman for
MacArthur).
"... anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build broader movements and especially oppose growing war-fever. ..."
"... Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance struggles for national sovereignty everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela and beyond. ..."
"... Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction, there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction, there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order. ..."
President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI
– only on a global scale. Trump's violation of international law includes collaboration
and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation of
Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people;
severe sanctions and threatened nuclear first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased
deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war to overthrow the
legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of
Venezuela; NATO missile and nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats
against China.
... .. ...
In the face of the national-political debacle local and regional movements became the
vehicle to support the struggles. Women organized at some workplaces and gained better
protection of their rights; African-Americans vividly documented and published video evidence
of the systematic brutal violation of their rights by the police state and effectively acted to
restrain local police violence in a few localities; immigrant workers and especially their
children gained broad public sympathy and allies within religious and political organizations;
and anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build
broader movements and especially oppose growing war-fever.
Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance
struggles for national sovereignty everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and
Venezuela and beyond.
Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a
positive effect. Each side is hell-bent on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In
an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the spies, lies and
crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two
directions. In one direction, there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse,
environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction, there is the
demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a
renewed moral order.
So Korean anger at Ramo's comments finally induced
NBC to give him the flick . Unfortunately Ramo won't be sweating it as the article I linked
to by Japanese academic Joseph Essertier points out. Ramo is thoroughly entangled with the DC
political/intelligence elite. He is a former CEO of mercenary zionist lobby corp Kissinger
Associates, ex-senior editor of Time magazine as well as a host of other elite gigs
which doubtless came his way thanks to grandaddy who put the 'R' in TRW . It amazes me that many amerikans remain
largely unaware of TRW, now a division of Northrop Grumman. TRW took a PR hit in the 70's when
Christopher
Boyce one of their operatives got caught hawking the communications between Langley and the
amerikan embassy in Canberra that laid out the strategy for the 1974 coup against the Gough
Whitlam government. Yeah yeah I know, ancient history - well that is certainly the way that all
Oz politicians and media look at it but for some of us the rage will never subside. Amerikans's
fixation with the JFK assassination, a pretty odd fixation since Kennedy was just another
arsehole, comes close, but in the case of Gough he did have principles, acted on them, albeit
reluctantly, and the smoking gun to the CIA is established.
TRW is interesting - well not really I got pissed with a bunch of mid-level TRW execs at the
Frankfurt Hilton one night and what a boring bunch of straightlaced & unimaginative
fuckwits. I had just arrived from Northern Thailand, was jonesing like fuck - I had staggered
across to the joint and booked a room & hit the bar to get sorted for Europe. The Frankfurt
Hilton is right by the airport.
This probably didn't help my sense of tolerance but honestly these guys had no class, it was
a wonder they let them outta Cleveland. As standard the bar was chocka with German sex workers
looking to make an earner. This was pre 1990 so they were mainly German, but I've never seen
the like of these TRW blokes. The women were attractive in that painted manner certain
amerikans prefer, no doubt about their beauty and skill, but they were the end result of
amerikan post euro war imperialism - preying on victims has no interest. These idjits from TRW
were obviously really attracted to the young women, so they were pulling all sorts of weird
stunts to engage with the workers while seeming disapproving of their occupational choice. One
even pulled out a bible! The women appeared to be well used to this nonsense, after all, a sex
worker's primary training is in how to overcome humiliation and go home better than than she/he
arrived, so on one level it was amusing.
AFAIK TRW has been winning contracts to provide 'clerical and communications support' to
military and intelligence services since euro-war part 1. The communication stuff was beyond
the abilities of the double entry bookkeepers; just like with the NSA, inviting smart
imaginative fellows in proved their undoing.
This then is Ramo, an unimaginative trust-funder who has sold his soul to empire.
I have no doubt that he knew Koreans would react badly to the insult but that was of no
concern. The point was to sow the seed among the great amerikan herd that Koreans are notorious
for their ingratitude so one just shouldn't stress over their possible nuking - North or South
Koreans. South Korea's kissy kiss to their friends and family in the North should be considered
in that light, just another manifestation of that ingratitude.
There is no reason to suppose Ramo's handlers are incorrect in this assumption, after all
the most egregious act of the post war amerikan-japanese war criminal conjunction, the proven
rendition of Japanese biological warfare research scientists to Fort Dietrick and the
subsequent use of germ warefare weapons containing bubonic plague, anthrax and smallpox on
Koreans during the 1950 amerikan invasion is unknown to most amerikans and those who are aware,
airily dismiss this horror as "propaganda".
In a lot of ways there is nothing at all noteworthy about any of this. Tune your
discriminators correctly, and this manner of deliberately subjective, misleading dross
comprises the majority of every 'news bulletin'. The difference here of course is that this
wasn't a news bulletin, it was a sportscast, allegedly a celebratory sportscast. The
celebration was meant to be congratulating South Korea on their capitalist victory over 'the
stalinist' North. Nirvana by outproduction of disposable techno tat. Hmm.
Instead of appreciating the opportunity provided by amerika and Japan to pollute their
nation and turn the fuckers at the bottom into toxic, diseased slaves, those ungrateful Koreans
were cuddling up to the 'stalinists' - Those fucking unappreciative parasites!
We can analyse this stuff and see exactly how transparent it all is, but for the bloke
relaxing into his couch with a beer looking forward to an evening trying to check out the latex
enveloped skater's bods, political analysis is the last thing on their mind. The next time the
subject comes up with the boys in the bar, they will know why 'we' have to stay
intransigent - "those koreans are just ungrateful assholes - remember that family which had the
7-11 on Jefferson? Everything was overpriced and past its use-by".
That stuff works which is why the arseholes have been using it for centuries - and that is
why the seeming nonsense such as "the Russkies stole the election" must be resisted - fought
hard. The net has provided the world with a wide vista of alternative viewpoints - even though
most of us hang where we see what we want to see, alternative points of view still slip thru in
a way that they never did before. The arseholes are working that out now which is why this site
like every other woke joint is subjected to an increasing barrage of lunatic nonsense - no
wonder b needs some time off; not only are his threads getting congested with haters (ask
yourself if MoA is so awful why do these derps hang around here like spare pricks at a
wedding?) some site users are perpetuating the nonsense by engaging with them.
I dunno what to say unity doesn't come about by some little arsehole issuing orders, it happens
when people decide for themselves to put the interest of a group asset ahead of their need to
purge their liver at an obvious fuckwit. I realise that the concept of unity is alien to most
amerikans and increasing numbers of non-amerikans, but of itself that should be considered
objectively and the subtle indoctrinations which created that resistance considered before
acting out.
The New York Timesreports on the
Trump administration's poor grasp of diplomacy:
American officials were more guarded, saying they were open to talks but not a
full-fledged negotiation.
The United States, they said, would reiterate its demands that North Korea make
concessions and did not plan to offer any in return.
This is being billed as the administration's willingness to "open the door" to holding talks
with North Korea, but as we can see here there is no real interest in pursuing a diplomatic
solution. If U.S. officials just want to deliver an ultimatum in person to North Korean
officials, it is a pointless exercise that would make it harder to enter into real negotiations
later. North Korea knows what the U.S. wants it to do, and it has said many times that it will
never do that, so why would they agree to talks where the same demands will be put to them once
again? The U.S. is not willing to make confidence-building gestures that might lead to more
substantive negotiations down the road, and it has no intention of offering North Korea
anything in exchange for any concessions it might conceivably make.
In the very unlikely event that North Korea agreed to a meeting with administration
officials, they would have nothing to gain from the encounter and every incentive to stay away.
The problem isn't just that the administration won't offer North Korea the tiniest of carrots,
but that it doesn't accept the idea of using carrots in diplomacy in the first place. The
administration's posturing is what a government does when it wants to feign support for
diplomacy even as it rejects diplomacy at every turn. If people here at home can see through
this ploy, North Korea will definitely take it as more proof of Washington's bad faith.
Mattis is probably mentally ill. He'll gleefully kill millions more.
The terrorists are mentally ill. They would kill millions if they could.
Implacable.
Thus, the reason for the rise of Russia and the influence and respect for Putin. Russians
will kill terrorists but embrace Islamic people who want peaceful cooperation.
Peace is a long way off. The Hegemon abhors Peace and has the means and ideology to create
chaos, death and destruction anywhere on the globe.
The American economic system depends on MIC expenditures, debt, waste, corruption, and
fiscal abuse.
Nothing much will change until multi-polar economic forces come into dominance and coerce
the American changes. Those are a long way off, also, though a few of those forces are coming
into view.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Feb 12, 2018 12:21:31 PM |
2
"It's worth noting that intentionally deceiving a federal judge is a felony."
It's also worth noting that sometimes the judge is in on it.
For the Trump Admin surveillance warrants the FISA judge was probably Contreras. So goes
the rumor. He was probably in on it or halfway in on it. All the major players in DC know
each other and trade favors.
And Gen Mike Flynn is in the process of getting his case dismissed. The only thing left to
determine is how much the Federales will have to reimburse him for his lawyers fees, which
are a million plus.
Rudolph Contreras was the FISA Judge who issued a warrant to spy on Carter Page because
of a Yahoo News article and a Phony Probably have already. He needs to go
Recused Judge in Flynn Prosecution Served on FISA Court
Did Judge Contreras OK electronic surveillance of Recused Judge in Flynn
Prosecution Served on FISA Court Did Judge Contreras OK electronic surveillance of
Federal FISA Judge Recuses Himself From Michael Flynn Case
Blows the whole FISA Court to hell in a hand basket and Judge Contreras is getting the
hell out of dodge. This a helluva mess for the FISA Court and it's victims. Rule 5.
Authority of the Judges. (b) Referring Matters to Other Judges.
"... The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus
were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's behalf
and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have produced
no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor of Trump. This
is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead, they focus
their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between the US and Russia,
especially in confronting jihadi terrorists. ..."
"... The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against
Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit
of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined with
or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians! ..."
"... The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term,
large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist
crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors,
screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of their
sweeping purge of civil society. ..."
"... President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation
of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation
of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear
first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war to
overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile and
nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China ..."
"... Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version;
to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and
intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture
suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal
of creating pro-war public opinion. ..."
"... Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent
on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the
spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction,
there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction,
there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order ..."
Few government organizations have been engaged in violation of the US citizens' constitutional rights for as long a time and against
as many individuals as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Seldom has there been greater collusion in the perpetration of
crimes against civil liberties, electoral freedom and free and lawful expression as what has taken place between the FBI and the
US Justice Department.
In the past, the FBI and Justice Department secured the enthusiastic support and public acclaim from the conservative members
of the US Congress, members of the judiciary at all levels and the mass media. The leading liberal voices, public figures, educators,
intellectuals and progressive dissenters opposing the FBI and their witch-hunting tactics were all from the left. Today, the right
and the left have changed places: The most powerful voices endorsing the FBI and the Justice Department's fabrications, and abuse
of constitutional rights are on the left, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and famous liberal media corporations and public
opinion makers.
The recently published Congressional memo, authored by Congressman Devin Nunes, provides ample proof that the FBI spied on Trump
campaign workers with the intent to undermine the Republican candidate and sabotage his bid for the presidency. Private sector investigators,
hired by Trump's rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, worked with pro-Clinton operatives within the FBI and
Justice Department to violate the national electoral process while flouting rules governing wiretaps on US citizens. This was done
with the approval of the sitting Democratic President Barack Obama.
The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus
were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's
behalf and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have
produced no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor
of Trump. This is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead,
they focus their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between
the US and Russia, especially in confronting jihadi terrorists.
The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against
Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit
of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined
with or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians!
The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term,
large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist
crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors,
screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of
their sweeping purge of civil society.
The FBI investigated the private lives of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, even threatening their family members. They illegally
spied on and infiltrated civil liberties organizations, and used provocateurs and spies in anti-war groups. Individuals lives were
destroyed, some were driven to suicide; important popular American organizations were undermined to the detriment of millions. This
has been its focus since its beginning and continues with the current fabrication of anti-Russian propaganda and investigations.
President Trump: Victim and Executor
President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation
of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation
of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear
first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war
to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile
and nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China .
Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version;
to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and
intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture
suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal
of creating pro-war public opinion.
In a word: From the right to the left there are no political options to choose from among the two ruling political parties. Popular
political movements and mass demonstrations have risen up against Trump with clear justification, but have since dissolved and been
absorbed. They came together from diverse sectors: Women against sexual abuse and workplace humiliation; African-Americans against
police impunity and violence; and immigrants against mass expulsion and harassment. They staged mass demonstrations and then declined
as their 'anti-Trump' animus was frustrated by the liberal-democrats hell-bent on pursuing the Russian connection.
In the face of the national-political debacle local and regional movements became the vehicle to support the struggles. Women
organized at some workplaces and gained better protection of their rights; African-Americans vividly documented and published video
evidence of the systematic brutal violation of their rights by the police state and effectively acted to restrain local police violence
in a few localities; immigrant workers and especially their children gained broad public sympathy and allies within religious and
political organizations; and anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build broader movements
and especially oppose growing war-fever.
Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance struggles for national sovereignty
everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela and beyond.
Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent
on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to
the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction,
there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction,
there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order
.
"... Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have been used in the ICA. ..."
"... Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) ..."
"... These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia actually exist or not. ..."
"... Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of the dossier. ..."
"... What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose, like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause. ..."
"... Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia. ..."
"... Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails. The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him. ..."
"... It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians. ..."
"... It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation must have been irresistible. ..."
"... But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked" analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? ..."
"... Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here" principle. ..."
"... Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance ..."
The report ("The Dossier") that claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, was paid for
by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. The company that claims that Russia hacked DNC computer servers, was paid by the DNC and
Hillary Clinton campaign. The FBI's counterintelligence probe into Trump's alleged connections to Russia was launched
on the basis of information gathered from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary
Clinton campaign.
The surveillance of a Trump campaign member (Carter Page) was approved by a FISA court on
the basis of information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton
campaign.
The Intelligence Community Analysis or ICA was (largely or partially) based on information
from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. (more on this
below)
The information that was leaked to the media alleging Russia hacking or collusion can be
traced back to claims that were made in a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary
Clinton campaign.
The entire Russia-gate investigation rests on the "unverified and salacious" information
from a dossier that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign. Here's how Stephen
Cohen sums it up in a recent article at The Nation:
"Steele's dossier was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative from the time
its installments began to be leaked to the American media in the summer of 2016, to the US
"Intelligence Community Assessment" of January 2017 .the dossier and subsequent ICA report
remain the underlying sources for proponents of the Russiagate narrative of "Trump-Putin
collision." ("Russia gate or Intel-gate?", The Nation)
There's just one problem with Cohen's statement, we don't really know the extent to which
the dossier was used in the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment. (The ICA was the
IC's flagship analysis that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the
2016 elections.) According to some reports, the contribution was significant. Check out this
excerpt from an article at Business Insider:
"Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence
report they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want
to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly
interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it
aligned with reality", Business Insider)
Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have
been used in the ICA.
In the last two weeks, documents have been released that have exposed the weak underpinnings
of the Russia investigation while at the same time revealing serious abuses by senior-level
officials at the DOJ and FBI. The so called Nunes memo was the first to point out these abuses,
but it was the 8-page "criminal referral" authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham that gave credence to the claims. Here's a blurb from the
document:
"It appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained
for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate
of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele's personal credibility
and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information. But there is
substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of
his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility."
There it is. The FBI made a "concerted effort to conceal information from the court" in
order to get a warrant to spy on a member of a rival political campaign. So –at the very
least– there was an effort, on the part of the FBI and high-ranking officials at the
Department of Justice, to improperly spy on members of the Trump team. And there's more. The
FBI failed to mention that the dossier was paid for by the Hillary campaign and the DNC, or
that the dossier's author Christopher Steele had seeded articles in the media that were being
used to support the dossier's credibility (before the FISA court), or that, according to the
FBI's own analysts, the dossier was "only minimally corroborated", or that Steele was a
ferocious partisan who harbored a strong animus towards Trump. All of these were omitted in the
FISA application which is why the FBI was able to deceive the judge. It's worth noting that
intentionally deceiving a federal judge is a felony.
Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of
Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) Here's one suggestive tidbit that
appeared in the Graham-Grassley" referral:
" Mr. Steele's memorandum states that his company "received this report from REDACTED US
State Department," that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was
information that came from a foreign sub-source who "is in touch with REDACTED, a contact of
REDACTED, a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to REDACTED."
It is troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these
Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional
concerns about his credibility." (Lifted from The Federalist)
What are we to make of this? Was Steele shaping the dossier's narrative to the
specifications of his employers? Was he being coached by members of the Hillary team? How did
that impact the contents of the dossier and the subsequent Russia investigation?
These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces
prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was
a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up
the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia
actually exist or not.
Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact
that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization
that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for
a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get
in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little
incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of
the dossier.
What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command
a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him
long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose,
like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they
ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause.
But that brings us to the strange case of Carter Page, a bit-player whose role in the Trump
campaign was trivial at best. Page was what most people would call a "small fish", an
insignificant foreign policy advisor who had minimal impact on the campaign. Congressional
investigators, like Nunes, must be wondering why the FBI and DOJ devoted so much attention to
someone like Page instead of going after the "big fish" like Bannon, Flynn, Kushner, Ivanka and
Trump Jr., all of whom might have been able to provide damaging information on the real target,
Donald Trump. Wasn't that the idea? So why waste time on Page? It doesn't make any sense,
unless, of course, the others were already being surveilled by other agencies? Is that it, did
the NSA and the CIA have a hand in the surveillance too?
It's a moot point, isn't it? Because now that there's evidence that senior-level officials
at the DOJ and the FBI were involved in improperly obtaining warrants to spy on members of the
opposite party, the investigation is going to go wherever it goes. Whatever restrictions
existed before, will now be lifted. For example, this popped up in Saturday's The Hill:
"House Intelligence Committee lawmakers are in the dark about an investigation into
wrongdoing at the State Department announced by Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on Friday.
Nunes told Fox News on Friday that, "we are in the middle of what I call phase two of our
investigation. That investigation is ongoing and we continue work toward finding answers and
asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department
was up to in terms of this Russia investigation."
Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era
State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether
the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia.
"I'm pretty troubled by what I read in the documents with respect to the role the State
Department played in the fall of 2016, including information that was used in a court
proceeding. I am troubled by it," Gowdy told Fox News on Tuesday." ("Lawmakers in dark about
'phase two' of Nunes investigation", The Hill)
So the State Department is next in line followed by the NSA and, finally, the Russia-gate
point of origin, John Brennan's CIA. Here's more background on that from Stephen Cohen's
illuminating article at The Nation:
" .when, and by whom, was this Intel operation against Trump started?
In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017, John Brennan, formerly
Obama's head of the CIA, strongly suggested that he and his agency were the first, as The
Washington Post put it at the time, "in triggering an FBI probe." Certainly both the Post and
The New York Times interpreted his remarks in this way. Equally certain, Brennan played a
central role in promoting the Russiagate narrative thereafter, briefing members of Congress
privately and giving President Obama himself a top-secret envelope in early August 2016 that
almost certainly contained Steele's dossier. Early on, Brennan presumably would have shared
his "suspicions" and initiatives with James Clapper, director of national intelligence. FBI
Director Comey may have joined them actively somewhat later .
When did Brennan begin his "investigation" of Trump? His House testimony leaves this
somewhat unclear, but, according to a subsequent Guardian article, by late 2015 or early 2016
he was receiving, or soliciting, reports from foreign intelligence agencies regarding
"suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian
agents."
In short, if these reports and Brennan's own testimony are to be believed, he, not the
FBI, was the instigator and godfather of Russiagate." ("Russiagate or Intelgate?", Stephen
Cohen, The Nation)
Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops
originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam
Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival
requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious
external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary
and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails.
The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the
massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him.
According to the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided
the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence
investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that
the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with
Russians."
It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and
Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize
Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary
people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the
country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with
one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation
must have been irresistible.
But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in
the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of
the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the
information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government
agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence
Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked"
analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what
to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence
investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan
attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge?
Soon the investigative crosshairs will settle on Brennan. He'd better have the right
answers.
That the whole media can be in service of a such a fraud and beam their relentless lies
across millions of TV screens even in a democracy like America goes to tell you that the
Power ultimately decides what is 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'.
Why else would most of Big Media be spreading all these lies about Russia Hacking or
'Russiagate' when the only real 'gate' is Deepstategate and Jewishhategate. The anti-Trump
hysteria is nothing but an act of arson set by Jewish globalists who hate him.
Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might
have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the
Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here"
principle.
Planting stories in the kept lugenpresse then citing the resulting articles as evidence is a
common technique of the national security state. Anyone remember DickiePoo Cheney (the man
with no heart) planting bogus weapons-of-mass-destruction stories with "reporter" Judith (the
jooie) Miller whose stuff was dutifully published in the rapidly anti arab Jew York Times.
DickiePoo then cited the stories as evidence that Iraq needed to be invaded and destroyed.
This kind of propaganda is quite effective and very long lasting to this day something like
60% of the american public still believe Saddam had a hand in the 911 false flag operation
and probably future history books will agree.
Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security
at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which
undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance .
His appointment is in the grand tradition of Jesuitical sucking up to the
powers-that-be.
An especially egregious example of this would be the current Jesuit "Bishop of Rome" (his
preferred parlance) playing footsie with communist China. And in the process throwing
faithful Chinese under the proverbial bus – just being chalked up as collateral
damage!
Friday night, a drone, apparently modeled on a U.S. drone that fell into Iran's hands,
intruded briefly into Israeli airspace over the Golan Heights, and was shot down by an Apache
helicopter.
Israel seized upon this to send F-16s to strike the airfield whence the drone originated.
Returning home, an F-16 was hit and crashed, unleashing the most devastating Israeli attack in
decades on Syria. Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu says a dozen Syrian and Iranian bases and
antiaircraft positions were struck.
Monday's headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page blared:
"The Iran-Israel War Flares Up: The fight is over a Qods Force presence on the Syria-Israeli
border. How will the U.S. respond?"
Op-ed writers Tony Badran and Jonathan Schanzer, both from the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, closed thus:
"The Pentagon and State Department have already condemned Iran and thrown their support
behind Israel. The question now is whether the Trump administration will go further. Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson (has) affirmed that the U.S. seeks not only to ensure its allies'
security but to deny Iran its 'dreams of a northern arch' from Tehran to Beirut. A good way to
achieve both objectives would be back Israel's response to Iran's aggression -- now and in the
future."
The FDD is an annex of the Israeli lobby and a charter member of the War Party.
Chagai Tzuriel, who heads the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence, echoed the FDD: "If you
(Americans) are committed to countering Iran in the region, then you must do so in Syria --
first."
Our orders have been cut.
Iran has dismissed as "lies" and "ridiculous" the charge that it sent the drone into Israeli
airspace.
If Tehran did, it would be an act of monumental stupidity. Not only did the drone bring
devastating Israeli reprisals against Syria and embarrass Iran's ally Russia, it brought
attacks on Russian-provided and possibly Russian-manned air defenses.
"... With the war now entering its eighth year this March, the wisest course for the Trump administration is to detach itself. Nothing the United States can do will stop the conflict if the combatants and their enablers are intent on continuing it ..."
...Indeed, as this piece is being written, U.S.-armed Arab fighters of the Free Syrian Army
are shooting at U.S.-supported Kurdish fighters of the YPG. Turkey, a NATO ally, is threatening
to annihilate the Syrian Democratic Forces, the same unit Washington has relied on as a ground
army to clear the Islamic State. The U.S. has now managed to alienate the Turks on the one hand
and the Syrian Kurds on the other.
As if Syria wasn't complicated enough, Turkey's military operation
in Afrin has made the country an unsolvable enigma. And Washington -- due in large part to
overeagerness and short-term decision-making over realistic, long-term planning -- has backed
itself into a foreseeable corner and contributed to the problem.
... ... ...
Eventually, the Obama administration cooperated with Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
and Jordan to ship weapons to the Free Syrian Army, a loose conglomeration of fighters whose
goal was the toppling of the government in Damascus. The CIA ran the program, organizing and
distributing weapons to anti-Assad fighters in the name of pressuring the regime to negotiate a
conflict-ending settlement. And once ISIS became a higher priority, the Pentagon drew up plans
to organize and vet rebel forces to fight the group -- a program that had in little to no
impact on the ground despite a $500 million appropriation from Congress.
Only when all of these initiatives failed did Washington throw its weight to the Syrian
Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-Arab organization that cleared substantial amounts of territory
from ISIS. Unfortunately, the SDF is the same group Turkey is now seeking to drive away from
its border.
The costs of all this have far outweighed the benefits. Some rebel fighters trained and
supplied by the United States simply
surrendered to jihadist factions as soon as they crossed the Syrian-Turkish border. Some of
the same weapons destined for moderate Syrian fighters were instead captured by extremist
groups or diverted
onto the black market and sold to far more dangerous characters.
All the while, the U.S. discounted how important Assad's survival was to Iran and Russia and
miscalculated the extent of the support Moscow and Tehran were willing to provide to keep
Damascus from collapsing. Bashar al-Assad staying in the presidential palace was vastly more
important to Russia's and Iran's objectives in the Middle East than attempts to overthrow him
were to Washington. America's ability to navigate the ever-changing waters of the Middle East
is not contingent on whether Assad stays or goes -- the U.S. is powerful and influential enough
to continue operating in the region regardless of Assad's political status. But the same cannot
be said of Russia and Iran, two countries that view the Assad regime as an incompetent but
nevertheless useful proxy to defend its vital interests.
Syria was never a crisis Washington could have (or should have) solved. With every American
action, there was an opposite and unequal reaction from Moscow and Tehran, and it is the Syrian
people who have paid the price. No outside power half a world away can solve Syria's political
issues. It will be for Syrians themselves to determine how they will govern what is left of
their country, and neighbors with far more at stake than we have will be involved whether we
like it or not.
With the war now entering its eighth year this March, the wisest course for the Trump
administration is to detach itself. Nothing the United States can do will stop the conflict if
the combatants and their enablers are intent on continuing it .
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
To recapture oil fields lost in the war, forces backed by Assad crossed the Euphrates into
territory taken from ISIS by the U.S. and our Kurd allies. The U.S. response was a barrage of
air and artillery strikes that killed 100 soldiers.
What this signals is that, though ISIS has been all but evicted from Syria, the U.S. intends
to retain that fourth of Syria as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
In the northwest, Turkey has sent its Syrian allies to attack Afrin and President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan has threatened Manbij, 80 miles to the east, where U.S. troops commingle with
the Kurd defenders and U.S. generals were visible last week.
Midweek, Erdogan exploded: "(The Americans) tell us, 'Don't come to Manbij.' We will come to
Manbij to hand over these territories to their rightful owners."
The U.S. and Turkey, allies for six decades, with the largest armies in NATO, may soon be
staring down each other's gun barrels.
Has President Trump thought through where we are going with this deepening commitment in
Syria, where we have only 2,000 troops and no allies but the Kurds, while on the other side is
the Syrian army, Hezbollah, Russia and Iran, and Shiite militias from Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan?
Clearly, we have an obligation not to abandon the Kurds, who took most of the casualties in
liberating eastern Syria from ISIS. And we have a strategic interest in not losing Turkey as an
ally.
But this calls for active diplomacy, not military action.
And now that the rebels have been defeated and the civil war is almost over, what would be
the cost and what would be the prospects of fighting a new and wider war? What would victory
look like?
Bibi and the FDD want to see U.S. power deployed alongside that of Israel, against Iran,
Assad and Hezbollah. But while Israel's interests are clear, what would be the U.S. vital
interest?
What outcome would justify another U.S. war in a region where all the previous wars in this
century have left us bleeding, bankrupt, divided and disillusioned?
When he was running, Donald Trump seemed to understand this.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the recent book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Conway appeared Sunday on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper to address
questions surrounding Porter's departure, which came last week after accusations that he had
abused his two ex-wives.
Tapper asked about Porter's reported relationship with Hicks, and concerns expressed by
Jennie Willoughby, Porter's second ex-wife, that Porter would abuse Hicks, too. Conway said
that she did not worry about Hicks because she is "strong."
"... The world had a great opportunity in March of 1953 to reverse course rather than this insane military spending that was beginning. On March 5th, 1953, Stalin died. The Soviet leaders reached out to the United States. They offered the Americans an olive branch. They talked about changing the direction of our relations. They talked about, basically, ending the Cold War. We could've ended the Cold War as early as March 5, 1953, taken a different route. Eisenhower and the others in his administration debate what to do, how to respond. Churchill, who was now re-elected and back in office in England, begged the United States to hold a summit with the Soviet leaders and move toward peace, rather than belligerence and hostility. Eisenhower doesn't say anything publicly in response for six weeks. Then he makes a speech. It's a visionary speech. It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there ..."
"... PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ..."
"... two days later, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, makes a speech reversing the whole thing. Instead of an olive branch, he gives the Soviets a middle finger and he accuses the Soviet Union of trying to overthrow every Democratic government in the world. The exact wrong message. ..."
"... Did Eisenhower speak for it or did Dulles speak for it? Was Eisenhower the militarist or was Dulles the militarist? In many ways, the '50s was a very, very dangerous time. And there were so many harebrained schemes that were going on. ..."
"... The great independent journalist I.F. Stone mentioned that the word for lunar, for moon, in Latin is Luna. And he said, we should have a new department in the cabinet and call it the Department of Lunacy because of the crazy ideas that were being promulgated at the time. ..."
"... Well, the Cuban Missile Crisis is very important because now we're going through the Korean Missile Crisis, and if Trump has his way, we'll also go through the Iranian Missile Crisis. And the last time we were this close to nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What happens there is that Khrushchev, in order to try to accomplish two things, or three things, really. ..."
"... And so, we were planning, we had the plans in place to overthrow the Cuban government, number one. Number two, Khrushchev wanted a credible deterrent. The Americans learned, Kennedy says, "Let's find out what the reality of the Missile Gap is." And he has McNamara do the study. We find out that there is a Missile Gap. By October of '61, we find out that there is a Missile Gap, and it's in our favor. The United States is ahead between 10 to 1 and 100 to 1 over the Soviet Union in every important category. ..."
"... He said, "We would've definitely destroyed Cuba and probably wiped out the Soviet Union as well." So, that's how close we came at this time. Which is again, as Robert Gates, another hawk, warns, "The United States should not invade Syria," he said. "Or should not bomb Syria because haven't we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, that whenever these things happen, you never know what the consequences are going to be. It's always the unintended consequences that are going to get you." ..."
"... It takes two to tango. The idea that the US is solely to blame for the continuation of the Cold War, or that the US is solely to blame for a revival is Soviet/Russian propaganda. Great powers are aggressive, and rarely circumspect. ..."
"... And given Churchill's anathema toward Communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, and given that he was the architect of the Cold War from the West I find the idea of him being a peacenik to be bizarre. ..."
"... They do not appreciate that there are different manifestations of both economic models. (Neoliberalism is eating us alive.) They do not appreciate that communism was probably the salvation of both post-war Russia and China. They conflate socialism with communism, view high taxes as communistic, and ignore that the countries with the highest standard of living are quite socialist. ..."
"... Ike was so right about the Military-Industrial complex, and yet we have only enabled it to grow to the point that it dominates every political decision – every law – every regulation in ways that ensure weapons are expended so more can take their place; and more weapons need to be developed because the boogeyman out there (pick a regime) probably, maybe, could be building an even nastier weapon. Make no mistake, Sputnik was viewed as evidence that the Russians already had better weapons and that they would take over "outer space" and we would thus be at their mercy. Back in the 60s the US did worry that communism was working better than capitalism, and that fear enabled a lot of foreign policy (gunboat diplomacy). ..."
"... Capitalism has fatal flaws, but we should all thank Communism died the way it did. ..."
"... not like capitalism didn't murder a few proletarians if murder is the standard, both are condemned ..."
"... the vast bulk of provocations and exacerbations in that now-reprised Cold War were a pas de deluxe, not mostly driven by our own insane US leaders, like the ones discussed in small detail in the post. Conveniently ignoring the whole escalation process of the Exceptional Empire doing the "policies" of the Dulleses and their clan, the craziness of stuff like the John Birchers and the McCarthy thing, and the madness of MAD (which I believe was a notion coined by that nest of vipers called RAND, that "we have to be understood to be insane enough to commit suicide, to kill the whole planet, for the 'deterrent effect' of Massive Retaliation (forget that the US policy and military structure very seriously intended a first strike on the Evil Soviets for quite a long time, and are now building "small nukes" for 'battlespace use' as if there are no knock-on consequences.) ..."
"... Russia suffered 20 million dead in WW II, pretty much won that war against fascism, and the leaders there get dang little decrepit for being (so far) so much more the "grownups in the room" in the Great Game Of RISK! ™ that our idiot rulers are playing. Go look up how many times, however, beyond that vast set of slapstick plays that led to the "Cuban Missile Crisis", the human part of the world skated up, by combinations of accident and error, to getting its death wish. And the main impetus for the nuclear "standoff" has been the US and the "policies" forwarded by "our" insane rulers and militarists. ..."
"... Guys, I generally treasure the NC comments section, and I am not singling anyone out, but some of the rhetoric here is starting to remind me of ZeroHedge doomp&rn. Let's please recover some perspective. ..."
"... Every year of human history since the expulsion from Eden will let us cherry pick overwhelming evidence that the lunatics were running the asylum. Or that every generation of our forebears gleefully built our civilization atop heaps of skulls of [insert oppressed groups here]. ..."
"... Such faith we have in ourselves, and such little evidence other than maybe a couple of world wars and long histories of the loonies playing stupid with whole populations, that we don't need to worry about the concentrated efforts of the sociopathic lunatics to rise to positions of great power and do stupid stuff. ..."
"... "It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there" Was he subsequently co-opted, or BSing? ..."
"... But that doesn't help the millions who would die on the peninsula. Further, whats known as a Nuclear Famine could still occur, which would be pretty damn devastating for civilization, even if mankind itself manages to survive. ..."
"... Science is about doubt and skepticism. That's what the scientific process is. Doubt a nuclear winter: Ok, I'll bite. We have examples – Large Volcanic eruptions, and we have the year without a summer sometime in the 1830s I believe – that is in recorded History. The we searched to archeological record for more evidence, and found large die-offs following a layer of volcanic dust. Again and again, I believe. Quoting scientists who "doubt nuclear winter" requires more examination: ..."
"... Humanity might survive as a species but not as an idea. Am about halfway through the Ellsberg book and, yes, it does make Dr. Strangelove look like a documentary. Current thinking does not seem much changed. ..."
"... Something missing from the sequence of events here is that the main reason that the Kremlin put nuclear missiles in Cuba was the fact that more than 100 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 by the US, thus cutting down any reaction time by Moscow to minutes in case of a US attack. ..."
"... The main – unacknowledged – part of the climb down from the Cuba missile crisis was that as Russia pulled its nuclear missiles out of Cuba, the US would do the same in Europe. It cooled things down again until Reagan was electe ..."
"... I had forgotten that the 50s had just as many crazies as present times – the Dulles brothers, Curtis LeMay, Edward Teller, J. Edgar Hoover – really scary people and probably founding members of the deep state. ..."
"... The Jupiter missile agreement was a secret at the time. Kennedy wanted to minimize the appearance of a quid-pro-quo. The subsequent presence of Pershings and Tomahawks in Europe (but not Turkey) was a reaction to the mobile IRBMs deployed by the Soviet Union. Which they still have. France and Britain have their own independent deterrents. Which is just as well, since the Pershings and Tomahawks were traded away as part of START/SALT. ..."
"... The more recent escalation of NATO into E Europe, the Baltics and the Ukraine are a definite violation of the spirit of the Cuban Missile Crisis agreement, and are pure aggression against a Russia that was seen as too weak to do anything about it until they did do something about it in 2014. ..."
"... An aggressive NATO is something I view with horror. One does not poke the bear. But Kissinger (the German) and Berzhinski (the Pole) are fanatically anti-Russian. They made up for the passing of Churchill. ..."
"... LeMay had suggested that we should perhaps wipe out the Soviet Union before they had the chance to catch up to us in nukes. It was an era ruled by fear of nuclear war–a fear that was unleashed by the use of the bomb in Japan. Truman and Byrnes (the latter in a meeting in his hometown–my hometown) rejected calls by some of the Los Alamos scientists to share the nuclear secrets with the Russians and forestall this arms race or so they hoped. ..."
"... This isn't accurate. Stalin tried repeatedly and even towards the end, desperately, to sign a treaty with the Britain and France. They rebuffed him because [he was a] Commie. He signed up with Hitler only after those efforts had clearly failed. It was a self-preservation move. It probably did buy him less time than he thought. But let's not kid ourselves: Hitler's first move otherwise would have been to the East. What were later the Allies would have been delighted to see him take over the USSR. This was why British aristos were so keen on Hitler, that he was seen as an answer to Communism and therefore "our kind of man". ..."
"... General LeMay was responsible for the death of a fifth (some say a third) of the North Korean population by saturation bombing with napalm, was he not? A third? Isn't that one in three? ..."
"... Additional books that shed light on both leaving the new deal behind and the Cuban missile crisis are (1) "The Devil's Chessboard" by Talbot and (2) "JFK and The Unspeakable" by Douglass. The first is mostly about Allen Dulles but has interesting chapters on McCarthy, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. It is reasonably well foot-noted. The second is about the assassination and has loads of detail about the missile crisis and its power players. It is meticulously foot-noted. ..."
Jerri-Lynn here: Lest anyone be deluded into thinking that the current lunacy of Trump foreign policy is unprededented and ahistoric,
part eight of
an excellent
Real News Network series on Undoing the New Deal reminds us this simply isn't so.
That series more generally discuses who helped unravel the New Deal and why. That was no accident, either. In this installment,
historian Peter Kuznick says Eisenhower called for decreased militarization, then Dulles reversed the policy; the Soviets tried to
end the cold war after the death of Stalin; crazy schemes involving nuclear weapons and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba put the
world of the eve of destruction.
Three things I've seen recently made me think readers might appreciate this interview. First, I recently finished reading
Stephen Kinzer's The Brothers
, about the baleful consequences of the control over US foreign policy by Dulles brothers– John Foster and Alan. These continue to
reverberate to today. Well worth your time.
Over the hols, I watched Dr. Strangelove again. And I wondered, and this not for the first time: why has the world managed to
survive to this day? Seems to me just matter of time before something spirals out of control– and then, that's a wrap.
Queued up on my beside table is Daniel Ellsberg's
The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of
a Nuclear War Planner . Haven't cracked the spine of that yet, so I'll eschew further commentary, except to say that I understand
Ellsberg's provides vivid detail about just how close we've already come to annihilation.
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network, I'm Paul Jay. We're continuing our series of discussions on the Undoing of the New
deal, and we're joined again by Professor Peter Kuznick, who joins us from Washington. Peter is a Professor of History, and Director
of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University. Thanks for joining us again Peter.
PETER KUZNICK: My pleasure, Paul.
PAUL JAY: So, before we move on to Kennedy, and then we're going to get to Johnson, you wanted to make a comment about Eisenhower,
who made a couple of great sounding speeches about reducing military expenditure but I'm not sure how much that actually ever got
implemented. But talk about this speech in, I guess, it's 1953, is it?
PETER KUZNICK: Yes. The world had a great opportunity in March of 1953 to reverse course rather than this insane military
spending that was beginning. On March 5th, 1953, Stalin died. The Soviet leaders reached out to the United States. They offered the
Americans an olive branch. They talked about changing the direction of our relations. They talked about, basically, ending the Cold
War. We could've ended the Cold War as early as March 5, 1953, taken a different route. Eisenhower and the others in his administration
debate what to do, how to respond. Churchill, who was now re-elected and back in office in England, begged the United States to hold
a summit with the Soviet leaders and move toward peace, rather than belligerence and hostility. Eisenhower doesn't say anything publicly
in response for six weeks. Then he makes a speech. It's a visionary speech. It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at
his best, and he says there
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a
theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber
is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half
million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I
repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.
Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
PETER KUZNICK: This is not a way of life at all. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.�
What a great speech and the Soviets were thrilled. They republished this. They reprinted it. They broadcast it over and over, and
then two days later, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, makes a speech reversing the whole thing. Instead of an olive branch,
he gives the Soviets a middle finger and he accuses the Soviet Union of trying to overthrow every Democratic government in the world.
The exact wrong message.
And so, it's sort of like Trump, where Tillerson says something sane and then Trump will undermine it two days later when it comes
to North Korea. The same thing happened in 1953 with Eisenhower and Dulles. We're really much more on the same page, but if you look
at the third world response, you've got the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1955, and the third world leaders are all saying,
"We have to be independent. We have to be neutral." They say, "It is insane to spend all these dollars and all these rubles on the
military when we need money for development."
PAUL JAY: So, what went on with Eisenhower, making that kind of speech? He's not known for any big increase in social spending
domestically. He helps build, as you said, the military industrial complex, especially the nuclear side of it. So, what was that
speech about, and then how does he allow Dulles to contradict him two days later?
PETER KUZNICK: That's one of the mysteries. That's why writing books on the debate, what was going on in that administration.
Did Eisenhower speak for it or did Dulles speak for it? Was Eisenhower the militarist or was Dulles the militarist? In many ways,
the '50s was a very, very dangerous time. And there were so many harebrained schemes that were going on.
We talked a little bit about Sputnik but one of the proposals after that was to blast a hydrogen bomb on the surface of the moon
to show the world that we really are the strongest. And they talked about putting missile bases on the moon, and then the idea was
to have the Soviets respond by putting their own missile bases on the moon. We could put ours on distant planets, so that we could
then hit the Soviet bases on the moon. The great independent journalist I.F. Stone mentioned that the word for lunar, for moon,
in Latin is Luna. And he said, we should have a new department in the cabinet and call it the Department of Lunacy because of the
crazy ideas that were being promulgated at the time.
This comes across, really, with the nuclear policies. So, when McGeorge Bundy asks Dan Ellsberg in 1961 to find out from the Joint
Chiefs what would be, how many people would die as a result of America's nuclear launch in the event of a war with the Soviet Union,
the Pentagon comes back with the idea that between 600 and 650 million people would die from America's weapons alone in our first
PSYOP. And that doesn't even account for nuclear winter, which would have killed us all, or the numbers who would be killed by the
Soviet weapons. That includes at least 100 million of our own allies in Western Europe.
We are talking about a period the lunacy and insanity was captured best by Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove in 1964. That policy
was so close to what was actually occurring at the time. Did Eisenhower speak for this? When Eisenhower wanted to, one of his visions
was for planetary excavation using hydrogen bombs. People should study the lunacy of Project Plowshare.
PAUL JAY: They used to have tourism to go look at nuclear tests outside of Las Vegas and people would sit just a few miles away
with sunglasses on.
PETER KUZNICK: And we sent American soldiers into the blast area, knowing that they were going to be irradiated. Yeah, the irrationality
in these times. People are going to look back at the Trump administration and if we're here later, maybe they'll laugh at us. If
we survive this period, they'll laugh. They'll look back and say, "Look at the craziness of this period." Well, if you look at the
history of the '50s and early '60s, you see a lot of that same kind of craziness in terms of the policies that were actually implemented
at the time, and the ones, for example, one of the ideas was to melt the polar ice caps using hydrogen bombs. We wanted to increase
polar melting. We wanted to increase the temperature on the planet by exploding nuclear bombs.
PAUL JAY: And this was to do, to what end?
PETER KUZNICK: For what end? I'm not sure. I mean, one-
PAUL JAY: Well, they may get their way, the way things are heading right now. They may get that.
PETER KUZNICK: And one of the things from Trump's National Security speech was to not talk about, or to say that global warming
is not a National Security concern as Obama and others had believed it was. But they wanted to actually redirect hurricanes by setting
off hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere in the path of the hurricane, so they could redirect hurricanes. They wanted to build new harbors
by setting off hydrogen bombs. They wanted to have a new canal across the, instead of the Panama canal, with hydrogen bombs and reroute
rivers in the United States.
I mean, crazy, crazy ideas that was considered American policy. And actually, it was the Soviets who saved us because Eisenhower
wanted to begin to do these programs, but the Soviets would not allow, would not give the United States the right to do that because
there was a temporary test ban in the late 1950s. And Eisenhower would have had to abrogate that in order to begin these projects.
PAUL JAY: Okay. Let's catch up. So, we had just, the last part dealt with some of Kennedy. We get into the 1960s. Kennedy is as
preoccupied with the Cold War, the beginning of the Vietnam War, Cuba, the Missile Crisis. And we had left off right at the moment
of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Give us a really quick recap because I think on this issue of militarization and former policy, we kind
of have to do a whole nother series that focuses more on that. We're trying to get more into this issue of the New Deal and what
happened to domestic social reforms in the context of this massive military expenditure. But talk a bit about that moment of the
Cuban Missile Crisis.
PETER KUZNICK: Well, the Cuban Missile Crisis is very important because now we're going through the Korean Missile Crisis,
and if Trump has his way, we'll also go through the Iranian Missile Crisis. And the last time we were this close to nuclear war was
during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What happens there is that Khrushchev, in order to try to accomplish two things, or three things,
really.
One is to, he knows the United States is planning an invasion of Cuba. The United States had been carrying out war games, massive
war games, 40,000 people participating in these war games. Like now, we're carrying out war games off the Korean coast. And the war
game that was planned for October of '62 was called Operation Ortsac. Anybody who doesn't get it? Certainly the Soviets did. Ortsac
is Castro spelled backwards.
And so, we were planning, we had the plans in place to overthrow the Cuban government, number one. Number two, Khrushchev
wanted a credible deterrent. The Americans learned, Kennedy says, "Let's find out what the reality of the Missile Gap is." And he
has McNamara do the study. We find out that there is a Missile Gap. By October of '61, we find out that there is a Missile Gap, and
it's in our favor. The United States is ahead between 10 to 1 and 100 to 1 over the Soviet Union in every important category.
Still, the pressure was to increase America's missiles and so, the Strategic Air Command in the Air Force wanted to increase
our missiles by 3,000. McNamara figures that the least number he can get away with is to increase our intercontinental ballistic
missiles by 1,000 even though we're ahead 10 to 1 already at that point. The Kremlin interpreted that, and said, "Why is the US increasing
its missiles when it's so far ahead of us?" They said, "Obviously, the United States is preparing for a first strike against the
Soviet Union." That was the Kremlin interpretation. It needed a credible deterrent.
They knew that, initially they thought, "Well, the fact that we can take out Berlin will be a credible enough deterrent. The Americans
will never attack." Then they realized that that wouldn't be a sufficient deterrent to some of the hawks in the American military,
the Curtis LeMays, who had a lot of influence at the time. Or before that, the Lemnitzers. And so, they decide, "Well, we've got
to put missiles in Cuba, which is a more credible deterrent."
And the third is that Khrushchev wanted to appease his hawks. Khrushchev's strategy was to build up Soviet consumer economy. He
said, "The Soviet people want washing machines. They want cars. They want houses. That's what we need." And so, he wanted to decrease
defense spending and one of the cheap ways to do that was to put the missiles in Cuba. So, they do that foolishly. It's a crazy policy
because they don't announce it. It's very much like the movie Strangelove, where Khrushchev was planning to announce that the missiles
were in Cuba on the anniversary of the Soviet Revolution. That was coming up in a couple-
PAUL JAY: You mean Dr. Strangelove, meaning what's the point of a doomsday machine if you don't tell people you've got it?
PETER KUZNICK: As Strangelove says, "Well what's the point of the doomsday machine if you don't announce that you have it?" And
then, the Americans didn't, the Soviets didn't announce that they had the, if they had announced that the missiles were there, then
the United States could not have invaded Cuba the way the military wanted. They could not have bombed Cuba. It would've been an effective
deterrent, especially if they announced that also, that the missiles were there, that the warheads were there and that they also
had put 100 battlefield nuclear weapons inside Cuba.
That would have meant that there was no possibility of the United States invading and that the deterrent would've actually worked.
But they didn't announce it. And so, the United States plans for an invasion and we got very close to doing so. But again, the intelligence
was abysmal. We knew where 33 of the 42 missiles were. We didn't find the other missiles. We didn't know that the battlefield nuclear
weapons were there. We didn't know that the missiles were ready to be armed.
And so, the United States was operating blind. We thought that there were 10,000 armed Soviets in Cuba. Turns out, there were
42,000 armed Soviets. We thought that there were 100,000 armed Cubans. Turns out, there were 270,000 armed Cubans. Based on the initial
intelligence, McNamara said, "If we had invaded, we figured we'd suffer 18,000 casualties, 4,500 dead." When he later finds out how
many troops there actually were there, he says, "Well, that would've been 25,000 Americans dead." When he finds out that there were
100 battlefield nuclear weapons as well, he doesn't find that out until 30 years later, and then he turns white, and he says, "Well
that would've meant we would've lost 100,000 American Troops." Twice as many, almost, as we lost in Vietnam.
He said, "We would've definitely destroyed Cuba and probably wiped out the Soviet Union as well." So, that's how close we
came at this time. Which is again, as Robert Gates, another hawk, warns, "The United States should not invade Syria," he said. "Or
should not bomb Syria because haven't we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, that whenever these things happen,
you never know what the consequences are going to be. It's always the unintended consequences that are going to get you."
Which we learned in Cuba. We learned in Iraq and Afghanistan or we should've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, Trump
hasn't learned it and we had better learn before we do something crazy now in Korea.
PAUL JAY: All right, thanks, Peter. And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
It takes two to tango. The idea that the US is solely to blame for the continuation of the Cold War, or that the US is
solely to blame for a revival is Soviet/Russian propaganda. Great powers are aggressive, and rarely circumspect. The existence
of nuclear weapons, was what prevented either the US or the Soviet Union/Russia from attacking each other. Otherwise the sport
of kings would have continued as usual.
And given Churchill's anathema toward Communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, and given that he was the
architect of the Cold War from the West I find the idea of him being a peacenik to be bizarre.
It's always that word, "communism", isn't it? As long as that word is used, everything is justifiable. If you look at it closely,
it would seem that the Russians have discovered that communism is every bit as susceptible to corruption as capitalism. Communism
has been, in fact, MORE discredited than capitalism (for now.) With Russia on the other side of the planet, what would be the
harm in letting whatever failed ideologies they have fail like Kansas failed? As Jesus might say, "Ah Ye of little faith."
The vast majority of Americans today have no idea what communism is. Most cannot even thing about communism in terms of it
being just another economic system different from capitalism. (No, it is slavery!) They do not appreciate that there are different
manifestations of both economic models. (Neoliberalism is eating us alive.) They do not appreciate that communism was probably
the salvation of both post-war Russia and China. They conflate socialism with communism, view high taxes as communistic, and ignore
that the countries with the highest standard of living are quite socialist.
In many cases, Americans vote against their own interests just because some pol labels a new social program as communist so
he can give his new bill and edge.
Ike was so right about the Military-Industrial complex, and yet we have only enabled it to grow to the point that it dominates
every political decision – every law – every regulation in ways that ensure weapons are expended so more can take their place;
and more weapons need to be developed because the boogeyman out there (pick a regime) probably, maybe, could be building an even
nastier weapon. Make no mistake, Sputnik was viewed as evidence that the Russians already had better weapons and that they would
take over "outer space" and we would thus be at their mercy. Back in the 60s the US did worry that communism was working better
than capitalism, and that fear enabled a lot of foreign policy (gunboat diplomacy).
Trump is anything if he is not politically and strategically a dim wit. Thus he probably buys into the communist boogeyman
scenario common in our culture. He is likely attracted to the economic stimulus that more guns and less butter offer in the short
run. Our problems seems to hinge on leaders who limit their action to the short run, and the long run (ensuring survival of the
human species?), well, they never get around to that.
I would not be so loving over the "communistic ideals". My great grandparents were murdered for the fact that one was a postal
office manager, another was a sock factory owner. Believe what you want, but communism is far from just an economic theory.
Communism, once you force the politics into the economic theory, is this: equality of all men, regardless of abilities, and
damn if you started off well because everything will be taken from you. Your life is not your own, your family is not your own,
your work is not your own: it belongs to the state.
Capitalism has fatal flaws, but we should all thank Communism died the way it did.
Yaas, it's just Putin friendly propaganda, that's all. Let us persuade ourselves that the vast bulk of provocations and
exacerbations in that now-reprised Cold War were a pas de deluxe, not mostly driven by our own insane US leaders, like the ones
discussed in small detail in the post. Conveniently ignoring the whole escalation process of the Exceptional Empire doing the
"policies" of the Dulleses and their clan, the craziness of stuff like the John Birchers and the McCarthy thing, and the madness
of MAD (which I believe was a notion coined by that nest of vipers called RAND, that "we have to be understood to be insane enough
to commit suicide, to kill the whole planet, for the 'deterrent effect' of Massive Retaliation (forget that the US policy and
military structure very seriously intended a first strike on the Evil Soviets for quite a long time, and are now building "small
nukes" for 'battlespace use' as if there are no knock-on consequences.)
How does one break the cycle of ever-increasing vulnerability and eventual destruction, that includes the extraction and combustion
and all the other decimations of a livable planet? how to do that when the Imperial Rulers are insane, by any sensible definition
of insanity? And the Russians sure seem to be wiser and more restrained (barring some provocation that trips one of their own
Doomsday Devices that they have instituted to try to counter the ridiculous insane provocations and adventures of the Empire?
Maybe revert to "Duck and cover?" Or that Civil Defense posture by one of the Reaganauts, one T.K. Jones, who wanted Congress
to appropriate $252 million (1980 dollars) for Civil Defense, mostly for SHOVELS: in the firmly held belief that "we can fight
and win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union:"
Three times Mr. Jones – or someone speaking in his name – agreed to testify. Three times he failed to appear. The Pentagon
finally sent a pinch-hitter, Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle. But the Senate wants Mr. Jones. It wants an authoritative
explanation of his plan to spend $252 million on civil defense. Evidently, most of that money will go for shovels.
For this is how the alleged Mr. Jones describes the alleged civil defense strategy: "Dig a hole, cover it with a couple
of doors and then throw three feet of dirt on top. It's the dirt that does it."
Mr. Jones seems to believe that the United States could recover fully, in two to four years, from an all-out nuclear
attack. As he was quoted in The Los Angeles Times: "Everybody's going to make it if there are enough shovels to go around."
Dig on, Senator Pressler. We're all curious.
Russia suffered 20 million dead in WW II, pretty much won that war against fascism, and the leaders there get dang little
decrepit for being (so far) so much more the "grownups in the room" in the Great Game Of RISK! ™ that our idiot rulers are playing.
Go look up how many times, however, beyond that vast set of slapstick plays that led to the "Cuban Missile Crisis", the human
part of the world skated up, by combinations of accident and error, to getting its death wish. And the main impetus for the nuclear
"standoff" has been the US and the "policies" forwarded by "our" insane rulers and militarists.
"Tu Quoque" is an especially weak and inapposite and insupportable argument in this context.
SPOT ON! IF Robby Mook and the gang can stir up a Russian frenzy from hell based on nothing more than sour grapes, and IF what
we know about the deep state is only the tip of the iceberg, and IF the media is largely under the control of the 'Gov, THEN a
logical human must at least be open to the possibility that there is also such a thing as American propaganda, must (s)he not?
Yes. Nobody invaded Argentina when Juan Peron et al took over. Hitler and Mussolini could have died as dictators decades later
if they had simply kept their armies home.
Guys, I generally treasure the NC comments section, and I am not singling anyone out, but some of the rhetoric here is
starting to remind me of ZeroHedge doomp&rn. Let's please recover some perspective.
Every year of human history since the expulsion from Eden will let us cherry pick overwhelming evidence that the lunatics
were running the asylum. Or that every generation of our forebears gleefully built our civilization atop heaps of skulls of [insert
oppressed groups here].
Yet during the Cold War, there were plenty of prominent people calling out the McCarthys and Lemays of the world as loons (and
behind the Curtain, even Stalin was removed from key posts before his death). Guess what, sane generally wins out over the mad
king. The arc of history indeed bends toward justice, though never without sacrifice and diligent truthseeking. The ones to worry
about are the snake oil merchants, who pee on our shoes and tell us it's raining.
g.
Such faith we have in ourselves, and such little evidence other than maybe a couple of world wars and long histories of
the loonies playing stupid with whole populations, that we don't need to worry about the concentrated efforts of the sociopathic
lunatics to rise to positions of great power and do stupid stuff.
Yes, this is what the world gets when technological advancement is combined with a socio-economic system that rewards sociopathic
tendencies. A system advanced by propaganda (disguised as entertainment and education) backed up with the barrell of a gun and
cameras everywhere.
This article is not scary enough. Find out that in 1983 there was almost a nuclear war. Both sides have a first strike strategy
and a Russian general thought that actions of Reagan were getting ready for the first strike and he was going to strike first.
And during the Cuban missile crisis, Russian subs had nuclear weapons on them and we dropped low level depth charges on them and
we didn't know that they were armed.
This is a very long interview of Daniel Ellsberg in Seattle on Jan 9, 2018.
Now that everyone, except many in the USA, knows that when the USA changes a government that the country is ruined, this may
have forced North and South Korea to get together.
Ellsberg says that any nukes used in the Korean Peninsula would result in at least 1 million dead and while 60 million in WWII
were killed during the course of the war, with nukes that many cold be killed in a week. And then, nuclear winter would finish
off the rest of us.
To be fair, there are now doubts among scientists that Nuclear Winter as classically described would even be a thing.
But that doesn't help the millions who would die on the peninsula. Further, whats known as a Nuclear Famine could still
occur, which would be pretty damn devastating for civilization, even if mankind itself manages to survive.
Science is about doubt and skepticism. That's what the scientific process is. Doubt a nuclear winter: Ok, I'll bite. We
have examples – Large Volcanic eruptions, and we have the year without a summer sometime in the 1830s I believe – that is in recorded
History. The we searched to archeological record for more evidence, and found large die-offs following a layer of volcanic dust.
Again and again, I believe. Quoting scientists who "doubt nuclear winter" requires more examination:
List them, together with their credentials and "donor$."
You can google nuclear winter early enough. And yes, there are scientists who are skeptical for various reasons. The only group
that has written a paper on it in recent years is composed of some of the same scientists who originally proposed it and they
think it is real.
Reasons for skepticism include doubt about the amount of smoke that would be produced. And the volcano and asteroid comparisons
are imperfect because the details are different. People used to talk about volcanic dust, and now it is mostly sulfuric acid droplets.
With asteroids the initial thought was the KT boundary layer represented trillions of tons of submicron size dust and then Melosh
proposed ejects blasted around the world heated the upper atmosphere and ignited global fires and created soot and then his grad
student Tamara Goldin wrote her dissertation saying the heat might not be quite enough to do that and then people suggested it
was ( I won't go into why) and others suggested the bolide hit sulfur layers .
The point is that there is not a consensus about the detailed atmospheric effects of either large asteroid impacts or of super
volcanoes like Toba and yet we do have some evidence because these things happened. We don't have an example to study in tge geologic
record where hundreds of cities were hit simultaneously with nuclear weapons.
I could go on, but I don't want to give the impression I have a strong opinion either way, because I don't. But I think the
case for global warming is overwhelming because vastly more people are working on it and it is happening in front of us. It is
not just computer models.
Forget possible nuclear winter, the economic effects alone would be worth 10 Lehman brothers (2008 meltdowns). And then the
knock on effects would cause other knock on effects like other wars. Even without a nuclear winter, civilization would probably
collapse within 18 months anyway.
All this, while true, only change the details not the results. The Chicxulub impact almost certainly exterminated the
majority of then living species, and the Toba Supervolcano probably almost caused our extinction. That suggest throwing massive
amounts of anything into the atmosphere is not good.
As a student I would like to know the details, but in practice, it's like arguing whether a snow storm or a blizzard killed
someone. Humanity as a species would probably survive a nuclear war okay, but many(most?) individuals as well as our planetary
civilization would be just as dead. The numbers dying would be slightly different is all.
Humanity might survive as a species but not as an idea. Am about halfway through the Ellsberg book and, yes, it does make
Dr. Strangelove look like a documentary. Current
thinking does not seem much changed.
Something missing from the sequence of events here is that the main reason that the Kremlin put nuclear missiles in Cuba
was the fact that more than 100 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961
by the US, thus cutting down any reaction time by Moscow to minutes in case of a US attack.
The main – unacknowledged – part of the climb down from the Cuba missile crisis was that as Russia pulled its nuclear missiles
out of Cuba, the US would do the same in Europe. It cooled things down again until Reagan was elected.
I had forgotten that the 50s had just as many crazies as present times – the Dulles brothers, Curtis LeMay, Edward Teller,
J. Edgar Hoover – really scary people and probably founding members of the deep state.
The Jupiter missile agreement was a secret at the time. Kennedy wanted to minimize the appearance of a quid-pro-quo. The
subsequent presence of Pershings and Tomahawks in Europe (but not Turkey) was a reaction to the mobile IRBMs deployed by the Soviet
Union. Which they still have. France and Britain have their own independent deterrents. Which is just as well, since the Pershings
and Tomahawks were traded away as part of START/SALT.
The more recent escalation of NATO into E Europe, the Baltics and the Ukraine are a definite violation of the spirit of
the Cuban Missile Crisis agreement, and are pure aggression against a Russia that was seen as too weak to do anything about it
until they did do something about it in 2014.
An aggressive NATO is something I view with horror. One does not poke the bear. But Kissinger (the German) and Berzhinski
(the Pole) are fanatically anti-Russian. They made up for the passing of Churchill.
Just recently Russia deployed more nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania.
Maybe something to do with all those special forces NATO keeps stationing on the Russian border?
And all the a -- -oles who Command and Rule, and most of the commentariat and punditry, all treat these affairs as if they
are playing some Brobdingnagian Game of Risk ™, where as with Monopoly (which was originally intended to teach a very different
lesson) the object of the game is all about TAKING OVER THE WHOLE WORLD, WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA an idiotic froth on top of an ever more
dangerous brew of exponentially increasing,and largely ignored, mutual if often asymmetric, deadly vulnerability.
Stupid effing humans and their vast stupid monkey tricks
LeMay had suggested that we should perhaps wipe out the Soviet Union before they had the chance to catch up to us in nukes.
It was an era ruled by fear of nuclear war–a fear that was unleashed by the use of the bomb in Japan. Truman and Byrnes (the latter
in a meeting in his hometown–my hometown) rejected calls by some of the Los Alamos scientists to share the nuclear secrets with
the Russians and forestall this arms race or so they hoped.
So no the crazy didn't start with Trump and Trump had even advocated we make nice with the Russians until the Dems, their remnants
at State and Defense and the press forced him to change course (on threat of impeachment). The elites who have gained more or
less permanent power over the direction of this country are a threat to us all.
Anyhow, thanks for the above post. Those who forget history ..
Different world. The first generation of nuclear weapons had yields (around 20-30Kt) that were comprehensible in terms of conventional
bombing, which of course would have required many more aircraft but was also much more efficient per tonne of explosives. For
the formative years after 1945, therefore, people thought of nuclear weapons as weapons in the classic sense and, at that time,
nobody really knew that much about the effects of radiation and fallout. This all changed with the advent of the hydrogen bomb,
but even then it took a long time for the likely catastrophic effects of the use of such weapons in large numbers to sink in.
Nuclear technology, and both delivery and guidance systems, evolved far more quickly than rationales for their use could be found.
Indeed, you can say that the Cold War was a period when nuclear powers found themselves acquiring weapons with technologies that
couldn't actually be used, but couldn't be un-invented either. Enormous intellectual effort went into trying to provide post-hoc
rationales for having these weapons, some of it very ingenious, most of it wasted.
Don't forget the role of paranoia either. NSC-68, the report that formalized US strategy during the Cold War, reads today like
the ravings of a group of lunatics, seeing, almost literally, Reds under the beds. And if Stalin was dead, the Soviet leadership
had just gone through a war which had cost them almost 30 million dead, and any, literally any, sacrifice was worth it to make
sure that they prevented another war, or at least won it quickly.
US military casualties in WW2: 407,300
US civilian casualties in WW2: 12,100
USSR military casualties in WW2: estimated by various sources [see the footnotes] between 8,668,000 to 11,400,000.
USSR civilian casualties in WW2: 10,000,000 [plus another 6-7 million deaths from famine, a line in the table that is completely
blank for the US]
Simply put, for every American that died, somewhere between a thousand to two thousand of their Russian counterparts were killed.
And somehow people in the US were convinced and worried that Russia wanted to start yet another war when they still hadn't finished
burying the dead from the last one.
1. Stalin made his pact with the devil that gave Hitler free rein to invade Poland and France. Hitler then invaded Russia from
Poland as the jumping off point. Stalin miscalculated big-time.
2. Invaded countries always have many more civilian countries than un-invaded ones.
3. Germany started WW II only 20 years after the end of WW I that also slaughtered 2 million German soldiers. Past losses generally
does not appear to impact the decision-making of dictators regarding new wars. So it would have been irrational for the West to
think that the USSR had no intent to expand its borders. That was the blunder that France and Britain made in 1938-39. However,
the paranoia did get extreme in the Cold War.
This isn't accurate. Stalin tried repeatedly and even towards the end, desperately, to sign a treaty with the Britain and
France. They rebuffed him because [he was a] Commie. He signed up with Hitler only after those efforts had clearly failed. It
was a self-preservation move. It probably did buy him less time than he thought. But let's not kid ourselves: Hitler's first move
otherwise would have been to the East. What were later the Allies would have been delighted to see him take over the USSR. This
was why British aristos were so keen on Hitler, that he was seen as an answer to Communism and therefore "our kind of man".
The Poles have been the Germans and Russians chewtoy ever since it was completely partitioned. All the countries immediately
around Russia have been horribly abused by Russia. Putin is doing his country no favors by reminding everyone of that. He can
cow them into submission, but like the American government is finding, just because they are doesn't mean they cannot cause trouble.
Heck, the current Great Game could be said to have started with the Soviet-Afghanistan War.
Going into the war every country was unprepared and unwilling to fight and had difficulty choices. The German military
itself was not prepared. It was Hitler's choice to start when and where and by 1938 everyone knew it. Hitler was surprised that
France and Great Britain honored their guarantee to Poland.
As evil as Stalin's regime was, and his invasion of Poland was just as bad as Hitler's at first, I don't think most people
really understood just how evil the Nazis were and what they were planning on doing for Germany's living space. It was worse than
anything that Stalin did and between the Ukrainian famine, the Great Purges, the takeover of the Baltic States, the invasion of
Finland, etc he did serious evil.
General LeMay was responsible for the death of a fifth (some say a third) of the North Korean population by saturation
bombing with napalm, was he not? A third? Isn't that one in three?
Additional books that shed light on both leaving the new deal behind and the Cuban missile crisis are (1) "The Devil's
Chessboard" by Talbot and (2) "JFK and The Unspeakable" by Douglass. The first is mostly about Allen Dulles but has interesting
chapters on McCarthy, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. It is reasonably well foot-noted. The second is about the assassination and has
loads of detail about the missile crisis and its power players. It is meticulously foot-noted.
I was going to post the text of the short review, but all I got at the moment is this blankety iPhone and its limits with cut
and paste.
Not many read books anyway these days, and what sufficient moiety of them will form the groundswell that tips over the Juggernaut
we are all pushing and pulling and riding toward the cliff?
I read this stuff mostly to sense which hand holds the knife and not to go down asking "What happened? What did it all mean?"
Trump has been bellicose re NK and Iran, but I see him as resisting the Syrian adventure, while cia plus military hawks pushing
forward.
Dems today are real hawks, itching to confront Russia in both Syria and Ukraine the latter another place trump may be resisting
hawks, the area has been quiet since the election, I.e. since dems were in charge.
It's an odd thought that in some theaters trump may be the sane one
Yaas, nothing is happening in Ukraine, all is quiet on the Eastern Front of NATO:
http://ukraine.csis.org/ Nuland has gone on to other conquests, and all
that. The CIA and War Department have lost interest in that Conflict Zone. Nothing is happening. You are getting sleepy. Sleepy.
Yeah, the title of this post would lead one to believe that their is something uniquely horrible about Trump's foreign policy.
From anything I can detect, her bellicose statement about a no-fly zone in Syria and her abject destruction of Libya, HRC's FP
would have been even worse.
If she had been elected, we might already be in a ground war with the Russians in Syria. The only hopeful sign is that while
Trump spends his day watching TeeVee, State, DOD, and CIA are all working at cross purposes and getting in each other's way.
Foreign policy? We have a foreign policy? If anybody finds it, will they please explain it to me?
I almost never comment, although I rely on NC for most of my news and blood pressure control. You are a treasure.
May I recommend another book – "All Honorable Men" – by James Stewart Martin. Published in 1950 and shortly thereafter all
bookstore copies were hoovered-up and burned by the CIA. It might have been referenced in one of the RNN segments, but I haven't
slogged through all of them yet.
You can get a hardback at Amazon for a mere $298. An i-book is cheaper.
After reading "The Brothers," and "The Devil's Chessboard," I considered starting a non-profit using GPS technology – Piss-on-their-Graves.org.
The Forbidden Bookshelf series by Open Media
is fantastic. Sadly for dinosaurs like me, it is mostly ebooks, but they do the occasional hard copy reprints, and since much
in the series would be out of print without Open Media, even the ebooks are great to have.
And it is interesting to see how many bothersome books just go away even without any "censorship" even with the First Amendment
being the one right courts have consistently, and strongly, enforced.
This article reminded me of an interesting/disturbing thing I saw on tv last night – a local news show had a bit on what to
do in case of nuclear attack!
Boomers & older probably remember the drill: go to the basement or innermost room of the house, have 72 hours of food & water
stashed & don't go outside for at least 3 days, etc. (yeah, that's the ticket).
Thought I was having a flashback to the 60's
Of course the best advice I ever heard on the subject was "Squat down, put your head between your knees & kiss your sweet [rear
end] goodbye."
Well, as I recall they were trying to give us the illusion of control so that we would not go all nihilistic or into a drunken
fatalistic stupor. I don't know if telling people, like little JBird, that the bombs might start dropping anytime in which case
you're just f@@@@d would have done any good.
One interpretation of the Cold War, that I found revealing, was that the two "opposing" militaries colluded to magnify the
threat so as to pump up their respective budgets. So both were essentially conning their own governments – and putting the whole
world at risk in the process.
Of course, another big factor, equally obvious at the time, was (and is) that world "leaders," elected or not, can't resist
the temptation to play chess with live pieces. They don't seem to care that people wind up dead, or that occasionally they put
the whole world in danger.
It's SIOP, not PSYOP. SIOP stands for Single Integrated Operating Plan, which was what the first nuclear war plan was called.
PSYOPS are Psychological Operations.
Having served in the first Cold War, it simply is beyond my comprehension that the Democrats restarted it all over again. Even
weirder are the neo-con proponents of a First Strike. If the USA wins, at least one or two major cities (if not all) will be destroyed.
New Zealand becomes the sequel to "On the Beach". We are in the same position as Germany in the 1930s except we know that the
world war will destroy us. Tell me, how in the hell, did a few thousand U.S. soldiers and contractors ended up in the middle of
Eastern Syria surrounded by Russians, the Syrian Arab Army and Shiite militias at risk of attack by Turkey?
Tell me, how in the hell, did a few thousand U.S. soldiers and contractors ended up in the middle of Eastern Syria surrounded
by Russians, the Syrian Arab Army and Shiite militias at risk of attack by Turkey?
Why they are needed to fight the evil-doers of course! Anything to protect our Freedom and the American Way. Now, ifyou keep
asking these inconvenient questions, then "they" might start asking if you support the terrorists.
It's like when my half blind aged mother, and her possibly weaponized cane, is scrutinized as a possible al-Qaeda terrorist
with a super hidden weapon, and I ask why it's 9/11 and the very bad people might hurt us.
Nuclear winter. How quaint. Soot and dust. Rapid cooling. Crop failures. Starvation. Billions -perhaps- dead.
But life, certainly, will find a way!
Not in my world. All-out thermonuclear war means 250 nuclear reactors melt down simultaneously and several hundred thousand
tons of loosely stored nuclear waste becomes aerosoled.
The resulting radiation blast burns the atmosphere off and the earth becomes a dead planet.
We can never look the thing straight in the eye. Take North Korea. We have been told, repeatedly, endlessly, that they have
20,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul!
Again, how quaint. How SCARY! What we should be reading about, are the priority targets, the game changers:
"People should study the lunacy of Project Plowshare."
__
Yeah. In 1992 my wife was serving as the QA Mgr for the Nevada Test Site (NTS) nuke remediation project contractor. In 1993
a successful FOIA filing unearthed the Alaskan "Project Chariot." One of the brilliant Project Plowshare ideas was the potential
utility of nuke detonations to carve out deep water harbors (they now deny it), so they took a bunch of irradiated soil from NTS
and and spread it around on the tundra 130 miles N of the Arctic circle on the coast of the Chukchi Sea to "study potential environmental
impacts."
The nuke "dredging" idea went nowhere, so they just plowed the irradiated crap under the surface, where it remained secret
until the FOIA revelation decades later. DOE told my wife's company "go clean this shit up" (Eskimo tribes were freaking after
finding out), so off goes my wife and her crew to spend the summer and fall living in tents guarded by armed polar bear guards
(they had to first plow out a dirt & gravel runway, and flew everyone and all supplies in on STOL aircraft). They dug the test
bed area all up (near Cape Thompson), assayed samples in an onsite radlab, put some 30 tons of "contaminated" Arctic soil in large
sealed containers, barged it all down to Seattle, loaded it on trucks and drove it all back down to be buried at NTS.
Your tax dollars.
She looked so cute with her clipboard, and her orange vest, steel toed boots and hardhat.
As a teenager I read in a newspaper a proposal to use nuclear blasts to form a canal that would bring the sea to the middle
of Australia and form an inland sea from which water could be drawn. We already had nuclear weapon being tested here (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_tests_in_Australia
) so there was no appetite for ideas like this.
160 billion plus 160 billion are pretty serious money. money that were stolen from ordinary Americans.
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a
theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money
alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern
heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000
population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter
plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000
people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at
all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. (cited from
The Age of Lunacy The Doomsday Machine naked
capitalism )
Notable quotes:
"... The military talks about needing all these scores of billions to "rebuild." And, sure, there are ships that need to be refitted, planes in need of repairs, equipment that needs to be restocked, and veterans who need to be cared for. But a massive increase in military and war spending, perhaps as high as $320 billion over two years, is a recipe for excessive waste and even more disastrous military adventurism. ..."
"... Perhaps you've heard of the expression, "Spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave." Our military has been drunk with money since 9/11. Is it really wise to give those "sailors" an enormous boost in the loose change they're carrying, trusting them to spend it wisely? ..."
The new Congressional budget boosts military spending in a
big way . Last night's PBS
News report documented how military spending is projected to increase by $160 billion over
two years, but that doesn't include "overseas contingency funding" for wars, which is another
$160 billion over two years. Meanwhile, spending for the opioid crisis, which is killing
roughly 60,000 Americans a year (more Americans than were killed in the Vietnam War), is set at
a paltry $6 billion ($25 billion was requested).
One thing is certain: Ike was right about the undue
influence of the military-industrial-Congressional complex.
The military talks about needing all these scores of billions to "rebuild." And, sure, there
are ships that need to be refitted, planes in need of repairs, equipment that needs to be
restocked, and veterans who need to be cared for. But a massive increase in military and war
spending, perhaps as high as $320 billion over two years, is a recipe for excessive waste and
even more disastrous military adventurism.
Even if you're a supporter of big military budgets, this massive boost in military spending
is bad news. Why? It doesn't force the military to think . To set priorities. To define limits.
To be creative.
Perhaps you've heard of the expression, "Spending money like drunken sailors on shore
leave." Our military has been drunk with money since 9/11. Is it really wise to give those
"sailors" an enormous boost in the loose change they're carrying, trusting them to spend it
wisely?
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen
years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
Since
taking office, Obama, wittingly or otherwise, has headed the largest criminal enterprise in
history -- the mass looting of national wealth to enrich his Wall Street benefactors. He
assembled a rogue economic team of Clinton/Robert Rubin retreads -- to fix the current crisis
they engineered.
In a March 13 article, (author and former Republican strategist) Kevin Phillips called them
"recycled senior (Clinton administration) Democrats (responsible for the) tech mania,
deregulation binge and (1997-2000) stock market bubble and crash. (Obama) extend(ed) the
(disastrous) mismanagement and pro-Wall Street bias of the 2008 Bush regime bailout."
He called Geithner and Bernanke "hapless," the result of their ruinous misjudgments (and,
along with Alan Greenspan, complicit) with finance-sector malfeasance."
He said Summers will be "remembered for helping to block federal regulation of financial
derivatives and orchestrat(ing) the 1999″ Glass-Steagall repeal, among his other
"achievements." He went down the list of key economic officials and trashed them all as the
very types to be avoided, not appointed.
He noted that Bernanke was chairman of George Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and added:
"Imagine if FDR had retained Herbert Hoover's chief economic advisor and loyal Republican Fed
Chairman in 1933 .To think that the pussycat Fed (would become) a saber-toothed tiger is a
deception." Worse still, ruinous economic policies "could prove fatal" if White House policies
favor "Wall Street but not the national economy or American people" -- the very direction
they've now taken.
In a follow-up April 7 article, Phillips highlighted "The Disaster Stage of US
Financialization a much grander-scale disaster than anything that happened in 1929 –
1933. Worse, it dwarfs the abuses of debt, finance and financialization that brought down
previous leading world economic powers like Britain and Holland."
Today's crisis represents "the bursting of the huge 25-year, almost $50 trillion debt bubble
that helped underwrite the hijacking of the US economy by a rabid financial sector " It's
realigning global power with America losing its economic leadership won in WW II.
"The ignominy deserved by Wall Street after 1929-1933 is peanuts compared with the
opprobrium the US financial sector and its political and regulatory allies deserve this time."
Financialized America radically transformed the country, now "doubly staggering because of the
crushing burden of its collapse."
Yet major media pundits and reporters barely noticed and now claim relief is just a few
quarters away -- ignoring a metastasizing cancer, a national disaster, while policy makers heap
fuel on a raging blaze now consuming us, yet too little public rage confronts them.
A Former Insider Speaks Out
Economics Professor William Black is a former senior bank regulator and Savings and Loan
prosecutor, currently teaching economics and law at the University of Missouri. In an April 13
Barrons interview, he referred to "failed bankers (advising) failed regulators on how
to deal with failed assets" they all had a hand in creating and proliferating.
His conclusion: "How can it result in anything but failure." He called the scale of
financial fraud "immense," and said "Unless the current administration changes course pretty
drastically, the scandal will destroy Barack Obama's presidency," besides what it's doing to
the country, global economies, and many millions of people here and abroad.
He scathed Summers and Geithner, both "important architects of (today's) problems," and the
latter as a failed and dishonest regulator, yet "numbering himself among those who convey tough
medicine when he's really pandering to the interests of a select group of banks." No need to
mention which ones.
The law mandates corrective action, the kind FDR took in the 1930s. He, Bernanke and Summers
flout the law, "in naked violation, in order to pursue the kind of favoritism that the law was
designed to prevent." They've turned taxpayers into "suckers" who'll pay dearly for decades,
maybe generations.
His refusal to put insolvent banks into receivership, resorting to deceptive language like
"legacy assets," and pursuing the worst of Chicago School economics "is positively Orwellian
.If cheaters prosper, (they'll) dominate. It's like Gresham's law: Bad money drives out the
good. Well, bad behavior" does the same thing "without good enforcement."
His bailout plans are disastrous. They prop up zombie banks by "mispricing toxic assets .The
last thing we need is a further drain on our resources by promoting this toxic asset market
(and notions of) too-big-to-fail."
With most, perhaps all, the big banks insolvent (a polite term for bankrupt), what's going
on is "a multi-trillion dollar cover-up by publicly traded (enterprises), which amounts to
felony securities fraud on a massive scale."
Ultimately, these firms will be forced into receivership, their "managements and boards
stripped of office, title, and compensation." What's needed is a 1930s-style Pecora
investigation to get to the bottom of their fraud, deceit, and cover-up, along with government
complicity to hide it. More on that below.
Black cited billions to AIG as the single worst abuse so far to bail out their
counterparties like Switzerland's UBS at the same time we were prosecuting it for tax fraud. As
bad was following Goldman Sachs' advice to direct a $13 billion counterparty windfall to
itself.
The whole process reeks of corruption. It must be stopped, and a new direction instituted
under a reformist economic team -- one that will admit the nature and depth of the problem, cut
the tie to Wall Street, and take corrective action the law mandates. That's "precisely what
isn't happening."
Washington is "wedded to the bad idea of bigness" and power of Wall Street. In today's
America, financialization is predominant. It's a cancer eating away at the fabric of the nation
and many millions affected, the result of the grandest of grand thefts.
A good start would be to break up the financial giants into more effectively managed and
less powerful units -- maybe the way Standard Oil was dismantled through a simple share
spinoff. In addition, "a new seriousness must be put into regulation," and a new resolve to
enforce it.
Today, the whole system encourages fraud, one based on results at any cost, so "fudging the
numbers" becomes de rigueur and global bigness the holy grail. It sends the wrong message: play
or pay with your job and future on Wall Street. "The basis for all regulation and white-collar
crime is to take the competitive advantage away from the cheats, so the good guys can prevail.
We need to get back to that." It's been decades since we've been there and high time we took it
seriously. Job one is a thorough housecleaning and new direction, much like what's described
below.
On April 3, Black appeared on Bill Moyers Journal on PBS and explained what's
briefly enumerated below. From his experience as a regulator and prosecutor, he said:
– fraud is initiated in boardrooms and CEO offices by making "really bad loans,
because they pay better;"
– then grow them like a Ponzi scheme multiplied through leverage; it's hugely
profitable early on, then inevitably creates "disaster down the road;"
– dismantling regulation makes it possible;
– one scheme was subprime, Alt-A , and even prime "liars' loans" – meaning no
checks are made on income, jobs, ability to repay, and the more they're inflated the more
profitable they are; the amount of them was enormous – for one company alone, they
generated as many losses as the entire S & L scandal;
– toxic products were willfully created to scam borrowers for big profits;
– rating agencies went along by appraising junk as AAA instead of doing it
honestly;
– in September 2004, the FBI warned about a mortgage fraud epidemic, but nothing was
done to stop it; so now we have a crisis hundreds of times greater than the S & L one and
bad policy in play to address it;
– as in Barrons, he accused top Bush and Obama officials of a cover-up – to
conceal the insolvency of all major banks and by so doing broke the law established after the S
& L crisis, the Prompt Corrective Action Law that mandates insolvent banks be shut down
and/or placed in receivership; and
– this is the greatest financial scandal in history – swept under the rug by top
government officials of both parties; it's legally and morally indefensible, and it's wrecking
the country.
In an April 6 article, Black calls ongoing "stress tests a complete sham to fool people make
us chumps" and essentially say 'If we lie and they believe us, all will be well" when, in fact,
it's not. It's part of the giant cover-up and greatest ever criminal fraud – by bankers
and complicit government officials.
On April 13, Nouriel Roubini shared Black's view. He cited the stress test "spin machine"
leaking stories to the press that all 19 banks in question will pass. None will fail. If more
"exceptional assistance" is needed, Washington will provide it.
However, Q 1 macro data tells another story as growth, unemployment, and falling home prices
alone "are worse than those in FDIC's baseline scenario for 2009 AND even worse than those for
the more adverse stressed scenario for 2009. Thus, the stress test results are meaningless" as
worsening data are outdistancing "the worst case scenario."
In other words, test results "are not worth the paper (they'll be) written on" as their
assumptions are fraudulently based. They're "fudge tests blatantly rigged" to put a brave face
on a very bleak economic picture.
They're in addition to other changes, including the recent Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB) ruling. It's responsible for developing "generally accepted accounting principles"
known as GAAP. On April 3, it changed so-called "mark-to-market" standards to "mark-to-make
believe" ones. It also voted to allow banks to book smaller impaired asset losses to paint a
brighter profits picture. It let Wells Fargo, for example, claim a Q 1 profit when it's
drowning in losses, ones it can hide and not take.
Also likely coming is restoration of the "uptick rule" that prohibited short-selling in a
down market. Established in 1938 to prevent disorderly selling, it allows shorts only when
shares trade up. In June 2007, it was removed. Re-introductory proposals are now being
considered to artificially boost prices.
Roubini calls it "a form of legalized manipulation of the stock market by regulators to
prevent short-sellers (from doing) their job, i.e. make stock prices reflect fundamentals and
prevent bubbles."
Overall, alarm bells should be warning about reckless monetary and fiscal policies, but
perverse market reaction was relief that's wildly premature according to some like Roubini.
Others see a protracted downturn, a prolonged winter, and if conditions deteriorate enough
perhaps a nuclear one, unlike anything before seen, and why not:
world economies are plummeting at depression-level speed by all key measures –
production, consumption, trade, profits, asset values, capital flows, and more;
unemployment is soaring; in America close to 20% with all excluded and understated
categories included;
pensions have been lost along with benefits;
homelessness is rising sharply, the result of over six million foreclosures; tent cities
are appearing across the country;
recent data shows soaring foreclosures up 24% in Q 1 2009; in March alone, 46% higher
than a year earlier – alone providing clear evidence of serious trouble; and
desperation is fueling anger and despair as conditions keep deteriorating absent sound
policies to address them.
On April 6, Professor Vernon Smith (a 2002 economics Nobel laureate) and research associate
Steven Gjerstad headlined a Wall Street Journal op-ed: " From Bubble to Depression? " They
asked:
– what creates bubbles?
– why does a large one, like the dot.com bubble, do no damage to the financial system
while another (housing) caused collapse?
They believe "events of the past 10 years have an eerie similarity to the period leading up
to the Great Depression," including rising mortgage debt and speculation, then asked:
Had banking system difficulties "been caused by losses on brokers loans for margin purchases
in 1929, the results should have been felt in the banks immediately after the stock market
crash." But they weren't apparent until fall 1930, a year later.
Further, if money supply contraction caused bank failures, why haven't massive infusions
today prevented the crisis? They conclude that conventional wisdom needs reassessing and
believe "excessive consumer debt -- especially mortgage debt -- was transmitted into the
financial sector" causing the Great Depression.
Their hypothesis "is that a financial crisis (originating) in consumer debt, concentrated at
the low end of the wealth and income distribution (affecting so many households), can be
transmitted quickly and forcefully into the financial system we're witnessing the second great
consumer debt crash, the end of a massive consumption binge," but want more study to prove
it.
However, much more than that is needed – real reform, a complete reversal from current
policy of the kind addressed below. Also, Smith and Gjerstad omitted a crucial fact – how
misdirected today's massive infusions have been. Instead of helping beleaguered households,
they've gone mostly to bankers for purposes other than economic recovery; namely,
recapitalizations, for acquisitions, and big bonuses at the same time they fire thousands of
lower level staff.
The 1930s Pecora Commission
On March 4, 1932 (one year to the day before FDR took office), a majority-Republican Senate
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee established it to investigate the causes of the
1929 crash. It was little more than a fig leaf until Democrats took over, appointed Ferdinand
Pecora as special counsel, and made a real effort for banking and regulatory reform.
Straightaway, Pecora looked into Wall Street's seamy underside by placing powerful bankers
in the dock, holding them accountable for their actions, and doing through hearings what would
have been impossible in open court given their ability to "buy" justice.
He confronted Wall Street's biggest names:
– Richard Whitney, president of the New York Stock Exchange;
– noted investment bankers, including Thomas Lamont, Otto Kahn, Charles E. Mitchell,
Albert Wiggin, and JP Morgan, Jr., scion of the man who dominated the Street for decades as its
boss and de facto Fed chairman before the central bank was established; and
– market speculators like Arthur Cutten.
He got Morgan to admit that he and his 20 partners paid no income taxes in 1931 and 1932.
Neither did its Philadelphia operation, Drexel and Co., in the same years and way underpaid
them in previous ones. It made headlines, was stunning, and galvanized critics to demand
reform.
Pecora went further. He questioned Morgan and others on various matters, including
sweetheart deals for political figures and insider ones for Wall Street cronies, similar
shenanigans to today but not on the same scale, and under a president then who cared once
Roosevelt took office. He directed "pitiless publicity" on Street corruption, what they easily
got away with under Republicans.
Pecora was a former New York district attorney, an Eliot Spitzer-type with a reputation for
toughness and fearlessness, but one serving at the behest of the President. He established
straightaway that some of Wall Street's most powerful lied to their shareholders, manipulated
stocks to their advantage, and profited hugely through malfeasance.
Roosevelt encouraged him in his March 4, 1933 inaugural address saying:
there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must
be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an
adequate but sound currency .the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed
through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure and
abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public
opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men
They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when
there is no vision the people perish. The money changers have fled their high seats in the
temple of our civilization. We must now restore that temple to the ancient truths. (Doing it
requires) apply(ing) social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
Imagine Obama saying this, followed by strong policies for enforcement under Roosevelt-style
officials. Men like Pecora who asked tough questions and demanded answers, including on the
House of Morgan's operations, something unimaginable today under any leadership. Morgan's
counsel, John W. Davis, called Pecora's questions outrageous, but Morgan had to answer in
detail enough to shake the "secret government's" foundations.
Pecora's staff examined company records that revealed financial manipulations among the
Street's powerful to reap enormous profits -- enough for Morgan to gain control of most US
industry, buy politicians and diplomats, and effectively control the most powerful banks in the
country.
Years later in his book, Wall Street Under Fire , Pecora wrote:
"Undoubtedly, this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of
economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States." Morgan
called it performing a "service" and exercising no more control than through "argument and
persuasion."
His managing partner, Thomas Lamont, told the committee that the firm only offered advice
that clients could accept or reject. Pecora learned otherwise as he peeled away the layers of
company power and influence. He discovered "preferred clients" and friends of the bank lists in
two tiers – special allies, operatives, and cronies and a "fishing list" from which new
ones were recruited. In total, it showed Morgan was more powerful than Washington -- that the
firm effectively controlled a network of companies that made US financial policy for over three
decades plus leading politicians and much of the federal bench.
Pecora discovered what's as true today: that a select group of giant banks run things. They
set policy, rig the game to their advantage, buy politicians the way Morgan did, and pretty
much run the country and the world.
Again Pecora from his book:
Morgan's power was "a stark fact. It was a great stream that was fed by many sources; by its
deposits, by its loans, by its promotions, by its directorships, by its pre-eminent position as
investment bankers, by its control of holding companies which, in turn, controlled scores of
subsidiaries, and by its silken bonds of gratitude in which it skillfully enmeshed the chosen
ranks of the 'preferred lists.' It reached into every corner of the nation and penetrated in
public, as well as business affairs. The problems raised by such an institution go far beyond
banking regulation in the narrow sense. It might be a formidable rival to the government
itself."
Pecora proceeded from Morgan to others, powerful bankers in their own right like Kuhn,
Loeb's Otto Kahn. Roosevelt championed the hearings and from them came legislative reforms, the
kinds so desperately needed now but nowhere in sight by an administration totally subservient
to money and power and thoroughly corrupted by them – after a scant three months in
office.
Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) Calls for Sweeping Changes
Its head, Elizabeth Warren, called on the Treasury to get tough on TARP recipients,
including:
questioning the "dangers inherent" in its strategy; the idea of "open-ended subsidies (to
giant institutions) without adequately weighing potential pitfalls;"
acknowledging that it has no historical precedent and faint hope of succeeding;
leveraging the $700 billion in TARP funds well beyond what Congress appropriated –
to an amount exceeding $4 trillion and smacking of high-level corruption;
firing top executives of failed institutions like Citigroup, Bank of America and AIG;
"the very notion that anyone would infuse money into a financially troubled entity without
demanding (management) changes is preposterous;"
shareholders to be wiped out; "it is crucial (for this) to happen;"
choosing among three alternatives for insolvent banks: "liquidation, receivership, or
subsidization;" Geithner's plan is none of the above and essentially unworkable; it fails to
acknowledge the decline's depth and degree to which troubled assets low valuations accurately
reflect their worth;
if the downturn gets greater than forecast, "very different actions" will be needed "to
restore financial stability."
Given the extent and long-term nature of today's crisis, it's shocking that bad policy
practically assures the worst outcome. Maybe a government/Wall Street cabal prefers it to
capitalize on the wreckage at fire sale prices, at home and globally, as part of a long-term
process of sucking wealth to the top while ignoring its fallout, both human and economic. Those
calculations don't enter their sophisticated models, only bottom line ones they can bank
on.
Other Bank Bailout Critics
Willem Buiter was a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (1997
– 2000). He's now has a Maverecon blog and is a Financial Times (FT) regular.
He's also a fierce critic of bank bailouts, a policy he says wastes good time and money and is
destined to fail.
"The good bank solution and slaughter of the unsecured creditors should have been pursued
actively as soon as it became clear that most (US international banks were) insolvent." Soon
enough it will be apparent anyway, before year end. "At that point, (their) de facto insolvency
will be so self-evident that even the joint and several obfuscation of banks and Treasury will
be unable to deny the obvious." And they'll be no fiscal resources to the rescue. "The
likelihood of Congress voting even a nickel in additional financial support for the banks is
zero."
Joseph Stiglitz was even blunter in an April 17 Bloomberg interview headlined:
"Stiglitz Says White House Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue." He accused the administration
of bailing out bankers at the expense of the economy. "All the ingredients they have so far are
weak, and there are several missing" ones. The people who created this monster are "either in
the pocket of the banks or they're incompetent."
"We don't have enough money, they don't want to go back to Congress, they don't want to do
it in an open way, and they" won't act responsibly and place the banks in receivership where
they belong and let shareholders, not taxpayers take the pain. This policy guarantees failure.
It's "an absolute mess." It's a strategy to re-inflate a bubble that will do nothing to speed
recovery. "It's a recipe for Japanese-style malaise."
Financial expert and investor safety advocate Martin Weiss is most critical of all. He calls
bank stress tests "FLIM-FLAM" in accusing Washington of hiding the true condition of the
nation's 19 largest banks.
Key economic indicators like GDP contraction and unemployment are far worse than stress test
parameters. "Our own government is clearly cooking the books -- using (false) criteria to
deceive you; hoping you'll trust banks that are clearly hanging by a thread."
On May 4, they'll announce the results -- jerry-rigged to present an illusion of solvency,
but clearly a deceptive lie. The economy is sinking, not stabilizing, let alone recovering. The
administration is bailing out bankers while wrecking the economy and millions of households.
Why isn't Washington addressing the tough questions, he asks. Because the answers have them
"terrified," so they play for time while home foreclosures are exploding, factories are sitting
idle, consumption keeps falling, yet they hope conditions will improve.
No one asks:
what if states and cities can't provide vital services;
hospitals have to close down "due to disruptions in insurance payments;"
"supermarket shelves are emptied because trucking companies can't get short-term loans to
stay in business;"
utilities "are crippled as the crisis kills the revenues they count on from
corporations;" and
"soaring deficits drive interest rates sky-high and gut the dollar, driving the cost of
living through the roof."
What if one day we discover America is no longer America. What if we realize that day is
today.
Another Day, Another Scheme
The latest one lets ordinary people participate in Geithner's Public-Private Partnership
Program (PPIP) that sounds suspiciously like "liars' loan" fraud, except this time
"investments" in worthless junk are involved that will separate fools from their money.
The New York Times headlined the plan by comparing it to WW I Liberty Bonds that
helped the country win the war. Now it's "to come to the aid of their banks -- with the added
inducement of possibly making some money " The idea is for "large investment companies to
create the financial-crisis equivalent of war bonds: bailout funds" to sucker the unwary to
"invest" and, simultaneously, quiet opposition to the handouts.
According to money management firm BlackRock director Steven Baffico: "It's giving the guy
on Main Street an equal seat at the table next to the big guys." Pimco's Bill Gross called it a
"win-win-win policy." Absolutely for him so he loves it.
Plans are still being discussed. They won't likely be announced for several months, but
already the scheme is apparent. It's to offload toxic junk on the public, let unwary investors
take losses, relieve troubled banks of more of them, and arrange for investment fund issuers
(like Pimco and BlackRock) to reap healthy fees if enough suckers can be enlisted to go
along.
As troublesome, is FDIC's role in the scam -- through its transformation from insuring
depositors to a much greater one guaranteeing over $1 trillion in junk assets, way over its
charter $30 billion limit by twisting the rules to arrange it.
Its charter allows extraordinary steps to be taken when an "emergency determination by
secretary of the Treasury" is made to mitigate "systemic risk." However, its Section 14
Borrowing Authority states:
"The Corporation is authorized to borrow from the Treasury for insurance purposes (not
speculation, bailouts, or other schemes, an amount) not exceeding in the aggregate
$30,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time .Any such loan shall be used by the Corporation
solely in carrying out its functions with respect to such insurance (of bank deposits, then up
to $5000, now temporarily at $250,000) "
"Before issuing an obligation or making a guarantee, the Corporation shall estimate the cost
of such obligations (as well as market value) the Corporation may not issue or incur any
obligation, if, after (so doing) the aggregate amount of obligations of the Deposit Insurance
Fund (exceeds) the total of the amounts authorized ($30 billion under) section 14(a)."
PPIP violates FDIC rules. If it's opened to the public, greater fraud will result with
ordinary people hit hardest as usual, the best reason to avoid this and alert others to be as
prudent. It's another dubious scheme to separate the unwary from their money and redirect it to
the top – to the same fraudsters responsible for the crisis and their investment company
partners going along with the scam.
The Treasury extended the deadline for PPIP participants (to April 24) and loosened some of
its guidelines, suggesting that investor support has been less than expected.
However, on April 2, the Financial Times (FT) headlined: "Bailed-out banks eye
toxic asset buys." Giants like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs
"are considering buying (each other's) toxic assets," and why not when it's a win-win way to
offload each other's junk, do it at inflated prices, and stick taxpayers with the risk. New
York University's Stern School of Business Professor Lawrence White put it this way:
"I'm worried about the following scenario: You and I have troubled assets, I buy assets from
you, you buy them them from me, and at the end of the day it (looks) suspiciously like you
bought assets from yourself" with Treasury funds.
PPIP prohibits banks from buying their own assets but lets them do it from other firms,
either directly or through investment funds set up for that purpose, and according to Treasury:
"It's an open program designed to get markets going."
On April 3, Reuters reported that "US regulators may be open to letting TARP recipients
participate in the new program," and already Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley suggested they'll
do it. Others expressed interest in what some observers call a giant money laundering scheme
compounding the colossal flimflam that in the end most likely won't work -- except to extract
multi-trillions from the public to banksters with Washington acting complicitly as transfer
agent.
Meanwhile economic fundamentals are deteriorating at depression-level speed and depth while
Obama remains in denial. On April 2 at the G 20, he cited "a very productive summit that will
be, I believe, a turning point in our pursuit of global economic recovery" when, in fact, it
produced nothing beyond the usual hype – plus this time the quadrupling of the IMF's
budget to inflict debt bondage on its willing partakers.
We're clearly in early stage unchartered waters of what Michel Chossudovsky calls "The Great
Depression of the 21st Century" heading America for "fiscal collapse" because of policies
amounting to "the most drastic curtailment in public spending in American history" –
directing most of it for militarism and foreign wars, Wall Street bailouts, and half a trillion
for public debt service.
In an April 12 commentary, longtime, well-respected Chicago financial journalist Terry
Savage headlined "Social Security Myth" in reporting on some of the fallout. Someone has to pay
for "fixes" and militarism, that someone is us, and target one is Social Security. According to
Savage:
"Most likely, Social Security will become a "needs-based" payout to low income, elderly
recipients – not a return of the 'investments' you made with all those FICA deductions
from your pay check every month over your working career." In other words, Washington intends
to renege on the 74-year old promise FDR announced to the nation on August 14, 1935:
"Today a hope of many years' standing is in large part fulfilled .This social security
measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens (now over 56 million,
including Supplement Security Income recipients) who will reap direct benefits .This law
represents a cornerstone in a structure .by no means complete. (It) will take care of human
needs and at the same time provide the United States an economic structure of vastly greater
soundness. (The passage of this bill marks) a historic (achievement) for all time."
It's now in jeopardy, so here's what Savage advises. Prepare. "Save more money, (and) start
from an honest assessment" of what's coming. What FDR gave will be taken away. "And that's The
Savage Truth." A disturbing and outrageous one as well as all the other ways we've been
betrayed.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. Contact him at: [email protected] . Also visit his
blog site and listen to The
Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM-1PM US Central time for
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy
listening. Read
other articles by Stephen , or visit Stephen's
website .
Cohen is a Communist and reflexive hater of the United States in the Noam Chomsky mold. He is
either naive or a fool if he believes half of what he is saying.
Russia never had a decent shot at democracy. The collapse of the Soviet Union was arranged
by the Nomenklatura for their own benefit as a massive asset grab. The fight between Yeltsin
and the Russian Parliament was basically a fight between two factions, and the Yeltsin/KGB
faction beat the CPSU/Red Manager faction. Putin is very much a product of and continuation
of the Yeltsin/KGB team (notice, for example, the role that Chubais continues to play in
government policy), but the current team realizes how hated Yeltsin is and are smart enough
to create plausible distance for public consumption.
For the most part the Putin years have been a failure, and these last two decades will be
seen as squandered. Very little economic growth, continuing deterioration of the education
and health systems, increasing dependence on China and massive transfers of wealth abroad.
Those are Putin's primary achievements.
On the plus side, Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia over the last three
years – keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and
light manufacturing industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western
competition.
After 16 years of war in Afghanistan, experts have stopped asking what victory looks like
and are beginning to consider the spectrum of possible defeats.
All options involve acknowledging the war as failed, American aims as largely unachievable
and Afghanistan's future as only partly salvageable. Their advocates see glimmers of hope
barely worth the stomach-turning trade-offs and slim odds of success.
"I don't think there is any serious analyst of the situation in Afghanistan who believes
that the war is winnable," Laurel Miller, a political scientist at the RAND Corporation, said
in a
podcast last summer, after leaving her State Department stint as acting special
representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This may be why, even after thousands have died and over $100 billion has been spent, even
after the past two weeks of shocking bloodshed in
Kabul , few expect the United States to try anything other than the status
quo.
It is a strategy, as Ms. Miller described it, to "prevent the defeat of the Afghan
government and prevent military victory by the Taliban" for as long as possible.
Though far from the most promising option, it is the least humiliating. But sooner or later,
the United States and Afghanistan will find themselves facing one of Afghanistan's endgames --
whether by choice or not.
From comments: We are the new Roman Empire but far less honest about it. This is why we our military is grossly underfunded. It isn't about defense. It is about domination.
Notable quotes:
"... Those who great assurance and aplomb stated that McMaster and Mattis et al would serve as "the adults in the room" are fools. But then we knew that already, didn't we? Because those who said things like that about Mattis and McMaster were in many cases the same people who pushed us into stupid wars in Iraq, Libya, and Yemen. ..."
"... This is exactly how you find out if Trump is a dog and pony show ..."
"... Looks like Trump's foreign policy is the same as Hillary Clinton's would have been, endless war. ..."
"... I fear that we have developed a mentality where we fully expect to be able to exert military force in countries like Syria as if we are an auxiliary police force and expect the locals to behave. The day they actually shoot down a U.S. aircraft will be so shocking that the Hawks in this country will demand that we have to respond to an act of aggression and anyone who says otherwise will be dismissed as a traitor. We are the new Roman Empire but far less honest about it. This is why we our military is grossly underfunded. It isn't about defense. It is about domination. ..."
Secretary Mattis
claims not to understand why pro-regime forces advanced on U.S.-backed rebels in eastern Syria:
In Washington, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis described the situation as "perplexing," and said he had "no idea why they would
attack" the base. Both Russian and Syrian-aligned forces on the ground had long known the U.S. and allied forces were there, he
said.
Perhaps Mattis is only feigning confusion here, but it isn't encouraging that the head of our Defense Department claims not to
know why forces aligned with the Syrian government might want to attack a base where the enemies of that government are located.
They attacked the base because they "had long known the U.S. and allied forces were there." They oppose the presence of
"U.S. and allied forces" there. This should be clear by now. If our top leaders don't know something as basic as this about the situation
they are putting our soldiers in, that is deeply troubling. Mattis also "denied that the attack and the U.S. response constituted
American engagement in the Syrian civil war," but this is preposterous. By providing support to armed groups inside Syria and deploying
our own forces alongside them, the U.S. is taking sides in the Syrian civil war whether our leaders want to acknowledge that involvement
or not. By attacking pro-regime forces and killing dozens of their men, the U.S. has committed acts of war against another government
on its own soil without Congressional or U.N. authorization.
As the threat of ISIS recedes, it becomes increasingly difficult use that threat to justify a U.S. military presence inside Syria.
The pretense that an open-ended mission in Syria is solely aimed at opposing ISIS is not credible when U.S. officials explicitly
state that an indefinite U.S. military presence is also intended to deny the Syrian government and its allies control over parts
of Syria. The Syrian government and its allies did not try to stop U.S. intervention in Syria when it began in 2014, but they have
never agreed to our military presence. As it happens, the Syrian government and its allies are correct when they describe our military
presence there as illegal. Secretary Mattis isn't able to counter those claims because there is absolutely no legal justification
for having our troops in Syria and there never has been.
The smart thing to do now is to remove U.S. forces from Syria as soon as possible to ensure that there are no further clashes
like this. If the Trump administration doesn't do that, it will be inexorably pulled deeper into conflicts that serve no American
interest.
I mean, it's becoming really ludicrous isn't it? Mattis what is he even saying ? He sounds like a completely clueless buffoon.
Those who great assurance and aplomb stated that McMaster and Mattis et al would serve as "the adults in the room" are fools.
But then we knew that already, didn't we? Because those who said things like that about Mattis and McMaster were in many cases
the same people who pushed us into stupid wars in Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.
I should have taken a picture: there was a Ford plant outside Damascus in Assad's Syria as late as 2008.
One time, coming out of Zahle and heading back to Damascus, there was a range of drivers available to cross the border. Of
course, I chose the guy with the musclebound 70s Chevy. He floored it on the Syrian plain for the better part of an hour, relishing
his love for American machinery in front of me, knowing how to drive it like every farm boy in the rural US Midwest.
"U.S. counter-attack in Syria included Air Force AC-130 gunships, F-15s, F-22s, Army Apache helicopter gunships and Marine Corps
artillery killing 100 Russian and Assad-backed fighters in 3-hour battle beginning around midnight last night."
I question the veracity of the Pentagon's account but in any case what happens when the Syrian army fights back against U.S. forces
in one of these 'unexpected' encounters?
I fear that we have developed a mentality where we fully expect to be able to exert military force in countries like Syria
as if we are an auxiliary police force and expect the locals to behave. The day they actually shoot down a U.S. aircraft will
be so shocking that the Hawks in this country will demand that we have to respond to an act of aggression and anyone
who says otherwise will be dismissed as a traitor. We are the new Roman Empire but far less honest about it. This is why we our
military is grossly underfunded. It isn't about defense. It is about domination.
"Syrian Defense Ministry announces end of operations in Idlib, Aleppo.
BEIRUT, LEBANON (2:30 A.M.) – The Syrian Ministry of Defense announced, tonight,
that all operations in the Idlib and Aleppo governorates have concluded after several weeks
of fighting.
According to the spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense, the Syrian Arab Army completed
their objectives in both Aleppo and Idlib after they successfully erased the Islamic State's
(ISIS) large pocket in this region of northern Syria...
A military source told Al-Masdar News, tonight, that the Syrian Army is preparing for a
long-term ceasefire with the rebel forces in this region of the country."
Moscow: "Our special concern is the threat of escalation of tension inside and around the
zones of de-escalation in Syria, the creation of which became an important factor for
reduction of violence on the Syrian soil." Moscow added that there were Russian service
members stationed in Syria and said it considered any threat to their lives
unacceptable."
"Netanyahu escalates tension with Syria knowing that the Syrian Arab Army has been
battling ISIS and other Saudi and Turkish supported terrorist groups for the last 7 years,
and that Syria is in no position to go to war with Israel at this time. Israelis have been
bombing Syria regularly during this period, and today's firm response from the Syrian army
sends a loud message as a US made and tax payer donated F-16 jet was shot down over Syrian
air space."
Related to the escalating D.C. screw-up in Syria, D.C. (Mattis and crew) seem to forget
the 800lb gorilla in the wood-pile, an 800lb gorilla when awakened that could really ruin
Mattis and crew's day before Mattis and company even know what hit them.
The head of the Russian staff is pissed, really pissed.
Now back to the crux of the situation --
The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation,
Article 24. The Russian Federation shall regard an armed attack against a member state
of the Union State [of Russia and Belarus] or any actions involving the use of military
force against that state as an act of aggression against the Union State and shall take
retaliatory measures.
Article 26. Within the framework of strategic deterrence measures of a forceful nature
the use of high-precision weapons is envisaged by the Russian Federation.
Article 27. The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in
response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it
and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation
with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in
jeopardy.
The D.C. screw-ups (Mattis and company) are walking on egg-shells with their Syria debacle
and don't even know it.
It was a Russian S400 system that the Syrians used to down the Israeli F16.
The Israelis think they are modern day Davids, NOT. They are an ant in a woodpile that
could fall on them because they tugged on the wrong piece of wood.
Let's see if the collective thinking by the brass is going to be guided by the zionized US
deciders towards the WWII or whether the patriotism and sanity prevail: "Israel Carries Out
"Large Scale Attack" On Syria After Israeli F-16 Shot Down"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-10/israel-carries-out-large-scale-attack-syria-after-israeli-f-16-shot-down
"It must be remembered that the Israeli Air Force has acknowledged striking targets inside
Syria at least 100 times over the past few years of the conflict, with the last attack prior
to today's events happening just earlier this week. Syria has frequently taken its case
before the U.N., calling for official condemnation of the unprovoked attacks, but has been
just as frequently rebuffed.
In its now 'open secret' of a years-long pursuit of regime change in Syria, Israel has given
covert support to al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria's south - near the vicinity of today's F-16
shoot down - which has involved weapons transfers and treatment of wounded jihadists in
Israeli hospitals, according to The Wall Street Journal."
"... Trump: Democrats 'Un-American,' 'Treasonous,' During State of the Union ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Is Trump Serious about 'Treasonous' Democrats? ..."
"... But Trump's "joke" really should be taken seriously. The likes of Nancy Pelosi are traitors in the most literal sense -- in that they openly and explicitly oppose the interests of American citizens ..."
"... Pelosi is entranced by 3 million 'Dreamer' illegals, insults Americans' children ..."
"... This year kicks off the new 3.8 billion yearly to Israel up from 3.1 billion and another 775 million for Israel missile defense and undoubtly more incremental aid bills as the year goes on. ..."
President Trump, allegedly humorously, later described the [neoliberal] Democrats' behavior
during his State of the Union speech as "treasonous" and "un-American," prompting the usual
hysteria [ Trump: Democrats 'Un-American,' 'Treasonous,' During State of the Union,
by Jessica Taylor, NPR, February 5, 2018].
The chutzpah is breathtaking
considering how journalists and their pet elected officials in the Democrat party have waged a
nonstop insurgency against the President of the United States
since his inauguration , accusing him of being a puppet of Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
But Trump's "joke" really should be taken seriously. The likes of Nancy Pelosi are traitors
in the most literal sense -- in that they openly and explicitly oppose the interests of
American citizens and advocate their replacement with foreigners. Pelosi's ludicrous claim that
the Founding Fathers (who created the Naturalization Act of 1790
) would support the mass influx of "Dreamers" and that illegals are "more American than
Americans" is as definitive a statement of hatred for American citizens as can be imagined [
Pelosi is entranced by 3 million 'Dreamer' illegals, insults Americans' children, by Neil Munro, Breitbart, February 7, 2018].
That's 376 bills, more than one a day and I haven't even gotten into the trade and
appropriation categories where they bury other bills for Israel that would take several days
of reading. This year kicks off the new 3.8 billion yearly to Israel up from 3.1 billion and another
775 million for Israel missile defense and undoubtly more incremental aid bills as the year
goes on.
Throughout Donald Trump's campaign and relentlessly chaotic presidency, the single constant presence at his side, outside of his
family, has been the 29-year-old former Ralph Lauren model and White House communications director Hope Hicks.
While aides and advisers fall in and out of favor, Hicks has remained Trump's Oval Office gatekeeper, companion and sounding board,
offering consistent loyalty.
But now Hicks has herself been cast into two plotlines currently playing out in the presidential daytime reality-soap.
In one, Hicks features as a likely target in the special counsel Robert Mueller's effort to acquire cooperating witnesses in the
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Hicks has
reportedly
been interviewed by Mueller's investigators.
Publicly, Trump has offered his support for Hicks, saying: "Hope is absolutely fantastic. She was with the campaign from the beginning,
and I could not ask for anything more. Hope is smart, very talented and respected by all."
But in private, the president is believed to have issued rare criticism of a woman who by some estimates is the most influential
figure in the administration after Trump himself.
At issue is whether Hicks, who also served as communications director during the campaign, relaxed her judgment owing to her relationship
with Porter.
White House officials have said Hicks knew that an ex-girlfriend of Porter's had informed aides that both of Porter's ex-wives
had said he was violent. Hicks continued to see him and did not tell the president. Porter denies the allegations against him.
If the unfolding episode calls into question the maturity of Hicks' judgement, she clearly is invaluable as a personal assistant.
In his campaign memoir, Let Trump Be Trump, Corey Lewandowski, the early campaign strategist – with whom, coincidentally, Hicks also
had an affair – described her steaming Trump's suit while he is wearing it.
"She's really quite talented and able," Christopher Ruddy, a close friend of the president and chief executive of the conservative
website Newsmax,
told the Washington Post .
But her professional experience, especially where is comes to matters that carry potentially legal consequences, is limited. Hicks
came to the Trumps through a PR firm that represented the Trump Organization. The family later hired her away to work exclusively
for them, furnishing her with responsibilities that included working on Ivanka Trump's fashion line.
A GQ magazine profile in June
2016 described her: "She is a hugger and a people pleaser, with long brown hair and green eyes, a young woman of distinctly all-American
flavor – the sort that inspires Tom Petty songs, not riots."
But her looks and fashion background can cause people to underestimate her. She has a background in PR and is a graduate of Dallas'
Southern Methodist University.
"... The post WW2 promotion process in the armed forces has produced a group at the top with a mentality that typically thinks rigorously but not imaginatively or creatively. ..."
"... These men got to their present ranks and positions by being conformist group thinkers who do not stray outside the "box" of their guidance from on high. They actually have scheduled conference calls among themselves to make sure everyone is "on board." ..."
"... If asked at the top, where military command and political interaction intersect, what policy should be they always ask for more money and to be allowed to pursue outcomes that they can understand as victory and self fulfilling with regard to their collective self image as warrior chieftains. ..."
"... In Trump's time his essential disinterest in foreign policy has led to a massive delegation of authority to Mattis and the leadership of the empire's forces. Their reaction to that is to look at their dimwitted guidance from on high (defeat IS, depose Assad and the SAG, triumph in Afghanistan) and to seek to impose their considerable available force to seek accomplishment as they see fit of this guidance in the absence of the kind of restrictions that Obama placed on them. ..."
"... Like the brass, I, too, am a graduate of all those service schools that attend success from the Basic Course to the Army War College. I will tell you again that the people at the top are not good at "the vision thing." They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers ..."
"... Academia reinforces the groupthink. The mavericks are shunned or ostracized. The only ones I have seen with some degree of going against the grain are technology entrepreneurs. ..."
"... "They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I have found this to be the case with 80 to 90% of most professions. A good memory and able to perform meticulously what they have been taught, but little thinking outside that narrow box. Often annoying, but very dangerous in this case. ..."
"... Since Afghanistan and the brass were mentioned in the editorial statement, here is an immodest question -- Where the brass have been while the opium production has been risen dramatically in Afghanistan under the US occupation? "Heroin Addiction in America Spearheaded by the US-led War on Afghanistan" by Paul Craig Roberts: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/06/heroin-addiction-america-spearheaded-us-led-war-afghanistan/ ..."
"... A simple Q: What has been the role of the CENTCOM re the racket? Who has arranged the protection for the opium production and for drug dealers? Roberts suggests that the production of opium in Afghanistan "finances the black operations of the CIA and Western intelligence agencies." -- All while Awan brothers, Alperovitch and such tinker with the US national security? ..."
"... God help the poor people of Syria. ..."
"... thanks pat... it seems like the usa has had a steady group of leaders that have no interest in the world outside of the usa, or only in so far as they can exploit it for their own interest... maybe that sums up the foreign policy of the usa at this point... you say trump is disinterested.. so all the blather from trump about 'why are we even in syria?', or 'why can't we be friends with the russia?' is just smoke up everyone's ass... ..."
"... Predictably there is always someone who says that this group is not different from all others. Unfortunately the military function demands more than the level of mediocrity found in most groups ..."
"... A lot of technology entrepreneurs--especially those active today--are stuck in their own groupthink, inflated by their sense that they are born for greatness and can do no wrong. ..."
"... The kind of grand schemes that the top people at Google, Uber, and Facebook think up to remake the universe in their own idea of "good society" are frightening. That they are cleverer (but not necessarily wiser) than the academics, borgists, or generals, I think, makes them even more dangerous. ..."
"... They [the generals] seem to have deliberately completely ignored the issues and policy positions Trump ran on as President. It isn't a case of ignorance but of wilful disregard. ..."
"... So true and as others commented this is a sad feature of the human race and all human organizations. Herd mentality ties into social learning ..."
"... Our massive cultural heritages are learned by observing and taken in as a whole. This process works within organizations as well. ..."
"... I suspect a small percentage of the human race functions differently than the majority and retains creative thinking and openness along with more emphasis on cognitive thinking than social learning but generally they always face a battle when working to change the group "consensus", i.e. Fulton's folly, scepticism on whether man would ever fly, etc. ..."
"... This is an interesting discussion. The top in organisations (civil and military) are increasingly technocrats and thinking like systems managers. They are unable to innovate because they lack the ability to think out of the box. Usually there is a leader who depends on specialists. Others (including laymen) are often excluding from the decision-making-proces. John Ralston Saul's Voltaires Bastards describes this very well. ..."
"... Because of natural selection (conformist people tend to choose similar people who resemble their own values and ways-of-thinking) organizations have a tendency to become homogeneous (especially the higher management/ranks). ..."
"... In combination with the "dumbing" of people (also of people who have a so-called good education (as described in Richard Sale's Sterile Chit-Chat ) this is a disastrous mix. ..."
"... That's true not only of the US military but of US elites in general across all of the spectra. And because that reality is at odds with the group-think of those within the various elements that make up the spectra it doesn't a hearing. Anyone who tries to bring it up risks being ejected from the group. ..."
"... "The United States spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through 2017, according to the former U.S. ambassador to the country. This $12 billion is in addition to the billions more spent to pursue regime change in Syria in the previous three years, after war broke out in 2011." https://goo.gl/8pj5cD ..."
"... "They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I've often pondered that concept. Notice how many of radical extremist leaders were doctors, engineers and such? Narrow and deep. ..."
"... Long ago when I was a professor, I advised my students that "the law is like a pencil sharpener, it sharpens the mind by narrowing it." I tried to encourage them to "think backwards". ..."
"... Col, I think it might help people to think of "the Borg" - as you have defined & applied it - in a broader context. It struck me particularly as you ID'd the launching of our modern military group-think / careerism behavior coming from the watershed of industrialized scale & processes that came out of WWII. ..."
"... We note parallel themes in all significant sectors of our civilization. The ever-expanding security state, the many men in Gray Flannel Suits that inhabit corporate culture, Finance & Banking & Big Health scaling ever larger - all processes aimed to slice the salami thinner & quicker, to the point where meat is moot ... and so it goes. ..."
"... I just finished reading Command & Control (about nuclear weapons policy, systems design & accidents). I am amazed we've made it this far. ..."
The Borgist foreign policy of the administration has little to do with the generals. To comprehend the generals one must understand their collective mentality and the process that raised them on high as a collective
of their own. The post WW2 promotion process in the armed forces has produced a group at the top with a mentality that typically
thinks rigorously but not imaginatively or creatively.
These men got to their present ranks and positions by being conformist group thinkers who do not stray outside the "box" of
their guidance from on high. They actually have scheduled conference calls among themselves to make sure everyone is "on board."
If asked at the top, where military command and political interaction intersect, what policy should be they always ask for
more money and to be allowed to pursue outcomes that they can understand as victory and self fulfilling with regard to their collective
self image as warrior chieftains.
In Obama's time they were asked what policy should be in Afghanistan and persuaded him to reinforce their dreams in Afghanistan
no matter how unlikely it always was that a unified Western oriented nation could be made out of a collection of disparate mutually
alien peoples.
In Trump's time his essential disinterest in foreign policy has led to a massive delegation of authority to Mattis and the
leadership of the empire's forces. Their reaction to that is to look at their dimwitted guidance from on high (defeat IS, depose
Assad and the SAG, triumph in Afghanistan) and to seek to impose their considerable available force to seek accomplishment as they
see fit of this guidance in the absence of the kind of restrictions that Obama placed on them.
Like the brass, I, too, am a graduate of all those service schools that attend success from the Basic Course to the Army War
College. I will tell you again that the people at the top are not good at "the vision thing." They are not stupid at all but they
are a collective of narrow thinkers. pl
IMO, this conformism pervades all institutions. I saw when I worked in banking and finance many moons ago how moving up the
ranks in any large organization meant you didn't rock the boat and you conformed to the prevailing groupthink. Even nutty ideas
became respectable because they were expedient.
Academia reinforces the groupthink. The mavericks are shunned or ostracized. The only ones I have seen with some degree of
going against the grain are technology entrepreneurs.
You remind me of an old rumination by Thomas Ricks:
Take the example of General George Casey. According to David Cloud and Greg Jaffe's book Four Stars, General Casey, upon learning
of his assignment to command U.S. forces in Iraq, received a book from the Army Chief of Staff. The book Counterinsurgency Lessons
Learned from Malaya and Vietnam was the first book he ever read about guerilla warfare." This is a damning indictment of the degree
of mental preparation for combat by a general. The Army's reward for such lack of preparation: two more four star assignments.
"They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers."
I have found this to be the case with 80 to 90% of most professions. A good memory and able to perform meticulously what they
have been taught, but little thinking outside that narrow box. Often annoying, but very dangerous in this case.
Since Afghanistan and the brass were mentioned in the editorial statement, here is an immodest question -- Where the brass have
been while the opium production has been risen dramatically in Afghanistan under the US occupation? "Heroin Addiction in America
Spearheaded by the US-led War on Afghanistan" by Paul Craig Roberts:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/06/heroin-addiction-america-spearheaded-us-led-war-afghanistan/
" in 2000-2001
the Taliban government –with the support of the United Nations (UNODC) – implemented a successful ban on poppy cultivation. Opium
production which is used to produce grade 4 heroin and its derivatives declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001. The production
of opium in 2001 was of the order of a meager 185 tons. It is worth noting that the UNODC congratulated the Taliban Government
for its successful opium eradication program. The Taliban government had contributed to literally destabilizing the multibillion
dollar Worldwide trade in heroin.
In 2017, the production of opium in Afghanistan under US military occupation reached 9000 metric tons. The production of opium
in Afghanistan registered a 49 fold increase since Washington's invasion. Afghanistan under US military occupation produces approximately
90% of the World's illegal supply of opium which is used to produce heroin. Who owns the airplanes and ships that transport heroin
from Afghanistan to the US? Who gets the profits?"
---A simple Q: What has been the role of the CENTCOM re the racket? Who has arranged the protection for the opium production
and for drug dealers? Roberts suggests that the production of opium in Afghanistan "finances the black operations of the CIA and
Western intelligence agencies." -- All while Awan brothers, Alperovitch and such tinker with the US national security?
There needs to be a 're-education' of the top, all of them need to be required to attend Green Beret think-school, in other
words they need to be forced to think outside the box, and to to think on their feet. They need to understand fluid situations
where things change at the drop of a hat, be able to dance the two-step and waltz at the same time. In other words they need to
be able to walk and chew gum and not trip over their shoe-laces.
By no means are they stupid, but you hit the nail on the head when you said 'narrow thinkers'. Their collective hive mentality
that has developed is not a good thing.
thanks pat... it seems like the usa has had a steady group of leaders that have no interest in the world outside of the usa, or
only in so far as they can exploit it for their own interest... maybe that sums up the foreign policy of the usa at this point...
you say trump is disinterested.. so all the blather from trump about 'why are we even in syria?', or 'why can't we be friends
with the russia?' is just smoke up everyone's ass...
i like what you said here "conformist group thinkers who do not stray outside the "box" of their guidance from on high. They
actually have scheduled conference calls among themselves to make sure everyone is "on board." - that strikes me as very true
- conformist group thinkers... the world needs less of these types and more actual leaders who have a vision for something out
of the box and not always on board... i thought for a while trump might fill this bill, but no such luck by the looks of it now..
As a young person in eighth grade, I learned about the "domino theory" in regard to attempts to slow the spread of communism.
Then my generation was, in a sense, fractured around the raging battles for and against our involvement in Vietnam.
I won't express my own opinion on that. But I mention it because it seems to be a type of "vision thing."
So, now I ask, what would be your vision for the Syrian situation?
Westmoreland certainly, Macarthur certainly not. This all started with the "industrialization" of the armed forces in WW2.
we never recovered the sense of profession as opposed to occupation after the massive expansion and retention of so many placeholders.
a whole new race of Walmart manager arose and persists. pl
The idea of the Domino Theory came from academia, not the generals of that time. They resisted the idea of a war in east Asia
until simply ordered into it by LBJ. After that their instinct for acting according to guidance kicked in and they became committed
to the task. Syria? Do you think I should write you an essay on that? SST has a large archive and a search machine. pl
I am talking about flag officers at present, not those beneath them from the mass of whom they emerge. There are exceptions.
Martin Dempsey may have been one such. The system creates such people at the top. pl
Your usual animosity for non-left wing authority is showing. A commander like the CENTCOM theater commander (look it up) operates
within guidance from Washington, broad guidance. Normally this is the president's guidance as developed in the NSC process. Some
presidents like Obama and LBJ intervene selectively and directly in the execution of that guidance. Obama had a "kill list" of
jihadis suggested by the IC and condemned by him to die in the GWOT. He approved individual missions against them. LBJ picked
individual air targets in NVN. Commanders in the field do not like that . They think that freedom of action within their guidance
should be accorded them. This CinC has not been interested thus far in the details and have given the whole military chain of
command wide discretion to carry out their guidance. pl
"I am not sure that I understand what makes a Borgist different from a military conformist." The Borg and the military leaders
are not of the same tribe. they are two different collectives who in the main dislike and distrust each other. pl
Anna. Their guidance does not include a high priority for eradicating the opium trade. Their guidance has to do with defeating
the jihadis and building up the central government. pl
Predictably there is always someone who says that this group is not different from all others. Unfortunately the military function
demands more than the level of mediocrity found in most groups. pl
Trump would like to better relations with Russia but that is pretty much the limit of his attention to foreign affairs
at any level more sophisticated than expecting deference. He is firmly focused on the economy and base solidifying issues like
immigration. pl
The medical profession comes to mind. GP's and specialists. Many of those working at the leading edge of research seem much wider
thinking and are not locked into the small box of what they have been taught.
Combat Applications Group and SEALS don't even begin to compare, they're not in the same league as 'real deal' GBs. The GBs are
thinkers as well as doers, whereas Combat Applications Group and SEALs all they know is breach and clear, breach and clear.
There is more to life than breach and clear. Having worked with all in one manner or another, I'll take GBs any day hands down. It makes a difference when the brain is
engaged instead of just the heel.
A lot of technology entrepreneurs--especially those active today--are stuck in their own groupthink, inflated by their sense that
they are born for greatness and can do no wrong.
The kind of grand schemes that the top people at Google, Uber, and Facebook think
up to remake the universe in their own idea of "good society" are frightening. That they are cleverer (but not necessarily wiser)
than the academics, borgists, or generals, I think, makes them even more dangerous.
They are indeed "narrow thinkers", but I think the problem runs deeper. They seem to be stuck in the rut of a past era. When
the US was indeed the paramount military power on the globe, and the US military reigned supreme. They can't seem to accept the
reality of the world as it is now.
Of course, these policies ensure that they continue to be well-funded, even if the US is bankrupting itself in the process.
They [the generals] seem to have deliberately completely ignored the issues and policy positions Trump ran on as President. It isn't a case of
ignorance but of wilful disregard.
I've been reading this blog for some time. My question was facetious and written with the understanding of your statement about
the generals not having a good grasp of "the vision thing" on their own.
So true and as others commented this is a sad feature of the human race and all human organizations. Herd mentality ties into
social learning. Chimps are on average more creative and have better short term memory than humans. We gave up some short term
memory in order to be able to learn quickly by mimicking. If shown how to open a puzzle box but also shown unnecessary extra steps
a chimp will ignore the empty steps and open the box with only the required steps. A human will copy what they saw exactly performing
the extra steps as if they have some unknown value to the process. Our massive cultural heritages are learned by observing and
taken in as a whole. This process works within organizations as well.
I suspect a small percentage of the human race functions differently than the majority and retains creative thinking and openness
along with more emphasis on cognitive thinking than social learning but generally they always face a battle when working to change
the group "consensus", i.e. Fulton's folly, scepticism on whether man would ever fly, etc.
One nice feature of the internet allows creative thinkers to connect and watch the idiocy of the world unfold around us.
"A natural desire to be part of the 'in crowd' could damage our ability to make the right decisions, a new study has shown."
The military by definition is a rigid hierarchical structure.
It could not function as a collection of individuals.
This society can only breed conforming narrow leaders as an "individual" would leave or be forced out.
That part of our brain responsible for the desire to be part of the 'in crowd' may affect our decision-making process, but it
is also the reason we keep chimps in zoos and not the other way around. Or, to put it another way; if chimps had invented Facebook,
I might consider them more creative than us.
This is an interesting discussion. The top in organisations (civil and military) are increasingly technocrats and thinking like systems managers. They are unable
to innovate because they lack the ability to think out of the box.
Usually there is a leader who depends on specialists. Others (including laymen) are often excluding from the decision-making-proces.
John Ralston Saul's Voltaires Bastards
describes this very well.
Because of natural selection (conformist people tend to choose similar people who resemble their own values and ways-of-thinking)
organizations have a tendency to become homogeneous (especially the higher management/ranks).
In combination with the "dumbing" of people (also of people who have a so-called good education (as described in Richard Sale's
Sterile Chit-Chat ) this is a disastrous
mix.
Homogeneity is the main culprit. A specialists tends to try to solve problems with the same knowledge-set that created these.
Not all (parts of) organizations and people suffer this fate. Innovations are usually done by laymen and not by specialists.
The organizations are often heterogeneous and the people a-typical and/or eccentric.
(mainly the analytical parts of ) intelligence organizations and investment banks are like that if they are worth anything.
Very heterogeneous with a lot of a-typical people. I think Green Berets are also like that. An open mind and genuine interest
in others (cultures, way of thinking, religion etc) is essential to understand and to perform and also to prevent costly mistakes
(in silver and/or blood).
It is possible to create firewalls against tunnel-vision. The
Jester performed such a role. Also think of the
Emperors New Clothes . The current trend
of people with limited vision and creativity prevents this. Criticism is punished with a lack of promotion, job-loss or even jail
(whistle-blowers)
IMO this is why up to a certain rank (colonel or middle management) a certain amount of creativity or alternative thinking
is allowed, but conformity is essential to rise higher.
I was very interested in the Colonel's remark on the foreign background of the GB in Vietnam. If you would like to expand on this
I would be much obliged? IMO GB are an example of a smart, learning, organization (in deed and not only in word as so many say
of themselves, but who usually are at best mediocre)
Would you then say that a rising military officer who does have the vision thing faces career impediments? If so, would you
say that the vision thing is lost (if it ever was there) at the highest ranks? In any case, the existence of even a few at the top, like Matthis or Shinseki is a blessing.
"When the US was indeed the paramount military power on the globe, and the US military reigned supreme. They can't seem to
accept the reality of the world as it is now."
That's true not only of the US military but of US elites in general across all of the spectra. And because that reality is at
odds with the group-think of those within the various elements that make up the spectra it doesn't a hearing. Anyone who tries
to bring it up risks being ejected from the group.
I forget an important part. I really miss an edit-button. Comment-boxes are like looking at something through a straw. Its easy
to miss the overview.
Innovations and significant new developments are usually made by laymen. IMO mainly because they have a fresh perspective without
being bothered by the (mainstream) knowledge that dominates an area of expertise.
By excluding the laymen errors will continue to be repeated. This can be avoided by using development/decision-making frameworks,
but these tend to become dogma (and thus become part of the problem)
Much better is allowing laymen and allowing a-typical people. Then listen to them carefully. Less rigid flexible and very valuable.
Apparently, according to the last US ambassador to Syria Mr. Ford, from 2014-17 US has spent 12 Billion on Regime change in Syria.
IMO, combinedly Iran and Russia so far, have spent far less in Syria than 12 billion by US alone, not considering the rest of
her so called coalition. This is a war of attrition, and US operations in wars, are usually far more expensive and longer than
anybody else's.
"The United States spent at least $12 billion in Syria-related military and civilian expenses in the four years from 2014 through
2017, according to the former U.S. ambassador to the country.
This $12 billion is in addition to the billions more spent to pursue regime change in Syria in the previous three years, after
war broke out in 2011." https://goo.gl/8pj5cD
It may "demand" it - but does it get it? Soldiers are just as human as everyone else.
I'm reminded of the staff sergeant with the sagging beer belly who informed me, "Stand up straight and look like a soldier..."
Or the First Sergeant who was so hung over one morning at inspection that he couldn't remember which direction he was going down
the hall to the next room to be inspected. I'm sure you have your own stories of less than competence.
It's a question of intelligence and imagination. And frankly, I don't see the military in any country receiving the "best and
brightest" of that country's population, by definition. The fact that someone is patriotic enough to enter the military over a
civilian occupation doesn't make them more intelligent or imaginative than the people who decided on the civilian occupation.
Granted, if you fail at accounting, you don't usually die. Death tends to focus the mind, as they say. Nonetheless, we're not
talking about the grunts at the level who actually die, still less the relatively limited number of Special Forces. We're talking
about the officers and staff at the levels who don't usually die in war - except maybe at their defeat - i.e., most officers over
the level of captain.
One can hardly look at this officer crowd in the Pentagon and CENTCOM and say that their personal death concentrates their
mind. They are in virtually no danger of that. Only career death faces them - with a nice transition to the board of General Dynamics
at ten times the salary.
All in all, I'd have to agree that the military isn't much better at being competent - at many levels above the obvious group
of hyper-trained Special Forces - any more than any other profession.
That is well put.most important is the grading system that is designed to fix a person to a particular slot thereby limiting his
ability to think "outside the box" and consider the many variables that exist in one particular instant.
Creative thinking allows
you to see beyond the storm clouds ahead and realize that the connectedness of different realities both the visible and invisible.
For
instance the picture of the 2 pairs of korean skaters in the news tells an interesting story on many levels. Some will judge them
on their grade of proffiency, while others will see a dance of strategy between 2 foes and a few will know the results in advance
and plan accordingly
"They are not stupid at all but they are a collective of narrow thinkers." I've often pondered that concept. Notice how many of radical extremist leaders were doctors, engineers and such? Narrow and
deep. STEM is enormously useful to us but seems to be a risky when implanted in shallow earth.
These narrow "but deep" thinkers were unable to grasp the nature of the Iraq War for the first couple of years. They thought
of it as a rear area security problem, a combat in cities problem, anything but a popular rebellion based on xenophobia and anti-colonialism
The IED problem? They spent several billion dollars on trying to find a technology fix and never succeeded. I know because they
kept asking me to explain the war to them and then could not understand the answers which were outside their narrow thought. pl
War College selectees, the national board selected creme de la creme test out as 50% SJs (conformists lacking vision) in Myers-Briggs
terms and about 15% NTs (intellectuals). To survive and move upward in a system dominated by SJs, the NTs must pretend to be what
they are not. A few succeed. I do not think Mattis is an intellectual merely because he has read a lot. pl
Long ago when I was a professor, I advised my students that "the law is like a pencil sharpener, it sharpens the mind by narrowing
it."
I tried to encourage them to "think backwards".
My favorite example was a Japanese fisherman who recovered valuable ancient Chinese
pottery. Everyone knew where an ancient ship had sunk, but the water was too deep to dive down to the wreck. And everyone knew
the cargo included these valuable vases. And the fisherman was the first to figure out how to recover them. He attached a line
to an octopus, and lowered it in the area, waited awhile, and pulled it up. Low and behold, the octopus had hidden in an ancient
Chinese vase. The fisherman was familiar with trapping octopuses, by lowering a ceramic pot (called "takosubo") into the ocean,
waiting awhile, then raising the vase with octopus inside. His brilliance was to think backwards, and use an octopus to catch
a vase.
the original GBS were recruited in the 50s to serve in the OSS role with foreign guerrillas behind Soviet lines in th event
of war in Europe. Aaron Bank, the founder, recruited several hundred experienced foreign soldiers from the likely countries who
wanted to become American. By the time we were in VN these men were a small fraction of GBs but important for their expertise
and professionalism. pl
Col, I think it might help people to think of "the Borg" - as you have defined & applied it - in a broader context. It struck
me particularly as you ID'd the launching of our modern military group-think / careerism behavior coming from the watershed of
industrialized scale & processes that came out of WWII.
We note parallel themes in all significant sectors of our civilization.
The ever-expanding security state, the many men in Gray Flannel Suits that inhabit corporate culture, Finance & Banking & Big
Health scaling ever larger - all processes aimed to slice the salami thinner & quicker, to the point where meat is moot ... and
so it goes.
I note many Borgs... Borgism if you will. An organizational behavior that has emerged out of human nature having difficulty adapting
to rapidly accelerating complexity that is just too hard to apprehend in a few generations. If (as many commenters on STT seem
to...) one wishes to view this in an ideological or spiritual framework only, they may overlook an important truth - that what
we are experiencing is a Battle Among Borgs for control over their own space & domination over the other Borgs. How else would
we expect any competitive, powerful interest group to act?
In gov & industry these days, we observe some pretty wild outliers... attached to some wild outcomes. Thus the boring behavior
of our political industries bringing forth Trump, our promethean technology sector yielding a Musk (& yes, a Zuckerberg).
I find it hard to take very seriously analysts that define their perspective based primarily upon their superior ideals & opposition
to others. Isn't every person, every tribe, team or enterprise a borglet-in-becoming? Everybody Wants to Rule the World ... &
Everybody Must Get Stoned... messages about how we are grappling with complexity in our times. I just finished reading Command
& Control (about nuclear weapons policy, systems design & accidents). I am amazed we've made it this far.
Unfortunately, I would
not be amazed if reckless, feckless leaders changed the status quo. I was particularly alarmed hearing Trump in his projection
mode; "I would love to be able to bring back our country into a great form of unity, without a major event where people pull together,
that's hard to do.
But I would like to do it without that major event because usually that major event is not a good thing." It
strikes me that he could be exceptionally willing to risk a Major Event if he felt a form of unity, or self-preservation, was
in the offing. I pray (& I do not pray often or easily) that the Generals you have described have enough heart & guts to honor
their oath at its most profound level in the event of an Event.
As a time traveler from another age, I can only say that for me it means devotion to a set of mores peculiar to a particular
profession as opposed to an occupation. pl
Another springs to mind: James Lovelock (of Gaia hypothesis fame) was once part of the NASA team building the first probe to
go to Mars to look for signs of life. Lovelock didn't make any friends when he told NASA they were wasting their time, there was
none. When asked how he could be so sure, he explained that the composition of the Martian atmosphere made it impossible. "But
Martian life may be able to survive under different conditions" was the retort. Lovelock then went on to explain his view that
the evolution of microbial life determined the atmospheric composition on Earth, so should be expected to do the same if
life had evolved on Mars. Brilliant backwards thinking which ought to have earned him the Nobel prize IMHO (for Gaia). Lovelock,
a classic cross-disciplinary scientist, can't be rewarded with such a box-categorized honor, as his idea doesn't fit well into
any one.
Another example of cross-disciplinary brilliance was Bitcoin, which has as much to do with its creator's deep knowledge of
Anthropology (why people invented & use money) as his expertise in both Economics and Computer Science.
This is they key to creative thinking in my view - familiarity with different fields yields deeper insights.
"... "their policies are focused on putting money into the pockets of the wealthy and corporations who will simply put that money into savings and stock buybacks which will not filter into the economy." ..."
"... We wrote earlier about the recent move by bankers -- and the politicians who serve them -- to unreform the derivatives market, to return it to its pre–Dodd-Frank, pre–Crash-of-2007 state. This is a serious move by banks and bank lobbyists, and it could well happen soon. The seven bills in the House package of "tweaks" -- as the House Agriculture website dishonestly puts it -- have cleared the committee with Democratic support and are headed to the House floor. In the meantime, there are companion bills in the Senate. ..."
"... What will happen in the Senate? Well, Dick Durbin (always an Obama surrogate) famously said of the Senate that "the banks own the place." And of course the White House has been notoriously bank-friendly since day 1. As a friend told me last week, "Bank lobbyists are good; they really earn their money." Indeed. ..."
"... Our earlier story focused on both aspects of this push -- the "bad Dems" side and the derivatives side. Let's now look at just the derivatives aspect. ..."
That buying on the dip idea yesterday doesn't look so hot today.
Markets had another wild ride yesterday. The Wall Street Journal's overview:
The Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 entered correction territory for the
first time in two years on Thursday as worries about rising interest rates and newfound
volatility continued to rattle the markets
"We opened around the highest levels of the day and closed at the lows, and that's telling
us the sellers aren't quite done yet," said Jonathan Corpina, senior managing partner at
broker-dealer Meridian Equity Partners
Mr. Corpina said the pace of Thursday's declines, at hundred-point intervals, seemed to be
driven by large sell orders from institutional investors, as well as by algorithmic orders
triggered after major indexes broke through certain levels.
The S&P 500 fell 100.66 points, or 3.8%, to 2581.00 and is now down more than 10% from
its record close on Jan. 26.
The decay towards the close does not bode well for tomorrow. The S&P 500 and the NASDAQ
lost 3.75% and 3.9%, respectively, in the last hour. But even after the recent swan dive, the
S&P 500 is still 12.5% higher than it was a year ago.
Now that this decline has proven to be more than a one-day, algo-driven affair, commentators
are looking harder for explanations, particularly since that will give them a rationale for
What To Do Next. Bloomberg helpfully
offers six interpretations .
But it may not be all that complicated. Despite the seeming strength of the market rally
through January, the post-Trump boomlet had less confidence among investors than I can ever
recall. Even in early 2007, with the Fed well along in implementing interest rate increases and
cracks visible in the subprime market, analysts were complacent, saying the Fed had created a
Goldilocks market and would do such a good job of managing interest rates so as to not unduly
discomfit investors. By contrast, last year it was common for normally chipper or studiedly
agnostic experts to say how overvalued the market was. And that's before getting to the
outsized role that buybacks have played in EPS gains over the last three years.
So most people who were paying attention knew there was a lot of air in stock prices. And
with the large role algo trading now plays, when corrections finally arrive, they are likely to
be more violent than in the past.
Given that the Fed lost its nerve during the taper tantrum of 2014, they may have been
unduly optimistic that central banks would back off from rate increases if stock markets
swooned. That may in the end prove to be the case, but there are reasons to think central banks
won't be as easily deterred in 2018.
The first is not to forget that the Fed is very uncomfortable with super low rates. Even
though central bank officials would never admit it, my sense is that they recognize that the
experiment with QE and other extraordinary policies has largely been a failure. The goosing of
asset prices hasn't translated into growth. It's increased inequality, which is now
increasingly recognized as an economic negative, and also is increasing political
instability.
In addition, being at near zero policy rates gives the Fed nowhere to go in a crisis. Even
though there has been plenty of academic debate about negative interest rates, for the most
part, they've only been imposed on end customers indirectly, via fees putting them in the
position of having it cost them to park money. In the US, it would be a third rail issue to
have rates be enough in negative terrain so as to impose them directly on consumers. Plus the
claim that it would lead consumers to spend more is barmy. Negative rates send a loud signal of
deflationary expectations, which means spending later is better because goods will be cheaper.
And savers deprived of safe interest income will batten down even more rather than deplete
principal.
So the Fed has been eager to raise interest rates and has had a bias towards interpreting
labor market data as telling the story that conditions are tightening so as to allow them to
keep nudging interest rates higher. As we noted, the much-ballyhooed average wage gains of last
week went overwhelmingly to managerial workers, not the schlubs. New job creation was until
recently in part-time jobs, and even now, the full time jobs created have been mainly low wage.
All you need to know about labor bargaining power is look at working conditions at Amazon, not
just in its warehouses, but now at Whole Foods and even in its executive offices. Nevertheless,
investors apparently didn't like
yet another new unemployment claims report coming in at below 300,000 , as that was only
going to stiffen Fed resolve.
Not only is the Fed reacting to more signs of life in the economy, but the world economy is
having a phase of synchronized growth. That means no other major central bank is likely to
start spiking the punch bowl.
Needless to say, investors have been nervously watching the rise in bond yields. As
Bloomberg noted:
Pressure again came from the Treasury market, where another weak auction put gave bond
bears ammunition, sending the 10-year yield to the highest in four years. Equity investors
took bond signal to mean interest rates will push higher, denting earnings and
consumer-spending power.
As of this hour, (4:00 AM), the Nikkei had closed its session down 2.54%, the FTSE is off
0.42%, bu Dow futures are up 151 points and the S&P 500 mini, 20.75 points. So the more
sanguine mood may hold till the market opening.
Despite the speed of the correction, it's hard to get worked up about it given that this
correction has merely erased recent froth. As indicated at the top, most US stock market
investors are still sitting on healthy gains over the past year. And even if the selling
continues, there's no evidence of an unwind of levered speculation that could blow back and
damage critical payments systems players or lenders. If the stock market slide continues,
however, it could dent Trump's recently improved approval ratings. Interviews of Trump
supporters suggest that one regularly cited reason for their backing is that they've seen big
gains in their stock portfolios. Will they be as solidly behind him if they were to
evaporate?
Neil Irwin blames Mr Market's Sad on
investors being freaked out by imminent Wiemar-style hyperinflation. Makes sense I guess:
if you exclude those pesky labour participation and real wage numbers as outliers, those
cooked unemployment figures definitely point to inflation maybe possibly perhaps sorta
potentially rising to a vertiginous 2.5%, which everyone knows is the gateway drug to
Venezuela/Zimbabwe. (Fun fact: a ctrl-F on the Upshot article brings up the Holy Inflationary
Trinity of Wiemar/Venezuela/Zimbabwe, de riguer for any article on the 'I' word).
This all makes sense I suppose. The other day I went to the doctor, and when she saw my
temperature had risen from 36.4°C to 36.6°C, the first thing she said was
"smallpox".
Failure to understand that the cause of hyper-inflations is rooted mainly in production
collapse leads the hyper-inflationistas to be repeatedly wrong. What was Einstein's
definition of insanity again?
Kill the supply of goods needed for survival and prices will skyrocket without the
printing of a single $ (or Euro, etc.).
In order to have hyperinflation, you have to put money into the pockets of people who will
spend that money so that there is significant velocity of money. I have total faith in
Congress and Trump preventing hyperinflation as their policies are focused on putting money
into the pockets of the wealthy and corporations who will simply put that money into savings
and stock buybacks which will not filter into the economy. As a result, our money supply is
likely to continue drinking rose and snoozing in brokerage accounts instead of running around
generating economic activity and hyperinflation.
"their policies are focused on putting money into the pockets of the wealthy and
corporations who will simply put that money into savings and stock buybacks which will not
filter into the economy."
yeah ..that's trumps fault have you ever heard of barack obama, tim geithner eric holder ben
bernanke bill clinton hillary clinton the clinton foundation. Isn't bezos a democrat? What
about all those other tech billionaires intent on getting everything for themselves?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/05/31/tech-billionaires-like-democrats-more-than-republicans-heres-why/
?
FTA "The CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, has publicly stated that he's a fan of Obamacare,
since it helps his entrepreneurial drivers keep their health insurance as they transition
between jobs.
In other words, Silicon Valley believes that the Democratic Party is good for emerging
industries. I've argued that the modern emerging workforce of tech, urbanized professionals,
and "gig economy" laborers all represent an entirely new political demographic pushing
Democratic politicians to focus more on education, research and entrepreneurship, and less on
regulations and the priorities of labor unions."
free stuff for the rich, gut regulations and ditch unions, what a bunch of self serving
p.o.s.'s
Production usually collapses when people are not buying the produced things. It is
typically the bottom 90% that does most of that buying. So diverting money from them to the
top 10% or 1% or to an external entity, such as the Weimar war reparations, results in less
purchasing.
In Zimbabwe, agricultural production collapsed when farming was turned over to
inexperienced natives.
In Weimar Germany, Germany's most productive region was occupied by the allies presumably
so Germany couldn't produce weapons. In addition, Germany had to pay war reparations in gold,
having to sell or export essential goods to acquire gold, which created shortages for the
locals, driving up prices.
In both case the governments tried to keep up with the inflation by changing the
denomination of its currency, which was a hopeless endeavor because what doesn't exist can't
be bought at any price.
Amen. You might also mention that shortage of goods in the '70s called the "oil shock"
that caused the less-than-hyper inflation in the U.S.
Stephanie Kelton mentions a Cato (!) study of 50+ hyperinflationary episodes throughout
human history. They *never* were produced by central banks run amok. Shortages of goods and
balance of payments were the sources.
Or just look at the recent sub-prime/derivatives meltdown. The Fed issued $16 – $29
trillion to cure the frauds of the financial sector in an eight month period in 2007-8.
Where's the inflation.
The notion that money printing "causes" inflation is deeply embedded. It's practically
like watching Pavlov's dogs if you try to discuss this but that's pretty common in most
out-of-the-mainstream discussions. As Max Planck said "The truth never triumphs. Its
opponents simply die off. Science advances one funeral at a time."
Hyperinflation always required a physical host in the past, be it Roman denarii or
Germanic coins from around 1623 or three centuries later in the same region-paper money. Even
in odd instances such as the myriad of currencies the Japanese issued in locales they won in
battle in the South Pacific during WW2, a host with the most, was needed.
The word everybody is pining for which didn't exist until now, is 'Cyberinflation', a no
host party, which has some attributes of hyperinflation-as in way too much money created,
which in the past debased it's buying power, but that was then and this is now.
It's only being channeled to a minuscule amount of the population, so in a Bizarro World
way, the manna has only greatly increased the prices on things the lucky ducky recipients
liked the most, such as $400 odd million paintings, real estate, see me-dig me accoutrements,
et al.
In my mind (admittedly a small, fearful and shrinking place) the whole derivatives game is
best seen as counterfeiting. "Printing" and "minting" and now "mining" funny munny, with the
intent to harm "the economy," for personal gain.
Players in that scam are perceived by lesser humans as holding vast wealth, which the
encourages people with Real Stuff ™ to hand it over to the looters in exchange for
promises to pay, hand it over maybe not altogether in good faith and with clean hands, but
"sir, here's the keys to your 640-foot yacht, call us when you want to step up a notch. "
And yes, "everybody knows" that "notional value" is "not real," but somehow the
collapsing-in of the derivative thing a decade or so ago seems to have made some bad things
happen, to Mopedom, at least. Let's hear some older words from Gaius Publius:
We wrote earlier about the recent move by bankers -- and the politicians who serve
them -- to unreform the derivatives market, to return it to its pre–Dodd-Frank,
pre–Crash-of-2007 state. This is a serious move by banks and bank lobbyists, and it
could well happen soon. The seven bills in the House package of "tweaks" -- as the House
Agriculture website dishonestly puts it -- have cleared the committee with Democratic support
and are headed to the House floor. In the meantime, there are companion bills in the
Senate.
What will happen in the Senate? Well, Dick Durbin (always an Obama surrogate) famously
said of the Senate that "the banks own the place." And of course the White House has been
notoriously bank-friendly since day 1. As a friend told me last week, "Bank lobbyists are
good; they really earn their money." Indeed.
The piece goes on to explain a bit about derivatives and how they operate. And GP notes
that at the time of writing, his estimate of the notional value of derivatives contracts was
$1.2 QUADRILLION*, several times the capitalization of "the market." Stuff I read says the
"overhang" has only been getting yuuuuger
I and the rest of the Mopery have been rebuilding the real wealth that these "liquidity
makers" collapsed so very recently, like the good brothers and sisters who pay off the
markers that compulsive-gambler Black Sheep siblings run up in Vegas and Macao and Monte
Carlo. What's going to happen the next time that these High Flyers bring down the house, and
we mopes are tapped out?
*For extra credit: A Quadrillion is what fraction of a Squillion?
" .put money into the pockets of people ."
Yes, put the money into the pockets of those who lay awake at night trying to figure out how
to spend all that money the next day ..instead of into the pockets of those who lay awake all
night contemplating how to survive the next day(s)
'inflation maybe possibly perhaps sorta potentially rising to a vertiginous
2.5%'
The New York Fed's underlying inflation gauge sits at 2.98%, with an update (presumably
higher) due on Feb 14th. Legendary trader Paul Tudor Jones is thinking along similar
lines:
Paul Tudor Jones said inflation is about to appear "with a vengeance" and may force the
new Federal Reserve chair to accelerate interest rate hikes.
Policy makers should have been more aggressive in "rejecting the fiscal impropriety
associated with this most recent tax cut," he said.
"It is incredible that at full employment we have passed a tax cut that will push our
deficit to 5 percent of GDP," Jones said. "Can you imagine what will happen to the deficit
and debt in the inevitable downturn?"
At the Fed, not a single policy maker is predicting inflation higher than 2.1 percent in
2018, or 2.3 percent in 2019.
With CalPERS having decided to dump its commodity allocation [see today's CalPERS post],
the wise will back up their lorries to take these scorned assets into safer hands.
With new [truck] tires now going for about 70 million bolivars – about $300
on the black market or more than two decades of work at the official minimum wage –
looters often swipe them along with food.
Yes, pity the poor Ven ninos (not the ones of the Ven Elites, who are of course doing just
fine, thank you) . Pity them indeed, crushed under the Great Juggernaut of FIRE and the
wheels and treads of the Great Globalized Looting Machine. (Sheds crocodile tears )
Any stick to beat a (nominally) Socialist Dog
I hear Gaia was talking with Great Spirit the other millennium, and offered that "the only
good human is a dead human "
At 76, I know very little about the stock market. What I have concluded after years of
objectively observing, is that a boom in stock prices wan't going to last forever. What is
now happening has happened in the past so this didn't surprise me. Several years before the
collapse of the financial system I was telling friends that something bad was going to
happen. People were spending like drunken sailors. I knew what I earned while working and
people were spending well beyond their means. I thought cheap credit was the reason. When I
purchase my home in 1971, I thought my 7% interest rate was a good deal. At that time car
loans were going for 12%. Fast forward and it made sense to me that something negative wag
going to happen. It was only a matter of time. I remember when I knew people with Corning
stock who suddenly becoming millionaires. In a matter of weeks they were broke because the
stock and the stock market tanked. A lession I learned early in my life is if you play with
matches you will eventually get burned. That's why I'll never be wealthy but also why I won't
be poor.
Your comment about Corning stock reminded me of an interview I saw on TV (way back in
2001) that I still vividly remember today. Some poor engineer with Enron had $1.5 million of
company stock in his retirement account. In the course of a single week, he lost his job and
saw his retirement account lose over 99% of its value. When the smoke cleared, he barely had
enough to buy a decent used car. There were definitely some lessons there as well.
To be fair, that guy's retirement account had probably also gone from 'not much' to $1.5
mil pretty quickly too. I remember when Enron went from boring utility to high flying 'new
economy' company trying to sell bandwidth futures or some such among all the other scams it
had going at the time. It's stock price went into the stratosphere in a hurry right along
with all the InfoSpaces, etc of the day. The analysts touted it as some new type of company
that the old rules of valuation didn't apply to anymore, kind of like they did for the entire
market at the time.
I remember reading somewhere that some of Enron's growth was made through buying other
smaller companies. Some of those companies had stock-ownership-plans for some of their
employees and that employee-owned stock was all converted to Enron stock.
Does anyone else remember reading anything like that or about that?
The opposite was true, actually. Much of Enron's "growth" came from creating spin-off
companies. The spin-offs would record a revenue stream to Enron while retaining the debt on
its own books. As long as the spin-offs remained viable, Enron looked to have money flowing
in from everywhere. In reality, the spin-offs were drowning in debt.
Two such projects that came to mind, they tried to build an old fueled power plant
somewhere in the middle of the jungle in India (or was it Indonesia.) At some point,
investors realized that the power plant was built no-where near a power grid, nor did they
secure a fuel source. Needless to say, the venture went belly up. Another profit venture they
tried was to sell water rights from an anticipated privatization of EU's water supply. When
that venture failed, the holding company had to buy back its ventures, even though the
profits had already been given to Enron.
The final nail in Enron's coffin proved to be the Californian Electric Crises. The exact
details escape me, but some how Enron secured a contract giving it the power to operate
California's grid, where before it was run by a state appointed committee. Enron then used
its now power to create the crises, with "rolling brown outs" across the state. The argument
was that California grew to fast and demand outstripped productions, which was in turn
hobbled by "gomit" environmental regulations that were hamstringing new oil and coal plants.
(At the time, California was pushing for natural gas plants.)
However, actual numbers told a different story, that California had plenty of production
capacity. Much of the independent power producers were actually shut off from the grid,
preventing them from selling power during "brown outs." while Enron operated planets suddenly
went off line for invented reasons.
It was later learned that the crises were manufactured in a last minute to stave off
bankruptcy. They bilked the state and rate payers for hundreds of millions in additional rate
hikes. The crises only ended when the Democrats gained a one seat majority in the House and
thus had the power to investigate the crises (which they declined to do, I will note.)
Cornered, Enron collapsed three months later.
'Pressure again came from the Treasury market sending the 10-year yield to the highest
in four years'
No one should be surprised that Treasuries are getting trashed, with today's budget deal
gratuitously turning up fiscal stim to eleven nigh on 6 percent of GDP.
As the US economy heads toward politically induced overheating, yield on the 10-year
Treasury is edging up ominously toward the Dec 31, 2013 high of 3.04%. 2013, you'll recall,
was a terrible year for bonds.
Stocks represent the discounted value of future earnings and dividends. Raise the assumed
discount rate, and stock prices go down .
Knocking a thousand points off the Dow is an impressive achievement of the retarded
elephant party.
You have clearly missed the latest economic theories. Economic theory today is easily
explained by the following:
"Democrat Party budget deficits are evil and will lead us to economic and social collapse
leading to communism. Republican Party deficits are good and ordained by God."
There is a tremendous amount of noise obscuring the simple math of future values
discounted at a rate no longer complacently assumed to be near zero. One can almost hear the
rolling global wave of buy and sell side spreadsheets being updated with new rate assumptions
and lower return expectations on equities. One wonders when the fumes will waft over to the
credit lab and work their way into credit analyst balance sheet assumptions.
Right on cue, the credit lab awakens in a foul mood:
London, 09 February 2018 -- The stable credit profile of the United States (Aaa stable)
is likely to face downward pressure in the long-term, due to meaningful fiscal
deterioration amid increasing levels of national debt and a widening federal budget
deficit.
Moody's has already indicated that rising entitlement costs and rising interest rates
will cause the US's fiscal position to further erode over the next decade. The
recently-agreed tax reform will exacerbate and bring forward those pressures.
Moody's current baseline forecast is that the sovereign balance sheet will continue to
weaken over the coming decade. Absent corrective fiscal measures, the US's Aaa rating will
rely increasingly on its unparalleled economic base and the central role it plays in the
global financial system.
The world was supposed to come to an end when S&P was threatening a downgrade of the
US from triple A and finally pulled the trigger. We were virtually alone in saying it would
be a nothingburger.
Kinda above my pay grade but I will chance a comment. Thinking long term this "correction"
may be a good thing as apart from blowing away some of the hype off the market, it is testing
the systems in place to meet an even more serious crash down the track. Computer based
trading has again been found wanting but don't know if that will change any time soon. I
won't hold my breath.
My understanding is that the Cboe Volatility Index (also known as the "fear gauge") mentioned
here was set up to track the volatility of the stock market. Since you can't make money on
the CVI, an inverse one was set up which is called the Velocity Shares Daily Inverse VIX
Short Term ETN (right so far?). Apparently Bloomberg reckons that it is now worth some US$1.5
trillion which is starting to be serious money here but the correction meant that most of the
big inverse VIX trades made has come crashing in value thus making the correction even worse.
Count on Wall Street to create something out of nothing and to make a buck on it – and
then to totally stuff it up with greed.
It's not the end of the world as we know it, as Yves points out, but it may be the beginning
of the end of the easy money era. The what, $30 trillion dollars used to bail out the banks
the past decade as far as I can see were not based on real wealth but just summoned up out of
cyberspace. This money was lent out on artificially low interest rates to the wealthiest
segment of the population and made real asset prices meaningless. If you can't value
something, how do you know what it is worth. Is a five-hundred year old painting really worth
nearly half a billion dollars? Is shale-oil worth the money spent developing it? Are interest
rates reflecting real values or has the LIBOR rates been corrupted yet again. Who can tell?
All I can say is that Wall Street I wouldn't want to be you.
When you don't have a scintilla of savings held by greed agreed upon that by any means
necessary is alright by them, you rest easy watching their machinations run amok. I imagine
the real messy bits yet to come will resemble that car pile up video from the BBC.
Everybody is going to want to get out at the same time.
NYSE margin debt chart won't reflect the past week's change for 6-8 weeks, put brobably
its down a hair from record high. When the margin calls start to ring off the hook and this
pile of debt really begins to fall the avalanche is unstoppable.
The last two times indexes only just fell back to the 140-yr trend line, an abnormally high
bottom usually it falls substantially below trend. But economy is weaker now than when fed
set off selling with higher rates in 2000 and 2007, and inequality means a higher fraction of
the pop is just clinging to their standard of living (spending), so a substantial decline in
GDP will be harder to recover from unless congress quickly spends like mad to compensate for
private sector demand crash. Forget a jobs guarantee from DC, would they even agree to
massive infra? I doubt it. Next case likely longer and deeper.
Now that perceived risks to the payments system have largely if temporarily been put to
rest, and bank profitability concerns have arisen as the yield curve was flattened and savers
euthanized under years of QE-ZIRP, economist Irving Fisher's idea that central banks can
increase inflation by increasing their nominal interest rate targets seems to be gaining some
traction. As a layperson this view, labeled "NeoFisherism", seems to directly counter Milton
Friedman's view which has so dominated the thinking of the generation of monetarist
economists at the Fed who have controlled central bank monetary policy for decades.
It's too early to say whether the Powell Fed is adopting a "Neo-Fisherian" approach, as
that would likely suppress stock prices. (And who owns a disproportionate share of corporate
stocks? )
If default rates pick up or interest rates rise enough and spreads blow out, then there'll
be genuine damage. One of the early, understated problems in 2007-8 was the huge overhang of
hung bridge loans that got stuck on balance sheets of big banks. That helped clog up the
financial system and added to the liquidity event which started with subprime.
Cov-lite loans, high cash burn rates, compressed spreads (against treasuries) .lots of
combustible material here for at least a small-ish financial crisis.
In places were Isis has support of locals it remains a potent force, able to to pursue
multi-year guerilla warfare. they question is how large ar pocket were local population prefer ISIS to central government.
Notable quotes:
"... Isis suffered heavy defeats last year, losing Mosul in Iraq after a siege of nine months and Raqqa in Syria after a four-month siege. The caliphate, declared by its leader Abu Baqr al-Baghdadi in 2014, was destroyed, and most of its experienced commanders and fighters were killed or dispersed. But it has shown signs of trying to revive itself in Syria and Iraq over the last two months, assassinating local opponents and launching guerrilla attacks in out-of-the-way and poorly defended places. ..."
Isis suffered heavy defeats last year, losing Mosul in Iraq after a siege of nine months
and Raqqa in Syria after a four-month siege. The caliphate, declared by its leader Abu Baqr
al-Baghdadi in 2014, was destroyed, and most of its experienced commanders and fighters were
killed or dispersed. But it has shown signs of trying to revive itself in Syria and Iraq over
the last two months, assassinating local opponents and launching guerrilla attacks in
out-of-the-way and poorly defended places.
Isis fighters are joining the FSA and Turkish-army invasion force because they are put under
pressure by the Turkish authorities. From the point of view of Turkey, the recruitment of
former Isis combatants means that it can draw on a large pool of professional and experienced
soldiers. Another advantage is that they are not Turks, so if they suffer serious casualties
this will do no damage to the Turkish government.
The fighting between Turks and Kurds and the growing confrontation between the US and Turkey
are all in the interests of Isis. It does not have the strength to recover from its crushing
defeats last year, but the opponents it faced then are now fighting other battles.
Eliminating the last pockets of Isis resistance is no longer their first priority. The YPG
has been transferring units that were facing Isis in the far east of Syria to the west where
they will face the Turks.
Turkey is not in a very strong position militarily almost three weeks after its invasion of
Afrin. It can only win by bombing round the clock, and for this it will need Russian
permission, which it probably will not get. If it is going to expand its attacks, it will need
more combat soldiers and this will provide an opportunity for Isis to join in a new war.
The Turkish embassy in the UK has been approached for comment but had not responded by the
time of publication.
On Wednesday, U.S. forces claimed that they attacked Syrian forces "in self-defense." New details are now emerging about the incident,
suggesting both that the Syrian attack was far overstated, and the U.S. retaliation was overwhelmingly excessive.
Syria putatively "attacked" a SDF base where U.S. troops were, though in reality the artillery strikes were half a kilometer away
from the base, which explains why there were no casualties. The U.S., on the other hand, attacked a Syrian pro-government patrol
in the area, and
killed in excess of 100 fighters in the attack .
100 people is a lot to kill, particularly since the U.S. supposedly isn't at war with Syria. This does, however
, reflect the mission creep in Syria, as the defeat of ISIS has meant the U.S. forces there need a new justification to stay,
and fighting the Assad government looks to be it, with the Pentagon already saying part of their pretext for staying is to ensure
regime change.
Russia's Defense Ministry also issued a statement condemning the U.S. attack, saying it proved the U.S. isn't interested in fighting
ISIS, but rather in trying to seize control of Syria's economic assets through military means.
Jason Ditz is news editor atAntiwar.com, a nonprofit organization
dedicated to the cause of non-interventionism. His work has also appeared in Forbes, Toronto Star, Minneapolis Star-Tribune,
Providence Journal, Daily Caller, Washington Times and Detroit Free Press.
"... think tanks are essentially lobby groups for their donors. The policy analyses and reform schemes that they produce are tailored to support the material interests of donors. None of the studies are reliable as objective evidence. They are special pleading. ..."
"... Think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, and the Atlantic Council, speak for those who fund them. Increasingly, they speak for the military/security complex, American hegemony, corporate interests, and Israel ..."
"... Bryan MacDonald lists those who support the anti-Russian think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis, German Marshall Fund of the US, and Institute for Study of War. The "experts" are mouthpieces funded by the US military security complex. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48755.htm US government agencies use taxpayer dollars to deceive taxpayers. ..."
A couple of decades or more ago when I was still in Washington, otherwise known as the snake
pit, I was contacted by a well-financed group that offered me, a Business Week and Scripps
Howard News Service columnist with access as a former editor also to the Wall Street Journal,
substantial payments to promote agendas that the lobbyists paying the bills wanted
promoted.
To the detriment of my net worth, but to the preservation of my reputation, I declined.
Shortly thereafter a conservative columnist, a black man if memory serves, was outed for
writing newspaper columns for pay for a lobby group.
I often wondered if he was set up in order to get rid of him and whether the enticement I
received was intended to shut me down, or whether journalists had become "have pen will
travel"? (Have Gun -- Will Travel was a highly successful TV Series 1957-1963).
Having read Bryan MacDonald's article on Information Clearing House, "Anti-Russia Think
Tanks in US: Who Funds them?," I see that think tanks are essentially lobby groups for their
donors. The policy analyses and reform schemes that they produce are tailored to support the
material interests of donors. None of the studies are reliable as objective evidence. They are
special pleading.
Think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, and the
Atlantic Council, speak for those who fund them. Increasingly, they speak for the
military/security complex, American hegemony, corporate interests, and Israel.
Bryan MacDonald lists those who support the anti-Russian think tanks such as the Atlantic
Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis, German Marshall Fund of the US, and Institute
for Study of War. The "experts" are mouthpieces funded by the US military security complex.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48755.htm
US government agencies use taxpayer dollars to deceive taxpayers.
In other words insouciant Americans pay taxes in order to be brainwashed. And they tolerate
this.
"... The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime". ..."
"... It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual. ..."
"... We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure. ..."
"... Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ..."
The reason we are in the pickle barrel is exactly the reasons stated in the article and by Annie. We are exposed to exactly
what they want to show us and are blinded by other narratives which do not support the group think. It is as if the politicians,
the intelligence community and the media are all involved in a conspiracy. Remember that word means a plan by two or more people.
No tin foil hat required. But anyone suggesting conspiracy is instantly branded a nut hence the universal use of the term conspiracy
nut as a derogatory term to label anyone with a different message that somehow captures the attention of a wider audience. It
is not so much that all Holly Wood stars are liberal socialists. They are a diverse group. However they all have one thing in
common which is they have the public's ear. They are also not on point with the approved messaging and so must be continuously
branded as conspiracy nuts and socialist subversives. We all have seen the 24/7 bashing of these folks. Control is the reason.
The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the
novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as
a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality,
and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".
It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from
any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual.
I am appalled by how the media at first put Trump in the game in the first place for economic gain (see Les Moonvies article)
and then created another fictional fantasy which serves the goal of permawar and control of the citizenry through fear, confusion
and ignorance. We are all exposed to the Daily Two Minutes of Hate another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: The Two Minutes
Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must
watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them for
exactly two minutes. The difference is we can find it 24/7 on our technological wonder machines.
Another Orwellian concept is The Ministry of Truth: The Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda.
As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite:
it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. From Wikipedia: As well as administering truth, the ministry
spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like
2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show
a government-approved version of events.
We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately
obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits
in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example
is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example
of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever
a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and
hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today
the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the
target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure.
Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield
the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State
to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
If these things seem eerily similar to what is going on today then we probably have a power structure which is a grave threat
for peace. Okay, we do have a power structure that is a grave threat to peace but oddly not democracy. Noam Chomsky wrote about
propaganda stating, "it's the essence of democracy" This notion is contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent
with democracy. The point is that in a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because you can control what
they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be
heard, you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to
be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.
The folks who contribute here on this website are few indeed and what lies beyond the haven of the oasis is a vast barren dessert
filled with scorpions, snakes and a whole bunch of lies.
Well said for Annie and the authors.
Democracy may be the ultimate tool of control of the masses.
More wisdom from Goebbels:
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will
A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
We are striving not for truth, but effect.
The worst enemy of any propaganda, it is intellectualism.
For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying.
A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise.
I like that last one a lot but unfortunately it will not come to pass until things get bad.
Citizen One – You have beautifully & precicely nailed the means ( "how" ) the
USA has gotten in such a mess : Newspeak, Daily Two Minutes of Hate, The Ministry of Truth,
DoubleSpeak and the way and why of how Propaganda actually works. George Orwell was a
seer.
AND now it would be helpful to understand "why" the USA has gotten in such a mess. The
polarity of American politics tells a very long story but in short, polarity means there are
only two ways and when the going gets tough, each way is in the extreme – the right way
or the wrong way, it flips depending on each individual's political persuasion. When the
going gets tough the extremes become the tail that wags the dog.
So my question is : WHY after the seemingly happy years under Obama did the going get so
tough so fast?
My pet theory is that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp" which was understood –
seemingly now quite rightly – that he was going to expose some very significant wrong
doing in very high places. I believe that he was on "NYC/DC" friendly terms with the Clintons
and both parties knew each other for the true devil they were. Thus the big red flag he waved
in her face brought about what is turning in to a multi billion dollar ongoing attempt to
discredit him in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of the World and in the eyes of the
highest courts " America be damned".
And politically this is quite necessary because she is not only an icon of all that is
American,"apple pie and motherhood"; she is to the under 45 age group the great white mother
of democracy via Democrat rule. And the bad part of that iconography is that if she goes down
so does the party. It was also critical for her to win because of all the swamp people who
had chosen to compromise their life's work, thus had to continue in that compromise in the
hope that they would come out clean since they believed that both Trump and the ordinary
American were so naive, thus would be easily played for fools.
So all this crap to destroy Trump is about saving her hide to save the party. Things are
so desperate now because there is nothing yet in place to replace her in the mind's eye of
the Democratic half the voting public. All who might have been in 2nd place were kept
diminished to raise her higher. It now is quite obvious that she has been told to shut up and
lie low, to come out only when she is in safe company – as at the Golden Globes. So the
big picture today as is being painted and hyped to intensify mass hysteria is that Mueller
needs to be protected from Trump where really what is needed are the names and numbers to be
called on for more $$$, more social media propaganda pages and to vote in November 2018.
Why only that? Because Trump is not going to fire Mueller; remember Mueller was a Bush man
and so was Comey. They have a long history of going both ways. Survival is tricky business
– especially in DC. The scapegoats are already cornered; possibly the new "lie" is
already in draft form. Remember – "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as
the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of
the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
It is going to be an interesting next few months!! But we can hope that, from this one of
many previous American political exercises in democracy, the ordinary defenders of those
democratic values (the voters) will learn some significant truths about governance,
transparency and the rule of law. The guys at the top are not gods and are not above the law;
they must not only do right but be seen to do right.
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 7:57 pm
The only thing I can tell you is that the conspirators who concocted Russia Gate have
figured out all the pieces to the puzzle of how to control events via the means I mentioned
and many other means. We are as manipulated as a light switch. One way we are all fired up
about some BS and flip the switch and we are all calm and mellow. Hopefully if you follow the
threads here you will find out a lot of alternative information much of it thoroughly
researched by highly respected and qualified individuals who are in a position to know the
truth.
Mariam , February 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. They call themselves "liberals" in fact they are "new
liberals."
Alas, these false ("new) liberals" are very well represented by the Obamas, the Clintons, the
Trudeaus, the Macrons and so on.
If you truly believe in the "left" and call yourself "progressive" you couldn't stand for
useless and pointless wars, period.
"... That effort led to a war of choice with Iraq -- one that resulted in catastrophic losses for the region and the United States-led coalition, and that destabilized the entire Middle East. ..."
"... Just over a month ago, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said that the administration had " undeniable" evidence that Iran was not complying with Security Council resolutions regarding its ballistic missile program and Yemen. Just like Mr. Powell, Ms. Haley showed satellite images and other physical evidence available only to the United States intelligence community to prove her case. But the evidence fell significantly short . ..."
"... It's a vivid reminder of Vice President Cheney's desperate attempts in 2002-03 to conjure up evidence of Saddam Hussein's relationship with Al Qaeda from detainees at Guantánamo Bay. It harks back to the C.I.A. director George Tenet's assurances to Mr. Powell that the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden was ironclad in the lead-up to his United Nations presentation. Today, we know how terribly wrong Mr. Tenet was. ..."
"... As I look back at our lock-step march toward war with Iraq, I realize that it didn't seem to matter to us that we used shoddy or cherry-picked intelligence; that it was unrealistic to argue that the war would " pay for itself ," rather than cost trillions of dollars; that we might be hopelessly naïve in thinking that the war would lead to democracy instead of pushing the region into a downward spiral. ..."
"... The sole purpose of our actions was to sell the American people on the case for war with Iraq. Polls show that we did. Mr. Trump and his team are trying to do it again. If we're not careful, they'll succeed. ..."
Fifteen years ago this week, Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, spoke at the United Nations to
sell pre-emptive
war with Iraq . As his chief of staff, I helped Secretary Powell paint a clear picture that
war was the only choice ,
that when "we confront a regime that harbors ambitions for regional domination, hides weapons of mass destruction and provides haven
and active support for terrorists, we are not confronting the past, we are confronting the present. And unless we act, we are confronting
an even more frightening future."
Following Mr. Powell's presentation on that cold day, I considered what we had done. At the moment, I thought all our work was
for naught -- and despite his efforts we did not gain substantial international buy-in. But polls later that day and week demonstrated
he did convince many Americans. I knew that was why he was chosen to make the presentation in the first place: his standing with
the American people was more solid than that of any other member of the Bush administration.
President George W. Bush would have ordered the war even without the United Nations presentation, or if Secretary Powell had failed
miserably in giving it. But the secretary's gravitas was a significant part of the two-year-long effort by the Bush administration
to get Americans on the war wagon.
That effort led to a war of choice with Iraq -- one that resulted in catastrophic losses for the region and the United States-led
coalition, and that destabilized the entire Middle East.
Just over a month ago, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said that the administration had "
undeniable" evidence that Iran was not complying with Security Council resolutions regarding its ballistic missile program and
Yemen. Just like Mr. Powell, Ms. Haley showed satellite images and other physical evidence available only to the United States intelligence
community to prove her case. But the evidence
fell significantly
short .
It's astonishing how similar that moment was to Mr. Powell's 2003 presentation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- and how
the Trump administration's methods overall match those of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. As I watched Ms. Haley at
the Defense Intelligence Agency, I wanted to play the video of Mr. Powell on the wall behind her, so that Americans could recognize
instantly how they were being driven down the same path as in 2003 -- ultimately to war. Only this war with Iran, a country of almost
80 million people whose vast strategic depth and difficult terrain make it a far greater challenge than Iraq, would be 10 to 15 times
worse than the Iraq war in terms of casualties and costs.
If we want a slightly more official statement of the Trump administration's plans for Iran, we need only look at the recently
released National Security
Strategy , which says, "The longer we ignore threats from countries determined to proliferate and develop weapons of mass destruction,
the worse such threats become, and the fewer defensive options we have." The Bush-Cheney team could not have said it better as it
contemplated invading Iraq.
The strategy positions Iran as one of the greatest threats America faces, much the same way President Bush framed Saddam Hussein's
Iraq. With China, Russia and North Korea all presenting vastly more formidable challenges to America and its allies than Iran, one
has to wonder where the Trump team gets its ideas.
Though Ms. Haley's presentation missed the mark, and no one other than the national security elite will even read the strategy,
it won't matter. We've seen this before: a campaign built on the
politicization
of intelligence and shortsighted policy decisions to make the case for war. And the American people have apparently become so
accustomed to executive branch warmongering -- approved almost unanimously by the Congress -- that such actions are not significantly
contested.
So far, news organizations have largely failed to refute false narratives coming out of the Trump White House on Iran. In early
November, news outlets
latched onto claims by unnamed American officials that newly released documents from Osama bin Laden's compound represented "evidence
of Iran's support of Al Qaeda's war with the United States."
It's a vivid reminder of Vice President Cheney's desperate attempts in 2002-03 to conjure up evidence of Saddam Hussein's relationship
with Al Qaeda from detainees at Guantánamo Bay. It harks back to the C.I.A. director George Tenet's assurances to Mr. Powell that
the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden was ironclad in the lead-up to his United Nations presentation. Today,
we know how terribly wrong Mr. Tenet was.
It seems not to matter that 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were Saudis and none were Iranians. Or that, according to the United
States intelligence community, of the groups listed as actively hostile to the United States, only one is loosely affiliated with
Iran, and Hezbollah doesn't make the cut. More than ever the Foundation for Defense of Democracies seems like the Pentagon's
Office of Special Plans that pushed falsehoods
in support of waging war with Iraq.
The Trump administration's case for war with Iran ranges much wider than Ms. Haley's work. We should include the president's decertification
ultimatum in January that Congress must "fix" the Iran nuclear deal, despite
the reality of Iran's compliance ; the White House's
pressure on the intelligence community to cook up evidence of Iran's noncompliance; and the administration's
choosing to view the recent protests
in Iran as the beginning of regime change. Like the Bush administration before, these seemingly disconnected events serve to create
a narrative in which war with Iran is the only viable policy.
As I look back at our lock-step march toward war with Iraq, I realize that it didn't seem to matter to us that we used shoddy
or cherry-picked intelligence; that it was unrealistic to argue that the war would "
pay for itself
," rather than cost trillions of dollars; that we might be hopelessly naïve in thinking that the war would lead to democracy
instead of pushing the region into a downward spiral.
The sole purpose of our actions was to sell the American people on the case for war with Iraq. Polls show that we did. Mr.
Trump and his team are trying to do it again. If we're not careful, they'll succeed.
Recent Comments
TrueLeft February 7, 2018
We need a Chilcot Inquiry in this country. But it is unthinkable here.
Janice February 6, 2018
Too little, too late.
Roger Rabbit February 6, 2018
Mr. Wilkerson seems to have forgotten he was part and parcel of Powell's egregious lie. Details. Details.
"... Amazing how no on in the echelons of U.S. leadership ever questions why Assad always launches his WMD attacks as soon as his forces have Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate on the run. ..."
"... I am hearing that Russia has temporarily banned Turkish aircraft from flying in Syrian airspace, including Afrin. Plus there are reports that the Syrian Armed Forces are stationing AAA and SAM systems in the north. Erdogan may have outlived his usefulness to Putin. ..."
"... My SWAG is that Haley knows she is lying and does not care. Right now the Deep State wants its war on Syria as a prelude to a war on Iran, so Haley is for war as long as that will advance her career. ..."
"... If tomorrow the Deep State were to declare for the Khmer Rouge, she would scream for the death of Lon Nol Imperialists and Enemies of the People(R) with the most touching sincerity. ..."
"... 'Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political organization, A Great Day, funds that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals in primaries. Adelson was the largest contributor to her group, which raised a total of $915,000.' ..."
"... I don't understand why we think Nikki Haley shouldn't be who she is, and should pursue policies other than what she does. IMO, she is no different than Samantha Power. They both are/were equally anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, and pro-Israel pro KSA, and have same position with regard to NK or China, so what is the difference, what has changed. ..."
"... It would have been either the "F* Europe" Tonia Nuland or the rapporteur social worker to Israel Wendy Sherman who is stilllearning all the dirty tricks from Madeleine. ..."
"... I agree with the good Colonel's assessment, except on one point. I don't think Mattis is being biased; to put it in less kinder terms, I think he's being a willing political hack. ..."
1. Nikki Haley is either completely gullible or is in thrall to some collection of Borgists at State. Someone remarked of a previous
US Secretary of State that "if only he were still alive this would not happen." Unfortunately he was still alive and in office. Much
the same could be said of Rex Tillerson. Haley is now tub thumping for US air attacks on Syria. This a reprise of several previous
US assertions of Syrian Arab Government (SAG) use of chemical weapons including the East Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun fiascos. After
Khan Sheikhoun the SAG invited US and UN investigations of the air base but somehow this was not accepted. Now James Mattis is asserting
that the SAG is manufacturing chemical munitions although the US has no evidence of this as yet. I believe this is called "confirmation
bias?"
2. As shown above , the SAA is committed to elimination of the East Idlib pocket. The jihadis are without re-supply and will progressively
be running out of the means of resistance. This should not take too long and is actually a good idea before proceeding further into
Idlib Province to the west. I believe I expressed an opinion as to the wisdom of such a move.
3. The SAA has begun shelling the Turkish strong point (observation post) at Al-Eis. The Turks have been attempting tricky cleverness
by claiming that they are occupying the hill at Al--Eis un accord with a Russian/Iranian/Turkish de-escalation igreement. In fact
IMO they are seeking to position themselves so as to impede SAG liberation of Idlib Province. pl
Amazing how no on in the echelons of U.S. leadership ever questions why Assad always launches his WMD attacks as soon as his forces
have Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate on the run.
kooshy,
Colonel Lang, did you see this news on AMN, "Syrian Army allows massive YPG convoy to travel to Afrin from their lines'
God only knows what is going on in Syria? it's a mess, was that to stop the Turks going to Al Eis.
james said in reply to kooshy... ,
and further to that - this also from AMN -
"BEIRUT, LEBANON (7:53 P.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army or allied paramilitary groups or both have reportedly started shelling the
freshly established positions of Turkish forces in the southern countryside of Aleppo province according to both opposition and
pro-government sources.
Opposition sources says that Syrian Army and allied Iranian-linked paramilitary groups have unleashed artillery fire onto recently
established positions of the Turkish Army in the strategic Al-Eis area of southern Aleppo province."
It seems she is attracted by John Bolton, her destructive, cunning and IMO rather malicious hard core neocon predecessor. She
twittered this insight in July 2017:
"Great to see @AmbJohnBolton back @USUN. Thanks to his years of public service to our country, he continues to share great
advice & wisdom."
His great advice and great wisdom? Ah yes ...
I had the pleasure that an indian senior (20+ years of service) UN guy back then did explain me what he did when US ambassador
at the UN, and how and why it was cunning what he did, and how and why it was destructive and what he was after. It turned my
stomach to get it explained to clearly.
So, unlike Haley, I always thought Bolton was a ruthless, destructive, nutty, if cunning, nasty man. I never seen his "wisdom".
Rather I saw an arsonist who likes to play with fire.
For Haley he, with all his "wisdom", is an inspiration. He was also inspirational for Trump, but not inspirational enough.
Bolton didn't make it to Secretary of State ... because of his moustache. See? How very maverick-ish to make a difficult decision
on so simple grounds.
Ah well, perhaps Trump is daily being too savaged by his hair thing on his head. I assume that having to face mirrors likely
can be a terror.
Whatever about that moustache, and assuming that the story is correct - I for my part don't see the problem in what is over
Bolton's mouth but that what comes out of it.
Donald Trump passed over a potential candidate for Secretary of State because of bushy moustache, according to insiders
close to the incoming US President.
Several of Mr Trump's associates said they thought that John Bolton's brush-like moustache was one of the factors that handicapped
the bombastic former United Nations ambassador in the sweepstakes for the role.
"Donald was not going to like that moustache," said one, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I can't think of anyone that's
really close to Donald that has a beard that he likes."
Whats going on ? Iran wants influence and bases as far as the sea, to enable it to convince the Israelis to emigrate en masse.
The West want to stop them now, everyone except Hezbollah will want to stop them when the last FSA / AQ /etc have almost died
off, and Erdogan want to continue mugging people as a form of foreign policy.
Run those actions simultaneously and you have the current outcome.
I am hearing that Russia has temporarily banned Turkish aircraft from flying in Syrian airspace, including Afrin. Plus there are
reports that the Syrian Armed Forces are stationing AAA and SAM systems in the north.
Erdogan may have outlived his usefulness to Putin.
A small number of US and troops from other coalition countries have been in the Manbij area since August 2016 when it was liberated
from the headchoppers. More were sent in 2017 when TFSA from the Euphrates Shield enclave started threatening Manbij. No secret
there, it has been previously announced publicly.
I have happily discovered an analyst who has consistently been right on many aspects of the way the Syrian conflict has played
out, despite its manifold complexities. If you find one that claims to be able to "see" ahead, I'd suggest he/she may better be
described as a clairvoyant.
As to things being "fixed" - I guess an expectation that such a state is attainable, or indeed desirable - betrays something
of one's ontological preferences. In any case, Syria appears to me to be an object lesson in the futility of such expectations.
My SWAG is that Haley knows she is lying and does not care. Right now the Deep State wants its war on Syria as a prelude to a
war on Iran, so Haley is for war as long as that will advance her career.
If tomorrow the Deep State were to declare for the Khmer Rouge, she would scream for the death of Lon Nol Imperialists and
Enemies of the People(R) with the most touching sincerity.
In fact, most of our elected and unelected career politicians exhibit similar levels of mendacity, on a level that is indistinguishable
from sociopathy. Just that in Haley it's more shameless and obvious. Maybe she is not as good an actress as some, I don't know.
With respect to the allegations surrounding the usage of chemical weapons, yesterday the UN Security Council had an open meeting
to discuss the situation in Syria.
The meeting was held to consider a letter submitted by the Secretary General to the Council on February 1 concerning the latest
report from the Director General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The member states were seeking to have the Security Council President issue a statement condemning the recent reports of the
usage of chemical weapons in Syria, but they were unable to achieve the needed consensus.
Russia submitted a resolution that would replace the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism which had been shut
down. However the proposal is not acceptable to the United States in its current form for the reasons stated.
Follows is a summary of the meeting as prepared by the UN secretariat:
Amid New Reports of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria, United Nations Top Disarmament Official Says International Community Obliged
to Enact Meaningful Response http://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13196.doc.htm
Ambassador Haley may be pushing for US military action in response to the most recent claims of chemical weapons usage in other
forums, but she did not call for such action during the UN Security Council meeting.
As to Defense Secretary Mattis, he spoke to the Press on February 2 at which time he issued a warning and expressed concerns
about the usage of Sarin gas.
Q: Can you talk a little bit about the chemical weapons that were -- the State Department was talking about just a little bit
yesterday, that mentioned chlorine gas? Is this something you're seeing that's been weaponized or – just give us a sense.
SEC. MATTIS: It has.
Q: It has. Okay.
SEC. MATTIS: It has. We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and
we're looking for the evidence. And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you
all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.
Then later on during the same press briefing:
"Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?
SEC. MATTIS: Yeah.
Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence?
Is that what you said?
SEC. MATTIS: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration,
when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.
And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim
it's been used.
We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using --
we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?
Q: So the likelihood was not what your -- you're not characterizing it as a likelihood? I thought I used -- you used that word;
I guess I misunderstood you.
SEC. MATTIS: Well, there's certainly groups that say they've used it. And so they think there's a likelihood, so we're looking
for the evidence.
Q: Is there evidence of chlorine gas weapons used -- evidence of chlorine gas weapons?
SEC. MATTIS: I think that's, yes --
Q: No, I know, I heard you.
SEC. MATTIS: I think it's been used repeatedly. And that's, as you know, a somewhat separate category, which is why I broke
out the sarin as another -- yeah.
Q: So there's credible evidence out there that both sarin and chlorine --
SEC. MATTIS: No, I have not got the evidence, not specifically. I don't have the evidence.
What I'm saying is that other -- that groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground have said that sarin has been used.
So we are looking for evidence. I don't have evidence, credible or uncredible."
"The Syrian government's chemical weapons stockpile has been linked for the first time by laboratory tests to the largest sarin
nerve agent attack of the civil war, diplomats and scientists told Reuters, supporting Western claims that government forces under
President Bashar al-Assad were behind the atrocity."
"The Syrian government may be developing new types of chemical weapons, and U.S. President Donald Trump is prepared to consider
further military action if necessary to deter chemical attacks, senior U.S. officials said on Thursday."
As to the Friday media briefing by Secretary Mattis on February 2, Reuters reported:
On Monday, February 5, the Bild, a German outlet published a report alleging that Iran was supplying Syria with missiles to
deliver chemical weapons and that some of the materials in the weapons came from Germany. The report analyses missiles with gas
canisters allegedly used in a chemical weapons attack in Douma, Damascus on January 22, 2018.
The Bild article relies on work carried out by an entity known as Syrians for Truth and Justice and the online investigative
journalist website Bellingcat operated by Eliot Higgins.
Also read the following reports posted on the Bellingcat website:
December 2, 2017 - New Attack by Toxic Gases on a Battlefront in Harasta- Damascus Countryside "Testimonies Confirm Using "Organophosphorus
Compounds" https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/344
January 21, 2018 - Exposure of Six Civilians to Poisonous Substances in Eastern Ghouta- Damascus Countryside
https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/391
February 5, 2018 - Syrian Forces Use Chemical Weapons in Duma for a Second Time in a Month. Joint Report: Bellingcat & Syrians
for Truth and Justice https://www.stj-sy.com/en/view/413
(Do not shoot the messenger. As to the Bild report, the summary relies on Google translate, the original article being in German.
Since the Bild report relies on work done by Bellingcat and Syrians For Truth and Justice, I have linked to various reports providing
details of alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria since July, 2017 produced by these entities for your reference.)
This is all you need to know about Haley and why Trump (or rather Adelson) appointed her to the UN.
'Between May and June, 2016, Sheldon Adelson contributed $250,000 to Haley's 527 political organization, A Great Day, funds
that she used to target four Republican state senate rivals in primaries. Adelson was the largest contributor to her group, which
raised a total of $915,000.'
(Not coincidentally, however, Sheldon Adelson was the GOP's and Trump's single biggest donor)
"Perhaps Adelson gained an unusual interest in South Carolina's state senate, but it seems more likely the investment was a
show of support for Haley's hawkish pro-Israel positions. Adelson, who is also the largest donor to the extreme right-wing Zionist
Organization of America (ZOA), has long pushed stridently anti-Iran positions, suggesting in late 2013 that Washington detonate
a nuclear weapon in Iran's territory unless Tehran complied with demands that it completely abandon its nuclear program.
And, as Weiss wrote, Haley had come through for Adelson already in 2015, when she signed without any reservation the first law
against boycotts of Israel -- about the same time as Adelson convened an anti-BDS summit in Las Vegas.'' https://lobelog.com/nikki-haley-neocon-heartthrob/
Colonel,
Today at House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing :
Former Ambassador Ford: -If purpose to deter Iran from attacking Israel, perhaps we should have troops in Israel instead of eastern Syria.
-US forces in eastern Syria. Iranians in western Syria. Our forces about 350 miles from Iranians. Not likely Iranians going to
leave Syria. Mistake to think Russians will push them out. Hi-level consultations btw us, Israel Jordan to develop menu of options
about how to deter.
-when I was US ambassador in Syria in 2007, Iranians were there. Iranians long been there. They don't need a road/land bridge.
They fly things into Damascus airport.
Thought he has learnt his lessons, but I must be hoping for too much !
That the reports of SAA shelling of the Turks comes from "opposition resources" needs no caveat.
That there is also a report claiming that the shelling of the Turks comes from Iranian militia also needs no caveat. Clearly
someone wants to blame both the SAA and Iran, which dovetails neatly with the US/Israel desire to "roll back Iran" out of Syria
as well as get a full-scale US/NATO/Israel war on Syria started, which has been the goal from Day One of the Syria crisis.
The new rise of "chemical WMD" charges against Syria clearly also feed into the now-confirmed continued desire of the US/Israel
for a full-scale air campaign against Syria.
As I believe I've mentioned before, it ain't over until it's over. The US clearly has not given up a desire to go to war with
Syria as a precursor to Israel and the US taking out Hizballah (to the degree that is possible) which is also a precursor to starting
a war with Iran.
Also, read a report the other day that John Bolton is still considered a candidate for Secretary of State should Tillerson
be forced out at some point, which I still think is quite likely. Such an appointment would signal the absolute end of any notion
of Trump being interested in rapprochement with Russia and would also guarantee war with Iran.
Because John Bolton is a raving neocon lunatic - which is what the moustache tells you.
I don't understand why we think Nikki Haley shouldn't be who she is, and should pursue policies other than what she does.
IMO, she is no different than Samantha Power. They both are/were equally anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-Syria, and pro-Israel pro
KSA, and have same position with regard to NK or China, so what is the difference, what has changed.
IMO, they are not selected to pursue US foreign policy, they are only there as Israel'gate keepers, they are just there to
make sure nothing against the interests of Israel passes, just like, what just happened in UNSC on Jerusalem. IMO, US for her
own policies, doesn't give a damn about UN or UNSC, she does what she wants, and when she wants, and are not shy saying it like
it is.
She is there as the Israel' veto power over the rest of the word, in case something not kosher comes up to UNSC. IMO, US' UN
ambassadors only job is to protect Israel at UN, they are a retribution from the elected president of US (of either political
party0 to Israel lobby for helping them getting elected. If Nikki is a gift for Adelson' money, whoever Hillary would have appointed
to UN, would have been a gift to Haim Saban or another billionaire Israeli first SOB. This country' sovereignty has been successfully
hijacked in almost 50 years.
Nevertheless, I believe WE the People are the sole responsible party for loss of control, as well as what Nikki does and who
she does it for.
In response to these claims, the YPG has issued a statement denying the claim, saying the Turkish military fired artillery
shells containing a chemical weapon, which harmed their forces, so they moved to the high ground, while the jihadists remained
in the low lying areas, so suffering the consequences.
You wrote "everyone except Hezbollah will want to stop [Iran from spreading its influence and bases] ...".
You sir, are wrong. There are a lot of people in the world, and certainly in the Arab world (including Sunnis) who see Iran's
influence as a welcome counterweight to the US/UK/Israel. They remember what happened in 1953 and don't buy into what CNN is pushing.
I say this based on face to face discussions I have had with Arabs.
"THE HAGUE, Netherlands – 7 February 2018 – Recent allegations about the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Aran Republic
continue to be of grave concern to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), whose mandate is "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals
for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic", is investigating all credible allegations and provides regular reports for
consideration by States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). A rigorous methodology is employed for conducting an
investigation of alleged use of chemical weapons. The FFM report will take into account corroboration between interviewee testimonies;
open-source research; medical reports and other relevant documentation as well as the characteristics of any samples obtained
by the FFM. The FFM works closely with States Parties including the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic.
The FFM's mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria; it does not
include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks.
OPCW Director General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü reiterated: "Any use of chemical weapons is a violation of the Chemical Weapons
Convention and the hard won international norm prohibiting these weapons. Those responsible for their use must be held accountable.
These abhorrent weapons have no place in the world today."
In turn, in my view, the UN Security Council needs to reach an understanding on the re-establishment of a OPCW-United Nations
Joint Investigative Mechanism so that those responsible for the use of chemical weapons are brought to account.
whoever Hillary would have appointed to UN, would have been a gift to Haim Saban or another billionaire Israeli first SOB.
It would have been either the "F* Europe" Tonia Nuland or the rapporteur social worker to Israel Wendy Sherman who is stilllearning
all the dirty tricks from Madeleine.
sure... but tell me john, how does the opcw offer any credibility to itself, if it is relying on eyewitnesses in the jihadi held
area of Khan Shaykhun???
it is fine for the same countries that have been pushing for regime change in syria to say ''they believe''' syria is responsible,
but that is not proof and it really sullies there reputation and the opcw's further as i see it.. al nusra were in control of
the area at the time... these are the friendly headchopper crew that turkey seems to have in their backpocket at present and who
they are using to further there exercise in afrin.. now, maybe al nusra has had a name change again, so forgive me if i don't
have the up to date name for them... for all i know, they are now called the 'syrian democratic forces' or turkish free syrian
army - 2 other names that sound straight out of a hollywood script.. if i sound cynical - you are reading me correctly.. the western
gov'ts - usa, uk, or even israel, saudi arabia, turkey and france need to stop using international organizations for there own
political ends and start being honest brokers in finding peace, as opposed to dividing up sovereign countries like syria.. thanks..
john - for another example of the blame game that the usa has gotten so in the habit of doing with regard to these chemical weapon
attacks - i call them false flags, as that is just what they are to me, take a look at the stupidity coming via the daily press
briefing from yesterday... all bluster and bullshit with nothing to substantiate any of it.. is this all the usa is capable of
nowadays? see down towards the bottom of the link for the relevant comments on this topic.. https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2018/02/278014.htm
I agree with the good Colonel's assessment, except on one point. I don't think Mattis is being biased; to put it in less
kinder terms, I think he's being a willing political hack.
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' ..."
"... Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. ..."
"... (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.) ..."
"... When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .) ..."
"... Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.' ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now
including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.
It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather
than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an
intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'
2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial
source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine
Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky
in May 2005.
This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson,
starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.
We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele
that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing
with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started
moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already
partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'
Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' -- a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar.
So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials
resources.
3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele
and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.
In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution
Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them
about Russia.'
It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom'
operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.
Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of
Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own,
often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt
for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus
being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.
Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.
Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence
testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members
of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet.
(One good example is provided by
the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another
is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)
Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much
of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.
4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being
defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question
is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.
When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage
issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem
not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked.
(See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/
.)
5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September
defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander
Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece,
Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium
poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends
said.'
6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its -- supposed -- author was President
of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.
In one a contemporary is quoted:
"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said.
"Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."
The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries
recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.
From my own -- undistinguished and mildly irreverent -- Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind
of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way
up some greasy pole or other in later life.
It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism,
I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the
early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'
7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why
on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already
have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.
But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing
rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.
8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly
love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.
If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are
played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics
of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was
the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.
There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved
close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence -- including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both
sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control,
creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle
East.
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military,
culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people
populating this bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry
scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate
to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times
for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources"
such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies"
in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about
the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even
for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of
Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they
are not new) which are very worrisome.
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' ..."
"... Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. ..."
"... (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.) ..."
"... When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .) ..."
"... Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.' ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now
including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.
It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather
than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an
intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'
2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial
source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine
Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky
in May 2005.
This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson,
starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.
We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele
that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing
with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started
moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already
partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'
Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' -- a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar.
So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials
resources.
3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele
and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.
In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution
Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them
about Russia.'
It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom'
operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.
Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of
Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own,
often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt
for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus
being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.
Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.
Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence
testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members
of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet.
(One good example is provided by
the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another
is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)
Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much
of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.
4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being
defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question
is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.
When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage
issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem
not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked.
(See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/
.)
5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September
defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander
Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece,
Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium
poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends
said.'
6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its -- supposed -- author was President
of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.
In one a contemporary is quoted:
"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said.
"Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."
The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries
recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.
From my own -- undistinguished and mildly irreverent -- Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind
of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way
up some greasy pole or other in later life.
It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism,
I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the
early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'
7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why
on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already
have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.
But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing
rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.
8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly
love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.
If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are
played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics
of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was
the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.
There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved
close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence -- including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both
sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control,
creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle
East.
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military,
culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people
populating this bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry
scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate
to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times
for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources"
such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies"
in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about
the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even
for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of
Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they
are not new) which are very worrisome.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Wednesday accused the US of planning to partition Syria.
"Plans of de facto partition of Syria exist. We know about it and will ask our American
colleagues how they do imagine all this," Lavrov said during a speech at "Leaders of Russia"
contest.
He also said Americans were changing their stance about the reason for their presence in
Syria.
"Americans seem to have abandoned assurances given to us that the only purpose of their
presence in Syria is to defeat terrorists."
"Now they say this presence will remain until they are convinced that Syria has begun a
sustainable process of political settlement, the result of which will be regime change," he
said.
Syria has been locked in a vicious civil war since early 2011 when the Bashar al-Assad
regime cracked down on pro-democracy protests -- which erupted as part of the "Arab Spring"
uprisings -- with unexpected ferocity.
Since then, more than a quarter of a million people have been killed and more than 10
million displaced across the war-battered country, according to the UN.
The Syrian Center for Policy Research, however, put the death toll from the conflict at more
than 470,000 people.
"... I think the use of ManPads signify a profound change in the conflict. Until now these weapons have largely been withheld from all insurgent forces. Those issued in Afghanistan once are not accounted for, but their "seekers" are dead by now. Manpads do not have unlimited shelf life. Unless maintained by, by professionals with spares. In the recent conflicts in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and with ISIS, Manpads have not been an issue, as far as I am aware. ManPads emerging on the battlefields is really, really bad news, if these weapons go rogue, you will hear about it on the news. ..."
"... Turkey has been a primary backer of the FSA/ISIL/Muslim Brotherhood "rebels" since the very start of this "regime change" operation. It kept its border open for the inflow of Jihadists/mercenaries and weapons and the outflow of oil, entire factories disassembled and shipped to Turkey, valuable ancient artifacts and apparently slaves. ..."
"... After the alleged coup attempt, and with Syria and its allies turning the tide and winning back large territories, Erdogan began appearing to work with Russia, despite having shot down a Russian jet, the crew of which was murdered by Turkish-backed (if not actual Turkish) "rebels." ..."
"... Erdogan is playing a very dangerous game trying to manipulate the US and Russia against each other. Russian diplomats are playing a very delicate game trying to gain some advantage. When it comes down to it, Syria is not the top priority to the Russians as they navigate these troubled waters. So far they have played their hand very skillfully. That doesn't mean Syria is not important and I can imagine that the Russians just might react at some point and give Erdogan one very bloody nose but at the same time leaving that fool with a face saving retreat. ..."
"... Yes Turkey for the moment is reluctant to use its armed forces in the invasion of Afrin, which is the reason advance is rather slow. With the Syrian government allowing kurdish reinforcements to pass, it is only a matter of time when Turkey will be forced to make the decision to go all in or to withdraw from Syria completely. ..."
"... At any case i don't see Turkey willingly returning the occupied territory to the Syrian government. My guess is that Turkey will try to pull off a "Cyprus 2.0" by establishing a fake puppet state in north Syria it can control. ..."
Operations by SAA and allies sure look like Whack-a-Mole recently, although Turkey's assault
on Affrin made SAA assault on Idlib much easier. The downing of another Russian jet was bound
to occur since several Syrian jets were shot down with much less fanfare. The backstage
negotiations are numerous and likely convoluted, and we aren't privy to much if any of them;
so, their outcomes can only be guessed at through behavior after-the-fact.
From the POV of many Syrians, the Turks are just as bad as the Zionists, perhaps even
worse since the enmity is more longstanding. I think many SAA troops are on R&R having
been in combat conditions almost constantly for several years, which is why we don't see much
happening.
There's related Iraqi news about the Outlaw US Empire withdrawing troops to Afghanistan
amidst renewed antagonism between them and several Shiite militia forces.
And for the "It's not about the oil" crowd, please note that the Brits and BP are slowly
winning the Iraqi oil-booty war. That's the pipeline that will never get done, even though
the port is ready. All those efforts to prevent any oil from ever going through the Iraqi
western pipeline through Syria to Banias/Tripoli paid off.
This is bizarre. The oil from the Iraqi south goes to the Gulf for shipment, not
to Aqaba or Haifa. The Iraq- Jordan-Haifa pipeline of the 1930s transported the oil of
Kirkuk. The Iraqis have won over Kirkuk. The oil, when it is back in action, is more likely
to go south to the Gulf, under Iraqi control.
The US has lost in Iraq. It's just a question of when it is recognised.
Turkey has already had at least one airport bombing.
I do not believe that they would give out MANPADS. I hate to say it but I believe that the
CIA is jaded enough to think, 'hey, it won't bite us in the ass'.
If the Russians identify this as yet another Eastern European NATO model purchased by the
U.S. then we may find out that proxy Cold Wars are a two way street. We have many more
targets for the Russians to hit than they have for us overseas and yes, I do believe our
security establishment is too dumb to realize this. Michael Morell is proof of that.
I think the use of ManPads signify a profound change in the conflict. Until now these
weapons have largely been withheld from all insurgent forces. Those issued in Afghanistan
once are not accounted for, but their "seekers" are dead by now. Manpads do not have
unlimited shelf life. Unless maintained by, by professionals with spares. In the recent
conflicts in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and with ISIS, Manpads have not been an issue, as far
as I am aware. ManPads emerging on the battlefields is really, really bad news, if these
weapons go rogue, you will hear about it on the news.
Most nations that have them in their inventories guard them rather strictly, because of
the threat to civil aviation. I will follow intently on what the investigation shows.
Just as the Syrian forces begin to assault Idlib province from the south, Turkey invades
Idlib from the North. Yes, the US gave Erdogan the excuse by declaring the plan for a Kurdish
"Border Force," but they admitted having only 200 Kurdish fighters, and immediately after,
announced they would not create this border force. But still, Turkey carried out a major
military invasion into Syrian territory.
Turkey has been a primary backer of the FSA/ISIL/Muslim Brotherhood "rebels" since the
very start of this "regime change" operation. It kept its border open for the inflow of
Jihadists/mercenaries and weapons and the outflow of oil, entire factories disassembled and
shipped to Turkey, valuable ancient artifacts and apparently slaves.
After the alleged coup attempt, and with Syria and its allies turning the tide and
winning back large territories, Erdogan began appearing to work with Russia, despite having
shot down a Russian jet, the crew of which was murdered by Turkish-backed (if not actual
Turkish) "rebels."
But I have to wonder if Turkey really did change its position on destroying Syria. What
will happen when the Syrian forces moving north come into contact with the Turkish
forces?
"Russia has plenty of Options to drive out the Turks after that, so no worrys here."
~ Posted by: Sheeple
Yes, Russia could crush the Turkish invasion relatively easily. But let's remember that
Russia needs Turkey to keep the Bosporus open to the Russian naval and shipping traffic from
the Black Sea into the Mediterranean.
Putin has been a good ally to Syria (but not great, as it could have crushed the
terrorists/mercenaries by now, so Putin clearly is balancing factors). But what will
Putin/Russia do when Syria's forces moving north come into contact with Turkish forces?
Clueless Joe, none of these "Islamic Extremists" fighting in Syria or Iraq has ever attacked
Israel. Actually, one time ISIL fired on Israelis by mistake, and immediately issued an
apology to Israel.
You neglected to mention the Sochi talks. The failure of the talks is a strategic 'win'
for the ' Assad must go!' Coalition which wants to control the political process in
Syria.
Just days before the talks Erdogan insisted on attacking the Kurds and US complained of
Syria using chemical weapons. A coincidence? If so, it is a happy one from the standpoint of
the <>'Assad must go! Coalition.
The apparent attempted coup in Turkey was another such happy coincidence that allowed USA
to cozy up to the Kurds when it became clear that support for ISIS had become an
embarrassment and dead-end. Would Kurds have trusted USA while it was aligned with their
tormentor, Turkey?
Few care to notice, let alone speculate, about such coincidences. But one doesn't have to
outrun the Russian bear that you just poked. You only need to outrun the stooge/proxy you
invited along (and weighed down with the heaviest pack). . It's such planning that makes for
"happy coincidences".
Controlled opposition also leads to favorable outcomes that appear to be happy
coincidences. How strange that Erdogan & Gulen and Hillary & Trump were once
friendly. Should we be skeptical of the enmity of these "bitter rivals"? What a happy
coincidence to have such a flawed and evil opponent! Yet to what extent do the agendas of the
"bitter rivals" actually differ? Those that have followed Hillary, for example, know that she
is not really a progressive and has always supported US MIC.
How different are Turkish goals in Syria from the 'Assad must go! Coalition? I'm
not sure that b is right when he speculates that Erdogan is trying to split US from the
Kurds. Hasn't Erdogan's quixotic Afrin operation allowed for "happy coincidences" like the
failure of Sochi talks and strengthening US-Kurd relations.
The <>'Assad must go! Coalition wants to win Syrian regime change via the political
process. They HAD to derail the Russian-led process and have to return refugees (voters!) to
Syria. Despite the apparent US-Turk dust-up, Turkey's desire to return refugees is important
to their joint goal of Syrian regime change.
So if the guys in our State Dept / CIA / whatever got their wish for a hot, proxy-Cold War
how would the match up go in terms of who is more vulnerable?
U.S. against Russia.
1. Muslims in Central Asia (outside chance it could bite us but it would smart).
2. Ukrainians (could be a problem as long as they were willing to fight, we'd need to sweeten
the pot with economic aid)
Russia against the U.S.
1. Really arm the Taliban (nah, it would blow up in their face and they know it)
2. Help groups against special forces in Africa (hmm ... some possibility there)
3. Help groups in South America and South East Asia (very little chance of it coming back to
haunt them)
4. Sell Iran the really good stuff.
5. Look for ways to harass NATO deployed troops and sailors, we have many more deployed
personnel vs them.
I do not want any of this to happen, just pointing out that I really don't think that the
morons in my govt have thought this one through.
Russia does not depend on Turkey to keep the Bosporus open. The 1936 Montreux Convention
does give Turkey control of the Bosporus but it also requires Turkey to grant freedom of
passage. If Turkey blocked the Bosporus to Russia ships it would be the equivalent of a
declaration of war. Nato would not back Turkey in that case.
Turkey is extremely important to Russia for many other reasons. We should recall that
Turkey backed the Chechen's during the two Chechen wars. It was the rest area for Chechen
rebels as well as the route for most of their supplies. It took Russia 12 years to defeat
those forces during the 2nd Chechen War. The Incirlik air base provides the US airforce a
base that is very close to Russia and especially to the important Ural industrial basin where
much of Russia's arms manufacturers are located.
Erdogan is playing a very dangerous game trying to manipulate the US and Russia
against each other. Russian diplomats are playing a very delicate game trying to gain some
advantage. When it comes down to it, Syria is not the top priority to the Russians as they
navigate these troubled waters. So far they have played their hand very skillfully. That
doesn't mean Syria is not important and I can imagine that the Russians just might react at
some point and give Erdogan one very bloody nose but at the same time leaving that fool with
a face saving retreat.
Yes Turkey for the moment is reluctant to use its armed forces in the invasion of
Afrin, which is the reason advance is rather slow. With the Syrian government allowing
kurdish reinforcements to pass, it is only a matter of time when Turkey will be forced to
make the decision to go all in or to withdraw from Syria completely.
At any case i don't see Turkey willingly returning the occupied territory to the
Syrian government. My guess is that Turkey will try to pull off a "Cyprus 2.0" by
establishing a fake puppet state in north Syria it can control.
This of course if Turkey is victorious which is a big IF. The supply of "rebels" with
manpads is a turning point to the worse. However it is also an indirect admission from the
invaders that business as usual won't work. Generally speaking, it seems that war exclusively
by proxies in Syria is coming to an end and the backers slowly but steadily commit more of
their own forces.
"That would require way more professional Turkish army forces and cost thousands of Turkish
casualties."
It reminds me when I have read about Erdogan taking part in an anniversary (100 years?) of
Turkish battle in Allahu Aqbar mountains in the winter 1914/1915. In was a true winter of
snow and blood. Germans were threatening Paris, and allied Russia launched offensive through
Mazurian Lakes of East Prussia. To get enough forces, half of Caucasus army was sent to
European front. Turkey followed German advise and launched attack on Caucasus holdings of
Russia. More than 100,000 Turks crossed Allahu Aqbar mountains on Russian border. Historical
sources are a bit hazy how many returned, was it as few as 10% or as many as 20%? The winter
storms in mountains were ferocious, 1/3 of Russian forces were lost to hypothermia etc. Which
was much, much better than the fate of Turkish attackers.
re Sochi Congress, RT thinks it went well:
www.rt.com/newsline/417481-putin-erdogan-syria-congress
www.rt.com/news/417423-mistura-sochi-congress-constitution
There are several more links at RT, just search: Sochi Congress
re Sochi Congress, RT thinks it went well:
www.rt.com/newsline/417481-putin-erdogan-syria-congress
www.rt.com/news/417423-mistura-sochi-congress-constitution
There are several more links at RT, just search: Sochi Congress /div
" The attack on Afrin is designed to split the U.S. alliance with the YPG/PKK. (That may
well be the reason why it has tacit Russian support.) If it succeeds in doing that it will
make a further U.S. occupation of north-east Syria, which is in alliance with the Kurds,
extremely difficult." that is the positive view on it... the more negative one is that turkey
is conspiring with the usa here to further destabilize syria..
that was a pretty good find - "The Diyanet has been active in Syria, revealed by the
former chief's meeting on the evening of the July 15, 2016 coup attempt with Sheikh Moaz
al-Khatib -- the same individual who caused controversy in 2012 by calling on the United
States to reconsider its decision to list Syria's Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist
organisation."
Not only are the US and Turkey keen on prolonging the war on Syria and its secular government
but Israel and Saudi Arabia at least are also keen on overthrowing Bashar al Assad. That
Israel and Saudi Arabia (part of the US Deep State) are pushing the US to continue must be
considered as a factor in the US decision to continue despite the apparent lack of a clear
military strategy. "No military strategy" or continuous chaos with no objectives and no
timelines is as much a strategy as one with a clear focus and goals.
A continuous state of war might in fact benefit corporations whose business is
manufacturing and selling arms, and countries whose economies and cultures have come to
revolve around continuous change and upheaval, of which state-sanctioned violence and
imprisonment at home and war overseas are two consequences.
"The war on Syria will continue and all the U.S. and Turkish scheming is only prolonging it.
Neither of them have learned and decided to either [give] up on their aims or to risk all the
means that are needed to achieve them."
This assumes that the US goal is a decided outcome rather than prolonging conflict for as
long as possible.
" The attack on Afrin is designed to split the U.S. alliance with the YPG/PKK. (That may well
be the reason why it has tacit Russian support.) If it succeeds in doing that it will make a
further U.S. occupation of north-east Syria, which is in alliance with the Kurds, extremely
difficult."
i would go further and say that the whole Afrin Attack is the only purpose of it. And that
russia is quite happy about. In any way it works in favor of Syria. It decimates the HTS and
Kurds, split Turks and US AND maybe makes the Kurds thinking again about there alliances.
Russia has plenty of Options to drive out the Turks after that, so no worrys here.
Reports of chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government are being coupled with renewed
calls through the UN for a sponsored "no-fly" safe zone in the north of the country, roughly
the same area as the proposed no-fly zone during the Aleppo operation. There seems to be an
assumption the people of at least the West have limited attention spans or are easily led.
East of the Euphrates [nearly a third of Syria] and home to its oil wealth is now US
territory, and as everyone knows once the US has a foothold in such a strategic place, they
will not leave, unless forced to do so. The US have a problem though, the SDF [mostly Kurds]
are in North West Syria how are they expected to police and govern such a large area? If the
US promise the SDF and Arab tribes the area, this could only be interpreted by Turkey and
Syria as the beginnings of a separate Kurdish entity, however the Turks definitely will not
attack the Kurds while they are protected by the US east of the Euphrates, nor at Manbij. But
will not be happy with this arrangement, there will be a standoff, the Kurds will be invited
by Syria, Russia and Turkey to keep Syria intact and agree to some form of cultural and/or
legislative devolution all within a sovereign Syrian state, the US will not like it, but they
will be the odd man out, and told to leave by all the interests in the region.
IF the attack is meant to divide US/Kurd by angering Kurds against US then the only way to
achieve this is to have the attack fails. For if the attack succeeds, and Afrin is wiped out,
then it will demonstrate to the Kurds that Russia is a friends that is willing to let you die
shall it be in Russia interest. It will also demonstrate to the kurds that the only place
under the Sun for them to exists free, is right under the US Umbrella. At Kobane they were
once with their back on the Turkish wall, to be saved in-extremis, from the ISIS mad dogs,
only by Uncle Sam heavy Bombers. So far, the US is the only one who have ever saved Kurds
guts, beside of course, kurds themselves.
Giving manpads is risky, and indeed other countries' civilian airliners will end up
targetted. It's particularly crazy because there's a big juicy target right next door. Even
if Ben Gurion airport were too far (not sure about the abilities of the supplied missiles),
surely Eilat airport just cannot be secured.
I thought it was obvious that the main Turkish aim was to prevent the rise of an independent
Kurdish power in north Syria. Afrin was chosen because not protected by the US. The fact that
they've made only limited progress is to be attributed to the Turk's choice of militias to do
the ground fighting, rather than Turkish regular troops. No doubt there's politics there,
though I don't know the internal Turkish politics concerned.
If it really wanted to take Afrin it could surely do so.
Perhaps only with a lot of casualties. Afrin is mountainous.
The Syrians are supporting the Kurds, because they want a deal with them in the end. I
haven't seen much Kurdish response, but then they wouldn't want to offend the US.
By the way, just as an incidental fact, the high point of al-Eis, a hill rather than a
mountain, overlooking the Roman city ruins of Chalcis, is the site of an early Arab castle,
studied by my colleague from Lyon. If it comes to a fight, that'll be another archaeological
site gone.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington
for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets.
"Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery
of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria.
"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided
them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and
send them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles
of warfare as I understand it," McCain said. https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/
But the "assessment" served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official
imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump's election and even raised the long-shot hope
that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise
candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the
Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled
by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the
Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies
had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that falsehood
was belatedly acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to
say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt
initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved
narrative of Russia-gate.
Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing
was a "soft coup" were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from
veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of
the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a
constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from
the White House.
It didn't even seem to matter when new Russia-gate
disclosures conflicted with the original
narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal
journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the
conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted
the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a "Trump enabler" or a
"Moscow stooge."
The Text Evidence
But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evivdence that key FBI officials
involved in the Russia-gate investigation were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump,
adding hard proof to Trump's longstanding lament that he was the subject of a "witch hunt."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
"... Again, the level of "Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new) which are very worrisome. ..."
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in
his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have
absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to
political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be
it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous
empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this
bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal
degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation
bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian
"sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with,
thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe.
With Russia, as I stated many times for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing
with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources" such as Russian fugitive
London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka".
Again, the level of
"Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger
since removes or misinterprets crucial information about the only nation in the world which
can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger
even for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US
military on average is much better aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In
some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they are not new)
which are very worrisome.
"... What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation of a 'narrative' -- in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to 'double think' and 'crimestop.' ..."
"... It has become amply apparent that with MI6, and other intelligence and indeed law enforcement agencies, the activity of attempting to understand the world has become inextricably involved with that of trying to shape it by covert action and 'perception management', or 'StratCom.' ..."
"... The structures involved, moreover, are inextricably linked with ostensibly non-governmental institutions, like King's College and the Atlantic Council, and related organisations in a range of countries, as Rid's career strongly suggests. ..."
"... It has also however become amply apparent that these structures create ample opportunities for 'information operations' groups such as those which were associated with the late Boris Berezovsky and the Menatep oligarchs. ..."
My apologies -- it was sloppy of me to use the term.
I was using it interchangeably with 'propaganda.' One reason for this is that I have been
looking at the website of the 'Department of War Studies' at King's College London. This has
a 'Centre for Strategic Communications', which 'aims to be the leading global centre of
expertise on strategic communications.'
An 'Associate Fellow' is my sometime BBC Radio colleague Mark Laity, who, according to his
bio on the site, 'is the Chief Strategic Communications at SHAPE, the first post holder, and
as such he has been a leading figure in developing StratCom within NATO.' In this capacity,
he produces presentations with titles like ' "Bocca della veritas" or "Perception becomes
Reality."
The same ethos penetrates other parts of the War Studies Department -- Eliot Higgins is
involved, as also Thomas Rid, who backed up the claims made by Dmitri Alperovitch of
'CrowdStrike', along with the former GCHQ person Matt Tait. (It appears that Rid, who has now
moved to SAIS at Johns Hopkins, is a German who has earlier worked at IFRI in Paris, RAND,
and in Israel.)
What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation
of a 'narrative' -- in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a
simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far
the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to
'double think' and 'crimestop.'
It has become amply apparent that with MI6, and other intelligence and indeed law
enforcement agencies, the activity of attempting to understand the world has become
inextricably involved with that of trying to shape it by covert action and 'perception
management', or 'StratCom.'
The structures involved, moreover, are inextricably linked with ostensibly
non-governmental institutions, like King's College and the Atlantic Council, and related
organisations in a range of countries, as Rid's career strongly suggests.
It has also however become amply apparent that these structures create ample opportunities
for 'information operations' groups such as those which were associated with the late Boris
Berezovsky and the Menatep oligarchs.
So in describing what these people got up to I sloppily used 'StratCom', when I should
have said propaganda.
"... What's more the Russian government appears to have the incriminating evidence on who sanctioned the drone attacks against the Russian air base at Hmeimim and its naval port at Tartus on January 6. ..."
"... Furthermore, the drones were unlikely to have been made by Syrian militants. Russian analysis of the explosive PENT substance indicates that Ukraine was the source. That points to the Americans as the bridging agency between Ukraine and Syria. ..."
"... Another key factor is that at the time of the attacks, Russian military detected a US Poseidon surveillance aircraft in proximity over the Syrian coastal area. The Poseidon would have the ability to guide the drones to the precise location of the Russian bases. Although the plane is commonly thought of as part of the US Navy fleet, that does not preclude the CIA having their own Poseidon aircraft. ..."
"... It is also significant that Crimean lawmaker Ruslan Balbek has recently claimed that American Poseidon aircraft are being used to mount drone attacks by the US-backed Kiev regime. Balbek went further and said be believes the objective is to conduct a false flag attack on the minority Tatar community in Crimea. The "atrocity" would then be pinned on the Crimean authorities which the Western media would in turn amplify as condemnation of Russia. ..."
"... "Those aircraft were only camouflaged – I want to emphasize this – to look like handicraft production. In fact, it is quite obvious that there were elements of high-tech nature there," Putin said. ..."
"... For its part, the Pentagon has categorically denied US involvement in the drone incidents. At a press conference in Washington DC last week, Marine Corps Lieutenant General Kenneth F McKenzie Jr said: "The United States was not involved in any way with the drone attack on Russian bases at any time." ..."
"... If so then that points to the other candidate being the CIA. After all, as US-based political analyst Randy Martin commented for this column, it is the CIA which has been the main driver behind the entire American drone weapon and surveillance program around the world, from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Ukraine to a swathe of African countries. ..."
"... Given the routine clandestine and autonomous nature of the CIA, it is conceivable that neither the Pentagon nor even the Trump White House would be aware of all the agency's operations. The agency is apt to go rogue at any time, and the lack of knowledge among other branches of government in Washington affords the all-important foil of "plausible denial". ..."
"... Here is a speculative, but credible scenario: CIA operatives on the ground in Syria launch a swarm of armed drones on the Russian bases. The rickety design of the UAVs is aimed at giving the appearance of Turkish-backed militants in Idlib province. As Putin remarked, the objective was to scapegoat Turkey as complicit. If that worked, then relations between Moscow and Ankara, as well as Tehran, would become acutely strained. Washington is known to be unhappy with the rapprochement between Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. ..."
"... The hi-tech navigation equipment and explosives onboard the drones, plus the telltale presence of an American Poseidon surveillance aircraft in the skies above suggest the involvement of a US state agency – the CIA. ..."
The audacious multiple-drone attack on Russia's military bases in Syria is increasingly
looking like a false flag carried out by the American Central Intelligence Agency.
Sophisticated technology and a Ukrainian connection indicate that the swarm attack with 13
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) was not the work solely of Syrian anti-government
militants.
What's more the Russian government appears to have the incriminating
evidence on who sanctioned the drone attacks against the Russian air base at Hmeimim and
its naval port at Tartus on January 6.
The weapons failed to execute their deadly mission. Of the 13 drones used, seven were shot
down by Russian Pantsir S-1 air defenses and six were safely landed by Russian electronic
jamming technology. Those captured intact UAVs will have provided forensic information about
what agency authored the plot. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said coyly, "We know who did it", without as of yet
specifying the culprit.
Images of the UAVs released by the Russian Ministry of Defense showed rudimentary
construction from what appeared to be plywood.
However, the navigation technology and explosives onboard were sophisticated and
professionally made. This was no amateurish mission, as might have been expected if militants
alone had carried it out.
Furthermore, the drones were unlikely to have been made by Syrian militants. Russian
analysis of the explosive PENT substance
indicates that Ukraine was the source. That points to the Americans as the bridging agency
between Ukraine and Syria.
Another key factor is that at the time of the attacks, Russian military detected
a US Poseidon surveillance aircraft in proximity over the Syrian coastal area. The Poseidon
would have the ability to guide the drones to the precise location of the Russian bases.
Although the plane is commonly thought of as part of the US Navy fleet, that does not preclude
the CIA having their own Poseidon aircraft.
It is also significant that Crimean lawmaker Ruslan Balbek has recently claimed that
American Poseidon aircraft are being used to mount drone attacks by the US-backed Kiev regime.
Balbek went further and said be believes the objective is to conduct a false flag attack on the
minority Tatar community in Crimea. The "atrocity" would then be pinned on the Crimean
authorities which the Western media would in turn amplify as condemnation of Russia.
On the Syrian attack, Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week at a meeting with senior Russian media
executives that the culprit was not Turkey even though the drones were initiated from the
northern Syrian province of Idlib where Turkish military forces are associated with militant
groups.
"The attacks were provocations to destroy relations between Russia, Turkey and Iran. They
were provocateurs, but they were not Turks," said Putin.
Russia has yet to publicly attribute explicit blame for who was behind the drone operation.
But the Kremlin appears to be confident in its incriminating information.
"Those aircraft were only camouflaged – I want to emphasize this – to look like
handicraft production. In fact, it is quite obvious that there were elements of high-tech
nature there," Putin said.
The Russian president appeared to address the culprit with a cryptic remark: "You know that
I know," he said.
For its part, the Pentagon has categorically
denied US involvement in the drone incidents. At a press conference in Washington DC last
week, Marine Corps Lieutenant General Kenneth F McKenzie Jr said: "The United States was not
involved in any way with the drone attack on Russian bases at any time."
Another Pentagon spokesmen said accusations of American complicity were "ridiculous" and
"reckless".
The US military chiefs may be genuinely speaking honestly – as far as they know about
the circumstances. In other words, it is plausible that the Pentagon was not involved in the
drone attacks.
If so then that points to the other candidate being the CIA. After all, as US-based
political analyst Randy Martin commented for this column, it is the CIA which has been the main
driver behind the entire American drone weapon and surveillance program around the world, from
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Ukraine to a swathe of African countries.
Given the routine clandestine and autonomous nature of the CIA, it is conceivable that
neither the Pentagon nor even the Trump White House would be aware of all the agency's
operations. The agency is apt to go rogue at any time, and the lack of knowledge among other
branches of government in Washington affords the all-important foil of "plausible denial".
Here is a speculative, but credible scenario: CIA operatives on the ground in Syria launch a
swarm of armed drones on the Russian bases. The rickety design of the UAVs is aimed at giving
the appearance of Turkish-backed militants in Idlib province. As Putin remarked, the objective
was to scapegoat Turkey as complicit. If that worked, then relations between Moscow and Ankara,
as well as Tehran, would become acutely strained. Washington is known to be unhappy with the
rapprochement between Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The hi-tech navigation equipment and explosives onboard the drones, plus the telltale
presence of an American Poseidon surveillance aircraft in the skies above suggest the
involvement of a US state agency – the CIA.
Washington's agenda in Syria has nothing to do with defeating terrorism. It is to propagate
instability and chaos to undermine the Syrian government of President Assad and allied Russian
achievement in overcoming the US regime-change plot. Nothing would please the American agenda
more than for Russia, Turkey and Iran to bust up their detente in Syria.
The CIA has the expertise and technological capability to mount the sophisticated drone
attack on the Russian bases. It also has the motivation to carry it out to further its
regime-change intrigues. Who gains?
Still, there is another wild card in the pack, as analyst Randy Martin posits. He says: "The
swarm drone attack was probably the first time that such a tactic was ever used in military
records. It may have been carried out not only as a false flag to blame Turkey, but also as a
way for the operatives to test Russian air defenses and signals intelligence."
Martin added: "The danger is that we can expect more such attacks, perhaps with deadly
consequences, against Russian forces in Syria as well as against Crimea and separatists in
Eastern Ukraine."
The implications are grave. If it is confirmed that the CIA were behind the drone attack on
Russian bases in Syria, then that is tantamount to an act of war by the Americans –
regardless of it being actioned by a rogue agency.
That might explain why the Kremlin is holding its cards very close to its chest on the
matter. This is explosive.
"... Obama was involved, up to his skinny neck, in the efforts (continuing as we speak) to unseat Trump. The reason: he wanted to eliminate the chance that his many examples of unlawful and unconstitutional actions remain hidden from view ..."
"... Now that the conspiracy is being revealed, as an onion is peeled back, layer by layer, he is starting to see his "legacy" destroyed as it should be. ..."
"... After downing a bottle of Rollaids and taking 2 valium, I went to see if the NYT or the WaPoo were reporting on this revelation that Obama actually lied. No mention anywhere. It never ceases to amaze me how far down our "journalists" have gone. ..."
"... I want to see Obama exposed, from top to bottom -- all the sealed records, lies, frauds. Mike Zullo and Arpaio already did the work on the fake BC. Then there's the fake draft card. Who paid for the VERY expensive education at Punahou? What was his status at Occidental? Foreign student from Indonesia? ..."
"... Why did both Obama's lose their law licenses? ..."
Obama was involved, up to his skinny neck, in the efforts (continuing as we speak) to
unseat Trump. The reason: he wanted to eliminate the chance that his many examples of
unlawful and unconstitutional actions remain hidden from view.
Now that the conspiracy is being revealed, as an onion is peeled back, layer by layer, he
is starting to see his "legacy" destroyed as it should be. The only people left to believe in
this woeful example of an American president will be the true believers who will never be
convinced of the depths that their hero plumbed in order to destroy this country.
After downing a bottle of Rollaids and taking 2 valium, I went to see if the NYT or the
WaPoo were reporting on this revelation that Obama actually lied. No mention anywhere. It never ceases to amaze me how far down our "journalists" have
gone.
I want to see Obama exposed, from top to bottom -- all the sealed records, lies, frauds.
Mike Zullo and Arpaio already did the work on the fake BC. Then there's the fake draft card.
Who paid for the VERY expensive education at Punahou? What was his status at Occidental?
Foreign student from Indonesia? How did he travel to Pakistan?
Why did both Obama's lose
their law licenses? Failure to disclose to the Bar other names they've gone by, like Michael
or Barry Soetoro? Or some sleazy malpractice?
New figures published this week on obscene inequality show how the capitalist economic
system has become more than ever deeply dysfunctional. Surely, the depraved workings of the
system pose the greatest threat to societies and international security. Yet, Western leaders
are preoccupied instead with other non-existent threats – like Russia.
Take British prime minister Theresa May who this week was
speaking at a posh banquet in London. She told the assembled hobnobs, as they were sipping
expensive wines, that "Russia is threatening the international order upon which we depend".
Without providing one scrap of evidence, the British leader went to assert that Russia was
interfering in Western democracies to "sow discord".
May's grandstanding is a classic case study of what behavioral scientists call "displacement
activity" – that is, when animals find themselves in a state of danger they often react
by displaying unusual behavior or making strange noises.
For indeed May and other Western political leaders are facing danger to their world order,
even if they don't openly admit it as such. That danger is from the exploding levels of social
inequality and poverty within Western societies, leading to anger, resentment, discontent and
disillusionment among increasing masses of citizens. In the face of the inherent, imminent
collapse of their systems of governance, Western leaders like May seek some relief by prattling
on about Russia as a threat.
This week European bank Credit Suisse published figures showing that the wealth gap between
rich and poor has reached even more grotesque and absurdist levels. According to the bank, the
world's richest 1% now own as much wealth as half the population of the entire planet. The
United States and Britain are among the top countries for residing multi-millionaires, while
these two nations have also emerged as among the most unequal in the world.
The data calling out how dysfunctional the capitalist system has become keeps on coming. It
is impossible to ignore the reality of a system in deep disrepair, yet British and American
politicians in particular – apart from notable exceptions like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie
Sanders – have the audacity to block out this reality and to chase after risible
phantoms. (The exercise makes perfect sense in a way.)
Last week, a
report from the US-based Institute of Policy Studies found that just three of America's
wealthiest men – Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett – own the same level of
wealth as the poorest half of the entire US population. That is, the combined monetary worth of
these three individuals – reckoned to be $250 billion – is equivalent to that
possessed by 160 million citizens.
What's more, the study also estimates that if the Trump administration pushes through its
proposed tax plans, the gap between rich elite and the vast majority will widen even further.
This and other studies have found that over 80% of the tax benefits from Trump's budget will go
to enrich the top 1% in society.
All Western governments, not just May's or Trump's, have over the past decades overseen an
historic trend of siphoning wealth from the majority of society to a tiny elite few. The tax
burden has relentlessly shifted from the wealthy to the ordinary workers, who in addition have
had to contend with decreasing wages, as well as deteriorating public serves and social
welfare.
To refer to the United States or Britain as "democracies" is a preposterous misnomer. They
are for all practical purposes plutocracies; societies run by and for a top strata of obscenely
wealthy.
Intelligent economists, like the authors at the IPS cited above, realize that the state of
affairs is unsustainable. Morally, and even from an empirical economics point of view, the
distortion of wealth within Western societies and internationally is leading to social and
political disaster.
On this observation, we must acknowledge the pioneering work of Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels who more than 150 years ago identified the chief failing of capitalism as being the
polarization of wealth between a tiny few and the vast majority. The lack of consumption power
among the masses owing to chronic poverty induced by capitalism would result in the system's
eventual collapse. Surely, we have reached that point in history now, when a handful of
individuals own as much wealth as half the planet.
Inequality, poverty and the denial of decent existence to the majority of people stands out
as the clarion condemnation of capitalism and its organization of society under private profit.
The human suffering, hardships, austerity and crippled potential that flow from this condition
represent the crisis of our time. Yet instead of an earnest public debate and struggle to
overcome this crisis, we are forced by our elites to focus on false, even surreal problems.
American politics has become paralyzed by an endless elite squabble over whether Russia
meddled in the presidential elections and claims that Russian news media continue to interfere
in American democracy. Of course, the US corporate-controlled news media, who are an integral
part of the plutocracy, lend credibility to this circus. Ditto European corporate-controlled
media.
Then we have President Donald Trump on a world tour berating and bullying other nations to
spend more money on buying American goods and to stop cheating supposed American generosity
over trade. Trump also is prepared to start a nuclear war with North Korea because the latter
is accused of being a threat to global peace – on the basis that the country is building
military defenses. The same for Iran. Trump castigates Iran as a threat to Middle East peace
and warns of a confrontation.
This is the same quality of ludicrous distraction as Britain's premier Theresa May this week
lambasting Russia for "threatening the world order upon which we all depend". By "we" she is
really referring to the elites, not the mass of suffering workers and their families.
May and Trump are indulging in "perception management" taken to absurdity. Or more crudely,
brainwashing.
How can North Korea or Iran be credibly presented as global threats when the American and
British are supporting a genocidal blockade and aerial slaughter in Yemen? The complete
disconnect in reality is testimony to the pernicious system of thought-control that the vast
majority of citizens are enforced to live under.
The biggest disconnect is the obscene inequality of wealth and resources that capitalism has
engendered in the 21 st century. That monstrous dysfunction is also causally related
to why the US and its Western allies like Britain are pushing belligerence and wars around the
planet. It is all part of their elitist denial of reality. The reality that capitalism is the
biggest threat to humanity's future.
Do we let these mentally deficient, deceptive political elites and their media dictate the
nonsense? Or will the mass of people do the right thing and sweep them aside?
Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair
Page was an FBI lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the more recent Trump-Russia investigation
Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a f***ing idiot' and texted Page about a cryptic 'insurance
policy' against a Trump presidency
'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!' President Trump tweeted on Wednesday
An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president
Barack Obama wanted updates on the
Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo
for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'
Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that
investigation.
'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.
We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.
'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or
the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.' --> --> -->
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair.
Fox News was first to report on the latest batch, which is to be released by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
The committee members will soon publish a report titled 'The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.'
President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday: 'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!'
Comey testified to Congress in June 2017: 'As FBI director I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years,
and didn't document it.'
He didn't address possible memos or other written reports he may have sent to the Obama White House.
But Comey did document his 2017 meetings with President Donald Trump, he said, because he feared Trump would interfere with the
Russia probe.
Strzok was the lead investigator on the probe examining Clinton's illicit use of a private email server to handle her official
State Department messages while she was America's top diplomat.
He was later a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating alleged links betwen Donald Trump's presidential
campaign and Russia.
Comey was to give Obama an update on the Clinton email investigation before the 2016 election, according to Page; he testified
before Congress in 2017 that he only spoke to Obama twice as FBI director – but didn't mention whether he had sent him written reports
Comey announced in July 2016 that he had cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in the email probe, saying that 'we did not find
clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.'
On October 28, 2016, Comey said in a letter to Congress that the FBI was reviewing new emails related to Clinton's tenure as secretary
of State.
That revelation threw the presidential election into chaos.
On November 6, 2016, Comey told lawmakers that a review of those newly discovered emails had not altered the agency's view that
Clinton should not face criminal charges.
The text messages between Page and Strzok that emerged earlier showed their hatred for Donald Trump.
In August 2016 Strzok wrote to her that he wanted to believe 'that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take
that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.' --> --> -->
It's unclear what that 'insurance policy' was, but the Justice Department was at the time debating an approach to a federal court
for a surveillance warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page.
Strzok was elevated to overseeing the Trump Russia probe a month earlier.
In a text sent on October 20, 2016, Strzok called the Republican presidential nominee a 'f***ing idiot.'
On Election Day, Page wrote to him: 'OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.'
Strzok replied, 'Omg, I am so depressed.'
Five days later, Page texted him again: 'I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.'
Privatization racket is a bigger threat the Russia: " When I joined the British Army in 1958
the strength of the Royal Artillery, alone, was some 80,000. The most recent reports
indicate that the entire army now numbers "77,440 fully trained regular soldiers." Not only that,
but good soldiers are leaving the army (as I hear in London which I'm visiting as I write this
piece) because their conditions of service are terrible and the dreaded "outsourcing" of support
services -- Britain's disastrous privatisation racket -- has
badly affected the ethos of the military family, be that centred on land, sea or air."
Notable quotes:
"... Daily Telegraph ..."
"... Then came the observation that all this "comes as the Ministry of Defence is under pressure to avoid cuts that could be coming from the Treasury." ..."
"... When needing money, it is most tempting for politicians and their adherents to conjure up a threat that can be neither disproved nor discounted and is attractive to believe. These people don't need to provide evidence to back up their assertions (look at Trump), and the magic word "patriotism" is always implied, hanging unsaid but majestically dominant over those whose prudence and rationality are always defeated by the hype of contrived nationalistic fervour. That's how the manic promoters of Brexit have managed to do so much damage to the essentially decent spirit of the people of the United Kingdom, and polarise the nation. ..."
"... good soldiers are leaving the army (as I hear in London which I'm visiting as I write this piece) because their conditions of service are terrible and the dreaded "outsourcing" of support services -- Britain's disastrous privatisation racket -- has badly affected the ethos of the military family, be that centred on land, sea or air. ..."
It is claimed that Russia is menacing Britain. Please don't burst out laughing. This is a
serious business. The defence minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, the
colourful Mr Gavin Williamson, told enthralled readers of the xenophobic right wing
Daily Telegraph newspaper (a sad and stumbling shadow of its former distinguished
self) that Russia is a " real
threat " to the UK.
Williamson
wrote that Russia was examining energy cables and pipelines between the UK and the EU, and
warned that sabotage could come by a cyber-attack, missile or undersea activity. He asked "Why
would they keep photographing and looking at power stations, why are they looking at the
interconnectors that bring so much electricity and so much energy into our country?"
And well he might ask that question, because all that anyone needs to do is tap
Google Search and up will come dozens of maps showing exactly where power stations are
located, by type, in Britain. Here is just one example, published by the UK's Daily
Mail newspaper.
... ... ...
There are thousands of maps and photographs
published showing power plants, pipelines and cables all over Europe. And Russia, like
other countries, has satellites that show in exquisite detail everything that is capable of
being photographed. If it wants information about any of the creaking power infrastructure in
poor old Britain there is no need to send a spook out of John Le Carré to "look at power
stations." The BBC pointed this
out to its listeners in reporting the comment by Russia's defence Ministry spokesman that
"for the minister's information, all data regarding the location of British power stations and
pipelines is as secret as, for instance, photographs and the location of Westminster Abbey or
Big Ben."
The absurdity of Williamson's excited warning tends to erode his reputation for high
intelligence, but then it is only too often, as observed in the analysis ' Clever Sillies ', that "the most
intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly
ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively."
Williamson is not alone in delivering breath-taking allegations of the supposedly active
Russian danger. The BBC noted
that "he was backed by former First Sea Lord [civilian head of the Royal Navy] and security
minister Lord West, who told the paper he was 'absolutely certain' Russia was looking at how to
get into the UK's critical infrastructure." His words echoed those of the head of the National
Cyber Security Centre, Ciaran Martin, who alleged that Russia had already staged attacks against
Britain's media, telecommunications and energy sectors over the past year.
Then came the observation that all this "comes as the Ministry of
Defence is under pressure to avoid cuts that could be coming from the Treasury."
When needing money, it is most tempting for politicians and their adherents to conjure up a
threat that can be neither disproved nor discounted and is attractive to believe. These people
don't need to provide evidence to back up their assertions (look at Trump), and the magic word
"patriotism" is always implied, hanging unsaid but majestically dominant over those whose
prudence and rationality are always defeated by the hype of contrived nationalistic fervour.
That's how the manic promoters of Brexit have managed to do so much damage to the essentially
decent spirit of the people of the United Kingdom, and polarise the nation.
It appears that Mr Williamson is trying his best to obtain a lot of money out of an
unwilling finance ministry (the Treasury) in order to stop or at least slow down the decline in
effectiveness of Britain's Army, Navy and Air Force, which attracted the attention of the UK's
satirical magazine Private Eye some months ago:
There is no doubt that Britain's defence forces are in a parlous state. They are at their
lowest strength for over a century, and their capabilities have declined alarmingly. On
February 4 the BBC reported that "A government review has proposed axing up to 2,000 marines
and the Royal Navy's two specialist landing ships, but a Commons Defence Select Committee
report said such cuts would be 'militarily illiterate'," which is far from reassuring to those
remaining in the sadly depleted armed services.
When I joined the British Army in 1958 the strength of the Royal Artillery, alone, was some
80,000. The most recent reports indicate that the entire army now numbers "77,440 fully trained
regular soldiers." Not only that, but good soldiers are leaving the army (as I hear in London
which I'm visiting as I write this piece) because their conditions of service are terrible and the dreaded "outsourcing" of support services -- Britain's disastrous privatisation racket --
has badly affected the ethos of the military family, be that centred on land, sea or air.
But Williamson is not noted for his devotion to family, either his own or others. He is
utterly bereft of sympathy or solicitude for those members of society who are disadvantaged
through no fault of their own.
For example, in Parliament he has consistently voted against measures to advance equality
and human rights while voting in favour of reducing people's benefits, and against raising them
at least in line with prices. He has also voted against paying higher benefits over longer
periods for those unable to work due to disability or illness. He voted against making it
illegal for people to discriminate against others on the basis of caste and in favour of
repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. You get the picture : he's hardly a caring and
compassionate human being.
... ... ... ...
Fortunately, in addition to the editors of Britain's Private Eye magazine, some other people
and organisations have a sense of humour and treated Williamson's nutty outburst with calm
derision. Russia's defence ministry spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov, summed it up in
a way that got a lot of positive attention in Britain. His pithy observation was that "Gavin
Williamson in his fiery crusade for military budget money appears to have lost his grasp on
reason. His fears about Russia getting pictures of power plants and studying the routes of
British pipelines are worthy of a comic plot or a Monty Python's Flying Circus sketch."
"... The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia). ..."
"... They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect. But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos. Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West. ..."
"... When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is very stupid. ..."
"... "Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve. And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems." ..."
"... I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago, perhaps at the point Flynn was let go. ..."
"... A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions, finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist compliance with the mandate from Congress. ..."
"... If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. ..."
"... Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system" Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign . ..."
"... "I have come to the conclusion that the Empire is run by stupid, ignorant ideologues who live in a world totally detached from reality." ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. ..."
"... This idea is based on ideas from the British Jewish Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Which west goals ? I do not want USA world supremacy. At present Putin is the only man preventing this. ..."
"... As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up – the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading them far and wide. ..."
"... http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events, etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss ..."
"... "I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters. ..."
"... To the best of my knowledge, so far only one country used nukes against humans. And it wasn't North Korea. ..."
"... That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely) Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions? ..."
"... The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people ..."
"... It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it will further place the EU and the US on a collision course. ..."
"... I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German – Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse. ..."
"... The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US, rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions. ..."
"... Group three. Ignore what he says. Consequences are secondary to neocons; rhetoric is primary. Instead, watch what he does (consequences). Qui bono ? http://www.oom2.com/f81-q-anon-archive-analytical-discussion ..."
The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent
for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth
by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia).
They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect.
But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos.
Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West.
When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing
you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is
very stupid.
Every aspect of human existence evolves around one basic (mis?)calculation: Am I better than someone else? Every second of every
day individuals, organizations, political parties, companies, countries, religions (God knows why) are trying to prove the above
– that they are better than the next in their respective category.
There are only 4 possible outcomes here:
You are better than someone and you can prove it. – ideal outcome
You are better than someone, but you can't prove it. – It sucks
You are no better than someone, but you have the means to manipulate the outcome into appearing like you are better. –
Probably the most unfair outcome.
You are no better than someone and if you try to prove that you are, you prove the opposite.
The current state of affairs between US and Russia is that US are aware that number 1 doesn't apply, they believe that they
can pull off a number 3, but I think that the most realistic assessment is number 4.
The underlying assumption of your comment is that applying pressure to Russia works in achieving the West's goals. But everything
we have seen from Russia in at least the last decade shows that pressuring Russia doesn't work. Ergo your conclusions are wrong.
Maybe it's time you start learning something from history.
"Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along
with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve.
And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems."
[....]
"And, you know, people don't realize Russia has been very, very heavily sanctioned. They were sanctioned at a very high level,
and that took place very recently. It's now time to get back to healing a world that is shattered and broken. Those are very important
things. And I feel that having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world
and an asset to our country, not a liability."
[....]
"President Obama wanted to get along with Russia, but the chemistry wasn't there. Getting along with other nations is a good
thing, not a bad thing -- believe me. It's a good thing, not a bad thing."
I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago,
perhaps at the point Flynn was let go.
A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of
the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced
such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions,
finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist
compliance with the mandate from Congress.
If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to
question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. Putin is standing in the way of greater Israel and a Jewish
world empire that is furthered by American military might. Despite his faults he is a strong nationalist leader who's preventing
Jewish globalists from turning Russia into a global plantation like America and their economy into a revenue stream for Jewish
robber barons like they have the American economy.
I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America is
now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917 until Jews began losing control in the 50′s and 60′s.
Now the red diaper babies and their progeny loom large over America.
Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system"
Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving
it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign .
Interesting ..but I can see no reason for always claiming that the money laundering is done by the 'Russia State' instead of
private individual actors .the only motivation I can see for the State doing it is to turn rubles into western dollars and English
pounds .but since the dollar dominates in trade, for now anyway. the English pound isn't such a lure for Russia's holdings of
foreign currencies.
UK promises to crack down on assets of corrupt oligarchs – The Times
LONDON (Reuters) – Britain will use new powers to seize the assets of foreign criminals and corrupt politicians, The Times
newspaper reported on Saturday quoting the security minister. Investors from Russia, China and the Middle East have poured billions
into London, buying everything from luxury properties to entire companies, but the provenance of some of those funds has been
questioned by transparency campaigners. It is unclear how much money is laundered through Britain, but the National Crime Agency
has said calculations of between 36 billion pounds ($50.83 billion) and 90 billion pounds ($127.08 billion) are "a significant
underestimate".
Security minister Ben Wallace told The Times that the government would use powers regarding unexplained wealth to freeze and
recover property if individuals cannot explain how they acquired assets over 50,000 pounds ($70,000).
What we know from the Laundromat exposé is that certainly there have been links to the [Russian] state," he was quoted as saying.
"The government's view is that we know what they are up to and we are not going to let it happen any more."
I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America
is now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917
I am fairly sure that those in Russia who need to know already know plenty about Jew/Isr led USA Russian policy ..they've been
after Russia for a long time.
1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated
to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets.
Zionist Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the
right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA
official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de
facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]
November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini.
This idea is based on ideas from the British Jewish Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of
the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.
I've always appreciated your candid exposure of American hypocrisy and stupidity, Saker, especially as unfairly and dangerously
directed at Russia. But explain to me why most Russian opinion columnists, such as yourself, have to make their pieces as long
as a novel by Tolstoy or Dostoevsky? Something to do with the R1a haplotype perhaps? Many long introns amidst the essential exons
perhaps? Or, just an inability to stop when having a good time?
The US congress is such a freaking circus of idiots, clowns, whores for Israel, crooks, perverts and incompetents I don't think
I can stomach keeping up with their malfeasance much longer.
But I will leave this snippet -- -the 'list' and idea to sanction Russian individuals was the work of former Russian hating
State Dept Amb to Poland, uber Jew Daniel Fried working in conjunction with uber Jew Sen Ben Cardin of the Foreign Relations Committee.
That tells you all you need to know. ((They)) were delighted to seize on Hillary's Russian excuse for losing the election and
may have even instigated it to Hillary.
It will be interesting to see if the oligarchs faced with the choice of Russia or Europe or US as a home for their billions
ever meet with little boy Kushner who might guarantee them safe bank accounts in Israel for a fee of course lol.
Crocodile tears. ~15 million Soviet citizens were killed or murdered by Nazi invaders. Plus ~3 million Red Army POWs deliberately
starved to death, or died to due deliberate neglect, withholding medical aid, etc by Nazi invaders. A total of ~10 million Red
Army troops lost their lives to prevent the extermination of Slavic peoples by Nazi invaders.
The whole hate the Russians deal is a Zionist ploy as the Russians are defeating ISIS aka AL CIADA in Syria and since ISIS and
all of its branches are a creation of the U.S. and ISRAEL and BRITAIN via the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 , the Zionists cannot
accept defeat and are turning the U.S. against Russia .
If anyone doubts that Israel and the zionist neocons control the U.S. gov, just remember that ISRAEL and the deepstate did
911 and got away with it, that is control in spades.
The last week or so the left has been bombastically upset at Trump because he did not enact more sanctions against Russia, and
were pleased at the action against the Russian Oligarchs though. – These people are always convinced that the government has the
power to do things by fiat- take away guns, punish global warming skeptics, sanction politically incorrect speech – lets pass
a law-. The right is not immune from this instinct either with drug wars .etc. This belief
that the direct application of force 180 degrees against the foe, never a thought to strategy or cause and effect or blowback
or complex analysis, – brute force and ignorance- into the valley of death rode the 600. Those drunk with power grasp the reins
and charge madly. The drunk are not great thinkers. Putin raises a glass to their return.
As always, simplistic pro-Putin propaganda buried in a mass of details so as to bog people down. The centrepiece is at the end:
sanctions. The basic argument is always "lift the sanctions" then some pretext or other is trotted out to justify that pre-ordained
conclusion. In today's serving, the sanctions are useless and the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin. What is interesting
though is that the author claims to see opposition to Putin within the elite but (needlwss to say!) "the people" are solidly behind
Putin. Reading between the lines, that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite.
" ..weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions." Same strategy is operating in US now. Some allege Soros is
promoting this, but he's not the only one. [#Resist was/is underwritten by MeetUp! CEO.] Can you give citations for your quotes
about Nationalities Working Group? Thanks.
It is getting rather tiresome, the "The Russians did it" meme. Whatever happens that contradicts US perceptions of reality , "The
Russians did it". Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this. It has has been dis
proven that Russia meddled in the French and German elections, and while the Brexit vote is inconclusive , we still have not been
exposed to the smoking gun.
There is no doubt that the US MSM is trying to steam roll all objections to this stance, but proof,
where is it? The bought ads on Fakebook is laughable at best, and the new Dutch source is another "Flat earther theory". Has general
American IQ deteriorated so much in the span of a decade ? I doubt it.
Anon from TN
The author did not need so many words to state the obvious: the US shot itself in the foot again, and now it's going to start
complaining that it hurts. Anyone familiar with human history knows that dying empires invariably make maladaptive moves that
speed up their demise. This was the scenario with Roman, Spanish, Ottoman, British, and French Empires. Look on the bright side,
though: the US Empire follows in the footsteps of the greatest.
' that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite '
What disneyland character are you portraying ? I'm guessing Dopey from the Seven Dwarfs. US has zero ability
to influence the trajectory of Russia which is straight up like the Russian rocket launches that take Nasa astronauts into space
for the last seven years. US sanctions have only been a blessing to Russia
For one thing they have driven a wedge between EU and the US especially Germany which is a natural Russian ally. For another
they are helping Putin to clean up the remaining rotten apples in the Russian billionaire class by forcing them to bring their
offshore money home or get the hell out of Russia and have whatever they leave behind confiscated by the Russian people. I have
noticed you here as a monkey with a serious Russia chip on his shoulder
I'll be checking back to see what you are spouting as soon the US Ponzi scheme economy starts collapsing. The only thing holding
up this house of cards is the petrodollar which is already in the frying pan. Russia and China along with other emerging powers
like Iran and the Brics are working round the clock to dismantle the present US-based world financial order. The Brics already
exceed the G7 in total GDP. Enjoy your coming poverty
Anon from TN: The Europeans will never appreciate to what extent the thinking and behavior of Americans is determined by the
view that "this is not my problem". They would also never understand or believe how parochial and uninformed the people in the
US are. Then again, the Europeans have nothing to be proud of: while the US elites are at least open about their ulterior motives,
the Europeans fell into a trap of anti-Russian sanctions (which hurt them a lot more than the US, BTW) by virtue of pure hypocrisy.
Sorry I don't have the tea leaves to read between the lines, but I was reading that a number of business leaders from the EU
was just in the Crimea, and I rather doubt they were there for a vacation, sanctions are a double edged sword and it would seem
the EU are feeling them as much if not more than Russia .
Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this.
Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized,
unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse.
As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German
or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan
independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought
the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up –
the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling
proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading
them far and wide.
So, it I were you, I'd first question the collective European IQ, before laughing at the Americans. The European policy towards
Russia for the past 25 years has been unnecessarily confrontational and generally extremely stupid. After all, the US is far away,
but Europe is right next door to Russia. If push comes to shove, you'd be the first to get a kick in your tender behind. It happened
before, remember? Not only your IQ seems to have deteriorated, even assuming it was ever high, but your memory as well.
http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events,
etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States
Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss
"I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for
the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled
international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call
the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then
use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters.
"Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized,
unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse."
Context of '1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
[MORE]
Albert Wohlstetter, a professor at the University of Chicago, gathers a cadre of fiery young intellectuals around him, many of
whom are working and associating with the magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965). Wohlstetter's group includes Richard Perle,
Zalmay Khalilzad, and Paul Wolfowitz. Wohlstetter, himself a protege of the Machiavellian academic Leo Strauss, is often considered
the "intellectual godfather" of modern neoconservatism. Formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, Wohlstetter wielded a powerful
influence on the US's foreign policy during the heyday of the Cold War.
The recently formed neoconservatives, bound together by magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965), react with horror to
the ascendancy of the "McGovern liberals" in the Democratic Party, and turn to conservative senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA)
for leadership. Jackson calls himself a "muscular Democrat"; others call him "the Senator from Boeing" for his strong support
of the US defense industry.Jackson assembles a staff of bright, young, ideologically homogeneous staffers who will later become
some of the most influential and powerful neoconservatives of their generation, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott
Abrams, Abram Shulsky, and Paul Wolfowitz. Jackson's office -- Jackson's neoconservative disciples came of age either fighting
two foreign dictators -- Stalin and/or Hitler -- or growing up with family members who fought against them. [Unger, 2007, pp.
35-41] Wolfowitz's father's family perished in the Holocaust; he will later say that what happened to European Jews during World
War II "shaped a lot of my views." [New York Times, 4/22/2002] Feith will tell the New Yorker in 2005, "[My] family got wiped
out by Hitler, and all this stuff about working things out -- well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn't make any sense."
Most neoconservatives like Feith and Wolfowitz tend to look to military solutions as a first, not a last, resort. To them, compromise
means appeasement, just as Britain's Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. Stefan Halper, a White House and State Department
official in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, will say of the neoconservatives, "It is use force first and diplomacy
down the line."
Former Trotskyites – On the other hand, many neoconservatives come to the movement from the hardline, socialist left, often from
organizations that supported Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky (see Late 1930s – 1950s). Trotskyites accused Stalin of betraying
the purity of the Communist vision as declaimed by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. "I can see psychologically why it would not be
difficult for them to become [conservative] hard-liners," says Harvard Sovietologist Richard Pipes, himself a hardliner whose
son, Daniel Pipes, will become an influential neoconservative. "It was in reaction to the betrayal." Many neoconservatives like
Stephen Schwartz, a writer for the Weekly Standard, still consider themselves to be loyal disciples of Trotsky. Richard Perle
is a Trotskyite socialist when he joins Jackson's staff, and will always practice what author Craig Unger calls "an insistent,
uncompromising, hard-line Bolshevik style" of policy and politics. Like Trotsky, Unger writes, the neoconservatives pride themselves
on being skilled bureaucratic infighters, and on trusting no one except a small cadre of like-minded believers. Disagreement is
betrayal, and political struggles are always a matter of life and death. [Unger, 2007, pp. 35-41]
After George H. W. Bush becomes the head of the CIA (see November 4, 1975 and After), he decides to break with previous decisions
and allow a coterie of neoconservative outsiders to pursue the allegations of Albert Wohlstetter that the CIA is seriously underestimating
the threat the USSR poses to the US (see 1965),
The neocon team of "analysts" becomes known as "Team B," with "Team A" being the CIA's own analytical team. It is unprecedented
to allow outsiders to have so much access to highly classified CIA intelligence as Bush is granting the Team B neocons, so the
entire project is conducted in secret.
Former CIA deputy director Ray Cline says Team B had subverted the National Intelligence Estimate on the USSR by employing "a
kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view." Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says that B's only purpose
is to subvert detente and sabotage a new arms limitation treaty between the US and the Soviet Union. [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
4/1993; Common Dreams (.org), 12/7/2004; BBC, 1/14/2005; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-57]
Although the entire "Team B" intelligence analysis experiment (see Early 1976, November 1976, and November 1976) is supposed to
be classified and secret, the team's neoconservatives launch what author Craig Unger will call "a massive campaign to inflame
fears of the red menace in both the general population and throughout the [foreign] policy community -- thanks to strategically
placed leaks to the Boston Globe and later to the New York Times." Times reporter David Binder later says that Team B leader Richard
Pipes is "jubilant" over "pok[ing] holes at the [CIA]'s analysis" of the Soviet threat. Team B member John Vogt calls the exercise
"an opportunity to even up some scores with the CIA." [Unger, 2007, pp. 57]
In 1993, after reviewing the original Team B documents, Cahn will reflect on the effect of the B exercise: "For more than a
third of a century, assertions of Soviet superiority created calls for the United States to 'rearm.' In the 1980s, the call was
heeded so thoroughly that the United States embarked on a trillion-dollar defense buildup. As a result, the country neglected
its schools, cities, roads and bridges, and health care system. From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became
the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing." [Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists, 4/1993
Sanctions are almost always counterproductive. We should have learned this from Cuba, but we didn't. When US breaks connections
with a country, we force the country to develop its own skills and products, or to do business with our enemies. Result: the sanctioned
country gets stronger, our enemies get richer, and US loses business. Total loss for US, total gain for everyone else.
There already is the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast", known as Birobidzhan, in Eastern Siberia. It is much larger than the land
mass of any configuration of the State of Israel, tons of fresh water, natural resources. And get this: they wouldn't have to
behave like Nazis to benefit from a land ready for them.
There is a monument on Mamayev Kurgan, called The motherland calls. Luckily, when the motherland called millions of Russians
answered. The Russians not only like to answer the call of duty, but also the call of booty – as the Germans found out around
1945.
It's not like the Europeans haven't gone on a genocidal rampages before – Spanish and Anglo-Saxon massacres of native Americans
comes to mind. The real genius of those monkeys – the Germans – is that they attempted to treat the Russians like they were American
Indians. If anything, the Russians were too kind to those beasts.
Can Israel be trusted with nukes? They, like the U$A have exemptions from IAEA inspections. They have equal exclusiveness in
their military doctrine. I recall an anon poster a couple weeks ago stating that Israel has positioned nukes in strategic locations,
including continental U$A and Europe, influencing Israel-favourable decisions, explaining why Western countries make decisions
that are NOT in their best interests.
Well, Russia must not be baffled. After having so much baffling experience with partners being baffled is not a good thing especially
after 2 consequitive Soviet and then Russia leaders basically gave to USA everything they wanted on a plate with blue stripe so
to speak only to get baffled yet again by partners not giving an inch. This is zero sum game and relaxed attitude is not part
of it. Every single opportunity must be used to undermine remaining pillars of USA might namely her currency status and international
financial system which is built by as Sacker said uncle Shmuel for uncle Shmuel benefits. USA military is just an outgrowth which
will collapse like sand cattle without massive cash infusions allowed only because those two pillars mentioned above still standing.
Hoping that there will be some reasonable people in Washington with whom some detente is possible is dangerous illusion. There
not going to be lasting detente between USA and Russia until USA is reduced to her natural state of regional northern American
power with zero influence everywhere beyond Mexican and Canadian borders. Now I always wonder where indeed Putin is taking Russia.
I am watching Russia tv and see sort of very ugly place which sole existence is to dumb down Russian people and destroy people
morals and ethics. I wonder what kind of population and new generation of russians can grow watching this? I know there are still
many people born and brought up in ussr to be immune to this garbage but what about young people? Where indeed Putin is taking
Russia and does he need dumbed down American way population for this. Not to be forgotten is that people's strength is country
strength. What is going on is quite simple. America is plainly hot bed of capitalism and capitalism is quite obviously in death
throws. Exponential growth of debt around the world and continuous reduction of life standards and overall moral decay around
the world is a proof of this and obviously Russia and other former socialist states did a very bad bet on capitalism. Results
of the past 25 years are extremely disappointing and downright catastrophic for long term survival of the very people who adopted
this dead end system which passed its prime long time ago and dying. Communism is not popular at the moment but I have no doubt
it will come back because nothing in the past 25 years convinced me that capitalism is better.
Anon from TN
Let me add a little vignette. In Stalingrad (now Volgograd), there are preserved ruins of one of only two buildings that remained
semi-standing: Pavlov's house. Not only it was defended for 60 days against Wehrmacht (longer than France), Germans lost more
solders there than they lost conquering France. That should explain to Europeans why Russians don't take Europe too seriously:
they say that every 100 years or so the whole of Europe unites, makes war on Russia, gets beaten to pulp, and then licks its wounds
for another century. There was Napoleon in the nineteenth century, there was Hitler in the twentieth century, there is NATO in
the twenty first
Was there no bravery on the German side ?After the Normandy invasion western generals expected the war to be over at Christmas,
or even in September, when they tried to take the Dutch bridges, and failed miserably. It in my opinion is amazing how one country
withstood GB, USSR and USA so long.
Alas NATO seems to be planning a nuclear war. If this war comes, it will be the 'war that ends all wars', as Wilson said about
WWI, because no human being will survive, as all bigger animals. Rats seem to have a chance.
A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the
law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list.
Have heard that they went to a Forbes list to get the sanction names. This looks very very bad – it makes us look ridicules.
Congress doing foreign policy is wrong. Of course, this is Jew business – AIPAC doings. America for America – NOT – America for
Israel. Think Peace -- Art
Anon from TN. Yes, rodents, insects, and simpler life forms will inherit the Earth. The elites, if they start that war, won't
survive, either. Poor consolation for the rest of us, though.
Definite answer is Yes! Israeli government are not nuts like Kim. Wherever Israel did put their nukes, the only reason is that
the responsibility and cost of maintenance they did put on some other suckers.
Israel has nothing to fear. If there would be some concentrated and dangerous attack on Israel US air force would be there in
the matter of hours. Maybe even Russians would help with their air force.
To attack Israel is out of question. Maybe some terrorist attack is an option, but that is difficult to prevent
Actually, it is your ziocon propaganda that is simplistic: -- " the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin." -- An
honest cooperation between the US and Russian Federation would be the best solution for humanity at large. But this cooperation
would be the worst outcome for the bloody "chosen" dreaming of Eretz Israel and world dominance, while they can't stop whining
about "eternal victimhood."
Since 1999, four million human beings, including a multitude of children, died in the Middle East because of your bloody mythological
"promised land" of Israel.
Probably they won't have any choice. The more that it would be in the heart of the new Eurasian economic configuration. But
they still want Ukraine and Crimea. That's why you hear so much talk about the Khazars.
"From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms
to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing."
And look at the corruption within the highest echelons of the US government and security apparatus -- the opportunists and ignoramuses
have taken the upper hand. This is very convenient for Israel-firsters but deadly for the US. The hatred of ziocons towards Russia
is boundless and irrational.
"If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question
the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. "
Ken, I think that The Saker is just baffled on their behalf.
Ever heard of existential threat, sport? WW1 and the Crimean war were not existential threats to Russia. The minute they turned
into such, the outcome would have been different.
Here is what sanctions do. I recently saw a story about a German farmer/dairy expert who
went to Russia and jump started a large network of dairy farms in Russia. Before sanctions, Russia thought the could buy their
dairy from Europe, but after the sanctions, Russian knew they needed domestic suppliers, and lo an behold, this German (Joint
Russian German citizen actually and friend of Putin) was phonemically successful and now there is a robust local Dairy Industry
in Russia. Now the people who are howling are the European Farmers who used to have a healthy export market for their products.
well, if shamir is right and the looted accounts of the old money is equal to 1 trillion usd. that is alot of money for the
people in charge to not see green and only green. doubt long term consequences/effects would ever factor into the decision.
That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have
been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely)
Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or
Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions?
The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product
that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves
in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people
Then look a step further and forget about the US for a second: Russia is trying hard to work with the Europeans on many
join projects. What do you think the creation of such a list will have on joint ventures between EU and Russian businessmen?
I predict two things:
1. It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it
will further place the EU and the US on a collision course.
2. I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German
– Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse.
The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US,
rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions.
There is no subject that he doesn't derail by going on about Wasps his intent is to "divide and conquer" the building momentum
against neocon foreign policy.
Selecting wealthy individuals at random regardless of political beliefs indeed makes no sense at all. Perhaps if you had read
the rest of the article you would understand why. Then again, swine don't typically understand the value of pearls.
"... On Strategy : A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, ..."
"... In his own work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians), failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts of escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national security interest of the United States. ..."
"... A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another "go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war." ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ..."
"... Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times ..."
"... On Strategy ..."
"... Dereliction of Duty ..."
"... The Army and Vietnam ..."
"... Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War. They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in 1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in 1984 . Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in 1971 , while Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his commission in 1976 . ..."
"... Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only lead to twenty-first-century disasters ..."
"... Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70% of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new "mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize" Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more drones , planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on farce. ..."
"... The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting. None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who flew 269 combat missions over that country) noted in the recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side." ..."
"... Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an interview last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment -- disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ." ..."
"... Vietnam lost in the end. Its greedy corrupt elites are now puppets of US. They allow open prostitution in Ho Chi Minh city. They allow Vietnamese women to be a bunch of hookers again. ..."
"... "America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the other way around" Rather like 20th century Germany, don't you think? ..."
"... The Vietnam war killed the draft. The draft is involuntary servitude, slavery in a sense. For ordinary Americans this was the only positive thing to come from the war. ..."
"... Ultimately, the victory of WW2 due to sheer weight of industrial productivity ramp and hence massive output of planes, tanks, submarines, etc. made defense a large part of the US economy. Since that time, too many entrenched interests just never want the military to downsize. Hence, the US has to keep invented new demand for a product that otherwise would not have such demand, but keeps some major entrenched interests powerful. ..."
"... The BIGGEST lesson to come out of the illegal and immoral War against Vietnam is that the draft was impeding the MIC's effort to sell Americans on the idea of supporting endless war. ..."
"... The same generals who let 911 happen and started the Iraq war still run the show. All of them should have faced a firing squad for that, but instead, the grossly incompetent General Kelly runs the White House and the grossly incompetent Mattis runs the military. ..."
"... The warhawk imperialists – some of them Clausewtizians and most COINdinistas – rule everything. No matter how many lives are lost, no matter how much money is wasted, they demand we remain on the same path of playing world hegemon. George Washington fought the British Empire for our freedom, so our subsequent leaders, starting most importantly with Lincoln, could remake the country into the British Empire 2.0. ..."
"... No; it's psychotic, psychopathic mayhem and mass-murder. Lemma: At any crime-scene, there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle' bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the crime attract proportional guilt. Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes him/herself an accessory, like all residents in the 'illegitimate entity' and/or the puppet executives, manufacturers of the means and their enablers = the whole MIC[*] plus all their dependents, say. ..."
"... The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife with corruption. ..."
"... Save the BS for your fellow geezer drunks at the VFW lounge. Vietnam featured a complete collapse of the conscripted US military, rampant drug use, fragging, insubordination, faked injuries, disintegration of the chain of command, mass murder of civilians, and finally TOTAL DEFEAT after turning tail and running following the negotiation of a charitable "decent interval" allowing the yanks to save some face. Pathetic. ..."
"... Wars fought to make countries like Vietnam open to big corporations to move American jobs there. Corporate money backed by the fist of the Marines has worked all their lives, all their parents' lives, and all the modern history of America. "Why not now?", the sheep ask. ..."
"... According to Bobbie McNamara, American efforts resulted in the murder of over 4 million Vietnamese and the maiming of millions of others .MOSTLY CIVILIANS. ..."
"... If the war mongers had had an all-volunteer army like the one they have today, they could have and would have kept the Vietnam War going indefinitely. But, since they didn't, draftees and their parents wised-up to the Pentagon's money-making scam and put a stop to it by refusing to participate. ..."
"... Very rich families and corporatists started their own think tanks after World War II. This is when the looting began for RAND. These are the bastards Eisenhower was afraid of. Abe Lincoln feared the large corporations born of business profiteering during the U.S. Civil War -- the military industrial complex of the day -- easily constituted the greatest threat to the American republic. ..."
"... Remember that Eisenhower's definition of the complex included among the bastards, not only the military defense industry corporations, but also right alongside them the news media and the university and private research establishments. ..."
"... That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only purpose was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just more of the same. ..."
Vietnam: it's always there. Looming in the past, informing American futures.
A 50-year-old war, once labeled the longest in our history, is still alive and well and
still being refought by one group of Americans: the military high command. And almost half a
century later, they're still losing it and blaming others for doing so.
Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in the
previous century and perhaps it's well that they did. The United States really had no business
intervening in that anti-colonial civil war in the first place, supporting a South Vietnamese
government of questionable legitimacy, and stifling promised nationwide elections on both sides
of that country's artificial border. In doing so, Washington presented an easy villain for a
North Vietnamese-backed National Liberation Front (NLF) insurgency, a group known to Americans
in those years as the Vietcong.
More than two decades of involvement and, at the war's peak, half a million American troops
never altered the basic weakness of the U.S.-backed regime in Saigon. Despite millions of Asian
deaths and 58,000 American ones, South Vietnam's military could not, in the end, hold the line
without American support and finally collapsed under the weight of a conventional North
Vietnamese invasion in April 1975.
There's just one thing. Though a majority of historians (known in academia as the "orthodox"
school) subscribe to the basic contours of the above narrative, the vast majority of senior
American military officers do not. Instead, they're still refighting the Vietnam War to a far
cheerier outcome through the books they read, the scholarship they publish, and (most
disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in the Greater Middle East.
The Big Re-Write
In 1986, future general, Iraq-Afghan War commander, and CIA director David Petraeus penned
an article
for the military journal Parameters that summarized his Princeton doctoral
dissertation on the Vietnam War. It was a piece commensurate with then-Major Petraeus's
impressive intellect, except for its disastrous conclusions on the lessons of that war. Though
he did observe that Vietnam had "cost
the military dearly" and that "the frustrations of Vietnam are deeply etched in the minds of
those who lead the services," his real fear was that the war had left the military unprepared
to wage what were then called "low-intensity conflicts" and are now known as
counterinsurgencies. His takeaway: what the country needed wasn't less Vietnams but
better-fought ones. The next time, he concluded fatefully, the military should do a far better
job of implementing counterinsurgency forces, equipment, tactics, and doctrine to win such
wars.
Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in Iraq, he
and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers
devoted to his favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very
conclusions to win the war on terror. The names of some of them -- H.R. McMaster and James
Mattis, for instance -- should ring a bell or two these days. In Iraq and later in Afghanistan,
Petraeus and his acolytes would get their chance to translate theory into practice. Americans
-- and much of the rest of the planet -- still live with the results.
Like Petraeus, an entire generation of senior military leaders, commissioned in the years
after the Vietnam War and now atop the defense behemoth, remain fixated on that ancient
conflict. After all these decades, such "thinking" generals and "soldier-scholars" continue to
draw all the wrong lessons from what, thanks in part to them, has now become America's
second longest war.
Rival Schools
Historian Gary Hess identifies two main schools
of revisionist thinking.
Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have won in
Vietnam.
The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century. Senior
commanders, some now serving in key national security positions, fixated on Vietnam, have
translated that conflict's supposed lessons into what now passes for military strategy in
Washington. The
result has been an ever-expanding war on terror campaign waged ceaselessly from South Asia
to West Africa, which has essentially turned out to be perpetual war based on the can-do belief
that counterinsurgency and advise-and-assist missions should have worked in Vietnam and can
work now.
The Go-Big Option
The leading voice of the Clausewitzian school was U.S. Army Colonel and Korean War/Vietnam
War vet Harry Summers, whose 1982 book, On Strategy : A
Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, became an instant classic within the military. It's
easy enough to understand why. Summers argued that civilian policymakers -- not the military
rank-and-file -- had lost the war by focusing hopelessly on the insurgency in South Vietnam
rather than on the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi. More troops, more aggressiveness, even
full-scale invasions of communist safe havens in Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, would have
led to victory.
Summers had a deep emotional investment in his topic.
Later , he would argue that the source of post-war pessimistic analyses of the conflict lay
in "draft dodgers and war evaders still [struggling] with their consciences." In his own
work, Summers marginalized all Vietnamese actors (as would so many later military historians),
failed to adequately deal with the potential consequences, nuclear or otherwise, of the sorts
of escalation he advocated, and didn't even bother to ask whether Vietnam was a core national
security interest of the United States.
Perhaps he would have done well to reconsider a famous post-war
encounter he had with a North Vietnamese officer, a Colonel Tu, whom he assured that "you
know you never beat us on the battlefield." "That may be so," replied his former enemy, "but it
is also irrelevant."
Whatever its limitations, his work remains influential in military circles to this day. (I
was assigned the book as a West Point cadet!)
A more sophisticated Clausewitzian analysis came from current National Security Adviser
H.R. McMaster in a highly acclaimed 1997 book, Dereliction of
Duty . He argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were derelict in failing to give
President Lyndon Johnson an honest appraisal of what it would take to win, which meant that
"the nation went to war without the benefit of effective military advice." He concluded that
the war was lost not in the field or by the media or even on antiwar college campuses, but in
Washington, D.C., through a failure of nerve by the Pentagon's generals, which led civilian
officials to opt for a deficient strategy.
McMaster is a genuine scholar and a gifted writer, but he still suggested that the Joint
Chiefs should have advocated for a more aggressive offensive strategy -- a full ground invasion
of the North or unrelenting carpet-bombing of that country. In this sense, he was just another
"go-big" Clausewitzian who, as historian Ronald Spector pointed
out recently, ignored Vietnamese views and failed to acknowledge -- an observation
of historian Edward Miller -- that "the Vietnam War was a Vietnamese war."
COIN: A Small (Forever) War
Another Vietnam veteran, retired Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Krepinevich, fired the opening
salvo for the hearts-and-minders. In The Army and Vietnam , published in 1986, he
argued
that the NLF, not the North Vietnamese Army, was the enemy's chief center of gravity and that
the American military's failure to emphasize counterinsurgency principles over conventional
concepts of war sealed its fate. While such arguments were, in reality, no more
impressive than those of the Clausewitzians, they have remained popular with military
audiences, as historian Dale Andrade points
out , because they offer a "simple explanation for the defeat in Vietnam."
Krepinevich would write an influential 2005 Foreign Affairspiece , "How to Win
in Iraq," in which he applied his Vietnam conclusions to a new strategy of prolonged
counterinsurgency in the Middle East, quickly winning over the New
York Times 's resident conservative columnist, David Brooks, and generating "discussion in
the Pentagon, CIA, American Embassy in Baghdad, and the office of the vice president."
In 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive
hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War : The
Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam . Sorley boldly
asserted
that, by the spring of 1970, "the fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his
comforting tale, the real explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S.
commander General William Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor,
General Creighton Abrams -- Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have
been) a war winner.
Critics
noted that Sorley overemphasized the marginal differences between the two generals'
strategies and produced a remarkably counterfactual work. It didn't matter, however. By 2005,
just as the situation in Iraq, a country then locked in a sectarian civil war amid an American
occupation, went from bad to worse, Sorley's book found
its way into the hands of the head of U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, and State
Department counselor Philip Zelikow. By then, according
to the Washington Post 's David Ignatius, it could also "be found on the
bookshelves of senior military officers in Baghdad."
Another influential hearts-and-minds devotee was Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl. (He even
made it
onto The Daily Show with Jon Stewart .) His Learning to Eat Soup with
a Knife : Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam followed Krepinevich in
claiming that "if [Creighton] Abrams had gotten the call to lead the American effort at the
start of the war, America might very well have won it." In 2006, the Wall Street
Journalreported that Army Chief of Staff
General Peter Schoomaker "so liked [Nagl's] book that he made it required reading for all
four-star generals," while the Iraq War commander of that moment, General George Casey, gave
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a copy during a visit to Baghdad.
David Petraeus and current Secretary of Defense James Mattis, co-authors in 2006 of
FM 3-24, the first ( New York Times -reviewed ) military field manual for counterinsurgency since
Vietnam, must also be considered among the pantheon of hearts-and-minders. Nagl wrote a
foreword for their manual,
while Krepinevich provided a glowing back-cover endorsement .
Such revisionist interpretations would prove tragic in Iraq and Afghanistan, once they had
filtered down to the entire officer corps.
Reading All the Wrong Books
In 2009, when former West Point history professor Colonel Gregory Daddis was deployed
to Iraq as the command historian for the Multinational Corps -- the military's primary tactical
headquarters -- he noted that corps commander Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby had assigned a
professional reading list to his principal subordinates. To his disappointment, Daddis also
discovered that the only Vietnam War book included was Sorley's A Better War . This
should have surprised no one, since his argument -- that American soldiers in Vietnam
were
denied an impending victory by civilian policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors
-- was still resonant among the officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the
military's fault!
Officers have long distributed professional reading lists for subordinates, intellectual
guideposts to the complex challenges ahead. Indeed, there's much to be admired in the concept,
but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of an entire
generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The generals have
been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were essentially meant to
reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful and unending wars.
Just after 9/11, for instance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers -- who spoke at my
West Point graduation -- included Summers's On
Strategy on his list. A few years later, then-Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker
added
McMaster's Dereliction of Duty . The trend continues today. Marine Corps Commandant
Robert Neller has kept McMaster and added Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger (he of the
illegal bombing of both Laos and Cambodia and war
criminal fame). Current Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley kept Kissinger and
added good
old Lewis Sorley. To top it all off, Secretary of Defense Mattis has included
yet another Kissinger book and, in a different list , Krepinevich's
The Army and Vietnam .
Just as important as which books made the lists is what's missing from them: none of these
senior commanders include newer scholarship
,
novels , or journalistic accounts which might raise thorny, uncomfortable questions about
whether the Vietnam War was winnable, necessary, or advisable, or incorporate local voices that
might highlight the limits of American influence and power.
Serving in the Shadow of Vietnam
Most of the generals leading the war on terror just missed service in the Vietnam War.
They graduated from various colleges or West Point in the years immediately following the
withdrawal of most U.S. ground troops or thereafter: Petraeus in
1974 , future Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal in 1976 , and present National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster in 1984 .
Secretary of Defense Mattis finished ROTC and graduated from Central Washington University in
1971 , while
Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly enlisted at the tail end of the Vietnam War, receiving his
commission in 1976
.
In other words, the generation of officers now overseeing the still-spreading war on terror
entered military service at the end of or after the tragic war in Southeast Asia. That meant
they narrowly escaped combat duty in the bloodiest American conflict since World War II and so
the professional credibility that went with it. They were mentored and taught by academy
tactical officers, ROTC instructors, and commanders who had cut their teeth on that conflict.
Vietnam literally dominated the discourse of their era -- and it's never ended.
Petraeus, Mattis, McMaster, and the others entered service when military prestige had
reached a nadir or was just rebounding. And those reading lists taught the young officers where
to lay the blame for that -- on civilians in Washington (or in the nation's streets) or on a
military high command too weak to assert its authority effectively. They would serve in
Vietnam's shadow, the shadow of defeat, and the conclusions they would draw from it would only
lead to twenty-first-century disasters .
From Vietnam to the War on Terror to Generational War
All of this misremembering, all of those Vietnam "lessons" inform the U.S. military's
ongoing "surges" and "advise-and-assist" approaches to its wars in the Greater Middle East and
Africa. Representatives of both Vietnam revisionist schools now guide the development of the
Trump administration's version of global strategy. President Trump's in-house Clausewitzians
clamor for -- and receive
-- ever more delegated authority to do their damnedest and what retired General (and Vietnam
vet) Edward Meyer called for
back in 1983: "a freer hand in waging war than they had in Vietnam." In other words, more
bombs, more troops, and carte blanche to escalate such conflicts to their hearts' content.
Meanwhile, President Trump's hearts-and-minds faction consists of officers who have
spent three administrations expanding COIN-influenced missions to approximately 70%
of the world's nations. Furthermore, they've recently fought for and been granted a new
"mini-surge" in Afghanistan intended to -- in disturbingly Vietnam-esque language -- "break the
deadlock ," "reverse the decline," and "end the
stalemate " there. Never mind that neither 100,000 U.S. troops (when I was
there in 2011) nor 16 full years of combat could, in the term of the trade, "stabilize"
Afghanistan. The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced
Trump that -- despite his original
instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or
6,000 or 7,000) more troops (and yet more
drones ,
planes , and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents tragedy bordering on
farce.
The hearts and minders and Clausewitzians atop the military establishment since 9/11 are
never likely to stop citing their versions of the Vietnam War as the key to victory today; that
is, they will never stop focusing on a war that was always unwinnable and never worth fighting.
None of today's acclaimed military personalities seems willing to consider that Washington
couldn't have won in Vietnam because, as former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak (who
flew
269 combat missions over that country) noted in the
recent Ken Burns documentary series, "we were fighting on the wrong side."
Today's leaders don't even pretend that the post-9/11 wars will ever end. In an
interview last June, Petraeus -- still considered a sagacious guru of the Defense establishment
-- disturbingly described the Afghan conflict as " generational ."
Eerily enough, to cite a Vietnam-era precedent, General Creighton Abrams predicted something
similar. speaking to the White House as the war in Southeast Asia was winding down. Even as
President Richard Nixon slowly withdrew U.S. forces, handing over their duties to the South
Vietnamese Army (ARVN) -- a process known then as "Vietnamization" -- the general warned
that, despite ARVN improvements, continued U.S. support "would be required indefinitely to
maintain an effective force." Vietnam, too, had its "generational" side (until, of course, it
didn't).
It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the
wrong books.
In 1986, General Petraeus ended his influential Parametersarticle
with a quote from historian George Herring: "Each historical situation is unique and the use of
analogy is at best misleading, at worst, dangerous." When it comes to Vietnam and a cohort of
officers shaped in its shadow (and even now convinced it could have been won), "dangerous"
hardly describes the results. They've helped bring us generational war and, for today's young
soldiers, ceaseless tragedy.
[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
The book that needs to be written is the one that explores the question, "Does this war need
to be fought by us?"
The guys running the show now were mid-grade officers when I served in the '80s. They know
we already were waging a war on terror, but it was a quiet one, e.g "low-intensity conflict,"
the kind that doesn't pump up budgets or put lots of ribbons and badges on the chests of more
than a few of them, much less punch the ticket for promotion.
The problem here is one of governance: Civilians who should be reigning in and questioning
the military leadership (including the senior civilian leadership at DoD and apparently
State) when it wants to take us on yet another foreign adventure seem instead to be be
captive to them, because the spoils of war accrue to their benefit via procurement in their
districts.
Vietnam and the GWOT are merely symptoms of a bigger problem.
BTW, re Vietnam: Vietnam went through its Communist phase, but in a rather short time came
back to pseudo-capitalism, much like China, so aside from nearly 60k US troops and a few
million Viets killed and 20 years of lost time, what did we gain from fighting there?
America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so much the
other way around.
Didn't US realize that it can win any war with bribes and trade?
Vietnam lost in the end. Its greedy corrupt elites are now puppets of US. They allow
open prostitution in Ho Chi Minh city. They allow Vietnamese women to be a bunch of hookers
again.
And Vietnam even has homo parades because it comes with more gibs and bribes.
They established a myth that we almost won in Vietnam but the politicians wouldn't let us
finish the job, claiming we never lost a battle in Vietnam. That is false, so I posted a list
of 104 "Lost Battles of the Vietnam War" that squashed this myth.
"America tends to gain from commerce what it thinks it will get by warfare. Not so
much the other way around" Rather like 20th century Germany, don't you think?
Thanks for that link. I agree, whitewashing those tragedies is a grave disservice to our
soldiers who had to fight in those conditions (how are we supposed to learn from our mistakes
if we can't even come to terms with what we did wrong?).
No the JCS initially said SE Asia was strategically a backwater and not worth the
concentrating of America's limited resources. But military high command were operating within
longstanding army protocols of subordinating the military to civilian policymakers. It was
the CIA's job to say whether the war could be won and they were always skeptical.
America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War makes clear who was responsible for
pressing for escalation and bombing in Vietnam, who was the optimist, and who continued to
insisted after it had finished that the war had stabilized a domino.
If one's fundamental image of the world is as a place full of Quislings, McCains and assorted
dual nationals; then it follows that one will be militarily a Coindinista. If only third
world citizens were like American pols and stayed bought, but they aren't and they don't. If
one's fundamental image is that it is a world full of nationalists, patriots and Churchills:
then the bomb them back to non-existence; then it follows that one is a Summer's soldier.
Unfortunately, if one wishes to debate other nuanced alternatives to this dichotomy; the
enemy gets to shoot first. A policeman walks a beat in his city because he is paid to do it,
the "world's indispensable policeman" is unnecessary to the rest of the world but inevitable
to himself.
The Vietnam war killed the draft. The draft is involuntary servitude, slavery in a sense.
For ordinary Americans this was the only positive thing to come from the war.
Blah blah blah. That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only purpose
was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just more of the
same.
It's also weird that the idea of Vietnam War as a missionary conflict is never discussed. The
colonial Vietnam & later South Vietnam government gave preference to christians in
governmental positions, bureaucracy & had a monopoly on education. The prevailing
narrative in the west, is that somehow christianity is better & that people flock to it
due to this, just like their ancestors did. Mosmaiorum.org/persecution_list.html
For example, the anti Buddhist discriminatory laws in Korea are never discussed, neither
is the flooding of Japan with bibles post ww2. In the present age you have missionaries
following closely behind the USA army & organizations like the US council on religious
freedom being headed by missionaries sic. soul vultures.
From that pov, if white nationalists cannot control the predatory instincts of 'their'
people nor disavow them by becoming Pagan; then, they deserve their fate & should expect
no support from outsiders. As others have remarked, tariffs & protectionism help accrue
capital as do socially conservative views. The pushing of free trade & social liberalism
on 2nd/3rd world countries is akin to kicking the ladder. It's probably in everyone's
interest for the Protestant west to collapse under Afro-Islamic demographic pressure so the
great clean up can begin. Tldr yes state power leads to liberalism & liberal views but,
if you view that as the legacy of your people, fuck your people.
we are deeply at odds. We did not lose the Vietnam conflict. I am confident that billions
of dollars have been spent drilling that myth into the minds of well everyone. I remember
being a young poli-sci student in KS. And as I listened to the lecture on Vietnam, did the
reading my conclusion was so distant from his as to cause me no small amount of turmoil. The
contention that we lost Vietnam is so counter to the data -- it makes the Twilight Zone look
like Gilligan's Island, the twists on reality are directionless -- but conclude we lost, when
nothing could be further from the truth.
I have another theory, the reason that Vietnam remains etched in the psyche is because the
analysis was political as opposed to what actually occurred. This kind of hyperventilated
self flagellating recriminations will distort truth. Perception over reality -- then becomes
self fulling history.
_________________
But to the point. The US has lost two wars: The war of 1812 and in my view, the Iraq
conflict -- no direct fault of those on the ground doing the fighting. And we may lose the
Afghanistan gambit. It's a loss because it fell apart during our occupation. The guerrilla
warfare (asymmetrics) was not the issues for that failure. The failure was in
1. unjustifiable cause
2. poor implementation
3. under resourced
4. an inability to maintain order among communities -- (1-3)
5. and just a lot of bad decisions
Trying compare Vietnam to Iraq is like trying compare a stone to water in similarity. You
might be able to some generic references and very tiny specifics, but overall: the
environment politically and strategically, just never mesh. We didn't invade Vietnam. They
had a functioning government. There were clear lines of who was who based on borders (I am
not ignoring the insurgency -- Vietcong, etc.
It was the cold war and unlike Iraq there were not six varying countries throwing a myriad
of combatants into the fray with varying agendas and varying religious convictions. Even the
physical environment demanded a different strategy, insurgents or no insurgents.
One has to plan for insurgent warfare as invading any country is bound to have those who
get the best defense is one of stealth when your foe is as large a target as the US was in
Iraq. But for all of the complaints about Counter-Insurgency the one that no one seems
willing to state is the simplest. Don't invade countries for which there is no clean or clear
motive to do so. It's that simple. There was never a need to invade Iraq, if anything we
should have readjusted our dynamic and began a process of easing sanctions for their aide in
countering terrorism.
There was no reason to invade Afghanistan -- even to distribute more bikinis and advance
killing children in the womb. We wanted twenty guys and instead we stirred a hornet's nest .
. . ok well, more than one.
Vietnam really was an act of selflessness, we wanted to shore up a small republic seeking
a different course to communism. It bolstered our own ideas against the grand schema of the
Soviet Union, rightly or wrongly. Now you are not the only one who has a gripe with
counterinsurgency.
And I think it's a debate/discussion worth having, and while it may be useful to examine
COIN as to Vietnam strategically -- I think it can be done minus the incorrect and yet
incessant sack cloth and ashes built on mountains of liberal psychological faux trauma as if
the trauma of war is somehow unique to Vietnam,. It is not. As you know war is a nasty filthy
business, best left alone. But on occasion one gets pushed into a fight as did S. Vietnam and
when that screw is turned -- well history is replete of the consequences, the waste, the
blood, the brokenness . . . The tragedy of war does not mean one loses a war.
How true! If only the US had recognized the power of man's baser instincts and did what
the US does best -- continue selling its culture of consumerism and hedonism, Vietnam would
have arrived at the point much sooner and with virtually no loss of life.
Ultimately, the victory of WW2 due to sheer weight of industrial productivity ramp and
hence massive output of planes, tanks, submarines, etc. made defense a large part of the US
economy. Since that time, too many entrenched interests just never want the military to
downsize. Hence, the US has to keep invented new demand for a product that otherwise would
not have such demand, but keeps some major entrenched interests powerful.
I mean, the Korean war started just 5 years after WW2 ended. They could barely wait for a
new crop of boys to turn 18 and become cannon fodder. 50,000 in Korea right after the 300,000
in WW2.
When casualties became politically incorrect (after VietNam), the focus shifted towards
lengthy 'nation building', that was not meant to succeed, but just to cost a lot for a long
time. In theory, the Iraq War could have worked, IF the true objective was the installation
of a moderate regime in Iraq, coupled with no extended US occupation. But that was not the
true objective after all, so it did not work.
The BIGGEST lesson to come out of the illegal and immoral War against Vietnam is that the
draft was impeding the MIC's effort to sell Americans on the idea of supporting endless
war.
Get rid of the draft and there will be no protests hell raised back home by people of
draft age–and their families and friends–who don't want to get drafted to fight
wars so colonels can become generals; Wall Street can make a killing on the killing and so
the Pentagon can try out its new 'gee-whiz' weapons in the field on actual people.
The next biggest lesson was that the media must be tamed and brought under control with
embedding, so they'll push the Pentagon's and Wall Street message of duty, honor, Mom and
apple pie onto gullible Americans, who now damn near get orgasmic when they see a
multi-billion dollar killing machine–the B-2–fly over the upcoming gladiator
battle in the newest billion dollar coliseum and go into the State-mandated 'Two Minutes
Hate' whenever they see or hear the word Muslim or Islam.
For the record, I did my time in the US Army with the 82nd Airborne.
So America worships Ares/Mars and doesn't expect the god of War to want to eat them too?
There shall be wars and rumors of wars .I so look forward to watching this love of war spread
itself from sea to shining sea.
Until the young wise up and realize that the military operations in other countries have
nothing to do with the freedoms we have here and that they're being used as fodder for the
investments that the MIC has in the companies that make the tools of war, we will keep having
this nonsense. The kids need to wise up. The government has at its disposal all it needs to
'win' if it wants to. But if you 'win' , the sales and manufacturing of the
goodies is curtailed. They'd rather send the kids into the meat grinder all pumped up
thinking they're 'preserving freedom' LOL!
Nice, thank U. I´d never before had figured out, never outlined such a precise
conceptual sight of the two still remaining American mindsets on HOW to win.
Yes, cause for them Amerika must obviously must always win. So there are two viewpoints, that
in plain clear English we citizens of the shitholin´ countries wherever -- express as
follows:
Yes, you say tariffs and proteccionism help accrue capital.
Have you got any objection against a large, populous but still poor country (like Nigeria,
Indonesia, India or Brazil) sticking to higher (though not sky high) tariffs and
protectionism to raise their production, their income and their living standards?
That was PRECISELY HOW the US, Uk, Germany and the Meiji era Japan, not to mention China
from 1949 to Chu enLai) acted and because of it rose the heights of the present status and
well being societies.
Yes, you naive repeater, let´s us first protect ourselves from the globalist wolves
and THEN, we can sit down and talk but from a firm solid position, not the other way round.
cut the frack! We southern people are fed up with that northern hemispheric sales talk
– it ´s so convenient to you – but the web exists and times change.
It's not that our generals don't read. They do. They just doggedly continue to read the
wrong books.
It's not just the generals. The whole idea of the state is to control the uncontrollable
in order to continue "growing". That's why we conducted Vietnam as we did and why we conduct
operations as we do all over the world. Rather than Total War that produces winners and
losers we are trying to keep a lid on behavioral sinks and modify behavior so that economic
"growth" can continue.
I am not advocating Total War, but I am predicting that horrible war is coming.
How many dead men will it take
To build a dike that will not break?
The Zionists have been the root cause of every war that America has been in since WWI and
right on through the wars in the Mideast and the wars in the Mideast were perpetrated by the
Israeli and Zionist controlled deep state attack on 911.
America is under Zionist control and if anyone doubts this, just remember Israel did the
attack on 911 and got away with and every thinking American knows that Zionist Israel did the
attack which killed 3000 Americans, that is control.
. . .supporting a South Vietnamese government of questionable legitimacy
Actually the US created the "Republic of Vietnam" within Vietnam, which was rather
unusual, and then fought Vietnam. The US grabbed a Christian out of a New Jersey seminary
(Ngo Dinh Diem) to run the Buddhist "country," that didn't help. More recently the US has
overthrown governments (Iraq and Afghanistan) and then fought the natives. Whatever, it
doesn't work. The citizens (AKA dissidents, insurgents, terrorists, etc.) so effected don't
want US troops in their countries, and who can blame them.
Why do credulous Americans read anti-war books written by war criminals? Only brainwashed
people support the troops. Most Americans hated soldiers after Vietnam. They had seen
soldiers raping wives and daughters, burning houses and huts and crops and wiping out entire
villages. They knew that men who agree to kill for a paycheck do other bad things like raping
and looting and then writing books about it later.
The cons put a stop to all those "incorrect" ideas American slaves had developed by
ramping up the propaganda in the 1980s. Movies kicked in and "learned" the zombies about the
wonderfulness of war and killing and how American soldiers kill with love in their hearts and
the tragedy of the boy baby killers left behind – probably by "communists in the US
Government."
The United States really had no business intervening
That's a, maybe "the," key concept. The US has always had enough internal problems
of its own to deal with and it should always have tended to its own interest first. Damned
know-it-all, brainless busybodies!
I suspect most of them would wise up if their elders did so first, and would teach 'em.
One of the most annoying sights to me is to see some ancient fart wearing some sign that he's
a vet. Even though I was once a sucker too, I always make it a point to remind them that we
had no business in whatever war they happen to be glorifying and still wallowing in. How old
does one have to be to get a clue?
Nothing quite says freedom like heavily armed soldiers on the streets demanding papers. Soon
the US will have the same situation, with the "freedom loving" Americans willingly
surrendering all their freedoms for "safety." Today the US government spies on everyone's
communications, conducts over 80,000 SWAT raids a year, locks over 2 million people in actual
slavery, and lets the cops execute people on the street. Nothing quite says Freedom when cops
can execute poor people without any repercussions. Nothing quite says Freedom when opiate
casualties in one year exceed the American total in Vietnam. Nothing quite says zombie when
Americans can't see the war that is being waged on them right now.
Is that true? The Military simply harvested the poors out of the hills, the South and
other rural areas the same way they would have drafted 'em. All the kids respond once the
Government offers them a way out of potential starvation and hopeless poverty. That's just a
better way to draft people, although they won't call it that.
The same generals who let 911 happen and started the Iraq war still run the show. All of
them should have faced a firing squad for that, but instead, the grossly incompetent General
Kelly runs the White House and the grossly incompetent Mattis runs the military.
"The danger presented by either school is clear enough in the twenty-first century."
Apparently it is not close to clear. The warhawk imperialists – some of them
Clausewtizians and most COINdinistas – rule everything. No matter how many lives are
lost, no matter how much money is wasted, they demand we remain on the same path of playing
world hegemon. George Washington fought the British Empire for our freedom, so our subsequent
leaders, starting most importantly with Lincoln, could remake the country into the British
Empire 2.0.
"Because we are here to help the Vietnamese because inside every go*k is an American
trying to get out." Replace 'Vietnamese' with 'Middle Easterners' and 'gook' with 'Arab' or
'Moslem,' and you have the Neocon position. Replace 'Vietnamese' with 'the world' and replace
'gook' with 'dark skinned non-Christian' and place the word "liberal' before 'American,' and
you have the Liberal/Leftist position.
As a youth during that time it seemed like a strange idea that they were pushing. How could
Vietnamese be invading Vietnam? They already live there. The Americans had to travel
thousands of miles to prevent this. Years later I realize my youthful intuition was right;
Vietnamese can't invade Vietnam. This North-South dichotomy was just a made up propaganda
tool. The South was an artificial concoction set up by the West to divide someone else's
country. This question of how could we have won is absurd nonsense. What would 'winning' have
looked like? The South would just have been a multi-billion millstone around our neck.
The can-do, revisionist believers atop the national security state have convinced Trump
that -- despite his original instincts -- 4,000 or 5,000 (or 6,000 or 7,000) more troops
(and yet more drones, planes, and other equipment) will do the trick. This represents
tragedy bordering on farce.
No; it's psychotic, psychopathic mayhem and mass-murder. Lemma: At any crime-scene,
there are one or more perpetrators, possibly accessories, apologists and/or 'idle'
bystanders. It is incumbent upon *all* witnesses to attempt to a) restrain malefactors and
where possible b) rescue victims from harm. *All* present and not in active resistance to the
crime attract proportional guilt. Addendum: Any person profiting from crime also makes
him/herself an accessory, like all residents in the 'illegitimate entity' and/or the puppet
executives, manufacturers of the means and their enablers = the whole MIC[*] plus all their
dependents, say.
[*] The US rogue regime = US-M/I/C/4a†-plex, with dog-wagging-tail, its
illegitimate sprog the Zionist/Israeli rogue regime + Js = I/J/Z-plex, all components rife
with corruption.
a = academic = econ, psy, leg et al.; 4 = MSM+PFBCs, † = churches
add a few significant stragglers like $ = banksters & ¿ = spies
=====
It's a lot, and here I point for emphasis to all the citizens of the two named entities;
silence is acquiescence. Take a look at the result, not 'just' in Afghanistan but Libya,
Syria etc., the WC7in5 [fortunately not
yet Iran]; wherever the US/Zs deploy their 'hammers.'
In the fewest words: The US/Zs including their 'ordinary people' are all true monsters,
with the only exception being the actively objecting few.
Not so BTW, from the above [but not only] I conclude that there can be no 'god' –
for surely, any such would strike all the US/Z villains down.
Again a 'special case' for emphasis, the intellectuals and academics who really should
know better but where again, silence is acquiescence.
*Guilty, your honour; may they all hang by the neck until dead!* rgds
American sheep can't see war even though they are in one. What better weapon than to have a
group of writers spreading disinformation and colorful propaganda that revolves around
discrediting the other propaganda with falsehoods and romanticization of the war that came
before. Let's have yet another debate about the thing that happened half a century ago
because driving the flock in circles gets them no where closer to resistance.
Meanwhile the real war. If the financial crisis wasn't a terrorist attack because the
press never told you, what will you believe? If more men and women die in one year because of
opiates than in the entire Vietnam effort, will the real owners tell you in their newspapers
that they do it because they want to win?
I think the kids are more pumped up with college tuition, VA health , a chance to learn a
civilian applicable skill , citizenship and something to do other than competing with illegal
Indios for low wages.
Save the BS for your fellow geezer drunks at the VFW lounge. Vietnam featured a
complete collapse of the conscripted US military, rampant drug use, fragging,
insubordination, faked injuries, disintegration of the chain of command, mass murder of
civilians, and finally TOTAL DEFEAT after turning tail and running following the negotiation
of a charitable "decent interval" allowing the yanks to save some face. Pathetic.
The Vietnam war was not a "civil-war" but was an INVASION by the North Vietnamese
communists, who were not amenable to letting people decide for themselves what political
system they chose to live under. They wanted "the whole pie". The South Vietnamese and
American military fought courageously, with one hand tied behind their backs, as they were
not permitted to attack the supply lines, logistics and staging areas of the North Vietnamese
communists. The American news media played a large part in the sympathetic attitudes they had
towards the communists, taking every chance to denigrate American and South Vietnamese
troops, a prime example was communist sympathizer Walter Cronkite reporting that the 1968
"Tet offensive" was a "major loss" for Americans and south Vietnamese, despite it being a
total slaughter of North Vietnamese communists and the Viet Cong. In fact, the Viet Cong
operating in the South were almost all totally decimated.
Yes, the final result of the Vietnam war was communist control, BUT, it was not due to the
efforts of South Vietnamese and American troops. The Vietnamese "boat people" who risked life
and limb to escape that communist "paradise" have a totally different story to tell, but
which had been rarely reported. Ken Burns is a communist sympathizer whose "documentary" on
the Vietnam war was so one-sided, even the communists admitted that his whole premise on the
Vietnam war was one-sided and false. Communist sympathizer Ken Burns inadvertently "let it
slip" that "re-education" by the communists was not a "six month deal" (as he claimed) in
which those in positions of power in South Vietnam would be "re-educated", but were actually
prisons, in which "enemies of the (communist) state were to be interned for as long as 20
years. It is interesting to note that the communists could not exert the same harsh level of
control as was the case in the North, to the people in the South.
Apparently unfamiliar with my long and detailed discussions here and at TAC about the
Vietnam War. I don't think you will find a single suggestion in mt two or more years of
discussion on Vietnam , that it was a civil war -- it was not. In every way, the North
Vietnamese were the aggressors. And if anyone looking at the political issues and objectives
of what happened in Vietnam – those who protested got nearly every aspect about Vietnam
wrong, nearly every contention they make was predicated on the incorrect information, except
one.
war is a nasty filthy affair in which a lot hoes wrong – because that is part and
parcel to the nature of war so many moving pieces on so many potential unpredictable planes.
The entire enterprise is best avoided, but sometimes as in the case of S. Vietnam, you are
left little choice but to defend yourself. Boys and girls afraid to fight screaming "Give
peace a chance" at the defenders like pushing a drowning men under the waves and telling him
all he need do is swim.
You are preaching to the choir and the preacher.
I am going to avoid rehashing the conflict, I think the data sets are on my side in tons.
But I think the authors intentions are to really dismantle the cadre and their advocacy of
COIN. Given that the current President has reneged on his campaign agenda to avoid needless
wars violating the territory of others to regime change. The issue of counter insurgency is
relevant. Because it looks like we are in for more than we bargained for. No doubt, SAS, the
French Legionaries, CIA and a spec ops contingents are pre-prepping for insurgencies of our
own.
A brief look suggests that the only effective response to counter insurgency is
intelligence and brutal response. though intended to suggest finesse, in the end -- it's root
them out and destroy them. I think this is one those the cure is worse than the illness,
because without indigenous support for your political and strategic goals in country --
brutal reprisals eventually reignite acts of terror as a means of self defense.
What are you a troll playing the same old broken record spewing forth the same old line,
for there was a vote coming up by the Geneva Accord, to decide just what kind of government
the two Vietnam's wanted, a vote that would'nt go the way we wanted thus the false flag to
get us involved.
FDR had made a deal with Ho that if they would rise up and drive out the Japs that Vietnam
could choose their own destiny, colonialism was dead he said, well until that little man in
the to big a house got into office and then once again America's word wasn't worth a mouth
full of warm spit and its never changed
Today's officer corps would spare us all a great deal of cost, blood and grief and we
Americans would all do much better if the cadets', midshipmen's, officer candidates' and
officer corps' reading list began with the Bernard Fall book Rue Sans Joie .
Rand? American Conservative? Tom's Dispatch? All fake news for the sheep, i.e COIN. If
people want change, they have to refuse to cooperate. That means no voting. Voting means you
agree with the basic trends and just want to tweak the system. All of us have gotten cheated
by the Government all of our lives. Destruction of schools so people can't learn. Wars
fought to make countries like Vietnam open to big corporations to move American jobs there.
Corporate money backed by the fist of the Marines has worked all their lives, all their
parents' lives, and all the modern history of America. "Why not now?", the sheep
ask.
The religious aspect of the Vietnamese CIVIL WAR is overlooked by the senile VFW geezers
posting here. The patriots were mostly Buddhists the quislings were mostly Catholics
(inherited from the French). In between perving little kids, American Cardinals and Bishops
demanded even more war and Vietnamese blood. The bloodthirsty homo, Cardinal Spellman, would
even visit the troops in person and exhort them to create more carnage and mayhem.
According to Bobbie McNamara, American efforts resulted in the murder of over 4 million
Vietnamese and the maiming of millions of others .MOSTLY CIVILIANS. The role of the vile
bloodthirsty Homo Cult of the Seven Hills has been mostly overlooked.
Note, I list of sites is not definitive. There are articles critical and article
supportive of COIN. Some articles are just descriptive of what COIN means. COIN has been a
subject of a good deal of debate for a very long time. Most articles are from TAC because
that is the site I most frequently read and comment. And as Dr. Unz will tell you, they
invite a host of articles by a host of authors -- with varying view points.
About Rand, they are one of the most noteable contributors to government policy via
research and while one may not appreciate their advocacy, it's not a bad idea to read what
they are presenting on issues, in this case COIN. Even considering broad definitions of fake
news -- it is unlikely that Rand would be included as such an outlet.
One of the advances launched in the late sixties -- forward was that Vietnam was a MIC
windfall and in fact manufactured by the MIC.
I don't think there is much evidence of that. Pres Johnson and most of the leadership
actually saw it as a case for democracy against the Chinese, the Soviets -- etc. You are not
going to be able to escape the private sector profiting from war. Sure had democracy and
capitalism actually won the day , I don't think there is any question money would have been
made -- capitalism is a very healthy system -- if operated minus manipulation/unfair
dealings. But that is not unique. One does business where business is. but cold war strategic
aims made money for lots of people -- that doesn't deny that there was actually a system of
proxy engagements for democracy and communism.
I am not a member of the VFW. I don't drink and have never been drunk. There was drug use
how prevalent it was is unclear. not enough to prevent mission readiness, it appears.
A lot has been made of fragging, but if you can find the numbers -- The evidence is very
sparse that this practice was anywhere close to a staple. Here's an estimate 800 such
incidents attempted. But given that there are only about 13 confirms that estimations is
suspect. Some 3 million service members service in Vietnam that's a percentage of
0.026666666666% attempted. The actual number of men who died as the result of fragging
0.0005% and i used the highest number of fifteen actuals.
There were tragic incidents of mass killings, but those two were rare. The next series of
complaints are hard to quantify -- but suffice it to say, whatever the complaints -- when
push came to shove the US service member repeatedly got the job done. And contrary to your
comments, the process of the US withdrawal is well documented. More than anything, they
secured a line of defense, and the situation at home was the most pressing. There is no
evidence that the US ran from the battle field.
OI think the evidence is clear that we should maintained support via air and sea power to
ensure the victory was maintained on behalf of the S. Vietnamese who fought and died to
defend their country. kudos to the Aussie's for their loyal support.
If the war mongers had had an all-volunteer army like the one they have today, they could
have and would have kept the Vietnam War going indefinitely. But, since they didn't, draftees
and their parents wised-up to the Pentagon's money-making scam and put a stop to it by
refusing to participate.
Money's made fighting wars not winning them. 1945 was the last time the US made the
mistake of winning a war, and may not have made that one had Russia not been on the verge of
invading and occupying Japan, thus forcing the US into bringing the war to a close.
Very rich families and corporatists started their own think tanks after World War II.
This is when the looting began for RAND. These are the bastards Eisenhower was afraid of. Abe
Lincoln feared the large corporations born of business profiteering during the U.S. Civil War
-- the military industrial complex of the day -- easily constituted the greatest threat to
the American republic.
Remember that Eisenhower's definition of the complex included among the bastards, not
only the military defense industry corporations, but also right alongside them the news media
and the university and private research establishments.
Tom Jefferson thought periodic revolution against wealth and authority was desirable to
keep these bastards in check. Which implies that he figured they would inevitably get us by
the throat down on the floor from time to time.
I don't think that you understand at all the history of the USG involvement in
VietNam–an act of selflessness??? What a crock.
The entire foreign policy of the united states has been controlled by the
military/industrial/security/espionage etc etc complex since, at least, the end of WWII. that
group doesn't really care about victory–on going conflict somewhere is the only goal.
Personally, I doubt that the USG has ever committed a selfless act in it's entire history.
VietNam was just one stop in a long line of USG aggression.
Of course, the U.S. military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in
the previous century and perhaps it's well that they did.
LOL.. True enough. Yet an assortment of "Church of Rambo" true believers in civilian life,
including several here on Unz, continue to insist that that the US never lost the war, hell,
never even lost a battle -- claims all debunked by credible historians and military men who
fought there.
the vast majority of senior American military officers do not. Instead, they're still
refighting the Vietnam War to a far cheerier outcome through the books they read, the
scholarship they publish, and (most disturbingly) the policies they continue to pursue in
the Greater Middle East.
The weakness of the piece is that you don't say exactly which Vietnam approach today's
generals are following. Are they doing the "big battalions" approach of Westmoreland's
"search and destroy"? Are they doing the "Expanding Inkblot" of Marine General Krulak,
Sorley's "Better war", or John Paul Vann's "Hearts and Minds"?? You say these are all things
from Vietnam but exactly which one is in place, and why is it losing?
Blah blah blah. That war was a cluster fuck and a crime against humanity. It's only
purpose was to make a few rich men richer. The murder and destruction in the MENA is just
more of the same.
Two decades later, when the next Vietnam-like quagmire did indeed present itself in
Iraq, he and a whole generation of COINdinistas (like-minded officers devoted to his
favored counterinsurgency approach to modern warfare) embraced those very conclusions to
win the war on terror.
Again questionable. Petraeus had the correct approach to counter the previous "lets just
invade and beat Saddam" approach of Rumsfeld. Rummy's "lean force" package backed by almost
unlimited air power was enough to win the conventional struggle but was woefully short of the
numbers needed for occupation and pacification. Same thing happened to Hitler in the Balkans.
Initial smooth success, grinding guerrilla attrition for years afterward.
Both schools, however, agreed on something basic: that the U.S. military should have
won in Vietnam.
"Winning" by 1972 did not contemplate victorious US troops marching into Hanoi, or total
abandonment of the field by PAVN/VC but a better final political settlement enabling the
southern regime to survive, and/or a "decent interval" for the US to save face.
n 1999, retired army officer and Vietnam veteran Lewis Sorley penned the definitive
hearts-and-minds tract, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of
America's Last Years in Vietnam. Sorley boldly asserted that, by the spring of 1970, "the
fighting wasn't over, but the war was won." According to his comforting tale, the real
explanation for failure lay with the "big-war" strategy of U.S. commander General William
Westmoreland. The counterinsurgency strategy of his successor, General Creighton Abrams --
Sorley's knight in shining armor -- was (or at least should have been) a war
winner.
You are misrepresenting Sorley's full argument somewhat. Sorley did not envision or claim
that there would have been any sweeping US victory with US troops marching into Hanoi, or
that the VC/NVA would flee and abandon the struggle. A big part of his argument is for "a
better war" – that is- the end game of which inevitably would be a BETTER NEGOTIATED
SETTLEMENT. Sorley knew quite well that the VC would not disappear (their political apparatus
was still in place) and that the NVA would not simply pack up and return north. Sorley's book
"A Better War" contemplates a BETTER FINAL POLITICAL SETTLEMENT as part of the bottom line,
not US troops marching triumphantly into downtown Hanoi, as PAVN armies scurried away into
the jungle.
To his disappointment, Daddis also discovered that the only Vietnam War book included
was Sorley's A Better War. This should have surprised no one, since his argument –
that American soldiers in Vietnam were denied an impending victory by civilian
policymakers, a liberal media, and antiwar protestors – was still resonant among the
officer corps in year six of the Iraq quagmire. It wasn't the military's fault!
Keep in mind that Daddis wrote a book on the Vietnam War called 'No Sure Victory' in which
he pins US failure on not being versed ENOUGH on hearts and minds counterinsurgency war,
hence the reliance on massive and unworkable statistical and reporting systems of
"progress."
"The army's unpreparedness for counterinsurgency in the early 1960s surely encouraged
this confusion. Conventional officers had little experience in developing a
counterinsurgency reporting system and applying it within a larger strategic context.. So
it was for the U.S. Army in Vietnam. Insufficiently versed in the mysteries of
counterinsurgency, officers turned to statistics to assist them in measuring and reporting
progress and effectiveness. Statistics, though, bred more statistics, and the MACV
headquarters soon became awash in a flood of numbers, facts, and figures."
–Daddis, No Sure Victory
but also potential dangers in such lists as they inevitably influence the thinking of
an entire generation of future leaders. In the case of Vietnam, the perils are obvious. The
generals have been assigning and reading problematic books for years, works that were
essentially meant to reinforce professional pride in the midst of a series of unsuccessful
and unending wars.
You are barking up the wrong tree somewhat. Daddis laments reading list limitations as far
as Iraq, but the reading list did not make any difference given 3 issues:
(a) the decision to go to war in Iraq, when it was not necessary
(b) the woefully inadequate number of troops provided the commanders for conquest and
occupation and
(c) the cavalier, careless nature of planning for postwar Iraq.
What was or was not on the reading list is of limited impact given these 3 big realities
the civilian leadership saddled commanders with.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to
keep and bear arms... and, as The
Duran's Alex Christoforou writes, according to California Congressman Adam Schiff, those pesky Russians are
using bots to promote the second amendment with an ultimate goal of having Americans"'kill each other."
Once again, another brilliant plan hatched by Putin... good thing Schiff caught on to it and can now begin
seizing American's guns so as to thwart Russia's evil plan.
On Thursday Democrat Schiff spoke to a crowd at the University of
Pennsylvania, where the TDS – "Russia hysteria virus" infected Schiff told the crowd Russian ads promoted the
Second Amendment during the 2016 election "so we will kill each other."
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Thursday that Russia promoted content that supported the Second Amendment on
social media during the 2016 election because they wanted Americans to kill one another.
This outline is the story of how the FBI Counterintelligence Division and DOJ National Security Division were weaponized. This
outline is the full story of what House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is currently working to expose. This outline exposes the
biggest political scandal in U.S. history. This outline is also the story of how one man's action likely saved our constitutional
republic.
His name is Admiral Mike Rogers.
I'm calling the back-story to the 2016 FISA 702(16)(17) political corruption by the Obama administration "Operation Condor". Those
of you familiar with the film " Three Days of The Condor
" will note how the real life storyline almost mirrors the Hollywood film. For the real life version, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
plays the role of "Condor".
So now we can also talk about "collision" between of MI6 and neocons in State Department.
Notable quotes:
"... While it is unclear what role the State Department may have in surveillance abuses, the Washington Examiner 's Byron York noted last month that former MI6 spy, Christopher Steele, was "well-connected with the Obama State Department," according to the book Collusion: Secret meetings, dirty money, and how Russia helped Donald Trump win" written by The Guardian correspondent Luke Harding and published last November. ..."
"... Congressional investigators have been looking into whether Steele compiled other reports about Trump - and in particular, whether those other reports made their way to the State Department, according to The Examiner . ..."
"... Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland , who was in charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis... ..."
"... Excellent - except that Nuland wasn't responding to the Ukraine crisis. She started the whole thing. Thousands killed. Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up ..."
"... "Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland..." And how much of THIS "material" was ever successfully corroborated? ..."
"... Was Steele just a successful fiction writer with a very specialized audience for his "works"? ..."
While it is unclear what role the State Department may have in surveillance abuses, the
Washington Examiner's Byron York noted last month that former MI6 spy, Christopher Steele, was "well-connected
with the Obama State Department," according to the book Collusion: Secret meetings, dirty money, and how Russia helped
Donald Trump win" written by The Guardian correspondent Luke Harding and published last November.
Harding notes that
Steele's work during the World Cup soccer corruption investigation earned the trust of both the FBI and the State Department:
The [soccer] episode burnished Steele's reputation inside the U.S. intelligence community and the FBI. Here was a pro, a well-connected
Brit, who understood Russian espionage and its subterranean tricks. Steele was regarded as credible. Between 2014 and 2016, Steele
authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the
State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland , who was in
charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis.
Many of Steele's secret sources were the same sources who would supply information
on Trump. One former State Department envoy during the Obama administration said he read dozens of Steele's reports on Russia.
The envoy said that on Russia, Steele was "as good as the CIA or anyone." Steele's professional reputation inside U.S. agencies
would prove important the next time he discovered alarming material, and lit the fuse again.
Aside from the infamous 35-page "Trump-Russia" dossier Steele assembled for opposition research firm Fusion GPS (a report which
was funded in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC), Congressional investigators have been looking into whether Steele compiled
other reports about Trump - and in particular, whether those other reports made their way to the State Department, according to The
Examiner .
... they are looking into whether those reports made their way to the State Department . They're also seeking to learn what
individual State Department officials did in relation to Steele, and whether there were any contacts between the State Department
and the FBI or Justice Department concerning the anti-Trump material .
It will be interesting to see how the State Department - and in particular Secretary of State Rex Tillerson - responds to "phase
two."
" Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a
private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland , who was in charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis... "
Excellent - except that Nuland wasn't responding to the Ukraine crisis. She started the whole thing. Thousands killed.
Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up!
"Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client
but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland..." And how much of THIS "material" was ever successfully corroborated?
Was Steele just a successful fiction writer with a very specialized audience for his "works"?
In the period preceding the World War I how many Europeans suspected that their lives would
soon be forever changed – and, for millions of them, ended?
Who in the years, say, 1910 to 1913, could have imagined that the decades of peace,
progress, and civilization in which they had grown up, and which seemingly would continue
indefinitely, instead would soon descend into a horror of industrial-scale slaughter,
revolution, and brutal ideologies?
The answer is, probably very few, just as few people today care much about the details of
international and security affairs. Normal folk have better things to do with their lives.
To be sure, in that bygone era of smug jingosim , there was always the entertainment
aspect that "our" side had forced "theirs" to back down in some exotic locale, as in the
Fashoda incident
(1898) or the Moroccan
crises (1906, 1911). Even the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 seemed less a harbinger of the
cataclysm to come than local dustups on the edge of the continent where the general peace had
not been disturbed even by the much more disruptive Crimean or Franco-Prussian wars.
Besides, no doubt level-headed statesmen were in charge in the various capitals, ensuring
that things wouldn't get out of hand.
Until they did.
A notable exception to the prevailing mood of business-as-usual, nothing-to-see-here-folks
was Pyotr Durnovo, whose remarkable February 1914
memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II laid out not only what the great powers would do in the
approaching general war but the behavior of the minor countries as well. Moreover, he
anticipated that in the event of defeat, Russia, destabilized by unchecked socialist
"agitation" amid wartime hardships, would "be flung into hopeless anarchy, the issue of which
cannot be foreseen." Germany, likewise, was "destined to suffer, in case of defeat, no lesser
social upheavals" and "take a purely revolutionary path" of a nationalist hue.
When the great powers blundered into war in August 1914, each confident of its ability
speedily to dispatch its rivals, the price (adding in the toll from the 1939-1945 rematch) was
upwards of 70 million lives. But the cost of a comparable mistake today might be literally
incalculable – if there's anyone left to do the tally.
During the first Cold War between the US and the USSR, there was a general sense that a
World War III was, in a word, unthinkable. As summed up by Ronald Reagan: " A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be
fought ." Then, it was understood that all-out war, however it started, meant massed ICBMs
over the North Pole and the "
end of civilization as we know it ."
'The 2018 NPR has a vision of nuclear conflict that goes far beyond the traditional
imagery of mass missile launches. While ICBMs and manned bombers will be maintained on a
day-to-day alert, the tip of the nuclear spear is now what the NPR calls "supplemental"
nuclear forces – dual-use aircraft such as the F-35 fighter armed with B-61 gravity
bombs capable of delivering a low-yield nuclear payload, a new generation of nuclear-tipped
submarine-launched cruise missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles tipped with a
new generation of low-yield nuclear warheads. The danger inherent with the integration of
these kinds of tactical nuclear weapons into an overall strategy of deterrence is that it
fundamentally lowers the threshold for their use. [ ]
'Noting that the United States has never adopted a "no first use" policy, the 2018 NPR
states that "it remains the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding
the precise circumstances that might lead to a US nuclear response." In this regard, the NPR
states that America could employ nuclear weapons under "extreme circumstances that could
include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks." The issue of "non-nuclear strategic
attack technologies" as a potential precursor for nuclear war is a new factor that previously
did not exist in American policy. The United States has long held that chemical and
biological weapons represent a strategic threat for which America's nuclear deterrence
capability serves as a viable counter. But the threat from cyber attacks is different. If for
no other reason than the potential for miscalculation and error in terms of attribution and
intent, the nexus of cyber and nuclear weapons should be disconcerting for everyone. [ ]
'Even more disturbing is the notion that a cyber intrusion such as the one perpetrated
against the Democratic National Committee and attributed to Russia could serve as a trigger
for nuclear war. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. The DNC event has been
characterized by influential American politicians, such as the Armed Services Committee
Chairman John McCain, as "
an act of war ." Moreover, former vice president Joe Biden hinted that, in the aftermath
of the DNC breach, the United States was launching a retaliatory
cyberattack of its own, targeting Russia. The possibility of a tit-for-tat exchange of
cyberattacks that escalates into a nuclear conflict would previously have been dismissed out
of hand; today, thanks to the 2018 NPR, it has entered the realm of the possible.'
The idea that a first-strike Schlieffen Plan could knock out the
Russians (and no doubt similar contingencies are in place for China) at the outset of
hostilities reflects a dangerous illusion of predictability. Truth may be the first casualty of
war, but "the plan" is inevitably the second. That's because war planners generally don't
consult the enemy, who – annoyingly for the planners – also gets a vote.
Recently
US Secretary of State James Mattis declared that "great power competition – not
terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security," specifying Russia and
China as nations seeking to "create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,
pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions." At
least we can drop the pretense that US policy has been to fight jihad terrorism, not to use it
as a policy tool in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. And of course
Washington never, ever meddles in "other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions"
. . .
At this point Trump is fastened to the neocons' and generals' axle, and all he can do is
spin. Echoing Mattis, in his State of the Union speech Trump lumped "rivals like
China and Russia" together with "rogue regimes" and "terrorist groups" as "horrible dangers" to
the United States. (Note: The word "horrible" does not appear in the
posted text . That evidently was Trump's adlib.) The recently issued "name and shame" list
of prominent Russians is a veritable Who's Who of government and business, ensuring that
there's no
American engagement with anyone within screaming distance of the Kremlin .
To be fair, the Russians and Chinese are making their own war preparations. Russia's
"Kanyon," a doomsday nuclear torpedo carrying a massive warhead, is
designed to obliterate the U.S east and west coasts , rendering them inhabitable for
generations. (Wait a minute. Is it any coincidence, Comrade, that the coastal cities are just
where the Democrats' electoral strength is? Talk about "collusion!" Somebody call Bob Mueller!)
For its part, China is developing means to eliminate our white elephant carrier groups –
handy for pummeling Third World backwaters but useless in a war with a major power – with
drone swarms and
hypersonic missiles .
Just as in 1914, when Durnovo referred to "presence of abundant combustible material in
Europe," there is any
number of global flashpoints that could turn Mattis's "great power competition" into a
major conflagration that probably was not desired by anyone. However, if the worst happens, and
the lamps go
out again – maybe this time forever – Americans will not again be immune from
the consequences as we were in the wars of the 20th century. The remainder of our lives,
however brief, might turn out very differently from what we had anticipated
Watch: Bernie Sanders' Response to Trump State of the Union
"Here's the story that Trump failed to mention "
Following President Donald Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered a response.
"I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to Trump's State of the Union speech," Sanders announced. "But I also want
to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, Trump chose not to discuss."
And, he added, "I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty,
and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year."
Watch:
... ... ...
The complete text of Sanders' prepared remarks follow:
Good evening. Thanks for joining us.
Tonight , I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to President Trump's State of the Union speech. But I want
to do more than just that. I want to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, President Trump chose
not to discuss. I want to talk to you about the lies that he told during his campaign and the promises he made to working people
which he did not keep.
Finally, I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty,
and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year.
President Trump talked tonight about the strength of our economy. Well, he's right. Official unemployment today is 4.1 percent
which is the lowest it has been in years and the stock market in recent months has soared. That's the good news.
But what President Trump failed to mention is that his first year in office marked the lowest level of job creation since
2010. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 254,000 fewer jobs were created in Trump's first 11 months in office
than were created in the 11 months before he entered office.
Further, when we talk about the economy, what's most important is to understand what is happening to the average worker. And
here's the story that Trump failed to mention tonight .
Over the last year, after adjusting for inflation, the average worker in America saw a wage increase of, are you ready for
this, 4 cents an hour, or 0.17%. Or, to put it in a different way, that worker received a raise of a little more than $1.60 a week.
And, as is often the case, that tiny wage increase disappeared as a result of soaring health care costs.
Meanwhile, at a time of massive wealth and income inequality, the rich continue to get much richer while millions of American
workers are working two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water. Since March of last year, the three richest people in
America saw their wealth increase by more than $68 billion. Three people. A $68 billion increase in wealth. Meanwhile, the average
worker saw an increase of 4 cents an hour.
Tonight , Donald Trump touted the bonuses he claims workers received because of his so-called "tax reform" bill. What he forgot
to mention is that only 2% of Americans report receiving a raise or a bonus because of this tax bill.
What he also failed to mention is that some of the corporations that have given out bonuses, such as Walmart, AT&T, General
Electric, and Pfizer, are also laying off tens of thousands of their employees. Kimberly-Clark, the maker of Kleenex and Huggies,
recently said they were using money from the tax cut to restructure -- laying off more than 5,000 workers and closing 10 plants.
What Trump also forgot to tell you is that while the Walton family of Walmart, the wealthiest family in America, and Jeff
Bezos of Amazon, the wealthiest person in this country, have never had it so good, many thousands of their employees are forced onto
Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing because of the obscenely low wages they are paid. In my view, that's wrong. The taxpayers
of this country should not be providing corporate welfare to the wealthiest families in this country.
Trump's Broken Promises
Now, let me say a few words about some of the issues that Donald Trump failed to mention tonight , and that is the difference
between what he promised the American people as a candidate and what he has delivered as president.
Many of you will recall, that during his campaign, Donald Trump told the American people how he was going to provide "health
insurance for everybody," with "much lower deductibles."
That is what he promised working families all across this country during his campaign. But as president he did exactly the
opposite. Last year, he supported legislation that would have thrown up to 32 million people off of the health care they had while,
at the same time, substantially raising premiums for older Americans.
The reality is that although we were able to beat back Trump's effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 3 million fewer Americans
have health insurance today than before Trump took office and that number will be going even higher in the coming months.
During his campaign, Trump promised not to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
As president, however, he supported a Republican Budget Resolution that proposed slashing Medicaid by $1 trillion and cutting
Medicare by $500 billion. Further, President Trump's own budget called for cutting Social Security Disability Insurance by $64 billion.
During Trump's campaign for president, he talked about how he was going to lower prescription drug prices and take on the
greed of the pharmaceutical industry which he said was "getting away with murder." Tonight he said "one of my greatest priorities
is to reduce the price of prescription drugs."
But as president, Trump nominated Alex Azar, a former executive of the Eli Lilly Company -- one of the largest drug companies
in this country -- to head up the Department of Health and Human Services.
Trump spoke about how in other countries "drugs cost far less," yet he has done nothing to allow Americans to purchase less
expensive prescription drugs from abroad or to require Medicare to negotiate drug prices – which he promised he would do when he
ran for president.
During the campaign, Donald Trump told us that: "The rich will not be gaining at all" under his tax reform plan.
Well, that was quite a whopper. As president, the tax reform legislation Trump signed into law a few weeks ago provides 83
percent of the benefits to the top one percent, drives up the deficit by $1.7 trillion, and raises taxes on 92 million middle class
families by the end of the decade.
During his campaign for president, Trump talked about how he was going to take on the greed of Wall Street which he said "has
caused tremendous problems for us.
As president, not only has Trump not taken on Wall Street, he has appointed more Wall Street billionaires to his administration
than any president in history. And now, on behalf of Wall Street, he is trying to repeal the modest provisions of the Dodd-Frank
legislation which provide consumer protections against Wall Street thievery.
What Trump Didn't Say
But what is also important to note is not just Trump's dishonesty. It is that tonight he avoided some of the most important
issues facing our country and the world.
How can a president of the United States give a State of the Union speech and not mention climate change? No, Mr. Trump, climate
change is not a "hoax." It is a reality which is causing devastating harm all over our country and all over the world and you are
dead wrong when you appoint administrators at the EPA and other agencies who are trying to decimate environmental protection rules,
and slow down the transition to sustainable energy.
How can a president of the United States not discuss the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision which allows billionaires
like the Koch brothers to undermine American democracy by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who will represent
the rich and the powerful?
How can he not talk about Republican governors efforts all across this country to undermine democracy, suppress the vote and
make it harder for poor people or people of color to vote?
How can he not talk about the fact that in a highly competitive global economy, hundreds of thousands of bright young people
are unable to afford to go to college, while millions of others have come out of school deeply in debt?
How can he not talk about the inadequate funding and staffing at the Social Security Administration which has resulted in
thousands of people with disabilities dying because they did not get their claims processed in time?
How can he not talk about the retirement crisis facing the working people of this country and the fact that over half of older
workers have no retirement savings? We need to strengthen pensions in this country, not take them away from millions of workers.
How can he not talk about the reality that Russia, through cyberwarfare, interfered in our election in 2016, is interfering
in democratic elections all over the world, and according to his own CIA director will likely interfere in the 2018 midterm elections
that we will be holding. How do you not talk about that unless you have a very special relationship with Mr. Putin?
What Trump Did Talk About
Now, let me say a few words about what Trump did talk about.
Trump talked about DACA and immigration, but what he did not tell the American people is that he precipitated this crisis
in September by repealing President Obama's executive order protecting Dreamers.
We need to seriously address the issue of immigration but that does not mean dividing families and reducing legal immigration
by 25-50 percent. It sure doesn't mean forcing taxpayers to spend $25 billion on a wall that candidate Trump promised Mexico would
pay for. And it definitely doesn't mean a racist immigration policy that excludes people of color from around the world.
To my mind, this is one of the great moral issues facing our country. It would be unspeakable and a moral stain on our nation
if we turned our backs on these 800,000 young people who were born and raised in this country and who know no other home but the
United States.
And that's not just Bernie Sanders talking. Poll after poll shows that over 80 percent of the American people believe that
we should protect the legal status of these young people and provide them with a path toward citizenship.
We need to pass the bi-partisan DREAM Act, and we need to pass it now.
President Trump also talked about the need to rebuild our country's infrastructure. And he is absolutely right. But the proposal
he is bringing forth is dead wrong.
Instead of spending $1.5 trillion over ten years rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, Trump would encourage states to
sell our nation's highways, bridges, and other vital infrastructure to Wall Street, wealthy campaign contributors, even foreign governments.
And how would Wall Street and these corporations recoup their investments? By imposing massive new tolls and fees paid for
by American commuters and homeowners.
The reality is that Trump's plan to privatize our nation's infrastructure is an old idea that has never worked and never will
work.
Tonight , Donald Trump correctly talked about the need to address the opioid crisis. Well, I say to Donald Trump, you don't
help people suffering from opioid addiction by cutting Medicaid by $1 trillion. If you are serious about dealing with this crisis,
we need to expand, not cut Medicaid.
Conclusion/A Progressive Agenda
My fellow Americans. The simple truth is that, according to virtually every poll, Donald Trump is the least popular president
after one year in office of any president in modern American history. And the reason for that is pretty clear. The American people
do not want a president who is compulsively dishonest, who is a bully, who actively represents the interests of the billionaire class,
who is anti-science, and who is trying to divide us up based on the color of our skin, our nation of origin, our religion, our gender,
or our sexual orientation.
That is not what the American people want. And that reality is the bad news that we have to deal with.
But the truth is that there is a lot of good news out there as well. It's not just that so many of our people disagree with
Trump's policies, temperament, and behavior. It is that the vast majority of our people have a very different vision for the future
of our country than what Trump and the Republican leadership are giving us.
In an unprecedented way, we are witnessing a revitalization of American democracy with more and more people standing up and
fighting back. A little more than a year ago we saw millions of people take to the streets for the women's marches and a few weeks
ago, in hundreds of cities and towns around the world, people once again took to the streets in the fight for social, economic, racial
and environmental justice.
Further, we are seeing the growth of grassroots organizations and people from every conceivable background starting to run
for office – for school board, city council, state legislature, the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.
In fact, we are starting to see the beginning of a political revolution, something long overdue.
And these candidates, from coast to coast, are standing tall for a progressive agenda, an agenda that works for the working
families of our country and not just the billionaire class. These candidates understand that the United States has got to join the
rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare for All, single-payer
program.
They understand that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when the top one-tenth of one percent now owns almost
as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, we should not be giving tax breaks for billionaires but demanding that they start paying
their fair share of taxes.
They know that we need trade policies that benefit working people, not large multi-national corporations.
They know that we have got to take on the fossil fuel industry, transform our energy system and move to sustainable energies
like wind, solar and geothermal.
They know that we need a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, and universal
childcare.
They understand that it is a woman who has the right to control her own body, not state and federal governments, and that
woman has the right to receive equal pay for equal work and work in a safe environment free from harassment.
They also know that if we are going to move forward successfully as a democracy we need real criminal justice reform and we
need to finally address comprehensive immigration reform.
Yes. I understand that the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars
in the 2018 mid-term elections supporting the Trump agenda and right-wing Republicans. They have the money, an unlimited amount of
money. But we have the people, and when ordinary people stand up and fight for justice there is nothing that we cannot accomplish.
That has been the history of America, and that is our future.
"... This Putin paranoia is insane and ridiculous. Our homegrown problems regarding every aspect of government far exceed, by orders of magnitudes, Putin tinkering. All of you making hysterical claims about Putin and impugning Americans as Russian stooges are diverting attention from our real homegrown problems. ..."
"... The root of the situation is FISA, as amended after September 11. ..."
"... History tells us that if a government gets a law enforcement tool, somebody in the government will try to abuse it in ways the legislators who provided the tool did not think of. History also teaches us to keep a sharp eye on the law enforcement organizations – trust but verify! ..."
"... Law enforcement is made of normal people, who bring with them all the qualities and defects of human nature. Abusing power is one of the defects, and since September 11, we gave law enforcement much power ..."
"... We need to find out if any of the candidates broke the law. We need to find out if the FBI and the DOJ abused their power. This is not about political preferences, this is about keeping the country a democracy. For those who might have forgotten it, I will remind what Martin Niemöller said: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ ..."
"... The land of the surreal; I see the usual in denial left-wing commenters hanging around Buchanan columns are now defending a corrupt, politicized FBI. ..."
"... After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton's campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates -- including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information. ..."
"... Is is surprising that all the hoopla for both Republicans, Democrats, the media is about "Trump did it", "Clinton did it, "Putin did it". Only one reader – #Max Charles – made the very intelligent observation that the real beneficiaries of the situation are the Chinese. ..."
"... Democrats and liberals had nothing but disdain for the FBI and other spook organizations until they were 'militarized' by King 'Bama and became the Democrat secret police. Now they love the FBI. This scandal must be dragged into the light of day and cleaned up, folks fired and/or charged and put in prison. OR it will be settled in the streets. When half of the country is 'down with a one party state and secret police,' we're on the same glide path that Venezuela was on. ..."
This Putin paranoia is insane and ridiculous. Our homegrown problems regarding every aspect
of government far exceed, by orders of magnitudes, Putin tinkering. All of you making
hysterical claims about Putin and impugning Americans as Russian stooges are diverting
attention from our real homegrown problems. Look in the mirror everyone. It is in the
reflection that you will find what really ails us.
The root of the situation is FISA, as amended after September 11.
History tells us that if a government gets a law enforcement tool, somebody in the
government will try to abuse it in ways the legislators who provided the tool did not think
of. History also teaches us to keep a sharp eye on the law enforcement organizations –
trust but verify!
Law enforcement is made of normal people, who bring with them all the qualities and
defects of human nature. Abusing power is one of the defects, and since September 11, we gave
law enforcement much power
We need to find out if any of the candidates broke the law. We need to find out if the FBI
and the DOJ abused their power. This is not about political preferences, this is about
keeping the country a democracy. For those who might have forgotten it, I will remind what
Martin Niemöller said: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for
me." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_
After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton's
campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr.
Trump, his businesses and associates -- including possible connections with Russia. It was
at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather
information.
Is is surprising that all the hoopla for both Republicans, Democrats, the media is about
"Trump did it", "Clinton did it, "Putin did it".
Only one reader – #Max Charles – made the very intelligent observation that the
real beneficiaries of the situation are the Chinese.
Since the departure of the Great Helmsman, Chairman Mao, China has followed a highly focused
and highly effective path towards becoming #1 in the world.
There is a combination of economic policy, internal policy and foreign policy which brought
this country to move quietly into such a position.
Could they be behind the circus?
It is very possible, since the Chinese are now using what Fukuyama presented as "the good
emperor" model.
An intelligent, non-democratic system can be so efficient!
Democrats and liberals had nothing but disdain for the FBI and other spook organizations
until they were 'militarized' by King 'Bama and became the Democrat secret police. Now they
love the FBI. This scandal must be dragged into the light of day and cleaned up, folks fired
and/or charged and put in prison. OR it will be settled in the streets. When half of the
country is 'down with a one party state and secret police,' we're on the same glide path that
Venezuela was on.
The so called facts should not be released unless all of the facts are released –
not simply an interpretation of the facts, least of all Nunes' (or maybe the
Whitehouse's?)
You are being disingenuous in simply stating that all memos should be released when you know
that the Schiff memo will never be placed in the public sphere.
There is also an impact on the public which is being overlooked. No person in their right
mind will ever come forward with information for the FBI ever again. Everyone now knows that
if some political opportunist wants to "out you" and embarrass you, you do not stand a
chance. This release made no pretense that it was a political hit, not some kind of sunlight
on a nefarious practice.
That is not to say that a political hit piece is not legitimate or has its proper place
– because it does. Its just that this memo masquerades as something that it is not, and
as a man of intellectual integrity, you should say so.
Can you remind us of what the lib's said about Nixon's operation engaging in political
surveillance of his opponent?
Also, what was the date that Putin and the Trump campaign met and agreed to hack the DNC
servers? They were hacked from the outside, right? We have proof?
Does this mean it is now fair game if the Trump campaign hires some hack to meet with
foreign operatives who make up nasty stories about his Democratic opponent, Trump's DOJ can
go to the FISA court and get permission to spy on his opponents during the campaign, and then
get a Special Prosecutor to "investigate" fabricated allegations and try to snare the new
leadership in process crimes? Or is this a special right that only Democrats get to exercise
because they wear white hats?
It was not only that Steele memo enabled eavesdropping. More troubling fact that FBI considered both Trump and Sanders as
insurgents and was adamant to squash them and ensure Hillary victory. In other word it tried to play the role of kingmaker.
Notable quotes:
"... The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious and so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously. ..."
"... Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory. ..."
"... One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It probably broke several laws. ..."
Over the last month political enemies of U.S. President Trump and the FBI and Justice
Department have desperately tried to prevent the publishing of a memo written by the Republican
controlled House Intelligence Committee.
The memo (pdf) describes parts of the process that let to court sanctioned spying on the
Trump campaign. The
key points of the memo that was just published:
* The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA
applications against Carter Page.
* Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court
without the Steele dossier information.
* The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials,
but excluded from the FISA applications.
* DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to
DOJ information about Steele's bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming
president.
If the above memo proves to be correct one can conclude that a Democratic front organization
created "evidence" that was then used by the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to get FISA
warrants to spy on someone with intimate contacts into the Trump campaign.
The Democrats as well as the FBI have done their utmost to keep this secret.
Carter Page was a relative low ranking volunteer advisor of the Trump campaign with some
business contacts to Russia. He had officially left the campaign shortly before the above FISA
warrant was requested.
Andrew McCabe was an FBI assistant director. A few month earlier his wife ran for a Virginia
State Senate seat with the help of $700,000 she had received from Clinton allies.
The wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, the outlet hired by the Democrats
to find Trump dirt. Fusion GPS hired the former British agent Steele.
The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig
up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump
was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious
and
so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously.
Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump
campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no
longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had
kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible
for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory.
One must wonder if the FISA warrant and eavesdropping on Page was the only one related to
the Trump campaign.
One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this
looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside
of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the
use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It
probably broke several laws.
There are still many questions: What was, exactly, the result of the surveillance of Carter
Page and the Trump campaign? Who was getting these results - officially and unofficially? How
were they used?
I am pretty sure now that more heads of those involved will role. Some of the people who
arranged the scheme, and some of those who tried to cover it up, may go to jail.
If Trump and the Republicans play this right they have practically won the next
elections.
The constant demonisation of Trump carries another danger that is under-appreciated and may
produce a real-world disaster. The US media blames everything on him and respectfully portrays
the bevy of generals who populate the upper ranks of his administration -- Chief of Staff John
Kelly, Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis and National Security Adviser HR McMaster -- as the only
adults in the room. Yet it may turn out that they and other business and political figures,
such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the CIA chief Mike Pompeo, are more likely to
bring about a war than Trump himself.
Just how poor is the judgement of the very people who are meant to be a restraining force on
Trump was shown last month when Tillerson made a classic blunder that may have negative results
for the US for years to come. On 17 January, he announced the US military forces would stay in
Kurdish controlled north-east Syria after the defeat of Isis in order to weaken Iran and
President Bashar al-Assad. Just three days later on 20 January, Turkey, predictably enraged at
what it saw as a US territorial guarantee of a de facto Kurdish state, sent its forces across
the Syrian border to invade the Kurdish enclave of Afrin.
Tillerson had unwittingly initiated a new phase in the Syrian conflict in which the US is
self-isolated and Turkey, Russia, Iran and Assad had been brought closer together. The Kurds in
Afrin, one of the few places in Syria not devastated by war, have to hide in caves as the
direct result of the new US initiative.
Trump's isolationism may be less risky than the neo-interventionism of his senior advisers.
Reports from Washington suggest that the decision to get more fully engaged in the Syrian civil
war was contrary to what Trump himself wanted. By this account, he would have preferred to use
his State of the Union address to announce that the US mission in Syria had ended in triumph
with the defeat of Isis and that he was withdrawing US ground forces. Instead, the decision
went the other way as McMaster and Mattis supported by Tillerson successfully argued for
keeping US ground forces in Syria and Iraq.
These senior officials were only advocating the consensus opinion of the US foreign policy
establishment, as was swiftly illustrated by media commentators. Even as Turkish tanks were
rolling into Syria, an editorial in The Washington Post was applauding Tillerson for
having "bluntly recognised a truth that both President Trump and President Barack Obama
attempted to dodge" -- which is that the US needs a political and military presence in
Syria.
Despite all Trump's condemnation of Obama's supposed weakness, his strategy in Afghanistan,
Iraq and Syria did not differ much from his predecessor – that is until his chief
security officials switched to an interventionist policy in Syria last month.
Traditional policy of relying on force to overcome all obstacles or what Obama nicknamed
"The Washington Playbook" looks as if it is back in business. He privately condemned the US
foreign policy establishment for being wedded to dubious allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
in pursuit of over-ambitious objectives.
American strength in the world was ebbing before Trump, though the divisive and mercurial
nature of his presidency is speeding up the decline. In every continent a power vacuum has
opened up which is being filled by many eager candidates. They generally have the same
ingredients of populism, demagoguery, authoritarianism and nationalism, though the quantities
of each may differ, and they are certainly making the world a more dangerous place because they
do not know the limits of their own power.
From Manila to Warsaw, there has been the rise of the mini-Trumps who tend to know the
politics of their own country well, but be dangerously ignorant of that of other countries. It
is in the nature of arbitrary rulers, who have suppressed domestic criticism, such as Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, that they pursue exaggerated ambitions moving over
ice that is always thinner than they imagine.
US power in the world is declining, having reached its peak between the fall of the Soviet
Union in 1991 and the start of the Iraq war in 2003. Two dangers are emerging: one is the
feckless nature of Trump administration which acts as a sort of out-of-control wrecking ball,
though the damage done is limited by Trump's low attention span and divisions in
Washington.
A second danger is the US foreign policy establishment. which has learned nothing new from
past failures, which would like to restore US power to what it once was and is does not
understand that this can no longer be done. This is "the Washington Playbook", which Obama came
to deride and ignore and is just as dangerous as anything Trump may do.
TILLERSON NEEDS TO BE TAKEN BEHIND THE WOODHED AND WHIPPED.
The genocidal US needs to leave Syria as it's there illegally. But dishonorable US could care
less.
If you are alive, you know the Israelis run the US & the Middle East chaos. So you
better call Nettanyahu.
The USA has a very long history of training and equipping foreigners in how to be better at
maiming, torturing, and killing. During the Reagan years we trained thousands of Latin
Americans to fight. Sometimes we trained the folks on the side of the government, sometimes we
trained the insurgents. Whichever side we thought was more to our liking.
We also trained and equipped random folks that were willing to fight the Soviets in
Afghanistan. That's where Al Queda got a big boost.
More recently we trained and bought off various warlords in Afghanistan, which worked really
well in driving the Taliban into hiding, for a short while, until the billions in payoffs dried
up.
As for training ISIS, it's no secret, many in Congress pushed hard for us to train and
supply anybody that said they were anti-Assad.
That's about as far as the linked article hints at. Nothing about Obama at all. 937 Views
· View
Upvoters
In case it is not clear, the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is a neocon. Strong evidence
of this unfortunate fact is his speech on January 17, 2018 at Stanford's Hoover Institute.
After warmly acknowledging his debt to Dr. Condoleezza Rice and George Shultz, Tillerson goes
into his " Remarks on the Way Forward for
the United States Regarding Syria."
What do we hear? " it is crucial to our national defense to maintain a military and
diplomatic presence in Syria, to help bring an end to that conflict, and assist the Syrian
people as they chart a course to achieve a new political future." He wants the US to stay in
Syria indefinitely, its purposes being to defend the American nation, to cause the war to end,
and to create a new government/state in Syria.
We've heard the same neocon language in the past 17 years regarding Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and other countries. None of these countries are "crucial" to
American security. Entry by US forces into each and every one of them has increased American
insecurity, generating ever more Muslim terrorist forces. None of these places posed state-led
threats to Americans and none posed non-state forces that could not have been addressed by
means other than the failed methods that the US government adopted, symbolized by the entirely
unnecessary and counter-productive
War on Terror .
In his speech, Tillerson presents new elaborations, new rationales, and new flowerings of
neocon thought, but the root of it all remains unchanged. It's the same old rot we've heard for
the past 17 years and longer. The War on Terror remains fixed firmly in his mind. This he makes
clear, saying "The fight against ISIS is not over." And he says "Similarly, we must persist in
Syria to thwart al-Qaida " The secondary excuse for the uninvited US presence inside Syria is
to get rid of the Assad government and create a new state. "Additionally, a total withdrawal of
American personnel at this time would restore Assad and continue his brutal treatment against
his own people. A murderer of his own people cannot generate the trust required for long-term
stability."
Baloney. Tillerson's language echoes the language used against Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi.
The US always resorts to holier-than-thou language like this when it wants to justify the
empire's presence in some place that has nothing to do with American security.
Tillerson knows enough not to name "nation-building" in Syria as US policy. Instead he uses
a euphemism: "STABILIZATION".
The world is not a pretty place everywhere, not even in parts of the Americas that I'll
refrain from naming; but some are close to the White House. This doesn't justify a costly US
presence that, in any event, is very likely not only to fail but also to produce a worse
situation.
It's not the role of the US government to dry out an alcoholic world, or to get it off
drugs, pretty it up, wash it clean, apply new makeup, get it a paying job, find it a mate, turn
it into a responsible citizen, and have it raise its children as good parents. Why not? Because
it cannot! It doesn't know enough to do it and it cannot know enough to do it, so that when it
tries the results are no better and often worse than doing nothing at all, not to mention the
costs.
People in power who use lofty language as in this speech present to us a scenario, which is
that they have surveyed the turf, discovered the issues, and formulated a plan. They make out
that they actually understand human problems and can do something about them using the powers
of their office. We should believe none of this. The processes that they think are predictable
and governable are neither. Non-ergodicity rules much of human life.
NON-ERGODIC: "Attribute of a behavior that is in certain crucial respects incomprehensible
through observation either for lack of repetition, e.g., by involving only transient states
which are unique, or for lack of stabilities, e.g., when transition probabilities (see
probabilities) are so variable that there are not enough observations available to ascertain
them. Evolution and social processes involving structural changes are inherently non-ergodic.
To understand non-ergodic behavior requires either reference to the underlying organization of
the system exhibiting it or the study of a large sample of systems of the same kind (see
ergodic). (Krippendorff)"
"... President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him. ..."
"... The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs, and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American president in history. ..."
"... The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia. The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and Russia. ..."
"... Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of Russia. ..."
"... Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's "shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. ..."
The Russian government, media, and public don't know what to make of the US Treasury's
"Kremlim list." The Treasury list contains the names of the top echelon of Russian government
and business leadership. The Russians understand that the list is unfriendly and furthers
Washington's policy of worsening the relationship between the two major nuclear powers, but
beyond that the list seems to be a mystery to them.
President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin
was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him.
1) The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs,
and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By
suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their
Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their
companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington
intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian
elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is
difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American
president in history.
2) The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of
Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response
from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia.
The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and
Russia.
The lack of a meaningful Russian response will encourage more insults and actual sanctions
against Putin's supporters, which will cause some of them to separate from Putin in order to
protect their own economic and career interests. In the past Washington has used sanctions in
efforts to deprive leaders of public support. With the Kremlin list, Washington has changed its
tactics and is targeting the reputations and economic interests of the leadership class. The
list is Washington's attempt to deprive Putin of the support of the top echelon of government
and business leaders. The list is a bullet aimed at Putin's heart.
Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a
devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests
the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of
Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of
Russia.
Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's
"shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any
consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it
submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada,
Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush
declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia
can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. (Republished from
PaulCraigRoberts.org
by permission of author or representative) ← The Second Dossier
So, the long-awaited " Kremlin List "
happened to be a purely formal action. What was made public is just a meaningless compilation
of names partly taken from a phonebook with some of them cribbed from the Forbes' Billionaires list – a kind
of Who Is Who reference publication. The administration had to release the document as required
by law, so it adopted the "get what you want and leave me alone" approach. At least, that's
what the unclassified part of the report looks like. Technically correct, the list is just a
mockery in its essence. Nothing in the report indicates that the US is in possession of
information about the individuals' involvement in any wrongdoings. The paper says it is not a
sanctions list though Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
said it would result in restrictive measures. He did not specify the date.
It's not the "Kremlin List" that really matters. On Jan.29, one day before the document was
made public, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee
voted to release a classified memorandum, revealing the misconduct by the FBI and the
Justice Department in the Russia investigation. The paper expresses grave concern over the way
the investigation, launched by the Obama administration, was conducted. The lawmakers took the
decision ignoring the position of
the Justice Department, which had warned not take this "extraordinary reckless" step. It's
highly probable that if an investigation into the abuses is launched, the trail will lead to
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's not Donald Trump but rather his opponents who will be at center of the scandal with
media raising ballyhoo (and they will do it as practice shows). Everything will turn around to
put the Democratic backers of Hillary Clinton on the defensive with the president's hands
untied giving him much more freedom to implement his Russia policy. He won't keep one eye on
Congress when it comes to dealing with Russia. Trump will become the defender of democracy
threatened by Clinton's camp. The "Kremlin's List" will be on the backburner.
Russia knows well all the ins and outs of US politics. It is reserved and patient but it
cannot forever abstain from striking back. Both governments realize this fact and act
accordingly. They don't sever the contacts, so that wouldn't have to start from scratch when
the times change.
On the contrary, they do what is possible under the circumstances. It's enough to look at
the news that doesn't hit headlines but tells about the events of great significance. For
instance, Sergey Naryshkin, the head of Russian foreign intelligence service, has recently visited the United States to
discuss terrorism. The Russian foreign intelligence chief is under sanctions but the visit was
important enough to make the US executive turn a blind eye on this fact. Naryshkin was granted
entry to the country. It's hard to imagine such a high-ranking official coming alone.
So, the information exchange with Russia is too important to be affected by ups and downs in
the relationship. It's enough to remember how the interaction
between the intelligence services of both countries prevented a terrorist act in Saint
Petersburg last December. In his recent
interview with Russian Echo Moskvy ( Echo of Moscow ) radio
station, US Ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman
said the time is propitious for a Russia-US bilateral summit. He also emphasized the
importance of military-to-military communications. Until now, the leaders have met only on the
sidelines of top-level international events. A summit could change a lot of things, addressing
many problems beyond the scope of bilateral relationship.
2018 is an election year in the United States. The Democrats' chances will diminish greatly
when the secret memo is released. With economy going strong, the chances for Republicans to
strengthen their position in both houses look good enough. So do the opportunities for the
president to keep his pre-election promise to improve the relationship with Russia.
In case it is not clear, the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is a neocon. Strong evidence
of this unfortunate fact is his speech on January 17, 2018 at Stanford's Hoover Institute.
After warmly acknowledging his debt to Dr. Condoleezza Rice and George Shultz, Tillerson goes
into his " Remarks on the Way Forward for
the United States Regarding Syria."
What do we hear? " it is crucial to our national defense to maintain a military and
diplomatic presence in Syria, to help bring an end to that conflict, and assist the Syrian
people as they chart a course to achieve a new political future." He wants the US to stay in
Syria indefinitely, its purposes being to defend the American nation, to cause the war to end,
and to create a new government/state in Syria.
We've heard the same neocon language in the past 17 years regarding Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and other countries. None of these countries are "crucial" to
American security. Entry by US forces into each and every one of them has increased American
insecurity, generating ever more Muslim terrorist forces. None of these places posed state-led
threats to Americans and none posed non-state forces that could not have been addressed by
means other than the failed methods that the US government adopted, symbolized by the entirely
unnecessary and counter-productive
War on Terror .
In his speech, Tillerson presents new elaborations, new rationales, and new flowerings of
neocon thought, but the root of it all remains unchanged. It's the same old rot we've heard for
the past 17 years and longer. The War on Terror remains fixed firmly in his mind. This he makes
clear, saying "The fight against ISIS is not over." And he says "Similarly, we must persist in
Syria to thwart al-Qaida " The secondary excuse for the uninvited US presence inside Syria is
to get rid of the Assad government and create a new state. "Additionally, a total withdrawal of
American personnel at this time would restore Assad and continue his brutal treatment against
his own people. A murderer of his own people cannot generate the trust required for long-term
stability."
Baloney. Tillerson's language echoes the language used against Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi.
The US always resorts to holier-than-thou language like this when it wants to justify the
empire's presence in some place that has nothing to do with American security.
Tillerson knows enough not to name "nation-building" in Syria as US policy. Instead he uses
a euphemism: "STABILIZATION".
The world is not a pretty place everywhere, not even in parts of the Americas that I'll
refrain from naming; but some are close to the White House. This doesn't justify a costly US
presence that, in any event, is very likely not only to fail but also to produce a worse
situation.
It's not the role of the US government to dry out an alcoholic world, or to get it off
drugs, pretty it up, wash it clean, apply new makeup, get it a paying job, find it a mate, turn
it into a responsible citizen, and have it raise its children as good parents. Why not? Because
it cannot! It doesn't know enough to do it and it cannot know enough to do it, so that when it
tries the results are no better and often worse than doing nothing at all, not to mention the
costs.
People in power who use lofty language as in this speech present to us a scenario, which is
that they have surveyed the turf, discovered the issues, and formulated a plan. They make out
that they actually understand human problems and can do something about them using the powers
of their office. We should believe none of this. The processes that they think are predictable
and governable are neither. Non-ergodicity rules much of human life.
NON-ERGODIC: "Attribute of a behavior that is in certain crucial respects incomprehensible
through observation either for lack of repetition, e.g., by involving only transient states
which are unique, or for lack of stabilities, e.g., when transition probabilities (see
probabilities) are so variable that there are not enough observations available to ascertain
them. Evolution and social processes involving structural changes are inherently non-ergodic.
To understand non-ergodic behavior requires either reference to the underlying organization of
the system exhibiting it or the study of a large sample of systems of the same kind (see
ergodic). (Krippendorff)"
Although not specifically related to the thread topic, Adam Garrie
frames his 911 essay by using the late composer Karlheinz Stockhausen's description--a
description we often see within Syria and elsewhere. Indeed, the atrocities b mentions are
all part of the "performance."
As Canthama observed on his Twitter feed: The Afrin Kurds are "morons" for not allowing
the Syrian government to reclaim its rightful position as protector of Syria's lands. Had
they done so, the two women and many others would be alive and massive damage avoided. I
would add another adjective--Masochists--to morons. Not long ago, Assad said those Syrians
who choose to not stand with the elected government against the invaders are guilty of
treason; so, it would seem the Turkish assault amounts to punishment. I wonder how long it
will take for the Kurds to get the picture.
karlof1 , Feb 1, 2018 4:29:08 PM |
3WorldBLee , Feb 1, 2018 4:33:48 PM |
4
It's impossible to pick a side between the jihadist-supporting Turkish offensive and the
US-backed, often collaborating with jihadists, "Kurdish" side. (I used quotes around Kurdish
because Kurdish-controlled forces have taken land where Arabs, Christians, and others have
traditionally lived in Syria.) Obviously, the best situation would be for the Syrian army to
take control of the border, keeping the Turks out and providing both security and government
control to the northern lands of Syria.
I wonder what will happen when most of north, central, east and west Afrin has eventually
been occupied by the attackers and grabbed from the current occupiers. Will those fleeing
thieves remaining in southern Afrin beg the Syrian government for and be allowed to have a
corridor to Manbij or eastern Syria waiting for another day to steal more land in favor of
US+Zionist strategic interests? I can't imagine they will be allowed to settle in government
controlled area's after their loathsome acts of ultimate treason. I think the SAA should
completely shut the borders with Afrin, reinforce it, let the current fight between the
thieves play out by itself but also expect attacks from fleeing Kurds. Maybe it would forever
be a lesson written in blood that Kurdish lives are completely worthless in face of the US
empire's interests.
Obviously, the best situation would be for the Syrian army to take control of the border,
keeping the Turks out and providing both security and government control to the northern
lands of Syria.
Posted by: WorldBLee | Feb 1, 2018 4:33:48 PM | 4
There was a "long essay", more than 12 tweets, discussing that topic. SAA cannot fight on
too many fronts, and YPG "got too full of themselves". Damascus government demanded
more-or-less full control in Afrin before sending troops there, and Russian coordinated with
Damascus, in particular, refused to threaten Turkish airforce. YPG fancied themselves that
they can maintain trappings of an independent statelet, e.g. they replaced Syrian license
plates with their own (talk about vanity plates!). However, Syria-Russia allies keep their
options open. In particular, SAA allows YPG/SDF traffic on highways through the controlled
territory, I bet that this is somewhat reciprocal, but the reciprocity is less important for
SAA than for YPG.
Allegedly, Turkey mobilized 25,000 of their pet jihadists for the Afrin war, some of those
were recruited in Idlib-stan a while ago, and some just recently for the occasion. That made
it easier for SAA and allies to take control of the "eastern Idlib-stan", about 1/3 of the
former territory (there is also ISIS enclave that was formed when the moderate jihadist
retreated and in part, switched sides, this enclave is wittled down rather slowly, just so it
cannot threaten important highways).
Kurds are in a tricky situation. Scratch that. Everybody is, this is a multi-way war after
all, in the custom of the region that is amply attested in history.
1. Russian difficulties. Selling natural gas without obstruction is a major state interest
of RF, and a minor interest is cementing their position as the cheapest and most reliable
supplier of nuclear power stations, Erdogan found that these interests dovetail the Turkish
ones, but those are long-term projects that can be suspended with minor immediate
consequences. One of several reasons why Russia has to treat Turkey with care. Moreover, the
war in Syria is not overwhelmingly popular in Russia, so the strategy of RF is to commit as
few ground troops as possible. Turkey does some dirty stuff allowing heavy weapons to reach
jihadists, but they can do worse (and they did worse in the past).
2. Turkish difficulties. They can be almost cut-and-pasted from the previous point. In
particular, war in Syria is not sufficiently popular to commit a large number of ground
troops. I doubt if the moderate jihadists that were gathered for the occasion indeed form a
"fanatical force". After many years of bloody civil war, mutiliating corpses is just
something "everybody does". Actually, the fact that SAA very productively exploits of the
absence of these forces from Idlib is probably reducing their morale. As a result, the war
progresses somewhat slowly, giving some face to Afrin-ers, and negotiate rescue from SAA +
Russia.
3. Syrian difficulties. After many years of the civil war, most of the military consists
of "semi-regular" units that operate only in their home regions, and with rather sketchy
training, discipline and armament, so they can advance on few fronts only. Fighting to help
Afrin has to be worth A LOT to forgo other needs.
4. Kurdish difficulties. USA is a generous provider of weapons and payroll, but Syrian
Kurds also rely on good will of SAA and Russians. USA wants them to make the relations with
SAA and Russian much worse than now, and they need to make them better. They have to decide
what type of autonomy would be good for them, and when to refuse American aid if the latter
will demand to be maximalist (like, total independence). Usually this leads to internal
divisions, and at the very least, they will have to make a show of such divisions.
5. American difficulties. As for everyone, there is a gap between wishes and
possibilities, and it is hard to see what wishes can be fulfilled in a longer time frame.
6. Piotr's difficulties. Getting a semi-complete list of difficulties.
Propaganda wars.
This is my interpretation of the case. The Coalition for Occupation is not happy. In fact they are like Desperate Housewives. The U.S. led Coalition partners once claimed YPG is not PKK. And the Turkish airstrike of yesterday on a Building with a rooftop portrait of Abdullah
Ocalan
arrives in. A giant portrait of 27m X 40m PKK leader's in Afrin. Turks hit the portrait right
in the mouth. PKK in Afrin? Every household in Afrin has PKK flags since Afrin's occupation
in 2012 by PKK. The airstrike made the US led coalition unhappy.
I didn't much like the language in this text. Bashi-bazouk = jihadi. No more, no less.
Turkish language for the Arabic. Those who fight for nothing for their religion; it's an
ancient Islamic practice, which goes back to the 8th century. However the jihadis in the
Syrian war are paid, but don't have military training. Militias. Introduce this term,
bashi-bazouk, is simply to add the ancient European hatred to what you don't like.
Russia could play a role in Afrin but they won't. The Syrian army is certainly incapable of
facing Turkey, now or in the future. So they play a waiting game: the invasion may generate
sour feelings in Turkey (don't count too much on it) and the Kurds will be weakened. Win-win
...
So many liars talking tosh it's tough to tell how committed Erdogan is to anything he spouts
in his article of a few days ago headed On the ground in Afrin, it's hard to know what
Kurdish fighters really stand for Fisk writes from inside Afrin which he says is policed
by Russians in the daytime altho some Kurd militias are also in view. The town seems pretty
normal cause the fighting is still some distance away.
Fisk makes the point that although the mob in charge of Afrin claim to be nothing to do with
the PKK:
or the very moment you cross from the Syrian army's last checkpoint – red, white and
black flags and a poster of Bashar al-Assad, his brother Maher, Hezbollah leader Hassan
al-Nasrallah and prominent army colonel "Tiger" Suheil (please note the latter), you find
yourself amid blue-and-white-coloured concrete ramps, the "star" banner of "Kurdistan"
(which, like "Palestine", does not exist) and a gigantic picture of Abdullah Ocalan, the
PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) leader for whom the YPG has absolutely no connection
whatsoever. Or so they tell you.
One thing is for sure judging by the general unpreparedness of everyone inside the North
Western Syria Kurdish 'enclave', little Rex Tillerson really fucked up when he spouted off
about a 30,000 person border protection force for kurdistan.
Now even ForeignPolicyDOTcom which has been about Tillerson's only consistent bulwark in the
american media is putting the skids under Tillerson by describing his recent efforts to hire
senior staff and generally straighten out State's mess as an attempt to
gain altitude presumably to water down criticism before he is pushed or jumps.
Too bad about all the unwhite people getting killed because you can't run a brothel on a
troopship eh Rex? When you think about it there can't be an easier gig than numero uno at
Mobil Exxon - hunnerds of million a year for pumping oil outta Saudi and selling it to the
mugs for an extortionate mark-up. If the Saudis are stupid enough to ignore their script all
Rex had to do was get his lobbyists to phone the bargain basement bought forked tongued
pricks in DC and tell em to do the sabre rattle while starting up the gunboats.
In my opinion there is method to Trump's apparent madness. We must first remember he came
into office faced with foes from the Deep State apparatus which has infiltrated every aspect
of American government. Every government entity has been (sometime openly) hostile to
anything he has wanted to do so he has been swimming against the stream all the way along. He
inherited several disastrous situations and most without hope of ending.
The Korean War (it is still active declared war and only in an unsigned armistice) is
hopeless. The PRNK has carefully observed that the US acts as a rogue nation, reneges on all
treaties and promises, and kills anyone who opposes them. Faced with that the development of
nuclear weapons was necessary to survival. What can Trump do to end that after the horse has
left the stable?
He can scare the piss out of the South Koreans and show that we are more than willing to
sacrifice their entire Peninsula for our own bizarre needs. Trump, by acting out the Deep
State's wildest fantasy is actually bringing both Koreas together and likely we will be
invited to leave the Peninsula.
The same thing is happening with Turkey. It will take a miracle to avoid the deaths of
Americans who have illegally invaded Syria and are attempting to create a separate Kurdistan.
Once this gets out of control, and that is a certainty, the Turkes will throw us out of
Turkey entirely. The alternative is to leave Syria completely.
Ukraine is being ramped up for yet another confrontation and a complete break from the
Minsk II agreement. Again, Trump is fulfilling the Deep State's orgasmic fantasy to challenge
Russia at her doorstep. As we have seen now repeatedly the US fails to back up these gambits
and walks away in disgrace. No one is taking American threats seriously. For example Trump
very clearly said he doesn't like the EU. Was there any reaction at all? The European and
American markets were up yet again. This is clear evidence none of this is seriously being
considered.
Afghanistan is America's new tar baby and Trump is pissing off the entire Muslim world and
especially Pakistan. Only a madman would do that unless there is a different motive.
We cannot exist in Afghanistan without a land route in and out of the country. Russia has
cut the US off from all other countries (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan) with road
access and now we have pissed off the Pakistani's so they will close the roads to us.
That leaves Trump with no option except to pull out. Again, he does this by acting on Deep
State fantasies which they are at first dazzled by and then when they realize the
repercussions are horrified. He has them all running for cover now.
The release of the memo today will be a game changer and the dominoes will start to fall
exposing the Deep State actors for who they really are and name will be revealed.
Maybe The other 95% of Snowden's material plus whatever Assange is holding back on. Maybe
we will finally see Hillary's deleted emails?
All bets are off now and it looks to me like Trump is going to close out all this insane
business in Korea, Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine through his efforts. Then maybe we can
finally focus on our enormous problems at home.
In theory, the USA could anihilate any single country it wishes to.
But that's not the problem. The problem is that you don't bomb other countries just for
the sake of bombing them. You bomb them to achieve a goal.
And America's goal is to maintain its status as the sole global superpower. You can't
achieve it by bombing and invading Syria only. You have to anihilate Russia and China first,
and them proceed to the Middle East in order to control the Heartland -- the core of human
civilization. Adolf Hitler knew that -- that's why he didn't stop in France and North Africa,
instead proceeding to conquer and enslave the Soviet Union.
With due respect; I think you see today's realities accurately.
But I disagree with your conclusions/assumptions.
The U.S. will not give up Afghanistan easily because of China's BRI; Afghanistan is a key
element of that.
If BRI is successful, it spells the end of western economic hegemon. The U.S. will go down
fighting to stop it; and go down it will; one way or the other.
If I may suggest; expand your horizons; geo-politics are changing rapidly, mostly against
U.S. interests; and it's only the beginning...
Such a war effort would be a vast improvement over fixing pot holes at home; unless, of
course, one could put up a privately owned but publicly subsidized toll booth at every pot
hole and then, rather than fix them, force people to sign a waiver or somehow get off the
road then and there.
A good all round nuclear war would take care of everything at once.
"... For being "intelligence" agencies who no one is apparently allowed to question or criticize, they sure make a lot of "mistakes", "lose" a lot of documents, and just get a lot of things "wrong". ..."
"... Iraq was invaded and occupied as well. Control resources!! That is the end game...As a Combat Veteran served during 9/11 and tip of the spear in 2003 we found ZERO weapons of mass destruction....So many young Americans impacted and suffered for pure profit at the hands of greedy Men... ..."
His comments came hours after SIGAR said in
a quarterly report on the conflict that the Pentagon prohibited the inclusion of information on the number of districts in Afghanistan,
and the population therein, controlled by the Afghan government or the Taliban or contested by both sides.
"The number of districts controlled or influenced by the Afghan government had been one of the last remaining publicly available
indicators for members of Congress -- many of whose staff do not have access to the classified annexes to SIGAR reports -- and for
the American public of how the 16-year-long U.S. effort to secure Afghanistan is faring," SIGAR said in a statement. "This is the
first time SIGAR has been specifically instructed not to release information marked 'unclassified' to the American taxpayer."
In his emailed statement, Gresback said that, as of October 2017, about 56 percent of the country's 407 districts were under Afghan
government control or influence, 30 percent remained contested, and roughly 14 percent were now under insurgent control or influence.
R Roger47 yesterday
Afghanistan is too big and too poor for their own government and military to ever be able to control. Much of the country is
controlled by tribal leaders associated loosely with the Taliban. They want to continue to live their lives as they have done
for hundreds of years. We can either let them do so, or occupy their country forever. I say make an agreement to leave them alone
as long as they keep terrorists out, and bring our troops home.
e edward yesterday
For being "intelligence" agencies who no one is apparently allowed to question or criticize, they sure make a lot of "mistakes",
"lose" a lot of documents, and just get a lot of things "wrong".
C CBVET2003 yesterday
Iraq was invaded and occupied as well. Control resources!! That is the end game...As a Combat Veteran served during 9/11
and tip of the spear in 2003 we found ZERO weapons of mass destruction....So many young Americans impacted and suffered for pure
profit at the hands of greedy Men...
V Vegasvince 22 hours ago
Several things he promised to work on are traditional Democratic issues. Since they also agree, I'd hope we can see quick
congressional action. Infrastructure, prescription drug costs, terminal patients access to drug trials, Job training investment,
Paid family leave, former prisoner job training, etc... These should be fast tracked through Congress and to the Presidents. We
can agree on things in America and need a productive governement to get thing s done!
"... Also, Turkey fighting in Afrin is an opening for various and sundry jihadis in Idleb to escape. As part-time pawns of the US, this is not a great problem for the US. ..."
"... Russia just does not have that much to offer Erdogan, not in Armenia, not in Syria, not economically, not militarily, not diplomatically. Russia is friendly with Iran and Syria and really is opposed to AQ, IS etc. because it has vulnerable populations. ..."
Turkish army fighting in Syria is a problem for the national secular government (aka
Assad.) I'm sorry but I do not see how this is driving Turkey into Russia's waiting arms.
Also, Turkey fighting in Afrin is an opening for various and sundry jihadis in Idleb
to escape. As part-time pawns of the US, this is not a great problem for the US. If
Turkey were clashing with the US directly in Rojava, yes, but it's not.
I don't think this is an accident. Russia just does not have that much to offer
Erdogan, not in Armenia, not in Syria, not economically, not militarily, not diplomatically.
Russia is friendly with Iran and Syria and really is opposed to AQ, IS etc. because it has
vulnerable populations.
It's true that the US is a faithless master. It has turned on AQ, turned on IS, turned on
Saddam Hussein, turned on Erdogan. But it's like the guy said when someone asked him why he'd
play in a crooked game: "It's the only one in town!" Russia is not strong enough to start a
new game. And despite the starry eyes, it is by no means clear that Putin wants one. A
crooked game is very attractive to the sharpers who imagine they're smart enough to take it
over.
I should be used to neocon madness by now, but it still blows me away: fighting Russia in
order to crush Assad and prevent Iran having a land bridge through Syria it doesn't need, all
in order to please Israel/Saudi Arabia for some reason. And yet they think of themselves as
the Serious People.
Short of nuclear war, all the US can do is beat its chest and continue the same tactics of
chaos and destruction that impede the quality of life for everyone in the region of Syria
without stopping the ultimate progress of the Syrian government as it reclaims control of its
own territory. In short, expect more pain and suffering for the Syrian people with a higher
price tag to rebuild the country (regarded as a total plus by the US powers that be as
Russia, Iran, and China will pay them rather than the US) but not the prized outcome the US
seeks, i.e., the removal of President Assad.
Very good post except for the end. The war in Iraq is finished. Baghdad has won. The US may
haver, but it's objectives are lost. The Kurds are back in their canton. Reunification is the
word.
Summing up points made by several people above, it is instructive how those who have been
saying "Give Israel enough rope and it will hang itself" have been proved right.
Every one of the strategic problems Israel claims to be facing is the direct result of
Israeli over reach, aggression and the demagogy of internal politicking.
Hezbollah for example, would never have come into being had Israel not left the Lebanese with
no alternatives but to fight back or lose their land to Zionist expansion. Hezbollah's
current strength comes, politically, from its successful resistance in 2006, when it became
Lebanon's shield, and militarily from Israel's decision to get rid of Assad (whose regime had
been quietly accommodating to Tel Aviv for years) and give Hezbollah, along with the SAA the
opportunity to transform itself into a superb, seasoned field formation.
As to Iran and Russia, does Israel prefer them to ISIS and al qaeda? Probably not but it
was Israel's espousal of the neo-cons Syrian policy that has now put Israel on the brink of
destruction, with nothing else to sustain it but its grip on the crooks who run Washington
and their miniature counterparts in Europe and the British Commonwealth that was.
Ben Gurion and Abba Eban, fanatical zionists both and war criminals to boot, must be
spinning in their graves; in their days zionists were calculating and shrewd, playing their
card carefully. Netanyahu and the fascists who dominate Israel today are all about boasting,
threatening, bullying and, of course, fascism's inevitable, suicidal, death wish. Those who
hate life urgently enough have the choice between a partisan's lamppost and a bunker dripping
with petrol.
Sounds like "false flag" time once again. It won't take much for the America sheep to be on
board for another military adventure. They're too busy playing with their newest cell phone
trinkets to care much.
"If Turkey were clashing with the US directly in Rojava"
Turkey and US won't clash. At least this is what the retired generals say on TVs (TAF
communicate with the public via retired generals). However, both the govt. and the generals
and the reps of other nationalist and patriotic bodies blame some 'dark forces' inside U.S.
as the culprit. Make a wild guess as to who they are. I don't know myself. Some claim they
are the neocons, some say globalists, some say oil giants, capitalists, weapons
manufacturers. The Turks do openly target someone under this heading 'dark forces' though and
as of today they began to say any accidental clash with US troops will lead to a bigger
problem and they add a Turkish saying to it: You can't count punches in a fight (all out war?
but against whom if not the U.S. armed forces then??)
There must be a real national security concern this time.
Govt. reps talk to the public "Are you willing to mobilize if you are needed in Afrin?"
Well, what does that mean? A single TAF unit is enough to exterminate the entire PKK guys in
Afrin. Why do you need the whole population ready on your backyard? I guess this is some
psy-preparation. Yes? But against who?
"The neoconservative writers and their op-eds should be ignored. But the war on Iraq has
shown that there is some serious political power behind them. " thatan easy question.
Neoconservatives are lobbyists on MIC so there is a very powerful political force behind
them
Syria - Neo-Conservatives Demand "Action" - Hope For A Larger
War
The U.S. polity and media now acknowledge what we
reported on December 21. The U.S. announcement to build up a 30,000 strong PKK army in
north-east Syria was a disaster. It prompted Turkey to initiate its attack on YPG/PKK Kurds in
Afrin. It threatens do drive it out of NATO and into Russia's open arms. It gives the Syrian
government new leverage against the Syrian Kurds.
Under Turkish threats to attack U.S. forces in Syria the Trump administration had to pull
back - at least in its rhetoric. Independent of who rules Turkey the country will never
acquiesce to an armed Kurdish entity on its southern border. The U.S. should have know
this.
This failure of the Trump administration's plan has prompted a new push from neoconservative
propagandists for a full U.S. war on Syria and its allies. The lobby shop of the Kagan family,
the Institute For The Study of War, had its junior staff pen an op-ed for Foxnews to argue for
a new study object:
The U.S. must rapidly change how it is executing policy in five key areas.
Russian military bases. ...
Acceptance of Bashar al-Assad. ...
Syrian "de-escalation." ...
The "peace" process. ...
Iran and al Qaeda. ...
The hinted at solutions, couched in vague language, are for 1. nuke them, 2. kill him, 3.
stop it, 4. who cares, 5. destroy 'em all:
The U.S. must face reality in Syria. It must recognize the threat Russia poses. It must
acknowledge the limits of its current partners on the ground. It cannot put faith in a
diplomatic charade. It must implement a real strategy against al Qaeda and Iran. And it must
recognize the value of American action over American rhetoric.
...
It will take a long time and a hard struggle to achieve any outcome in Syria that the U.S.
should be willing to live with. It is time to focus on it, devote resources to it, and
prepare to do so for a long time.
"For a long time" sounds to me like a multi decade occupation of the Syrian battlefield and
the adjacent areas. I doubt that any politician who wants to be reelected will vote for
that.
It is not useful to quote the nonsense but here are some of the rhetoric figures it
uses:
... the will and leverage needed to lead a solution to the Syrian crisis - defend U.S.
interests - confronting the ongoing terrorist threat - Iranian expansion - Bashar al-Assad's
brutal aggression - on-the-ground influence - herculean effort - a contingent that wants to
cut and run - a real plan - fundamental flaw - a lack of sufficient leverage on the ground
...
After having set the scene for a massive U.S. occupation of Syria, Rogin claims that "nobody
is advocating" a "large increase in U.S. troops". His advice then is to do more of the stuff
that evidently just failed: stick to the Kurds, pay some Arab tribes (aka former ISIS), arm
rebels (aka al-Qaeda) in Idleb. But then comes the real blopper:
the Trump administration should raise the pressure on Assad, Russia and Iran, including
through sanctions, the credible threat of U.S. force and whatever else might persuade them.
Now what please is a "credible threat of U.S. force" against those three countries? And
might they have the capability to credibly threat back? Who will win the thermonuclear war over
the Tanf desert base in south-east Syria?
A year into Trump's presidency, his administration is saying the United States has a
long-term interest in Syria. The next step is to match those words with action .
I have no doubt that the two op-eds were coordinated. More of this kind will
likely come. The common theme is "action" and - while not openly said - they demand a larger
U.S. war over Syria. The unmentioned beneficiary of such a war, next to the weapon producing
financiers of those writers, would be Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The neoconservative writers and their op-eds should be ignored. But the war on Iraq has
shown that there is some serious political power behind them. Now someone in the White House
will have to pick up those arguments and try to convince Trump with them. Who will that be and
will s/he be successful?
Posted by b on January 29, 2018 at 02:17 PM |
Permalink
the Trump administration should raise the pressure on Assad, Russia and Iran, including
through sanctions, the credible threat of U.S. force and whatever else might
persuade them.
This is ridiculous. Trump tried to bully N Korea and failed. How is he going to
intimidate Russia?
The neocons must expect an SAA victory in Idlib - they make such noise every time the SAA
closes in on a major victory. They must also expect that the Kurds will fail them.
That is good news. Trump lacks the balls to start a war with Russia and Iran which has a
Turkey which is sympathetic to their cause or at least one of them. But we should expect some
deadly mischief from the neocons and their Israeli and Saudi backers that seeks to ignite a
war.
This is also an effort in controlling the narrative, lest anyone adopt the common sense
position that it was exactly the aggressive regime-change policy in Syria which led directly
to the current balance of power. Israelis may feel threatened by the presence of Iran in
Syria and the renewed strength of Hezbollah, but this did not occur in a vacuum and the
policy adopted by Israel's government of supporting the removal of Assad has put them in such
position. Perhaps the decision-making of Israel's current government should be considered
foolish and malevolent, as its policies have worsened Israel's security position and caused
terrible human suffering. Instead, the neo-cons (and the Israeli government) choose to double
down.
As well, the neo-conservative position is often at odds with international law. Is there
any other example of paid groups publicly advocating illegal policies and propagating the
application of prohibited violence? It seems criminal in and of itself.
Yep, read both op/eds and they look like they emerged from the same diseased brain give their
commonalities and lies those are based upon. The threat seems to be more pointed toward Iran
than Russia, which means Saudi/Zion interests are feeding the diseased mind. Both papers omit
any hint of what constitutes the primary interest[s] of the Outlaw US Empire such a policy
will advance. It's such convoluted thinking that brought about this crisis in the first
place.
The Empire's break with and eventual exit from Iraq just got an excellent start with the
termination by General Dynamics to service Iraqi Army Abrams tanks. As reported today by
SouthFront: "On January 28, an unnamed Iraqi official revealed to the Iraqi news outlet
al-Ghad Press that the manufacturer of M1 Abrams battle tanks, General Dynamics had halted
its maintenance services for the Iraqi Army. According to the source, the company took the
decision because some of Iraqi Army M1A1 Abrams battle tanks were operated by irregular Iraqi
Shiite forces."
The indirect nature of the Outlaw US Empire's hybrid wars against Russia and China is
running out of options and thus coming to a close leaving only direct warfare as a policy
tool. Expect provocations at Seoul's Olympics and Russia's World Cup events that attempt to
pin the aggression on some other actor.
Alastair Crooke reviews miscalculations of Israel and of Trump re: Saudi, Syria, Kurds, and now Turkey. A worthy read from
a man who really knows.
Even Haim Saban, the strongly pro-Zionist founder of the U.S. Brookings' Saban Center described the team to Kushner last month
as "a bunch of Orthodox Jews who have no idea about anything."
"The team has an entrepreneur -- you -- a real-estate lawyer, a bankruptcy lawyer. I don't know how you've lasted eight
months in this line-up. There's not a Middle East macher in this group," Saban said, using the Yiddish word for bigwig.
The Kagan's, again think Victoria(free cookie$) Nuland's hubby need to rename their
institute to more accurately describe their efforts...The Institute For The Study Of How To
Start War. Little did one realize when he and his PNAC signer's put their missive on how to
secure 'the realm', they were including the eastern part of the sovereign country of Syria.
In my opinion there is method to Trump's apparent madness. We must first remember he came
into office faced with foes from the Deep State apparatus which has infiltrated every aspect
of American government. Every government entity has been (sometime openly) hostile to
anything he has wanted to do so he has been swimming against the stream all the way along. He
inherited several disastrous situations and most without hope of ending.
The Korean War (it is still active declared war and only in an unsigned armistice) is
hopeless. The PRNK has carefully observed that the US acts as a rogue nation, reneges on all
treaties and promises, and kills anyone who opposes them. Faced with that the development of
nuclear weapons was necessary to survival. What can Trump do to end that after the horse has
left the stable?
He can scare the piss out of the South Koreans and show that we are more than willing to
sacrifice their entire Peninsula for our own bizarre needs. Trump, by acting out the Deep
State's wildest fantasy is actually bringing both Koreas together and likely we will be
invited to leave the Peninsula.
The same thing is happening with Turkey. It will take a miracle to avoid the deaths of
Americans who have illegally invaded Syria and are attempting to create a separate Kurdistan.
Once this gets out of control, and that is a certainty, the Turkes will throw us out of
Turkey entirely. The alternative is to leave Syria completely.
Ukraine is being ramped up for yet another confrontation and a complete break from the
Minsk II agreement. Again, Trump is fulfilling the Deep State's orgasmic fantasy to challenge
Russia at her doorstep. As we have seen now repeatedly the US fails to back up these gambits
and walks away in disgrace. No one is taking American threats seriously. For example Trump
very clearly said he doesn't like the EU. Was there any reaction at all? The European and
American markets were up yet again. This is clear evidence none of this is seriously being
considered.
Afghanistan is America's new tar baby and Trump is pissing off the entire Muslim world and
especially Pakistan. Only a madman would do that unless there is a different motive.
We cannot exist in Afghanistan without a land route in and out of the country. Russia has
cut the US off from all other countries (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan) with road
access and now we have pissed off the Pakistani's so they will close the roads to us.
That leaves Trump with no option except to pull out. Again, he does this by acting on Deep
State fantasies which they are at first dazzled by and then when they realize the
repercussions are horrified. He has them all running for cover now.
The release of the memo today will be a game changer and the dominoes will start to fall
exposing the Deep State actors for who they really are and name will be revealed.
Maybe The other 95% of Snowden's material plus whatever Assange is holding back on. Maybe
we will finally see Hillary's deleted emails?
All bets are off now and it looks to me like Trump is going to close out all this insane
business in Korea, Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine through his efforts. Then maybe we can
finally focus on our enormous problems at home.
In theory, the USA could anihilate any single country it wishes to.
But that's not the problem. The problem is that you don't bomb other countries just for
the sake of bombing them. You bomb them to achieve a goal.
And America's goal is to maintain its status as the sole global superpower. You can't
achieve it by bombing and invading Syria only. You have to anihilate Russia and China first,
and them proceed to the Middle East in order to control the Heartland -- the core of human
civilization. Adolf Hitler knew that -- that's why he didn't stop in France and North Africa,
instead proceeding to conquer and enslave the Soviet Union.
With due respect; I think you see today's realities accurately.
But I disagree with your conclusions/assumptions.
The U.S. will not give up Afghanistan easily because of China's BRI; Afghanistan is a key
element of that.
If BRI is successful, it spells the end of western economic hegemon. The U.S. will go down
fighting to stop it; and go down it will; one way or the other.
If I may suggest; expand your horizons; geo-politics are changing rapidly, mostly against
U.S. interests; and it's only the beginning...
Such a war effort would be a vast improvement over fixing pot holes at home; unless, of
course, one could put up a privately owned but publicly subsidized toll booth at every pot
hole and then, rather than fix them, force people to sign a waiver or somehow get off the
road then and there.
A good all round nuclear war would take care of everything at once.
"... General Flynn had warned Trump during the campaign before election and afterward that CIA briefers were lying to him. Flynn took over briefing Trump himself and that ended when they got Flynn out. ..."
In the WH it will be NSC adviser and chief lunatic McMaster. He will levitate with
enthusiasm for more war.
The briefings Trump gets are packed with lies and he has grown to trust them.
The entire foreign policy is so different from his stated goals and intentions that it is
clear he is fed fairy tales of success and bogus estimates of what the US can accomplish.
Last weeks Voltairnet.org piece by Thierry Meyssan indicated that Trump did not know what
his planners were doing.
"The president Trump had not been informed of the plan Votel-McGurk. The secretary of
Defense, James Mattis, confirmed to his men the instructions of the White House against the
jihadists. However Votel and McGurk are still in place." -- Thierry Meyssan
General Flynn had warned Trump during the campaign before election and afterward that
CIA briefers were lying to him. Flynn took over briefing Trump himself and that ended when
they got Flynn out.
We have a President misled who is told bogus results based on biased input data and
reports.
Meyssan has been crazy in love with Trump for a year, so for him to report this shows he
knows things are being setup for Trump to be trapped in Syria.
"... There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia, because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage. ..."
"... Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses? ..."
"... Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism. ..."
In an act of insane escalation of provocations against Russia, Washington has produced a
list of 210 top Russian government officials and important business executives who are
"gangsters," "members of Putin's gang," "threats," "people deserving to be sanctioned," or
however the Western presstitutes care to explain the list. The absurd list includes the Prime
Minister of Russia, the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister, and executives of Gazprom,
Rosneft, and Bank Rossiya. In other words, the suggestion is that the entirety of Russian
political and business leadership is corrupt.
The Russians do not seem to understand the purpose of the list. Presidential spokesman
Dmitry Peskov said that the government sees the list as an attempt to interfere in the Russian
presidential election. There is no doubt that Washington would like to reduce Putin's public
support so that Washington can use the Western-funded NGOs operating in Russia to present
American stooges as Russia's true voices. However, it is unlikely that the Russian people are
stupid enough to fall for such a trick.
Washington's list has three purposes:
To undercut Russian diplomacy by presenting the top echelons of Russia as gangsters.
To present Russia as a military threat as per the ridiculous announcement by British defense
minister Gavin Williamson on January 26 that Russia intends to rip British "infrastructure
apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths," and create "total chaos
within the country."
To shift American and European attention away from the coming release of the House
Intelligence Committee's report that proves Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the
Obama Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee against President Trump.
Washington's Russian list will give the presstitutes something else to talk about instead of
the act of treason committed against the President of the United States. Expect to hear nothing
from the presstitutes except that the House Intelligence Committee report is only a political
effort to shield Trump from accountability.
There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia,
because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in
Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized
because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of
southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires
the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign
policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby.
The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers
Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist
neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use
diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American
diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage.
Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to
provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come
to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses?
For the West to come to its senses requires the complete overthrow of the Zionist
neoconservatives and/or the breakup of NATO. The overthrow of the neoconservatives would
require a rival foreign policy voice, and that voice is very weak as it is shut off from the
media, the think tanks, and the universities. The breakup of NATO would require European
political figures to give up their Washington subsidies and the career advancement that
Washington provides.
As I write the Atlantic Council is holding a members and press call in for a discussion with
Atlantic Council members Amb. Daniel Fried and Anders Aslund. The Atlantic Council is a
neoconservative propaganda agency. The purpose of the "discussion" is to further undermine
US-Russian relations.
The Russian government faces a difficult situation. The foreign policy of the US, and
thereby of the Western world, is controlled by neoconservatives who are determined to present
Russia in the most threatening light. Russian diplomacy can do nothing to change this. The
non-provocative and responsible Russian response has the effect of encouraging more
provocations from Washington. At some point Russian passivity might convince the
neoconservatives that they can successfully attack Russia. Alternatively, the continual
provocations might convince Russia that the country is targeted for attack, thereby causing a
Russian pre-emptive action.
Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in
Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only
threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism.
"... It has got to the point where I cannot read/listen/view to ANY news stories in the mainstream media without doubting their accuracy. And that, I began to think, was a tragedy. But no, it's actually liberating: be a skeptic. Ask why. Ask who benefits from the story. And what their sources are – If unnamed, simply disregard. And remember that the MSM is beholden to very powerful media groups with their own agendas along with deep and opaque ties to various governments/agencies. ..."
"... In the USSR, before the collapse of communism, party members used to lament that Russians didn't believe any of their media output but were also amazed and full of awe that people in the West tended to believe their own media ..."
"... Another nail in the coffin of the legacy news media. The more the years go bye the more the alternative media becomes mainstream. ..."
I have just returned from Syria. The narrative on the Ghouta alleged "chemical attacks" is
coming from the Al Qaeda affiliated, UK FCO/US multi-million-financed White Helmets and has
not basis in fact.
Meanwhile the terrorist groups supported by the White Helmets and the UK/US coalition of
terror, have launched a series of murderous mortar attacks on the civilian areas of Damascus,
Old City (Christian areas). I was leaving Damascus on Monday this week, when they targeted
hundreds of school children pouring out of the schools for the school buses parked in the
streets of the Old City and just outside its walls. 9 people were killed including one 3 year
old child, Elias Khoury. Christine Hourani is a beautiful Syrian teenager, her leg has been
amputated below the knee as a result of this indiscriminate and deliberate attack on children
by the same "moderate" extremists who are feeding the corporate media with the Fake News that
the Guardian relies upon to maintain its anti Syria and New Cold War narrative.
The Guardian is one of the chief fire-stokers for the UK FCO and acts as its main attack
dog when the UK FCO is under threat of exposure for its funding of terrorism in Syria with
taxpayer funds – hence the ridiculous Solon article trying to discredit myself and Eva
Bartlett, among others – while never addressing the facts and hard evidence against the
UK FCO and the various entities it is financing, such as the White Helmets, the Local
Councils in Syria & the Free Syrian Police (to name only a few). The latest CW attack
story is to distract from the crimes against humanity being comitted by the terrorist
factions in the eastern suburbs of Damascus and to further foment the escalation of military
conflict between Russian and the US on Syrian soil. The role of the Guardian is a criminal
one – and it must not be underestimated, they will take us to war, if allowed to
continue.
What the Guardian and others don't mention is. 1. the terrorist attacks on civilians and
the massacre of children & civilians on a daily basis. 2. Russia delivered a humanitarian
aid convoy to eastern Ghouta on 19th January, why are these aid deliveries not mentioned and
who benefits from them (see East Aleppo and Madaya to know exactly who does receive and
stockpile these supplies). 3. How are the terrorist receiving weapon supplies to facilitate
the murder of Syrian civilians in the residential areas of the city? The Guardian is at the
vanguard of the UK FCO dirty intelligence operation in Syria, you only have to create a
timescale of their reports on the alleged Khan Sheikhoun attacks to see who led that
narrative for the British public based upon spurious claims and unverified testimony from
known terrorist operators. Of course the Guardian does not allow comment, it knows perfectly
well that it has been rumbled.
Not expecting anything from the Graun really but this SIS memo is a new low . The mystery for
me is why do they bother even . Who are their target readership ?
This chemical attack has been "in preparation" for a while – several comments on blogs
with sources more credible than either the White Helmets or SOHR. In particular, on Moon of
Alabama – here's a quote:
"Asaad Hanna @AsaadHannaa 4:26pm · 22 Jan 2018
Assad army dropped chlorine bombed barrels on Abo Aldhoor military base #Idlib countryside in
a big attempt to take control of it.
The above is from an anti-Syrian "Media Adviser, researcher and freelance journalist"
previously published or quoted by Al Jazeerah, The Guardian, Business Insider and several
other outlets. His twitter account has a "Verified" mark.
"There is only a tiny problem with the tweet about the Abu Duhur air base. Since Saturday
the base is in government hands. Yesterday the Syrian Ministry of Defense officially
announced the full capture of the air base."
"Whoever conducted the attacks, Russia ultimately bears responsibility for the victims
in East Ghouta and countless other Syrians targeted with chemical weapons, since Russia
became involved in Syria," Tillerson told reporters.
Tillerson told reporters, and reporters just wrote it down! I was following the Twitter
exchange just now between OffG and the BBC reporter – Dan something – about the
recent new round of Russia fear porn , and it's just the same ; "I just write what the
general said": this alleged journalist.
Glad OffG reminded him what journalism actually is. You are supposed to check your
facts!
"There is simply no denying that Russia, by shielding its Syrian ally, has breached its
commitments to the US as a framework guarantor. At a bare minimum, Russia must stop
vetoing, or at the very least abstain, from future security council votes on this issue,"
he added.
But what if the "rebels" did the attack? or – even more likely – what if the
"attack" never happened like the one featured in "Saving Syria's Children"?
A good reporter could have had this fellow on the ropes, having to explain the nonsense
he's talking – but no, they just obediently type it all up and publish it.
When I first read the Solon article in the Guardian my hackles rose alarmingly. At the
time of publication, there was already widespread information as to the true nature of the
White Helmets, including about origin and funding.
As well as subsequently reading many articles in independent media about the Solon piece,
I have belatedly read your linked article above. The emails you received from Solon inviting
comment were, as you rightly imply, damning 'evidence' as to the nature of her proposed
story. It simply beggars belief.
It has got to the point where I cannot read/listen/view to ANY news stories in the
mainstream media without doubting their accuracy. And that, I began to think, was a tragedy.
But no, it's actually liberating: be a skeptic. Ask why. Ask who benefits from the story. And
what their sources are – If unnamed, simply disregard. And remember that the MSM is
beholden to very powerful media groups with their own agendas along with deep and opaque ties
to various governments/agencies.
In the USSR, before the collapse of communism, party members used to lament that Russians
didn't believe any of their media output but were also amazed and full of awe that people in
the West tended to believe their own media. Not any more. We've finally come full circle
Thanks – comments are a great initiative on some of these Guardian propaganda stories.
Amazing the way US officials can in one breath condemn a nation (Syria Govt in this case) and
at the same time announce they are establishing an illegal and permanent garrison in the
country (Syria in this case). These US officials must have skin made of rawhide – or
snake leather. Surprised our Foreign Minister Bishop hasn't been applauding this new
development.
Another nail in the coffin of the legacy news media. The more the years go bye the more the
alternative media becomes mainstream. Once the reset happens good bye to the lame street
media and hello to good old fashion news where journos question more.
The Guardian like all legacy news sights are on life support.
Russia ate my homework to western economic recovery to Takfiri rebranding as freedom fighters
have all be revealed as simple good old fashion propaganda how Orwellian and fascistic the
times we r living
It is censorship. When the Guardian promoted the White Helmet bid for the Nobel Peace Prize
in 2016, it shamelessly lobbied for their success. The hundreds, if not thousands of comments
reflected public outrage at their blatant PR for an organisation that has clear affiliations
to Al Qaeda in Syria and which is financed by the UK FCO with taxpayer funds. To dismiss this
outrage as "trolling" merely echoes the lexicon employed by the Guardian to dismiss those who
are exposing the UK regime's nefarious role in Syria and its project to destabilize a
sovereign nation and to bring about regime change yet again, in favour of a puppet regime
more in tune with UK imperialist designs in the region.
When Solon wrote her appalling
lynch-mob-hack piece attacking myself, Eva Bartlett, Tim Anderson etc she used the same
terminology – and the Guardian exercised the same censorship – even, illegally,
denying myself and others named in the article, the right to reply.
Rather than attack the
"standard of debate", I would be asking, why has the rage against the criminal misdirecting,
omission & misrepresenting of facts in Syria, reached such a fever pitch? You may
consider those "trolling" remarks to be beneath you but I say, that is an insult to the
public that the Guardian is asking to fund their efforts .that makes the Guardian answerable
to its audience, however they may express their disgust.
"... members of Washington's smart set, Republicans and Democrats alike, declared that the opportunities now presenting themselves went beyond the merely stupendous. Indeed, history itself had ended. With the United States as the planet's sole superpower, [neo]liberal democratic capitalism was destined to prevail everywhere. ..."
"... In the 1990s, rampant victory disease fueled extraordinary hubris and a pattern of reckless behavior informed by an assumption that the world would ultimately conform to the wishes of the "indispensable nation." In the years to come, an endless sequence of costly mishaps would ensue from Mogadishu to Mosul. ..."
"... Trump is not a revolutionary, and he is not the devil. He simply represents an attempt late in a systemic downward cycle to correct few excesses and buy some time. ..."
"... The beneficiaries of the excess policies – cheap labor businesses, ethnic castes, trans-gender professionals, open border fanatics, military extremists – are fighting tooth and nail to keep any change from happening. They are at this point beyond hysteria, they sense the goodies might be slipping from their hands (it is mostly about their jobs and careers). ..."
"... Two fundamental omissions from the analysis are: in domestic policies the devastating impact of affirmative action on the next generation of young, white males. And in foreign policy the equally devastating impact of Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia (to create a 'Muslim' Kosovo statelet in Europe) had on the international law and norms. Iraq inevitably followed Serbia. ..."
1989: The Fall of the Berlin Wall. As the Cold War wound down, members of Washington's
smart set, Republicans and Democrats alike, declared that the opportunities now presenting
themselves went beyond the merely stupendous. Indeed, history itself had ended. With the United
States as the planet's sole superpower, [neo]liberal democratic capitalism was destined to
prevail everywhere.
There would be no way except the American Way. In fact, however, the passing of the Cold War
should have occasioned a moment of reflection regarding the sundry mistakes and moral
compromises that marred U.S. policy from the 1940s through the 1980s. Unfortunately, policy
elites had no interest in second thoughts -- and certainly not in remorse or contrition.
In the 1990s, rampant victory disease fueled extraordinary hubris and a pattern of reckless
behavior informed by an assumption that the world would ultimately conform to the wishes of the
"indispensable nation." In the years to come, an endless sequence of costly mishaps would ensue
from Mogadishu to Mosul.
When, in due time, Donald Trump announced his intention to dismantle the establishment that
had presided over those failures, many Americans liked what he had to say, even if he spoke
from a position of total ignorance.
Those who hate Trump, will hate Trump. And very little of what they write will not be
colored by the hatred.
The analysis – although based on a sound historical premise – is off by miles.
It focuses on personalities and avoids mentioning the systemic failures by Western
institutions, from media to academia, from Hollywood to UN. Trump is not a revolutionary, and
he is not the devil. He simply represents an attempt late in a systemic downward cycle to
correct few excesses and buy some time.
The beneficiaries of the excess policies –
cheap labor businesses, ethnic castes, trans-gender professionals, open border fanatics,
military extremists – are fighting tooth and nail to keep any change from happening.
They are at this point beyond hysteria, they sense the goodies might be slipping from their
hands (it is mostly about their jobs and careers).
Two fundamental omissions from the analysis are: in domestic policies the devastating
impact of affirmative action on the next generation of young, white males. And in foreign
policy the equally devastating impact of Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia (to create a
'Muslim' Kosovo statelet in Europe) had on the international law and norms. Iraq inevitably
followed Serbia.
Why are these points left out? Because they would make the neo-liberal Democrats look bad?
Right, Gore as president, that would had fixed it all
Bacevich didn't write a word about the Open Borders fetish of both parties from which Trump
dissented, or seemed to. Not a word. And this played no small part in Trump winning the GOP
nomination and the election.
"... Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fighting for scores of nations, with troops on every continent and forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware. "I didn't know there were 1,000 troops in Niger," said Senator Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. "We don't know exactly where we're at in the world, militarily, and what we're doing." ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Forward Operating Base Torkham, in Nangahar Province, Afghanistan (army.mil) If Turkey is not bluffing, U.S. troops in Manbij, Syria,
could be under fire by week's end, and NATO engulfed in the worst crisis in its history.
Turkish President Erdogan said Friday his forces will cleanse Manbij of Kurdish fighters, alongside whom U.S. troops are embedded.
Erdogan's foreign minister demanded concrete steps by the United States to end its support of the Kurds, who control the Syrian
border with Turkey east of the Euphrates all the way to Iraq.
If the Turks attack Manbij, America will face a choice: stand by our Kurdish allies and resist the Turks, or abandon the Kurds.
Should the U.S. let the Turks drive the Kurds out of Manbij and the entire Syrian border area, as Erdogan threatens, American
credibility would suffer a blow from which it would not soon recover.
But to stand with the Kurds and oppose Erdogan's forces could mean a crackup of NATO and a loss of U.S. bases inside Turkey, including
the air base at Incirlik.
Turkey also sits astride the Dardanelles entrance to the Black Sea. NATO's loss would thus be a triumph for Vladimir Putin, who
gave Ankara the green light to cleanse the Kurds from Afrin.
Yet Syria is but one of many challenges facing U.S. foreign policy.
The Winter Olympics in South Korea may have taken the menace of a North Korean ICBM out of the news, but no one believes that
threat is behind us.
Last week, China charged that the USS Hopper, a guided missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal,
a reef in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing, though it is far closer to Luzon in the Philippines. The destroyer, says China,
was chased off by one of her frigates. If we continue to contest China's territorial claims with our warships, a clash is inevitable.
In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance jet in international
airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.
U.S. relations with Cold War ally Pakistan are at rock bottom. In his first tweet of 2018, President Trump charged Pakistan with
being a false friend.
"The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given
us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools," Trump declared. "They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt
in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!"
As for America's longest war in Afghanistan, now in its 17th year, the end is nowhere on the horizon. A week ago, the International
Hotel in Kabul was attacked and held for 13 hours by Taliban gunmen who killed 40. Midweek, a Save the Children facility in Jalalabad
was attacked by ISIS, creating panic among aid workers across the country.
Saturday, an ambulance exploded in Kabul, killing 103 people and wounding 235. Monday, Islamic State militants attacked Afghan
soldiers guarding a military academy in Kabul. With the fighting season two months off, U.S. troops will not soon be departing. If
Pakistan is indeed providing sanctuary for the terrorists of the Haqqani network, how does this war end successfully for the United
States? Last week, in a friendly fire incident, the U.S.-led coalition killed 10 Iraqi soldiers. The Iraq war began 15 years ago.
Yet another war, where the humanitarian crisis rivals Syria, continues on the Arabian Peninsula. There, a Saudi air, sea, and
land blockade that threatens the Yemeni people with starvation has failed to dislodge Houthi rebels who seized the capital Sanaa
three years ago. This weekend brought news that secessionist rebels, backed by the United Arab Emirates, seized power in Yemen's
southern port of Aden from the Saudi-backed Hadi regime fighting the Houthis. These rebels seek to split the country, as it was before
1990.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE appear to be backing different horses in this tribal-civil-sectarian war into which America has
been drawn. There are other wars -- Somalia, Libya, Ukraine -- where the U.S. is taking sides, sending arms, training troops, flying
missions.
Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fighting for scores of nations, with troops on every continent and
forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware. "I didn't know there were 1,000 troops in Niger,"
said Senator Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. "We don't know exactly where we're at in the world, militarily,
and what we're doing."
No, we don't, Senator. As in all empires, power is passing to the generals. And what causes the greatest angst today in the imperial
city? Fear that a four-page memo worked up in the House Judiciary Committee may discredit Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia-gate.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President
and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists,
visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
"... According to the official, "his worldview is utterly lacking in empathy." ..."
"... Few people understand the burr as well as he does. Much of his grating personality is intentional, but he's like a foreign policy version of Newt Gingrich. His chief concern is power," says another former State Department official under Bush 43. ..."
Who would replace McMaster? A leading candidate is John Bolton, the Fox News staple,
former UN ambassador, veteran defense intellectual and avatar for Mustache Magazine. His influence
in the White House hit a nadir in August -- when he
publicly complained that he couldn't get a meeting with 45. But since then he's mounted a
vociferous internal comeback.
His plan to exit the Iran Deal, penned in National
Review (which backed him for Secretary of State in 2016) late last year, was feted in the
White House, though as of yet, not fully implemented (though the president has put the JCPOA on
a deathclock
).
As I reported in 2017, that plan was written at the behest of former White House chief
strategist Steve Bannon, and hailed by hawkish hardliners like Frank Gaffney. Though Bannon's
relationship with the president is, of course, now more fraught, his ally Bolton continues to
receive positive press in many of the nationalist-populist staples. Today's headlines on him
are: "WATCH -- Amb John Bolton Eviscerates Sky News's Kay Burley Live: 'You Are a Munchkin in
the Media'" in Breitbart News and "John Bolton Says Trump Is Taking 'America First'
into 'the Lion's Den' in Davos" in LifeZette , the Laura Ingraham project. Bolton is "a smart, highly-competent, nice
guy," says a former State Department official from the George W. Bush administration.
According
to the official, "his worldview is utterly lacking in empathy." "Whip smart.
Few people
understand the burr as well as he does. Much of his grating personality is intentional, but
he's like a foreign policy version of Newt Gingrich. His chief concern is power," says another
former State Department official under Bush 43.
Julius Krein, editor of American
Affairs, who once ran The Journal for American Greatness (JAG) together with
Michael Anton, now a senior National Security Council spokesman, is a fan of Bolton. Whither
McMaster? Still active duty, he'd move within the army, according to several sources in the
Pentagon, likely the Asia Pacific, where he's cut his teeth -- as the administration's leading
North Korea hawk.
But there is a holdup. "One of the problems," says a defense source. "Is that
there is no four star slot open."
It's possible McMaster was considered for another position in
the army before -- heading up the mission in Afghanistan -- but a source tells me that was
nixed by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
But this would make sense for this administration, who
have fired people by promotion before. Think K.T. McFarland, the former deputy of National
Security Advisor to Michael Flynn, who was to be shipped to Singapore as ambassador (but that's
been stalled by the broader Russia probe).
Bolton is an enemy to the American people. All he cares about is pushing for war for a
foreign country's interests: Israel. He should be arrested for treason.
That's a bit obscene. And it's also ludicrous to propose that the US takes or doesn't take
military action based on the skin color or shade of the people irritating it.
This news is indeed very depressing but I'm a little wary about this author's agenda. He
had Tillerson out the door and was discussing replacements before Tillerson had made any
announcement. (The article was evidently deemed premature and was quickly pulled.)
Sometimes eager anticipation is not a good tactic, particularly in a trump admin.
Continuing on with the wrong policy from the past administration, the current strategy
aims to pave the way for WW III. Not only is it out of touch with reality from political
and economic point of view, it reflects the immoral component of the policy. Instead of
fostering peace, US uses NATO and moving troops to contain Russia in Ukraine and in
central and eastern Europe. Also, instead of upholding the international regime of Non
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) through the United Nations, the US put THAAD to destroy
China's defense capability to defense itself from the US attack. Somehow the US fails to
realize that North Korea is adjacent to Russia and China. And this week, an old obsolete
man that belongs to the past not the future, the retire General Mattis went to Vietnam
with the blue print of war against China. Mattis and Trump must realize that America is a
democratic Christian country that will not allow any tyrant to move the country and the
world towards the potential of WW III.
Racial prejudice runs deep among some American elites. In 1829 when Alexis de
Tocqueville observed American society, he said America has 'three naturally distinct
inimical races. Education, law, origin, and even the external form of their features have
raised an almost insurmountable barrier between them; fortune has gathered them on the
same soil, but it has mixed them without being able to intermingle them, and each pursues
its destiny separately. Among these men, the first in enlightenment, in power, in
happiness, is the white man, man par excellence; below him appear the Negro and the
Indian' (p.303). Russia, China and developing countries need to put their efforts to
rapidly develop their countries because only the Balance of Power can protect themselves
from war with the US.
It is OK for an empire to be hated and feared, it doesn't work so good when Glory slowly fades and he empire instead
becomes hated and despised
Notable quotes:
"... There's only one explanation: Tillerson must be so blinded by hubris that he couldn't figure out what Erdogan's reaction would be. He must have thought that, "Whatever Uncle Sam says, goes." Only it doesn't work like that anymore. ..."
"... Simply put, Washington is losing the war quite dramatically due in large part to the emergence of a new coalition (Russia-Syria-Iran-Hezbollah) that has made great strides in Syria and that is committed to preserve the Old World Order, a system that is built on the principles of national sovereignty, self determination and non intervention. ..."
"... Tillerson's blunder will only make Washington's task all the more difficult by drawing Turkey into the fray in an effort to quash Uncle Sam's Kurdish proxies. ..."
"... In an effort to add insult to injury, Tillerson didn't even have the decency to discuss the matter with Erdogan– his NATO ally– before making the announcement! ..."
"... One day you're a terrorist, and the next day you're not depending on whether Washington can use you or not. ..."
"... Now the US has to choose between its own proxy army (The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces) and a NATO ally that occupies the critical crossroads between Asia and Europe ..."
"... "In response to President Erdoğan's call on the United States to end the delivery of weapons to the [Democratic Union Party] PYD-YPG, President Trump said that his country no longer supplied the group with weapons and pledged not to resume the weapons delivery in the future," the sources added." (Hurriyet) ..."
"... So far, the only clear winner in this latest conflagration has been Vladimir Putin, the levelheaded pragmatist who hews to Napoleon's directive to "Never interfere with an enemy while he's in the process of destroying himself." ..."
"... Putin gave Erdogan the green light to conduct "Operation Olive Branch" in order to pave the way for an eventual Syrian takeover of the Northwestern portion of the country up to the Turkish border. Moscow removed its troops from the Afrin quarter (where the current fighting is taking place) but not before it presented the Kurds with the option of conceding control of the area to the central government in Damascus. The Kurds rejected that offer and elected to fight instead. ..."
"... Erdogan's demand that Trump stop the flow of weapons to the SDF will benefit Russia and its allies on the ground even more than they will benefit Turkey. It's another win-win situation for Putin. ..."
So why did Tillerson think Erdogan would respond differently?
There's only one explanation: Tillerson must be so blinded by hubris that he couldn't figure
out what Erdogan's reaction would be. He must have thought that, "Whatever Uncle Sam says,
goes." Only it doesn't work like that anymore.
The US has lost its ability to shape events in
the Middle East, particularly in Syria where its jihadist proxies have been rolled back on
nearly every front. The US simply doesn't have sufficient forces on the ground to determine the
outcome, nor is it respected as an honest broker, a dependable ally or a reliable steward of
regional security. The US is just one of many armed-factions struggling to gain the upper hand
in an increasingly fractious and combustible battlespace. Simply put, Washington is losing the
war quite dramatically due in large part to the emergence of a new coalition
(Russia-Syria-Iran-Hezbollah) that has made great strides in Syria and that is committed to
preserve the Old World Order, a system that is built on the principles of national sovereignty,
self determination and non intervention.
Washington opposes this system and is doing everything
in its power dismantle it by redrawing borders, toppling elected leaders, and installing its
own stooges to execute its diktats. Tillerson's blunder will only make Washington's task all
the more difficult by drawing Turkey into the fray in an effort to quash Uncle Sam's Kurdish
proxies.
In an effort to add insult to injury, Tillerson didn't even have the decency to discuss the
matter with Erdogan– his NATO ally– before making the announcement! Can you imagine
how furious Erdogan must have been? Shouldn't the president of Turkey expect better treatment
from his so-called friends in Washington who use Turkish air fields to supply their ground
troops and to carry out their bombing raids in Syria? But instead of gratitude, he gets a big
kick in the teeth with the announcement that the US is hopping into bed with his mortal
enemies, the Kurds. Check out this excerpt from Wednesday's Turkish daily, The Hurriyet ,which
provides a bit of background on the story:
"It is beyond any doubt that the U.S. military and administration knew that the People's
Protection Units (YPG) had organic ties with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which
Washington officially recognizes as a terrorist group .The YPG is the armed wing of the
Democratic Union Party (PYD), which is the political wing of the PKK in Syria. They share the
same leadership the same budget, the same arsenal, the same chain of command from the Kandil
Mountains in Iraq, and the same pool of militants. So the PYD/YPG is actually not a
"PKK-affiliated" group, it is a sub-geographical unit of the same organization .
Knowing that the YPG and the PKK are effectively equal, and legally not wanting to appear
to be giving arms to a terrorist organization, the U.S. military already asked the YPG to
"change the brand" back in 2015. U.S.
Special Forces Commander General Raymond Thomas said during an Aspen Security Forum
presentation on July 22, 2017 that he had personally proposed the name change to the YPG.
"With about a day's notice [the YPG] declared that it was now the Syrian Democratic Forces
[SDF]," Thomas said to laughter from the audience. "I thought it was a stroke of brilliance
to put 'democracy' in there somewhere. It gave them a little bit of credibility."
(Hurriyet)
Ha, ha, ha. Isn't that funny? One day you're a terrorist, and the next day you're not
depending on whether Washington can use you or not. Is it any wonder why Erdogan is so pissed
off?
So now a messy situation gets even messier. Now the US has to choose between its own proxy
army (The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces) and a NATO ally that occupies the critical
crossroads between Asia and Europe. Washington's plan to pivot to Asia by controlling vital
resources and capital flowing between the continents depends largely on its ability to keep
regional leaders within its orbit. That means Washington needs Erdogan in their camp which, for
the time being, he is not.
Apparently, there have been phone calls between Presidents Trump and Erdogan, but early
accounts saying that Trump scolded Erdogan have already been disproven. In fact, Trump and his
fellows have been bending-over-backwards to make amends for Tillerson's foolish slip-up.
According to the Hurriyet:
"The readout issued by the White House does not accurately reflect the content of
President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan's phone call with President [Donald] Trump," "President
Trump did not share any 'concerns [about] escalating violence' with regard to the ongoing
military operation in Afrin." The Turkish sources also stressed that Trump did not use the
words "destructive and false rhetoric coming from Turkey."
Erdoğan reiterated that the People's Protection Units (YPG) must withdraw to the East
of the Euphrates River and pledged the protection of Manbij by the Turkish-backed Free Syrian
Army (FSA)
"In response to President Erdoğan's call on the United States to end the delivery of
weapons to the [Democratic Union Party] PYD-YPG, President Trump said that his country no
longer supplied the group with weapons and pledged not to resume the weapons delivery in the
future," the sources added." (Hurriyet)
If this report can be trusted, (Turkish media is no more reliable than US media) then it is
Erdogan who is issuing the demands not Trump. Erdogan insists that all YPG units be redeployed
east of the Euphrates and that all US weapons shipments to Washington's Kurdish proxies stop
immediately. We should know soon enough whether Washington is following Erdogan's orders or
not.
So far, the only clear winner in this latest conflagration has been Vladimir Putin, the
levelheaded pragmatist who hews to Napoleon's directive to "Never interfere with an enemy while
he's in the process of destroying himself."
Putin gave Erdogan the green light to conduct "Operation Olive Branch" in order to pave the
way for an eventual Syrian takeover of the Northwestern portion of the country up to the
Turkish border. Moscow removed its troops from the Afrin quarter (where the current fighting is
taking place) but not before it presented the Kurds with the option of conceding control of the
area to the central government in Damascus. The Kurds rejected that offer and elected to fight
instead. Here's an account of what happened:
Nearly a week ago, [a] meeting between Russian officials and Kurdish leaders took place.
Moscow suggested Syrian State becomes only entity in charge of the northern border. The Kurds
refused. It was immediately after that that the Turkish Generals were invited to Moscow.
Having the Syrian State in control of its Northern Border wasn't the only Russian demand. The
other was that the Kurds hand back the oil fields in Deir al Zor. The Kurds refused
suggesting that the US won't allow that anyway.
Putin has repeatedly expressed concern about US supplies of advanced weapons that had been
given to the Kurdish SDF. According to the military website South Front:
"Uncontrolled deliveries of modern weapons, including reportedly the deliveries of the
man-portable air defense systems, by the Pentagon to the pro-US forces in northern Syria,
have contributed to the rapid escalation of tensions in the region and resulted in the launch
of a special operation by the Turkish troops." (SouthFront)
Erdogan's demand that Trump stop the flow of weapons to the SDF will benefit Russia and its
allies on the ground even more than they will benefit Turkey. It's another win-win situation
for Putin.
The split between the NATO allies seems to work in Putin's favor as well, although, to his
credit, he has not tried to exploit the situation. Putin ascribes to the notion that relations
between nations are not that different than relations between people, they must be built on a
solid foundation of trust which gradually grows as each party proves they are steady, reliable
partners who can be counted on to honor their commitments and keep their word. Putin's honesty,
even-handedness and reliability have greatly enhanced Russia's power in the region and his
influence in settling global disputes. That is particularly evident in Syria where Moscow is at
the center of all decision-making.
As we noted earlier, Washington has made every effort to patch up relations with Turkey and
put the current foofaraw behind them. The White House has issued a number of servile statements
acknowledging Turkey's "legitimate security concerns" and their "commitment to work with Turkey
as a NATO ally." And there's no doubt that the administration's charm offensive will probably
succeed in bringing the narcissistic and mercurial Erdogan back into the fold. But for how
long?
At present, Erdogan is still entertains illusions of cobbling together a second Ottoman
empire overseen by the Grand Sultan Tayyip himself, but when he finally comes to his senses and
realizes the threat that Washington poses to Turkish independence and sovereignty, he may
reconsider and throw his lot with Putin.
In any event, Washington has clearly tipped its hand revealing its amended strategy for
Syria, a plan that abandons the pretext of a "war on terror" and focuses almost-exclusively on
military remedies to the "great power" confrontation outlined in Trump's new National Defense
Strategy. Washington is fully committed to building an opposition proxy-army in its east Syria
enclave that can fend off loyalist troops, launch destabilizing attacks on the regime, and
eventually, effect the political changes that help to achieve its imperial ambitions.
Tillerson's announcement may have prompted some unexpected apologies and back-tracking, but
the policy remains the same. Washington will persist in its effort to divide the country and
remove Assad until an opposing force prevents it from doing so. And, that day could be sooner
than many people imagine. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Mike Whitney
"... In December 2016, President Obama closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election," expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations. ..."
"... Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S. Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt. ..."
"... In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium deal deemed corrupt. ..."
"... As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any Russians deemed corrupt by the United States. ..."
The US Ambassador to Russia urged the Kremlin to react "calmly" to the U.S. Treasury
Department's list of "corrupt oligarchs" due Monday. The list is designed to "name and shame"
elite Russians into thinking twice before engaging in business with Putin's government. It will
be up to Congress to decide whether the list should be published.
"I urge to take this report, based on its real and not a contrived essence and without
emotions, because relations between our countries are far from being exhausted by this one
legal act, and I was reminded about it in Washington, where I was two weeks ago," - US
Ambassador John Huntsman via - newsru (translated)
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters two weeks ago that Russia will
react to any punitive measures against its businessmen, stating "The principle of reciprocity
remains," suggesting that Putin would employ a commensurate response to a U.S. crackdown on
oligarchs.
As we
previously reported , the list was created pursuant to an August, 2017 law requiring the
Treasury and State Departments identify officials and oligarchs as determined by "their
closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth" in order to penalize the Kremlin for its
alleged meddling in the 2016 election.
The report is intended to "name and shame" Russia's elite who prop up Putin , and to send
a message "that Putin's aggression in terms of Russian interference in our elections will be
very costly to them," said Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of State who led the
State Department Russia sanctions office.
It is likely to signal to Russia's political and business classes that they'd be better
off maintaining a distance from the Putin government, and it could lead to further sanctions
against individuals who participate in corruption, Fried said.
" The Russian elite reacted with something between anxiety and panic about the prospect of
this list ," Fried said. "They focused on this immediately, and they're very worried about
it. " - USA Today
The list will include "indices of corruption with respect to those individuals," along with
any foreign assets they hold. According to Bloomberg, this sent Russian fat cats into a
liquidation frenzy - with many scrambling to contact D.C. lobbyists in order to buy their way
off the list.
Some people who think they're likely to land on the list have stress-tested the potential
impact on their investments , two people with knowledge of the matter said. Others are
liquidating holdings , according to their U.S. advisers.
Russian businessmen have approached former Treasury and State Department officials with
experience in sanctions for help staying off the list, said Dan Fried, who previously worked
at the State Department and said he turned down such offers. Some Russians sent proxies to
Washington in an attempt to avoid lobbying disclosures, according to one person that was
contacted . -
Bloomberg
Corruption Index
The Treasury's report must include "indices of corruption , " which will list any foreign
assets next to an oligarch considered corrupt. " Because of the nervousness that the Russian
business community is facing, a number of oligarchs are already beginning to wind back
businesses , treating them as if they are already designated, to stay ahead of it," said Daniel
Tannebaum, head of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 's global financial
sanctions unit.
Russia's well-connected billionaires have hired law firms to try to keep them off the
list, said Ariel Cohen, a Russia analyst at the Atlantic Council think tank. Russians believe
the list is a first step toward increasing the current 29 Russians under U.S. sanctions by
adding 40 to 400 names, Cohen added. - USA Today
Vladimir Putin has warned wealthy nationals over worsening U.S. sanctions, and provided them
with a capital amnesty program designed to allow oligarchs to repatriate some of their overseas
assets. Meanwhile, Putin has issued
special bonds which will allow the wealthy to hold assets outside of the reach of the U.S.
Treasury.
Separate sanctions handed down
As we reported earlier in the month, Treasury officials are concerned that people will
confuse Monday's list of corrupt oligarchs with separate sanctions handed down to Russians over
the Ukraine crisis.
On Friday, the Treausry Department added 11 individuals to a "blacklist" which now contains
21 Russian or
Ukraainian nationals and nine companies - most of which are power or energy firms. The
Treasury's announcement reads in part:
WASHINGTON –The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) today designated 21 individuals and 9 entities under four Executive Orders (E.O.s)
related to Russia and Ukraine, including three individuals and two entities related to
Russia's transfer of four turbines made by a Russian-German joint venture to Crimea. Today's
action is part of Treasury's continued commitment to maintain sanctions pressure on Russia
until it fully implements its commitments under the Minsk agreements. This action underscores
the U.S. government's opposition to Russia's occupation of Crimea and firm refusal to
recognize its attempted annexation of the peninsula. These sanctions follow the European
Union's recent extension of sanctions and reinforce our continued unity in supporting
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As a result of today's action, any property or interests in property of the designated
persons in the possession or control of U.S. persons or within the United States must be
blocked. Additionally, transactions by U.S. persons involving these persons are generally
prohibited.
"The U.S. government is committed to maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of Ukraine and to targeting those who attempt to undermine the Minsk agreements," said
Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. "Those who provide goods, services, or material support
to individuals and entities sanctioned by the United States for their activities in Ukraine
are engaging in behavior that could expose them to U.S. sanctions."
Today, OFAC also identified 12 subsidiaries that are owned 50 percent or more by
previously sanctioned Russian companies to provide additional information to assist the
private sector with sanctions compliance.
Relations between Washington and Moscow have deteriorated since 2014, when Russia annexed
Crimea, sparking the conflict in Ukraine. Diplomatic ties have worstened between the two
nuclear superpowers, with Washington accusing Moscow of interfering in the 2016 US presidential
election.
In December 2016, President Obama
closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election,"
expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase
sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly
signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime
minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations.
Several weeks later in August 2017, the Trump administration "thanked" Russia again - giving
them 72 hours to vacate three more diplomatic facilities in San Francisco, Washington DC, and
New York City.
Towards the end of 2017, Washington took a series of steps to further vilify Russia,
branding the country a "rival power" and "revisionist power," while imposing new sanctions on
several individuals linked to the Kremlin.
Trump's Executive Order
Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S.
Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an
Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of
foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt.
In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial,
material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the
Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for
corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium
deal deemed corrupt.
As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have
serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any
Russians deemed corrupt by the United States.
"... Everyone is assuming this is an anti-American, Russia-backed operation, and Turkey has left the NATO fold, but is it? Wheels within wheels, and it's is not clear what the end result will be. If I was Assad, I would be looking very closely at all this. There seems to be some suggestion that the Kurds are getting reinforcements and supplies shipped via Syrian government areas, which is interesting. ..."
"... If one is set on running an empire, one simply cannot afford to be seen losing to "inferior 3'rd world tribals" very often, if not they, then others will take notice and get ideas. ..."
"... The USA was not designed to be an empire, it was designed to be a Republic for, by and of the People. Our international adventurism will be the death of not just us, but possibly the world. Not a month goes by without a major provocative incident towards Russia. Usually assassinations of Russian diplomats, Oligarchs, or military bellicosity. I wonder if these are in response to disavowed US operatives being killed, or if Russia is exhibiting enormous restraint, because they are the responsible ones who don't want to see the world burn for Israel. ..."
In what way? The fact that the Turks won? They beat the shit out some very tough British and Anzac troops, who were invading
their country. Might be something to consider at this point.
Another point: this little piece of Syria that is being invaded lies between two other little bits of Syria that turkey has
already invaded / occupied. If they manage to link up on either side, they will have created a wide buffer on their border. Is
this just a bit of "protection" for turkey, or is it part of the US plan to split up, partition and dismember Syria?
Everyone is assuming this is an anti-American, Russia-backed operation, and Turkey has left the NATO fold, but is it? Wheels
within wheels, and it's is not clear what the end result will be. If I was Assad, I would be looking very closely at all this.
There seems to be some suggestion that the Kurds are getting reinforcements and supplies shipped via Syrian government areas,
which is interesting.
Yes. It is OK for an empire to be hated and feared, it doesn't work so good when Glory slowly fades and he empire instead becomes
hated and despised.
If one is set on running an empire, one simply cannot afford to be seen losing to "inferior 3'rd world tribals" very often,
if not they, then others will take notice and get ideas.
Letting one's side down has consequences. Not delivering on the benefits promised for foreigners serving the empire has consequences
too.
The USA was not designed to be an empire, it was designed to be a Republic for, by and of the People. Our international
adventurism will be the death of not just us, but possibly the world. Not a month goes by without a major provocative incident
towards Russia. Usually assassinations of Russian diplomats, Oligarchs, or military bellicosity. I wonder if these are in response
to disavowed US operatives being killed, or if Russia is exhibiting enormous restraint, because they are the responsible ones
who don't want to see the world burn for Israel.
"... In reality, President Trump's special representative to the Coalition, Brett McGurk, was the lawyer who participated, alongside John Negroponte and Colonel James Steele, in the creation of the Islamic Emirate in Iraq in 2006. With Colonel James Coffman, he was tasked with giving President George Bush an account of this secret operation, which was intended to combat the Iraqi resistance to the occupation by dividing their forces into Sunnis and Chiites, and artificially creating a civil war. ..."
In reality, President Trump's special representative to the Coalition, Brett McGurk, was
the lawyer who participated, alongside John Negroponte and Colonel James Steele, in the
creation of the Islamic Emirate in Iraq in 2006. With Colonel James Coffman, he was tasked with
giving President George Bush an account of this secret operation, which was intended to combat
the Iraqi resistance to the occupation by dividing their forces into Sunnis and Chiites, and
artificially creating a civil war.
After a passage at Harvard, Brett McGurk was re-assigned to the State Department under John
Kerry. He helped with transforming the Islamic Emirate in Iraq into Daesh, and co-organised the
preparatory meeting for the jihadist invasion of Iraq, on 27 May 2014 in Amman. He reorganised
Iraq, then trained the International Coalition which was tasked with fighting Daesh.
A good student, McGurk agreed to serve President Trump in order to get rid of the jihadist
organisation that he had himself created, and some of whose members he is now attempting to
recycle.
The project of the Syrian Border Security Force has a lot to say about the sincerity of the
YPG militia, which professes the gentle anarchy of Murray Boochkin, but which, without
hesitation, are ready to form a single unit with the killers of Daesh under US command.
Contrary to appearances, the Turkish attack on Afrine, and probably soon on Mambij, was
approved on 8 and 19 January by the Russian military staff, which was alerted by the number 2
of the régime and head of the secret services, the director of the MIT (Milli
İstihbarat Teşkilatı), Hakan Fidan, who journeyed specially to Moscow for this
reason. The attack was facilitated by the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from the
combat zone.
Identically, Turkey informed Syria of the attack in writing, even if Damascus claimed that
it had not received the letter.
President el-Assad, who can not place his country in confrontation with the United States in
order to stop the recycling of the jihadists, left Turkey, a member of NATO, to deal with
it.
President Trump had not been informed about the Votel-McGurk plan. The Secretary of Defense,
James Mattis, confirmed to his men the instructions of the White House concerning the
jihadists. However, Votel and McGurk are still in place.
Source : "US secrets, lies and confusion in the North of Syria", by Thierry Meyssan,
Translation Pete Kimberley, Al-Watan (Syria) , Voltaire Network , 23 January 2018, www.voltairenet.org/article199451.html
The USA population lose much treasure and has a deteriorating standard of living to maintain an empire at the behest of
neoliberal elite... This sentiment is merely confirming the US public discontent with interventionism and neocon foreign policy
that had been revived by the 2003 Iraq invasion. The recent J. Wallin Opinion Research
survey revealed that 71 percent of Americans believed Congress should pass legislation that restrained military action. Due to
power of MIC an overblown defense budget does not get proper the scrutiny of any other form of public spending. the United States'
annual military budget around $700 billion. Those guys need war to justify it.
Much of those costs have been borne by ordinary Americans-from paying for war debts to being at greater risk of terrorist
attacks-while the war profits go to a select group of corporations. It is difficult to imagine any single decision in any other
realm of policy that has cost so much, delivered little, and harmed America and the rest of the world so irreparably.
so you have no problems with a NATO country which flirts with Putin, rounds up its
citizens for the least reasons, threatens fellow NATO members and so forth? A weapon is only
as good as its users, The current Turkish army is a politically reliable beast, because the
actual soldiers have been rounded up and imprisoned as well.
What does being a NATO member have to do with the CIA funneling weapons to terrorists? In
fact, one could argue that arming terrorists is the NATO-Russian way. They both do so quite
regularly just on different sides. However, it was the US government who began arming the
rebels against the Syrian government to overthrow the government. 400,000 have died as a
result. 3/4 of the country's GDP is erased. Millions are refugees. Perhaps the US government
should not have overthrown Libya's government, taken Libya's arms to Syria, and provided air
cover to ISIS and al Nusra. Then, this conversation would never have taken place.
As I recall it, in the beginning the opposition staged rallies against the Syrian govt,
because of economic problems but were militarily put down. The US came into it after the
Syrian Govt used chemical weapons against the rebellion (obama's red line that got ignored),
and then, the US entered only after ISIS became involved in the Syrian affair. Russia
officially entered on Syria's side somewhat later on. Turkey officially entered after Russia.
Dont try to put Syria's self-destruction off on the US.
Those staged rallies were fanned by Robert Ford, then ambassador of the US to Syria. The
war, in large part, began due to water shortages which meant farmers could not grow crops.
Food prices soared. The US saw the economic instability as an opportunity to overthrow the
Syrian government. Israel saw this as an opportunity to extend its occupation of the Golan
Heights via proxies. Saudi Arabia took this opportunity to support proxies by releasing
weapons and pardoned prisoners to stick it to Iran--its sworn enemy. Many powers jockey for
control over Syria but I guarantee you the foreign powers are unconcerned with civil rights
and civilian tolls. The great game is afoot.
Unfortunately, your stated starting point for the conflict is flawed. The US, Turkey,
Israel, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar were arming al Qaeda, al Nusra, ISIS,
'moderate rebels', et al. far earlier than alleged chemical attacks. WMDs, like in Iraq, have
often been used as an argument for arming opposition groups and overthrowing governments by
the US and its allies. The US provided VX gas to Saddam, who used it against the Kurds and
Iran. Perhaps if one is concerned about WMDs, one should be very concerned with the US
providing one of the most lethal chemical weapons on the planet to Saddam. Then again, I find
that argument unpersuasive given the US government's history of arming others with chemical,
biological, and nuclear programs.
you get everything dont you =)
if Assad steps down, from a political movement promoted by the west, you'll turn the country
into another Egypt led by a western friendly dictator to promote the NATO agenda in the
middle east.Without any apparent improvement to the daily lives of Syrians (don't argue with
me on this one, facts tells us all "Arab spring countries turned out worst off")
If Assad don't step down, you'll fund a civil war and prolong it as long as you get your
way, and with the airways filled with western news agencies you can say whatever you
like.
PS: if Assad is despotic, then what are Saudis? why didn't NATO promote a Saudi civil war
if they care about human rights so much?
I take it you haven't heard of operation Timber Sycamore? It' a
widely-known fact that we funded, armed and trained known terrorist
groups in Syria with the aim of regime change.
You're very correct to be suspicious of information and to demand
evidence. I suggest you be particularly suspicious of the media that
widely reported the "fact" that Saddam Hussein had WMD ...they
clearly have an agenda other than just news reporting .
No. I have seen Secretary Clinton's emails and internal documents
supporting the rise of al Nusra, al Qaeda, and ISIS. ISIS and other
rebels
are awash in American M-16s, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and m-pads.
The food that they left behind came from Western countries. The arms
came from Western countries. The US even killed over 70 pro-Syrian
government troops in one airstrike minutes before an ISIS assault.
Given the emails, the weapons manufacturing, and the air support, it
is pretty easy to conclude that the US had once again tried to
intervene in another Middle Eastern country. General Wesley Clark,
having read the memo detailing the fall of seven countries, states
that Syria was on the list of countries to overthrow in 2006 (? I
believe). A quick Youtube can illustrate this point. The CIA was
funnelling weapons from Libya and Ukraine via the CIA according to
Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersch. He is the same investigative
journalist who covered the Abu Ghraib scandal among others.
Completely unrealistic assessment of the situation. Essentially "kicking the can down the road:" approach. Looks
like Trump administration is now neocon administration. Kind of Obama II or Bush III.
Military Keysianism (in the style of national socialism) all over again. But the US empire requires now spending that can
hardly be afforded by US economy. Add to this care of disabled veterans, number of which is growing each year (while casualties
rate due to modern medicine is low, number of disabled soldiers is substantial).
Hopefully over $100
per barrel oil will sober some hot Pentagon heads. Neocons, who now dominate foreign policy of Trump administration, are hopeless in this respect, they will
pursue the dream of global dominance and American empire ("America uber alles") till the last American (excluding of cause themselves
-- 99% of them are chickenhawks -- and their families)
So 700 billion dollars will be spent not matter what suffering and deprivations for ordinary
Americans (no jobs, no hope) it entails
The USA population lose much treasure and has a deteriorating standard of living to maintain
an empire at the behest of neoliberal elite... This sentiment is merely confirming the US public
discontent with interventionism and neocon foreign policy that had been revived by the 2003 Iraq
invasion. The recent J. Wallin Opinion Research
survey revealed that 71 percent of Americans believed Congress should pass legislation that
restrained military action. Due to power of MIC an overblown defense budget does not get proper
the scrutiny of any other form of public spending. the United States' annual military budget
around $700 billion. Those guys need war to justify it.
Much of those costs have been borne by ordinary Americans -- from paying for war debts to
being at greater risk of terrorist attacks -- while the war profits go to a select group of
corporations. It is difficult to imagine any single decision in any other realm of policy that
has cost so much, delivered little, and harmed America and the rest of the world so
irreparably.
Notable quotes:
"... our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare, air, land, sea, space and cyberspace, and it is continuing to erode. ..."
"... to keep the peace for one more year, one more month, one more week, one more day. To ensure our diplomats who are working to solve problems do so from a position of strength ..."
"... It is incumbent upon us to field a more lethal force if our nation is to retain the ability to defend ourselves and what we stand for. The defense strategy's three primary lines of effort will restore our comparative military advantage. ..."
"... We're going to build a more lethal force. We will strengthen our traditional alliances and building new partnerships with other nations. And at the same time we'll reform our department's business practices for performance and affordability. ..."
"... We will modernize key capabilities, recognizing we cannot expect success fighting tomorrow's conflicts with yesterday's weapons or equipment. Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems, and resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win. ..."
"... And again, the 40-odd nations that stand shoulder-to-shoulder in NATO's mission in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Our third line of effort serves as the foundation for our competitive edge: reforming the business practices of the department to provide both solvency and security, thereby gaining the full benefit from every dollar spent, in which way we will gain and hold the trust of Congress and the American people. ..."
We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from
each other, nations that do seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,
pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions.
Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that threaten
regional and even global stability. Oppressing their own people and shredding their own
people's dignity and human rights, they push their warped views outward.
And despite the defeat of ISIS' physical caliphate, violent extremist organizations like
ISIS or Lebanese Hezbollah or al Qaida continue to sow hatred, destroying peace and murdering
innocents across the globe.
In this time of change, our military is still strong. Yet our competitive edge has
eroded in every domain of warfare, air, land, sea, space and cyberspace, and it is continuing
to erode.
Rapid technological change, the negative impact on military readiness is resulting from the
longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation's history and defense spending caps, because
we have been operating also for nine of the last 10 years under continuing resolutions that
have created an overstretched and under-resourced military.
Our military's role is to keep the peace; to keep the peace for one more year, one more
month, one more week, one more day. To ensure our diplomats who are working to solve problems
do so from a position of strength and giving allies confidence in us. This confidence is
underpinned by the assurance that our military will win should diplomacy fail.
When unveiling his national security strategy, President Trump said, "Weakness is the surest
path to conflict, and unquestioned strength is the most certain means of defense."
Ladies and gentlemen, we have no room for complacency, and history makes clear that America
has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield. Simply, we must be the best if the
values that grew out of the Enlightenment are to survive.
It is incumbent upon us to field a more lethal force if our nation is to retain the
ability to defend ourselves and what we stand for. The defense strategy's three primary lines
of effort will restore our comparative military advantage.
We're going to build a more lethal force. We will strengthen our traditional alliances
and building new partnerships with other nations. And at the same time we'll reform our
department's business practices for performance and affordability.
In doing this, we will earn the trust of the American people and Congress, if their defense
dollars are well spent.
But let me go through each of the lines of effort. And I want to start with lethality,
because everything we do in the department must contribute to the lethality of our
military.
The paradox of war is that an enemy will attack any perceived weakness. So we in America
cannot adopt a single preclusive form of warfare. Rather we must be able to fight across the
spectrum of conflict.
This means that the size and the composition of our force matters. The nation must field
sufficient capable forces to deter conflict. And if deterrence fails, we must win.
We will modernize key capabilities, recognizing we cannot expect success fighting
tomorrow's conflicts with yesterday's weapons or equipment. Investments in space and
cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems, and
resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to
win.
Changing our forces' posture will prioritize readiness for warfighting for major combat,
making us strategically predictable for our allies and operationally unpredictable for any
adversary.
Increasing the lethality of our troops, supported by our defense civilians, requires us to
reshape our approach that managing our outstanding talent, reinvigorating our military
education and honing civilian workforce expertise.
The creativity and talent of the department is our deepest wellspring of strength, and one
that warrants greater investment.
And to those who would threaten America's experiment in democracy, they must know: If you
challenge us it will be your longest and your worst day. Work with our diplomats; you don't
want to fight the Department of Defense.
The second line of effort I noted was to strengthen alliances as we build new partnerships,
as well.
In my past, I fought many times and never did I fight in a solely American formation. It was
always alongside foreign troops.
Now, as Winston Churchill once said, the only thing harder than fighting with allies is
fighting without them. But we are going to be stronger together in recognizing that our
military will be designed and trained and ready to fight alongside allies.
History proves that nations with allies thrive, an approach to security and prosperity that
has served the United States well in keeping peace and winning war. Working by, with and
through allies who carry their equitable share allows us to amass the greatest possible
strength.
We carried a disproportionate share of the defense burden for the democracies in the
post-World War II era. The growing economic strength of today's democracies and partners
dictates they must now step up and do more.
When together we pool our resources and share responsibility for the common defense,
individual nations' security burdens become lighter. This has been demonstrated right now,
today, for example, by over 70 nations and international organizations of the Defeat-ISIS
campaign that is successfully conducting operations in the Middle East. And again, the
40-odd nations that stand shoulder-to-shoulder in NATO's mission in Afghanistan.
To strengthen and work jointly with more allies, our organizations, processes and procedures
must be ally-friendly. The department will do more than just listen to other nations' ideas. We
will be willing to be persuaded by them, recognizing that all not -- that not all good ideas
come from the country with the most aircraft carriers.
This line of effort will bolster an extended network capable of decisively meeting the
challenges of our time. So we're going to make the military more lethal, and we are going to
build and strengthen traditional alliances, as well as go out and find some new partners --
maybe nontraditional partners -- as we do what the Greatest Generation did, coming home from
World War II, when they built the alliances that have served us so well, right through
today.
Our third line of effort serves as the foundation for our competitive edge: reforming
the business practices of the department to provide both solvency and security, thereby gaining
the full benefit from every dollar spent, in which way we will gain and hold the trust of
Congress and the American people.
"... Occasionally, it is actually delusional, as when it refers to consolidating "gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere." ..."
"... At times Mattis' supplementary "remarks" were more bombastic than reassuring, as when he warned " those who would threaten America's experiment in democracy: if you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day." He did not exactly go into what the military response to hacking a politician's emails might be and one can only speculate, which is precisely the problem. ..."
"... Some of the remarks by Mattis relate to China and Russia. He said that "We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models - pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions." There is, however, no evidence that either country is exporting "authoritarian models," nor are they vetoing anything that they do not perceive as direct and immediate threats frequently orchestrated by Washington, which is intervening in local quarrels thousands of miles away from the U.S. borders. And when it comes to exporting models, who does it more persistently than Washington? ..."
"... The report goes on to state that Russia and China and rogue regimes like Iran have " increased efforts short of armed conflict by expanding coercion to new fronts, violating principle of sovereignty, exploiting ambiguity, and deliberately blurring the lines between civil and military goals." As confusing civil and military is what the United States itself has been doing in Libya, Iraq and, currently, Syria, the allegation might be considered ironic. ..."
"... What might that mean in practice? Back in 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney had requested "a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States... [including] a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons ... not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States." ..."
"... Pentagon planners clearly anticipate another year of playing at defense by keeping the offense on the field. An impetuous and poorly informed president is a danger to all of us, particularly as he is surrounded by general-advisers who see a military solution to every problem. Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail. ..."
"... how should China, Russia and Iran be responding to the strategic plans of Mattis, the US War Hawks and neocons who surround Trump? Who is it that is threatening the United States, that is not responding to threats first against them? ..."
"... This appears to me to be the same dangerous, belligerent talk justifying preemptive strike thinking that separates out the United States from its' perceived enemies. And probably the rest of the world! And brought us, according to the Concerned Scientists, again to "two minutes to midnight." It seems, to me, quite rational for Russia and China to respond accordingly, like good boy scouts, and also be prepared. ..."
"... The U.S. since it very first day of founding is offense. The Revolutionary War is offense against the British Empire. It built its first navy ships, not for defense but to fight a war in the Med Sea across the ocean. No one attacked the U.S ..."
"... The U.S. is 100% offense since day one to today. There is no department of defense. But its department of aggression and war was founded in 1776. ..."
"... The physics of nuclear war allow no winners because we all share this earth. ..."
"... Of course here in America we have no public shelters so threats by our plutocracy puppets must be absorbed by our fellow American Sheep. After the bombs come down are you one of those politicians holding a ticket to those vast hidden U.S. government shelters where sheep are not allowed? Doubtful ..."
"... Wake up folks aka sheep / slaves before it's too late! No one is going to protect you! You and me are being played! ..."
"... Putin, a Russian patriot if there ever was one, recognized that western capital could not be resisted by the Soviet system. In defense of Russia he liberated the economy, gradually but inexorably eliminating the evils of the Yeltsin years, and releasing the social forces needed for national strength and productivity. He reversed the isolation of Soviet times, establishing international relations based on mutual advantage and trust, not coercion. Despite western propaganda, he has established himself as a good neighbor, and as a reliable partner and ally. His stewardship has made Russia stronger and more impervious to US hegemonic ambitions. ..."
"... Putin is no lackey of US imperialism. He together with China and Iran form the chief bulwarks against it. ..."
"... It seems that Mattis is a fool; he's reading something in which he has no comprehension for its ramifications in the long run. ..."
"... Maybe the Lockheed Martin CEO written the document so that idiot would read it to the sheeple....Who knows. ..."
Reading the summary is illuminating, to say the least, and somewhat disturbing, as it
focuses very little on actual defense of the realm and relates much more to offensive military
action that might be employed to further certain debatable national interests. Occasionally, it
is actually delusional, as when it refers to consolidating "gains we have made in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria and elsewhere."
At times Mattis' supplementary "remarks" were more bombastic than reassuring, as when he
warned " those who would threaten America's experiment in democracy: if you challenge us, it
will be your longest and worst day." He did not exactly go into what the military response to
hacking a politician's emails might be and one can only speculate, which is precisely the
problem.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the report is its breathtaking assumption that
"competitors" should be subjected to a potential military response if it is determined that
they are in conflict with the strategic goals of the U.S. government. It is far removed from
the old-fashioned Constitutional concept that one has armed forces to defend the country
against an actual threat involving an attack by hostile forces and instead embraces preventive
war, which is clearly an excuse for serial interventions overseas.
Some of the remarks by Mattis relate to China and Russia. He said that "We face growing
threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a
world consistent with their authoritarian models - pursuing veto authority over other nations'
economic, diplomatic and security decisions." There is, however, no evidence that either
country is exporting "authoritarian models," nor are they vetoing anything that they do not
perceive as direct and immediate threats frequently orchestrated by Washington, which is
intervening in local quarrels thousands of miles away from the U.S. borders. And when it comes
to exporting models, who does it more persistently than Washington?
The report goes on to state that Russia and China and rogue regimes like Iran have "
increased efforts short of armed conflict by expanding coercion to new fronts, violating
principle of sovereignty, exploiting ambiguity, and deliberately blurring the lines between
civil and military goals." As confusing civil and military is what the United States itself has
been doing in Libya, Iraq and, currently, Syria, the allegation might be considered ironic.
The scariest assertion in the summary is the following: "Nuclear forces - Modernization of
the nuclear force includes developing options to counter competitors' coercive strategies,
predicated on the threatened use of nuclear or strategic non-nuclear attacks." That means that
the White House and Pentagon are reserving the option to use nuclear weapons even when there is
no imminent or existential threat as long as there is a "strategic" reason for doing so.
Strategic would be defined by the president and Mattis, while the War Powers Act allows Donald
Trump to legally initiate a nuclear attack.
What might that mean in practice? Back in 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney had
requested "a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack
on the United States... [including] a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both
conventional and tactical nuclear weapons ... not conditional on Iran actually being involved
in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."
Possible employment of "weapons of mass destruction" responded to intelligence suggesting
that conventional weapons would be unable to penetrate the underground hardened sites where
Iran's presumed nuclear weapons facilities were reportedly located. But as it turned out, Iran
had no nuclear weapons program and attacking it would have been totally gratuitous. Some other
neocon inspired plans to attack Iran also included a nuclear option if Iran actually had the
temerity to resist American force majeure.
Pentagon planners clearly anticipate another year of playing at defense by keeping the
offense on the field. An impetuous and poorly informed president is a danger to all of us,
particularly as he is surrounded by general-advisers who see a military solution to every
problem. Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail.
Possible employment of "weapons of mass destruction" responded to intelligence suggesting
that conventional weapons would be unable to penetrate the underground hardened sites where
Iran's presumed nuclear weapons facilities were reportedly located. But as it turned out, Iran
had no nuclear weapons program and attacking it would have been totally gratuitous. Some other
neocon inspired plans to attack Iran also included a nuclear option if Iran actually had the
temerity to resist American force majeure.
Pentagon planners clearly anticipate another year of playing at defense by keeping the
offense on the field. An impetuous and poorly informed president is a danger to all of us,
particularly as he is surrounded by general-advisers who see a military solution to every
problem. Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail.
By Philip M. Giraldi Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest. This article was originally published by
Strategic Culture Foundation
well.
as a combat vet it's ALWAYS better to be PREPARED THAN SORRY.
and you DON'T sit on your Butt waiting for your enemies to attack FIRST when you can PREVENT
IT.
In that case James; how should China, Russia and Iran be responding to the strategic plans
of Mattis, the US War Hawks and neocons who surround Trump?
Who is it that is threatening the United States, that is not responding to threats first
against them?
This appears to me to be the same dangerous, belligerent talk justifying preemptive strike
thinking that separates out the United States from its' perceived enemies. And probably the
rest of the world! And brought us, according to the Concerned Scientists, again to "two
minutes to midnight."
It seems, to me, quite rational for Russia and China to respond accordingly, like good boy
scouts, and also be prepared.
However; It is very dangerous, for if they detect there is an incoming missile or potentially
nuclear armed plane what are they expected to do? They won't be sitting on their hands,
that's for sure!
Just look at how the ordinary people of Hawaii responded to a "false alarm" recently. I put
"false alarm" in brackets because who knows what the United States neocons get up to
nowadays.
This is all very wearying and repeated so often there is a danger of people giving up.
Isn't it interesting how we are surrounded by folktales and the warnings of the old
Prophets and new which we ignore at our peril? Like crying wolf.
God help us all if some deluded idiot with authority, including that self-styled "genius" and
Supreme Commander, General Trump, miscalculate.
I imagine what remains of the sidelined, but still rational thinking Generals and Admirals
and military realists in the lower ranks are really sweating it out worrying what the morons
in charge might do.
The U.S. since it very first day of founding is offense. The Revolutionary War is offense
against the British Empire. It built its first navy ships, not for defense but to fight a war
in the Med Sea across the ocean. No one attacked the U.S.
The U.S. is 100% offense since day one to today. There is no department of defense. But
its department of aggression and war was founded in 1776.
There is not one human being on the planet that would have the inclination to want to invade
USA Inc. We watch and read and only need a minuscule amount of imagination to know that USA
Inc is the "sh*th*le " of the world populated by "ar*eh*les".
The only solution is for NK to invite China and Russia to send in missile batteries to
defend NK and if they are attacked, all US military bases in Asia will be obliterated with
Hawaii and Mainland in quick succession if USA Inc escalates.
Cities of Seoul and Tokyo need be left with no doubt that they will be tripled glazed,
Russia and China need to lift sanctions on NK immediately .
The rest of the world needs boycott USA Inc to the Olympics, just as the fascist West did to
Russia when it went to the rescue of Afghanistan.
Persons inciting war need to be prosecuted, those who incite use of WMD must be put in a
special category and immediately stopped from traveling outside their country and from
speaking at the UN.
A resolution must be passed at the United General Assembly to put above suggestion into
practice, and see if we can not get a resounding "vote" for it, as was the case for support
of Palestine recently.
America's National Defense Is really to terrorize the sheep / slaves into submission. The
physics of nuclear war allow no winners because we all share this earth.
Of course here in America we have no public shelters so threats by our plutocracy puppets
must be absorbed by our fellow American Sheep. After the bombs come down are you one of those
politicians holding a ticket to those vast hidden U.S. government shelters where sheep are
not allowed? Doubtful! You can just turn around and try to kiss your hind quarter Ba Ba a a
aaa.
Wake up folks aka sheep / slaves before it's too late! No one is going to protect you! You
and me are being played!
Time to replace all politicians with AI Robots. Who needs rulers anyway? Let politicians be
the first to be replaced with robots
Dave above has one cockeyed view of Putin, and of those sources of opinion that support him.
Soviet Russia imploded because it could not deliver the goods.An endless arms race, a
population regimented, harnessed, and stifled in service to a centrally planned economy, run
by a vast self-serving bureaucracy, It it was an experiment in state capitalism that, in
hindsight, could not but fail. The west tried to strangle it in its crib but in the event it
died of old age.
Putin, a Russian patriot if there ever was one, recognized that western capital could not
be resisted by the Soviet system. In defense of Russia he liberated the economy, gradually
but inexorably eliminating the evils of the Yeltsin years, and releasing the social forces
needed for national strength and productivity. He reversed the isolation of Soviet times,
establishing international relations based on mutual advantage and trust, not coercion.
Despite western propaganda, he has established himself as a good neighbor, and as a reliable
partner and ally. His stewardship has made Russia stronger and more impervious to US
hegemonic ambitions.
Putin is no lackey of US imperialism. He together with China and Iran form the chief
bulwarks against it. Dave's view is perverse.
"... A conspiracy of US government agencies, tax-exempt think tanks funded by the ruling interests, and media acting in behalf of a war and police state agenda work to shape perceived reality as it is described in George Orwell's book, 1984 ..."
"... Nothing stated in the Western presstitute media and no statement by any Western government or subservient vassal state can be trusted to comply with the facts. Truth is the enemy of the state, and the state is eliminating the truth. ..."
A conspiracy of US government agencies, tax-exempt think tanks funded by the ruling
interests, and media acting in behalf of a war and police state agenda work to shape perceived
reality as it is described in George Orwell's book, 1984 , and in the film, The
Matrix . Controlled perception-based reality is only a Facebook "like" away from killing
one person or one million or elevating a liar or the warmonger responsible for the killing to
hero status or to the conrol of the CIA or FBI or the US presidency.
... ... ...
...Nothing stated in the Western presstitute media and no statement by any Western
government or subservient vassal state can be trusted to comply with the facts. Truth is the enemy of the state, and the state is eliminating the truth.
Peoples in the United States, Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the
various vassal states, such as Japan, all live day in, day out, an orchestrated lie that serves
interests directly opposed to the interests of the peoples.
Governments that do not rest on truth rest on tyranny.
"... This propaganda campaign is part and parcel of the roll-out of a new "official narrative." If it wasn't so completely depressing, I would say it is awe-inspiring to watch. This full-spectrum type of mass indoctrination, or "reality adjustment," doesn't happen that often. It used to only happen on the national level, typically during times of war, when the ruling classes of nation states needed to temporarily unite their populaces and demonize their enemy. It is happening now on a global level, for the second time in the 21st Century. ..."
"... The global capitalist ruling classes (which now reigned unopposed over the entire planet) needed a new official narrative to unite, not just a nation, or region, but everyone within the new global market. This narrative needed a convincing enemy that would function on a global level. "Terrorism" is that enemy. ..."
"... The key to understanding both the original War on Terror official narrative and the expanded variation we are being sold currently is the fact that terrorism is an insurgent tactic employed by weaker militant forces against a ruling government or occupation force. This makes it the perfect bogeyman (in essence, the only bogeyman) for our brave new global capitalist world, where global capitalism takes the place of that "ruling government or occupation force." ..."
"... we we no longer live in a world where nation-against-nation conflict is driving the course of political events. We live in a world where global capitalism is driving the course of political events. The economies of virtually every nation on the planet are hopelessly interdependent. Capitalist ideology pervades all cultures, despite their superficial differences. It is a globally hegemonic system, so it has no external enemies. None. The only threats it faces are internal. Its "enemies" are, by definition, insurgent in other words, "extremist" or "terrorist." ..."
"... This even holds true for the Russia paranoia the ruling classes are pumping out currently it's all just part of the "reality adjustment," and the launch of a new official narrative, not a prelude to war with Russia. The USA is not going to war with Russia. The notion is beyond ridiculous. Have you noticed, despite all their warlike verbiage, that no one has put forth a single scenario in which war between Russia and the West makes sense? That's because it doesn't make sense. Not for Russia, the USA, or anyone else. This is why "the Russian threat" is being marketed as an "attack on democratic values" and "an attempt to sow division," and so on. Because the war the corporatocracy is waging is not a war against Russia, the nation. The war they are fighting is a counter-insurgency, an ideological counter-insurgency. "Russia" has just been added to the list of "terrorists" and "extremists" who "hate us for our freedom." ..."
"... The message is, "you're either with us or against us." The message is, "we will tolerate no dissent, except for officially sanctioned dissent." The message is, "try to fuck with us, and we will marginalize you, and demonize you, and demonetize you, and disappear you." ..."
"... The message is, "we control reality, so reality is whatever the fuck we say it is, regardless of whether it is based in fact or just some totally made-up story we got The Washington Post to publish and then had the corporate media repeat, over and over, for fourteen months. " If that doesn't qualify as full-blown Orwellian, I'm not sure what, exactly, would. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Just when you thought the corporatocracy couldn't possibly get more creepily Orwellian, the
Twitter Corporation starts sending
out emails advising that they "have reason to believe" we have "followed, retweeted," or
"liked the content of" an account "connected to a propaganda effort by a Russia
government-linked organization known as the Internet Research Agency." While it's not as
dramatic as the Thought Police watching you on your telescreen, or posters reminding you "Big
Brother Is Watching," the effect is more or less the same.
And if that's not creepily Orwellian enough for you, Facebook has established a Ministry of Counterspeech , manned by "a
dedicated counterterrorism team" of "former intelligence and law-enforcement officials," to
"disrupt ideologies underlying extremism" ( see Chris Hedges' recent essay
for details ). The Google Corporation is systematically disappearing
,
deranking , and maliciously
misrepresenting non-corporate news and opinion sources, and the "thought criminals" who
contribute to them. Meanwhile, the corporate media continues to pump out Russia paranoia
propaganda like
this Maddow segment on MSNBC about "the remarkable number of Russian financiers who'll be
rubbing elbows with the Trump team in Davos."
These are just the latest salvos in the corporate establishment's War on Dissent, an
expanded version of the War on Terror, which they've been relentlessly waging for over a year
now. As you may have noticed, the ruling classes have been using virtually every propaganda
organ at their disposal to whip up mass hysteria over a host of extremely dubious threats to
"the future of democracy" and "democratic values," Russia being foremost among them, followed
closely by white supremacy, then a laundry list of other "threats," from Julian Assange to
Bernie Bros to other, lesser "sowers of division."
This propaganda campaign is part and parcel of the roll-out of a new "official
narrative." If it wasn't so completely depressing, I would say it is awe-inspiring to watch.
This full-spectrum type of mass indoctrination, or "reality adjustment," doesn't happen that
often. It used to only happen on the national level, typically during times of war, when the
ruling classes of nation states needed to temporarily unite their populaces and demonize their
enemy. It is happening now on a global level, for the second time in the 21st Century.
The first time it happened on a global level was 2001-2002, when the War on Terror narrative
was launched to supplant the defunct Cold War narrative that had functioned since the end of
World War II. The End of History/New World Order narrative, which had served as a kind of
ideological stop-gap from 1990 to 2001, never really sold that well. It was far too vague, and
there was no clear enemy. The global capitalist ruling classes (which now reigned unopposed
over the entire planet) needed a new official narrative to unite, not just a nation, or region,
but everyone within the new global market. This narrative needed a convincing enemy that would
function on a global level. "Terrorism" is that enemy.
In the official War on Terror narrative, the term "terrorism" does not refer to any type of
actual terrorism (although of course such terrorism does occur) as much as to "terrorism" as a
general concept, an essentially meaningless pejorative concept, one which can be expanded to
include almost anything and anyone the ruling classes need it to which is what is taking place
at the moment. It is being expanded, rather dramatically, to include virtually any type of
dissent from global capitalist ideology. In order to understand what's happening, we need to
understand how terms like "terrorism" and "extremism" function ideologically, not just as terms
to dehumanize "bad guys" but to designate a type of ur-antagonist , one that conforms to
the official narrative. So let's take a few minutes and try to do that.
The key to understanding both the original War on Terror official narrative and the
expanded variation we are being sold currently is the fact that terrorism is an insurgent
tactic employed by weaker militant forces against a ruling government or occupation force. This
makes it the perfect bogeyman (in essence, the only bogeyman) for our brave new global
capitalist world, where global capitalism takes the place of that "ruling government or
occupation force."
I've written a
number of essays about this , so I won't reiterate all that here. The short version is,
we we no longer live in a world where nation-against-nation conflict is driving the course
of political events. We live in a world where global capitalism is driving the course of
political events. The economies of virtually every nation on the planet are hopelessly
interdependent. Capitalist ideology pervades all cultures, despite their superficial
differences. It is a globally hegemonic system, so it has no external enemies. None. The only
threats it faces are internal. Its "enemies" are, by definition, insurgent in other words,
"extremist" or "terrorist."
This even holds true for the Russia paranoia the ruling classes are pumping out
currently it's all just part of the "reality adjustment," and the launch of a new official
narrative, not a prelude to war with Russia. The USA is not going to war with Russia. The
notion is beyond ridiculous. Have you noticed, despite all their warlike verbiage, that no one
has put forth a single scenario in which war between Russia and the West makes sense? That's
because it doesn't make sense. Not for Russia, the USA, or anyone else. This is why "the
Russian threat" is being marketed as an "attack on democratic values" and "an attempt to sow
division," and so on. Because the war the corporatocracy is waging is not a war against Russia,
the nation. The war they are fighting is a counter-insurgency, an ideological
counter-insurgency. "Russia" has just been added to the list of "terrorists" and "extremists"
who "hate us for our freedom."
Thus, our new official narrative is actually just a minor variation on the original War on
Terror narrative we've been indoctrinated with since 2001. A minor yet essential variation.
From 2001 to 2016, the constant "terrorist threat" we were facing was strictly limited to
Islamic terrorism, which made sense as long as the corporatocracy was focused on restructuring
the Middle East. White supremacist terrorism was not part of the narrative, nor was any other
form of terrorism, as that would have just confused the audience.
That changed, dramatically, in 2016.
The Brexit referendum and the election of Trump alerted the global capitalist ruling classes
to the existence of another dangerous insurgency that had nothing to do with the Greater Middle
East. While they were off merrily destabilizing, restructuring, privatizing, and
debt-enslaving, resentment of global capitalism had grown into a widespread neo-nationalist
backlash against globalization, the loss of sovereignty, fiscal austerity, and the soulless,
smiley-face, corporate culture being implemented throughout the West and beyond. That this
backlash is reactionary in nature does not change the fact that it is an insurgency just as
Islamic fundamentalism is. Both insurgencies are doomed attempts to revert to despotic social
systems (nationalist in one case, religious in the other) and so reverse the forward march of
global capitalism. The global capitalist ruling classes are not about to let that happen.
The corporatocracy wasted no time in dealing with this new insurgency. They demonized and
hamstrung Trump, as they'll continue to do until he's well out of office. But Trump was never
the significant threat. The significant threat is the people who elected him, and who voted for
Brexit, and the AfD, and Sanders, and Mélenchon, and Corbyn, and who just stayed home on
election day and refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. The threat is the attitude of these
people. The insubordinate attitude of these people. The childish attitude of these people (who
naively thought they could challenge the most powerful empire in the annals of human history
one that controls, not just the most fearsome military force that has ever existed, but the
means to control "reality" itself).
The corporatocracy is going to change that attitude, or it is going to make it disappear. It
is in the process of doing this now, using every ideological weapon in its arsenal. The news
media. Publishing. Hollywood. The Internet. Intelligence agencies. Congressional inquiries.
Protests. Marches. Twitter's "advisory emails." Google's manipulation of its search results.
Facebook's "counterspeech" initiative. Russiagate. Shitholegate. Pornstargate. The ruling class
is sending us a message. The message is, "you're either with us or against us." The message
is, "we will tolerate no dissent, except for officially sanctioned dissent." The message is,
"try to fuck with us, and we will marginalize you, and demonize you, and demonetize you, and
disappear you."
I wish I had some rallying cry to end this depressing assessment with, but I have no
interest in being one of these Twitter-based guerrilla leaders who tell you we can beat the
corporatocracy by tweeting and donating to them on Patreon, and then going about our lives as
"normal." It's probably going to take a little more than that, and the obvious truth is, the
odds are against us. That said, I plan to make as much noise about The War on Dissent as
humanly possible, until they marginalize me out of existence or the corporate-mediated
simulation that so many of us take for existence these days. What do you say, want to join
me?
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Until now, I have considered C. J. Hopkins to be only a playwright or whatever and not a
serious political scientist or political critic. But now, I see that he has grown out to be a
serious political voice.
I consider Hopkins' manifesto to be not unlike the old Communist Manifesto of 1848. Just
as more than 170 years ago the Communist Manifesto could note that "a specter is haunting
Europe," so today we could say that "a specter is haunting the world." But whereas back then
the hunted people had a name -- "communists" -- today those who are wanted for 'terrorism'
have no name or flag under which to come together. Perhaps the most appropriate name for
these people is "Dissidents."
Several individuals come to mind as perhaps having leadership potential for the
Dissidents. First, there is Ai Weiwei, who is known as a dissident artist and also as an
enemy of the state -- so the word for these dissident artists may be "anarchists." But since
anarchists would seem to have to eschew all political organization, they can't be anything
like the old Communist Party. Nonetheless, they can certainly be a specter to haunt the
globalized world, the world that pretends to be based on humanist globalism.
Two other examples, along with Ai Weiwei, are: Jello Biafra in the USA and Varg Vikernes
in Europe (at least in Northern and Central Europe). Both have arisen from the world of music
but have not been particularly shy about getting involveed in politics. So far Jello has
managed to avoid prosecution/persecution, while Varg is actually a convicted murderer and
also convicted of "hate crime" under the infamous "hate crime" statutes of France. Jello is a
Green, however, and it's note-worthy that the current leader (POTUS candidate) of the Green
Party USA (Dr. Jill Stein) has recently been singled out by congressional "intel" committees
as a person of interest in the so-called "Russiagate" affair.
As Hopkins says,
The ruling class is sending us a message. The message is, "you're either with us or
against us."
Maybe that's what has happened with the USA Greens: the global PTB have sent the message,
and it appears that the Greens' leader has responded by chosing to cooperate with the witch
hunt -- "discretion is the better part of valor" (as the old expression goes).
It seems to me a lot like the real California 'hippies' back in the the mid-60s -- not the
war protesters but the real hippies who were too stoned to know that there was a war going
on. They just knew that they did not want any part of the world as we know it. Oh, they
wanted the natural world all right, they just didn't want the so-called "civilized" world.
Rightists tended to place them somewhere on the Left side of the spectrum of the
Right-Left-Right-ya-Left-ya Right-ya-left-right-left (as drill sergeants might express it). I
was there in the 60s, although I was already too old to be trusted according to the political
pseudo-hippies (I was already over 30 years of age) but what I would call the real hippies,
they trusted me just fine. Anyway, Rightists and all the journalists and commentators never
came close to realizing what it was all about. You almost had to have some experience
first-hand of LSD, you know.
Maybe that's where this is all heading -- right back to LSD, psilocybin and good old
Cannabis. I note in this respect that the Trump administration has recently come down strong
to suppress the "Movement" in Colorado and elsewhere. One of Trump's numerous sell-outs or
cop-outs (to use the old 60s terminology). Contrary to his campaign statements, of
course.
Yes, I think that Hopkins way off there in the capital of rationalism, Berlin, probably
has no idea of how this is likely to play out back in the US of A it's going to be all about
illicit drugs and I don't mean factory-produced opioids or amphetamine. This battle will
definitely divide the goats from the sheep -- the real "libertarian" anarchists from the
pretend libertarians. I could be wrong but I think it's going to be a BFD. Yeah, I admit to
it: I hope it's going to be a BFD. Anything else and it's too boring for tears.
No one wanted the First World War, but given the build up of propaganda, tensions, mistrust,
and the alliances, a mere act of terrorism by Gavrilo Princip was enough to ignite a
conflagration that no one could stop.
This is an excellent and exceptional piece. Correct on all points, as we have come to expect
of C. J. Hopkins, one of the most clear-sighted contributors to this site. Fewer comic
flourishes than in his earlier essays, probably reflecting how desperate things are becoming
for independent and fair-minded people trying to make their voices heard. Surprising to see
so few comments, though perhaps that's not a bad thing, given how intemperate some commenters
can be.
"No one wanted the First World War, but given the build up of propaganda, tensions,
mistrust, and the alliances, a mere act of terrorism by Gavrilo Princip was enough to
ignite a conflagration that no one could stop." -- Steve Hayes
I guess that Hayes' comment here at C.J. Hopkins' article is all about demonstrating the
effectiveness of terrorism so then the War on Terror makes sense? but whatever to respond to
Hayes' contention that no one wanted the First World War, I would ask Hayes: "No one? Not
even greedy internationalist central bankers with international connections?"
It is OK for an empire to be hated and feared, it doesn't work so good when Glory slowly fades and he empire instead
becomes hated and despised
Notable quotes:
"... There's only one explanation: Tillerson must be so blinded by hubris that he couldn't figure out what Erdogan's reaction would be. He must have thought that, "Whatever Uncle Sam says, goes." Only it doesn't work like that anymore. ..."
"... Simply put, Washington is losing the war quite dramatically due in large part to the emergence of a new coalition (Russia-Syria-Iran-Hezbollah) that has made great strides in Syria and that is committed to preserve the Old World Order, a system that is built on the principles of national sovereignty, self determination and non intervention. ..."
"... Tillerson's blunder will only make Washington's task all the more difficult by drawing Turkey into the fray in an effort to quash Uncle Sam's Kurdish proxies. ..."
"... In an effort to add insult to injury, Tillerson didn't even have the decency to discuss the matter with Erdogan– his NATO ally– before making the announcement! ..."
"... One day you're a terrorist, and the next day you're not depending on whether Washington can use you or not. ..."
"... Now the US has to choose between its own proxy army (The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces) and a NATO ally that occupies the critical crossroads between Asia and Europe ..."
"... "In response to President Erdoğan's call on the United States to end the delivery of weapons to the [Democratic Union Party] PYD-YPG, President Trump said that his country no longer supplied the group with weapons and pledged not to resume the weapons delivery in the future," the sources added." (Hurriyet) ..."
"... So far, the only clear winner in this latest conflagration has been Vladimir Putin, the levelheaded pragmatist who hews to Napoleon's directive to "Never interfere with an enemy while he's in the process of destroying himself." ..."
"... Putin gave Erdogan the green light to conduct "Operation Olive Branch" in order to pave the way for an eventual Syrian takeover of the Northwestern portion of the country up to the Turkish border. Moscow removed its troops from the Afrin quarter (where the current fighting is taking place) but not before it presented the Kurds with the option of conceding control of the area to the central government in Damascus. The Kurds rejected that offer and elected to fight instead. ..."
"... Erdogan's demand that Trump stop the flow of weapons to the SDF will benefit Russia and its allies on the ground even more than they will benefit Turkey. It's another win-win situation for Putin. ..."
So why did Tillerson think Erdogan would respond differently?
There's only one explanation: Tillerson must be so blinded by hubris that he couldn't figure
out what Erdogan's reaction would be. He must have thought that, "Whatever Uncle Sam says,
goes." Only it doesn't work like that anymore.
The US has lost its ability to shape events in
the Middle East, particularly in Syria where its jihadist proxies have been rolled back on
nearly every front. The US simply doesn't have sufficient forces on the ground to determine the
outcome, nor is it respected as an honest broker, a dependable ally or a reliable steward of
regional security. The US is just one of many armed-factions struggling to gain the upper hand
in an increasingly fractious and combustible battlespace. Simply put, Washington is losing the
war quite dramatically due in large part to the emergence of a new coalition
(Russia-Syria-Iran-Hezbollah) that has made great strides in Syria and that is committed to
preserve the Old World Order, a system that is built on the principles of national sovereignty,
self determination and non intervention.
Washington opposes this system and is doing everything
in its power dismantle it by redrawing borders, toppling elected leaders, and installing its
own stooges to execute its diktats. Tillerson's blunder will only make Washington's task all
the more difficult by drawing Turkey into the fray in an effort to quash Uncle Sam's Kurdish
proxies.
In an effort to add insult to injury, Tillerson didn't even have the decency to discuss the
matter with Erdogan– his NATO ally– before making the announcement! Can you imagine
how furious Erdogan must have been? Shouldn't the president of Turkey expect better treatment
from his so-called friends in Washington who use Turkish air fields to supply their ground
troops and to carry out their bombing raids in Syria? But instead of gratitude, he gets a big
kick in the teeth with the announcement that the US is hopping into bed with his mortal
enemies, the Kurds. Check out this excerpt from Wednesday's Turkish daily, The Hurriyet ,which
provides a bit of background on the story:
"It is beyond any doubt that the U.S. military and administration knew that the People's
Protection Units (YPG) had organic ties with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which
Washington officially recognizes as a terrorist group .The YPG is the armed wing of the
Democratic Union Party (PYD), which is the political wing of the PKK in Syria. They share the
same leadership the same budget, the same arsenal, the same chain of command from the Kandil
Mountains in Iraq, and the same pool of militants. So the PYD/YPG is actually not a
"PKK-affiliated" group, it is a sub-geographical unit of the same organization .
Knowing that the YPG and the PKK are effectively equal, and legally not wanting to appear
to be giving arms to a terrorist organization, the U.S. military already asked the YPG to
"change the brand" back in 2015. U.S.
Special Forces Commander General Raymond Thomas said during an Aspen Security Forum
presentation on July 22, 2017 that he had personally proposed the name change to the YPG.
"With about a day's notice [the YPG] declared that it was now the Syrian Democratic Forces
[SDF]," Thomas said to laughter from the audience. "I thought it was a stroke of brilliance
to put 'democracy' in there somewhere. It gave them a little bit of credibility."
(Hurriyet)
Ha, ha, ha. Isn't that funny? One day you're a terrorist, and the next day you're not
depending on whether Washington can use you or not. Is it any wonder why Erdogan is so pissed
off?
So now a messy situation gets even messier. Now the US has to choose between its own proxy
army (The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces) and a NATO ally that occupies the critical
crossroads between Asia and Europe. Washington's plan to pivot to Asia by controlling vital
resources and capital flowing between the continents depends largely on its ability to keep
regional leaders within its orbit. That means Washington needs Erdogan in their camp which, for
the time being, he is not.
Apparently, there have been phone calls between Presidents Trump and Erdogan, but early
accounts saying that Trump scolded Erdogan have already been disproven. In fact, Trump and his
fellows have been bending-over-backwards to make amends for Tillerson's foolish slip-up.
According to the Hurriyet:
"The readout issued by the White House does not accurately reflect the content of
President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan's phone call with President [Donald] Trump," "President
Trump did not share any 'concerns [about] escalating violence' with regard to the ongoing
military operation in Afrin." The Turkish sources also stressed that Trump did not use the
words "destructive and false rhetoric coming from Turkey."
Erdoğan reiterated that the People's Protection Units (YPG) must withdraw to the East
of the Euphrates River and pledged the protection of Manbij by the Turkish-backed Free Syrian
Army (FSA)
"In response to President Erdoğan's call on the United States to end the delivery of
weapons to the [Democratic Union Party] PYD-YPG, President Trump said that his country no
longer supplied the group with weapons and pledged not to resume the weapons delivery in the
future," the sources added." (Hurriyet)
If this report can be trusted, (Turkish media is no more reliable than US media) then it is
Erdogan who is issuing the demands not Trump. Erdogan insists that all YPG units be redeployed
east of the Euphrates and that all US weapons shipments to Washington's Kurdish proxies stop
immediately. We should know soon enough whether Washington is following Erdogan's orders or
not.
So far, the only clear winner in this latest conflagration has been Vladimir Putin, the
levelheaded pragmatist who hews to Napoleon's directive to "Never interfere with an enemy while
he's in the process of destroying himself."
Putin gave Erdogan the green light to conduct "Operation Olive Branch" in order to pave the
way for an eventual Syrian takeover of the Northwestern portion of the country up to the
Turkish border. Moscow removed its troops from the Afrin quarter (where the current fighting is
taking place) but not before it presented the Kurds with the option of conceding control of the
area to the central government in Damascus. The Kurds rejected that offer and elected to fight
instead. Here's an account of what happened:
Nearly a week ago, [a] meeting between Russian officials and Kurdish leaders took place.
Moscow suggested Syrian State becomes only entity in charge of the northern border. The Kurds
refused. It was immediately after that that the Turkish Generals were invited to Moscow.
Having the Syrian State in control of its Northern Border wasn't the only Russian demand. The
other was that the Kurds hand back the oil fields in Deir al Zor. The Kurds refused
suggesting that the US won't allow that anyway.
Putin has repeatedly expressed concern about US supplies of advanced weapons that had been
given to the Kurdish SDF. According to the military website South Front:
"Uncontrolled deliveries of modern weapons, including reportedly the deliveries of the
man-portable air defense systems, by the Pentagon to the pro-US forces in northern Syria,
have contributed to the rapid escalation of tensions in the region and resulted in the launch
of a special operation by the Turkish troops." (SouthFront)
Erdogan's demand that Trump stop the flow of weapons to the SDF will benefit Russia and its
allies on the ground even more than they will benefit Turkey. It's another win-win situation
for Putin.
The split between the NATO allies seems to work in Putin's favor as well, although, to his
credit, he has not tried to exploit the situation. Putin ascribes to the notion that relations
between nations are not that different than relations between people, they must be built on a
solid foundation of trust which gradually grows as each party proves they are steady, reliable
partners who can be counted on to honor their commitments and keep their word. Putin's honesty,
even-handedness and reliability have greatly enhanced Russia's power in the region and his
influence in settling global disputes. That is particularly evident in Syria where Moscow is at
the center of all decision-making.
As we noted earlier, Washington has made every effort to patch up relations with Turkey and
put the current foofaraw behind them. The White House has issued a number of servile statements
acknowledging Turkey's "legitimate security concerns" and their "commitment to work with Turkey
as a NATO ally." And there's no doubt that the administration's charm offensive will probably
succeed in bringing the narcissistic and mercurial Erdogan back into the fold. But for how
long?
At present, Erdogan is still entertains illusions of cobbling together a second Ottoman
empire overseen by the Grand Sultan Tayyip himself, but when he finally comes to his senses and
realizes the threat that Washington poses to Turkish independence and sovereignty, he may
reconsider and throw his lot with Putin.
In any event, Washington has clearly tipped its hand revealing its amended strategy for
Syria, a plan that abandons the pretext of a "war on terror" and focuses almost-exclusively on
military remedies to the "great power" confrontation outlined in Trump's new National Defense
Strategy. Washington is fully committed to building an opposition proxy-army in its east Syria
enclave that can fend off loyalist troops, launch destabilizing attacks on the regime, and
eventually, effect the political changes that help to achieve its imperial ambitions.
Tillerson's announcement may have prompted some unexpected apologies and back-tracking, but
the policy remains the same. Washington will persist in its effort to divide the country and
remove Assad until an opposing force prevents it from doing so. And, that day could be sooner
than many people imagine. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Mike Whitney
Truth is the first victim of war. This is also true about the Cold War II with Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?" ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet, there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and its allies ..."
"... This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China. ..."
"... In an essay titled "Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader ..."
"... So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" ..."
"... The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please." A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives better. ..."
"... So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that they are helping to resist Trump. ..."
MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question
of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks,
is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?"
Hayes asked this fake question because he works for MSNBC and it is therefore his job, and he asked it in response to a report
first made viral by deranged espionage LARPer
Eric Garland that a Dutch intelligence agency had been observing Russian hackers attacking US political parties in advance of
the 2016 election. Like all "bombshell" Russiagate reports, this one roared through social media like wildfire carried on the wings
of liberal hysteria about the current administration, only to be exposed as being riddled with gaping plot holes as
documented here
by independent journalist Suzie Dawson. The report revolves around an allegedly Russian cyber threat now known in the west as "Cozy
Bear," which as Real News ' Max Blumenthal
notes is not a network of hackers but "a Russian-sounding name the for-profit firm Crowdstrike assigned to an APT to market its
findings to gullible reporters desperate for Russiagate scoops."
This "bombshell" overlapped with another as it was reported by the New York
Times that at one point many months ago Trump had wanted to fire Robert Mueller, but then didn't.
*Cough.*
Why does this keep happening? Why does the public keep getting sold a mountain of suspicion with zero substance? Over and over
and over again these "bombshell" stories come out about Trump and Russia, Russia and Trump, only to be
debunked ,
retracted , or
erased from the spotlight after people start actually reading the allegations and thinking critically about them and see they're
not the shocking bombshells they purport to be? These allegations are all premised upon claims made the US intelligence community,
which has an extensive and well-documented history of lying to advance its agendas, as well as
porous claims made by an
extremely shady and insanely profitable
private cyber security company, and yet all we're ever shown is smoke and mirrors with no actual fire.
Why is that?
You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine
what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the
consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began
telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet,
there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and
its allies.
That would be a very different narrative with a very different effect, wouldn't it? But that's exactly what's going on here, and
if the US power establishment and its propaganda machine were in the business of telling people the truth, that's precisely what
they'd say.
It's not a secret that China has been working to surpass the United States as the world's leading superpower as quickly as possible.
Hell, Xi Jinping
flat-out said so during a three and a half hour address last October, and
many experts think it might happen a lot
sooner than Xi's 30-year deadline. An editorial from China's state press agency about the Davos World Economic Forum
asserts that the time has come for the world to choose between the "Xi-style collaborative approach" and Trump's "self-centred
America First policy (which) has led his country away from multiple multilateral pacts and infused anxiety into both allies and the
broader world." China has been collaborating with Russia to
end the hegemony of the US dollar , to
shore up control
of the Arctic as new resources become available, and just generally build up its own power and influence instead of working to
remain in Washington's good graces as most western nations have chosen to do.
Preventing this is the single most important goal of the US power establishment, not just its elected government but the unelected
plutocrats, defense and intelligence agencies which control the nation's affairs behind the scenes. This agenda is so important that
in a letter to his successor the outgoing President Barack Obama made the "indispensable"
nature of American planetary leadership his sole concrete piece of advice, and pro-establishment influence firms like Project for
a New American Century have made preventing the rise of a rival superpower their
stated primary goal
.
This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent
supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality
this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate
is about China.
In an essay titled
"Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst
Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic
power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine
the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that
poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader .
"Russia is essential to China because of Moscow's long experience managing global relations going back to the period of the Cold
War and because of its willingness and ability today to stand up directly to the American hegemon," writes Doctorow, "whereas China,
with its heavy dependence on its vast exports to the U.S., cannot do so without endangering vital interests. Moreover, since the
Western establishment sees China as the long-term challenge to its supremacy, it is best for Beijing to exercise its influence through
another power, which today is Russia."
So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is
attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment
and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that
he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" after much badgering from
Fox's Tucker Carlson about his incendiary claims that the alleged cyberattacks constituted an "act of war." It is worth noting here
that despite Swalwell's repeated hysterical claims about Trump and Russia, he
recently voted to renew the treasonous Kremlin-colluding president's godlike surveillance powers anyway.
Establishment muppets like Swalwell and the unelected elites who own them don't care about Trump, they care about crippling China's
right arm Russia so that they can set about sabotaging the agendas of a potential rival superpower unimpeded by the skilful opposition
of a nuclear superpower. But, getting back to the hypothetical situation I asked you to envision earlier, they can't just come right
out and say that.
They can't. The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't
just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so
we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars
and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll
also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please."
A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives
better.
Just as importantly, the rest of the world would recoil in revulsion.
So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria
about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that
they are helping to resist Trump. They think they're lying to you for your own good, because you can't understand how important
it is that they do what they're trying to do. That's why there are so many gaping plot holes and none of this ever quite adds up;
they're lying to you like a parent telling a child he needs to eat his broccoli if he doesn't want a lump of coal for Christmas.
Except instead of eating broccoli it's consenting to dangerous escalations and military expansionism, and instead of a parent it's
a class of elitist sociopaths, and you're always going to get coal.
And sure, an argument can be made that the world is better off under the watchful domination of the US power establishment than
it would be with multipolar power arrangements, and I encounter many establishment loyalists who make precisely that argument. Personally
I would argue that the
death, destruction
and mayhem caused by the intrinsically evil things the US establishment must do in order to maintain dominance completely invalidate
that argument, but it's a debate that people deserve to have, and they can't have it when they're being lied to about what's really
going on.
Insist on the truth. Keep pushing back against this pernicious psyop. Spread the word.
Support Caitlyn Johnstone's work on Patreon or
Paypal . Reprinted with author's permission from her
website .
A recent
report by Al-Masdar has estimated that ISIS still has 8,000 to 11,000 fighters scattered
across Syria. It has provided the following breakdown of the areas where they are based
The Yarmouk Basin – 1,500 to 2,000 .
Northwestern Syria – at least 1,000 .
Southern Damascus – 1,500 to 2,000 (some sources claim as high as 3,000) .
Western Deir Ezzor, east Homs desert – 200.
Eastern bank of the middle Euphrates valley region – 3,000 to 4,000 .
Eastern Deir Ezzor desert near the Iraqi border – 1,000 .
In addition Al-Masdar makes the following point about the (by Jihadi standards) high level
of training and motivation of these ISIS fighters
To this effect it is worth noting that whilst with non-ISIS militant groups often only
one-third of their declared 'paper strength' represents actual front-line fighters (with the
remainder consisting of armed locals who do not operate beyond their town or village and have
only taken up arms to receive a paycheck by which they can feed their families), all Islamic
State fighters (even so with individuals missing limbs as video evidence shows) are generally
trained and mobilized for operations at the front.
Overall Al-Masdar's general conclusion about the continuing threat posed by these
ISIS fighters is as follows
The fact that all these areas are dislocated from each other is important for future
operations against them and represents a major improvement over previous years whereby the
terrorist group held contiguous swathes of territory across the country that were centered
along the Euphrates valley.
At the same time, the sight of isolated ISIS pockets on a map can create a false sense of
security as it overlooks the fact that many thousands of fighters are still present within
them.
Al-Masdar's sources within the Syrian military make it likely that this is also the Syrian
military's assessment of the continued threat ISIS poses in Syria.
"... the initial AngloZionist plan was to overthrow Assad and replace him with the Takfiri crazies (Daesh, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS – call them whatever you want). ..."
"... The AngloZionist wanted to use the Kurds just like NATO had used the KLA in Kosovo: as a ground force which could be supported by US/NATO and maybe even Israeli airpower. Unlike the Israelis and Saudis, the Kurds are a relatively competent ground force (albeit not one able to take on, say, Turkey or Iran). ..."
"... the entire plan had no UNSC authorization was thus totally illegal under international law (as is the presence of the USA in the Syria's airspace and territory, but nobody cares any more) ..."
The US-Israeli goals in Syria were really very simple. As I have already mentioned
in a past article , the initial AngloZionist plan was to overthrow Assad and replace
him with the Takfiri crazies (Daesh, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS – call them whatever you
want). Doing this would achieve the following goals:
Bring down a strong secular Arab
state along with its political structure, armed forces and security services. Create total
chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone" by Israel not only in
the Golan, but further north. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies
against Hezbollah. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a
"security zone", but this time in Lebanon. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis
Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines. Create a Kurdistan
which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Make it possible for Israel to
become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and forces the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait
and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project. Gradually isolate,
threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces.
Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.
With the joint Russian-Iranian military intervention, this plan completely collapsed. For a
while, the USA tried to break up Syria under various scenarios, but the way the Russian
Aerospace forces hammered all the "good terrorists" eventually convinced the AngloZionists that
this would not work.
The single biggest problem for the Empire is that while it has plenty of firepower in the
region (and worldwide), it cannot deploy any "boots on the ground". Being the Empire's boots on
the ground was, in fact, the role the AngloZionists had assigned to the Takfiri crazies (aka
Daesh/IS/ISIS/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/etc/), but that plan failed. The only US allies left in the
region are Israel and Saudi Arabia. The problem with them is that, just like the USA
themselves, these countries do not have ground forces capable of actually deploying inside
Syria and taking on not only the Syrian military, but the much more capable Iranian and
Hezbollah forces. Murdering civilians is really the only thing the Israelis and Saudis are
expert in, at least on the ground (in the skies the Israeli Air Force is a very good one).
Enter the Kurds.
The AngloZionist wanted to use the Kurds just like NATO had used the KLA in Kosovo: as a
ground force which could be supported by US/NATO and maybe even Israeli airpower. Unlike the
Israelis and Saudis, the Kurds are a relatively competent ground force (albeit not one able to
take on, say, Turkey or Iran).
Which immediately begs to obvious question: are the Americans even capable of learning from
their mistakes? What in the world were they thinking when they announced the creation of 30'000
strong Syrian Border Security Force (BSF) (so called to give the illusion that protecting
Syria's border was the plan, not the partition Syria)? The real goal was, as always, to put
pressure on Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Russia while grabbing a lot of oil. As always with
Uncle Shmuel, the entire plan had no UNSC authorization was thus totally illegal under
international law (as is the presence of the USA in the Syria's airspace and territory, but
nobody cares any more) .
Did Trump and his generals really think that Turkey, Iran, Syria and Russia would accept a
US protectorate in Syria masquerading as an "independent Kurdistan" and do nothing about it?
Yet again, and I know this sound hard to believe, but I think that this is yet another strong
indication that the Empire is run by stupid and ignorant people whose brain and education
simply do not allow them to grasp even the basic dynamics in the region of four planet there
are interfering with.
... ... ...
The Trump Administration's "strategy" (I am being very kind here) is to stir up as many
conflicts in as many places of our planet as possible. The Empire thrives only on chaos and
violence. The Russian response is the exact opposite: to try as best can be to stop wars,
defuse conflicts and create, if not peace, at least a situation of non-violence. Simply put:
peace anywhere is the biggest danger to the AngloZionist Empire whose entire structure is
predicated on eternal wars. The total and abject failure of all US plans for Syria (depending
on how you count we are at "plan C" or even "plan D") is a strong indicator of how weak and
totally dysfunctional the AngloZionist Empire has become. But 'weak' is a relative term while
'dysfunctional' does not imply 'harmless'. The current lack of brains at the top, while very
good in some ways, is also potentially very dangerous. I am in particular worried about what
appears to be a total absence of real military men (officers in touch with reality) around the
President. Remember how Admiral Fallon once referred to General Petraeus as "an ass-kissing
little chickenshit"? This also fully applies to the entire gang of generals around Trump
– all of them are the kind of men real officers like Fallon would, in this words, "hate".
As for State, I will just say this: I don't expect much from a man who could not even handle
Nikki Haley, nevermind Erdogan.
Remember how the USA ignited the Ukraine to punish the Russians for their thwarting of the
planned US attack on Syria? Well, the very same Ukraine has recently passed a law abolishing
the "anti-terrorist operation" in the Donbass and declaring the Donbass "occupied territory".
Under Ukie law, Russia is now officially an "aggressor state". This means that the Ukronazis
have now basically rejected the Minsk Agreements and are in a quasi-open state of war with
Russia. The chances of a full-scale Ukronazi attack on the Donbass are now even higher then
before, especially before or during the soccer World Cup in Moscow this summer (remember
Saakashvili?). Having been ridiculed (again) with their Border Security Force in Syria, the US
Americans will now seek a place to take revenge on the evil Russkies and this place will most
likely be the Ukraine. And we can always count the Israelis to find a pretext to continue to
murder Palestinians and bomb Syria. As for the Saudis, they appear to be temporarily busy
fighting each other. So unless the Empire does something really crazy, the only place it can
lash out with little to lose (for itself) is the eastern Ukraine. The Novorussians understand
that. May God help them.
Saker, interesting analysis. 1 tiny point of criticism:
Remember how the USA ignited the Ukraine to punish the Russians for their thwarting of
the planned US attack on Syria?
If I am not mistaken the CIA fomented "Orange revolution" in Ukraine was in 2014, whereas
Russia stepped into the Syrian war in 2015. So in the quoted sentence, it seems you got the
sequence of events back to front.
Enjoyed the article. Especially Uncle Shmuel part. Almost choked on my coffee. I was for some
time worried about stated by Tyllerson never ending presence in Syria until pigs start flying
but it seems Turkey's move throw another monkey wrench into USA plans. Doing something in
Ukraine looks totally logical along USA typical behaviour lines.
"What in the world were [the Americans] thinking when they announced the creation of
30'000 strong Syrian Border Security Force (BSF) (so called to give the illusion that
protecting Syria's border was the plan, not the partition Syria)?"
Yeah, pretty retarded. It's naked aggression wrapped up in a blanket of legalistic BS:
What else can you expect from a government full of hack lawyers?
Yes, but before that Putin prevented the imposition of a "no-fly zone" to "protect
civilians" in Syria, differently to what Medvedev did to Libya a few years before. So the
Saker is right, Russian started ruining the plans even before they became directly involved
in the Syrian war.
as soon as the Israelis and the Saudis realize that Uncle Sam can't do much for them
either, they will suddenly become much more open to meaningful negotiations. Still, whether
these rational minds will be sufficient to deal with the rabid ideologues I frankly don't
know. But it is worth trying for sure.
I think the dawning of some reality in Israel is already in progress, hence a lot of
hysteria and irrational actions on the part of some God chosen. KSA? I don't know, I may only
repeat Sergei Lavrov's definition of Saudis, if you know what I mean))
If I am not mistaken the CIA fomented "Orange revolution" in Ukraine was in 2014,
whereas Russia stepped into the Syrian war in 2015. So in the quoted sentence, it seems you
got the sequence of events back to front.
I believe he was referring to 2013, when Obama's "red line" of chemical weapons use was
supposedly violated, but the Russians then deprived the US of its planned war by getting the
Syrians to agree to give up their stockpile of chemical weapons.
I don't agree with everything that The Saker says, but he does make a lot of good points. I'm
curious about the consequences and dangers Turkey faces. One of my favorite geopolitical
bloggers had previously written that Turkey is caught between east and west, and risks being
pulled apart. It would take a Herculean effort to disentangle the Turkish military and
security establishment from NATO because Turkey remains the key regional NATO minion and base
holding nuclear weapons. But the American and Israeli designs for a Kurdish state to use
against Iran and friends is not going to disappear.
The Kurds made the same mistake that Armenians made in 1915 and again in 1920, placing
their security and future existence on western promises which turned out to be less than
worthless. Georgians under the lunatic western puppet Saakashvili made a similar mistake in
August 2008 when they thought the west would protect them while they attacked South Ossetta.
Kurds and Georgians should consider themselves very fortunate that they did not suffer to the
extent that the Armenians did.
All of the major players seem to have a presence right around Afrin. I guess Russia and
Syria and Iran can take a hands-off approach for a bit as The Saker explained, while America
stands around and watches its two allies fight it out .. Wasn't the joke in the Clinton and
Bush era that Moscow had nonfunctioning alliances (CIS, CSTO) and uncontrollable third-rate
allies that were mostly interested in fighting each other and smuggling oil and selling
weapons to the highest-bidding terrorist? How the tables have turned! Amazing what two
decades of competent leadership in Russia, and hubris-driven, sloppy imperialism in the west
have produced.
" The single biggest problem for the Empire is that while it has plenty of firepower in the
region (and worldwide), it cannot deploy any "boots on the ground". "
USA blood indeed is the most precious blood in the world.
Even a one to fifty, or one to a hundred, ratio in deaths, too costly for the USA.
Second, the Russians need to talk to the Kurds and offer them the same deal again: large
autonomy inside Syria in exchange for peace and prosperity. The Kurds are not exactly the
easiest people to talk to, but since there is really no other option, my guess is that as
soon as they stop hallucinating about the US going to war with Turkey on their behalf they
will have to sit down and negotiate the deal. Likewise, the Russians will have to sell the
very same deal to Damascus which, frankly, is in no position to reject it.
Isn't there a place for Saker in the Russian government? These are great peace building
ideas.
But he should stop with the Anglo-Zionist terminology. US Anglos don't make key decisions
anymore. They tried to recover lost ground through voting for Trump but he's been neutralized
before he could do anything useful.
The stupid Kurds will fight for anyone who they think will allow them a state America is
known for back-stabbing. The Kurds fell for it again. Idiots. Like the Israelis they forget
the neighbourhood in which they live
Fantastic article. A very plausible hypothesis. "The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement
was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold
Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial
system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the
liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let
the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia
live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders."
Notable quotes:
"... And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury. Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow. ..."
"... Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders. ..."
"... Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained some of its international independence. ..."
"... The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the colonial administration'. ..."
"... They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. ..."
"... Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal. ..."
"... Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script. Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars' worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago. ..."
"... This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work. A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until 2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism. ..."
"... Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously claimed about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out "Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the totalitarian Russian regime! ..."
"... Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund. ..."
"... This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration. ..."
"... Echo Moskwy ..."
"... But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece. ..."
"... That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting, if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'. ..."
"... I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing he is going to be company of Russia history greatest. ..."
"... There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back. ..."
"... Putin sure as hell has all necessary resources to make this offer. ..."
While you have probably already forgotten the feast, Russia is only now slowly coming back to life after its overlong Christmas
break completed on January 14 by the quaintly named Old New Year, or even perhaps by the Epiphany on January 19. Everybody went somewhere,
even candidates for the presidential race coming in on March 18: the Communist one went to ski in Austria, while the right-winger
went to Bali. On the eve of Epiphany, they dipped in the ice-cold waters: the ultimate trial of Russian fitness. Not only he-man
Putin, but even she-woman Sobchak did it!
And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure
of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without
a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced
Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian
hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury.
Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow.
The Russian assets in the west could be divided into New Money, assets of Putin's people, and the Old Money, assets of Yeltsin's
people. The sanctions are supposed to deal with Putin's people, but Russian experts think the Old Money is more vulnerable, for a
good reason. The New Money is under Putin's protection. If the US or any other western authority grabs it, the Russian government
may seize Western shares in Russian companies and properties.
But what about the Old Money? Its owners, elder oligarchs, are extremely worried about Putin's nonchalance. Putin takes it easy,
they say. Ma'alish , the Arab in Putin says. Que sera sera , says his inner Frenchman. And this nonchalant attitude
drives the oligarchs crazy. They want him to fight and save their money. They insisted on his meeting with President Trump in Vietnam;
some say the meeting took place in the depth of the night, far from prying eyes, and didn't bring results. Now Putin says to the
Old Money: if you want to save your money, repatriate it to Russia. We aren't that mad, they reply. You have to defend us anyway!
That was the Deal!
Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached
between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's
interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system.
Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal
economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West
write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live
in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders.
Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment
came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained
some of its international independence.
Putin was elected, or you may say, he was appointed to stick to the Deal and to serve as the Supreme Arbiter among the oligarchs,
with very little of a power base of his own. Slowly, he created his own oligarchs (they are described as "siloviki", though not all
of them have some security forces background), and he had built up a limited power base; though many important positions, in particular
in the economic sphere, remained in the hands of the Old Guard, Yeltsin's men. This, too, was a part of the Deal.
The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were
and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the
colonial administration'.
They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was
revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated
a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. The worst Putin can do about
them is to give them a fat chunk of the Russian economy to chew on, while limiting their access to the rest. So he gave Mr Chubais
the Rusnano company that made no profit but
embezzled
billions . This was the Deal.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare
to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism.
This is the Deal.
The topmost schools of Russia, the most endowed, the most privileged schools for the children of the new nobility are the HSE,
(the Higher School of Economics, a clone of the LSE and the economic think-tank of the government), and MGIMO, (Moscow State Institute
of International Relations, the school for perspective diplomats). Their graduates were been trained to despise Russia and admire
the neo-liberal West (just like the Indian students trained by the Brits, had admired England and despised their country in the days
of the British Raj). Professor Medvedev of the HSE called upon Russian government to transfer the Russian Far North to the international
community, though this is the place of the greatest gas reserves (he kept his position). Professor Zubov of the MGIMO had compared
Putin to Hitler, and denounced Russian diplomats as liars (his contract hasn't been prolonged). All that is a part of the Deal.
Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script.
Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars'
worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local
manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount
of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago.
Meanwhile, the Deal has been undone from the West, as a result of the epic struggle between Bankers and Producers, otherwise described
as Liberals vs. Conservatives, or Globalists vs. Regionalists, personalised as Clinton vs. Trump. Yeltsin's people are historically
aligned with the Clinton camp. Now, their assets in the West, previously protected by the Deal, have lost their protection and come
up for grabs.
The Old Money people are putting their effort into persuading the West, namely the US, to let them live in peace and instead confiscate
the pro-Putin New Money.
This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work.
A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until
2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel
Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism.
Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously
claimed
about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich
decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists
and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out
"Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the
totalitarian Russian regime!
(Émigrés are frequently like that, and the US, a country of immigrants, had been vulnerable to the attack by Illarionov Syndrome,
by listening to Masha Gessen, or to Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi émigré who claimed Iraq has had WMD, to Alexander Solzhenitsyn with
his horror stories about GULAG, etc. I made it a rule to moderate my critique of Israel while abroad, in fear of failing the Illarionov
Sanity Test.)
Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his
words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the
Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow
émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund.
Direct and generous beneficiaries of their lobbying are the Three Alpha Jews, Peter Aven, Michael Friedman and Herman Khan. They
are owners of the Alpha Bank, a very big Russian bank , and they are Old Money oligarchs from Yeltsin's days when their kin ruled
the land.
Michael Friedman, the fat guy with a jolly piglet face, rose to his eminence from being a ticket tout selling illegally obtained
opera tickets to Western tourists near Bolshoi Theatre; afterwards he became The Mind behind all ticket mafias in Moscow, and then
proceeded to banking and so many other things.
Like many Old Money guys, Friedman earns money in Russia, but siphons it off for Jewish causes. He is a co-founder of a "Jewish
Nobel Prize", also called Genesis Prize, a cool million dollars being given annually to a deserving Jew, the most recent one being
the notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg who
called Donald
Trump, "the faker". This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds
in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration.
Alternatively, it could mean they are just smart and able to play the both houses. The Three Alpha Jews had been mentioned in
the Steele Dossier as the conduit of Putin influence for Trump and against Clinton in the recent US Presidential elections. (They
are
suing Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed for spreading the accusation).
According to an even better conspiracy theory spread on the social networks, both Mr Illarionov and the smart Alpha Jews are a
sleeper cell organised by cunning Mr Putin to ensure his survival in the most adverse conditions. All of them were very friendly
with Putin; perhaps they just pretended to become his enemies, the conspiratorially minded journalist from the anti-Putin Echo
Moskwy has implied.
Leaving the conspiracy theories aside for a while, we can reach a conclusion. The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on
Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs, and not only them. This confiscation will spell the
death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate
Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services
background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece.
The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs,
and not only them. This confiscation will spell the death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization
of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting,
if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'.
"Que sera sera". One of my favorite songs. Sung by Doris Day and was a hit in the 1950′s. Italian in origin and translates
to "whatever will be, will be".
Agree. I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing
he is going to be company of Russia history greatest.
There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and
capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back.
Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would
not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets. The
first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17 witnesses,
and Hillary, were even interviewed. Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross
negligence," the requirement for indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent
drafts to read, "extreme carelessness."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an
exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.
Also edited out of Comey's statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with
then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama
told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the
public did.
A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, "What did you
know, sir, and when did you know it?"
"... Here's another map that's a little different than the one linked by Peter AU1. The Kurdish Project - https://thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/ (remove the space) ..."
"... Notice the potential for deep water ports on the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. Tillerson's role with Exxon provided him with an unique understanding of exactly how much $$ that Erdogan was able to steal without consequence and leaves the pit bulls' jowels dribbling with saliva, as if a rib eye steak's aroma was wafting thru the room, with jealous envy. ..."
I think you're on target with your comment. Also, I don't believe Jared has asked the Kurds themselves whether they're on board
or not. Let me explain.
Remember that both Pence and Tillerson were outspoken Never Trumpers. Pence was promised that he'd be 100% in charge of
policy and all day to day decisions. When he asked Trump what he intended to be doing he replied: "I'll be busy making America
Great Again." Whatever deal and contract wound up being signed between them, I think the tomahawk missile attack on Syria violated
the details and revoked most of Pence's authority.
Several, including Bannon have stated that Jared is in charge of ME policy. So, what did Jared offer to Exxon and Tillerson
in exchange for the SOS position? I believe he / they are slated to become the King of Kurdistan. "King" is the only thing
that Tillerson hasn't had in his life; yet.
Notice the potential for deep water ports on the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. Tillerson's role with Exxon provided
him with an unique understanding of exactly how much $$ that Erdogan was able to steal without consequence and leaves the pit
bulls' jowels dribbling with saliva, as if a rib eye steak's aroma was wafting thru the room, with jealous envy.
Bernie Sanders figured out that he could double down and REALLY monetize the scam that Ron Paul executed against the Republican
voters in 2012; which he executed to perfection.
I believe Exxon / Tillerson have figured out that they are going to REALLY monetize the oil theft that Erdogan executed with
Kurdistan and his name will be written in the history books as a King.
Trump wants out of Nato. The Pentagon wants ports, runways and to surround Russia. Whether Turkey remains in Nato or not is
inconsequential to Jared and Greater Israel.
"... Trump's foreign policy advisers are Neocon warhawks. The Neocon's current policy is to get their assets to pretend to admit that Iraq was not a wild success. But, secretly, the Neocons are going to continue to destabilise countries such as Iraq. Trump's five-member foreign policy team is in bed with the military industrial complex. ..."
"... Donald Trump -- A NeoCon War Hawk. Trump is pro-Likud. "Trump's son-in-law runs the New York Observer, a rag generally considered pro-Likud and pro-neocon." Trump "receives glowing press from Israel Hayom, Adelson's ultra-right-wing daily newspaper." Sheldon Adelson supports Trump. Trump attacks Iran for supporting Assad, and blames Iran rather than Saudi Arabia for the destruction in Yemen. Trump's lies about Iran are based on Netanyahu's chart." ..."
" Trump's foreign policy advisers are Neocon warhawks. The Neocon's current policy is to
get their assets to pretend to admit that Iraq was not a wild success. But, secretly, the
Neocons are going to continue to destabilise countries such as Iraq. Trump's five-member
foreign policy team is in bed with the military industrial complex.
The five are:
Joseph Schmitz is a former inspector general with the US Defense
Department, and, a former boss of security contractor Blackwater. Blackwater killed civilians
in Iraq. Joe Schmitz's brother John P. Schmitz was an Iran Contra player. Joe Schmitz, a
member of the Knights of Malta, 'was Haliburton's greatest enabler when the company was
misplacing Iraq reconstruction money.' Joe Schmitz led the effort to keep the blame for the
Abu Ghraib abuses restricted to the lower levels. "Joe Schmitz will be Trump's Kissinger
Everything that Trump thinks he knows about the world situation, he gets from guys like
Schmitz." Joseph Schmitz's father is John G. Schmitz. John G Schmitz kept a mistress and a
second family, including an infant son with a mutilated penis. Joseph Schmitz's sister is
Mary Kay Fualaau (née Schmitz). Mary Kay LeTourneau hit the headlines when it was
discovered that the father of her children was a thirteen year old boy. Keith Kellogg
is a former employee of CACI International. CACI was sued by 256 Iraqis over its alleged
involvement in torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. George Papadopoulos
is a fan of Israel and takes an interest in 'Israeli gas'. (The man who led the CIA's coup in
Greece in 1967 was a fascist called George Papadopoulos) Sabra-Shatila Massacre. Dr. Walid
Phares , a professor at the National Defense University in Washington DC. is a former
adviser to a fascist Christian militia group responsible for a number of human rights
violations during the Lebanese Civil War. Phares has been linked to the Lebanese forces
responsible for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians in Lebanon's Sabra and Shatila
refugee camps in 1982. Carter Page is a former fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations. "Trump may claim that he seeks to reign in US adventurism, but based on the
records of his chosen advisers, a Trump presidency would likely mean business as usual."
Donald Trump -- A NeoCon War Hawk. Trump is pro-Likud. "Trump's son-in-law runs the
New York Observer, a rag generally considered pro-Likud and pro-neocon." Trump "receives
glowing press from Israel Hayom, Adelson's ultra-right-wing daily newspaper." Sheldon Adelson
supports Trump. Trump attacks Iran for supporting Assad, and blames Iran rather than Saudi
Arabia for the destruction in Yemen. Trump's lies about Iran are based on Netanyahu's
chart."
...The above linked piece noted that the Kurdish YPG/PKK leaders had rejected the Syrian and
Russian government offer that would have prevented the Turkish attack. The offer still
exists but the conditions will become less favorable as longer the Kurds hold out.
Elijah Magnier
just published more details on that offer and analyses the strategic situation:
[T]he US is observing the performance of the Turkish army with interest and wishes to see
Erdogan humiliated, broken on the rocks of the Kurds in Afrin. Indeed, the US has delivered
anti-tank weapons, already effectively used by the Kurds against the Turkish army (many tanks
damaged during the attack on Afrin).
...
The US can't understand that Ankara is not ready to see a rich and well-armed Kurdish "state"
on its borders , disregarding the US's tempting and generous offer [of a "safe zone" (see
below)]. Actually, the US is offering a territory that not only does not belong to the
Americans but is actually occupied by the US forces in north east Syria.
The US is one of the losers in this battle, regardless of the results, because Turkey will
continue its operations until the defeat of the Kurds, either by military means or if Afrin
returns to [Syrian] central government's control.
I am not convinced that the above prediction will hold. There is still a possibility that
Turkey might again change sides and (again) join the U.S. "regime change" efforts in Syria.
This depends on the winner of a conflict within the U.S. military where opposing forces are
pulling for the Turkish and respectively the Kurdish side. Should the pro-Turkish side win,
Erdogan can be offered a new deal and might be induced to again change sides from his current
pro-Russian (pro-Damascus?) position back towards a pro-NATO/U.S. stand. (There is also a tiny
chance that Turkey already has a secret back deal with the U.S. administration but I see no
indication for it.)
From the very beginning of the conflict in Syria Turkey worked with the U.S., NATO, the
Saudis and Qataris, against the Syrian government. It supported the Saudi and U.S. position of
"regime change", let ten-thousands of terrorists pass through its borders and delivered
ten-thousands of tons of weapons and supplies to the forces fighting the Syrian government.
Finally Russia entered the picture, defeated the Takfiris, put harsh pressure on Turkey and
offered new economic deals. At the same time the U.S. attempted "regime change" in Ankara and
allied with the Kurdish YPG/PKK in Syria and Iraq.
Erdogan, though unwillingly, changed sides and now works with Russia (and Syria) to bring
the war to a conclusion. "Regime change" in Damascus has become an unlikely scenario he no
longer supports. At the same time he is still willing to invest money and forces to gain
something for his failed investment in the war. Taking Afrin to later incorporate it into an
enlarged Turkey is one of those plays. He is clearly still aiming for additional territory. The
U.S. now offered him some in form of a safe zone in Syria:
regarding elijah magniers comments and your response : "I am not convinced that the above
prediction will hold. There is still a possibility that Turkey might again change sides and
(again) join the U.S. "regime change" efforts in Syria." - that is my ongoing fear
here...
as for the usa choosing between israel/ksa - going for kurdistan, and choosing turkey - i
think the answer is obvious and i say this not fully believing that the usa was working on a
coup in turkey to remove erdogan...
if erdogan was smart - i think he would continue to do exactly what he is now doing -
playing the usa off russia and remaining in nato for as long as need be... why leave now? he
has the best of it all... but i do believe the usa has already made a choice here and is
hoping not to lose turkey in it all... not sure that they can flip back and convince turkey
of their integrity when none of it remains!
so - we continue to muddle forward here.. israel/ksa work to curry favour with turkey,
while the usa continues to talk out of both sides of it's mouth... putin watches it all
waiting for the next stupid move any one of them make..
Given that Trump's presidential primacy in foreign policy had been restricted by law by the
Russia sanction bill, and that Trump has said that the military will have greater say in
determining military related aspects of foreign policy, this begs the question as to who will
gain primacy and how many different foreign policies will be developed in the absence or
weakness of Trump. There were obvious disagreements within US foreign policy circles prior to
Trump, but now in the absence weakness of Trump the CIA, State, military factions, neo-cons
and bankers for starters could have quite the squabble fest. Every day, a new foreign policy
turn of events, every day a dud repudiated.
Taking Afrin to later incorporate it into an enlarged Turkey is one of those plays. He is
clearly still aiming for additional territory.
I really don't get this idea that Erdogan wants to enlarge his territory. There
may once have been neo-Ottoman ideas, but they fade quickly when faced with reality. None of
those territories in North Syria are inhabited by Turks. It would be an endless battle trying
to integrate them into Turkey. They succeeded more or less in Hatay, but then there was
already a a substantial Turkish population.
What Afrin is about is the fear of the development of a successful Kurdish state on the
borders of Turkey, and its consequent effects on Kurds inside Turkey.
Afrin was chosen because it is the area of Syrian Kurdistan where there is no risk of a
military confrontation with the US. So can be knocked off without likelihood of major war.
Unfortunately Afrin is mountainous, and not a good target. We're seeing the results
today.
@4 "Afrin was chosen because it is the area of Syrian Kurdistan where there is no risk of a
military confrontation with the US. So can be knocked off without likelihood of major war."
Right. Afrin is also the furthest Westward extension of Rojava so far. After Afrin the
Kurds will try for access to the sea. That's why Erdogan is also going after Manbij.
The whole idea is to push the militants back Eastwards which would be a lot easier if they
weren't getting US help.
@ 2 >>> playing the usa off russia and remaining in nato for as long as need be.
Yes ... Erdogan is greedy and arrogant and not to be trusted ( at present/if ever ) but
what he is not is stupid. He fully understands that if NATO were to enters into a military
conflict with Russia, that, as a NATO member he ( Turkey ) will suffer greatly. I have no
problem predicting that sooner or later he will leave NATO so as not to see Turkey used as
cannon fodder and be destroyed.
Although I don't have any deep knowledge of Turkey, my guess is that Erdogan's attack on the
Kurds is driven by his electorate, the not very sophisticated Anatolian Turks who fear the
Kurds, or can be manipulated into fearing them (that's where my knowledge lacks). It's a very
different world from Westernised Istanbul, but it's those people who elect him. Much like
Trump's success in "fly-over country".
Evidently there's also a great dollop of megalomania. But staying in power is the basic
point, not putting his power at risk through foreign adventures.
Sounds like you're saying the Turks have no reason to fear an independent US supported
state on their southern border. Seems to me such a state would be the beginning of a much
bigger Kurdistan (not without the usual Kurdish infighting though.)
Did I say that? I thought I was saying much the same as you.
The possibility exists though that the switch from the Tolerance-of-Kurds policy, which
existed for a number of years, to the hardline suppression of Kurds line of today was a
mistake, and wasn't needed to keep Erdogan in power. But Erdogan chose to go for the
provoke-fear approach. Given that "provoke fear" is a very common policy in the West, both in
UK and US, it may be that Erdogan got it from that. But was it the right choice, I ask (but
don't know enough to judge)?
By the way, the idea that Rojava might have access to the sea is just fantasy.
Unfortunately Hatay is in the way, inhabited by Turks and Syrians (and probably a few Kurds).
Never happen.
Turkey was lost by the CIA/State Dept of Obama. They undermined the Air Force of Turkey as
part of the plot to assassinate Erdogan, not just remove him. He was to be shot out of the
sky. Russian Intel services SVR and GRU saved him and protect him still, as well as have
worked with his military to help rebuild morale, discipline and fealty.
Nothing the US has done erases the attempt on his life. The Pentagon has charted a new
Syrian War that threatens Turkey's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Israelis hope
to use the Kurds to split the Eastern half of Turkey away from Ankara.
Erdogan must ally with Iran and Russia and accommodate Syria in order to survive.
NATO is actually a side issue. The US does not trust Erdogan and the Turkish military, and
have moved to use Poland as the bulwark for NATO strength.
I expect that Erdogan will be the target for later demonization and elimination.
The first target in the Middle East is still Assad. The strategic efforts of US and Israel
are to limit Russia and eventually push Russia back to the Black Sea.
The Syrian Kurds are in for some devastating hits in the coming months. They either make a
deal with Assad at Astana or Geneva or Sochi or they will be met with a Turk-Russian-Iranian
war they cannot handle.
What the US does and for how long depends completely on the use of their proxies.
Al Nusra and AQ are still a problem. Leftover ISIS are still a problem and the Kurds are
presently a problem.
But none of these groups can take Russian aerospace pounding and the ground force of
Syria-Hezbollah-PMU-PMC for too long. 2018 will be bloody, but it will see the abject
destruction of all US proxies.
What is clear from Operation Olive Branch is the Turks do not know how to fight this war.
They have costly losses, captured men, lost tanks and seem not to have a coherent grasp on
what they themselves have planned.
Their work in Afrin will assist Assad and not accrue to themselves.
Russia will accomplish more with diplomacy than the Turks with their military operations.
But what the Turks operation does do is begin the decimation of US proxy power. The Kurds
will eventually call Putin and ask him to stop the war. Erdogan will obey Putin. US will have
nothing to say about it.
Russia's proxies have won the first Syrian war, and they will win the second Syrian war
just beginning. The US, as always, lost the first and will lose the second war, too.
why would any imperialist policy maker prefer working with a new Kurdish mini-state rather
than an established ally like Turkey. A land-locked and illegitimate kurdish state, at that.
this is like a bird in hand (Turkey) is worth 30,000 kurds (I mean birds) in the bush. the
neo-cons and liberal-interventionists like Haas et. al. are imperial dreamers and idiots.
the Kurds will lose in Syria like they lost in Iraq, though this will likely take longer
as there are more state-actors involved.
and who the hell has given the US the right to set up or offer some kind of "safe area" on
Syrian soil?
I find the article precise.
I find the comments a little confusing.
Let me remind you this:
U.S. tweaks re policy on Turkey are updated more often than Kaspersky's virus definition
database.
Turks: What are you trying to do?
U.S.: Huh?
Turks: PYD = PKK
U.S.: SDF
Turks:SDF = 99% PKK
U.S.: Our land forces
Turks: You gave them 5000 trucks of weapons.
U.S.: Border Patrolling
Turks: We will conduct a military operation in Afrin, Syria
U.S.: calls on #Turkey not to deploy forces to Afrin in #Syria
Turks: We will
U.S.: We have no interest in Afrin.
Turks: Operation Olive Branch
U.S.: Stop
Turks: Manbij next
U.S.: We are prepared to work with Turkey on legitimate security concerns
Turks: Erdogan asked Trump to withdraw US forces from Manbij
U.S: There are no US forces in Afrin but there are in Manbij
Turks: TAF jets reportedly hit YPG targets in Manbij again
U.S.: The Pentagon says it is continuing its talks with Ankara on a proposal to create safe
areas along the Turkish-Syrian border
Turks: Turkish FM says it would not be right for Turkey and the US to discuss a potential
"safe zone" in Syria until trust issues between the two NATO allies are resolved
"If the U.S. makes a real offer to Turkey and adopts a new position it might be able to
turn Turkey around and to put it back into its NATO fold."
Wondering what "new position"? The fact is the US has no leverage at all. Everything is
out of control. The second thing so is that sovereignty trump friendship, always! And the
Turks are quite serious and sensitive when it comes to sovereignty, Just like the Russians.
In particular sensitive when the White man starts to messing around their borders. I assume
reason being both countries have experienced terrible costs of dismantling their
respective
mega-states by the west.
For some on the West (and for Moscow as well) that Turkey is still on Bosporus and
Dardanelles and holding the keys of them is still something they can fathom.
Is it possible that the SAA is only attacking insurgents in Idlib that Turkey views, either
clandestinely or not, as expendable? Will the SAA allow a Turkish proxy state in Afrin,
beneficial to Syria for eradicating the competing factions of jihadists in Idlib, and good
for Iran because a setup like that would be a permanent hindrance to Kurdish ambition?
For the depth of NATO's involvement with the aggression against Syria, one need only look at
the continuing propaganda support for the White Helmet terrorist organization as Vanessa
Beeley
outlines . I think it's very clear NATO will not cease trying to achieve its goal of
ousting Assad. And of course, NATO's policy's directed by the Outlaw US Empire.
Russia knows Turkey better than any NATO country, particularly where its national
interests truly reside. The attempt by US/EU to strangle the TurkStream project was a direct
attack on those national interests. Erdogan, however, continued its promotion, so Obama tried
to have him killed. The promotion of Kurdistan is also a direct attack on Turkish national
interests. And there are several other longstanding anti-Turkish issues that will never be
solved in Turkey's favor--EU entry denial being the most important and well known. Erdogan
has instead turned to the SCO :
"Turkey, a member of NATO, was granted dialogue partner status in the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation (SCO) at the group's 2012 summit in Beijing.[12] Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan has stated that he has discussed the possibility of abandoning Turkey's
European Union membership candidacy in return for full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization.[22] This was reinforced again on 21 November 2016, after the European
Parliament voted unanimously to suspend accession negotiations with Turkey.[23] Two days
later, on 23 November 2016, Turkey was granted the chairmanship of the energy club of SCO for
the 2017 period. That made Turkey the first country to chair a club in the organisation
without full membership status ."
Just looking at where the current and future economic power of Eurasia's located ought to
be enough to inform anyone as to which direction Turkey will take. The only way the Outlaw US
Empire can prevent that from occurring is to take control of Turkey's government as it did
Ukraine's.
The very latest Turkish's issue with the West is the German Gov. refusal to upgrade Leopard 2
MBT due to Afrin. This is Just one more issue in long string that dependency on "partners"
technology caused to Turkish military. Of course this has its political dimension.
It reminds me on the Turkish dreadnought that were ordered, paid and build in British
shipyards in eve of WWI and than Churchill refused to deliver them.
Erdogan is definitely not fond of NATO.
(I'm reminded of Grouch Marx's remark: "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a
member.")
Reuters, Oct 12, 2016
Exclusive: Turkey purges NATO military envoys after failed coup
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Turkey has fired hundreds of senior military staff serving at NATO in
Europe and the United States following July's coup attempt, documents show, broadening a
purge to include some of the armed forces' best-trained officials.
In a classified military dispatch seen by Reuters, 149 military envoys posted to the
alliance's headquarters and command centers in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and
Britain were ordered on Sept. 27 to return to Turkey within three days.
Most were dismissed from service on their arrival, arrested and imprisoned, according to a
Turkish military official at NATO and two farewell letters sent by departing Turkish
officials emailed to colleagues at NATO and seen by Reuters.
Independent, Nov 17, 2017
Nato apologises to Turkey after 'Erdogan and Ataturk depicted as enemies' in joint
exercise
Forty Turkish soldiers withdrawn from Norway drills
Nato's chief has apologised to Turkey after the country's leaders were allegedly depicted
as "enemies" in a joint military exercise.
Both current president Recep Tayyip Erdogan's and reforming ex-leader Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk's names were involved in the reported incident in Norway.
Here is a piece by Robert Fisk on life in the Syrian Army divisions charged with retaking
Idlib. It is old school journalism in that Fisk has largely kept his opinions to himself and
instead reports on what he sees and hears up at the front.
Fisk can be trusted on that stuff, its when he goes flighty with his Lebanese gossip and
the 'opinions' he derives from that he is dubious, fortunately despite the subject of the
Harriri assassination being brought up by a Syrian Army officer he shows some restraint -
perhaps he is beginning to suspect he had the wrong end of that stick (Fisk always maintained
the bombing was a Syrian plot despite a tonne of evidence to the contrary).
The local military commander of the Syrian forces says he reckons it will take about another
three years to scrape the shit off their shoes, be rid of the islamist arseholes.
@45 It's possible that the majority of Syrian Kurds would be happy with autonomy. That
doesn't explain what the militants are fighting for. Probably the young idealistic ones
believe in some mystical Kurdish democratic state as promised by the US.
It's interesting to delve into how the Kurds are thinking about their future.
1) It is Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria that are adamantly opposed to a Kurdish state -
only if one of these is weakened, if not completely overcome/overthrown, is a Kurdish state
be possible.
2) Even if there is an opportunity to create a Kurdish state, there are many risks so the
support of one or more major powers is really helpful.
3) Is a self-governing, 'autonomous areas' sufficient to protect Kurds and promote Kurdish
interests?
4) Assad can not live forever. What comes after Assad?
5) What are the downsides to picking the wrong side? Kurds have already established
themselves sufficiently that they have essentially won 'autonomy' there is not going to be a
return to being ruled in Syria or Iraq.
It says little we don't already know, and adds nothing in terms of breaking tactical news,
but strategically Fadel holds no doubt as to the outcome, and also names the true authorship
of the "loss of Turkey":
This U.S. plan to create a new state is a Zionist one, as I've written before. It is very
poorly thought out and did not take into consideration Turkey's oft-stated opposition to
any Kurdish enclave, statelet or entity on Turkey's southern border with Syria. The U.S.
can try to assuage hurt feelings all it likes, but, the fact remains that a Kurdish state
is a core security issue for Ankara. There will be no compromise on this issue and the
Turks will dash any hopes the U.S. might be entertaining of a permanent base in Syria. You
are watching a tragedy taking place as scripted by utter morons
I've already said I agree with everyone. All smart commentators and commenters are saying
roughly the same thing. This is a win-win for all the players of the resistance axis,
including Turkey. History smiles on this move. It will be over when its moment is done, and
Syria will have advanced its strength and its position manifold. We get to watch patiently as
the commanders of the theater conduct a superb campaign.
I have to say that of all the players, it is the Syrian government which is dealing with this
mess the best. They are in no state to worry about either the North Eastern or the North
Western pockets of occupation until the Takfiris in and around Idlib have been dealt with, so
Syria isn't wasting resources or troops on silly escapades, they are protesting loudly about
US, Israeli and Turkish colonial incursions, but not allowing themselves to be diverted
militarily until the Idlib area has been fumigated of all pests. What happens in a year or so
will depend on what Turkey is up to - maybe they will clean out the kurds and hand it all
back to Syria or, maybe old erdy will decide he wants a slice. If it is the latter the Syrian
army with Russian airsupport will proceed North outta Idlib towards Afrin.
If erdy gives a little and takes less, Syria will go to the North West and chase out those
arsehole amerikan/Saudi/Qatari/israeli shitbags for hire, before explaining the way of the
new ME to Erdy.
It is important to remember that while this trouble bubbles, the Syrian Army has been
transforming from a luck of the draft dumping ground for young blokes eager to enter the
labour market, into a professional, well trained and equipped instrument of war. As time
passes the Syrian Army gets better while their enemies become more & more a fractious,
less well resourced and increasingly ineptly co-ordinated gang of amateurs.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 25, 2018 4:29:45 PM | 28
I think you're on target with your comment. Also, I don't believe Jared has asked the
Kurds themselves whether they're on board or not. Let me explain.
1. Remember that both Pence and Tillerson were outspoken Never Trumpers. Pence was
promised that he'd be 100% in charge of policy and all day to day decisions. When he asked
Trump what he intended to be doing he replied: "I'll be busy making America Great Again."
Whatever deal and contract wound up being signed between them, I think the tomahawk missile
attack on Syria violated the details and revoked most of Pence's authority.
2. Several, including Bannon have stated that Jared is in charge of ME policy. So, what did
Jared offer to Exxon and Tillerson in exchange for the SOS position? I believe he / they are
slated to become the King of Kurdistan. "King" is the only thing that Tillerson hasn't had in
his life; yet.
Here's another map that's a little different than the one linked by Peter AU1. The Kurdish
Project - https: //thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/ (remove the space) Notice the
potential for deep water ports on the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. Tillerson's
role with Exxon provided him with an unique understanding of exactly how much $$ that Erdogan
was able to steal without consequence and leaves the pit bulls' jowels dribbling with saliva,
as if a rib eye steak's aroma was wafting thru the room, with jealous envy.
Bernie Sanders figured out that he could double down and REALLY monetize the scam that Ron
Paul executed against the Republican voters in 2012; which he executed to perfection. I
believe Exxon / Tillerson have figured out that they are going to REALLY monetize the oil
theft that Erdogan executed with Kurdistan and his name will be written in the history books
as a King. Trump wants out of Nato. The Pentagon wants ports, runways and to surround Russia.
Whether Turkey remains in Nato or not is inconsequential to Jared and Greater Israel.
Turkish TVs are blaming the Israelis (or sometimes they call them zionists, globalists etc.)
as the instigators.
Operation Olive Branch has full backing of the opposition (at least their leaders say
so)
So it's not just Erdo's or Erdogan's or Dictator Erdogan's war as the western (Turks claim
zionist instigated) propaganda names it.
Turks are saying that the Homeland comes first, everything else is irrelevant.
So even the most ardent anti-Erdogan people support the government.
A lot of Turks want to get out of the NATO asap. I don't know if they will or not. The US
is seen as a globalist proxy. The EU, ditto.
Turks anticipate Trump will face the Grand Jury soon and he will be removed. Pence will
have a go at the Holy War. Turkish side is making preparations accordingly. It's hot
here.
Turkey is in Afrin with a few old tanks and some mercenaries. They still have both hands
behind their back. Having a powerful, modern military, they can bring a hand out whenever
they choose.
After the Turks shot down the Russian jet late in 2015, the Turkish press reacted in a way
that is revealing.
The religious-Right Yeni Safak wrote (BBC Trans.): "Turkmen Mountain? It is Turkey's
'red' line! No-one should assume that Turkey is just watching and waiting. So many things are
being done behind the scenes! We will soon see them. Ankara will not be deterred by Turkey's
enemies!.. What is going on is an 'unannounced world war'! Briefly, independent Muslim Turkey
is putting up a vital fight against the Crusader-Zionist alliance!"
This paper seems to see Putin's Russia as an Eastern Orthodox Christian power [...] The
center-right Turkiye compared the Russian campaign against Jabal Turkmen as a "Second
Gallipoli," referring to Winston Churchill's hope of taking the Gallipoli Peninsula in WW I
and then marching right up to the then capital, Istanbul, thus cutting the war in the eastern
Mediterranean short. The British empire was thwarted in this plan by a strong Ottoman defense
and use of machine guns and artillery. Turkiye is hearkening back to WW I, when Russia
attacked eastern Anatolia!
Turkey's "Olive Branch" incursion against Kurdish positions in Northern Syria this week
looked bad for Washington. It's worse than it looks: Turkey cemented a new set of strategic
and economic relationships after defying the United States, its erstwhile main ally. Ankara
now has financial backing from China and Qatar and the strategic acquiescence of Russia and
Iran. Most of all, it has the financial backing to pursue its regional ambitions.
[.]
Money is the decisive variable for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose domestic
position depends on his ability to hand out economic benefits in the traditional style of
third-world dictators. During 2016, Erdogan spurred Turkish banks to increase their lending
to business and consumers, and set in motion a credit boom that inevitably led to a bigger
trade deficit.[.]
Import booms driven by credit-fueled demand have been the undoing of Turkish markets in
the past. This time is different. Turkish stocks have risen during the past month, right
through the week of the "Olive Branch" offensive, and the cost of hedging the Turkish
currency's exchange rate has remained relatively low. The US-traded Turkish equity ETF,
TUR, has climbed back to just below its high point of last August, while the cost of
options on the Turkish lira (or implied volatility) remains at the low end of the
range.[.]
The correlation of forces, as the defunct Soviet Union liked to call it, has shifted
since last August, when the US and Turkey entered a diplomatic standoff over two relatively
minor issues. Turkey arrested a Turkish national employed by America's embassy in Ankara,
and the US suspended the issuance of entry visas to Turkish citizens in retaliation.
Meanwhile federal prosecutors in New York tried and convicted a vice-chairman of Turkey's
Halkbank with close ties to the Erdogan government. Turkish stocks plunged and the cost of
currency hedging jumped in response.
With the attack on the American-allied Kurdish YPG militia in the northern town of Afrin
last week, Turkey undertook a major military action in open defiance of Washington, and the
markets didn't notice. On the contrary, Turkish stocks rallied right through the offensive.
Money is Erdogan's scarcest strategic resource, and the continued flow of capital into
Turkish markets is an important gauge of Turkey's power.[.]
In the background to the Syrian incursion, Turkey flaunted its ties to its most
important sources of money, namely Qatar and China. Qatar is the largest foreign investor
in Turkey with more than $20 billion in commitments, with another $19 billion in the
pipeline for 2018. Meanwhile Turkey has become the guarantor of the Qatari royal family's
security, with a new military base in the tiny country. Turkey backed Qatar during last
year's Gulf States boycott, airlifting food after Saudi Arabia closed its border.
Qatar meanwhile has started to buy large quantities of Chinese arms, especially missiles
that could be directed against Saudi Arabia, and has brought People's Liberation Army
personnel to train its armed forces, a relationship put on display at a December military
parade in the Qatari capital of Doha. That is noteworthy given the presence of America's
largest air force installation in the region, the Al Udeid Air Base, the principal US hub
for US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Turkey meanwhile has reached a strategic accommodation with Russia over the future
division of Syria: Turkey will abandon Sunni rebels whom it supported in the past in return
for Russia's forbearance while Turkey reduces Kurdish forces friendly to the United States.
According to a Jan. 22 TASS press summary, Kirill Semenov, the head of the Islamic Research
Center of the Institute of Innovative Development, explained: "Turkey's operation in Afrin
could have only happened as a result of agreements with the Russian side, particularly
taking into account the fact that the Turkish air force used the Syrian air space.
Moscow's permission should have been obtained to avoid incidents. Moscow had no
commitments to the Kurds. The fact that the Russian military deployed observers in the area
of Afrin earlier was a move for a further bargain with Ankara. Back then Turkey's operation
was not beneficial for Moscow, while now it can fault the United States for funneling
weapons to the Kurds, turning them into an instrument of the American influence."
China's One Belt, One Road project acts like a magnetic field on the region: All of the
players are lining up towards China, where Turkey and Iran see their economic future.
China's direct investment in Turkey remains relatively small, but Turkey will be a key node
in China's One Belt, One Road initiative. China is building new railway links to Turkey via
Iran, and the Bank of China is financing infrastructure projects inside Turkey. China's
second-largest telecom equipment provider ZTE plans to make Turkey its regional technology
hub.
Trump seems to sit back a bit and let the lackeys run with ideas to see what will float and
what wont. That way he can dis-own a project if it wont float. From what I can make of
it, the border force was a centcom idea.
Has been a bit in AMN about the arabs of Hasakah being a bit pissed off with it as well as
Turkey.
"... at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
"... Return to Moscow ..."
"... The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge." ..."
The claim of Russian meddling in the US election has brought US-Russia relations to what may
be an all-time low, substantially contributing to the near-universal demonization of Russian
president Vladimir Putin and of Russia itself in virtually all major media, with little or no
discussion of the supposed evidence for the claim. A stellar exception is the London Review
of Books, which published a critically important essay by Rutgers University professor
Jackson Lears in the January 4, 2018 issue. Titled "What We Don't Talk about When We Talk about
Russian Hacking," the article is an excellent overview and analysis of many of the issues the
title suggests.
The claim of Russian meddling in the election remains to this day
evidence-free, although you would never know that from the treatment of the topic in the
mainstream media. As Professor Lears observes:
Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on
evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and
their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment'
produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper,
the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the
NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence
Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of
the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself
contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof
that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is
often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the
assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing
journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for
the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.
But although Professor Lears refers to the reports of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity in his discussion of "Russian hacking," it seems clear there must have been a leak, not
a hack, because "the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds
an Internet capability for a remote hack ." ("Was the 'Russian Hack' An Inside Job?", July
25, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/
.)
In any case, definitive claims about who was responsible (assuming, purely arguendo
, it was a hack) face the fact that, according to Ray McGovern and William S. Binney, two
members of VIPS,
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, was the
agency's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting, and
created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
In other words, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has explained,
today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an
extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it
is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they
are the exact source of that attack. (Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4,
2017), by NBC News' Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of
Russia, June 5, 2017.)
[9]
Demonization of Putin and Russia
The demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russia itself is just part, albeit
the most dangerous part, of a disinformation campaign flowing from the mainstream media. I
don't propose to present a full treatment of the subject here. But in broad outline, it's my
understanding that when the Cold War ended in 1991, Russian president Boris Yeltsin accepted
the advice of Western neoliberal planners and dismantled much of the Russian "safety net," with
the result that the Russian economy tanked and millions of people faced terrific hardship.
Vladimir Putin has been attempting to repair that situation, and his initial success is part of
the reason for his popularity in Russia. That understanding comes from a number of articles
I've read over the years, but primarily from Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow ,
mentioned above. I'm hardly an expert on internal Russian politics. But I've read many of the
extensive public statements Mr. Putin has made since 2007, and with my primary concern being
his role in international relations and with respect to the control of Russia's nuclear
arsenal, he strikes me as a statesman.
[10] . Yet as investigative journalist Robert Parry observes,
The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and
the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to
Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the
infamous
Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane
coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from
hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to
the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge."
Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that
otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many "liberals" who
cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam
War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us,
even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith.
[11] .
One result is a needless heightening of the dangers and risks outlined in this article.
Facebook Accuses Russia of Creating Events, But Unsure if They Took Place
A written statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee from Google, Twitter, and Facebook
revealed that they have found absolutely no evidence of any attempt by Russia to influence any
US votes within the past year (2017) and were unaware of any state-sponsored attempts to
interfere at all.
With Congress increasingly desperate to turn up something that they can pin on Russia
interference-wise, there is growing pressure on major technology companies to dig through their
logs and try to find something conceivably Russia-related.
Facebook has appeared to be the most eager to come up with something, having claimed that
129 "events" were created by people they suspect of being in league with the Russians, though
later conceding that they had no information if any of those events ever actually took
place.
Facebook did, however, claim an "insignificant" overlap between the putative Russian and the
Trump campaign. That's somewhat surprising, as oftentimes attempts to label someone a secret
Russian hinge heavily on them being perceived as pro-Trump in such after the fact
investigations.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
President Donald Trump flew to Davos for the World Economic Forum, and completely
electrified it,
according to reports .
Although the "America First" slogan had raised concern in the global economic community that
this meant the United States would disregard the needs and concerns of other world economic
powers, the President dispelled this worry handily. Members of his cabinet had been in Davos a
bit before his arrival, and were involved in interview and panels already, and when he arrived,
he and his assistants were able to explain more what this philosophy actually means.
"America first is not America alone", said Gary Cohn, the president's economic adviser. The
point of this idea is not for the United States to dominate and control the world, but in
Trump's view, to make better deals and better trade agreements around the world, and to also
cement and strengthen the diplomatic relations between the USA and her allies, most notably
England and Israel.
The President met with both Prime Ministers Netanyahu of Israel and Theresa May of the
United Kingdom. In each meeting he affirmed the very close ties between nations, and also waved
away the rumors that the US and Britain were in a fractious state with one another in his
meeting with PM Theresa May.
"... The risk has been with us since the 1950s, but has become scarier beginning with the US-backed coup in Ukraine, and increased with US involvement in the war on Syria. It's been heightened by plans for "modernization" of US warheads and delivery systems -- plans initiated by President Obama and continuing or expanded by President Trump. ..."
"... The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. ..."
"... Return to Moscow ..."
"... The whole Bush II thing, the elections, Iraq, 9-11 were kind of "through the looking glass" events in which political corruption became mainstream acceptable in a surreal kind of way. I take events like the "Russian Hack" as a kind of ready-reckoner of political consciousness: if you accept or support such muck the only question remains – are you a gull or a knave? An idiot or a cynical bastard? ..."
"... "Sleepwalking into nuclear war" is a haunting and apt metaphor for what is happening to us as a society. Reading Robert Roth's provocative musings on the collective insanity currently enveloping us, I was reminded of William Shirer's accounts of the period he was stationed in Nazi Germany as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune before the outbreak of WWII. ..."
"... Even with all the propaganda the Germans were subjected to, said Shirer, Germans realized that Hitler was taking them into an unwinnable war against the rest of the world that they really didn't want. They knew they were headed into the abyss, yet the political climate was so paranoid that resistance seemed unpatriotic, if not treasonous. They went along in the hope that the national nightmare would dissipate of its own accord, that things weren't as bad as they seemed. ..."
"... Mr. Roth's observations about the blights of willful public ignorance and mass media disinformation are important. Commenter "animalogic" (#7) aptly describes those party to the widespread deceit as either "a gull or a knave." The Establishment needs and therefore nurtures both. ..."
"... Roth has gone straight to the relevant point, nuclear war , for it is already clear that the prospective outcome of any permutation of a 'conventional' war will see the Empire hegemony, USA/Israel and vassal states, lose against Russia, who will be supported, by mutually recognized need, with China. No matter how it is considered, a Russia-China alliance will defeat the empire hegemony if nuclear weapons are not used. ..."
"... One positive thing in US policy is a stability and progress – dummy president replaced by stupid one, that replaced by insane; after him goes imbecile. I can't imagine who's going to be next :-). But there are many of old crazy women and men ready to help if current imbecile went down. ..."
"... There will be no nuclear war as Russia and the U.S. can wipe each other off the map, however the Zionists will continue to keep America at war for the Zionist NWO as that is the game plan and we goyim Americans will continue to be sent to the slaughter house for greater Israel. ..."
"... One honest, generally morally competent man holding the ever-more-powerful office of president of the U.S., could fix many things. Unfortunately, Donald John Trump is not that man. ..."
"... Let's consider one example: Many people believe that a real investigation into 9/11 would destroy the "deep state". Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey et al. have recently completed a study of the "collapse" of WTC7, whereby they've proven that "fire" was not the cause of the "collapse" of that building. This finding directly contradicts the NIST report. For the first time in 16 years there is now incontrovertible scientific evidence in the public domain that 9/11 was an "inside job". Why won't Donald John Trump take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity and order an investigation? ..."
"... The world is not about to end, but the Western public space has become very stupid. Most politicians, media and academics have managed to redefine basic terms into idiotic caricatures. Concepts like meddling, trolls, collusion, etc don't mean what we are told they mean. They are all an eternal part of human society, exchange of ideas, disagreements. Expressing one's opinions is not 'propaganda', or 'meddling' in elections – it is freedom of speech. The idea that there is only one correct view – the Western liberal one – is medieval. ..."
"... Nobody will deliberately start nuclear war, but the probability that it might start as the result of series of mistakes has increased. ..."
"... The US and its vassals (including other NATO countries) moved NATO troops close to Russian borders, destabilized Ukraine, Syria, cooked up "Russiagate" (which is really an FBI-gate, but sore losers would not admit it) to justify further increases in Pentagon budget (a trough where very fat pigs feed). ..."
"... The main danger is that in its death throes the Empire will start a war, although we can only hope that even degenerate US elites understand that dead people cannot benefit by their wealth. Hope springs eternal. ..."
"... Agree with much of the sentiment and some of the proposals here regarding the need to ratchet down rhetoric, pledge no first strike, and generally try much harder to reduce the risk of even a "small" nuke exchange. ..."
"... Well, hope is always nice. But we might not understand the dynamic nature of the global-liberal overreach that we have been experiencing. People don't behave the way Western elites have been acting without some measure of disconnect from reality. And hubris. When a substantial part of elite climbs on an irrational high horse of invincibility they become paralysed by the framework they have created. They don't want to hear other views because it makes them uncomfortable. They have given up on both principles and institutions – it is anything goes world now. ..."
"... The Trotskyites who became in America first anti-Stalinist Democrat Hawks and then anti-Russian/Israel-first Republican Hawks have worked things so that they control foreign affairs for both political parties. And they have an insatiable bloodlust. Like the godfather of their movement, they are amoral with genocidal desires when it comes to peoples they despise. They are the type of self-righteous bullies who aspire to rule the globe to overreach and push and shove and threaten and sucker punch until the worst for the world happens. ..."
"... Good to see you posting. I hear they are muling Ophrah. Really good choice for next president. Woman, black, fat and wealthy. Not gay or transvestite though but that's coming next. ..."
"... Makes me wonder what after Putin. I do it like him that much but he still intelligent, cool and calculating man that is not doing stupid things but neither genius. ..."
"... Regarding Americans, unfortunately they never felt real pain. Like a kid who does not know that fire is dangerous. I think financial collapse gonna be trouble sooner or later with them. The best thing Russia and China can do is to undermine us dollar status and the whole financial system which was built by uncle Sam for uncle Sam benefit. ..."
My goal in writing about these things is to alert you to the problems and encourage you to
share your concerns with people you know and with federal policy-makers. Right now, the entire
gamut of political discussion all but excludes the topic nuclear war, so if some Senators,
Members of Congress, and the President were to begin hearing from people that we're concerned
about the threat, and how easily it could happen, and that we want that threat removed, it
would be some progress.
Why the focus on nuclear war? Because of all the pending potential disasters we may have to
face, it's the most sudden, inescapable, irrevocable. At some level, people know that, though
they don't like to think about it. Author Carl Boggs describes the reaction of the people of
Hawaii when they received a false alarm about an incoming ICBM attack:
People scattered frenetically, mostly without logic or purpose or hope. Where to go? If
this turned out to be one of Kim Jong Un's powerful ICBMs, it could be over in 20 minutes.
Repair to a shelter? None exist. Go to the basement? Sure suicide. Find a car or taxi and
head for the hills? No time. [T]he response was utter psychological numbness, paralysis -- a
dysfunctional yet comprehensible state of mind in the face of nuclear oblivion. [T]he end
seemed inescapable.
And because, as Mr. Boggs says upon hearing a talk by former nuclear war planner Daniel
Ellsberg, it's a lot less unlikely than most of us have been led to believe.
The American people have been lulled to sleep, distracted by endless media and political
spectacles, while busy warmakers keep refining their insane nuclear blueprints . More than 70
years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Pentagon elites still theorize and fantasize about the
unthinkable, their demented plans far removed from the realm of political debate or even
public awareness.
[1]
The risk has been with us since the 1950s, but has become scarier beginning with the
US-backed coup in Ukraine, and increased with US involvement in the war on Syria. It's been
heightened by plans for "modernization" of US warheads and delivery systems -- plans initiated
by President Obama and continuing or expanded by President Trump. And it's heightened
further by a Pentagon plan to develop a "low-yield" warhead for the submarine-based Trident
missile, and a new nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile.
[2] I believe that expanding the range of options in this way would
increase the likelihood that the weapons will actually be used.
In case you think I'm overstating the problem, you should know that almost everything in
"Dr. Strangelove" -- the Stanley Kubrick film in which nuclear war is started by a rogue
military officer -- was true.
[3] . "Doomsday" is an "Actual War
Plan," as Daniel Ellsberg says in a December 13, 2017 interview discussing his new book,
The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.
[4].
Dan Ellsberg proposes a Six-Step Program for dismantling the Doomsday Machine:
A U.S.
no-first-use policy;
Probing investigative hearings on our war plans in the light of nuclear
winter;
Eliminating our ICBMs;
Foregoing the delusion of preemptive damage-limiting by our
first-strike forces;
Giving up the profits, jobs, and alliance hegemony based on maintaining
that pretense;
Otherwise dismantling the American Doomsday Machine.
Of course none of that will happen under present circumstances. It's Ellsberg's goal to
contribute to developing an informed electorate that, recognizing the risk, will demand such
actions.
... ... ...
Regarding the two nuclear-armed superpowers, who between them possess some 15,000 nuclear
warheads, the Cold War that ended in 1991 has lately been replaced by a New Cold War. U.S. and
NATO provocations to Russia have reached a largely unheard crescendo in Ukraine, where a
U.S.-backed coup installed a regime, essentially in the Russian belly, that's riddled with
neo-Nazis and hostile to Russia; in eastern Europe generally, where NATO war games have been
held repeatedly just across the Russian border; and in Syria, where the U.S. continues to
maintain an unlawful presence in proximity to Russian forces legitimately there at the
invitation of the internationally recognized and constitutionally elected Syrian government.
And in both Syria and Ukraine, there are signs the situation is becoming even more dangerous
than it's been for some time.
[7]
These situations raise the risk of unintended nuclear war, as confrontation may lead at any
time to escalation spiraling out of control. Dr. William Polk, a member of the White House team
that handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, describes how in a confrontational situation, the logic
of events could force the Russians and us to the next step and that step also to the next and
so on, to the ultimate disastrous result without anyone having initially intended it.
[8] . Mr. Shatz concludes that what we once mistook for safety was more like sleepwalking.
Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin sums up the situation in similar terms:
"Under the false and demonizing imagery of 'Putin's Russia' which has now taken hold in the
United States and NATO world, the West is truly 'sleepwalking', as Kissinger, Gorbachev,
[University of Kent professor Richard] Sakwa, [Princeton emeritus professor Stephen F.] Cohen
and others have urgently warned, into a potential nuclear war with Russia. It is the Cuban
missile crisis all over again, but actually worse now [in part] because American policy under
recent U.S. presidents has been so lacking in statesmanship, consistency or historical
perspective where Russia is concerned." ( Return to Moscow , University of Western
Australia, 2017, p. 255).
Think you're pretty spot with all you say. The whole Bush II thing, the elections, Iraq,
9-11 were kind of "through the looking glass" events in which political corruption became
mainstream acceptable in a surreal kind of way.
I take events like the "Russian Hack" as a kind of ready-reckoner of political consciousness:
if you accept or support such muck the only question remains – are you a gull or a
knave? An idiot or a cynical bastard?
"Sleepwalking into nuclear war" is a haunting and apt metaphor for what is happening to us as
a society. Reading Robert Roth's provocative musings on the collective insanity currently
enveloping us, I was reminded of William Shirer's accounts of the period he was stationed in
Nazi Germany as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune before the outbreak of WWII.
His account of attending a Nazi rally where he appeared to be the only member of the
audience not mesmerized by Hitler's delusional rants reminds me of my own reaction to the
Russiagate hysteria being orchestrated by neocons and Clinton dead-enders. Who are these
people and what is the matter with them? The current state of our Union is a testament to the
power of propaganda, which Hitler and Goebbels understood so well.
Even with all the propaganda the Germans were subjected to, said Shirer, Germans realized
that Hitler was taking them into an unwinnable war against the rest of the world that they
really didn't want. They knew they were headed into the abyss, yet the political climate was
so paranoid that resistance seemed unpatriotic, if not treasonous. They went along in the
hope that the national nightmare would dissipate of its own accord, that things weren't as
bad as they seemed.
But as it turned out, things were even worse than they seemed. The nightmare was real and
there was no waking from it.
The USA/Russia/China/Israel/France/UK/India/Pakistan have collectively been playing Russian
Roulette for 65 years.
Probability dictates sooner or later, one of the chambers will contain a live round.
What an excellent essay. It appears to have been submitted initially to The Unz Review, which
should enhance the reputation of both the author and publisher.
Mr. Roth's observations about the blights of willful public ignorance and mass media
disinformation are important. Commenter "animalogic" (#7) aptly describes those party to the
widespread deceit as either "a gull or a knave." The Establishment needs and therefore
nurtures both.
Great article and great comments so far (11 of them).
We have a scenario much like those scenarios prior to the Great War (WWI) and the second
world war, and the same shadowy 'hidden hand' orchestrating the entire pending disaster so
they can yet further augment their control and expand their illegal land theft.
The consolidation of the mass media agencies, now almost pure propaganda/perception
management agencies controlled by the competing factions of the 0.1%, and the advent of the
internet and 'big data' have enabled this psychopathic cabal to attain previously undreamt of
control over the common 99%, including control over their perception.
Roth has gone straight to the relevant point, nuclear war , for it is already clear
that the prospective outcome of any permutation of a 'conventional' war will see the Empire
hegemony, USA/Israel and vassal states, lose against Russia, who will be supported, by
mutually recognized need, with China. No matter how it is considered, a Russia-China alliance
will defeat the empire hegemony if nuclear weapons are not used.
It is because of this point that the entirety of humanity must rally and do 'what ever it
takes' to stop the terrorist empire from sustaining the current tyranny. The psychopaths of
the empire, not exposed to public scrutiny, hidden in the shadows, can and will nudge the
world into unwinnable (for anyone) nuclear war; their egos are the definition of human
depravity.
Exposing the grand charade to a critical mass of the general population is the first
objective, then exposing the 'hidden hands' in the shadows is the next.
The parasite must be stopped, and we, the people who have seen glimpses of the enemy, are
incumbent to spread the word.
I left this comment on a different article ( http://thesaker.is/listening-to-mattis/ ), but
seems it could be in place here also. Cause we're talking approximately same and nothing gonna
change
-- -- -
Well, it's getting boring a little. I mean the descriptions of the insanity of US's
rulers.
One positive thing in US policy is a stability and progress – dummy president
replaced by stupid one, that replaced by insane; after him goes imbecile. I can't imagine
who's going to be next :-).
But there are many of old crazy women and men ready to help if current imbecile went
down.
Thanks God, we, Russians, not that happy. After imbecile alcoholic Yeltsin we've got not
bad alternative (your media and stupid people in power call him a killer). Who (with his sanity) the only chance for this world to survive.
But, actually we're very tired from all this stuff and the possibility of US generals to
test our conventional and even nuke arms constantly increasing. They can also test if our
soldiers who've seen Napoleon, Hitler and many others got worse or still the same. I'm asking US citizens – Is it really interesting to you to get know it for
sure?
There will be no nuclear war as Russia and the U.S. can wipe each other off the map, however
the Zionists will continue to keep America at war for the Zionist NWO as that is the game
plan and we goyim Americans will continue to be sent to the slaughter house for greater
Israel.
"But as Mr. Shatz observes, the problems run much deeper than President Trump."
This statement is misleading. One honest, generally morally competent man holding the
ever-more-powerful office of president of the U.S., could fix many things. Unfortunately, Donald John Trump is not that man.
Let's consider one example: Many people believe that a real investigation into 9/11 would
destroy the "deep state". Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey et al. have recently completed a study of the
"collapse" of WTC7, whereby they've proven that "fire" was not the cause of the "collapse" of
that building. This finding directly contradicts the NIST report. For the first time in 16
years there is now incontrovertible scientific evidence in the public domain that 9/11 was an
"inside job". Why won't Donald John Trump take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity
and order an investigation?
There is only one plausible explanation: I believe that Donald John Trump was the "deep
state" candidate of choice in the 2016 election. I believe that's why they ran wild-eyed
madwoman Hillary Clinton against him rather than the more electable Sanders. I believe that's
why, in the early fall of 2016, as the election was coming into the home stretch, Obama
started ramping up tensions with Russia; i.e., so as to nudge the disgruntled anti-war
Democrats (Sanders supporters) into Trump's camp, swinging the election to him.
I believe that Donald John Trump is a "deep cover" or "sleeper" agent that's been groomed
and waiting in the wings for his masters' call. I believe that Donald John Trump was called
to power in a desperate now or never moment to save the "deep state" (Zionist) agenda.
Donald John Trump is a liar. Donald John Trump is a fraud. Donald John Trump is a con man.
Donald John Trump is a mass-murderer.
I don't think anyone in the West is sleepwalking into anything, esp the USA. I think the
American people see the writing on the wall and that if the American Empire loses status the
economy of the USA will revert to being a labor intensive existence of working the ground
just to have enough food to eat and water to drink. So entitled and lazy Americans are and
horrified to be relegated back to a 1920/30′s quality of life (loss of Bread &
Circuses), that if the Military Industril Complex has to threaten the entire planet with nuclear
annihilation if they don't tithe 10% of their GDP (Roman Empire) so fat ass Yankees can
continue to be fat asses – then just burn the place to the ground.
If the BRIC countries attempt to dethrone the petro dollar lazy entitled Americans will
BEG Washington to do whatever it takes to bring back $3.00 t-shirts at Wal-Mart.
The world is not about to end, but the Western public space has become very stupid. Most
politicians, media and academics have managed to redefine basic terms into idiotic
caricatures. Concepts like meddling, trolls, collusion, etc don't mean what we are told they
mean. They are all an eternal part of human society, exchange of ideas, disagreements.
Expressing one's opinions is not 'propaganda', or 'meddling' in elections – it is
freedom of speech. The idea that there is only one correct view – the Western liberal
one – is medieval.
We are at a point when views other than BBC, CNN, NY Times , are routinely dismissed as
'meddling', 'trolling, or sometimes 'hatred'. The objective is to suppress and dismiss them.
That is very dangerous for any civilisation, but for a system that was built on celebrating
free speech, it is fatal.
I often hear that it is a 'natural' pendulum swing, that most people in the West don't
agree with it, that it is an angry reaction to an unexpected loss ('Clinton dead-enders'),
that it will self-correct over time. In my view that is missing the point and overlooks the
permanent damage this hysteria has caused. If the more rational members of the elite are
unable to defend rationality and freedom today – when it is still easy – they are
co-responsible for the madness.
"After the Maidan the leaders of two right wing neo-Nazi organisations were rewarded with
control of four ministries
Andriy Parubiy, co-founder of the fascist Social National Party (SNPU) , which later
changed its name to Svoboda, became the new top commander of the National Defense and
Security Council (covering the military, police, courts and intelligence apparatus). The CIA
renamed the organisation to "Svoboda," meaning "Freedom," to make it more acceptable to
Americans.
Dmytro Yarosh, Right Sector commander, was second-in-command of the National Defense and
Security Council. This is the man who organized and ran Ukraine's February 22nd Coup in Kiev,
and the May 2nd Massacre of Its Opponents in Odessa, for Barack Obama. Yarosh's teams
carry out the most violent operations for the CIA in Ukraine. They are responsible for the
atrocities committed in the Donbass, for the crimes against humanity .
Oleh Tyahnybok, co founder of the SNPU and currently the party leader of Svoboda, a self
confessed neo-Nazi. He opposed the introduction of the Russian language as the second
official state language; called for the lustration of former communist officials. He also
proposed recognition of the fighting role of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and
Ukrainian Insurgent Army during World War II."
-- Where are the Lobby, the Anti-Defamation League, the Friends of Israel in UK, and the
whole Holocaust business? Where are the fighters with BDS?
Nobody will deliberately start nuclear war, but the probability that it might start as the
result of series of mistakes has increased.
The US and its vassals (including other NATO
countries) moved NATO troops close to Russian borders, destabilized Ukraine, Syria, cooked up
"Russiagate" (which is really an FBI-gate, but sore losers would not admit it) to justify
further increases in Pentagon budget (a trough where very fat pigs feed).
The Empire is
afraid of losing its position, but shortsighted elites do everything to accelerate its
demise. The main danger is that in its death throes the Empire will start a war, although we
can only hope that even degenerate US elites understand that dead people cannot benefit by
their wealth. Hope springs eternal.
Agree with much of the sentiment and some of the proposals here regarding the need to ratchet
down rhetoric, pledge no first strike, and generally try much harder to reduce the risk of
even a "small" nuke exchange.
But giving up our inter-continental ballistic missiles would be foolhardy, even more so if
it's done unilaterally. With rivals / potential enemies like China and eventually India, who
in time will be able to muster conventional forces and troop contingents far larger than
ours, we cannot give up the nuke deterrent.
And the reference "the TWO nuclear-armed superpowers" is out of date. That would be at
least THREE nuke-armed superpowers: China, the USA, and Russia.
"But giving up our inter-continental ballistic missiles would be foolhardy, even more so
if it's done unilaterally. With rivals / potential enemies like China and eventually India,
who in time will be able to muster conventional forces and troop contingents far larger than
ours, we cannot give up the nuke deterrent."
because it will keep the victims of ZIO/U$A imperial policy at bay for the victims request
for REPARATIONS, when that time comes
understand that dead people cannot benefit by their wealth. Hope springs eternal
Well, hope is always nice. But we might not understand the dynamic nature of the
global-liberal overreach that we have been experiencing. People don't behave the way Western
elites have been acting without some measure of disconnect from reality. And hubris. When a substantial part of elite climbs on an irrational high horse of invincibility they
become paralysed by the framework they have created. They don't want to hear other views
because it makes them uncomfortable. They have given up on both principles and institutions
– it is anything goes world now.
So where is the assurance that rationality would prevail in a crisis? It didn't in 1914.
Who would step in and tell the morons that they have been living a lie of their own creation?
That constraints are still there, that their verbal acuity has not changed how the world is,
that 'soft power' is called soft for a reason – it doesn't add up to a hill of beans
when it matters. The risk for any dissenter of consequence is very high (see Trump for a
related, imperfect example).
Let's hope. Most bad scenarios don't actually end life on the planet, they just make life
more miserable. That's what happened in the past. We might see a 'nuclear' version of that.
One thing I know for sure: none of the liberal fire-eaters in Washington, Brussels or London
will ever own up to this. They are born 'victims', so they will go on whining
The Dutch government tries to get a law accepted now that greatly increases the legal
possibilities of our secret service to spy on anyone.
March 21 there is a referendum on the law, I expect that we will reject it, but the
politicians already stated that they will reject a negative referendum.
By accident, of course, today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian
interference in the USA elections, without being specific of course, 'classified', as a lot
in the USA.
The Trotskyites who became in America first anti-Stalinist Democrat Hawks and then
anti-Russian/Israel-first Republican Hawks have worked things so that they control foreign
affairs for both political parties. And they have an insatiable bloodlust. Like the godfather
of their movement, they are amoral with genocidal desires when it comes to peoples they
despise. They are the type of self-righteous bullies who aspire to rule the globe to
overreach and push and shove and threaten and sucker punch until the worst for the world
happens.
Most regular readers of Unz Review can agree with the above. What they also need to accept
is that those problems did not enter the US, or more generally the Anglosphere, with the
flight of mostly Jewish Trotskyites from the USSR and Europe. The same attitudes of
insufferable hubris that was basically amoral in regard to national and ethnic groups it most
despised marked the British Empire.
The British WASP Elite form certainly was more refined
and pleasant-seeming than the Jewish Neocon form, and other groups of people within that
world usually proved able to bring the most crazed WASP Elite monsters back from the edge of
the cliff. But they existed, and they caused needless trouble around the globe.
It is the mix of the two that makes the American hawkish anti-Russian, Israel-first
foreign policy insane enough to try to start a nuclear exchange.
Anon from TN
You may be right, but we can't do anything about it now: much hyped democracy is a pure ruse
(look at presumably two party system in the US: Republicrats always win). I just hope that
the sense of self-preservation in those degenerate elites is stronger than their lies that
they apparently believe themselves (even mice are smart enough for that). If not, then those
morons along with innocent bystanders (99.9% of world population) would be dead. Look on the
bright side: rodents and insects would be happy to inherit the Earth.
Unpopular jerk-boy opinion incoming. I honestly think the Hawaii response is pretty typical
but shameful. I like the response of the guy who just tweets, 'OK, if I die goodbye, I'm
golfing anyway' and turns his stupid phone off.
Good to see you posting. I hear they are muling Ophrah. Really good choice for next
president. Woman, black, fat and wealthy. Not gay or transvestite though but that's coming
next. What makes me wonder how this sort of imbeciles gets elected without collapsing the
state. I think it is moving slowly in this direction but there was enough to have just 2 morons in top positions and
look -- no
more USSR. Talk about "Checks and balances."
Makes me wonder what after Putin. I do it like him that much
but he still intelligent, cool and calculating man that is not doing stupid things but
neither genius.
Regarding Americans, unfortunately they never felt real pain. Like a kid who does not know that fire is dangerous. I
think financial collapse gonna be trouble
sooner or later with them. The best thing Russia and China can do is to undermine us dollar
status and the whole financial system which was built by uncle Sam for uncle Sam benefit.
Anon from TN
You are right: Dutch government has already thrown away negative results of the referendum on
EU association with Ukraine. What's more, it betrayed its own citizens by still pretending to
investigate the crash of MH-17, even though everyone with a brain knows that Ukrainian puppet
government is to blame (international airlines made this conclusion long time ago: they fly
over Russia, but avoid Ukraine, flying around it, just like they fly around North Korea).
I
am tempted to say that you guys elected this scum, but then you'd say that I elected Trump,
which I didn't (anyway, what choice did we have: corrupt to the core mad witch would have
been even worse).
today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian interference in the USA
elections
Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on
the Dutch spies who were spying on them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ':
they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to us how is ' interference ' or '
meddling ' different from having an opinion about an election. And we all know that
Americans (or Dutch) have never, ever, expressed any opinions about other countries'
elections. Right. My democracy promotion is your meddling.
It is bad when you kill my cow. It is very good when I kill your cow. Monkey reasoning
level?
"... Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. ..."
"... If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies. ..."
"... This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state. ..."
"... When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals. ..."
"... In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States ..."
"... A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state. ..."
The Republicans' delay in releasing the summary of the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation is giving weight
to the presstitutes' claim that the report is not being released, because it is a hack attempt at a Trump cover-up that is not believable.
Only Republicans are stupid enough to put themselves in such a situation.
Readers ask me why the summary memo is not released if it is real. There must be some reasons besides the stupidity of Republicans.
Yes, that is so. Among the many reasons that might be blocking release are:
1) Republicans are very national security conscious. They don't want to provide precedents for the release of classified information.
2) Many Republican congressional districts host installations of the military/security complex. Upsetting a large employer
and directing campaign financing to a challenger is a big consideration.
3) The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime was a neoconservative regime. One consequence is that Republicans are influenced by
neoconservatives who stress the alleged "Russian threat."
4) The Israel Lobby can unseat any member of the House and Senate. The Israel Lobby is allied with the neoconservatives and
this alliance intends to keep the US militarily active against perceived threats to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East and against
Russia, which supports Syria and Iran, countries perceived as threats by Israel.
5) Many Republicans are themselves invested in false Russiagate allegations against Trump and would like to replace him with
Pence. Other Republicans believe that Trump is undermining Washington's expensively-purchased foreign alliances and, thereby,
undermining US power.
Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top
officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic
election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported
allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping
to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used
to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate.
Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must
have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but
not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan. If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted
or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability
in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under
a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies.
Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe the Russiagate BS in the first place.
They miss the point. They need the report, because those responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and
prosecuted for their act of high treason.
This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the
people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable
if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump
is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state.
Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified
and released and explained
by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperly spied
and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself
that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen
Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to
the FISA court.
(See
Lendman
on Boyd's claim that releasing the memo would harm national security and ongoing investigations. This is always the claim made when
government has to cover up its crimes. )
When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for
partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to
the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future.
It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals.
In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for
the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States.
A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government
of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese
governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation
with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception
that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state.
"Someone must have been telling tales about Josef K., for one morning, without having
done anything wrong, he was arrested."
Thus begins The Trial , Franz Kafka's 1925 work, in which Joseph K., ordinary bank employee,
is arrested at his home by mysterious agents and notified of legal proceedings against him.
He is not informed of the offense or crime of which he would allegedly be guilty – he
is only given to understand that he must have broken some unknown law – and is notified
of a summons to court a certain day, without knowing the exact time or place.
The protagonist is dragged into a completely absurd circle, wavering between inspectors,
bailiffs, lawyers and judges, and not knowing at any time for what or against whom he must
defend himself.
He is finally executed by three distinguished executioners who, with "odious politeness",
plant a butcher's knife in his heart.
But whatever the offenses may be, the real-world policy effects that Trump's critics have
feared from l'Affaire Russe -- an alliance of strongmen, the subordination of American
interests to Moscow, the unraveling of NATO -- haven't materialized at all. Trump may desire a
détente, but instead we are escalating our proxy war with Russia in Ukraine even as
sanctions remain in force and our troops train in Eastern Europe and the Pentagon's National
Security Strategy treats Moscow as a major threat. If Trump is supposed to be advancing Kremlin
interests from Washington, the bargain isn't working, and the Russians might as well just
release the pee tape and have done with it.
... NATO and Nafta are both still there; the trade war with China has been postponed; we are
not at war with Iran or (yes, I know, yet) with North Korea; the scope of the Russia
investigation has only widened since Trump's hamfisted intervention
...his cabinet looks a lot like a generic Republican administration
.. The Deep State of bureaucrats and generals has prevented sudden breaks with U.S. policy
not with high-profile resignations or massive acts of sabotage, but by repeatedly, patiently
talking the president out of his most disruptive or dangerous ideas. \
...the system
around him is what matters, and his expressed desires are just a reality TV
performance.
This is not how a truly dangerous authoritarianism works. It's not how the imperial
presidencies of the past worked, either: For all his braggart's talk, Trump has done
nothing that compares with the power grabs and norm violations of Woodrow Wilson or
Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, George W. Bush or even Barack Obama and
because he lacks the popularity or media adulation that all of those presidents enjoyed at one
point, it's very hard to see how he would go about imitating them.
"We could look at it this way"...Muller gathered together, "A Special Council of
Disgusting Back Stabbing Clinton Thug's". So now President Trump and all America have a
clearer picture of who was tapping us in the back of the head, a few month back, no one
really knew, we were all just guessing.
I'm all for removing mueller and his corrupt team but why replace them with another one?
The whole reason for the current investigation was to prove collusion between trump and
russia...it's been debunked and is an obvious hoax. What would there be for another team to
investigate? If they want to create a new special investigation team, put one together to go
after Hillary Clinton and all the other treasonous people she has surrounded herself
with.
They need to close that witch hunt investigation concerning Russia due to the lack of any
evidence. Let's face it if Trump did anything wrong whatsoever someone would have uncovered
some smidgin of evidence of wrongdoing. If there was evidence against Trump it would be all
over CNN.
I think it's very clear that US Intel is freaking out that Judge Napolitano exposed the
truth about how Obama bypassed the FISA process so that no fingerprints would be disclosed.
It's more than important to notice that Judge Napolitano has been kept off the air as a Fox
NewsLegal Consultant since he made the comment about the British Intel spying on the Trump
campaign. Some people say he was fired, but I haven't officially seen that from Fox News as of
today! If I had to bet, and I am a betting man, I would say that Judge Napolitano exposed
something so dirty on the British Intel and Obama that Fox had to discredit it! What that means
to me after researching this stuff for many years, is that the smoke is from the intel or
people that deny it the most!
The only way for the US Intel to safe face now is to throw someone else under the bus!
Expect US Intel to create a situation where they can pin this on anyone other than the
British.
Trump clearly knew all about what was going on and when he already has the facts he doesn't
back down. Neither Trump or Spicer ever backed down about Trumps original claims! People are
going to go to jail about this! If you watch this entire video the only conclusion you can come
to is that the US Intel Is completely corrupt and operating beyond their directive! It is
sick!
"... The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us. what this story is about - a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to the way she handled classified information with her classified server. Absolutely a crime, absolutely a felony . It's about finding out why - as the Inspector General is doing at the department of justice - why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton . Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That's not an investigation, that's a Potemkin village. It's a farce. ..."
"... DiGenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited Steele dossier about President Donald Trump . Without a justifiable law enforcement or national security reason, he says, the FBI "created false facts so that they could get surveillance warrants. Those are all crimes. " He adds, using official FISA-702 "queries" and surveillance was done "to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president. " - Daily Caller ..."
"... This feels like the most significant American political scandal that has taken place in my lifetime, and I was born in the 60's. ..."
"... The entire collection program needs to be shut down, the data deleted and the program replaced by the one William Binney originally created that collected and analyzed only metadata unless a warrant is obtained first. The current program is clearly a violation of our 4th Amendment rights even without NDAA section 702. ..."
"... He forgot to mention Weissman: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-15/fbi-probe-russian-uranium-bri ..."
"... " unauthorized disclosures of raw intelligence on Americans]. This is stunning stuff. " "Stunning" only for the willfully deluded among us. ..."
"... Pretty soon, the MSM is gonna have to do a false flag ..."
"... Is he gonna sit there and let these bastards have another shot at him? ..."
In this highly recommended 30 minute interview with Joe diGenova, the former Special Counsel
who went after both the Teamsters and former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer, paints a very clear
picture of collusion is painted between the Obama administration, the FBI, the Clinton campaign
and opposition research firm Fusion GPS.
The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us. what this story is about - a
brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to the
way she handled classified information with her classified server. Absolutely a crime,
absolutely a felony . It's about finding out why - as the Inspector General is doing at the
department of justice - why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal
investigation of Hillary Clinton . Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break
in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand
jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That's not an investigation, that's a Potemkin
village. It's a farce.
And everybody knew it was a farce. The problem was, she didn't win. And because she didn't
wain, the farce became a very serious opera. It wasn't a comic opera anymore, it was a tragic
opera. And she was going to be the focus.
What this is about, this is about a lavabo, a cleansing of FBI and the upper echelons of
the Department of Justice.
We're going to discover that the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, her deputy Sally Yates,
the head of the national security division John Carlin, Bruce Ohr and other senior DOJ
officials, and regrettably, lying attorneys . People who were senior career civil servants
violated the law, perhaps committed crimes, and covered up crimes by a presidential candidate
- but more than that, they tried to frame an incoming president with a false Russian
conspiracy that never existed, and they knew it, and they plotted to ruin him as a candidate
and then destroy him as a president. That's why this is important. That's why connecting the
dots is important.
DiGenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a
political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited
Steele dossier about President Donald Trump . Without a justifiable law enforcement or national
security reason, he says, the FBI "created false facts so that they could get surveillance
warrants. Those are all crimes. " He adds, using official FISA-702 "queries" and surveillance
was done "to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president. " - Daily
Caller
During the interview, DiGenova holds up and references a previously unreported and
heavily redacted 99-page FISA court opinion from April, 2017, which " describes systematic and
on-going violations of the law [by the FBI and their contractors using unauthorized disclosures
of raw intelligence on Americans]. This is stunning stuff."
NSA Admiral Mike Rodgers: An American Hero
diGenova also discusses the immense risks taken by retiring NSA director, Mike Rogers - who
briefed Trump on Nov. 7, 2016 about the Obama administration's surveillance of the Trump team.
The next day, the Presidental transition team was moved out of Trump tower and into the
president-elect's Bedminster, NJ golf course until they could sweep for bugs.
Paul Craig Roberts says he's been too hard on the NSA. I don't think so. The FISA warrant
only allowed the FBI to unmask people in surveillance the NSA is already doing on everybody.
If the dirt is being collected and stored, eventually somebody will find a way to use it.
The
entire collection program needs to be shut down, the data deleted and the program replaced by
the one William Binney originally created that collected and analyzed only metadata unless a
warrant is obtained first. The current program is clearly a violation of our 4th Amendment
rights even without NDAA section 702.
Trump has known all of this all along. The only pre-emptive move that he could make would
be to declare martial law , and have the military move on the traitors. For Chrissake, look
what's at stake here. Is he gonna sit there and let these bastards have another shot at
him?
(Shakes head in puzzlement).
A spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee took a shot at
Democrats for pushing the false narrative.
"When Democrats demand investigations of a hashtag but find no cause for concern after the
FBI loses five months' of critical evidence concerning the Strzok text messages, then someone's
priorities are out of whack," Jack Langer told The Daily Caller.
"... GDP growth, which is way ahead of schedule under my administration, will be one of America's truly greatest weapons. ..."
"... We also face rival powers, Russia and China, that seek to challenge American influence, values, and wealth. We will attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries, but in a manner that always protects our national interest. ..."
"... It calls for a total modernization of our military, and reversing previous decisions to shrink our armed forces -- even as threats to national security grew. It calls for streamlining acquisition, eliminating bloated bureaucracy, and massively building up our military, which has the fundamental side benefit of creating millions and millions of jobs. ..."
"... Fourth and finally, our strategy is to advance American influence in the world, but this begins with building up our wealth and power at home. ..."
At home, we are keeping our promises and liberating the American economy. We have created
more than 2 million jobs since the election. Unemployment is at a 17-year-low. The stock market
is at an all-time high and, just a little while ago, hit yet another all-time high -- the 85th
time since my election. (Applause.)
We have cut 22 regulations for every one new regulation, the most in the history of our
country. We have unlocked America's vast energy resources.
As the world watches -- and the world is indeed watching -- we are days away from passing
historic tax cuts for American families and businesses. It will be the biggest tax cut and tax
reform in the history of our country. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
And we are seeing the response we fully expected. Economic growth has topped 3 percent for
two quarters in a row. GDP growth, which is way ahead of schedule under my administration,
will be one of America's truly greatest weapons.
Optimism has surged. Confidence has returned. With this new confidence, we are also bringing
back clarity to our thinking. We are reasserting these fundamental truths:
A nation without borders is not a nation. (Applause.)
A nation that does not protect prosperity at home cannot protect its interests
abroad.
A nation that is not prepared to win a war is a nation not capable of preventing a
war.
A nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident in its future.
And a nation that is not certain of its values cannot summon the will to defend
them.
Today, grounded in these truths, we are presenting to the world our new National Security
Strategy. Based on my direction, this document has been in development for over a year. It has
the endorsement of my entire Cabinet.
Our new strategy is based on a principled realism, guided by our vital national interests,
and rooted in our timeless values.
This strategy recognizes that, whether we like it or not, we are engaged in a new era of
competition. We accept that vigorous military, economic, and political contests are now playing
out all around the world. We face rogue regimes that threaten the United States and our allies.
We face terrorist organizations, transnational criminal networks, and others who spread
violence and evil around the globe.
We also face rival powers, Russia and China, that seek to challenge American influence,
values, and wealth. We will attempt to build a great partnership with those and other
countries, but in a manner that always protects our national interest.
As an example, yesterday I received a call from President Putin of Russia thanking our
country for the intelligence that our CIA was able to provide them concerning a major terrorist
attack planned in St. Petersburg, where many people, perhaps in the thousands, could have been
killed. They were able to apprehend these terrorists before the event, with no loss of life.
And that's a great thing, and the way it's supposed to work. That is the way it's supposed to
work.
But while we seek such opportunities of cooperation, we will stand up for ourselves, and we
will stand up for our country like we have never stood up before. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you.
We know that American success is not a forgone conclusion. It must be earned and it must be
won. Our rivals are tough, they're tenacious, and committed to the long term. But so are
we.
To succeed, we must integrate every dimension of our national strength, and we must compete
with every instrument of our national power.
Under the Trump administration, America is gaining wealth, leading to enhanced power --
faster than anyone thought -- with $6 trillion more in the stock market alone since the
election -- $6 trillion.
With the strategy I am announcing today, we are declaring that America is in the game and
America is going to win. (Applause.) Thank you.
Our strategy advances four vital national interests. First, we must protect the American
people, the homeland, and our great American way of life. This strategy recognizes that we
cannot secure our nation if we do not secure our borders. So for the first time ever, American
strategy now includes a serious plan to defend our homeland. It calls for the construction of a
wall on our southern border; ending chain migration and the horrible visa and lottery programs;
closing loopholes that undermine enforcement; and strongly supporting our Border Patrol agents,
ICE officers, and Homeland Security personnel. (Applause.)
In addition, our strategy calls for us to confront, discredit, and defeat radical Islamic
terrorism and ideology and to prevent it from spreading into the United States. And we will
develop new ways to counter those who use new domains, such as cyber and social media, to
attack our nation or threaten our society.
The second pillar of our strategy is to promote American prosperity. For the first time,
American strategy recognizes that economic security is national security. Economic vitality,
growth, and prosperity at home is absolutely necessary for American power and influence abroad.
Any nation that trades away its prosperity for security will end up losing both.
That is why this National Security Strategy emphasizes, more than any before, the critical
steps we must take to ensure the prosperity of our nation for a long, long time to come.
It calls for cutting taxes and rolling back unnecessary regulations. It calls for trade
based on the principles of fairness and reciprocity. It calls for firm action against unfair
trade practices and intellectual property theft. And it calls for new steps to protect our
national security industrial and innovation base.
The strategy proposes a complete rebuilding of American infrastructure -- our roads,
bridges, airports, waterways, and communications infrastructure. And it embraces a future of
American energy dominance and self-sufficiency.
The third pillar of our strategy is to preserve peace through strength. (Applause.) We
recognize that weakness is the surest path to conflict, and unrivaled power is the most certain
means of defense. For this reason, our strategy breaks from the damaging defense sequester.
We're going to get rid of that. (Applause.)
It calls for a total modernization of our military, and reversing previous decisions to
shrink our armed forces -- even as threats to national security grew. It calls for streamlining
acquisition, eliminating bloated bureaucracy, and massively building up our military, which has
the fundamental side benefit of creating millions and millions of jobs.
This strategy includes plans to counter modern threats, such as cyber and electromagnetic
attacks. It recognizes space as a competitive domain and calls for multi-layered missile
defense. (Applause.) This strategy outlines important steps to address new forms of conflict
such as economic and political aggression.
And our strategy emphasizes strengthening alliances to cope with these threats. It
recognizes that our strength is magnified by allies who share principles -- and our principles
-- and shoulder their fair share of responsibility for our common security.
Fourth and finally, our strategy is to advance American influence in the world, but this
begins with building up our wealth and power at home.
America will lead again. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but we will
champion the values without apology. We want strong alliances and partnerships based on
cooperation and reciprocity. We will make new partnerships with those who share our goals, and
make common interests into a common cause. We will not allow inflexible ideology to become an
obsolete and obstacle to peace.
We will pursue the vision we have carried around the world over this past year -- a vision
of strong, sovereign, and independent nations that respect their citizens and respect their
neighbors; nations that thrive in commerce and cooperation, rooted in their histories and
branching out toward their destinies.
That is the future we wish for this world, and that is the future we seek in America.
(Applause.)
With this strategy, we are calling for a great reawakening of America, a resurgence of
confidence, and a rebirth of patriotism, prosperity, and pride.
And we are returning to the wisdom of our founders. In America, the people govern, the
people rule, and the people are sovereign. What we have built here in America is precious and
unique. In all of history, never before has freedom reigned, the rule of law prevailed, and the
people thrived as we have here for nearly 250 years.
We must love and defend it. We must guard it with vigilance and spirit, and, if necessary,
like so many before us, with our very lives. And we declare that our will is renewed, our
future is regained, and our dreams are restored.
Every American has a role to play in this grand national effort. And today, I invite every
citizen to take their part in our vital mission. Together, our task is to strengthen our
families, to build up our communities, to serve our citizens, and to celebrate American
greatness as a shining example to the world.
As long as we are proud -- and very proud -- of who we are, how we got here, and what we are
fighting for to preserve, we will not fail.
If we do all of this, if we rediscover our resolve and commit ourselves to compete and win
again, then together we will leave our children and our grandchildren a nation that is
stronger, better, freer, prouder, and, yes, an America that is greater than ever before.
God Bless You. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
"... Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the 'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT. ..."
"... I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to get political advantage ..."
"... "I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents." ..."
"... "The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe they did, and he believes that." ..."
"... "I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained. ..."
"... Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it ..."
"... "has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia. From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially." ..."
"... "I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like," he said. ..."
Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the
'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the
FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT.
A top-secret intelligence memo, believed to reveal political bias at the highest levels of
the FBI and the DOJ towards President Trump, may well be as significant as the Republicans say,
Ron Paul told RT. But, he added, "there's still to many unknowns, especially, from my view
point."
"Trump connection to the Russians, I think, has been way overblown, and I'd like to just
get to the bottom of this the new information that's coming out, maybe this will reveal
things and help us out," he said.
"Right now it's just a political fight," the former US Congressman said. "I think they're
dealing with things a lot less important than the issue they ought to be talking about Right
now, I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to
get political advantage."
Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by US intelligence agencies on the orders of the Obama
administration may well turn out to be true, Paul said.
"I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they
have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents."
However, he criticized Trump for doing nothing to prevent the Senate from voting in the
expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) earlier this week.
"The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the
president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe
they did, and he believes that."
"I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have
their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work
on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the
worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained.
The fact that Democrats on the relevant committees have all voted against releasing the memo
"might mean that Trump is probably right; there's probably a lot of stuff there that would
exonerate him from any accusation they've been making," he said.
Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it
"has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia.
From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially."
"I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way
overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and
they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like,"
he said.
Donald Trump Jr. called for the release of a memo that allegedly contains information about
Obama administration surveillance abuses and suggested that Democrats are complicit with the
media in misleading the public.
"It's the double standard that the people are fed by the Democrats in complicity with the
media, that's why neither have any trust from the American people anymore," Trump said on Fox
News Friday.
Everyone in the world can see that the United States has become a bitterly divided country, but still has a really amazing level
of continuity in foreign policy between various administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... The long-awaited National Defense Strategy is a vision of US imperialism besieged on all sides and in mortal danger of losing global dominance. ..."
"... "Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national security," Mattis said in his speech, which accompanied the release of an 11-page declassified document outlining the National Defense Strategy in broad terms. A lengthier classified version was submitted to the US Congress, which includes the Pentagon's detailed proposals for a massive increase in military spending. ..."
"... Russia, it charges, is attempting to achieve "veto authority over nations on its periphery in terms of their governmental, economic, and diplomatic decisions, to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic structures to its favor." ..."
"... "China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea," it states. "Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors." ..."
"... Both Moscow and Beijing issued statements condemning the US defense strategy. A Chinese spokesman denounced the document as a return to a "Cold War mentality." Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, told a United Nations press conference: "It is regrettable that instead of having a normal dialog, instead of using the basis of international law, the US is indeed striving to prove their leadership through such confrontational strategies and concepts." A government spokesman in Moscow characterized the document as "imperialistic." ..."
The long-awaited National Defense Strategy is a vision of US imperialism besieged on all sides and in mortal danger of losing
global dominance.
The Trump administration's defense secretary, former Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, rolled out a new National Defense Strategy
Friday that signals open preparations by US imperialism for direct military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia and China.
Speaking at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, Mattis made clear that the strategy, the first such document to be issued by
the Pentagon in roughly a decade, represented an historic shift from the ostensible justification for US global militarism for nearly
two decades: the so-called war on terrorism.
"Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national security," Mattis said in his speech, which
accompanied the release of an 11-page declassified document outlining the National Defense Strategy in broad terms. A lengthier classified
version was submitted to the US Congress, which includes the Pentagon's detailed proposals for a massive increase in military spending.
Much of the document's language echoed terms used in the National Security Strategy document unveiled last month in a fascistic
speech delivered by President Donald Trump. Mattis insisted that the US was facing "growing threat from revisionist powers as different
as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models."
Russia, it charges, is attempting to achieve "veto authority over nations on its periphery in terms of their governmental, economic,
and diplomatic decisions, to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic
structures to its favor."
"China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South
China Sea," it states. "Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and
security decisions of its neighbors."
In what appeared to be a threat directed against both Russia and China, Mattis warned, "If you challenge us, it will be your longest
and worst day."
Both Moscow and Beijing issued statements condemning the US defense strategy. A Chinese spokesman denounced the document as a
return to a "Cold War mentality." Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, told a United Nations press conference: "It
is regrettable that instead of having a normal dialog, instead of using the basis of international law, the US is indeed striving
to prove their leadership through such confrontational strategies and concepts." A government spokesman in Moscow characterized the
document as "imperialistic."
"... For Germany, the idea of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration' ..."
"... "That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples. According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic realm?" ..."
"... More recently, an article in Politico Europe ..."
"... Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance – even against ..."
"... Germany (and France) have been the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote , overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'. ..."
"... This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general), while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level. ..."
"... German authorities have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'. ..."
"... Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of 'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika -forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by the German airport operator Fraport. ..."
"... France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years, French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased 'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship between the stronger and weaker countries of the union. ..."
"... In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie ..."
"... Exportnationalismus' ..."
"... Modell Deutschland ..."
"... Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation' – under the German aegis, of course. As a recent article in Foreign Policy ..."
"... In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the initiative, Foreign Policy ..."
Originally from: Germany's dystopian plans for Europe: from fantasy to reality?By Thomas
Fazi 4 December 2017
For Germany, the idea
of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their
hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'
After Emmanuel Macron's election in France, many (including myself) claimed that this
signalled a revival of the Franco-German alliance and a renewed impetus for Europe's process of
top-down economic and political integration – a fact that was claimed by most
commentators and politicians, beholden as they are to the Europeanist narrative, to be an
unambiguously positive development.
Among the allegedly 'overdue' reforms that were said to be on the table was the creation of
a pseudo-'fiscal union' backed by a (meagre) 'euro budget', along with the creation of a
'European finance minister', the centre-points of Macron's plans to 're-found the EU' – a
proposal that raises a number of very worrying issues from both political and economic
standpoints,
which I have discussed at length elsewhere .
The integrationists' (unwarranted) optimism, however, was short-lived. The result of the
German elections, which saw the surge of two rabidly anti-integrationist parties, the
right-wing FDP and extreme right AfD; the recent collapse of coalition talks between Merkel's
CDU, the FDP and the Greens, which most likely means an interim government for weeks if not
months, possibly leading to new elections (which polls show would
bring roughly the same result as the September election); and the growing restlessness in
Germany towards the 13-year-long rule of Macron's partner in reform Angela Merkel, means that
any plans that Merkel and Macron may have sketched out behind the scenes to further integrate
policies at the European level are now, almost certainly, dead in the water. Thus, even the
sorry excuse for a fiscal union proposed by Macron is now off the table, according to most
commentators.
At this point, the German government's most likely course in terms of European policy
– the one that has the best chance of garnering cross-party support, regardless of the
outcome of the coalition talks (or of new elections) – is the 'minimalist' approach set
in stone by the country's infamous and now-former finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, in
a 'non-paper' published shortly
before his resignation.
The main pillar of Schäuble's proposal – a long-time obsession of his –
consists in giving the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which would go on to become a
'European Monetary Fund', the power to monitor (and, ideally, enforce) compliance with the
Fiscal Compact. This echoes Schäuble's previous calls for the
creation of a European budget commissioner with the power to reject national budgets – a
supranational fiscal enforcer.
The aim is all too clear: to further erode what little sovereignty and autonomy member
states have left, particularly in the area of fiscal policy, and to facilitate the imposition
of neoliberal 'structural reforms' – flexibilisation of labour markets, reduction of
collective bargaining rights, etc. – on reluctant countries.
To this end, the German authorities even want to make the receipt of EU cohesion funds
conditional on the implementation of such reforms , tightening the existing arrangements
even further. Moreover, as noted by Simon
Wren-Lewis , the political conflict of interest of having an institution lending within the
eurozone would end up imposing severe austerity bias on the recovering country.
Until recently, these proposals failed to materialise due, among other reasons, to France's
opposition to any further overt reductions of national sovereignty in the area of
budgetary policy; Macron, however, staunchly rejects France's traditional
souverainiste stance, embracing instead what he calls 'European sovereignty', and thus
represents the perfect ally for Germany's plans.
Another proposal that goes in the same direction is the
German Council for Economic Experts' plan to curtail banks' sovereign bond holdings.
Ostensibly aimed at 'severing the link between banks and government' and 'ensuring long-term
debt sustainability', it calls for: (i) removing the exemption from risk-weighting for
sovereign exposures, which essentially means that government bonds would no longer be
considered a risk-free asset for banks (as they are now under Basel rules), but would be
'weighted' according to the 'sovereign default risk' of the country in question (as determined
by credit rating agencies); (ii) putting a cap on the overall risk-weighted sovereign exposure
of banks; and (iii) introducing an automatic 'sovereign insolvency mechanism' that would
essentially extend to sovereigns the bail-in rule introduced for banks by the banking union,
meaning that if a country requires financial assistance from the ESM, for whichever reason, it
will have to lengthen its sovereign bond maturities (reducing the market value of those bonds
and causing severe losses for all bondholders) and, if necessary, impose a nominal 'haircut' on
private creditors.
As noted by the German economist Peter Bofinger , the only member of the German Council of
Economic Experts to vote against the sovereign bail-in plan, this would almost certainly ignite
a 2012-style self-fulfilling sovereign debt crisis, as periphery countries' bond yields would
quickly rise to unsustainable levels, making it increasingly hard for governments to roll over
maturing debt at reasonable prices and eventually forcing them to turn to the ESM for help,
which would entail even heavier losses for their banks and an even heavier dose of
austerity.
It would essentially amount to a return to the pre-2012 status quo, with governments once
again subject to the supposed 'discipline' of the markets, particularly in the context of a
likely tapering of the ECB's quantitative easing (QE) program. The aim of this proposal is the
same as that of Schäuble's 'European Monetary Fund': to force member states to implement
permanent austerity.
Of course, national sovereignty in a number of areas – most notably fiscal policy
– has already been severely eroded by the complex system of new laws, rules and
agreements introduced in recent years, including but not limited to the six-pack, two-pack,
Fiscal Compact, European Semester and Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP).
As a result of this new post-Maastricht system of European economic governance, the European
Union has effectively become a sovereign power with the authority to impose budgetary rules and
structural reforms on member states outside democratic procedures and without democratic
control.
The EU's embedded quasi-constitutionalism and inherent (structural) democratic deficit has
thus evolved into an even more anti-democratic form of 'authoritarian constitutionalism' that
is breaking away with elements of formal democracy as well, leading some observers to suggest
that the EU 'may easily become the postdemocratic prototype and even a pre-dictatorial
governance structure against national sovereignty and democracies'.
To give an example, with the launch of the European Semester, the EU's key tool for economic
policy guidance and surveillance, an area that has historically been a bastion of national
sovereignty – old-age pensions – has now fallen under the purview of supranational
monitoring as well. Countries are now expected to
(and face sanctions if they don't): (i) increase the retirement age and link it with life
expectancy; (ii) reduce early retirement schemes, improve the employability of older workers
and promote lifelong learning; (iii) support complementary private savings to enhance
retirement incomes; and (iv) avoid adopting pension-related measures that undermine the long
term sustainability and adequacy of public finances.
This has led to the introduction in various countries of several types of automatic
stabilizing mechanisms (ASMs) in pension systems, which change the policy default so that
benefits or contributions adjust automatically to adverse demographic and economic conditions
without direct intervention by politicians. Similar 'automatic correction mechanisms' in
relation to fiscal policy can be found in the Fiscal Compact.
The aim of all these 'automatic mechanisms' is clearly to put the economy on 'autopilot',
thus removing any element of democratic discussion and/or decision-making at either the
European or national level. These changes have already transformed European states into
'semi-sovereign' entities, at best. In this sense, the proposals currently under discussion
would mark the definitive transformation of European states from semi-sovereign to de
facto (and increasingly de jure ) non-sovereign entities.
Regardless of the lip service paid by national and European officials to the need for
further reductions of national sovereignty to go hand in hand with a greater 'democratisation'
of the euro area, the reforms currently on the table can, in fact, be considered the final
stage in the thirty-year-long war on democracy and national sovereignty waged by the European
elites, aimed at constraining the ability of popular-democratic powers to influence economic
policy, thus enabling the imposition of neoliberal policies that would not have otherwise been
politically feasible.
In this sense, the European economic and monetary integration process should be viewed, to a
large degree, as a class-based and inherently neoliberal project pursued by all
national capitals as well as transnational (financial) capital. However, to grasp the processes
of restructuring under way in Europe, we need to go beyond the simplistic capital/labour
dichotomy that underlies many critical analyses of the EU and eurozone, which view EU/EMU
policies as the expression of a unitary and coherent transnational (post-national) European
capitalist class.
The process underway can only be understood through the lens of the geopolitical-economic
tensions and conflicts between leading capitalist states and regional blocs, and the
conflicting interests between the different financial/industrial capital fractions located in
those states, which have always characterised the European economy. In particular, it means
looking at Germany's historic struggle for economic hegemony over the European continent.
It is no secret that Germany is today the leading economic and political power in Europe,
just as it is no secret that nothing gets done in Europe without Germany's seal of approval. In
fact, it is commonplace to come across references to Germany's 'new empire'.
A controversial Der Spiegel editorial from a few years back event went as far as
arguing that it is not out place to talk of the rise of a 'Fourth Reich':
"That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace
of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But
further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term
refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples.
According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic
realm?"
More recently, an article in
Politico Europe – co-owned by the German media magnate Axel Springer AG
– candidly explained why 'Greece is de facto a German colony'. It noted how, despite
Tsipras' pleas for debt relief, the Greek leader 'has little choice but to heed the wishes of
his "colonial" masters', i.e., the Germans.
This is because public debt
in the eurozone is used as a political tool – a disciplining tool – to get
governments to implement socially harmful policies (and to get citizens to accept these
policies by portraying them as inevitable), which explains why Germany continues to refuse to
seriously consider any form of debt relief for Greece, despite the various commitments and
promises to that end made in recent years: debt is the chain that keeps Greece (and other
member states) from straying 'off course'.
Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by
the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an
accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental
empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance –
even against Germany's wishes – as a result of the euro's design faults, which
have allowed Germany and its satellites to pursue a neo-mercantilist strategy and thus
accumulate huge current account surpluses.
Now, it is certainly true that the euro's design – strongly influenced by Germany
– inevitably benefits export-led economies such as Germany over more internal
demand-oriented economies, such as those of southern Europe. However, there is ample evidence
to support the argument that Germany, far from having accidently stumbled upon European
dominance, has been actively and consciously pursuing an expansionary and imperialist strategy
in – and through – the European Union for decades.
Even if we limit our analysis to Germany's post-crisis policies (though there is much that
could be said about Germany's post-reunification policies and subsequent offshoring of
production to Eastern Europe in the 1990s), it would be very naïve to view Germany's
inflexibility – on austerity, for example – as a simple case of ideological
stubbornness, considering the extent to which the policies in question have benefited Germany
(and to a lesser extent France).
Germany (and France) have been
the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially
amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled
back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser
degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote ,
overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'.
This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general),
while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention
and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state
intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level.
As Andy Storey notes, not only did the German government, throughout the crisis, show a
blatant disregard for ordoliberalism's non-interference of public institutions in the workings
of the market, by engaging in a massive Keynesian-style programme in the aftermath of the
financial crisis and pushing through bailout programmes that largely absolved German banks from
their responsibility for reckless lending to Greece and other countries; German authorities
have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European
institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete
abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular
to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its
precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the
Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'.
Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of
'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika
-forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to
take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at
bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by
the German airport operator Fraport.
France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years,
French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six
times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased
'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and
production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution
sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship
between the stronger and weaker countries of the union.
These transformations cannot simply be described as processes without a subject: while there
are undoubtedly structural reasons involved – countries with better developed economies
of scale, such as Germany and France, were bound to benefit more than others from the reduction
in tariffs and barriers associated with the introduction of the single currency – we also
have to acknowledge that there are loci of economic-politic power that are actively driving and
shaping these imperialist processes, which must be viewed through the lens of the unresolved
inter-capitalist struggle between core-based and periphery-based capital.
From this perspective, the dichotomy that is often raised in European public discourse
between nationalism and Europeanism is deeply flawed. The two, in fact, often go hand in hand.
In Germany's case, for example, Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect
alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'.
Ironically, the European Union – allegedly created as an antidote to the vicious
nationalisms of the twentieth century – has been the tool through which Germany has been
able to achieve the 'new European order' that Nazi ideologues had theorised in the 1930s and
early 1940s.
In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but
one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the
dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have
supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their
support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie of
the old colonial system – sections of a country's elite and middle class allied with
foreign interests in exchange for a subordinated role within the dominant hierarchy of
power.
From this point of view, the likely revival of the Franco-German bloc is a very worrying
development, since it heralds a consolidation of the German-led European imperialist bloc
– and a further 'Germanification' of the continent. This development cannot be understood
independently of the momentous shifts that are taking place in global political economy –
namely the organic crisis of neoliberal globalisation, which is leading to increased tensions
between the various fractions of international capital, most notably between the US and
Germany.
Trump's repeated criticisms of Germany's beggar-thy-neighbour mercantilist policies should
be understood in this light. The same goes for Angela Merkel's recent call – much
celebrated by the mainstream press – for a stronger Europe to counter Trump's
unilateralism. Merkel's aim is not, of course, that of making 'Europe' stronger, but rather of
strengthening Germany's dominant position vis-à-vis the other world powers (the US but
also China) through the consolidation of Germany's control of the European continental economy,
in the context of an intensification of global inter-capitalist competition.
This has now become an imperative for Germany, especially since Trump has dared to openly
challenge the self-justifying ideology which sustains Germany's mercantilism – a
particular form of economic nationalism that Hans Kundnani has
dubbed ' Exportnationalismus' , founded upon the belief that Germany's massive
trade surplus is uniquely the result of Germany's manufacturing excellence ( Modell
Deutschland ) rather than, in fact, the result of unfair trade practices.
This is why, if Germany wants to maintain its hegemonic position on the continent, it must
break with the US and tighten the bolts of the European workhouse. To this end, it needs to
seize control of the most coveted institution of them all – the ECB –, which
hitherto has never been under direct German control (though the Bundesbank exercises
considerable influence over it, as is well known). Indeed, many commentators openly acknowledge
that Merkel now has her eyes on the ECB's presidency. This would effectively put Germany
directly at the helm of European economic policy.
Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over
the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation'
– under the German aegis, of course.
As a recent article in Foreign Policy revealed , 'Germany is quietly building a
European army under its command'.
This year Germany and two of its European allies, the Czech Republic and Romania, announced
the integration of their armed forces, under the control of the Bundeswehr. In doing so, the
will follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the
Bundeswehr's Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the
Bundeswehr's 1st Armored Division.
In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the
initiative, Foreign Policy notes, 'is likely to grow'. This is not surprising: if
Germany ('the EU') wants to become truly autonomous from the US, it needs to acquire military
sovereignty, which it currently lacks.
Europe is thus at a crossroads: the choice that left-wing and popular forces, and periphery
countries more generally, face is between (a) accepting Europe's transition to a fully
post-democratic, hyper-competitive, German-led continental system, in which member states
(except for those at the helm of the project) will be deprived of all sovereignty and autonomy,
in exchange for a formal democratic façade at the supranational level, and its workers
subject to ever-growing levels of exploitation; or (b) regaining national sovereignty and
autonomy at the national level, with all the short-term risks that such a strategy entails, as
the only way to restore democracy, popular sovereignty and socioeconomic dignity. In short, the
choice is between European post-democracy or post-European democracy.
There is no third way. Especially in view of the growing tensions between Germany, the US
and China, periphery countries should ask themselves if they want to be simple pawns in this
'New Great Game' or if they want to take their destinies into their own hands.
Last week,
Twitter sent out a creepy email to over 677,775 users letting them know that the platform
was actively working to understand "Russian-linked activities" that took place during the 2016
presidential election.
Twitter claimed that they had identified and suspended a "number of accounts that were
potentially connected to propaganda efforts by a Russian government-linked organization known
as the Internet Research Agency [IRA]".
One of the 677,775 users to receive the message was "Liquid IQ", the only problem is that the Liquid IQ twitter
account was created in July 2017. That is a full eight months after the US elections.
The 2017 Liquid IQ account was definitely not spreading Russian propaganda during the 2016
US presidential election on twitter, unless Liquid IQ magically found a way to follow "Russian
trolls" on twitter without having an actual twitter profile.
"... GDP growth, which is way ahead of schedule under my administration, will be one of America's truly greatest weapons. ..."
"... We also face rival powers, Russia and China, that seek to challenge American influence, values, and wealth. We will attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries, but in a manner that always protects our national interest. ..."
"... It calls for a total modernization of our military, and reversing previous decisions to shrink our armed forces -- even as threats to national security grew. It calls for streamlining acquisition, eliminating bloated bureaucracy, and massively building up our military, which has the fundamental side benefit of creating millions and millions of jobs. ..."
"... Fourth and finally, our strategy is to advance American influence in the world, but this begins with building up our wealth and power at home. ..."
At home, we are keeping our promises and liberating the American economy. We have created
more than 2 million jobs since the election. Unemployment is at a 17-year-low. The stock market
is at an all-time high and, just a little while ago, hit yet another all-time high -- the 85th
time since my election. (Applause.)
We have cut 22 regulations for every one new regulation, the most in the history of our
country. We have unlocked America's vast energy resources.
As the world watches -- and the world is indeed watching -- we are days away from passing
historic tax cuts for American families and businesses. It will be the biggest tax cut and tax
reform in the history of our country. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
And we are seeing the response we fully expected. Economic growth has topped 3 percent for
two quarters in a row. GDP growth, which is way ahead of schedule under my administration,
will be one of America's truly greatest weapons.
Optimism has surged. Confidence has returned. With this new confidence, we are also bringing
back clarity to our thinking. We are reasserting these fundamental truths:
A nation without borders is not a nation. (Applause.)
A nation that does not protect prosperity at home cannot protect its interests
abroad.
A nation that is not prepared to win a war is a nation not capable of preventing a
war.
A nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident in its future.
And a nation that is not certain of its values cannot summon the will to defend
them.
Today, grounded in these truths, we are presenting to the world our new National Security
Strategy. Based on my direction, this document has been in development for over a year. It has
the endorsement of my entire Cabinet.
Our new strategy is based on a principled realism, guided by our vital national interests,
and rooted in our timeless values.
This strategy recognizes that, whether we like it or not, we are engaged in a new era of
competition. We accept that vigorous military, economic, and political contests are now playing
out all around the world. We face rogue regimes that threaten the United States and our allies.
We face terrorist organizations, transnational criminal networks, and others who spread
violence and evil around the globe.
We also face rival powers, Russia and China, that seek to challenge American influence,
values, and wealth. We will attempt to build a great partnership with those and other
countries, but in a manner that always protects our national interest.
As an example, yesterday I received a call from President Putin of Russia thanking our
country for the intelligence that our CIA was able to provide them concerning a major terrorist
attack planned in St. Petersburg, where many people, perhaps in the thousands, could have been
killed. They were able to apprehend these terrorists before the event, with no loss of life.
And that's a great thing, and the way it's supposed to work. That is the way it's supposed to
work.
But while we seek such opportunities of cooperation, we will stand up for ourselves, and we
will stand up for our country like we have never stood up before. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you.
We know that American success is not a forgone conclusion. It must be earned and it must be
won. Our rivals are tough, they're tenacious, and committed to the long term. But so are
we.
To succeed, we must integrate every dimension of our national strength, and we must compete
with every instrument of our national power.
Under the Trump administration, America is gaining wealth, leading to enhanced power --
faster than anyone thought -- with $6 trillion more in the stock market alone since the
election -- $6 trillion.
With the strategy I am announcing today, we are declaring that America is in the game and
America is going to win. (Applause.) Thank you.
Our strategy advances four vital national interests. First, we must protect the American
people, the homeland, and our great American way of life. This strategy recognizes that we
cannot secure our nation if we do not secure our borders. So for the first time ever, American
strategy now includes a serious plan to defend our homeland. It calls for the construction of a
wall on our southern border; ending chain migration and the horrible visa and lottery programs;
closing loopholes that undermine enforcement; and strongly supporting our Border Patrol agents,
ICE officers, and Homeland Security personnel. (Applause.)
In addition, our strategy calls for us to confront, discredit, and defeat radical Islamic
terrorism and ideology and to prevent it from spreading into the United States. And we will
develop new ways to counter those who use new domains, such as cyber and social media, to
attack our nation or threaten our society.
The second pillar of our strategy is to promote American prosperity. For the first time,
American strategy recognizes that economic security is national security. Economic vitality,
growth, and prosperity at home is absolutely necessary for American power and influence abroad.
Any nation that trades away its prosperity for security will end up losing both.
That is why this National Security Strategy emphasizes, more than any before, the critical
steps we must take to ensure the prosperity of our nation for a long, long time to come.
It calls for cutting taxes and rolling back unnecessary regulations. It calls for trade
based on the principles of fairness and reciprocity. It calls for firm action against unfair
trade practices and intellectual property theft. And it calls for new steps to protect our
national security industrial and innovation base.
The strategy proposes a complete rebuilding of American infrastructure -- our roads,
bridges, airports, waterways, and communications infrastructure. And it embraces a future of
American energy dominance and self-sufficiency.
The third pillar of our strategy is to preserve peace through strength. (Applause.) We
recognize that weakness is the surest path to conflict, and unrivaled power is the most certain
means of defense. For this reason, our strategy breaks from the damaging defense sequester.
We're going to get rid of that. (Applause.)
It calls for a total modernization of our military, and reversing previous decisions to
shrink our armed forces -- even as threats to national security grew. It calls for streamlining
acquisition, eliminating bloated bureaucracy, and massively building up our military, which has
the fundamental side benefit of creating millions and millions of jobs.
This strategy includes plans to counter modern threats, such as cyber and electromagnetic
attacks. It recognizes space as a competitive domain and calls for multi-layered missile
defense. (Applause.) This strategy outlines important steps to address new forms of conflict
such as economic and political aggression.
And our strategy emphasizes strengthening alliances to cope with these threats. It
recognizes that our strength is magnified by allies who share principles -- and our principles
-- and shoulder their fair share of responsibility for our common security.
Fourth and finally, our strategy is to advance American influence in the world, but this
begins with building up our wealth and power at home.
America will lead again. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but we will
champion the values without apology. We want strong alliances and partnerships based on
cooperation and reciprocity. We will make new partnerships with those who share our goals, and
make common interests into a common cause. We will not allow inflexible ideology to become an
obsolete and obstacle to peace.
We will pursue the vision we have carried around the world over this past year -- a vision
of strong, sovereign, and independent nations that respect their citizens and respect their
neighbors; nations that thrive in commerce and cooperation, rooted in their histories and
branching out toward their destinies.
That is the future we wish for this world, and that is the future we seek in America.
(Applause.)
With this strategy, we are calling for a great reawakening of America, a resurgence of
confidence, and a rebirth of patriotism, prosperity, and pride.
And we are returning to the wisdom of our founders. In America, the people govern, the
people rule, and the people are sovereign. What we have built here in America is precious and
unique. In all of history, never before has freedom reigned, the rule of law prevailed, and the
people thrived as we have here for nearly 250 years.
We must love and defend it. We must guard it with vigilance and spirit, and, if necessary,
like so many before us, with our very lives. And we declare that our will is renewed, our
future is regained, and our dreams are restored.
Every American has a role to play in this grand national effort. And today, I invite every
citizen to take their part in our vital mission. Together, our task is to strengthen our
families, to build up our communities, to serve our citizens, and to celebrate American
greatness as a shining example to the world.
As long as we are proud -- and very proud -- of who we are, how we got here, and what we are
fighting for to preserve, we will not fail.
If we do all of this, if we rediscover our resolve and commit ourselves to compete and win
again, then together we will leave our children and our grandchildren a nation that is
stronger, better, freer, prouder, and, yes, an America that is greater than ever before.
God Bless You. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
"... The unauthorized, open-ended commitment in Syria is also a good example of how easily presidents can perpetuate and expand U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts with only minimal resistance at home. ..."
"... Sen. Murphy is right to object, but I fear that illegal presidential wars have become common enough over the last decade that it won't even occur to most of Trump's opponents to question the legality of what he's doing here. The Libyan war, the war on ISIS, and U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen were all similarly unauthorized, but Obama was able to "get away" with all of these for years because most of his domestic opponents didn't care and most in his own party weren't willing to criticize him. ..."
"... More members of Congress could challenge Trump over the illegality of the ongoing U.S. military presence in Syria, but most of them seem content to abdicate all responsibility for these matters in order to minimize their exposure when something goes wrong later. Americans have been conditioned by the last sixteen years of unending war and decades of the cult of the presidency to shrug when the president commits the U.S. to another open-ended military mission in a foreign country that has nothing to do with our security or self-defense. Perhaps now that Trump is the one doing it there will be a stronger reaction. I hope there is, but I wouldn't bet on it. ..."
"... Not only is there zero authorization for Trump to be in Syria, there's zero public support for it. Truth be told of course, it isn't really Trump doing this. Trump is just the creature of his handlers, and his handlers are now mostly lesser-known neocons that have been infiltrating his administration through various cracks and holes. ..."
"... The problem with our fundamentally undemocratic political setup is that you can vote against the Republicans or the Democrats, but you cannot vote against a policy of constant illegal warfare since both parties support it and have for a long time. It is baked into the system of imperialism. ..."
Paul Pillar comments
on the Trump administration's outrageous plan to keep U.S. troops in Syria indefinitely:
The Trump administration is having U.S. troops participate indefinitely in someone else's civil war, for reasons that are quite
different from the original stated objective of helping to quash the so-called caliphate of the Islamic State (ISIS). The new
reasons do not stand up to scrutiny in terms of defending any threatened U.S. interests. The administration has in effect made
a decision to immerse the United States in yet another foreign war.
Keeping U.S. forces in Syria is illegal and unnecessary, as I
said last week. Preventing the Syrian government from reestablishing control over its own territory has nothing to do with American
security, and there are still no vital American interests at stake in Syria. Putting U.S. forces in harm's way to stop Iran from
having influence in the territory of its own ally is as senseless a waste of American resources and manpower as one can imagine,
but that is what we have come to expect from an administration irrationally fixated on harming Iran at the expense of everything
else.
The unauthorized, open-ended commitment in Syria is also a good example of how easily presidents can perpetuate and expand
U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts with only minimal resistance at home. There are some vocal critics of the plan for this
very reason:
There is ZERO legal authorization to stay in Syria to fight Iran. If Administration gets away with this, there is no going
back – executive branch war making power becomes absolute. https://t.co/xBWLuTmaMN
Sen. Murphy is right to object, but I fear that illegal presidential wars have become common enough over the last decade that
it won't even occur to most of Trump's opponents to question the legality of what he's doing here. The Libyan war, the war on ISIS,
and U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen were all similarly unauthorized, but Obama was able to "get away" with all of these for
years because most of his domestic opponents didn't care and most in his own party weren't willing to criticize him. Our political
culture's abject deference to presidential power on matters of war makes it easy for presidents to get away with these things. When
Trump ordered an attack on Syrian government forces last year, he had absolutely no authority to do that and was in direction violation
of the U.N. Charter and the Constitution, but instead of being condemned for his flagrantly illegal action he was celebrated and
praised for his "leadership."
More members of Congress could challenge Trump over the illegality of the ongoing U.S. military presence in Syria, but most
of them seem content to abdicate all responsibility for these matters in order to minimize their exposure when something goes wrong
later. Americans have been conditioned by the last sixteen years of unending war and decades of the cult of the presidency to shrug
when the president commits the U.S. to another open-ended military mission in a foreign country that has nothing to do with our security
or self-defense. Perhaps now that Trump is the one doing it there will be a stronger reaction. I hope there is, but I wouldn't bet
on it.
Not only is there zero authorization for Trump to be in Syria, there's zero public support for it. Truth be told of course,
it isn't really Trump doing this. Trump is just the creature of his handlers, and his handlers are now mostly lesser-known neocons
that have been infiltrating his administration through various cracks and holes.
Expect not just more chaos and bloodshed in Syria involving US troops and clients, but also that Trump will now do what Bibi
has been screaming for for years – full-on confrontation with Iran.
I do not support this one bit, but by now people who follow such things should see that it does not matter who is president, the
same will happen regardless who is president. If Hillary won this would have happened, under Obama this was being put in place.
If a president was elected who promised to pull out of Syria and made it his key election talking point, there would be no pull
out.
New Lamps For Old "I will never vote for him again."
The problem with our fundamentally undemocratic political setup is that you can vote against the Republicans or the Democrats,
but you cannot vote against a policy of constant illegal warfare since both parties support it and have for a long time. It is
baked into the system of imperialism.
@New Lamps for Old
Also worth noting, Trump is definitely being played, but he's a hugely easy play. GWB was an easy play by anyone's estimation,
but Trump outdoes them all.
You just have to say, "you look a tough man right now as you do this, Mr. President".
"... And if this is covered closely, then we may get some traction about how it was done and who pulled the strings. This maybe why former NSC Clapper is running scared, he set up his own personal intelligence network (there were reports early on, Clapper had his own intelligence network besides the 17 official intel agencies) to spy for the Obama WH, both he and former CIA Brennan were running intel ops for the Obama WH. Brennan ran political intel for the Obama election campaign. Indicating the Deep State intelligence apparatus is deeply involved in presidential elections. Brennan political campaign intel network using Deep State assets, next Obama;s NSC, next Obama's CIA director and was said to be the most political CIA director in history by CIA employees. ..."
"... The UK Govt appears to be complicit in the overthrow of the newly elected US Govt..........Team Globalist ..."
"... as I noted my beliefs before. Trump can be goofy at times. can be a walking ego at times. but he does not have an inherently evil heart. So he never fully comprehends the evil hearted person or collection of persons. ..."
"... He is a great marketer, but he is not a brilliant war strategist, because he doesn't fully understand the heart of his enemy. Example: He thought laying off of Hillary after the election was actually the gentlemanly thing to do....because, he thought she'd accept defeat and leave the playing field. (we on ZH knew better, but Trump actually didn't know) ..."
"... So now we know the real purpose of the FBI Trump investigation, to give Mueller and his band of merry Clinton-Lawyers the opportunity clean up the evidence. ..."
"... First, the backups are at the NSA and the Telco systems. 2nd, I'd ask WHO ELSE in the FBI was affected by lack of backups for such long period, AND how does that other impact ongoing investigations... If the answer is just those 2, well, follow the money. If the answer is more than these 2, than the credibility of the entire FBI is at stake. Which may not be much, but that is the only thing left at the moment. ..."
"... By the way, for non-techie out there, the FBI's excuse is that they couldn't get the software upgrade done right. If you work in a big company, you know how much testing and disturbance goes on before new software is rolled out. There is no such thing as a serious bug left running for months. Big companies just roll back in such extreme cases. Now imagine the amount of testing that goes on for secure phone on FBI systems. LOL. I suggest my american friends to look at this great invention called the guillotine? ..."
A major contradiction has been discovered between yesterday's revelation that the FBI "lost"
five months of text messages, and a claim by the DOJ's Inspector General, Michael Horowitz -
who claimed his office received the texts in question between FBI employees Peter Strzok and
his mistress Lisa Page last August.
... ... ...
Knowledge of the missing texts was revealed in a Saturday letter from Ron Johnson (R-WI),
Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) - after the
Committee received an additional 384 pages of text messages between Strzok and Page, several of
which contained anti-Trump / pro-Clinton bias. The new DOJ submission included a cover letter
from the Assistant AG for Legislative Affairs, Stephen Boyd, claiming that the FBI was unable
to preserve text messages between the two agents for a five month period between December 14,
2016 and May 17, 2017 - due to "misconfiguration issues" with FBI-issued Samsung 5 devices used
by Strzok and Page (despite over
10,000 texts which were recovered from their devices without incident).
However - as the Gateway Pundit 's Josh Caplan
points out , the lost text messages are in direct contradiction to a
December 13, 2017 letter from the DOJ's internal watchdog - Inspector General Michael
Horowitz, to Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley and HSGAC Chairman Ron Johnson, in which
he claims he received the texts in question on August 10, 2017 .
In gathering evidence for the OIG's ongoing 2016 election review, we requested,
consistent with standard practice, that the FBI produce text messages from the FBI-issued
phones of certain FBI employees involved in the Clinton email investigation based on search
terms we provided. After finding a number of politically-oriented text messages between
Page and Strzok, the OIG sought from the FBI all text messages between Strzok and Page from
their FBI-issued phones through November 30, 2016 , which covered the entire period of the
Clinton e-mail server investigation. The FBI produced these text messages on July 20, 2017.
Following our review of those text messages, the OIG expanded our request to the FBI to
include all text messages between Strzok and Page from November 30, 2016, through the date
of the document request, which was July 28, 2017.
The OIG received these additional messages on August 10, 2017.
This glaring contradiction suggests someone is lying or perhaps simply incompetent. Did
Horowitz's office *think* they had received the texts in question without actually verifying?
Did the DOJ screw up and fail to read Horowitz's letter before "losing" the text messages so
that "leaky" Congressional investigators wouldn't see them? Either way, this question needs
answering.
While you can draw your own conclusions, keep in mind that Inspector Horowitz has been
described as your archetypical Boy Scout bureaucrat - who
as we reported two weeks ago - fought the Obama administation to restore powers taken away
from the OIG by then-Attorney General, Eric Holder.
After a multi-year battle, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) successfully introduced H.R.6450 - the
Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into
law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress
.
And Congress has been very engaged with Horowitz's investigation; spoon-feeding the OIG all
the questions they need in order to nail the DOJ, FBI and the Obama Administration for what
many believe to be egregious abuses of power. As such, the OIG report is expected to be a
bombshell , while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to
impartially appoint a Special Counsel to launch an official criminal investigation into the
matter.
As illustrated below, the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both
investigative committees of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
At this point, Horowitz's office needs to clarify whether or not they indeed took delivery
of the "lost" text messages. If the OIG does indeed have them, it will be interesting to get to
the bottom of exactly what the DOJ claims happened, and particularly juicy if they're caught in
a lie.
If not found at the NSA, surely the texts will still be at Verizon or whichever SP the
phones operate under. Only talking 18 months here. What really cracks me up is "Peter Strzok - Head of Counter Intelligence." Really? Has a dumber cunt ever graced the 7th floor of the Hoover Building?
Speaking of which, by the time this shit has gone down in it's entirety, they won't need a
7th floor. Chris Wray will be bloody lonely up there on his own. Probably coinciding with the
search for Andrew McCabe's missing pension beginning in earnest...
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Bottom Line: The party in power used the apparatus of the police state to spy on and damage an
opposition candidate. There really isn't a higher crime in our supposed system. THEN there's the cover-up.....as in deleting files and pretending you never had them even
though the IG already does.
This used to be the reason why each new gov't as soon as it took power would toss out any
folks showing any alignment to a party at all.........guess they knew a thing or two back
then, didn't they. Time for Trump to warm up those Apprentice vocal chords and start uttering
his famous words. At the current rate Nixon will be exonerated by the end of 2018.
Could the treason be any more obvious? And not just treason, but treason in collaboration
with foreign governments and multinational corporate elitists!
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the
course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for
themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted
them to unjust dominion." President George Washington
Farewell Address | Saturday, September 17, 1796
I read about this, it was quickly brushed under the rug. Didn't know it was as extensive
because media coverage on this angle hasn't been clear. Good report.
And if this is covered closely, then we may get some traction about how it was done and
who pulled the strings. This maybe why former NSC Clapper is running scared, he set up his
own personal intelligence network (there were reports early on, Clapper had his own
intelligence network besides the 17 official intel agencies) to spy for the Obama WH, both he
and former CIA Brennan were running intel ops for the Obama WH. Brennan ran political intel
for the Obama election campaign. Indicating the Deep State intelligence apparatus is deeply
involved in presidential elections. Brennan political campaign intel network using Deep State
assets, next Obama;s NSC, next Obama's CIA director and was said to be the most political CIA
director in history by CIA employees.
Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump. It would
explain Clappers irrational statements about Trump, sabotage and incitement of government
employees not to follow Trump's orders. We got that from Clapper, Brennan and former CIA
director Hayden. All three have joined forces in LA, using celebrities to continue the coup
against Trump. They formed, essentially a convert political action group using celebrities,
to make their case in the media. It's illogical for Clapper to continue with the coup, there
is no reward in it unless, he is guilty of treason and must continue the coup to protect
himself. In other words, this isn't for Hillary Clinton.
And we wonder why these "intelligence agencies" endorse Hillary for President? These fuckers need to hang. They not only conspired to excuse the email scandal, torpedoed
Sanders in the primary -- and were conspiring against her political opponent. President Trump the time is NOW!
Nice write up, keep improving, updating and posting it. The UK Govt appears to be complicit in the overthrow of the newly elected US
Govt..........Team Globalist
They ARE ALL in on it. ALL of them are guilty of TREASON, SEDITION. Republicans didn't want Trump in power at first...until they realized Trump, as Mitch
McConnell said, "He'll sign anything we put in front of him." If you want to know what is being done on Trump Administration end. Just watch SESSIONS.
Right now, Sessions has bigger fish to fry with weed smokers.
ZIOCONS have an invested interest in Russia gate: to win public support for a war on
Russia. Russiagate is WMD all over again. It's why Trump does ZERO about Russia gate, while
arming neonazis in the Ukraine and surrounding Russia and China's borders with US and NATO
troops.
N. Korea isn't about N. Korea but about regime change to put nukes on China's doorstep.
Look at what they are or are not doing. Not what they SAY..
i disagree. they're digging their hole deeper. it's ALL already been captured. everything going on is to keep us off balance & emotional. don't feed the beast.
as I noted my beliefs before. Trump can be goofy at times. can be a walking ego at times. but he does not have an
inherently evil heart. So he never fully comprehends the evil hearted person or collection of
persons.
He is a great marketer, but he is not a brilliant war strategist, because he doesn't fully
understand the heart of his enemy. Example: He thought laying off of Hillary after the
election was actually the gentlemanly thing to do....because, he thought she'd accept defeat
and leave the playing field. (we on ZH knew better, but Trump actually didn't know)
Bannon understood but wires got crossed there somehow. Kellyanne Conway understood.
Sessions is a fine gentleman that appears to have no clue the battle that is really
waging.
Most of the Washington VIPs that DO understand, are more interested in preserving their
membership in the country club than saving America. This is why I like Trump...because he already has a country club and doesn't need to get
invited to another party and doesn't really care about those scumbags. He just needs to understand a little bit more.
So now we know the real purpose of the FBI Trump investigation, to give Mueller and his
band of merry Clinton-Lawyers the opportunity clean up the evidence.
First, the backups are at the NSA and the Telco systems. 2nd, I'd ask WHO ELSE in the FBI was affected by lack of backups for such long period, AND
how does that other impact ongoing investigations... If the answer is just those 2, well,
follow the money. If the answer is more than these 2, than the credibility of the entire FBI
is at stake. Which may not be much, but that is the only thing left at the moment.
By the way, for non-techie out there, the FBI's excuse is that they couldn't get the
software upgrade done right. If you work in a big company, you know how much testing and
disturbance goes on before new software is rolled out. There is no such thing as a serious
bug left running for months. Big companies just roll back in such extreme cases. Now imagine
the amount of testing that goes on for secure phone on FBI systems. LOL. I suggest my
american friends to look at this great invention called the guillotine?
I thought all deleted materials could be recovered from any hard drive, unless something
like BleachBit is used, or the hard drive is physically destroyed. If the FBI lacks the
expertise to recover the materials, may a team of IT specialists should be sent in to help
them.
There are magnetic traces left behind even after several passes of a "zero-fill" utility
or pseudo-random over-writes. There are commercial companies whose business it is to recover
such data. I recovered data for the Sheriff's department from a computer involved in a murder
case. A company I worked for lost a Dell 96-drive array when just the right 3 drives died at
the same time. A data recovery company got everything back and sold us our own data (and
that's on a RAID 10 striped and mirrored array with 3 crashed drives).
They can get any data back if they want to badly enough.
At some point in the future, the USA might also not be around as the only world superpower, but this will happen at more
distant future, probably with the "end of cheap oil".
Notable quotes:
"... We saw what happened when a previous dominant power - Great Britain, though by no means as overwhelmingly dominant and not at all so at the end - effectively cut and ran after the Second World War. It ended up more of a mess than it started out as. ..."
"... Imagine a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if they came out on top we'd be worse off than now ..."
"... The European elites wish to see Europe as a world power. Unrealistic, perhaps, but say that entity did become a dominant force. They complain about the lack of democratic control in the States, but that's nothing to the lack of democratic control in Europe. And we've already seen what the Europeans, including us, are capable of when it comes to predatory foreign intervention. Give the Europeans enough things that go bang and we could be yearning for the good old days. ..."
"The only sensible thing to do is to cut and run; in my opinion. Just work through
the implications as US cuts and run in the Levant, in the Persian Gulf, in South Korea."
As you point out, that could have unexpected effects. We saw what happened when a previous
dominant power - Great Britain, though by no means as overwhelmingly dominant and not at all
so at the end - effectively cut and ran after the Second World War. It ended up more of a
mess than it started out as.
Even in an ideal world, a world in which the current style of Great Power politics was
universally abandoned, the sudden withdrawal of the US would cause instability and chaos. The
disengagement would have to be gradual.
But there is no such ideal world as that and there will not be. Therefore the sudden
withdrawal of the US would leave a power vacuum that others would fill.
What others? Imagine a Russia in which Putin was no longer around and the hawks, with
plenty of stored up grievances, were in power. The Russians have their neocons too and if
they came out on top we'd be worse off than now .
The European elites wish to see Europe as a world power. Unrealistic, perhaps, but say
that entity did become a dominant force. They complain about the lack of democratic control
in the States, but that's nothing to the lack of democratic control in Europe. And we've
already seen what the Europeans, including us, are capable of when it comes to predatory
foreign intervention. Give the Europeans enough things that go bang and we could be yearning
for the good old days.
I'm one of those that still hope that the non-interventionist policy that was voted for in
America in 2016 will be carried through. But if that is indeed Trump's intention then there
is more in his way than local political or administrative difficulties. To engineer such a
transition would require great care. It's no good if the US just steps back and worse comes
forward to take its place.
It's not overly idealistic, or even that unrealistic, to hope for a world in which defense
forces (AND defensive alliances) are used for the proper purpose of defence and not for
expensive and destructive enterprises dreamed up by some bubble elite. That's part of what
Trump 2016 was about. But getting to such a world would require a considerably more careful
transition than we've seen in similar circumstances in the past.
Being a civilian rather than a military man, I don't have much to contribute. But I do think
that interests are being misunderstood.
Erdogan is obsessed by the Kurds. Beyond rationality, if I understand correctly. Afrin is
mountainous, and doesn't offer a good target. He is unlikely to succeed. However, it offers
the advantage of not being protected by the US. If he attacked the real target east of the
Euphrates, then the US would resist.
Syria is in favour of the Kurds, because a future deal to reunite Syria is in the making.
Not surprisingly, they're going to support the Kurds. Idlib is dominated by HTS (hai'at Tahrir al-Sham, ex nusra, al-Qa'ida jihadis). They are
going to support the Turks (extreme sunnism is the common interest).
So, Turkey invades and meets resistance. The jihadis go and help Turkey. That leaves Syria
a free run in South Idlib. That's the result I expect.
Note that neither Russia nor the US has much of a role.
"... Moreover, the U.S. has announced plans to create a 30,000-man Border Security Force of Kurds and Arabs to keep ISIS out of Syria. Erdogan has branded this BSF a "terror army," and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has called BSF members "traitors." This U.S. plan to create a BSF inside Syria, Damascus declares, "represents a blatant attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity and unity of Syria, and a flagrant violation of international law." ..."
"... Now that ISIS has been driven out of Raqqa and Syria, by what authority do U.S. forces remain to arm troops to keep the Damascus government from reimposing its authority on its own territory? ..."
"... Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Syria the news on Wednesday. The U.S. troop commitment to Syria, he said, is now open-ended. Our goals: Guarantee al-Qaeda and ISIS do not return and set up sanctuary, cope with rising Iranian influence in Damascus, and pursue the removal of Assad's ruthless regime. ..."
"... Again and again, the Amrican people have said they do not want to be dragged into Syria's civil war. Donald Trump won the presidency on a promise of no more unnecessary wars. ..."
"... Remarkable: An American-created border army is going to occupy and control long stretches of Syria's borders with Turkey and Iraq, over Syria's objections. And the U.S. military will stand behind the BSF. ..."
"... Are the 2,000 troops in Syria really up to that task, should the Turks decide to cleanse the Syrian border of Kurds, or should the Syrian regime decide to take back territory occupied by the Kurds? ..."
"... As for Syria's Kurds casting their lot with the Americans, one wonders: Did they not observe what happened when their Iraqi cousins, after helping us drive ISIS out of Mosul, were themselves driven out of Kirkuk by the Iraqi army, as their U.S. allies watched? ..."
"... The Israelis and Saudi royals want the United States to keep Iran from securing a land bridge from Tehran to Damascus to Lebanon. The U.S. War Party wants us to smash Iran and remain in the Middle East forever to assure the hegemony of its favorites. Have the generals taking us into Syria told the president how and when, if ever, they plan to get us out? ..."
The war for dominance in the Middle East, following the
destruction of ISIS, appears about to commence in Syria -- with NATO allies America and Turkey
on opposing sides. Turkey is moving armor and troops south to Syria's border enclave of Afrin,
occupied by the Kurds, to drive them out, and then drive the Syrian Kurds out of Manbij further
south as well. Says Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, "We will destroy all terror nests,
one by one, in Syria, starting from Afrin and Manbij." For Erdogan, the Kurdish YPG, the major
U.S. ally in Syria, is an arm of the Kurdish PKK in Turkey, which we and the Turks have
designated as a terrorist organization. While the Kurds were our most effective allies against
ISIS in Syria, Turkey views them as a mortal peril and intends to deal with that threat. If
Erdogan is serious, a clash with the United States is coming, as our Kurdish allies occupy most
of Syria's border with Turkey.
Moreover, the U.S. has announced plans to create a 30,000-man Border Security Force of
Kurds and Arabs to keep ISIS out of Syria. Erdogan has branded this BSF a "terror army," and
President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has called BSF members "traitors." This U.S. plan to create
a BSF inside Syria, Damascus declares, "represents a blatant attack on the sovereignty and
territorial integrity and unity of Syria, and a flagrant violation of international
law."
I saw the following comment on b's article about the Turkish intervention in Afrin and wonder
whether it is totally outrageous...
"I don't believe for a second Turkey will be allowed to keep any control over Syrian
territory. If Erdogan wants to enlarge Turkey at Syia's expense, Iran, Syria and Russia might
well tell him that, next time he comes under the fire of his Gulenist US "allies", they'll
sit back and enjoy the show.
What I think is, who could go and openly confront officially US-backed forces in Syria
without risking a world war? Not Iran, not Russia, and not Syria who would have been accused
of "bombing its own population".
Which left only Turkey. Whom the US has to handle with kid gloves, because, you know,
Incirlik (to quote the former US Colonel Patrick Lang, "If the Turks close Incirlik to the
US, we're out of business in the ME") and NATO.
If I am right and Turkey has been sent on purpose after talks and agreements between the
parties whose common main problem is the illegal US presence, it is a genius stroke.
Not likely, as Turks do not wish to have any Arabs in their country and Arabs will never ever
again consent to be ruled by Turks. And then there is the issue of Logistics necessary for
such an effort, which Turkey lacks.
May be the best thing about Turkey ( up to few years back a model muslim country for US and
EU) attacking some of west' proxies (Kurds) is, hopefully we will not hear cries of barrel
bombs and chemical attack from our acting oscar winners the white helmets.
And i don't think Turks would want to have more Kurdish territory either, especially one that
is not their own, knowing they already have hard time managing their own kurds and territory.
I cannot speak on what tayyip and his cadres are dreaming, but the secular nationalists in
TSK are trying to put paid to the izziie dream of having a zionist controlled
"kurdistan-with-Med-access". We believe that our vision is shared by Iran and Russia. In the
opinion of many retired commanders Turkey should not keep any Syrian territory, but should
insist that our Turkmen (Shiite or Sunni) have equivalent autonomy as the Kurds, if that
comes to pass.
No matter what happens, being a Kurd in the Middle East will not be that easy going
forward. Everyone remembers every slight since the beginning of time.
"... The most basic feature that the United States should expect from an ally is consistent, reliable behavior that benefits U.S. policy objectives. Ideally, since America regards itself as a champion of democracy and freedom, an ally should embody those values as well, but Washington has never been a stickler for that standard. ..."
"... One prominent area in which American and Turkish objectives clash sharply is policy toward Kurdish fighters in Syria. Differences between Washington and Ankara already have produced unpleasant complications. U.S. leaders regard the Kurds as useful allies in the fight against ISIS and other Islamic extremists. Even though ISIS has suffered massive setbacks in Syria over the past year, Washington still believes that the group poses a major problem in that country and throughout the Middle East -- so much so that Secretary of Defense James Mattis insists that U.S. forces will remain in Syria and Iraq regardless of the wishes of either government. Allowing Turkey to undermine the Kurds could cause the Islamist threat to rebound. ..."
"... Washington's concession apparently was not enough to satisfy Erdogan, however. In mid-January 2018, he announced his intention to launch a full-scale offensive into Kurdish regions of Syria within a week or so. He stated bluntly that Turkey could no longer go along with U.S. policy. ..."
"... Ankara increasingly opposes the entire U.S.-EU sanctions strategy against Moscow. ..."
"... It is not that Turkey is necessarily wrong on these issues. In particular, a strong case can be made that Western policy toward Russia is both ineffectual and provocative, and that Ankara's more conciliatory approach is far better. ..."
"... As a first step toward adopting a new, more realistic stance, Washington should insist that NATO at least suspend, if not expel, Turkey. Under Erdogan, that country cannot be regarded any longer as either a legitimate member of a democratic alliance or as a reliable security partner. ..."
The most basic feature that the United States should expect from an ally is consistent, reliable behavior that benefits U.S.
policy objectives. Ideally, since America regards itself as a champion of democracy and freedom, an ally should embody those values
as well, but Washington has never been a stickler for that standard. Indeed, the United States has a sordid history of collaboration
with undemocratic, even odious, regimes when U.S. leaders believed that the relationship was important to America's security or economic
interests. President Donald Trump's fawning over Saudi Arabia is clear evidence that such a cynical attitude remains intact.
"... FISA is an abomination. Let's get that out of the way. And since I don't believe there are any coincidences in U.S. or geo-politics, the releasing of the explosive four-page FISA memo after Congress reauthorized FISA is suspicious ..."
"... Former NSA analyst (traitor? hero?) turned security state gadfly Edward Snowden came out in favor of President Trump vetoing the FISA reauthorization now that the full extent of what the statute is used for is known to members of the House Intelligence Committee, who are rightly aghast. ..."
"... Someone leaked this memo to the House Intelligence Committee with the sole intention of giving President Trump the opportunity to do exactly what Snowden is arguing for. And well Trump should. ..."
"... This is the essence of draining the swamp. It is the essence of his war with the Shadow Government. If one makes the distinction between the Deep State and the Shadow Government, like former CIA officer Kevin Shipp does , then this falls right in line with Trump's goals in cleaning up the rot and corruption in the U.S. government. In a recent interview with Greg Hunter at USAWatchdog.com, ..."
"... Shipp explains, "I differentiate between the 'Deep State' and the shadow government. The shadow government are the secret intelligence agencies that have such power and secrecy that they act even without the knowledge of Congress. There are many things that they do with impunity. Then there is the 'Deep State,' which is the military industrial complex, all of the industrial corporations and their lobbyists, and they have all the money, power and greed that give all the money to the Senators and Congressmen. So, they are connected, but they are really two different entities. It is the shadow government . . . specifically, the CIA, that is going after Donald Trump. It is terrified that some of its dealings are going to be exposed. If they are, it could jeopardize the entire organization." [emphasis mine] ..."
"... Trump's continued needling of the establishment; playing the long game and demonizing the media which is the tip of the Shadow Government's spear while strengthening the support of both the military (through his backing them at every turn) and his base by assisting them destroy the false narratives of globalism has been nothing short of amazing. ..."
"... So, Trump cozying up to the military, cutting a deal with the military-industrial complex (MIC) has the Deep State now incentivized to fight the Shadow Government for him. The tax cut bill, while a brilliant example of political knife-fighting, is fundamentally about shoring up the finances of the corporations that make up the MIC through the repatriation of foreign-earned income, lowering the corporate tax rate and stealing even more of the middle class back from the Democrats. ..."
FISA
is an abomination. Let's get that out of the way. And since I don't believe there are any
coincidences in U.S. or geo-politics, the releasing of the explosive four-page FISA memo after
Congress reauthorized FISA is suspicious.
Former NSA analyst (traitor? hero?) turned security state gadfly Edward Snowden came out in
favor of President Trump vetoing the FISA reauthorization now that the full extent of what the
statute is used for is known to members of the House Intelligence Committee, who are rightly
aghast.
Officials confirm there's a secret report showing abuses of spy law Congress voted to
reauthorize this week. If this memo had been known prior to the vote, FISA reauth would have
failed. These abuses must be made public, and @realDonaldTrump should send
the bill back with a veto. https://t.co/BEwJ9EyIq0
But, like I said, timing in these things is everything. And the timing on this leak is
important.
Someone leaked this memo to the House Intelligence Committee with the sole intention of
giving President Trump the opportunity to do exactly what Snowden is arguing for. And well Trump should.
This is the essence of draining the swamp. It is the essence of his war with the Shadow
Government. If one makes the distinction between the Deep State and the Shadow Government,
like former
CIA officer Kevin Shipp does , then this falls right in line with Trump's goals in cleaning
up the rot and corruption in the U.S. government. In a recent interview with Greg Hunter at
USAWatchdog.com,
Shipp explains, "I differentiate between the 'Deep State' and the shadow government. The
shadow government are the secret intelligence agencies that have such power and secrecy that
they act even without the knowledge of Congress. There are many things that they do with
impunity. Then there is the 'Deep State,' which is the military industrial complex, all of
the industrial corporations and their lobbyists, and they have all the money, power and greed
that give all the money to the Senators and Congressmen. So, they are connected, but they are
really two different entities. It is the shadow government . . . specifically, the CIA, that
is going after Donald Trump. It is terrified that some of its dealings are going to be
exposed. If they are, it could jeopardize the entire organization." [emphasis mine]
Court the Military Against the Spooks
And as I've talked about at length, I've felt from the moment Trump was elected he was going
to have to ally himself with the U.S. military to have any chance of surviving, let alone
achieve his political goals.
Trump's final campaign ad was a clarion call to action. It was a declaration of war against
both the Shadow Government and the Deep State. And it ensured that if he won, which he did,
they would immediately go to war with him.
And you don't declare war like this if you aren't prepared for the biggest knock-down,
drag-out street brawl of all time. If you aren't prepared for it, don't say it. And for the
past year we've been left wondering whether Trump was 1) prepared for it 2) capable of pulling
it off.
Trump's continued needling of the establishment; playing the long game and demonizing the
media which is the tip of the Shadow Government's spear while strengthening the support of both
the military (through his backing them at every turn) and his base by assisting them destroy
the false narratives of globalism has been nothing short of amazing.
As a hard-core, jaded politico, I can tell you I never thought for a second he had the
ability to what he's already done. But, as the past few months have pointed out, the real power
in the world doesn't rest with the few thousand who manipulate the levers of power but the
billions who for years stood by and let them.
And those days of standing by are gone.
So, Trump cozying up to the military, cutting a deal with the military-industrial complex
(MIC) has the Deep State now incentivized to fight the Shadow Government for him. The tax cut
bill, while a brilliant example of political knife-fighting, is fundamentally about shoring up
the finances of the corporations that make up the MIC through the repatriation of
foreign-earned income, lowering the corporate tax rate and stealing even more of the middle
class back from the Democrats.
Trump had the right strategy from the beginning. Civil Wars turn on what the police and the
military do. They are instigated by and fanned by the spooks, but it is the soldiers and the
cops who decide the outcome.
And so here we are.
FISA, It's Everywhere You Don't Want it to Be
Trump has called the Democrats' and RINOs' bluff on DACA and chain-immigration as a
vote-buying scheme with zero political fallout. He's properly reframed the looming government
shutdown on their inability to stick to their original agreements.
His much-maligned Justice Department is now rolling up traitors associated with Uranium One,
pedophiles and human traffickers all over the country and preparing for a showdown with blue
state governors and attorney generals over "Sanctuary" grandstanding.
By leading the charge, he gave strength to the patriots within both the Shadow Government
and the Deep State organizations to leak the material needed to keep his campaign afloat.
And as each new thing drops at the most inopportune time for the political establishment
mentioned ad nauseum in that final campaign ad linked above, you have to wonder just how big
the revolt inside these organizations is.
Because, right here, right now, Trump can demand the release of this FISA memo and use it to
torpedo the very thing that allowed the entire "Russia Hacked Muh Election" nonsense and send
it back to the sh$&hole it was spawned from in the first place, the CIA and the DNC.
And if that means for a few months the FISA courts are inoperable while a new bill and a new
set of rules is drafted so be it.
* * *
Support work like this by subscribing to my Patreon Page where you can get access to the
Gold Goats 'n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.
"... The Turkish Army's General Staff announced in an official statement that the Turkish Army launched "Operation Olive Branch" against Kurdish militias in the Afrin area in the Syrian province of Aleppo at 14:00GMT on January 20. ..."
"... "'Operation Olive Branch' has been started on Jan. 20, 2018 at 5 p.m., in Syria's northwestern Afrin region to establish security and stability on our borders and region, to eliminate terrorists of PKK/KCK/PYD-YPG and Daesh [ISIS], and to save our friends and brothers from their oppression and cruelty," the General Staff said in its official statement." ..."
"... The military also stressed that "Operation Olive Branch" is conducted under "the framework of Turkey's rights based on international law" and within Turkey's right of "self-defense". ..."
"... Later, Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu revealed that Turkey informed the Damascus government of its military operation in Afrin area with a written statement before it was launched in a rare diplomatic connection between the two sides. ..."
"... "We have informed all parties, including the UN," Cavusoglu added, according to the Russian state-run news agency Sputnik. ..."
"... From it side, the Ministry of Defense of Russia announced in a statement that it is relocating Russian troops deployed in Afrin to insure their safety during the Turkish military operation. ..."
"... "The command of the Russian group of troops in Syria has taken measures to ensure the security of Russian servicemen located in the district of Afrin, where the Turkish Armed Forces launched a special operation against the Kurdish armed groups," the statement reads. ..."
"... The Russians also said that the US supplies of advance weapons to the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in Syria triggered Turkey's military operation against the Kurdish militias in Afrin. ..."
"... " Uncontrolled deliveries of modern weapons, including reportedly the deliveries of the man-portable air defense systems , by the Pentagon to the pro-US forces in northern Syria, have contributed to the rapid escalation of tensions in the region and resulted in the launch of a special operation by the Turkish troops," the ministry said. ..."
"Commence Operation Olive Branch," said the spider to the fly - TTG
The Turkish Army's General Staff announced in an official statement that the Turkish
Army launched "Operation Olive Branch" against Kurdish militias in the Afrin area in the Syrian
province of Aleppo at 14:00GMT on January 20.
"'Operation Olive Branch' has been started on Jan. 20, 2018 at 5 p.m., in Syria's
northwestern Afrin region to establish security and stability on our borders and region, to
eliminate terrorists of PKK/KCK/PYD-YPG and Daesh [ISIS], and to save our friends and brothers
from their oppression and cruelty," the General Staff said in its official statement."
The military also stressed that "Operation Olive Branch" is conducted under "the
framework of Turkey's rights based on international law" and within Turkey's right of
"self-defense".
Later, Turkey's Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu revealed that Turkey informed the
Damascus government of its military operation in Afrin area with a written statement before it
was launched in a rare diplomatic connection between the two sides.
"We have informed all parties, including the UN," Cavusoglu added, according to the
Russian state-run news agency Sputnik.
From it side, the Ministry of Defense of Russia announced in a statement that it is
relocating Russian troops deployed in Afrin to insure their safety during the Turkish military
operation.
"The command of the Russian group of troops in Syria has taken measures to ensure the
security of Russian servicemen located in the district of Afrin, where the Turkish Armed Forces
launched a special operation against the Kurdish armed groups," the statement reads.
The Russians also said that the US supplies of advance weapons to the Kurdish People's
Protection Units (YPG) in Syria triggered Turkey's military operation against the Kurdish
militias in Afrin.
" Uncontrolled deliveries of modern weapons, including reportedly the deliveries of the
man-portable air defense systems , by the Pentagon to the pro-US forces in northern Syria, have
contributed to the rapid escalation of tensions in the region and resulted in the launch of a
special operation by the Turkish troops," the ministry said. (SouthFront)
********************************
Apparently Moscow gave the green light to Ankara to commence their "Operation Olive Branch"
and has moved Russian troops out of harm's way in Afrin. Erdogan undoubtedly is salivating at
the dreams of a new Ottoman Empire and ridding himself of those bothersome Kurds.
However, I am firmly convinced that he is being played by Putin. The Afrin Kurds will be
bloodied. The Rojava Kurds will eventually come to realize that their US-organized border
protection force is no match for the might of the Turkish military. The Russians are
admonishing the Kurds that their decision to put their faith in whatever CENTCOM has planned
for them is a poor decision. Once the Kurds realize this and appeal to the R+6 for protection,
Moscow will tell Ankara to cease Operation Olive Branch and offer a face saving way for them to
do so. The SAA will assume control of the northern border and all of Syria east of the
Euphrates will return to Damascus' control. The Kurds will retain some kind of local autonomy
in exchange for coming to their senses. The borg will not know whether to shit or go blind.
The Russians are admonishing the Kurds that their decision to put their faith in
whatever CENTCOM has planned for them is a poor decision. Once the Kurds realize this and
appeal to the R+6 for protection, Moscow will tell Ankara to cease Operation Olive Branch
and offer a face saving way for them to do so. The SAA will assume control of the northern
border and all of Syria east of the Euphrates will return to Damascus' control. The Kurds
will retain some kind of local autonomy in exchange for coming to their senses. The borg
will not know whether to shit or go blind.
It goes to show that the "experts" who formulate and then execute US foreign policy are so
out of their depth. And this is across the board from the political leadership to the
leadership of the foreign policy establishment in government including the military. This is
a multi-decade problem of hubris and incompetence. A point will come no one will really want
to have much to do with the US except stoke the egos of these "chess players" for cash. By
now all these people should know that US leadership can be easily manipulated, when even
complete snakeoil salesmen like Chalabi can do it. One need not be sophisticated like Bibi to
extract billions.
TTG, in your opinion how long before CENTCOM is completely out of Syria as the Kurds
abandon any pretense of real US backing?
I truly don't know when we will be out of Syria, but events unfolding now will only
accelerate our eventual departure. I've seen two reports now that Damascus (and Moscow) asked
the Kurdish leadership in Afrin to allow the SAA to assume control of the area. This would
have prevented Turkey from attacking because they are unwilling to take on the R+6 directly.
The Kurds in Afrin refused.
I agree our foreign policy apparatus is in shambles. It always had its problems, but now
CENTOM and the Pentagon are given too much free hand, the State Department is decimated. The
Whitehouse is engaged in infighting and our President doesn't have the interest or expertise
to provide leadership in the region. He could say "get out" and CENTCOM would have no choice
but to leave. Alas, that's not his management style as Colonel Lang explained a while
back.
My friends still in Erbil anticipate the scenario you lay out, but rather suspect that
Erdogan will require something forceful or very tempting in another area to let go.
We do not have a foreign policy with respect to anything. The SD is full of holdovers with
other objectives and there is nothing cohesive on any front. The CIA does not share an agenda
with anyone else. Non-agreement-capable still applies to the US. These things make the US
something to be considered, but never taken at face value or in any reliable way. Well,
perhaps we can be counted on to always toss a wrench into the works, as in this current epic
move and the many others we have made in the area.
The borg will most likely go blind. The Trump admin's intentions are still guesswork.
After the US miss-spoken announcement, Russia let Erdo off the leash. Good post TTG.
TTG, I must repeat, considering US' must do (for internal reasons) middle east position and
posture vis-à-vis her regional allies namely Israel and KSA, and likes, it doesn't
leave US with many better choice, other than what she is choosing or doing. We all are
seeing/living through what would happen if for example, a president (as buffoon as the one we
have) wants to have a better "international" relation with an important world power like
Russia. With that in mind, can one imagine what would happen if a US administration decides
to have a better relationship with a more mature and influential state in the ME region?
Really, to make a safety umbrella for Israel and other illegitimate clients, who else can US
chose as her reliable ally that will and can accepts Israel beside the Kurds, and a few Arab
dictators and monarchs that are not legitimate or accepted anywhere in the region.
Considering US' full of herself hubristic foreign policy, and use of it by her so called
allies I don't see any better choice possible to pentagon or state.
"... I've been debating the confusion; whether Nikki is the real SoS who instructs Tillerson on foreign policy issues. Seeing Condi and Kissinger around leaves me confused on any good day. ..."
"... I doubt Nikki can write nor has any FP savoir faire. She depends A LOT on the Heritage Foundation employees who followed her to NYC. ..."
"... It seems though that the US has found the achillies heel of the Turks here, and is using the Kurds as bait to force Erdoğan to invade Syria. I am not sure that Erdoğan won't take the bait. He may just huff and puff. But he can't do this indefinitely without beginning to look weak to his own constituency. ..."
"The United States has five key goals in Syria, Mr. Tillerson said. They are: ensuring that
the Islamic State and Al Qaeda never re-emerge; supporting the United Nations-led political
process; diminishing Iran's influence; making sure the country is free of weapons of mass
destruction; and helping refugees to return after years of civil war."
The United States does not have 5 key goals in Syria
Islamic State and Al Qaeda did not just "emerge" and therefore cannot re-emerge
The United Nations is not leading the Syrian political process
The US cannot determine the extent of Iran's "influence" in Syria, however one define's
the nebulous bs word 'influence'.
The United States, leading producer and user of weapons of mass destruction, the world
renowned expert in the field, is the obvious arbitrer of such matters for other
countries.
There is and was no "civil war". There was and is a war of aggression on Syria, in which
the US played a critical active and enabling part.
Helping those who fled Syria, due to US led and instigated war on Syria, return to Syria?
A noble humanitarian piece of bs.
Turkey said it was unimpressed by US attempts to downplay a planned 30,000-strong,
predominantly Kurdish border force in northern Syria. The Turkish foreign minister said the
US had lied about supporting the Kurds in the past.
Washington must take concrete steps to address Ankara's concerns about Kurdish militias
in Syria, Mevlut Cavusoglu told CNN Turk on Thursday, after top US officials tried to
repair damage done by the training plan. He reiterated that Ankara could attack Kurdish
militias in Syria, and said it would coordinate a possible operation with Russia and Iran
to make sure their observers in the area are not harmed.
Earlier, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said it was up to Washington to alter
its Syrian policy and re-engage with Turkey. "The practices of our NATO ally [the] US in
Syria are unfortunately wrong and against the spirit of alliance. The US should end
confusion over the region's future, and change its attitude towards peace and restoring
relations with Turkey," he said, as cited by Anadolu news agency.
Washington's announcement last week that it would help its ally, the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF), to set up a force of some 30,000 fighters along the border with Turkey
angered Ankara. The SDF primarily consists of the Kurdish militia YPG, which is considered
by the Turkish government to be an extension of the militant movement Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK), which has been fighting a guerrilla war for decades. Following outcry from
Turkey, the US is apparently rowing back on the plan.
Rex disappoints. Was it Condi or Nikki who wrote his Stanford speech?
Can't see him staying beyond the deadline date that allows him to take his tax benefits on
Exxon stock
making sure the country is free of weapons of mass destruction;
ROFLOL - you would have thought that if the United States were concerned about
weapons of mass destruction (forget about biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, the only
real WMDs are thermonuclear weapons), they would have inspected the site of the alleged
Syrian reactor in Deir Ez-zor Governorate to see what intelligence they could gather given
that the site has been under the control of the SDF for more than a year.. That there are no
reports of any such investigation suggests that the United States lied (typical MO) when it
corroborated the Israeli claims.
Causes one to posit that sarcasm was invented for a reason. To wit: does "vanquishing al
queda" mean that they would no longer be a US sponsored terror group?
The Pentagon mission goes beyond defeating ISIS, to "follow-on operations to increase
regional stability." (actually it's the opposite of course)
mission
In conjunction with partner forces Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve
(CJTF-OIR) defeats ISIS in designated areas of Iraq and Syria and sets conditions for
follow-on operations to increase regional stability. . .
here
Thank you. My question was - is Condi or Nikki Tillerson's speech writer because on
performance I've been debating the confusion; whether Nikki is the real SoS who instructs
Tillerson on foreign policy issues. Seeing Condi and Kissinger around leaves me confused on
any good day.
The US secretary of State is like his boss a "Fucking Moron" he said it is the US intention
to stay in Syria until Assad is removed and that economic sanctions will be used to realize
that endeavour. Condoleeza Rice said when she was Sec of State that the war on Lebanon was
the "birth pangs" of a new Middle East" Professor N Finkelstein commented that to compare the
birth of a child to the Lebanese war were the words of a freak.
Was there not a force to be deployed along the Euphrates also, and would that force try to
stop the Syrian army or a militia from entering East Syria, effectively making a third of
Syria a no go zone for the Syrian Government?
Erdoğan and the US both want Assad to go. Erdoğan also wants some territory from
Syria. The US would not mind splitting Syria. The US has been trying to get Turkey to invade
Syria for awhile. Erdoğan, for his has been trying to get the US and NATO to provide
boots on the ground in Syria.
It seems though that the US has found the achillies heel of the Turks here, and is using
the Kurds as bait to force Erdoğan to invade Syria. I am not sure that Erdoğan
won't take the bait. He may just huff and puff. But he can't do this indefinitely without
beginning to look weak to his own constituency.
If Erdoğan wanted a little revenge on the US, he could just ban them from using
Incirlik. It would be more effective for a while than bombing mostly Strian Arabs in
Afrin
I have yet to read one analyst who believes that the U.S. administration can achieve any
of the wishes it announced. That's the bottom line right there... Here is something I picked up a long time ago about US pronouncements on any issue they
are involved in... It is pure disneyland fantasy...
Ie wishful thinking writ very very large... I have seen this countless times since the days of Bosnia... If you go back and look at these pronouncements...especially the supposed 'news analyses'
in the fakestream media which purport to give you the inside track on what is about to
happen... ...You will find a record of exactly the opposite happening every single
time...
This kind of yapping is nothing more than the annoying and mentally imbalanced dog next
door that barks for no reason all night... It is to be ignored...nothing more... Of course the comical value is something else altogether...this is quite
real... [praise be Allah...since laughter is the best kind of medicine...]
The Turkish heads of army and intelligence were in Moscow today, meeting with Shoigu and
Gerasimov. Colonel Cassad has pictures showing the Russians
highly amused and the Turks ... not so much. With the Yankistanis backpedaling on the BSF (I called it by pointing out the silence of
the Kurds) - did we witness a failed attempt to troll Erdogan into invading?
Pure Disneyland. Apt description. They used to be an empire that could create their own
reality. Many, including me, still wince at their pronouncements, because we know their
history. But I guess history has a sense of humor, because it is happening to them, right
now.
Putin has the good sense to diffuse and lacks a personality for gloating, so I guess that
leaves the rest of us to enjoy the sight of a stumbling mass desperately trying to reverse
the inverted parabola of its flailing-in-a-glass-case-of-emotion empire.
My question is, why would the Russians be amused? Because Turkey got played by the US/Kurds,
that two NATO countries were facing off? I would be more concerned (if I were Russia) that
Turkey was about to, or saying it was about to, invade the area Russia monitors rather than
the area the US monitors...
So it is a little early to say that Erdogan's warnings didn't have any effect.
As a member of NATO -and a powerful one at that- with the keys to the Bosphorus,
he has to be taken into account. As "b" fears, Turkish tanks would be sitting ducks in the mountainous area
in the Afrin countryside but this has to be taken with a caveat considering that Turkey
is well equipped with a sizable airforce and rotary wing crafts plus observation drones.
Erdogan may want to give an "encouragement" to the Afrin Kurds that it is in their
interestto compose with Assad. But the U.S. is apparently taking him seriously.
Then there is a new possibility in the course of Modern Warfare. The Duma has recently
enacted a law that will give birth to private armies which will give Eric Prince food for
thought.Which means that Western contractors might have to battle their Russian counterparts. Proxies against proxies, since up to now the puppeteers have not been taken to court
over
their minion's crimes. The precedents have been set and others learn fast.
I am afraid, if one is to believe Mathis words, that the Syrian, Ukrainian and Korean potential confrontations will lead to
exchanges that will force us into wars on several theaters in the very near future.
As of today, Gen. Mathis exposing the sew Us Defense Strategy warned that: The US will counter any "threat to America's democracy
experiment" in the world, if necessary with military force, the Pentagon chief threatened.
He singled out Russia and China as "adversaries", a far cry form the "partners" designation used by Russia in designing the
USA. He vowed: the US will respond with lethal force.
So the stage is set for escalation of escalation in several theaters. How long will the bear be poked and the dragon provoked
before retaliation ensues?
I am afraid that war looks more and more certain in 2018.
@40 b... thanks for that... the place was getting out of hand.. you are becoming too popular..
@56 carl... it is an outrageous statement from mattis, any way you read it!
"The US will counter any threat to America's democracy experiment in the world..."
usa as country that gets to dictate its agenda anywhere in the world.. it would explain why they want to circumvent any international
body that they don't already control too, like the un.. america's democracy experiment is imposing the us$ as world currency under
the threat of their military.. it is already starting to fall apart on all accounts which explains mattis's anxiousness in representing
these same undemocratic structures and institutions he refers to as 'america's ''democracy'' experiment'... he needs to get a
gig in hollywood at comedy central.. he never found his true calling..
"We will modernize key capabilities," Mattis said. "Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense,
advanced autonomous systems and resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win." [Sputnik
News]
Just two quotes from 'Mad dog' Mattis which prove he needs to be put in an asylum.
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you
all".
"Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they're so sick of
the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."
He singled out Russia and China as "adversaries", a far cry form the "partners"
designation used by Russia in designing the USA. He vowed: the US will
respond with lethal force.
Actions speak louder than words. The US is scared of two things: 1) a military conflict where its troops get slaughtered wholesale,
and 2) going up against any army or regular military force it can't destroy from the air. Whatever happens in the near future
we can rest assured Uncle Scam won't be engaging in direct hostilities with China or Russia.
@63 "Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems and resilient
and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win."
Nice for the high-quality troops. Sounds like they should be totally risk-free. But I don't share Mad Dog's faith in technology.
Looks like an accident waiting to happen.
Mattis opens his mouth and reveals his level of ignorance when it comes to understanding the Outlaw US Empire's history--it's
certainly not a "democracy experiment," nor has it ever tried to install a democracy anywhere on the planet. I'd bet he's
just as ignorant when it comes to military history, too. He reminds me of the ignorant brute Sgt. Snorkel from the Beatle Bailey
comic strip. The so-called "new" "defense posture" is no more than a tidied-up version of the two that preceded it: What we say
goes; either you're with us or against us.
By way of rebuttal, I highly recommend reading
this interview of Hassan Nasrallah from 3 Jan 2018, particularly his remarks about differences in the quality of soldiers
from The Resistance versus those of the enemy--IDF, NATO, USA, Daesh--and why they exist.
Contrary to all the hype about the Empire being a new energy exporting colossus,
it needed to import LNG
to keep its East Coast dwellings warm, but the cargo seems to have found a better price elsewhere. Just how will it displace Russian
gas from the market when it can't provide enough domestic supply?
Meanwhile, Tillerson pulls an Albright
: "Signs of starvation and death in North Korea indicate that US diplomatic strategy works fine, says the secretary of state."
Is he being two-faced? You bet! From last year
: "We're not your enemy, we're not your threat..."
Ignorant, lying, immoral are just a few of the important behavioral traits of those leading faces of the Outlaw US Empire.
And my historical investigations prove such traits have been in the forefront since its inception. Guess we can thank its tutor,
the British Empire.
The US administration either is very smart in bluffing to temporarily reassure its panicking regional allies, Israel and Saudi
Arabia or it is living in the la-la land of an incompetence close to stupidity.
Do they really believe that the Russians will allow the USA to rob their victory in Syria over ISIS? Or that the Turks will
stay idle while the USA is building a Kurdish military entity on their border? Or that Iran and Syria will allow the partitioning
of Syria and the US illegal long term presence in the region?
The USA administration is posed for dramatic blowbacks and reshuffling of alliances in the region.Maybe that is why it is running
like a headless hen!
This will damage Trump with his base. Reducing the involvement of the United States military abroad was one of the more important
commitments he made to his base and now he has broken that commitment and quite a few of his base are disappointed. Even if it's
just a couple of hundred thousand of them, there goes the next presidential election for Trump and the Republicans. By forgetting
about Russia-gate, focusing on his foreign military involvements, and provided the Democratic candidate is not a Clinton, the
presidency is for there for taking by the Democrats. Having Tulsi Gabbard on the ticket would help.
The only reservation I have is if Trump is stiffing the generals in the White House and sometime in the future pulls the plug
on all those interventions then he'll remain in the White House for another four years.
Tillerson could have been speaking for Trump, or Obama, or Bush - under whose regime the Likudnik/neocons/Zionists were able to
foment a policy coup while using the OSP to concoct lies for Israel's long-desired war.
While there are generally multiple motives for entry into wars, only one is whitewashed. As Phil Giraldi put it:
""Why doesn't anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this
conference and we all know it's American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for
Netanyahu? Shouldn't we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?"
Here's where we are, as the same cabal cheerlead for war on Iran (Lebanon must be first) a you are either committed to stopping
the drive to war by all cognizable social and pitical forces, or you are not.
The time for letting cries of 'anti-Semite' preclude FAIR dis ussuon of the role of Jews and the Israel Lobby is over.
Those who censor this necessary component of analysis should be deemed confederates of the bankers, MIC, transnationals, and
Zionist Jews who have been driving wars for decades.
With millions dead, playtime is over. Those censoring the truth side with the warmongers.
What a bombshell! Finally some truth about the "Justice system" in the US.
Following on from this should be the whole subsequent story of the DNC-Fusion-Steele dossier in detail, exposing the MSM too
for what it has been worth.
Perhaps then Trump dares to go against the deep state swamp and stop wars instead of following the dictates of CIA, Israel and
Military Industrialists. That would be a real POTUS PLUS result.
""It's troubling. It is shocking," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "Part of me wishes that I didn't read it because
I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.""
***
Come on, child! Enough with that spectacle. Get real. Have the basic courage to know and to admit what everybody has known
about your country for ages!... The entire world already knows.
More proof, if any were needed, that the only threat to the people of the USA comes from their own government. The 'external
threat' is a fiction calculated to enslave the US population and enrich the Oligarchy.
Somebody's going to leak this in short order. Let's take a real look at what both Dems and Repubs just expanded, let's look
at the monster they are feeding in broad daylight.
The United States cannot be a moral or ethical country until it faces up to the realities of US empire and the destruction it
causes around the world. The US undermines governments (including democracies), kills millions of people, causes mass migrations
of people fleeing their homes, communities and countries and produces vast environmental damage.
A new coalition, The Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases , held
its inaugural event January 12-14, 2018 at the University of Baltimore in Maryland. The meeting was framed by a
Unity Statement that brought together numerous peace and justice organizations.
The basis for unity was:
"U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars
of aggression and occupation, and that the closure of US foreign military bases is one of the first necessary steps toward a just,
peaceful and sustainable world."
... ... ... (image deleted)
US foreign military bases as of 2015. Source BaseNation.us
Responsibility to End Global Empire of Bases
Ajamu Baraka of the Black Alliance for Peace and the vice presidential candidate for the Green Party in 2016 opened the conference,
describing the responsibility of the people of the United States (USians) to protect the world from US aggression. He
argued :
"The only logical, principled and strategic response to this question is citizens of the empire must reject their imperial
privileges and join in opposing ruling elites exploiting labor and plundering the Earth. To do that, however, requires breaking with
the intoxicating allure of cross-class, bi-partisan 'white identity politics.'"
This reality conflicts with one of the excuses the US uses to engage in war – so-called 'humanitarian wars', which are based on
the dubious legal claim that the US has a "responsibility to protect." The
United
States is viewed as "the greatest threat to peace in the world today" by people around the world. Thus, USians need to organize
to protect the world from the United States.
US empire is not only a threat to world peace and stability but also a threat to the United States.
Chalmers Johnson , who wrote a series of books on empire,
warned in his 2004 book, " The
Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic ," that there were four "sorrows" the United States would
suffer. In the 14 years since they have all come true:
"If present trends continue, four sorrows, it seems to me, are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative
impact guarantees that the United States will cease to bear any resemblance to the country once outlined in our Constitution. First,
there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a growing reliance on
weapons of mass destruction among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second, there will be a loss of
democracy and constitutional rights as the presidency fully eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from an "executive branch"
of government into something more like a Pentagonized presidency. Third, an already well-shredded principle of truthfulness will
increasingly be replaced by a system of propaganda, disinformation, and glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly,
there will be bankruptcy, as we pour our economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchange the education,
health, and safety of our fellow citizens."
The footprint of US empire are what Chalmers Johnson called an "empire of bases." David Vine, the author of
Base Nation, put US empire in context by describing 800 US bases in 80 countries
and US military personnel in more than 170 countries. Bases range from so-called Lily Pad Bases of hundreds of troops to town-sized
bases of tens of thousands of troops and their families. He noted many bases have schools and they do not need to worry about heating
or air conditioning,
unlike schools in
Baltimore where parents bought space heaters to keep children warm and where schools were closed due to lack of heat.
The contrast between Baltimore schools and military base schools is one example of many of the heavy price USians pay for the
military. Vine reported that $150 billion is spent annually to keep US troops on bases abroad and that even a Lily Pad base could
cost $1 billion. More is spent on foreign military bases than on any agency of the federal government, other than the Pentagon and
Veterans Administration.
The Pentagon is not transparent about the number of US foreign bases it manages or their cost. They usually publish a Base Structure
Report but have not done so in several years. The Pentagon only reports 701 bases, but researchers have found many, even significant
bases, not included in their list of bases.
"95% of all foreign military bases in the world are US bases. In addition, [there are] 19 Naval air carriers (and 15 more planned),
each as part of a Carrier Strike Group, composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft – each of
which can be considered a floating military base."
The military footprint of the United States shows it is the largest empire in world history. In
our interview with
historian Alfred McCoy , author of In The Shadows of the
American Century , he describes how some of the key characteristics of US empire are secrecy and covert actions. This are
some of the reasons why it is rare to ever hear US empire discussed in the corporate media or by politicians. McCoy told us this
was true for some other empires too, and that it is often not until the empire begins to falter that their existence becomes part
of the political dialogue.
Strategies for Closing US Foreign Military Bases
David Vine described an unprecedented opportunity to close bases abroad, to do so we need to build a bigger movement. We also
need to elevate the national dialogue about US Empire and develop a national consensus to end it.
Vine pointed to Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric about pulling back from US involvement abroad and focusing on the necessities
at home as indicative of the mood of the country. In fact,
a
recent survey found that "78 percent of Democrats, 64.5 percent of Republicans, and 68.8 percent of independents supported restraining
military action overseas."
McCoy argued that after the globalization of President Barack Obama, which included the Asian Pivot and efforts to pass major
trade agreements, in particular the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),
created a backlash desire to focus on "America First." Both trade agreements, the TPP and TTIP, failed as a result of a political
shift in the country, in part created by grassroots movements.
McCoy describes Obama as one of three "Grandmasters of the Great Game" (the other two being Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's
National Security Adviser, and Elihu Root, former Secretary of War and Secretary of State at the beginning of the 20th Century) who
excelled in being strategic on behalf of US empire. In addition to trade agreements and the Asian Pivot, Obama built on the intelligence
apparatus of the George W. Bush era. Even though Obama was a "grandmaster," he did not slow the weakening of US empire. McCoy sees
the inability to account for the unpredictable complexities of US and global political developments as a common weakness of empire
strategists.
The conference was divided into regions of the world (with the exception of one session on the impact of military bases on the
environment and health). There will be reports and videos published on each section of the conference on the
No Foreign Bases webpage . One common denominator around the world is opposition
to US military bases. According to the Unity Statement of the coalition:
"Many individual national coalitions – for example, Okinawa, Italy, Jeju Island Korea, Diego Garcia, Cyprus, Greece, and Germany
– are demanding closure of bases on their territory. The base that the US has illegally occupied the longest, for over a century,
is Guantánamo Bay, whose existence constitutes an imposition of the empire and a violation of International Law. Since 1959 the government
and people of Cuba have demanded that the government of the US return the Guantánamo territory to Cuba."
One important strategy for success is for US activists to work in cooperation with people around the world who want US military
bases to be closed and for the US military to leave their country. Attendees at the conference had traveled to South Korea, Okinawa
and other places to protest in solidarity with US activists.
Another strategy that many in the conference urged was the need for education about US imperialism and to tie US militarism abroad
with militarized police at home. Similarly, the reality of the US military focusing on black and brown countries abroad highlights
a white supremacy philosophy that infects foreign policy and domestic policy. Members of the No US Foreign Bases coalition also engage
in domestic efforts for racial and environmental justice.
Further, the no bases coalition highlights the environmental and health damage caused by foreign and domestic military bases.
As the Unity Statement notes, "military bases are the largest users of fossil fuel in the world, heavily contributing to environmental
degradation." Pat Elder and David Swanson described
the degradation in and around the Potomac River, writing:
"The Pentagon's impact on the river on whose bank it sits is not simply the diffuse impact of global warming and rising oceans
contributed to by the US military's massive oil consumption. The US military also directly poisons the Potomac River in more ways
than almost anyone would imagine."
The conference attendees decided on some next steps. A national day of action against foreign military bases is being planned
for February 23, the anniversary of the US seizing Guantanamo Bay, Cuba through a "perpetual lease" that began in 1903. Activists
are encouraged to plan local actions. If you plan an event, contact [email protected]and we'll post it on the events page. The demands will include closing the base and prison in Guantanamo, returning the land
to Cuba and ending the US blockade.
The conference also decided to hold a conference outside of the United States in one of the countries where the US has a foreign
military base within the next year. People from some countries were not allowed to attend the inaugural conference this weekend.
And, the coordinating committee will reach out to other peace and justice groups to select a date and place for a national mass
action against US wars. This will be organized as quickly as possible because the threat of more wars is high.
This is a key moment for the antiwar movement in the US to make itself more visible and to demand the closure of US foreign bases.
In this report on
living in a post-primacy world , even the Pentagon recognizes what many commentators are seeing – the US empire is fading. One
great risk as the empire ends is more wars as the US tries to hang on to global hegemony. We must oppose war and work for the least
damaging end of empire.
Indeed, if the US becomes a cooperative member of the global community, rather than being a dominator, it would be a positive
transition. Imagine how much better it would be for everyone in the world if the US collaborated on addressing the climate crisis
in a serious way, obeyed international law and invested in positive programs to solve the many crises we face at home and abroad.
During the Baltimore conference, World Beyond War sponsored
a billboard nearby that read, "3% of US military spending could end starvation on earth." Imagine what a peace budget could look
like. The US could invest in domestic necessities including rebuilding infrastructure, a cleaner and safer public transportation
system, education, housing and health care. The US could provide aid to other countries to repair the damage it has caused. Members
of the US military could transition into a civilian jobs program that applies their expertise to programs of social uplift.
It is imperative that as the US Empire falls, we organize for a smooth transition to a world that is better for everyone. The
work of the new coalition to end US foreign military bases is a strong start.
Homeless encampment in the foreground of a Baltimore, MD billboard that read, "3% of US military spending could end starvation
on earth." Source World Beyond War.
As far as I remember his posts Michael Kenny is "Israel-firster."
He does not care much about the US national security by definition, having different
priorities.
BTW it's a news for me that AEI launched such neocon stalwarts as "Frederick Kagan, John
Bolton, former vice president Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen,
Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Frum, and Danielle Pletka."
It is a sad fact that Trump administration now is infiltrated with neocons, but in reality
how it can be different.
POTUS no longer defines the US foreign policy; MIC does (neocons can probably be better
understood as professional lobbyists of MIC). In a way, POTUS is now by-and-large ceremonial
figure, although Trump at least during the election campaign (and shortly after, say, before
April 2017 and Mueller commission) has had somewhat more isolationist views (his bellicosity
toward Iran and NK notwithstanding.) But he was quickly brought into the fold. Now he acts
like a regular Republican President, say, like Bush III.
The latter just demonstrates the power of MIC.
That's why there a surprising level of continuity of foreign policy between different
administrations.
My impression is that Israel also is effectively acting as a MIC lobbyist injecting some
money they got via military help into the USA politics directly, or indirectly.
"... Take Nadia Schadlow, for instance. Never heard of her? Unless you've been navigating the rice paddies of Washington's post-9/11 national security enterprise for the last several years, there's no reason you would have. But she has been at the National Security Council since last winter, and is set to replace Dina Powell as deputy national security advisor , at the right hand of NSC chief H.R. McMaster. She was also the lead on the White House National Security Strategy , released last month. ..."
"... This was Schadlow's first position in government. Her résumé includes doctoral degrees from Johns Hopkins Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) under the tutelage of vocal Never Trumper and Iraq war promoter Eliot Cohen, who runs the largely neoconservative Strategic Studies program there, and whose last book, The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power, argued that the U.S., backed by a more robust military, must be the "guardian of a stable world order." ..."
"... What is significant about Schadlow's role in the White House -- she's reportedly a "trusted confidant" of General McMaster, who was lionized in the New Yorker for his T.E. Lawrence approach to counterinsurgency in Tal Afar in 2006 -- is not her bibliography, but her vast connections to Washington's foreign policy and national security clique, especially its neoconservative elite. If one were using the metaphor of chain migration, she would have plenty of friends on either side of the Potomac to tap for high-level placement, consulting, and advice. ..."
"... The foundation has a rich history cleaved to neoconservative pioneers such as Irving Kristol, father of Bill, who in his own memoirs credits the philanthropic institution and its then-director Randall Richardson (heir to the Vicks fortune) with helping him jumpstart the Public Interest, known as the premier neoconservative organ, a label Irving fully embraced . The foundation also served as a key backer of Commentary magazine after Norman Podhoretz took the helm in 1960. ..."
"... Meanwhile, since 1998, the foundation has given over $10 million to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI was built, literally, on Smith Richardson money), which fielded many of the Iraq war architects and promoters, including Frederick Kagan, John Bolton, former vice president Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Frum, and Danielle Pletka. ..."
"... No surprise, then, that the worldview of people like Nadia Schadlow is no different from the wider Washington policy orbit that has enjoyed a pipeline of patronage from her former employer. She is not only affiliated with the Foreign Policy Institute, but is a full member of the Council on Foreign Relations. When she was named to the NSC staff in March 2017, along with "Kremlinologist" and former Eurasian Foundation strategist Fiona Hill, national security establishment courtier Thomas Ricks called them both "well-educated, skeptical, and informed. In other words, the opposite of the president they serve." ..."
"... That is why there seemed to be such relief upon the recent release of the Trump administration's National Security Strategy, with Washington scribblers lauding it as " well within the bipartisan mainstream of American foreign policy " and "a well crafted document that should reassure allies and partners." ..."
"... What it actually does is to reinforce Trump's turn towards a harder line against Iran, as evidenced in McMaster's recent speeches . Nikki Haley, ambassador to the UN, is threatening fellow members on the Security Council , and the Trump administration is seen as taking sides with Israel in the fragile Middle East peace process (or what's left if it). Meanwhile, the White House has just given a green light to arming Ukraine against Russia. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is executive editor of ..."
"... Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC. ..."
"... It turns to new parties, this endless Democrat/Republican cycle is a joke. Surely there are no more people out there that can rationally argue for the two party state as being a good setup for America. ..."
"... There is a term soldiers sometimes use to characterize those who have never fought, will never fight, but are nevertheless positive that fighting is the answer to their dissatisfactions. Chickenhawks. ..."
"... The Neocons are a cancer upon the American Body Politik. When Trump was elected I and many others were hopeful that this cancer could be effectively treated, but it could not for the cancer has spread to all vital organs and is terminal and our nation will die because of it. ..."
"... "Neocons?" Actually what they are is Neocoms or Neocommunists. World domination is the name of their game. ..."
"... The folks who thought President Trump would have a less belligerent foreign policy than Sec. Clinton would have deserve as much intellectual sympathy as those who thought that he would lower premiums and increase coverage of ACA. ..."
Over the last year critics have warned of the returning neoconservative influence on the
executive branch's national security apparatus, each day a little less confident that President
Donald Trump will keep to the seeming anti-interventionist impulses he demonstrated during the
2016 campaign.
News flash: We're already there.
Of course the most garish of the pro-war set -- Sebastian Gorka, K.T. McFarland, John Bolton
-- are easy to identify in or on the periphery of Trump's orbit (in Gorka's case, he was cast
out of the White House, only to
flak away in any media outlet that will pay attention). Meanwhile, elite neoconservative
voices like
Bill Kristol and
Max Boot have become darlings of the "Never Trump" cadre, finding new life as conservative
tokens on "Resistance" media like MSNBC.
What has been less obvious, but has become much clearer in these last few months, is that
other neoconservatives are quietly filling the vacuum left by Obama's cadre of liberal
interventionists. Many of them had taken a pass on "Never Trumping" publicly, and are now
popping up at the elbows of top cabinet officials.
Take Nadia Schadlow, for instance. Never heard of her? Unless you've been navigating the
rice paddies of Washington's post-9/11 national security enterprise for the last several years,
there's no reason you would have. But she has been at the National Security Council since last
winter, and is set to replace Dina
Powell as deputy national security advisor , at the right hand of NSC chief H.R. McMaster.
She was also the lead on the White House National Security
Strategy , released last month.
This was Schadlow's first position in government. Her résumé includes
doctoral degrees from Johns Hopkins Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) under
the tutelage of vocal Never Trumper and Iraq war promoter Eliot Cohen, who runs the largely
neoconservative Strategic Studies program
there, and whose last book, The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power, argued that the U.S., backed by a more
robust military, must be the "guardian of a stable world order." In that vein, Schadlow
published a book last year, War and the Art of
Governance , that extols the virtues of long-term military intervention for "achieving
sustainable political outcomes," requiring "the consolidation of combat gains through the
establishment of stable environments." Schadlow has repeated this for
years as a mantra for reordering military strategy in the wake of the disastrous wars she
and her contemporaries helped sustain, in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. Call it nation-building
by another name.
In a 2012 Weekly Standardcommentary , she
criticized the Obama administration for saying "the tide of war is receding," and exclaimed
"the line of thinking that now pervades the Pentagon avoids recognizing that combat and the
restoration of political order go hand and hand." While she gives a nod to "civil-military
operational planning and execution," she never utters the words "State Department." No surprise
there, either, since her neocon friends were responsible for the long slide of Foggy Bottom's
resources and influence in favor of military leadership, beginning with the "political
reconciliation" and reconstruction of Iraq, and then Afghanistan.
What is significant about Schadlow's role in the White House -- she's reportedly a
"trusted confidant" of General McMaster, who was lionized in the
New Yorker for his T.E. Lawrence approach to counterinsurgency in Tal Afar in 2006 -- is
not her bibliography, but her vast connections to Washington's foreign policy and national
security clique, especially its neoconservative elite. If one were using the metaphor of chain
migration, she would have plenty of friends on either side of the Potomac to tap for high-level
placement, consulting, and advice.
Why? As recent senior program director for the expansive, multi-million dollar International
Security and Foreign Policy Program under the Smith Richardson
Foundation , she has helped to fund and facilitate countless authors, conferences, think
tanks, and university programs since 9/11, most of which hew to the doctrine of sustained
military intervention towards the goal of U.S. global power and influence. That includes
preemptive war strategy, counterinsurgency, democracy promotion, and the continued push for
bigger military budgets and solutions to regional conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. If
there was a prominent player in the U.S. security community over the last 20 years, you can bet
Schadlow and Smith Richardson were more often than not connected to him.
But it goes back so much further than that. The foundation has a rich history cleaved to
neoconservative pioneers such as Irving Kristol, father of Bill, who in his own memoirs credits
the philanthropic institution and its then-director Randall Richardson (heir to the Vicks fortune) with helping him
jumpstart the Public Interest, known as the premier neoconservative organ,
a label Irving fully embraced . The foundation also served as a key backer of
Commentary magazine after Norman Podhoretz took the helm in 1960.
It is in international affairs that Smith Richardson has made some of its biggest impacts,
during the
anti-communist Reagan era and into the Middle East conflicts under Presidents Clinton,
Bushes, Obama, and Trump. To say the foundation was involved at every level in the lobbying for
and crafting of the so-called global war on terror after 9/11 would be an understatement.
Example: Former Smith Richardson research director Devon Gaffney Cross became a director of the
Project for a New American Century, the intellectual vehicle that drove the removal of Saddam
Hussein and shaped George W. Bush's foreign policy. In 2000, Cross was listed as one of the
participants in PNAC's seminal treatise,
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." The rest
of the contributors are a who's who of Washington's war theocracy, most of whom have benefitted
from Smith Richardson support.
Meanwhile, since 1998, the foundation has given over $10 million to the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI was built,
literally, on Smith Richardson money), which fielded many of the Iraq war architects and
promoters, including Frederick Kagan, John Bolton, former vice president Dick Cheney, Richard
Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Frum, and Danielle
Pletka.
Just as telling is Smith Richardson's continued backing of the Institute for the Study of War , headed by Kimberly
Kagan, wife of Frederick, with whom she was a "de facto advisor"
to General Petraeus for a year as he set about his then-vaunted COIN strategy in
Afghanistan. ISW, chaired by retired General Jack Keane, known as the " godfather
of the surge ," was founded in part by the generosity of Smith Richardson in 2007. It not
only promoted more troops, but an extended occupation in Afghanistan, regime change in
Syria , and ongoing hostilities with Iran. No surprise, then, that ISW has numerous
intertwining relationships with the military and the defense industry. It received $895,000 for
program work from Smith Richardson between 2014 and 2016 alone.
According to Philip Rojc of Inside Philanthropy, other recipients of Smith Richardson grants since 1998
include the the Hudson Institute ($6,032,230), the Jamestown Institute ($5,779,475), the Hoover
Institution ($3,645,314), and the Center for a New American Security ($1,595,000). Totals have
been adjusted to include 2016 numbers.
The last one -- CNAS -- is more indicative of Smith Richardson's broader strategy, in that
it doesn't only give to hardline neoconservative outfits like, say, the Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies (which has received no less than $500,000 since 2014 and
says it helped write Trump's new Iran policy ). On the contrary, Smith Richardson has been
a major patron of the conventional establishment, too, even largely Democratic think tanks like
CNAS, Brookings Institute, and the Carnegie Endowment -- all of which invariably host scholars
and programs that promote America's military-driven global influence, counterinsurgency
doctrine (CNAS was a
virtual hothouse for COIN early in Obama's presidency), and democracy
promotion in places like Russia and Ukraine, a major yet failed project of humanitarian
interventionists in the Obama administration.
No surprise, then, that the worldview of people like Nadia Schadlow is no different from the
wider Washington policy orbit that has enjoyed a pipeline of patronage from her former
employer. She is not only affiliated with the Foreign Policy Institute, but is a full member of
the Council on Foreign Relations. When she was named to the NSC staff in March 2017, along with
"Kremlinologist" and former Eurasian Foundation strategist
Fiona Hill, national security establishment courtier Thomas Ricks called them
both "well-educated, skeptical, and informed. In other words, the opposite of the president
they serve."
You know the "right" kind of operator has arrived in the White House when establishment
commentariat like Ricks and
Josh Rogin get all gushy about their calming, "soft power" influence over Trump, which
sounds like a lot of bunk when you consider their well-documented points of view.
Simply put, after years of cross-pollination brought on by a slush fund of wealthy private
donors like Smith Richardson and an even more eager defense industry, neoconservative views are
no longer distinguishable from the sanctioned goals of the Washington policy establishment.
They are all working, really, as proper stewards of the military-industrial complex, which is
essential for advancing their (sometimes competing) visions of world power politics and
American exceptionalism. There is little room for realism and restraint, as voiced by this
magazine and other critics.
Call it the new "adults in the room," if you want, or peg it as the neoconservative
influence that it is. Strikingly, Dan Drezner writes that the NSS is
"Straussian" in that its "subtext matters at least as much as the text." The preeminent
scholar Leo Strauss is considered one of the key founders of the neoconservative movement, a
fact the Washington Post columnist should be well aware of. Like most of the elites
here in Washington, however, Drezner is trying to have it both ways -- calling it neocon
without have the guts to say it outright.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is executive editor of The American Conservative. Follow
her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC.
It is a sad state of affairs when the American people are literally dependent on sane people
in Beijing, Moscow, Ankara, Tehran, and other capitals to keep a completely out of control
neo-con foreign and defense policy establishment from plunging our people on the world into
yet more pointless warfare.
Mainstream media seems "All Neocon." A star studded group of rationalizers. We are being
gently taught to hate what the neocons hate. South Pacific had the recipe. Not for the
reasons intended. Au contraire.
So. Well-heeled foreign interests and interventionists are buying nosebagger politicians and
shaping our foreign policy under Trump, just like they did under Obama, Bush II, and Clinton.
Why do we bother having elections if neocon crap is the only item on the menu?
It's incredible. No matter how often they lie and fail, no matter how many colossally
expensive disasters they cause, someone keeps letting the filth back in. They're as hardy and
resilient as cockroaches, and we need to start dealing with them as such.
Trump 'needs a war' to be re-elected. He knows this and who else to better start one than the
neo-cons?
What is terrifying is that these same people and their ancestors actually attempted to
convince Reagan that the US could win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Reagan wisely
chose 'Trust but Verify' over their strongest objections. Trump is a far cry from a
Reagan.
The generations long war to destroy the State Department appears to have completely
obscured the greatest US victory of last century. The defeat of the Soviet Union with little
more than skirmishes.
The gloved fist approach, while frustrating to the military, was a massive success.
Military solutions fail badly. One look at the history of military governments confirms their
abysmal record. Yet, we have an administration preparing for war. Not at all certain, the
people will follow.
Good article. Trump is easily distracted from his (often right) gut feelings on policy
(China, NATO, etc.) by titles: military rank, highbrow think tanks, Wall St. moguls, and
power elites from the Council on Foreign Relations. With no moral compass or basic
understanding of the Constitution or the ways Washington works, he is hapless and his agenda
is hamstrung.
I wondered how far down I'd have to go down in the article before Ukraine and Putin popped
up! It's the usual "let Putin win in Ukraine" propaganda. What astonishes me as a European is
why people who call themselves "conservatives", whom you would naturally expect to be
patriotic, often indeed excessively so, are frantically trying to persuade their fellow
citizens to submit to a foreign power inflicting a humiliating defeat on their country,
possibly the most humiliating that it has ever suffered in its history. I couldn't imagine
Europeans behaving like that.
Interesting article with good info. I believe "the Trump White House" is just continuing the
policies of the past occupants of "The House of Blood."
[More info at link below]
August 9, 2016
The House of Blood
Its color is white but it is red with blood
The residents' name should really be mud
Instead they get fancy honors and titles
Wars for them is a musical recital
The hum of their drones flying through the air
Are killing children without due care
This is hellishly called "collateral damage"
These are the words of the resident savage
Immaculately dressed in a business suit
An eloquent speaker is this callous brute
Surrounded by sycophants and flunkeys too
Evil is what these people plan and do
War and more war is their hellish aim
Are they all devils and bloody insane?
Countries are reduced to smoking rubble
These well-dressed maniacs are big trouble
People are fleeing and dying too
From the hell produced by this satanic crew
Refugees are drowning in deadly waters
Trying to escape the endless slaughters
These helpless victims once had homes
Now they have nothing, and just roam
Helpless, homeless people on the move
With nothing really left to improve
The perpetrators call their crimes "bringing democracy"
Surely creating hell on earth is really hypocrisy
But when criminals rule there is no justice
And law and order is totally corrupted
The war criminals slogan is "responsibility to protect"
They tell that to the people whose countries they wrecked
Those still alive can hear the bombs explode and thud
A hellish "courtesy" from the House of Blood
It turns to new parties, this endless Democrat/Republican cycle is a joke. Surely
there are no more people out there that can rationally argue for the two party state as being
a good setup for America.
There is a term soldiers sometimes use to characterize those who have never fought, will
never fight, but are nevertheless positive that fighting is the answer to their
dissatisfactions. Chickenhawks.
The Neocons are a cancer upon the American Body Politik. When Trump was elected I and
many others were hopeful that this cancer could be effectively treated, but it could not for
the cancer has spread to all vital organs and is terminal and our nation will die because of
it.
Trump won with a coalition of conservative and populist support. The two partners agree on
judges, but not too much else. For those of the latter persuasion, you at least have a seat
at the table in the current administration (thank you, Lord, for Stephen Miller!) Populists
need to run candidates at all levels and start to groom future leaders. Somebody with Rand
Paul's FP views and Tom Cotton's immigration views would be perfect.
@Michael Kenny,
Why should America care what Putin wins in Ukraine? Why doesn't the EU fight its own battles?
Go on, oppose Putin. You have more to lose than America does.
The folks who thought President Trump would have a less belligerent foreign policy than
Sec. Clinton would have deserve as much intellectual sympathy as those who thought that he
would lower premiums and increase coverage of ACA.
What was behind the false missile attack alarm in Hawaii yesterday. Poynter
has some context:
One of the big stories in the Honolulu
Star-Advertiser Saturday morning was that military "brass" updated island officials on
how the military would respond to a nuclear attack from North Korea . Military authorities
warned there was a "real" threat.
At 8:07 a.m. Saturday, Hawaiian residents saw a terrifying alert message on their
phones.
It took 38 minutes to correct the "mistake". A missile from North Korea would take 32-35
minutes from launch to impact in Hawaii.
But of interest is the newspaper report hyping the "threat" followed by the false alarm.
Coincidence? And the "
leaking " of the Draft Nuclear Posture Review this week, in which the military demands
hundreds of new "small" nuclear weapons to fight North Korea and Russia, is also just a
coincidence? Or is all of this part of a public relation campaign designed to increase the
acceptance of new nuclear weapons and "limited" nuclear warfare? A preparation for war on North
Korea? (Related: Deconstructing the North
Korean 'Threat' and Identifying America's Strategic Alternatives
What was behind the false missile attack alarm in Hawaii yesterday. Poynter has
some context:
One of the big stories in the Honolulu
Star-Advertiser Saturday morning was that military "brass" updated island officials on
how the military would respond to a nuclear attack from North Korea . Military authorities
warned there was a "real" threat.
At 8:07 a.m. Saturday, Hawaiian residents saw a terrifying alert message on their
phones.
It took 38 minutes to correct the "mistake". A missile from North Korea would take
32-35 minutes from launch to impact in Hawaii.
But of interest is the newspaper report hyping the "threat" followed by the false
alarm. Coincidence? And the "
leaking " of the Draft Nuclear Posture Review this week, in which the military demands
hundreds of new "small" nuclear weapons to fight North Korea and Russia, is also just a
coincidence? Or is all of this part of a public relation campaign designed to increase the
acceptance of new nuclear weapons and "limited" nuclear warfare? A preparation for war on
North Korea? (Related: Deconstructing the North
Korean 'Threat' and Identifying America's Strategic Alternatives (pdf))
Scott Creighton has been working up collateral to his theory that the Hawaii false alert was
part of a test to sell the Aegis radar system to Japan. Aegis controls the alert system in
Hawaii. The sales contract is $2 billion. Japanese and Pentagon officials were in the area
last Thursday as part of an ongoing demonstration of the system. This is his written post (he
has a later post in a 20-minute video for those who prefer):
So, while it could be a false flag test of some kind, and while it could be tied to the
talks between the two Koreas, I can see it could just as easily be corrupt MIC business as
usual. It seems unlikely this alert was sent in error. But could it have been sent so the
Japanese could see the warning system in action? And US officials reason, well, it's only
Korea and Hawaii's closest, so we have a plausible scenario and neither area has any clout to
complain? And that's as far as their thinking needed to go, because at that point it all
looks perfectly explainable?
Re: Hawaii and nukes. This behavior is to be expected when generals are placed in charge of
foreign affairs because generals are: > ignorant of anything besides warfare. > taught
to believe that they are always right and their detractors are always wrong. >of the
belief that only wars, properly conduced with maximum force, solve problems.
A couple of President Harry Truman quotes: "It's the fellows who go to West Point and are
trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him
[General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not
against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in
jail."
The Pentagon apparently will investigate the "leaked amateur non-professional" video of the
truck driver assault, not the assault itself, and the people connected with the video will be
punished, not the shooter. Memories of Chelsea Manning and the video of the
helicopter-shooting of the Iraqi Journalists, resulting in Manning's court-martial and
imprisonment.
Military investigating shooting in newly leaked Afghan combat video
U.S. commanders have launched an investigation into video footage that appears to show
an American service member firing into the cab of a civilian truck as the two vehicles pass
on a road in Afghanistan, an action that could have violated the military's rules of
engagement and may hamper the alliance with the Afghan government. The shooting briefly
appears during a gritty montage of combat footage allegedly recorded by U.S. troops
battling the Islamic State's Afghan affiliate. An anonymous user recently uploaded the
video to YouTube under the title "Happy Few Ordnance Symphony," then quickly removed it.
"The amateur video posted on a public website gives us serious concern," the U.S. Central
Command told POLITICO in a statement. "The video in question is not official, not
authorized and does not represent the professionalism of the service members of U.S.
Central Command. "We are conducting an investigation into this video, and will take
appropriate actions as a result of this investigation," it added. . .
here
The best treat today is to listen to all those that experienced yesterday's 'nuclear
attack'.
Many of us did not receive a missile attack message at all. This was not due to lack of
cell phone reception. Their phones worked, but they were not alerted. They also use the
same provider. Then, alert messages were different. Some said that the ballistic missile
threat would expire at 6pm. Right.
Here are my own experiences. You be the judge:
Driving towards Pahoa and reaching the High School intersection, I saw cops coming from
the Kalapana direction with lights and sirens on. They stopped at every pulled over vehicle
to talk to the driver. Then they turned into Pahoa road and I also pulled to the side of
the road, thinking whom they are after this time.
I had just turned down the radio, where HPR had started the news. That was at 8:01
AM.
The cop told me (both of his windows were rolled down): "The guy in North Korea has
fired three missiles at us. You should go home and stay with your family." He drove off to
Paul's gas station to talk to other drivers. His co-cop did the same at the propane
place.
My first thought was "That's bullshit." Cops driving around talking to folks
individually while the ICBM's are homing in. It would take those things 20 minutes to hit
their target.
Fuck that shit, I am going to have breakfast as intended. Should that be true, I had at
least a last break fast.
At the store the news had already created panic among those who are easily manipulated.
The hysteria was quite impressive and my reassuring them that things are okay went in the
one ear and out the other.
Mind you that I know these people for years and I am well known for being level
headed.
I get my breakfast and sit outside. A few other guys are rolling in. Then, at 8:07 AM,
the emergency alert appears on our phones. Those who knew, were all filled in by the cops
BEFORE the alert.
The alert caused the store to close. I did my best to calm people down. Explaining to
them that they should listen to their body, instead to anything the government says. George
Carlin's made that clear a long time ago.
But people are now so disconnected from the 'Here and Now' have been so propagandized
and brainwashed, that they are incapable to keep cool and THINK.
IF that would have been the real McCoy, we would have had twenty minutes left from the
time the cops 'informed' people.
Then, when it became apparent that it was bullshit, the cops drove around and appeared
to be taking license plates of those who did not panic, but have breakfast instead.
Around 8:30 AM, Tulsi Gabbard's tweets had made it around enough for people to calm down
somewhat.
The alert cancellation came at 8:45 AM.
Here are some questions.
Who will be the first to become aware of a ballistic missile taking off?
Whom would they inform about that?
Why were cops driving around and telling people personally about the impending
attack?
Flight time is approximately 20 minutes, which means that there were only ten minutes
left from the emergency alert counted from when I was told.
Likely less than ten minutes from 8:07 AM down to impact.
The excuses and explanations that followed made it even more clear that this was an
intentionally triggered false alarm.
That in turn is the dictionary definition of a TERROR ATTACK. To create fear, to
terrorize the population. This was not Kim Jong UN terrorizing Hawai'i, this was the US
regime creating a false flag Emergency Alert to terrorize the Hawai'ian people.
Who would be the first to be informed about an actually and factually happening
attack?
The so called "Commander in Chief"?
Or Bill Maher?
Hopefully, of the flood of people having inundated the islands - especially the Big
Island - most will go back where they came from. Ask anybody that lives here, or was born
here "WHY?".
Yes, they can. Manifest Destiny, WW1, WW2, State of Israel, Coup in Iran, Korean War,
JFK. Gulf OF Tonkin, Viet Nam, Oil Shortages, Oil Wars, Persian Gulf War, 911 and so
on....
Tulsi GAbbard's declarations after the false alarm point to the fact that she is one of the
few the very few U.S. representatives witha spine and a real understanding of the Korean
issue.
She wants talks without preconditions and give and take to reach the point where Kim no
longer feels he needs nuclear clout.
here's what actually happened to cause the false alarm quote Emergency Management Agency
Administrator Vern Miyagi said that the employee who made the mistake felt terrible for
triggering the alarm.
Miyagi apologized for the "trouble" and "heartbreak" caused by alert. "I accept the
responsibility for this," he said. "This is my team. We made a mistake."
But Miyagi also used the opportunity to highlight the fact that if the missile threat
were real, Hawaii residents would only have 12 to 15 minutes to react and find shelter.
"I regret what happened this morning," Miyagi said. "But it brings us up to speed again
about what to expect and what to do."
Miyagi explained that the mistake happened during a drill that occurred around a shift
change at the agency. He said an employee, was using a computer program as part of the
drill, and clicked on the wrong button, which sent out the mass alert.
"It's human error," Miyagi said. "There is a screen that says, 'Are you sure you want to
do this?'"
According to Miyagi, the employee clicked through the warning prompt, which resulted in
thousands of residents receiving an alert that a missile was headed toward the islands.
It's unclear how many people actually received the warning.
Miyagi said he was uncertain why some emergency sirens around the state also went
off.
Ige said that testing of the alert system will be suspended for now. He also said that
two people will now have to approve an alert before it goes public.
The testing on Saturday was part of Hawaii's efforts to upgrade its alert system to
provide earlier warning to residents in case of a missile attack.
Ige and Miyagi acknowledged that the state's emergency agency did not have a process in
place to cancel a false warning. Furthermore, the agency didn't realize until several
minutes later that it had accidentally sent out the warning to the public, Miyagi said.
"We didn't have a message scripted that said this is a false alarm," Ige said. "We were
not prepared for that."
"So we have built that now," he added.
While state officials could instantaneously send out the erroneous alert, they required
approvals from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to send out the corrected alert --
and that process contributed to the 38-minute delay, officials said.
"We have to clear that to make sure that we can get that out," Miyagi said. On Saturday
morning, information technology staff with the emergency agency scrambled to get those
approvals "as fast as they could," he added. Civil Defense head Verne Miyagi apologizes to
our community/public via media during press conference held at the Diamond Head Emergency
Operations Center.
Typical government incompetence. Having a dialog box " Are you sure? Y/N "
doesn't cut it anymore, as people have been conditioned for years to click on the OK
button without reading the prompt, to get to what they want. Waiting for a request of
federal funding to upgrade their systems. I can only imagine on what the price tag will be.
I suppose the silver lining is that the Japanese government observing the drill, now knows
what not to do regarding issuing public alerts.
Interesting comment about the police taking note of non-responders.
... It took 38 minutes to correct the "mistake". A missile from North Korea would take
32-35 minutes from launch to impact in Hawaii. ...
Wow! Good catch, And a nice piece of sleuthing, b... Oz's reptilian MSM didn't bother
acquainting its 'consumers' with that vital snippet of relevance. So, was the alert a
mistake or was it just another big chunk of pre-emptive Yankee Arseholery from The
Swamp?
I'll not waste time on whether or not the warning was legitimate; but rather, on the
expressed behavior of the people; it's a sure sign they're scared; which translates to; the
U.S. propaganda campaign has been very effective. This is truly frightening and a marker of
the true mental state of the populace. I must add; I'm very concerned; it exceeds my
vision/perception of today's reality. IMO; we've really crossed the Rubicon I'll re-adjust
my perception meter immediately to extreme.
"...Emergency Management Agency Administrator Vern Miyagi said that the employee who
made the mistake felt terrible for triggering the alarm..."
Miyagi should feel worse about remaining on his job despite his lack of management
skills and complete absence of system controls. He should also feel bad about having a
pre-programmed missile alert message that can be sent without any such alert from Pacific
Command and requires nothing more than a few clicks by a low-level employee.
"...But Miyagi also used the opportunity to highlight the fact that if the missile
threat were real, Hawaii residents would only have 12 to 15 minutes to react and find
shelter. "I regret what happened this morning," Miyagi said. "But it brings us up to speed
again about what to expect and what to do..."
Bad, bad time to look for a teachable moment here, Miyagi. I have to doubt the sincerity
of his earlier apology if he immediately morphs into a psychopathic, patronizing Homeland
Security bureaucrat and takes the opportunity to dispense a few words of government wisdom
to the little people since he has their attention. Jesus - I would have punched him in the
face at this point.
"...Miyagi explained that the mistake happened during a drill that occurred around a
shift change at the agency. He said an employee, was using a computer program as part of
the drill, and clicked on the wrong button, which sent out the mass alert..."
There is no such 'drill' or test performed anywhere else in the US that sends anything
but the canned test message to the Integrated Public Alert Warning System (IPAWS) on a
weekly or monthly schedule.
"It's human error," Miyagi said. "There is a screen that says, 'Are you sure you want
to do this?'"
The error is using the damn live IPAWS console for your 'drill'. No home-brew drill or
test should ever involve any access to the live IPAWS console for this exact
reason. I'm glad Miyagi never crewed a nuclear missile silo - we would all be dead by
now.
"...According to Miyagi, the employee clicked through the warning prompt, which
resulted in thousands of residents receiving an alert that a missile was headed toward the
islands. It's unclear how many people actually received the warning..."
Another reason for Miyagi's immediate dismissal. When you punch in an alert on the IPAWS
console, it goes directly to the FEMA IPAWS server, where it is then disseminated to
all your other client messaging systems. Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) is one of
those systems. WEA feeds every cell phone provider in the area (all of Hawaii in this
case). Any modern smartphone that's turned on and using a Hawaiian network will
automatically display the message with some obnoxious audio alert. 1.5 million people and
he thinks this message only reached 'thousands'? He's either a horrible liar or he's a
complete idiot.
"...Miyagi said he was uncertain why some emergency sirens around the state also went
off..."
Well, that was because his agency programmed IPAWS to fire the sirens for Civil
Emergency-type messages. Mostly because that's how you're suppose to activate them
if you're using IPAWS. That's what it's for. Didn't he just start testing the 'nuclear
attack' sirens last year? Don't tell me this message set off the Tsunami warning horns
instead. And why only some of them? Does this HEMA terrorist understand how to make any of
his DHS/FEMA junk in Hawaii work properly?
"...Furthermore, the agency didn't realize until several minutes later that it had
accidentally sent out the warning to the public, Miyagi said..."
What, NONE of these guys had a cellphone? Everyone in the building with one should have
seen/heard the alert within tens of seconds. That's how WEA works. They knew right away -
that's why they sent out FB and Twitter messages minutes later.
"We didn't have a message scripted that said this is a false alarm," Ige said. "We
were not prepared for that."
Doesn't he know anything about IPAWS? You don't NEED a pre-approved, scripted message.
There may be a specific message to deactivate WEA rebroadcasts, but there's nothing that
should have prevented them from sending a simple update for everyone to disregard the
earlier warning. This is done all the time in IPAWS - they must
really be confused or just not know how to use it at all. One would think they would take
the trouble to learn since they're inexplicably using the live console for testing.
"...While state officials could instantaneously send out the erroneous alert, they
required approvals from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to send out the corrected
alert -- and that process contributed to the 38-minute delay, officials said..."
More painfully-obvious made-up BS to cover their butts. HEMA *is* the messaging
authority there, period. FEMA has nothing to do with approving any messages for
them. The other US operators must be shaking their heads in disbelief.
"...information technology staff with the emergency agency scrambled to get those
approvals "as fast as they could," he added..."
Oh, I get it now. Contract IT that had no clue. They had to call FEMA to figure out what
to do, since they were apparently as unfamiliar with the system as the HEMA guys and
couldn't get it to work either. Good thing they didn't call the overseas help desk -
unplugging it for ten seconds wouldn't have fixed much.
What really worries me is how the Pacific Command in Hawaii reacted when all their
cellphones suddenly alerted them that THEY had 'detected an incoming ballistic missile'.
That's not the kind of erroneous alert I want my nuclear-armed military to see - ever.
According to Miyagi, the employee clicked through the warning prompt, which resulted in
thousands of residents receiving an alert that a missile was headed toward the
islands."
@Mauisurfer
How come, that cops were driving around telling everybody to go home and stay with their
families, because "the guy in North Korea" had fired three missiles? Plenty of people can
attest to that. If the error was with "this employee", than that would mean that there
could have been no prior knowledge of the cops about this ballistic missile threat. How did
the cops know before the employee made "a mistake"? That is not possible. The employee made
'the mistake' at 8:07 AM. We here in Pahoa we're warned before 8:07 AM.
There is obviously much more to this than meets the eyes and ears.
The ballistic missile threat was not created by 'this employee'.
Please take the time to read this excellent written review of Daniel Ellsberg's new book
about the "Doomsday Machine". It should further the under standing about the scope of the
Doomsday Machine that would have responded to any ballistic missile fired at Guam, Hawai'i,
or the mainland. https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/09/rational-insanity-a
the-mad-logic-of-americas-nuclear-doomsday-machine/
Thank You so much. While I am not familiar with
the intricacies of the IPAWS warning system, I
have experienced a number of tsunami and hurricane
alerts through this system. The cancellation was
always as immediate as the website would report.
(PTWC / CPHC respectively).
I get must be impeached and with all lower level
employees be prosecuted and terminated.
This 'event' has caused PTSD among a number of
people, especially the countless mother's with
infant babies.
This was not an accident, but it shall serve as
a wake up call to dismantle the nuclear Doomsday
machine.
North Korea aquired ICBM's to protect itself from
the people that almost entirely exterminated it
by the likes of Curtis LeMay.
The country with the most nukes must start unilaterally
to abolish its Doomsday Machine. Others will follow.
The threat by North Korea is a psychological projection
by the only people to ever have dropped nuclear bombs.
...
In that case North Korea would have lots of targets to chose from.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 15, 2018 5:43:22 AM | 60
Yes, interesting point reinforced, somewhat, by this extract from SST's January 13 post
about domestic US Military base closures...
"What's more, at the same time that the domestic base closings are proceeding, the
U.S. military footprint abroad is expanding. According to American University professor
David Vine, there are presently 800 American military bases abroad, in 70
countries, with an annual cost of $160-200 billion, including American theaters of
combat--Iraq and Afghanistan. Recent Pentagon studies of the need to devise a "third offset
strategy" to address the increased vulnerabilities of American military bases around the
globe raise further questions about the viability of the current military posture."
Unfortunately for the Yankees, Kim (correctly) regards the US Homeland as the top
priority target for NK retaliation to US Military violence inflicted on North Korea. Why
Nuke Hawaii, or some other island outpost, when he can Nuke Washington, New York, Boston,
plus the 5 biggest US freight ports and airports - at the same time on the same day? He
only has to convince the Yankees that it's "do-able" and NK will be AmeriKKKa-proof.
And let's not forget that China has said that if NK is attacked, China will respond on NK's
behalf.
Hoarsewhisperer , Jan 15, 2018 6:33:15 AM |
62Heros , Jan 15, 2018 6:58:12 AM |
63
@54 nottheonly1
"The threat by North Korea is a psychological projection by the only people to ever have
dropped nuclear bombs."
This reminds me of a famous expression out of 16th century Poland:
"The jew cries out in pain as he strikes you"
The evidence here clearly indicates that by signalling this alarm, which automatically
sent it out to IPAWS/HEMA/FEMA/PACCOM/NORAD/[who knows else where], someone was trying to
provoke a missile exchange and start a war.
Some miracle or god prevented this war that the MIC is so horny for from getting started
and the US nuking North Korea. It must be the same god that in 1967 prevented the Zionists
from sinking the Liberty after 2 hours of bombs and torpedoes, which would have directly
pulled the US into Israel's war against her Arab neighbors.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2018 6:33:15 AM | 62
NK has been America-proof since the last war. The difference being that they have
convinced the US now that they can act on their own - without Chinese or Russian support.
That means the US will have to talk to North Korea directly.
"Rex Tillerson has been advocating for a diplomatic approach to this crisis, that is a
point of view that Canada shares, and so the purpose of this meeting is to talk about
economic and diplomatic ways of getting North Korea to the table," Paris said.
"I think it's the main purpose of this meeting," said Shin Maeng-ho, South Korea's
Ambassador to Canada, who is attending the meeting.
During an interview on CBC's The House with guest host Alison Crawford, Shin added: "I
think diplomacy is the only option left to us. War on the Korean peninsula means death of
millions of people."
"All foreign ministers in Vancouver will seek all the ways and means for diplomatic
solution," Shin said.
"... Regarding North Korean US military targets, the Guardian failed to include what might its primary target. Camp Humphreys which is 57 miles from the DMZ, in DPRK 300mm rocket range, and currently houses 12,000 Americans and is growing. So DPRK can't be attacked unless those Americans are evacuated first, and that won't happen. The host country would no permit it, and go crazy if they did. It would be mass mayhem. ..."
"... In fact the whole concept of forward basing actually puts a damper on any Pentagon aggression. Another example is the 40,000 Americans at various bases in the western Persian Gulf, well within Iran rocket and missile range. That means no attack against Iran. ..."
"... Finally, these bases are financially supported by host countries. In South Korea the current Camp Humphreys $10 billion expansion is reportedly being funded by ROK. ..."
> Regarding North Korean US military targets, the Guardian failed to include what might
its primary target. Camp Humphreys which is 57 miles from the DMZ, in DPRK 300mm rocket
range, and currently houses 12,000 Americans and is growing. So DPRK can't be attacked unless
those Americans are evacuated first, and that won't happen. The host country would no permit
it, and go crazy if they did. It would be mass mayhem.
> In fact the whole concept of forward basing actually puts a damper on any Pentagon
aggression. Another example is the 40,000 Americans at various bases in the western Persian
Gulf, well within Iran rocket and missile range. That means no attack against Iran.
> Finally, these bases are financially supported by host countries. In South Korea the
current Camp Humphreys $10 billion expansion is reportedly being funded by ROK.
I see that a spokesman for the Kurdish SDF/YPG says that Kurdish forces will enter Idlib to
participate in the destruction of HTS and friends. It seems clear to me that the Kurds will
fight on the government side if they enter the fight in Idlib. This must really be a
disppointment to
CENTCOM. pl
Things going the way one might expect.
Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 15, 2018 8:01:53 AM |
71
wow i don't believe that some people still calling the Syrian conflict as a "civil war"..
with so many proxy armies supported by Syria's neighbours, with more than 20.000 foreign
terrorists of ISIS, with Iranian paramilitary units etc etc
YPG/YPJ is the most effective force against ISIS because they aren't mercenaries fighting
for money, they're fighting for their families and for freedom.
The syrian war is not a civil war.Before everything started,the syrian army uniforms were
sown in Lebanon where al hariri ,a part of the lebanese parties and officials from some gulf
countries decided to get rid of AL ASSAD because according to them he had no role in the
future map of the region.All of them opened their borders to mercenaries from all over the
world to do the dirty job with some beared djihadists from the country who always dreamt to
lead the country.These are the facts.Anyhthing else is just embroidering from the West and
Israel who sized the opportunity to eliminate AL ASSAD.
Assad has a secular government, that's why all other believers as Christians, Shias and
even Sunnis Support him, But the rebels are radical sunnis & Arabs and trying to make an
Arabic-sunni government that make other believers & Speakers weak and give power to sunni
Arabs, so the best chance for Syria & who want a free & secular country for every
Syrians is Assad But unfortunately the Saudi suckers in Syria that all are extremist muslims
(sunnis) don't want a secular country and freedom of religion in Syria... And bastard western
countries supported them because Assad was alliance of Iran & Russia and the extremists
were Saudi Arabia's alliance and Saudi is bitch of western countries. So all you have to
understand that western countries don't support freedom & secularism in Middle east (they
just say beautiful things but never try for them as what you saw in Syria) because the
extremism in other countries is good for them... If other countries stay weak , it's good for
them... As an Iranian irreligious my dream is having a secular government as Assad , because
the government of Iran is Islamic and i see they are destroying Iran... all non-shia Iranians
haven't much rights here... But they have it in Syria by Assad, God bless Assad and free
Syria I know Assad did some mistakes at 2011 but that's not a hard reason for saying Assad
isn't better than rebels and terrorists. All Syrians have to have their free election in
peace and choose their ideal government by election, not with civil war...
"... To add a bit;" The ISIS /US seem to want to recreate the "Caliphate" (The southern bit of east Syria was supposed to form the village "basis" with Raqqua and Mosul etc the jam on the top. The SDF have released a number of ISIS "captives" recently. (Plus a whole lot that mysteriously became SDF at the moment they might have got hit by Russian aerial bombardments). ..."
"... Note that the Tanf US base is also training and arming ISIS and other rebels (and a seperate lot from the Rubakan refugee camp), with heavy weapons and anti-tank missiles among the arms. ..."
"... Note that the main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al Nusra in the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same time); The mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based supply line. ..."
"... However, as the USKurd area has to be able to have import export supply lines, we can expect to see more attacks on the Syrian/Iraqi positions in the southern corner (Al Qaim) from the Western side of the Euphrates (ie Tanf). ..."
"Reading through the article, US is now seems to be publicly stating it is in Syria to stay,
with Kurd's guarding the US/Turkish border, and retrained ISIS guarding the US/Syria, and
US/Iraq borders"
To add a bit;" The ISIS /US seem to want to recreate the "Caliphate" (The southern bit of
east Syria was supposed to form the village "basis" with Raqqua and Mosul etc the jam on the
top. The SDF have released a number of ISIS "captives" recently. (Plus a whole lot that
mysteriously became SDF at the moment they might have got hit by Russian aerial
bombardments).
Note that the Tanf US base is also training and arming ISIS and other rebels (and a seperate
lot from the Rubakan refugee camp), with heavy weapons and anti-tank missiles among the
arms.
There are supposed to be 14 US bases in Syria. (source; Al Jazeera or Qatar - not sure
which).
OK: that is the US side. Now the other side.
1) who would attack the US camps and proxies? Might this be Erdogan who is already making
noises about the Kurdish build-up on his borders? At least he will try to stop reinforcements
and oil exports via Turkish territory if this is the case. (If the Syrians attacked the US
camps directly then Trump and the Pentagon would leap with joy and use that as an excuse to
re-start the war in that area.)
2) The recent drone attack on the Russians. By saying they "knew" who it was and then
effectively "zapping" the "militants concerned", this is a very clear warning. Note that
the main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al
Nusra in the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same
time); The mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based
supply line. Whichever: The Russian "Zap", extremely accurate (!) and timed, can be seen
as a direct threat to the ORIGINATORS of the drones, who were the ones trying to get to the
minibus. Also explains why Putin has not directly mentioned who they were. No need, the
warning is made.
However, as the USKurd area has to be able to have import export supply lines, we can
expect to see more attacks on the Syrian/Iraqi positions in the southern corner (Al Qaim)
from the Western side of the Euphrates (ie Tanf).
The evolution of guided missiles has revolutionized warfare, obsoleting many military
systems such as aircraft carries (the Pentagon of course has not gotten the message) and
economizing threats.
Now come the cheap and virtually unstoppable drones, like in the recent attack on the
Russian air base. In the Washington area:
In the middle of a federal no-fly zone for drones, in some of the most sensitive and
restricted airspace in the United States, technicians working with Duggan recorded nearly 100
drone sightings over two months last summer. And that was just around two Army posts he
oversees. . . ."
Are they bad guys? Well, we don't know," Duggan said. "It's a technology that
can be used to attack us at home. Why? Because we are not as prepared as we need to be."
Truman was a lot like obomba. shaped, modeled and fluffed to appear to be a thoughtful,
moral and decent fellow - everyman, but in reality an empty suit and a useful frontispiece -
puppet for the zioinist warmongers.
While Trump was emasculated after just three months of his presidency, the reality is that Trump does not matter. It is
the deep state that controls the Us foreign policy...
Over the weekend, the people of
Hawaii were temporarily terrorized by a notification sent to their mobile phones that a ballistic
missile was headed straight for them
and they needed to seek shelter immediately. They were
not notified that it was a false alarm
for
38 minutes
, despite its reportedly being a simple human error triggered by an employee who "pushed
the wrong button".
Many who are less trusting of official CNN narratives when it comes to the US power establishment
have been
voicing skepticism
of this explanation,
finding the timing highly suspect given that the Trump administration
just caused international controversy by
giving the okay
for a $133 million sale of an anti-ballistic missile system to Japan
. A
sale which,
according to Russia,
violates international ballistic missile treaties and will put a strain on
Moscow's relationship with Tokyo.
The general idea is that this deal has a lot less to do with the threat posed by North
Korea, its ostensible object, and a lot more to do with the
Russia-China
tandem
that the US power establishment is continually working to undermine.
Placing an
anti-ballistic missile system in the hands of a US ally right on the east edge of Asia weakens the
effectiveness of
mutually assured
destruction (MAD)
, the understanding that if any nation launches a nuclear attack on another
nuclear-armed country there will be full-scale retaliation and both countries will be destroyed. If
some American officials get it into their heads that their country's rivals can be taken out via
nuclear strikes and any retaliatory strikes nullified via missile defense systems, MAD is no longer a
deterrent to this and we're looking at potentially billions of deaths and possible planetary
extinction.
Regardless of whether the false alarm was a psyop designed to manufacture support for the
anti-ballistic missile sale or a genuine human error, the fact remains that the deal itself is
undeniably a move taken by the Trump administration against the will and interests of the Kremlin.
This is just the latest in a string of maneuvers against Russia that have been made by this
administration, despite Trump's continued outward assurances that he wants to improve relations with
Moscow. As is so often the case, a US president is saying one thing and doing something very
different.
And it completely kills the Russiagate narrative.
Just a few days ago Russiagaters were having yet another "BOOM! We got him!" social media
parade
about
an article
from the
Clinton-directed
Daily
Beast, claiming that a senior national security aide within the Trump administration had suggested
scaling down the US troop presence along Russia's border, a dangerous escalation which all peace
advocates support eliminating. In the first sentence of the article's second paragraph, the author
Spencer Ackerman acknowledges that "the proposal was ultimately not adopted."
Huh?
So President Trump, alleged to have been groomed early and at great expense by the
Kremlin in anticipation of a presidential victory nobody else imagined possible at that time, was
pitched a recommendation to scale down new cold war escalations with Russia... and he refused?
That's how you're starting your article about the "return on Russia's election-time investment in
President Trump"?
Russiagate is so weird.
You need to plug yourself into Louise Mensch and
Rachel Maddow ramblings so extensively that you can contort your sense of reason to the point where it
looks perfectly rational to believe that Putin was omniscient enough to know that Trump could defeat
all primary opponents and take the fight to the heir apparent Hillary Clinton back when virtually no
one else imagined such a thing was possible, recruited his team reportedly at the
cost of billions of dollars
, poured all kinds of intel and resources into ensuring Trump's
election using hackers and bots to influence American opinion, only to get a US president who is, when
it comes to facts in evidence, already just a year into his administration demonstrably more hawkish
towards Russia than his predecessor was.
Again: huh?
Nobody wants to think about this because it doesn't fit in with America's stale partisan models;
Democrats would have to admit that their best shot at getting a rival president impeached
is pure gibberish, and Trump supporters would have to acknowledge that their swamp-draining populist
hero is actually just one more corrupt globalist neocon like his predecessors.
But when
it comes to actual facts in evidence, that's exactly what we're looking at.
Over and over and over again this alleged Russian asset has been choosing to undermine
Moscow instead of advancing its interests.
He approved the sale of arms to Ukraine, a
move loudly
encouraged by DC
neocons
which
Obama refused to do
because of the dangerous tensions it would inflame with Russia. His
administration forced
first RT
and
now Sputnik
to register as foreign agents,
expanded NATO
with the addition of
Montenegro, assigning
established Russia hawk
Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine,
shutting
down a Russian consulate
in San Francisco and throwing out Russian diplomats as part of continued
back-and-forth hostile diplomatic exchanges, and
signing the Russian
sanctions bill
despite loud protests from Moscow. If he is indeed an expensive Russian asset, then
Russia got ripped off.
The one area Russiagaters can claim Trump hasn't gone against Russian interests is in Syria, where
the administration has cooperated with Putin in fighting terrorist forces. Or at least, they would
have been able to make that argument
had Obama not been in favor of it as well
. If Syria proves Trump is a Putin puppet, then the White
House must have been offering a two-for-one deal, because they bought Obama as well.
Russiagaters can claim "Well, Trump colluded with Russia, but because we're putting
political pressure on him not to align with Putin he isn't able to do anything to advance Moscow's
interests."
Okay, but what's the charge, then? That Russia bought Trump, and accomplished
absolutely nothing other than bringing new sanctions and cold war escalations down upon itself? Again,
the Steele dossier upon which the collusion narrative is based alleges that Trump was recruited at
great expense long before anyone in the US thought of him as a serious presidential contender. We're
expected to believe that Putin was psychic enough to know Trump could win with enough confidence to
invest accordingly, but not psychic enough to know that collusion and election meddling could be
detected by America's sprawling surveillance networks and cause backlash, sanctions and escalations?
No part of any of this makes any sense at all. If you can see past the stupid corporate
media-fed filters of Trump_vs_deep_state and anti-Trump_vs_deep_state enough to look at what's actually happening, the
collusion narrative is nonsense on its face.
Maybe the false missile alarm wasn't a psyop, but Russiagate definitely is. America's unelected
power establishment had a plan to manufacture support for new escalations to hobble the Russia-China
tandem regardless of who won the 2016 presidential election, and since their prefered candidate didn't
win they've been employing what is surely the most extensive single psychological operation ever
performed in human history.
And it's working so far. Sure will cause a lot of problems for them if people start waking up to
it, though.
"No part of this makes any sense"...author is a fucking retard. It makes perfect sense when
you realize that the Democrats are traitorous greedy deranged lunatics who have disconnected
from reality.
Sanctions must be placed on the US immediately. Put all US Nationals on Foreign Soil under
House/Base-Arrest, in particular, the Real Psychotic Banker/MIC/Neocon Types. Then Close their
Internment/Training Camps, cutting off their WMD Supply Routes and hence, their ability to form
Militias for Regime Change purposes.
article is bullshit.... If Trump even thinks about cooperating with RUSSIA he is "completely a
russian agent" if he tries to sabotage Russia then he is "totally being played and is a deep
state play-along"
he can't win. like in 90% of all the press............. Trump is hated
because he is against the Deep STate.
I always go with the exact opposite of what the mainstream says. That is , more often than
not, the closest thing to the truth.
What was behind the false missile attack alarm in Hawaii yesterday. Poynter
has some context:
One of the big stories in the Honolulu
Star-Advertiser Saturday morning was that military "brass" updated island officials on
how the military would respond to a nuclear attack from North Korea . Military authorities
warned there was a "real" threat.
At 8:07 a.m. Saturday, Hawaiian residents saw a terrifying alert message on their
phones.
It took 38 minutes to correct the "mistake". A missile from North Korea would take 32-35
minutes from launch to impact in Hawaii.
But of interest is the newspaper report hyping the "threat" followed by the false alarm.
Coincidence? And the "
leaking " of the Draft Nuclear Posture Review this week, in which the military demands
hundreds of new "small" nuclear weapons to fight North Korea and Russia, is also just a
coincidence? Or is all of this part of a public relation campaign designed to increase the
acceptance of new nuclear weapons and "limited" nuclear warfare? A preparation for war on North
Korea? (Related: Deconstructing the North
Korean 'Threat' and Identifying America's Strategic Alternatives
What was behind the false missile attack alarm in Hawaii yesterday. Poynter has
some context:
One of the big stories in the Honolulu
Star-Advertiser Saturday morning was that military "brass" updated island officials on
how the military would respond to a nuclear attack from North Korea . Military authorities
warned there was a "real" threat.
At 8:07 a.m. Saturday, Hawaiian residents saw a terrifying alert message on their
phones.
It took 38 minutes to correct the "mistake". A missile from North Korea would take
32-35 minutes from launch to impact in Hawaii.
But of interest is the newspaper report hyping the "threat" followed by the false
alarm. Coincidence? And the "
leaking " of the Draft Nuclear Posture Review this week, in which the military demands
hundreds of new "small" nuclear weapons to fight North Korea and Russia, is also just a
coincidence? Or is all of this part of a public relation campaign designed to increase the
acceptance of new nuclear weapons and "limited" nuclear warfare? A preparation for war on
North Korea? (Related: Deconstructing the North
Korean 'Threat' and Identifying America's Strategic Alternatives (pdf))
Scott Creighton has been working up collateral to his theory that the Hawaii false alert was
part of a test to sell the Aegis radar system to Japan. Aegis controls the alert system in
Hawaii. The sales contract is $2 billion. Japanese and Pentagon officials were in the area
last Thursday as part of an ongoing demonstration of the system. This is his written post (he
has a later post in a 20-minute video for those who prefer):
So, while it could be a false flag test of some kind, and while it could be tied to the
talks between the two Koreas, I can see it could just as easily be corrupt MIC business as
usual. It seems unlikely this alert was sent in error. But could it have been sent so the
Japanese could see the warning system in action? And US officials reason, well, it's only
Korea and Hawaii's closest, so we have a plausible scenario and neither area has any clout to
complain? And that's as far as their thinking needed to go, because at that point it all
looks perfectly explainable?
Re: Hawaii and nukes.
This behavior is to be expected when generals are placed in charge of foreign affairs because
generals are:
> ignorant of anything besides warfare.
> taught to believe that they are always right and their detractors are always wrong.
>of the belief that only wars, properly conduced with maximum force, solve problems.
A couple of President Harry Truman quotes: "It's the fellows who go to West Point and are
trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him
[General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not
against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in
jail."
The Pentagon apparently will investigate the "leaked amateur non-professional" video of the
truck driver assault, not the assault itself, and the people connected with the video will be
punished, not the shooter. Memories of Chelsea Manning and the video of the
helicopter-shooting of the Iraqi Journalists, resulting in Manning's court-martial and
imprisonment.
Military investigating shooting in newly leaked Afghan combat video
U.S. commanders have launched an investigation into video footage that appears to show
an American service member firing into the cab of a civilian truck as the two vehicles pass
on a road in Afghanistan, an action that could have violated the military's rules of
engagement and may hamper the alliance with the Afghan government.
The shooting briefly appears during a gritty montage of combat footage allegedly recorded
by U.S. troops battling the Islamic State's Afghan affiliate. An anonymous user recently
uploaded the video to YouTube under the title "Happy Few Ordnance Symphony," then quickly
removed it.
"The amateur video posted on a public website gives us serious concern," the U.S. Central
Command told POLITICO in a statement. "The video in question is not official, not
authorized and does not represent the professionalism of the service members of U.S.
Central Command.
"We are conducting an investigation into this video, and will take appropriate actions as a
result of this investigation," it added. . .
here
The best treat today is to listen to all
those that experienced yesterday's 'nuclear
attack'.
Many of us did not receive a missile attack
message at all. This was not due to lack of
cell phone reception. Their phones worked,
but they were not alerted. They also use
the same provider.
Then, alert messages were different. Some
said that the ballistic missile threat
would expire at 6pm. Right.
Here are my own experiences. You be the
judge:
Driving towards Pahoa and reaching the
High School intersection, I saw cops
coming from the Kalapana direction with
lights and sirens on. They stopped at
every pulled over vehicle to talk to
the driver.
Then they turned into Pahoa road and
I also pulled to the side of the road,
thinking whom they are after this time.
I had just turned down the radio, where
HPR had started the news. That was at
8:01 AM.
The cop told me (both of his windows were
rolled down):
"The guy in North Korea has fired three
missiles at us. You should go home and
stay with your family."
He drove off to Paul's gas station to
talk to other drivers. His co-cop did
the same at the propane place.
My first thought was "That's bullshit."
Cops driving around talking to folks
individually while the ICBM's are
homing in. It would take those things
20 minutes to hit their target.
Fuck that shit, I am going to have
breakfast as intended. Should that
be true, I had at least a last break fast.
At the store the news had already created
panic among those who are easily manipulated.
The hysteria was quite impressive and my
reassuring them that things are okay went
in the one ear and out the other.
Mind you that I know these people for years
and I am well known for being level headed.
I get my breakfast and sit outside. A few
other guys are rolling in. Then, at 8:07 AM,
the emergency alert appears on our phones.
Those who knew, were all filled in by the
cops BEFORE the alert.
The alert caused the store to close. I did
my best to calm people down. Explaining to
them that they should listen to their body,
instead to anything the government says.
George Carlin's made that clear a long time
ago.
But people are now so disconnected from the
'Here and Now' have been so propagandized
and brainwashed, that they are incapable
to keep cool and THINK.
IF that would have been the real McCoy,
we would have had twenty minutes left
from the time the cops 'informed' people.
Then, when it became apparent that it was
bullshit, the cops drove around and appeared
to be taking license plates of those who did
not panic, but have breakfast instead.
Around 8:30 AM, Tulsi Gabbard's tweets had
made it around enough for people to calm
down somewhat.
The alert cancellation came at 8:45 AM.
Here are some questions.
Who will be the first to become aware of a
ballistic missile taking off?
Whom would they inform about that?
Why were cops driving around and telling
people personally about the impending
attack?
Flight time is approximately 20 minutes,
which means that there were only ten minutes
left from the emergency alert counted from
when I was told.
Likely less than ten minutes from 8:07 AM down
to impact.
The excuses and explanations that followed
made it even more clear that this was an
intentionally triggered false alarm.
That in turn is the dictionary definition
of a TERROR ATTACK. To create fear, to
terrorize the population. This was not
Kim Jong UN terrorizing Hawai'i, this
was the US regime creating a false flag
Emergency Alert to terrorize the Hawai'ian
people.
Who would be the first to be informed about
an actually and factually happening attack?
The so called "Commander in Chief"?
Or Bill Maher?
Hopefully, of the flood of people having
inundated the islands - especially the
Big Island - most will go back where they
came from. Ask anybody that lives here, or
was born here
"WHY?".
Yes, they can. Manifest Destiny, WW1, WW2, State of Israel, Coup in Iran, Korean War,
JFK. Gulf OF Tonkin, Viet Nam, Oil Shortages, Oil Wars, Persian Gulf War, 911 and so
on....
Tulsi GAbbard's declarations after the false alarm point to the fact that she is one of the
few
the very few U.S. representatives witha spine and a real understanding of the Korean issue.
She wants talks without preconditions and give and take to reach the point where Kim
no longer feels he needs nuclear clout.
@somebody 60
> Regarding North Korean US military targets, the Guardian failed to include what might its
primary target. Camp Humphreys which is 57 miles from the DMZ, in DPRK 300mm rocket range, and
currently houses 12,000 Americans and is growing. So DPRK can't be attacked unless those
Americans are evacuated first, and that won't happen. The host country would no permit it, and
go crazy if they did. It would be mass mayhem.
> In fact the whole concept of forward basing actually puts a damper on any Pentagon
aggression. Another example is the 40,000 Americans at various bases in the western Persian
Gulf, well within Iran rocket and missile range. That means no attack against Iran.
> Finally, these bases are financially supported by host countries. In South Korea the
current Camp Humphreys $10 billion expansion is reportedly being funded by ROK.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 15, 2018 10:08:20 AM |
76
Okay, the segment with the shooting through the truck window is still only 5 seconds but
I'd argue that the fact that it is part of a 3 minute montage 'our guys are kicking ass in
Afghanistan' actually gives it a much worse context. If this was some innocent procedural,
'we had to reluctantly do it' incident, no one in their right mind would have popped it into
such a sequence.
Should provide plenty of lucrative U.S. tax-dollar theft by the corrupt Rojava
'government' (as it were), dishonest Border Guard commanders and (of course) thieving U.S.
defense contractors and their CENTCOM collaborators. Small potatoes compared to the fortunes
made in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hey - times are tough
Notable quotes:
"... 'Border Guards' are little more than a CENTCOM act of desperation, yet provide enough of an excuse (in their eyes) to keep a significant U.S. military in intelligence presence there, and it will justify ongoing arms and equipment shipments. And just like At Tanf, CENTCOM can arrange 'selective' border-crossing enforcement (or not) at will. Also provides good cover for all our electronic eavesdropping and long-range radar and surveillance equipment we probably already have stationed there. And plenty of opportunities to concoct various kinds of ridiculous Border Guard Special Forces Anti-Terrorist kill teams for... whatever. SOCOM will want their piece of the SDFistan pie. ..."
"... Nobody will be able to keep track of US training, arms and supplies for such an unreasonably large force, so plenty of opportunities for future mischief: merc/terrorist training and refuge, rebel resupply, anti-Syrian intelligence gathering, weapons/ammo stockpiles controlled by the US, etc. ..."
"... The US neocon/chicken-hawk assumptions are that 1) the little people Kurds won't riot and throw the U.S. back-stabbers out before this can be implemented, 2) the PYD will trust the loyalty of these US-trained 'border guard' forces (to protect the PYD and their future revenue streams) 3) that the SAA won't simply roll across the Euphrates soon to enforce their sovereign borders, and 4) that Recep doesn't send a few armored divisions south to end this irritating SDF nonsense once and for all. ..."
"... SDFistan is CENTCOM's job - nobody fires them. ..."
@10
Laguerre is correct, the US/Kurd/ISIS enclave in the eastern Syria desert would be land-locked
by opposing governments and untenable. This is yet another example of what happens when you
have stupid generals determining foreign policy.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 14, 2018 2:01:17 PM |
13
@13 It is absurd. The idea presumably is to create a whole new country....let's call it Free
Democratic Syria, with it's own border controls. Citizens will need passports to visit their
relatives in Damascus.
Don Bacon@13 What you say is true, it does not mean the US will not try to partition Syria,
If not a Caliphate then a new state. This landlocked entity can have no chance of success,
but let Syrian or Russian troops do anything about it, then the US will accuse them of
aggression and call on more troops to enforce their occupation. Hopefully enough Kurds and
Arabs in the area will see a united Syria with maybe limited administrative devolution
preferable to war against the combined forces of Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah and Iran. As one
perceptive SDF leader said...
The SDF's Arab tribal allies can be fickle. "Most of them were in the tribal council for
Isis. Before that, they were with the regime and now the SDF," he says." Whoever comes next,
they'll be with them." Sounds like the US will be trying to herd cats.
Without mentioning the US, Erdogan said on Sunday he expected allies not to make "mistakes"
by "taking sides" with the YPG during the battle for Afrin.
"We expect from our allies that they behave in accordance with the spirit of our
deep-rooted relationship during this process," Erdogan said, adding "despite everything" he
hoped for cooperation to achieve "common interests" in the region.
"I hope these forces will not make a mistake of appearing on the same stage with the
terrorist organisation during the Afrin operation," the president said.
A senior Syrian Kurdish official said on Sunday that fighting between the YPG and
Turkish forces was already under way.
I don't know if there are any rules in NATO for inner-NATO conflict.
The Rojavan Kurds have always been ready to make a deal with Asad. They understand their
situation. It is the US which is pushing for independence. Part of their plan for cutting up
Syria, descended from the French plan of the 1920s. But it's not working. Even Idlib is on
the point of collapse.
Scotch Bingeington@25 - The border force scheme is just another US charade to train and equip
anti-Shia and anti-Syrian forces. CENTCOM would have a hard time explaining why they would
maintain a standing army of 50K SDF in SDFistan when there's no head-choppers left to fight.
The PYD is going to insist on owning the military again after SDF demobilization. Guarding
borders would just be a drain on those forces, so they probably would accept a US offer for a
'free' fully-equipped and trained border guard force. The PYD would have some use for that
along the Turkish border, and they probably don't care what the CIA and CENTCOM do with them
along the Euphrates or Iraqi border as long as they keep head-choppers out.
There's little desire anymore by rank-and-file Kurds in the YPG/YPJ to staff the US
ForeverWar™. The war will be over soon enough - most want to go back to their homes.
The YPG/YPJ were organized as local militia to defend their farms and villages, not a federal
army to protect the PYD, SDFistan, US bases or war booty oil fields. The US knows that once
the YPG/YPJ get tired of being ordered around by the US and leave the SDF, the SDF will cease
to exist. There will be enough ex-SDF that still want their US paychecks every month, so
filling out the border guard ranks initially won't be a problem.
'Border Guards' are little more than a CENTCOM act of desperation, yet provide enough of
an excuse (in their eyes) to keep a significant U.S. military in intelligence presence there,
and it will justify ongoing arms and equipment shipments. And just like At Tanf, CENTCOM can
arrange 'selective' border-crossing enforcement (or not) at will. Also provides good cover
for all our electronic eavesdropping and long-range radar and surveillance equipment we
probably already have stationed there. And plenty of opportunities to concoct various kinds
of ridiculous Border Guard Special Forces Anti-Terrorist kill teams for... whatever. SOCOM
will want their piece of the SDFistan pie.
Nobody will be able to keep track of US training, arms and supplies for such an
unreasonably large force, so plenty of opportunities for future mischief: merc/terrorist
training and refuge, rebel resupply, anti-Syrian intelligence gathering, weapons/ammo
stockpiles controlled by the US, etc. Should provide plenty of lucrative U.S. tax-dollar
theft by the corrupt Rojava 'government' (as it were), dishonest Border Guard commanders and
(of course) thieving U.S. defense contractors and their CENTCOM collaborators. Small potatoes
compared to the fortunes made in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hey - times are tough!
The US neocon/chicken-hawk assumptions are that 1) the little people Kurds won't riot and
throw the U.S. back-stabbers out before this can be implemented, 2) the PYD will trust the
loyalty of these US-trained 'border guard' forces (to protect the PYD and their future
revenue streams) 3) that the SAA won't simply roll across the Euphrates soon to enforce
their sovereign borders, and 4) that Recep doesn't send a few armored divisions south
to end this irritating SDF nonsense once and for all.
If it won't be 'border guards', then it will be some other scheme. SDFistan is CENTCOM's
job - nobody fires them.
Should provide plenty of lucrative U.S. tax-dollar theft by the corrupt Rojava
'government' (as it were), dishonest Border Guard commanders and (of course) thieving U.S.
defense contractors and their CENTCOM collaborators. Small potatoes compared to the fortunes
made in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hey - times are tough
not to worry, i see the DoD is gonna audit itself concerning the 21 trillion in Mysterious Items , improperly recorded, or outright missing.
the audit's just gotten underway, with the disclosure that in 2018 it's gonna cost 367
million, and another 551 million to fix the problems.
Should provide plenty of lucrative U.S. tax-dollar theft by the corrupt Rojava
'government' (as it were), dishonest Border Guard commanders and (of course) thieving U.S.
defense contractors and their CENTCOM collaborators. Small potatoes compared to the fortunes
made in Iraq and Afghanistan, but hey - times are tough!
not to worry, i see DoD is gonna audit itself concerning $21 trillion in
mysterious items , improperly recorded, or outright missing.
the audit's just gotten underway, with the disclosure that in 2018 it's gonna cost $367
million, and another $551 million to fix the problems.
The evolution of guided missiles has revolutionized warfare, obsoleting many military
systems such as aircraft carries (the Pentagon of course has not gotten the message) and
economizing threats.
Now come the cheap and virtually unstoppable drones, like in the recent attack on the Russian
air base. In the Washington area:
In the middle of a federal no-fly zone for drones, in some of the most sensitive and
restricted airspace in the United States, technicians working with Duggan recorded nearly 100
drone sightings over two months last summer. And that was just around two Army posts he
oversees. . . ."Are they bad guys? Well, we don't know," Duggan said. "It's a technology that
can be used to attack us at home. Why? Because we are not as prepared as we need to be."
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 15, 2018 11:46:23 AM |
84
"... Note that the main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al Nusra in the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same time); The mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based supply line. ..."
Peter AU1 @2
"Reading through the article, US is now seems to be publicly stating it is in Syria to stay,
with Kurd's guarding the US/Turkish border, and retrained ISIS guarding the US/Syria, and
US/Iraq borders"
To add a bit;" The ISIS /US seem to want to recreate the "Caliphate" (The southern bit of
east Syria was supposed to form the village "basis" with Raqqua and Mosul etc the jam on the
top. The SDF have released a number of ISIS "captives" recently. (Plus a whole lot that
mysteriously became SDF at the moment they might have got hit by Russian aerial
bombardments).
Note that the Tanf US base is also training and arming ISIS and other rebels (and a seperate
lot from the Rubakan refugee camp), with heavy weapons and anti-tank missiles among the
arms.
There are supposed to be 14 US bases in Syria. (source; Al Jazeera or Qatar - not sure
which).
OK: that is the US side. Now the other side.
1) who would attack the US camps and proxies? Might this be Erdogan who is already making
noises about the Kurdish build-up on his borders? At least he will try to stop reinforcements
and oil exports via Turkish territory if this is the case. (If the Syrians attacked the US
camps directly then Trump and the Pentagon would leap with joy and use that as an excuse to
re-start the war in that area.)
2) The recent drone attack on the Russians. By saying they "knew" who it was and then
effectively "zapping" the "militants concerned", this is a very clear warning. Note that
the main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al
Nusra in the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same
time); The mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based
supply line. Whichever: The Russian "Zap", extremely accurate (!) and timed, can be seen
as a direct threat to the ORIGINATORS of the drones, who were the ones trying to get to the
minibus. Also explains why Putin has not directly mentioned who they were. No need, the
warning is made.
However, as the USKurd area has to be able to have import export supply lines, we can
expect to see more attacks on the Syrian/Iraqi positions in the southern corner (Al Qaim)
from the Western side of the Euphrates (ie Tanf).
Shortly before panicked Hawaiians stuffed children into storm drains and said their goodbyes on the
morning of January 13, an unnamed employee at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (H-EMA)
accidentally selected the wrong dropdown menu choice
, resulting in a live broadcast to the
cell phones of Hawaii residents and tourists which read "
BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO
HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL
," according to officials.
Around 8:05 a.m., the Hawaii emergency employee initiated the internal test, according to a
timeline released by the state. From a drop-down menu on a computer program,
he saw two
options: "Test missile alert" and "Missile alert."
He was supposed to choose the former;
as much of the world now knows, he chose the latter, an initiation of a real-life missile alert.
At 8:07, the alert went out, with a more detailed message scrolling across television screens,
reading:
"Civil authority has issued A CIVIL DANGER WARNING for the following counties or areas: Hawaii:
At 8:07 AM on Jan 13, 2018... Message from IPAWSCAP. The U.S. Pacific Command has detected a
missile threat to Hawaii. A missile may impact on land or sea within minutes. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
If you are indoors, stay indoors. If you are outdoors, seek immediate shelter in a building. Remain
indoors well away from windows. If you are driving, pull safely to the side of the road and seek
shelter in a building or lay on the floor."
38 minutes later,
a wireless alert went out letting people know "There is no
missile threat or danger to the State of Hawaii. Repeat. False Alarm."
By then it was too late: the fake warning had ignited mass panic among residents - many of whom
thought they had minutes to live. One resident had a little girl get into a manhole during the
threat.
Authorities were apologetic, with Governor David Ige (D) apologizing for the "pain and confusion"
caused by accidentally telling millions of people death was imminent, saying in a press conference "
a
mistake made during a standard procedure at the changeover of a shift and an employee pushed the wrong
button."
The following day, there were far more questions than answers. Brand new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said
the alert was "absolutely unacceptable," and that a full investigation was underway. Pai seemed to
initially lay blame at state officials for the mistake.
"Based on the information we have collected so far, it appears that the government of Hawaii did
not have reasonable safeguards or process controls in place to prevent the transmission of a false
alert," said Pai, adding "Federal, state, and local officials throughout the country need to work
together to identify any vulnerabilities to false alerts and do what's necessary to fix them. We also
must ensure that corrections are issued immediately in the event that a false alert does go out."
Technical Difficulties
A major factor in the 38 minute gap between the erroneous warning and the subsequent "false alarm"
alert was the fact that while the state has permission from FEMA to
issue
the emergency
broadcast, there is no system in place to send out a subsequent "false alarm" alert.
"We had to double back and work with FEMA [to craft and approve the false alarm alert] and that's
what took time," said HEMA spokesman Richard Rapoza.
Rapoza says that has now been remedied with a cancellation option that can be selected within
seconds of a mistake. "In the past there was no cancellation button. There was no false alarm button
at all," Rapoza said. "Now there is a command to issue a message immediately that goes over on the
same system saying 'It's a false alarm. Please disregard.' as soon as the mistake is identified."
The Emergency Management Agency also said it suspended all drills until the completion of their
investigation, as well as a
"two-person activation/verification rule"
to initiate
tests and missile launch notifications.
According to the
Washington Post,
"The agency said it would issue a preliminary report of
findings and corrective actions next week.
The employee in question has been temporarily
reassigned, Rapoza said, but there are no plans to fire him
.
"Part of the problem was it was too easy -- for anyone -- to make such a big mistake," Rapoza said.
"We have to make sure that we're not looking for retribution, but we should be fixing the problems in
the system. . . . I know that it's a very, very difficult situation for him."
Of course no one is going to get fired. Most government "jobs" are
nothing more than welfare. Turd counters collecting checks. This guy
probably saw the word "test" and said, ain't no way I am takin' a test
today.
Don't be so harsh on the guy. He was probably petting his
therapy puppy and reading "How to Properly Punch a Nzai," and
by axident hit the wrong button.
Lets face it, all those words on the screen are confusing!
I'm making over $14k a month working part time. I kept
hearing other people tell me how much money they can make
online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true
and has totally changed my life. This is what I do...
http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.Jobzon3.com%3Ab8eR_DQLwGRPVGtFv
It was a rioting test, plain and simple. See what
people do when they think they are going to be dead
real soon. Please notice this did not happen
stateside where the panic could not have been
contained to a few islands.
More to this than that. This is from Moon of
Alabama. Action precedes the official timeline.
Many of us did not receive a missile attack
message at all. This was not due to lack of
cell phone reception. Their phones worked,
but they were not alerted. They also use
the same provider.
Then, alert messages were different. Some
said that the ballistic missile threat
would expire at 6pm. Right.
Here are my own experiences. You be the
judge:
Driving towards Pahoa and reaching the
High School intersection, I saw cops
coming from the Kalapana direction with
lights and sirens on. They stopped at
every pulled over vehicle to talk to
the driver.
Then they turned into Pahoa road and
I also pulled to the side of the road,
thinking whom they are after this time.
I had just turned down the radio, where
HPR had started the news. That was at
8:01 AM.
The cop told me (both of his windows were
rolled down):
"The guy in North Korea has fired three
missiles at us. You should go home and
stay with your family."
He drove off to Paul's gas station to
talk to other drivers. His co-cop did
the same at the propane place.
My first thought was "That's bullshit."
Cops driving around talking to folks
individually while the ICBM's are
homing in. It would take those things
20 minutes to hit their target.
Fuck that shit, I am going to have
breakfast as intended. Should that
be true, I had at least a last break fast.
At the store the news had already created
panic among those who are easily manipulated.
The hysteria was quite impressive and my
reassuring them that things are okay went
in the one ear and out the other.
Mind you that I know these people for years
and I am well known for being level headed.
I get my breakfast and sit outside. A few
other guys are rolling in. Then, at 8:07 AM,
the emergency alert appears on our phones.
Those who knew, were all filled in by the
cops BEFORE the alert.
The alert caused the store to close. I did
my best to calm people down. Explaining to
them that they should listen to their body,
instead to anything the government says.
George Carlin's made that clear a long time
ago.
But people are now so disconnected from the
'Here and Now' have been so propagandized
and brainwashed, that they are incapable
to keep cool and THINK.
IF that would have been the real McCoy,
we would have had twenty minutes left
from the time the cops 'informed' people.
Then, when it became apparent that it was
bullshit, the cops drove around and appeared
to be taking license plates of those who did
not panic, but have breakfast instead.
Around 8:30 AM, Tulsi Gabbard's tweets had
made it around enough for people to calm
down somewhat.
I'm actually kind of amazed that they
actually have a missile warning system at
all. I always assumed that we'd find out
that kind of thing when the flash came.
If legit, the post is enough evidence to know
the whole thing was absolutely intentional.
Some sort of exercise. As we know,
"exercises" seem to be accompanied by the
real thing with uncommon frequency. It's a
marker for false flags. If you're not
wondering whether some serious shit wasn't
actually happening over there, you belong on
HuffPo, not the Hedge.
Should have been more like MS Windows> "Are you sure you
want to proceed?" > 'Are you really, really sure?" >
"Press ESC-CTRL-HELLYES to continue" > "Are you sure?"
Yes, like a huge, red, flashing and audible warning
stating 'warning, submitting this drop down option will
open all manhole covers and cause certain residents to
believe cowering under a car will shield them from an
inbound thermonuclear warhead'.. that would work. I'm
all for it.
That assumes you are familiar with the software and
protocols. It is highly unlikely that this sort of thing
would be a one screen event, given that just to purchase
a $1 item online has a confirmation screen, even two.
It is also highly probable the state protocols require
not only a second screen, but a second person. "bad
software" ... you just earned a troll point on ZH.
Congratulations!
More to the point, having the test and real alerts in the
same drop-down menu, is asking for a mis-click. Also,
having a stereotype "Are you sure?" popup is asking for
the average moron to click right through and realize his
mistake afterwards.
Come on now - how many of us have
shut down or rebooted something important by mistake
because we thought the "Are you sure?" was a response to
something different, like "Save configuration" or "Send
coffee and donuts."
That's just plain bad software design by people who
didn't think about the consequences of making the "Nuke
Alert" button exactly like any other. Try this:
Missile Alert button pops up a panel with a Big Red
"Live alert NOW" button, an Amber "this is a drill"
button, and a green "Send the All Clear" button. If you
hit the "Live alert NOW" button, you get a very lurid
confirmation panel with something like "LIVE MISSILE
ALERT WILL BE SENT - ARE YOU SURE??" this confirmation
panel should be ENTIRELY different from the "just a
drill" confirmation, and not at all like any standard
confirmation panel. The confirmation popup should occupy
most of the screen, and the big red "YES" and the Green
"CANCEL" buttons should be large enough and well
separated enough to avoid any possible wrong selection.
Yes, folks, when it comes to emergency alert buttons,
it is time to "lift and separate 'em" so there is no
mistake what you are touching!!
Why is this function not under the control of the military. Any
alert would come from the military anyway. Civilians don't have
the knowhow to maintain such a system. Hawaii put that on clear
display.
Procedures are probably antiquated and should be reviewed by
improved process standards. This is how things get better in all
industries. When an incident occurs, root cause is reviewed and a
process to prevent a re-occurrence. For equipment, methods of
increasing reliability, and remedies for failures, you train it
out, engineer it out or replace it.
Human error is due to lack
of training or inadequate program. Management is responsible as it
is in any industry and should review the current training program
and testing. Management, a CEO was forced to resign for an
altercation on a plane where a passenger was seriously injured by
security. He sued and won compensation. It's no different in any
industry.
Fair enough. But if you read the main article, the suggested
fix was to ad another layer of bureaucracy to the process.
That is always the proffered solution to any governmental
process failure. It fixes nothing, but eventually so many
people and committees are involved in the process that nobody
can be found to take the blame, and job security is maximized.
Note, also, that it took 38 minutes to issue the correction
because the workers were too scared of maybe violating some
unknown rules and regulations by taking charge and doing the
obvious retraction immediately. I can see them sweating
bullets while pouring over their regulatory manuals looking for
a mandated procedure which would tell them exactly how to do a
retraction of an erroneous doomsday proclamation.
I can readily see the implementation of a "fix" that will
require the participation of many other government employees
before the warning gets issued, and create a policy which, when
followed step-by-careful step, results in the warning being
issued about 30 minutes after the missile has arrived.
Not that it matters. The lucky ones will already be
incinerated by then.
That's what Gov't is all
about and why they are inefficient and expensive. There are
many patronage jobs in Gov't. They don't always hire the
brightest people, but ones that might be connected or
related in someway with a higher ups in management.
So it's not a failure attributed to the employee, but the
structure and it's inability to remove all probabilities of
failure. Nothing was fixed by firing the individual, but it
satisfies upper management that a remedy was implemented?
The Guy's manager is responsible for the failure.
As a manager it was my responsibility to ensure my
people's training records were up to date. If there were any
gaps, it was my fault. Any failures were investigated to
determine root cause of failure and training records of the
individual were part of the investigation.
Hawaii is a real libtard and amazingly corrupt shithole. Endless
years if using HI to import illegals, scammy C*I*A shit through Bank
of Hawaii, Bishop Land Trust scam and military scam shit.
Govt
worker presses the wrong button and keeps their job? LOL! What a
joke.
The retards on the islands including wealthy libs and actors all
go into a panic actually believing NK would launch a nuke at HI or
even have the technology to do it. SUCKERS.
There was an incident at a bakery here where an individual was
inside a dough kneading machine working on the agitator. An
operator came and started the machine killing the mechanic inside.
The operator was not fired nor charged with murder. The result of
the investigation was that it was the mechanics fault for not
following lock out, tag out procedures. They will review the
procedures to see if they are adequate for both persons involved,
operators and mechanics. They might add, if it isn't in there,
that the operator do a pre-start inspection of the equipment for
his safety as well.
No need to fire people for making a mistake
without reviewing current procedures. Pilots make mistakes as well
and when they miscalculate, people die. The transportation
ministry does an extensive review on the cause of failure. They
don't just fire the pilot on the spot. In a non union environment
the company can just fire you even if it was a deficiency of the
company's part. They'll fix their deficiency but won't call you
back and apologize to you and offer you yoar job back. Firing
someone will not prevent a repeat of the incident if it's the
process or training that is inadequate.
Unions ensure fair treatment in the work place. They don't
protect bad employees and their membership are people like you.
They don't support anyone that doesn't perform his duties either.
They'll report it to their union Stewart and they will issue a
warning and or termination if it is on going. Terminations have to
have an adequate reason not because there is a personality
conflict between you and someone above you, that has moar say or
is connected to upper management. I've seen people baited, so that
they can fire them.
Root cause of failure investigations are very valuable in
preventing re-occurrences of negative events.
I am Canadian, but I honestly don't recall ever posting the
incident. I've been in the maintenance and reliability field
over 40 years. So I follow industrial accidents and see how
they are handled. It's still of interest to me.
That's a misconception flaunted by MSM. The corporatocracy hates
it when the slaves have something to say or the corporatocracy
can't kick people around, hire and fire without just cause. Fire
you and hire a nephew or brother in law. A union request fair
treatment and by labor standards set forth by the Gov't. If you
were in a union and there was a Guy that was sitting in the
washroom reading the paper all day, wouldn't you complain? Sure
you would. Go to yoar union Stewart and tell him. They'll deal
with him. If it continues, the company will fire him and the union
won't contest it. I don't know why people get the impression that
the unions support undesirables. They manage the employees for
management, especially the thousands in the auto industry.
Management has to only deal with the union reps not every employee
one at a time. I've work in union environments and I prefer not
to, because I like direct contact with management and a
partnership. Some employers are real assholes and I've worked in
those places. Drive 30 miles to work and they tell you that
they're not busy today so you can go home. Want a job tomorrow?
Ya, keep yoar mouth shut, is best. Not busy today, you clock out
early. Our regular hours are 44/week before OT. No paid lunch, no
benefits. No sick pay. 2 weeks vacation, never moar. If I don't
like yoar tattoos yoar fired, the boss said so.
Interesting that no one thought to put in some kind of check: "Are
you absolutely sure you want to cause chaos and confusion, and
frighten the living whatsits out of everyone?"
I imagine all around
the world these alert messages are getting re-engineered today, with
a little dialogue box added - "Are you a) absolutely, definitely, all
going to die, or b) a muppet?"
@snarwani
5) Here's what a CENTCOM spox told me when I asked what the Pentagon thought about its "rebels"
working with Al Qaeda: "We don't 'command and control' these forces – we only 'train and
enable' them Who they say they're allying with, that's their business." Literally, wow.
This is the first such admission from any US official as they usually deny that the militants
they support, arm and train collaborate with terrorist organizations.
This also highlights that the US is prioritizing regime change in Syria over defeating
terrorist organization "
MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russia and its partners will undertake measures as a response to the
US-led coalition's decision to create the so-called "Border Security Force" on the Syrian
territory controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces militia, Chairman of the Defense
Committee of Russia's State Duma Vladimir Shamanov told Sputnik on Sunday.
On Saturday, the Defense Post news website published an article, in which the spokesman of
the US-led coalition fighting against the Islamic State (Daesh) terrorist group said that the
coalition was engaged in a training of a 30,000-strong force on the territory within Syria
currently controlled by SDF to maintain security in controlled area along the Syrian
border.
"[Such a behavior by the US-led coalition] stands in direct confrontation [with Russia's
interests], and we and our colleagues will certainly undertake certain measures on
stabilization of the situation in Syria," Shamanov said when asked whether such actions of
the US-led coalition intersected with the interests of Russia in Syria.
The United States has been leading a coalition of more than 70 nations aimed at defeating
Daesh operating in Iraq and Syria since 2014. The activities of the coalition in Syria are
authorized neither by the UN Security Council nor by Damascus.
Turkey has already reacted to the reported US plans to create the "Border Defense Forces".
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's representative Ibrahim Kalin stated that such move
is unacceptable and "worrying." Later, the Turkish Foreign Ministry has issued a statement
condemning the plans of the United States to create the forces, also noting that the
coalition did not hold consultations with Turkey about the creation of such forces."
Canthama writes in SyrPer:
"The last time we saw rats sending waves after waves of attacks was in western Aleppo city
and we all know what happened there, thousands of dead rats and the city was fully
liberated.
Idlib will be no different, rats will die, they can choose to speed it up or not, but their
fate will be death."
So this is what NATZO countries, the richest countries on earth, do to help the third
world: they find 300,000 poor young men, give them iPhones, Toyota trucks and Humvees, shiny
weapons big and small, and promise them $10,000 a year and all the women they can capture.
Then they let them loose on Syria, where these NATZO mercenaries have killed 200,000 Syrians.
And now, as in the above reports by South Front, these poor young men from under developed
countries have themselves been killed -- their numbers are down from 300,000 to 30,000. And
as Canthama reports above, the remainder face certain death. What a sickening waste of
potentially productive human life and resources by the evil Anglo-Zio-Capitalists who lurk in
the shadows behind NATZO.
The well orchestrated, merciless annihilation of Zion's cannon fodder in Idlib by the SAA
& allies continues unabated. The only place where AQ & ISIS are winning battles are
in Zion's virtual worlds of Facebook & Twitter. Total freak show! Utter calamity! Words
fail!
"The Turkish army opened artillery fire on the Kurdish militia positions in the Syrian
city of Afrin, the Hurriyet newspaper reported.
According to the newspaper, the Turkish Armed Forces fired 10 shots from the territory of
the Reyhanli district in the country's province of Hatay.
Following the military operation, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced a
possible military operation in Syria's Afrin on January 13, adding that Turkey will clear its
border of "terrorists."
"If the terrorists in Afrin don't surrender we will tear them down," Erdogan told the
country's ruling AK Party in the eastern Turkish city of Elazig, speaking about the Peoples'
Protection Units (YPG) militants, which are considered to be a terrorist group by Ankara.
"The US sent 4,900 trucks of weapons in Syria. We know this. This is not what allies do,"
Erdogan said. "We know they sent 2,000 planes full of weapons."
The statement was made amid Ankara's recent summoning of the US Charge d'Affairs twice
within 24 hours over the issues of Washington's support for Syrian Kurds and the US listing
Turkey among countries, not safe for travel.
As Erdogan stated, Turkey's possible military advance in Syria's Idlib province would
eliminate Kurdish militia in the area, which neighbors Afrin. The Turkish army entered Idlib
three months ago as a guarantor of the peace settlement process and has repeatedly accused
the Syrian government of violating the de-escalation zone borders."
Glad you spotted that also so called syrian democratic council announced SDF Kurds going to
go to Idlib to fight "terrorists" ..Maria Zakharova held press conference today- well worth
listening to via RT- stated SDF were charging locals in a town to de-mine it despite 89
civilians being killed injured by explosives mines etc left behind by isis.
Still potential to be a big mess in parts of Syria still statements being strongly made
against illegal prsencees in Syria but amazing progress seems to being made by hard fighting
SAA and tiger forces and Russian airsupport against HTS.
"The Washington Post bureau chief in Beirut commended the courage of a battlefield
reporter in Syria, despite being informed the man is in fact a radical Islamist. She has
refused to take back her words.
On January 11, Liz Sly retweeted a video featuring a man with a microphone cowering in
front a camera in the middle of an airstrike, purportedly shot near the northern Syrian city
of Idlib, a current focal point of fighting between the opposition and government forces.
In any case, Sly told RT she has nothing to apologize for, as she was commending the
jihadist supporter's "bravery," while the supposed journalist's pro-IS views are irrelevant
here."
The wp is owned by bezos, owner of amazon. That alone is good reason to boycott
amazon.
Articles in western press today just as SAA majorly winning against HTS in eastern Damascus
..white helmets claiming chemical attacks very recently in east Ghoutta by "murderous Assad
regime" .uk military persons calls for no fly zone which had protected Kurds in north Iraq he
said etc might not take much for DT to send off more missiles etc to support the new defence
army being trained up by usa, and maybe protect kurds etc who are going to have a serious go
at Turkish military .an attempt to further consolidate their "territorial claims" with
sympathy one supposes .
So, are we to assume that the 14 bases and the ammo dumps precise geo-coordinates are now
known to the Persian Forces, and also presumably thus announced these specific locations are
expecting swarms of hostile model airplanes And the Ru, and the Syrians too, and all
together, all know where these brave and illustrious defenders of democracy and freedom
– and their arms and servile quisling stooges – dwell and sojourn. Precisely
dwell.
Nice job fellas. Naught save meat set to rot in the deserts, or to experience surrender
under fire?
Zugswang. Pitiful.
What was it that the Brave US AF General Jack Ripper said? "Two can play that game,
soldier!"
Their lordships are going to need additional pharmacological help! More dope for the
generals!
Personally, I find it amazing that the Russians, together with the Iranian, Syrian, and
Hezbollah forces have been so weak in the face of a patently illegal presence of the American
bases. Why on earth did they let them even begin to build one base, let alone 14! An Iranian
general has threatened the American presence, but this seems to be a "paper tiger" outburst.
I can not imagine that the American forces and the American proxies would be able to
withstand between the armies of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Russia and their allies. Those
will eat them for the dinner in a few months.
1) who would attack the US camps and proxies? Might this be Erdogan who is already making
noises about the Kurdish build-up on his borders? At least he will try to stop reinforcements
and oil exports via Turkish territory if this is the case. (If the Syrians attacked the US
camps directly then Trump and the Pentagon would leap with joy and use that as an excuse to
re-start the war in that area.)
2) The recent drone attack on the Russians. By saying they "knew" who it was and then
effectively "zapping" the "militants concerned", this is a very clear warning. Note that the
main suspects - stated to be the Pentagon/etc.; could also be Israel (who support Al Nusra in
the area and who sent four planes to attack the SAA near Damascus at almost the same time); The
mercenary "contracters" (CIA paid); or someone benefitting from a Saudi based supply line.
Whichever: The Russian "Zap", extremely accurate (!) and timed, can be seen as a direct threat
to the ORIGINATORS of the drones, who were the ones trying to get to the minibus. Also explains
why Putin has not directly mentioned who they were. No need, the warning is made.
Moscow said it conducted a military operation to "eliminate" militants behind a
coordinated drone attack on its Syrian military bases.
Russia said more than a dozen drones were used in attacks.
Experts say more swarm-like drone attacks can be expected in the future, from terrorists
and others.
Russia 's defense ministry said
Friday it tracked down and killed the group of militants responsible for a recent coordinated
drone attack against one of its bases in Syria .
Experts said swarm-like attacks using weaponized drones is a growing threat and likely to
only get worse. They also said the possibility exists of terrorists using these drones in urban
areas against civilians.
"We're likely to see more attacks of larger scale going forward, potentially even larger
than this and in a variety of things -- air, land and sea," said Paul Scharre, director of the
Technology and National Security program at the Center for a New American Security, a
Washington think tank.
Earlier this month, militants in Syria launched a drone attack using more than a dozen
weaponized unmanned aerial vehicles in Russia's Hmeymim airbase as well as a navy supply base
in Tartus. Most of the drones were used on the attack against Hmeymim, located in western Syria
near the city of Latakia.
The Russian defense ministry claims
its air defenses detected 13 "small-size air targets" approaching its bases and repelled
the attack, shooting down seven drones with its anti-aircraft missile systems and taking
control of six others using electronic warfare. "The incident itself, while it wasn't
necessarily a spectacular attack by terrorist standards, it certainly portends a very dark
future," said Colin Clarke, a political scientist at the RAND think tank who specializes in
terrorism, insurgency and criminal networks.
"What it signals to me is a lot of the things that we talk about that we know are going to
be problems in the future may be problems now or a lot sooner than we thought," Clarke
said.
The RAND expert also said the U.S. and other nations have a lot of thinking to do about how
to deal with the weaponized drone technology, because it could be used not just on the
battlefield but potentially in urban areas by organized terrorist groups or other bad
actors.
Russia's defense ministry also released video of what it said was the targeted strike
against the militants. The ministry also has shown images of what appear to be the captured
drones and homemade drone bombs.
According to Moscow, it was able to track down the militants' launch site after its experts
"decoded the data recorded on the UAVs."
"U.S. bases are targets, and Russian bases are targets," said Olga Olicker, senior advisor
and director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, a Washington defense think tank.
"The key is not just finding a way to target these drones," said Scharre. "It's finding a
way to do it in a cost-effective way. If you shoot down a $1,000 drone with a $1 million
missile, you're losing every time you're doing it."
The coordinated drone attack follows a mortar shelling attack on New Year's Eve that
reportedly killed two Russian service members at the Hmeymim airbase. The Russian daily
Kommersant reported at least seven aircraft were destroyed , including fighter jets and a
transport aircraft, but Russia's state-run Tass news agency denied aircraft were destroyed.
Also, it comes less than a month after Russian President Vladimir Putin visited the Hmeymim base and boasted
about Russia's "successful intervention" against Islamic State terrorists in Syria's
conflict.
Islamic State militants previously used weaponized drones and showed video of its
bomb-dropping UAVs. The terrorist group has attacked U.S.-backed forces fighting ISIS with
drones and used them for surveillance purposes. ISIS also used booby-trapped drones to kill two
Kurdish fighters in 2016.
"We have seen nonstate actors use armed drones in the past, but this is a significant step
up in terms of the scale of attacks and just how many they were able to use simultaneously,"
said Scharre, who previously worked in the Pentagon and focused on unmanned and autonomous
systems and emerging weapons technology.
Meantime, Russia said it analyzed the construction of the drones and explosives of the
captured crafts, concluding that the militants in Syria must have had help from a
technologically advanced country. However, the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS has denied it
had a role.
At the same time, Russia implied that the explosive material used in the bomb may have come
from a Ukrainian
chemical plant.
"Some of the Russian accusations and insinuations that have been floating around I think are
meant to suggest that foreign intelligence helped provide targeting information, if not the
technology," said Olicker.
She said the technology itself appears to look like "off-the-shelf stuff" so the claims of
assistance from a technologically advanced country are "spurious." She added that Moscow's
"tendency to blame other state actors" for drone tech in the hands of militants appears
disingenuous.
Russia said it had "eliminated" militants on Friday who were behind a mortar attack that
killed two Russian soldiers on New Year's Eve.
Special forces from the Russian army had tracked the fighters to their base camp near the
border of Idlib, a statement said on Friday.
"The command of our troops in Syria carried out a special operation to find and eliminate
the group of militants that carried out the mortar attack on the Hmeimim base (western Syria),"
the Russian defence ministry said in a statement.
The ministry added that the fighters were "destroyed by a Krasnopol guided missile" as they
were leaving the base.
The Russians did not confirm which group the militants were affiliated to.
"A drone assembly and storage area was also discovered," the announcement said.
Ten drones equipped with explosives attacked Russia's airbase in Hmeimim in the early hours
of 6 January, the military previously reported. There were no casualties.
"... The bomblets are released by a solenoid that opens gaps in a sliding metal bar. The bomblets contain about 1 KG of PETN plus a string of epoxied ball bearings wrapped around the PETN explosive. ..."
"... The Russians claim that one of the drones carried a camera and had the ability to adjust the track of the other drones if needed. The drones themselves were guided by GPS and the flight path for each one was pre-programmed. ..."
"... What especially disturbs the Russian analysts – and on this point they are still unable to identify the source – is that the drones were accurately programmed not only to reach the bases, but to hit specific targets that could not be attacked using standard GPS-generated maps or rely on GPS for accurate targeting. The single camera-equipped drone was there to help adjust the final target, indicating a fairly sophisticated command and control capability, something that clearly impressed the Russian General Staff. The drones also were programmed with accurate intelligence that was harmonized with GPS maps. ..."
"... the accuracy of the drones is certainly the big issue and the Russians are almost certainly right that someone was helping the terrorists . ..."
ussia is seeking international assistance in its quest to determine the source of swarming drone attacks on two of its military
bases in Syria.
The twin strikes represent the first time swarming drones have been used by terrorists against hardened targets, and judging from
the excitement on the Russian side, they are clearly worried and upset. While denying that they lost any equipment in the strikes,
it is hard to explain otherwise the level of alarm in Russia's military.
The Russian General Staff held a
briefing in Moscow to show off some of the home-made drones that were used to attack
Hmeimim Air Base in Latakia, Syria and the important Russian naval base in
Tartus .
The drones themselves are simple. They use a small commercial gasoline two stroke engine that might be found in a weed whacker
or used to power a bicycle. Structurally the drones are made out of wooden spars and styrofoam "boards" that are tied into the wooden
structure with glue and plastic wrap.
The drone itself is launched from some sort of simple rail platform and guided by two piece of wood on the drone with cutouts
to protect the drone's aerodynamic quality. The drones carry either eight or ten bomblets, each stuffed with the explosive
PETN (pentaerythritol
tetranitrate), a very energetic explosive that has been favored by terrorists such as the shoe bomber,
Richard Reid. PETN needs to
be ignited by an explosive fuse, and the bomblets all have fuses that explode on contact.
The Russians have
pointed to the Ukraine as a possible source of PETN for the bombs. But there are many other sources and PETN and other explosives
such as RDX are widely available on the black market. No
doubt the Russians are trying to find out if the PETN in the drones has some chemical characteristic that would point to its source,
but it is unlikely even the Russians will be able to identify the Ukrainians as the source.
The bomblets are released by a solenoid that opens gaps in a sliding metal bar. The bomblets contain about 1 KG of PETN plus
a string of epoxied ball bearings wrapped around the PETN explosive.
It appears the mission of the swarming drones was three-fold:
it was to show the Russians that their bases are vulnerable to attack even if the terrorists are far off (the attack was launched
about 50 km away originating in Idlib according
to reports and the Russians have now destroyed a stockpile of drones there);
that the Russian aircraft and missiles were vulnerable to a drone strike;
and finally that the bomblets could be used to terrorize ground crews and military personnel on the Russian bases.
Most of the focus was on Hmeimim Air Base where 10 drones were used in a swarming attack; another three drones struck the Tartus
Naval Base.
The Russians claim that one of the drones carried a camera and had the ability to adjust the track of the other drones if
needed. The drones themselves were guided by GPS and the flight path for each
one was pre-programmed.
What especially disturbs the Russian analysts – and on this point they are still unable to identify the source – is that the
drones were accurately programmed not only to reach the bases, but to hit specific targets that could not be attacked using standard
GPS-generated maps or rely on GPS for accurate targeting. The single camera-equipped drone was there to help adjust the final target,
indicating a fairly sophisticated command and control capability, something that clearly impressed the Russian General Staff. The
drones also were programmed with accurate intelligence that was harmonized with GPS maps.
The Russians captured a number of the drones which they claim they were able to gain control over and crash land (the drones are
not capable of landing in the normal sense). They were able to read out the directional plots and see that the programming was very
accurate to locate targets. More than likely the targeting was aimed at parked Russian aircraft, since the bomblets would do very
little damage to buildings. It is less sure the targeting included Russian air defense missiles, as these are of little or no interest
to terrorist who don't have an air force.
Bottom line: the accuracy of the mapping means that the drones were supported by a well-established military organization
capable of spotting the targets and adjusting GPS maps to their exact location. Putting aside the fact that the drones may, or may
not have achieved their objectives (whether you believe the Russians shot down or controlled most of them and did not suffer any
losses, or alternatively the terrorist-leaks to the press where some seven Russian aircraft, including at least one Su-35 are claimed
to have been destroyed) the accuracy of the drones is certainly the big issue and the Russians are almost certainly right that
someone was helping the terrorists .
At first the Russians blamed the Turks. Next they blamed the Americans and pointed out that a US Navy Reconnaissance plane may
have been involved. More recently the Russians are accusing the Ukrainians.
What the Russians have not done is to blame the Iranians, ostensibly their ally in Syria. But the Iranians know the Russians are
under pressure for a settlement of the Syrian mess (maybe linked to some deal on Ukraine), and perhaps the biggest demand (from Saudi
Arabia, the United States and Israel) is for the Iranians and Hezbollah to leave Syria. Kicking the Russians hard may be the Iranian
way of sending a strong message to Putin that they are not leaving and that Putin needs "them" to protect vital Russian bases.
Whatever one thinks, the Russians are deeply troubled and afraid these kinds of attacks
will migrate to Russian territory in the hands of local terrorists (who also have been operating with ISIS in Syria). That's
why even the Russian Defense Ministry and General Staff are looking for international help to prevent swarm drone attacks.
Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon
foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars
of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to
Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control
foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his
electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat,
betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports
in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone.
What's left?
Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
Notable quotes:
"... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
"... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
"... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
"... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
"... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
"... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
"... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
"... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
"... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
"... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
"... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
"... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
"... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
"... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
"... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
"... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy,
WIN in Dec!
In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and
alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide
The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to
recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92%
of the votes counted...
... ... ...
However, as Politco
reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast,
telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting
he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.
Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political
power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according
to three people who were there.
And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.
While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing
Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.
Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides,
White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda,
and knew little about Moore, officials said.
... ... ...
Déjà view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !
On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying
the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect
for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment
of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."
Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel
from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's
right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."
While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish
community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and
his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.
moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those
who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living
in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following
the tradition of men.
They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.
I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM
Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates
to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared
can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder
the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two
holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.
Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM
Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.
These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory.
It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.
The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM
Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump
thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have
stayed the course and not give in.
~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~
Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on
how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]
Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM
Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has
to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.
overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM
Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.
Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM
Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes
the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner,
Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.
The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))
NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM
I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to
kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's
face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.
Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM
I think it was a setup.
Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.
Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even
for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was
able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was
deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.
But what do I know?
Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM
Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.
general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM
People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole
in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.
None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full
that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp
when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would
prefer to keep voting in the swamp.
Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM
Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding
himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.
Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends
to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.
Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM
He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this
all along.'
To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy,
or strategic skills.
NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM
Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those
that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our
flag, our country, and the unborn!
I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he
was way too good to be true.
We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault",
it actually is.
His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it
to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.
Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should
do.
Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists
want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...
Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM
Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government.
I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid
shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare,
even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.
The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well
imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.
You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..
This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye,
there was none.
Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
Dear Trump:
Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly
had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.
MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.
DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!
ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!
You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!
ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM
Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.
Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system.
At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.
samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.
I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same
I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the
same.
I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.
I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.
We didn't leave Him, He left us.
BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM
Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World.
Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the
job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.
napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM
A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just
turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment
puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.
America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).
Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM
When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment
rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies,
but not for the US population.
Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence
that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.
In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson.
It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators
are worthless.
nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM
I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the
media reports...
LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM
Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"-
(great leaders) do not do that.
nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM
What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis,
killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...
But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty,
and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions
of illegals, dressed up as "security".
Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something
Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.
It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing
display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.
Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist
Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...
YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.
Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become
as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".
Institute for Policy Studies Co-founder Marcus Raskin will be remembered, among many other
noteworthy achievements, for coining the term "national security state." In congressional
testimony in 1967, he used the phrase to describe the complex web of war institutions he feared
would drive continuous conflict abroad while turning the United States into a "garrison and
launching pad for nuclear war."
Raskin died on December 24, 2017, at age 83 -- just as the current president of the United
States was about to make nuclear threats via Twitter. And as for his fears about the country
becoming a garrison, Raskin wasn't far off. Over the five decades after Raskin's testimony, the
number of inmates in U.S. state and federal prisons grew from 188,000 to 1.5 million , with the vast majority of them
poor and people of color.
While progressive activists have tended to treat these issues separately, Raskin
consistently connected the dots between America's military adventures overseas and economic and
racial injustice at home.
In a 2008 book with Robert Spero, for example, he used President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
"four essential human freedoms" as a clever frame for exposing the extent to which the national
security state had accelerated poverty and inequality while undermining other basic rights.
Roosevelt laid out these four freedoms in his 1941 State of the Union address. They included
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR's notion
of "freedom from want" built on this famous line from his 1937 inaugural address: "The test of
our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether
we provide enough for those who have too little."
Institute for Policy Studies Co-founder Marcus Raskin will be remembered, among many other
noteworthy achievements, for coining the term "national security state." In congressional
testimony in 1967, he used the phrase to describe the complex web of war institutions he feared
would drive continuous conflict abroad while turning the United States into a "garrison and
launching pad for nuclear war."
Raskin died on December 24, 2017, at age 83 -- just as the current President of the United
States was about to make nuclear threats via Twitter. And as for his fears about the country
becoming a garrison, Raskin wasn't far off. Over the five decades after Raskin's testimony, the
number of inmates in U.S. state and federal prisons grew from 188,000 to 1.5 million , with the vast majority of them
poor and people of color.
While progressive activists have tended to treat these issues separately, Raskin
consistently connected the dots between America's military adventures overseas and economic and
racial injustice at home.
In a 2008 book with Robert Spero, for example, he used President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
"four essential human freedoms" as a clever frame for exposing the extent to which the national
security state had accelerated poverty and inequality while undermining other basic rights.
Roosevelt laid out these four freedoms in his 1941 State of the Union address. They included
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. FDR's notion
of "freedom from want" built on this famous line from his 1937 inaugural address: "The test of
our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether
we provide enough for those who have too little."
In Four Freedoms Under Siege , Raskin and Spero concede that the Cold War
superpower rivalry did contribute to some progress towards Roosevelt's dream of freedom from
want. Raskin was a young aide in Kennedy's National Security Council during a period of high
tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union that were playing out with deadly
consequences in Cuba, Vietnam, and elsewhere.
And while he was horrified by the existential threat posed by the superpower standoff,
Raskin later recognized that the competition with the Soviet Union did give a boost to the U.S.
labor unions and other forces that were pushing for progressive economic reforms.
The elites, Raskin and Spero explained, feared that movements for "social and economic
justice, from rhetoric to out-and-out radicalism, would transform the power structure in such a
way as to open up the society to democracy that displaces overlapping economic oligarchies. The
right, especially big business, also feared that this would be just the prelude to the
redistribution of resources, or at least access to them."
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Raskin and Spero point out, "people at the top no
longer had to concern themselves with the people at the bottom." And the permanence of the
national security state obliterated any hope of a post-Cold War "peace dividend" that could've
helped realize FDR's dream of freedom from want.
Raskin and Spero wrote their book during the militarily aggressive administration of
President George W. Bush. As Halliburton and other private military contractors lined up to
feed at the Iraq War trough, the period perfectly illustrated the danger of a war economy
without end.
"This kind of 'let 'er rip' corruption policy did not originate with Bush II conservatives,"
Raskin and Spero wrote, "but they pushed the idea of a corporate controlled state to the limit
as a partner to military expansion."
In his final weeks, Marc Raskin was excited to learn about plans for a Poor People's Campaign that, like his own work,
will take on the inter-connected problems of the War Economy, poverty, racism, and ecological
devastation.
The campaign will mark the 50th anniversary of a similar effort led by the Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. and other leaders who saw the need to build on the civil rights cause by
tackling the militarism that had led to the Vietnam War and the poverty that plagued too many
Americans of all races. Back then in 1968, Institute for Policy Studies staff included leaders
of both the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. Raskin himself was indicted that year
for conspiracy to aid resistance to the draft.
The new Poor People's Campaign, led by two prominent faith leaders -- the Rev. Liz Theoharis
and the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II -- held a kick-off event in Washington on December 4. The
Institute for Policy Studies prepared a report for
the launch that includes data on each of the campaign's focus areas. Theoharis and Barber
announced plans for a historic 40-day wave of civil disobedience across the country in the
spring of 2018, culminating in a mass demonstration in the capital in June.
At a December 12 follow-up meeting at the Institute for Policy Studies, Raskin asked one of
the lead organizers of the new Poor People's Campaign who they expect to be their strongest
opponents. From his six decades of experience in Washington, he had a keen sense of the
challenges ahead. Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for
Policy Studies and is a co-editor of Inequality.org.
"... Sally Yates essentially said 'all DOJ is subject to oversight, except the National Security Division'. ..."
"... In short, FISA "queries" from any national security department within government are allowed without seeking court approval. ..."
"... We know NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers became aware of an issue with unauthorized FISA-702(17) " About Queries " early in 2016. As a result of a FISA court ruling declassified in May of 2017 we were able to piece a specific timeline together. ..."
"... At the same time Christopher Steele was assembling his dossier information (May-October 2016), the NSA compliance officer was conducting an internal FISA-702 review as initiated by NSA Director Mike Rogers. The NSA compliance officer briefed Admiral Mike Rogers on October 20th 2016. On October 26th 2016, Admiral Rogers informed the FISA Court of numerous unauthorized FISA-702(17) "About Query" violations. Subsequent to that FISC notification Mike Rogers stopped all FISA-702(17) "About Queries" permanently . They are no longer permitted. ..."
"... Mike Rogers discovery becomes the impetus for him to request the 2016 full NSA compliance audit of FISA-702 use. It appears Fusion-GPS was the FBI contracted user identified in the final FISA court opinion/ruling on page 83. ..."
"... What plan came from that April 19th,2016 White House meeting? What plan did Mary Jacoby and Glenn Simpson present to use the information they had assembled? How and who would they feed their information to; and how do they best use that 'valuable' information? This appears to be where Fusion-GPS contracting with Christopher Steele comes in. ..."
"... Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G. Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. ..."
"... The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016. ( link ) ..."
"... DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr had a prior working relationship with Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Together they worked on a collaborative CIA Open Source group project surrounding International Organized Crime. ( pdf here ) Page #30 Screen Shot Below . ..."
"... Nellie Ohr is a subject matter expert on Russia, speaks Russian, and also is well versed on CIA operations. Nellie Ohr's skills would include how to build or create counterintelligence frameworks to give the appearance of events that may be entirely fabricated. ..."
"... Knowing the NSA was reviewing FISA "Queries"; and intellectually accepting the resulting information from those queries was likely part of the framework put together by Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby; we discover that GPS employee Nellie Ohr applied for a HAM radio license [ May 23rd 2016 ] (screen grab below). ..."
"... Accepting the FBI was utilizing Fusion-GPS as a contractor, there is now an inherent clarity in the relationship between: FBI agent Peter Strzok, Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson, and 'Russian Dossier' author Christopher Steele. They are all on the same team. ..."
"... The information that Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson put together from his advanced work on the 'Trump Project', was, in essence, built upon the foundation of the close relationship he already had with the FBI. ..."
"... Simpson, Jacoby and Ohr then passed on their information to Christopher Steele who adds his own ingredients to the mix, turns around, and gives the end product back to the FBI. That end product is laundered intelligence now called "The Trump/Russia Dossier". ..."
"... The FBI turn around and use the "dossier" as the underlying documents and investigative evidence for continued operations against the target of the entire enterprise, candidate Donald Trump. As Peter Strzok would say in August 2016: this is their "insurance policy" per se'. ..."
"... In October 2016, immediately after the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for a valid FISA application, the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job . His exit came as the NSD and Admiral Rogers informed the FISC that frequent unauthorized FISA-702 searches had been conducted. Read Here . ..."
"... Yes, the FBI was working with Christopher Steele through their contractor Fusion-GPS. Yes, the FBI and Clinton Team were, in essence, both paying Christopher Steele for his efforts. The FBI paid Steele via their sub-contractor Fusion-GPS. ..."
"... Lastly, when the DOJ/FBI used the Steele Dossier to make their 2016 surveillance activity legal (the October FISA application), they are essentially using the outcome of a process they created themselves in collaboration with both Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... All research indicates the intelligence information the DOJ and FBI collected via their FISA-702 queries, combined with the intelligence Fusion GPS created in their earlier use of contractor access to FISA-702(17) "about queries", was the intelligence data delivered to Christopher Steele for use in creating "The Russian Dossier". ..."
"... Christopher Steele was just laundering intelligence. The Steele "dossier" was then used by the DOJ to gain FISA-702 approvals – which provided retroactive legal cover for the prior campaign surveillance, and also used post-election to create the "Russian Narrative". ..."
"... The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance on the officials therein. ..."
Following the released transcript of Fusion-GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee
by Senator Dianne Feinstein , several media outlets have begun questioning the relationship between the FBI investigators, Glenn
Simpson and dossier author Christopher Steele.
What we have discovered highlights the answer to those relationship questions; and also answers a host of other questions, including:
Did the FBI pay Christopher Steele? Yes, but now how media has stated. Was the FBI connected to the creation of the Steele Dossier?
Yes, but again, not the way the media is currently outlining.
Israeli jets and ground-to-ground missile attacks on targets in the outskirts of Damascus
are a mark of Israel's heightened concern as President Bashar al-Assad comes close to winning
the civil war in Syria. Israel's security cabinet has held meetings several times in recent
days to discuss how it should respond to the "day-after" the war as Syria returns to Mr Assad's
control and to Iran's expanded influence in Syria according to Israeli television reports.
... ... ...
Israel has received vociferous backing from President Trump and the US but the Israelis must
wonder – along with the rest of the world – how much Mr Trump's supportive tweets
are really worth. Even his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not an
unalloyed gain for Israel since it changes nothing much on the ground, but it has put the
Israeli-Palestinian issue back at the top of the political agenda in the Middle East to a
degree not seen since 9/11 and the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Israeli air strikes are not necessarily a precursor to a wider military conflict, but
they do show that Israel believes it can no longer stay on the margins of the Syrian war. As
the conflict comes to an end that is bound to be messy, Israel wants to be a leading player in
shaping its final outcome.
Also notable in terms of the potential for US involvement, which also affirms that Russian
suspicions are not mere "paranoia," is that one of the high level planners behind CIA
operations in Syria, former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, declared publicly that "we need
to make the Russians pay the price" in Syria by "covertly" killing them via proxies.
Though as the
Daily
Beast notes
anti-government insurgents in Syria have long had access to black market drones
sold through social media, Russia has consistently pointed to the high tech navigational and
weapons components added. An earlier Russian Defense Ministry
statement
said the attack needed a "high-level engineer" and that "not every country is
able to get sharp coordinates using space intelligence data" while also citing the presence of
"foreign detonating fuses". The statement further indicated that, " Russian specialists are
determining supply channels, through which terrorists had received the technologies and
devices, as well as examining type and origin of explosive compounds used in the IEDs."
And given Putin's words on Thursday, it sounds like Russia believes it has proof of the
outside sponsor of the operation - though it's unclear why it is not forthcoming with the
evidence as it has been in some past incidents. It could be that Russian defense doesn't
actually have the level of proof needed to convince an international audience, or the more
likely scenario perhaps involves the delicacy of Russia's current attempts to negotiate a
settlement to the war and
continued military withdrawal of its forces
.
Regarding these negotiations, Putin said on Thursday of the recent attacks on its Syrian
bases, "Those were provocations aimed at disrupting the earlier agreements, in the first place
. Secondly, it was about our relations with our partners - Turkey and Iran. It was also an
attempt to destroy those relations." Last November a
trilateral
Syria deal was reached
between Russia, Turkey, and Iran in Sochi, Russia over the future of
Syria which emphasized winding down the war while keeping the country intact and creating a
humanitarian and diplomatic solution, and also included planned Moscow-sponsored talks between
the Syrian government and recognized opposition.
The US and other Western powers were notably excluded from the talks, which many analysts
now see as signifying that Putin is in the driver's seat when it comes to setting the final
terms for winding down the war. Russia suspects that the latest attacks on Khmeimim are
provocations designed to introduce suspicion among signatories to the deal , especially those
elements of the Syrian opposition set to meet for continued Russian sponsored negotiations
at the end of January
.
Interestingly, the Russian Foreign Ministry actually previously warned of "staged
provocations " aimed at doing just this in the days prior to the first January mortar attack on
Khmeimim. As
we reported at the time
of a prior missile attack on the base, FM spokesperson Maria
Zakharova warned at a December 28 press conference that ongoing attacks were " another link in
the chain of ongoing and, perhaps, staged provocations involving terrorists and extremists from
the Syrian opposition aimed at disrupting the positive trends in the development of the
situation in Syria and, in particular, at creating obstacles to convening and holding the
Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi on January 29-30."
Also notable in terms of the potential for US involvement, which also affirms that Russian
suspicions are not mere "paranoia," is that one of the high level planners behind CIA
operations in Syria, former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, declared publicly that "we need
to make the Russians pay the price" in Syria by "covertly" killing them via proxies.
Morell : We need to make the Iranians pay the price in Syria; we need to make the Russians
pay the price.
Rose: We make them pay the price by killing Russians and killing Iranians?
Morell : Yes. Covertly. You don't tell the world about it. You don't stand at the Pentagon
and say we did this. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran. I want to go after
those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to scare Assad. I want to go
after his presidential car. I want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night. I want to
destroy his presidential aircraft. I want to destroy his presidential helicopters. I want to
make him think we are coming after him.
With such brazen and public past admissions by US intelligence officials it is clear that no
scenario should be taken off the table regarding what happened with these recent
technologically advanced attacks on Russian assets in Syria. This could indeed very likely be
the United States or a regional state actor making Russians "pay the price" for being there
.
Though both attacks would appear to be merely the work of Islamist rebel factions occupying nearby Idlib, multiple
extraordinary factors led the Russian Ministry of Defense to immediately state that the perpetrators must have had outside state
sponsorship. First there was - as the Russian Ministry of Defense mentioned in an early media statement - "strange coincidences"
surrounding the terrorist attack: these included a US spy plane spotted in the area, namely a US Navy's Boeing P-8 Poseidon
reconnaissance aircraft on patrol between the Khmeimim airbase and Tartus naval base in Syria during the time of the attack.
Secondly, the airbase lies deep within Syrian regime territory in what is among the most secure areas in all of Syria, which
also underscores the need for advanced satellite and navigational coordination from a state actors.
The Russian military
claims the drones came from the village of Muwazarra in Idlib, around 50 miles away, which makes Ahrar Al Sham or Hay'at Tahrir
Al Sham the immediate culprit. Both groups, though blacklisted as terror organizations by the Pentagon, have received direct and
indirect assistance by the CIA and allied intelligence services at various points over the course of the war, especially during
the 2015 campaign to wrest Idlib city from the control of the Syrian government.
Third, the Russian military in its examination of the recovered drones found high tech components
well beyond what initially appeared to be rebel-made improvised devices manufactured locally. Putin
went so far as to say the drones and explosives were
purposefully made to appear primitive
and homemade in order to conceal the advanced technology they were outfitted with
. On
Thursday he said, "As for these attacks, they were undoubtedly prepared well. We know when and where
these unmanned vehicles were handed over [to the attackers], and how many of them there were.
These aerial vehicles were disguised - I would like to stress that - as homemade. But it is obvious
that some high-tech equipment was used."
Russia has yet to reveal the identity of those responsible, but has strongly hinted at the United
States or a regional US ally, which elicited a Pentagon response this week
with a spokesperson saying
the suggestion is "
without any basis in fact and is utterly
irresponsible."
The UK Daily Mail featured detailed Russian defense photographs of the recovered drones, which
were noted to be "immune to jamming technology" and
summarized the advanced capabilities as follows
:
"Jam-resistant terrorist drones" could not have been made without foreign help, Russia says
They carried sophisticated software and precision-guided weaponry
The explosives they carried were 'stuffed with ball bearings'
Also notable in terms of the potential for US involvement, which also affirms that Russian suspicions
are not mere "paranoia," is that one of the high level planners behind CIA operations in Syria,
former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell, declared publicly that "we need to make the Russians pay
the price" in Syria by "covertly" killing them via proxies.
Morell
: We need to make the Iranians pay the price in Syria; we need to make
the Russians pay the price.
Rose:
We make them pay the price
by killing Russians and killing
Iranians?
Morell
:
Yes. Covertly.
You don't tell the world about it. You
don't stand at the Pentagon and say we did this. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and
Tehran. I want to go after those things that Assad sees as his personal power base. I want to
scare Assad. I want to go after his presidential car. I want to bomb his offices in the middle of
the night. I want to destroy his presidential aircraft. I want to destroy his presidential
helicopters. I want to make him think we are coming after him.
With such brazen and public past admissions by US intelligence officials it is clear that no
scenario should be taken off the table regarding what happened with these recent technologically
advanced attacks on Russian assets in Syria. This could indeed very likely be the United States or a
regional state actor
making Russians "pay the price" for being there
.
Interesting
article on moon of alabama
about
a new offensive in SE Idlib region against SAA
forces by "moderate" rebels supplied/assisted
by Turkey entitled: '
Syria - Erdogan
(Again) Switches Sides - Delivers New Supplies
For Terrorist Attacks'
Societal collapse or world war, societal
collapse or world war....hmmmm. What do you
think single mother, government dependent,
pussy hat wearing, terrorist inviting,
uninformed voter?
"
Morell
:
Yes.
Covertly.
You don't tell the
world about it. You don't stand at the
Pentagon and say
we did this
.
But you make sure they know it in
Moscow and Tehran. I want to go after
those things that Assad sees as his
personal power base. I want to scare
Assad. I want to go after his
presidential car.
I want to
bomb
his offices in the
middle of the night.
I want to
destroy
his presidential
aircraft.
I want to destroy
his presidential helicopters. I want
to make him think
we are
coming after him
."
...spoken like a true psychopath that
he and others like him who hold/held
high-ranking positions think about day-in
and day-out ...
... or this:
Yoav
Galant, a former general said
:
"...
time has come to
assassinate
Assad
...
And
when
we finish
with the
tail[Syria]
of the
serpent,
we will reach
the head of the serpent, which can be
found in Tehran, and
we will deal
with it, too
"
... or then
SOS Hillary Clinton, as provided
by Wikileaks
, stated: "
The
best way to help Israel deal with Iran's
growing nuclear capability is to help the
people of Syria
overthrow the
regime
of Bashar Assad
...
Iran's nuclear program and Syria's
civil war may seem unconnected, but they
are.
For Israeli leaders, the
real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is
not the prospect of an insane Iranian
leader launching an unprovoked Iranian
nuclear attack on Israel that would lead
to the annihilation of both countries.
What Israeli military leaders really
worry about
-- but cannot talk
about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly
.
An Iranian nuclear weapons capability
would not only end that nuclear monopoly
but could also prompt other adversaries,
like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go
nuclear as well. The result would
be a precarious nuclear balance in which
Israel could not respond to provocations
with conventional military strikes
on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
"
Why is it that top US officials sound
almost exactly like their Israeli
counterparts...who speaks for whom
(rhetorical question)???
In a tale of forbidden love,
secret princes, madness and
murder that would be difficult
to believe as the plot of an
airport paperback, the CIA has
declassified documents showing
that King Hussein of Jordan had
a child out of wedlock with an
American Jewish actress - who
was later killed by their own
lovechild.
You're absolutely correct, they're
scared. Trump gave them what was not
in his power to give, Jerusalem. They
couldn't take possession because the
entire world, less the brigands, said
hell no!
The wound is a fatal one
for the isreali regime, just a matter
of time now, all their plans and
actions, achieve the opposite of their
desires, from Iraq, to Syria, to Iran.
The world is woke!
The article is bullshit. The APCs could have
been supplied by the Turks. They could have
been supplied by Gulenist/CIA agents in
Turkey. They could have been captured by
US-ISIS forces from the Turkish forces in
Syria. They could have been captured from
the Turks by US-Kurd forces and supplied to
US-ISIS forces. Transport vehicles are
strategically irrelevant. Now if the
floodgates for ISIS reinforcements was
opened, that would be strategically
significant. By one of those amazing
coinkydinks, the US-Kurds released hundreds
of US-ISIS 'prisoners' shortly before the
attacks. I bet they didn't go on R&R after
release.
Putin has confirmed the Turks
were not involved in the swarm attack and it
was intended to drive a wedge between Turkey
and Russia. The supply of Turkish vehicles
ditto. Qui bono?
I do not believe the article I
referenced insinuated that those vehicles
came from Dubai (if that is what you are
alleging) or what was the originating
source, only that it was a
variant
of one that is known to
produce "Special Purpose Vehicles" in
Dubai -- but that Turkey was used as a
conduit to supply weapons (bolded text my
own):
"The Syrian army captured one
of the the new armored personal
carriers. The various pictures and
videos
show a variant
of the
Armored
Panthera F9
produced by the
company
Minerva
SPV
which resides in Dubai, United
Arab Emirates."
Turkey (again)
delivered hundreds of tons of weapons
to the jihadis.
New supplies
of TOW anti-tank missiles, distributed
exclusively by the CIA, have also been
seen. (Turkey is also again supplying
jihadists in Libya. The Greek navy
just
caught
a ship
going from Turkey to Libya
with 29 containers full of bomb
precursors, detonators and other bomb
making parts.)
Ali Özkök @Ozkok_ -
10:06
AM - 11 Jan 2018
#Turkey supplied Feylaq
el-Sham militia with at least six
armoured vehicles
.
This is a major indicator that Turkey
also supports the massive counter
offensive of rebels and islamists
in #Idlib and #Hama
against
Syrian army and allies
! I
guess we will see soon some ATGM
strikes.
The "moderate" rebel forces where
trying to stop the breakthrough by SAA to
split their, the "moderate" rebels',
pocket in Idlib region into two, thus
encircling the eastern portion completely
(look at the map provided in the
aforementioned article). Is it not
interesting that this new
counteroffensive by the "moderate" rebels
was aimed -- coincidentally to be sure /s
-- at a breakthrough to the ISIS enclave
that seems trapped in the eastern pocket
(again see the map provided in the
aforementioned article)?
The other thing to keep an eye on was
this (bolded text my own):
"The "rebels" in Idleb also
set
up a website
with 150
pre-scripted tweets about killed
children and barrel bombed hospitals
which their fans can distribute at
will
.
In the next few
days we will hear news of the
destruction of at least eight "last
hospitals"
in the Idleb
governorate ..."
Are your suggesting that the UAE is behind it?
Intriguing! In the delicate dance between the
members of the love-hate menage a trois - Srael, Russia... and their jointly if somewhat
chaotically managed puppet state Turkey...
the strings sometimes pull sharply this way, then
sharply the other. Currently, the dynamic has shifted
a bit to the Srael side, and the groupings of
jihadist factions controlled by Ankara have been busy
making signals of displeasure about the thwarting of
the caliphs plans for further intrusions in north
Syria/Rojava.
As a result... the drone drama. There is very
little mystery about the source of the weaponry. It
has doubtless been lab-tested and identified. Turkish
military manufacturers have been busy turning out..
and seeking markets for... their new array of drones
with the latest military applications. Their recent
attendance at the s e Asian trade fair in Thailand
with all their various arsenals on display was a sign
of their eagerness to impress cash-rich clients. But
the proof is in the pudding - as always - and
therefore 'field demonstrations' the order of the
day!
Masters of the tight-lipped \delayed response/kind
of diplomatic warfare, the Russkies have observed
this sally from their erstwhile 'partners' in tel
aviv with the same discipline as was applied when
their ambassador was offed in Turkey in a previous
episode of tit for tat intrigue which the mediaz were
unable to wrap their noggins round. And as always...
foolish fanbouys will
rush in ...
on cue... with the usual blustery bullshit
bout "CIAs" and other creatures of the night...
hoping to ward off further erosion of a fake news
storyline the wheels of which have been falling off
to no end lately!
While the U.S. seems to have
given up on regime change in Syria it is still trying to sabotage the progress of the
Syrian government and its allies.
The recent drone attack on the Russian base Khmeimim in Latakia is just one example.
Thirteen sophisticated armed drones with a reach of some 100 kilometers attacked the base at
the same time as a U.S. electronic warfare plane was circling off the
Syrian coast . The attack was unsuccessful. Russia has sophisticated electronic warfare
means and hijacked the command over six of the drones. The other seven were taken down by
Russian air defenses.
To claim, as the U.S. does, that ISIS or some "rebels" did this is nonsense. ISIS has made
short range weaponized drones flown by remote control in line of sight mode. This attack was by
autonomous drones using GPS and barometric sensors to find their way to their targets. This is
qualitatively on a whole new level. I doubt that Russia will let this go unanswered. Look out
for some "mishap" that may soon hit some U.S. troops or interests abroad.
Three significant military operations took place over the last few weeks.
Minor point: it is surprising just how sophisticated hobbyist drones can be. You can buy
modules for GPS and barometric pressure and multi-axis gyros etc. for dirt cheap. Of course,
these modules will not be civilian grade and will not be hardened against jamming etc., which
certainly sounds like what happened. Civilian GPS in particular can be easily over-ridden by
external jamming. Granted that military systems are likely more robust, I am sure that the US
is very interested in Russian anti-GPS jamming systems, given the heavy reliance of the US on
GPS technology.
well, what U really mean in your comment up here,TG?
the US has deep interest in russian anti GPS systems but seemingly the 13 or so devices used
last week to hit Russian bases were cheap hobbyist, shelf type stuff?
Or have we misinterpreted your view?
The US/YPG forces hold mostly-desert eastern Syria, east of the Euphrates (yellow portion of
upper map), including the oil fields in the south of that area, but they will be completely
land-locked by Turkey, Iraq and Syria. The US (after suffering some pay-back casualties
perhaps) will have to admit defeat and leave.
ZeroHedge quoting the Pentagon statement: "The Pentagon countered that while the US was
"concerned" over the incident, Pentagon spokesman Maj. Adrian Rankin-Galloway, however,
claimed that "those devices and technologies can easily be obtained in the open market." He
later also told Sputnik that the US already saw what it called "this type of commercial UAV
[unmanned aerial vehicle] technology" being used in Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS)
missions."
Interesting. How does HE know what technologies were used in the drones? Sounds like the
US protest was a Freudian slip. And quite the coincidence that the operation was being
monitored by a Poseidon. Was a warning radioed to the Russians that what appeared to be a
swarm of drones was detected incoming? The attacks by various mediums over the last few days
on the Russian airbase clearly shows defenses are being tested, and apparently tested in some
scientific detail by having spy plane monitors. May be for planning of future attacks, may be
because the US has determined it is losing and wants to gain as much intel as possible now,
in case they have to bug out soon and lose the ability to test current tech Russian defenses.
Where else in the world could they do so without starting a top-level conflict? One wonders
if the drones were all configured differently, in an attempt to pin down up to what level of
shielding Russian tech could take over a drone, and beyond which they would have to be shot
down?
The principal US objective, using ISIS, YPG and others, has been to break the "Shia crescent"
from Tehran to Beirut, which the US stupidly created with its Operation Iraqi Freedom. That
is a failure even with the US/YPG in eastern Syria, as seen
here .
So chalk up another military failure for the Pentagon and its clueless generals.
>Why is the US is contesting the Russian bases in Syria? The point is, these Russian
bases are located in Latakia province along the Mediterranean coast. And the US military
objective is to gain access to the Mediterranean coast for the Kurdistan enclave it is
creating in Syria without which the enclave will be landlocked and dependent critically on
supply routes via Turkey or Iraq, apart from being economically unviable (although it is an
oil-rich region of Syria.)
> The Saudi establishment daily Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Monday that the Trump
administration is planning to grant diplomatic recognition to the Kurdistan enclave in
northern Syria (which is of the size of Lebanon.) The idea is to create a permanent
foothold for the US and Israel in a strategic, economically self-sufficient independent
Kurdistan where the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Syria meet, and which may eventually reach
Iran's western border with northern Iraq.
> But the US-Israeli strategy will remain a pipedream if the Kurdistsn is land-locked
and continues to be challenged by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Hence the criticality of
creating an access route to the Mediterranean via Latakia province.. . . here
I'm not surprised by the use of drones by the US. IMO Syria is THE testbed for new military
technology, as the US can probe the efficacy of Russian S-400 systems. It was just a matter
of time before swarming technologies were being tested in combat.
As stated in other news sources, the attack would require a sophisticated control center
to manage the attack, which would explain the presence of a US spy plane lurking nearby.
The strategy of launching said drones from Turkish controlled areas adds the additional
benefit of attempting to drive a wedge between the Turks and Russians.
The downside of testing this new technology is that the result will be escalatory with a
green light given to the Russians to test their drone technology on American assets. This is
after all a war, cold to hot, irrespective to what the diplomats may say.
IMO the entire affair is particularly tragic, as the constant drought besetting the entire
Middle East for the last 5 to 9 years is just a prelude to the climatic challenges awaiting
us all. The the situation will become all the more grim as water becomes more scarce, and
temperatures soar, due to a runaway climate beginning to rear its ugly head with the melting
of the Arctic. While the US lost half of its wheat crop in a matter of weeks to a flash
drought last summer, Russia has become the largest exporter of wheat, due to our 2014
sanctions. I wonder what the West will do when it starts getting hungry and it has alienated
a possibly great food supplier.
It's grim pleasure, and sort of entertaining fun, to sit among the armchair "warfighters" and
geopoiliticians with all our varying degrees of expertise and knowledge. To sit and watch
"events," and parse and digest and predict and prognosticate about all the complex goings-on
in the subdivision of global forever war that we call "Syria." Which we cognoscenti tend to
refer to as a reification with substance (yet lacking the kind of detail that can give a
possibly more accurate and possibly predictive notion of 'What's shakin.' )The same
simplification via hypostatization that we also do in talking and thinking about all the
other players and moving parts of the Game, I guess necessarily, given the mode and scope of
the blog form of communication.
I imagine, probably inaccurately, that the more involved players, with their white papers
and intelligence estimates and assessments and access to the Global Network-Centric
Interoperable Battlespace thingie and all the inputs from intel and lobbyists and courtiers
from all the players fiscally interested in movements and outcomes, might have better and
more accurate and "grainier" views and understandings of the state of play, along with a more
complete review of the bidding. And some kind of organizing principle in mind, for what they
have done, what they are doing, and hope and plan to do in future. Of course if one looks
around, one finds input and thinking that looks a lot like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269463/Afghanistan-PowerPoint-slide-Generals-left-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html
What are, and what "ought to be," the organizing principles best to be pursued and
actuated by us nearly 8 billion humans? All well and good to be a little comforted that the
Syrian national army (with its backers and allies) is maybe kicking some brigands and thieves
and war-banders out of areas they have "taken over."' Takeovers done with the encouragement
and assistance of other backers and allies. Or, given the Byzantine and Machiavellian and
totally corrupt and cynical nature of the Game, maybe some of the same people "backing" and
"supplying" and "training" the "pro-Government forces," who the heck knows?) All those
"take-overs" accomplished with more ,or less, cooperation and resistance from people living
there.
So discourse about the Game and its play is structured around naming and attempting to
analyze and put in context and rationalize and excoriate actions and structures of all the
mostly mythical unitary characters, "monads" if you will, like "Syria" and "the US" and
"Russia" and "Venezuela" and "Nigeria" and "China" and so forth, in this ongoing set of
complex activities, shifting interests and alliances and supply chains and weapons
development and murder. We, who spend time looking down this set of silos and postholes, try
to tease out the threads of continuity and organization that we are just SURE must tie
together, or at least explain and offer hints how to manipulate and ameliorate, all this
activity and plotting and counter-counter-counter-inititaives and -operations. Kind of like
the authors of a deep scholarly law review articles, who clam to find rules of decision and
hence "rule of law" in the variegated decisions of our Supreme and lower courts.
Do the people running all the bits of this have any kind of organizing principle(s)
directing their so very energetic daily workload and planning sessions? Another blog owner,
who ought to know, said in response to that question, 'of course not, it's as it has always
been and will be, it's just individuals and groups pursuing immediate interests.' He, of
course, spent his career working for, and now spends his days speaking for, an organizing
principle, maybe styled 'reformed and more successful hegemony" in the current parlance. And
he is only one of millions who are thus involved in the Game., pulling on one of the many
ropes attached to the Jaganath all are worshiping and augmenting.
So, many of us look for rationales and structures, and signs of hope that this is not just
the end-game for our species, yet we sit in among people who are also (if only we knew, in
this anonymous internet space where new forms of contention and deception and "persuasion")
playing smaller or larger roles, as part of still other "operations and initiatives." And try
to sort out "true facts" from the sly manipulations and deceptions and distractions of those
ladling out the flood of Bernays Sauce we are all poaching in.
Too bad there is no such thing as a Prime Directive, an organizing principle, particularly
one that says "do not kill your species with your stratagems and predilections."
Increasingly, it looks like a mass death wish, with all the stacking of means and modes of
destruction and death, from nuclear weapons (proliferating, on top of the thousands
"commanded" the Demonstrably Incompetent Yet Massively Self-interested Warfighters in every
"nation-state" and "tribe with flags," like the 200 to 600 the Israelites have built, and now
the NKs, and the hate-driven folks in India and Pakistan with their ancient enmities and
"rational mutual suspicions. And ambitions") to CRSP-R technology, to the globalized world of
trade and finance, to AI that even its proponents and creators fear, to plastics everywhere,
soil depletion and killing of potable water resources to irreversible climate effects from
several centuries of carbo-combusts-consumption, to the IoT as a self-destructive Golem, for
which we have lost the magic word of control. And so forth.
Though, of course, where lies and deception and stratagems plotted and carried out by the
"successful few" at the top of heap are concerned, we can't even tell if it's the case that
all the bad news and sorrows we are informed about aren't just part of some grand "fear,
uncertainty and doubt" initiative and operation to fill us with existential dread and inject
the virus of a vast sense of futility (an initiative that would go along with the asymptotic
increase in looting behaviors by the Few and their commensallists) to keep the mass of us
passive and bowed and accepting the sweep of the executioner's blade, after they have taken
all our stuff and all our futures... Funny lines from "Buckaroo Banzai," rendered immortal by
John Lithgow in his character as a Red Lectroid from the 8th Dimension: "Laugh'a while you
can, monkey-boy!" And another, apropos of what I'm exploring here: "Jesu Christe! It'a Make
the ganglia TWITCH!" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xCyyU0bSPtk
Russia has an opportunity to go USS Liberty ship on US electronics planes and UAVs.
Of course, they won't.
The most interesting information from b. and Magnier's blog is that Syria intends to wage
an insurgency war of its own against the Turks, Kurds, AQ, al Nusra proxies in the
de-escalation zones.
This seems very good. Better than waging a counter-insurgency war that the US and Israel
are shaping for the Syrians to fight. The US attempt to turning ISIS and AQ into insurgents
seems problematic. Mostly, they will be terrorists on small scale, disrupting transportation
and reconstruction of Syrian economy.
If Syria launches its own insurgents in "occupied" areas, it will have the 'sea' of the
populace to support its warriors. Already, in Idlib this is occurring. And presumably, along
the Lebanon, Golan borders.
Whatever, the future is more war, large scale or small scale. Poor Syria. How its
neighbors desire to consume her.
Russia will be forced out of its recent enclave strategy sooner than later. Diplomacy
without military leverage will not result in security or sovereignty as the Russians
hope.
Trump to enrich the MIC further with increased nuclear weapons development and then break
out the nukes first in response to conventional weapons attacks.
Use of nukes to be in response to an attack on "critical infrastructure".
In other words, any road, bridge, water tower, airstrip, utility, drainage ditch.
In other words, a wide-open interpretation. Carte Blanche.
I think it's not that the US invaders and their SDF grunts are having troubles clearing
the area of Daesh but that a lot less resources are made available now that they lost the
race to Abu Kamal and the US needs an official pretense to stay in Syria and occupy the area
which is completely illegal under international law. Without Daesh there would be even less
reason and the one given would stick even less.
I think it's not that the US invaders and their SDF grunts are having troubles clearing
the area of Daesh but that a lot less resources are made available now that they lost the
race to Abu Kamal and the US needs an official pretense to stay in Syria and occupy the area
which is completely illegal under international law. Without Daesh there would be even less
reason and the one given would stick even less.
thanks b.. excellent coverage of what is happening in syria... unfortunately the
usa-israel-ksa and company are not going to back down.. they will continue as they see the
strengthening of syria as part of a larger problem of the strengthening of iran, or even iraq
and other players that are not playing the same song book these players want.. i think the
recent drone attack is proof of my viewpoint.. russia needs to make a move based on this
brazen act and it needs to send a message loud and clear to not fuck with russia they way the
usa-israel is doing at present..
SAA is pushing through to Aleppo following the rail line. Seems more important than a new
road. The ISIS pocket is advancing in step with SAA. On a map, it looks like they are
covering SAA's right flank. Perhaps the ISIS pocket is Syrians looking for reconciliation?
The Syrian government have said the Kurds can have an administrative devolution type
settlement within a united and sovereign Syria, this is probably ok with Turkey. The US
partitioning plan will not be agreed by Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Russia or Iran or by many Kurds.
Because it is landlocked the oil and gas could not be exported. Maybe a Berlin airlift
operation could work?
According to Tass ,
the drones took off from one of the four de-escalation zones in Syria, this one being in
Iblib zone:
"The ministry also said the drones that tried to attack Hmeymim and Tartus had been
launched from the area of Muazzar, in the southwestern part of the de-escalation zone
Idlib, held by the armed groups of the so-called moderate opposition."
They had been crafted by experienced manufacturers using all kind of components, not
buildt in a professional military equipment factory. However, the craftsmen have been
experienced and used widely available professional components for these one-way drones.
Might well be that they got some support and know-how from Western services who took care
of plausible deniability. owever, the timely monitoring of the attack and the Russion defense
capabilities is suspicious.
if the US was in any responsible for those drones, it would also be very interested in
watching the Russian response - the timing, success rate, etc, in order to also learn more
about the russian equipment and capabilities in Syria for... uh... future 'reference'
form the RT news article, "...Pentagon spokesman Maj. Adrian Rankin-Galloway, however,
claimed that "those devices and technologies can easily be obtained in the open
market."....
Well I guess those "open market" technologies and devices can go both ways, right? Who
could believe that there won't be blow-back against US interests or forces somewhere in
eastern Europe or the middle east?
Iran has been developing drone warfare for years, they have just reverse engineered the US
Sentinel RQ170 they brought down several years ago. Hezbollah also have armed drones flying
around Israel.One intercepted flying near Dimona. Oh dear.
'...The swarm also appears to be remotely controlled, likely as a means to provide
target acquisition and terminal guidance. This allowed defense units to hack them...'
'Remotely controlled' is highly unlikely...in fact I would say ridiculous...
This cannot be done with off the shelf RC airplane stuff...which radio controllers only
work within line of sight due to the nature of the radio frequency...which is 72
megaHertz...there are 50 dedicated channels from 72.01 to 72.99 MHz...in 0.02 MHz
increments...
This small slice of radio band is reserved for RC aircraft and this is what the radio
controllers are built for...
This frequency is in the VHF band... [very high frequency]
which is used for FM radio, TV as well as air traffic control communications with
aircraft...and air navigation systems...ie navaids for landing and such...each particular use
of this band has a certain block of frequencies set aside for its exclusive use...
Aircraft cruising at high altitude can communicate quite long distances in this band but
this makes use of high ground antennas...so they are still line of sight communications...but
can reach longer due to the antenna height and aircraft altitude...
Even flying in a small plane at say 3,000 ft you will be lucky to get good radio at a
distance of 40 nautical miles...[about 70 km]
This equipment also uses more powerful radio transmitters and receivers...both on the
ground and in the airplane...
So 'remotely controlled' is not going to happen beyond line of sight with off the shelf
model RC airplane equipment that is much weaker...that's going to be maybe a few
kilometers...
For radio comms beyond line of sight the HF [high frequency] band is used...this is
a lower frequency of between 3 and 30 MHz...these can reach very long distances because the
radio signals in this wavelength bounce off the ionosphere...
These are used for radio comms with aircraft over ocean routes...where there are obviously
no ground antennas nearby...but they are notoriously sensitive and temperamental...due to the
bouncing...
Anyway this kind of equipment is not suitable for a flight of 100 km...it is really
for much longer distances...and would be very difficult for anything but an expert to cook
up...
So this John Robb...who claims to be a USAF Academy graduate in astronautics...as well as
an airline transport pilot...is talking nonsense here about remotely controlled airplanes
with off the shelf equipment reaching 100 km...
Like I said earlier...a well working autopilot will get this kind of aircraft to 100 km if
it is designed correctly...but there is no remote control involved once the autopilot takes
over...
Hacking into the airplane would not be that difficult by spoofing the GPS/Glonass receiver
on board the aircraft...ie feeding a false location signal...this is how the Iranians brought
down the extremely advanced USAF
RQ170 Sentinel UAV...
US tried to use a swarm of Tomahawks against the Syrian airbase last year, but lost over half
of them. I guess they would be interested in what tech Russia used. Now a small swarm of
drones attacks the Russian base and just by chance a US surveillance plane is loitering in
the area.
Makes sense. Force the enemy to move so you can read him. Probing by fire, it was
sometimes called. The attack serves multiple purposes. So it fits multiple analyses. Russian
MOD says it was foreign, despite the plausible deniability built
in.
I wonder if we'll even see the Russian response - it depends what they want to find out,
or demonstrate, I suppose. It's the ironic thing about Russia, the better it performs, the
more its supporters are in the dark about what it's doing.
Personally, I'm glad to see this turn into insurgency warfare. Less people die, the hands
of the doomsday clock stop and maybe even relax a notch or two, and the tricks become more
subtle.
~~
I read the analysis by Magnier and I can see why b recommended it. The piece by
Bhadrakumar that Don Bacon linked @11 was equally good. And combined with the post by Ziad
Fadel that karlof1 linked @49 we have a trifecta of superb analysis that rounds out b's
summation, and places it all into global and historical perspective.
We've entered an entirely distinct new phase of the Syrian conflict, which is itself the
crucible of a much larger regional conflict, and ultimately of course a global and perhaps
even civilizational conflict.
This is the time of patience now, and those who are not patient will not meet the demands
of this time, not on the battlefield, and not here on the sidelines - IMHO.
Turkey is more plausible as the instigator of drones because they have the best control of
what goes to Idlib-stan. Recently Erdogan was making pretty hostile comments against Assad,
and he is unhappy with the offensive that aims to cut 1/3 of the Idlib-stan away.
On the ground, both sides have limited number of mobile forces capable of serious attacks,
and on Idlib-stan side, the leadership of such forces is fractured. Some decent counter
attacks were launched in the last 24 hours, the advance of Tigers onto Abu Al-Duhur was
repelled and there was an attack on the west flank of the salient that changed the control of
two villages, if temporarily. This attack is ongoing. OTOH, Tigers are the best of SAA, of
second-best are still quite good. Defense of Khanasser highway seem to consist of
"third-best" and a quick reaction force that liquidates any breaches through third-best
defenses. Now these "second-best" attack to split the east lobe of Idlib-stan into southern
and northern parts, and they made impressive progress. That makes a real dilemma for the
defenders how to allocate forces: Tigers on their west side, ISIS on their south, and
Khanasser forces on the east (they were described as "SAA-led").
Strangely enough, ISIS pocket so far avoided attacks on SAA, but one was also reported in
the last 24 hours. This is a multi-way war theater.
Oh, and another thing? Does the United States have anything like the Pantsir? They used to
have mobile radar-controlled autocannons but I think they were scrapped as being obsolete in
the brave new world of air supremacy. I'd be interested to know how effective an F-22 or F-35
would be against a swarm of these drones.
Actually I doubt the United States military would be so stupid as to organize an operation
like this because it lays bare major issues they would have with such an attack. On the
otherhand the idiots at the CIA are stupid and arrogant enough to do something like this and
tell the USN that it would be worth their while to have a Posiden lurking in the area.
I have to add that I'm a bit puzzled that it was a USN Boeing P-8 Poseidon that was used
given it's designed for "anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASUW), and
shipping interdiction, along with an early warning self-protection (EWSP) ability". I would
have expected it to be something like the USAF Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS. I suppose a
naval aircraft flying over the Mediterranean is a bit more deniable.
Yes...the Poseidon would have been within line of sight to the drones even from a long
distance...
This is a good point...
Being an ASW ship doesn't mean the P8 can't carry all kinds of additional gear on board as
needed...it's a Boeing 737 after all...with plenty of room on board...
This brings up the possibility that the P8 'could' conceivably have been carrying
radio transmitters working in the 72 MHz band and able to remotely control the UAVs...
These transmitters would need to be much more powerful than off the shelf RC airplane
transmitters which are limited to just 0.75 watt power by the FCC...
By comparison a passenger jet VHF radio is 25 watts...and ATC [air traffic control] radios
are from 25 to 100 W...
It would not be difficult for any radio engineer to build a custom radio set in the 72 MHz
band that could be as powerful as you want...25 W would be plenty to reach well over 100 km
at an altitude a P8 would fly at...
The antenna would be quite small and could even be inside a flying aircraft...similar to
the small handheld backup
VHF radios used by private pilots...
However...and this is a big one...
Doing something like this would be sure to be picked up instantly by the Russians...who
are monitoring every single radio blip over Syria and beyond...
This kind of thing could not be denied...
We recall the incident in Syria in October 2016 where the Russians identified two Belgian
F16s flying out of Jordan that bombed a village near Aleppo...
The problem was that the US side did not notify the Russians of the flight in advance as
per the deconfliction rules...
Brussels denied the flight ever took place...but the Russians even had the airplanes' tail
numbers...which is the real shocker...
This info is only available to 'friendlies' by means of the warplane's IFF [identification
friend or foe] transponder...which transmits an encrypted radio code...
Friendly aircraft can thus identify the plane...but adversaries cannot...[although they
can hear the transmissions]...
It is still a mystery as to how the Russians managed to do this...but they made a big
diplomatic kerfuffle over it and even presented the proof to the Belgians...so one must
assume that they did in fact manage to do this...
This gives an important clue as to the Russians' capability in the electronic warfare
sphere...
Considering this...it would seem idiotic that the Americans would try something like
controlling that flight of terrorist UAVs from one of their aircraft...it would be easily
proven as a hostile act against Russian forces...the repercussions would be
significant...
As for the possibility of having some terrorists near Hmeimim and Tartus with off the
shelf RC transmitters...well...this could of course happen...but one would assume such
infiltrators could not get very near those facilities...and those weak transmitters might not
be up to the job from a distance of more than a few km...
In any case...it is not necessary...an autopilot equipped homemade UAV like this could
quite easily do what these did...
According to this article, Putin is saying Turkey had nothing to do with the drone
attack. https://sputniknews.com/russia/201801111060680364-putin-syria-bases-attack/
..."There were provocateurs there but they were not Turks, we know who was it was We know,
how much and whom they have paid for this provocation," Putin said...
..."Concerning the attacks, we have no doubts that they had been well prepared, we know when
and where these drones were transferred, as well as the number of drones," Putin added...
"... Award winning journalist James Risen has recently described in some detail his sometimes painful relationship with The New York Times . His lengthy account is well worth reading as it demonstrates how successive editors of the paper frequently cooperated with the government to suppress stories on torture and illegal activity while also self-censoring to make sure that nothing outside the framework provided by the "war on terror" should be seriously discussed. ..."
"... It became a faithful lap dog for an American role as global hegemon, promoting government half-truths and suppressing information that it knew to be true but which would embarrass the administration in power, be they Democrats or Republicans. ..."
"... To be sure, the Post is worse than the Times , characterized by heavily editorializing in its news coverage without necessarily tipping off the reader when "facts" end and speculation begins. In both publications, stories about Iran or Russia routinely begin with an assertion that Moscow interfered in the 2016 U.S. election and that Iran is the aggressor in the Middle East, contentions that have not been demonstrated and can easily be challenged. Both publications also have endorsed every American war since 2001, including Iraq, Libya and the current mess in Syria, one indication of the quality of their reporting and analysis. ..."
"... A recent op-ed in the Times by Bret Stephens is a perfect example of warmongering mischief wrapped in faux expert testimony to make it palatable. Stephens is the resident neocon at the Times . He was brought over from the Wall Street Journal when it was determined that his neocon colleague David Brooks had become overly squishy, while the resident "conservative" Russ Douthat had proven to be a bit too cautious and even rational to please the increasingly hawkish senior editors. ..."
"... The article does not reveal that Weinstein and Dubowitz are long time critics of Iran, are part of the Israel Lobby and just happen to be Jewish, as is Stephens. The Hudson Institute and the FDD are leading neocon and pro-Israel fronts. So my question becomes, "Why Iran?" The often-heard Israeli complaint about its being unfairly picked on could reasonably be turned on its head in asking the same about Iran. In fact, Iran compares favorably with Israel. It has no nuclear weapons, it does not support any of the Sunni terrorist groups that are chopping heads, and it has not disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of people that it rules over. The fact is that Iran is being targeted because Israel sees it as its prime enemy in the region and has corrupted many "opinion makers" in the U.S., to include Stephens, to hammer home that point. To be sure, Iran is a very corrupt place run by people who should not be running a hot dog stand, but the same applies to the United States and Israel. And there are lots of places that are not being targeted like Iran that are far worse, including good friend and ally of both Jerusalem and Washington, Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... The irony is that Trump is in fact pursuing a basically neocon foreign policy which the two men would normally support, but they appear to be making room for Trump haters in the policy formulation process to push the national security consensus even farther to the right. Indeed, in another article by Boot at Foreign Policy he writes "I applaud Trump's decisions to provide Ukraine with arms to defend itself from Russian aggression, to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, to send additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and to accelerate former President Barack Obama's strategy for fighting the Islamic State." Cohen meanwhile applauds the embassy move, though he warns that Trump's success in so doing might embolden him to do something reckless over North Korea. ..."
"... Perhaps one should not be astonished that leading neocons appearing in the mainstream media will continue to have their eyes on the ball and seek for more aggressive engagement in places like Iran and Russia. The media should be faulted because it rarely publishes any contrary viewpoint and it also consistently fails to give any space to the considerable downside to the agitprop. It must be reassuring for many Americans to know that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is preparing itself to deal with the aftermath of a nuclear attack on the United States and it will be sharing information on the appropriate preparations with the American people. There will be a public session on how to prepare for a nuclear explosion on January 16 th . ..."
"... That the United States should be preparing for a possible nuclear future can in part be attributed to recent commentary by the "like, really smart" and "very stable genius" who is the nation's chief executive, but the fuel being poured on the fire for war is the very same neocons who are featured in the mainstream media as all-purpose experts and have succeeded in selling the snake oil about America's proper role as aggressor-in-chief for the entire world. ..."
"... Now that Charlie Rose/ PBS is off the air -- as well as Mark Halperin -- there was a potentially significant reduction in Neocon airtime (alas Dan Senor). But Brett Stephens and Bari Weiss will -- no question -- bolster the pro-Israel stance of the NY Times ownership which one would hope, would have learned -- something -- from the last sixteen years of war. Taking these two from the WSJ nutcake editorial page, are hires that should have been avoided. ..."
"... The NeoCons are Trotskyite centrists. In the Soviet Union they were Communists, in the USA "Conservatives" (yeah, right). No matter. They worked out a way to take over this (gentile) government and rape the country for their own benefit. It is hard to see an ultimate objective of these people other than the destruction of gentile societies (as Deuteronomy, for instance, and The Talmud demand). ..."
"... Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media visibility. This is why 'experts' such as Boot, Kristol, Weinstein, Cohen, Stephens, Glasser, Podhoretz, Dubowitz, etc., are not only never stepping down from their appointed roles as high media priests -- they're actually failing their way into positions of tenure and (undue) respectability. ..."
"... Under any other circumstance, their bulletproof status would defy logic. But because of Israel's unique place in American life, this makes perfect -- though astonishing -- sense. This above list of scoundrels may resemble the guest list of a Jewish wedding, but this ongoing affair will produce no honeymoon. These operatives function as soft double agents. Their devious mission is to justify US war(s) of aggression that benefit Israel. ..."
"... What's worse, our 'independent' MSM will be there to sanitize Washington's pro-Israel shenanigans and basically cheer the whole bloody process on. This is where the Zio-punditry of Kristol, Cohen, Stephens, Dubowitz, and Co. come in. They soothe the nervous nellies as they gently justify the death and destruction that come with these military strikes. Media tactics include ..."
"... When you control the media, you control the message. That message is that America just has to keep busting up nations for the glory of Apartheid Israel. ..."
Award winning journalist James Risen has
recently described in some detail his sometimes painful relationship with The New York
Times . His lengthy account is well worth reading as it demonstrates how successive
editors of the paper frequently cooperated with the government to suppress stories on torture
and illegal activity while also self-censoring to make sure that nothing outside the framework
provided by the "war on terror" should be seriously discussed.
Russia Came Under Attack by a 'Swarm' In Syria, Says Report
Russian military forces at the Hmeymim air base and the Tartus logistics
center in Syria came under attack by what appears to have been a swarm of
drones. Some thirteen small
unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) made the attack, six of which were
diverted by Russian electronic warfare systems while seven additional aircraft
were dispatched by Pantsir-S1 air defense batteries.
"During the hours of darkness Russian air defense facilities made clear 13
remoted unknown small-sized air targets approaching the Russian military
assets," the Russian Defense Ministry told the
TASS news agency
. "Ten combat UAVs were approaching Russia's Hmeymim air
base and three more - the logistics center of Tartus."
The Russians are asserting that the unmanned aerial vehicles -- which appear to
have indigenously manufactured -- were constructed with the aid of a developed
country.
"Engineering solutions used by terrorists when attacking Russian facilities in
Syria could have been received only from a country with high technological
potential on providing satellite navigation and distant control of firing
competently assembled self-made explosive devices in appointed place," the
Russian Defense Ministry said.
Analysts dispute the
Russian
contention, arguing that
UAV components are
easily accessible and that drones are no longer the
sole purview of state actors.
"It's very likely that such parts were most likely acquired commercially, in
which case we are entering a dangerous terra incognita with respect to
unsanctioned UAV use by non-state and terrorist organizations," Samuel
Bendett, a researcher specializing in unmanned systems at the Center for Naval
Analyses, told
The National Interest
.
Indeed, the UAVs -- which were 'home-made' -- were more capable in many regards than
one might expect with ranges as great as 60 miles or more.
"Previous UAV-borne attacks were via small commercial quadrocopters- their
accuracy was often questionable but such UAVs used by the terrorist
organizations created a powerful psychological effect," Bendett said. "Now, we
seem to have home-made UAVs that flew for tens of kilometers to their target."
The attack on the
Russian
forces in Syria -- though unsuccessful -- is likely the harbinger of
more such UAV-borne swarm attacks.
"If the Syrian conflict is a showcase of what is possible with existing and
emerging technologies, then such a UAV-borne threat is dead-serious," Bendett
said. "Some expertise is required to outfit such a UAV with navigational
technologies, but again, those could be procured on the open market."
While the Russians seem to believe that the insurgent group that launched the
attack had support from an advanced nation-state, there does not seem to be
much validity to Moscow's position.
"So far, there is no validity to those claims," Bendett said. "The technology
and expertise to make such a UAV is fairly widespread at this point."
The fact of the matter is that drone technology has been democratized and this
attack on the Russians in Syria is the harbinger of a future where even
insurgent groups will have access to advanced capabilities.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can
follow him on Twitter:
@davemajumdar
.
"... Kushner Companies received a $30 million investment from Israeli insurer Menora Mivtachim; that investment went to Maryland apartment complexes that Kushner still has a stake in despite stepping down from the company after accepting a White House job last year. The company has also taken out large loans from Israeli banks. ..."
Jared Kushner's family real estate firm has continued to extend its business ties to Israel despite his role leading the administration's
peace efforts in the Middle East, raising concerns that he may be breaking the spirit -- though not the letter -- of conflict-of-interest
laws. The New York Times reports that shortly before President Trump's son-in-law departed on a diplomatic trip to Israel last year,
Kushner Companies received a $30 million investment from Israeli insurer Menora Mivtachim; that investment went to Maryland apartment
complexes that Kushner still has a stake in despite stepping down from the company after accepting a White House job last year. The
company has also taken out large loans from Israeli banks.
With Kushner playing such a big role in the peace process, "I think it's reasonable for people to ask whether his business interests
are somehow affecting his judgment," government ethics expert Matthew Sanderson, a lawyer who advised Rand Paul's campaign, tells
the Times. Kushner's lawyers and White House officials, however, stress that he is in full compliance with ethics rules. We have
"tremendous confidence in the job Jared is doing leading our peace efforts, and he takes the ethics rules very seriously and would
never compromise himself or the administration," White House spokesman Raj Shah tells the Jerusalem Post.
"... Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media visibility. This is why 'experts' such as Boot, Kristol, Weinstein, Cohen, Stephens, Glasser, Podhoretz, Dubowitz, etc., are not only never stepping down from their appointed roles as high media priests–they're actually failing their way into positions of tenure and (undue) respectability. ..."
"... Under any other circumstance, their bulletproof status would defy logic. But because of Israel's unique place in American life, this makes perfect–though astonishing–sense. This above list of scoundrels may resemble the guest list of a Jewish wedding, but this ongoing affair will produce no honeymoon. These operatives function as soft double agents. Their devious mission is to justify US war(s) of aggression that benefit Israel. ..."
"... More subversion and more conflict. This explains why Pres. Trump has reversed course. He's caved. Once elected, Trump decided to would be suicide to try to frustrate the Israeli Lobby. So he cucked his Presidency and dumped several major campaign pledges. ..."
"... Candidate Trump also stated: "I don't want your [Jewish] money" to an auditorium full of wealthy Jews. Well, that's changed too. Pres. Trump is now surrounded by wealthy and powerful Israeli-firsters now, including mega-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, who ended up feeding the Trump campaign untold millions. Sadly, Trump has totally rolled over for the Israelis. ..."
"... Regarding Israel, Washington will foot their war bill, supply the arms, lend diplomatic cover and even wage war on their behalf. No country in the world receives this kind of treatment. And no country in the world deserves it. ..."
"... Ironically, US security would be improved if we simply minded our own business and did nothing in the Middle East besides pursue normal and peaceful trade policies. But that's not to be. ..."
"... America's 'special relationship' with you-know-who is the quintessential red line that no establishment figure will cross. And those who do cross that line tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This phenomena has not gone unnoticed. ..."
"... When you control the media, you control the message. That message is that America just has to keep busting up nations for the glory of Apartheid Israel. ..."
"... Much is said about "we dumb Americans." We are not all that dumb – but we are 100% misinformed. Propaganda works. It is a fact that the human mind is susceptible to repeated lies. (It is also true, that people hate being lied too.) ..."
"... The whole US media scene can be summed up as "don't believe their pack of lies. Believe my pack of lies"! ..."
Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media
visibility. This is why 'experts' such as Boot, Kristol, Weinstein, Cohen, Stephens, Glasser,
Podhoretz, Dubowitz, etc., are not only never stepping down from their appointed roles as
high media priests–they're actually failing their way into positions of tenure and
(undue) respectability.
Under any other circumstance, their bulletproof status would defy logic. But because of
Israel's unique place in American life, this makes perfect–though
astonishing–sense. This above list of scoundrels may resemble the guest list of a
Jewish wedding, but this ongoing affair will produce no honeymoon. These operatives function
as soft double agents. Their devious mission is to justify US war(s) of aggression that
benefit Israel.
Being a successful neocon doesn't require being right. Not at all. It's all about sending
the right message. Over and over. Evidence be damned. The neocon mission is not about
journalism. It's about advancing the cause: Mideast disruption and a secure Jewish state.
More importantly, Washington's impenetrable array of Zio-centric PACs, money-handlers,
bundlers, fund-raisers, and billionaires want these crypto-Israeli pundits right where they
are–on TV or in the your local newspaper–telling Americans how to feel and what
to think. And Big Media–which happens to be in bed with these same powerful
forces–needs these Zions in place to not only justify the latest Mideast confrontation,
but even ones being planned. It's one big happy effort at group-think, mass deception, and
military conquest. Unfortunately, it's not being presented that way.
So what lies ahead?
More subversion and more conflict. This explains why Pres. Trump has reversed course. He's
caved. Once elected, Trump decided to would be suicide to try to frustrate the Israeli Lobby.
So he cucked his Presidency and dumped several major campaign pledges.
The first to go was his pledge to normalize US-Russian relations ('make peace' with
Russia) and after that 2) avoid unnecessary wars abroad. That's was a huge reversal. But
Trump did it and few pundits have scolded him for it. The fix is in.
Candidate Trump also stated: "I don't want your [Jewish] money" to an auditorium full of
wealthy Jews. Well, that's changed too. Pres. Trump is now surrounded by wealthy and powerful
Israeli-firsters now, including mega-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, who ended up feeding the
Trump campaign untold millions. Sadly, Trump has totally rolled over for the Israelis.
So Trump (the President) now sees things differently. Very differently. When it comes to
the Middle East, Trump has been Hillary-ized. This means there's no light between what Israel
desires and what Washington is willing to deliver. The hyper-wealthy, super cohesive,
extraordinarily well-positioned and diabolically cleaver Israeli lobby has Trump over a
barrel. Shocking, yes. But true.
So watch Israel's roughshod expansion continue, along with the typically meek and
accommodating responses from Washington.
Regarding Israel, Washington will foot their war bill, supply the arms, lend diplomatic
cover and even wage war on their behalf. No country in the world receives this kind of
treatment. And no country in the world deserves it.
What's worse, our 'independent' MSM will be there to sanitize Washington's pro-Israel
shenanigans and basically cheer the whole bloody process on. This is where the Zio-punditry
of Kristol, Cohen, Stephens, Dubowitz, and Co. come in. They soothe the nervous nellies as
they gently justify the death and destruction that come with these military strikes. Media
tactics include:
Don't count enemy war dead. Don't count civilian war dead. Don't count displaced refugees.
Don't connect Europe's immigration crisis to Zio-Washington's destruction of Iraq, Libya and
Syria.
At the same time: Always praise Israeli 'restraint'. Always refer to Israel as a
'democracy'. Sneer and jeer the 'terrorist' Republic of Iran. Treat every Mideast warlord or
rebellion as if it threatens the sanctity of Disneyland or even the next Superbowl. Oh
my!
It's a slick, highly-coordinated, and very manipulative affair. But the magic is working.
Americans are being fooled.
Ironically, US security would be improved if we simply minded our own business and did
nothing in the Middle East besides pursue normal and peaceful trade policies. But that's not
to be.
The reason for this phenomena is that Washington's major PACs, syndicates, heavy hitters,
influence peddlers, oligarchs, and Big Money handlers (and who also have their clutches on
our corrupt MSM) want more Mideast disruption.
Why? Israeli 'security'. Israeli 'survival'. Considering Israel's extraordinary military power, this might seem silly. But this is what
the entrenched Israeli lobby desires. And both Parties are listening. To make matters worse, how one 'thinks' and 'talks' about Israel has unacknowledged
limitations and restrictions in Big Washington as well as Big Media.
Diversity of opinion stops at Israel's doorstep. Like it or not, Zionist Israel is the
Third Rail of American discourse. Watch what you say. Even the typically rancorous disputes
between Democrats and Republicans gets warm and fuzzy when Israel's 'special place' in
American life is raised. America's 'special relationship' with you-know-who is the
quintessential red line that no establishment figure will cross. And those who do cross that
line tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This phenomena has not gone unnoticed.
So America is stuck with pro-Israel speech codes and a militantly pro-Zionist foreign
policy that has caused immense cost, dislocation, suffering and destruction. It's been
designed that way. And 'outsider' Trump is stuck with it. Few dare examine it.
Here's the short list of Israel's primary Enemies. Significantly, these are the countries
that also get the worst press in American media:
The (anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian) Republic of Iran.
Syria, which still claims land (Golan Heights) stolen by Israel in 1967.
Lebanon (where Hezbollah roams)
Palestine (will they never give up?)
Russia (allied with Iran and Assad's Syria)
N. Korea is even a player here. Iran and N. Korea have allegedly shared nuclear
technology. This infuriates nuclear Israel.
So the Israel angle in this picture is huge. Overwhelmingly so. This is where the
oligarchs, media lords, and corrupt journalists come together.
Thus, Israel's tenured Hasbara brigade in US media will remain firmly in place.
The local DC 'conservative' radio station has Bolton as a guest all the time. Same old neocon
crap that we don't want any more. Bolton had his day 15 years ago and he sucked then; yet,
they keep bringing him on, slobbering all over him ("Ambassador Bolton"), and letting him
blather about blowing up everyone. I still see a lot of online comments about how people
would love to have John Bolton as our ambassador to the UN. Good grief wise up people.
'Stephens' article, entitled Finding the Way Forward on Iran sparkles with throwaway gems
like "Tehran's hyperaggressive foreign policy in the wake of the 2015 nuclear deal" and "Real
democracies don't live in fear of their own people" and even "it's not too soon to start
rethinking the way we think about Iran." Or try "A better way of describing Iran's
dictatorship is as a kleptotheocracy, driven by impulses that are by turns doctrinal and
venal."'
Hmmmmm . I can immediately think of another nation to which those strictures are far more
applicable.
"Hyperaggressive foreign policy"
"Kleptocracy"
Sounds more like the USA, doesn't it?
As for "Real democracies don't live in fear of their own people", that's a real home
run.
1. The USA is not, never has been, never will be, and was never meant to be "a real
democracy". (Except by unrealistic visionaries like Jefferson).
When you control the media, you control the message. That message is that America just has to
keep busting up nations for the glory of Apartheid Israel.
From an April 2003 Haaretz article:
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them
Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them,
journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.
This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25
people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if
you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have
happened.
If this insanity keeps up, America will either be destroyed by financial collapse from
waging all these wars or we'll stumble into WW III and the last thing we'll see is a mushroom
cloud.
Former Brit PM Tony Blair at the Chilcot inquiry:
What role did Israel play in the run-up to the Iraq war?
"As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going
to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue
at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations
that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major
part of all this."
"Whether print, air, or both the Neocons want to be players. They have the friends in high
–media– places to do it."
– They, neocons, are devoid of dignity. This explains why none of them feels any
responsibility for the mass slaughter in the Middle East -- picture Madeleine Albright near
thousands of tiny corpses of Iraqi children or the piggish Kristol next to the bloody bags
with shredded Syrian children. They are psychopaths, the profiteering psychopaths. There is
no other way to deal with neo/ziocons but through long-term incarceration.
My fine tuning of this excellent article begins, and perhaps ends, with this quote: "The fact
is that Iran is being targeted because Israel sees it as its prime enemy in the region and
has corrupted many "opinion makers" in the U.S., to include Stephens, to hammer home that
point."
The 'corruption' is not recent and is not about any one issue or series of issues. It
springs from Deep Culture. It is part of the WASP worldview.
WASP culture is the direct product of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy always produces culture and politics that are pro-Jewish,
pro-Semitic.
At least by the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually 100% of British Empire Elites
were hardcore pro-Semitic. Most were pro-Jewish, but a large and growing minority were
pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic.
The Saudis are Arabic. The Iranians are NOT Arabic; Iranians are Indo-European.
Siding with both wings of Semitic culture – Jewish and Arabic/Islamic –
against an Indo-European people is exactly what WASP cultural Elites will do. It is roughly
analogous to Oliver Cromwell allying with Jews to wage war against the vast majority of
natives of the British Isles.
Excellent piece. I'd just like to add that Stephens' op-ed in the NYT ought to be view like
Judith Miller's misleading articles about aluminum-tubes-for-nuclear-centrifuges which
appeared in the Times during the run up to the Iraq war: Preparation of the Times' readership
for yet another war in the middle east, this time against Iran.
Ron Unz is another courageous man. I wish and pray to God, that people like Ron Unz,
Philip M. Giraldi, Paul Craig Roberts, Saker and their likes to move away from FAKE NEWS too,
and tell us the TRUTH.
Evil can be fought only with TRUTH ..
Your idea about an article on political Islam by either Ron Unz or Philip M. Giraldi is an
excellent idea, and I am willing to help provided we keep away from sectarianism and stick to
TRUTH. The war the First Caliph abu Bakr which he fought with Yemen's Muslims within six
months of Prophet's demise is very important to show how the rights given by Prophet Mohammad
(saws) were taken away as soon as his demise. Our aim should be to shine the light on the
Prophet. This is what Yemen's war did, just to start with:
1. Prophet did away with excommuniting someone from the fold as he saw a very powerful
tool in the hands of Rabbis and Preacher. Who gave them the right to remove someone from
Synagogue or Church.
2. So abu Bakr came up with much stronger tool, he called all the Yemeni Muslims en masses as
apostate.
3. Brought back the slavery.
4. Claimed that he the Caliph abu Bakr was appointed by Will of Allah through
predestination.
5. Thus, the ideology of ISIS calling everyone kafir, kafir, kafir .. and chopping their
heads.
6. Used Islam as a disguise to bring other countries in to the fold for power and mammon
(money), thus bring Islam by Sword.
The list is extensive and I can go on and on. The divide / confuse / rule was used against
the Muslims.
The objective of the article should be to bring TRUTH about the Prophet.
Don't lose heart, Mark Green. There is a very good chance that Trump is actually with you,
and that he's winning. He cannot afford to be straight at all. His strategy is to take up
highly charged strands of the dominant discourse and to short circuit them. A strong play of
a weak hand. He's run with the demands of Adelson, Netanyahu and Kushner regarding Jerusalem
and other maximal Israeli demands. It's all in response to the worst Jews. The result is that
Shias are united with Sunnis, Hamas with PLO, Iran with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The whole
world against America, Israel and some specks of guano. The Iran caper is the same. The
Pakistan caper even better. Trump gives the military a free hand to show what they can do in
Afghanistan. Then he blows his twitter top to insult Pakistan so there will no longer be a
land route. He's doing his damndest and always failing. What a clueless asshole. Yet every
failure is undoing the empire, and leading to a one-state resolution in Palestine.
That's just the foreign policy part.
By the time he's finished there will be no Democrat party left as we know it, and the GOP
will be transformed as well.
There will be no more Fed. No more debt based currency. A paid off national debt.
And there will be single payer medical coverage.
God willing.
That was a great summary of our foreign policy situation, Mr. Giraldi. You have a lot of guts
to write out all the truth that you see, as you have in all of the articles of yours I've
read on unz.
I really liked this line, too:
To be sure, Iran is a very corrupt place run by people who should not be running a
hot dog stand, but the same applies to the United States and Israel .
I have one question for you, Phil, and this is not hypothetical or snarky – just
looking for your opinion: What do you think the neocons' attitude about the Orient is? I
realize that China is on the road to kicking our ass economically , but
that's the "war" we need to fight, not a military war. Then, there's N. Korea, which, in my
opinion, is none of our business. Rest of the question – Trump seems to get sucked into
the standard invade-the-world mode in the Far East also – do you think that is
neocon-inspired, and, since that part of the world is no threat to Israel, if so, why? Would
they possibly be masking their intentions by expanding the range of their invade-the-world
program?
I don't usually read that filthy rag other than to skim the headlines, but this was just
so bizarre, I couldn't resist. Brooks seems to admit that they (Jewish neocons/Bolsheviks)
are losing the battle to take down Trump. He openly criticizes the media for being so obvious
and self-discrediting.
Is this a total retreat for the neocons / Bolsheviks? Or is Brooks merely rallying the
troops? Or simply a desperate attempt to regain credibility by telling the truth, for a
change?
Or maybe he is preemptively refuting Mr. Giraldi's premise in this piece, a semi-novel
tactic one might call Jewish Preemptive Vengeance getting even BEFORE the fact?
Do some research, Israel and the U.S. deep state blew up 7 buildings at the WTC on 911 and
blew up a section of the pentagram, the Saudis were the patsys , and as corrupt and evil as
the Saudis are they had on part in it.
The Zionist neocons did 911 to set the Mideast wars in motion, do some research, hell
every thinking American knows Israel did it.
Mr. Giraldi has gone after the real power center in America – the Jew controlled US
media. Much is said about "we dumb Americans." We are not all that dumb – but we are 100%
misinformed. Propaganda works. It is a fact that the human mind is susceptible to repeated
lies. (It is also true, that people hate being lied too.)
Much is said about "Christian Zionists." Why is it, that NO Christian broadcast media
tells the truth about Palestinian suffering? Of course, it is because of Jew media control.
If Christian stations were to tell the truth, there would be a lot less Christian Zionists
– they would be a small segment of Christianity.
Thanks to Mr. Giraldi and others on the internet – more and more people are
listening and learning and getting mad. A base is building. Truth will out!
The more the psychotic control freaks
publically expose themselves, what with social media, the internet, and disenchanted leakers
in their own group the more of humanity wakes up to a great sense of absolute disgust in
them. We, humanity, are gradually winning and the disgusting pyschopaths are losing.
Does Mr Giraldi really expect us to believe that the US internet is any better than the media
outlets he criticizes? The whole US media scene can be summed up as "don't believe their pack
of lies. Believe my pack of lies"!
This article is one year old but still looks like it was written yesterday...
Notable quotes:
"... Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. ..."
"... "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump." ..."
"... Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line. ..."
"... For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books. ..."
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile
strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve
agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan
Sheikhoun.
Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it
had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.
The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site
on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives.
Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been
provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose
mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's
determination to ignore the evidence.
"None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision
to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we
have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton
or Trump."
Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world's media was saturated with photographs and videos
from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms
of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White
Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.
........................
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html
Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in
the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake
the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays
Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria,
as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line.
For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker
refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home
at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books.
................
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/hershs-new-syria-revelations-buried-from-view/
White House Says It Will Fake "Chemical Weapon Attack" In Syria
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This
is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly
be to its disadvantage.
Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media
have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news.
Hirsh has been a thorn in the side of the national security state ever since his expose of
the My Lai massacre in 1969...and they're doing their best to shut him up.
"Controlling the narrative" is politically correct term for censorship.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or they feel personally wounded or threatened. ..."
"... "controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was). ..."
"... In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods. ..."
Maybe this is the same kind of clinical detachment doctors have to cultivate, a way of distancing oneself from the subject,
protecting yourself against a crippling empathy. I won't say that writers or artists are more sensitive than other people, but
it may be that they're less able to handle their own emotions.
It may be that art, like drugs, is a way of dulling or controlling pain. Eloquently articulating a feeling is one way to avoid
actually experiencing it.
Words are only symbols, noises or marks on paper, and turning the messy, ugly stuff of life into language renders it inert
and manageable for the author, even as it intensifies it for the reader.
It's a nerdy, sensitive kid's way of turning suffering into something safely abstract, an object of contemplation.
I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate
commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or
they feel personally wounded or threatened.
"controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the
USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was).
In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology
is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods.
They want to invoke your emotions in the necessary direction and those emotions serve as a powerful filter, a firewall which
will prevents you from seeing any alternative facts which taken as whole form an "alternative narrative".
It also creates certain taboo, such as "don't publish anything from RT", or you automatically become "Putin's stooge." But
some incoherent blabbing of a crazy neocon in Boston Globe is OK.
This is an old and a very dirty game, a variation of method used for centuries by high demand cults:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best
that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same way in any country."
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)
You need to be able to decipher this "suggested" set of emotions and detach it from the set of facts provided by neoliberal
MSM. It might help to view things "Sine ira et studio" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_ira_et_studio
)
That helps to destroy the official neoliberal narrative.
Here skepticism (whether natural or acquired) can be of great help in fighting groupthink pushed by neoliberal MSM.
We are all guilty of this one sidedness, but I think that we need to put some efforts to move in direction of higher level
of skepticism toward our own views and probably provide at least links to alternative views.
"... Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S. journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC. ..."
Reporters representing U.S. media outlets will be banned from Russian Parliament, in a
response for Russia's Kremlin-funded international TV news channel RT having its Congressional
press accreditation
stripped earlier this week.
A ban on attending sessions of the State Duma, the lower chamber of Russian Parliament, will
be introduced "for all U.S. media," Olga Savastyanova, head of the Duma's committee on
regulations and control, was quoted as saying by RBC news.
According to Savostyanova, the measure is Russia's "reciprocal response to the U.S.
Congress' decision" regarding RT. The restriction is expected to begin Dec. 6, after being
formally adopted by the Duma council and a plenary meeting.
Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S.
journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor
Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC.
Many expected the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president in November 2016 to lead to
improved ties between Russia and the United States. That didn't happen.
Relations between Washington and Moscow are now at a nadir, not helped by Trump's recent
speech lumping in Russia with China as "rival powers" to the U.S. and the primary threats to
America's economic dominance in the world.
For Hollywood, which has relied on Russia as a significant market for its films and TV
series, 2018 is likely to bring more bad news and more challenges to doing business.
Kremlin watchers will be focused on March 18, the date of Russia's presidential election.
While the result is not in doubt -- Vladimir Putin is certain to secure another six-year term
-- it is anyone's guess how far President Putin will go in his "Russia First" policies of
economic nationalism.
After the 2012 election, for example, Putin took a sharply anti-Western stance, imposing new
restrictions on foreign companies working in Russia and cracking down on his country's mostly
pro-Western liberal opposition. Most observers expect this trend to continue in 2018.
The question is: How far will Putin go? Here is THR's look at three key challenges
for Hollywood in Russia that will be in focus next year.
New Taxes
Moscow's Russia First policy -- which Russia's government calls "import substitution" -- has
looked to the tax code as a way to protect the local film industry at the expense of Hollywood
and other foreign imports.
Russia backed down from a radical idea to hike the exhibition license fee for theatrical
releases in the country -- the fee, which is mandatory for a theatrical release in Russia, was
set to jump from 3,500 rubles ($60) to 5 million rubles ($85,000) -- but the ministry is still
adamant about taxing foreign releases in one way or another.
Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky, an ardent Russia First advocate keen to protect
homegrown films against the Hollywood invasion, is expected to lose his position in the new
cabinet, but his replacement will likely be drawn from the same conservative and anti-Western
contingent.
A proposal, introduced mid-December, would implement a 3 percent tax hike on all foreign
theatrical releases. Expect that to pass easily and go into law in early 2018.
I wish Robert Parry quick and full recovery after his minor stoke. He is a magnificent journalist !
Notable quotes:
"... In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called "Establishment McCarthyism, " traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives. ..."
"... This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about "Russian propaganda" and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks" by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact. ..."
"... For instance, PolitiFact still rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA. ..."
"... And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community. ..."
"... And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the Times has run favorable articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and other mainstream outlets deem false. ..."
"... Congress has authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts" to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy. ..."
"... And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press? ..."
"... So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism," a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged. ..."
In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the
Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called
"Establishment McCarthyism,
" traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.
This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in
fright-filled stories about "Russian
propaganda" and wildly
exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks"
by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how
reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact.
It doesn't seem to matter that the paragons of this new structure – such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and,
indeed, PolitiFact – have a checkered record of getting facts straight.
For instance, PolitiFact still
rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release
of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly
ran corrections after
President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA.
And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were
sequestered away
from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth
that should occur inside the intelligence community.
Yet, the Times and other leading newspaper routinely treat these findings as flat fact or the unassailable "consensus" of the
"intelligence community." Contrary information, including WikiLeaks' denials of a Russian role in supplying the emails, and
contrary judgments from former
senior U.S. intelligence officials are ignored.
The Jan. 6 report also tacked on a seven-page addendum smearing the Russian television network, RT, for such offenses as sponsoring
a 2012 debate among U.S. third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates. RT also
was slammed for reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and the environmental dangers from "fracking."
How the idea of giving Americans access to divergent political opinions and information about valid issues such as income inequality
and environmental dangers constitutes threats to American "democracy" is hard to comprehend.
However, rather than address the Jan. 6 report's admitted uncertainties about Russian "hacking" and the troubling implications
of its attacks on RT, the Times and other U.S. mainstream publications treat the report as some kind of holy scripture that can't
be questioned or challenged.
Silencing RT
For instance, on Tuesday, the Times published a front-page story entitled "
YouTube Gave Russians Outlet
Portal Into U.S ." that essentially cried out for the purging of RT from YouTube. The article began by holding YouTube's vice
president Robert Kynci up to ridicule and opprobrium for his praising "RT for bonding with viewers by providing 'authentic' content
instead of 'agendas or propaganda.'"
The article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Nicholas Confessore swallowed whole the Jan. 6 report's conclusion that RT is "the Kremlin's
'principal international propaganda outlet' and a key player in Russia's information warfare operations around the world." In other
words, the Times portrayed Kynci as essentially a "useful idiot."
Yet, the article doesn't actually dissect any RT article that could be labeled false or propagandistic. It simply alludes generally
to news items that contained information critical of Hillary Clinton as if any negative reporting on the Democratic presidential
contender – no matter how accurate or how similar to stories appearing in the U.S. press – was somehow proof of "information warfare."
As Daniel Lazare wrote at Consortiumnews.com
on Wednesday, "The web version [of the Times article] links to an RT interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that ran shortly
before the 2016 election. The topic is a September 2014
email obtained by Wikileaks in which Clinton acknowledges that 'the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing clandestine
financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.'"
In other words, the Times cited a documented and newsworthy RT story as its evidence that RT was a propaganda shop threatening
American democracy and deserving ostracism if not removal from YouTube.
A Dangerous Pattern
Not to say that I share every news judgment of RT – or for that matter The New York Times – but there is a grave issue of press
freedom when the Times essentially calls for the shutting down of access to a news organization that may highlight or report on stories
that the Times and other mainstream outlets downplay or ignore.
And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the
Times has run favorable
articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and
other mainstream outlets deem false.
Nor is it just the Times. Last Thanksgiving, The Washington Post ran
a fawning front-page article
about an anonymous group PropOrNot that had created a blacklist of 200 Internet sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other
independent news sources, that were deemed guilty of dispensing "Russian propaganda," which basically amounted to our showing any
skepticism toward the State Department's narratives on the crises in Syria or Ukraine.
So, if any media outlet dares to question the U.S. government's version of events – once that storyline has been embraced by the
big media – the dissidents risk being awarded the media equivalent of a yellow star and having their readership dramatically reduced
by getting downgraded on search engines and punished on social media.
Meanwhile, Congress has
authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts"
to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters
eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy.
There is also a more coercive element to what's going on. RT is facing demands from the Justice Department that it register as
a "foreign agent" or face prosecution. Clearly, the point is to chill the journalism done by RT's American reporters, hosts and staff
who now fear being stigmatized as something akin to traitors.
You might wonder: where are the defenders of press freedom and civil liberties? Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media or national
politics recognize the danger to a democracy coming from enforced groupthinks? Is American democracy so fragile that letting Americans
hear "another side of the story" must be prevented?
A Dangerous 'Cure'
I agree that there is a limited problem with jerks who knowingly make up fake stories or who disseminate crazy conspiracy theories
– and no one finds such behavior more offensive than I do. But does no one recall the lies about Iraq's WMD and other U.S. government
falsehoods and deceptions over the years?
Often, it is the few dissenters who alert the American people to the truth, even as the Times, Post, CNN and other big outlets
are serving as the real propaganda agents, accepting what the "important people" say and showing little or no professional skepticism.
And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical
examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press?
The answer seems to be that many liberals and progressives are so blinded by their fury over Donald Trump's election that they
don't care what lines are crossed to destroy or neutralize him. Plus, for some liberal entities, there's lots of money to be made.
For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union has made its "resistance" to the Trump administration an important part of its
fundraising. So, the ACLU is doing nothing to defend the rights of news organizations and journalists under attack. When I asked
ACLU about the Justice Department's move against RT and other encroachments on press freedom, I was told by ACLU spokesman Thomas
Dresslar: "Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, I've been informed that we do not have anyone able to speak to you about
this."
Meanwhile, the Times and other traditional "defenders of a free press" are now part of the attack machine against a free press.
While much of this attitude comes from the big media's high-profile leadership of the anti-Trump Resistance and anger at any resistors
to the Resistance, mainstream news outlets have chafed for years over the Internet undermining their privileged role as the gatekeepers
of what Americans get to see and hear.
For a long time, the big media has wanted an excuse to rein in the Internet and break the small news outlets that have challenged
the power – and the profitability – of the Times, Post, CNN, etc. Russia-gate and Trump have become the cover for that restoration
of mainstream authority.
So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism,"
a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged.
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
Think of this as but the latest episode in an upside down geopolitical fairy tale, a grim,
rather than Grimm, story for our age that might begin: Once upon a time -- in October 2001, to
be exact -- Washington launched its war on terror. There was then just one country targeted,
the very one where, a little more than a decade earlier, the U.S. had ended a
long proxy war against the Soviet Union during which it had financed, armed, or backed an
extreme set of Islamic fundamentalist groups, including a rich young Saudi by the name of Osama
bin Laden.
By 2001, in the wake of that war, which helped send the Soviet Union down the path to
implosion, Afghanistan was largely (but not completely) ruled by the Taliban. Osama bin Laden
was there, too, with a relatively modest crew of cohorts. By early 2002, he had fled to
Pakistan, leaving many of his companions dead and his organization, al-Qaeda, in a state of
disarray. The Taliban, defeated, were pleading to be allowed to put down their arms and go back
to their villages, an abortive process that Anand Gopal vividly described in his book, No Good Men Among the
Living .
It was, it seemed, all over but the cheering and, of course, the planning for yet greater
exploits across the region. The top officials in the administration of President George W. Bush
and Vice President Dick Cheney were geopolitical dreamers of the first order who couldn't have
had more expansive ideas about how to extend such success to -- as Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld indicated only days after the 9/11 attacks --
terror or insurgent groups in more than 60 countries. It was a point President Bush would
reemphasize
nine months later in a triumphalist graduation speech at West Point. At that moment, the
struggle they had quickly, if immodestly, dubbed the Global War on Terror was still a
one-country affair. They were, however, already deep into preparations to extend it in ways
more radical and devastating than they could ever have imagined with the invasion and
occupation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the domination of the oil heartlands of the planet that
they were sure would follow. (In a comment that caught the moment exactly, Newsweekquoted a British official
"close to the Bush team" as saying, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to
Tehran.")
So many years later, perhaps it won't surprise you -- as it probably wouldn't have surprised the
hundreds of thousands of protesters who turned out in the streets of American cities and towns
in early 2003 to oppose the invasion of Iraq -- that this was one of those stories to which the
adage "be careful what you wish for" applies.
Seeing War
And it's a tale that's not over yet. Not by a long shot. As a start, in the Trump era, the
longest war in American history, the one in Afghanistan, is only getting longer. There are
those U.S. troop levels
on the rise ; those air strikes
ramping up ; the Taliban
in control of significant sections of the country; an Islamic State-branded terror group
spreading
ever more successfully in its eastern regions; and, according to the
latest report from the Pentagon, "more than 20 terrorist or insurgent groups in Afghanistan
and Pakistan."
Think about that: 20 groups. In other words, so many years later, the war on terror should
be seen as an endless exercise in the use of multiplication tables -- and not just in
Afghanistan either. More than a decade and a half after an American president spoke of 60 or
more countries as potential targets, thanks to the invaluable work of a single dedicated group,
the Costs of War Project at
Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, we finally have a
visual representation of the true extent of the war on terror. That we've had to wait so long
should tell us something about the nature of this era of permanent war.
America's war on terror across the globe (from the Costs of War Project). Click on the map
to see a larger version.
The Costs of War Project has produced not just a map of the war on terror, 2015-2017
(released at TomDispatch with this article), but the first map of its kind ever. It
offers an astounding vision of Washington's counterterror wars across the globe: their spread,
the deployment of U.S. forces, the expanding missions to train foreign counterterror forces,
the American bases that make them possible, the drone and other air strikes that are essential
to them, and the U.S. combat troops helping to fight them. (Terror groups have, of course,
morphed and expanded riotously as part and parcel of the same process.)
A glance at the map tells you that the war on terror, an increasingly complex set of
intertwined conflicts, is now a remarkably global phenomenon. It stretches from the Philippines
(with its own ISIS-branded group that just fought an almost five-month-long campaign that
devastated Marawi, a city of 300,000) through South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East,
North Africa, and deep into West Africa where, only recently, four Green Berets died
in an ambush in Niger.
No less stunning are the number of countries Washington's war on terror has touched in some
fashion. Once, of course, there was only one (or, if you want to include the United States,
two). Now, the Costs of War Project identifies no less than 76 countries, 39% of those on the
planet, as involved in that global conflict. That means places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq,
Yemen, Somalia, and Libya where U.S. drone or other air strikes are the norm and U.S. ground
troops (often Special
Operations forces ) have been either directly or indirectly engaged in combat. It also
means countries where U.S. advisers are training local militaries or even militias in
counterterror tactics and those with bases crucial to this expanding set of conflicts. As the
map makes clear, these categories often overlap.
Who could be surprised that such a "war" has been eating American taxpayer dollars at a rate
that should stagger the imagination in a country whose infrastructure is now visibly crumbling ? In a
separate study , released in November, the Costs of War Project estimated that the price
tag on the war on terror (with some future expenses included) had already reached an
astronomical $5.6 trillion. Only recently, however, President Trump, now escalating those
conflicts, tweeted
an even more staggering figure: "After having foolishly spent $7 trillion in the Middle East,
it is time to start rebuilding our country!" (This figure, too, seems to have come in some
fashion from the Costs of War estimate that "future interest
payments on borrowing for the wars will likely add more than $7.9 trillion to the national
debt" by mid-century
.)
It couldn't have been a rarer comment from an American politician, as in these years
assessments of both the monetary and human costs of war have largely been left to small groups of scholars and activists. The
war on terror has, in fact, spread in the fashion today's map lays out with almost no serious
debate in this country about its costs or results. If the document produced by the Costs of War
project is, in fact, a map from hell, it is also, I believe, the first full-scale map of this
war ever produced.
Think about that for a moment. For the last 16 years, we, the American people, funding this
complex set of conflicts to the tune of trillions of dollars, have lacked a single map of the
war Washington has been fighting. Not one. Yes, parts of that morphing, spreading set of
conflicts have been somewhere in the news regularly, though seldom (except when there were
"lone wolf" terror attacks in the United States or Western Europe) in the headlines. In all
those years, however, no American could see an image of this strange, perpetual conflict whose
end is nowhere in sight.
Part of this can be explained by the nature of that "war." There are no fronts, no armies
advancing on Berlin, no armadas bearing down on the Japanese homeland. There hasn't been, as in
Korea in the early 1950s, even a parallel to cross or fight your way back to. In this war,
there have been no obvious retreats and, after the triumphal entry into Baghdad in 2003, few
advances either.
It was hard even to map its component parts and when you did -- as in an August New York Times map of territories controlled by the Taliban in Afghanistan -- the
imagery was complex and of limited impact. Generally, however, we, the people, have been
demobilized
in almost every imaginable way in these years, even when it comes to simply following the
endless set of wars and conflicts that go under the rubric of the war on terror.
Mapping 2018 and Beyond
Let me repeat this mantra: once, almost seventeen years ago, there was one; now, the count
is 76 and rising. Meanwhile, great cities have been turned into rubble
; tens of millions of human beings have been displaced from their homes; refugees
by the millions continue to cross borders, unsettling ever more lands; terror groups have
become brand names across significant parts of the planet; and our American world continues to
be militarized
.
This should be thought of as an entirely new kind of perpetual global war. So take one more
look at that map. Click on it and then enlarge it to consider the map in full-screen mode. It's
important to try to imagine what's been happening visually, since we're facing a new kind of
disaster, a planetary militarization of a sort we've never truly seen before. No matter the
"successes" in Washington's war, ranging from that invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to the
taking of Baghdad in 2003 to the recent destruction of the Islamic State's "caliphate" in Syria
and Iraq (or most of it anyway, since at this moment American planes are
still dropping bombs and firing missiles in parts of Syria), the conflicts only seem to
morph and tumble on.
We are now in an era in which the U.S. military is the leading edge -- often the only edge
-- of what used to be called American "foreign policy" and the State Department is being
radically
downsized . American Special Operations forces were deployed to 149
countries in 2017 alone and the U.S. has so many troops on so many bases in so many places
on Earth that the Pentagon can't even account for the whereabouts of
44,000 of them. There may, in fact, be no way to truly map all of this, though the Costs of
War Project's illustration is a triumph of what can be seen.
Looking into the future, let's pray for one thing: that the folks at that project have
plenty of stamina, since it's a given that, in the Trump years (and possibly well beyond), the
costs of war will only rise. The first Pentagon budget of the Trump era, passed with bipartisan
unanimity by Congress and signed by the president, is a staggering $700
billion . Meanwhile, America's leading military men and the president, while escalating the
country's conflicts from Niger to
Yemen ,
Somalia to Afghanistan, seem eternally in search of yet more wars to launch.
Pointing to Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, for instance, Marine Corps Commandant
General Robert Neller recently
told U.S. troops in Norway to expect a "bigass fight" in the future, adding, "I hope I'm
wrong, but there's a war coming." In December, National Security Adviser Lieutenant General
H.R. McMaster similarly suggested
that the possibility of a war (conceivably nuclear in nature) with Kim Jong-un's North Korea
was "increasing every day." Meanwhile, in an administration packed with Iranophobes, President
Trump seems to be preparing to tear up the
Iran nuclear deal, possibly as early as this month.
In other words, in 2018 and beyond, maps of many creative kinds may be needed simply to
begin to take in the latest in America's wars. Consider, for instance, a recent
report in the New York Times that about 2,000 employees of the Department of
Homeland Security are already "deployed to more than 70 countries around the world," largely to
prevent terror attacks. And so it goes in the twenty-first century.
So welcome to 2018, another year of unending war, and while we're on the subject, a small
warning to our leaders: given the last 16 years, be careful what you wish for.
Looks like false analysis to me. IMHO Trump betrayed his election platform with ease,
especially in foreign policy.
It is kind of wishful thinking that is used by some to justify voting for Trump and hide the sense of great betrayal.
The fact that Trump won is nothing special. I think Sanders would win too, if given a change. The level of
disappointment with the establishment was way too high.
What follows is an attempt to divine Trump's foreign policy. It proceeds from the assumption
that he does know what he's doing (as he did when he decided to run in the first place) and
that he does have a destination in mind. It proceeds with the understanding that his foreign
policy intentions have been greatly retarded by the (completely false) allegations of Russia
connections and Russian interference. There was no Russian state interference in the election
(the likelihood is that Moscow would have preferred known Clinton) and, as I have written
here , the story doesn't even make sense. I expect when the Department of Justice Inspector
General completes his report that the Russiagate farrago will be revealed as a conspiracy
inside the US security organs. We do not have a date yet, but mid-January is suggested. Readers
who want to follow the story are recommended to these websites: Dystopiausa , CTH and Zerohedge .
To the neocon and humanitarian intervention crowd, who have been driving US foreign policy
for most of the century, these four points, when properly understood (as, at some level, they
do understand them), are a fatal challenge. Trump is saying that
The post 911 military interventions did nothing for the country's security;
Foreign interventions impoverish the country;
The alliance system is neither useful nor a good deal for the country;
Russia is not the once and future enemy.
A Chinese leader might call these the Three Noes (no regime change wars, no overseas
adventures, no entangling alliances) and the One Yes (cooperation with Russia and other
powers).
Which brings us to his slogan of Make America Great Again. We notice his campaign themes of
job loss, opiates, lawlessness, infrastructure, illegal immigration, the stranglehold of
regulations, the "swamp", the indifference of the mighty, the death of the "American Dream".
None of these can be made better by overseas interventions, carrier battle groups or foreign
bases. But they can be made worse by them. There is every reason to expect that by MAGA he
means internal prosperity and not external might.
If I am correct in this and this is indeed his aim, how can he do it?
There is a powerful opposition in the United States to the Three Noes and One Yes. And it's
not just from the neocon/humanitarian interventionists: most Americans have been conditioned to
believe that the USA must be the world's policeman, arbiter, referee, example. Perhaps it's
rooted in the City on a Hill exceptionalism of the early dissenter settlers, perhaps it's a
legacy of the reality of 1945, perhaps it's just the effect of unremitting propaganda, but most
Americans believe that the USA has an obligation to lead. Gallup informs us that, in this
century, well over half of the population has agreed that the USA should play the leading or a
major role in the world . The percentage in the punditocracy believing the USA must lead
would be even higher.
If I have understood him right, what would Trump see if he read this stuff? Lead, lead,
lead... everything everywhere. The South China Sea, the Middle East and North Korea
specifically but everywhere else too. More infrastructure repairs foregone so as to ensure
what?... That ships carrying goods to and from China safely transit the South China Sea?
"Friendly" governments installed in " Kyrzbekistan
"? Soldiers killed in countries not even lawmakers knew they were in?
40,000 troops out there somewhere ? Trying to double the Soviet record for being stuck in
Afghanistan? How many bridges, factories or lives is that worth? Trump sees more entanglements
but he sees no benefit. He's a businessman: he can see the expense but where's the profit?
How to get out of these entanglements? It's too late to hope to persuade the legions
bleating that "America must lead" and, even if they could be persuaded, there isn't enough time
to do so: they salivate when the bell rings. President Trump can avoid new entanglements but he
has inherited so many and they are, all of them, growing denser and thicker by the minute.
Consider the famous story of the Gordian Knot: rather than trying to untie the fabulously
complicated knot, Alexander drew his sword and cut it. How can Trump cut The Gordian Knot of
American imperial entanglements?
The Three Noes and One Yes policy will be achieved by others: others who realise that the
USA is no longer going to lead and they will have to lead themselves. Or not. Perhaps, as the
neocons love to say, US leadership was necessary in the immediate postwar situation, perhaps
NATO served a stabilising purpose then but there has been nothing stabilising about US
leadership in this century. Endless wars and destruction and chaos and loss. Thus abroad and
– the part that Trump cares about – so at home. It's not
incompetence , as the people who fail Adams' test tell themselves; it's a strategy.
(All real theories must be falsifiable; let's see in a year's time whether the US is more
entangled or less entangled. It should be pretty apparent by then and, by the end of Trump's
first term, obvious to all.)
well, if your income, assets, and investments are denominated in US dollars, you better
hope the "denial" and privilege continues as long as possible.
Maybe if the petro dollar collapses there will be people who "get what they deserve"...and
I'm not all sure who those people are. As for me, when I'm paying $11 a gallon for gasoline
and a $1,000 per/month utility bill, I'm not going to be praising the fall of the petro
dollar, and I'd be willing to be the other ZH petro-dollar bashers won't be liking that too
much either.
PS...I'm in Houston, and would actually benefit from $11 gasoline.
Just when you thought that the intravenous feed of fake news/phony psyopin/double down
b.s. into the veins of TARDNATION couldn't get any
tackier... we get
Not a professional politician begging for funds but a rich man who spent his own money
and raised money on his own name: he arrived in office unencumbered with obligations. Free
from a history in politics, he owes nothing to anyone.
Hello? That the Drumpster raised pon the knee of daddy FRED "hump the HUD' Drumpf, and
mentored by Roy "hump the rumps - o boyz" Cohn.. to stick his small hands in every orifice
when the sun don't shine but the leprachauns hide their shiny sinful loot -
that POTUS with the mostest debt burden ever... to luabvitcher usurers of the usual dual
passport type....
has 'nothin to hide... and is ha ha ha... 'free of obligations' ... and 'owes nuthin to no
one...
signals that today... we reach PEAK PROPAGANDA of previously unimaginable proportions...
and that the desperation of tards to be told SOME KINDA GOOD NEWS... in the shitstorm of
trouble that the maggots of the MAGA kind find themselves in
is not just INSANITY BY DEFINITION... but the CAPITULATION we have awaited in eager
anticipation... showing that these retards are finally on empty... and can soon be lowered
into their shallow graves to be gradually turned into some kind of useful topsoil
material.
Mentally ill...OK. Most qualified candidate in history...give me a fucking break!
What many do not realize, including this author, is if there was a viable third party, and
their candidate was Satan, they would have won the presidency.
The voter turn out says a lot. If Trump and Clinton (and those they ran against!) were the
best leaders the US had to offer up we are so fucked. Fucked with a big ball of rusty barbed
wire coated in shit.
and Tyler is speeding that process along by posting articles that pander to racial
divides, man with longest penis, and other rubbish, which only attracts more of the
lowlifes.
this used to be a terrific site back in 2011 when we joined, was a real education in
finance back then.
but, as the USA continues its decline, more people will want someone to blame instead of
taking responsibility - as a nation, Americans have been asleep at the wheel, they've
abdicated responsibility for government spending run amuck, for the social security Ponzi
scheme, for American military adventurism, for the Clinton and bush crime families, for the
fed bleeding the country dry like a nightmarish vampire.
its hard to admit that, yes, we behaved stupidly and evilly, we squandered vast fortunes
and ruined other nations that never attacked us, we accepted a criminally corrupt
"leadership" who claimed to rule in the interest of the public but served their own secret
agendas.
much easier to blame the Jews (or other group of choice) because, you know we're the good
guys, the situation couldn't possibly be our fault.
Is anyone else watching the "The Trump-Russia Investigation" one-and-half hour special
report on CNN? Fuck this is yellow journalism at its dirtiest. Because, if it is on CNN it
must be true. Fucking swine.
I don't know if the U.S. will be more or less entangled in one years time. I do know that
after one year of Trump, deportations of illegal immigrants are down, being less in 2017 than
they were in 2016!
Hes cut off the Palestinians and the Pakistani's,the Afghan situation is worsening,there's
no cutting losses and running in Syria,Mogadishu,Nigeria,the US is arming Ukrainians,building
up with Nato in the Baltics and Eastern Europe,actively talking about nuclear war in North
Korea,pissing the Chinese off,Iran,Venezuela etc etc....have a guess he is not cleaning up
he's making a bloody great mess.
Yep, it's a huge mess, mostly because they are trying very, very hard to start a war and
nobody wants to play. So, like playing chess with a pigeon, we knock over the pieces, strut
around, shit everywhere and think we are awesome. Trump and the gang's complete lack of
diplomatic skills (USA is #1 andthe world will kiss our asses or face consequences (excepting
Israel)) is isolating us and not by their choice. Isolation means no petro-dollar which means
seriously hard times at home. No wall. No MAGA. No freedom.
One by one countries are turning their backs on the US. Trump thinks he's CEO of the
world. In reality, nothing better could happen to the world that Trump with hold ALL foreign
aid, pull troops and bases out of every country they're in, concentrate on lowering debt and
rebuilding infrastructure and stop being such a fucking bomb dropping bully. That would be
good for the planet.
But it's not what the banks and the MIC want. He's beginning to make oblahblah look good
which may be his biggest accomplishment yet.
Where does the Executive get the authority to maintain a personal military empire, to
launch wars unilaterally without a declaration of war by the Legislature, to build bases on
another nation's property, to wage terrorism against other nations, etc? Trump is still doing
these things, just like his predecessors. They all go to the "wailing wall", put on the
yarmulke, and carry out a ritual to antichrist.
Congress may be informed after the war begins is the mentality of the regime. Meanwhile,
the Constitution the men and women who volunteer as mercenaries swear to uphold and defend,
requires a declaration of war by the Legislature before the President may act as Commander in
Chief. There is no authority for an army for him to command without the declaration. So, what
gives? Those "soldiers" are violating their oath by even volunteering to serve the regime
violating the Constitution. They are ultimately the ones enabling and empowering the illegal
regime.
He is still doing them. Not only that, but he has expanded, increased involvement in the
attack on Yemen, occupying and building bases illegally on Syrian soil, etc. If someone tells
me they're trying to lose weight, while they're spooning down a gallon of ice cream, I'll
call them a liar to their face. Stop making excuses.
Open another tab, put in US troops Yemen. You'll see there has been no drawback under
Trump, but rather an increase in support for attacks in Yemen, as well as for Saudi
Arabia.
Pull up US forces remain in Syria while you're at it. They're not going anywhere. They're
building bases. Trump rails about illegals coming into the US while he oversees illegal
invasion of other nations.
Do I need to post the links, or can you operate a search engine?
Trump believes in the importance of projecting toughness- the image that he is tough and
not to be trifled with. That means at least some military engagement, from time to time,
regardless of whether or not it makes geostrategic sense. In his mind, projecting toughness
is in and of itself a geostrategically sensible thing to do. Show the enemy what you're
capable of, both in terms of resolve and hardware. I don't think he sees an imminent danger
to the planet. He seems comfortable with MAD. He also appears to place a lot of faith in the
judgments of his generals. If they say we need to keep throwing good money after bad (Iraq,
Afghanistan, Syria) he'll follow their orders...err, I mean suggestions. In my opinion, the
Trump of 20 years ago was a more sensible, realpolitik person than the Trump of today.
So, the US regime is a bully that needs to make sure to knock someone down in front of the
crowd from time to time, to keep the fear and intimidation factor fresh in their minds.
It's a nationalist economic, yes fascist, group of policies. The projection of foreign
policy only exists to make our own economics stronger in terms of sum. Less incentives to
multinationals to screw us by taking advantage of cucked and sellout trade agreements. Less
incentives for aliens to come and suck the taxpayer tit. It's economic pragmatism, much like
you would run your own small business. More cream for us, less cream for them.
For us in Australia it looks very much like the global bloodsucker corporations are in
Delaware with accounts in the Cayman Islands. They take our money and don't give anything in
return, except a few lowly paid hours in the gig economy.
"... The violence against public property by some young rioters has alienated the original legitimate protesters who have ample economic reasons to reject the neo-liberal policies of the current Iranian government. The instigating of violence from the outside of Iran, likely due to CIA machinations, has robbed them of their voice. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Occupy Wall Street ..."
"... Stephen Kinzer points out that U.S. animosity against Iran and its government lacks any strategic reasoning: ..."
"... Kinzer is right on the lack of a strategic argument. But he neglects the influence of the Zionist lobby and its interest to keep the U.S. involved in smashing any potential adversary to its colonial endeavor. Genuine interest of the people of the United States is not what drives U.S. policy and has not been for some time (if ever). ..."
"... The former senior intelligence official I spoke with seconded the NBC report that the Israelis were working with the M.E.K., adding that the operations benefitted from American intelligence. He said that the targets were not "Einsteins"; "The goal is to affect Iranian psychology and morale," he said, and to "demoralize the whole system -- nuclear delivery vehicles, nuclear enrichment facilities, power plants." ..."
"... Meanwhile in Syria's Idlib, SAA Tiger Forces are rolling up village after village and captured the key transport node of Sinjar. It's also been announced that Iran will get a large proportion of the reconstruction contracts which will certainly help Iran's economic condition. I can't help feeling the Shock Doctrine's boomeranged on The Outlaw US Empire and its regime change partners. ..."
"... The double standard isn't new. In 1981, Ronald Reagan's defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, vowed not to allow "a hopelessly repressive, medieval government, such as has taken over in Iran, to take over in Saudi Arabia" -- somehow overlooking that the Saudis already had their own repressive, medieval government. ..."
The reaction to the minor protests in Iran drive another wedge between the U.S. and Europe. It exposes the belligerence of the
Zionist lobby and its influence in the U.S. media and politics. The issue shows the growing divergence between genuine U.S. interests
and the interests of Israel.
Some anti-government demonstration and attacks on public institutions continue in Iran. But, as the graph shows, such protests
and riots continue to decrease. Yesterday's events took place in only 15 places while, since December 28, a total of 75 towns and
cities had seen some form of protest or incidents. Additional to these several pro-government marches took place yesterday each of
which was by far bigger than the anti-government events.
The violence against public property by some young rioters has alienated the original legitimate protesters who have
ample
economic reasons to reject the neo-liberal policies of the current Iranian government. The instigating of violence from the outside
of Iran, likely due to CIA machinations, has robbed them of their voice.
The plan may well be not to immediately overthrow the Iranian government, but to instigate a sharp reaction by the Iranian
government against the militant operations in its country. ... That reaction can then be used to implement wider and stricter
sanctions against Iran especially from Europe . These would be another building block of a larger plan to suffocate the country
and as an additional step on a larger escalation ladder.
The administration just called for a UN emergency
session about the situation. That is a laughable move ...
Laughable indeed. Other members of the Security Council and the UN Human Rights council have rejected the U.S. plans. It is not
the UN's business to insert itself into internal affairs of any country. But even for those who believe that the UN has a right to
intervene, the protests in Iran, estimated at no more than
15,000 people at any time and maybe 45,000
in cumulation, are way too insignificant to justify any UN reaction.
The European Union, main target of U.S. plans to again push for sanctions on Iran, has officially
rejected any such attempts. The Swedish Foreign Minister
said that
these are "unacceptable" and that the situation does not qualify for any such move. The French President Macron
warned (French) that breaking relations with Iran would lead to war. He was quite
explicit (machine translation) about the actors behind such moves:
France has firm relations with the Iranian authorities but wants to keep this link "because what is being done otherwise is that
it is surreptitiously rebuilding an 'axis of evil'," said the president.
.,..
"We can clearly see the official speech that is made by the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia , which are our allies in many
ways, it is almost speech that will lead us to the war in Iran ." he added, pointing out without further details that it was a
"deliberate strategy of some".
Russia's Foreign Minister warned the U.S.
against any interference in Iran's internal affairs. Meanwhile a Saudi flagship paper, Al Arabiya , is challenging The Onion as it
asserts that Iran has called up Hizbullah, Iraqi units and Afghan mercenary to quell the protests. In a Washington Post op-ed Vice President Pence
rants about the Obama administration's alleged lack of reaction to protests in Iran, but announces no reaction by the Trump administration.
The Washington Post editors add
several
op-eds by pro-Zionist lobbyists bashing Iran and blaming Europe for not following Trump's line.
Adam H. Johnson @adamjohnsonNYC - 4:04
AM - 3 Jan 2018
in past 72 hrs radical pro-regime change outfit FDD has had op-eds in NYTimes, Washington Post, NYPost, Politico and WSJ on Iran,
repeating in each one the same tired, pro-intervention talking points.
Adam H. Johnson @adamjohnsonNYC - 6:14
PM - 3 Jan 2018
having used up their designated slots in respectable WSJ, WaPo, Politico, and NYTimes for this week, FDD slumming it in Washington
Times today. Sad!
The supposedly "centrist" Lawfare blog published a
call for handing improvised mines
with "Explosive Formed Penetrators" to Iranian protesters. (During the U.S. invasion of Iraq the local resistance made and used such
EFPs against the U.S. occupiers. The U.S. military
falsely claimed that the EFPs were coming
from Iran.) The editor of Lawfare , the notorious Benjamin Wittes, seems to agree with the piece. He, the editor,
writes that he never edits anything that is published on
his site. His only complain about the piece is that the call to arm rioters in Iran lacks a professed legal reasoning. (One wonders
how the Lawfare writers will react when China delivers anti-tank weapons to the next Occupy Wall Street incarnation.)
It is a big campaign in the U.S. that is accompanying rather small events in Iran. The campaign is designed to create the atmosphere
for a war on that country. The media give it ample room. But the U.S. is very lonely in these attempts. Saudi Arabia is a paper tiger
that does not count and Israel can not move against Iran. The axis of resistance is ready for a great war,
says Hizbullah leader Nasrallah . He explains that such a war
would be waged deep within Israel.
Stephen Kinzer
points out that U.S. animosity against Iran and its government lacks any strategic reasoning:
History decrees that any Iranian government must be strongly nationalist and a vigilant defender of Shiite Muslims everywhere,
so the idea that "regime change" would produce a more pro-American Iran is a fantasy. The security of the United States will not
be seriously affected by the course of Iran's domestic politics.
...
In 1980 President Carter proclaimed that any challenge to American dominance of the Persian Gulf would be considered "an assault
on the vital interests of the United States of America." He was driven by the global imperatives of his era. Much of America's
oil came through the Persian Gulf, and the West could not risk losing it to Soviet power.
Today there is no Soviet Union, and we no longer rely on Middle East oil. Yet although the basis for our policy has evaporated,
the policy itself remains unchanged, a relic from a bygone age.
Kinzer is right on the lack of a strategic argument. But he neglects the influence of the Zionist lobby and its interest to keep
the U.S. involved in smashing any potential adversary to its colonial endeavor. Genuine interest of the people of the United States
is not what drives U.S. policy and has not been for some time (if ever).
It isn't just the Zionist lobby.
The billionaires who own 60% of the pistachio market share in the US - entirely as a result of the imposition of the original
Iran sanctions in the 1970s, stands to lose tens of millions per year just from this one industry.
The Sinclairs also front Fiji water, Pom fruit juice and own the largest water bank in the entire US, if not the world in the
California central valley.
A multipolar world is emerging, or at least trying very hard. What is multipolar going to mean? I hope it means that war will
stop being the centerpiece of the world economies. That of course means that energy will be focused elsewhere and hopefully in
a positive way.
I expect the the UK will be the last to stop, if they ever do, supporting the Western Way of the US/Israel
thanks b... your ongoing coverage is appreciated.. i want to reitterate your last line as it is so true.."Genuine interest of
the people of the United States is not what drives U.S. policy and has not been for some time (if ever)."
@1 c1ue.. thanks for that.. how very interesting.. another example of economics driving the actions of some to the point of
complete moral depravity..
The US is an occupied country, and 9/11 was the solidifying event which put the Zionist menace firmly in control of the levers
of power. Resistance to their rule has been purged, they created and dominate the Department of Homeland Security, and their consolidated
control over media, finance, and industrial power is going to make them very hard to unseat.
The US's highly skewed view on Iran is similar to their unrealistic view of Russia. "The Iranian government, which is entirely
in line with the prevailing view in Iran, is an unlawful dictatorship!"
Similarly, they say, "Vladimir Putin, who has the support of 80% of the people and would be replaced by harder line nationalist
should he ever lose an election, is a DICTATOR who doesn't represent the Russian people!"
I like that one paragraph alludes to an "axis of evil", and another lists "USA, Israel and KSA". Is there some European biotech
with a new spine regeneration product? Or those are reflexes analogous to phantom pain, feelings felt in lost parts of the body
(before amputation, European countries actually had independent policies). Such feelings do not translate into action.
About the role of Zionist billionaires, this is the sad situation in the axis that grandiose ideas of billionaires and princes
can run rampant under the umbrella of the only (momentarily) superpower.
This shows how lawless the U.S. has become. Why should these protests have any bearing on whether or not the U.S. honors its commitment
for the JCPOA?
A. Because we perceive that sanctions would impact the internal affairs of another country. I'm a bit old fashioned but I thought
that agreements should be based on mutual compliance.
Oh, and the very nature of these sanctions amount to a virtual blockade which is by nature an act of war. The U.S. does indeed
have the right to engage in commerce with any country of its choosing but once we coerce other countries in how they conduct commerce,
it crosses the line into a blockade.
As Jen ' 8 says The Onion is a satirical newspaper in the US but the stories are all made up and ridiculous but with a grain
of truth to draw people in. so "challenging The Onion" means that the Saudi story is made up and ridiculous, There are other legitimate
newspapers that make stories up but few involve such ridiculous claims.
Meanwhile, OT, The Washington Post seems to have had
an unexpected outburst of honesty . Perhaps the owner was out of the country long enough over the holidays for some-one to
sneak something into the paper.
Deebo @ 177 (previous MoA post): Yours was one of the better comments I read in the comments forum - thanks for the effort. So
don't worry that you don't comment much.
I've just read Alex Mercouris' second article on the protests in Iran and what he says in some parts jibes with what you said
about protesters in cities and towns around Iran: that most of the protesters now are less educated young men from poor backgrounds. http://theduran.com/protests-in-iran-coming-to-an-end/
You mentioned that you've been to Iran. Did people there say anything about Afghan refugees living in Iran? I've heard there's
a large Afghan refugee population in the country. From the very little I know - I don't personally know any Iranians and have
never been to the country - the Afghans there experience a lot of prejudice and discrimination from Iranians and have problems
in finding work. They may be an easy target for foreign intel to work on.
However b, there may be a reason for the deep state to be interested in stirring up trouble in Iran. That is that Tehran is a
central node in the Chinese One Road (OBOR), both for rail and Road transport.
Adam Garrie has a very interesting map on his site - which I hope I have linked to correctly. It shows the correlation between
protests and projected routes. China-Tehran, India-Tehran, Tehran-Vienna and Tehran-Moscow. (Apologies to the originator of the
map without giving him/her credit - as I do not know in which alphabet his/her name is written.)
https://twitter.com/adamgarriereal. You will probably need to
scroll down to find the map/graphic - Jan 2.
Have the Europeans finally found out that they are the ones paying for US aggression? France in particular had multiple contacts
and business contacts in Iran before sanctions were increased out of spite by the US/Israel and now Saudi Arabia (the three "we-evils").
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 4, 2018 4:07:56 PM | 10
Macron got caught up in French contradictory foreign and business policy. France was heavily invested in Obama's Muslim Brotherhood
strategy in Syria, and more invested in Qatar than Saudi Arabia, basically keeping up French colonial contacts in Syria and Lebanon.
French business has jumped at the opportunity after sanctions were lifted. At the same time they host the leadership of MEK near Paris - maybe simply due to French liberal laws concerning political
refugees, after all they hosted Khomeini.
Anyway, they have some explaining to do after this "Iranian revolution". Basically he is is trying to get
his
foot into a closed door .
Macron said the international community should "not give ground to certain powers which think that just a few, recognising
one part of the opposition from the outside, will be able to find a stable and lasting solution for the situation in Syria,"
he said.
"In this context, the United Nations, regional powers, Europe and the United States have a great responsibility, and I will
fully commit... to succeeding in building the peace in Syria," he told the diplomatic corps in Paris.
Macron is due to meet Friday with Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who backs the rebels fighting Syrian leader Bashar
al-Assad, while Moscow and Teheran have thrown their support behind Damascus.
The French leader also said that peace in Syria and neighbouring Iraq is urgently required in order to avoid any resurgence
in jihadist attacks once the Islamic State was defeated "militarily".
France will focus its efforts on ensuring free and secure elections in Iraq this spring, and appeared to target Iran by
calling for "vigilance" over "any destabilisation linked to foreign powers," said Macron.
"I think you're beginning to see the initial kernel of a revolution forming right now. If this thing is sustained over a period
of time and the government tries to clamp down, but the numbers of protesters grows, I think at that point you've got a revolution
on your hands,' Kaveh Sharooz, a Toronto lawyer, human rights activist and former senior policy adviser to Global Affairs Canada,
told me over the weekend..."
Justin Raimondo reminds us that "economic uncertainty due to Trump's threats to cancel the Iran deal. This, we are told, caused
Iranian banks to refrain from investing in vast new projects, and so the standard of living hasn't met rising expectations." http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2018/01/03/iranian-rebellion-everybodys-wrong/
I suppose it wasn't in good taste. Hopefully, b can look past it. Stirring the pot, instead of smoking the bees, is just no
good right now. In fact, it is very suspicious.
Must second the Mercouris article Jen linked at 13. He also has an OT item about the
Manafort Lawsuit , that will
hand the Deep State another defeat. Pepe Escobar
also tells us "why there won't be a revolution in Iran."
Yes but despite everything Daniel 8 will be choreographed and puppet walked to terminus. Every integer must be manifested. They
plan megacide, because it is written.
Perhaps in the past, but no longer. People are slowly waking up to reality. Look at the latest failed attempt by the US to
get the UNSC to meet on Iran.
The UN has historically sided with the USUKIS nexus. It hasn't met a regime change it didn't support (Afghanistan and Iraq). Venezuela,
Honduras,Libya and Ukraine also. No? It came around against apartheid Africa very late and it ignores apartheid Israel. Like the
pope, it makes a few noises but does nothing to stop the genocide in Yemen. It assisted in the Syria Regime Change. Did it not?
It seems to be at odds with Trump and he with it.
This is perhaps one of Trump's few redeeming qualities. And a reason perhaps for the incessant attacks against him by the globalists/NWO/media
complex.
As in most occasions I agree, but in this case would have waited till tomorrow friday when everybody in Iran isn't busy to assess
further developments.
Ramin Mazaheri has another article at the Saker. Can't link to it from here, but it's called: WSWS on Iran protests: Another missed chance to support a working socialist country
He's a great fan of the World Socialist Web Site, but takes it to task for its inherent Trotskyist nature and also for its
untrue badmouthing of the conditions of workers in Iran.
His article is really trying to get the dedicated communists to climb down from their haughty goals of worker paradise and
join in with the actual world that exists, but along the way he describes Iran from the inside, and in a few lines manages to
explain the mixture of socialism and neo-liberalism in the country, in a perfectly comprehensible way. I've already said he has
a way of connecting concepts to everyday experience, and this article is quite beautiful in this regard.
He describes Iran's position in the world and in current history as very much a nation feeling its way to the best for all.
He illustrates in passing how much good Iran negotiated for itself in the nuclear deal - inbound technology transfer rather than
simple resource selloff.
Oddly, in an article aimed largely at discussion between socialist points of view, he managed to explain more to me about Iran
than I had been able to gather in the last week. Maybe others will enjoy it too - it's quite short.
Retrained ISIS from al Hasakah, through Kurd Iraq, and across a somewhat porous border in the Kurdish area into Iran?
I think it was commenter somebody on the last thread said that Iran had tightened up it border security over the last few years.
Seems like they cleaned up this lot no problems.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 4, 2018 8:55:28 PM | 36
After reading the last thread and comments and other sites' speculations about the original instigation of the protests in
Mashhad, it occurs to me this could have been an elaborate trap by the hard liners to both weaken Rouhani and roll up some Western
intelligence assets.
It's clear the Telegram channels were set up well in advance, and quite likely that Iranian intelligence was aware of them.
Thus, it was entirely predictable that any spark would activate the plan. I am guessing as well that the Western assets were infiltrated
and the Iranians knew exactly who the traitors were. The protests were precipitated at precisely the moment Iranian intelligence
was best prepared to deal with them, and they now have a quite legal basis for rounding these people up and sentencing any perpetrators
or planners of violence to heavy prison terms or in some cases execution, without them being labeled "political prisoners" because
of their actual involvement in criminality.
Rouhani will have to deal with legitimate economic grievances. He and other reformers have been shown that currying favor with
the West through neo-liberal policies will only result in turmoil and their potential overthrow, and the public has been shown
that the only current alternative to the overall system is criminal gangs. All shores up support for the system, while allowing
the legitimate roll-up of an enemy 5th column.
The pleasant surprise the hard liners may not have expected is the European reaction to all this. Always present your enemy
with an opportunity to make a mistake if he is prone to do so.
William Rood 38
Thinking about your comment, with Russia and Iran working together in Syria there is a good chance that the combined intelligence
forces of Iran, Russia and Syria have been at work on uncovering this latest US/Israeli scheme. These types of takedowns/traps
are something the Russian leadership excels in.
Russia has put in a lot of study on the US colour revolutions. How to identify the provocateurs and the terrorists that are often
shipped in for the hardcore violence, and take them out without alienating or attacking the genuine protesters.
"Kinzer is right on the lack of a strategic argument. But he neglects the influence of the Zionist lobby and its interest to keep
the U.S. involved in smashing any potential adversary [...]"
... and the requirement of this monetary system to perpetually expand credit markets...
If credit market expansion stalls or, ye gods, reverses, many balance sheets of the great and the good would become as many
albatrosses around their necks.
Credit markets must expand and nothing expands credit markets more than instability and crisis thus enabling ever greater transfers
of wealth towards to sponsors of the monetary system
Iran knew the plot's name and even the names of the alternative models proposed, as well as the ("former") CIA and current
Mossad officer, who together were the main plotters. They planned to bring re-purposed Daesh fighters into Iran as part of the
plan. It's not clear to me how advanced this part was, but Montazeri says that they activated the plan ahead of schedule, dues
to Iran's "special circumstances" - I don't know what that means.
I would really like to know what triggered the activation of this plan, and whether it pre-empted the full Daesh force's arrival
in the country. The enemy planned, but did Iran pull the trigger?
Either way, when I read your scenario, the word "cauldron" came to mind. Perhaps it really is the case that Iran let these
players walk into their cauldron and, as you suggest, scooped them up. Khamenei has said that he knows much more about this that
he will share with the people later.
~~
I would like to exculpate Rouhani somewhat from all this, however. To my very limited understanding, Rouhani chose a certain
path in order to get the nuclear deal, and it involved a measure of neo-liberalization in return. Khamenei (hat tip to
Lozion in the last thread for the link) said privately to Rouhani to "try his luck" with the west but never forget for one
moment that they were always and unremittingly the enemy.
So Rouhani did try his luck, and it worked. And Ramin Mazaheri, in the article at the Saker that I cited at #35 here, describes
what the Iranian negotiators actually achieved in that deal, and it was a large net benefit, a great achievement that Iran is
justly proud of.
So, Rouhani is still caught in the bargain he made, but the economy is rising more than falling, and Rouhani knows neo-liberal
policies don't work, as at least one other commenter in the previous thread illustrated. One can assume that Iran will amend this
course as soon as the way is clear to do so. Perhaps these protests will even form the rationale for doing so, which would be
wonderful.
Earlier today I read a headline saying that the UNSC was refusing to have a meeting on Iran - rightly. Now I read that they are
going to have one after all. I don't know exactly how the UNSC works, but it sounds very much like the usual is happening, as
in once again the Hegemon is to be appeased and some country that resists the Hegemon's will is to be brought to its knees.
It's pointless to ask why a meeting isn't called over Honduras then, to cite just one example that points to stunning US hypocrisy,
also UNSC hypocrisy. No the Hegemon must be appeased by its vassals, Russia and China. Sure they'll often ay the right thing outside
the UN, but when the US snaps its fingers, they snap to.
I would really like to know what triggered the activation of this plan, and whether it pre-empted the full Daesh force's arrival
in the country. The enemy planned, but did Iran pull the trigger?
Here's a thought:
Iran's air defense system operational by March 2018
Grieved 44/42
Magnier also has a string of interesting comments on the start of the genuine protest, its cause and so forth, from the last day
or so at his twitter account. These would add to his article. https://twitter.com/ejmalrai
@43, I wouldn't worry to much about the unsc meeting. My guess it's a "give Nikki Haley enough rope" moment, courtesy of Russia
and China. Let her make a fool of herself by droning nonstop about how she is very concerned about freedom in Iran (but oddly,
only in Iran and nowhere else, except maybe Binomo) and then let them veto whatever bogus resolution she will try to pass. Assuming
they even have to. It might actually be outvoted by majority.
Ok, perhaps not outvoted. It seems only Bolivia, Kazakhstan and Peru are the likely no votes. Most of the others will be a yes,
but I suspect there can be a surprise where even a vassal state might abstain. We shall soon see, anyway.
An interesting article Grieved linked to @42.
If the plot has been four years in the making, then this goes back to the time, or just before, ISIS burst onto the big screen
in a blaze of MSM publicity and promotion.
The plot put on ahead of schedule? The involvement of Russia destroyed ISIS in Syria to the point the US had to publicly take
the remnants of ISIS under its wing to save them. US occupation in Syria is tenuous, if they hang around too long in Syria they
will start shipping back US boots in body bags. Perhaps a reason for setting the plan off early?
With Obama admin's ambitions in Syria unachievable after Russia's entry, Trump with his hatred of Iran installed as CEO to cut
the losses, gather the assets and turn the focus onto the last in Wesley Clark's list, Iran?
@Lysander 48
Kazakstan; The US will probably use financial pressure, as JP Morgan "froze" some 42% of their financial reserves to cover a small
debt question (Belgian - Danish if my memeory serves me right) of about 800 million. ie. They froze about 23 billion of their
sovereign wealth fund.
If Kazakstan does the "right thing" it might get some of that back. maybe.....
I would resist the urge to read too much into it now since we're early in the development. Add it to MbS move to charge 'corruption'
in KSA and it looks like a push to force Wahhabists out into the open.
This four year old article speaks to the separation of church and state:
Wahhabism to ISIS: how Saudi Arabia exported the main source of global terrorism
During the 18th century, revivalist movements sprang up in many parts of the Islamic world as the Muslim imperial powers began
to lose control of peripheral territories. In the west at this time, we were beginning to separate church from state, but this
secular ideal was a radical innovation: as revolutionary as the commercial economy that Europe was concurrently devising. No
other culture regarded religion as a purely private activity, separate from such worldly pursuits as politics, so for Muslims
the political fragmentation of their society was also a religious problem. Because the Quran had given them a sacred mission
– to build a just economy in which everybody was treated with equity and respect – the political well-being of the umma ("community")
was always a matter of sacred import. If the poor were oppressed, the vulnerable exploited or state institutions corrupt, Muslims
were obliged to make every effort to put society back on track.
In 1980 President Carter proclaimed that any challenge to American dominance of the Persian Gulf would be considered "an assault
on the vital interests of the United States of America." He was driven by the global imperatives of his era. Much of America's
oil came through the Persian Gulf, and the West could not risk losing it to Soviet power.
Today there is no Soviet Union, and we no longer rely on Middle East oil. Yet although the basis for our policy has evaporated,
the policy itself remains unchanged, a relic from a bygone age.
The Soviet Union may not exist anymore, but China does, and most of its oil still comes from the Persian Gulf (which still
comes by sea, hence the Chinese necessity of the OBOR), whose route can still be easily blocked by the US Navy both in the Hormuz
and the Malacca.
U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $648.2 billion in 2016. Exports were $169.3 billion; imports
were $478.9 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with China was $309.6 billion in 2016.
Nationalist policies are impossible in this context but people's brains are firmly tribally wired, so politicians try to score
points playing to national sentiment ie. Trump.
Most of the military is useless as there are no enemies left just "competitors" according to the Trump doctrine - but these
competitors are tied to each other closely.
But people have been indoctrinated to be good and fight "evil" for a long time and the military wants budget increases so enemies
- ISIS, Muslims, Iran, whoever, are produced.
@ somebody 56 "Most of the military is useless as there are no enemies left just "competitors" according to the Trump doctrine - but these
competitors are tied to each other closely."
The US problem with China goes beyond competition, as the US charges China with upsetting the global norms that have long been
dictated by the US.
@somebody 58 "Which norms?"
The basic norms are that the US controls the world politically, economically and militarily, and those controls are being threatened.
Iran won't do what we tell it to do, China has an unshakable economic advantage under state control and contests US rule of the
seas, Russia is designing weapons far in advance of US ones, North Korea wants nukes for defense just like the big guys,...the
list goes on.
from the National Security Strategy
China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.
They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data
to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize
their own people... .
here
62
I would call this constructing enemies and threats. It is absurd when you consider the economic codependency of China and the
US.
From Merriam Webster - definition of norms
1 : an authoritative standard : model
2 : a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable
behavior
No society lacks norms governing conduct. -- Robert K. Merton
Anonymous @57
However it does show up that Iran is a central node for the rail and road links to OBOR. Most maps place the lines of transit
either north of the caspian or via sea links along the Persian gulf.
Admittedly, it can be argued that naturally protests happened only in the urban areas, and there are more of those in the North
rather than the South. The map does not show the pipeline explosion in southern Baluchistan either.
One other thing it does not show is the Pakistan connections to OBOR. (Northwards) (ps. and Pakistan is in the "bad-books"
of the US for not allowing unlimited drone killing in the tribal areas)
But I found it interesting none the less.
64 Iran's geopolitical position is superb. What you see today is the shrunk mountainous part of the Persian empire
that used to bridge Asia, Europe and Africa .
The "Iranian aggression" the US hate so much is the cultural sphere left by history.
@43
"No the Hegemon must be appeased by its vassals, Russia and China. Sure they'll often say the right thing outside the UN, but
when the US snaps its fingers, they snap to."
Syria?
Things have changed in the past few years. And the change has been of tectonic plate significance. China and Russia are no longer
afraid of US power, whether it be of the military, economic or cultural sort. US threats no longer impress those who have seen
the idiocy at work in Iraq, Libya and Syria. The US petro dollar and SWIFT are being reduced, daily, in their abilities to do
mischief.
And, perhaps most significant of all, US culture is now seen to be utterly corrupt, its news media-from the NY Times and Guardian
downwards, prostituted and propagandistic; its legal system, exemplified by Guantanamo, an insult to kangaroos. Nobody believes
either threats, promises or even passing observations datelined Washington, New York, Hollywood or London.
I'm parotting myself, apologies. -- That judgment depends partly on how one reads the history of Iran. (E.g. Victory for islamist
/ muslim brothers / the like, in 1979, perhaps, *loved* or instrumentalised by the US.)
Israel and KSA might wish such. Neither will attempt anything alone nor together (together is risky for both of them) they
merely prod the USA, they are used to influecing the hegemon they think hope pray so it be.
The US will not attack Iran, too risky, complex. The balance of power has shifted marginally but noticeably in favor of the
opponents of the US, Iran in first place, after the defeat in Syria (partly because of US actions in the region, which perpetually
end up re-inforcing Iran.. go figure, long story..) with a now resurgent Russia openly defending its interests to prevent more
chaos (in their terms) and take-over while still very hesitant back-benchers.
The entire world hailed the Kerry-Obama initiative to lift sanctions > Iran for business, economic reasons (energy, big corps,
varous infrastr., import export, profits, etc. etc. ) as well as more 'personal' ones, travel, small biz, family, ordinary contacts
(which btw the US allowed in some measure as they knew it would be bad PR to forbid) such as chess championships, photo shoots
for various contests like sports, mathematicians meets, thousands of 'student exchanges,' love marriages, and on and on.
As b points out, the EU is furious, why, after all this struggle, cannot we, trade normally with this country? Plus Trump as
prez. is easily denigrated and opposed. Once more, it is blatant that the US cannot be trusted, ever, ever.
First I would like to first give "Three cheers for our queer old dean!"
USA "Rah Rah Rah" is old and will not happen.
Iran is not going to be invaded, just as attack on N.Korea is not going to happen. All this is not going to happen.
It's done and over. USA is finished. It's a new year. Be happy.
I see in a recent Reuters article US oil production has risen to just under ten thousand barrels a day, which is close to coving
half of US demand. From what I have read, a lot of wells have been drilled then capped, waiting for prices to rise. Trump just
opened up large areas of the US continental shelf for exploration and drilling.
The US is no longer reliant on oil imports from Saudi Arabia, and as Russia is now a rival to KSA in oil production and many other
countries exporting oil, Saudi's selling oil in US dollars no longer guarantees that the world must use US dollars in trade.
A limited war with Iran, perhaps cutting supplies from the area would boost oil prices, kick start the US oil industry and hurt
China.
About democracy or despotism in Iran: there are four to five nominally democratic governments in West Asia, in Israel, Lebanon,
Turkey and Iran, and all fit into rubric "imperfect democracies". It is a bit moot to ponder which one is less imperfect and which
is "better" because you can always latch on characteristics that you view as "important".
All absolute monarchies are our friends, while the attitude to "imperfect democracies" is mixed, suggesting a preference for
clear-cut despotism, and more reliably, very low actual interest in democracy.
Because the Quran had given them a sacred mission – to build a just economy in which everybody was treated with equity and
respect – the political well-being of the umma ("community") was always a matter of sacred import. If the poor were oppressed,
the vulnerable exploited or state institutions corrupt, Muslims were obliged to make every effort to put society back on track.
And that, I fear, is the original and authentic definition of jihad , at least in Shia Islam, as I have understood in
some books I was doned while visiting Nasarieh Madrassa in Isfahan, for to protect the poor and vulnerable from oppression
and exploitation by corrupted states or institutions. It was precisely while doing that the so venerated by these muslims, Imam
Ali (AS), was killed in martyrdom. Also he was recommending avoiding use of violence whenever was not necessary....
This is the man, the way I saw they represented him in Iran::
And these are some of his quotes ( sorry for the long links, but this can not be reduced to a few words...I hope this do not
provoke any damage ), I post them here for you to know the kind of thinking of this wise man, which most probably will help you
understanding Iran and Shia world....
The same way, you can conclude that what terrorists groups like IS, AL Nusra, Al Qaeda and so on....perform is anything except
jihad , since working for the oppressors against the oppressed and moreover employing gratuitous violence in massive killings
in the most macabre ways and destruction of basic infrastructures needed for preserving people´s way of life, cultural and historical
heritage and the likes we are so accustomed today.
That is not jihad but common psychopathic thuggery teached by their psychopathic masters.
Finally, after reading and considering all this, in case you lost it, I will post here the speech of Mr.Rouhani at the last
UNGA, for you to compare with that of his main opponents, and then you take your conclusions on who is demonized by whom and who
is the real evil:
Peter AU 1 @ 51: Wesley Clark's hit list probably came from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) think tank, several
of whose authors were neocons with dual citizenship loyalties. (Robert Kagan aka Mr Victoria Nuland comes to mind.) Some signatories
- Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz - wound up in George W Bush's administration. PNAC was mothballed in 2006 but its
ideology and aims still survive in Washington DC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#People_associated_with_the_PNAC
PNAC never goes away. It just changes its name. It used to be called Manifest Destiny. The USA still demands Full Spectrum Dominance
which requires acquiesence, subjugation and obedience from its "allies & partners" while it bombs the hell out of its perceived
enemies (but only the defenseless ones).
There must be some benefit to the partners of a mad and paranoid dominator, but I can't see the attraction.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 5, 2018 1:59:38 PM | 70
It would help Russia, would it not?
Apart from that, it would hit the consumer who in the end will have to pay the price of oil and - with bad luck - it
will be the beginning of world wide recession - leading to lower oil price.
Some people would profit but these are the people who profit from anything, crises included.
Don B @ 63 said:"The basic norms are that the US controls the world politically, economically and militarily, and those controls
are being threatened. Iran won't do what we tell it to do, China has an unshakable economic advantage under state control and
contests US rule of the seas, Russia is designing weapons far in advance of US ones, North Korea wants nukes for defense just
like the big guys,...the list goes on."
IMO, as of now, correct, although slowly changing. Hurry up please, a multi-polar world. The health of the world depends on
that happening...
Indeed, and I agree with you and those are some of the reasons, amongst many, why I left the Catholic church in which I was
baptized and educated, although I never regreted my education at a Catholic school and the values transmitted at home, being my
mother a very religious person in the past. Those two aspects you cite here are those most probably invented by religious ( in
association with non religious ) hierarchies so that people resigns itself to its destiny determined by birth or fatality, for
not to mention the ethernal Catholic church allignement with fascist dictators instead of with the oppressed....
But if you read, at least the quotes I have selected, they make a lot of sense, and they are like a guide or advice by a good
and wise friend or protector, I can not find in Imam Ali´s quotes and sayings anything resembling surrender or avoiding fighting
for a better destinty, a better world or a more dignified situation. Also you notice what he said about women....Then you have
the misinterpretations by people in Islam with spurious interests according to their own personal background...
Anyway, what I was trying to do is trying to demosntrate what kind of influences could have Iranian people in their way of
behavior and way of life, nothing to do with promoting Islam or Shia Islam in any way, although I must confess a bit keen on Imam
Ali, although still I do not get to celebrate Ashura ....But...who knows...
Iranians have also other influences, as well, and, as Rouhani pointed out in his speech, those influences came from so distant
times as those of Zoroastro, whose religion´s main directives could be summarized in three main principles, say "To talk well,
think well, behave well" , passing through the times of their many tolerant and intelligent dirigents who always protected,
liberated and even hosted oppressed minorities along history, not to mention their love and promotion of culture, sciences, technology
and knowledge in general.
It has been through absorbing all this knowledge and influences what has come to conform what is today a very hospitable, educated,
respectfull, and kindhearted society.
@Noirette 68
One large factor keeping the US from attacking Iran (and North Korea) is the US strategy of forward basing. The US has half a
dozen installations and 40,000 troops, also civilians, on the western side of the Gulf within easy rocket & missile range from
Iran. Korea is similar, with the US Osan Air Base and Camp Humphreys, including civilians and dependents, within range of DPRK
rockets. Any planned attack would have to be preceded by an evacuation, which is impractical.
@somebody 64 . . . the economic codependency of China and the US.
from Bloomberg--
China's Global Ambitions Could Split the World Economy
Globalization -- China wants to control it. Instead of integrating China into the existing world order, it is creating a separate
economic bloc, with different dominant companies and technologies, and covered by rules, institutions, and trade patterns dictated
by Beijing.. .
here
somebody 77
After posting my thoughts on the US forces in Syria pivot on Iran, I started thinking about Trump tweeting support for the protesters.
A sure means of stopping any genuine domestic protest in Iran in its tracks. Why? Trump laid a trap for someone? Was the exercise
to create tension and drive oil prices up? It could be just because Trump foolishly thought it would help the protesters, but
I feel he may have had other reasons for doing so.
Five Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated since 2007. M.E.K. spokesmen have denied any involvement in the killings,
but early last month NBC News quoted two senior Obama Administration officials as confirming that the attacks were carried out
by M.E.K. units that were financed and trained by Mossad, the Israeli secret service. NBC further quoted the Administration officials
as denying any American involvement in the M.E.K. activities.
The former senior intelligence official I spoke with seconded the
NBC report that the Israelis were working with the M.E.K., adding that the operations benefitted from American intelligence. He
said that the targets were not "Einsteins"; "The goal is to affect Iranian psychology and morale," he said, and to "demoralize
the whole system -- nuclear delivery vehicles, nuclear enrichment facilities, power plants."
Attacks have also been carried out
on pipelines. He added that the operations are "primarily being done by M.E.K. through liaison with the Israelis, but the United
States is now providing the intelligence." An adviser to the special-operations community told me that the links between the United
States and M.E.K. activities inside Iran had been long-standing. "Everything being done inside Iran now is being done with surrogates,"
he said.
The sources I spoke to were unable to say whether the people trained in Nevada were now involved in operations in Iran or elsewhere.
But they pointed to the general benefit of American support. "The M.E.K. was a total joke," the senior Pentagon consultant said,
"and now it's a real network inside Iran. How did the M.E.K. get so much more efficient?" he asked rhetorically. "Part of it is
the training in Nevada. Part of it is logistical support in Kurdistan, and part of it is inside Iran. M.E.K. now has a capacity
for efficient operations that it never had before."
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 5, 2018 4:17:33 PM | 82
I think they tried to panic the Tehran "regime" to a clampdown and at the same time tried to ensure "protesters" inside Iran
that they would get support from the US. Trump and the Jerusalem Post (plus probably Al-Arabya) were the first to have heard of the protests. BBC Persian seems to have
been involved in collecting the videos from the start. I guess, when the money is paid for something like this everyone continues to work even though everyone knows it will be a
failure.
Nikki Haley is just getting a severe beating by the countries on the UN security council. Lots of ambassadors bring up the
unsolved two state solution in Palestine.
Amongst the many still photos and videos of the numerous pro-government marches
posted here , I see no placards written in English; all are in Farsi,
which isn't the case with the previous small protests. If audible volume could express the differences, it would be deafening!
It seems the Big News of the day is the fallout between the Outlaw US Empire and its troublesome vassal Pakistan. Imran Khan
was very outspoken in an interview with CNN that Pakistan could do very well without any further US "aid" and welcomed the cooling
of relations: "Yet another attack on Pakistan's sovereignty today! Donald Trump & his threat; how low can one stoop? Are we so
greedy and in-need of US AID? We fought their war and lost our people. We fought their war and lost our integrity. We fought their
war and lost our dignity!!!" He conducted a news conference today that can be viewed at Tehreek-e-Insaf"s
Twitter site , unfortunately broken into small snippets and only
in Urdu. Now, if India and Pakistan would end their many years of bombastic behavior toward each other that only serves the Outlaw
US Empire's purposes, an opportunity for great progress exists that didn't just a few days ago.
Commenting via phone is painful. But the occasion warrants it.
Something large is looming over the West's destruction of
numerous Nations beginning in 2001. In all the reasoning about
the imperialistic stance of the West towards its global play
ground, one aspect is most often overlooked.
'Money'.
While the notion stands "follow the money", it is
seldom elevated to its real importance. After all, politics
and especially global politics appear to remain within the
boundaries of Nationalism. The so called 'unipolar" world
is not different from a 'multipolar' world subdued to monetary
interests. Iran is not even a new target in this regard. The
immense amounts of money that are to be had via the control
of the Iranian territory are second to no other Middle Eastern
Nation.
It is therefore that I like to point towards 'money' as being
the underlying motivation for the destruction of Middle Eastern
and North African Nations. This sentiment was enforced today
when I read the latest essay by Eric Zuesse about "Who will
pay for the reconstruction of Syria". Due to the problematic
of writing on a phone, I shall be forgiven the insertion of
this link without formatting it.
Please take the time and read it, since it opens up a box,
that makes Pandora's appear like a matchbox.
Slowly but constantly the good old europeans are discovering they can stand against who fooled them so long
in the name of ''protection''. And how stupid they have behaved.
A second hint wishfully the street guys in europe find out that has been their own elites´game only...
We latin americans cannot understand such a yesmanship, such a long and deep hibernation from those white savvy post christian
self sufficient europs.
Perhaps they are seeing light that comes from beijing.
better late than never.
Its plan foiled within Iran, the Outlaw US Empire sends its paid goons to throw stones at Iranian Embassies, the Netherlands's
certainly, and total defeat and humiliation pilled-on at the UNSC. And an interesting thought item from
Brasco_Aad's Twitter : Beste [sic] quote this week came from Henry
Kissinger (what do you know, right?)
"There is a HUGE war going on within the White House between the Jews and the Non-Jews at the moment.
"Between the Jews and the Non-Jews.
"Let that sink in for a minute."
Meanwhile in Syria's Idlib, SAA Tiger Forces are rolling up village after village and captured the key transport node of Sinjar.
It's also been announced that Iran will get a large proportion of the reconstruction contracts which will certainly help Iran's
economic condition. I can't help feeling the Shock Doctrine's boomeranged on The Outlaw US Empire and its regime change partners.
Paris does not follow Washington tune, and, apparently, neither does
Chicago . Nice quote:
The double standard isn't new. In 1981, Ronald Reagan's defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, vowed
not to allow "a hopelessly repressive, medieval government, such as has taken over in Iran, to take over in Saudi Arabia" -- somehow
overlooking that the Saudis already had their own repressive, medieval government.
Meanwhile in Syria's Idlib, SAA Tiger Forces are rolling up village after village and captured the key transport node of Sinjar.
It's also been announced that Iran will get a large proportion of the reconstruction contracts which will certainly help Iran's
economic condition. I can't help feeling the Shock Doctrine's boomeranged on The Outlaw US Empire and its regime change partners.
Not exactly, all current maps show the line of control 3 km (2 miles) south of Sinjar, and the latest advance of Tigers was
expanding their salient to east and west, securing the flanks. In the meantime, multiple rebel brigades (rebel brigade is like
a platoon in a regular army) reinforced the defense of Sinjar area. The trademark Tiger tactic is to abruptly change the direction
of advance rather than trying to crush the most fortified positions. But they got to their targets on many occasions.
Perhaps the strategic goal is to punch through a new supply line to Aleppo that would be several times more economical than
the current Khanasser route: the railroad from Hama to Aleppo. The economy of the Aleppo, the largest center of population and
industry before the civil war, would get a huge boost, and "Idlibstan" would be reduced in size by one third once the isolated
eastern part would be mopped out. We can see it before the Spring.
A big unnown is what Erdogan, ever mercurial, will be doing. Suddenly he have returned to his past slogan about Assad being
the largest criminal etc., does it mean renewal of supplies of heavy weapons to idlib rebels? I guess it is already happening,
but the situation is convoluted. Erdogan was making moves against Afrin Kurds, and probably he got Syrian/Russian red light, but
if he will insist too much, Kurds will get Russian weapons from Syrians. But Erdogan's card are weapons for Idlib. Such escalation
would bleed both Syrians and Turks, to nobody's advantage, except Erdogan's "almost Trumpian" thirst for importance.
"Before we wax too eloquent about the democratic aspirations of the great Iranian people, we should keep in the mind that the
most probable scenario for Iran under any likely regime is a sickening spiral into poverty and depopulation. Iran has the fastest-aging
population of any country in the world, indeed, the fast-aging population of any country in history. It has the highest rate
of venereal disease infection and the highest rate of infertility of any country in the world. It has a youth unemployment
rate of 35% (adjusted for warehousing young people in state-run diploma mills). And worst of all, it has run out of water."
Fastest aging population in the world in history.
Highest rate of infertility and VD in the world .
Diploma mills and NO WATER .
Ninel, if you are an Iranian why didn't you tell us about this hell hole but instead wax eloquent about the problem of 'child
brides'? If PJ media is correct it looks like Iran needs more, not less child brides.
I believe David Goldman, he's published on the Internet, he would never lie or exaggerate about Iran, never.
I try to ignore these things but ... that does sound like a Yiddish name to me which is fine but if is okay to learn about Iran
from Jews and Israelis to learn about Iran, should we go to Iran to learn about Israel or are both ideas pretty much insane?
Eric Edelman, a fossil of the establishment, put it all into perspective in recent testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee
recently: (extracts)
. .However tempting a strategy of disengagement might be, we should bear in mind that it would reverse a strong bipartisan
consensus over the past 60 years that the maintenance of a stable regional balance and prevention of any external or regional
power from dominating the Middle East is vital to the nation's security.
Since 2009 the United States has pursued a policy of retrenchment and limited liability in the region that has raised questions
about its role as the Middle East's security guarantor. This was first made clear during the Obama Administration, which expressed
through policy statements its desire to unburden America of the region altogether and "pivot" to East Asia. As a result, the
United States withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2011, it failed to uphold its own redline against Assad's use of chemical weapons
in Syria in 2013, and President Obama expressed a desire for Saudi Arabia and Iran to "share the neighborhood and institute
some sort of cold peace."
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran's nuclear program removed some limits on Iran's power projection
capabilities by freeing up resources that Tehran subsequently redirected to its weapons programs and support for proxies. The
agreement was seen by many Sunni Arab allies in the region as undermining U.S. pledges to constrain Tehran's revisionist ambitions
in the region.
President Trump's policies in the region to this point, although couched in very different rhetoric, have broadly continued
the policies of his predecessor, perhaps reflecting the views of the Middle East he put forth during the campaign. He called
it "one big, fat quagmire" and welcomed Russian intervention in Syria. Whether or not he will put into place a different strategy
remains an open question....
here
Thanks for the Sputnik report on the UNSC session. Now the US has been rebuffed at the UN twice in two weeks (with the Jerusalem
vote being the first). Actions become habits, as we all know. Perhaps the world could get used to this groove of rebuffing the
US.
Finally, the US is losing its global influence. This was all that was left to fear.
~~
The UNSC has handed the US its hat, and rejected the US effort to examine the internal affairs of Iran, as exceeding its charter
and wholly inappropriate. Both France and UK have spoken in full support of keeping the nuclear deal going - which makes 4 out
of 5 of the veto-holding, permanent members of the Security Council, with the US being the odd one out.
We now enter a time of seeing exactly what economic power the US wields when the world doesn't agree with it. When the world
does agree, no question but the US is to be feared in the realm of sanctions, contracts and money movements. But it appears that
the fearsome power of sanctions is something that the US will have to act alone to levy against Iran.
And what is the power of sanctions when the world begins to re-route around them? Why stay in the US Dollar when the cost and
effort involved outweighs the costs of alternatives?
I don't know what these relative answers are, only that we now get to watch them being weighed, over the next, perhaps 12-18
months.
~~
We've seen that the US military cannot or will not fight. We've long suspected that its intelligence gathering is hugely defective.
We've seen that its economic heft resides not so much in its own transactions as in its power to compel others to make or forego
their own transactions in a prescribed way. And now we're seeing that its ability to forge agreement for its policies is slipping.
As this consensus tears, the propaganda cannot hold. There's nothing left.
So let's hope the US continues to come out with these half-assed initiatives that both fail to succeed and fail to impress
others.
By Benjamin Wittes Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 6:52 PM
Earlier today, Lawfare published an article that was significantly beneath its editorial standards. I take full responsibility
for this decision and, on behalf of myself and Lawfare's board of directors, wish to explain the circumstances of the decision
to publish it and the steps we are taking to ensure that such a lapse does not happen again.
This is indeed weird note. The plan of providing protesters with improvised explosive devices lacked legal analysis, so perhaps
a more proper venue would be Unlawfare or Soldier of Misfortune, because try as I might, I do not see how such a plan could fit
in any legal framework (or even a plan for a successful rebellion). But somehow good mister Wittes does not write it directly.
Indeed, it reminds me a discussion that requires a bit of cut and paste to refresh our memory:
[item] On January 2, 2016, armed militants seized the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County,
Oregon, United States and continued to occupy it until law enforcement made a final arrest on February 11, 2016. Their leader
was Ammon Bundy, who participated in the 2014 Bundy standoff at his ...
[item] Ammon Bundy, 6 others acquitted in Oregon standoff trial - CNN
Oct 28, 2016 - Seven people who were among the armed occupiers of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon earlier this year were acquitted
Thursday of charges related to the 41-day standoff.
The point we "debated" or joked about is how that failed protest would gain if moderate elements were supplied with more advanced
weapons, anti-vehicle and anti-aircraft missiles, and perhaps those improvised land mines too? Apart from jokes, they would be
annihilated using high altitude precision bombing, and few American would shed tears. Instead, they became cheap martyrs, acquitted
by a sympathetic jury and without a doubt, we can expect to see them again at another fun-filled protest. In other words, their
cause lives and they keep marching on.
If not conventional war then economic war is just around the corner.
Until and unless countries switch to alternative international currency exchange and transaction processing services that are
not controlled by the private finance cabal, those countries will be susceptible to manipulated currency valuations and erratic
or halted electronic transaction processing.....war by other means. A controlled crash of the US economy can cow the mightiest
naysayers when they need more IMF/World Bank juice for their countries response to the coming economic pneumonia.
I expect that late term actions like this will be accompanied by more communication manipulation and control such as outages.....blamed
on terrorists/Russia of course.
What is Hollywood going to do with the reality we see unfolding in front of us? Can they get out in front of the energy forming
and turn it into a parade of their propaganda tunes? It is not looking like same old, same old this time....but I have been too
optimistic before.
"... The upshot? It's quite acceptable, on the Left and the pseudo-Right, to casually quip about troops in Niger and Norway . "We
have soldiers in Niger and Norway? Of course we do. We need them." With neoconservatism normalized, there is no debate, disagreement
or daylight between our dangerously united political factions. ..."
"... How exactly did the president normalize neoconservatism: In 2016, liberals accused candidate Trump of isolationism. Neoconservatives
-- aka Conservatism Inc. -- did the same. ..."
"... No one should be surprised by Trump promoting Israeli interests über alles. For decades he was so involved in Israel events
in New York I debated whether he was actually Jewish or not. Bannon said the embassy move to Jerusalem was at the behest of Adelson,
Trump's old casino buddy. In the campaign Trump got a lot of support from NY Jewish billionaires (Icahn, Feinberg, Paulson, et al.).
They know him and how he operates. ..."
"... But being pro-Israel doesn't necessarily equate to neocon. The neocons are the dumb Jews with serious inadequacy issues who
could never make it in business and instead went into politics and journalism. The latter are still staunchly opposed to Trump even
after a lot of pro-Israel moves. They might warm up to Trump's bellicosity towards a lot of Israel's enemies (a long list with degrees
of separation), but so far they've simply moved left. ..."
"... I'm a little more sanguine about a Zionist President who approaches problems from a business and deal-making position than
from one who comes a neocon political position (e.g., Hillary, every other GOP candidate except Rand Paul). The former are pragmatic
and will avoid conflict, especially stupid conflict, at all costs. While the latter believe they are virtuous in going to war and/or
attacking countries. Did you hear Hillary threaten to shoot down Russian planes in Syria during the campaign (WTF??!). ..."
"... Lastly, I like to think Trump surrounded himself with neocons (McMaster, Haley, et al.) to placate the GOP establishment because
he knows he has to play the game. ..."
"... People are inclined to believe that any activity -- in this instance, voting for the red/blue puppets in Washington -- in which
their participation is patronized must be legitimate and effectual. Many duped in November 2016, even those who now feel betrayed by
that farce, were still around here a few weeks ago acting like a Senator Moore in Alabama would be pivotal to reform, his defeat devastating.
That's how Ms. Mercer and her pundit ilk (Buchanan, Napolitano, etc.) thrive -- supporting the Empire by never questioning its legitimacy,
just taking sides within the Establishment. And they'll be buying into the 2018 congressional contests, ad nauseum. ..."
"... Of course, what is done to us, and to others in our name and with our money, never changes to any meaningful degree. Americans
might realize this if they thought critically about it, so they don't. Instead, they lap up the BS and vote for who tells them the lie
they like to hear. When there are identity politics involved, the delusion seems even deeper. There are self-styled "progressives" who
used to advocate single-payer, nationalized health care who are elated over the retention of so-called "Obamacare," the legislation
for which was written by and for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. ..."
"... Far from all Neocons are Jews. However, virtually all Neocons are militantly pro-Israel to the point of making Israel's foreign
policy desires central to their assessment of what America needs in foreign policy. ..."
"... Pres Trump is a situational leader. It's a rare style, for good reason. However, he is openly situational. That was clear during
the campaign season. however, ..."
"... I thought his positions were sincere. I don't think that this was any kind of slight of hand, "watch me pull a rabbit out of
my hat". His positions on Israel, same sex behavior, marijuana, healthcare remain what they were going in. His foreign policy and immigration
positions have been buffered and he seems incapable of standing where he came in. ..."
"... It was no secret he intended an assertive military. However, he seems easily convinced that strong means aggressive, and that
needlessly aggressive policy is a substitute for a strong US -- that is a mistake. Syria cruise strike was the first sign that he was
giving in to the men whom he chose as advisers. As it it turns out winning the election has been easier than governing. I assumed he
had a much stronger backbone, than he has been willing to exhibit in office. ..."
"... Pardon the earlier tag. I thought that you just had to be joking. Nikki Haley was inflicted upon the world at large because
Trump doesn't actually know anybody in this new world he fell into once he was inaugurated. ..."
"... Trump is so arrogant about his cluelessness that we'll be lucky to avoid a nuclear war caused by his bumbling. As in the final
line of an old proverb: "He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Shun him. ..."
It's fact: Neoconservatives are pleased with President Trump's foreign policy.
A couple of months back, Bloomberg's Eli Lake let it know he was in neoconservative nirvana:
" for Venezuela, [Donald Trump] came very close to calling for regime change. 'The United States has taken important steps to
hold the regime accountable,' Trump said. 'We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its
path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.'"
... ... ...
No one would deny the largely neoconservative nature of
Trump's National Security Strategy . Tucked in there somewhere is the Trumpian theme of "sovereignty," but in watered-down words.
The promised Wall has given way to "multilayered technology"; to the "deployment of additional personnel," and to the tried-and-tested
(not!) "vetting of prospective immigrants, refugees, and other foreign visitors."
These are mouthfuls Barack Obama and Genghis Bush would hardly oppose.
"It's often said that the Trump administration is 'isolationist,'"
wrote historian
Andrew J. Bacevich, in the UK Spectator. Untrue. "In fact, we are now witnessing a dramatic escalation in the militarization of US
foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan. This has not been announced, but it is happening, and much of it without
any debate in Congress or the media."
Indeed, while outlining his "new" Afghanistan plan, POTUS had conceded that "the American people are weary of war without victory."
(Make that war, full-stop.) Depressingly, the president went on to promise an increase in American presence in Afghanistan. By sending
4000 additional soldiers there, President Trump alleged he was fighting terrorism, yet not undertaking nation building.
This is tantamount to talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
Teasing apart these two elements is near-impossible. Send "4,000 additional soldiers to add to the 8,400 now deployed in Afghanistan,"
and you've done what Obama and Bush before you did in that blighted and benighted region: muddle along; kill some civilians mixed
in with some bad guys; break bread with tribal leaders (who hate your guts); mediate and bribe.
Above all, spend billions not your own to perfect the credo of a global fighting force that doesn't know Shiite from
Shinola .
The upshot? It's quite acceptable, on the Left and the pseudo-Right, to casually quip about troops in Niger and
Norway . "We have soldiers in Niger and Norway? Of course we do. We need them." With neoconservatism normalized, there is no
debate, disagreement or daylight between our dangerously united political factions.
This is the gift President Trump has given mainstream neoconservatives -- who now comfortably include neoliberals and all Conservatism
Inc., with the exceptions of Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson.
How exactly did the president normalize neoconservatism: In 2016, liberals accused candidate Trump of isolationism. Neoconservatives
-- aka Conservatism Inc. -- did the same.
Having
consistently complained of his isolationism , the Left and the phony Right cannot but sanction President Trump's interventionism
. The other option is to admit that we of
the callused Old Right,
who rejoiced at the prospects and promise of non-interventionism, were always right. Not going to happen. To some, the normalizing
of neoconservatism by a president who ran against it is a stroke of genius; of a piece with Bill Clinton's triangulation tactics.
To others, it's a cynical sleight of hand.
I think Bannon's ouster and his subsequently being attacked by Trump is just further evidence of Trump the Neocon. McConnell and
the establishment are piling on with glee. Welcome to the swamp.
Trump isn't a neoconservative or a turncoat, but he was not nearly aggressive enough in purging the unelected bureaucracy or in
preparing replacements. By the end of his first term I expect it will be different. He has appointed many federal judges and sent
consistent signals to law enforcement agencies. Also, sending Nikki Haley to the UN was a prank. Kushner's indefensible though.
"Trump attacking Bannon" was Trump reacting hastily and badly to a misreported non-story from half a year ago. Bannon has now
irritated the Mercers and will go through some sort of hair shirt thing.
> establishment gleefully piling
When have they ever done anything else? Do you expect them to admit they were wrong? Remember when Trump could not possibly be
the nominee?
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all
the time.
But you can fool the whole country all the time in American bi-partisan system. ,Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump each were brought
to power by fooling their electorate.
So Trump did morph into Hillary.
Actually, it was something I was afraid of once I got the good news of Hillary losing, but expected, considering that I view presidents
as empty suits, and the National Security State calling the shots.
I'm waiting for another one of those "Trump's Truth in Action" moments when describes the real political atmosphere in Washington.
Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: "When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do."
"You'd better believe it," Trump said. "If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage I've given
to, just so you understand, a lot of money."
I think its time to dump the label "neoconservative". The appropriate term is "interventionists without a cause" (IWAC or IWC)
or some other descriptor.
The real problem that Pres Trump has and I remain a Pres Trump supporter is two fold:
He seems to have forgotten he won the election.
He seems to have forgotten what he was elected to do.
And nearly everyone of these issues on foreign policy the answer rests in respecting sovereignty – that of others and our own.
I didn't need to read,"Adios, America" to comprehend the deep state damage our careless immigration policy has on the country.
I don't need to reread, "Adios, America" to grasp that our policies of intervening in the affairs of other states undermines our
own ability to make the same case at home.
If I weren't already trying to plow my way through several other books, documentaries and relapsing to old school programming
such as The Twilight Zone, Star Trek, and now the Dick Van Dyke show, i would reread, "Adios , America."
In Col. Bacevich's book, Washington Rules, he posits a distressing scenario that the foreign policy web is so tangled and entrenched,
the executive branch is simply out his league. The expectation was that Pres trump had the will to turn the matter. I hold out
hope, but maybe not. There's time.
The Trump holdouts that maintain his turncoat buffoonery is actually 5d chess are the 2018 equivalent of the 2009 hopey changey
Obots and can't accept their big daddy is a liar and a spineless turncoat. The system is broken and cannot be fixed from within.
Jews and the Jewish Media normalized Jewish NeoCons by guaranteeing that they always have a voice and airtime in American
culture and media. Never called out by the WashingtonPost and NY Times for their previous blunders, they continue to shape
American foreign policy. And, of course, the end game here is Israel and the Israeli agenda at all costs, you Jews are one
issue folk. And You definitely do your part, with the subtle subterfuge at work in the articles that you write.
No one should be surprised by Trump promoting Israeli interests über alles. For decades he was so involved in Israel events
in New York I debated whether he was actually Jewish or not. Bannon said the embassy move to Jerusalem was at the behest of Adelson,
Trump's old casino buddy. In the campaign Trump got a lot of support from NY Jewish billionaires (Icahn, Feinberg, Paulson, et
al.). They know him and how he operates.
But being pro-Israel doesn't necessarily equate to neocon. The neocons are the dumb Jews with serious inadequacy issues
who could never make it in business and instead went into politics and journalism. The latter are still staunchly opposed to Trump
even after a lot of pro-Israel moves. They might warm up to Trump's bellicosity towards a lot of Israel's enemies (a long list
with degrees of separation), but so far they've simply moved left.
I'm a little more sanguine about a Zionist President who approaches problems from a business and deal-making position than
from one who comes a neocon political position (e.g., Hillary, every other GOP candidate except Rand Paul). The former are pragmatic
and will avoid conflict, especially stupid conflict, at all costs. While the latter believe they are virtuous in going to war
and/or attacking countries. Did you hear Hillary threaten to shoot down Russian planes in Syria during the campaign (WTF??!).
Lastly, I like to think Trump surrounded himself with neocons (McMaster, Haley, et al.) to placate the GOP establishment
because he knows he has to play the game.
Classical Liberalism may be very principled, but Trump was not elected promising to halt intervention. Make America Great said
nothing about the morality of the means he would be employing.
People are inclined to believe that any activity -- in this instance, voting for the red/blue puppets in Washington --
in which their participation is patronized must be legitimate and effectual. Many duped in November 2016, even those who now feel
betrayed by that farce, were still around here a few weeks ago acting like a Senator Moore in Alabama would be pivotal to reform,
his defeat devastating. That's how Ms. Mercer and her pundit ilk (Buchanan, Napolitano, etc.) thrive -- supporting the Empire
by never questioning its legitimacy, just taking sides within the Establishment. And they'll be buying into the 2018 congressional
contests, ad nauseum.
Of course, what is done to us, and to others in our name and with our money, never changes to any meaningful degree. Americans
might realize this if they thought critically about it, so they don't. Instead, they lap up the BS and vote for who tells them
the lie they like to hear. When there are identity politics involved, the delusion seems even deeper. There are self-styled "progressives"
who used to advocate single-payer, nationalized health care who are elated over the retention of so-called "Obamacare," the legislation
for which was written by and for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Me? I cope by boycotting national elections and mass media, participating in forums like this, and hoping that when the tottering
tower of debt and gore tips over, as few innocents and as many guilty as practicable are among those crushed.
The Zionist neocons and Israel did 911 and got away with it and everyone in the U.S. gov knows it and they tried to sink the USS
LIBERTY and got away with it and so normal is an Orwellian society where Zionists can kill Americans and destroy the Mideast and
nobody does jack shit about it.
The neocons are Satanists warmongers and will destroy America.
Basically the illegal immigrants are coming in ever larger numbers because they know that there will be no crackdown on them.
Likewise deportations are declining.
Neocons are about as evil as proudly proclaimed Leftists, and they are obviously more duplicitous.
Either Neocons will be refuted and publicly rebuked and rejected, or Neocons will eventually destroy the country. Their long
term fruits are destruction of that which they have used to destroy so many others.
Far from all Neocons are Jews. However, virtually all Neocons are militantly pro-Israel to the point of making Israel's
foreign policy desires central to their assessment of what America needs in foreign policy.
And the source is Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy necessarily produces pro-Jewish culture.
WASP culture is inherently pro-Jewish, as much as it is anti-Catholic and anti-French and and anti-Spanish and anti-Irish, etc.
And all that means that WASP is opposed to the best interests of the vast majority of white Christians while being pro-Jewish.
Jews did not cause any of that. Anglo-Saxon Puritan heretics did.
Pres Trump is a situational leader. It's a rare style, for good reason. However, he is openly situational. That was clear
during the campaign season. however,
I thought his positions were sincere. I don't think that this was any kind of slight of hand, "watch me pull a rabbit out
of my hat". His positions on Israel, same sex behavior, marijuana, healthcare remain what they were going in. His foreign policy
and immigration positions have been buffered and he seems incapable of standing where he came in.
It was no secret he intended an assertive military. However, he seems easily convinced that strong means aggressive, and
that needlessly aggressive policy is a substitute for a strong US -- that is a mistake. Syria cruise strike was the first sign
that he was giving in to the men whom he chose as advisers. As it it turns out winning the election has been easier than governing.
I assumed he had a much stronger backbone, than he has been willing to exhibit in office.
Pardon the earlier tag. I thought that you just had to be joking. Nikki Haley was inflicted upon the world at large because
Trump doesn't actually know anybody in this new world he fell into once he was inaugurated.
Trump is so arrogant about his cluelessness that we'll be lucky to avoid a nuclear war caused by his bumbling. As in the
final line of an old proverb: "He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool. Shun him."
Iranians have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks in the US between 1975-2015; Saudi Arabians murdered 2369!
Given that this juden woman's kind were clearly aware of the impending murder of 2369 people, the correct statement would be;
Saudi Arabians and IsraHellis murdered 2369!
The Israeli/AIPAC bribery of American bible thumper preachers, especially in the fundamentalist southern American states has
more to do with it than the reformation. The preachers get huge donations to pay for their churches and TV shows. They get free
trips to Israel for themselves and their families all the time.
On their Israel trips they pay more attention to the OT Jewish and holocaust sites than the Christian ones. It's true that
the reformation was a return to Judaism and a rejection of Christianity, but that was 500 years ago. What's important now is the
vast amounts of money the Israeli government and the lobby funnels into those fundamentalist churches. If the southern fundamentalists
only knew what Jews think of them. I really got an earful of Jewish scorn and hate for southerners and fundamentalists during
the recent Roy Moore election.
Read Jewish publications if you want to learn what they think of southern fundamentalists
"... The first year of the Trump administration saw much more than the continuity in U.S. foreign policy that many of us expected. Trump's candidacy and then his election were greeted with alarm by almost everyone in the foreign policy establishment, with an overwhelming consensus that he stood for a so-called "isolationist" withdrawal from international affairs. This interpretation was a serious misreading of Trump's rhetoric and led to the usual knee-jerk reflex to define anything that differed from post-Cold War foreign policy as an outright rejection of all international engagement. ..."
"... Trump is not interested in disentangling the United States from foreign conflicts. Instead, he continues and expands them, as well as stoking new crises that could erupt into conflict. Trump is easily persuaded to accept conventional foreign policy positions so long as they are the more aggressive alternatives available. When he does break from consensus views, he does so in a unilateral and nationalist fashion that repudiates diplomatic compromises, rejects the legacy of his predecessor, and panders to some of his core constituencies at home. ..."
"... As 2018 begins, America is now even more deeply involved in the multiple wars that Trump inherited from Obama. There are a growing number of U.S. forces in Syria, more American soldiers have been sent to Afghanistan to continue our longest war, and U.S. backing for the Saudi-led war on Yemen has ratcheted up as well. In each case, Trump has signed off on increased U.S. involvement. ..."
"... Tensions with Iran and North Korea have both increased over the last year, and in both cases the Trump administration is to blame. Between the travel ban, the decertification of the nuclear deal, bombing Syrian government forces in the spring, belligerent speeches at the U.N. and elsewhere, and an overall regional policy defined by unremitting hostility towards Iran, Trump has mishandled relations with Tehran about as badly as a new president can. ..."
"... Considering how poorly Trump has managed issues related to Iran, it is remarkable that his handling of a much more sensitive and potentially explosive situation in the Korean Peninsula has been even worse. ..."
The first year of the Trump administration saw much more than the continuity in U.S.
foreign policy that many of us expected. Trump's candidacy and then his election were greeted
with alarm by almost everyone in the foreign policy establishment, with an overwhelming
consensus that he stood for a so-called "isolationist" withdrawal from international affairs.
This interpretation was a serious misreading of Trump's rhetoric and led to the usual knee-jerk
reflex to define anything that differed from post-Cold War foreign policy as an outright
rejection of all international engagement. As Trump's policies have shown, he is open to a
kind of international engagement, but it is one that is heavily militarized and defined by
zero-sum contests with adversaries and allies alike.
Trump is not interested in disentangling the United States from foreign conflicts.
Instead, he continues and expands them, as well as stoking new crises that could erupt into
conflict. Trump is easily persuaded to accept conventional foreign policy positions so long as
they are the more aggressive alternatives available. When he does break from consensus views,
he does so in a unilateral and nationalist fashion that repudiates diplomatic compromises,
rejects the legacy of his predecessor, and panders to some of his core constituencies at
home.
As 2018 begins, America is now even more deeply involved in the multiple wars that Trump
inherited from Obama. There are a growing number of U.S. forces in Syria, more American
soldiers have been sent to Afghanistan to continue our longest war, and U.S. backing for the
Saudi-led war on Yemen has ratcheted up as well. In each case, Trump has signed off on
increased U.S. involvement. There is evidence that the number of Americans fighting in
Afghanistan will increase in the coming year, and U.S. forces operating in Syria are set to
remain there indefinitely. U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition is even greater than it was
under Obama, and there is no sign that it will be reduced anytime soon. Unfortunately, the one
thing Trump refuses to abandon are the wars that Obama bequeathed to him.
Tensions with Iran and North Korea have both increased over the last year, and in both
cases the Trump administration is to blame. Between the travel ban, the decertification of the
nuclear deal, bombing Syrian government forces in the spring, belligerent speeches at the U.N.
and elsewhere, and an overall regional policy defined by unremitting hostility towards Iran,
Trump has mishandled relations with Tehran about as badly as a new president can. If he
next reneges on U.S. commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Trump
will risk creating a new crisis over Iran's nuclear program. If the nuclear deal does fall
apart, the risk of war with Iran would significantly increase.
Considering how poorly Trump has managed issues related to Iran, it is remarkable that
his handling of a much more sensitive and potentially explosive situation in the Korean
Peninsula has been even worse. For most of the last year, Trump has answered North Korean
provocations with bellicose rhetoric and reckless threats, and repeatedly dismissed the
possibility of entering into talks with Pyongyang to reduce tensions. He and his national
security advisor, H.R. McMaster, have been talking down the possibility of deterring North
Korea and instead insisting on an impossible goal of denuclearization. Senior members of the
Trump administration bizarrely seem to believe they can take military action against North
Korea without it escalating into a major war. On this issue, the one where Trump most needs to
be reined in by his advisors, it appears he's instead being egged on by them. There is a much
greater chance of war with North Korea today than there has been in decades. The current
administration has helped bring this about, and alarmingly it doesn't seem to have sunk in with
members of Congress or the public.
As we look ahead to 2018, the picture is not at all encouraging for those interested in
peace and restraint. The danger that the U.S. may foolishly plunge into at least one new
avoidable war is greater than it has been perhaps since the period leading up to the Iraq
invasion in 2002. It will be up to members of Congress and the public to keep the
administration from committing such a monumental blunder.
Daniel Larison is a senior writer at The American Conservative. Follow his blog and at
Twitter @DanielLarison
.
None of us who voted for him did so because we wanted him to start new wars.
We didn't want any new wars for Israel or Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, and we didn't
want new wars against Russia, China, or North Korea.
We wanted him to crush ISIS and then bring our troops home to protect our own borders.
Instead he's digging in to the Middle East and letting illegal and legal immigrants flood
into America.
The way he's going, he could be worse than Clinton, Bush II, and Obama COMBINED. And I
think we may have made a terrible mistake.
"... The president's personal limitations have kept him from being a great leader, leaving his supporters the most vulnerable. ..."
"... Foreign Policy: Nothing accentuated Trump's anti-establishment persona more distinctly than his assault on America's promiscuous engagement in foreign conflicts. He railed against George W. Bush's Iraq war and his nation-building ambitions. With typical brutality he even alleged that Bush and his top officials lied to the American people. He called America's Afghan involvement "a complete waste" that should be ended. He excoriated President Obama for assisting in the overthrow of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi and pursuing the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He called NATO "obsolete" and vowed to reduce America's commitment to it. He decried the ongoing U.S. bellicosity toward Russia. ..."
"... Immigration: Nothing crystallizes the nationalism vs. globalism struggle as sharply as this definitional issue. The political establishment wanted to finesse it through the campaign to tamp down civic angers about border dissolution and the 11 million or so illegal immigrants in the country (an ugly blot on the nation's governing classes). The aim was to calm the waters until after the election, when the high-voltage amnesty issue could be dealt with in a more controllable legislative setting. Exhibits A and B in this farce were Senators John McCain and Marco Rubio, who evinced appreciation for popular sentiment on the issue in running for office but promptly returned to the amnesty project when the electoral challenge was over. ..."
"... But millions of Americans were tired of this finesse, and Trump's willingness to seize the immigration issue in his bold, even nasty way resonated with white working-class voters in states previously considered Democratic strongholds -- particularly Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This was pure populism at work -- taking an issue dominated and closely managed by elites and casting it to the electorate for ballot box adjudication. Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment suggests the extent to which establishment liberals didn't know what hit them. ..."
"... The establishment had considered the issue closed -- a fait accompli, with demographic trends produced by their own immigration policies locking in their cherished new "multicultural" America through the Democrats' ability to woo the new arrivals. They didn't calculate the absorption factor -- the nation's increasing difficulty in assimilating the growing immigrant numbers. By 2015, the proportion of foreign-born Americans reached nearly 14 percent, which history tells us is a kind of breaking point. The last time the country experienced such a percentage -- between 1890 and 1910 -- it reduced both the numbers of immigrants and the numbers of non-Western arrivals. This was an inevitable result then, just as today's pushback is inevitable now ..."
"... But the liberal elites don't want a debate, as evidenced by their insistence on equating immigration concerns with racism. To them it's perfectly normal to transform the nation's cultural identity through an influx of people who don't share its heritage -- and acceptable to stamp those who object with a kind of civic opprobrium. No wonder Trump's crude pronouncements on the issue resonated with millions of Americans. ..."
"... Trade: In the 1990s, free trade became an elite mantra embraced by both major parties, influential think tanks, key journalists, and the federal government's managerial barony. As America pursued multilateral open-trade agreements, however, the nation's industrial base deteriorated, devastating America's working classes. It became increasingly clear that other nations, particularly China, weren't playing by the rules of the World Trade Organization and other multinational entities. ..."
"... the elites, with their globalist outlook, ignored this menacing phenomenon. An example was New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who celebrated globalization in the late 1990s as involving "the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before." To Friedman it was about "the basic human desire for a better life -- a life with more choices as to what to eat, what to wear, where to live, where to travel, how to work, what to read, what to write and what to learn." Friedman's giddy encomium to this brave new world of petty materialism showed little concern for cultural sensibilities that could get crushed or for Americans whose livelihoods were threatened. ..."
"... That was Trump's opening. He slammed this elite consensus, portrayed himself as protector of beleaguered working Americans, and attacked many of the country's major trading partners for not playing fair. It worked. ..."
"... Plight of the Working Class: In addition to addressing this issue through trade rhetoric, Trump also sought to expose another significant development threatening middle class workers. This was the phenomenon known as "financialization," defined by Harvard Business School professor Gautam Mukunda as an "increase in the influence of financial markets, institutions and elites over both the economy and the other institutions of society, including the government." The financial sector now dominates much of the U.S. economy -- and uses its clout to influence Washington policymaking to its benefit. ..."
"... Trump declared that Wall Street was "getting away with murder" and vowed to break up New York's big banks. His final campaign ad showed ominous photos of the New York Stock Exchange and the CEO of banking behemoth Goldman Sachs and called for curbing the political and business elites that had "bled our country dry." He touted elements of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking, preventing securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits and barring commercial banks from engaging in risky securities activities. "I know the guys at Goldman Sachs," he declared, adding they had "total control over Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... Political Correctness: No serious presidential candidate had ever taken on the forces of political correctness with Trump's brand of pugilism. His rhetorical intemperance was part of it, a defiant poke in the eye to those who would silence conservatives by declaring their views outside the bounds of proper thinking. But he also took on leftists who denigrate elements of the American and Western heritage and who malign patriotism. A study by mathematician Spencer Greenberg, reported in ClearerThinking.org, indicated that anger over political correctness was the second most reliable predictor of Trump support, behind party affiliation and ahead of social conservatism, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiments. ..."
"... Bundling these issues into a powerful political salient, Trump crystallized a debate that for years had been brewing but not seriously joined -- in ideological terms, between globalists and nationalists; in socioeconomic terms, between elites and ordinary citizens; in geographic terms, between the coasts and fly-over states; in foreign policy terms, between Wilsonian liberals and neoconservatives, on the one hand, and realists, on the other. He dominated the 2016 presidential debate as few politicians have dominated any recent campaign. ..."
"... Begin with two of Trump's five major issues -- foreign policy and the big banks. As candidate he said he would get America out of Afghanistan; as president he sent in an extra 4,000 troops -- and left open the duration of the U.S. military commitment. As candidate he decried NATO's eastward expansion toward the Russian border; as president he embraced Montenegro's NATO entry. As candidate he bewailed President Obama's efforts to dislodge Syria's Assad; as president he bombed Syrian forces on the basis of a chemical attack whose perpetrator was not proved. As candidate he expressed wariness of supporting Saudi Arabia's war against Yemen's Houthis; as president he expanded U.S. support. His campaign declaration that NATO was obsolete seems all but forgotten. ..."
"... Nothing crystallizes this disparity between campaign rhetoric and presidential action more sharply than Trump's new direction in the Middle East -- a tight U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia and Israel. It seems based on the geopolitical goals of those two countries and a new U.S. willingness to direct its power and influence in behalf of those goals. Beyond the recent U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the three countries seem bent on getting a Palestinian settlement that confines Palestinian lands largely to the Gaza Strip, augmented by some Sinai territory from Egypt. The West Bank would be opened to increasing Jewish settlement. Geoffrey Aronson reported on TAC's web site on December 12 that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently that the Arab Peace Initiative -- a Saudi-sponsored proposal for Arab recognition of and peace with Israel in return for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital -- was "effectively dead." That concept had been the basis of U.S. policy for decades. ..."
"... As incendiary as this will be in the region, a far more ominous development is the increasing U.S. bellicosity toward Iran -- again, directing American power toward the interests of Israeli and Saudi leaders who view the Islamic Republic as a mortal enemy. Trump's preliminary actions to undermine the Iranian nuclear deal seem to be the first step in a campaign to isolate and pressure Iran, with regime change on a lot of minds. Certainly, that is the ultimate goal of the Israelis and Saudis, and Iranian leaders harbor no illusions about the end game. ..."
"... Nothing Trump said during the campaign could have given voters any inkling of such a policy, which almost certainly will pull America into the Middle East morass attacked by Trump in the campaign as the folly of previous presidents. Indeed, his emerging Middle Eastern adventures would seem to negate the Jacksonian identity perceived by Mead. Based on this policy, Trump is no Jacksonian. ..."
"... Further, Trump as president has emerged as a friend of Wall Street and the big banks. After railing against Big Finance and Goldman Sachs, he loaded his own administration with Goldman executives past and present, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin; National Economic Council head Gary Cohn; White House counselor Dina Habib Powell; and Securities and Exchange chairman Jay Clayton, a partner at Goldman's longtime law firm and husband of a Goldman vice president. ..."
"... Trump Came on the scene like Haley's comment. He portrayed himself as someone that would reverse immigration abuses, get us out of the morass in the Middle East, and take a close look at such anachronisms as the Federal Reserve etc. Then reality hit. His handlers called in their chips. He outsourced our foreign policy to AIPAC and the neocons, is letting what is ostensibly a foreign backing system control our currency, and I fear may be dispossessing millions of their hard earned, ever so flimsy, medical care and pushing large segments of the U.S. back into medical-coverage third world status. To be true he should just have trotted Netanyahu and Jared Kushner out and said – here is what you are getting when you vote for me. ..."
"... Trump is incapable of the strategic thinking required of the office, and cannot lead those appointed to senior roles without a clear and consistent goal for them to achieve. His ADHD and narcissistic, reactive focus on the news cycle preclude genuine vision or perspective: Swayed by the loudest voice in the room or the shiniest cable outrage, he lurches for popular approval from a shrinking base of perpetually angry people. ..."
"... I always said, well before the election, that Trump was America's last worst hope. Or at least, for the hundreds of millions of deplorables the elites don't care about. ..."
"... There is little chance of Trump becoming a great leader. He has no history of leadership and cannot rise above his personal pettiness to achieve that status. Most of all, he is paralyzed by his arrogant ignorance, demagogic superficiality, and mental instability. No, Trump will never be any sort of real leader at all. ..."
"... "He embraced traditional GOP positions such as reduced taxes [primarily for high income people], school choice, increased defense spending, rejection of the idea of human-induced climate change [and elimination of expansion of health insurance]." These positions on which he has had moderate success go directly against the material interests of his voters ..."
"... If I understand what the author is saying, he claims Donald John Trump had a great opportunity to realign American political strictures, and is pi$$ing it away. I should think that the next person to follow this path (if there is one) would be somewhat more politically savvy than Trump. (As it seems he is locked into the notion he is on a reality TV game show titled "Celebrity President".) ..."
"... There is also the presumption that present American stumbling on the international scene will allow a permanent rise of some other country to take over the world hegemon. That is entirely possible. It may even be probable. But it is far from a certainty. That's the interesting thing about "history". What looks obvious in the sharp glare of 20-20 hindsight is almost never so apparent at the time. ..."
"... Both major candidates in the 2016 Presidential elections were right in the faults they found in each other. Trump saved the Known Universe from a Clinton Presidency. He then went on to live up to all the dire predictions made by his opponent about his own Presidency. A Presidency turning out as an unmitigated disaster. The sooner Trump goes away, the better. ..."
"... Those who wanted to end crony capitalism have elected a capitalist par excellence with his cronies. ..."
"... What "populism" will Trump embody in 2018 given the swamp he had brought in 2017? ..."
"... It appeared one candidate would have a candidacy like Richard Nixon always hated by the opposition, always under an investigation searching for an impeachable offense ..."
"... The other candidate demonstrated a long history of corruption, a belief that she was above any law and the ruthless destruction of anyone who stood in the way of her political ambition. She didn't need to hire incompetent Cuban burglars to steal information about political opponents, because, when she was the First Lady, the FBI delivered the files about political opponents to her office. She had complete contempt for the law, and had an FBI and Justice Department that would protect her by blocking any significant investigation of her shady schemes to gain personal wealth or increase her political power. ..."
"... I didn't have much confidence for the Trump Presidency and he is performing beyond my expectations. I didn't think that Trumps presidency would even last and that is one reason that I voted for him. I feared that Clinton's insatiable lust for power would have made her perhaps the most dangerous president in our history and it may have been impossible to remove her from office. ..."
"... Trump never had the ideas, principles or vision to be great. His first and last interest is self promotion, and hearing applause. It's really that simple. Rather than drain the swamp and do anything new or original, he's just a standard Republican corporatist: cut taxes, cut regulations, cut federal nature reserves and all of this will. All Hail Reagan! ..."
The president's personal limitations have kept him from being a great leader, leaving his supporters the most vulnerable.
But the New York billionaire possessed three distinctive attributes that propelled him to victory.
First, he seemed to comprehend America's status quo crisis -- the disintegration of the old order that had defined the country
since World War II. (See my article entitled "The Meaning of Trump," in TAC's March/April 2017 issue.) Large numbers of voters
understood immediately what he was saying, particularly since the crisis was largely ignored by the other candidates.
Second, he demonstrated that he was not stuck in the partisan ossification exacerbating the status quo crisis and generating
governmental deadlock. As the old order began to dissolve, the two parties instinctively clung ever more tenaciously to time-tested
positions, defaulting to an increasingly rigid groupthink and shunning compromise. The government seized up; dysfunction set in.
Trump sidestepped this rigid political thinking of both parties and crafted a new mix of issues cutting across partisan lines.
He embraced traditional GOP positions such as reduced taxes, school choice, increased defense spending, and rejection of the idea
of human-induced climate change. But he also took positions contrary to Republican orthodoxy -- entitlement protection, attacks
on free trade, rejection of austerity economics. And he manifested contempt for elitist nostrums embraced or accepted by both
parties, including a hospitable view of mass immigration, America's foreign policy adventurism since 9/11, and political correctness.
This unorthodox mix suggested prospects for a new coalition capable of breaking the deadlock crisis and moving the country forward.
Third, Trump's crudity and disdain for political niceties suggested that he meant it when he declared political war on the
country's elites -- think tanks, the national media, the managerial class of government and business, intellectuals, Hollywood,
and financial titans. He wouldn't buckle when they fought back to protect their cherished policies and privileged standing.
What emerged from the campaign was a growing recognition (though many still resisted it) that the country stands at a fundamental
crossroads -- whether to follow the elite vision of globalism and antinationalism, with money, people, ideas, and cultures moving
freely across increasingly indistinct borders; or to remain steadfast in its traditional nationalism and fealty to its Western heritage.
Nothing less than the definition of America is at stake.
... ... ...
It turns out that getting elected was the easy part. Far more difficult is governing in a time of crisis and crafting a sophisticated
brand of politics, with accompanying attributes of command, that can lead the nation out of that crisis. If Trump fails, the political
balance of power will tilt back to the party of the elites, and Democrats will get an opportunity to fashion a governing coalition.
The big losers, if that happens, will be the Trump voters, who liked his Jacksonian populism and policy prescriptions during the
campaign, but couldn't foresee his governing vacuity.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative
. His latest book,President McKinley: Architect of the American Century, was released in September.
Trump Came on the scene like Haley's comment. He portrayed himself as someone that would reverse immigration abuses, get us
out of the morass in the Middle East, and take a close look at such anachronisms as the Federal Reserve etc. Then reality hit.
His handlers called in their chips. He outsourced our foreign policy to AIPAC and the neocons, is letting what is ostensibly a
foreign backing system control our currency, and I fear may be dispossessing millions of their hard earned, ever so flimsy, medical
care and pushing large segments of the U.S. back into medical-coverage third world status. To be true he should just have trotted
Netanyahu and Jared Kushner out and said – here is what you are getting when you vote for me.
Trump is incapable of the strategic thinking required of the office, and cannot lead those appointed to senior roles without a
clear and consistent goal for them to achieve. His ADHD and narcissistic, reactive focus on the news cycle preclude genuine vision
or perspective: Swayed by the loudest voice in the room or the shiniest cable outrage, he lurches for popular approval from a
shrinking base of perpetually angry people.
All the while, Xi Jinping uses soft power and his country's stability to fill the gaps and assume America's role in the world,
make new friends [especially in Africa], and construct his 'One Road – One Belt' to ensure China is the new world economic power
of the 21st century. Remember that Britain's great economic empire and superior military strength on land and sea crumbled in
less than a lifetime, from 1914 to 1945. The US is next
Whatever his election slogans may have been, the true description of Trump's behaviour is: Israel First & Make China Great
Again!
RA, thanks for the proxy elite view. I always said, well before the election, that Trump was America's last worst hope. Or at
least, for the hundreds of millions of deplorables the elites don't care about.
Things are about where the probability lay in that pessimistic assessment.
There is little chance of Trump becoming a great leader. He has no history of leadership and cannot rise above his personal
pettiness to achieve that status. Most of all, he is paralyzed by his arrogant ignorance, demagogic superficiality, and mental
instability. No, Trump will never be any sort of real leader at all.
Interesting article I believe Trump fooled those that believed him. He has in fact proven that it is just a rotten political game.
Fools are us!
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
April 8, 2017
Donald You Fooled Us
Donald, you were elected into a big White House
Now you are acting like a warmongering louse
Bombing other countries as you think and see fit
Yemen and Syria you have already hit
Donald You Fooled Us
People believed you, when you promoted peace
Now that you are elected the bombings don't cease
The war criminals are now applauding your dangerous sorties
You sent "59" missiles into Syria: is this your forte?
Donald You Fooled Us
Will nuclear war be your gift to mankind?
Unfortunately if this happens, nobody will be left behind
The destroyed planet will be all aflame
A hellish end to your mad reign
Donald You Fooled Us
You are now in the company of those that support terrorists
Is this what you want? Or do you need a Therapist?
Your credibility is shot, and there is no pun intended
Many of your supporters are now bloody offended
Donald You Fooled Us
You said if elected you would clean and, "Drain the swamp"
Now the swamp residents are now cheering your "pomp"
They know it's a return to good old "business as usual"
And the people that supported You, are wondering if you're delusional?
Donald You Fooled Us
People are fed up with double crossing politicians
That are, leading them down the road to perdition
You were believed, and that all this would change
But now, they realize it's just a dirty political game
Donald You Fooled Us
In his campaign, Trump did rail against the conventional neocon wisdom regarding Iraq and other U.S. military interventions.
However, it should have been clear to all, even during the campaign, that Trump's own defense policy was never going to be
one of "restraint." Witness Trump's own statements on taking all the oil from Iraq, about ISIS, and his repeated inquiries as
to why the U.S. couldn't use nuclear weapons [!] More generally, witness Trump's dog-eat-dog, zero-sum worldview and his open
contempt for friends and foes alike.
"He embraced traditional GOP positions such as reduced taxes [primarily for high income people], school choice, increased
defense spending, rejection of the idea of human-induced climate change [and elimination of expansion of health insurance]." These
positions on which he has had moderate success go directly against the material interests of his voters
This sounds like something a closet #NeverTrump elitist at the National Review would write.
A leader hires workers. Generals command cavalry and infantry. They don't fight themselves.
Trump's vision? Fine.
Look at the Courts which will be a longer lasting legacy.
Fewer illegals and refugees.
Regulations slashed.
It would have been easy to pillory and penalize wall street, but that in itself woudn't help main street. The tax and reg cuts
do.
It would have been easy to do a bug-out of everywhere and let Afghanistan and Iraq decay into chaos, but instead he is extracting
us – ISIS has lost 98% of its territory.
Israel? The US hasn't been an "honest broker" since Carter, and it was the same elites promise and posture while doing the
opposite game. It was our friends, the Saudis that the 9/11 terrorists came from.
Trump has accomplished more Conservative goals by being a visionary. This is hardly "empty governance". The glass is 7/8 full,
not 1/8 empty. That he is a leader and doesn't micromanage is why he is winning for his base.
Also on the approval ratings, the country is polarized. No one who voted for Clinton will approve of Trump (and vice versa).
You can see this with the GDP and Stock prices – Trump won't get credit because he is Trump. NeverTrumpers can't even bring themselves
to admit Trump's successes on the Conservative issues.
Also see Mitch McConnel's approval rating for comparison – He keeps saying we just don't have enough Republicans to defeat
Obamacare – after he got the Senate, then the House, then the White House. But you won't call him out or call his Senate Leadership
"empty".
Trump's greatest achievement is a radical reconsideration of the rule of the law. Yet he casts not just the regulatory state into
doubt but the entire validity of the Constitution of the United States. No doubt some people in this nation and beyond applaud
the weakening of the United States' system of governance, from the military (overextended, over-enlisted, and lacking vision)
to the Congress (venal, corrupt, ineffective) to the executive (doddering, impulsive, vulgar). Citizens of any kind of moral and
intellectual standing ought to oppose this. Trump has appointed to the judiciary some conservatives but also people who are less
qualified than any random lawyer to serve as judges. He ignores legal restrictions on his income and plays by his own ethical
code, appointing his family members and other unqualified cronies to important government roles. He has undone laws that protect
the most important parts of the nation – our water, our children, our values, and he has done so for the enrichment of himself.
A radical approach may have been needed in 2016 but after this shock our nation must pursue a rational corrective as soon as possible.
In short, those who support Trump support a would-be strongman whose tenure represents the undoing of our system of limited constitutional
governance. What kind of conservatism supports the undoing of the Constitution? What kind of republic yearns for tyranny? What
kind of nation will the United States be if the people continue to undermine the basis for its existence?
Some of us elected Trump thinking he was an unpleasant drug – like chemotherapy- that might fight the cancerous growths of globalization
and fictionalization and neocon warmongering in America. Now he seems like he is just another carcinogen.
Trump got a minority of people to vote for him by using the old politician's method: Blame someone else for the voters' poor lives.
"It's not your fault, it's the Mexicans' fault. It's the Muslims. It's the media, Obama, Hollywood. It's the generals' fault."
Whatever "policies" he has are those of Congress (the tax cut) or those of Jared (the Jerusalem thing), or those of Fox. He
has no original ideas, he just says whatever his base wants-like a good snake-oil salesman, I suppose.
It always amazes me when respectable people and thinkers try to attribute some rationale to Trump.
The man is a con artist (Ted Cruz and NY values remark), with a proven history of lying and steeling from people ( Trump university
anyone). He understood that the so called Conservative base is a bigoted bunch ( deplorables) and he played to their bigotry to
win the nomination.
His elevation to the POTUS is a combination of Comey, Russia, Bernie and 25 years of character assassination by the right wing
propaganda apparatus against HRC, and he still lost the popular vote by 3 millions
The mask is off, and the midterms should give us a pretty good indication of where this country is heading.
Just a note of caution: If you think the majority of this country will continue tolerating being governed by a minority who
has no problem colluding with Russia to keep their hold on power, think again.
An interesting article, derogatory partisan commentary aside.
If I understand what the author is saying, he claims Donald John Trump had a great opportunity to realign American political
strictures, and is pi$$ing it away. I should think that the next person to follow this path (if there is one) would be somewhat
more politically savvy than Trump. (As it seems he is locked into the notion he is on a reality TV game show titled "Celebrity
President".)
More importantly, there have been a large number of articles lately on TAC which claim the old Left-Right ideological spectrum
is obsolete. About time to figure this out, as it has been obsolete for a number of decades.
There is also the presumption that present American stumbling on the international scene will allow a permanent rise of
some other country to take over the world hegemon. That is entirely possible. It may even be probable. But it is far from a certainty.
That's the interesting thing about "history". What looks obvious in the sharp glare of 20-20 hindsight is almost never so apparent
at the time.
Donald Trump's greatest political achievement is little remarked upon these days: He got elected.
Well you can describe for any elected President and it seem like elected Presidents should really have to write "I don't have
my (Opponent Name) to kick around" And really if Trump continues to knock HRC in 2018, the midterms will be a Bloodbath for Republicans.
A lot people don't like the Clintons or the Obamas, but really don't want to see Trump go after them either. That is Sean Hannity
crap and good for 20% of the population.
I think the simplest advice to Trump is lose the phone charger and let the good news dominate the headlines.
Both major candidates in the 2016 Presidential elections were right in the faults they found in each other. Trump saved the Known
Universe from a Clinton Presidency. He then went on to live up to all the dire predictions made by his opponent about his own
Presidency. A Presidency turning out as an unmitigated disaster. The sooner Trump goes away, the better.
Trump is the only change agent in contemporary American politics, along with Bernie Sanders. If Merry won't cut him considerable
slack for that–well, then Merry is part of the problem, a blind leader of the blind, and someone George Will would be glad to
have a beer with. (Not that anyone can imagine George Will having a beer.)
As with most elections in my lifetime, the last presidential election came down to a choice between which candidate seemed less
dangerous to our nation.
It appeared one candidate would have a candidacy like Richard Nixon always hated by the opposition, always under an investigation
searching for an impeachable offense and shifting positions to become more liberal in attempts to gain favor with those he believed
were moderates.
The other candidate demonstrated a long history of corruption, a belief that she was above any law and the ruthless destruction
of anyone who stood in the way of her political ambition. She didn't need to hire incompetent Cuban burglars to steal information
about political opponents, because, when she was the First Lady, the FBI delivered the files about political opponents to her
office. She had complete contempt for the law, and had an FBI and Justice Department that would protect her by blocking any significant
investigation of her shady schemes to gain personal wealth or increase her political power.
The great tragedy of Donald Trump's election was the Republican Primaries. The media turned the process into a personality
driven circus. There was no meaningful debate about issues, and those who were able to articulate conservative principles were
ignored or support divided between multiple candidates instead of a consolidating behind one candidate.
I didn't have much confidence for the Trump Presidency and he is performing beyond my expectations. I didn't think that Trumps
presidency would even last and that is one reason that I voted for him. I feared that Clinton's insatiable lust for power would
have made her perhaps the most dangerous president in our history and it may have been impossible to remove her from office.
As bad as President Trumps presidency may be, will the Democratic Party have anyone who can meet the radical standards that
the party requires for nomination and then be considered fit for office by the majority in Red States? If there are not a catastrophic
failure during the next few years President Trump will likely win a second term.
Trump never had the ideas, principles or vision to be great. His first and last interest is self promotion, and hearing applause.
It's really that simple. Rather than drain the swamp and do anything new or original, he's just a standard Republican corporatist:
cut taxes, cut regulations, cut federal nature reserves and all of this will. All Hail Reagan!
Won't get fooled again .Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Trump's governance is so far classic GOP racial, economic elitism,and exclusionism on steroids, meth, and a healthy dose of acid.
The ultimate irony is that his election was enabled by conning a large number of those who were already dispossessed by decades
of policies that enabled the economic elites into thinking he was on their side.
The man is truly the Con-mander in Chief.
Is it just a coincidence that the biggest protests since 2009 have hit Iran shortly after a secret agreement was revealed
between Washington, Tel Aviv, and Riyadh to destabilize Iran? And shortly after a new Executive Order was issued by President
Trump allowing him to seize US assets of anyone he deems a "human rights abuser" or anyone who aids a designated "human rights
abuser"? On today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
"... The first year of the Trump administration saw much more than the continuity in U.S. foreign policy that many of us expected. Trump's candidacy and then his election were greeted with alarm by almost everyone in the foreign policy establishment, with an overwhelming consensus that he stood for a so-called "isolationist" withdrawal from international affairs. This interpretation was a serious misreading of Trump's rhetoric and led to the usual knee-jerk reflex to define anything that differed from post-Cold War foreign policy as an outright rejection of all international engagement. ..."
"... Trump is not interested in disentangling the United States from foreign conflicts. Instead, he continues and expands them, as well as stoking new crises that could erupt into conflict. Trump is easily persuaded to accept conventional foreign policy positions so long as they are the more aggressive alternatives available. When he does break from consensus views, he does so in a unilateral and nationalist fashion that repudiates diplomatic compromises, rejects the legacy of his predecessor, and panders to some of his core constituencies at home. ..."
"... As 2018 begins, America is now even more deeply involved in the multiple wars that Trump inherited from Obama. There are a growing number of U.S. forces in Syria, more American soldiers have been sent to Afghanistan to continue our longest war, and U.S. backing for the Saudi-led war on Yemen has ratcheted up as well. In each case, Trump has signed off on increased U.S. involvement. ..."
"... Tensions with Iran and North Korea have both increased over the last year, and in both cases the Trump administration is to blame. Between the travel ban, the decertification of the nuclear deal, bombing Syrian government forces in the spring, belligerent speeches at the U.N. and elsewhere, and an overall regional policy defined by unremitting hostility towards Iran, Trump has mishandled relations with Tehran about as badly as a new president can. ..."
"... Considering how poorly Trump has managed issues related to Iran, it is remarkable that his handling of a much more sensitive and potentially explosive situation in the Korean Peninsula has been even worse. ..."
The first year of the Trump administration saw much more than the continuity in U.S.
foreign policy that many of us expected. Trump's candidacy and then his election were greeted
with alarm by almost everyone in the foreign policy establishment, with an overwhelming
consensus that he stood for a so-called "isolationist" withdrawal from international affairs.
This interpretation was a serious misreading of Trump's rhetoric and led to the usual knee-jerk
reflex to define anything that differed from post-Cold War foreign policy as an outright
rejection of all international engagement. As Trump's policies have shown, he is open to a
kind of international engagement, but it is one that is heavily militarized and defined by
zero-sum contests with adversaries and allies alike.
Trump is not interested in disentangling the United States from foreign conflicts.
Instead, he continues and expands them, as well as stoking new crises that could erupt into
conflict. Trump is easily persuaded to accept conventional foreign policy positions so long as
they are the more aggressive alternatives available. When he does break from consensus views,
he does so in a unilateral and nationalist fashion that repudiates diplomatic compromises,
rejects the legacy of his predecessor, and panders to some of his core constituencies at
home.
As 2018 begins, America is now even more deeply involved in the multiple wars that Trump
inherited from Obama. There are a growing number of U.S. forces in Syria, more American
soldiers have been sent to Afghanistan to continue our longest war, and U.S. backing for the
Saudi-led war on Yemen has ratcheted up as well. In each case, Trump has signed off on
increased U.S. involvement. There is evidence that the number of Americans fighting in
Afghanistan will increase in the coming year, and U.S. forces operating in Syria are set to
remain there indefinitely. U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition is even greater than it was
under Obama, and there is no sign that it will be reduced anytime soon. Unfortunately, the one
thing Trump refuses to abandon are the wars that Obama bequeathed to him.
Tensions with Iran and North Korea have both increased over the last year, and in both
cases the Trump administration is to blame. Between the travel ban, the decertification of the
nuclear deal, bombing Syrian government forces in the spring, belligerent speeches at the U.N.
and elsewhere, and an overall regional policy defined by unremitting hostility towards Iran,
Trump has mishandled relations with Tehran about as badly as a new president can. If he
next reneges on U.S. commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Trump
will risk creating a new crisis over Iran's nuclear program. If the nuclear deal does fall
apart, the risk of war with Iran would significantly increase.
Considering how poorly Trump has managed issues related to Iran, it is remarkable that
his handling of a much more sensitive and potentially explosive situation in the Korean
Peninsula has been even worse. For most of the last year, Trump has answered North Korean
provocations with bellicose rhetoric and reckless threats, and repeatedly dismissed the
possibility of entering into talks with Pyongyang to reduce tensions. He and his national
security advisor, H.R. McMaster, have been talking down the possibility of deterring North
Korea and instead insisting on an impossible goal of denuclearization. Senior members of the
Trump administration bizarrely seem to believe they can take military action against North
Korea without it escalating into a major war. On this issue, the one where Trump most needs to
be reined in by his advisors, it appears he's instead being egged on by them. There is a much
greater chance of war with North Korea today than there has been in decades. The current
administration has helped bring this about, and alarmingly it doesn't seem to have sunk in with
members of Congress or the public.
As we look ahead to 2018, the picture is not at all encouraging for those interested in
peace and restraint. The danger that the U.S. may foolishly plunge into at least one new
avoidable war is greater than it has been perhaps since the period leading up to the Iraq
invasion in 2002. It will be up to members of Congress and the public to keep the
administration from committing such a monumental blunder.
Daniel Larison is a senior writer at The American Conservative. Follow his blog and at
Twitter @DanielLarison
.
None of us who voted for him did so because we wanted him to start new wars.
We didn't want any new wars for Israel or Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, and we didn't
want new wars against Russia, China, or North Korea.
We wanted him to crush ISIS and then bring our troops home to protect our own borders.
Instead he's digging in to the Middle East and letting illegal and legal immigrants flood
into America.
The way he's going, he could be worse than Clinton, Bush II, and Obama COMBINED. And I
think we may have made a terrible mistake.
"... Remember? Nobody else was talking about immigration, the MidEast wars and the economy, much more with a politically incorrect tone and attitude. Now? We got three generals running the show. Iran looks like the next MidEast boondoggle – America first, not AIPAC – and a DACA deal is in the offing. Tax "reform", but not spending reform. . . . ..."
"... If you want to talk the talk, you got to walk the walk. Color us unimpressed. ..."
"... And opportunist. Nobody's talking about any connections between crime, construction and casinos. Natasha and Boris rather are the heavies/distractions of the moment. ..."
"... Trump rejects the bold-faced lies of Conservative Inc. in favor of his own, unique bold-faced lies. ..."
"... now he's indistinguishable from John McCain with his neocon belligerence. ..."
"... [AKA "spareus"] ..."
"... Spare us, we lived through 8 years of probably the lowest IQ president ever, you can survive Trump. ..."
Well, yeah. He talked a good talk in the campaign.
Remember? Nobody else was talking about immigration, the MidEast wars and the economy, much more with a politically incorrect
tone and attitude.
Now? We got three generals running the show. Iran looks like the next MidEast boondoggle – America first, not AIPAC – and a DACA
deal is in the offing. Tax "reform", but not spending reform. . . .
If you want to talk the talk, you got to walk the walk. Color us unimpressed.
True, anybody but Shrillary. Then again, that's not saying much. He'll be a mixed blessing, pragmatic deal maker that he is.
And opportunist. Nobody's talking about any connections between crime, construction and casinos. Natasha and Boris rather
are the heavies/distractions of the moment. Meanwhile the warfare/welfare state descent continues as usual, only with a little
more flag waving than under Geo. W. Obama. But the flags, like the MAGA hats are Hecho in Chino.
Hey, I've heard the koolaid is first come, first served. You're welcome to it.
Weissberg never fails to ignore the elephant in the conservative living room: Israel.
Like Derb, he complains about the cant, the dishonesty, and the conformity among our political leaders and chattering class
involving race and gender, but he strategically ignores the background and loyalties of so many of the architects and enablers
of 'political correctness'.
Yes, political correctness has many losers. We agree on that. They are primarily, white males. But there are many winners,
too. And the beneficiaries are not just blacks, Hispanics and women.
It must be acknowledged that Jews benefit in countless ways via political correctness. There are now strict taboos, sacred
monuments and entire academic specialities that 'study' Jewish victimhood and 'anti-Semitism'. This is a relatively new phenomena
in America. And it came to us via the political correctness movement that began during and after the 60′s. Has Weissberg not noticed?
But the boogeyman of 'white racism' empowers not only underperforming blacks and other protected minorities', but the world's
most famous victim group.
PC stratagems include incessant warnings, lectures and taboos targeting white identity, 'white patriarchy', 'white racists'
and white 'supremacism' that allegedly animates 'prejudiced' whites into wanting to preserve their race and their civilization.
Pretty silly, huh?
Wanting to preserve one's race and culture. Imagine that.
At the same time, there's a lot of top-down lecturing going on in PC-land that concerns 'anti-Semitism', 'The Holocaust' and
of course 'Islamo-fascism'. And don't forget precious Israel. Oh the horror!
Who benefits from all these contrivances?
You can bet that the neocon Good Guys find a way to get all the bad (white) fascists and 'Islamo-fascists' under control. Censorship
is one way. Bombs another.
God save democracy! Protect freedom! God save nuclear Israel!
Weissberg is surely sincere in many of his writings. But he is also shedding crocodile tears over the relatively minor difficulties
he faces as a well-paid college professor who derives a lot of protection via his religious identity and special history. But
what if we refuse to take all this seriously?
Are we allowed to?
Indeed, Weissberg is an influential and affluent member of the world's most 'endangered' victim group. This surely counts for
something. Maybe he should take a look at this.
Weissberg may complain about America's near-open Borders policies, but what elite and shadowy community has played a central
role in the the slow-motion displacement of Euro-Americans over the past half century?
Another question I have is this: why should Americans shed blood to protect Israel's security (via the destruction of Iraq,
Libya, Syria and coming soon, Iran) while we ignore our own borders and our own racial composition?
Care to speculate, Mr. Weissberg?
In a similar vein, hasn't Hollywood and the dominant ((media)) played a central role shaping popular attitudes concerning so
many of the dangerous changes and glaring double standards that you, Mr. Weissberg, decry?
So why not go after them?
All of them.
It's time to take the next step. Please examine (and name) the biggest donors, Mr. Weissberg, as well as the moguls and TV
executives who have empowered the 'political correctness' movement that now undermines our Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.
These are our adversaries.
Will you join us?
In case you haven't figured it out, the disloyal opposition would be a 'Who's Who' of Hollywood, Wall Street, K Street, and
of higher education. On top of that, alt-right dissenters are generally banned, defamed, attacked or exiled.
And speaking of Hollywood, let's not forget Tinseltown's full-0n glamorization of black/white miscegenation in film, broadcasting,
and even TV commercials. Interesting, no?
Is this sudden image transition a response to America's viewing and lifestyle preferences?–or is it a top-down propaganda campaign
targeting white America?
And since you love The Donald so much, Mr. Weissberg, please review Trump's campaign promises (no 'unnecessary' Mideast wars,
'peace' with Russia) against his pro-Zionist, neo-con hawkishness that now exemplifies his presidency. It is nothing less than
a head-spinning reversal.
I've never been to democratic Israel, but I bet film and TV moguls there don't produce a lot of 'entertainment' that glorifies
Arab/Jewish romance or that makes references to 'Judeo-Christian' ties. Am I wrong about this?
And it's interesting that modern 'secular' America–a nation where Jews have achieved a pinnacle of wealth and influence–now
embraces the imaginary doctrine that all the world's people are 'equal' and therefore interchangeable. This is a modern ruse.
And only white Americans are instructed to digest this kosher canard.
What are we to make of these extraordinary double standards?
Should (non-Jewish) whites be allowed to coalesce around their European-derived identity in a fashion similar to what's now
enjoyed by 'minorities' such as Chinese, Hispanics, blacks gays, women and Jews?–even it means 'discriminating' against members
of those privileged groups?
There's a lot to this story. There are many big questions. Yet Weissberg keeps missing them. Why?
Is Weissberg himself a 'wimp'?–or is he secretly working for the opposition?
Trump rejects the bold-faced lies of Conservative Inc. in favor of his own, unique bold-faced lies. And he cucked on David Duke,
"white supremacists" and Charlottesville. And now he's indistinguishable from John McCain with his neocon belligerence.
I'm pleased to see how many commenters are criticizing Mr. Weissberg for his focus on easy targets and his painfully naïve, remaining
enthusiasm for President Trump. The election was held over a year ago, and it is now pretty clear that the man may not even have
understood, much less believed, those speeches written by Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller. It's one thing to have cast a vote (I didn't),
but to at this point laud President Trump for merely annoying one's foes is gullible or misleading.
I hope that the author will find the time and muster the courage to address the critical commentary, as do the better writers
published here. But I expect that he'll not, and revert in his next column to the whack-a-black stuff that goes over better with
some of the readership.
Oh spare us your peal clutching cynicism. If Obama had made a similar joke about "my button's bigger, and it works", the Left
would be doing the whole "OMG, our guy's cooler than yours" routine.
Remember, he was the "cool" president that made fun of the retarded ("Special Olympics" joke at his poor bowling, gutter balls
not as bad as his 2 for 22 freethrow shots though), the Ivy-league guy who thought Americans liberated Auschwitz (the Soviets
did, idiot, and people thought Bush was stupid?) oh, and the guy who thinks people in Austria, speak ."Austrian"
Spare us, we lived through 8 years of probably the lowest IQ president ever, you can survive Trump.
I wish President Trump would make Conservatism, Inc. mad with his policies and not his style.
Absolutely spot on. The thumb Trump occasionally sticks into the eye of Conservative Inc. is all for show. E.g. NFL players
kneeling or Civil War statues. Akin to Obama playing big at getting men wearing dresses into ladies locker rooms. Both Obama and
Trump live by Chickensh*t cheap grace diversions for the base.
Where the rubber meets the road Trump is Hyper-Crony:
An advisory cabal of war-monger Generals and Neocons. Resulting in even more of the obsolete and unaffordable America as Global
Cop model with its hyper-expensive marauding War Machine. All billed to the deluded taxpayers played for chumps. (To say nothing
of the the pathetic, obsequious sanctification of the military amplified by the Pentagon/MIC/MSM propaganda machine.)
A domestic advisory cabal saturated by Goldman Sachs parasites who actively game the system to ensure the Crony Banksters always
get theirs.
Next to no meaningful workplace enforcement of immigration law. The Big Ag, Big Food Processing, Big Construction, Big Fast
Food Restaurant, "Big XYZ", Cronies haven't been touched by enforcement raids. Big Tech has not been touched with audits to uncover
H-1B discrimmination of American Citizen technologists. With aggressive workplace enforcement accompanied by huge fines and jail
time for employer-violators there would little need for the "Wall" and the program would pay for itself. Only Trump is too cronied-up
to implement the obvious.
Zotzing out Obamacare and replacing it with nothing. Because Trump's base will no longer be penalized for not buying the unaffordable
Obamacare does nothing to get them access to care when they need it. Health care is continuing to implode while Trump tweets bullsh*t
diversions.
Trump is a weasel sell-out who gets by with the phony schtick that mesmerizes even Robert Weissberg. The fact that Weissberg
falls for it suggests he is so clueless, his future submissions to the Unz Review should be rejected for that reason alone.
I wish President Trump would make Conservatism, Inc. mad with his policies and not his style.
Absolutely spot on. The thumb Trump occasionally sticks into the eye of Conservative Inc. is all for show. E.g. NFL players
kneeling or Civil War statues. Akin to Obama playing big at getting men wearing dresses into ladies locker rooms. Both Obama and
Trump live by Chickensh*t cheap grace diversions for the base.
Where the rubber meets the road Trump is Hyper-Crony:
An advisory cabal of war-monger Generals and Neocons. Resulting in even more of the obsolete and unaffordable America as Global
Cop model with its hyper-expensive marauding War Machine. All billed to the deluded taxpayers played for chumps. (To say nothing
of the the pathetic, obsequious sanctification of the military amplified by the Pentagon/MIC/MSM propaganda machine.)
A domestic advisory cabal saturated by Goldman Sachs parasites who actively game the system to ensure the Crony Banksters always
get theirs.
Next to no meaningful workplace enforcement of immigration law. The Big Ag, Big Food Processing, Big Construction, Big Fast
Food Restaurant, "Big XYZ", Cronies haven't been touched by enforcement raids. Big Tech has not been touched with audits to uncover
H-1B discrimmination of American Citizen technologists. With aggressive workplace enforcement accompanied by huge fines and jail
time for employer-violators there would little need for the "Wall" and the program would pay for itself. Only Trump is too cronied-up
to implement the obvious.
Zotzing out Obamacare and replacing it with nothing. Because Trump's base will no longer be penalized for not buying the unaffordable
Obamacare does nothing to get them access to care when they need it. Health care is continuing to implode while Trump tweets bullsh*t
diversions.
Trump is a weasel sell-out who gets by with the phony schtick that mesmerizes even Robert Weissberg. The fact that Weissberg
falls for it suggests he is so clueless, his future submissions to the Unz Review should be rejected for that reason alone.
"If Obama had made a similar joke about "my button's bigger, and it works", the Left would be doing the whole "OMG, our
guy's cooler than yours" routine."
Obama actually did make this sort of joke at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2010, and it was lapped up by the fawning
audience, when he pointed out the Jonas brothers and said
"Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it
coming."
This is a general problem that conservatives have. I as a socialist have wodered where the salonfähig conservative agenda has
gone. As it is now mos European conservatives has swung even further right almost and in some cases to the Fascist end of spectre.
Fascism is not (yet) and hopefully ever salonfähig. The populism that the conservatives enjoy in Europe is clearly founded on
xenophobia, a mass influx of refugees from the war in Syria. The refugees while I regard them as legitimate has been infected
by swathes of migrant workers of Africa, which are not legitimate. Let them rot in paver camps. That is a socialist dogma, but
it is my opinion, none the less, EU cant solve Africa's problems. It has done what it can with trade ect. but Africas corrupt
rulers skim it almost universally.
The American conservative died the moment people realised he was just as bought as the Democratic opponent, Wall Street , the
MIC, al of them with highly paid lobbyists. American democracy is dead, it is a kabuki theater, that is why we got Trump, the
most incapable ever president, but maybe also the only not directly bought by others. But Trump forgot the idiom "Give the Caesar
, what is due " whether he means well or not, he will heed the will of the deep state.
It is a tragedy.
"... He talked about the welfare of Syrians as essential to preventing new terrorist outbreaks, about resettling refugees, about working with foreign partners, about the peace process. "All the parties involved should resist the temptation to take advantage of short-term political goals," ..."
Syria. Putin did not distinguish between the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, which
is in keeping with Russia's policy since it intervened at the Assad government's request two
years ago. But he spoke about post–conflict challenges, notably. While most terrorist
groups have been defeated, he said, there is a mop-up phase to complete. Russian forces have
begun to withdraw, thus, but some will remain. This is what one would have expected. He had no
comment on the Pentagon's recent announcement that US security forces will remain on Syrian
soil indefinitely.
The interesting part of Putin's remarks on Syria, at least to me, concerned Russia's
responsibilities now that the war is over. He talked about the welfare of Syrians as
essential to preventing new terrorist outbreaks, about resettling refugees, about working with
foreign partners, about the peace process. "All the parties involved should resist the
temptation to take advantage of short-term political goals,"
Putin asserted. This is a healthy handful of tasks on which Russia now must prove out.
Especially for those who supported Moscow's defense of Damascus to prevent Syria's collapse
into another Libya or Iraq, it is time to watch the Russians. This will be their most
importance performance since, by way of the Syria conflict, they have assumed a more
influential role in the region.
"... Haley's remarks are consistent with the Trump administration's hopeless North Korea policy. She is insisting that North Korea do something it has said it will never do, and she says that it will have to do this before the U.S. begins to "take seriously" any negotiations North Korea enters into. Setting preconditions for talks is bad enough, but here Haley is setting absurd, deal-breaking preconditions that even she has to know will never be accepted. ..."
"... Certainly she is looking down the road, when she knows she will need the moneyed interests of those groups who support using the American military to further their goals.. She has the cover of being the thug without the responsibility of using force.. ..."
"... I know I'm a broken record on this, but is there really no one left in the realm of American foreign policy who understands the saying, "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way"? ..."
Our ambassador to the U.N. doesn't understand anything about diplomacy:
Nikki Haley on reports South Korea is proposing talks with North Korea: "We will not take
any of the talk seriously if they don't do something to ban all nuclear weapons in North
Korea." https://t.co/RaGT9E3dRtpic.twitter.com/pVyCc9VxzD
Haley's remarks are consistent with the Trump administration's hopeless North Korea policy.
She is insisting that North Korea do something it has said it will never do, and she says that
it will have to do this before the U.S. begins to "take seriously" any negotiations North Korea
enters into. Setting preconditions for talks is bad enough, but here Haley is setting absurd,
deal-breaking preconditions that even she has to know will never be accepted.
There is no more obvious non-starter than demanding that the other side surrender before
negotiations even begin. By dismissing all talks that precede denuclearization, Haley is
restating the administration's complete refusal to compromise and its utter contempt for
diplomacy as a tool of statecraft. It is an exceptionally obtuse and unreasonable position to
take when there is an opportunity to open negotiations with Pyongyang, and I expect that our
regional allies will be as baffled as they are disturbed by it.
This is standard operating procedure as far as the U.S. goes.
1. 2008 – U.S. insists that Iran has to dismantle their entire nuclear infrastructure
as a precondition of 'negotiations'. HRC cackles that the additional sanctions she put in
place 'brought Iran back to the negotiating table'. Obama, to his credit, accepts Iran's
original claim to their right to enrich uranium to produce their own fuel but the myth that
sanctions brought 'them' to the negotiating table lives on.
2. The U.S. torpedoes Geneva peace plan in 2012 (Obama's bad moment) by making it a
requirement that Assad (and his cronies) have to resign and be barred from new elections in
Syria. End result, civil war continues for another 5yrs, Saudi backed rebels are still
demanding that Assad has to step down even after getting whipped on the battlefield.
So as bad as Nikki Haley is, sadly, she is not uncommon but rather she is the pinnacle of
what passes in the U.S. for diplomacy.
Certainly she is looking down the road, when she knows she will need the moneyed interests of
those groups who support using the American military to further their goals.. She has the
cover of being the thug without the responsibility of using force..
Like most everyone still involved with trump at this point, they are trying to maximize
whatever window they have to benefit themselves..
After citizens united they just might get away with it, but they have no feelings of
responsibility to our country, IMO..
I know I'm a broken record on this, but is there really no one left in the realm of American
foreign policy who understands the saying, "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have
your way"?
Maybe South Korea will take its rightful place and carry out its own policy toward North
Korea. Then the Trump administration will get angry and threaten to pull out all of our
troops. South Korea will be courageous and continue its own policy. Then our troops will
leave. The best result for South Korea and North Korea. And best for us, since we will no
longer be wasting time and money there, as well as placing our troops in danger for no valid
purpose.
@Paul Well, the
real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the
9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who
pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one
element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying
mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop
believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other
neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and
anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation,
sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power
groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against
using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack
Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps
to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11
was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you.
How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
"... Haley's remarks are consistent with the Trump administration's hopeless North Korea policy. She is insisting that North Korea do something it has said it will never do, and she says that it will have to do this before the U.S. begins to "take seriously" any negotiations North Korea enters into. Setting preconditions for talks is bad enough, but here Haley is setting absurd, deal-breaking preconditions that even she has to know will never be accepted. ..."
"... Certainly she is looking down the road, when she knows she will need the moneyed interests of those groups who support using the American military to further their goals.. She has the cover of being the thug without the responsibility of using force.. ..."
"... I know I'm a broken record on this, but is there really no one left in the realm of American foreign policy who understands the saying, "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way"? ..."
Our ambassador to the U.N. doesn't understand anything about diplomacy:
Nikki Haley on reports South Korea is proposing talks with North Korea: "We will not take
any of the talk seriously if they don't do something to ban all nuclear weapons in North
Korea." https://t.co/RaGT9E3dRtpic.twitter.com/pVyCc9VxzD
Haley's remarks are consistent with the Trump administration's hopeless North Korea policy.
She is insisting that North Korea do something it has said it will never do, and she says that
it will have to do this before the U.S. begins to "take seriously" any negotiations North Korea
enters into. Setting preconditions for talks is bad enough, but here Haley is setting absurd,
deal-breaking preconditions that even she has to know will never be accepted.
There is no more obvious non-starter than demanding that the other side surrender before
negotiations even begin. By dismissing all talks that precede denuclearization, Haley is
restating the administration's complete refusal to compromise and its utter contempt for
diplomacy as a tool of statecraft. It is an exceptionally obtuse and unreasonable position to
take when there is an opportunity to open negotiations with Pyongyang, and I expect that our
regional allies will be as baffled as they are disturbed by it.
This is standard operating procedure as far as the U.S. goes.
1. 2008 – U.S. insists that Iran has to dismantle their entire nuclear infrastructure
as a precondition of 'negotiations'. HRC cackles that the additional sanctions she put in
place 'brought Iran back to the negotiating table'. Obama, to his credit, accepts Iran's
original claim to their right to enrich uranium to produce their own fuel but the myth that
sanctions brought 'them' to the negotiating table lives on.
2. The U.S. torpedoes Geneva peace plan in 2012 (Obama's bad moment) by making it a
requirement that Assad (and his cronies) have to resign and be barred from new elections in
Syria. End result, civil war continues for another 5yrs, Saudi backed rebels are still
demanding that Assad has to step down even after getting whipped on the battlefield.
So as bad as Nikki Haley is, sadly, she is not uncommon but rather she is the pinnacle of
what passes in the U.S. for diplomacy.
Certainly she is looking down the road, when she knows she will need the moneyed interests of
those groups who support using the American military to further their goals.. She has the
cover of being the thug without the responsibility of using force..
Like most everyone still involved with trump at this point, they are trying to maximize
whatever window they have to benefit themselves..
After citizens united they just might get away with it, but they have no feelings of
responsibility to our country, IMO..
I know I'm a broken record on this, but is there really no one left in the realm of American
foreign policy who understands the saying, "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have
your way"?
Maybe South Korea will take its rightful place and carry out its own policy toward North
Korea. Then the Trump administration will get angry and threaten to pull out all of our
troops. South Korea will be courageous and continue its own policy. Then our troops will
leave. The best result for South Korea and North Korea. And best for us, since we will no
longer be wasting time and money there, as well as placing our troops in danger for no valid
purpose.
"... The central groupthink around Russia-gate is the still unproven claim that Russia hacked Democratic emails in 2016 and publicized them via WikiLeaks, a crucial issue that NSA experts say should be easy to prove if true, reports Dennis J. Bernstein. ..."
"... Binney: We at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) published an article on this in July. First of all, if any of the data went anywhere across the fiber optic world, the NSA would know. Just inside the United States, the NSA has over a hundred tap points on the fiber lines, taking in everything. ..."
"... The other data that came out from Guccifer 2.0, a download from the DNC, has been a charade. It was a download and not a transfer across the Web. The Web won't manage such a high speed. It could not have gotten across the Atlantic at that high speed. You would have to have high capacity lines dedicated to that in order to do it. They have been playing games with us. There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here. ..."
"... Bernstein: Let me come at this from the other side. Has the United States ever tried to hack into and undermine Russian operations in this way? ..."
"... Binney: Oh, sure. We do it as much as anybody else. In the Ukraine, for example, we sponsored regime change. When someone who was pro-Soviet was elected president, we orchestrated a coup to put our man in power. ..."
"... Did the US meddle in the Russian elections that brought Yeltsin to power? ..."
"... I believe they did. We try to leverage our power and influence elections around the world. ..."
"... Binney: Yes, to defend privacy but also to defend the Constitution. Right now, our government is violating the first, fourth and fifth amendments in various ways. Mueller did it, Comey did it, they were all involved in violating the Constitution. ..."
"... Bernstein: There seems to be a new McCarthyite operation around the Russia-gate investigation. It appears that it is an attempt to justify the idea that Clinton lost because the Russians undermined the election. ..."
"... Bernstein: It was initially put out that seventeen intelligence agencies found compelling evidence that the Russians hacked into our election. You're saying it was actually selected individuals from just three agencies. Is there anything to the revelations that FBI agents talked about taking action to prevent Trump from becoming president? ..."
"... Binney: It certainly does seem that it is leaning that way, that is was all a frame-up. It is a sad time in our history, to see the government working against itself internally ..."
"... Bernstein: What concerns do you have regarding the Russia-gate investigation and the McCarthyite tactics that are being employed? ..."
"... Binney: Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with Russia. We should definitely not be going down that path. We need to get out of all these wars. I am also concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We are trampling the fundamental principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to start indicting people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly unconstitutional. ..."
The central groupthink around Russia-gate is the still unproven claim that Russia hacked
Democratic emails in 2016 and publicized them via WikiLeaks, a crucial issue that NSA experts
say should be easy to prove if true, reports Dennis J. Bernstein.
A changing-places moment brought about by Russia-gate is that liberals who are usually more
skeptical of U.S. intelligence agencies, especially their evidence-free claims, now question
the patriotism of Americans who insist that the intelligence community supply proof to support
the dangerous claims about Russian 'hacking" of Democratic emails especially when some veteran
U.S. government experts say the data would be easily available if the Russians indeed were
guilty.
One of those experts is William Binney, a former high-level National Security Agency
intelligence official who, after his 2001 retirement, blew the whistle on the extraordinary
breadth of NSA surveillance programs. His outspoken criticism of the NSA during the George W.
Bush administration made him the subject of FBI investigations that included a raid on his home
in 2007.
Even before Edward Snowden's NSA whistleblowing, Binney publicly revealed that NSA had
access to telecommunications companies' domestic and international billing records, and that
since 9/11 the agency has intercepted some 15 trillion to 20 trillion communications. Snowden
has said: "I have tremendous respect for Binney, who did everything he could according to the
rules."
I spoke to Binney on Dec. 28 about Russia-gate and a host of topics having to do with
spying and America's expanding
national security state.
Dennis Bernstein: I would like you to begin by telling us a little about your background at
the NSA and how you got there.
William Binney: I was in the United States Army from 1965 to 1969. They put me in the
Army Security Agency, an affiliate of the NSA. They liked the work I was doing and they put me
on a priority hire in 1970. I was in the NSA for 32 years, mostly working against the Soviet
Union and the Warsaw Pact. I was solving what were called "wizard puzzles," and the NSA was
sometimes referred to as the "Puzzle Palace." I had to solve code systems and work on cyber
systems and data systems to be able to predict in advance the "intentions and capabilities of
adversaries or potential adversaries."
Bernstein: At a certain point you ran amiss of your supervisors. What did you come to
understand and try to tell people that got you in dutch with your higher-ups?
Binney: By 1998-1999, the "digital issue" was basically solved. This created a
problem for the upper ranks because at the time they were lobbying Congress for $3.8 billion to
continue working on what we had already accomplished. That lobby was started in 1989 for a
separate program called Trailblazer, which failed miserably in 2005-2006. We had to brief
Congress on how we were progressing and my information ran contrary to the efforts downtown to
secure more funding. And so this caused a problem internally.
We learned from some of our staff members in Congress that several of the corporations that
were getting contracts from the NSA were downtown lobbying against our program in Congress.
This is the military industrial complex in action. That lobby was supported by the NSA
management because they just wanted more money to build a bigger empire.
But Dick Cheney, who was behind all of this, wanted it because he grew up under Nixon, who
always wanted to know what his political enemies were thinking and doing. This kind of approach
of bulk acquisition of everything was possible after you removed certain segments of our
software and they used it against the entire digital world. Cheney wanted to know who his
political enemies were and get updates about them at any time.
Bernstein: Your expertise was in the Soviet Union and so you must know a lot about
bugging. Do you believe that Russia hacked and undermined our last election? Can Trump thank
Russia for the result?
Binney: We at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) published an
article on this in July. First of all, if any of the data went anywhere across the fiber optic
world, the NSA would know. Just inside the United States, the NSA has over a hundred tap points
on the fiber lines, taking in everything. Mark Klein exposed some of this at the AT&T
facility in San Francisco.
This is not for foreigners, by the way, this is for targeting US citizens. If they wanted
only foreigners, all they would have to do was look at the transatlantic cables where they
surface on the coast of the United States. But they are not there, they are distributed among
the US population.
Bernstein: So if, in fact, the Russians were tapping into DNC headquarters, the NSA
would absolutely know about it.
Binney: Yes, and they would also have trace routes on where they went specifically,
in Russia or anywhere else. If you remember, about three or four years ago, the Chinese hacked
into somewhere in the United States and our government came out and confirmed that it was the
Chinese who did it, and it came from a specific military facility in Shanghai. The NSA had
these trace route programs embedded by the hundreds across the US and all around the world.
The other data that came out from Guccifer 2.0, a download from the DNC, has been a
charade. It was a download and not a transfer across the Web. The Web won't manage such a high
speed. It could not have gotten across the Atlantic at that high speed. You would have to have
high capacity lines dedicated to that in order to do it. They have been playing games with us.
There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here.
Bernstein: So was this a leak by somebody at Democratic headquarters?
Binney: We don't know that for sure, either. All we know was that it was a local
download. We can likely attribute it to a USB device that was physically passed along.
Bernstein: Let me come at this from the other side. Has the United States ever tried
to hack into and undermine Russian operations in this way?
Binney: Oh, sure. We do it as much as anybody else. In the Ukraine, for example, we
sponsored regime change. When someone who was pro-Soviet was elected president, we orchestrated
a coup to put our man in power.
Then we invited the Ukraine into NATO. One of the agreements we made with the Russians when
the Soviet Union fell apart was that the Ukraine would give them their nuclear weapons to
manage and that we would not move NATO further east toward Russia. I think they made a big
mistake when they asked Ukraine to join NATO. They should have asked Russia to join as well,
making it all-inclusive. If you treat people as adversaries, they are going to act that
way.
Bernstein:Did the US meddle in the Russian elections that brought Yeltsin to
power?
Binney:I believe they did. We try to leverage our power and influence elections
around the world.
Bernstein: What has your group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, been
up to, and what has been the US government's response?
Binney: We have been discussing privacy and security with the European Union and with a
number of European parliaments. Recently the Austrian supreme court ruled that the entire bulk
acquisition system was unconstitutional. Everyone but the conservatives in the Austrian
parliament voted that bill down, making Austria the first country there to do the right
thing.
A slide from material leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden to the Washington Post,
showing what happens when an NSA analyst "tasks" the PRISM system for information about a new
surveillance target.
Bernstein: Is it your goal to defend people's privacy and their right to communicate
privately?
Binney: Yes, to defend privacy but also to defend the Constitution. Right now,
our government is violating the first, fourth and fifth amendments in various ways. Mueller did
it, Comey did it, they were all involved in violating the Constitution.
Back in the 1990's, the idea was to make our analysts effective so that they could see
threats coming before they happened and alert people to take action so that lives would be
saved. What happens now is that people go out and kill someone and then the NSA and the FBI go
on a forensics mission. Intelligence is supposed to tell you in advance when a crime is coming
so that you can do something to avert it. They have lost that perspective.
Bernstein: They now have access to every single one of our electronic conversations,
is that right? The human mind has a hard time imagining how you could contain, move and study
all that information.
Binney: Basically, it is achievable because most of the processing is done by machine
so it doesn't cost human energy.
Bernstein: There seems to be a new McCarthyite operation around the Russia-gate
investigation. It appears that it is an attempt to justify the idea that Clinton lost because
the Russians undermined the election.
Binney: I have seen no evidence at all from anybody, including the intelligence
community. If you look at the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) report, they state on the
first page that "We have high confidence that the Russians did this." But when you get toward
the end of the report, they basically confess that "our judgment does not imply that we have
evidence to back it up."
Bernstein: It was initially put out that seventeen intelligence agencies found
compelling evidence that the Russians hacked into our election. You're saying it was actually
selected individuals from just three agencies. Is there anything to the revelations that FBI
agents talked about taking action to prevent Trump from becoming president?
Binney: It certainly does seem that it is leaning that way, that is was all a
frame-up. It is a sad time in our history, to see the government working against itself
internally.
Bernstein: I take it you are not a big supporter of Trump.
Binney: Well, I voted for him. I couldn't vote for a warmonger like Clinton. She
wanted to see our planes shooting down Russian planes in Syria. She advocated for destabilizing
Libya, for getting rid of Assad in Syria, she was a strong backer of the war in Iraq.
Bernstein: What concerns do you have regarding the Russia-gate investigation and
the McCarthyite tactics that are being employed?
Binney: Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with
Russia. We should definitely not be going down that path. We need to get out of all these wars.
I am also concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We are trampling the
fundamental principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to
start indicting people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly
unconstitutional.
@Paul Well, the
real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the
9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who
pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one
element of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying
mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop
believing any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other
neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and
anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation,
sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power
groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against
using terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack
Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps
to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11
was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you.
How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
ho is Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the 30-year-old White House aide who could be a key player in the blockbuster
investigation into Russian ties to President Trump and his campaign?
Cohen-Watnick, 30, who
The New York Times reports
provided key information in the probe, is a once fast-rising protege of ousted
Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn with deep roots in suburban Washington's Jewish community.
The paper identified him as one of two staffers who explosively gave information on intelligence gathering in
the Russia probe to Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a move that potentially
compromised the lawmaker's role in the bombshell probe.
Cohen-Watnick grew up in Chevy Chase, Maryland, just outside the nation's capital, and attended the nearby
Conservative synagogue Ohr Kodesh. Last November he celebrated his engagement to Rebecca Miller at the synagogue.
He attended the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in 2008. Cohen-Watnick began working as an intelligence
analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency after college. At the DIA, Cohen-Watnick met Flynn, the then-director
who was later removed from his position during the Obama administration.
After Trump won the November election, Flynn brought Cohen-Watnick from the DIA to the Trump transition team,
where the young staffer, according to
The Washington Post,
was among the few Trump advisers to hold a top security clearance. He participated in
high-level intelligence briefings and briefed Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and their team on national security
issues.
When Flynn was appointed to lead the National Security Council, he hired Cohen-Watnick to work with him there.
But Flynn served as national security adviser for less than a month before being asked to leave following
revelations that he had maintained ties with Russia during the campaign.
Flynn's successor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, sought to remove Cohen-Watnick from the team, following input from
the CIA director who pointed to problems intelligence officers had when dealing with Cohen-Watnick. Questions were
raised about his ability to carry out the position of senior NSC director for intelligence programs, who oversees
ties with intelligence agencies and vets information that should reach the president's desk.
But Cohen-Watnick was spared when Trump personally intervened, reportedly after top White House aides Sphen
Bannon and Jared Kushner stepped in. Cohen-Watnick still serves as senior director at the NSC.
Cohen-Watnick is known for holding hawkish views on national security issues and of being a proponent of an
American tough line toward Iran.
The Times said that Cohen-Watnick became swept up in the Russia probe this month, shortly after Trump wrote on
Twitter about unsubstantiated claims of being wiretapped on the orders of the former president Barack Obama.
Cohen-Watnick apparently was reviewing highly classified reports detailing the intercepted communications of
foreign officials that consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about how they were
trying to curry favor with Trump's family and inner circle in advance of his inauguration.
He and another aide, identified as Michael Ellis, came across information that Trump aides may have been
inadvertently caught on some of the surveillance.
Nunes says he went to the White House to meet with the aides, whom he has refused to identify. Nunes wolud not
share the information with his colleagues on the committee but did brief Trump, raising major questions about his
independence.
Cohen-Watnick, 30, who
The New York Times reports
provided key information in the probe, is a once fast-rising protege of ousted
Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn with deep roots in suburban Washington's Jewish community.
The paper identified him as one of two staffers who explosively gave information on intelligence gathering in
the Russia probe to Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a move that potentially
compromised the lawmaker's role in the bombshell probe.
Cohen-Watnick grew up in Chevy Chase, Maryland, just outside the nation's capital, and attended the nearby
Conservative synagogue Ohr Kodesh. Last November he celebrated his engagement to Rebecca Miller at the synagogue.
He attended the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in 2008. Cohen-Watnick began working as an intelligence
analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency after college. At the DIA, Cohen-Watnick met Flynn, the then-director
who was later removed from his position during the Obama administration.
After Trump won the November election, Flynn brought Cohen-Watnick from the DIA to the Trump transition team,
where the young staffer, according to
The Washington Post,
was among the few Trump advisers to hold a top security clearance. He participated in
high-level intelligence briefings and briefed Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and their team on national security
issues.
When Flynn was appointed to lead the National Security Council, he hired Cohen-Watnick to work with him there.
But Flynn served as national security adviser for less than a month before being asked to leave following
revelations that he had maintained ties with Russia during the campaign.
Flynn's successor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, sought to remove Cohen-Watnick from the team, following input from
the CIA director who pointed to problems intelligence officers had when dealing with Cohen-Watnick. Questions were
raised about his ability to carry out the position of senior NSC director for intelligence programs, who oversees
ties with intelligence agencies and vets information that should reach the president's desk.
But Cohen-Watnick was spared when Trump personally intervened, reportedly after top White House aides Sphen
Bannon and Jared Kushner stepped in. Cohen-Watnick still serves as senior director at the NSC.
Cohen-Watnick is known for holding hawkish views on national security issues and of being a proponent of an
American tough line toward Iran.
The Times said that Cohen-Watnick became swept up in the Russia probe this month, shortly after Trump wrote on
Twitter about unsubstantiated claims of being wiretapped on the orders of the former president Barack Obama.
Cohen-Watnick apparently was reviewing highly classified reports detailing the intercepted communications of
foreign officials that consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about how they were
trying to curry favor with Trump's family and inner circle in advance of his inauguration.
He and another aide, identified as Michael Ellis, came across information that Trump aides may have been
inadvertently caught on some of the surveillance.
Nunes says he went to the White House to meet with the aides, whom he has refused to identify. Nunes wolud not
share the information with his colleagues on the committee but did brief Trump, raising major questions about his
independence.
"... In totalitarian systems where the media does nothing but churn out propaganda, people learn to read between the lines. You understand what is really going on by inferring what they don't want you to know from what they do what you to know. ..."
"... Why would you not believe "unnamed officials"? But what we are seeing very obviously is some of the shape and texture of the war based on who is being targeted and why. While those doing the targeting are "unnamed", their targets are named. And that tells us also about those doing the targeting. ..."
In totalitarian systems where the media does nothing but churn
out propaganda, people learn to read between the lines. You understand what is really going on
by inferring what they don't want you to know from what they do what you to know.
The interesting thing about the current political conflict is which key anti-terrorist Trump
figures are being targeted. Flynn was a major target. Then Gorka. The case of Gorka made the
targeting obvious. You can tell the targeting when if the first attack fails, they come back
with a second one.
Now there's Ezra Watnick-Cohen. He showed up in the news recently when McMaster attempted
to replace him with an establishment infiltrator.
President Donald Trump has overruled a decision by his national security adviser, Lt. Gen.
H.R. McMaster, to sideline a key intelligence operative who fell out of favor with some at
the Central Intelligence Agency, two sources told POLITICO.
On Friday, McMaster told the National Security Council's senior director for intelligence
programs, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, that he would be moved to another position in the
organization.
The conversation followed weeks of pressure from career officials at the CIA who had
expressed reservations about the 30-year-old intelligence operative and pushed for his
ouster.
But Cohen-Watnick appealed McMaster's decision to two influential allies with whom he had
forged a relationship while working on Trump's transition team -- White House advisers Steve
Bannon and Jared Kushner. They brought the matter to Trump on Sunday, and the president
agreed that Cohen-Watnick should remain as the NSC's intelligence director, according to two
people with knowledge of the episode.
Cohen-Watnick was brought onto Trump's transition team and then the NSC by a leading
critic of the CIA: retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was Cohen-Watnick's boss at the
Defense Intelligence Agency and preceded McMaster as national security adviser.
Cohen-Watnick and Flynn "saw eye to eye about the failings of the CIA human intelligence
operations," said a Washington consultant who travels in intelligence circles. "The CIA saw
him as a threat, so they tried to unseat him and replace him with an agency loyalist," the
operative said.
Two sources within the White House tell me that last week McMaster had interviewed a
potential replacement for Cohen-Watnick: longtime CIA official Linda Weissgold. Weissgold
apparently had a good interview with McMaster, as she was overheard saying as she left the
White House she would next have to "talk to Pompeo" -- as in Mike Pompeo, the director of the
CIA. But Weissgold was never offered the job; days later, Trump himself overruled the effort
to move Cohen-Watnick out of his senior director role.
During the Obama administration Weissgold served as director of the CIA's Office of
Terrorism Analysis. She was among those who briefed Congress following the Benghazi terrorist
attack in 2012, a team of intelligence and military experts who reportedly earned the
nickname "the dream team" within the administration.
In her position at OTA, she was also involved directly in drafting the now infamous
Benghazi talking points, which government officials revised heavily to include factually
incorrect assessments that stated the attackers were prompted by protests. According to the
House Select Committee on Benghazi's report, Weissgold testified she had changed one such
talking point to say that extremists in Benghazi with ties to al Qaeda had been involved in
"protests" in the Libyan city, despite the fact that no such protests had occurred there on
the day of the attack.
McMaster's interview of Weissgold last week raised eyebrows beyond the White House, with
members of the congressional oversight committees expressing concerns about Weissgold to top
officials in the White House and the intelligence community.
A Jewish security official has been named as the confidential source of House Intelligence
Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) following claims that US President Donald Trump and his
aides were swept up in surveillance by US intelligence agencies, The New York Times revealed
Thursday.
Citing unnamed US officials, the Times identified the White House official as "Ezra
Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council."
Why would you not believe "unnamed officials"? But what we are seeing very obviously is some of the shape and texture of the war based on
who is being targeted and why. While those doing the targeting are "unnamed", their targets are
named. And that tells us also about those doing the targeting. Any enemy action reveals
something about the enemy, his motives, his nature and his goals. That is how wars of this kind
must be understood.
"... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
"... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
"... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
"... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
"... "'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.' ..."
"... opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. ..."
"... For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't." ..."
"... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president
Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar
Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.
Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before being ordered to return to
Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar
Assad quickly relaxed some old security laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012.
Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians
and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down.
Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is
not based on objective analysis. Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore
Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government under Assad has ever been
proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed
members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.
There have even been allegations that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.
Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting
Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. In the case of Syria:
"Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs . His involvement in reconciliation
and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis,
he penned some remarkable observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:
"'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along
in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to
the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'
"In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition
The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs
brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. '"
For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected
Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't."
Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow
the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle
East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no
saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.
"... What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet. ..."
"... Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have, of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will ultimately cost American taxpayers many trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers. ..."
"... Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy. Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist groups, while acts of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts. ..."
"... For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and eventually recycled. ..."
"... Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign promised. ..."
"... This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to overthrowing governments. ..."
"... It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its profit calculation. ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. ..."
What makes a Harvey Weinstein moment? The now-disgraced Hollywood mogul is hardly the first
powerful man to stand accused of having abused women. The Harveys who preceded Harvey himself
are legion, their prominence matching or exceeding his own and the misdeeds with which they
were charged at least as reprehensible.
In the relatively recent past, a roster of prominent offenders would include Bill Clinton,
Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and, of course, Donald Trump. Throw in various jocks,
maestros, senior military officers, members of the professoriate and you end up with quite a
list. Yet in virtually all such cases, the alleged transgressions were treated as instances of
individual misconduct, egregious perhaps but possessing at best transitory political
resonance.
All that, though, was pre-Harvey. As far as male sexual hijinks are concerned, we might
compare Weinstein's epic fall from grace to the stock market crash of 1929: one week it's the
anything-goes Roaring Twenties, the next we're smack dab in a Great Depression.
How profound is the change? Up here in Massachusetts where I live, we've spent the past year
marking John F. Kennedy's 100th birthday. If Kennedy were still around to join in the
festivities, it would be as a Class A sex offender. Rarely in American history has the cultural
landscape shifted so quickly or so radically.
In our post-Harvey world, men charged with sexual misconduct are guilty until proven
innocent, all crimes are capital offenses, and there exists no statute of limitations. Once a
largely empty corporate slogan, "zero tolerance" has become a battle cry.
All of this serves as a reminder that, on some matters at least, the American people retain
an admirable capacity for outrage. We can distinguish between the tolerable and the
intolerable. And we can demand accountability of powerful individuals and
institutions.
Everything They Need to Win (Again!)
What's puzzling is why that capacity for outrage and demand for accountability doesn't
extend to our now well-established penchant for waging war across much of the planet.
In no way would I wish to minimize the pain, suffering, and humiliation of the women preyed
upon by the various reprobates now getting their belated comeuppance. But to judge from
published accounts, the women (and in some cases, men) abused by Weinstein, Louis C.K., Mark
Halperin, Leon Wieseltier, Kevin Spacey, Al Franken, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Garrison
Keillor, my West Point classmate Judge Roy Moore, and their compadres at least managed
to survive their encounters. None of the perpetrators are charged with having committed murder.
No one died.
Compare their culpability to that of the high-ranking officials who have presided over or
promoted this country's various military misadventures of the present century. Those wars have,
of course, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will
ultimately cost American taxpayers many
trillions of dollars. Nor have those costly military efforts eliminated "terrorism," as
President George W. Bush promised back when today's G.I.s were still in diapers.
Bush told us that, through war, the United States would spread freedom and democracy.
Instead, our wars have sown disorder and instability, creating failing or failed states across
the Greater Middle East and Africa. In their wake have sprung up ever more, not fewer, jihadist
groups, while acts
of terror are soaring globally. These are indisputable facts.
It discomfits me to reiterate this mournful litany of truths. I feel a bit like the doctor
telling the lifelong smoker with stage-four lung cancer that an addiction to cigarettes is
adversely affecting his health. His mute response: I know and I don't care. Nothing the doc
says is going to budge the smoker from his habit. You go through the motions, but wonder
why.
In a similar fashion, war has become a habit to which the United States is addicted. Except
for the terminally distracted, most of us know that. We also know -- wecannot not
know -- that, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. forces have been unable to
accomplish their assigned mission, despite more than 16 years of fighting in the former and
more than a decade in the latter.
It's not exactly a good news story, to put it mildly. So forgive me for saying it (
yet again ), but most of us simply don't care, which means that we continue to allow a free
hand to those who preside over those wars, while treating with respect the views of pundits and
media personalities who persist in promoting them. What's past doesn't count; we prefer to
sustain the pretense that tomorrow is pregnant with possibilities. Victory lies just around the
corner.
By way of example, consider a
recent article in U.S. News and World Report. The headline: "Victory or Failure in
Afghanistan: 2018 Will Be the Deciding Year." The title suggests a balance absent from the text
that follows, which reads like a Pentagon press release. Here in its entirety is the nut graf
(my own emphasis added):
"Armed with a new strategy and renewed support from old allies, the Trump
administration now believes it has everything it needs to win the war in Afghanistan.
Top military advisers all the way up to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis say they can accomplish
what two previous administrations and multiple troop surges could not: the defeat of the
Taliban by Western-backed local forces, a negotiated peace and the establishment of a
popularly supported government in Kabul capable of keeping the country from once again becoming
a haven to any terrorist group."
Now if you buy this, you'll believe that Harvey Weinstein has learned his lesson and can be
trusted to interview young actresses while wearing his bathrobe.
For starters, there is no "new strategy." Trump's generals, apparently with a nod from their
putative boss, are merely modifying the old "strategy," which was itself an outgrowth of
previous strategies tried, found wanting, and eventually discarded before being rebranded and
eventually recycled.
Short of using nuclear weapons, U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan over the past decade and
a half have experimented with just about every approach imaginable: invasion, regime change,
occupation, nation-building, pacification, decapitation, counterterrorism, and
counterinsurgency, not to mention various surges ,
differing in scope and duration. We have had a big troop presence and a smaller one, more
bombing and less, restrictive rules of engagement and permissive ones. In the military
equivalent of throwing in the kitchen sink, a U.S. Special Operations Command four-engine prop
plane recently deposited the largest non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal on a cave
complex in eastern Afghanistan. Although that MOAB made a big
boom, no offer of enemy surrender materialized.
$65
billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. And under the circumstances, consider that a mere down
payment.
According to General John Nicholson, our
17th commander in Kabul since 2001, the efforts devised and implemented by his many
predecessors have resulted in a "stalemate" -- a generous interpretation given that the Taliban
presently controls more
territory than it has held since the U.S. invasion. Officers no less capable than Nicholson
himself, David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal among them, didn't get it done. Nicholson's
argument: trust me.
In essence, the "new strategy" devised by Trump's generals, Secretary of Defense Mattis and
Nicholson among them, amounts to this: persist a tad longer with a tad more. A modest uptick in
the number of U.S. and allied
troops on the ground will provide more trainers, advisers, and motivators to work with and
accompany their Afghan counterparts in the field. The Mattis/Nicholson plan also envisions an
increasing number of air strikes, signaled by the recent use of B-52s to attack illicit
Taliban "
drug labs ," a scenario that Stanley Kubrick himself would have been hard-pressed to
imagine.
Notwithstanding the novelty of using strategic bombers to destroy mud huts, there's not a
lot new here. Dating back to 2001, coalition forces have already dropped tens of thousands of
bombs in Afghanistan. Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts
to create effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the
production of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency, alas with essentially
no effect whatsoever . What Trump's generals want a gullible public (and astonishingly
gullible and inattentive members of Congress) to believe is that this time they've somehow
devised a formula for getting it right.
Turning the Corner
With his trademark capacity to intuit success, President Trump already sees clear evidence
of progress. "We're not fighting anymore to just walk around," he remarked in his
Thanksgiving message to the troops. "We're fighting to win. And you people [have] turned it
around over the last three to four months like nobody has seen." The president, we may note,
has yet to visit Afghanistan.
I'm guessing that the commander-in-chief is oblivious to the fact that, in U.S. military
circles, the term winning has acquired notable elasticity. Trump may think that it
implies vanquishing the enemy -- white flags and surrender ceremonies on the U.S.S. Missouri . General Nicholson knows better. "Winning," the field commander
says , "means delivering a negotiated settlement that reduces the level of violence and
protecting the homeland." (Take that definition at face value and we can belatedly move Vietnam
into the win column!)
Should we be surprised that Trump's generals, unconsciously imitating General William
Westmoreland a half-century ago, claim once again to detect light at the end of the tunnel? Not
at all. Mattis and Nicholson (along with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and National
Security Adviser H.R. McMaster) are following the Harvey Weinstein playbook: keep doing it
until they make you stop. Indeed, with what can only be described as chutzpah, Nicholson
himself recently announced that we have "
turned the corner " in Afghanistan. In doing so, of course, he is counting on Americans not
to recall the various war managers, military and civilian alike, who have made identical claims
going back years now, among them Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012
.
From on high, assurances of progress; in the field, results that, year after year, come
nowhere near what's promised; on the homefront, an astonishingly credulous public. The war in
Afghanistan has long since settled into a melancholy and seemingly permanent rhythm.
The fact is that the individuals entrusted by President Trump to direct U.S. policy believe
with iron certainty that difficult political problems will yield to armed might properly
employed. That proposition is one to which generals like Mattis and Nicholson have devoted a
considerable part of their lives, not just in Afghanistan but across much of the Islamic world.
They are no more likely to question the validity of that proposition than the Pope is to
entertain second thoughts about the divinity of Jesus Christ.
In Afghanistan, their entire worldview -- not to mention the status and clout of the officer
corps they represent -- is at stake. No matter how long the war there lasts, no matter how many
"
generations " it takes, no matter how much blood is shed to no purpose, and no matter how
much money is wasted, they will never admit to failure -- nor will any of the
militarists-in-mufti cheering them on from the sidelines in Washington, Donald Trump not the
least among them.
Meanwhile, the great majority of the American people, their attention directed elsewhere --
it's the season for holiday shopping, after all -- remain studiously indifferent to the charade
being played out before their eyes.
It took a succession of high-profile scandals before Americans truly woke up to the plague
of sexual harassment and assault. How long will it take before the public concludes that they
have had enough of wars that don't work? Here's hoping it's before our president, in a moment
of ill temper, unleashes "
fire and fury " on the world.
It's astonishing to see people make the claim that "victory" is possible in Afghanistan.
Could they actually believe this or are they lying in order to drag this out even longer and
keep the money pit working overtime? These are individuals that are highly placed and so
should know better. It's not really a war but an occupation with the native insurgents
fighting to oust the foreign occupier. The US has tried every trick there is in trying to
tamp down the insurgency. They know what we're trying to do and can thwart us at every step.
The US lost even as it began it's invasion there but didn't know it yet in the wake of it's
initial success in scattering the Taliban, not even a real army and not even a real state.
They live there and we don't; they can resist for the next thirty years or fifty years. When
does the multi-billion bill come due and how will we pay it?
"How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that
don't work?"
It already happened, but Progressives like you failed to note that Republican voters
subbed the Bush clan and their various associates for Trump in the Primary season, precisely
because he called the Iraq and Afghan wars mistakes. The Americans suffer under a two party
establishment that is clearly antagonistic to their interests. As a part of that regime, a
dutiful Progressive toad, you continue to peddle the lie that it was the war-weary White
Americans who celebrated those wars. In reality, any such support was ginned up from tools
like you who wrote puff pieces for their Neocon Progressive masters.
Thus far, Trump's interventionism has been a fragment of what the Hillary campaign
promised. Might you count that among your lucky stars? Fat chance. You cretinous Progressive
filth have no such spine upon which to base an independent thought. You trot out the same old
tiresome tropes week after week fulfilling your designated propagandist duty and then you
skulk back to your den of iniquity to prepare another salvo of agitprop. What a miserable
existence.
This is the center of a world empire. It maintains a gigantic military which virtually never
stops fighting wars, none of them having anything to do with defense. It has created an
intelligence monstrosity which makes old outfits like Stazi seem almost quaint, and it spies
on everyone. Indeed, it maintains seventeen national security establishments, as though you
can never have too much of a good thing. And some of these guys, too, are engaged full-time
in forms of covert war, from fomenting trouble in other lands and interfering in elections to
overthrowing governments.
Obama ended up killing more people than any dictator or demagogue of this generation on
earth you care to name, several hundred thousand of them in his eight years. And he found new
ways to kill, too, as by creating the world's first industrial-scale extrajudicial killing
operation. Here he signs off on "kill lists," placed in his Oval Office in-box, to murder
people he has never seen, people who enjoy no legal rights or protections. His signed orders
are carried out by uniformed thugs working at computer screens in secure basements where they
proceed to play computer games with real live humans as their targets, again killing or
maiming people they have never seen.
If you ever have wondered where all the enabling workers came from in places like Stalin's
Gulag or Hitler's concentration camps, well, here is your answer. American itself produces
platoons of such people. You could find them working at Guantanamo and in the far-flung
string of secret torture facilities the CIA ran for years, and you could find them in places
like Fallujah or Samarra or Abu Ghraib, at the CIA's basement game arcade killing centers,
and even all over the streets of America dressed as police who shoot unarmed people every
day, sometimes in the back.
ZOG has now asserted the right to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. No trial,
no hearing, no witnesses, no defense, no nothing. Is this actually legal? Any constitutional
lawyers out there care to comment? Has ZOG now achieved the status of an all-powerful
all-knowing deity with the power of life and death over all living things?
It's unlikely that the USA would be remaining in Afghanistan if its goals were not being
attained. So the author has merely shown that the stated goals cannot be the real goals. What
then are the real goals? I propose two: 1) establish a permanent military presence on a
Russian border; 2) finance it with the heroin trade. Given other actions of the Empire around
the globe, the first goal is obvious. The bombing of mud huts containing competitors' drug
labs, conjoined with the fact that we do not destroy the actual poppy fields (obvious green
targets in an immense ocean of brown) make this goal rather obvious as well. The rest of the
article is simply more evidence that the Empire does not include mere human tragedy in its
profit calculation.
The Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Male Population used as CANNON FODDER
for Congressman Steven Solarz's and Donald Trump's very precious Jewish only Israel .
Israel and the deep state did the attack on 911 and thus set the table for the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Syria and the Zionist neocons who control every facet of
the U.S. gov and the MSM and the MIC and the FED ie the BANKS set in motion the blood
sacrifice for their Zionist god SATAN, that is what they have done.
The Zionist warmongers and Satanists will destroy America.
It's not so much that America is addicted to war as that the American "business model" makes
permanent war inevitable. US global dominance rests on economic domination, in particular,
the dollar as world reserve currency. That has allowed the US economy to survive in spite of
being hollowed out, financialised and burdened with enormous sovereign debt. Economic
dominance derives from political dominance, which, in its turn, flows from military
dominance. For that military dominance to be credible, not only must the US have the biggest
and best military forces on the planet, it must show itself willing to use those forces to
maintain its dominance by actually using them from time to time, in particular, to
unequivocally beat off any challenge to its dominance (Putin!). It also, of course, must win,
or, more correctly, be able to present the outcome credibly as a win. Failure to maintain
military dominance will undermine the position of the dollar, sending its value through the
floor. A low dollar means cheap exports (Boeing will sell more planes than Airbus!), but it
also means that imports (oil, outsourced goods) will be dear. At that point the hollowed out
nature of the US economy will cut in, probably provoking a Soviet-style implosion of the US
economy and society and ruining anyone who has holdings denominated in dollars. I call that
the Gorbachev conundrum. Gorby believed in the Soviet Union and wanted to reform it. But the
Soviet system had become so rigid as to be unreformable. He pulled a threat and the whole
system unravelled. But if he hadn't pulled the thread, the whole system would have unravelled
anyway. It was a choice between hard landing and harder landing. Similarly, US leaders have
to continue down the only road open to them: permanent war. As Thomas Jefferson said of
slavery, it's like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't like it but you don't dare let go!
"How long will it take before the public concludes that they have had enough of wars that
don't work?" Answer: Never.
In Alabama when people would rant about how toxic Roy Moore was, I would politely point
out that his opponent for Senate was OK with spending trillions of dollars fighting pointless
winless wars on the other side of the planet just so politically connected defense
contractors can make a buck, and ask if that should be an issue too? The response,
predictably, was as if I was an alien from the planet Skyron in the galaxy of Andromeda.
We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press
tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the
corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of
being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.
Andrew Bacevich is wrong about a couple of things in this article.
First, he says that the American public is both apathetic and credulous. I agree
that we have largely become apathetic towards these imperial wars, but I disagree that we
have become credulous. In fact, these two states of mind exclude one another; you cannot be
both apathetic and credulous with respect to the same object at the same time. The credulity
charge is easy to dismiss because virtually no one today believes anything that comes out of
Washington or its mouthpieces in the legacy media. The apathy charge is on point but it needs
qualification. The smarter, more informed Americans have seen that their efforts to change
the course of American policy have been to no avail, and they've given up in frustration and
disgust. The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting
on with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the
understanding nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever.
Second,Andrew Bacevich calls for a Weinstein moment without realizing that it
already happened more than ten years ago. The 2006 midterm elections were the first Weinstein
moment, which saw the American people deliver a huge outpouring of antiwar sentiment that
inflicted significant congressional losses on the neocon Republicans of George W. Bush. An
echo of that groundswell happened again in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected to office on an
explicitly antiwar platform. But Obama turned out to be one of the most pro-war presidents
ever, and thus an angry electorate made one final push in the same direction by attempting to
clean house with Donald Trump. Now that Donald has shown every sign of having cucked out to
the war lobby, we seem to be left with no electoral solutions.
The only thing that's going to work is for the American Imperium to be handed a
much-deserved military and financial defeat. The one encouraging fact is that if the top ten
percent of our political and financial elite were planed off by a foreign power, the American
people would give as few damns about that as they currently do about our imperial wars.
Very good but some little errors. Concerning Russia and China, Russia vent all or
nothing.
China was much smarter. First they allowed self employment, than small business and long time
after they started to sell state enterprises,
If Tom's Dispatch continues to be successful, Americans will continue to be asleep.
Masterful propaganda. War, according to our favorite spooks, is necessary to win, but
otherwise reprehensible.
Sex is otherwise necessary for human life but Harvey Weinstein is ugly. Hold tightly to
your cognitive dissonance, because you're expected to remember John F Kennedy who got it on,
but is the expendable martyr you should care about, not that other guy
Let's review: terror attacks are wins. Superior or effective anti-war propaganda comes
from the military
itself. They really don't want war, but really they do.
We're trying to make Afghanistan not Afghanistan: aka, trying to be a miracle worker. We
can throw as much money as we like at that place, and it isn't going to happen, least of all
with troops on nine month shifts.
Let Iran and Pakistan squabble over it. Good riddance.
1) doesn't really make much sense, given that Poland and the Baltic States would be more
than happy to take all US forces in Europe to give us a presence near Russia in a part of the
world that would be far easier to justify to the American public-and to the international
community. Afghanistan? Who exactly is Russia going to mess with? Iran is their-for now,
longer term, the two have conflicting agendas in the region, but don't expect the geniuses in
the Beltway to pick up on that opportunity-ally, and unlike the USSR, the Russians don't want
to get involved in the India-Pakistan conflict. Russia's current tilt toward China makes a
strategic marriage with India of the kind that you found in the Cold War impossible, but they
obviously don't want to tilt toward the basketcase known as Pakistan. The only reason that
Russia would want to get involved with Afghanistan beyond having a more preferable status
than having American troops there is power projection among ex-Soviet states, and there are
far more effective ways to do than muddle about with Afghanistan.
2, on the other hand, given Iran-Contra who knows? The first generation of the Taliban
pretty much wiped the heroin trade out as offensive to Islamic sensibilities, but the newer
generations have no such qualms.
I think you give America's rulers far too much credit. The truth is probably far scarier:
the morons who work in the Beltway honestly believe their own propaganda-that we can make
Afghanistan into some magical Western democracy if we throw enough money at it-and combine
that with the usual bureaucratic inertia.
According to General John Nicholson, our 17th commander in Kabul since 2001,
We have been killing these people for 17 years. Now our generals say that if we
indiscriminately kill enough men, women, and children who get in the way of our B52s, that
they will see the light and make peace. How totally wonderful.
My solution is to gage the Lindsey Grahams for a year.
What will do more good for peace – B52s or shutting up Graham's elk?
I remember when Trump said he knew more than the generals and was viciously attacked for it.
It turns out he did know more than the generals just by knowing it was a waste. Trump was
pushed by politics to defer to the generals who always have an answer when it comes to a war
– more men, more weapons, more time.
"The less smart, less informed Americans are constrained by the necessity of getting on
with their meager lives; they are an apolitical mass that possesses neither the understanding
nor the capacity to make any difference on the policy front whatsoever."
I wonder if any Abolitionists criticized the slaves for failing to revolt? Probably not;
I'm guessing they were mostly convinced that the negro required intervention from outside,
whether due to their nature or from overwhelming circumstance.
If the enslaved American public is liberated, I hope we'll know what to do with ourselves
afterwards. It'd be a shame to simply end up in another kind of bondage, resentful and
subject to whatever oppressive system replaces the current outrage. Perhaps the next one will
more persuasively convince us that we're important and essential?
We are sheep. We are outraged at these sexual transgressions because the corporate press
tells us to be outraged. We are not outraged at these stupid foreign wars, because the
corporate press does not tell us to be outraged. It's all mass effect, and the comfort of
being in a herd and all expressing the same feelings.
Thank you, Andrew J. Bacevich, for your words of wisdom and thank you, Mr. Unz, for this
post.
This corporation needs to be dissolved. I've read about "the inertia" of Federal Government
that has morphed into a cash cow for a century of wasted tax dollars funding the MIIC, now
the MIIC. Does our existence have to end in financial ruin or, worse yet, some foreign entity
creating havoc on our soil?
The Founders NEVER intended that the US of A become a meddler in other Sovereignty's internal
affairs or the destroyer of Nation States that do not espoused our "doctrine." Anyone without
poop for brains knows that this is about Imperialism and greed, fueled by money and an
insatiable luster for MORE.
This should be easier to change than it appears. Is there no will? After all, it Is our
Master's money that lubricates the machinery. So, we continue to provide the lubrication for
our Masters like a bunch of imbeciles that allow them to survail our words and movements.
Somebody please explain our stupidity.
the folks in the US are sick of the wars, contrary to Bacevich. They simply will vote come
next election accordingly. They register their disgust in all the polls.
This article is not very useful. More punditry puff.
No comments on the Next War for Israel being cooked up by the new crop of neocon
youngsters, I guess, and Trump who will trump, trump, trump into the next War for the
Jews.
How about some political science on Iran, Syria, Hisbollah, Hamas and the US, Arabia,
Judenstaat axis of evil?
Hey Bacevich? When you link to WashPost and NYTimes to make your points, you don't. They
block access if you've already read links to those two papers three times each and can no
longer, for the month, read there. When folks link to papers that won't let you read, it
makes one wonder why.
I believe Americans are damned sick and tired of the stupid, needless war in Afghanistan. But
then they should have been sick and tired of stupid , needless wars like Korea, Vietnam and
Iraq, and probably most of them were. But it's easy to be complacent when someone else's son
is doing the fighting and dying And it's easy to be complacent when your stomach is full and
you have plenty of booze and pain killers available. There will be a day of reckoning when
the next big economic bust arrives and which may make the Great Depression paltry by
comparison. America is a far different place then it was in the 1930s when our population was
140 million. Americans were not so soft and the conveniences we now take for granted not
available. When the supermarkets run out of food, watch out. There may not even be any soup
lines to stand in.
In truth, U.S. commanders have quietly shelved any expectations of achieving an actual
victory -- traditionally defined as "imposing your will on the enemy" -- in favor of a more
modest conception of success.
Your assumptions are wrong about the US goal of the invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Iraq were not invaded to establish democracy or impose American will
whatever that is. Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded to establish a temporary military staging ground for a
US invasion of Iran, the designated regional enemy of Israel. As long as the current regime in Iran remains, the US will remain in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
And minerals! Eric Prince himself recently tried to sell the idea of having his private
militias do the fighting in Afghanistan for the US and finance it by mining said country's
minerals, thus making himself even richer.
I was onboard with Mr. Bacevich, until I got to this:
Almost as soon as the Taliban were ousted from Kabul, coalition efforts to create
effective Afghan security forces commenced. So, too, did attempts to reduce the production
of the opium that has funded the Taliban insurgency
What utter rubbish! The Taliban was instrumental in shutting down the poppy production
until the CIA came along and restarted it to fund their black ops.
We have the reverse Midas touch. Everything we touch (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.,
etc.) turns to shit. We supposedly attack countries to liberate them from their tyrants who
are supposedly killing their own people, and end up killing more people than all of them put
together. And, oh yes, we have our favorite tyrants (Saudis, Israelis) whom we provide with
horrible weapons (like cluster bombs) to help them kill people we hate.
Mr. Bacevich is right about the lack of outrage about our wars, but the current Weinstein
explosion consists of hordes of mostly American female victims, mostly white, a (very) few
jews, and a few men, who have the stage to complain about their oppressors. What would be the
counterpart of that w.r.t. the wars? Millions of brown victims in far away lands that most of
us couldn't even find on a map? How likely is that to happen?
So yes, no outrage, and none likely. The last 17 years have proven that.
You don't know the American has been paying everything through monopoly money printed
through the thin air since WWI, i.e. a keystroke on the Federal Reserve's computer? No wonder
the Americans have been waging reckless wars all over the world on the fabricated phantom WMD
allegations as humanitarian intervention relentlessly.
Romans did not stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed; the British
imitates the Romans and the American is born out of the British, hence the Americans will no
stop waging reckless wars until their empire collapsed like the Romans.
It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is
an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism
campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing
jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the
United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US
neoliberal elite.
It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are
troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.
Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as
usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.
Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means
of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered
their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a
widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more
capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
"... The Russia Investigation shifts to Clinton's Political Rivals ..."
"... Let me get this straight: The Democrats think Stein siphoned votes away from Hillary, so Stein must be a "Russian agent". Is that it? ..."
"... The persecution of Jill Stein strips away the facade once and for all exposing Russia-gate as a complete fraud that is being used to exact revenge on the adversaries of Hillary Clinton and her reprobate friends. The New York Times even admits as much. ..."
"... That's what's really really going on, the fatcat honchos behind the scenes are just settling scores for Hillary's lost election. It's payback time for the Clinton Mafia. Here's more baloney from the Times: ..."
"... Give me a break. Does anyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee honestly believe that Jill Stein is a Russian agent? ..."
"... Of course not. They're just harassing her to send a message to anyone who might be thinking about running for president in the future. They're saying, "You'd better watch your step or we'll trump-up charges against you and make your life a living hell. Isn't that the message?You're damn right it is! ..."
"... "This is a witch hunt. It is neo-McCarthyism, plain and simple. The people who are outright calling Stein a Russian agent are making a complete mockery of themselves and of the American political process ..."
"... Dragging Stein into this mess shows Clinton Democrats up for what they really are. It proves that the 'Resist' crowd's crusade is not just about Trump and "collusion" -- it's also about discrediting all dissenting American voices and establishing their own definition of what political opposition is supposed to look like -- and for the Clinton cult, it's not supposed to look like Jill Stein . ..."
"... Anyone who disagrees with the Democrats is a Putin puppet -- and if you've ever been to Moscow, forget it -- don't even bother trying to defend yourself. Off with your head." ("McCarthy-style targeting of Jill Stein proves Democrats have truly lost the plot", RT) ..."
"... "The Socialist Equality Party condemns the targeting of Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate in the 2016 election, by the neo-McCarthyite witch-hunters on the Senate Intelligence Committee . The attack on Stein, spearheaded by the Democratic Party, is an unconstitutional attempt to delegitimize and suppress political opposition to the monopoly of the capitalist two-party system . ..."
"... This is the Orwellian reality of America in 2017, ruled by two right-wing, oligarchic parties that can and will tolerate no political opposition . ..."
"... If you're a liberal and you hate Donald Trump, then you probably see the Russia-gate investigation as your best chance to achieve the Golden Grail of "impeachment". But are you willing to compromise your principles, join forces with the sinister and unscrupulous Clinton cabal, and throw allies like Jill Stein under the bus to achieve your goal? ..."
"... How high a price are you willing to pay to get rid of Trump? That's the question that every liberal in America should be asking themselves. And they'd better answer it fast before it's too late. ..."
"... Mueller is clearly not the upstanding 'protector of American values' he is painted he is a servile political degenerate. A lifetime of betrayal has rendered him ethically autistic. He is blind to the way his own actions condemn him before reasonable minds. Hopefully he will wake up when condemned hiself in an American Court of Law at some future date. ..."
"... According to Edward Aguilar of Project for Nuclear Awareness, cancelling construction of the new submarines, reducing the current number of such subs, and retiring rather than replacing nuclear warheads and a couple hundred ICBMs would save $270 billion. ..."
"... The weapons oligarchy appears to be a racketeering-influenced and corrupt organization. Luckily, the RICO Act provides for heavy criminal penalties for such death-dealing corruption. ..."
Money quote: "And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War
3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real.
And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage,
to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation."
Notable quotes:
"... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
"... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
"... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
"... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
"... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
"... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
"... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
"... The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing ..."
"... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
"... I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this. I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US? ..."
"... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
"... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
"... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
"... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
"... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
"... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
"... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
"... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the
world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by
enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the
second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World
War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative
than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or
no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating
their cooperation.
Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated
through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed
that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to
its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been
willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.
So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could
first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things.
First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop
into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have
regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't have to like the governance of either country, but their
national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere
that must be respected by Russia and China.
Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses
if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine
but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent
given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.
Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes
from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least
clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels.
Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.
It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter,
but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back
on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued
unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government
in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through
their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence
of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.
Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival
in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the
Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes
including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community of responsible nations in our fight against
common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."
The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It
was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense
of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin
in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated
that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.
Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking
to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the
most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shiite militias being provided by Iran
and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian
engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.
As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent
reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to
escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek
Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn.
Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and
has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council.
But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times
that "wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding
Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David
Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.
Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need
to be confronted by force,
an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal moment that will determine whether
Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria." Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their
horror at a possible Shiite "bridge" or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria
and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery
but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar
sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make
a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not
wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's
number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument
on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.
The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the
source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands
of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon,
supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets
overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in
France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual
terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel,
which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard
on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's
armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi
financing and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative
elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White House has the courage to take such a step and change
direction? Unfortunately, no.
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So,
our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by
WASP Elites.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at YouTube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.
Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its
own sons and daughters.
Israel, the REAL enemy! ,
@K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its best brains to the U.S so its
trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The chief- architect of IBM's Watson is a Hindu Indian and so is the
head of IBM's neuro-morphic computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM
is collaborating with the American defense organization DARPA) instead of helping India achieve technological competence.
And most of other super intelligent Indians also India is losing them to the west.
(i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done the same. It is india's job to keep
its best brains working for it and not for others. And india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)
100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update
@Durruti Nice action approach
to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort
to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.
The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand
the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal,
the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his
republican opponents will not let him.
That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given
so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence
Agencies to the contrary not withstanding.
The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel
will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.
The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main oil supplier at the end of 1944.
The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Saudis would sponsor terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism
?
Sept 11 not, Boston not, Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the biggest.
That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army does what the USA wants them to do.
Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi Arabia. But with such amateur
dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as
Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a
bloody nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue with his rapprochement
towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational, reasonable, academic even.
But unfortunately, it's simply naive.
"Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very
hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which
America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?
The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems
.missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.
Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag.
Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle
east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.)
I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies.
So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,
"The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"
Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for
him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies
never work and ours quit long ago.
I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy',
the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia
population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves.
USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The
operation was by and large very successful btw.
It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world.
Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first
country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so
much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,
Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal
tendencies of Mexicans.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Replies: @Sowhat And what grudge
is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural
resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades
long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that
bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting
her wars of conquest.
You won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their control of the FED and
US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no matter the cost.
The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them
a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.
The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser and his fashion model faux
Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't stand the sight of dead babies
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some
people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if
any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
@eah The WH should focus on
the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization
of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast
and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others
to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely
argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"
-- goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses
Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just
as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and
Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they
acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity)
or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture,
Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try
to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
, @bjondo Jews/Judaism
bring death, destruction, misery.
Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many areas.
Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.
June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us
Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford
and Rockefeller Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s.
You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications
and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.
@anarchyst Israel's current
"agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty
work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue
that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"--goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend
her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism.
In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge
that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can
go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or
blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act
like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and the necessity to protect the USA
from terrorists attacks.
Iran is an hypothetical threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.
In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities like Mashad. there are taxi
companies owned and run by women.
Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute and take care of daily chores.
It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.
Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.
@Wizard of Oz I am beginning
to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening
question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read
The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?
There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming
there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've
spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way
of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems.
They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance
of US goals.
They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource wealth as their own personal kitty,
living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a
close ally of the US affords them protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person
but not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.
Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has
good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.
Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also
because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial
political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration
to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the
real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic.
And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud.
So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled
by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.
@Chad I fully agree that attacking
Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less,
in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.
Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority
Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands
this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large
very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across
the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran
became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became
the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher
so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it
wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.
1,000 Words @RobinG#UNRIG
adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states with biggest problems -- Illinois,
California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions
are unfunded or underfunded.
I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force," ** whose primary activity was
to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that
did business with Iran. I recall very clearly that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in
divesting from such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.
Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What shape would the US economy,
and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded,
Against Our Better Judgment, to entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?
____
** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman
and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting to influence the Iran Deal.
The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off groups such as Foundation for
Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.
This review way written almost two year ago. The new President is now sitting in White house. Nothing changed.
The problem with Bacevich' views is that neoliberalism dictates expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire as well in best
Trotskyism tradition "export of neoliberal revolution" using bayonets, if other means do not work. So this is the nature of the
neoliberal beast, not an aberration like he assumes. Militarism is essence of US foreign policy under neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... This book, Bacevich's eighth, extends his string of brutal, bracing and essential critiques of the pernicious role of reflexive militarism in American foreign policy. As in past books, Bacevich is thought-provoking, profane and fearless. Assailing generals, journalists and foreign policy experts alike, he links together more than a dozen military interventions that span 35 years and declares them a single war. Bacevich analyzes each intervention, looking for common themes from Carter's late 1970s missteps to Barack Obama's widespread use of assassination by drone strike today. ..."
"... A presumption that using military power signified to friends and foes that Washington was getting serious about a problem diminished the role of diplomats and diplomacy. " 'Getting serious' also implied a preference for uniforms over suits as the principal agents of U.S. policy," Bacevich writes. "Henceforth, rather than military power serving as the handmaiden of diplomacy, the reverse would be true." ..."
"... In another repeated mistake, triumphalist American commanders prematurely declare victory without realizing that their opponent has simply withdrawn to fight another day as a guerrilla force, as occurred in Afghanistan in 2001. They also personalize the enemy, wrongly assuming that the removal of figures like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi will instantly end conflict. ..."
"... From Somalia in 1993 to Yemen today, American commanders and policy makers overestimated the advantage American military technology bestows on them. And most crucially of all, the United States has failed to decide whether it is, in fact, at war. ..."
"... "In the war for the greater Middle East, the United States chose neither to contain nor to crush, instead charting a course midway in between," Bacevich writes. "Instead of intimidating, U.S. military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated a lack of both competence and determination." ..."
"... For all that, Bacevich is right that the United States' reflexive use of armed intervention in the Middle East is folly. An unquestioning faith in military might and an underinvestment in diplomacy has tied Washington in a policy straitjacket. Bacevich's call for Americans to rethink their nation's militarized approach to the Middle East is incisive, urgent and essential. ..."
BOOK REVIEW: AMERICA'S WAR FOR THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST (A Military History) By Andrew J. Bacevich
Illustrated. 453 pp. Random House. $30.
In the opening chapter of his latest book, the military historian Andrew J. Bacevich blames Jimmy Carter, a president commonly
viewed as more meek than martial, for unwittingly spawning 35 years of American military intervention in the Middle East. Bacevich
argues that three mistakes by Carter set precedents that led to decades of squandered American lives and treasure.
First, Carter called on Americans to stop worshiping "self-indulgence and consumption" and join a nationwide effort to conserve
energy. Self-sacrifice, he argued in what is now widely derided as Carter's "malaise speech," would free Americans from their dependence
on foreign oil and "help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country."
The president came across as more hectoring pastor than visionary leader, Bacevich argues in "America's War for the Greater Middle
East." His guileless approach squandered an opportunity to persuade Americans reeling from high foreign oil prices to trade "dependence
for autonomy."
Carter's second mistake was authorizing American support to guerrillas fighting a Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan, a move
that eventually helped fuel the spread of radical Islam. Finally, in a misguided effort to counter views that he was "too soft,"
Carter declared that the United States would respond with military force to any outside effort to seize Persian Gulf oil fields.
"This statement, subsequently enshrined as the Carter Doctrine, inaugurated America's war for the greater Middle East," Bacevich
writes.
This book, Bacevich's eighth, extends his string of brutal, bracing and essential critiques of the pernicious role of reflexive
militarism in American foreign policy. As in past books, Bacevich is thought-provoking, profane and fearless. Assailing generals,
journalists and foreign policy experts alike, he links together more than a dozen military interventions that span 35 years and declares
them a single war. Bacevich analyzes each intervention, looking for common themes from Carter's late 1970s missteps to Barack Obama's
widespread use of assassination by drone strike today.
Washington's penchant for intervention, Bacevich contends, is driven by more than America's thirst for oil or the military-industrial
complex's need for new enemies. In addition to these two factors, he argues that "a deeply pernicious collective naïveté" among both
Republicans and Democrats spawns interventions doomed by "confusion and incoherence."
The ultimate responsibility for the United States' actions lies with an "oblivious" American public engrossed in "shallow digital
enthusiasms and the worship of celebrity," Bacevich writes. Americans support freedom, democracy and prosperity in other nations,
he tells us, as long as they get the lion's share of it. "Ensuring that Americans enjoy their rightful quota (which is to say, more
than their fair share) of freedom, abundance and security comes first," Bacevich says. "Everything else figures as an afterthought."
Bacevich's argument is heavy-handed at times, but when he writes about military strategy, he is genuinely incisive. Citing numerous
examples, he convincingly argues that destructive myths about the efficacy of American military power blind policy makers, generals
and voters. The use of overwhelming lethal force does not immediately cause dictators or terrorists to turn tail and run, even if
that's what politicians in Washington want to believe. Rather, it often leads to resentment, chaos and resistance.
A presumption that using military power signified to friends and foes that Washington was getting serious about a problem
diminished the role of diplomats and diplomacy. " 'Getting serious' also implied a preference for uniforms over suits as the principal
agents of U.S. policy," Bacevich writes. "Henceforth, rather than military power serving as the handmaiden of diplomacy, the reverse
would be true."
In another repeated mistake, triumphalist American commanders prematurely declare victory without realizing that their opponent
has simply withdrawn to fight another day as a guerrilla force, as occurred in Afghanistan in 2001. They also personalize the enemy,
wrongly assuming that the removal of figures like Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi will instantly end conflict.
From Somalia in 1993 to Yemen today, American commanders and policy makers overestimated the advantage American military technology
bestows on them. And most crucially of all, the United States has failed to decide whether it is, in fact, at war.
"In the war for the greater Middle East, the United States chose neither to contain nor to crush, instead charting a course
midway in between," Bacevich writes. "Instead of intimidating, U.S. military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated
a lack of both competence and determination." The historical forces at work in the Middle East are different from the dynamics
that led to American victories in World War II and the Cold War. American officials have failed to understand that. What's more,
a deluded Washington foreign policy establishment believes that an American way of life based on "consumption and choice" will be
accepted over time in the "Islamic world."
But it is here, in his description of the "Islamic world," that Bacevich stumbles. What is missing in this book about "the greater
Middle East" are the people of the greater Middle East. Bacevich's most highly developed Muslim character in these pages is Saddam
Hussein. The former Afghan president Hamid Karzai is a distant second. Beyond those two, the rest of the world's estimated 1.6 billion
Muslims come across as two-dimensional caricatures.
And so Bacevich lumps together vastly different nationalities - from Bosnians to Iraqis to Somalis - often referring to all of
them primarily as "Muslims." The dizzying complexities of each country's history, politics, culture, resources and rivalries are
missing. And when it comes to how "Muslims" view the world, Bacevich veers into the simplistic essentialism that he accuses Washington
policy makers of following.
Bacevich suggests that in the "Islamic world" lifestyles based on "consumption and choice" might not work. Such broad-brush statements
might well be considered simplistic and even bigoted if applied to other faiths. Can one contend that a "Christian world," "Hindu
world" or "Jewish world" exists? Are such generalizations analytically useful? Do the world's hundreds of millions of Muslims practice
their faith identically?
As a result of this essentialism, Bacevich glosses over a vital point about the Middle East today: A historic and brutal struggle
between radicals and modernists for the future of the region is underway. One can argue that the United States has no place in that
fight, but making sweeping generalizations about Muslims as Bacevich does limits our understanding of the forces at work in the region.
It also plays into the hands of extremists who seek to divide the world by faith.
In the most troubling passage of the book, Bacevich breezily questions pluralism itself. "According to one of the prevailing shibboleths
of the present age, this commingling of cultures is inherently good," he writes. "It fosters pluralism, thereby enriching everyday
life. Yet cultural interaction also induces friction, whether spontaneously generated or instigated by demagogues and provocateurs."
We do live in a dangerous world, but it is also an inevitably interconnected one. The commingling of cultures cannot be stopped.
Nor should it be.
For all that, Bacevich is right that the United States' reflexive use of armed intervention in the Middle East is folly. An
unquestioning faith in military might and an underinvestment in diplomacy has tied Washington in a policy straitjacket. Bacevich's
call for Americans to rethink their nation's militarized approach to the Middle East is incisive, urgent and essential.
David Rohde is the national security investigations editor for Reuters and a contributing editor for The Atlantic.
Widespread anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide
and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the global
so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs.
Notable quotes:
"... For all the haters of us ugly Americans, just remember that we at this blog are suffering in our country standing up for the truth, pitted against our neighbors, coworkers, and friends in the arena of political debate and decrying the massive injustice of our foreign aggression. ..."
"... The world knows the military industrial complex that has worked over years, and year to create the ugly tentacles throughout what was once our government has been usurped. Dollars. All these bastards see is dollars. Not human life. Not the potential of that lost life in science, math, technology. Just dollars. ..."
"... or heavens sakes the voters in Arizona returned the worst of ALL Warmongers to Congress. ..."
"... We can't even get the voters to learn that their votes equal WAR pushed by both Parties they are aligned with. Get real. Our challenge is yours. Help us! ..."
"... I know there are many highly intelligent Americans, who are already today suffering and paying a price. And I agree that (widespread) anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the global so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs. ..."
"... Playing groups of people against one another is the oldest domination trick in the world, but it seems to work every single time...sad! ;-) ..."
"... I'm from California. Technically the USA. My take on things is we United States of Americans are exceptional. Most of us are exceptionally ignorant and violent. That is exceptionally sad. ..."
For all the haters of us ugly Americans, just remember that we at this blog are suffering in our country standing up for the
truth, pitted against our neighbors, coworkers, and friends in the arena of political debate and decrying the massive injustice
of our foreign aggression.
I won't call ya out by name, but lumping us forlorn sacks into your "untouchable" category reeks of reactionary arrogance that
is, to pay patrons at this fine blog their due, beneath you.
In the mean time, American issues = issues concerning the empire they we all want to see destroyed. Liberating Americans should
also be on your wish list.
The world knows the military industrial complex that has worked over years, and year to create the ugly tentacles throughout
what was once our government has been usurped. Dollars. All these bastards see is dollars. Not human life. Not the potential of
that lost life in science, math, technology. Just dollars.
For heavens sakes the voters in Arizona returned the worst of ALL Warmongers to Congress. And you, the World, think
for a moment we, citizens in this colony, have a snowball's chance in hell reeling these creatures in all by ourselves are sorely
mistaken.
We can't even get the voters to learn that their votes equal WAR pushed by both Parties they are aligned with. Get real. Our
challenge is yours. Help us!
I know there are many highly intelligent Americans, who are already today suffering and paying a price. And I agree that
(widespread) anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide
and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the
global so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs.
Playing groups of people against one another is the oldest domination trick in the world, but it seems to work every single
time...sad! ;-)
I'm from California. Technically the USA. My take on things is we United States of Americans are exceptional. Most of us
are exceptionally ignorant and violent. That is exceptionally sad.
I am very glad to have found MoA and the crew of experts. I have learned so very much.
Big up b! Booyakah as they say in JA. God help us.
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
"... Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning? ..."
"... Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control ..."
"... "It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a major war is now inevitable next year." ..."
"... "Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?" ..."
"... A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works. ..."
"... I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption "Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." ..."
"Not only has the swamp easily, quickly and totally drowned Trump "
Stop right there. Rather than the generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to
at least consider the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?
"Furthermore, the Trump Administration now has released a National Security Strategy which clearly show that the Empire
is in 'full paranoid' mode."
Not "paranoid" but "PNAC" as in PNAC manifesto for world domination and control.
"It is plainly obvious that the Neocons are now back in total control of the White House, Congress and the US corporate
media. Okay, maybe things are still not quite as bad as if Hillary had been elected, but they are bad enough to ask whether a
major war is now inevitable next year."
Maybe Trump was the "deep state" candidate of choice? Maybe that's why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable
Sanders? Maybe that's why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – so as to swing the election
to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia?
"Rather than generously imply that Trump had good intentions in the first place, isn't it time to at least consider
the possibility that Trump's campaign was a calculated "bait and switch" fraud from the beginning?"
A point that cannot be made often enough, IMO. Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton.
Maybe it's time for Americans to admit that their quadrennial Mr. America contest amounts to little more than a "suck Satan's
c *** " audition for the deep state, and that the contestants have no qualms about getting on their knees. It is far more comforting
to believe that "your" guy was subverted after the (s)election, but that's not how it actually works.
I'm imagining a bumper sticker with Trump's laughing face and a sad-looking deplorable in a baseball cap, with the caption
"Bait and Switch- the American Way." Someone also once suggested "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers."
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one
type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely
dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:
Example 1:
North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't
even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns
out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.
We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically
advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event
of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always
hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens,
and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.
Example 2:
Commander's intent:
Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery
belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account
of course).
Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"
Phase four: Regime change.
There you go .
Example 3:
I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before
it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.
These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what
Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life"
[1] which is characterized
by a set of basic characteristics:
First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence,
when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where
in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more
akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain").
You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the
paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious
belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .
Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority,
the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case,
that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological,
hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not
something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically
declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and
other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example
#2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.
The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more
about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of "
my country, right or wrong " but goes far
beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public
opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such
imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility"
to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance
on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs
as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".
A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary
to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated
worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very
same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to
pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become
a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and
condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
A totally uncritical acceptance
of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great
example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or
the latest
hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .
The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect
example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound
belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive,
they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like
these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological
drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.
That belief is also the standard cop out in
any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .
Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial
mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with
the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans"
(example #2 is a prefect example of this).
There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already
paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about
them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might
be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience
folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other
oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:
Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological
drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated
and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will
always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with
one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.
As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans
(political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards
have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages
and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated
as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting
kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:
One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning
of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).
Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.
Consequences:
There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that
any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined
with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can
always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech
or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion
than on the actual ability to form one .
By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types")
because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always
see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always
provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.
The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to
learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.
One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little
staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's
delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I
have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were
absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It
was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly
gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion
as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained
away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory
and leave.
Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars
. And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually
win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue
that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be
convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks
bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent
the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!
We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated
(if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is
not just a case of " Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point
of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in
drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much
worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are
numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught
me about it!).
If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and
that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only
to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of
their own.
What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and
threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening
the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way
to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody
with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately
involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans
might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.
Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed
neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option
for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans,
remember the previous war in Korea).
But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem
The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world
is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.
This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.
This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs,
to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force
must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in
the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of
hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.
In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate
the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention
to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable
scenario (see here if that
topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans.
And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as
much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is
by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly
seeking solutions to our current predicament.
-- -- -
1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:
If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in).
We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case
the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country
that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology
on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern
degeneracy.
A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very
Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the
warfare.
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with
NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech (
it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on
the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and
Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and
like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the
tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*
Just a thought.
VicB3
*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things
along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response
of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative
view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel
before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.
His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the
U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed
with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years
.In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand
basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have
been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating
apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express
an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice.
It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything
though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre.
Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority
of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for
his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing
such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes,
look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I
just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will
just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV.
All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave
it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.
Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on
intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for
the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long
enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.
I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in
that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies
that came to a bad end.
so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world
I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an
increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally
stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts.
This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater
threat for the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.
Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany
all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online
conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against
our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate
actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains
from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless?
Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little
freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating
Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking
of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape
parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake.
But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting
the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.
Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid
of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.
Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.
Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better.
And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.
At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY
instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first
Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.
In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different
point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to
you at some length elsewhere.
In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets
of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.
It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.
You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with.
Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out
of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one
type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely
dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:
Example 1:
North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't
even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns
out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.
We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically
advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event
of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always
hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens,
and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.
Example 2:
Commander's intent:
Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery
belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account
of course).
Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"
Phase four: Regime change.
There you go .
Example 3:
I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before
it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.
These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what
Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life"
[1] which is characterized
by a set of basic characteristics:
First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence,
when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where
in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more
akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain").
You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the
paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious
belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .
Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority,
the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case,
that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological,
hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not
something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically
declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and
other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example
#2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.
The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more
about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of "
my country, right or wrong " but goes far
beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public
opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such
imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility"
to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance
on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs
as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".
A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary
to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated
worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very
same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to
pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become
a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and
condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
A totally uncritical acceptance
of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great
example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or
the latest
hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .
The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect
example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound
belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive,
they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like
these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological
drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.
That belief is also the standard cop out in
any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .
Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial
mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with
the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans"
(example #2 is a prefect example of this).
There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already
paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about
them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might
be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience
folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other
oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:
Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological
drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated
and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will
always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with
one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.
As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans
(political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards
have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages
and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated
as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting
kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:
One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning
of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).
Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.
Consequences:
There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that
any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined
with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can
always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech
or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion
than on the actual ability to form one .
By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types")
because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always
see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always
provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.
The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to
learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.
One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little
staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's
delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I
have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were
absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It
was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly
gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion
as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained
away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory
and leave.
Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars
. And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually
win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue
that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be
convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks
bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent
the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!
We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated
(if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is
not just a case of " Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point
of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in
drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much
worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are
numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught
me about it!).
If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and
that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only
to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of
their own.
What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and
threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening
the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way
to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody
with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately
involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans
might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.
Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed
neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option
for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans,
remember the previous war in Korea).
But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem
The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world
is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.
This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.
This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs,
to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force
must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in
the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of
hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.
In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate
the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention
to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable
scenario (see here if that
topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans.
And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as
much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is
by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly
seeking solutions to our current predicament.
-- -- -
1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:
If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in).
We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case
the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country
that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology
on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern
degeneracy.
A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very
Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the
warfare.
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with
NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech (
it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on
the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and
Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and
like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the
tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*
Just a thought.
VicB3
*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things
along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response
of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative
view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel
before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.
His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the
U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed
with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years
.In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand
basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have
been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating
apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express
an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice.
It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything
though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre.
Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority
of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for
his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing
such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes,
look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I
just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will
just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV.
All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave
it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.
Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on
intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for
the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long
enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.
I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in
that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies
that came to a bad end.
so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world
I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an
increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally
stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts.
This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater
threat for the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.
Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany
all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online
conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against
our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate
actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains
from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless?
Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little
freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating
Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking
of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape
parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake.
But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting
the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.
Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid
of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.
Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.
Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better.
And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.
At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY
instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first
Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.
In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different
point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to
you at some length elsewhere.
In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets
of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.
It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.
You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with.
Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out
of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then
detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives
to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply
not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:
1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian
presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of
the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The
hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016
was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other
words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks
show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think
it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware.
Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally
made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional
emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware
was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016?
an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike
technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility
for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original
Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced
to 4 ½ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC
server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine,
The Smoking
Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of
emails, online posts and
interviews
, Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive
200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking,
releasing the very donor lists
the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data"
which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016.
I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter,
was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them
from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered
$20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails
starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over
the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred.Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion
that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative.Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible.
That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from
a Russian source.
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich.
In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found
a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national
cybersecurity:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have
said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully
that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking
you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own
political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich
had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it
in June."
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly
says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow
the truth to come out.
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same
organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council
- are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch
is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought
yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and
pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of
the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves
Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away
with it
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.
You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written
by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both
SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National
Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations,
computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments
in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches.
Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation,
and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of
an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt
to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which
everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that
Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally
anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks
email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was
the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first
place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators
of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's
Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering
terrorism.
This is way too simplistic interpretation of the events, but still she shed
a light on the problems of anti war movement in the USA. As sson as soch movemetn
grow to represnt a threat to status wquo they instantly get in cross hears of intelligence
agencies. Arrests follow.
Bill Ayers part is better and he managed to land a couple of quotes with rather
deep observations about the nature of the problems with the US media.
Notable quotes:
"... UnAmerican Activities ..."
"... "Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy." ..."
"... "The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head." ..."
"... The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan ..."
"... Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq ..."
"... The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible ..."
In 1970, the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), a group that emerged
out of Students for a Democratic Society, issued a "Declaration of a State of
War" against the US government, and shortly thereafter began carrying out bombings
against symbols of US Empire, including even the Pentagon itself. Targeting
mostly government buildings and several banks -- and taking care not to injure
human beings -- the actions were designed to "bring the war home" in order to
highlight imperial injustices against the oppressed, and the egregious violence
of US imperialism.
... ... ...
"[The Media's role was] so important that the US military learned to never
again allow independent journalists into their war zones," Dohrn explained.
"[Significantly], the mainstream media never again allowed images of human people,
families, women or children who suffer the consequences of US bombings or invasions."
With the dominant media avoiding these responsibilities, one of the many
roles the WUO played was, according to Dohrn, to communicate to the public the
ways in which people, cultures and whole civilizations were suffering under
US air strikes and CIA repression.
"The media was plenty corporatized during the '60s and '70s, and it was the
anti-war movement in concert with the Black Freedom Movement and the returning
vets who changed the hearts and minds of the US people from 1965-1968," she
said.
WUO member David Gilbert told Truthout he believes it was the strength of
the anti-war movement, and the US losses in Vietnam, that finally pushed sectors
of the media to start reporting some of the truth about the war.
He echoes Dohrn's point that the media was already corporatized back then
(though the conglomerates were not nearly as large as they are today), and the
pro-war bias of the media was just as real as it is now.
"An example was the use of napalm bombs, designed to cling to and burn through
flesh, on civilians," Gilbert said. "The mainstream media completely whited-out
these horrible war crimes."
In fact, in January 1967 a radical magazine, Ramparts, published a series
of color photos of children and babies burned by napalm.
"That's the point when some of us became absolutely frantic to stop the war,"
Gilbert said. "But it also exposed the mainstream media for what they were covering
up."
According to Gilbert, by 1967 a whole network of small radical papers had
a combined readership of roughly 6 million, making up a crucial wing of the
movement. Of course, it was therefore ripe for targeting by intelligence agencies.
"An important part of the FBI and police offensive to beat the radical movements
was to destroy the radical media, a campaign that's detailed in Geoffrey Rips's
UnAmerican Activities ," he said.
By the late '60s, largely due to constant pressure from the increasingly
powerful anti-war movement, portions of the media started to come around to
presenting some of the realities of the Vietnam War. Plus, by then, it was clear
the US was likely going to lose the war, US brutality abroad was being exposed
to the world, and the political upheaval on the home front was becoming white
hot.
Gilbert went on to explain how, then as now, "The hawks waged a concerted
campaign to blame that on 'the liberal media,' to the point that this lie has
become accepted today."
At that time, the myth of the "liberal media" accomplished several things
for the right wing, according to Gilbert. "It's covered up the truth that the
US military machine was defeated by a Global South nation, it's convinced the
public that the 'truth lies somewhere in between' the hawks and the media, when
in fact the media didn't do nearly enough to expose the injustice and horrors
of the war, and it's intimidated the media, which fell into line as pure propaganda
organs in subsequent wars."
Naomi Jaffe, one of the WUO's founding members who joined in solidarity with
movements for Black self-determination, agreed with Gilbert in that pressure
from the anti-war movement was a leading factor that pushed the media to share
more images of the war. However, she was quite critical of the overall role
the media played during Vietnam.
"Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Not a hint of independent reporting ever questioned
it until long after the war was over," Jaffe told Truthout. "The body counts?
Regular reports of how the US was winning by killing more 'Viet Cong' every
week than could possibly have existed overall."
Bill Ayers, who is married to Dohrn, was also a leader and cofounder of the
WUO.
"Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification
and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous:
the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense
of freedom and democracy."
For example, Ayers says, the New York Times announced that it saw the "light
at the end of the tunnel" -- the turning point when the war would at long last
be turned around and won -- days before the decisive defeat during the Tet Offensive
in 1968. In 1966, Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor and the most trusted journalist
of his generation, presented a fawning interview with the puppet and fascist
Nguyen Cao Ky and called him the George Washington of Viet Nam.
"The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe
the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against
the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing
its efforts and turning reality on its head."
Ayers said it wasn't the media that played a role in helping end the war
in Vietnam, it was, by far, the decisive actions of the Vietnamese people themselves
"in defeating the most potent military force on earth." He pointed out, "Vietnam
was engaged in an authentic social revolution, deep and broad, in which peasants
and workers were massively engaged in the overthrow of colonialism and foreign
control as well as feudal relationships and capitalism itself."
Moreover, Ayers said, this revolution was part of "the anti-colonial and
Third World moment, a context that allowed us to understand the revolution in
Vietnam as part of a world phenomenon sweeping from South Africa to Egypt to
Chile to Indonesia."
He also pointed to "the important role of the underground -- popular or alternative
or movement -- press in the US, and its ability to tap international sources
like the Cuban media, for example, to uncover the truth of events."
He sees the typical narrative -- the idea that the military draft made the
war real in the eyes of the US public, and the media cemented that reality,
helping to end the war -- as skewed. It "buys into a simplistic and largely
self-serving explanation," Ayers said. "The Vietnamese revolution and war resistance
at home impacted the media coverage, not the other way around."
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
"... The warning signs that Kushner was fronting for the neo-conservatives was always present. His media company, Observer Media, which publishes the weekly on-line New York Observer, prominently featured several neo-conservative writers. ..."
"... The narrow gap of separation between Jared Kushner and some of Israel's top gangsters is cause for alarm. This situation became especially acute after it was revealed that Kushner failed to provide all the requested information on his national security questionnaire forms concerning his contacts with foreign persons and interests, has led for congressional calls for his security clearance to be suspended. ..."
"... The feud between Jared Kushner and Bannon is not the first personality conflict Kushner has had with members of the Trump team. The first demonstration of Kushner's powerful influence over Trump was evidenced in his firing of Trump transition team chairman New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and his loyalists, who included former U.S. Representative Mike Rogers and Matthew Freedman. For Kushner, the firings were an ultimate payback for Christie. While the U.S. Attorney for Northern New Jersey, Christie successfully prosecuted Kushner's father for tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions. Christie wanted a three-year prison sentence for the elder Kushner but he ended up serving a year at a federal penitentiary in Alabama. ..."
"... Christie's federal law enforcement investigation discovered that Charles Kushner tried to lure his brother-in-law and employee, William Schulder, into a prostitution honey trap at the Red Bull Inn motel in Bridgewater, New Jersey. The elder Kushner paid $10,000 to a high-end prostitute, who reportedly worked for a Manhattan escort agency linked to the Mossad, to lure Schulder into a trap, complete with a videotape system, designed to prevent him from testifying on behalf of Christie at Kushner's trial. ..."
"... Charles Kushner also managed to get New Jersey Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey to appoint him to the New York-New Jersey Port Authority Commission, which owned the World Trade Center, a plum position on 9/11 for a suspected asset of Israel's Mossad. Hudson County and Jersey City law enforcement authorities were well-aware that Mossad elements were involved in many of the intelligence activities surrounding and in support of the 9/11 event in the months leading up to the attack in 2001. ..."
"... After becoming governor, McGreevey appointed Cipel, an Israeli national and employee of Kushner, as his chief counselor on political strategy, foreign affairs, and relations with the Jewish community. But it was McGreevey's appointment of Cipel as his director for homeland security that raised eyebrows across the state, especially after 9/11. ..."
"... Undoubtedly, Christie, who had his eyes already set upon the New Jersey governor's mansion in Princeton, knew all about the role that Charles Kushner played in the ultimate blackmailing of one of his predecessors as governor. With the sort of background information possessed by a federal prosecutor like Christie, who had access to wiretap transcripts gathered from the Kushner family's phone and other communications, it is clear that Jared Kushner saw Christie as a major threat to the future Kushner family agenda within the Trump administration. ..."
"... With Christie, and, possibly soon, Bannon out of the way, Jared Kushner will be able to cement his Svengali-like control over Trump. Considering the record of political muscle exercised by the Kushner klan against two New Jersey governors, one can only surmise the Kushners have a great deal of blackmailable information on Mr. Trump. ..."
Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner has emerged as a significant influence within the policy-making apparatus of the White
House. After a rather public imbroglio with Trump's strategic policy adviser Stephen Bannon over the U.S. cruise missile attack on
the Shayrat airbase in Syria, Kushner is "in", as they often say in Washington, and Bannon is "out". In any case, the anti-globalist
faction, which is led by Bannon, has received verbal "thumbs down" on several fronts from Trump.
Trump's adoption of Clintonesque Democratic Party policies of opposing the Syrian government, confronting Russia, supporting NATO,
backing the U.S. Export-Import (EXIM) Bank, and militarily confronting North Korea and China in East Asia have neo-conservatives
and globalists cheering but many within Trump's political base of "America First" nationalists and libertarians crying foul.
The warning signs that Kushner was fronting for the neo-conservatives was always present. His media company, Observer Media,
which publishes the weekly on-line New York Observer, prominently featured several neo-conservative writers. Kushner, who also
led the real estate firm Kushner Companies, turned over control of the newspaper to his brother-in-law after being named as senior
adviser to President Trump.
Kushner inherited a real estate empire from his father, Charles Kushner. In 2007, Jared Kushner made the largest single purchase
of a single building in U.S. history, he paid $1.8 billion for a 41-story building at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. In 2015, Jared
Kushner bought a 50.1 percent share in the Time Square Building in Manhattan from Africa Israel Investments, Ltd. (AFI), an investment
and holding company owned by Israeli-Uzbek diamond magnate Lev Leviev. In what could spell trouble for U.S. relations with the Palestine
and Africa, AFI has been involved in the building of illegal settlements on the West Bank and the acquisition of diamonds from Africa's
bloodiest of conflict zones.
AFI and its subsidiary, Danya Cebus, have been subjected to disinvestments by a number of governments and companies over its West
Bank activities. In August 2010, the Norwegian pension fund divested in the two firms. Leviev is also involved in dodgy casino operations,
which puts him in the same business circles as casino operator Trump. In 2009, Playtech Cyprus, Ltd., one of AFI's companies, began
providing casino equipment to a new casino in Bucharest, Romania. Playtech was started in 1999 by four Israelis, Teddy Sagi, Elad
Cohen, Rami Beinish, and Amnon Ben-Zion. Playtech's on-line gambling software is primarily provided by software programmers in Estonia.
Sagi is a convicted stock fraudster, having been convicted of fraud in the 1996 "Discount Bank affair", a stock and bond manipulation
scheme that shook the Tel Aviv business community. Leviev's Africa diamond mining operations involve several "former" Mossad officers,
most notably in Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Namibia, and Angola.
The narrow gap of separation between Jared Kushner and some of Israel's top gangsters is cause for alarm. This situation became
especially acute after it was revealed that Kushner failed to provide all the requested information on his national security questionnaire
forms concerning his contacts with foreign persons and interests, has led for congressional calls for his security clearance to be
suspended.
The feud between Jared Kushner and Bannon is not the first personality conflict Kushner has had with members of the Trump
team. The first demonstration of Kushner's powerful influence over Trump was evidenced in his firing of Trump transition team chairman
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and his loyalists, who included former U.S. Representative Mike Rogers and Matthew Freedman. For
Kushner, the firings were an ultimate payback for Christie. While the U.S. Attorney for Northern New Jersey, Christie successfully
prosecuted Kushner's father for tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions. Christie wanted a three-year
prison sentence for the elder Kushner but he ended up serving a year at a federal penitentiary in Alabama.
Christie's federal law enforcement investigation discovered that Charles Kushner tried to lure his brother-in-law and employee,
William Schulder, into a prostitution honey trap at the Red Bull Inn motel in Bridgewater, New Jersey. The elder Kushner paid $10,000
to a high-end prostitute, who reportedly worked for a Manhattan escort agency linked to the Mossad, to lure Schulder into a trap,
complete with a videotape system, designed to prevent him from testifying on behalf of Christie at Kushner's trial.
After Schulder's wife was sent a videotape of the tryst at the motel, Christie managed to not only ensure that an embarrassed
but angered Schulder remained a star witness but also got the prostitute to testify against Kushner. Another witness for the prosecutors,
Robert Yontef, Kushner's chief bookkeeper, was also subjected to a Kushner prostitution trap and a "smoking gun" videotape arranged
by another call girl hired by Kushner.
Charles Kushner also managed to get New Jersey Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey to appoint him to the New York-New Jersey
Port Authority Commission, which owned the World Trade Center, a plum position on 9/11 for a suspected asset of Israel's Mossad.
Hudson County and Jersey City law enforcement authorities were well-aware that Mossad elements were involved in many of the intelligence
activities surrounding and in support of the 9/11 event in the months leading up to the attack in 2001.
The Kushner family appears to relish in the politics of revenge and blackmail as McGreevey discovered the hard way.
While he was mayor of Woodbridge, McGreevey met an Israeli intelligence asset named Golan Cipel during a 2000 fact finding trip
to Israel arranged by Charles Kushner, who was a generous donor to McGreevey's political coffers. Although the trip was sponsored
by the United Jewish Federation of MetroWest, the goal was to ensure future loyalty from an up-and-coming New Jersey politician being
groomed for governor of his state. Cipel was the chief spokesman for the Israeli city of Rishon LeZion, but he soon ended up on McGreevey's
gubernatorial campaign staff, thanks to the influence, U.S. work visa clearance, and money arranged by the elder Kushner. It is noteworthy
that Rishon LeZion represents one of the right-wing Likud Party's most important bases of support in Israel. A powerful political
kingmaker, Charles Kushner secured McGreevey's Democratic nomination for the governor's race after seeking the support – that is,
arm twisting – the Democratic Party chairmen of the counties of Union, Essex, Middlesex, and Camden.
After becoming governor, McGreevey appointed Cipel, an Israeli national and employee of Kushner, as his chief counselor on
political strategy, foreign affairs, and relations with the Jewish community. But it was McGreevey's appointment of Cipel as his
director for homeland security that raised eyebrows across the state, especially after 9/11.
During McGreevey's governorship, Cipel decided to file a sexual harassment lawsuit against the governor in Mercer County Court.
Cipel, a one-time "diplomat" – read that as a Mossad agent – at the Israeli Consulate General in New York, in a single legal action,
destroyed McGreevey's political career. The suit forced McGreevey, who was married with two children, to admit that he led a parallel
and secret gay lifestyle. With that bombshell news hitting the media, McGreevey was forced to resign. Several New Jersey political
observers believe that Charles Kushner was behind Cipel's lawsuit after McGreevey did not turn out as the kind of puppet Kushner
expected him to be. In fact, during the Cipel suit, McGreevey's lawyers contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation and tipped
them off about a possible Kushner-Cipel extortion operation directed against the governor.
Undoubtedly, Christie, who had his eyes already set upon the New Jersey governor's mansion in Princeton, knew all about the
role that Charles Kushner played in the ultimate blackmailing of one of his predecessors as governor. With the sort of background
information possessed by a federal prosecutor like Christie, who had access to wiretap transcripts gathered from the Kushner family's
phone and other communications, it is clear that Jared Kushner saw Christie as a major threat to the future Kushner family agenda
within the Trump administration.
With Christie, and, possibly soon, Bannon out of the way, Jared Kushner will be able to cement his Svengali-like control over
Trump. Considering the record of political muscle exercised by the Kushner klan against two New Jersey governors, one can only surmise
the Kushners have a great deal of blackmailable information on Mr. Trump.
"... This couldn't last. In February 2007 Kaplan closed his office door and said he was a Zionist, Kushner was a Zionist, Kempner was a Zionist, and the janitor was a Zionist, too, and the newspaper would not pay for me to blog, as I was demanding (at that time I was only paid for published columns). It was fitting; I was gone. ..."
"... Kushner reminds me of a few bosses I have had. They only know what they know which means SFA . Zero interest in the wider world. He probably knows loads about NY real estate and not much else ..."
"... Very good profile, Phil. One thing struck me, as it did Keith. The only "peace" that Kushner and people like him want for Israel is the "peace" of total domination and rule over others with no disturbance. So, talking about him bringing "peace" makes no sense whatsoever. That's not at all what he or anyone around him wants. ..."
"... Israelis and their supporters are forever talking about peace, when anyone of sound mind knows that the issue is not peace but justice for the Palestinians who have had their land stolen by European colonists. ..."
"... Israel pushes the peace line because it knows the issue is not about peace and that a subjugated people like the Palestinians have not a snowball's chance in hell of wielding any sort of power which might contribute to peace. ..."
"... While the appointment of Kushner is clearly nepotistic, it does not seem much worse than JFK's appointment of his brother. The historical record indicates that Robert Kennedy was if anything much more vile on Israel Palestine issues than Jared Kushner is. ..."
Donald Trump has now named his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a senior adviser, notably on Middle
East/Israel issues, and as Kushner fired me ten years ago over these issues, it seemed a good time
to review my memories of our (limited) interactions and do what journalists do, make a prognosis
about his future efforts.
Kushner was 25 when he bought the New York Observer from investment banker/artist Arthur
Carter in 2006, and as all such transactions do, the move set off panic on the editorial side of
the paper. The editor, my dear friend Peter Kaplan, now deceased, was at once engaged in a struggle
with his new boss over the paper's news budget and independence. For my part I had been a columnist
for a few years, protected against attacks and my own ineptitude by my Harvard chum Kaplan (yes,
Virginia, that's how media works), and had lately started Mondoweiss there as a personal blog, and
because I was vehemently against the Iraq war and beginning to connect that tragedy to the US relationship
to Israel in my postings, I was apprehensive about Kushner's view of the blog and me. I knew that
he had been a big supporter of the orthodox Jewish Chabad House at Harvard and had
lauded Alan Dershowitz
there. Not a good sign - when I was discovering Rachel Corrie and The Israel Lobby.
Peter Kaplan was a great student of character; it was his chief delight in life (after a cigar,
a turkey leg, and a Preston Sturges film in the middle of the night); and my understanding of Kushner's
character was formed by closed-door conversations with Peter. He told me that Kushner was smart,
ambitious, and full of hubris. The two statements Peter made that resonate down through the years
are: "Jared has ice in his veins." And: "He doesn't know what he doesn't know."
For a little while the clear-skinned young owner took Kaplan on as his grizzled guide to the world
of journalism, but that interval was short-lived. It was somewhat shocking to Kaplan that a guy who
had no experience of journalism, and was a boob about literature, wasn't a very good reader, had
spent his college years doing real estate deals, etc., was eager to make decisions about the paper's
values. But such is the way of the world, and after an agonizing couple of years Peter went back
to Conde Nast.
I didn't last as long. Jared and I had a few polite conversations in the year that we cohabited
on Broadway, and two very uncomfortable meetings over Israel and Palestine. One was before I went
out there in July 2006 on his dime to see the country for the first time, during the Lebanon War,
and the second one was after I got back that August. In the first, Kushner told me about his Holocaust
background, his
grandparents who barely survived , and his regard for Israel. When I got back, Kushner and Brian
Kempner, the newspaper's publisher who had worked at the Israel lobby group AIPAC (American Israel
Public Affairs Committee), couldn't wait to hear what I had seen out there, they said. But when I
started talking about the occupation, the room went cold as the poles, and Kushner gazed right through
me with those unsmiling dark little eyes. Kaplan was even more uncomfortable than I was, and thankfully
brought the tortuous meeting to a close.
This couldn't last. In February 2007 Kaplan closed his office door and said he was a Zionist,
Kushner was a Zionist, Kempner was a Zionist, and the janitor was a Zionist, too, and the newspaper
would not pay for me to blog, as I was demanding (at that time I was only paid for published columns).
It was fitting; I was gone.
My interactions with Jared were limited, but they don't give me hope about his ability to achieve
peace in the Middle East. He lived in a deeply-Zionist-patriarchal mental space then; I never saw
him take a step out of it. There was a provincial element to his commitment. As Peter said, he didn't
know what he didn't know. The guy who replaced Kaplan was even more of a Zionist than Kaplan, while
the nimble-footed Kempner went on to work in the Kushner real estate firm. Kushner's ambition and
political shrewdness were evident to us, but I never saw any worldliness or largeness of spirit.
He was very impressed by his own family. The big asterisk is that he was 25 and 26. I wouldn't want
anyone to judge me on the basis of stuff I said at that age . . .
Lastly, I bear no ill will to Jared Kushner. He paid for my first trip to Israel and Palestine
(at 50!); he paid for me to see the occupation. My firing was also a blessing; he cut me loose from
the paternalist mainstream media, and I was forced to sink or swim on the internet. To some smaller
or bigger degree, I can thank Jared for this website, and the wonderful relationships I have formed
through the internet with people of strong hearts and principle, qualities prestige media culture
does not select for. For the sake of all of us, I can only hope Kushner gets to enter a larger world
too.
Kushner reminds me of a few bosses I have had. They only know what they know which means SFA .
Zero interest in the wider world. He probably knows loads about NY real estate and not much else
Very good profile, Phil. One thing struck me, as it did Keith. The only "peace" that Kushner and
people like him want for Israel is the "peace" of total domination and rule over others with no
disturbance. So, talking about him bringing "peace" makes no sense whatsoever. That's not at all
what he or anyone around him wants.
Israelis and their supporters are forever talking about peace, when anyone of sound mind knows
that the issue is not peace but justice for the Palestinians who have had their land stolen by
European colonists.
Justice first and then peace is possible. Israel pushes the peace line because it knows
the issue is not about peace and that a subjugated people like the Palestinians have not a snowball's
chance in hell of wielding any sort of power which might contribute to peace.
I read somewhere that the soon to be FLOTUS (ivanka kushner) is scared s#%&less of israel. That's
good. I don't imagine her husband has any plans to make it one of his homes.
Lack of experience/knowledge in the positions being filled is the hallmark of the tRUMP administration,
especially wrt tRUMP himself. I have no idea what the next 4 years are going to be like, but i
imagine the worst.
While the appointment of Kushner is clearly nepotistic, it does not seem much worse than JFK's
appointment of his brother. The historical record indicates that Robert Kennedy was if anything
much more vile on Israel Palestine issues than Jared Kushner is.
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
FILE PHOTO: Haley laughing with her Russian counterpart at the UN Vassily Nebenzia © Reuters/Lucas Jackson
Haley takes part in Venezuelans' anti-Maduro protest in New York on September 27, 2018 © AFP/Jim Watson
Economist Linda Bilmes has argued that there's another new factor involved in Washington's budgeting of today's wars. In every other major American conflict, after an initial period, war expenditures were incorporated into the regular defense budget. Since 2001, however, the war on terror has been funded mainly by supplemental appropriations (those Overseas Contingency Operations funds), subject to very little oversight. Think of the OCO as a slush fund that insures one thing: the true impact of this era's war funding won't hit until far later since such appropriations are exempt from spending caps and don't have to be offset elsewhere in the budget.
Russia should be
back in G7 as 'we spend 25% of time' talking about it anyway – Trump
'Marx would be
turning in his grave' – Britain's UN envoy appears to think she's debating Soviets
The Ministry of Defence has revealed for the first time –
seemingly accidentally – that British drones are firing thermobaric weapons in Syria. The
disclosure comes in an 
Please check out my book " 
Entangling
alliances or scoring at home? Why US went out of its way with Russian diplomat expulsions
15 years after
Iraq War, same old MPs jump on chemical weapons claims in Skripal poisoning
MJJ
Palo Alto, CA
21 hours ago
US geographical combatant commands / Wikipedia
